Obama Clinches Nomination - Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
That is EXACTLY what George W Bush said eight years ago.

But Obama is a VERY different person than George Bush. The fact that GWB is a total waste of protein who lied his way through 8 years in office (not to mention his whole life) doesn't reflect on Obama and his promise for this country's future.

You MAY be right. Obama could turn out to be a total player. But nothing indicates that to this point. And if he is a man of integrity (as I suspect) he will prove that in time. We cannot discount every person who makes promises of things we want just because GWB totally blew it.

Eight years after choosing the "regular guy" over the smart guy and getting Iraq, deficits, Katrina, Rumsfeld and Cheney for it, you want to choose the "regular guy" over the smart girl. What the @$&* is wrong with you people?

Obama and Clinton are both smart! For once, we had a decent choice between two strong, smart, viable candidates.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

As a foreign observer who cannot believe the Democrats have fallen for his empty rhetoric and pure BS, she wouldn't be a "reasonable" replacement, she would be a necessary return to sanity.

The problem is if she becomes Vice President, more than likely she'd be President, and quickly. Ask Ron Brown or Vince Foster. Too many people involved with them die in suspicious circumstances. And those two were just becoming a problem. Obama would be a clear path to the Presidency of the United States.

It's not a matter that she would be a better choice of President. It's that we don't want to see the Clintons thwart the Democratic processes of the United States for their own gain. They're very good at lying and manipulating. Brilliant at it really.

Hell, she hasn't even conceded yet.

We've already had a horrible President that wasn't elected, I don't want another one.

There has been a Bush or a Clinton as President or VP since 1980. Are these two families really that #@$%ing extraordinary?

Originally posted by PistolPete

There has been a Bush or a Clinton as President or VP since 1980. Are these two families really that #@$%ing extraordinary?

Its insanity. No more Bushes, no more Klintons. What have they done to deserve this? I dont get it. I have even seen some Klinton supporters with Chelsea 2012/16 buttons. Thats what we have to look forward too in about 8 years, one of the Bush demon spawn running for president against the Klinton demon spawn. Laura v Chelsea 2016!

i am pretty sure that hillary's actions last night ensured obama will not select her as the VP. her blatant refusal to admit his victory was not only an action becoming of a self possessed child it was also a signal of her ambition--power.

her refusal to step aside and let obama take his place as the party's delegate is a tell tale sign that she may be trying to vie for the VP position through the use of cohesion and force. no sane man would accept this behavior in the one he choses to be his #2.

IMO the probability of Obama not surviving his first term will jump considerably if he chooses Hillary as his VP.

General Wesley Clark?

you mean the commander of 1st Cavalry Division that had sent tanks and armored vehicles to Waco, Texas during the whole Davidian standoff?

the NATO commander who ordered NATO forces to take the airport in Pristina, Kosovo from the Russians with force?

He's one of the few people who I think is more dangerous than Obama.

If Obama wants to really win, he needs somone who will at least appear to Balance him. I would say Senator Lieberman, but he's already said he wont be anyone's running mate. Mayor Bloomberg would be another I would suggest.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But Obama is a VERY different person than George Bush.

Actually, I think they are two peas in a pod. I think they are EXACTLY alike.

Bush thinks God told him to invade Iraq.
Obama wants people to think he's the savior of the world.

Both are 'bamboozling' this country. Both are liars.

The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments coming out of Obama .. complete with bible quotes that he makes to shine upon himself .. tell me he's EXACTLY like Bush43.

I really don't see how he can pick her for VP after the way her campaign has acted. But if it happens, can you imagine the drama in that whitehouse? Yikes. It's almost like a set up for a sitcom written by Jerry Springer!

ETA: When Daniel Estulin was in town he gave a scary lecture and told us that he didn't think Hilary or Obama would be the nominee. This was in March of 2008. He said that Bloomberg would be his guess since Bloomberg understands money. I thought he was nuts. Maybe Bloomberg will be VP?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by AmethystSD]

Breaking News on MSNBC: Hillary plans to drop out of the race on Friday and endorse Barack. My husband told me that, so if it's wrong, blame him.

Source

I guess it's "suspend" her campaign. (LOL)



[edit on 4-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Dan Tanna


Talk about "nasty accidents=Clinton" what about Disease and Obama? John Edwards ran against Obama and his wife contracted Cancer, now Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor and cancer. These things are just COINCIDENCES no matter what the quantity and not sure bets.

But a sure bet that IS a sure thing is that without HRC as VP more than 25% of Clinton supporters will go running to McCain in the general election voting. They won't even announce their intentions, they'll just switch and end up giving the Presidency to McCain when all the polls say Obama has it. It'll be another "Dewey Defeats Truman" photo op only for McCain.

He'd better offer the VP to her. A wiseman once said "I keep my friends close and my enemies closer."

What a new page in history. Our first black presidant with a woman VP. Than bama lama gets a bullet to the back of the head and we have a woman as president. This is to good to be true in the world of spooks and killers.

Them clantons will get in the white house anyway they can. Since daddy bush had unfinished business he let his kid handle, the clantons have unfinished business they want to perpetrate on the republic.

This is a dangerous mix about to go off.

Originally posted by Mr Knowledge
Unbelieveable!!! Looks like Hillary is going to be Obama\'s sidekick. I never imagined it would happen. I thought it would be the other way around. I just hope this is truly what America wants and needs for our future, ever so important as it is. It will be interesting to see what Obama has in store for use.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/3/2008 b

y Mr Knowledge]
[edit on 3/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Are you sure they are not all in it together? Seems strange no one can see that.

Originally posted by rdubb4

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Eight years after choosing the "regular guy" over the smart guy and getting Iraq, deficits, Katrina, Rumsfeld and Cheney for it, you want to choose the "regular guy" over the smart girl. What the @$&* is wrong with you people?

So Obama isnt smart? What do you base this off of? Skin color? I guess they let any old schmoe run the Harvard law review. You are really stretching it with statements like these.

Look at my avatar, dipstick, to see whether I'm a racist.

What do I base that off? "My uncle liberated Auschwitz", "I can't seem to see how Rev Wright might be a problem"...

Oh, and W graduated from Yale, so not a good argument, there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
That is EXACTLY what George W Bush said eight years ago.

But Obama is a VERY different person than George Bush. The fact that GWB is a total waste of protein who lied his way through 8 years in office (not to mention his whole life) doesn't reflect on Obama and his promise for this country's future.

How does it not reflect? Their campaign strategies have been exact dupicates of each other:

Step 1: Advocate a new direction by contrasting with previous leadership and repeating ad nauseum a short, pithy campaign slogan.

Step 2: Refuse to ever define what that slogan will engender in actual practice.

W was going to "bring dignity back to the White House" while telling the people about "Compassionate conservatism".

Where does Obama deviate from the playbook?

You MAY be right. Obama could turn out to be a total player. But nothing indicates that to this point.

Really? Maybe I'm imagining watching Obama call for change and an end to racial division and then refusing to drop the good Reverend...and maybe all that stuff about Michelle's public words was crap. And maybe her thesis is the equivalent of W's drink-driving; sh'es grown up since then and matured...

Obama and Clinton are both smart! For once, we had a decent choice between two strong, smart, viable candidates.

He's smart all right. Without ever giving a viable reason he's got you all creaming your jeans over the idea that he's going to be your direct line to God and the power to re-make the world in your image.

Originally posted by PistolPete

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

As a foreign observer who cannot believe the Democrats have fallen for his empty rhetoric and pure BS, she wouldn't be a "reasonable" replacement, she would be a necessary return to sanity.

The problem is if she becomes Vice President, more than likely she'd be President, and quickly.

Yes, Pete, that's what I said, although without the "the problem" pre-amble. The point I was making is that she wouldn't make a reasonable replacement for Obama given the rules of succession, her presidency (under the rules of succession) would be required in order to bring the US back to the real world from the fantasy that Obama has constructed for you all to live in.

We've already had a horrible President that wasn't elected, I don't want another one.

Not to know your history better than you do, but you recently buried the first un-elected President. W is the second.

Hillary would be an elected President, as she woud have been elected Vice-President.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
General Wesley Clark?

the NATO commander who ordered NATO forces to take the airport in Pristina, Kosovo from the Russians with force?

You mean after the Russians occupied said airport without communicating with KFOR command, you mean after the Russians demanded to operate in their own sector outside KFOR command, you mean after the Russians attempted a coup d'main against the peacekeeping command structure and EU in support of their friends the Serbs? Said coup d'main being for the purpose of creating an air-head that could allow Moscow to rapidly re-inforce its troops to the point of outnumbering NATO troops?

I'd say Wesley knew the stakes the Russians were playing for and he chose to up them. Given the Russians' efforts in Chechnya I'd say he probably had a fair idea of how they'd perform if they continued to play that hand.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments coming out of Obama .. complete with bible quotes that he makes to shine upon himself .. tell me he's EXACTLY like Bush43.

Pretty much says it all for me. My view is that Americans need to get a little distance, get a little perspective on this guy. Get a little news and conversation about things other than Primary Season and begin to see how this guy looks and sounds when you're not spending all day reciting "yes we can" like some kind of Richard Simmons wannabe. (Simmons is that wierdo fitness guy, right?)

When I see and hear Obama telling the people how they want change and how he'll be an alternative to the previous ways, all I see in my mind is this:

Kodos: The politics of failure have failed!

Kang: We must move forward... not backwards, not to the side, not forwards, but always whirling, whirling, whirling towards freedom.

source, as if you need it

oh, and "...miniature American flags for others."



edit: £$@% quotes! and accuracy

[edit on 4-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV


Yes, Pete, that's what I said, although without the "the problem" pre-amble. The point I was making is that she wouldn't make a reasonable replacement for Obama given the rules of succession, her presidency (under the rules of succession) would be required in order to bring the US back to the real world from the fantasy that Obama has constructed for you all to live in.

The fantasy world Obama has constructed for us to live in isn't far off from the fantasy world HRC constructed for us to live in. Their biggest policy difference is that one is a black man and the other is a woman. Besides the fact he has to get elected President before he can be assassinated. It's a pretty long road until Hillary can save us from the mess he's yet to even have the ability to create.

The Clinton's are status quo. Obama is status quo. Anything Bush is status quo. John McCain is status quo. What we really need is someone that isn't taking their orders from the same people.

But that thought is more of a fantasy than anything.

And what does Gerald Ford have to do with anything? Nixon wasn't killed, and I don't think when he appointed him he planned on resigning. That was an accident. Besides by most accounts Ford did a decent job in his two plus years in office.

reply to post by PistolPete


It has to do with accuracy, Pete, accuracy.

And if some people knew their own history better, they would know just what the first non-elected President did to betray the United States of America and her people.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Step 1: Advocate a new direction by contrasting with previous leadership and repeating ad nauseum a short, pithy campaign slogan.

Step 2: Refuse to ever define what that slogan will engender in actual practice.

Has no other political leader in history advocated a new direction and used a "slogan"? My God! They're all Satan! That, in and of itself, does not make someone insincere or worthless. If you haven't heard him define what his plans are, then you're not listening. You can download his Blueprint for Change here with 64 pages of specifics. You have no excuse to say that he "Refuses to ever define what that slogan will engender in actual practice." It's defined pretty darn well for someone who just got the nomination.

Maybe I'm imagining watching Obama call for change and an end to racial division and then refusing to drop the good Reverend...

If that bothers you... If you cannot understand keeping loyalties with someone dear to you that you disagree with, then I can understand you holding it against him. If you agree 100% with everyone in your life and disown and "drop" anyone who disagrees with you about anything, then I can understand how this point would bother you.

If I did that, I wouldn't have many friends. I even have a couple major areas where I disagree with my husband. But he's a separate person from me and his beliefs are not mine. And I don't just drop him because we disagree. It's kind of insane (not to mention insecure and just weird) to think that everyone around me should agree with me 100% on everything.

There are those of us who are actually somewhat lenient with the faults of our loved ones. We keep them in our lives, even though we may have even major differences in beliefs. No one is perfect.

maybe all that stuff about Michelle's public words was crap. And maybe her thesis ...

It was crap. It's not true. There is no "whitey" tape and people misquoted her thesis (I have read it), so yeah, that stuff was crap. You're believing crap. But that's ok. Don't vote for him.

Some of us have scoured the information and found out what's at the bottom of this crap and decided that the vast majority of negative information against him is nothing but rumors and swiftboating.

He's smart all right. Without ever giving a viable reason he's got you all creaming your jeans over the idea that he's going to be your direct line to God and the power to re-make the world in your image.

Oh, my God! You are angry, aren't you? I'm an atheist, so this does not apply. He doesn't have me convinced of anything of the sort. You can see Obama supporters as stupid, gullible idiots, if it helps you. But the truth is that some of us are quite intelligent, discerning and critical and we see something that you obviously don't. You can get used to it or stay in this resentful rage. It makes no difference to the outcome.

I posted this on the "Anti-Obama: Swaying the Gullible" thread and after reading the past couple posts I feel it needs to be said again... especially given the vitrolic rhetoric on this thread:

To claim that those who support Obama are either robots, deluded or sheep is deeply insulting to your fellow citizens. It also suggests that only Republicans and conservatives are the real thinkers and the true patriots and the only one's concerned about the state of our union...

It should be obvious by now that the only ones who believe that stinking load of bullhooey are the ones spewing it... the rest of us know it for what it is... lies and crap.

It only goes to make the ones promoting it look stupid... not the ones its directed at... so can it... you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The flip side of it is... the same arguments would be made if the Democratic nominee was Clinton, or anyone other than a conservative.

There are two and only two words to describe why Barack Obama has gotten so far so fast and those two words are... george bush.

People are sick of the status quo (it doesn't matter that all the candidates represent the status quo to one degree or the other)... people are sick of the lies and evasions... they are sick of this misbegotten war... they are sick of the blatant catering to small special interests to the determent of the majority... and people are sick of the way this economy has been totally mismanaged to the point that many fear we are poised on the edge of another great depression.

The Democrats have been effectively either shut out or marginalized or blocked these past 7.5 years and so the to the Republicans I have to say this...

its all going to blow up in your faces and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Obama represents change in three very important ways, irregardless of whether he can deliver or not...

He's young... at 46 he's younger than I am by several years, an while that is neither here nor there, the fact is, young voting age adults can relate to him... in their minds eye John McCain is a dinosaur.

He has little experience... and in the eyes of many that makes him an outsider, whether its true or not... and when you look at it... he has as much or more experience on the national level as bush minor did in 2000... actually probably more because the governor of Texas has little actual power and as a senator, he already is playing with the big boys where bush minor was simply the son of one.

He's black... and this cannot be discounted or taken lightly... Blacks after all, up until recently represented the ultimate outsiders in this country... and consequently he represents a major step forward for this country and the strength of that cannot be easily discounted... like him or not (and I personally am ambivelant) his candidacy; and Hillary's, and the fact that both of them have made it this far, represent a pole shift for this country and it will be next to impossible to discount the next black or woman candidate for president... even if he loses, this is true.

Taken together, his youth, his relative lack of experience and his race are actually going to be a formidable challange for the Republicans and if they try the old race, class issues and fearmongering that has worked for them in the past... it will do them far more harm than good... and I personally hope that they do... and I hope that they get totally shot down because of it... if only to put to rest those odious tactics once and for all.

Face it John McCain... the so-called straight shooter (Keating five member) simply doesn't stand a chance... next to Obama, regardless of his personal experiences will look old and moldy and ready for the grave and whether he brings it or not Obama will look like a change, a breath of fresh air.

I would like to add to the above that besides the fact that Mr. Obama certainly can talk... is that he comes across as supremely confident and sure of himself whereas McCain's comes across as nervous and almost unsure of himself. His best ploy would be to remain mute... he repeatedly comes across as... basicilly clueless.


[edit on 5-6-2008 by grover]

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by atlscribe
This country does not want to see a backlash from an Obama assassination. It will be swift and ruthless.

Can you get me a good 50 inch HD TV?
I'll pay good $.

Only once you've cut my grass ese.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by atlscribe]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Step 1: Advocate a new direction by contrasting with previous leadership and repeating ad nauseum a short, pithy campaign slogan.

Step 2: Refuse to ever define what that slogan will engender in actual practice.

Has no other political leader in history advocated a new direction and used a "slogan"? My God! They're all Satan! That, in and of itself, does not make someone insincere or worthless.

Many other politicians have. Some of them have even been truthful when doing it. Barack Obama has done nothing to engender faith in his rhetoric.

Maybe I'm imagining watching Obama call for change and an end to racial division and then refusing to drop the good Reverend...

If that bothers you... If you cannot understand keeping loyalties with someone dear to you that you disagree with

Why would I want to keep loyalties with someone who speaks that way? I often criticise my nation of birth, I often accuse it of criminal activity, but only where that criminal activity has been documented (Mayall Creek, mandatory detention etc), I do not use a public pulpit (literally) to accuse my nation of genocide it did not commit. Where I come from and the denomination I profess to the sermon from the pulpit is used to highlight how some teaching of Jesus or other can be put into practise in our daily lives to the betterment of ourselves, it is not used for a good round of "look how they opressed us, let's blame them for all our ills". I have no problem with the church being used for activism, but what I see happening at this particular church looks a heck of a lot like a Nuremburg rally to me. Speaker makes an outrageous statement, crowd responds positively, speaker makes a more outrageous comment, crowd responds more positively, nobody stops to think of what it is they are actually saying or the views they are advocating and pretty soon one race is responsible for all the problems facing another.

then I can understand you holding it against him. If you agree 100% with everyone in your life and disown and "drop" anyone who disagrees with you about anything, then I can understand how this point would bother you.

And if I did that then you would be correct, but don't go thinking my rationales for me, you'll be way off-base.

Difference: I am not running for public office and holding myself up as a beacon of "change", "new way", "alternative to the past" etc future. I am not telling the world I am different to all those who have come before and holding myself up as a blood example of racial harmony while maintaining links with a public bigot.

If I did that, I wouldn't have many friends.

Well, that might be taking it a bit far, but you wouldn't have much credibility.

I even have a couple major areas where I disagree with my husband.

Oh, God. You mean I'm not normal because my wife and I agree on absolutely everything? Oh, wait, no we don't. Hell, not only are we not the same colour, we're not even the same nationality or religion.

It's kind of insane (not to mention insecure and just weird) to think that everyone around me should agree with me 100% on everything.

I'm glad you can see that, I was a little worried about you for a moment.

maybe all that stuff about Michelle's public words was crap. And maybe her thesis ...

It was crap. It's not true. There is no "whitey" tape and people misquoted her thesis (I have read it), so yeah, that stuff was crap. You're believing crap. But that's ok. Don't vote for him.

Er, how about "first time...really proud..."? That was not crap. And perhaps you need to go back and read more carefully; I can't vote for him, whether or not I would choose to.

Some of us have scoured the information and found out what's at the bottom of this crap and decided that the vast majority of negative information against him is nothing but rumors and swiftboating.

Uh-huh, Auschwitz is swiftboating?

Oh, my God! You are angry, aren't you?

You bet I am, because your effing politicians make or break this world, regardless of what the rest of us in this world want or do and regardless of how we vote in our elections. You effing morons gave the presidency to W TWICE. WE FOREIGNERS are getting tired of the criminally stupid decisions you are foisting on us and forcing US to live with.

You can see Obama supporters as stupid, gullible idiots, if it helps you. But the truth is that some of us are quite intelligent, discerning and critical and we see something that you obviously don't.

And W was backed by some of the smartest, well, richest, businessmen in the US. Men who did not get rich by being stupid.

You can get used to it or stay in this resentful rage. It makes no difference to the outcome.

Tell me something I don't know. Now, analyse that last comment of yours and try and think of why I might be in this state of agitated perplexion.

Edit to add:



Dear US citizen of voting age,

If you are going to continue revelling in the use of the self-congratulatory, self-declared, yet strangely unearned, phrase "Leader of the Free World" to describe the CEO of USA inc, then you'd better start caring about what the rest of "the free world" thinks of your choices for nominee and your choices for president.

If you're going to dismiss the opinions of outsiders when it comes to choosing your leaders then you can drop the narcissistic self-reverence. How can POTUS be the leader of the free world if we have no say in choosing him/her?

Yours sincerely,

An Australian citizen of voting age.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Barack Obama has done nothing to engender faith in his rhetoric.

Maybe not to you, but there are a WHOLE lot of people who feel differently.

Why would I want to keep loyalties with someone who speaks that way?

I'm not saying you would. But there are people who find it more difficult to break with someone who has spoken offensively. He did eventually break. Not "soon enough" for some. Big deal.

Speaker makes an outrageous statement, crowd responds positively, speaker makes a more outrageous comment, crowd responds more positively, nobody stops to think of what it is they are actually saying or the views they are advocating

That sounds like every church service I've ever seen! LOL So, you don't agree with the Reverend Wright. I get it. That doesn't equate to Obama being a bad president.

Well, that might be taking it a bit far, but you wouldn't have much credibility... Hell, not only are we not the same colour, we're not even the same nationality or religion.

Then how do you manage to have any credibility? If you maintain such a strong link with someone with whom you disagree on such a basic belief as religion, how can your other friends possibly trust you???

Uh-huh, Auschwitz is swiftboating?

YES! Think about his thought process here... "Wow, if I say Dachau, people won't be impressed... And if I say my great uncle, they might not relate it to me... So I'll just make something up! I'll say it was my Uncle and use Auschwitz instead! Yeah! That's the ticket! That will really be impressive! And they have no way of checking up on me to find out if it's true..."

You effing morons gave the presidency to W TWICE.

They TOOK the presidency. And I'm betting you know that. I never voted for W. And I agree with you.

And W was backed by some of the smartest, well, richest, businessmen in the US. Men who did not get rich by being stupid.

Yeah, richest.

If you are going to continue revelling in the use of the self-congratulatory, self-declared, yet strangely unearned, phrase "Leader of the Free World" to describe the CEO of USA inc, then you'd better start caring about what the rest of "the free world" thinks of your choices for nominee and your choices for president.

I, for one, do NOT revel in it, nor do I desire it. I HATE the "We're Number One" mentality. You seem to group all Americans as stupid big-screen TV watching, Hummer-driving morons. You're wrong. This country is very divided and I'm on the other side.

If you're going to dismiss the opinions of outsiders when it comes to choosing your leaders then you can drop the narcissistic self-reverence. How can POTUS be the leader of the free world if we have no say in choosing him/her?

I do not dismiss the opinions of outsiders, I welcome them. Disagreeing with you does not equal dismissal. And I didn't know you were an "outsider" or clearly I wouldn't have said not to vote for him.