Obama: dead man walking?, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 5-3-2008 @ 11:50 AM by The Vagabond
I believe that the super delegates would have to force those two into a shared ticket.

Obama should know that being associated with Hillary would only create a perception of him as an insider and hurt his future electability, so he would be entirely dependent on the success of the Clinton administration to make him president if he became her VP. Furthermore, I just don't see him taking a deal like that while he leads in delegates.

So if it comes to the convention and the Super Delegates say "this could be very bad for the party, so we're putting Hillary up on the condition that she take Obama for VP", that's pretty much the only way I see it happening.

I don't think Hillary has anything to gain by playing second fiddle, and I'm not sure that her ego, or as some have termed it, "her nearly messianic sense of purpose" would allow her to. If the super delegates went with Obama I think Hillary would chastise the party, storm away, and be waiting in the wings for her chance to come back and say "I told you so" if Obama lost the general election, making herself the obvious candidate in 2012.

Yesterday was interesting. I went against the polls and many pundits, thinking that Obama could win Texas AND Ohio despite the odds, and that Hillary would be gone. I was off by more than a little.

So now I suppose things get ugly. Hillary can either take the victory she probably already has coming in Pa and just start working on the super delegates, or she can start hammering Obama on NAFTA and the Rezko thing trying to get even more delegates out of it- in which case she probably kills the idea of a shared ticket. If she chooses the first road and it doesn't start to pay off quickly, she'll get desperate and go to the second option. If that doesn't work, who knows.

On the one, Hillary is in better position than she's been in weeks, and that would seem to rule out her having to kill Obama. On the other hand, we are quickly running out of unknowns, options are becoming scarce, and the issue is still in doubt.

But I believe I've mentioned before, that the longer they wait, the more obvious a culprit Hillary is if anything bad should happen to Obama. That is so much the case that at this point, if there was an attempt on Obama's life and he survived, I would actually be most likely to blame Obama supporters, if not Obama himself.


reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:08 PM by The Vagabond
What Would Siggy Do?

Hillary Clinton Apologizes for Citing RFK Assassination as reason to stay in the Race

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.


I never trusted Hillary Clinton, but I never expected her to openly say that Obama getting shot is one of the scenarios that gives her hope. And let's not forget, of the two things that Hillary cited, only one of them can happen still- the California primary is over, and winning it handily didn't save Clinton's bacon.


reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:13 PM by ppskylight
Originally posted by The Vagabond
What Would Siggy Do?

Hillary Clinton Apologizes for Citing RFK Assassination as reason to stay in the Race

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.


I never trusted Hillary Clinton, but I never expected her to openly say that Obama getting shot is one of the scenarios that gives her hope. And let's not forget, of the two things that Hillary cited, only one of them can happen still- the California primary is over, and winning it handily didn't save Clinton's bacon.


She didn't openly say that she hoped for that sort of scenario in any way, she was simply giving historical references for a longer nomination race, such as those which went on through June. She referenced it because it is something people remember well, and a fairly valid point in conjunction with the example of former President Bill Clinton's participation in a long nomination race.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 02:00 AM by The Vagabond
Choosing Clinton would be hazardous to Obama in every way.

Obama has several alternatives for female VPs (Janet Napolitano, whatshername who is governor of Kansas, etc) and that would probably satisfy many of Hillary's supporters, who I suspect are flat out lying to polsters about being willing to vote for McCain out of spite.
So the upside in choosing her is limited to funding, and Obama is already shattering records in that respect.

Meanwhile, Hillary is a lightning rod for Republicans. Republicans don't like Obama either, but they aren't really set in their hatred of him the way they are set in their hatred of Clinton. The name Clinton has been enough to make a Republican growl for the last 16+ years. Republican turnout WILL be higher with Hillary on the ballot. The hope has to be that if they don't have Hillary to vote against, and they aren't excited about McCain, maybe the far right republicans will stay home on election day, or cast protest votes in favor of a minor candidate such as Ron Paul.

Obama's supporters are really mad at Hillary too. Taking her on might look like selling out, and it might some of them less enthusiastic about Obama- it might keep them from becoming volunteers.

Then there's the dangers of being in office with Hillary. She's a shameless self promoter. She won't shut up, she won't follow directions, she will try to make herself look good at Obama's expense, she may even try to get supporters of hers in the Senate to cause problems for Obama just so she can be seen brokering the deal to solve it.

And last but not least, yeah, Obama could die if she was his VP. Obama is a player as much as anyone- he does what he has to do to get the support he really needs, although he's been known to tug at the reigns just a little bit. But Obama's masters are not all the same as Hillary's in every case. Let's not forget that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq when her party did have the ability to stop it.
So if Obama really does something about the issue, Clinton is gonna start to look REALLY good to the American "Military Industrial Complex".


But let me go on the record as saying that I will be STUNNED if Hillary becomes Vice President. I don't think she wants the job, despite what she has said, because she has more to gain by being the one saying "I told you so" if McCain defeats Obama, which is an outcome which she is positioned to give her clandestine support to.

She may even have a distant surrogate- somebody radical who she can credibly deny affiliation with- make a public suggestion that her supporters should vote McCain for President, Dems for Congress, in order to weaken the Republican party by defeating its ideas while they hold the presidency while simultaneously setting up Hillary as the lone obvious candidate in 2012, against a weakened incumbent or maybe even an unelected president (if McCain died and his VP took over).

I don't think Obama wants her either. They say that Michelle Obama has a deep personal dislike of Hillary Clinton, and I get the distinct impression that Michelle has uncommon influence over her husband's politics, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised to see her follow in Hillary's shoes by seeking office after Obama's administration.

I believe that the only thing that could bring such a candidacy about is blackmail by the party. That is the ultimate coat-tails ticket, and it could help the democrats consolidate power in newly won congressional districts and also expand into traditionally red districts. The party might have already therefore made a Clinton vice-presidency a condition of a super-delegate deal with Obama, and may have held the prospect of being sabotaged in any future presidential run over Clinton's head to the same end.

I do not believe that the party was in a position to do that though. Obama was virtually unstoppable, failing INCREDIBLE party discipline over the supers, and Hillary could have been bribed with campaign debt reimbursement and future endorsement by Obama, which could counter any influence the party might have hoped to exert.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 02:35 AM by mysterychicken
reply to post by ipsedixit



Even McCain supporters acknowledge that he is unlikely to win the presidency due to the Bush administration. It is not impossible if the Democratic candidate does something stupid to fall greatly out of public favor. Even in that scenerio McCain would only be able to pull it off by a small margin.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 02:44 AM by ipsedixit
reply to post by mysterychicken



On the plus side with parliamentary politics, parliament can quickly change directions if things really start to go haywire with any particular administration. On the negative side this leads to administrations with a tendancy to dither and muddle along.

The plus side of presidential politics is that a leader with vision and command of the legislative engine can really accomplish great things, but on the negative side it is really difficult to get rid of a lunkhead.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 02:49 AM by mysterychicken
reply to post by ipsedixit



I can see the appeal of being able to remove someone who is doing a terrible job (Yea! Accountability!). Unfortunately, I think that here (US) that would simply become another tool in the political maneuvering. Pluses and minuses to both systems it seems.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 02:56 AM by ipsedixit
reply to post by mysterychicken


In Canada you get this phenomenon known as "governing by polls".

Policy, even after a government has been elected is pursued on the basis of what pollsters employed by the government find out about what the people want.

It's as if the whole point of gaining power becomes, holding on to power, no matter how the party's electoral platform might have to be twisted.

That's one great advantage that presidential politics has over parliamentary politics, at least as it is practised in this era.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 03:03 AM by The Vagabond
It is in fact unlikely that Hillary could run in 2012 if Obama were elected, however that's not entirely certain necessarily.

The whole process is evolving radically right before our eyes.

Do you remember the XFL? How you had all these young second-rate players, and nothing ever went according to plan? Offensive lines just collapsed on every play- it barely even looked like football as I've come to know it.

Well that's what politics is starting to look like. It's like we've got bunch of excitable young people fresh out of college playing smash-mouth politics with little if any attention to tradition. That may not be the reality- but that's the impression that is created at a glance.

My Political science professor, just two years ago, tried at great length to explain to us excitable kids that voting in the other party's primary to undermine them isn't really a viable strategy and nobody would ever seriously even bother with the idea- then courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, 14 PERCENT of Hillary's supporters in Indiana told exit polls that they would vote against Hillary in the general election!

We've got a Democratic nominee who designed his whole primary victory on this guerilla strategy of not winning, but just "keeping pressure on the wounds" in big states, while quietly picking up the ones nobody in their right mind would spend time or money in.

Not only that, but from a historical perspective, neither party is in good health. The Democrats atrophed into a traditional party of opposition and now as they are starting to show signs of life, are also showing signs of factionalism. The Republicans have completely died on domestic policy and are their last 3 terms in the white house were all bad. Minor candidates have become numerous and visible. The political climate is VOLATILE.

We could see a betrayal in the tradition of Roosevelt v Taft in the next few years. In fact, I really believe that we already would have had one of those if Bush had made the mistake of running with Colin Powell in 2000.

I also believe that in my lifetime we will see an election decided by the Congress, and quite possibly the rise of a successful 3rd party, quite possibly coinciding with the death of a major party- three more things that my poli sci prof swore an oath could not possibly happen in any realistic circumstance in this day and age.

I actually consider all of the above HYPOTHETICALLY possible by 2012, depending how things play out.
Imagine if you will: Obama wins, and America's present financial woes prove too much to stop- early in his presidency a depression is declared.
Hillary steps up to challenge him in 2012- and takes the fight to the general election under a 3rd party's nomination. This sends the matter to the Congress perhaps, where either Clinton or Obama faces a Republican who had more votes, but not enough. Any result could destroy a party in that situation. Republicans taking an election they didn't win straight up, during hard times, would be just the capstone it took to destroy them. The Democratic nominee losing to a rogue challenger could destroy their party. The Democratic party keeping a president who was in that much trouble could also end their political existence if things didn't improve in the second term.

Mark my words, this country has problems right now, and MANY strange and unexpected things are all too possible at this juncture.

Remember the 60s and 70s? We were warned about the MIC, then our president got shot, then the longest war in our history started, then a president refused to seek reelection, there was a full blown riot at a convention which forced a radical change to the primary process, the balance of power between the parties shifted back to Republican presidents for the first time in 40 years or so, and then we had a president resign! Freakin weird right? Stuff happens. And things are worse this time.


reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 03:28 AM by ipsedixit
reply to post by The Vagabond


One of the things that a foreign observer of the US notices is that there are very serious divisions within US society at this time.

Considering the degree to which the mainstream media have become like propaganda organs for the Ministry of Normality, it would be hard for many Americans who don't go to sites like this, I think, to realize what a cauldron of discontent is currently simmering in the pressure cooker.

I think a lot of new and different scenarios could develop, as you say.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags