Obama: dead man walking?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
He's new, flashy, savvy... and black!
He's the right hook no one saw coming, and by the time they realised his potential, he was already pulling large numbers.
The black vote is a powerful vote this election, Especially with New Orleans.

I just cant see neither of them winning though,
If I had to chose Id say I hope clinton does, because 8 more yrs of Bills thinking behind Hillary can only be a good thing '' flame away fella's ''

Obama's to young, he's brason, hasnt quite learnt the ropes yet.

But maybe thats exactly what Ameria needs, someone reckless....

Anything would be an improvement at the moment!

Obama is not Black he is a creation of a black father and white mother.
He will more than likely be killed if he wins . To many KKK members or just crazies out there who dont like the Idea of A half/half prez .

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Mabus... The thing that gets my attention is that it doesn't sound anywhere close, unlike Hister and Pa Ne Olron (however he spelled it). Mahmoud Abbas comes at least a little closer.

What about UBL / Osama Bin Laden... In Oc (Nostra's language) and French too Osama would sound more like Osamb' - ie Mabus is an anagram of Usamb which is frog speak for Usama / Osama...

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Initiating event: In an upset reminiscent of the beginning of the end for Dean, Barrack Obama comes in first at the Iowa caucus, Hillary comes in third.

Wow! Looks like true prescience to me! How could you possibly have guessed this in April of last year, nine months ago?

I knew Obama would do well in Iowa because it is close to his home state and because the caucus system means more informed and saavy voters, as well as more communication- this means that the "he can't beat hillary" mentality wasn't working against him as strongly and that he was running on his ability to express ideas, not just the fact that he's a charismatic young person.

I also had a good understanding of Obama's potential because I read his book, and he was able to win me over a little bit (though not entirely) and I'm always a hard sell. When I realized that he had been able to appeal to me without presenting specific ideas, I realized that he had a brilliance for communicating with people that made him a lot stronger than the typical discription of "young and charismatic" really suggests.

I honestly never expected Hillary to come in third, but I believed that if she came in second that she would still be enough of a contender to catch him later in the primary and would not have to resort to uglier means.

Obama will win again in New Hampshire, but Hillary will come in second. After that, if Edwards has the good sense to make a deal with Obama and throw his support to Obama before South Carolina, it's probably over for Hillary. I think Obama stands to gain Edwards supporters at a 2:1 ratio compared to Hillary because they both have that "charismatic young idealist" vibe and thus are splitting voters who go for that. They are also splitting the voters who think a woman can't run this country. Prejudice against women is more widespread, and more substantial that prejudice against minorities today. It is heresy today to say that a black man thinks differently from a white man, but it is accepted to say that women are more emotional- therefore the fewer men in the race, the more Hillary suffers.

I was wrong on three points:

Edwards won't move into a strong second place- the polls in NH just doesn't support that. Edwards may only stay in for a few more races.
His goal should be to leave at his very strongest, so that he can cut the best possible deal for an executive appointment that will make him a serious presidential contender in 2016, either as an heir to the lame duck or as a contender in his own right after back to back 1 termers. I think he's counting on a strong showing in South Carolina to prove to Obama that a deal is necessary to beat Hillary, but strategically its better for Obama to make a deal before SC.

Staying in till Giga Tuesday only make sense for Edwards if he's trying to hurt Obama. He's seen this before. He didnt do as well in Iowa as he did last time, despite a smaller field of serious contenders. His numbers in New Hampshire are falling close to his previous performance as well. He should dang well know what is about to happen to him, and in a smaller field there is less reason for him to fight the good fight to earn a deal- he holds the ballance NOW and should act now.

The second point I was wrong on was the IATSE strike. I never really believed that. It was a very thin but nevertheless real possibility that I discovered while researching mechanisms that would explain why the unpledged delegates would give a close primary race to Obama instead of Hillary. Obama is strong enough now that he can win a pure primary victory perhaps, and the scenario is plausible without that gimmick.

The third was Clark. Clark was a viable agent but the whole idea was way too complex. Obama will take Edwards out of the race all on his own and then if Obama gets killed, it's a walk for Hillary to an election in her own right. I should have known that Edwards made more sense than Clark. Obama needs somebody with a base of support and a warchest.

So what happens now is that Hillary makes it VERY clear to Edwards that he has absolutely no future if she wins, and thus forces him to approach Obama. The more she attacks the two of them, the more they will begin to align against her, but she should focus her fire on Edwards so as not to trigger too much reaction from undecideds leaning towards Obama, while weaking Edwards to force him out.

I also see indications that the scenario is becoming more plausible. I think Michigan's decision to follow suit with Florida and advance its primary at the risk of not having its delegates seated at the convention was done in part as a favor to Hillary Clinton. It gives the underdogs less time to gain momentum in a state where polling favors Hillary strongly and allows Hillary to sacrifice delegates she doesn't think she will need in order to win the nomination in exchange for a chance to establish an early lead.

Withdrawing from that race and leaving Hillary standing alone was a smart move for Edwards and Obama, but I'm guessing that right now Obama is kicking himself- If he had known he would win Iowa and probably NH, and would get to run heads up against Hillary on the tail of 2 big wins, I think he would have stayed on the ballot and made big news for splitting the vote almost 50/50 in a state he was supposed to lose 2:1.

I bring all of this up because I think it shows that the dirty tricks are beginning from Hillary, who probably started to see the writing on the wall as the polling gaps between her and Obama started closing in Iowa and New Hampshire in November.

It also means that Obama should be starting to see how closely his destiny and that of Edwards are related, because he's still not completely over the top yet, but he's a serious contender now, and there's more at stake than just proving his viability for the future.

All in all I think an Obama assassination is getting more realistic by the day.

Please level -- did you use your special powers as a Forum Moderator to edit your OP, without leaving a trace? Or has the first part of your prediction actually been fulfilled?

I do not have the power to edit without a trace in this forum or any other forum, and in this forum I have a 2 hour window the same as anyone else, because I am not assigned to moderate this forum. I can confirm this with a screen shot if you like, or you could ask other staff, or ask an early participant in the thread. This isn't my first prediction either. One of my biggest successes to date was calling the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia many months before it happened, along with the covert American involvement in that event.

Now this thought crossed my mind too.

I have been reading several articles here, saying that Obama is the New Kennedy, Black Kennedy - and in a certain article was entitled Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama. That is kind of scary, since both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated. Remember this connections between those two:

Lincoln/Kennedy Connection

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners.
Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are comprised of fifteen letters.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford's".
Kennedy was shot in a car called "Lincoln - made by Ford Motor Co".

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Both John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And when people start comparing those two to Obama, well things do start to cross my mind. And the fact that he is african-american candidate for president and the fact that he is just ONE LETTER away from being OSAMA - well things start to get confusing then...

I seriously doubt all that. In my humble opinion it is more likely in that if Hillary gets the nominiation (and/or wins the election) she is more likely to be assissinated by some right wing nut job.

When you consider all the hate the right wing fear mongers have stirred up over her, it is a far more likely senerio.

The thing is grover, we see so few assassinations in this country, compared to what you might expect.

When you consider the bitterness in our politics, and the ready access to dangerous information, and the freedom to move and acquire materials, etc, the motive and the means to kill all kinds of people definately exists out there in many, many people. Yet none of those people seem to be doing the deed.

The conclusion I have come to is that although a lone gunman or small home-grown terror cell probably could kill Hillary or someone else like that out of the hatred in their hearts if they had even one clever bone in their body, there just isn't anyone out there in America who has what is needed to actually do it:
1. You need intelligence.
2. You need follow-through.
3. You need to be willing to lose everything.

I think number 3 is the failsafe. The people who have the intelligence and the follow-through to be successful assassins are typically successful in life and have too much to throw away on an act of hate. The people who do resort to violence tend to be losers- either because they are stupid or because they lack follow-through. So I don't think it's very likely Hillary will be killed.

Generally speaking, the people who get killed are people who represent a singular threat to organizations that have the resources to get away with murder: People like Paul Wellstone.

Hillary Clinton doesn't qualify. She's an insider and she is not significantly different from other Democrats. She won't rock the boat that much, and if you kill her, somebody will just take her place.

Now I'm not saying that Obama is exactly an outsider, or that Obama is the Great Racially-Ambiguous Hope or anything like that, and he's not in as much danger as Kennedy or Wellstone was. Obama is however, in my opinion, rocking the boat by seeking more than the establishment really meant to offer him.

In that sense, he reminds me of George H.W. Bush, who was never intended to be president, or even Vice President. The only reason Bush didn't get shot was because he backed down and made ammends. He still got punished though.

First they sent him to CIA in an attempt to destroy his political career. When he came back and forced his way onto the Reagan ticket (which Gerald Ford was supposed to do) they targeted the primary loose cannon- Reagan. That taught them both a lesson, and they played ball, particularly in the relationship with Iraq (I believe that Bush had not choice regarding Desert Storm- he had to make ammends. We didn't know it would be a glorious victory- it was expected to be a very ugly war and political suicide for Bush [like Iraq 2 turned out]- but he had to do a favor for the people he had disobeyed before). Not only that, but they also destroyed the Bush dynasty then by making his son the fall-guy for the next stage of their plans, thus putting the Bush family back in its place politically.

Now the question is, will Obama get off light like Bush 41 did, or will they just kill him. I think they'll kill him. Bush 41 was better connected and more useful. If your company has a guy who has been around for 20 years and done a lot of things for you, and he screws up, you read him the riot act and make him prove himself. When the new guy makes the same mistake, you fire him. Obama's a new guy. And the severence packages in corrupt politics really suck.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So I was thinking when I heard the news from Iowa:
Then the conspiracy lightbulb came on: there is now somebody out there with more motive than Clinton to kill Obama. Who gets blamed? The most powerful person around: Clinton. Who gains the most: the guy who REALLY needs the early primaries and can't get them on his own... and if he were to cut a deal before it happened- WOW. He'd inherit a big following, plus a big sympathy vote.

This is a fascinating thread that I don't want to derail, but I just thought I'd throw in that this is why I believe that Nawaz Sharif might very well have had more than a little to do with Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

Hillary winning the nomination would be the best thing to happen to the Republicans in this election cycle... it would unify them like nothing else and divide the left... That and the fact that we need to stop bouncing back and forth between two families (Clinton's and Bushes), for the good of the country are the biggest reasons I oppose her.

Trouble is none of the other candidates inspire me either.

To my great surprise, Hillary Clinton has won New Hampshire. It was close, and that's something, but Obama doesn't need close- he needs wins. Close shows how strong you are, but it's a win that really makes a point to undecideds, especially those who don't understand the system fully (as many dont).

Obama needs a second win before Feb, and he will not get it with Edwards in the race. Clinton is too strong in the remaining states. I think we've reached the critical moment for this prediction- either somehow Edwards gets forced out of the race (which he isn't acting like he intends to do, considering his comments that only 1% of the vote has spoken so far) or Hillary wins every remaining early primary and he's got it all by herself.


Clark has been hanging around Clinton lately though. Maybe she's bringing him for sec def- since he's not in the election he doesn't make as much sense as a running mate, and he wouldn't be a good heir to the office either, because it is sometimes percieved that he only became a dem because the dems had no incumbent in 04. I'm in the midst of putting some thought into who she will take a possible heir to her presidency- in some ways Gore seems obviousl.

On the other hand, the idea of a "co-presidency" has been floating around ever since the Business Plot, and has been growing stronger in recent years. It was there when Ford tried to force his way onto the Reagan ticket, and it was widely talked about in Bill's first term. Making Bill VP would definately serve that agenda, and would go hand in hand with Cheney's work at giving the VP a stronger and freer hand in the white house.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Ya know what Hillary was saying when she got all teary eyed the other day is something just about every stripe of liberal and progressive can relate with (and for once I think she was being real) and has felt over the past 8 years. I still don't want to vote for her though.

As for Obama (and this holds true for the Republicans as well) is that there is a distinct possiblity that no one candidate grabs enough states to have a headlock on the nomination and that we will see an actual convention this time around opening the door for some dark horse (go Gore) to make their play and grab the nomination.

That is entirely possible, but the parties have worked very hard to take the drama out of the conventions. I really think they learned their lesson when Bush 41 edged out Ford for VP in 1980.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think there are enough unpledged delegates for a dark horse to be selected, unless there is some allowance for faithless delegates. I could kick myself for not being more familiar with their rules but in my life time they just haven't been all that relevant.

A darkhorse VP deal might be possible. For example Clinton might be forced to abandon any idea of VP Bill (if that's her plan to begin with) in order to take on someone in the party heirarchy who controls a few unpledged delegates.

reply to post by The Vagabond

I had already made up my mind that I would not vote for Obama but your post confirmed that my decision is the correct one.
If this man is elected President I WILL LEAVE THE UNITED STATES.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by MagicaRose]

I thought I’d revive this interesting thread instead of creating a new one in light of the recent CBS interview with Ted Kennedy in which Smith asked TK about the possible assassination of Obama. Considering the recent endorsement of Obama by Ted and JFK’s daughter, and the fact that the Kennedy family has had one Pres murdered, a would be Pres murdered, and John die mysteriously just before announcing his candidacy for the Senate seat that Hillary now soils, I’m amazed that no one else has posted this yet.

www.youtube.com...

Notice how TK is almost at a loss for words after the question. No small feat considering he’s a life long politician. Am I the only one that thinks this lends credence to the OP’s thesis? If I were Obama, I’d stay away from Fort Marcy Park, or perhaps start screaming like Dean right away.

Thanks for the YouTube video. I'd definately like some input on it.

My take, at first, was no big deal. The pause did not bother me because it seemed like just an appropriate pause for delicacy with that subject. But then he never answered the question. He hurried back to his talking points. The question obviously did make him uncomfortable for some reason.

The question is, was that some reason political, or was it personal? In other words, did he not answer because not answering was the most helpful thing he could do for Obama, or did he not answer because he didn't want to admit that he believed it would happen?

It could have been political, because it's a tricky question. If you're making that decision on the spot it could be a little intimidating.

On the one hand, to say that it is possible could be spun as paranoid, accusatory, maybe even race baiting- an attempt to draw parallels to Martin Luther King as much as JFK. Maybe you don't want to make the decision to say yes without instructions from the guy you are stumping for.

On the other hand, the fact that agents of change have a target on their back was a statement of fact, not really a part of the question. To say that Obama isn't a potential target would be tantamount to saying, "na, Obama's one of the boys, they'd never have him killed".

The idea that Obama might be targeted is good for his image in several ways. It draws parallels to JFK and MLK, it gains sympathy, and it paints him as an idealist in a dirty business.
You just can't come out and say that he's got a target on him because that would sound paranoid.

That is all possible, and that could mean that the non-answer was meaningless.

But it could just as easily have been for pesonal reasons. If he already believed Obama was in danger, he might have actually considered that question (correctly or incorrectly) to be a veiled threat, either against him for backing Obama or against Obama.
Or he could have just been unwilling to admit he believed in the possibility but unable to get a convincing lie about it, in light of his family's history.



Now, let's look at my score card so far.

I was right to consider Obama a threat to Hillary so long ago.

I was somewhat right about Clark casting his lot with Clinton- I overcomplicated that one considerably.

It looks like I was wrong about Obama getting Edwards out of the race. I still think Obama is eyeballing him as a VP.

I was wrong about Obama being unable to win SC with Edwards in the race.

I've been sort of looking in the right places but focusing in on the wrong details so far.


Where do we stand now? Well, assassinating Obama doesn't help- in fact it hurts- if Edwards does well at all on Super Tuesday, so no politically motivated assassination is likely before then.

On the other hand, after Super Tuesday, Obama and Edwards are both either in this race to the finish or out, in my estimation. I'm guessing Obama is in and Edwards is out.

At that point Edwards is out of reasons to stay in the race and Obama has every motive in the world to break down and offer Edwards the VP spot in exchange for full support going into the late primaries. It could even be a make or break thing at that point.

I think at that point, a deal between Edwards and Obama is still the tipping point, as I predicted earlier but was premature with. I think at that point, if Hillary is willing and able to order a hit she will, and if she doesn't it means she either can't or never would.

The best and most timely opportunity for Obama to be assassinated would be in the leadup to the Texas Primary. He'll be down South in a close race coming up on a primary with enough delegates at stake that it could be decisive if the issue is still in doubt.


Now I'm going to do something very uncharacteristic of me. I'm going to get into unjustified specifics with a prediction.

If it's going to happen at all, Obama will be shot on February 23rd at University of Texas, probably by a foreigner, probably a Russian. He will die. If he were to live however, there would be numerous coincidences that would be pointed to as marking it as his "fate" to live.

My reasons for predicting this are quite absurd but I am willing to go into them. I do not consider this prediction very likely to be fulfilled. I'm not nuts.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I certainly hope you're wrong.

At this point, I think not only is Obama our best chance to get the country back for the people, but also a likely target by the same people who targeted the Kennedys. I can only hope that those protecting him have learned from the past, and are in a position to prevent any attempted assasinations from being successful.

I heard an interview of Obama when he was asked about whether or not he fears for his life as he gets closer to the presidency. While I don't remember the exact quote, he basically said that while you can't help but consider those things, he felt that it was his responsibility to follow what he believed in for the American people and not let these considerations deter him from that.

He's also now protected by the Secret Service and has gotten that protection as a candidate earlier than any other. Hillary has SS protection already due to being the wife of a former president.

Great, now I'm even wrong about being wrong. Edwards is dropping out. That man just lives to make a dang liar out of me.

Well while I am happy to see Guilliani drop out I am sorry to see Edwards go.

With Gulliani gone, I can vote for a third party candidate with a (moderately) clean conscious since him as the Republican candidate for president was the only reason I would have voted for Hillary.

I don't especially like McCain but he has my respect, Guillani scared the bejesus out of me.

The best (I hope) thing to come out of the Guillani collapse is that it hopely will put an end once and for all of the Republican milking of 9/11 for all its worth.

reply to post by ItsASecret
[more
yes, your are correct...and africa is a thriving economic powerhouse, no???

My two cents.
I believe that if he were to claim the nomination and or even get elected his running mate would be Hillary. Why. The two of them might be near unstoppable. After the election we would see the assassination with Bill appointed as V.P.
Then we would see the right wing political gun toters blamed for it, with increased reduction of our rights and possible the elimination of the second amendment.
Mass riots would occur causing the introduction of martial law as well as increased racial hatred because the "man" did in "our" candidate.
From here it would not take much for them to do as they wish.
As I said my two cents and pure speculation. We will see in due time. I hope that we are all wrong.

respectfully

reluctantpawn