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

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh please please please don't anyone hope. Make sure hope stays dead. My hope is buried deep under my self hate and if you waken it I will remember I died. Please please please don't let me feel that again. I will kill you if you do. Hope must stay dead.

moonbeam, these relentless attacks are infuriating. are you really so dense that you can't accept the idea that different people hope for different things?

it's the same meaningless drivel over and over again, blasting anyone who dares have a different opinion as your Saint Obama as some kind of soulless suicide case.

You don't have his rosetta stone?


He is saying exactly the opposite - well, - to what you think he is saying
the meaning is mostly in his consistent message .. his words simply act as a vehicle to convey those thoughts .. as a moonbeam

there is no "blast"



We do have a rather unique package in Obama - he is the return of MLK and JFK
-just possibly slightly ahead of his time ... again.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh please please please don't anyone hope. Make sure hope stays dead. My hope is buried deep under my self hate and if you waken it I will remember I died. Please please please don't let me feel that again. I will kill you if you do. Hope must stay dead.

moonbeam, these relentless attacks are infuriating. are you really so dense that you can't accept the idea that different people hope for different things?

it's the same meaningless drivel over and over again, blasting anyone who dares have a different opinion as your Saint Obama as some kind of soulless suicide case.

You don't have his rosetta stone?


He is saying exactly the opposite - well, - to what you think he is saying
the meaning is mostly in his consistent message .. his words simply act as a vehicle to convey those thoughts .. as a moonbeam

there is no "blast"



We do have a rather unique package in Obama - he is the return of MLK and JFK
-just possibly slightly ahead of his time ... again.

maybe I need a new translator sounds to me like he's saying anyone who doesn't support Obama is emotionally dead inside.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh please please please don't anyone hope. Make sure hope stays dead. My hope is buried deep under my self hate and if you waken it I will remember I died. Please please please don't let me feel that again. I will kill you if you do. Hope must stay dead.

moonbeam, these relentless attacks are infuriating. are you really so dense that you can't accept the idea that different people hope for different things?

it's the same meaningless drivel over and over again, blasting anyone who dares have a different opinion as your Saint Obama as some kind of soulless suicide case.

Of course people hope for different things. McCain hopes for 100 years of war and Hillary hopes she can ride Bill's coattails into the White House to realize her dreams of ultimate power.

Fortunately an Obama presidency would save us all from both of those terrible outcomes.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

because clinton has a plan that obama doesn't.

god you suck at this.

Obama doesn't have any plans. Hillary does.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh please please please don't anyone hope. Make sure hope stays dead. My hope is buried deep under my self hate and if you waken it I will remember I died. Please please please don't let me feel that again. I will kill you if you do. Hope must stay dead.

moonbeam, these relentless attacks are infuriating. are you really so dense that you can't accept the idea that different people hope for different things?

it's the same meaningless drivel over and over again, blasting anyone who dares have a different opinion as your Saint Obama as some kind of soulless suicide case.

You don't have his rosetta stone?


He is saying exactly the opposite - well, - to what you think he is saying
the meaning is mostly in his consistent message .. his words simply act as a vehicle to convey those thoughts .. as a moonbeam

there is no "blast"



We do have a rather unique package in Obama - he is the return of MLK and JFK
-just possibly slightly ahead of his time ... again.

maybe I need a new translator sounds to me like he's saying anyone who doesn't support Obama is emotionally dead inside.

you do .. i really hate to speak for someone else because i will lose a LOT in the translation

but .. OK, look at his first 2 sentences:

the entrance of the moonbeam sets the stage for illuminating hope

the illumination reveals this:

My hope is buried deep under my self hate and if you waken it I will remember I died.

He is emotionally dead inside because of despair - and his despair is self-fulfilling because of hope
.. not really hate nor death and certainly not an attack but more of a "comment" - a unique future-view looking backward at it

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

because clinton has a plan that obama doesn't.

god you suck at this.

Obama doesn't have any plans. Hillary does.

Ah yes, her brilliant schemes like $5K for every child. :roll:

Hey, I've got plans too! Let's just give EVERYBODY a million dollars, then we can all be millionaires and retire! Nobody in the US will ever have to work again! I should be president!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

because clinton has a plan that obama doesn't.

god you suck at this.

Obama doesn't have any plans. Hillary does.

Ah yes, her brilliant schemes like $5K for every child. :roll:

Hey, I've got plans too! Let's just give EVERYBODY a million dollars, then we can all be millionaires and retire! Nobody in the US will ever have to work again! I should be president!

that basically sounds like the entire platform both democratic candidates are running on... and Obama might be more successful in achieving his bread and circus programs.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

because clinton has a plan that obama doesn't.

god you suck at this.

Obama doesn't have any plans. Hillary does.

the only relevant response to that is roflcoptor.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: apoppin


OK, why NOT?

Because he's winning? Why on earth would the font runner (and presumptive winner) of ANYTHING ever back down and hand the championship over to the guy in second place? For the potential of getting to win 8 years later? :laugh:

The Clinton crowd is getting to be almost as annoying as the Ron Paul bots. Clinton is going to lose. Gifting her the nom doesn't give her any better chance of beating McCain than Obama has.

Here's a better idea. Why not ask her to quit since she can't win?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: apoppin


OK, why NOT?

Because he's winning? Why on earth would the font runner (and presumptive winner) of ANYTHING ever back down and hand the championship over to the guy in second place? For the potential of getting to win 8 years later? :laugh:

The Clinton crowd is getting to be almost as annoying as the Ron Paul bots. Clinton is going to lose. Gifting her the nom doesn't give her any better chance of beating McCain than Obama has.

Here's a better idea. Why not ask her to quit since she can't win?

by your reply You clearly didn't read ANY of this thread and you have zero clue what i proposed nor the reasoning for my analysis.
--since it is now completely derailed - i am out of here; all my arguments are up for anyone to read and i will NOT waste another second going round and round over the SAME ground because you already ignored me

peace and aloha

aloha, anyway

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: 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?

Which brings up the question!

Why didn't the Boston Red Sox cut a "Deal" with the Colorado Rockies in the 9th inning of the fourth game of the World Series to let the Rockies win?

He is winning the nomination fight. As for this continual "inexperience' BS, neither the presumptive Republican candidate or the two Democrats still in the running have diddly or squat "executive" experience!

 

[apoppin]

try reading beyond the first post
- it is all in there and it doesn't need any further explanation by me.
--good night!
:moon:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: apoppin


OK, why NOT?

Because he's winning? Why on earth would the font runner (and presumptive winner) of ANYTHING ever back down and hand the championship over to the guy in second place? For the potential of getting to win 8 years later? :laugh:

The Clinton crowd is getting to be almost as annoying as the Ron Paul bots. Clinton is going to lose. Gifting her the nom doesn't give her any better chance of beating McCain than Obama has.

Here's a better idea. Why not ask her to quit since she can't win?

by your reply You clearly didn't read ANY of this thread and you have zero clue what i proposed nor the reasoning for my analysis.
--since it is now completely derailed - i am out of here; all my arguments are up for anyone to read and i will NOT waste another second going round and round over the SAME ground because you already ignored me

peace and aloha

aloha, anyway

I read it...

Your presumption is that Obama will lose to McCain... That Hildebeast has a better chance to win in November. This assumption of yours ignores the fact that they both poll equally against the old coot.

That's where your argument failed. Basically it was flawed from the get-go. I wasn't ignoring your argument. You are just wrong. That and I have a moral aversion to throwing the game... taking a dive. That's what you're asking Obama to do. Kinda chicken-shit if you ask me.

And FYI... Reagan didn't take a dive. He just lost in '76. In fact they both (Reagan/Ford) fought all the way to the convention. Going into the convention there was no clear winner. Sound familliar?

 

[lupi]

If Clinton doesn't get the top spot in the nomination I don't see the dems winning the election. Too much of Obamabots support comes from the loon crowd and it will be way too easy for 527s to put up attack ads that will sway the bulk independents/moderates.

 

[EagleKeeper]

For one to cut a deal, it is usually the person that has the most to lose.

Obama is in the driver seat w/ respect to the Dems.

And when was the last Democratic Pres->VP elected succession?

The last Rep was Regan->Bush (Sr) in 1988

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think McCain getting elected is actually going to be better for the Democratic party long term. Let's face it, next 4 years are going to suck, economy is slowing down, Iraq still a big mess. Why not let McCain be the fall guy, under a Democratic Congress supervision, use his troubles to build a filibuster proof Democrat majority in Congress, and then come 2012 get a better Democrat president and really get a lot of things done? I mean why do we need to own Bush's mess now? Let Republicans pay the price for a little longer.

You make an excellent point. Whoever wins this year is going to be in for a very difficult presidency. That said, the dems didn't beat GWB in 2004 despite him being a miserable president. If the dems lose again this year what makes you think they'd win in 2012? I'm not a big fan of McCain but I can't imagine him being worse than GWB.

 

[piasabird]

Why should Obama take any deal from Hillary? She is the loser.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: apoppin


OK, why NOT?

Because he's winning? Why on earth would the font runner (and presumptive winner) of ANYTHING ever back down and hand the championship over to the guy in second place? For the potential of getting to win 8 years later? :laugh:

The Clinton crowd is getting to be almost as annoying as the Ron Paul bots. Clinton is going to lose. Gifting her the nom doesn't give her any better chance of beating McCain than Obama has.

Here's a better idea. Why not ask her to quit since she can't win?

by your reply You clearly didn't read ANY of this thread and you have zero clue what i proposed nor the reasoning for my analysis.
--since it is now completely derailed - i am out of here; all my arguments are up for anyone to read and i will NOT waste another second going round and round over the SAME ground because you already ignored me

peace and aloha

aloha, anyway

I read it...

Your presumption is that Obama will lose to McCain... That Hildebeast has a better chance to win in November. This assumption of yours ignores the fact that they both poll equally against the old coot.

That's where your argument failed. Basically it was flawed from the get-go. I wasn't ignoring your argument. You are just wrong. That and I have a moral aversion to throwing the game... taking a dive. That's what you're asking Obama to do. Kinda chicken-shit if you ask me.

And FYI... Reagan didn't take a dive. He just lost in '76. In fact they both (Reagan/Ford) fought all the way to the convention. Going into the convention there was no clear winner. Sound familliar?

the presumption is that *either* one - by themself - MAY lose
-- United, their "chances" are better.

Take a "dive" .. that is an interesting way to look at it .. if he was a "sure bet" i'd agree with you

Obana is not a sure bet

Clinton is not a sure bet

Together they are as close to a "sure bet"
-- to match what happened Regan->Bush (Sr) in 1988

so you really didn't get what i was saying

For one to cut a deal, it is usually the person that has the most to lose.

Actually it is the "Democrats" that have the most to lose. They appear incapable of unity or long range planning unlike the other party

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi
If Clinton doesn't get the top spot in the nomination I don't see the dems winning the election. Too much of Obamabots support comes from the loon crowd and it will be way too easy for 527s to put up attack ads that will sway the bulk independents/moderates.

You keep saying that as though it's fact yet doesn't Hillary still trail Obama head to head and against McCain?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
For one to cut a deal, it is usually the person that has the most to lose.

Obama is in the driver seat w/ respect to the Dems.

And when was the last Democratic Pres->VP elected succession?

The last Rep was Regan->Bush (Sr) in 1988

the last democrat elected at all in like 30 years was Bill Clinton, you'd think they'd take his advice instead of Ted Kennedy

 

[imported_Lothar]

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.

Hillary has neither of that.

 

[piasabird]

For that matter what leadership potential does McCain have? Serving on a committee is not the same as a position in the executive branch.

I dont care who the Democratic Candidate is. I could not vote for Hillary or Obama. They are both lawyers. Lawyers should not be allowed in the executive branch.

 

[apoppin]

Frankly neither Obama nor Clinton are "ideal"

it's just that McCain is more Bush
-or Reagan with even less of a clue [if thst is possible], if you like

and if the Dems lose [again] because of their DISunity .. well, that is not so good for America .. nor the world

So .. i have achieved what i set out to do - to get DISCUSSION and to examine the potential of uniting the Democratic Party with a powerful new message .. and it appears to be succeeding somewhat

Would you support the "Dream" ticket?

i guess this idea has taken hold and the Dems can focus on it as an alternate more certain winning strategy for their party

You do know about Risk Management and what it involves?

Well, the *only* person this is targeted at is in the Obama's camp - and it is Obama himself - a letter would be ineffective.

i really don't care what any of you ultimately think except when you vote and i'd like to give you all another option for the "best choice" for the Dems .. i DO care what Obama thinks .. and i believe he will get my message clearly and shortly as many people in his camp read this forum

my 'PR job' is done here .. thank-you for helping me achieving a personal mini-goal!
:thumbsup:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I wouldn't vote democrat if Hillary is anywhere on the ticket and I don't think I am alone.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Lothar

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.

Hillary has neither of that.

right. that's why I'm voting for McCain.