Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Does Obama Look Masochistic To You?
I've never heard of anything crazier. Obama would have to be nuts to do it. Aside from the fact that half the Secret Service would have to be deployed to keep one of those barmy old Clinton supporters from taking a potshot at the Pres, does anyone - anyone at all - believe that Hillary wouldn't spend four years trying to backstab, upstage and cut Obama down, and then challenge him for the nomination? It would be having a total enemy in the administration.
In this election Hillary has made it very clear that she perceives that nothing is more important than her win, and she's sure not going to change that tune. There's nothing she won't do, and no line of good taste or decency she won't cross. And Good Lord! She was the woman who wanted to be Co-President as the President's wife. I'm sure she'd expect Obama to be her Veep, instead of being his Veep. It's political insanity. It would be like selecting Karl Rove as vice-president, except that Hillary has a lot more pull with the press and far less in the way of scruples. And you know, you just know, that she would find people to execute her maneuvers in the press.
Obama would have to be suicidal or masochistic to take her up on it. This thing keeps getting more and more bizarre. Does Hillary Clinton live in a fantasy world? Is this another Bosnia thing?
The Anchoress says Hillary won't concede, but instead will suspend her campaign. Well, maybe, but the campaign she has run has become increasingly childish and ugly, so that the only thing that would get her the nomination would indeed be if Obama gets shot.
Viola - I'm glad I'm not the only one!
He just needs *another* way to get some of her supporters.
It's hard to split the difference between the sexist and racist vote, the way I see it. *sigh*
Sun-tzu Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC
It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
Lydon B. Johnson US pres '63-'69 (31 October 1971)
One of the best strategies is to have your enemies working for your cause instead of against it.
In any case, any real political news is going to start in mid Sept when the mass of US citizens start deciding. Anything prior to that, is informed or uninformed speculation.
I look at http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/ for info, myself for trends.
Three indicators of the national political climate have accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections since the end of World War II: the incumbent president's approval rating at mid-year, the growth rate of the economy during the second quarter of the election year, and the length of time the president's party has held the White House.
An Electoral Barometer reading of -63 would predict a decisive defeat for the Republican presidential candidate. The only election since World War II with a score in this range was 1980. In that election Jimmy Carter suffered the worst defeat for an incumbent president since Herbert Hoover in 1932. The second lowest score, -50, occurred in 1952. That was the last election in which neither the incumbent president, Democrat Harry Truman, nor the incumbent vice-president appeared on the ballot. Nevertheless, the candidate trying to succeed Truman, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, lost in a landslide.
The current national political climate is one of the worst for the party in power since the end of World War II. No candidate running in such an unfavorable political environment â€“ Republican or Democrat - has ever been successful. If John McCain manages to overcome the triple whammy of an unpopular president, a weak economy, and a second term election, it will be an upset of unprecedented magnitude.
Like romance reduced to the urging of hormones as observed by neutral observers; political passion can be reduced to bland figures.
In any case, the last time I saw accuracy figures on the talking heads, their prediction rate was less accurate than predicted by flipping a fair coin.
I think this election will be about the economy!!! The Iraqis are getting their feet under themselves, so no matter who is elected the result will be very similar with regard to troop withdrawals.
But economically speaking, there are bunch of policies which need to be reviewed and adjusted. We need to worry about jobs, food and fuel, and we need to revise some social aid programs to deal with the very real stress on a lot of elderly and lower income workers. So far, it seems to me that NONE of the campaigns have been settling down to discuss the reality on the ground and how to handle it.
I'm pretty frustrated.
I don't know. I used to agree with you, but now I'm not so sure. Part of the reason is Hillary turned out to be a far better politician than I ever expected: where did all this passion come from?
Historically, isn't it common for usurpers to lurk in leader's circles? There's a reason why kings had food tasters...And think: why would kings, who did not exactly have to appeal to voters, feel forced to embrace those usurpers? The quest for legitimacy forced them to do it.
Today we live in a world of exceptionalism -- everything is different this time. But history's reality, and drama from Shakespeare to Homer, tells us that Obama choosing Hillary would fit the norm.
Does he really want somebody pathologically thirsting for Power to be one heartbeat -- HIS -- away from the Presidency? Especially when a "fanatical follower" could provide Plausible Deniability?
There is only one Lord of the Ring, and She Does Not Share Power.
1- Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities in late Summer with US intellegence and logistical support admitted but other covert support widely recognized.
2- Iran and it's supporters retaliate including Shia militia in Iraq against US forces and possibly warships. Oil supply is reduced and prices sky rocket.
3- Bush claims Iran has declared war on the US and launches a major air assult on the Quds forces and bases.
4- The election is held in the midst of a hot war.
5- McCain wins easily as the Commander-in-Chief candidate.
Two objectives accomplished at once. I put the odds at about 70%.
What say you?
The only way Israel would do such a thing would be if it is sure that it is in immediate danger from Iran. A person believed to be an opponent of Ahmadinejad's has just become the head of parliament. If at all possible, Israel will wait that out. Israel has far too much at stake to act impulsively, and would not assume that the result of such a scenario would be McCain's election.
the clintons have a lot of power
obama would be smart to include hillary in some fashion in his administration
why you believe hillary is a bad person is not clear to me.
rove, bush cheney have corrupted the justice system, suspended several amendments to the constitution...several in the bill of rights, allowed the rise of private mercenary armies and the use of no bid contracts, to fight a war, and plundered the nations economy for the benefit of investment bankers and hedge funds.
by comparison hillary is a saint.
an obama clinton ticket would kick a**, and set an example for unity within the democratic party
Links to this post: