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.
Earlier today, Senators Clinton and obama met in Ohio for their 20th debate. This event was hosted by MSNBC, moderated by Tim Russet. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Hillary functions better when she’s mad. She’s much more precise when she’s cranky, which is what she needs to beat Obama. The only way she beats Obama is on specifics.
Having said that, I think the debate was a draw. Mrs. Clinton held her own and maintained a strong image through to the very end. She did make Obama stammer a few times, which told me that he was trying a little too hard to parse his words. As I read his body language, I think that Senator Obama was a little peeved at having to work so hard. It may have helped Senator Clinton in Ohio, but I’m doubtful that she got any boost from it in Texas. We should know if it helped her within 48 hours. It’s possible that the new campaign manager, Maggie Williams, is responsible for this tuned up Hillary.
Originally posted by donwhite
1) Thanks for the good evaluation, Mr J/O. I’ve been watching the Dems debates - mostly out of the corner of my eye - and I’ve noticed your posts afterwards are “right on.” You are not bashful about your ability to parse the politicos, but I never complain when a men is telling the truth. See, I was able to use that good word “parse” too. And it was the best word to describe Obama. He’s got to stay LOOSE if he is to keep his bobby-soxer crowd cheering! They want to hear a “Give’m Hell, Harry” type speech! Not a lecture on good government. Style over substance.
Originally posted by donwhite
2) Are you willing to go out on the limb and say when you think it will best serve the Dems for Hillary to “thrown in the towel?” Or do you think she should stay in until the bitter end at Denver.
Originally posted by donwhite
3) Now what’s all this hullabaloo over McCain dropping in and out of the Federal election finance scheme? Was he IN when he was broke but now that he’s riding high, he wants OUT? Is that what is called a “safety net” in other circumstances? “Hey guy, we’re here when you need us?” Sort of a politicians homeless shelter? Does this point to McCain as maybe a "closet" socialist? Let me know your take here, please.
I would not feel bad at all to be wrong about the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton. the fact that certain African American super delegates are now abandoning her would seem to indicate that she's losing support faster than we may realize. can you imagine ... the pay backs ... if she does win her party's nomination? The Clintons are known for their pay backs. Ouch.
The researchers noted opinion polls taken just prior to an election tended to overestimate Obama in states with a black population below eight percent; to track him within the polls' margins of error in states with a black population between ten and twenty percent, and to underestimate him in states with a black population exceeding twenty-five percent.
The first finding suggested the possibility of the Bradley effect, while the last finding suggested the possibility of a "reverse" Bradley effect in which black voters might have been reluctant to declare to pollsters their support for Obama . . in each state with inaccurate opinion polls for the Democratic contest involving Obama, those same polls accurately predicted the outcome of that state's Republican contest, featuring only white candidates.
While their cause continues to be debated, the pollsters' errors have raised expectations that as the presidential primary season progresses, Obama's polling numbers will be widely scrutinized as analysts try to definitively determine whether the Bradley effect has become a significant factor in the race. en.wikipedia.org...
Obama's popularity is driven by several things. The simple truth is that "new" is "new." I also think that some degree of Political Correctness does shield Mr. Obama from his critics . . the fact remains that Hillary is just not that friendly . . Her oratory is not that polished . . Don will recall the Kennedy-Nixon dichotomy in which the younger handsomer more polished man beat the grizzled veteran and all around 'experienced' candidate.
Even so, we've got to remember that people vote with their hearts in a primary. They vote more pragmatically during a general election. when its time to make the comparison, Obama may be all sizzle and no steak when compared to McCain. Let's also remember that McCain has a different debate style than Hillary does. I don't rate McCain's chances to win as being very high, but I do think that he will scrap like Hillary does not do at this time.
How likely is it that voters will have "buyer's remorse" when we get to the general election? This is one reason I've said that the Democrats need to field an Obama-Clinton ticket, or a Clinton-Obama ticket. If either one of these people does NOT end up on the President-VP menu, the Democratic Party will be torn apart. Having both means the party's wounds would heal faster.
If the Democrats can handle their convention, they stand to be an unbeatable force for the next 16 years. I make no secret of the fact that I think that the Democratic "wave" that overtakes us will make us look back on W, and think he was mild by comparison.
Originally posted by donwhite
OK Mr J/O, but what if? What if the Iraqi government reaches an accommodation on the oil revenues? What if the accommodation greatly reduces the impetus of the insurgents so that violence is nearly passe?
Originally posted by donwhite
What if around July-August, the President begins withdrawing American forces from Iraq in brigade numbers? What if by November 4, our troop level in Iraq is below 50,000?
Originally posted by donwhite
What if Israel makes an offer the PA cannot refuse?
Originally posted by donwhite
What if the Iranians made acceptable overtures including re-admitting the IAEA into Iran?
Originally posted by donwhite
What if Kim Jong Il does not KIDNAP the NY Philharmonic Orchestra and instead, invites the NY Yankees to do an exhibition game?
Originally posted by donwhite
What if all those good things happen BEFORE November 4? Would that alter your gloomy forecast?
The chances of peace coming to Iraq before November are nil . There is no way the Tab would bother to take bets on the matter. Federalism and Iraq don't mix. All the successes against the enemy have come at the local level with the likes of tribal leaders turning against the insurgency. Centralized power arguably helped Saddam’s rise in power. Also Iraq has its share of minority's such as Christians who may lack representation in government and protection from the slaughter.
I still hold that in the long term splitting up Iraq into three autonomous regions or interdependent states is the only way to go. Don has pretty much made the case for me Iraq was never a country instead it was the creation of post WW1 backstabbing that still haunts us today. I don't doubt that militarily the US could continue to put pressure on the insurgency but the problem is in ten years the Iraqi government could well be just as ineffective. As for Turkey not supporting a Kurdish state that just shows what a bad idea this whole venture has been. Here is a map showing how the borders should have been drawn up post war WW1.