Obama's Last Chance to Unite the Dems - Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?

[apoppin]

i like to do risk analysis and it's management. It appears to me that the Democrat's "in fighting" may cost them the Presidency to McClain.
--Obama may be the "better" person - but the fact remains that he is inexperienced and i think the Republican's ["unrelated"] PR campaign may even hint he is the "anti Christ"

So .. what is Obama's hurry? As Clinton's VP - the "strongest in American History" - he is guaranteed the nomination for the Presidency in 8 years - and IF the Clinton Administration does well, he is a favorite for another 8 years, as President.

They can do what Reagan did - but for the democrats. Obama as the perceived "leader" needs to get a good "deal" for himself - that the Clinton Campaign takes up his call for "change". They can make a *joint announcement* that they are TEAMING-UP for the good of America.
--i think that just might work - a message of "giving" and "sacrifice".


OK, why NOT?



EDIT:

i now see the tone of this has changed a bit from what i set out to do in my little analysis for the Dems. The old title no longer reflects the discussion so i altered it a bit to reflect it.

The Summary hasn't changed but the Old Title was:

Why Doesn't Obama Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?

i answered the "why not" part

"Negativity" Loses Elections .. the Dems are attacking each other while McLame looks more and more of a "hero" by saying nothing. After the bloodied Victor emerges from the Stupor-Delegates dirty backroom dealings, NO ONE will have any faith in the candidate - whoever it turns out to be - a dirty Smear Campaign with the Race Card being played to the Max - and McClame wins by default.

You want that for Dems?
'


Unite damnit - or DIE! :|
- how stupid are they? ... it takes no genius to figure out what is happening in the Dem Party are Killing Each Other!

Anyway, i have the new Slogan for the 21st Century - a reWrite of a very old one:

Unite or Die Stupid!

which of course means "unite or die, stuipd" to the warring factions of people with similar goals and it also means "unite, or die stupid"

good luck to us as a species! .. right now ... we need it, i think

 

[blackangst1]

lol

They need to worry about 2008 first lol

 

[nageov3t]

he's too good for it and the bitch has it coming?

 

[Bitek]

Maybe she can take the VP spot and be in the WH with a security clearance and start getting some real experience for another run in 16.

 

[yllus]

Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

*agreed*

The victory of Senator Clinton is *only assured* with Obama as her VP
- he appears smart enough not to be caught in any of her potential scandals

Alone - either of them are vulnerable ... to the republicans
"united" they clearly have a better chance

at SIXTEEN years

 

[Harvey]

Sorry, but I think Hillary is all about Hillary. If it happens to help the country, that's nice. If not, it's all a part of the political battle. :roll:

She can't even remember she wasn't really ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. If she's willing to lie about a relatively minor story like that to pimp her image, why should anyone believe what she says about bigger issues?

The one lesson we should take from the Bushwhackos is, if you don't want the kind of damage that happens when you put liars in charge of the nation, don't elect known liars.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

*agreed*

The victory of Senator Clinton is *only assured* with Obama as her VP
- he appears smart enough not to be caught in any of her potential scandals

*shakes his head* Often in politics, voters choose change for the sake of choosing change. It happened with Al Gore. It's happened up here with our province's premier and our nation's last prime minister as well. In four or eight years' time, the nation may be sick of a Democrat White House. Better to go in as the head guy while the voters' appetite for you is fresh.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sorry, but I think Hillary is all about Hillary. If it happens to help the country, that's nice. If not, it's all a part of the political battle. :roll:

She can't even remember she wasn't really ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. If she's willing to lie about a relatively minor story like that to pimp her image, why should anyone believe what she says about bigger issues?

The one lesson we should take from the Bushwhackos is, if you don't want the kind of damage that happens when you put liars in charge of the nation, don't elect known liars.

Again *Agreed!!*

this is "Why Doesn't Obama Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?"
- i am ignoring Hilary and PURELY thinking of "winning '08" for the Dems

*risk management*


for the "good of the party" .. for the "good of America"

i am just trying how to "package" it

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

it's really a moot point now, but personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for Obama if he actually had some leadership/executive experience. I kinda wished he had run for a governorship before the presidency.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

it's really a moot point now, but personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for Obama if he actually had some leadership/executive experience. I kinda wished he had run for a governorship before the presidency.

in 8 years - as VP - his experience will be at the highest level .. for President for ANOTHER 8 years

this is *strategy planning* for the Dems
16 years is a long time ... for real change

DAMAGE CONTROL
-end the 'infighting' and unite - just like the other party

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sorry, but I think Hillary is all about Hillary. If it happens to help the country, that's nice. If not, it's all a part of the political battle. :roll:

She can't even remember she wasn't really ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. If she's willing to lie about a relatively minor story like that to pimp her image, why should anyone believe what she says about bigger issues?

The one lesson we should take from the Bushwhackos is, if you don't want the kind of damage that happens when you put liars in charge of the nation, don't elect known liars.

Again *Agreed!!*

this is "Why Doesn't Obama Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?"
- i am ignoring Hilary and PURELY thinking of "winning '08" for the Dems

*risk management*


for the "good of the party" .. for the "good of America"

i am just trying how to "package" it

For the good of the the party, hell! How about, for the good of the NATION? The lesson from destruction the Bushwhackos have done has to tell you, just say NO MORE KNOWN LIARS! :|

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

it's really a moot point now, but personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for Obama if he actually had some leadership/executive experience. I kinda wished he had run for a governorship before the presidency.

You mean the right kind of experience? Look at who came into the White House in 2001: A governor and a bunch of people who probably had like 300 years of Washington experience. Politicians with a lot of experience know how to grease palms. America needs someone that actually thinks and isn't ideological.

McCane is hell bent on striking at Iran and his neoconservative posse has me worried.

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama has already won and we have already had this thread. Long time no see, apoppin. Hi.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: yllus
Like in many things, in politics "later" often means "never". Why tread down the dangerous path of waiting four or eight years for a scandal to emerge, or a tally of votes to be built up to be used against him? Especially considering he is the frontrunner, not her. Not to mention a victory by Senator Clinton is by no means a sure thing.

it's really a moot point now, but personally, I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for Obama if he actually had some leadership/executive experience. I kinda wished he had run for a governorship before the presidency.

You mean the right kind of experience? Look at who came into the White House in 2001: A governor and a bunch of people who probably had like 300 years of Washington experience. Politicians with a lot of experience know how to grease palms. America needs someone that actually thinks and isn't ideological.

show me the guy independent of ideology and I'll consider voting for him, but McCain's the only one running with an actual record of being willing to put aside partisanship to work with the other side and get stuff done.

McCain is hell bent on striking at Iran and his neoconservative posse has me worried.

really? where has he given the impression that he's hellbent on striking Iran?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sorry, but I think Hillary is all about Hillary. If it happens to help the country, that's nice. If not, it's all a part of the political battle. :roll:

She can't even remember she wasn't really ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. If she's willing to lie about a relatively minor story like that to pimp her image, why should anyone believe what she says about bigger issues?

The one lesson we should take from the Bushwhackos is, if you don't want the kind of damage that happens when you put liars in charge of the nation, don't elect known liars.

Again *Agreed!!*

this is "Why Doesn't Obama Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?"
- i am ignoring Hilary and PURELY thinking of "winning '08" for the Dems

*risk management*


for the "good of the party" .. for the "good of America"

i am just trying how to "package" it

For the good of the the party, hell! How about, for the good of the NATION? The lesson from destruction the Bushwhackos have done has to tell you, just say NO MORE KNOWN LIARS! :|

Ok ... i can accept "for the good of the Planet" , also

the PRIME goal of democrats is NOT to have McCain in the White House at all - ever! That *suggests* to me that they at the very least need to be UNITED as their opponents

So .. with EITHER of the Dem candidates making a SOLO shot for the Presidency - and infighting - they are AT RISK - my analysis

Risk management requires they realize "how much" at risk either of them are

Planning coupled with long-term strategy suggests they *unite* their campaigns to "guarantee" a Win for THEIR PARTY - for 16 years of a Democratic Presidency - WHO CARES who is "on first"?


=============

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Obama has already won and we have already had this thread. Long time no see, apoppin. Hi.

Hi back, old friend

i am quite sure we did - i remember - and you are quite correct .. i just want to insure our future matches your vision

 

[senseamp]

In 8 months, much less 8 years, people will figure out he's an empty suit and he'll have no chance. He has to ride the wave now, so to speak.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: senseamp
In 8 months, much less 8 years, people will figure out he's an empty suit and he'll have no chance. He has to ride the wave now, so to speak.

That "wave" gets us 16 years of Dem Presidents - how selfish is he?
- or how UNselfish is he

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
lol

They need to worry about 2008 first lol

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sorry, but I think Hillary is all about Hillary. If it happens to help the country, that's nice. If not, it's all a part of the political battle. :roll:

She can't even remember she wasn't really ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. If she's willing to lie about a relatively minor story like that to pimp her image, why should anyone believe what she says about bigger issues?

The one lesson we should take from the Bushwhackos is, if you don't want the kind of damage that happens when you put liars in charge of the nation, don't elect known liars.

Again *Agreed!!*

this is "Why Doesn't Obama Cut a "Deal" with Clinton?"
- i am ignoring Hilary and PURELY thinking of "winning '08" for the Dems

*risk management*


for the "good of the party" .. for the "good of America"

i am just trying how to "package" it

For the good of the the party, hell! How about, for the good of the NATION? The lesson from destruction the Bushwhackos have done has to tell you, just say NO MORE KNOWN LIARS! :|

No more known LIARS!

Like the 20 years with Rev Wright and not knowing he was nuts.

How about some of these.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljou...4/rnc_to_blast_ob.html

#10: Obama Was A Constitutional Law Professor:

At A Recent Fundraiser, Obama Claimed He Was A ?Constitutional Law Professor.? ??I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,? Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser.? (Brendan Farrington, ?Obama: Bush Fails To Respect The Constitution,? The Associated Press, 3/30/07)

On The University Of Chicago Law School Website, Obama Is Listed As A ?Senior Lecturer In Law (On Leave Of Absence).? (University Of Chicago Law School Website, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama, Accessed 3/30/07)

Obama Made This False Claim In His 2004 Senate Race. ?Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.? (Lynn Sweet, ?Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not? Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04)


#9: Obama?s Parents ?Got Together? Because Of The 1965 Selma March:

In His Selma Speech, Obama Said His Parents ?Got Together? And He Was Born As A Result Of The Selma March. Obama: ?Because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don?t tell me I don?t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.? (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At Brown Chapel AME Church, Selma, AL, 3/4/07)

?Earlier In The Day At A Prayer Breakfast, The Illinois Democrat Said: ?If It Hadn't Been For Selma, I Wouldn?t Be Here.?? (Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Whoriskey, ?Clinton, Obama Link Selma March To Present,? The Washington Post, 3/5/07)

But Obama Was Born In 1961, 4 YEARS BEFORE The 1965 Selma March. ?Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.? (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/6/07; Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Whoriskey, ?Clinton, Obama Link Selma March To Present,? The Washington Post, 3/5/07)


#8: Obama Was Fluent In Indonesian As A Child:

Obama?s Claim That He Quickly Became Fluent In Indonesian As A Child Was Disputed By A Former Teacher. ?Obama has claimed on numerous occasions to have become fluent in Indonesian in six months. Yet those who knew him disputed that during recent interviews. Israella Pareira Darmawan, Obama's 1st-grade teacher, said she attempted to help him learn the Indonesian language by going over pronunciation and vowel sounds. He struggled greatly with the foreign language, she said, and with his studies as a result.? (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, ?The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,? Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: senseamp
In 8 months, much less 8 years, people will figure out he's an empty suit and he'll have no chance. He has to ride the wave now, so to speak.

That "wave" gets us 16 years of Dem Presidents - how selfish is he?
- or how UNselfish is he

Obama's wave won't even last till November 2008, much less November 2016.
Obamania's legacy will probably be McCain presidency.

 

[CallMeJoe]

You fail to consider that after 4 years of as Hillary's vice president, Mr. Obama may be so tainted by the stench of her failed administration that he would never be considered for another elective office. Ever.

 

[Moonbeam]

Abraham Lincoln should have waited 8 years?

What part of the urgency of change, I wonder, don't people get?

Clinton will tell us what change will be just like all the rest

Obama will ask us to manifest our dreams.

Change directed from the top is more of the same.

Change from the bottom is revolution.

I will vote for Obama because I am voting for me, my dreams, my vision, my future, my glory and my love on earth as it is in heaven. Humanity is a worm that can become a butterfly.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abraham Lincoln should have waited 8 years?

What part of the urgency of change, I wonder, don't people get?

Clinton will tell us what change will be just like all the rest

Obama will ask us to manifest our dreams.

Change directed from the top is more of the same.

Change from the bottom is revolution.

I will vote for Obama because I am voting for me, my dreams, my vision, my future, my glory and my love on earth as it is in heaven. Humanity is a worm that can become a butterfly.

Bwahahaha
God forbid we actually have a president with a plan instead of an inspirational speech.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abraham Lincoln should have waited 8 years?

What part of the urgency of change, I wonder, don't people get?

Clinton will tell us what change will be just like all the rest

Obama will ask us to manifest our dreams.

Change directed from the top is more of the same.

Change from the bottom is revolution.

I will vote for Obama because I am voting for me, my dreams, my vision, my future, my glory and my love on earth as it is in heaven. Humanity is a worm that can become a butterfly.

Bwahahaha
God forbid we actually have a president with a plan instead of an inspirational speech.

What you both don't appear to realize that if Obama and Clinton "team up" [as distasteful as it appears to some of us] - we are voting for BOTH of them for president .. Clinton for the first half of the "16-year term" and Obama for the 2nd half.

i would much rather do "change" after a practical transition away from Republican rule

i understand your IDEALISM - but if WE are not UNITED - they *they* win

Do you want even 4 more years of Republican presidents? A *chance* that it may really happen IF the Dems are Divided.

i remember that from the birth of america the guiding principles were idealistic and individual - but our practical fathers made us realize that we needed to put our personal differences aside or divided we fail - the need of the one vs. the need of the many - if you need it updated

it became a slogan - United we Stand - Divided we Fall
- i am asking for the application of that PRINCIPLE to be implemented - immediately - in the Democratic Party - unite or suffer - again
- you don't get it - conditions are designed to get democrats fighting while the election gets stolen from the for the 3rd time - in a row. Frankly if they are that stupid, selfish and short-sighted - they DESERVE to lose the election and the nation and the planet

done make me say 'i told you so' in November