The Possibility Of Hillary

I find it interesting to note that when I check one of the alternative news sources I read today, there are not one, but two different articles raising the possibility of a "Clinton Coup"

First this article; www.informationclearinghouse.info...

After Barockstar’s near fatal empty suit performance at Saddleback Saturday, the Obama spin machine is in damage control overdrive. I wonder if they‘ve had time to realize that they have been triangulated by the Clinton war room and set up to take a fall at the DNC convention?

And secondly; www.informationclearinghouse.info...

The day after the release of the poll findings indicating that McCain was five points ahead, I received telephone calls from an extremely well informed American friend telling me that Hillary was in the process of putting the finishing touches to her strategy to take Obama out at the convention. The friend named the four key people who were preparing the ground for the putsch, including the lady who is acting as Hillary’s eminence grise. (The latter is a very powerful lady with loads of money). If my friend’s information is correct, the following is the scenario that will be played out next Tuesday evening, prime time. When she is nominated, Hillary will not realease her delegates to Obama and will say words to the effect that circumstances have changed, and it’s now clear that only she can guarantee to win the White House for the party. Whether or not she herself would go as far as challenging Obama to release his delegates to her is not something my friend was prepared to speculate about. He said he thought that aspect of the matter had not yet been determined. He also said it was more than reasonable to assume that enough delegates would be prepared to dump Barak and give Hilary victory on the convention floor if they were persuaded that he was, or was most likely to be, a loser.

I'm curious as to whether this scenario is plausible to anyone else, and what the ramifications of that might be for both the democrats and the country. Personally, if by hook or by crook, Hillary grabs the nomination, I can see it being completely disastrous for both. At this point, the only healthy thing in terms of the party and the country, for Hillary to do, is support Obama 100%, and hope that if he screws up, she stands a better chance in 2012. If Hillary leaves the convention as the Democratic candidate, it will be incredibly divisive for the democrats, there's no possible way it could not be - there would be staunch Obamists and Hillarists brawling in the aisles, no end to the mudslinging and backstabbing. Devastating for the party. And meanwhile, as far as the country is concerned, the election would be over. McCain could sit back as the wise old man, shaking his head ruefully at the antics of these young egocentric politicians, whose only concern is for their own advancement, not the country's. Indeed, I can see that in the event of this happening, McCain's rumored choice of running partner in Mitt Romney would end up being the best possible choice for him to make, to illustrate that he has no issue embracing his rivals, where Clinton/Obama can do nothing but vilify the other.

I hope that this does not happen. I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm not a McCain supporter, they're both, to me, bad choices. But nor am I a fan of Hillary, and I think that this ultimately selfish act would lead to the end of the Democratic party, and quite possibly the entire political process as it currently stands. The only winners, in this whole scenario, would be John McCain, and the media. Considering that CNN devoted hours yesterday to the phrase "We're waiting to find out who Obama's VP choice is, staking out every candidate to see who moves, and let you be the first to know his choice, and oh yeah, text messages", an event like this would be a godsend to them. (I was driving listening to CNN on XM radio yesterday for 3 hours straight, and literally that sums up the entire program)

So what do you think?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Inannamute]

She is setting up for 2012. That will be her last hurrah. She realizes that Obama may have some fatal flaws, and she needs to rebuild her war chest. She will do the minum to help, so as not to look bad, but don't look for anything more.

She doesnt have the delegates to challange. Obama has more than enough to assure nomination. Should still be interesting though...

one last thought. Some states delegates are not legally bound to vote for the person they are sent to nominate. So, I suppose there is a 1 in a billion shot...

I think the reason news sources are bringing this up is because of the news that Hillary Clinton will make a symbolic roll-call of her delegates where i believe that shes supposed to give her delegates to
Obama:

Hillary's roll-call

Historically, the roll call has occurred on the convention's third night. That's still likely, although Democrats say the mechanics of how the vote will play out still are being determined. When it occurs, Clinton — herself a superdelegate who gets a vote — is expected to release her delegates to Obama, announce her support for him and ask her backers to do the same

Now personally, I dont think that she would usurp the nomination, it would more than likely upset alot of party members and voters, likely losing the nomination. Not to mention it would be a VERY risky move for her political career.

Edit to add: I too feel that it would be wisest for her to wait until 2012, if either Barack or McCain turn out to be bad presidents she will be able to make a very good case for herself then, in fact she might even be a lock for president



[edit on 23-8-2008 by Secret Shadow]

I agree it's not that likely, and it would be political suicide to try, but you do have to wonder why it was that she said she was simply suspending her campaign, not ceding in favor of Obama. With the inclusion of Michigan and Florida it is technically possible that she has more delegates than Obama.. It all comes down to just how egocentric and arrogant the Clintons are..

reply to post by Inannamute


If Sen. Clinton hurts Sen. Obama's chances, it will be over for her politically. Her supporters are rallying around Sen. Obama, and it would look like poor sportsmanship on the Clinton's part.

The press is looking on how well Hillary speaks and supports Sen. Obama. She will have to wait until 2016 if she does run again. (I do not think Sen. Biden will run for president, just like VP Cheney.)
She never wanted to be a Vice President as she has more power in the Senate.

If she really wanted to throw the political system off kilter she would wait till 2012 and run as a third party candidate. She could very easily garner the five percent needed for third party recognition, although I feel that that would be highly unlikely as most of the third parties do not encompass her ideals as a politician. Personally I would like to see a strong, viable candidate run as a third party so that we canfinally broaden our horizons as far as candidates go. Lets do away with this two party oligopoly that is more concerned with party lines than representing the American public.

reply to post by Secret Shadow


So far, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party did the best as a third party ticket. Ross Perot did well, but he never did give details on how he would solve the problems. His ego caused him to withdraw, even though he was surging in the polls. When he got back in the race, it was too late.
I do think the two party system holds back the country when it comes to debate. The Libertarian and Green Party are vying for the third party slot, but I would like several parties to choose from.

Good comment, and a star for you.

Thanks for the star, and as far as third parties I would rather see the constitutionalists or the libertarian parties earn the neccessary five percent.

As far as Ive heard Ross Perot was a great guy to work for, even if he was a little strange. Ive heard stories that he was so strict about deadlines that he would lock employees in the building overnight to complete a deadline, although he would cater in all kinds of entertainment and food.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Secret Shadow]

As much as it would be great to have a third party or more in our system, there can not and will not be a successful third party candidate (and by extension, successful third party) until the media recognizes them as such, and if the media does not believe the third party is viable, they won't talk about them at all - it's self destructive to do so, given the corporate pressures from above to support one candidate or the other from the existing parties. It's a catch-22 situation, that can only be remedied by a truly free and unbiased media. While we are stuck with the current system in the media, we are also stuck with the current highly flawed two party political system.

thats why I always hated that the FCC got rid of their rule requiring fair and unbiased coverage of events.

However, if a media worthy candidate like Hillary were to run on a third party it would be alot easier to garner five percent

but, alas, we are trolling off-topic (partly my fault)..perhaps we should start a new thread on the viability of third party candidates

reply to post by Inannamute

Originally posted by Inannamute
I find it interesting to note that when I check one of the alternative news sources I read today, there are not one, but two different articles raising the possibility of a "Clinton Coup"

Sorry not gonna happen.

CNN

Clinton to release her delegates to Obama.

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will release her delegates to Sen. Barack Obama, a Clinton spokesman said Sunday, the eve of the Democratic National Convention.

Also Sunday, the Democratic Party decided delegates from Michigan and Florida -- states that had been penalized for moving their 2008 presidential primaries to January -- will get full voting rights at the event.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by Secret Shadow


I don't mind it running off topic, it was basically a thought experiment kind of topic anyway, not something I really thought would happen, just found it interesting to read about it twice on the same day. I think you may be right that Hillary is one of the few that could pull off a third party candidacy, but wouldn't that simply lead to a third branch establishment party, i.e more of the same but with a new name?

Schrodingers Dog; Yes, I'm aware of what is supposed to happen, this topic was about the possibility raised by some alternative news sources that this was not going to be the case, for whatever reason. Do you have any more input than that?

reply to post by Inannamute


Not at this particular moment. I wasn't actually trying to be short in my tone, the name of the thread is "The Possibility Of Hillary" so I just wanted to add some of the latest news basically putting yet another World News Daily false rumor to rest.

I would be very cautious about sourcing news from the above website in this forum if I were you. I could not agree with you more about the need to seek alternatives to MSM news feeds. In my signature I have a link to a thread addressing this issue named: Media abandons America

But world news daily has already been exposed by me and others on ATS as the mouthpiece of Jerome Corsi. Jerome Corsi ExposeD These, I believe are in fact the sort of disinfo sources we are trying to avoid on this forum.


[edit on 8/24/2008 by schrodingers dog]

I wasn't aware that I was sourcing either of those people, and while I'm more than aware of the fact that alternative news sources should not be treated as gospel, I was more posting them as a possibility for discussion, a "what if" rather than "This is definitely going to happen".. So I was hoping for a more than four word + quote response.. Thanks for your input though, mate.

reply to post by Inannamute

Originally posted by Inannamute
I wasn't aware that I was sourcing either of those people...

If you click on your link, go to the bottom of the page and press "home."
That takes you to the World News Daily news feed.

And I'm sorry my answer was short. The ability to edit oneself is one that I would encourage anyone to perfect. It was a short answer to a simple proposition adding the source, nothing more imho was needed.

A non MSM news source requires the person sourcing it to have greater scrutiny for the source, not a lesser one. In the famous words of Super Mod Mirthful Me on this thread:

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
You are correct... Sourcing some bitter basement dwelling hack who has a blog of bile and battery acid isn't going to cut it in the Bully Pulpit... I think the best contributions within this forum will be member centric analysis devoid of the partisan rhetoric.

Either way, I'm not sure why you are upset with me. As you said, you didn't want this to happen and it isn't going to.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by schrodingers dog]

I'm sorry if I appear upset, I'm not, I was just hoping for an interesting discussion.