Everyone else has their predictions, so here are mine for the three remaining presidential candidates.
John McCain: Will lose the general election due more to the Bush legacy than any failings on his part. [Sorry John, you've been screwed again by Bush]. McCain will go back to the Senate where he will serve out his life as one of the most highly respected Senators in recent memory. With a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, McCain will be the voice of rational conservatism (how ironic is that) and will effectively work across the aisle to help address some of our most pressing issues.
Hillary Clinton: After losing the Democratic nomination, Hillary will go back to the Senate and decide between one of two possible paths. One path takes her up the chain to the highest levels of Senate leadership. She remains in the Senate for two more terms after her current term expires and eventually retires as one of the most respected and influential Senators of all time. The other path takes her into the darkest regions of her psyche, where she plots behind the scenes to take advantage of any opportunity that might get her back into the White House in four years. If that opportunity doesn't present itself, she resigns as Senator, divorces Bill, and goes off on a "mad as hell" book tour to make millions.
Barack Obama: After successfully holding off the Clinton machine for the Democratic nomination, Obama wins the general election and takes the oath of office of President in January 2009. He works to restore common decency to the White House and respectful working relationships with the international community. He invites the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Congressional leadership to a retreat at Camp David in the first 6 months in an effort to stimulate bipartisan efforts toward solving some of the greatest challenges this country faces - health care and social security in an aging population, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and "on terror," sustainable energy policy, climate change, the inevitable rise of China as a second (if not predominant) superpower, domestic and global poverty, etc. If he successfully achieves a balance between party obligations and bipartisan action he easily gets elected to a second term. If he is unsuccessful he loses the Presidency after one term and we return to the war between ourselves.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 120
I am hoping this is the case. We need a different type of Washington.
I simply hope that that meeting occurs, and is fruitful, and causes the change we hope to see in ourselves, and in our nation.
Blessed be.
(Good article, sir.)
Wilka
People may not like the reality, but if they want the White House in 2009, they are going to have to back Hillary.
I started thinking about this statement a little. I've already provided my take on the race card, which I think McCain himself is above (though I don't count out the Rove-types).
The "stuff about Obama's religion" will make the Republicans look very very bad if they play it. It will also make us, the people, look really really bad if we stoop to the level of believing anything that has already been proven to be false and malicious.
As for "association with Farrakan," there isn't any. Farrakan said he supports Obama, probably because he's black since Farrakan is that shallow. You know how many unsavory types have said they support Hillary and McCain?
"Big tax and spend" is a legitimate topic of discussion. The Democrats in general have a reputation for this, whereas the Republicans have a reputation for tax cuts for the rich. The reality is that the Republicans spend more money than sin on their pet projects (corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc.) and these are the projects that Democrats try to be frugal with. So Obama will likely want to spend money on social programs rather than corporate give-backs, and he will have to find ways to cut spending elsewhere. His major source of funds to pay for his programs is doing something to stop the hundreds of billions of dollars going to Iraq, much of which goes into some corrupt pocket on the ground over there. Perfect, no. But at least he'll try.
I disagree. There was a recent poll that showed Independents would overwhelmingly vote for McCain if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. But those same Independents would vote for Obama if he got the nomination. In addition, Hillary's tactics and machinations have become an embarrassment for her own party as well.
We can and should demand better than Hillary.
This would be a wonderful scenario. I could happen, but I am not holding my breath.
Z'
Last Sunday elections were held in Puerto Rico for the Pro-Statehood Party candidates. On Friday...two days before the elections...El Nuevo Dia (the top selling newspaper) had Pedro Rosello (the candidate they endorse) winning over Luis Fortuno 65% to 35%.
7:00 PM Election Results were in Pedro Rosello LOST by a margin of 61% to 39%. Who did El Nuevo Dia poll? Rosello's family?
Like you said there are still 8 months before the elections. Wait for the Republican juggernaut and as much as I dislike McCain for president...he is eminently more qualified for the job than Obama. This is a no-brainer...McCain should win.
We will have inflation because of the cost of energy and high unemployment because of the reduction in spending. It will not be mostly that people spend so much less money as that their spending will not keep up with the inflation so fewer products and services will be bought which will lead to lower domestic employment and so forth.
Our money creates all sorts of negative, harmful feedback loops and they will get us in the end. My solution, as usual, is in my novel Invisible Hand here on Gather.
What is needed is leadership. The skill sets of being a President are not necessarily the same as being a Senator. John McCain is a great Senator. But I think Obama would be a better President.
As I've said before, I think she would be a great Senator. I think she could have also been a good President. But as a country we cannot afford to have another divisive person in the White House, and that is what her tactics have shown she would do.
McCain also has a reputation for having a bad temper. But not as someone who would make attacks on a person, just their policies. Obama is rather dull in that regard. People say he should attack back. I disagree.
I do not think that Obama is perfect. He is a person. He will make mistakes. However, he is the best candidate we have. He has the best chance of taking the country out of the darkness that George W, Cheney, and the gang have plunged us into. We do need a change in course. We need someone with a fresh perspective. We need a president who will engage in diplomacy, not posturing. Obama is intelligent and of a new generation. He is our best chance.
Yes, Hillary would undoubtedly go on to have a brilliant career as a Senator, if she gives up on the idea of being president in 4 years. McCain will do very well, too. With these two, I'm afraid elevating either to the presidency would put the Peter Principal to work - promoting them beyond their level of competency. They are too hostile and ego driven.The same problem with our current president.
Obama for president!
Been to too many tent meets in my days to fall for this.
John McCain - I just don't know which John McCain will show up. The senator who cited with the democrats on McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, Gang of 14 or the McCain from the last 3 months picking up endorsements from Parsley and Hagee. This is important because of Supreme Court Justices. For all those democrats who want to vote McCain, think about the SUPREME COURT. These judges stay forever.
Obama - Short on Washington experience but I don't care. I am impressed by the fact that he was a constitutional law professor (one of his experience/skill often ignored). George W should have taken his course. Did he fail that or barely passed that in Law school? I think the constitution has been ignored all too often the last 8 years.
Did not know he had his WH staff formed already.
On his campaign, staff, the way they are winning and raising money, I would not call them inexperienced. If they are, then experience really does not matter
For news: Obama picked up 7 delegates last night in Iowa.
Yesterday he got an super from Wisconsin I believe.
Despite everything, the lead is increasing. Everybody is focused on the scandals because it is THE LAST RESORT. What else can they do David? Every time she wins one, he turns around and wins 3 other states. To top it all off, he keeps her lead minimal. Just look at by how much she won NY and by how much he won Illinois. That did it for me. From that point I was convinced it was over. She could not win her state by more than 20 and the story in NY that was never reported was that 88 heavily African American precincts reported 0 votes for Obama.
I think Clinton knows more, smarter about Washington and how it works, but like many think she is all about power. I think she could be tough on foreign policy if she has too, but wonder what respect she might get from the Muslim world? Is that a problem, I don't know? I think her husband is a liability in all this in a way.
After the last couple months, I'm leaning McCain; at least I think he will have some financial smarts on out of control spending, and earmarks, willing to piss off both parties to do it too. People want to paint him like a Bush, but his record is anything but that. Think he would be a better CIC too...
Thanks for your thoughts.
If she ever got into the White House, I think she'd publicly throw Bill under the bus.
I do not share your opinions of Obama, though. I think this guy is a charlatan that needs to be exposed.
With all the revelations coming out about him now, I feel we've only scratched the surface. He's no longer a "rock star", and I think the fainting minions have suddenly stopped doing so.
Now he's just a guy hanging on for dear life.
I don't see anything in Obama that suggests charlatan, Bret. I do think that the "rock star" label is closer to the mark, though I would suggest that it equally fit Hillary Clinton before Obama started his rise in the public eye. Celebrity does seem to play a significant part in our decision making, though I suppose it depends on what the basis is for that celebrity. For Hillary, it was the fact that she was First Lady. It's hard not to be a front runner when "everybody knows your name." Obama gained his celebrity status as more and more people slowly came to know him better. I personally am not one to latch on to the latest fads (as my choice in ties would no doubt prove irrefutably). I watched, and more importantly, I listened. Not so much to the talking points that all candidates try to interject into every statement, but to the way he answered direct questions. The contrast to Hillary's politically manipulative parsing was unmistakeable. Sure, Obama parses as well. But as I listen my sense is that he's striving to find the right words to explain his thoughts, rather than simply spout the politically expedient, prerehearsed talking points. I see a man thinking. With Hillary, a see a person plotting. I appear not to be the only one who sees this.
Not because they wish it on him - quite the opposite. They just believe anyone so embracing radical change will also attract radical people to dislike them, and the end result will be the death of the president.
There's some real sick puppies here tonight. Sort of explains the eight years of Bushco rule, doesn't it? David, I'll buy that. Good article.