Blog powered by Typepad

« The bonfire | Main | Thanks for the memory »


Hillary/mc Cain. Hillary has too many negatives. The repubs only wish she would have won the demo nomination. The repubs would have come out of the woodwork to vote against her and donate money. Whoops never say never.

Now the repubs will have to play the race card like the white blonde woman seducing the black candidate Ford in Tennessee on video. After that video his poll numbers dropped faster than the American dollar.

And of course the pastor card where a pastor let his ego and facts get the best of him. Oh the ego provides the world with such drama that our imaginations could not begin to imagine. I mean a black pastor costing a black candidate the presidency?

Obama ran an effective campaign so it would be interesting to see how he would work out as a president. He gives great speeches and as a former presenter and keynote speaker I admire his ability to move large audiences. It is much harder than it looks.

A black man as president in my lifetime. Would love it. What tremendous racial progress we would have made since the 1960’s.

“It would be cool, though. Really cool. It might even get people believing in politics again.”

You must mean that Clinton displays the high principles, idealism, sound judgement and sense of honour necessary to become a member of the Republican Party. Right?

If Hillary is put on the ticket then we will have at least one candidate who will live up to the same high quality of character that we have come to expect from our elected officials.

"First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in... [The White House travel office controversy]."

"The White House travel office controversy, often referred to as Travelgate,[1] was the first major scandal of the Clinton administration. It began in May 1993, when seven longtime employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after a brief investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The White House said the action was due to financial improprieties in the office operation. Critics said the actions were done to allow friends of the Clintons to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.

Investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel all took place over the subsequent years. Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty at trial in 1995. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it."

MP wrote:

"It would be cool, though. Really cool. It might even get people believing in politics again."

The funny thing is, my reaction would be the complete opposite...

Kind regards,

I'm not so sure. We would have one guy who says that he wouldn't mind being in Iraq for 100 years and a woman who is 20 million dollars in debt and enough political baggage to sink Greenland. Personally, I am so fed up with this senseless and illegal war and the fact that I never once was able to vote on a general election ballot without it having a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket. If that isn't a dynasty, I am not sure what it.

And one has to wonder, if McCain is for the Bush policies, including his tax cuts for the wealthy, the Iraq war, and other issues that Clinton is saying she opposes, what would be the point of voting that ticket as a Democrat or left leaning Independent other than one *likes* Hillary better?

Just my opinion though. Something to think about I suppose.



Hillary switches positions whenever it's expedient, so switching parties wouldn't be that big of a leap. But rather than getting people believing in politics again, I think it would present Obama with a perfect contrast to the Washington insiders. He'd also get to tell us what he really thinks about HRC. SNL's parody Saturday was probably closer to the truth than we know.

Still, it might be McCain's only hope, though he did nix the idea on The Daily Show last week. There were two articles yesterday that addressed the GOP's challenges this fall. Politico looked at>broad national polling numbers that bode extremely poorly for the Republicans, and RCP had a piece that measured the>national climate at the moment, speaking to Republican political historian Richard Norton Smith, who 'thinks 2008 is shaping up not only as a narrow defeat for the GOP but a decisive "repudiation."'

If Obama does secure the nomination, I would expect him to move to more centrist positions as the general approaches, and I think he'd govern from a more centrist position as well. If Obama wins the general, I think the right wing will discover that he's not as scary as they fear, and the left wing will be disappointed that he's not pushing for full bore socialism. The reasonable among of us might discover some respect for government again.

Some one's gonna win, his already been decided :-)

“disappointed that he's not pushing for full bore socialism.”

And the euro is worth what to the dollar? And what countries have universal health care? Oh the power of the media and government to alter peoples perception. Keep people in fear best way to control them. Best kept secret in America capitalism has to self-destruct. At least the Reagan economic type. Look close at spiritual “laws” (i.e. realities) and it becomes self evident why this is so.

Reagan was also a great communicator and that worked out well. Sold (pure genius) the American middle class on the trickle down theory, deregulation, and free trade now much of that same middle class whine like babies. They want to blame Reagan for their own ignorance. Kind of a human thing.

I was a friend in the sixties with people that worked for Reagan “Dutch” so I know the man and his beliefs far better than most of his followers. You don’t want to know what I know. Make Hillary look like a saint. Well kind of. Told you she had negatives read the comments on here.

From my point of view it matters not who wins. A country in decline or advancement is more about cultural and societal paradigms than who wins elections.

This country is divided on most issues but one. Americans still want to police the world and be a super power with military bases all over the world with an industrial military complex that outspends I have read all other industrialized countries combined. Oh the price of imperialism.

The dollar is falling faster than mc Cain’s ability to flip flop. Here in Arizona he is well known for being one of the Keating Five. Hey that deregulation of the savings and loan banks which mc Cain supported (and four others including demos) worked well only cost the taxpayers about 124 billion.

Hey the bear sterns bailout only cost the taxpayers 30 billion. More deregulation at work.

Darn this comment is way too long and I still have not mentioned the wonderful benefits of privatizing our military. I.e. mercenary army. Or the wonderful benefits of privatizing our medical care and be ranked 35th in the world and spend twice as much per person as other industrialized countries. I.e. 47 million without health care.

Now the good news. The saving grace called karma. History provides us with living proof of the power of karma even for countries. Karma is giving us the message (feedback) but are we listening.

There is no way Hillary is going to accept being VP. She's coming out of the reflected glory of being first lady and the spotlight of being a senator, VP's are where politicians go to die.

Why do people lump the Bushies and Clintons together as a dynasty. The dynasty is twelve years of George I and eight with George the idiot. Eight years of Bill and then eight years without a Clinton on the ticket hardly makes them a part of a dynasty spanning 28 years. Nor is it a rivalry similar to the Pitts and Foxes, it does come close to Gladstone and Disraeli.

Still, it might be McCain's only hope

Funny, I see it exactly different. From my perspective, the election is McCain's to lose. The Electoral College math seems to bear this out - though of course anything can happen between now and November.

FYI, a more detailed analysis of the Electoral College math is here. Money quote:

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year ...

Of course the situation is fluid, and the lead will doubtless change and change again, but as of now all signs point to a convincing McCain victory - with or without Hillary on the ticket!

Darn it, the last two comments were mine.

Time will tell, MP. The one thing that is certain is how unreliable polling done in May can be by the time the general election rolls around.

I think Obama may be more formidable than the GOP currently believes. His message of change may ring hollow with some, but I think he's found the pulse of the country with it. He's also developed an amazing organization, and is still to introduce himself to much of the general electorate.

If someone would have suggested six months ago that Barack Obama would dump the Clinton machine, few would have believed it. So . . . I guess we'll know in another six months.!

"but as of now all signs point to a convincing McCain victory "

I agree with you Michael. Throw in a little fear mongering and war rattling and religious self righteousness and Americans have shown time and time again they will line up to vote for you.

Ike warned us what would happen in his final speech to Americans. Go figure a republican and a five star general understood and predicted our future if we did not detune our industrial military complex after World War II.

I am not sure Ike foresaw corporate media being institutionalized in America. Control the media control the minds.

Also the economy is doing well and gas prices are low so that should help mc Cain. Watch the gas prices start to drop two months before the election.

The Clintons sure underestimated obama. My money is on the white guy even the right wing talk show host in Florida with a huge white male following is singing all he wants is a white Christmas.

Mc Cain has flip flopped more in this past year then Kerry did on his wind sail. God my humor is dry maybe it is because I live in the desert.

I have this theory and others have had it also if a person “wants” to be president that automatically disqualifies them for the job.

When I was young Americans looked for that commie under their beds each night now they look for that terrorist or socialist. No better way to control a populace than fear.

The world looks insane but I suspect within that perceived insanity is soul development at its peak. Think about it the American taxpayer actually pays Israel 5 billion dollars per year not to attack Egypt and they only pay Egypt 3 billion not to attack Israel and Carter won a Nobel peace prize for that.

Hillary and John MCain? if and I hope not! she somehow manages to win the nomination for the democrates I can only imagine what boring debates they will share.. since like you said Michael, she is more like MCain that not, in the same old status quo without change. Obama lights the imagination to a change and its what we need at a time like this with prices going up everywhere because of the price at the pump and so on ...too depressing to even consider her winning or on anyone's ticket with her dealings and sordid husband for starters.

I happened to catch the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart last night (I think we get it a few days late, here in the UK). His guest was McCain and Stewart told him that he should have Hillary as his running mate. This was right after McCain had announced who he had actually selected (sorry, I can't remember the name - it wasn't familiar to me).

If you want the opinion of an outsider (though probably not typical, even for an Englishman): I don't trust Clinton; indeed, I think she would be dangerous. I remember when Margaret Thatcher manufactured a war to boost her popularity (war makes great headlines in our xenophobic press), and I think that Mrs. Clinton is capable of something like that too. I think McCain is honest though still far too far to the right (what's his stand on gun control?). Is he dangerous? I don't see him as being quite so dangerous as GWB or Hillary Clinton.

I haven't yet seen enough of Obama. First impressions are favourable but then, so were my initial impressions of Tony Blair and a few years later I found myself marching through the streets of London with a million others in protest against his support for Bush and his Oil War.

MP wrote:

"FYI, a more detailed analysis of the Electoral College math is here. Money quote:

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year ...

Of course the situation is fluid..."

Hi MP,

Very fluid...if you follow the link from that shamelessly pro-GOP article to the "latest 4-day results" from Rasmussen, you'll find that the April 14th article you referenced is now badly out-of-date. The new 4-day results give the Presidential election to...Obama. ;) (as of 13th May 2008, as I write, at least!!).

Not that I'd trust it all very much - the Electoral College poll link you posted as well features wildly conflicting data...sometimes 20% swings over the course of a week.

All in all, nothing to see here I think, unless you're looking for something to fit your beliefs. We won't know much for sure until late in the year I think.

On a tangent - what odds do you think for Edwards being the Obama running mate? Very white man (to appeal to all those racists out there), seems to have a similar line to Obama's "change in Washington" pronouncements.

Kind regards,

what odds do you think for Edwards being the Obama running mate?

Zero. Edwards failed to carry a single southern state as Kerry's running mate. And he went nowhere in the primaries this year.

Now if Obama were to choose John Edward, things might get interesting ...

(Only kidding, folks.)

Dave c guess you did not catch the part where mc Cain sang bomb bomb Iran or the statement about being in Iraq 100 years. Hillary did say if Iran nuked Israel America would wipe out Iran. This is interesting as Israel has 300 nukes of its own and could wipe out Iran all on its own. Unless of course Iran got a first big strike in.

There are such great profits and power and possible legacy in wars. They are hard for many ambitious politicians to turn down. There is so much money in military contracts one government contractor threw a 10 million dollar one day party for his teen daughter.

My lasting picture of bush jr will be him dancing on the white house steps while waiting for mc Cain. Just remained me of something I had seen in movies where a leader in Rome did something similar while Rome burned.

My take on the election this year is that the temperament question is the most important question. It seems to me that we're in Iraq at this moment because the entire country - Congress, Press, Administration and citizenry - was in a highly reactive state of mind following 9/11. As unpopular as the war is at this moment, it was broadly supported at the time the action was taken.

So this is how I see it: Collective reactivity got us into this mess, and all the screaming that's going on now is just more reactivity. Problems aren't solved from the level they're created. Reading this thread, as well as the threads at the political sites is a sobering reminder of everyone's grandfather's advice: Never discuss politics and religion. What isn't widely understood about this homily is that doing so sends most people into a reactive state of mind.

Of the three candidates, Obama appears to easily be the coolest head among them. Newsweek has a new>piece in this week's issue that speaks to how he's taken everything in stride to this point, and I see this as a strong indicator of what his administration would look like. McCain's a decent man who I believe means well, but his temper's well documented. The Washington Post had a long article addressing that last month.

There are numerous issues facing the next president, both foreign and domestic. The election this year will be clearly defined. The GOP will attempt to arouse the fears of the electorate and maximize reactivity, while Obama will appeal to the better angels of our nature while bringing as "many people as possible into the tent", as the NYT profile mentioned Sunday. (I'll add that he can't do that without moving to the center on policy). The winner will ultimately reflect the state of mind that the electorate wants to represent the country going forward. I'd hope that people are cognizant of that, even before considerations of policy positions. It's also what the international community should pay the most attention to in regards to the results.

"Why do people lump the Bushies and Clintons together as a dynasty."

I understand that people have issues with the word 'dynasty'. Of course there have existed much longer family ruled situations in the past. I would argue that, because the ideal of American democracy/republic choice, the standard is much lower in terms of a concentration of family power. But I am willing to drop the term and exchange it for 'gross concentration of power' or something similar. Perhaps it is for the fact that I am 28 and not once seen a general election ballot without the two names. If Clinton would have won then that would mean that I would have to be 32 or even 36 before this may change.

Either way, I think Bill Clinton did a lot of good. The 90's were great economically, but so much of that was the dot com boom.

Like I always say, I could be wrong. But like other people, I feel that something is happening in this country. And predicting anything for the fall, before the general election begins, is a bit hasty. By most predictions a 6 months ago, it was a given that Clinton would be the nominee.

"It seems to me that we're in Iraq at this moment because the entire country - Congress, Press, Administration and citizenry - was in a highly reactive state of mind following 9/11."

It appears to me that Iraq was on the table long before 9/11. Oil is like black gold. It will become a very limited resource. This war was not about WMD's or toppling a dictator and bringing democracy to a country. It was about the future availability of oil.

I see the election as a clash of paradigms. Shall we as a country stick with what brought us here or change our paradigm. If the dems cannot win in nov with what has occurred the last seven or more years maybe they should consider throwing in the towel as an disorganized party.

Who was it that said, “I don’t belong to any organized party, I am a democrat”?

A paradigm shift is a rare thing. Usually a very significant emotional event must happen to even consider changing our personal or national paradigm. What I find interesting is that it appears that spiritual laws are even in effect for a country.

It is a delicate balance when creating an economic system that is fair and balanced for all but yet has as its underlying reality love and compassion. Russia has had to change its direction as they were creating billionaires but not much for the middle class. Gorby wanted German style socialism not American style capitalism. This is why Putin has a 70 per cent approval rating.

Reagan was pure genius on selling Americans on the trickle down theory, deregulation, and open free trade. Most Americans bought it lock stock and barrel. Even most demos bought into this fallacy. Mc Cain was part of the buying into that fallacy by supporting the deregulation of the saving and loan banks and then they went belly up. Who bailed them out? The taxpayer. Now the housing industry. Corporate and personal Greed can overwhelm the rational mind.

I suspect outside observers from other countries have a much clearer picture of America and its policies than we who are in the middle of the forest. Any country that claims to be the wealthiest country on earth and ranked 35th in health care may want to challenge their existing paradigm on what can be or should be privatized.

This is an absolutely great idea. Hillary and John vs Obama. It makes sense to me. They get along. The war issue can be dealt with. Maybe they can speed up the getting out and reserving just a few troops. That might have to be Hillary's concession, but on abortion, even though Hillary has voted for not changing the laws, she is for zero abortion. They'd get the female vote, return the Rep's who were crossing over to vote for Hillary and they'd teach the Dems who are disinfranchasing Florida and MI folks a lesson. I like the idea and I'd vote for the two of them together.

The comments to this entry are closed.