Meet the Press, July 29, 2007, became “meet the mess” that is becoming a heated race. The panel discussed potential scenarios for the Iowa primary, and other primaries. Still the question on the table: can one black man beat one white woman? Among white male voters, Obama is seen more favorably than Clinton. To those who watched the YouTube debate (Republicans are shunning), Hillary Clinton’s body language included shifting at her podium and looking away from Obama. One pundit posited that she was creating an “invisible wall” between them. Why, is it because he is the interloper in her rise to apotheosis as president? People believe it is only because he IS the spoiler. Nevertheless, some political observers believe that it is because she really does not like him. Which one is it?
Chuck Todd, of NBC News, echoed Heloise’s belief that Barack “has got his sea legs,” and with it has pulled the rug out from Hillary’s campaign. He said that Obama might have gotten the best of Clinton. Others disagreed. Todd believes that the primary campaign is “all about him [Barack].” He has taken away Clinton’s rally as the first woman party nominee for president.
If Edwards does well in Iowa or say wins it, and Clinton wings it in third place, and Obama comes in second what impact will that have on this now three-way “all or nothing” race. If there is an Edwards’ win: “A third place finish would be fatal to either Clinton or Obama” said Eugene Robinson, of The Washington Post. Okay, let us continue that line of reasoning.
And if Edwards should go on to win enough Democratic primaries and become the candidate, should he then extend the VP slot to Obama or Clinton? If Edwards is channeling or projecting the image of RFK increasingly, and Obama garnering good comparisons with JFK, then this could be the duo destined for the Oval office. Thus, can two men trump one-woman candidate and yet-unknown VP choice? It seems clear that she would never choose Obama as VP. Why should she? And after Edwards said he did not like her jacket, he may be out as well. We also have to keep in mind that both Obama and Clinton claim Illinois as home state. The presidential candidate needs to spread the wealth around to attract the voters in every corner of the country. A candidate or VP from California would be the Holy Grail here. JFK wisely chose LBJ and therefore put Texas in the plus column.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Mark Andrich
Barack Obama - Copacabana!
2 - Ray Ellis
We need a change in America. Hilary Clinton doesn't represent that change. I get the uneasy feeling that she would be more politics as usual were she elected. Edwards is what I would call a pragmatic idealist--he talks a good fight, but he would most likely bow to compromise. Barak Obama, for me, is the only candidate from either party, who has a prayer of galvanizing the American populace, and the only one who represents any hope for real change.
3 - RJ
Bill Clinton, during his presidency, continued the Iraq-and-Saddam-with-WMD policy. If you read the first paragraph (1998) in this link, now public record, one would think that you are reading what Bush said to the public, not what former president Bill Clinton said on public airwaves as to why he “ordered military strikes on Iraq...” one reason folks: WMDs or weapons of mass destruction. Oops, there it is. Yes, Bill Clinton believed then and up to the fall of Saddam that he had biological, nuclear and chemical capabilities to wreak havoc in the Middle East, in particular. Bill believed, in general that we needed to “protect the national interest of the United States.” Sound familiar? George Bush took a page right out of the Bill Clinton presidency and handbook. He could then sweep away the notion that he was just after Saddam for revenge on behalf of his daddy, Bush 42.
It was Bush 41, not Bush 42...
Other than that error, I appreciate your links. These facts have sadly gone down the MSM memory hole...
4 - Y
More than half of Americans say they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
5 - Heloise
Chris Matthews
predicts an Edwards/Obama ticket, just read that. But today Newt predicted a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Heloise
6 - Kate
This is interesting stuff, thanks. But, I thought Iowa had a caucus and not a primary.
7 - KC
I'm understand things a bit better these days. Both my Senators rejected my requests to cut back spending as "inappropriate". What exactly are my choices? Let's see: A Hillary that has the biggest negatives and openly says each Dem. candidate is for a tax increase? An Obama that has little experience and has very far left liberal voting tendencies? Nine of 10 Repub. candidates that want to continue using our soldiers in Iraq without an end in sight?
Both my FL Senators rejecting my email requests to cut back on Washington's spending! Washington is not listening, and it only desires to keep spending our tax money. So it's time to keep taxes from them to forcibly change the system and end our soldiers patroling in Iraq. Lets allow Europe, Japan and S. Korea to defend themselves - and pay for it themselves. We've done it for far to long, and on the backs of our children and grandchildrens debt.
8 - LifeIsGoode
Government letting our schools deteriorate instead of leading the world like we do in practically everything. Social Security no longer paying for itself and Congress refuses to fix it, delaying bringing it into the 21st century.
Promises of Medicare, Medicaid and Prescriptions threaten to bankrupt us faster than Social Security. Government doesn't do anything about fixing lawsuits and our criminal system. 5 felonies and you're still out on the street.
Our taxes had the past 40 years to eliminate poverty only to fail, when will we try another approach instead of more of the same?
And government is to deeply involved in far to many areas of our lives, areas we never intended for its involvement. So I must now go about politics in another way. Today's political scene isn't functioning as it SHOULD.
What exactly are my choices? More of the same ole Washington political crap? I don't think so ever again.
9 - gonzo marx
sorry to say, the analysis falls apart when it comes to Edwards...
he may indeed win the caucus in Iowa, he's spent years there since losing in '04 (didn't even carry his own state for the ticket) doing the retail politics thing...and spent a good chunk of his money there
and there's the key....money
for Edwards to even hop of taking the primary, he has to win Iowa, NH and SC...THEN he would have the momentum to start picking up cash in the short time until Super Tuesday...
anything less and he's toast, imo
NH doesn't look good for him, and he's in for a tough one in his old home state of SC
as for Hillary taking Obama for VP...or vice versa
dont' rule it out, Hill is a pragmatist and will do anything she can to get into the WH, even if it means spending time as the number two at this point...but bet your bottom dollar that she and her team are figuring all the angles on a Clinton/Obama ticket...a woman and a black man?
sounds like the Democratic base, eh?
no matter which way the names go on the ticket
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior?
10 - Heloise
Here's a link for Iowa caucus, or vote. It's vital whether it is a caucus or primary. Texas has voted to move up its primary. But the Iowa VOTE, they call it is key.
Heloise
11 - Ray Ellis
Let me reiterate here. Obama will take Iowa. He'll take Texas, too.
Watch.
12 - Heloise
From this Web site are a few definitions:
"Caucuses are multi-step, party run processes that generally start at the precinct level and work up through county and district levels to a state convention. Presidential preference primary elections may be run by the party (although this is rare because it is expensive) or by the state, in which case in state laws apply.
In the first part of 2007 there has been great uncertainty about the 2008 calendar because a veritable stampede of state legislatures have sought to move their presidential primaries forward in order that their states will have a greater say in the selection of the nominees. (see the list below) Perhaps 20 states plan to hold their contests on February 5, creating what has been dubbed "Super Duper Tuesday." Florida plans to go even earlier, on January 29.
The timing and processes for selecting delegates to the respective national nominating conventions are set out in national party rules and state law. Complicating matters, the two parties' rules are not entirely in sync. Republican rules governing delegate selection are adopted by the preceding national convention (i.e. the 2008 rules were set in 2004). Rule 15(b)(1) states:
No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held"..http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08.html
Super Tuesday is key. But a caucus still involves voting and a winner. Sounds like a semantics situation to me.
Heloise
13 - Heloise
Obama get cover of VIBE, out this week.