January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

An internal fight in the Democratic Party that could leave a bad taste in the mouth of some Democrat supporters. Here is one argument

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
Then we have this: CNN video: Paul Begala on Clinton Dropping Out: It’s About As Likely As Monkey’s Flying Out My Butt

http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=1094
Of course there is the the Obama controversy with his minister that lingers in the background that may influence upcoming state Democratic races to empower Senator Clinton.

However, the Democratic Party isn't stupid nor unaware of these factors and desire to end the madness by July in order for the party to come together. Current polls indicating McCain's popularity will be ancient history after a Democratic nominee is selected. By August the press, the Democratic Party and much of the nation will be rallying around either Hillary or Obama as much of the conservatives have rallied behind McCain that was despised by mainstream conservatives just weeks ago. The momentum of the transition to support for the nominee will be the economy and the new problems in Iraq.

I feel the only way voter support for Republicans to include congress would be lower gas prices, no bad news from Iraq and a soaring economy. I predict the opposite will be reality by Nov. and as a result we should see a left-sided landslide. The ironiacy is that winning may be a real problem for the Democratic Party since the problems identified will not be corrected in the next four years and could end up looking like the President Carter administration where congress and the people could hardly wait to see him gone. This could cause a large turnover of seats in congress in 2010 and set up a Right-Sided Landslide in 2012.

Questions for debate:

Please explain how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house if you disagree with what I've stated?

Could the nomination of Senator Clinton reduce the Democratic Party's momentum?

How could the momentum for Democratic landslide in Nov. be stopped?

1) As far as the White House, I see your prediction going wrong right now. Hillary is stepping in it daily--the lies about the sniper fire, the combative demeanor, amd the historically high negative factor are all big problems.

Obama is now being exposed for the socialist/Marxist/black power advocate that he really is.

His long and intimate involvment with far left activists, and his relationship with his "Black Liberation Theology" pastor, are big problems and they are not going away. For weeks, he refused to disown Wright but did distance himself from selected comments Wright made; he has said he was like an "old uncle"; but, yesterday on The View Obama changed his tune and said that if Wright had not retired, he would have had to leave the church. Of course, the sermons which have been seen on video are from 2001 and 2003---this seems very disingenuous and may well hurt him with black voters, as well as whites.

Wright's "disappearance" from the public eye and his cancellation of all public appearances is suspicious--clearly, the campaign doesn't want Wright any where near a camera or a microphone. This is not going unnoticed.

Frankly, the Dems have two dogs for candidates, and both have some fleas.

McCain, on the other hand, goes to Europe and the Middle East, looks very presidential, gives a wonderful foreign policy speech that surely appealed to moderate Americans as well as our allies, and he speaks with an authority the Dems lack. McCain will pick a VP with great economic credentials and that will help him a lot and should have no negatives.

Obama or HC may pick a retired general or admiral as a VP, and that may help them with their huge war/foreign policy deficit, but any general or admiral that does not advocate running fast from Iraq will undermine Obama's credibility, as he has been promising a quick exit all along. Heck, Obama's even picking a retired military man may hurt him among the young, idealistic voters he appeals to.

I think McCain can win, at least in popular vote (hard to say about electoral vote tallies). His poll numbers v HC or Obama are favorable. He'll get the Reagan Democrats and his Repub core, especially since he has now come out in favor of the Bush tax cuts. See the link below for latest poll numbers:

"Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 41% (see recent daily results). McCain is now viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s reviews are 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable (see recent daily results). "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

2) Yes, but Obama's poll numbers have been dropping, too, against McCain. Both candidates have growing negatives and Obama's negatives will keep becoming manifest with each bomb the HC campaign throws from now until the convention.

3) I think the Dems will keep control of Congress; I do not think they'll win the Presidency.

I don't disagree but our system would seem to crave balance. I would expect that if there were just a couple of media worthy stories, exposing scandal, that hit the press Republicans could gain a majority easily. Baring that, they would have to come up with either a tax relief strategy or come out with loyal opposition to left wing agendas. With Clinton in office it's pretty easy, they would simply oppose universal health care. With Obama it might be kind of tricky, his agenda would seem to be to start exiting Iraq immediately.

Bottom line, it's the economy stupid. If a Democrat President can't fix it the party will suffer loss in the Congress. If they do then I don't see a lot of backlash.



No, Clinton has brought a lot of attention and drama to the race so far, she is capable of a lot more.



McCain would have to actually start saying something. This is the perfect time for him to pitch his agenda for all it's worth. If he doesn't do that then it's over by July. He needs to be getting vocal and I don't mean a whistle stop tour. He needs to be on Nightline, NPR, CNN and every talk show in the world that will have him. He needs a voice and if he waits till the Democrat candidates are through with one another it is going to be too late



Not for me it's not, it's politics the way I like politics, down and dirty. If you want to run for office they will sling mud and get in the closet and rattle them bones. Clinton has emerged from these controversies stronger then ever. Don't you realize that about the Clintons, they thrive on this sort of thing.



That's news to me and frankly, you are doing a very poor job of pushing your hyperbole. For one thing you are begging the question on your hands and knees. I guarantee that with Obama in office the economy will start to correct itself because this pro status quo agenda that Republicans are so infatuated with doesn't work.



You seem a little short on specifics, what are the particulars and why was there no link to these speeches. I don't know what, 'Black Liberation Theology' is. Enlighten me, educate me, inform me and show me the substantive proof that there is such a thing and it's on the Obama agenda.


I'm not suspicious of people who don't like negative press, you ask me it's perfectly natural. This sounds like rhetoric but I'll happily play along since you seem so determined.



So going to Europe makes one look 'Presidential', why did the other candidates not think of that I wonder. Now, this supposed foreign policy speech may well be very important. If it's so important then you could share a few of the particulars.



I have no idea what you are talking about here, they are both Senators. They'll pick another professional politician as their running mate.



You source seems a bit slanted:

"Obama's advantage over McCain is the bigger one in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, a 12-point lead compared to Clinton's 6-point edge."

POLL: Obama and Clinton Lead McCain; Change vs. Experience Is the Roadmap



That's an opinion, we all have one and we all use our own.



I think they will have both and the economy will finally get fixed. Bush has left the economy in a mess and the only solution is to vote Democrat in November. The polls would indicate that Americans will do exactly that.

Both set of points are taken but most politics are local when it comes to selecting congress. Many of the more conservative newbie Democratic House members haven't delivered much and could be defeated. Yet their agenda will not be allowed to be brought forward by the Democratic leadership so it isn't their fault. In the case of Republicans in the House and Senate they will be painted as obstructionists, especially in the Senate and there there is a distinct possibility that losses could result to the point that they could not obstruct. If Republicans can only hold 39 seats in the Senate the rules will allow the majority to rocket through any agenda they like.

If I were Senator McCain I would volunteer to join in with the Democratic candidates in upcoming debates since they answer his position individually without a chance to have a direct debate to weigh positions, such a debate would be quite interesting leading up to the PA race.

Things that could change things drastically could be out of control of any of the candidates such as Iran being more involved in Iraq or Al-Qaeda striking Western Europe or the Vatican. These type actions could be a double edged sword for those concerned about war verses those emphasizing peace and domestic agendas. Again, these factors could influence the value of the dollar and the cost of oil and, of course our economy. Al-Qaeda undoubtedly is keeping it's powder dry and is planning to spill a lot of American blood in Iraq leading up to the election to encourage a defeat for America with least investment of a ongoing day by day attacks.

Here's how I see it.
1st The voting system is rigged so ONLY a REP or DEM can win,
So say if all of America came to their senses and "Tried" to voted out the REPDEM Duopoly
it still would not happen. The E.C. is free to vote how ever they want. So which ever party has the
most E.C. members they will win. Even if 51% of Americans voted for R.Paul or Nader ect.. a REP or DEM
candidate would still win (assuming R.Paul is a 3rd party, because the GOP doesn't like the Constitution).

2nd. Bush and Co. has done so much damage to America I can not see how it is posible for REPUB party
to win this time around! It seems near impossible! Is all the DEMS have to do is keep quite and show up!
"BUT" we are talking about the DNC! This parties platform is so bad that it lost to Bush ! Twice !!!!!
So with that in mind I am not too sure that they won't loose again !

A gentlemanly response, really not what I was expecting. Ok, you seem to be directing your comments to the Congressional race. I'm sure you are well aware that the tendency is for the balance to shift in Congress when a President is elected. Our system craves balance, it's as simple as that. I can still remember when Tip O'Neal was always the majority leader and there was no hope of Republicans getting a majority. Regan proved that a majority does not necessarily mean control and after Clinton there would seem to be a pendulum principle working where the Congress gets a majority of the opposing party. Democrats could buck this trend, if and only if, they can fix the economy. There would be consequences but we would all be better off but if they fail then you can expect a Republican majority in the following election in 2010.



That would be foolish, he should debate them from the cheap seats. What is more important is that he should be pushing his agenda with a vengeance, now, while opposition is minimal.



I'm confused, of course they would not be in control of a terrorist attack on the Vatican. As unlikely as to obviously is politicians are very adept at turning every negative into a positive. In the words of Madision they 'use every contingency for the accumulation of power'.



Al-Qaeda lost it's support from the Sunnis as a result of the Surge, that's not my opinion it's a fact. Terrorism is far from dead in Iraq but the way terrorists are defeated is the common person losses confidence. They should be considered murderers not heros and when that happens terrorism stops.

Are you using E. C. for evangelistic Christian? Regardless, let's let it represent conservatism or reluctance for change, and this reluctance exists in both main parties. Perhaps a really bad fight in one of the parties will cause a third party system to come forward in upcoming years? I don't think that will happen because most citizens are apathetic and only complain.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say damage, spending has definitely been a problem.

I think the Democratic Party is having an internal struggle for identity and the leadership desires to move far left based on leadership in the Senate and the House. Obama represents what the party leadership desires and that is why he has been marketed, practically invented in the 04 convention with the speech. He has no resume other than the speech, anti war speech and being black and able to walk and chew gum.



I agree that in the past a balance has been the norm however this political season is very unusual when you see the turnout for the candidates. I see Obama with masses of followers that would go to the poll and McCain with disciples and people scratching their heads, both groups would probably hit the polls mark an X on a D or R from dog catcher to President strait down the line.

My point about the debate is that the Democrats are getting all or 90% of the air time unless McCain somehow stumbles or is spoken to by a Democratic runner.

I guess time will tell about terrorism, Al-Qaeda in Iraq but I see outside elements entering from Saudi Arabia and Syria to stir things up and spill American blood just prior to the election, why because that is what I would do if one party is making a contract to end the war regardless. I can see scenes from the end of the Vietnam War with Americans leaving equipment behind from rooftops and I'm betting the terrorists share my vision.

It will hurt him in the long run but I think the GOP is gambling on the infighting in the Democratic party giving them a boost. It's not going to work, the Democrats will emerge stronger then ever.



Vietnam, like Korea was divided right down the middle. The North Vietnamese had a large, determined and seasoned Army. Iraq has insurgents and there is no way we are going to have to evacuate the embassy the way they did. An exit strategy is already in place, Obama would simply direct the military to step it up. By the way, the U.S. Military can move men and material at a level that staggers the imagination. Obama would not foolishly pull the plug but even if he did, we are far better at logistics then most people realize. My only real concern is that as troop levels go down control of vital areas like Baghdad will loosen and the remaining troops would be at greater risk.

McCain has no money nor do the rest of the Republicans running for office, the landslide will happen as you say if the Democratic Party can pull together early enough. Personally, I think Obama has to step down or be somehow removed from the race while leaving his supporters loyal to the party to have an overwhelming victory in Nov. The Rev. Wright thing will haunt him and the party if he doesn't disappear from the race, there are simply too many independents that will refuse to vote for him not to mention the old folks now voting for Hillary.

On the same line of thought it is Hillary that is setting hard dates to get out of Iraq. I think she did this only for the Democratic race and would move to the center in the general election. I was guessing that is why she hasn't apologized for voting in support of the restart of hostilities with Iraq. I think President Bush, McCain, Obama and Hillary all have the same exit strategy from Iraq if they would and could come clean. The President has repeatedly stated that as they stand up we'll stand down and if you go to the Whitehouse.gov web site and view his position and then visit all persons sites running for his vacancy you will find all have a very similar position with the exception of Hillary. I would guess that Hillary's position would come in line shortly after she is the nominee for the party.

There is no way to leave Iraq easily, there is no simple way that Iraqi security can fill the security now being provided by the US. This is why McCain used the statement of 100 years, he's saying almost the same thing as Obama or Bush, our troops move away from direct combat and into support position as the Iraqi military gains ability. The Iraqi government doesn't have the structure to support the bullets and beans but will be able to develop it following a period of peace rather quickly. The problem for there to be a peace the people have to share in the wealth of the nation's resources fairly for a period. With limited resources to allow the structure of the military and police force to be firmly established delays will continue for a mature force to exist that can stand alone. We are talking of non-combat supply and support for some time along with a reserve combat force to assure a neighboring nation doesn't interfere with the developing weak nations situation. Iraq's nearest neighbor has an over sized military structure and has influence in the other neighbor Syria with the Hezbollah force that is actively trying to overtake the government of Lebanon not to mention the fear of Nuclear weapon development. There simply isn't an easy way out.

The idea of just putting blinders on and pulling out regardless of what happens in the rear view mirror is political and economic suicide. It the area has a security vacuum the neighbors within the entire region will fill the void to assure Iran doesn't become larger. The neighbors see Iran's power capable of taking Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel if there is a power vacuum and they will do everything in their power to see this doesn't happen. America should do the same since our interests in the region is primarily world oil supply, terrorism and support for our ally Israel. Should a regional war break out world oil could cripple the US if Iran closed the gulf to punish Saudi Arabia or other nations that would involve themselves in Iraq's internal struggle.

Had we spent the trillion dollars on alternative energy that we have spent in the region then perhaps we could live without worrying about those millions of barrels that wouldn't be on the world market but we didn't and the reality is the American people will demand military force is returned to the ME to return the ME oil to the world and end the lines at our gas stations where citizens would fight over $10.00 a gallon gas on odd even days.

Please explain how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house if you disagree with what I've stated?

The Republican Party could gain seats in Congress by allowing the Democratic Party to continue ignoring Congressional races. They could take the White House by allowing the Democratic Party to nominate Barack Obama to be their candidate. In short, the GOP has to do nothing but maintain a low profile for the next few months. As should be apparent to any political observer, if anyone can screw up a sure thing, it's the Democratic Party.

Could the nomination of Senator Clinton reduce the Democratic Party's momentum?

No. Her nomination would only reduce Barack Obama's chimeric momentum. If she were the candidate (and the party got behind her, as they would), the party's momentum would continue unabated - and she would win.

How could the momentum for Democratic landslide in Nov. be stopped?

By the Democrats nominating Sen. Obama. Once Obama is nominated (and I think Bob Casey's endorsement could well be the final nail in Clinton's coffin), the GOP and its 527s will pull out all the stops in attacking Obama - and there's a lot of ammunition out there. By the time the Republican Noise Machine is through with him, he'll be an interesting footnote to US history. If there's any kind of military engagement with Iran between now and November (and if Obama pulls ahead of McCain in the polls, there will be), Obama will be lucky to carry Illinois.

Obama's only chance is to keep the GOP guessing until late August (and pray that Bush doesn't start bombing Tehran), so Clinton is probably doing him a favor by remaining in the race as long as possible. But in the unlikely event that Obama were to win the presidency, his first two years would be disastrous (through no especial fault of his own - he'd be confronting the catastrophic problems created by eight years of the Bush administration, without the wherewithal to contend with any of them) and the GOP would easily regain the Senate and the House in 2010 (probably by double digits). Either way, it's bad news for the Democratic Party - and bad news for the USA.

Frankly, at this point, I think the best Democratic strategy would be to let McCain win - force another Republican to deal with the grim neocon legacy - and make massive gains in Congress in 2010, which could secure both houses for them for a generation. Plus, as an added bonus, the failed presidency of John McCain could spell the end of the GOP as we know it. Maybe that is the strategy of the DNC - and maybe that's why they'll let Obama have the nomination. The risk, of course (and it's a severe one) is that President McCain could end up destroying not just his party, but the entire country. It's not a risk I'd be willing to take, but I'm not a Democrat.


Zack: I think NoMoreRepsDems was using "E.C." for "electoral college". It took me a second read to figure out he wasn't referring to the European Community/Commission/Council.

I missed the point of you abbreviation of meaning Electoral College. I fail to understand where you conclude the GOP doesn't like the Constitution? The Constitution in its original version without amendments meaning was a Social Darwinist document. The rich white guys picked the rich white guy they thought would be the best leader of the United States. They formed the Electoral College to assure the citizens didn't select the wrong person for President. Keep in mind that voting was limited to property owners, in the south few small property owners voted in federal elections, in the north, where religion was king voting was allowed down to a shoe shop owner. Note the selection of the Senate and the authority the President has over congress, if the President is selected by the E. C. and the Senate is selected by the most rich and powerful rich people in the states then you would conclude the House of Representatives had much less power then than now considering that the President could dismiss the Congress if the House and Senate disagreed with each other, he could call special joint sessions to use the rich white guys of the President and Senate against the House if he so desired. A mans worth was the wealth and power he held or Social Darwinism.

I don't understand why the Democratic Party is so ready to welcome Obama as their nomination either. Before the Rev. Wright thing I can understand but following it they have to be insane. They need to end the race after PA and nominate Hillary quickly if they hope to rally the base and sell the Democratic agenda to the independents. I wouldn't be a secret service guy protecting Obama for a million dollars a week in his liability status. I think if Hillary is nominated too late the Democrats will lose the election and congress. Israel will not allow Obama to put his hand on the bible in front of the Chief Justice in Jan. 09 if it takes taking out Iran nuke sites, I have no idea what the Democratic Party is thinking?

I don't know what your source is for this is Zack, but I don't think the framers enacted the theories of Englishman, Herbert Spencer and his American disciple William Graham Sumner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Graham_Sumner

Spencer and Sumner, widely regarded as the fathers of Social Darwinism, were born in 1820 and 1840 respectively - decades after the Constitution was adopted.

Further, the constitution is what is is, not what it was.

First of all if Obama has the most delegates in July he will get the nomination, probably through a brokered deal with Clinton. Then the race will consist of Obama making hamburger of McCain's rehash of the failed Bush domestic agenda, that's assuming he even had one. Obama has some strengths that I find impressive, one is that he has never taken money from PACs or Lobbyists. Where you at Ol' Ross? He will definitely go after McCain on the economy and McCain will simply talk in circles. Don't get me wrong, he has an honorable military record and his commitment to victory is commendable but America simply can't sustain troop strength at it's present level.

On foreign policy I don't see the Middle East as quite as unstable as it is often thought to be. While in Cutter. I got a 4 day pass while in Iraq and went to Pearl Island, I never seen anything like it.

QR1.5 billion in real estate snapped-up at Qanat Quartier Launch.

I seen this city being built from a boat and it's street after street of skyscrapers and a major metropolis literally being built from the ground up. Iran also has entirely too much to lose by going on some suicidal rampage, attacking it's neighbors or restricting traffic through the Persian Gulf. When looking at the Middle East don't believe that the images of a bunch of AK-47s is all there is. The Middle East could start an economic boom not unlike the one China has enjoyed for decades. In order to finally get this terrorism threat finally under control the Middle East has to diversify it's commerce and business interests and I expect they will do exactly that.

With Obama you will have an accelerated withdraw of American troops. It could be kind of rough on the Iraqis but they have know all along it was their country and they will have to take over their own security sooner or later, with a democrat in office it will be sooner. There is a danger to the economic interests as will as their security if we simply abandon them and al Qaeda finds safe haven there. I'm not a big Bush supporter and I have learned to be discerning about what he says but I think he has got a pretty good assessment here:

The Progress In Iraq Is Real, It's Substantive, But It's Reversible

Helping Iraqis defeat their enemies and build a free society would be a strategic victory that would resound far beyond Iraq's borders. If al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq after all the resources it has poured into the battle there, it will be a powerful blow against the global terrorist movement. If Iran is turned back in its attempt to gain undue influence over Iraq, it will be a setback to its ambitions to dominate the region. If people across the Middle East see freedom prevail in multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian Iraq, it will mark a decisive break from the long reign of tyranny in that region. And if the Middle East grows in freedom and prosperity, the appeal of extremism will decline, the prospects of peace will advance, and the American people will be safer here at home. Bush Press Office Fact Sheet

Sorry the EC is the Electoral College.
Bush has done so much just google it and take your pick.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...gal_challenges/

And nominating Hillary Clinton would be a screw-up of Biblical proportions. The only way Clinton can win is by cutting up Obama so deeply and drastically that he becomes politically emasculated and the superdelegates hand her the nomination by default. The consequences of that kind of dirty dealing would turn off millions of likely voters and would not be overlooked as a weapon by the Republicans.

The other line of attack Clinton faces if she does wrest the nomination from Obama is over how she does it. Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams called it "stealing" the nomination, and he'd be happy to tell voters all about the process that put Clinton over the top. "If she wins, it's because these non-elected delegates are going to be countering what happened in primaries and caucuses around the nation," he said. "I think that would be very divisive for them." Other Republicans say polls show independents don't like the thought of superdelegates picking a nominee who trailed in the elected delegate count. "The party that created the whole open primary system and ended the deals behind closed doors and smoke-filled rooms is the one that's kind of relying on that after all," Bolger said.

And just as attacks about misrepresentations in her primary campaign remind voters -- subconsciously, without anyone having to draw an explicit line -- about previous allegations of Clinton lies, the picture of Clinton emerging from a disputed Democratic convention as the nominee thanks to a handful of party insiders would play into old images of a power-hungry couple, too. "It's just the Clintons being the Clintons," Comstock said. "The '90s were good for the Clintons, but they weren't good for Democrats. They survived personally, but everywhere else Republicans prevailed." That overstates the case a little -- Democrats gained ground in the 1998 midterms, after Republicans impeached Clinton. But that won't stop the GOP from accusing Clinton of cheating to get the nomination if she does. link

Like it or not, there is a perception that for Hillary and Bill Clinton, it is perfectly acceptable if the Democratic Party loses just so long as they win. It may be Hillary Clinton might prefer to have a Republican-controlled Congress working against her presidency than a Democratic Congress working with President Barack Obama.



And how do you figure that Wertz?

Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off. link

Clinton is heading into George W. Bush approval territory and he's not running for president. What is your scenario that leads her to victory? Saying' it ain't doin' it and unless you prove it, I ain't believin' it.

If Hillary prevailed via a bloody fight on the convention floor in August and millions of disgusted Obama supporters turned away from her in revulsion, she would never be able to stitch together a coalition from the torn fabric of the party and still draw enough support from independents to make a credible run against McCain. If there are Clinton supporters who would rather see the Dems crash and burn in November than to vote for Obama, there are equally many Obama supporters who would return the favor if Clinton snatches the nomination away by underhanded means.

If Hillary were the Democrats nominee she would lead the party into a debacle of Mondale/Ferraro proportions (except Hillary might lose 49 states). Her negatives have gone higher, not lower. The more the American people see of Hillary the more they can't stand her. Being dissembling and disingenuous is not a character virtue.



If there's a lot of ammunition out there as you say, Wertz, what about Hillary? There's a munitions dump worth of stuff on her. Clintonistas like to say, "She's been vetted. The Republicans don't have anything new to throw at her." Oh, really?

Let's ignore for a moment the still-undisclosed tax returns, the refusal to identify what earmarks she's requested as a U.S. Senator, the misspeaking/lying about the Bosnia sniper fire, the heavy-handed arm-twisting by Billary that sent Bill "Judas" Richardson scurrying to the Obama side and the thuggish threats of Clinton supporters who wrote Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi and implied they would lock up their wallets if she didn't back off of Hillary and focus on instead what the GOP already has to beat her up with.

Republicans look at Obama and see someone who would be open to attacks because voters don't know him well enough. So do Clinton aides, who repeat over and over again on their daily press conference calls that Obama hasn't been vetted the way she has. But even in politics, there is such a thing as overexposure. Clinton may have precisely the opposite problem that Obama has.

"Hillary's very polarizing," one Republican consultant said. "There's no middle ground there." For 16 years, Clinton has been at the dead center of some of the country's most strident political battles, and most people seem to either love her or hate her. Stretching back a decade, her favorable ratings among voters nationwide have wobbled between the high 40s and the high 50s, while her unfavorable rating has hovered in the 40s since 2000. Republicans don't have much distance to cover to push that unfavorable figure above 50. Asked where Clinton might be vulnerable in the general election, GOP pollster Glen Bolger joked, "With voters."

Though many Democrats like and respect Clinton as a role model, an effective legislator and a fighter against a relentless GOP onslaught, the image Republicans would want in voters' minds this fall if she wins the nomination is far more sinister. They'll say Clinton will do or say anything to win, and that she can't be trusted (also, she'll raise your taxes). McCain's campaign will call her a liberal and paint her support for ending the war in Iraq as a surrender to terrorists (the same strategy the''d use against Obama). Clinton's problem is that many voters already see her in a negative light; there isn't much work Republicans would have to do to put her there. link

The Republicans have to ferret out dirt to raise Obama's negatives to a point where he becomes unelectable. With Clinton, the negative perceptions are already there and it won't take much of a push to turn her negatives from merely anemic to downright toxic. Obama will have the ability and advantage of being able to raise money on his own to fight back against the GOP smears and define himself with voters. Clinton, being an already known quantity (and likely to enter the general election as broke as John McCain) will have to redefine herself and attempt to convince the public she's something other than more a continuation of the same old Clinton-style politics that ended in the Nineties.

There's a whole generation of new voters that aren't familiar with Gennifer Flowers, Kathleeen Willey, Paula Jones and all the other "bimbo eruptions" that go with the first Clinton Administration. They were too young to read The Starr Report then, but they will read all about it now. We're going to see Monica Lewinsky and her thongs and semen-stained blue dresses all over the Internet. We're going to hear about those Lewinsky-flavored "good-tasting cigars" Bill liked to smoke as he chatted on the phone. The sins of the husband will be used to slime the wife and it will work.

As for Bush and Cheney bombing Iran before the election---that would spell certain doom to McCain's presidential hopes. Maybe Cheney could blow off the opposition of the majority of Americans to the war in Iraq with a dismissive, "so?" but McCain, as the proclaimed heir apparent of Bush's failed war on terror strategy would be hammered for the start of a new war while Iraq and Afghanistan drag on without any end in sight. If Bush is crazy enough to start a war in an election year he might as well hand over the keys to the Oval Office to Obama or Clinton now and beat the rush later.

The American voting public was sick of Bush's war in 2006 and it's doubtful they feel any better now in 2008. Long after Rev. Jeremiah Wright and what really happened on Hillary's Bosnia visit has faded from the spotlight like most media-manufactured "controversies" do, the real and genuine issue of an over-extended and stretched to its breaking point U.S. military will emerge again as an issue of importance all the candidates will have to stand up and be counted on. We know Obama and Clinton both want us out of Iraq with only their methods differing. We also know McCain wants to stay in Iraq until "victory" though he's slow on revealing what victory will look like or when the war might be over.



That is a doom-and-gloom scenario without a shred of evidence to support it, Wertz. No matter who wins The White House, they're going to have a bigger mess to clean up than the one the Clinton aides supposedly left behind. The damage done by The Bush Administration is going to take all the next four years of whomever his successor is and that's no joke. I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton possess the "wherewithal" to contend with the aftermath of the Bush fiasco any better than Obama. The sloppy way she's mismanaged and blundered through her presidential campaign gives no comfort her laissez faire style of "leadership" will be any solution.



Then, I hope you and Ralph Nader will both be very happy next January as you both sit on the couch watching McCain being administered the Oath of Office by Chief Justice John Roberts.

What kind of goofy "strategy" is it to allow a 71-year-old warhawk get his mitts on the nuclear launch codes? What is the plan behind allowing McCain to continue to ignore the health crisis in America, global warming, the collapsing dollar, the housing crisis and the other domestic issues beyond making the Bush tax cuts permanent? What kind of cunning scheme empowers four more years of Republican incompetence with the hope that it leads to their total collapse.

I don't know if you're playing a NCAA bracket, Wertz, but most basketball coaches would tell you it's not a good idea to spot the other team a 25-point lead with the hope they will get lazy and sloppy in the last two minutes and give you a chance to make a miraculous comeback. The same principle applies to playing dead in politics.

You can also be equally happy when the 71-year-old President appoints the replacements for the (soon to be) 88-year-old John Paul Stevens and the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court and provides the conservative majority the votes they need to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, no one knows how long David Souter (a relatively "young" man at 69 this September) will remain on the Court, though there are rumors he is frustrated with being in the minority. As a non-Democrat though, I'm sure you're not at all worried if John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are joined by a few more middle-aged like-minded jurists. The damage a far-right Supreme Court could do to the Constitution and the entire country could go beyond a generation.

Any Democratic strategy predicated upon John McCain winning with the hopes of building veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate is overly optimistic at best and dangerously naive at worst. With McCain as the Commander-in-Chief, it won't be a matter of "if" we'll bomb Tehran. It will be a matter of "when." Then we can all watch the Middle East become an extremely hot and hostile place to American interests, gas prices spiral upward, any prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians vanish like a mirage in the desert, the dollar crumble further in international markets, Al Qaida strengthened with a new influx of wannabee suicide bombers and terrorists and the military waging wars on three fronts.

Hey, as long as we're pushing worst-case scenarios, why half-step? Let the Republicans take control of all of Washington again and then when they louse it up the rest of the country will be so desperate for anyone without an "R" by their name, Roseanne Barr and Flavor Flav could run together in 2012 and cream any conservative in sight.

Of course, Nader and Wertz, won't have to care. After all, they're not Democrats so if the party spontaneously combusts, what's the big deal? There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties anyway, right? As long as we're spared the nightmare of "President Barack Obama" what else matters?

Well, it kind of matters to me if McCain wins and the gutless wonders that are the 2008 version of the Democratic Party remain the same spineless invertebrates they so frequently resemble and be cowed into meek submission that is their natural state. Without any semblance of checks and balances, McCain will take the 4,000 dead American soldiers and turn that into 5,000 and 6,000 dead in no short detail.

Far be it from me to interfere with any American's god-given right to make really awful decisions. I may vomit once or twice in the process but I will STILL vote for Hillary when push comes to shove. The stakes are too high for me to sit on the sidelines playing games with the lives of my own children and the children of complete strangers. To decide it is better to be complacent and allow McCain to come to power to continue the dangerous, disastrous and discredited policies of George W. Bush (and come up with a few scary ideas of his own) for at least another four more years than to vote for Obama who has no significant policy differences from Clinton, is an act of political spite and surrender that I do not pretend to understand.

Of course Social Darwin theory is a newer definition than existed at the time of the writing of the U. S. Constitution, I used it as a common term to define a reality that existed at the time. I could have used the pecking order but many would not think of Social Darwinist theory as clearly as they would had I used Social Darwin. Look at the document and the reality of the time, there was a conflict between the Federalist and the Anti Federalists resulting in the Bill of Rights and changes to the Constitution.

There are too many examples in the Constitution of a man's value is his wealth and power from slavery, indentured servants (white slaves) and property owning citizens. For example the right to a speedy trial, at the time wealth property owners were judges and in the agroeconomy many trials were put off until crops were safely stored when these "rich white guys" that owned the large properties had time to sit in judgement of the violators of law. There was the right of trial by jury of peers in front of these "rich white guys/wealthy property owners" that allowed people of equal status in life to decide fate of a fellow citizen based on reality on the ground.

The founders adopted common law, colony common law and of course did not dissolve grants from the King to wealthy property owners following the revolution and resulting creation of the nation.

Historians and social anthropologists in America and Great Britain agree that early America was based on a mans worth is his wealth and accomplishments and the freedom for any man to seek upward ability toward that goal.

All basic authorities have not changed in the Constitution, the Constitution is not a living document but has the flexibility to change within the rules established within the document.

The ME is very unstable, why is there a major weapons sale pending to Saudi Arabia? Sunni's in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and beyond see Iran as a problem not to mention the threats from within their own countries from religion based terror. Iran is much too powerful for only desiring to protect itself in the eyes of neighbors and the US. Why are we arguing with Russia about putting countermeasures in Western Europe? There is no easy way out as the President states it's reversable and the caos will involve so many competing forces it cannot be resolved from afar.

In my opinion if Obama is the nominee it will only happen after Hillary's last ditch effort late in the season and then every negative will convince the youth to not waste their time coming to the polls because all is lost. Obama's pastor loves Palestinians and hates Jews and this is a problem when you come to states like Florida and the other hate fill crap will turn off PA, OH and too many other critical Electoral College states to allow him to win. If Hillary is the nominee as a result of party selection at the cost of Obama late in the process she also could lose, but if something happens to Obama that allows Obama's supporters to support Hillary we will see a landslide that will redefine landslide.


We are at war and even the Supreme Court would support President Bush if he were challenged.

As the nomination race continues Clinton and Obama are getting friendly and focusing on the economy. Obama is leading with a slight lead in the delegates and while Clinton is ambitious she is still a realist, she will bow out gracefully when the time comes. What is more important Obama's pastor isn't running for President and Obama will certainly not be as friendly with Israel as Bush but I don't see him taking a stand in favor of Hamas and the Palestinian thirst for terrorist attacks. I don't see Clinton getting over the hump here but you can bet she isn't going to bow out unless she knows her agenda going forward. Bottomline for the Democrats is the economy, health care and bring the troops home from Iraq. They may have their differences but you can believe that McCain in the Oval Office he would do about the same thing as Bush has except he would probably be less effective. Neither of the Democratic candidates want that, in the end they will reunite the Democratic party and rally supporters in favor of the candidate who gets the nomination.

I really don't see a landside but my prediction is that Obama will win a strong race from McCain.

Zack, are you trying to impress us with nonexistent knowledge? Historians write of Social Darwinism as 19th century thinking, not 18th century. Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner and others attempted to tie Darwinian biological principles to social and economic systems.

Darwin himself was not born until 1809. He was 50 years old when he published his classic The Origin of Species in 1859.

Historians, like the late Richard Hofstadter, who wrote scholarly works about Social Darwinism, would roll on the floor laughing at your words.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-American-T...5497&sr=1-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Perhaps you need to find something more accurate to call the underpinnings of the founders' creation.

BTW: Please provide a source that agrees with your attempt to place Social Darwinism in the 18th century.

Based on Hillary's statements this weekend she has a long term plan that involves FL and MI. I think it is possible she will use a scorched earth to make Obama unelectable leading up to the upcoming primaries. She could drop one at a time like Obama's lies (using those words) followed by ties to corruption, followed by ties to Marxism and Communism and on and on. As the press runs with each individual bullet we will see Obama being embraced by the far left and voters turned off by the reality of the general election that Obama cannot win.


The very definition of Social Darwinism explains what I'm stating. Google those key words and select the Wiki link then select US.

The fact is, Zack, you aren't saying anything that makes sense in any context, regardless of how you label it.

Here’s one definition of Social Darwinism


http://www.businessdictionary.com/definiti...-Darwinism.html

Here is a link that gives seven different web definitions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...on&ct=title

None support what you are saying, or attempting to say. You are simply attempting to retrofit 19th century thought to the 18th century to support your thinking.

Now it’s your turn. Do not give me any more Google instructions. I have been here nearly four years and know how to do searches. Instead, find links that explain your position and post them with clear explanations of why they support your non-traditional interpretation or reinterpretation of history.

I have to agree with this scenario. I was just with a black friend with whom I have never previously discussed politics. He is so excited at the chance to vote for Obama. He is not a black liberation nationalist/socialist/whatever. He's just a black guy looking forward to the chance to vote for a black guy for the first time in history. I'm 90% sure that he won't even vote if Hillary is the nominee.

C-Whey


Damn... You don't have any White Obama supporters that won't vote for Hillary if she wins?? It's like this... Obama supporters in general are going to have a reason to not vote Hillary in. She didn't beat Obama to get the nomination... she manipulated people.

We are listening to her attempt to pretend that every vote counts in the case of Florida and Michigan. But yet.. she still agreed that they would not count, now she is making a big stink that they are not counting. Why would she do that?? Why woud she paint Obama as someone who is disenfranchising the voters.

She's trying to win the nomination and having the vote totals count in Michigan and Florida helps to bolster her case. Not counting them bolsters Obama's case - for the nomination, but there's a real poison pill there. It will hurt Obama in November should he become the nominee. Now, we may hear from entspeak about how this isn't really "disenfranchisement", and it's not according to the strict definition of that term, but that isn't going to mean anything to the Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida if they feel left out of the process. So, Obama is getting painted into a corner here by a very skilled Clinton political machine. It'll be interesting to see if he can get out of that corner.


Aquilla

Dude, I live in Illinois. There are plenty of Obama supporters of all colors and creeds. None of the white Obama supporters I know sang "yes we can" in my car though I think that loss of the black vote hurts Hillary in particular. The people in charge of "get out the vote" in the black community are mostly Obama backers. They aren't going to be as motivated to work hard, and the voters aren't going to be as motivated to listen. I don't think that the younger (mostly white) voters are as much of a risk, because I don't believe the youth vote is going to turn out *this time* like I didn't believe they were going to vote last time, or the time before that, or ...

According to this citizens didn't directly vote for the president in the original version of the Constitution, the President and Vice President were selected by the Electoral College. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...e#Original_plan

I will drop the definition I used but retain the obvious that a value of a man was placed on his holdings at the time. It is clear in so many parts of the Constitution. It was clear in voting rights of the time with limitations established by each state. Non property holders and debtors could not vote no more than slaves or women could vote. Let's call it the pecking order, regardless it was not intended that the average voter qualified citizen select the president or the senators.

Aquilla


Understood.... but the folks in Michigan and Florida knew their votes wouldn't count// efore they voted. Hillary knew... and obama knew it...

It only becomes a big deal as Hillary puts forth a scorched earth policy of accusing Obama as the one who is trying to disenfranchising them, just as she puts out this misconception they (the Obama camp) wants to stop the voices of the people from being heard. Her rhetoric could have long term consequences if Obama is elected... She needs to run on who she is, why she is better... but all I hear from her camp is "the media isn't being fair to me"

The media has given her an amazing pass.



Well I'm right next door in Indiana I do agree Blacks will bow out... but so will the young and if they are coming out for a primary,


but the bigger point to me is the "why" supporters will sit out. It's one thing to sit out because you feel your candidate was robbed, it's quite another to sit out... cause sour grapes, your candidate lost.

Well, I know the people in Florida and Michigan were told their votes wouldn't count, but I really wonder how many actually believed that. I didn't because I didn't believe the Democrat Party would self-destruct in those two states over arbitrary rules. I'm still thinking they are going to find some way out of this, not sure how though. You are right in using the term "scorched earth", that is exactly what the Clintons are doing and that shouldn't surprise anyone. That's the way they operate. Always have, always will.

Aquilla

I don't think it matters if Florida and Michigan are seated. The Clinton strategy at this point is to win the popular vote and use that as the argument to win over the Superdelegates. Whether you seat the delegates or not, Clinton won Florida by 300,000 votes and even if you add all non-Clinton votes in Michigan for Obama she gains 62,000. That puts her 470,000 votes behind Obama. If she beats him by 220,000 in PA like she did in OH, you will hear the popular vote argument very loudly (from her side this time). Barone just made the argument here today. Obama needs to stop trying to fight McCain and worry about Hillary.