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

reply to post by Justin Oldham

This election has taken more turns than a soap opera. I don't feel bad for Senator Clinton. She's had a good run, and I still don't think she'd be good for the country as President.

Well, just last week it suddenly occurred to me that John McCain was enjoying an undeserved (in my mind) hiatus from answering the HARD questions America faces and was instead RESTING UP in Iraq, Israel and Berlin. Getting a lot of Bush43 type PHOTO-OPS.

Worse (for America IMO), McCain has endorsed the Bush43 non-plan for the continuation of the War in Iraq ad infinitum. Stay the Course. $2 b. a week. With $4 gasoline looming just ahead, John begged off taking any of the ECONOMY in the tank questions. McCain explained “The campaign will hinge on Iraq.” Sweet Jesus! McCain has a 5 months FREE RIDE and a real chance to get ahead of the Dems and he is squandering it. Has he hired back his old team of advisers?

I'm watching Barack right now, speaking in Oregon. McCain won't be able to catch Barack!

[edit on 3/21/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I'm not wild about having a Democrat at the helm just now, but I recognize that my preferred political party is imperfect. I do find it interesting that John McCain has defied his masters to get this far. It really is within the range of rational possibility that he could win the White House.

In the minds of many, Barack Obama is not nearly so dangerous as Hillary Clinton . . the worst he can do is become another Jimmy Carter. Carter was a good guy who got eaten by the system. We can survive another Carter. We can't survive the continuation of another dynasty. Not with Economic Hell on our doorstep.

Like all populist candidates, Barack will have to avoid the hard issues or at least not be too specifics about them. With John McCain on the other side that should pose no problem. If John starts quoting Adam Smith or Milton Friedman he will not sound real. If he’s not careful, he’ll get mixed up trying to make anyone understand either in 2008.

Of course, although all three would deny it, Reagan and B41 along with B43 have practiced EXTREME Keynesian theory. If a little pump priming is good, then they (wrongly) thought a LOT ought to be better. Too bad that was not so. Every theory has its limits in application. Let’s leave esoteric theories behind. I think now we do need genuine tax reform, that is, letting those who have the most pay the most. And etc.

It’s finally happened. Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama. This turn of events has been expected for quite some time. The simple truth is that Hillary Clinton has become a real pain the butt. Obama gets more endorsements because of her bad behavior. Any political genius she may have had is gone. I admire her tenacity, but her political instincts need a serious refit.

Richardson’s endorsement brings with it a large percentage of the Hispanic vote. It’s possible that Hispanics may fel torn between Clinton and Obama, much more so than they have in the past. Even so, the Clintonsh ave to step back and have a new look at their situation. For his part, Obama needs to stay on the high road.

There is still a lot of talk in the blogs and across the net about Bill Richardson as Obama’s Vice Presidential running mate. It’s a post that Richardson campaigned for during the early primaries. He even went so far as to say it out loud. He would take the job, if it were offered. The 2008 races have had more twists and turns than a soap opera. Like John McCain, Richardson’s prospects have changed.

Speaking of John McCain, how does he beat an Obama-Richardson ticket? Assuming that Senator Clinton fights through to the Democratic party’s convention, McCain may be able to mount a slow but steady campaign to undermine Obama while at the same time enhancing his own stature. It’s ironic to me that Mrs. Clinton should turn out to be her own worst enemy AND McCain’s best asset.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

It’s finally happened. Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama. This turn of events has been expected for quite some time. The simple truth is that Hillary Clinton has become a real pain the butt. I admire her tenacity, but her political instincts need a serious refit. Richardson’s endorsement brings with it a large percentage of the Hispanic vote . . the Clintons have to step back and have a new look at their situation. For his part, Obama needs to stay on the high road. There is still a lot of talk about Bill Richardson as Obama’s Vice President running mate.

April 22 will be the day for Hillary. Unless she duplicates her Ohio vote in PA she is OUT of the race. Oh, she may linger on, but that is not going to help her. I see a 50/50 split in PA right now. Yes, it’s 31 days until the vote and a lot can still happen, but I was watching Barack in Oregon today, on CSpan - replay schedule on CSpan.org - and he is hammering McCain. Once in a while he mentions Hillary. As far as Obama is concerned, it will be him versus the Old Soldier, John McCain.

Speaking of McCain, how does he beat an Obama Richardson ticket? Assuming that Senator Clinton fights through to the Democratic party’s convention, McCain may be able to mount a slow but steady campaign to undermine Obama while at the same time enhancing his own stature.

On the Dems still fighting, yes, contesting, no. Obama has made up his mind and he is moving on. Which I believe is exactly what he should do. I still believe McCain cut a deal with Huckabee. It would be “smarter” IMO to go with Romney but I don’t see that happening. I don’t believe Sen Hegel would run with McCain, because McCain is pledging to be a THIRD term for Bush43. I don’t know another east of the Mississippi north of the Ohio Republican who would want to run with McCain. The good ones like Dick Lugar of IN are the same age as McCain. I’m pretty sure that if Arnold Schwarzenegger could run, he’d be a big help to McCain but that is impossible. So I keep coming back to The Huck.

Obama Richardson vs. McCain and Huckabee. Now that looks GOOD for the Dems.

STATE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE PRIVATE. WE HAVE OUT-SOURCED OUR GOVERNMENT! 2,900 PRIVATE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES IN TOP LEVEL POSTS. SWEET JESUS! COME QUICK.

[edit on 3/21/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Justin I think that you have already put forward the answer somewhere on the boards. The more experienced McCain will look to out outmanoeuvre Obama when it comes policy stances. For example look for Mccain to exploit the fact that Obama has promised on the one hand to withdraw from Iraq and in another instance that he would go after Al-Qaeda.

Anyone who follows NZ politics will know how Clark did an absolute number on Key when it came to the changes to the regulation concerning the foreign ownership of strategic assets in the sort of fashion I try to describe above.

There is a shade of presidential style politics to NZ elections . Despite the importance of the smaller party's in post election coalition deals it is and will be very much a battle between Key and Clark. Don't be surprised by parallels between the two elections. Foreign Minister Winston Peters has already compared himself to McCain and said that Key is not another Obama.

See this article .

Richardson being Obama VP pick would hardly be a revelation I am expecting as much. Get the popcorn and coke out for the battle between Richardson and McCain for the battle for the Latino(SP?) vote.

reply to post by xpert11

The more experienced McCain will look to out outmaneuver Obama when it comes policy stances. For example look for McCain to exploit the fact that Obama has promised on the one hand to withdraw from Iraq and in another instance that he would go after Al-Qaeda.

Barack is not inconsistent at all, Mr X11. Leaving one would not require us to abandon the other. Iraq is a spread democracy undertaking that did not go well. Due mostly to unbelievable ignorance in the Oval Office. al Qaeda is a economically inspired religion-based movement with many tentacles. We have just had one more report up here that re-affirmed what we already knew, that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no links. That false story of a link came straight out of the Oval Office. And it persists today even though all observers and every report DENIES there ever was any connection. Tragically, half of Americans still believe there was. “Good stories die hard.” We can still wage the War on Terror outside Iraq. Which as you know I am dead set against. We have already tried (and lost) a War on Crime (1941), a War on Poverty (1964) and a War on Drugs (1969). We can ill afford another one of these endless (and LOSING) wars.

Aside: Some good people up here are still confused by the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had changed the name of his originally Jordan based group to “al Qaeda in Iraq” in 2004. Every time his group is mentioned by name on American tv, especially on FOX, the Bush43 claim of a Hussein - bin Laden connection is reinforced. That was a PR stroke of genius. Sowing confusion among your enemy is next best to selling a big lie. The Josef Goebbels phenomenon at work again. See Note 1.

Richardson being Obama VP pick would hardly be a revelation I am expecting as much. Get the popcorn and coke out for the battle between Richardson and McCain for the battle for the Latino vote.

I know John McCain will have to respond to his hard Right GOP accusers that he is TOO moderate, citing the McCain-Feingold Act that attempted to regulate Campaign Finances. And which failed miserably. Q. Did John McCain back Bush43's failed effort to register the undocumented workers already here? If so, that will give him some favor in the Hispanic community, but I think he has also been a BIG WALL fan and maybe he voted for funding the WALL of which 700 miles has been planned. Corrections, updates requested.

What a country it is that builds a WALL around itself. I suppose we ought to OUT SOURCE that wall to the old East German VOPOS? Now some people up here who are embarrassed to be associated with the WALL are pushing for an electronic fence, 1000s of cameras with PRIVATE contractors watching 1000s of tv screens for illegal crossings. Motion detectors. Infra-red body heat detectors. Hidden microphones. Hey, did we not try this in Vietnam on the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Ugh, I forget but how did that work out over there? Who won? Or was it just one more boondoggle for Halliburotn types? Come Quick Sweet Jesus!


Note 1. Musab al Zarqawi was killed in Iraq AFTER he was captured by the US Army Special Forces on June 7, 2006. I believe the order to kill the wounded captive came straight from the Oval Office. About 1 hour after his capture. The on-going public relations debacle called the ‘Trial of Saddam Hussein’ was the most popular event in Iraq. The American Tripartite Dictatorship - Bush43, VP Cheney and Herr Rumsfeld - did not want yet another public trial to grab all the good tv time they had formerly held for themselves. “Shoot him!” And we did. en.wikipedia.org...

Just as we had done in Bolivia to the Argentine medical doctor Ernesto Guevara de la Serna known everywhere as Che, on October 9, 1967. He had also been wounded and captured but either the CIA rep on the site or the US Army Special Forces killed him. On orders. There was a time delay in this case as well. LBJ was in the WH then. And not 4 years had passed since the murder of JFK over which a debate of possible Cuban connection still rages.

It was 1954 while he was in Guatemala working for the progressive Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán government, that he acquired his famous nickname "Che." It came about due to his frequent use of the Argentine interjection "che," which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are still employed colloquially in various English-speaking countries.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3/22/2008 by donwhite]

Itw been interesting to see Obama put his game face on during this last week. He can take McCain to task on intellectual grounds, but that's only going to get him so far. If McCain ges the right advice, he can make Obama look like an elite snob, who is too much the idealist. Can Hillary Clinton be relevant again? Extreme measures would be required.

Don while it is true that the war in Afghanistan could go on after a withdrawl from Iraq that is not the issue here at all. Since Al-Qaeda has a presence in Iraq and Obama supports a US withdrawl from that country he is going to have do some fast talking to get out of that jam.

I do like Obama position on Pakistan. I predict a draw down in the number of US troops in Iraq rather then a withdrawl.

Justin at this stage I would say that unless something like Kerry wife 4WDs springs up the shoe is going to be on the other foot in terms elite snob accusations . You many not agree with Obama solutions but at least he has acknowledged those and struggle to pay the bills and those who in need of health insurance . e.t.c

All the Republicans have done recently is dance around the Iraq war. Cheney has been quoted as saying that the war has been "successful endeavour."
I want to know what planet that guy is on it certainly isnt earth.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by xpert11

Don while it is true that the war in Afghanistan could go on after a withdrawal from Iraq that is not the issue here at all. Since Al-Qaeda has a presence in Iraq and Obama supports a US withdrawal from that country he is going to have do some fast talking to get out of that jam.

Not necessarily. You are not giving the Iraqis the credit they are due. The US is the CAUSE of the insurgency. The moderate Iraqi tolerates the insurgents because he wants the US OUT of his country. When we are gone, the Iraqi will prove they are capable of quickly restoring order to their own country. The US presence in Iraq is equal to sending a tag team of WWF wrestlers bulked up on steroids, into a china shop with instructions to “dust and clean it.”

The real issue for the US is whether Iran will take undue advantage of our exit to extend its influence in the neighboring Shi'a community. It is not at all clear that the Iraqis want a re-run of the Ayatollah's theocratic state in Iraq. Right now the Iraqi Shi'a have to kowtow to Iran for its support, but when the enemy is gone, that need will go away with our departure. See Note 1.

I’m sure Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the TWO major concerns we have in the Persian Gulf vis a vis Iran. Well, along with all the other oil rich Arab emirates. What we probably dread more than anything is a COLLABORATION between Iran - #5 oil producer - with the other Muslim states which would put the followers of Mohammad, the Holy Prophet, in charge of 80% of the world’s known reserves.

Energy independence. Up here every politician of every stripe including Ralph Nader have to exude endlessly on the topic of energy independence from foreign oil. Americans eat it up! One writer said the other day that with 2 million of the largest and latest technology in windmills, located in North and South Dakota, we could get 100% of our electricity from the WIND! Duh?

In round numbers we consume 21-22 mbd. Million barrels per day. 42 gallons to the barrel. Domestically - including Alaska - we produce about 7-8 mbd. Down from our own peak production of about 12 mbd around 1960. So on an average day we are short about 13-15 mbd. Now we first learned of the consequences of an oil shortfall in 1973-74 just after the Yom Kippur War. The Arab Oil Embargo. We learned when supply is zero price is irrelevant.

And no US government is going to let that happen again. We do have 800 million barrels in what we call a strategic oil reserve, but that is reserved for the US Navy and Air Force One. Following that oil shortage, and the introduction of CAFÉ - corporate average fuel economy - a system to trick you into thinking you are doing good when you are in fact doing bad - the auto industry downsized its products. From decision to display on the showroom floor takes 3-4 years at a minimum and 5-6 years on the average. By the mid-1980s our first OPEC lines of cars came off the assembly lines. But by that time, the oil was flowing in reliable quantities and cheaper than ever when adjusted for inflation!

If any politician in America said he was going to limit car weight to 3,000 pounds and engine size to 2.5 litters in 5 years, or TAX the heck out of cars that don’t meet those requirements, i.e., 100% of retail price, he would be either Ralph Nader or CRAZY. And he would not win a primary even in Vermont. We do love to hear the energy independence litany but we do not intend to do anything towards that elusive (and unattainable IMO) goal.

All the Republicans have done recently is dance around the Iraq war. Cheney has been quoted as saying that the war has been "successful endeavor."

John McCain has endorsed the Bush43 program in Iraq. He has declared that the prosecution of the WAR will be the central theme of his campaign. He says he hopes to make it - the Iraq War - the focus of the ‘08 campaign! See Footnote Below.


Note 1. We originally meant to put our CIA sponsored lackey Ahmed Chalabi into the PM’s post in Iraq. When we learned he had NO friends in Iraq, we backed off him. He is wanted for embezzling nearly $300 million through a bank he created in Jordan. Yet he is one smooth CAT! Nine lives. He has come back and has been first the interim Iraq Deputy PM and then Minister of OIL! GOD, talk about falling into a bucket of ***t and coming out smelling like a rose! Sweet Jesus!

Yes, there was an election in Iraq. ADD Bush43 (Attention Deficit Disorder) thinks elections are the MILLENIUM END TIME proof of democracy. Yet, we overlook that it was we, the US, which vetted all the potential candidates - our ill conceived anti Ba’athist program - and ONLY those who we pronounced as PURE were allowed to run. The Iraqis choose from a group we approved.

The underlying problem in Iraq is we have a LACKEY government we are trying to JAM down the throats of the Iraqi! And almost none of them like it. When we finally do go and they get to choose their own government, Iraq will return to the community of nations. But not before.


Footnote: DoD Confirmation Total KIA 3996
Latest Coalition Fatality: Mar 22, 2008

[edit on 3/23/2008 by donwhite]

It’s being reprted that former first lady Nancy Reagan will endorse John McCain for President some time later today.

Does this matter? Yes. Mrs. Reagan doesn’t make endorsements, and she usually waits to speak at the nominating convention AFTER the nominee has been chosen. As much as it burns hard line GOP bosses, this is another success for the moderate McCain. It comes at a time when he is unmolested by the MSM, and, doing well among independents (according to the polls).

Mrs. Reagan is the Grand Dame of her party. She’s normally quiet and unassuming. In her eighties, she prefers to avoid the spotlight. Her media image is that of a sainted figure. The Democrats have no equivalent just now, which enhances her PR value to the Republicans.

McCain is “off the radar” just now because of the brawl going on between Senators Clinton and Obama, for the Democratic party’s nomination. As each week passes, John McCain picks up new support. The fact that he’s doing it…quietly…should come as no surprise to anyone. And yet, conservative radio continues to spew hate for the man who is eventually going to be their one best shot at the White House for the next ten years.

McCAin doesn’t have it in him to be Mr. Sunshine. He is learning how to develop a more positive message, which will help him to compete against Clinton or Obama during the general election. It’s a fantastic turn of events that I wish more Republicans would appreciate. Hillary Clinton has turned out to be her own worst enemy. It makes me laugh to think that she might be the one who puts John McCain in the White House.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Justin Oldham]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

It’s being reported that former first lady Nancy Reagan will endorse John McCain for President some time later today. It comes at a time when he is unmolested by the MSM, and, doing well among independents (according to the polls). McCain doesn’t have it in him to be Mr. Sunshine. He is learning how to develop a more positive message, which will help him to compete against Clinton or Obama during the general election. It’s a fantastic turn of events that I wish more Republicans would appreciate. Hillary Clinton has turned out to be her own worst enemy. It makes me laugh to think that she might be the one who puts John McCain into the White House.

Tennessee's popular Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen was on the Diane Rehm PBS radio show (10 AM daily in Jax) yesterday. He is an uncommitted super delegate. He is urging the remaining uncommitted super delegates to mutually agree to make known their decision in a few days following the last Democratic primaries on June 3, in MT and SD. He would actually like to see ALL the super delegates meet at a common place and let Obama and Clinton speak to them for say, 30 minutes each, then recess for lunch, come back in the PM and before National TV, declare themselves!

For the same reasons J/O has pointed out in several places, the Dems MUST do something to STOP the hemorrhage of independent voters to McCain! And do it NOW! Bredesen says the Dems cannot UNDO the damage they are doing to each other in the TWO months between conventions and November 4. He says the Dems are treating this nominating process like an old time convention in the electronic age. We can’t do that and expect to win, he warned.

[edit on 3/25/2008 by donwhite]

I see that the Clinton campaign is running out of money. How likely is it that she will leave the race after Pennsylvania? Is she trying to go out on a high note?

reply to post by Justin Oldham


It's difficult for me to believe Clinton is running short on cash. She just has too many well-heeled backers I would think. Sounds more like just a plea to shake even more cash loose from her fellow Democrats. I don't expect Hillary to give up until I go ice skating in Hell.

reply to post by TheAvenger

It's difficult for me to believe Clinton is running short on cash. She just has too many well-heeled backers I would think. Sounds more like just a plea to shake even more cash loose from her fellow Democrats. I don't expect Hillary to give up until I go ice skating in Hell.

The BIG money boys are not sentimentalists. They are strictly pragmatic. They do not throw good money after bad. They take their losses and move on. Obama is on a roll. He is riding the PERFECT wave. Hillary must show her resilience by April 22 or she will be expected to toss in the towel.

PA demographics - western PA anyway - are much like Ohio’s. She did real well in Ohio but barely broke just above even in Texas, losing most of the delegates to Obama. She must carry PA like she carried OH or she is dead meat. I love Hillary. I voted for her in FL but now, I’m for Obama. He has the IMAGE of CHANGE AGENT the public seems to want. That’s my take.

reply to post by donwhite

She did real well in Ohio but barely broke just above even in Texas,

IMO this is going to be a win for Hillary by the skin of her teeth presay..
When the truth of the matter is the skin of the teeth will be fraud of some kind. Well wait.. How can it be fraud when she has already been chosen?

And if by some chance she is not selected as our next president I will come on back to this thread and say hey.. I guess I didnt have the truth after all.. And I will go back to the drawing board and take a look at my research and start anew with some fresh ideas, and a new POV.
But as it stands now, she is going to win.. And its going to be a close race!
So close that it will seem to the public that who ever went aginst her, really did stand a fighting chance!

Hello zysin5, good to see you again. The race in Pennsylvania is heating up. The pressure on Senator Clinto nis tremendous. A lot of people want her to drop out of the race. Seems to me that a lot of peole are expecting her to somehow steal the Presidency. A lot can happen with the Dems go to their convention. Deals are always possible, and every super delegates wants soemthing.

ERRATA. Replying to Xpert11 Don W posted earlier: “ . . why are you worried over Hillary? If she wins, that will be a FIRST in the FREE world, will it not?”

My thanks to the many kind readers who declined to call me to task. My pro-Hillary exuberance overwhelmed my fragile memory. How could I have written that (above) when I knew full well Golda Maier (a Milwaukee school teacher) served Israel so well as its Prime Minister? Nor can we ever forget the now elevated Lady Margaret Thatcher, a life appointee to the House of Lords, the longest serving PM in the UK’s 20th century? Known both affectionately and respectfully as the “Iron Lady.”

Many other countries have had - Germany has a woman PM now - either the Prime Minister or the President positions filled by women. And while speaking of women who served their country so well, I cannot leave this reflection without mentioning the goddess of all goddesses, the FIRST Queen Elizabeth, daughter of the incredible and sometimes irascible King Henry VIII.

When England was threatened by the greatest Armada assembled till then, she spoke to her soldiers and sailors thusly: “ . . I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that [the Duke of] Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm . .” from Elizabeth's speech at Tilbury, 1588.

And now the LAST words on Queen Elizabeth spoken by her implacable foe and most vocal opponent: “She is certainly a great Queen and were she only a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look how well she governs! She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the [Holy Roman] Empire, by all . . Our children would have ruled the whole world.” Pope Sixtus V, late in 1588.
englishhistory.net...

posted by SpeakerofTruth
I personally view Obama a much more viable candidate than either Hillary or Edwards. While it is true that there is not much to base this on, given that Obama has only been a senator for one term, I just personally don't feel comfortable with either Hillary or Edwards. It really doesn't matter to me. I am not likely to vote for any of the candidates that the Democrats have vying for the nomination . . *Shrug*

I guess readers wish I would but I never skip an opportunity to stress the significant difference between government which is permanent and administrations which come and go. All too often we are critical of the performance of this or that administration but we carelessly bad mouth the government. We have thoughtlessly mixed these pronouns for so long that those among us with ulterior motives have conned us into voting to abolish government which we cannot do, rather than to replace an administration which we are now once again afforded the opportunity to do. In short, we have shot ourselves in the foot.

We do ourselves a great disservice if we are not aware that the Reagan Revolution gave us the lead in toy’s paint, e. coli in our imported lettuce and in our ground beef, and the total incompetence by FEMA at Katrina - costing us billions in money wasted - and WORST it is giving us the sub-prime mortgage meltdown which is pulling down our economy and could end up costing us little taxpayers a HALF TRILLION DOLLARS. Every failure I’ve just mentioned - and 1000s more I have not - like airlines NOT performing the required safety inspections - are the direct result of A) deregulating that which must always be controlled, and or B) reducing the staff of the Federal bureaucracy so that it cannot do its assigned job. The privatizing of our government.

[edit on 4/3/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

It's difficult for me to believe Clinton is running short on cash. She just has too many well-heeled backers I would think. Sounds more like just a plea to shake even more cash loose from her fellow Democrats. I don't expect Hillary to give up until I go ice skating in Hell.

The BIG money boys are not sentimentalists. They are strictly pragmatic. They do not throw good money after bad. They take their losses and move on. Obama is on a roll. He is riding the PERFECT wave. Hillary must show her resilience by April 22 or she will be expected to toss in the towel.

PA demographics - western PA anyway - are much like Ohio’s. She did real well in Ohio but barely broke just above even in Texas, losing most of the delegates to Obama. She must carry PA like she carried OH or she is dead meat. I love Hillary. I voted for her in FL but now, I’m for Obama. He has the IMAGE of CHANGE AGENT the public seems to want. That’s my take.

I think that if Obama wins, the public will be shocked at the change they get.
It won't be for the better, be sure.

reply to post by TheAvenger

I think that if Obama wins, the public will be shocked at the change they get.
It won't be for the better, be sure.

Well, Mr T/A, I've been trying to think how it could possibly be WORSE than the last 8 years of mal-governance we have experienced under the First Designated President. AWOL from the Air Guard, he has been AWOL from exercising the duties of the high office he "fell" into. He said he would be a UNITER but instead he was always a divider; he says HE is the decider, but he has made more stupid decisions than the law ought to allow. "Mission Accomplished!" Followed by "Hey, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" A stage show at Annapolis.

No Mr T/A, I'm not worried about Barack. If he can find W-DC, he will be several orders of magnitude ahead of his predecessor. IMO.

[edit on 4/3/2008 by donwhite]

Time will tell. Things can always be worse than they are in America today. Many have a different opinion than you do. After so many years of listening to the Bush haters here on ATS, I can hardly wait to tear into whatever poor excuse becomes our next President, whatever party they come from. I still read the raving fanatics that keep claiming that martial law will be declared and Bush will stay on. Support your candidate, though admittedly, you have changed. I will support the other side, so we cancel each other's votes anyway.

The real truth is, no one is running for President this cycle. There is no good choice, only the lesser of evils.

[edit on 4/4/2008 by TheAvenger]