Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

reply to post by grover

Its not the business people with their golden parachutes nor really is it the small business owner that makes America tick. It’s the workers skilled and unskilled which is why shipping jobs overseas to save money is such a stupid stupid idea. Its killing the goose that laid the golden egg as it were since such policies are destroying the middle class.

Mr G, have you ever wondered why the Socialist Revolution that swept Europe in 1848 “skipped” America? 1848 was a follow-on to the 1789 French Revolution without the guillotine. As in the Counter-Reformation inspired by Martin Luther over 3 centuries earlier, so also the post-Napoleon European establishment tried making incremental social concessions as a way to forestall the REAL THING. The snail’s pace the HAVE’s preferred provoked the HAVE NOTs to take more effective action. But to answer my own question before I stop this digression, it was LAND, the availability of free or cheap land to anyone who wanted it. That is why there was no 1848 revolution in America. Note: The last free or cheap land ended in the 1890s.

Now on to your “middle class” concerns. I assert there is NO middle class worth talking about in American today. With the advent and general acceptance of GATED communities, we have made - or are making if you are an optimist - permanent the divide between the aspiring and the arrived.

You will see no drive-by shootings in the gated communities! No street corner drug deals. No all night loud noise or litter scattered about. No solicitations on every other street corner. Not in a gated community. Why is that? Have we not effectively privatized our police protection? The poor get “clean-up” police services - removal of the corpses - and the rich have PREVENT police services! Hmm? Sweet Jesus! I don't remember voting on that?

When I was growing up in the late 40s and early 50s, our family of 4 lived in a 900 square foot clapper board house built in the 1920s. But just 4 smallish lots from us lived a family of 2 - an older lawyer and his wife - in a large stone house. Not directly across the street, but more on the other side of the street, in a corner house facing a city park, lived a family of 4. He was a factory manager. As I walked to school - six blocks on foot, plus 2 miles by city bus - I passed a house nicer than most where a medical doctor lived.

I’ve said maybe too much to say this. The movers and shakers in our city lived along side those who were not doing so well. My father assembled cars at the local Ford plant, a very discouraging job. Assembly line work.

Today of course, the current assembly line workers have GIVEN back most of what benefits - say share - they gained before the advent of Reaganism. When those die off there will be none to take their place. Two tier wage scale contracts and etc. Then you will have to get a history book to learn about the BLUE COLLAR worker who had a lake house, a speed boat and whose children went to college. Hallelujah! Thine the Glory!

[edit on 10/20/2008 by donwhite]

Yes and the imputus for social benefits began under Bismark as a way to forestall the growing socialist movement, not out of some alturistic concerns about the populous. It was the redistribution of wealth under FDR and his successors, Democratic and Republican that created the middle class in this country (that is a matter of record) and it has been right wing conservative policies over the past 30 years that have destroyed it.

Originally posted by grover
SO... Assuming that Obama is going to win does anyone have any ideas as to what his cabinet will look like?

My predictions are limited at this time but I would put odds down that he is going to take a page from Lincoln's playbook and put his competition in it so...

McCain for the VA
Hillary as Health and Human Services
Edwards for Labor...
Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the UN

... any other ideas?

Maybe 3 of the 4 you've mentioned, but his cabinet will probably be as scary as the Obama Presidency itself.
I'm sure as soon as it becomes official who he selects, I predict even his strongest supporters will probably cringe a bit.

I logged in today to see that some strange things had happen to my profile. I've never used my foe list, and yet, I somehow ended up with people on it. I have taken those names off my fore list, and I'm asking around to see why thish appened. I assume it must have been a glitch related ot recent site upgrades. I've never used the fore list, and I don't plan on using it any time soon. We can and we should agree to disagree when those moments arise.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

. . some strange things had happen to my profile. I've never used my foe list, and yet, I somehow ended up with people on it. I have taken those names off my fore list, and I'm asking around to see why this happened. We can and we should agree to disagree when those moments arise.

I recall when that feature was added. I don’t know what “problem” it was supposed to fix. We used to have the “Ignore” feature which would block your receipt of any posts by that person. I don’t think that is available any longer.

Well, Mr J/O, it’s looking like we are about to make history this November 4. The FIRST African American is about to become the Commander in Chief of America for the first time. Since Bush43 declared his WAR sometime ago, and AG Gonzales said he had ALL power, I do hope Mr Obama will be a bit more modest.

I’m looking for a President Obama to declare the War on Terror to be WON and OVER on January 20, 2009. Let’s get that inanity inspired by the glory seeking ANG’s AWOL lieutenant Bush43 and draft dodger VP Cheney and countenanced by the imposter Gonzales posing as AG, off our backs at the get-go.

Bush43 has mucked up the nation’s finances in his TOO long 8 years in office. He’s encouraged the $500 b. a year trade deficits, and the equally harmful $500 b. a year Federal deficits. That has in effect, diminished the total worth of the United States by $1 t. a year. Hard to see when the total worth of the US is around $50 t. in 2000. And now about $42 t.

But you can see the bad habit we have. We “spent” $300 b. on a stimulus package of money we had to borrow and we just put another $700 b. to fix the Neo Con Free Market mess, and now we are talking ANOTHER $300 b. stimulus. Sweet Jesus, Come Quick or you’ll find us in Bankruptcy Court!

[edit on 10/21/2008 by donwhite]

I remember exactly four years ago how people here on ATS were gloating about how Kerry was going to win big. Be careful what you wish for.

I was going to present evidence that strongly ties Obama to Ayers, but after a little catch up reading, I really see no point in doing so.

reply to post by TheAvenger

Be careful what you wish for. I was going to present evidence that strongly ties . .

Mr T/A, I’ve been concerned over the POW issue. In most of the wars of the 20th century, the number of WIA was usually 2X or 3X the number of KIA and the number of POW was about ½ the KIA.

In the Korean War, the US had about 22,000 POW and the Chinese 200,000 and the North Koreans 50,000. I don’t recall the number of ROK POWs. I seem to recall that 21 US prisoners stayed behind in China. All but 2 finally came home. About 15,000 Chinese wanted to stay but I forgot what happened to them.

Then we come to the Vietnam War. We lost 59,000 KIA. On that basis we should have sustained about 180,000 WIA which is more or less consistent with my memory. But POW? I recall there were about 600 in the Hanoi Hilton, all aircrews. But I do not recall any other POW of ours. Nor do I recall us having any Viet Cong or NVA prisoners. Perhaps we turned 100% of them over to the South Vietnamese - ARVN? But what about our POWs.

Same is true in Iraq. Again, with 4300 KIA, which points to 15,000 WIA - but we have had slightly more than that, about 5X it seems. But POWs? I don’t hear of any. Nor do we capture many of the enemy.

Have the armies of the world been in a TAKE NO PRISONERS mode since the 1960s? Was the Korean War the last civilized war? I never hear this discussed.

What’s your take on POWs? After 1953.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by donwhite]

The stock market has felenl by another 500 points. Each day of continued loss hurts the McCain campaign. Discussions like this one point to the fuuture, and what one party is likely to do if they attain high office. troublei s, today's voter is not thinking like that. When we go to the polls, we will vote with our wallets, which are now in a great deal of pain.

From a policy perspective, I don't doubt for a minute that Democrats will raise taxes. the Obama plan alrady makes this clear. Trouble is, nobody in the middle and lower classes really cares about that just now. None of them are going to feel bad if the rich and corporate elite get soaked. Even if they themselves get hit with higher taxes, they will still take some solace in knowing that they aren't alone.

Even if there was no third term curse, it's unlikely that McCain could overcome the negatives associated with this economic downturn. In the next few days, some republican is going to step up and say, "We're sorry! Please give us another chance." As Grover and others have said, the GOP will not learn its lesson until its actually out of power and fighting for what's left of its political life.

Please be advised that ATS is going to close the CM forums. I'm posting this message so that the site owner's decision doesn't take you by surprise.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Today I attended a 2 hour class on Current Events. Sponsored by the UNF - University of North Florida. I pay $35 for 10 weekly sessions. Held at a very beautiful setting on the St. Johns River called Westminister Woods where old Episcopalians go to die. That’s a growth industry in Florida.

We talked about energy today. The subject was on the various claims made for “ownership” of the energy resources UNDER the Arctic Ocean. Claims are mostly based on length of shoreline above the Arctic Circle. On that basis Russia has 45%, Canada 25%, the US 15%, Denmark 10%, and Norway 5%.

I objected on the grounds that I thought the Arctic Ocean belonged to the world, not to any one country. “Who owns the Pacific Ocean” I asked rhetorically. I offered the non ownership treaty for Antarctica as the precedent that I thought ought to govern the Arctic as well. If there had been a vote, I am not sure I’d have had any vote other than my own. Wow! Am I that far out of touch? Sweet Jesus.

The monitor said he thought I sounded Libertarian. (He knows I’m not). But I said this and I meant it to: “No, but I like Ron Paul. He is the only candidate that tells the truth.” When the shock wore off, I added this but not so loud, “He can do that because he has no chance of wining.” And that’s also a truth!

We have had and spent the Stimulus Package earlier this year. $300 billion. We borrowed that from China. We just finished authorizing $700 billion to pay the R&Fs to cover their bets gone awry. We will borrow that from China. Anyone past the 5th grade knows this is just the down payment on the bailout. We’ve been warned it may go into the multi-trillion dollar range.

McCain says he will make the Bush tax cuts permanent. McCain says he will lower taxes on business by $150 billion to stimulate new jobs. Obama says he will cut taxes on the middle class but admits he will RAISE taxes on the R&Fs. He wants it both ways. He knows its a lie to not admit you HAVE to have more revenue. Reagan tried to cut the OUTGO but to no avail.

Only Ron Paul says he will raise taxes on everyone. Which is what all the candidates ought to be saying. The discussion should be on WHAT taxes on who and how much. OR are we really stupid enough to believe we can have BIG government and pay NO taxes? Where did you go to school? How crazy can we get before we go poof? It’s got to be true we get what we deserve.

FDR stimulated the economy, not by tax cuts to the already wealthy and bailouts for banks but through massive public works.

We need to retool to get us off of oil once and for all and our infrastructure is crumbling... screw the wealthy, after all they have been screwing us for long enough, same with wall street... screw all of that... invest in something that will benefit ALL of us.

John McCain has his head stuck up his uhhuh if he thinks his proposed policies will do anything more than continue the shift of wealth in this country upwards instead of outwards... NOW that is real class warfare.... that is real income redistribution.

The Republicans only talk about the middle class.... yet they just spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe... probably because she looked too middle class.

reply to post by grover

FDR stimulated the economy not by tax cuts to the already wealthy and bailouts for banks but through massive public works. We need to retool to get us off of oil once and for all . . our infrastructure is crumbling. Screw the wealthy, they have been screwing us for long enough, same with Wall Street. Screw that. Invest in something that will benefit ALL of us.

John McCain proposed policies will do nothing more than continue the shift of wealth in this country upwards instead of outwards. NOW that is real class warfare. That is real income redistribution. The Republicans only talk about the middle class. Yet they just spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe.

You know I have consistently spoke derisively about those who see only tax cuts as the “way forward” no matter where they are starting from. You know I am the originator of the 'R&Fs' by which I mean the Rich and Famous. In fact I have originated the hypothesis the Red state Blue state divide is largely due to the excessive reduction in personal tax rates which has tipped the balance to the hideous self-selected SELFISH ME FIRST pseudo-religion best represented by Republicanism.

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

1928 24%
1929 25%
1930 24%
1931 25%

1933 63%
1934 63%
1935 63%
1936 79%

1941 81%
1942 88%
1943 88%
1944 88%

1950 91%
1951 91%
1952 92%
1953 92%

1962 91%
1963 91%
1964 77%
1965 70%

1980 70%
1981 69%
1982 50%
1983 50%
1984 50%
1985 50%
1986 50%
1987 38%
1988 28%*
1989 28%*
1990 31%

Source: Eugene Steuerle, The Urban Institute; Joseph Pechman; Federal Tax Policy Joint Committee on Taxation Summary of Conference Agreement on the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, JCX-54-03, May 22, 2003; and IRS Revised Tax Rate Schedules.


* This is as close as we have ever come to the Neo Con’s dream, a FLAT TAX. There were only three brackets. The lowest bracket was 15% applied on low income families. The middle bracket - 24% - was applied on middle incomes, and finally, with a very slight bump up, the highest bracket - 28% - was imposed on the Rich and Filthy Rich.

The middle bracket is the real cash cow for the government. Due to the numbers of people in the middle bracket, it is they who must pay the bulk of the Federal taxes. The rich ought to pay more for the simple reason they have more. For the same logic, the poor should pay less because they have less. That’s what I call a FAIR TAX. And that's not to be confused with the current Neo Con re-named SCAM of the Flat Tax.

[edit on 10/24/2008 by donwhite]

OK I have a question for those who are following this thread .

Would it be fair to say that there are very few undecided voters left because of the length of the political cycle in the US and the nature of the two horse race means that unless there is a decisive turn around Obama will win ?

I have already noted on the CNN website I think it was that there is already talk of Palin running in 2012. Palin one hundred fifty thousand clothing budget has become like Kerry 4WDs she wont shake the elitist tag .

There is indeed talk of a Palin run but it is just all hot air... she is just too uneducated in national politics to do it, hell she doesn't even know what the job she is running for does.

She can certainly educate herself but as far as I can tell she is damaged goods. Other than a few die hards and the talking heads on TV that need something to talk about so they don't sit around and look stupid, no one takes a serious run at the White House by Palin as little more than a SNL skit starring Tina Fay.

The question I am curious about is why people think that McCain is losing? Is it that Obama is such a commanding presence? Or is it because of McCain himself? Or is it external factors such as the economy?

Personally I think it is in large part the economy which was bad long before the wall street meltdown but also McCain simply has not made his case as to why voters should choose him. All we have heard is that he has the experience and Obama does not (Obama has slightly less experience than Lincoln did when he was elected), he has spouted an ever changing list (and to be fair so has Obama) of proposals but other than that he has given no compelling reason as to why he should be president... add to that his relentless attack ads and he instead looks increasingly unpresidental.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by grover]

reply to post by xpert11

Would it be fair to say that there are very few undecided voters left because of the length of the political cycle in the US and the nature of the two horse race means that unless there is a decisive turn around Obama will win?

Yes on few undecided voters remaining Mr X11 . I saw a poll yesterday showing 8%. That sounds realistic. If those voters fall in the same proportions the decided voters have already, then Obama is assured a rather good popular vote majority.

Of course you must remember how the popular vote turned out in our last TWO elections. In 2000 Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush but losing in the Electoral College. In 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio - he lost it by 120,000 votes - then he would have been the Electoral College's choice for president despite trailing Bush by 3 million popular votes!

Now that is not good for the country, but it is a separate issue.

I have already noted on the CNN website I think it was that there is already talk of Palin running in 2012. Palin one hundred fifty thousand clothing budget has become like Kerry 4WDs she wont shake the elitist tag.

Well, what is a female jackass? Palin would appeal only to a crowd of BORN AGAIN illiterates. Strong and powerful beyond their numbers though they are, I think J/O is right that the GOP will move away from that illegitimate base and move more into the REAL world. I predict she will not be re-elected to the governorship in Alaska.


A. to Q. above. A female jack is called a "jenny."



[edit on 10/25/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by grover

There is indeed talk of a Palin run but it is just all hot air . . no one takes a serious run at the White House by Palin as little more than a SNL skit starring Tina Fay.

The question I am curious about is why people think that McCain is losing? Is it that Obama is such a commanding presence? Or is it because of McCain himself? Or is it external factors such as the economy?

Through September, McCain was still a viable choice. You could find polls showing him ahead in several crucial states. Don’t forget that each side can and will attempt to manipulate polls. See my note below. But October has been a new player in the game! One disaster might have passed unnoticed into the final mix. But not one disaster followed by TWO more even worse disasters! And the promise(?) or dread of even more disasters yet to come. Lurking in the background but getting much less attention than the Dow Jones numbers, is the UNEMPLOYMENT rate. It is reaching towards 7%! Sure, we know the Department of Labor will “jiggle” those numbers to help McCain but regardless, there are more and more people out of work. Many of them will vote Democratic for no other reason.

Personally . . Obama does not [have] (Obama has slightly less experience than Lincoln did when he was elected),

Well, that’s a curious comparison. Lincoln served in the Illinois lower house from 1832 to 1842. Ten years. In 1846, Lincoln was elected as a WHIG and served one term in the US House of Representatives. Total 12 years. (Whigs were the political descendants of the long moribund Federalists of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Whigs advocated a strong central government, which points that Lincoln would be a Democrat if he was alive today). Further aside: Note that Lincoln was issued US Patent No. 6,469 and is the only American president to have ever received one.
www.historyplace.com...

Obama served 3 terms in the Illinois state senate. 1997 to 2004.* Six years. He was elected to the US Senate in 2004. That gives Obama 10 years experience in holding elective office.
en.wikipedia.org...

I hesitate to point out that Lincoln twice sought the Whig Party’s nomination for president but failed, and once in 1856, he unsuccessfully sought the new Republican Party nomination. Lincoln required 4 tries at what Obama has done on his FIRST try! Wow! How does that COUNT?


Note.
On polls. Mathematicians have shown that between 1,100 and 1,400 interviews will produce answers reliable to plus or minus 3%. (The number depends on whether you are buying or selling). To get to 2% you’d need to poll 10,000. To get to 1% you’d need to poll 1,000,000. To get Dead On, you’d need to poll 10 million. Economics dictate we accept 3% in national polls.

Many smaller polls - congressional districts for example - use about 500 interviews. This is reliable to between 7% and 10%. Obviously those polls are more useful to show trends than to predict the outcome of the election if held the day of the poll.

There are TWO essential components to any poll. Randomness. And issue neutral questions. No bias. That is, the question must not suggest the answer.

Good polling depends on the selection of interviewees being random for the group to be polled. You can’t just open the phone book and call one name off each page. Sounds “random” but it probably is not. So, half your money will be spent on preparing lists of random-qualified interviewees. Demographics.

The other half of your money will be spent in preparing BIAS FREE questions. That is much harder to do than it may first appear to be. It’s a problem similar to that faced by polygraph operators. The secret of that is in the questions, not the answers. Linguistics.

Finally, if the survey is long enough, you’d want to throw in one or two “TEST” questions. That is, one or two prepared questions based on the subjects prior answers. If the interviewee answered “A” to a question, then you would ask question “1” to verify his or her consistency. Truthfulness. OTOH if the interviewee had answered “B” then you countered with question “2.” And etc.


* Illinois Senate. In order to avoid complete turnovers in Senate membership, under the Illinois Constitution of 1970, senators are divided into three groups, each group having a two-year term at a different part of the decade between censuses, with the rest of the decade being taken up by two four-year terms.

[edit on 10/25/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by grover


An Outsiders Perceptive

My take is that the Republican core supporter base has isolated itself from mainstream America by supporting failed policy's and a failure of a president for so long . Palin represents this very well because while her party supporter base lapped her up no one else seems to care for her . Also McCain isnt purely idealogical driven but that isnt the same thing as being a maverick outsider IMO.

McCain cant win on policy because he is on the wrong side of direction of health care debate . As I have said the Republicans have had eight years to come up with Free Market solutions to the problems with the US health care system . The surge only undid much of the damage done by Rumsfeld and co which really only speaks of the incompetence of the Bush admin .

Finally McCain military by itself doesn't mean he would make a good president .

[edit on 25-10-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by xpert11

My take is that the Republican core supporter base has isolated itself from mainstream America by supporting failed policy's and a failure of a president for so long. McCain isn’t purely ideological driven but that isn’t the same thing as being a maverick outsider IMO. McCain’s military [service] by itself doesn't mean he would make a good president.

As McCain has himself pointed out - prior to this campaign - that he is by vote count a 90% supporter of Bush43 and GOP policy. It is true he has deviated on a couple issues, the immigration one being the most noteworthy. But in that case Bush43 pushed the Fortress America concept which is UNAmerican if anything ever was. For shame, to build a WALL around yourself! Is that moral bankruptcy or is it not?

Americans LOVE a good war. A good war Is one we are winning. Americans HATE a bad war. A bad war is one we are losing. There are NO peace-niks here. It's all about winning. And getting RICH in the process. We as a country act like a drunken sailor staggering down the street, A MIGHTY MILITARY BUT NO WORTHY ENEMY.

Bush43 and his hawkish Neo Con cadre have tried very hard to goad us into attacking Iran but that has failed miserably as it should. The same shameless condition prevails in Israel, our surrogate in the ME. If Israel does attack Iran, you can say Good Bye to Tel Aviv.

We can’t attack NORTH Korea because South Korea will not stand for that. Besides, old time American military doctrine was “to engage in no land war in Asia.” Which has proved correct. US being 0 for 2 in Asia land wars. A draw in Korea and a LOSS in Vietnam. I’m not sure if the Middle East is sufficiently in Asia for the doctrine to apply there. If so, that would make it 0 for 3. Iraq.

We are only HALF IN and HALF OUT in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that Afghanistan has been invaded 100s of times - including by Alexander the Great - but NEVER conquered ONE time. Since it is not a survival issue with us, we will never put in the number of troops it would take to SUBDUE the Afghans. About 750,000.

As gruesome and macabre as this is, Bush43 brings it on, I cannot help but ask myself what will our KIA total in Iraq be on January 20, 2009, when GOD finally answers our prayers and removes Buish43 from his joyful post of Commander in Chief? Hey, who could do worse?

4205.

I have said the Republicans have had eight years to come up with Free Market solutions to the problems with the US health care system. The Surge only undid much of the damage done by Rumsfeld and Co which really only speaks of the incompetence of the Bush admin.

Well, as I have argued, the REAL purpose of the Surge was to get Bush43 past the January, ‘07 to September ‘07 time period. You must keep in mind the SERVILE Congress under the Republicans never held ONE hearing to make serious inquiry into the management of the Iraq War. Bush43, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice had a FREE RIDE for 6 years.

With the new Dem House about to take office, Bush43 concocted the SURGE - more in name than in numbers - to counter the Dems in the House. This succeeded in diverting public attention away from taking any serious look at the prosecution of the War. Anyone who wanted hearings held promptly was put off by the "Give the Surge a chance" gambit, they begged. January '07 being the swearing in of the new House and September '07 being the END of the fiscal year. IF Bush43 and his minions could get the War into the next fiscal year - October 1, 2007 - then it is the nature of business that the WAR could not be stopped before 2009. Money to keep it going is in the pipeline.

Bush43 is therefore sitting in the CAT BIRD SEAT! If the IRAQ adventure is declared a LOSER, Bush43 can claim the next president LOST it and not him, but if it is declared a WINNER he will say, “You see, I told you so! Did I not say stay the course?” HEY, forget the 4,3000 KIA, the 80,000 of "them" we killed. Shucks, that's the fortune of war. The young die and the old get richer. Thank you, Jesus, You do take care of those who love you!

The S U R G E was nothing more than a Bush43 way to spell L E G A C Y! It was a table stakes game, and Dumbya called the '06 voters bet and he won. He filled an inside straight!


[edit on 10/26/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Personally . . Obama does not [have] (Obama has slightly less experience than Lincoln did when he was elected),

Well, that’s a curious comparison. Lincoln served in the Illinois lower house from 1832 to 1842. Ten years. In 1846, Lincoln was elected as a WHIG and served one term in the US House of Representatives. Total 12 years. (Whigs were the political descendants of the long moribund Federalists of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Whigs advocated a strong central government, which points that Lincoln would be a Democrat if he was alive today). Further aside: Note that Lincoln was issued US Patent No. 6,469 and is the only American president to have ever received one.
www.historyplace.com...

Obama served 3 terms in the Illinois state senate. 1997 to 2004.* Six years. He was elected to the US Senate in 2004. That gives Obama 10 years experience in holding elective office.
en.wikipedia.org...

I hesitate to point out that Lincoln twice sought the Whig Party’s nomination for president but failed, and once in 1856, he unsuccessfully sought the new Republican Party nomination. Lincoln required 4 tries at what Obama has done on his FIRST try! Wow! How does that COUNT?

That is exactly my point about Obama... Lincoln had 2 years more experience in the state legislature than Obama does and the same in the US House of Representatives (Lincoln) as Obama has in the Senate, arguably the more important or powerful of the two houses.

The very fact that Obama has managed to get this far, speaks volumes about his organizational skills... If McCain had organized himself half as well as Obama has he wouldn't be facing almost certain defeat, even with the economy.

I am surprised... I would have thought this thread would be buzzing right about now.

Don, Justin come out come out where ever your are!!!