Re: *The United States Presidential Election - Official Thread*

[Allan D]

Show me a respected publication (nothing to do with fox news) that says Wright made 9/11 comments right after the event, as you claim?

Try Fox's main competitor:

"I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 Sermon

Strange how Obama never turned up to church on that particular Sunday. Most churches across the country had record attendances following the 9/11 attacks. I would have thought he, like the rest of the population, would have been in need of some spiritual solace. I wonder why? Could it be that he had a good idea what his friend, Jerry Wright, was likely to say? It seems a bit like discovering David Miliband had George Galloway as his "spiritual mentor".

[lardbucket]

More girls, beer, and cricket; please.

[Allan D]

Try starting your own thread. Can't be that difficult.

"The accursed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne and Bridge)
Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign:
(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne)."

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953).

[lardbucket]

This thread needs cricket, girls, and beer more than a new thread needs those things.

[embee]

If Bill Clinton was running the thread would have fat chicks and cigars ...

[Henry]

Obama wins North Carolina, and Hillary is just ahead in Indiana at this stage. Clinton needed to cause a shock in North Carolina to have a chance of turning things around, but now it looks like her race is all but run.

[Lara Lara Laughs]

Another good Andrew Sullivan article on the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. He compares the antipathy between Obama and Clinton to that between JFK and Lyndon Johnson and also Abraham Lincoln and numerous members of his cabinet. Interesting stuff. Seems like the only sensible option left to the democrats.

Link.

[Invader Zim]

AD, go back to surfing for kiddie porn, you banal right wing wanker.

[Mick Sawyer]

because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

So what part of this is inaccurate?

[tac]

because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

So what part of this is inaccurate?

At last, something we agree on, Mick. All Ic an do on reading Wright's comments is nod my head . . .

[freddled gruntbuggly]

because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

So what part of this is inaccurate?

in the main Yanks're too heavily into the 'my country, right or wrong' crap to give a rat's about accuracy.

[Allan D]

because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

So what part of this is inaccurate?

in the main Yanks're too heavily into the 'my country, right or wrong' crap to give a rat's about accuracy.

If you're trying to become the elected head of any country it's a good idea to have friends who think that country's a good not a bad idea, regardless of whether it's true or false.

[Allan D]

AD, go back to surfing for kiddie porn, you banal right wing wanker.

I'll leave that sort of thing to you, after all you are so much better at it than I am.

[Paul Keating]

.

[Brass Monkey]

AD, go back to surfing for kiddie porn, you banal right wing wanker.

Sir, I salute your suggestion to Allan.

[Allan D]

Another good Andrew Sullivan article on the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket. He compares the antipathy between Obama and Clinton to that between JFK and Lyndon Johnson and also Abraham Lincoln and numerous members of his cabinet. Interesting stuff. Seems like the only sensible option left to the democrats.

Link.

The problem with that scenario is what does it offer HRC assuming Obama wins the nomination (which seems more likely after last night)? If Obama wins the general election that would rule out another Hillary bid for the White House until 2016 (since, as the incumbent President, Obama will be almost assurred of the nomination in 2012 and, as the V-P, Hillary would be in no position to challenge him for the nominaton anyway). By that stage she would be 69 years old and no doubt another lot of younger Obamas would have come along to once again steal the crown. Besides the record of incumbent V-Ps winning the Presidency is abysmal - Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Mondale (although defeated with Carter in 1980) in 1984 and Gore in 2000. Bush Snr in 1988 was the first incumbent V-P to win an election since Martin Van Buren in 1836.

Also the role of the V-P is still relatively passive and powerless. The only constitutional role is to preside over the Senate and any other functions are at the discretion of the President (although the V-P is usually given an ex officio place on the National Security Council). Truman knew nothing about the atomic bomb until he became President.

The main political role of the V-P is to act as the main cheerleader for the President and the Administration's policies. It's difficult to see that role suiting Hillary a great deal nor would it fit in with Bill's plan of restoring his legacy so that the first two words of his obituary are not "Monica Lewinsky" (think he's failed there, though). Gore blamed his failure in 2000 on his unqualified support for Clinton during the impeachment debacle which he reckoned cost him several Southern states, including his own of Tennessee which voted for Bush.

If, on the other hand, Obama loses to McCain in November although that opens up the prospect of another bid in 2012, the record for losing V-P nominees is even worse than that for incumbents. Edmund Muskie, who was Humphrey's V-P in 1968 and was generally thought to have fought a good campaign and was seen as a shoe-in for 1972 fell at the first hurdle in New Hampshire. Bob Dole, who was Ford's pick in 1976, was defeated by Bush Snr in 1988, finally received the nomination in 1996 but was swept away by Clinton. The last losing V-P nominee who went on to win the White House was FDR who lost as No.2 in 1920 before going on to win in his own right in 1932, but only after being paralysed by polio followed by the country's paralysis by the greatest economic depression in its history. HRC is unlikely to welcome that scenario, besides, aged 60, she hasn't go 12 years to spare, she's no John McCain.

Also the analogies are not that close. It is true that LBJ was the runner-up to Kennedy for the nomination at the Los Angeles Convention in 1960 (although he had entered no primaries) and then, surprisingly, in view of their supposed poor relationship, JFK offered (overruling his campaign manager, Bobby) and LBJ accepted the V-P nomination. However the comparison ends there since LBJ had grown tired of his role as Senate Majority Leader and wanted a change. Although only 52 he thought 1960 was his one and only chance of the Presidential nomination. He had also suffered a serious heart attack three years earlier and his wife had been urging him to consider retirement. Thus, denied the Presidency (or at least the nomination) the V-P spot was at least a consolation prize at the end of his political career (similarly Ford had accepted the Vice-Presidency from Nixon in 1973 after he had given up hope of becoming Speaker of the House).

On the other hand, Kennedy needed the electoral votes of Texas, one of the largest states in the Union, where Johnson controlled a well-oiled if unscrupulous Democratic Party machine, if he was going to beat Nixon in November. Although normally Democratic, Texas had supported Eisenhower twice in the Electoral College in the two preceding elections of 1952 and 1956 and its support for JFK was in doubt becaudse of his Catholicism. In the event Kennedy beat Nixon in Texas by a small margin (aided, some say, by appropriate ballot-stuffing by LBJ's acolytes). Kennedy had somewhat of a fixation about the electoral support of Texas and was murdered on a visit there trying to patch up differences between Democratic big-wigs in preparation for his re-election campaign in 1964.

It's unlikely that New York will be problematic for Obama in the same way that Texas was for Kennedy since, apart from the Nixon landslide in 1972 and the Reagan landslides in 1980 & 1984, it has been consistently Democratic since 1960. The only advantage would be to appeal to the white working-class vote but, in that case, McCain and the Republicans could point to Hillary's statements during the primary campaign about Obama being "condescending" and "out of touch" and portray both of them as being opportunists.

The Lincoln example is also not a good one, as Seward, the runner-up for the nomination in 1860 (and the favourite going into the Convention) was not offered the V-P spot (which went instead to the inoffensive Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, who had not been a candidate and who was unceremoniously dumped in 1864 in favour of the Union Democrat, Andrew Johnson, in order to create a "unity' ticket) and instead was given the post of Secretary of State after Lincoln took office in March 1861. Although Seward did have an exaggerated sense of his own importance, he once wrote:

"...if I am absent only three days, this Administration, the Congress and the District would fall into consternation and despair. I am the only hopeful, calm and conciliatory person here."

However Seward became too absorbed in the work of the State Department and the exigencies of the Civil War to pose any political threat to Lincoln (he was also the victim of an attempted assassination in the same plot that murdered Lincoln as the Secretary of State was then second in the line of succession to the President). The various rivalries of the members of Lincoln's Cabinet also meant that they cancelled each other out and increased Lincoln's dominance over them.

You could also quote the example of George Bush Snr, who was runner-up to Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1980, despite at one stage during the primary campaign ridiculing Reagan's economic proposals as "voodoo economics." However Reagan's first choice had been the former resident, Gerald Ford, and he had only been rejected after he had demanded too much power. Bush had been angling for the V-P nomination, which was the summit of his ambition, since 1968 and proved to be Reagan's loyalsubordinate for 8 years, even refusing to take over the formal powers of the Presidency in the wake of Reagan's failed assassination in 1981, as he was entitled to do. There was also a 13-year age gap between Reagan and Bush, in favour of Bush. In the case of Obama and Clinton, there is a 14-year age gap in favour of Obama.

Also there is a more sinister reason why Obama should be more than a little cautious before offering HRC the V-P spot. If you believe the Oliver Stone thesis as set out in "JFK" as well as numerous other conspiracy theorists LBJ had a perfect motive for getting rid of Kennedy since he was the prime beneficiary. Putting the Clintons (I tend to think of them in the plural) a heartbeat away from the Oval Office may not be the healthiest thing for the incumbent bearing in mind that several people close to the Clintons (such as Larry Parks, Clinton's head of security as Arkansas Governor who was killed in a drive-by shooting in Little Rock, Vince Foster, then Assistant White House Counsel, whose "suicide' prompted a Democrat-controlled Congress to appoint a special prosecutor into the Whitewater affair that eventually led to Clinton's impeachment trial, Ron Brown, formerly Democratic Party Treasurer who died in a mysterious plane crash whilst on a visit to Bosnia as Commerce Secretary) have met premature ends. My advice to Obama, should he decide to offer the V-P spot to Hillary and should she, contrary to expectations, accept, is watch out for the sniper fire, you might not be as lucky as she was!

My own guess as to whom he would offer the No.2 spot? That would be General Wesley Clark, NATO forces commander during the Kosovo conflict in 1999, who ran as a candidate for the Democratic nomination (some say as a Clinton substitute) last time. He is not only close to the Clintons but more importantly he would bolster Obama's national security image against McCain and further distance himself from the Wright and Ayers controversies.

-------
Suite à un grand nombre de réponses, ce sujet a été automatiquement divisé. Vous pouvez retrouver la suite de ce sujet ici :
http://www.flamingbails.com/viewtopic.forum?t=3775 (part two of this very thread)

[Sponsored content]