Will Hillary Clinton Be The Next U.S. President?

posted by marg6043
Well after been away from this post for a while, I will say that Mrs. Hillary will be the next Democrat candidate for president of the USA and she will be pushed to have Obama as running mate. Because he will help her win the elections with his popularity among the Blacks. After watching the debates last night I will say that she will be the next president. She exude confidence you can tell that she knows she got the presidency in her hands. Republicans stand no chance with the candidates they have. Occurs This just an opinion base of what I have seen and perceive about the primaries candidates. My personal choice will be not to vote for any democrat or republican, because the problems of this nation and the agenda on the middle east will be the same not matter what.

Hillary has consistently been #1 in polls followed by equally consistent #2 Barack. Edwards is also consistent at #3 and may be the “fall back” or “default” candidate for VP. I had earlier thought Bill Richardson - of Hispanic descent and fluent in Spanish - might get the call, but now, I’m not so sure. Due to Barack’s proven top money raising ability and his undeniable personal appeal, I now feel Barack MUST be the VP nominee. Or the Dems may face a revolt of their irreplaceable base.

Your frustration with the “two sides of the same conn” problem over American politics is shared by at least half the public who do not waste their time going to the polls. A Frenchman recently said “Yes, the United States has 2 parties, a Right Wing Party and an Ultra Right Wing Party.” I have said for years the Dems do about 40% of what I’d like done, but the Republicans do less that 10%. So, I have no choice but to vote Dem. But with leaders like Nancy Pelosi, I do expect to see better things done this next term.

posted by marg6043
Thanks Justin, I am all over as you know. Yes I did like the new concept, but as usual I bet it was screened to the max. Still you can tell who got the bull by the horns in this campaign.

Well, Marg, so long ago we have almost forgotten, the League of Women Voters - a non-partisan non-profit group of impeccable credentials - sponsored and conducted the debates. When they let Ross Perot into the debate in 1992, the Dems and GOP both agreed to end that arrangement. They, the Dems and GOP, set up a joint committee that took over the debates and now of course, EXCLUDE third parties. We voters in both parties stayed silent. As Martin Niemöller wrote it,

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left
to speak out.

[edit on 7/30/2007 by donwhite]

Don,
the last part of your post above, I have heard many times in different forms, and I would just like to say it is as good now as it has ever been. Thanks for posting it.

I, too, have sen many derivations of that prophetic verse, and I think they are all about to be more true than we'd like. It's worth noting that even at this date, we still don't hear Hillary talking about what it might take to reign in the domestic spying program and other Bush initiatives. I take this to mean that she intends to make good use of them when its her turn.

A sea change. The first 3 elections were won by the Federalists. The Federalists favored a strong central government and a national bank. The Federalists viewed the 1787 Constitution as 180 degrees away from the former Articles of Confederation which had been the ultimate states rights document but which had failed the country miserably.

A sea change. The 1800 election ended in the House of Representatives. There were 16 states, VT, KY and TN having been admitted. On the 33rd ballot, Hamilton persuaded some states to move away from Aaron Burr and vote for Jefferson who he regarded as the lesser of two evils. Burr and Jefferson both of the new Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists never won another national election and ultimately morphed into the Whigs. The Democratic-Republicans morphed into the Democratic Party which ultimately splint into two parties, Northern Dems against slavery and Southern Dems in favor it it. In 1800, the Dem-Reps preferred a weak central government and strong states rights and NO national bank.

The D-R and D won 12 elections between 1800 and 1856, and the Whigs won but 2. The two Whigs, Harriston and Taylor both died in office. Notable was the election of 1820 when D-R James Monroe - last of the FFs to hold the office of president - had no opponent, called “The Era of Good Feeling.”

Another sea change occurred in 1860. The new Republicans won the 1860 election and 7 more in the runup to 1900. The Democrats won but 2, both times with Grover Cleveland. As president, Cleveland called out the Army to stop the Pullman strike; no friend of labor was he. There were no major differences between the two parties until 1896 when William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party’s nominee who became famous for his oft given “Cross of Gold” speech. See Foot Note.

Republican William McKinley defeated Bryan in 1896 and was reelected in 1900. Sadly he was the victim of an assassination on September 14, 1901, barely 6 months 10 days into his second term. His VP Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency and he was a SEA CHANGE in his goals for the nation.

In office just over 7 years, TR tried to get a Federal worker’s compensation law, social security, limits on hours worked and a minimum wage. He broke up monopolies and became known as the “Trust Buster.” His hand picked successor, W H Taft did not continue his progressive policies. Angered by what he perceived as a betrayal, TR ran on a 3rd party ticket - The Progressive Party - in 1912. He succeeded only in splitting the Republican vote thereby electing Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

At the risk of repeating an old story, TR himself was shot in 1912 while making a campaign speech. Although bleeding some, he finished the speech before receiving medical attention. For his strength and his bulky size, he instantly became known as the “Bull Moose!”

Reversing a sea change. Wilson was not a progressive. The public was not ready either, for a new paradigm in the fundamental social compact. Wilson did not share TR’s ambitions for America. Between the 1900 election going to the Republicans and 1928, the GOP won 6 to the Dems 2 elections.

A remarkable sea change. In 1932, Democrats advocating the New Deal were elected. Between then and 2000, the Dems won 10 elections, the Republican’s won 6 elections. In all, during the 20th century the Dems won 12 and the GOP won 12.

A sea change being undone. Since 1968, the Dems have been waging a holding action, to preserve the changes instituted between 1933 and 1968. From 1968 to 2004, the Republicans won 7 elections to the Dems 3.


Foot Note. “Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” W J Bryan, Democrat for president in 1896, 1900 and 1908.

The Cross of Gold was symbolic of the on-going political debate over the value of money. The Dems wanted cheap, plentiful money, the GOP stood for a tight money supply which propped up higher interest rates always favored by banks and others with money. Cheap money is favored by those who don’t have much. The two sides expressed their positions by the shorthand of the ratio of silver coinage to gold. The GOP supported 6 to 1, the Dems wanted 12 to 1. That is, the number of silver dollars to be minted for each gold dollar. Silver was worth only about 5% of the worth of gold, which meant silver money was “cheap” and the Dems wanted more of it. New Deal Dems took the country off the gold standard in 1933. It will never return because there is simply put, not enough gold.

[edit on 7/31/2007 by donwhite]

Donwhite as usual you are a fountain of information, specially historical information that I enjoy very much.

Things are shaping in our nation to have the first woman president, I wish it was another woman to that position.

But is true that whomever take the presidency it will enjoy the executive and presidential powers already been released by the present administration and perhaps take more advantage also.

Bush has done well in that department making sure the next president have everything already at their fingertips.

I lost my faith in the Democratic congress when Nancy Pelosy said that Bush will not be impeached.

That told me right there and them that they also have their own right to power agenda.

Because they know they will win the next elections.

Marg, you are my kindest fellow poster. Thanks for the good words.

The last time the Dems had enough votes to successfully impeach the president or vice president was the 89th Congress. Elected in 1964 when Goldwater was soundly defeated by LBJ. The campaign included the notorious tv ad showing the little girl picking wildflowers and the atom bomb in the background. (The ad was shown only one time but was so negatively received it was withdrawn; the ad was run 1000s of times as a news item, however). The Dems held 68 seats in the Senate, 1 more than the required 67 votes needed to convict an accused president. The House Dems numbered 295! Many more than the necessary 218 needed votes to pass Articles of Impeachment.

2007. 110th Congress. The Senate is very closely divided. The Dems have 49 members, the GOP has 49 members. Fortunately, CT’s Joe Lieberman, who is mad at the Dems, calls himself an Independent, but votes with the Dems most of the time. Vermont’s Senator Sanders also calls himself an independent, but he too votes with the Dems most of the time. Sen. Tim Johnson of SD is too ill to sit and remains a senator only to keep the GOP from getting control of the Senate on VP Cheney’s tie breaking vote. The governor of SD is a GOP who said he would replace Johnson with a GOP type.

In the House, the Dems are down to 231 member from 233, due to 2 dying and not being replaced. The GOP is still at 202, one of their’s who died being replaced by another GOP. 218 votes are required to indict - impeach - the president and it is not at all sure the Dems could hold the 13 members needed to have the required 218 votes. Many Dems are very conservative and are not unanimous in their issues with the President. The Dems would probably lose 35-40 votes on an Impeachment Resolution of Bush43 and 15-20 votes on VP Cheney. It is doubtful the Dems would gain more than 5-10 GOP votes in either case. Impeachment is not in the cards.

Part 1

[edit on 7/31/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by marg6043


Things are shaping in our nation to have the first woman president, I wish it was another woman to that position.

Marg
I also agree it is looking like the U.S. may see the first female president. I also wish it were some one else. However there are other qualified ones out there, so if you can hold your cards until after the next administration maby you will see a better candidate then the current democratic front runner.
As to the powers that be knowing who will take the next election and there for not willing to impeach Bush, I do fear you could very well be right.

The first impeachment was of Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat from Tennessee that Lincoln put on the 1864 Republican ticket and temporarily changed the name of the party to National Union Party. Lincoln had been sworn in on March 4, 1865, and was shot on April 14, dying on April 15, 1865, barely 5 weeks into his second term. The Republicans in control of Congress wanted to impose a very detailed Reconstruction regimen on the South much as the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese after 1975.

Johnson constantly vetoed Republican bills and vehemently spoke out against what he regarded as harsh terms imposed on white southerners. He refused to help the newly freed former slaves. Rumor had it that Lincoln wanted to provide each black family with “40 acres and a mule.” Finally, in disgust, the Congress impeached Johnson, who avoided conviction by only ONE vote in the Senate. Thereafter, Johnson dutifully signed all the bills to come to his desk and he did not seek another term.

The second impeachment was as we all know, purely a exercise in bad political judgment by underwhelmed Republicans who had unexpectantly (by Dems) gained the majority in Congress in 1994 when Newt Gingrich announced the “Contract with America” itself more a publicity stunt than any statement of serious policy intent. (They lost the Senate in 2001, 2002, and regained it in 2003 and except for that brief reversal, held both houses from 1994 to 2006).

Kenneth Starr, a willing Republican lawyer with much ambition, was appointed Independent Counsel on August 5, 1994. After FIVE years of unrelenting investigation, he finally submitted his report to the 106th Congress which promptly adopted 2 Articles of Impeachment on January 7, 1999.

The fiasco that is called a “Trial” concluded before the Senate on February 12, 1999. On Count 1, Perjury, 10 Republicans left their party and joined the 45 Democrats in the Senate to ACQUIT, 55 to 45. On Count 2, Obstruction of Justice, 5 GOP senators joined with 45 Dems to make it 50 votes to acquit. The 2 motions lacking the requisite 67 votes had failed. Pres. Bill Clinton was acquitted. And in my mind, vindicated! At last, Richard Mellon Scaife's crazed schemes to defeat the Clintons was laid to rest.

[edit on 7/31/2007 by donwhite]

When it comes to impeachment, there are several practicalities to be observed. First and foremost, the Dems can impeach or they can legislate. Thre's just not enough time left on Bush's game clock to get the impeachment process rolling. It's worth noting that Congress is in recess for teh month of August.

Secondly, there is the oft quote observation that because the Dems know they're going to win in '08, they've decided that they'd like to use some of those nifty Presidential prerogotives for their own agendas. This is fundamentally sound politics since each thing that Bush does to harm his party only increases the Dem's win ratio in 2008.

The Republicans don't just need to be right about the Iraq war. They need, for lack of a better word, 'redemption.' I supported the war for different reasons than those given. Based on what I see, the surge is working. It's working too slowly because its another half-hearted effort, but it is working. Even so, all of that is not enough to change my opinion that we've over-stayed our welcome.

posted by Justin Oldham
When it comes to impeachment, there are several practicalities to be observed. First and foremost, the Dems can impeach or they can legislate. There's just not enough time left on Bush's game clock to get the impeachment process rolling. It's worth noting that Congress is in recess for the month of August.

Secondly, there is the oft quoted observation that because the Dems know they're going to win in '08, they've decided that they'd like to use some of those nifty Presidential prerogative for their own agendas. This is fundamentally sound politics since each thing that Bush does to harm his party only increases the Dem's win ratio in 2008.

The Republicans don't just need to be right about the Iraq war. They need, for lack of a better word, 'redemption.' I supported the war for different reasons than those given. Based on what I see, the surge is working. It's working too slowly because its another half-hearted effort, but it is working. Even so, all of that is not enough to change my opinion that we've over-stayed our welcome.

On Item 1, Impeachment, you are right and your commentary settles it.

On Item 2, Presidential Prerogatives. You see more dangers there than I see. You also have experience inside the government I do not have. I must grant to you considerable credence even if I disagree with you philosophically. Your '5 No Trump' bind constantly tops my very strong '4 Spades' bid. I know that. My justification for being what you may see as cavalier about it, is that the power has always been there, but it depends on who uses it and how it is used more so than the inert power just laying there.

On Item 3. The War in Iraq. My dispute with Bush43 began on September 12, 2001. Being a long time reader of the Nation, the Reporter, the Manchester Guardian, and many leading writers in Foreign Affairs, and recalling the joy “we” felt when the UN created the State of Israel and planted the FIRST and ONLY democracy in the Middle East. I knew enough to know we were not attacked because the Arabs hated us for being democratic as Bush43 has claimed repeatedly. That’s trash. The hope we held for Israel was shattered when Itzak Rabin was assassinated. Israel's conduct has only gotten worse since then, like us, cutting their bridges behind them.

We were attacked because of A) The Jewish occupation of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount the #3 Holy Site in Islam. America is the unquestioning guarantor of Israel in its calculated ruination of the Arabs living in old Palestine; B) America and Britain have installed and supported autocratic - kind word - despotic - more accurate word - Arab regimes that have given sweetheart contracts to our oil companies; and C) exporting what we call “American Culture” into the Arab world subverting their way of life.

Instead of dealing with the Nine Eleven Event rationally, we re-acted just as OBL thought we would. He spends a couple million, we counter with a couple trillion. Who can be the last man standing in this crazy discombobulated contest we have been led into by a Texas nincompoop masquerading as president but who nevertheless bears the approving imprimatur of the Supreme Court? America's first designated president. I hesitate to venture a guess which will go bankrupt first.

We've got to stop fighting dumb and begin to work smart.

[edit on 7/31/2007 by donwhite]

With their hands free to legislate, I would expect the Dems to legislate with politicla gain in mind. Sending things to Bush that they know he'll veto is something that the remaining Republicans need to be wary of. Any first year student can tell you why. Dems can say, " we tried," while GOP candidates have to justify every breath they take with an "I'm sorry" tucked in every few syllables.

posted by Justin Oldham
With their hands free to legislate, I would expect the Dems to legislate with political gain in mind. Sending things to Bush that they know he'll veto is something that the remaining Republicans need to be wary of. Any first year student can tell you why. Dems can say, " we tried," while GOP candidates have to justify every breath they take with an "I'm sorry" tucked in every few syllables.

Strangely enough, Nixon and the Dems in Congress got along pretty well for the most part. Watergate aside. Many “progressive” pieces of legislation were passed and signed in his tenure. I’m thinking EPA and maybe OSHA and even Affirmative Action? CAFÉ? And more. I don’t recall any of those laws being passed over his veto. Nixon must have been paranoid? And maybe a schizophrenic too? The weight of office may have been more than he could "sustain?”

Yes, the Dems will try to paint the GOP into a corner. That is what they are trying to do in the Senate. The House can pass any reasonable piece of legislation knowing the Dems cannot get it through the Senate without 10 Republican votes. They have 1 or 2. By loosening up, they could probably get another 2 or 3. But there is not much they can do this year to get the needed 10 votes. Next year, if the war continues to go badly, they will not have much trouble. But that’s next year.

[edit on 8/1/2007 by donwhite]

To a very large extent, the GOP seems to be supplying its own paint and brush. Between the Iraq war and the antics of the Bush team here at home, the Republicans appear to be going out ofhteir wayto find the wrong way to do things so that they can expedite the process. In one very political respect, I don't blame the Dems for taking impeachment off the agenda. They look magnanimous for doing so, and they have the freedom to legislate.

Gonzales could kill this subpoena drive tomorrow if he simply 'fessed up to a few things and tossed a few of his underlings to the wolves. With such devote support from the President, he can do this and look good while taking each step along the way. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that each time the A.G. takes the stand, he risks purgering himself. Now that the FBI Director has taken issue with atleast one of his statements, he will have to tread much more carefully.

If you're a Democrat strategist just now, it becomes very tempting to go fishing. The Republicans seem to have their own cricifixion well in hand.

Here is the start of what will no doubt be a long period of anoying telvishen adds.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign will begin broadcasting its first TV ad in IA tomorrow. Ex-IA Gov. Tom Vilsack unveiled the 60-second spot titled “Invisible,” at a press conference today in Des Moines.

The ad is fairly standard, featuring excerpts of Clinton’s stump speech intersected with shots of her alongside children (there are four separate shots of her hugging or reading to kids) farmers, and senior citizens.

Here is something else that makes an interesting point to the democratic party.

The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," he went on. "They want to continue to stay in Iraq. They reject the idea of a not-for-profit health care system. ... These analysts are ... trying to keep a politics that really helps support a privileged few at the expense of the many. So I'm the candidate of the people."

I was saying in the begining of this thred that Hillery does seem to control the money in this campain. Thus if you control the money you will control the election. Well here is something new with the money for her campain.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Norman Hsu, a top Democratic contributor and a major fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, has pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft in 1991. According to the Journal, Hsu accepted a plea baring to serve three years in jail after for allegedly cheating investors out of $1 million.

California prosecutor claims that Mr. Hsu never appeared for his sentencing and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. "He is a fugitive. Do you know where he is?" Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the California state attorney general, said in an interview with the paper. Norman Hsu's attorney claims that there are no outstanding warrants for his client.

edit for typo

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Red Golem]

reply to post by Red Golem


Mr Red Golem, do you think this website is in some way affiliated with any Rupert Murdoch papers or internet sites? I ask because this story seems so old it surely must have been vetted in the Clinton years of 1993-2000.

Here's what I pasted from the link.

OGPaper.com is a daily news publisher covering the latest from the gambling, betting and casino industries from all over the world. Copyright 2005 © ogpaper.com . All rights reserved.

Hillary Clinton fund raiser Norman Hsu fugitive for grand theft? According to the Wall Street Journal, Norman Hsu, a top Democratic contributor and a major fund raiser for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, has pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft in 1991.

According to the Journal, a California prosecutor claims that Mr. Hsu never appeared for his sentencing and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. "He is a fugitive. Do you know where he is?" Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the California state attorney general, said in an interview with the paper.

Hillary Clinton remains the favorite to become the next U.S. President, holding the 2/1 odds, according to the bookmaker Bodog Sports. She is also the most likely candidate for Democratic nomination with odds 11/10.
Online Gambling Paper has the goal of providing reviews, news and articles for all E.U. residents. Please, note, this website
is not intended for USA users and all dollar offers are Canadian.

OGPaper
2861 B Northside Dr. SW
Atlanta, GA 30317
XML RSS Feeds Terms of Use Advertise

[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Well the date on the news source said 8/29/07. But they are talking about crimes that happened many years ago. It was my impression that they are just now catching up with him.

I waited to put my 2 cents worth in. My personal view is....Whoever the Globalist Elite want is who will be President. For all you guys who think your vote counts, forget it. The Globalist own telecommunications. They control both sides, and then make you think you did something by giving you a choice to vote between 2 Candidates. Both Bush and Kerry were "Skull and Bones". They controlled both from the very beginning. Since we probably can not control who gets in to office, You have to realise that they have no power except for what you give them as an individual. The top 1% can not control the other 99% unless you allow it. I think soon the American public will recognise all at one time that they do not have to tolerate a corrupt government.

I am not sure exactlly what will happen but when the Globalist make a mistake that everyone sees and they can just pass it off, that is when we will be out in the streets.

Now, Most think in their heads, What can I do about? They think they have no power but we as a unit all together do. That is why the Globalist try to divide us. If you divide people, They are easier to control in little groups. If we come together as one and stand against them, THEY have a real problem. Live free! No one controls you. No one controls your mind. Let them do what they want to do and you do the same and if everyone did that, THEY would not control you.

I meant to say,I am not sure exactlly what will happen but when the Globalist make a mistake that everyone sees and they can't just pass it off, that is when we will be out in the streets