It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Bill Richardson is Vice Presidential material for the Dems. A lot hinges on who Hillary decides she can get along with better. If she sees Obama as too .strong, she may not want to deal with him in the White House. On the otehr hand, is she regards Richardson as more of a team player...




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I don't really have any clear thought process on the VP pick other then that Obama is still the most likely choice. Hillary is such a polarizing figure that I think she will use her VP to fend off political attacks much like Bush has used Cheney. If Obama could retain the image he has crafted while occupying the VP seat he could set himself up for a later run. Richardson could come up trumps if he is willing to play by Hillary rules. Make no mistake unlike Bush if elected Hillary will be president and she will exert her influence over the other members of her admin.

Providing that Hillary is a good decision maker and she still takes on aboard the advice of those in the know when appropriate there is nothing wrong with someone ensuring the presidency has the role that Washington intended when as president he refused to shake hands with people instead he would bow.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
One of he many things you should be learning from Don's life experience is that there is more than one way to govern. When our system works properly, its outcomes are based on compromise. when we are faced with a situation in which one party controls House, Senate, and the Executive...we find ourselves in a postion wherein compromise is not possible. Under these conditions, it all comes down to p-p-politics and party goals.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
One of he many things you should be learning from Don's life experience is that there is more than one way to govern.


I understand that differnt people bring differnt levels of influence and leadership to the White house. Some one who is easily influenced isnt suitable for political office little alone the presidentency. I think that the president should be the main player off there branch of government (forgive me I cant come up with a better description then that . )



we find ourselves in a postion wherein compromise is not possible. Under these conditions, it all comes down to p-p-politics and party goals.


Any political system that is designed around the representing the people requires an inbuilt mechanism that ensure fair representation or check sum and balances. When compromise is required for a bill to become law or for a party to govern then there are signs that the system is working. No system anywhere is going to be perfect here in NZ in theory it is possible that a party could govern without any coalition partner but that would require something beyond a landslide result.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican canddiates to try and wipe off. Again, I find myself thinking that this is just one more chance forthe GOP field to change its tune and push for the reforms they know the voters want.

Update: it's being reported that Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff could be the Bush pick to replace Gonzales.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11 and Justin Oldham
 



posted by xpert11 -I understand that different people bring different levels of influence and leadership to the White House. I think that the president should be the main player off there branch of government (forgive me I can’t come up with a better description then that). Any political system designed around representing the people requires an inbuilt mechanism that ensure fair representation or check sum and balances.


We tried to do that in 1787. Keep in mind the Federal government’s revenue in that era was limited to excise taxes - whiskey, tobacco for the most part - to import tariffs or duties and the sale or lease of Federal land. It was not until 1913 when the income tax amendment (the 16th) was adopted and the complimentary Federal Reserve Act (a national bank) was made law that the US Treasury became the largest in the Universe. Despite all the new money available, the Federal government remained small and mostly in the background. Until 1933.

Note: Lincoln was the second sea change in American presidential politics. 1800 being the first. The next one came in 1933 with the Democrats electing Roosevelt. Followed by #4 with Reagan in 1980. IMO. I’ve got my fingers crossed we are about to witness a #5 sea change in 2008! End of Note.

The governing of the US was mostly done in Congress, the so-called Article 1 branch. Remember Abraham Lincoln could not fire his own cabinet. Him aside, it fell to Theodore Roosevelt to be the first ACTIVIST president. And that was due to his natural born personality and not due to some newfound political philosophy. After TR, for example, it was Congress that refused to endorse Woodrow Wilson’s plans for a League of Nations in 1918. Democrat Wilson was a political anomaly. Elected in 1912 only because the Republicans were split between TR and Pres. Taft seeking re-election.

America’s modern government dates for 1933. It was necessary to fight first the Great Depression then the Second World War. No pipsqueak government could have done either. Only under Eisenhower did any tendency to relapse appear. Although Ford and Carter were the two most pleasant men to occupy the office after 1933, even in their terms the size of the government remained constant. I said “size” because we Americans tend to equate effectiveness with size. There is no direct correlation but we are stuck with the analogy. A mistake but look at how strenuously J/O and I disagree over size and effectiveness. Or over the mission of government, especially the Federal government which I like versus state governments which I hold in nearly total disdain. NY and CA excepted. And 2 or 3 others.


posted by Julian Oldham -The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican candidates to wipe off. I find myself thinking this is one more chance for the GOP field to change its tune and push for the reforms they know the voters want. Update: it's being reported that Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff could be the Bush pick to replace Gonzales.


As you knew last November J/O, Congress could not carry out the voter’s avowed mandate to end America's role in the Iraq Civil War. It just does not work that way. Which is one more reason why it is so important to know what you are doing, what you expect to accomplish and how to extract yourself before you engage in war. In America, where the blame game is played 24/7, 365, the one thing, the worst thing, is to be blamed for losing a war. It is sad so many young men and women have to die uselessly while our politicians work out a way to end the war but without sharing blame. I’ve already asserted that our leaders KILLED 22,000 GIs in Vietnam for that reason alone. Who get’s the blame?

Congress can stop the war ONLY by de-funding it. Bush43 would claim that was the reason he LOST the war and he'd snipe that our soldiers had died in vain. Better that 1000s more should die than that Bush43 would be accused of losing a war on his watch! Just reflect how much crapola gets heaped on Bill Clinton for Mogadishu. 18 dead Rangers. Or the USS Cole, 38 dead sailors.

But, Mr Xpert11, that's our system, adopted in 1787.

[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Good Afternoon Justin,

I don't know much about you, but apperently you are the conspiracy master.

I'll take that at face value, and your words of advice on "Calling All Ats'ers"

Perhaps you feel this way as well on who the next president will be...

The electoral college is kept because it allows Shady dealings with the small number of officials who determine the presidents. The diebold machines are easily manipulated, and the last 2 elections prove whomever George Senior wants for President, becomes so.

My sincere belief is that the next president will be, no matter the actual votes, Madame President Clinton.

Here's my reason, she has no problem taking money from special interest groups. Her Husband Bill has deep dealings with the former Bush adminstration, ever since his recent commercials with former president Daddy Bush, or maybe longer.

Now, knowing the republicans are not going to be elected even by a slim margin in reality, due to the public discontent with the party. Daddy Bush has made a pact with the Clintons, because money talks and the Clintons know it, and live it too.

They will due as he indicates on certain key issues publicly. They gladly take the secret money, and spew convincing rhetoric that they are against all things republican. Her recent statement about Terror helping the GOP, is a smokescreen to appear on the side of the people.

So it won't be a stretch, in my opinion that somehow she comes out on top no matter what, by some slim, realistic, and arguable margin.

Barak Obama does not take money from special interest groups, and he wants to "change" Washington. This will not happen.

Again the last 2 Elections prove this. Those in power want to stay in power, and are the most dangerous when then they have the the means to do it.

-ADHD



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hello A.D., glad to meet you. I've heard it said that money doesn't belong to any one political party. Our political and social elites will always do what's good for them, no matter who is in office. It's true that both political parties (as we know them today) have been battling for supremacy since the ink dried on he Constitution. THAT is the most real conspiracy I can think of.

Without any doubts, I can say that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are a rare combination. Don has pointed out that they bear a surprising resemblance to James and Dolly Madison. I agree with that assessment. Both are ambitious in ways that we haven't seen in a long time. The one most notable historical difference would be that Dolly was never in a position to run for the Preisdency.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
People look up to president for leadership and direction more so then they do Congress but that's just how I see it . Don I want to make one clear I wasn't advocating that any president overstep there constitutional boundaries instead I was saying that the president shouldn't be a puppet who strings are controlled by those around him. I think that if elected Hillary would be more inclined to hold her own against those who look to pull the strings either that or she would appoint a bunch of yes men to her cabinet which is no better .



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The resignation of Alberto Gonzales would seem to be the news item of the day. There can be no doubt that this will be another 'stain' for the Republican canddiates to try and wipe off.


Hey I was wondering do you see the actions of Gonzales as just normal actions like other Attorney Generals in other administrations both Rep and Dem? Or do you think the uproar from the Dems was not just a good political ploy?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Hey I was wondering do you see the actions of Gonzales as just normal actions like other Attorney Generals in other administrations both Rep and Dem? Or do you think the uproar from the Dems was not just a good political ploy?


The 'average' Attorney General doesn't find himself in the hotseat like this. It's true that the Democrats are playing hard ball politics just now, but they're not pressing Gonzales with ALL of their options. They don't need to.

Bear in mind that the Speaker of the House is walking a fine line. She can continue to legislate as long as the Bush team keeps on making mistakes. If the Dems stopped to prosecute, they'd never get any more legislation done. That's why you're not going to see anything more that lip service from the Dems as regards contempt charges.

All of the people who are defying subpoenas at the moment do know this. Yes, they do get away with their crimes, but the Dems are looking long term. All of the naughty new precedents that Bush has established will be their for the using in 2009. Not even THEY will be able to resist that temptation.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



posted by Justin Oldham
The 'average' Attorney General doesn't find himself in the hotseat like this. It's true that the Democrats are playing hard ball politics just now . . That's why you're not going to see anything more that lip service from the Dems as regards contempt charges. All of the naughty new precedents that Bush has established will be there for the using in 2009. Not even THEY will be able to resist that temptation.


May I expand on what you have already correctly implied Mr J/O? The only issue is the integrity of the US Attorney’s Office. Its integrity has been gratuitously compromised by the recent firing of 6 or 8 or 9 US Attorneys around the country without proper explanation.

We know the San Diego US Attorney was fired because she was pursuing the persons who had bribed US Congressman Butch Cunningham. Bribery is a two person crime. The Bribe-or and Bribe-ee. Both violate the law. Both need to be sharing a jail cell. In Cunningham’s case, he is still the only person convicted. Why is that?

The White House sent the menage to ALL US Attorney’s NOT to prosecute people without prior WH approval. That was unprecedented.

The WH has obfuscated the real issue by repeating the argument the president has the RIGHT to fire any US Attorney anytime without cause. Strictly speaking that is correct. US Attorneys serve at the PLEASURE of the president. But there are tempering customs and traditions, too.

Over the years since the 1920s, the office of US Attorney has grown into the most powerful prosecutorial post in the US. There are so many more Federal laws today which have so much broader reach and implications into our lives that we need to have a qualified, dependable, fair and impartial person in the office of US Attorney. And nothing less.

Albeit true that person gets his or her initial appointment because of either their work for the president’s election or the amount of money they gave to his campaign, or their family or other network connections. But, after they take the oath of office, we have a legitimate right to expect they will rise far above the crass day-to-day of politics. This is essential to any good government.

After their appointment, which requires Senate approval, the US Attorney should be dismissed summarily ONLY for incurable ineptness, innate incompetence or benign neglect of his or her office. The correct performance of their official obligations must be seen as based purely on the laws of our country being correctly and uniformly enforced without regard to partisan politics. That is the de minimus!

AG Gonzales, Bushr43's alter ego, comprised that tradition to our great disadvantage.

I don’t believe Geo W has ever read this: "I will faithfully execute the office of President . . and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution . . “

From US Con. Article 2, Section 1. “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

boots on the ground, per se ... (?)

Obama, seems to be the democratic equivalent of Ron Paul ... funded mostly by individual/singular donations.


Money can't buy you love, and this time around I don't think it'll buy you an election either ... change is in the wind, hopefully ...


I take it you mean in funding only?

Obama seems to be the total opposite in policy as Ron Paul.

Just to name a couple:

Obama voted for Immigrant Act.
Obama has already "talked tough" about Iran and Pakistan.

Ron Paul would never allow Illegals amnesty.
I've not heard Ron Paul discuss other specific countries around the world, but being that he is against current foreign policy I think he'd be more diplomatic than threatening when it came to Iran or Pakistan.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Army General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It’s their war now.

Pres. Bush will begin loading up the papers he wants to keep away from the public and Congress. He'll put them on a 50 year hold. Secret, you know. “Scooter” Liddy is “fixed” for now and a full pardon is due January 19, 2009. Silence is golden. George says, “We’ve got to keep the water boy quiet, Dick!” Like his daddy in front of him, who pardoned Casper Weinberg to avoid jail time for his role in Iran Contra, junior Bush is saving himself from a similar fate.

The SURGE was a giant publicity stunt. Troop strength in late 2006, 130,000. Troop strength today, 165,000. Troop strength in June, ‘08, 130,000. Mission? Another phoney one, like the WMDs. It was sold to the American public to give sufficient security or space in Baghdad so the disparate groups in Iraq could reconcile and as in the Holy Bible, “the lambs could lie down with the lions.” But neither the lambs nor the lions seem interested. Hmm?

Withdrawal late this year and into next year? Not really. That is a ‘Petraeus’ term for what everyone else is calling ROTATION. Disingenuous? Sure, but what do you expect from a man who looked you straight in the camera's eye and said “I wrote this report last night!” All the while his aides were making a great flourish over distributing the report as if they were the first to see it.

Get a life. Generals don’t write reports. Lieutenants, captains and majors write reports, reviewed by colonels, typed by sergeants and signed as their own by generals. In response to the MoveOn.org ad, General Petraeus put his foot into his own mouth! I expect that was the unstated purpose behind the ad; to nail down responsibility for the report that will be the subject of much future debate.

Wow! Petraeus' performance was worth the Chairman’s seat at the Joint Chiefs table! Gen. Peter Pace, time for you to say goodbye and move on!

Bush43 has survived the only time period when his Iraq adventure was in real jeopardy. January to September, 2007. By conjuring the SURGE, he has managed to put off all serious debate over the war. More importaltly to him, was to HOLD potential Republican defectors until September. Now, bolstered with the Oscar winning performances of P & C, “Stay the Course” from Petraeus and “12 to 18 months” longer from Crocker, Bush is home free.

The 8-10 GOP senators who were “shaky” are now solid. It matters not a whit what Speaker Pelosi does in the House. Until the Dems get 10 GOPs to go along, the Good Ole U S of A, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, is in another unwinable War we can't get out of! And Bush43 has outmaneuvered the Dems and the American people! ThisWar won't crash on his watch! It's called L E G A C Y.

How many more GIs will go KIA between now and when we do leave Iraq?

3,780 KIA as of today. 9/16/07

[edit on 9/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
When Bush talked about a longer-term relationship with Iraq, I distinctly heard another nail go in to the GOP coffin. I also heard a 'click' that confirmed my suspicions about future GOP strategy. it boils down to one thing. The RNC (the great minds that staff the Republican National Committee) have decided that its better for that "Saigon Moment" to occurr on Hillary's watch.

The old men in charge of the GOP have a phobia when it comes to anything that looks or smells like Vietnam. They don't want to be anywhare near it. I made my prediction in this thread over one year ago. When Hillary brings the troops home, that one single act will guarantee Democrat primacy for four more years.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
When Bush talked about a longer-term relationship with Iraq, I distinctly heard another nail go in to the GOP coffin. I also heard a 'click' that confirmed my suspicions about future GOP strategy. it boils down to one thing. The RNC (the great minds that staff the Republican National Committee) have decided that its better for that "Saigon Moment" to occur on Hillary's watch.


The Dems have set for themselves a very dangerous tightrope to walk these next 13+ months. The Senate hangs by a thread. 30 seats in the House make all the difference. 30 out of 435. You talk gerrymandering?

I am satisfied the Iraqis are more weary of this civil war than are we. If there should be a major breakthrough in Iraq between the 2 warring factions between how and November 4, 2008, the GOP is in an ideal position to claim it is due to their own strategic plan put into place despite the interference from the Dems. The Rumsfeld Cheney Doctrine will be hailed as the voice in the wilderness that has brought us HOME after all. "Stay the Course" was the right plan after all! Yippee! The endless WoT is justified.

The Dems only viable alternative is to NOT give the next funding request its rubber stamp imprimatur. Not to fall for the “support the troops” mantra. For the Dems it’s Kenny Rogers Time. It’s time to play the hand they were dealt, or get out of the game. I suggest this proves again - if it needed to be - that even a SINGLE bungler can outwit 535 people each more concerned with his or her own earmarks and all 535 talking to different constituencies. Article 1 has all the power, but Article 2 has all the attention. Or “perception” as you call it Mr J/O.


The old men in charge of the GOP have a phobia when it comes to anything that looks or smells like Vietnam. They don't want to be anywhere near it. I made my prediction in this thread over one year ago. When Hillary brings the troops home, that one single act will guarantee Democrat primacy for four more years.


I think you have hit the nail squarely on the ., as it relates to the GOP decision to “stay the course” despite $12 b. a month of our sorely needed national treasure going to Iraq and fast approaching the #4,000 DEAD GI.

I was hoping the 85 year old steam pipe break in NYC, or the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis would arouse more interest in our failing infrastructure but alas, that is already a distant memory. I guess there is more money to be made in Iraq on no-bid contracts than there is here what with competitive bidding, oversight and all that.

America reminds me of that dance out of Trinidad, the Limbo, or How Low Can You Go?

[edit on 9/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
There is a phobia in Conservatie circles just now has deluded them in to thinking that a withdawl of any kind is somehow a defeat. I am in agreeement with those who say tha we need a long term presence in Iraq. I think we can do that with a reduced force that's in a more limited roll. Having a long-term presence in Iraq is an insurance policy. It's not a guarantee.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Defeat at all costs ?
I don't think that the dems need to worry about significant political progress being made in Iraq. The Iraqi government is frozen along ethnic lines. But in the near impossible event that remarkable political progress was made in Iraq including bringing the Kurds in on the deal continued opposition to the war would be pure defeatism. I don't say such a thing lightly either.

Congress wont cut funding off for the war in Iraq because the dems need the war to continue so they can claim the prize in 08. I think that it is pretty sick that anyone would want Democracy in Iraq to fail just because of there political beliefs.



[edit on 17-9-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Justin Oldham I am in agreement with those who say we need a long term presence in Iraq. I think we can do that with a reduced force that's in a more limited roll. Having a long-term presence in Iraq is an insurance policy. It's not a guarantee.

I assume you want our presence in Iraq for 2 reasons. 1) to block Iran, and 2) to prevent turning Iraq into a second Afghan before Tora Bora.

During the hearings someone quoted a reliable poll in Iraq that said 62% of Iraqi wanted us OUT of the country ASAP and 75% said they thought it was WORSE under the US OCCUPATION than before the fall of Saddam. Note the Iraqi are referring to the current US ‘footprint” as an occupation and not as a liberation. The Brits will be gone by the end of the year, and that leaves us alone in Iraq (with fighting forces). The Coalition never coalesced.

Far better it would be and much more realistic to engage the regions neighbors to resolve the MESS we created when we destroyed the delicate balance of power in the Middle East that existed prior to 1990. Which balance of power by the way survived the Cold War. But with the breakup of Yugoslavia we had more on our plate than we could handle and we still cannot bring ourselves to FACE the Israeli question. We go on pretending it does not exist. We act as if the Arabs in Gaza, the Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are HAPPY CAMPERS just pee'd off over some real estate deal gone sour.

Implicit in your position J/O is we do not TRUST any Iraqi government to adhere to policies which are favored by the United States of America. Which is another way to say we are putting Iraq under our hegemony.

And we know or ought to know the only way to export hegemony from a Christian nation into a Muslim nation is by force of arms. Hmm? I thought we’d tried that already?

Come on home, J/O, and let the Middle East work out the Middle East problem. We cannot speak the language. We don't like the religion and we don't know anything about their culture. How can a blind man lead you safely out of a quicksand pit?

[edit on 9/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Dr. Rice is the most ineffectual Sec. of State I have witnessed in my lifetime. Can anyone tell me anything she has actually accomplished?

Sorry DonWhite I have to disagree with both you and Justin on this, it is our very presence there that makes the whole place and situition so dangerous, and that is not going to change as long as we are there.

The unpleasant truth of the matter is that Iraq as it stands right now is wholly our own making. The nation may have very well fallen apart with the death of Saddam, but then it wouldn't be on our hands then. This whole thing was bungled right from the very beginning and nothing, our staying or our leaving is going to make it any better... as it stands right now it is a matter for no one but the Iraqi people to work out and the quicker we get out of the way the better.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join