Obama: dead man walking?

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.

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
gee it looks like I may have been right. [I hate when that happens] It seems that Hillary is open to a shared ticket. If this happens I really hope that the rest of my prediction does not come true. If so we are really in for a rough time.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Hearing that Hillary was open to a shared ticket with Obama, I had that crazy idea:

Maybe it is her police assurance against her being assassinated (don't shot me, otherwise you will end up with the black guy).

Or it could also be seen, the other way around, it will be an invitation for a frustrated black guy, who truly want to see a black guy as President.

Now if it was Obama choosing Hillary as running mate, he could send a message to his Muslim brother: don't shot me, you will end up with a woman in charge.

reply to post by Kr0n0s


LOL

No, he isn't a Muslim, he's a Christian

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.

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.

Bill Clinton's long nomination culminated in the California primary however, which is already over this time.

Hillary Clinton didn't say she hopes for Obama to be shot, true, but she did cite it as precedent for her remaining hopeful that she can win- it is the ONLY precedent she named that gives legitimate hope.

Of course she could have cited Hubert Humphrey, who was made by the convention in 68 without ever participating in a primary (but that was before primaries became so important).

She also could have cited Mondale being chosen over Hart, but that turned out to be a mistake.

So really, the chance for Obama to be shot is in fact the biggest reason for Hillary Clinton to be hopeful, historically speaking, and she did in fact speak to that fact.

As a foreign observer living in a parliamentary democracy, presidential politics seems odd to me and I would never pretend to understand it. It's a little like tapping the top of your head and rubbing your tummy at the same time, the head being the president and the tummy being the party.

Surely, it would be better to concentrate on one or the other. Having said that, I wanted to ask a question of the experts on US presidential politics.

If Hillary were to run on a ticket with Obama and were to become US Vice President, is there enough pork in the barrel at her disposal for her to satisfy her major political backers. Or would they be interested in clearing a path, so to speak, for her to ascend to the Presidency ASAP. (Think VP Lyndon Johnson and Texas oil and ammo.)

Any watcher of the Clinton Chronicles video is aware of what might be called the Clinton Paradigm, i.e. the populist politician who is a terrific administrator and who is supported behind the scenes by the most ruthless and greedy business criminals, capable of doing anything to make sure that there is never a shortage of gravy at the railhead.

In other words in terms of the Clinton Paradigm would choosing Hillary as a running mate be hazardous to Obama's health?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 4-6-2008 by ipsedixit]

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.

The smartest and safest move for Obama to make would be to pick a female VP candidate and appoint Clinton to a position. I think Clinton is holding out her concession to secure a promise of such a position. She could publicly support him and secure a future for herself. I don't think that in reality either Obama or Clinton think that running together would be a good idea (each for their own reasons).
On the other hand her getting elected in 2012 could only happen if McCain is in office. It's unlikely an incumbent Democrat would be ousted in favor of another Democrat.

Thanks for the information.

Going back to parliamentary versus presidential politics. The thing that shocks someone used to parliamentary politics is the viability of McCain as a candidate under the presidential system.

In a parliamentary democracy the effect of 8 years of Republican government under Bush with his abysmal approval rating would ruin any Republican candidate that followed him.

Under the parliamentary system and given the current situation of US politics, no-one could defeat a Democratic candidate in November.

Oddy, in Canada at least, our Prime Ministers have been trying to aquire presidential political power in office, but that is a tendancy which runs counter to the nature of a system in which parliament can actually remove a Prime Minister in office. Bush for example, would never have survived Hurricane Katrina under the parliamentary system..

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 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 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.

Obama is a radical Muslim and all the information points to this. Why do you think Iran's Prez is starting to talk tough about the end of the "Satan US" and Israel. He knows Obama won't stop him if elected, and this is one step closer for what many Muslims refer to as their Obama Messiah. See the Muslims for Obama 2008 website if you don't believe me.

Obama is to full of himself to choose Hillary and Obama's wife can't stand her as VP. It's not gonna happen, so you can get that out of your head right now

Obama's numbers are going down and the Dems lost their only chance to win with Hillary for the White House.

Even with all his help, Obama still seems to find a way to totally screw up time and time again.

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.

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.

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obama is a radical Muslim and all the information points to this.

Yeah, his only recently ended counter-productive loyalty to certain Christian ministers is a dead give-away.

Why do you think Iran's Prez is starting to talk tough about the end of the "Satan US" and Israel.

It's in his job description. They all do that.

See the Muslims for Obama 2008 website if you don't believe me.

I could make the Muslims for Bush website in an hour or two if I didn't have to get some sleep soon.

Obama is to full of himself to choose Hillary and Obama's wife can't stand her as VP. It's not gonna happen, so you can get that out of your head right now

Now you're making sense, but you have to admit that the party wants it, and may attempt to force it. I am however already on the record saying its extremely unlikely.

Obama's numbers are going down and the Dems lost their only chance to win with Hillary for the White House.

He's good enough to beat Hillary, even when Rush Limbaugh Republicans are crossing the line to help Hillary, so I'm guessing he'll be OK.

Even with all his help, Obama still seems to find a way to totally screw up time and time again.

If I could afford to buy you a television, I would, just for that quote.

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.

Yeah, his only recently ended counter-productive loyalty to certain Christian ministers is a dead give-away.

Not necessarily that, but worshipping a radical Muslim father (with the book Dreams of my Father) whom has since passed away for the Muslim cause in a Kenyan govenment.

Not to mention, Obama's Black Grandmother (his Dad's mother) is a devout Muslim in Keyna.

Not to mention his brother, Abongo Obama, a radical Muslim living in Kenya. Obama stated that he was so proud of his brother when converting back to Islam.

Not to mention, Obama's association with radical Muslim Billionaires.

Not too mention, Obama's support of Hamas (and Hamas support of him) and meeting with a Muslim leader in Deerborne Michigan (he broke the DNC rules by going into Michigan also).

Not too mention, his name is pure Muslim! In Arabic, his name means "blessed one".

What more do you need?? The sad part is, there is plenty more.

I'll leave you with an Obama quote:

From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." - Senator Barack Hussein Obama



[edit on 4-6-2008 by jetxnet]