View Full Version : Can Obama Lose?
While driving around today I was thinking about the election it crossed my that a McCain victory might still equate to a victory for Obama if he were a revolutionary?
His revolution, the quiet one, where he goes through the paces in the election process and achieves victory by winning the election with the most electoral votes and then begins to re-shape America as we know it into a Socialist State. The other revolution, If McCain wins, you have may have hundreds of thousands of people (maybe a million people) in Chicago a perfect catalyst for an un-impedible angry mob, that inturn leads riots which spread like wild fire from city to city.
My thought was if Obama were truely as radical as many make him out to be, with a radical socialist/marxist ideology, hell bent on changing how America lives and breathes, with large masses who blindly follow his call, a propaganda machine in the MSM.....If he were truely a revolutionary (in the sense of a Hitler, Castro, Che, Wiliam Ayers, Hugo Chavez) it would seem he is well on his way to achieving his goals in either senario.
That might delve into the tinfoil arena, but what if?
The expectation of Senator Obama's victory is so high that I am beginning to wonder what would happen were McCain to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I would like to think that cooler heads within the Democratic Party would prove to have the character, fortitude, and love of their country that I don't think they posses and accept the decision of the American voters.
To take your scenario one step farther into the realm of what-if, consider this. Senator Obama loses, his supporters become a mob, the mob walks the edge of mass violence, and then Senator Obama sends them home. From that point, it would be hard to argue that he wouldn't be among the most powerful men in America because he "saved" America from itself.
Musing aside, I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories: Americans can't keep secrets. I don't see Senator Obama as having a subversive socialist, fascist, or communist agenda.
I see him as being a critically flawed, not especially bright human being with the mindset of a pimp, a poorly reasoned political viewpoint, an asinine theory of land warfare, a sophomoric view of race relations, a unhealthy amount of contempt for African Americans (and Americans generally), what may be some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, and the least attractive spouse of any modern day American politician--even on her wedding day, Mrs. Obama had an ugly soul. Other than that...*
While driving around today I was thinking about the election it crossed my that a McCain victory might still equate to a victory for Obama if he were a revolutionary?
His revolution, the quiet one, where he goes through the paces in the election process and achieves victory by winning the election with the most electoral votes and then begins to re-shape America as we know it into a Socialist State. The other revolution, If McCain wins, you have may have hundreds of thousands of people (maybe a million people) in Chicago a perfect catalyst for an un-impedible angry mob, that inturn leads riots which spread like wild fire from city to city.
My thought was if Obama were truely as radical as many make him out to be, with a radical socialist/marxist ideology, hell bent on changing how America lives and breathes, with large masses who blindly follow his call, a propaganda machine in the MSM.....If he were truely a revolutionary (in the sense of a Hitler, Castro, Che, Wiliam Ayers, Hugo Chavez) it would seem he is well on his way to achieving his goals in either senario.
That might delve into the tinfoil arena, but what if?
* I am not bitter. Not even a little.
Hummmmm
Can Obama Lose? YES but only the shadow knows tonight. In 24hrs we may know.
Perhaps he will lose the most by winning.
Let's suppose, purely for the sake of discussion, that on Nov. 6th or so, he has won both the popular and electoral votes. In addition, suppose Democrats have control of both houses of Congress. They will have all the governmental power, with essentially no restrictions.
So...as they take office...what if the economy experiences significant additional decline? Say, unemployment on the order of 10%? A budget deficit in excess of $1.5 Trillion? Add in additional business failures across the land.
They have indicated a willingness to raise taxes and implement a carbon tax scheme; these are likely to place additional stress on an already troubled economy.
Congressional elections occur in 2010. Will they have the economy humming along by then? Maybe. But I'm noticing a lot of people who expect recession to linger throughout 2009, with a slow, lackluster recovery thereafter.
And then there is the issue of foreign affairs. His supporters seem to prefer withdrawal, disengagement, and a reduced military budget. If that path is followed, what are the likely outcomes? Will there be a crises, will a flashpoint ignite? What if Saudi Arabia falls to extremists? What if Pakistan becomes a failed state? No doubt others can point to additional areas. How will America react if he generates failure and defeat in the global arena?
He may win the office. I suspect, however, that he will become remarkably unpopular.
When he loses, does anyone have a SoCal number for the Cavalry? :confused: ;)
Pat
I was standing outside the Hotel here in Chicago talking to the Door Man. Two ladies walked by and said "Make sure you Vote" We both replied "already did it" They replied without missing a beat "Well Vote again"
Freaking unbeleivable....
The Reaper
11-04-2008, 11:18
When he loses, does anyone have a SoCal number for the Cavalry? :confused: ;)
Pat
5.56-7.62
TR
Stood behind a fellow today who was obviously voting for the first time. Although he appeared to be 30 ish, it took him three attempts (3 different ballots) to finally get the computer to accept his ballot. It was comical watching the proctor explain to him,"if you vote the Democratic Straight Ticket, you don't need to fill out the rest of the ballot, you're confusing the machine." I hate to say it, but with these people coming to the polls, it's not looking good for America.
5.56-7.62
TR
I've got those numbers already, TR.
:D
Perhaps he will lose the most by winning....
He may win the office. I suspect, however, that he will become remarkably unpopular.
I was just discussing this. I think regardless of who wins tonight, they will have an uphill battle for reelection. I suspect that if Obama wins, he will be a one term president and Congressional control will shift hands in 2010.
I was just discussing this. I think regardless of who wins tonight, they will have an uphill battle for reelection. I suspect that if Obama wins, he will be a one term president and Congressional control will shift hands in 2010.
What if Senator Obama is elected and turns out to be an exceptionally effective president? This effectiveness could be either as a very liberal president or as a pragmatist or even a politically advantageous mix of the two.
In this scenario, even his most ardent critics (such as members of this forum) would have no choice but to say "well, I disagree with him on issues A, B, C, and D, but he sure got it right on issues X, Y, and Z."
What if Senator Obama is elected and turns out to be an exceptionally effective president?
Even were this to happen, he'd be dragged down by the sea anchors called Pelosi and Reid. Far more likely is the 'be careful what you wish for' curse: with the executive and legislative in one pocket, the Dems can no longer blame all of their failings on the Big Bad Republicans, and the citizenry will see the end result of their 'free stuff for everyone!' fantasies. We'll have four years of unfortunate Dem control, and then the pendulum will swing back.
Dan
I am not so hopeful about a Democratic triumvirate in Washington.
I think that they will succumb to the far left wing of their party and remove any moderate Dems from committee's or positions of influence. Then alter the playing field (talk radio, open borders, "free" money, castrate the supreme court) to prevent a right wing comeback. I think they will start these little civilian security forces (composed of his supporters) and pay them from the tax money they remove from the defense budget, for starters.
Call me crazy, but I am watching for this to happen.
Even were this to happen, he'd be dragged down by the sea anchors called Pelosi and Reid. Far more likely is the 'be careful what you wish for' curse: with the executive and legislative in one pocket, the Dems can no longer blame all of their failings on the Big Bad Republicans, and the citizenry will see the end result of their 'free stuff for everyone!' fantasies. We'll have four years of unfortunate Dem control, and then the pendulum will swing back.
Dan
I agree that Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senator Reid are detriments to any cause they profess to support.
However, as president, Mr. Obama could run against Bush the Younger's record again. (I am expecting Mr. Obama to start campaigning for re-election in February 2009. Thus far, he's shown no inclination to do the job he was elected to perform, why would that change now?) He could trot out some argument that the GOP screwed things up so badly, that he needs another four years to clean out the special interests and to bring about lasting 'change.'
My goal here is to suggest a different trajectory of worst case scenarios in which Senator Obama wins, wins big, and continues to win for years to come, and some of these victories actually benefit the United States of America. What then?
The Reaper
11-04-2008, 12:33
Even were this to happen, he'd be dragged down by the sea anchors called Pelosi and Reid. Far more likely is the 'be careful what you wish for' curse: with the executive and legislative in one pocket, the Dems can no longer blame all of their failings on the Big Bad Republicans, and the citizenry will see the end result of their 'free stuff for everyone!' fantasies. We'll have four years of unfortunate Dem control, and then the pendulum will swing back.
Dan
Concur.
Despite some of the centrist movement by Obama and the Dims during the campaign, they will go left hard immediately after the election, and there will be no POTUS with the veto pen to stop them any more.
Obama is no Bill Clinton, he is a hard core liberal with a socialist agenda.
Harry and Nancy will strong arm their majorities to pass whatever agenda they want. 25% cut in the military budget? Done. Permanent passage of the AWB? Done. Ginsberg clones for the SCOTUS? Done. Tax increases to pay for giveaways to non-taxpayers? Done. Citizenship for illegal aliens? Done. Traety with the Iranians? Done. Unilateral disarmament? Done. Repeal of the death penalty? Done. New Fairness Doctrine? Done.
They can't help it, they are Dims.
2010 will be a bloodbath for them as voters see who they really are.
Unless they can get money in the pockets of 51% of the population. If that happens, we are all done for.
TR
Oh, I agree. Should he win, I fully expect Obama to begin campaigning for 2012 the first day he's in office.
However, I also know the follow-on effects of Dem policies, and with a Democratic Congressional majority, it's going to be very tough to shift the blame. Obama will try his best, but even he isn't silver-tongued enough to make that work. I think there is zero chance that the Dems will have both the executive and legislative in 2012. One or the other, maybe; maybe neither, but certainly not the clean sweep Dems are drooling about today.
Unless they can get money in the pockets of 51% of the population. If that happens, we are all done for.
I'm trying my best to convince myself this is not true. Perhaps I'm biased by the rural area where I live, but I know a lot of working people up here in the high desert who qualify for government handouts but choose not to take them because they are, well, handouts.
If only we could get the same hardworking attitude into the cities.
Dan
Dozer523
11-04-2008, 12:44
While driving around today I was thinking about the election it crossed my that a McCain victory might still equate to a victory for Obama if he were a revolutionary?
. . . If McCain wins, you have may have hundreds of thousands of people (maybe a million people) in Chicago a perfect catalyst for an un-impedible angry mob, that inturn leads riots which spread like wild fire from city to city. . . . but what if?
Maybe you shouldn't be driving. Don't you have sandbags to fill and concertina to lay . . . FPF's to register?
What if Senator Obama is elected and turns out to be an exceptionally effective president? This effectiveness could be either as a very liberal president or as a pragmatist or even a politically advantageous mix of the two?
In this scenario, even his most ardent critics (such as members of this forum) would have no choice but to say "well, I disagree with him on issues A, B, C, and D, but he sure got it right on issues X, Y, and Z."
Call me cynical, but I don't think either candidate can fix the economy in four years. Consequently, I believe that whomever is elected will be held solely accountable by the general public for the fiscal state of the union and will lose the next election. Basically, I think we will see Carter all over again.
james13f
11-04-2008, 13:08
If only we could get the same hardworking attitude into the cities.
Can you cite or quote any sources, studies or articles that event hint at validating the implied accusations of this statement? What is your basis: race, income level, hours worked, type of labor?
"If only we could get the same intellectual and congnitive thinking ability into the rural areas."
ZonieDiver
11-04-2008, 13:46
Call me cynical, but I don't think either candidate can fix the economy in four years. Consequently, I believe that whomever is elected will be held solely accountable by the general public for the fiscal state of the union and will lose the next election. Basically, I think we will see Carter all over again.
Call me biased, but I think IF Obama is elected - another "Carter" is the best we can hope for. In fact, IF he is elected, that is what I am praying for - that he is an incompetent boob who cannot get ANYthing he wants completed.
ZonieDiver
11-04-2008, 13:56
Can you cite or quote any sources, studies or articles that event hint at validating the implied accusations of this statement? What is your basis: race, income level, hours worked, type of labor?
"If only we could get the same intellectual and congnitive thinking ability into the rural areas."
Here's one... from someone with weak "google-fu" today, for some reason. Maybe my "Kool-Aid" is wearing off!
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ151125&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ151125
ZD--
Your google-fu skills are impressive.
However, the reference is thirty years old and the abstract leaves it unclear if the study is focusing on the percentage of rural residents receiving entitlement benefits or the number. If it is the latter, the study may be flawed given the fact that urban areas will have higher populations. (Also, since the study focuses exclusively on rural Pennsylvania, there may be other factors involved such as access to the shared resources of a family or community, religion, and ethnicity.)
If I'm not misunderstanding James's intent, it seems that he's questioning the town versus country debate that is older than America itself.
Here's one... from someone with weak "google-fu" today, for some reason. Maybe my "Kool-Aid" is wearing off!
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ151125&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ151125
GreenSalsa
11-04-2008, 14:44
Let's suppose, purely for the sake of discussion, that on Nov. 6th or so, he has won both the popular and electoral votes. In addition, suppose Democrats have control of both houses of Congress. They will have all the governmental power, with essentially no restrictions.
So...as they take office...what if the economy experiences significant additional decline? Say, unemployment on the order of 10%? A budget deficit in excess of $1.5 Trillion? Add in additional business failures across the land.
They have indicated a willingness to raise taxes and implement a carbon tax scheme; these are likely to place additional stress on an already troubled economy.
Congressional elections occur in 2010. Will they have the economy humming along by then? Maybe. But I'm noticing a lot of people who expect recession to linger throughout 2009, with a slow, lackluster recovery thereafter.
And then there is the issue of foreign affairs. His supporters seem to prefer withdrawal, disengagement, and a reduced military budget. If that path is followed, what are the likely outcomes? Will there be a crises, will a flashpoint ignite? What if Saudi Arabia falls to extremists? What if Pakistan becomes a failed state? No doubt others can point to additional areas. How will America react if he generates failure and defeat in the global arena?
He may win the office. I suspect, however, that he will become remarkably unpopular.
I disagree--they will still be blaming President Bush for it long after he is gone from office...probably for the next 8-12 years.
In this scenario, even his most ardent critics (such as members of this forum) would have no choice but to say "well, I disagree with him on issues A, B, C, and D, but he sure got it right on issues X, Y, and Z."
Perhaps. If he is truly that good, or that lucky, then matters must play out as they will.
Suppose I were to say: "If I could do 100 options trades and double my money on each one, I'd be rich!" ? I imagine someone would point out that my "if" was a very big one, and the chances of success quite small. I think the same pattern applies to leading the U.S. during the next four years.
We have some truly profound challenges. As in multiple, concurrent, non-trivial issues. Any one of them would take wise, experienced leadership guiding a united population. He does not have a united population, and has not demonstrated a flair for bipartisanship, so far as I have noticed.
I am not so hopeful about a Democratic triumvirate in Washington.
I think that they will succumb to the far left wing of their party and remove any moderate Dems from committee's or positions of influence. Then alter the playing field (talk radio, open borders, "free" money, castrate the supreme court) to prevent a right wing comeback. I think they will start these little civilian security forces (composed of his supporters) and pay them from the tax money they remove from the defense budget, for starters.
Call me crazy, but I am watching for this to happen.
Only crazy in the sense of "crazy like a fox". I think that's exactly what they will do. In addition, The Reaper's comments are insightful.
Will these do damage? Certainly. People will lose money and heart. The U.S. will suffer economic and policy reversals - and, quite possibly, military reversals as well.
That said, we often value too little that which comes easily. Voting, freedom of speech, economic freedom - all of these are widely available to anyone (not just citizens!) inside the borders of the U.S.
What happens as these are diminished? When one has to look about, and speak in a low whisper out of fear, then suddenly the very principle of free speech may take on a different character. Likewise the fairness doctrine; as we lose something we value, there will be both resentment and greater valuation of the conservative message that remains.
I have heard it said that defeat sometimes teaches more worthwhile lessons than does victory. Perhaps that applies to politics as well.
Leftist mindset along with existing trends provide us with an opportunity in 2010. We just have to be prepared to exploit it to the fullest.
I disagree--they will still be blaming President Bush for it long after he is gone from office...probably for the next 8-12 years.
Yes, Sir, they will certainly do so at every opportunity. Those fond of the liberal approach will believe it. And yet, I hope that a consistent diet of heavy-handed falsehood will cause the mass of voters to reject the message.
ZonieDiver
11-04-2008, 15:05
ZD--
However, the reference is thirty years old and the abstract leaves it unclear if the study is focusing on the percentage of rural residents receiving entitlement benefits or the number. If it is the latter, the study may be flawed given the fact that urban areas will have higher populations. (Also, since the study focuses exclusively on rural Pennsylvania, there may be other factors involved such as access to the shared resources of a family or community, religion, and ethnicity.)
Sigaba - all of your points are very true, but he only asked for "any sources, studies, or articles" - he didn't say they had to be current, relevant, or accurate! :D Besides, as an old "country boy" thangs don't change out there too much in only 30 years! :lifter
Can you cite or quote any sources, studies or articles that event hint at validating the implied accusations of this statement? What is your basis: race, income level, hours worked, type of labor?
ZonieDiver
11-04-2008, 15:08
Originally Posted by GreenSalsa
I disagree--they will still be blaming President Bush for it long after he is gone from office...probably for the next 8-12 years.
Yes, Sir, they will certainly do so at every opportunity. Those fond of the liberal approach will believe it. And yet, I hope that a consistent diet of heavy-handed falsehood will cause the mass of voters to reject the message.
And many of the things I have heard my liberal (and ultra-liberal) "colleagues" saying these past few months about our current Commander-in-Chief have passed the "reality" phase and are really more into the "urban legend" status. I'd check them out in Snopes.com, but... :o
Sigaba - all of your points are very true, but he only asked for "any sources, studies, or articles" - he didn't say they had to be current, relevant, or accurate! :D Besides, as an old "country boy" thangs don't change out there too much in only 30 years! :lifter
+1:D
You are absolutely right: you answered the question he asked.
I was standing outside the Hotel here in Chicago talking to the Door Man. Two ladies walked by and said "Make sure you Vote" We both replied "already did it" They replied without missing a beat "Well Vote again"
Freaking unbeleivable....
Welcome to Chicago. :D :D :D
Concur.
2010 will be a bloodbath for them as voters see who they really are.
Sir, what happens when civil unrest is so great, as a result of the Dim's poor policy decisions and possible terror activity, that civil liberties are suspended, martial law is in order, and elections are "postponed"?
I will not underestimate this enemy, regardless of their position of power. They have ways of keeping themselves in power. I am also very curious what type of individual will be selected to make up the new "Homeland Security Force" that Obama spoke about.
Think of Obama what you may, the folks pulling his strings are very dangerous.
I disagree--they will still be blaming President Bush for it long after he is gone from office...probably for the next 8-12 years.
During his 2004 acceptance speech for the Republican Party's nomination, Bush the Younger took a shot at Jimmy Carter by referencing the decade of weakness argument, so I suppose all is fair in politics.
Hopefully, the U.S. will turn the corner on GWOT so that the stories of those who are laboring in the shadows will become known. I am of the belief that history will be more balanced than his critics in its assessment of George W. Bush. Certainly not the best president, definitely, not the worst.
(The next person who claims that Bush the Younger is the 'worst president ever,' I am going to ask "Who is number four on your list?")
I don't think 2010 will be a blood bath. I think they will win more in 2010.
As long as he can quickly put money in people's hands (cheap gas, paying off mortgages, more food stamps, free day care, free health care) over the next two years, he will become the patron saint anointed one. Anyone crying foul over these "social and economic justice" policies will be a "racist" and anything you say will be rendered moot.
He is Hugo Chavez North.
He will seek to make change to the Constitution. They will not come after guns. Because they don't have to. States and municipalities can do that all by themselves. But maybe the right is better on the offensive than they are at being incumbents.
I don't think 2010 will be a blood bath. I think they will win more in 2010.
As long as he can quickly put money in people's hands (cheap gas, paying off mortgages, more food stamps, free day care, free health care) over the next two years, he will become the patron saint anointed one. Anyone crying foul over these "social and economic justice" policies will be a "racist" and anything you say will be rendered moot.
He is Hugo Chavez North.
He will seek to make change to the Constitution. They will not come after guns. Because they don't have to. States and municipalities can do that all by themselves. But maybe the right is better on the offensive than they are at being incumbents.
Sir, for your scenario to work, Senator Obama doesn't even have to deliver on all of the entitlements. He can say "change" is on the way but for the obstruction of allegedly discredited politicians who are in line with the "failed" policies of the past twenty years (remember, the guy has thrown everyone under the bus here) and that these discredited politicians are distracting people from focusing on "hope" and should be voted out of office to complete the cycle.
I am profoundly uncomfortable with the phrase "race card" and the context in which it is used. But I think that Senator Obama, rather than starting the national dialog that might explore that phrase with the intent of neutralizing it, will exploit the sensibilities it represents. This way, he and his supporters can believe that they're doing what is in the interest of social justice while those who oppose him and his measures are focusing on distractions.
Dammit. We need to reclaim the concept of social justice from the left.
Think of Obama what you may, the folks pulling his strings are very dangerous.
No truer words spoken. Those that made him will now claim their due. That is not going to be good for this Country.
Blitzzz (RIP)
11-04-2008, 20:51
Get Ready for the next "dark ages". Yes we survived Jimmy Carter and Clinton, But why should we have to suffer BHO.
Blitz:boohoo
TheLion03
11-04-2008, 21:06
I 100% agree with what TR said earlier, BHO is not Clinton he has a socialist agenda.
It honestly scares me because I think he will be able to go unchecked in whatever he wants. People want to take the idea of an old white man out the equation, thats fine. but this is not it. I choose McCain for his values and BHO has not shown me that, The country may loose its values over this election. a complete 180
Just my .02 cents
Dozer523
11-14-2008, 07:10
No truer words spoken. Those that made him will now claim their due. That is not going to be good for this Country.
I remember this arguement from the other side eight years ago. Cheney was hailed as the "co-President". He assumed what seemed more the role of a ship's Executive Officer (Navy folk check me here -- I'm just remmembering what I heard and learned from movies lol). Reagan took these hits too as being "the best actor" the Reps could find "in the role of a lifetime". History and research shows that was not the case. The jury on Bush . . . might take some serious convincing to dissuade most. The Dems ("E" TS!) have never been accused of having "spokesman Presidents". FDR, Truman, JFK, all loved for their independence. LBJ, Carter, and Clinton hated for theirs. Ike was accused of being in the military-industrial pocket, Nixon was the ultimate GOP guy. Bush the Elder seemed to remain independent of the party and probably paid the price.
I think it will all come down to the cabinet. Saw Hillary was in consideration for Sec State. That is scary on many fronts.
Dozer523
11-14-2008, 08:23
CNN "just in" that Obama has requested a meeting with H Clinton. I think this might be the pivotal meeting of his administration. Giving her t he Sec State job will be a terrible thing to do. From the REP side they will go nuts over the influence of the position and her clear lack of experience and expertise. The risk of her very left of center-ness in that arena when dealing with the political spectrum of the world is scary. Her lack of diplomatic skills (heavy handedness) with those differing from her agenda will not help us in the world arena. But, she has to go SOMEWHERE for the dEm's who support her. Can't really make the Reps happy at the expense of the home team. (Obama needs to watch out for a backlash from angry black voters who may see him as not being as much the "agent of change" as they would like. But that is for another post). So where to put Hillary? Sit down, take a breath. . . Let's make her the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
CEASE FIRE! CEASE FIRE! CEASE FIRE! LOCK AND CLEAR ALL WEAPONS. Dozers down range (I'm Playing the QP Card! :D)
She does know health care and she got her ass kicked on it once before so she will go into it a little throttled back politically. She has staked out political ground on it in the past, it is popular, and she does have that nasty bitchiness. So when opens the "git-it-dun" throttles to help the Wounded Warriors I won't really care if it is Hillary -- When you need a tourniquet, it really doesn't matter who applies it. And someday all this will end, but if she can improve the VA the VA will stay improved (without her). This Secretaryship ougth to drive a stake through her political heart.
OK . . . FIRERS, WATCH YOUR LANES. Have at it boys and girls. Take your best shots.;)
The Reaper
11-14-2008, 08:27
I do not see her giving up a job as Senator for life and likely leader, at some point, just to become a Cabinet official subordinating her views to prosecute Obama's agenda for the next few years.
That would also make it impossible for her to campaign against him while Sec State.
TR
Dozer523
11-14-2008, 08:41
I do not see her giving up a job as Senator for life and likely leader, at some point, just to become a Cabinet official subordinating her views to prosecute Obama's agenda for the next few years.
That would also make it impossible for her to campaign against him while Sec State. TR
Oh even better.
When she TURNS DOWN Sec VA she appears to be anti-soldier. With her husband's "I loathe the military" credintials that ought to cause her to politically bleed out before the next Senate race.
Dozer523
11-15-2008, 07:31
Well . . . the "next few years" is eight and eight years is a looooong time. She won't challenge him in 2012. Nobody on the dEm side is going to oppose Obama when he runs for re-election. Doesn't happen. No one came from inside the party to challenge Clinton in 96 no one even came to challenge Carter's re-election bid in 80. And EVERYONE knew that was doomed! Maybe the closest was RFK vs LBJ. But LBJ dropped out when it beacame obvious that there was going to be a fight inside the party and that he probably could not win the general election. I wonder what would have happened had RFK not been assinated. Hillary is done, her presidential aspirations bled out in the Primary. So does she want to be a shrill voice amoung 100 or actually do something for the next 4 - 8 years? The Senate was always just a stepping stone. For Obama it isn't about Hillary it is about Hillary's supporters.
Why would she want to give up the 'ultimate old boys club' and direct access to the 'throne' to be SecState and have to worry about going back to Sarajevo and being under fire again? :rolleyes: I don't see it happening...but who the hell knows what will happen in politics.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Ambush Master
11-15-2008, 09:24
I'm more worried about Billy boy being made the Ambassador to the UN!!! He came close to accepting the UN civillian weapons ban already!!!
I'm more worried about Billy boy being made the Ambassador to the UN!!! He came close to accepting the UN civillian weapons ban already!!!
As an 'Ambassador' he can't accept anything; he just does the bidding of our government. I'm pretty certain there are enough 'safeguards' in place between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government to keep that from happening...as long as we keep a close eye on all of them. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
[...] no one even came to challenge Carter's re-election bid in 80. And EVERYONE knew that was doomed!
Actually, Kennedy did challenge him.
Pat