What's next for Hillary?

[pmcalk]

Since almost everyone agrees that the race is pretty much over, I am curious what Hillary supporters think she should do next?  Not for the short term, but the long term.  Some think she should be on the ticket as vice president, but I am not so sure that is a good idea.  I would still support it, but I have a feeling that is not what she would want, and I am not confident it would be a winning ticket.  So what other position?  Maybe Health & Human Services?  Labor?  I heard one suggestion that she should be considered for the next supreme court position, which I believe is a good idea.  We need more women on the Supreme Court.  I also think she would make an excellent Governor of New York.

I think that Obama should help her pay off her debt.  After all, she made him a better candidate.

[iplaw]

Pay off her debt?  She and Slick made $110 million over the last few years...

I say she's offered some position, but declines and stays as Senator and makes a run in 2012.  No hope for SCOUTS, I don't see her making it through a confirmation.

[Hometown]

I have to admit things don't look so good for Clinton.  I would say that at this point her best hope is for an Obama meltdown.

As a lifelong Democrat who has voted for every one of our nominees I have to say that I wish there was some place else I could go.  The Republican Party does not offer a viable alternative.

I feel like my party is about to nominate another candidate that is too liberal to win in the general election.

If Clinton loses the primary the Clintons' grip on the party (since 92) will be done with.  The party will belong to Obama and his Chicago friends and they will have to redefine the party.

If Obama wins the primary and loses in the general election a tremendous power vacuum will ensue and the party will have to reinvent itself from the bottom up.

I have had trouble with the left wing of our party for some time now and if there was a Centrist Party I would leave the Democrats and move to the Centrists.  I suppose the best scenario for Democrats like me is that if Obama loses, the left wing of our party will be so thoroughly diminished that they will be marginalized for the foreseeable future.

There might be some justice in a Republican win and the Republicans getting to clean up their own mess, or not clean it up and assigned blame for their own sins.

Yesterday I heard Obama spin doctors saying that the White working class vote and the Latin vote (both of which have gone for Clinton) don't matter.

The day that my party adopts this view is the day I say goodbye to my lifelong association with the Democrats.

Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans.  It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.

I would say last night was probably the real beginning of Obama's slow motion train wreck.

I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton.  But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history.  No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.

[cannon_fodder]

HT, the problem with your analysis is that there are apperently more "rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans" that are willing to vote for Obama than there are white-working class and Hispanics willing to vote for Clinton.  By definition, wouldn't that imply that his numerical advantage would translate well to the General Election?  Or are the white-working class and Hispanics Clinton claims somehow better than the supporters Obama claims?

See what I'm getting at?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I have to admit things don't look so good for Clinton.  I would say that at this point her best hope is for an Obama meltdown.

As a lifelong Democrat who has voted for every one of our nominees I have to say that I wish there was some place else I could go.  The Republican Party does not offer a viable alternative.

I feel like my party is about to nominate another candidate that is too liberal to win in the general election.

If Clinton loses the primary the Clintons' grip on the party (since 92) will be done with.  The party will belong to Obama and his Chicago friends and they will have to redefine the party.

If Obama wins the primary and loses in the general election a tremendous power vacuum will ensue and the party will have to reinvent itself from the bottom up.

I have had trouble with the left wing of our party for some time now and if there was a Centrist Party I would leave the Democrats and move to the Centrists.  I suppose the best scenario for Democrats like me is that if Obama loses, the left wing of our party will be so thoroughly diminished that they will be marginalized for the foreseeable future.

There might be some justice in a Republican win and the Republicans getting to clean up their own mess, or not clean it up and assigned blame for their own sins.

Yesterday I heard Obama spin doctors saying that the White working class vote and the Latin vote (both of which have gone for Clinton) don't matter.

The day that my party adopts this view is the day I say goodbye to my lifelong association with the Democrats.

Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans.  It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.

I would say last night was probably the real beginning of Obama's slow motion train wreck.

I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton.  But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history.  No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.

I gave up on the Democrats when I was in College (thanks TU).
I gave up on the Republicans when I became truly educated in the real world.

As a libertarian I can find no fault with the philosophy.  It affords me the liberty to be socially liberal, yet embrace logic when in comes to fiscal matters.  Its principals are the basis of our constitution.

Here are the Five Simple Principals of Libertarianism



YOU OWN YOURSELF


First and foremost, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period.

Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your own well-being. Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care. Most of us choose to help one another voluntarily, for a variety of reasons -- and that's as it should be -- but "forced compassion" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.


THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE


Self-ownership implies the right to self-defense. Libertarians yield to no one in their support for our right as individuals to keep and bear arms. We only wish that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said "The right to self-defense being inalienable..." instead of that stuff about a "well-regulated militia". Anyone who thinks that government -- any government -- has the right to disarm its citizens is NOT a libertarian!


NO "CRIMINAL POSSESSION" LAWS


In fact, libertarians believe that individuals have the right to own and use anything- gold, guns, marijuana, sexually explicit material- so long as they do not harm others through force or the threat of force. Laws criminalizing the simple possession of anything are tailor-made for police states; it is all too easy to plant a forbidden substance in someone's home, car or pocket. Libertarians are as tough on crime- real crime- as anyone. But criminal possession laws are an affront to liberty, whatever the rhetoric used to defend them.


NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY


In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity -- i.e., an income tax -- and no libertarian supports this type of taxation.

What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.


A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM


The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.

The five points enumerated here are not a complete, comprehensive prescription for freedom... but they would take us most of the way. A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit, and which imposes no criminal penalties for the mere possession and peaceful use of anything, is one that almost all libertarians would be comfortable with.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

HT, the problem with your analysis is that there are apperently more "rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans" that are willing to vote for Obama than there are white-working class and Hispanics willing to vote for Clinton.  By definition, wouldn't that imply that his numerical advantage would translate well to the General Election?  Or are the white-working class and Hispanics Clinton claims somehow better than the supporters Obama claims?

See what I'm getting at?

You would know better than I would. Isn't White working class the largest demographic in the U.S.? Isn't the much coveted Latin vote coming from the largest minority in the United States? I've heard spin doctors say they are both crucial to a win in the general election.

Apparently there are more of both voting in the general election than in the Democratic primary.

My reference is memory of Liberal Democrats winning the primary and then bombing out in the general election. My party is home to a lot of former hopefuls that crashed and burned.

One thing about it, an Obama loss in November will transform my party. I wonder how it will look then?

[FOTD]

What's next? Supreme Court.

[RecycleMichael]

After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.

She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.

She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.

She will win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but it will only award her 10 delegates net after losing Oregon, North Dakota, and Montana.  I'm sorry RM, but she's done.  Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall  with Obama signs.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall with Obama signs.

I already have one of each at home. I plan to support the democrat in November.

[cannon_fodder]

Actually, the "gold standard" or any variant is not part of the Libertarian Party platform.  Most notably because the impossibility of addressing the issue.   The goal is a more stable and less manipulated monetary policy.

Sorry to go off on this tangent, but a brief refutation of the Gold Standard is in order:

1) First, it is not possible.  

Annual Gold production peaked in 1999 at 83,591,941 Troy Ounces (OZ) - on today's market about $74 Billion dollars worth.  The United States economy produces about $13.3 TRILLION per year (or 180 times annual gold production).

All time global production of gold is estimate to be around 10 Billion OZ (enough to build a solid gold 1/3 scale model of the Washington Monument), or $8.7 Trillion US Dollars at todays value.  $8.7 trillion in gold does not go very far in reality, it would have to increase exponentially to protect our currency.  UNLESS, you only wanted to back printed currency - which is pretty irreverent in the modern world and would negate the primary stability argument of the Gold Standard.


Clearly these examples are over simplified,  but there simply is not enough Gold to back the dollar.  Adding platinum, silver, jewels and every other precious commodity still would not be enough.  Pegged currencies simply do not allow the production of wealth as readily as fiat or floating currencies.

2) Deflation.

The result of any shift would be immediate inflation in the price of the spot commodity.  The net result would be rampant deflation of the dollars in our hands as they would effectively buy less and less pegged resource in an exponential increase.  Eventually settling somewhere around $175,000 per ounce (anyone want to buy my wedding band?) if we wanted to try to compute a matching ratio to todays money (which is realistically impossible, but as an aside).

Today, the average Tulsa house costs about 10.25 pounds of Gold.  

3) Currency would still alter it's value

After the initial cluster of the cross over, the "value" of our now pegged currency would still fluctuate.  As mining reserves are found or dwindle, if other countries went to or from the Gold standard, if Gold producing nations had political turmoil (most Gold production is in Africa), or if new uses for the commodity (Gold) is discovered we would suffer inflation or deflation.

Historically -  bank runs, massive deflation (it ruined the Spanish Empire), as well as Great depressions were all a result of the Gold Standard.  Look at the price of gold this decade for an example of fluctuations in commodities markets.

4) Transfer of wealth

In order to acquire and then sustain our Gold standard the United States would have to transfer out a vast amount of our wealth.  In exchange for this huge investment of wealth to foreign nations we would have a shiny metal we hold on to.  Instead of investing that money in infrastructure, education, or other wealth generating items we would buy a shiny metal and provide those items to foreign nations.

Furthermore, this process would continue so long as we wished to grow out economy.  To avoid MASSIVE deflation we would have to consume large quantities of gold (many times more than world production actually) or stagnate our economy.  Simply put, if the USA generated 10% surplus wealth this year our currency would deflate by 10%.  Likewise, to sustain wealth distribution among population growth deflation would have to occur on a massive scale (300 million people with 300 million OZ of gold, 600 million people we each only get .5 OZ).

All the while this deflation over values the mining operations and shiny metals held by everyone else.  Not sure how this would bennefit the United States.

CONVERSELY, by issuing dollars the US government is able to purchase real assets for the issuance of fictitious wealth.  China holds $1 Trillion USD, from the issuance of which the United States has purchased a plethora of things.  They have a note, we have assets.  In THEORY we will pay them back and they will be able to garner assets, but even with interest we come out far ahead of where we would be if the same purchase was a pile of metal in a vault.

5) A useful commodity

Gold is a useful commodity.  In electronics, in science, or just as decoration Gold serves useful purposes.  Sitting in a government vault it serves no useful purpose but would cause the useful application to be prohibitively expensive.


6) Trade

If we pegged our currency we would be a potential trade disadvantage to other nations.  If the price of Gold was high, the effect would be the same as having our currency high.  Thus, in a global economy the primary players (banks, massive corporations, etc.) would still trade foreign currencies and float foreign notes as it benefited them.  Essentially negating any perceived stability in a pegged currency.


6) No protection

The gold standard does not offer the protection we are looking for anyway.  Remember, we were on the gold standard and it was removed.  The same can happen again.

The ultimate protection of having Gold as a resource is in the possession of the shiny metal that other's want.  It's value reliant on the fact that other's want it - which is the same as a fiat currency.

Under our current fiat/floating currency the value is pegged to demand.  The more people that want the commodity and the scarcity of the supply determine the price in relation to similar worldwide products.  The same as any other commodity.  

EXCEPT, with currency it is subject to the whims of government.  Instead of a mining strike or a release of bullion causing our currency to fluctuate, it is maneuvers by our government or other's lack of faith in our nation.  We can vote a government out of office or over throw it completely, but we have no control over commodity prices nor any way to stabilize them.
- - -

The problem with the current system is a distrust of government.  That's why floating currencies fail in crap-hole nations like Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea.  As the US government loses credibility and racks up financial uncertainty our commodity (the dollar) is falling.  It is a function of the market, the market evaluating how we are doing - and I'm ok with that.

bah, I could ramble on.  But you see what I'm getting at.  It's not practical, beneficial, nor realistically possible.  Keeping government small, efficient, and transparent as well as protecting our rights are far more important issues than trying to work out a mercantile system of currency pegging.


/ramble

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall with Obama signs.

I already have one of each at home. I plan to support the democrat in November.

Oh, so you are voting for McCain in November now?

[RecycleMichael]

There is no chance I will vote for McCain in November.

I will explain in depth over the next 6 months, probably daily.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.

She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.

I appreciate your undying conviction in the face of utter doom, RM.  Oregon will put Obama over the top.  He needs less than 200 to give him the nomination.  He got 4 more superdelegates today.  Within two weeks, I predict he'll have more superdelegates than she.  Many have already committed to backing whomever has the most pledged delegates--you can count those in Obama's camp now.  Intrade dropped her from almost 20% to 8% after last night.  Big time supporters, like George McGovern, are asking her to step aside.  She ran a good campaign.  But its time to move on.

Absent a meteor hitting Obama, she won't be running for president as the Democratic nominee--so what do you think she should do instead?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

There is no chance I will vote for McCain in November.

I will explain in depth over the next 6 months, probably daily.

Yeah, but you said you were voting for the "Democrat" dude.