|
Author
|
Topic: Speculation, O'Bomber to Dump O'Biden
|
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 04:00 PM
  
Yes, this silly season election theory has been making the circuits around the Internet. Seems lots and I do mean lots of demoscats are unhappy with O'Biden. Especially since he stepped on his bosses qualifications in making his first major decision. Whom to pick as his running mate. O'Biden thought Hillary might have been a better pick for VP than he is. Goofs and gaffes have followed.At a campaign rally, O'Biden told a state Senator to stand up...so the audience could get a look at him. Problem, the state Senator is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair. Today, O'Biden is on the campaign trail telling audiences "paying higher taxes is patriotic". So, the speculation goes like this. O'Biden will debate Palin and then, sometime shortly after..say the end of the first week in October, O'Biden will withdraw with an excuse of a health problem...or a family problem. Enter Hillary to save the day...and Hillary doesn't have to debate Sarah Palin. Personally, I don't believe this is going to happen...or not happen this way. Hillary doesn't want to be VP and in fact, Hillary wants O'Bomber to lose so she can run for President in 2012...something she probably couldn't do if O'Bomber is elected. It's almost a lead pipe cinch that O'Bomber would run for a second term and if Hillary attempted to unseat a sitting demoscat president, her name would be mud in dem circles. So, O'Biden might withdraw after having debated Palin and a different woman chosen to take O'Biden's place. Say someone like Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas whom Sarah Palin would tear up in a one on one debate...but under this scenario, Palin wouldn't get that chance. Voters wouldn't hold it against O'Bomber...if O'Biden withdrew for health or family reasons. But history shows that when a VP candidate implodes and is thrown off the ticket by the candidate for President, voters do hold it against the candidate because it was the candidate who chose the imploding VP candidate to begin with. Further, it shows a certain distasteful quality of disloyalty.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 07:41 PM
Interesting.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 09:52 PM
Yeah, the idea is interesting.What do you think AG, is Biden going to make it through to the election? IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 10:26 PM
I would think so, but a twist might be fun (and I say that in the spectacle sense. It would be Palin all over again.).IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 10:32 PM
Sorry AG but I'm feeling a little dense tonight. What do you mean it would be Palin all over again?**edit Oh, I see, you mean the media with mouths agape for the next 2-3 weeks while they speculate about the timing, qualifications and all the other hoopla? IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 10:54 PM
It would be Palin all over again in the sense that it would be a surprise to everyone --well, possibly not since we're here talking about it now,-- but in general it would be a huge media event, and particularly if it was a woman that America doesn't know, then we'd get the same types of scrutiny....but, you know, why not strengthen the chauvinist vote and pick a different male candidate?  ( I am kidding ) ...but seriously...is this going to to be the campaign where, yes a woman gets into office, but does so more on the basis of her gender than anything else? Because that's what it would seem like if Obama scrapped Biden for a woman (particularly an unknown). It would show something more disgraceful, and more sexist than I'm willing to see this nation go through. If I'm not making myself clear, please let me know. I'm just thinking that it would be viewed as not one, but now two political stunts. Is that really the cutting edge of political campaigning that we want, or would we prefer that it's obvious and fairly indisputable that running mates are chosen based on their worth as people, as executives, as politicians, etc? Can you imagine two campaigns simultaneously claiming sexism as an answer to any perceived slight? It boggles the mind. I guess it would make the way for a third party candidate to step in, and just say, "Look at these circus clowns. Let's get real." There's my free-wheeling thoughts on the matter. I hope they weren't too offensive. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 11:08 PM
."..but, you know, why not strengthen the chauvinist vote and pick a different male candidate?" You do like to live on the edge of danger don't you No, I don't find what you said offensive but I would disagree that Palin was chosen just because she is a woman. If McCain is to be believed and I do believe him when he says he intends to turn over some apple carts in Washington, then Palin is probably his ideal running mate who already has a record of taking on the establishment and some pretty big players...oil companies and her own party. Notice, there are Republicans in the Alaska legislature who aren't exactly thrilled with her but the people of Alaska are.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 11:22 PM
In fairness, I think Republicans have done a good job of making that case.If Obama picked Clinton, I could see Democrats making the case of experience over political stuntery (<- I think I just created a word), but anyone else and can seeing people just throwing up their hands and being done with this campaign. The hardcore wouldn't of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the move backfired. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 11:27 PM
Do you think Hillary would accept the VP nomination knowing she wouldn't get a shot at the presidency until 2016...provided Obama won? She would be, what, about 72 years old?IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 18, 2008 11:36 PM
That's a good question.Well, if Obama doesn't win, she'll still be on for next election, and if he does win [twice] she'll have to wait until 2016 anyway, so... ...she'd be able to sabotage his campaign easier from the inside. And if you want to go conspiracy theorist on that idea (which is tempting [to think about] in a hypothetical situation), then an Obama assassination would put Hillary in prime position to take over the campaign. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 19, 2008 07:24 AM
It would be hard to disagree with the idea that Obama has a better chance of winning with Hillary than without. True, if Obama wins..with or without Hillary, it's 2016 before Hillary gets her shot...but then, she's 72 and you know what democrats are saying about McCain.  I would say Hillary is thrilled with the good job Biden is doing sabotaging Obama.  He's fine as long as he sticks to the script but bad things happen when he attempts to ad-lib. There are jokes going around that if Obama won with Hillary as his VP he's need extra layers of Presidential protection, including food tasters. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 19, 2008 11:45 AM
You know, when I think about whether or not the Clintons are as sinister as they're made out to be, I can't help but think they wouldn't be able to find people that stinking loyal to do their dirty work. Surely someone would give them up. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
