I suppose the party machinies and smoke filled rooms could have annointed Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton last September before the people had a chance through debates, campaigning and media coverage to discover what they were all about. Who would have been happy with that?

The Democrats' Achilles heel for years has been that the party is more of a patchwork quilt that takes a master seamstress to keep the threads from unravelling. The seamstress has quite a job on her hands now!

This campaign is turning mean, folks. I don't think Hillary Clinton gives a damn about Obama; if she can't win the nomination this year I believe she would rather see McCain win and set up her candidacy for 2012 with Obama as the most recent "loser." And as they go at one another, they are putting too many negatives in front of the public.

Those negatives in place, look for the campaign against McCain to be brutal. "Keating 5" will become a campaign issue.

In a weak moment a month ago, I thought we might have a very high level, positive race between McCain and Obama. Silly me.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
This campaign is turning mean, folks. I don't think Hillary Clinton gives a damn about Obama; if she can't win the nomination this year I believe she would rather see McCain win and set up her candidacy for 2012 with Obama as the most recent "loser." And as they go at one another, they are putting too many negatives in front of the public.

I think it is now or never for Hillary. If McCain does win the White House in November, come 2012, the Democrats will be looking in a different direction for a Presidential candidate. They will be too PO'd at Hillary to even consider her. The circumstances currently taking place will resonate with the Democrats and leave them with a very bitter taste in their mouth.

(This is becoming spooky.)

In general, I agree with LR's last statement. ( ) I think that many Dems will still support her, but that she will lose some of her base by then, and what's left won't be enough to get the nomination. Few losing candidates run a second time. I think that, if Hillary is the losing candidate this year, Mrs. Obama's statement that her husband had "one shot" at getting elected will be forgotten, at least by the Democrats. In fact, I think it very likely that in 2013, we will see a President Obama in the White House. He may be coming, staying, or leaving, but I think he will be there.

Yeah, DG, this is gettin kinda spooky

On this one I will agree with you to a certain point. For now, I will take Michelle Obama's "one shot" comment at face value. Although I do feel Barack Obama will come out of this better than Hillary. And if his base keeps after him to try it again, he may very well decide to do it one more time. As for Hillary, we have seen her base descrenagate right before our very eyes, former Clinton supporters backing Obama. By 2012, I agree, her base will not be enough to get her nominated.

As for 2012, in politics, that is a lifetime away. New faces can emerge, one never knows who we will be taking a look at. I expect to see new names & faces emerge from both parties.

quote:

descrenagate

???

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:

quote:

descrenagate

???

Making fun of my spelling again Mr. Frank

descenigrate...perhaps

I don't mean to nit-pick anyone's spelling, LR, but I can usually tell what word was actually intended. In this case I can't decide between denigrate, disintegrate, descent, centigrade, etc.??? Personally, I admire anyone who eschews the use of spell checker abominations.

Is "snipergate" a word yet?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Is "snipergate" a word yet?

Only if frank says it is

Quick, coin it and you can stop playing the lottery!

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
I don't mean to nit-pick anyone's spelling, LR, but I can usually tell what word was actually intended. In this case I can't decide between denigrate, disintegrate, descent, centigrade, etc.??? Personally, I admire anyone who eschews the use of spell checker abominations.

And I admire anyone who can spell better than I can

Frankvan made a passing reference to the "Brits" being able to throw out their leader on a vote of 'no confidence'.We don't normally get as far as a vote in Parliament, because the man or woman is thrown out by their own side.

Gordon Brown, who has been Prime Minister for just nine months, is facing that prospect now. The Times is saying that his poll ratings have suffered the greatest decline in modern times, worse even than that of Chamberlain in 1940.If he persists, as he intends, with a new anti-terrorism bill, the prospect is that the bill will be defeated by some 30 votes in the House and some of his staunchest allies will not support him.That's because of the current political climate. The defeat of a favoured bill is not, in itself terminal (Tony Blair suffered that, I think) but when their own side feels it's part of a general malaise and distrust of the leader, he or she goes.

Imagine that the Americans could do that !However, it may be that the current President would never have been subject to such a coup, were it permitted. Who knows?

It's lot cheaper, and easier, than impeachment.