• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama maybe?

Red Robin

Well-known member
Mort Kondracke: Hillary Can Lose Nomination

Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:09 AM

By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size



Hillary Clinton's prospects of capturing the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and going on to take the White House are "a lot less certain" than they used to be, a top political journalist says.


Noting that while Clinton would almost certainly be her party's nominee should she win the Iowa caucuses January 3, Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Capitol Hill's influential "Roll Call," wrote that it is now easy to see her losing that crucial first primary contest.


Moreover, he predicts "if she finishes third or significantly trails as No. 2 - especially behind Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) - it could set off a cascade that causes her to lose New Hampshire and then the nomination."


According to the longtime Washington correspondent, polls "suggest that Clinton has built up lots of firewalls in states after New Hampshire, where she currently leads by 13 points. She leads in Michigan (Jan. 15) and Nevada (Jan. 19) by more than 20 points, according to RealClearPolitics.com averages, South Carolina (Jan. 26) by 12 points and Florida (Jan. 29) by 26 points."


He adds, "In Feb. 5 [so-called Tsunami Tuesday] states like California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, her leads are close to 30 points."


But all of that would be meaningless, Kondracke explains, if defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire "burn through the those firewalls and re-create the dynamic of 1984, where the establishment candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale, almost lost the nomination to fresh-face challenger Sen. Gary Hart (Colo.)."


Polls in Iowa he writes, now indicate that Clinton is in deep trouble. "The topline ABC/Washington Post poll results showing Obama with 30 percent, Clinton with 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) with 22 mean less than other factors."


For example, the ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that among Iowa Democrats, Clinton's points of advantage - "strength and experience" - are far less important than Obama's "new direction and new ideas" by a margin of more than 20 percent.


Obama, he observes, "is more likely to defeat Clinton for the nomination - especially if an Iowa victory makes him the top story of the night and excites Independents in New Hampshire to vote in the Democratic primary."


© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Clinton's points of advantage - "strength and experience" - are far less important

What strengths,.. when faced with opposition to the New York illegal immigrants Drivers License fiasco, she caved like a sopping-wet piece of chinese cardboard,... her floundering was worse then a frenchman looking for his white flag.... dang,.. a tower of Jello has more back-bone then Hillery.. And we thought Kerry was weak.... :roll: :? :roll: :wink:

and experience .... okey how hard is it to play a victim for a liberal democrat??? :???:


I think even Kucinich will have a shot at the Democrat nomination, by the time Hillery gets Buried in Iowa.. :lol: :wink: :? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Most the Republican blogs are hoping Hillary is the candidate-- as they think she will be the easiest to defeat with her past history and the number of people that dislike her....

The one they fear is Edwards-- a white male -- that will, because he is a Democrat, get most the minority vote anyway,---but could get many more votes that might not vote for Hillary or Obama, but that want any change from GW and his form of Republicans....
 

Texan

Well-known member
It's amazing to me that a major political party could even think about electing somebody as inexperienced as Obama. He even makes Hillary look like a good choice.

And with Oprah working for Obama, Hillary can't take the women's vote for granted now. That could make it a real horserace between those two.

Obviously, being qualified or experienced has nothing to do with the process, or else Richardson would be the dem's nominee.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Most the Republican blogs are hoping Hillary is the candidate-- as they think she will be the easiest to defeat with her past history and the number of people that dislike her....

The one they fear is Edwards-- a white male -- that will, because he is a Democrat, get most the minority vote anyway,---but could get many more votes that might not vote for Hillary or Obama, but that want any change from GW and his form of Republicans....

Personally I would fear Hillary the most, due to her money and connections. Obama has enough chinks in the armour that once you link that with his skin color I don't see him getting elected. I think Edwards is to liberal and just something about him that people don't like.

I think Hillary will loose, but she is one to be feared and not taken to lightly. No telling what could happen if she is the Democratic nominee. Maybe China will pull something to hurt the economy in the last months. Just no telling what evil plan the Clinton's have up their sleeve.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Texan said:
It's amazing to me that a major political party could even think about electing somebody as inexperienced as Obama. He even makes Hillary look like a good choice.

And with Oprah working for Obama, Hillary can't take the women's vote for granted now. That could make it a real horserace between those two.

Obviously, being qualified or experienced has nothing to do with the process, or else Richardson would be the dem's nominee.

Are you saying Bush had more experience?
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Fife%20obama.jpg
 

Texan

Well-known member
Tex said:
Texan said:
It's amazing to me that a major political party could even think about electing somebody as inexperienced as Obama. He even makes Hillary look like a good choice.

And with Oprah working for Obama, Hillary can't take the women's vote for granted now. That could make it a real horserace between those two.

Obviously, being qualified or experienced has nothing to do with the process, or else Richardson would be the dem's nominee.

Are you saying Bush had more experience?
This thread is about who the dems might nominate. Bush isn't running, is he?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Texan said:
Tex said:
Texan said:
It's amazing to me that a major political party could even think about electing somebody as inexperienced as Obama. He even makes Hillary look like a good choice.

And with Oprah working for Obama, Hillary can't take the women's vote for granted now. That could make it a real horserace between those two.

Obviously, being qualified or experienced has nothing to do with the process, or else Richardson would be the dem's nominee.

Are you saying Bush had more experience?
This thread is about who the dems might nominate. Bush isn't running, is he?

I been starting to think maybe Bush was running again, the way the Democratic candidates what to run against him instead of on their own platform.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Like you guys throw out Bill Clinton every time the Republicans mess up? And that seems to be every day.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
ff, there is a reason that we tend to focus on Clinton. You may have missed it, but his wife is running for president and he is campaigning very hard for her.

Some of us remember well his sexual peccadilloes, the Lincoln Bedroom “rented” to the highest bidder, his (and hers!) campaign finance fiascos, their socialized government health care scheme, and the disastrous and ineffective foreign policies that were the low lights of the policies of both of the Clintons.

All this is why Clinton’s name keeps coming up. Why do you bring up Bush’s name all the time? He’s done and gone soon. We had better concentrate on both the strengths and the weaknesses for whoever is going to replace him.

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t get a pass on scrutiny, nor should any of the other candidates of either party. Their past history and their voting records should be matters of great concern to all of us. And frankly, I don’t think the country can afford another Clinton administration in the White House.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
ff said:
Like you guys throw out Bill Clinton every time the Republicans mess up? And that seems to be every day.


It's because they really miss the peace and quiet and the surplus of his administration.

Ya know....kinda like little kids , you act mean to that little girl but deep down you really like her!!!


They can't admit it ...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
passin thru, I never noticed the strong resemblance before. Thanks for pointing it out. But I thought Obama's father was Muslim?
Kola: It's because they really miss the peace and quiet and the surplus of his administration.
Wasn't it more like every "piece" Clinton got, he wanted kept quiet? He certainly had a surplus of sexual misbehavior and financial misconduct allegations against him, didn't he?

Wasn’t he impeached? Or is my memory faulty?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
passin thru, I never noticed the strong resemblance before. Thanks for pointing it out. But I thought Obama's father was Muslim?
Kola: It's because they really miss the peace and quiet and the surplus of his administration.
Wasn't it more like every "piece" Clinton got, he wanted kept quiet? He certainly had a surplus of sexual misbehavior and financial misconduct allegations against him, didn't he?

Wasn’t he impeached? Or is my memory faulty?



No your memory is correct...he was impeached over semen it seems!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And IF you got a ' piece' I'd hardly doubt you'd announce it to the world either!! !! DUH!!! What did you want , an add in the WSJ???? Get real....it was none of your business, none of mine...nor the rest of America.



JFK got himself a few ' pieces' over the years and he's lauded as a Saint among mortals...now how do you suppose that happened??? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
JFK got himself a few ' pieces' over the years and he's lauded as a Saint among mortals...now how do you suppose that happened??? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Marylin Monroe vs Monica :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
ff said:
Like you guys throw out Bill Clinton every time the Republicans mess up? And that seems to be every day.


It's because they really miss the peace and quiet and the surplus of his administration.

:

Surplus??? :shock: Where was he hiding all this Surplus at? Or was you talking about something besides money?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
JFK got himself a few ' pieces' over the years and he's lauded as a Saint among mortals...now how do you suppose that happened??? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Marylin Monroe vs Monica :wink:



I believe it was Ben Franklin that said, " all cats are grey in the dark"
 

passin thru

Well-known member
The thing is that all these libs fail to mention..............the reason Monica surfaced is that they were looking at RAPE allegations on ole Bill. Do you libs think Rape is a laughibg matter?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
After a $90,000,000 investigation, if all they can get are a couple of DNA samples on a blue dress of a consenting adult, yes, it is a laughing matter......or it would be if it weren't such an obvious witch hunt designed to bring down and destroy the credibility of the President.

One thing Republicans can do is destroy credibility......involving themselves in an affair between consenting adults, then lying to promote a war of aggression.....you can't say they don't know how to destroy their own credibility......
 

passin thru

Well-known member
gp you didn't answer the question.

Let's put it in a little easier terms for you.
If your daughter had said a man had raped her..........
should we laugh it off.....or
investigate the claim?
 
Top