Prediction: Neither Hillary, Obama, or Biden will end up as Dem President!

[KoKo]

Why? Just think about how ANGRY DEMS ARE...and how HARD SO MANY OF US WORKED...that we will not support "Status Quo" EVER AGAIN!

Think I'm wrong? Well I'll see you on Election Day '08 and we will see how THE PEOPLE STOOD UP and SPOKE!

Not to trash all of you who are new to the process and are out there working your tail off for your candidate. I'm saying this as an "older DU'er" who knows a CRISIS is COMING!

There's ANGER OUT THERE...I haven't seen since 1968...and it's not coming from "Dirty Pot Smoking Hippies" who are pushing "Flower Power" and stuff many here think was what was going on then.

It's coming from THE PEOPLE...who haven't been here...along with many of us WHO HAVE.

Just Saying. It's a Cassandra Prediction ...if you want to look at this as "Totally 'out to lunch' post."

[bbinacan]

1. Who will then? n/t

[Double T]

2. Hope your prediction comes true, for ALL our sake.

[durrrty libby]

14. "for ALL our sake." Speak for yourself and not for me. Thanks

[emilyg]

22. Don't include me in your ALL

[youthere]

29. I am not in your "ALL" thank you.

[robinlynne]

33. Include me! I HOPE your prediction comes true.

[Double T]

34. Thanks for checking in; we need real change, not a bunch of fuzzy rhetoric.

[Rockholm]

41. No Japanese rice wine for me thanks.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Don't leave us hanging!

Who's your pick?

:shrug:

I'd like to hear it...

[KoKo]

18. It's Unknown...but it isn't who the Putdits or Campaign Strategists think it will be

at this point in their predictions.

That's all I can say... You remember the "bad end" that Cassandra had?

Interesting times ahead...but what we "SEE NOW" isn't what it "WILL BE." And, again, I applaud all the young DU'ers working for their candidates. But...there will be things to learn and that's a good thing... even if it's "hard."

[Fearless]

4. Jeez all the CAPS... there's an 'ANGRY DEM'!

[MADem]

5. I notice you left Edwards out--are you saying, in oblique fashion, that he's the one?

I think it's too soon to tell. Unless something untoward happens, though, I think the odds are pretty good that one of the names in your subject line will get the nom.

And I'm pretty damned old, and have been through the process for many decades.

But hey, nothing wrong with guessing. Sometimes ya hit the mark...

[KoKo]

19. "Wild Card" with the message that resonates FINALLY...but

it remains to be seen.

[rateyes]

6. I am about ready to purchase tickets to the Denver Convention...

and pull a 1968 Democratic Convention style protest....taking it to the convention floor!! 24/7. The fucking press CAN'T ignore THAT!! And, after that, doing the same damned thing in Minneapolis at the Republican Convention.

This shit has got to stop.

[MADem]

10. Wow, that's effective--we didn't do too well in 68, remember?

And those Homeland Security types have gotten better at busting heads -- they don't even have to break a sweat.

With nightsticks, tear gas and Mace, the blue-shirted, blue-helmeted cops violated the civil rights of countless innocent citizens and contravened every accepted code of professional police discipline ... No one could accuse the Chicago cops of discrimination. They savagely attacked hippies, yippies, New Leftists, revolutionaries, dissident Democrats, newsmen, photographers, passers-by, clergymen and at least one cripple. Winston Churchill's journalist grandson got roughed up. Playboy's Hugh Hefner took a whack on the backside. The police even victimized a member of the British Parliament, Mrs. Anne Kerr, a vacationing Labourite who was Maced outside the Conrad Hilton and hustled off to the lockup."<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

[rateyes]

12. We didn't do well in 1968 because the Democrats were the

party of the Vietnam War. Remember? LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Democrats were in power, and refused to get us out of the goddamned Vietnam War. They are doing it all over again. The only difference is that a Democratic congress is capitualting to a Republican executive this time.

I'm sick and tired of the Democratic base being taken for granted, and Dems afraid of looking "weak" doing all they can to actually BE WEAK. Again, ANY politician, Democratic, Republican or Independent who doesn't do what they can to end this fucking war can plant their lips on my rosy red ass.

[MADem]

15. If Humphrey had had two more weeks, he would have won. He was the Wellstone of his day, the

Happy Warrior, an old school liberal, and he was starting to get momentum towards the end of the race--even despite all the bullshit that happened that year. That race was no blowout, not by any measure.

Nixon won 43.2 percent of the vote, Humphrey won 42.7 percent.

I remember it very well.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

20. What part of my post didn't you understand? The facts I provided, or the numbers in support of them

I am not PREDICTING anything.

Where the fuck you got that shit, I have no idea. I make a few observations about the 68 election, and you jump down my throat with a smartass, idiotic diatribe.

Are you perhaps mistaking me for the OP, or are are you always this much of a jerk when you jump into a conversation? Or could it be you really don't know what you're talking about, but you like to stir up shit, is that it?

Have you been reading long?

Oh, and do what you want with your own "ass blowing" smoke, just don't dirct it this way.

:eyes:

[KoKo]

23. I remember...and I agree...a few more weeks and better press and

Humphrey might have won. He got bad press (which I now now was probably calculated by OPS) and it derailed his momentum.

Gosh...that brings me back....

[toughboy]

32. I agree. I cried in class when they announced Nixon had beaten HHH

But your OP and subsequent responses do seem very angry. I think we all feel the anger. I can't agree that Hillary will not win. I hope she does as well.

So is everybody voting tomorrow. Jersey has a stem cell initiative. What's going on in other states?

[MADem]

48. Uh, the OP isn't MINE. That's why I am a bit irritated. My remarks were entirely

benign, until an asshole decided to jump down my throat for no good or discernable reason.

On edit--you can't see the response that I was replying to, but trust me, it was profoundly rude with a sole purpose of disruption--all heat, no light. My response was written in the same vein as the post I was replying to, in short.

I see that the jerk got the old stone avatar--and not too soon, either. It was blatant trolling. The nitwit will probably be back eventually under a new name, pulling the same mindless shit, but hopefully not too soon.

[rateyes]

40. Well, then, your argument about the effect of the protests

in 1968 is weakened.

On edit: And we all have the prick, George Wallace, to thank, in part, for Nixon.

[MADem]

51. Not really.

My "argument"--and I wasn't really arguing, I simply noted that the protests were ineffective and provided a cite for the youngsters who weren't born at the time--if I WERE arguing, would be that, had the protests not occurred, or occcured in a different fashion (sit ins, no anarchists, no confrontation, something with a lot more Nuns and Ghandi-like, perhaps) so that the cops didn't go head-knocking, and causing them to be discussed for MONTHS (in the old days, there was no "24 hour" news cycle--events were actually hashed over in detail!), it would have been better.

Those protests were a distraction and they interfered with the party getting its message out. We lost time on the campaign trail, and media coverage of the candidate, because of them.

[karynnj]

42. My concern as well - especially if people feel that the nomination was fixed

to the "status quo". Hubert Humphrey was a life time populist who was hated by people, who in other circumstances might have been his followers. Whether it was the police riots or the outspoken protesters, it turned many people, in fear, to the extremely unlikable "law and order" Nixon. (Now, which Republican can play that role in 2008?)

I don't think we will get a magic wild card candidate. I think we will get one of the people listed in the op-ed. As to Edwards, I remember the debates where most of the candidates had left the race in 2004. I suspect that either Clinton or Biden would make him look almost as junior as Kerry did. He just doesn't have the experience - and, in a less crowded field, the "Hillary flip flops" will be met by "Edwards flip flops". Biden already did that in annoyance at one debate - challanging Edwards to say what he did on any of these things before 2 years ago. In fact, if it ends up Edwards/Clinton - we may have the nastiest primary of my life time.

[MADem]

53. I just turned on my tee vee a short while ago

And that idiotic Morning Joe program was on. I don't ordinarily watch it, and I was appalled when he, Leonid's daughter and that assclown sidekick of his all predicted that a year from now, we'd be saying "President elect Giuliani." I mean, really--if a thrice married, serial cheating, dress wearing martinet can get the job soly because he SAYS he's "strong on terra/nahn wun wun" then this country actually IS full of fucking idiots!

The GE (We bring good wars to life) - Universal family has apparently settled on their favorite, and they're feeding him to the unthinking masses. The media controls the message, and the new version of law/order, "strong on terrah" is the theme of the year, apparently. They're rolling out the fear card early, this time!

If that IS what is shaking out as the campaigns start to get serious, with Giuliani playing the latter-day Nixon, our candidate, whosoever he/she may be, and even if we like it or not, has to be inoculated against charges of being too marshmallowy in that regard. Even though there is a substantial subset of the party that wants that generic lefty-populist "change" candidate, the more successful tactic, I think, will be 'run right/govern left.'

Eh...it's never easy!

[KoKo]

16. I understand what you say...........n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

7. Is this a primary or general prediction? n/t

[KoKo]

24. both...n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

30. Then I hope you're wrong

None of those are my candidates of choice, but I would be a fool to allow the Republicans to retain their chokehold on this country and to put more RW judges on the Supreme Court simply because the Democratic nominee doesn't meet all of my conditions. Worse than a fool.

[ginchinchili]

8. And what do you base this on?

Which candidate are you predicting will win and what change will take place because of his tenure in the White House? Please try to be as specific as possible.

[KoKo]

25. intuition and years watching all this political theater....

It's going to be ugly...because things are going to be changing so much...with what Bush has put into place because of his incompetence. I don't think any of us can predict...but it WILL NOT BE what the PUNDITS are NOW PREDICTING. Believe me on this.

[daa]

9. Yep, out to lunch

Money talks and selects and votes and you haven't mentioned who had more money than Hillary or Obama. People are mad? Look, 80% of the people are against Bush and torture and what good has it done? The 60s it took PROTESTS and taking to the streets and OCCUPATIONS to force change. People pissing on blocs doesn't' get it done. Just ask Connecticut.

[KoKo]

27. Money has always talked....but check out Wall St. and what's going on there...

and see the uncertainty. These are uncertain times. What the Bushies have put into place and their past is now "hitting the fan." No GREAT POWER...lasts forever.

Not even theirs...when they've over reached into the "EVIL ZONE!" We are heading into uncertain times.

Anything can happen and what we think is happening can change on a dime.

Just saying...it's not all what it seems from the Pundits.

[toughboy]

35. I'm way more concerned about Pakistan at the moment.

Who listens to Pundits anyway? Tolerable bathroom reading material, occasionally, but most people connect with candidates in ways they don't even understand. I predicted Kerry would be nominated and loss the election here on DU at least a yeara before it happened. Not that I was aware of the total spectrum of crimes that would be committed, but even then a really angry populace could have voted millions of more times for Kerry.

I think you misunderstand why some on Wall Street support Senator Clinton. It is definitely not overwhelming support. But with the incredibly serious corporate, government, foreign policy, health care and other issues that any new President will have to face, I think the majority of the country trusts that Clinton will be able to start fixing things without taking the entire thing apart and dumping it in the sandbox like the insane group of people who are running this administration now have done. I hope we all survive until 2009,frankly. And if you're intuition is right, well then it was right.

The US declared a Kurdish group as terrorists today. Does anyone kid themselves that someone less than an experienced leader like Clinton will even be able to get out of the swirling quicksand? I don't. Any other time she probably wouldn't be my immediate first choice (Richardson or Clinton would be competing with Wes Clark, probably) but we as a country can't take the chance that we elect anyone even remotely unexperienced. Rest assured that whoever gets elected President will be trying to lead a country in deep financial and psychological shit! In this case there has to be some sign of the ability to progress in Progressive, so I think we'll be starting with Clinton.

As an older person who has also been around a while, I know that we won't get even and put things right on the "MTV generation" attention span schedule.

[toughboy]

37. Wow. I just realized like I sounded like I'm over 50 or something.

Kids will do that to you. Hanging out at polling stations at age 3 also does have a effect.

[daa]

45. "The US declared a Kurdish group as terrorists today"

Then why is BUSH FINANCING THAT GROUP??

Erdogan, although describing himself as "happy" with his talks with Bush, may have left with nothing substantial.But at least he got a sound bite from Bush, who upgraded the PKK to the status of an enemy of America. Bush told Erdogan, "The PKK is a terrorist organization. They're an enemy of Turkey, they're an enemy of Iraq and they're an enemy of the United States."

Pity the US president could not possibly follow his own logic and add that the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK - the PKK's Iran arm - is an enemy of Iran, an enemy of Iraq but a friend of the United States - which is arming and financing its fighters.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK07Ak01.html

[ginchinchili]

46. Until this week, Joe Biden has been the only candidate talking about Pakistan,

Not Hillary Clinton. It was Biden who had the foresight and accurate sense of priorities who pointed out that Iran was small potatoes compared to Pakistan in the last presidential debate, and that it is Pakistan that the U.S. better be formulating a policy on, one that makes sense with a more comprehensive Middle East policy. 3 days later Musharaff declares martial law, there are protests in the streets, and we might see a coalition form between Islamic hardliners and Pakistani moderates just to get rid of the current dictator we have so closley aligned ourselves with. And I remind you, they have a nuclear arsenal.

If WE had OUR priorities in order, we'd be backing the candidate who REALLY understands international political dynamics, and not just someone who starts talking about it after the shit already hits the fan. Forget about your favorite flavors and do what is really best for America.

[mmonk]

11. There will be a point of critical mass.

It could come during the elections or it could come sooner in citizen protest and organization. My thoughts are there could be a large surge of support for Edwards or Biden in Iowa when the candidates with less than 15% move in some direction. I doubt the majority of them are status quo democrats.

[izzie]

13. I am just waiting to see who it will be.

I frankly would vote for Clinton but do not want it to go to a Clinton once more. I still like Obama as I just think he has the new way of thinking this country needs.

[JeffR]

21. I like the sound of that!

Hope you're right.

[waiting for hope]

26. Here's an indication:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/3444/83859

New polls expose a corruption time bomb for Democrats. Updated
by dengre
Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:28:53 AM EST
When asked, voters name Corruption as a top issue of concern.

When given some variation of Corruption and Ethics in Washington among their choices of concerns, the issue always ranks near the top. The issue is consistently ranked as important by 90% to 97% of all voters (depending upon what corruption stories are in the news).

Often Corruption is the #1 concern of voters. More at Link...

There is more brewing under the surface then people realize. K&R!!

[KoKo]

28. That's an interesting post from "Kos" with the charts and figures about Corruption...

Thanks for posting it. I scanned it and bookmarked it to read later. lots of folks here would probably find it interesting too...Hope they will follow the link and check it out!

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

44. This may be part of the root of many people considering Biden

Like several posts here, I do think we need someone with experience and I do think it should be someone who has been a clean politician and can use the corruption issue, not have to defend themselves from it. Now, while many of the Clinton stories are lies, the way they handled campaign finances in the 1990s and this year, has left them open to question on this. There have already been at least 2 campaign finance problems for HRC (Hsu and NYC Chinatown) and she is being hit by her opponents on this issue.

I would love either Gore or Kerry in the race - then you would have people who are clean and even more experienced than HRC. Neither are or will be in the race - so that leaves me looking at the others. Looking at the candidates, who has both experience and lack of even the appearance of corruption? None in the top three. In the second tier, it makes me want to know more about Biden and Dodd - and Biden seems to be getting more traction. He, of course, has not been under the scrutiny that Clinton, Gore and Kerry all have - but if he does rise in the polls, he will be more closely scrutinized.

[Hawkowl]

31. I agree

I'd phrase it as, the only thing I'm predicting is the unpredictable.

[Alexander]

36. You're right, Gore will.

[BenDavid]

38. Status Quo? What, you think HRC is walking into

this nomination. Hell, I would say our own candidates have tried to undermine her since last January. Now why would they do that? I think they understood she is the one that can win. She is the one with the IQ and common sense that most likely is the smartest person in a damn room. This clusterfuck of a president is what the media passed on to those suckers that said bush did not need to be the smartest person in the room. Well we see what ignorance will get us.....

So as HRC said, "I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen." and there you go....
Ben David

[NotGivingUp]

39. It's exactly the way I feel so I'm figuring (& hoping) there's got to be a lot more like me. n/t

[onenote]

43. Hmm. Its not the way I feel, so I'm figuring there's got to be a lot more like me.

And the fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals have already contributed to the Obama, Clinton and Biden campaigns suggests that a lot of people are engaged and not turned off.

[AtomicKitten]

47. My prediction? Neither will Edwards.

Gobama.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. So, it's President Romney in '08?

Yikes

[bigwillq]

50. You're right!

DK will! :bounce: Vote for Dennis, a true leader!

[NewHampster]

52. Sort of funny that you think DU stands for all dems

DU doesn't even resemble a cross section of the party.

DU isn't even activist dems.

[KittyWampus]

54. #1. Anyone who claims to be 'an older DU'er' gets a stock -fuck you- from me.

#2. It's totally unnecessary TO USE CAPS THAT MUCH IT DOESN'T HELP YOU MAKE A POINT
#3. What pundits have been pushing "Biden"?
#4. I swear it seems like some DU'ers must drink before they log on.

[KoKo]

55. sigh.....

[mtnsnake]

56. Oh pipe the fuck down

WTF are you whining about. Koko's use of caps was only on certain words and phrases with the sole purpose of placing emphasis where it was wanted. The OP is just fine so stop your dam nitpicking. Gheesh

[mdmc]

57. I pray that NH will set us straight

But I don't see liberal Kucinich doing well up in NH. I hope Ron Paul does well in NH.

[BigDDem]

58. I would also like to go out on a limb and predict that....

Biden will not end up as "Dem President."