Obama - chances he'll be assassinated?

davej

Maybe this is better off in the conspiracy theories forum but I've plumbed for here instead as I don't want this to be associated with any greater arc involving new world order conspiracies etc.

I've been thinking about this over the past few months:

The likes of Hilary Clinton, while somewhat unpalatable to republicans and certain powerful lobby groups, is at least a Washington "player". Her main objective seems to be to get into power. For example, she has supported the war in Iraq and "terrorist" declarations against Iran and has the financial backing of major pharamceutical groups.
Obama is much more of an outsider and plans to get rid of, or ignore lobby groups and generally mess up the plans of the power elite by re-distributing wealth, improving education and scaling back American imperialist actions abroad. (By power elite I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_elite). In short he would be completely unacceptable candidate for president.

Therefore there can be almost no doubt that the power elite have at least considered/discussed the possibilty of eliminating him and that these discussions will take on a more concrete dimension if it seems likely he might become president.
I'm sure there are many tactics that might be tried before the "nuclear" option is chosen, such as "swift boating" him or forming a pact with Clinton. In fact already we can see evidence of this on Fox News where they seem to have taken a rather soft stance on Clinton, while at the same time printing headlines like "Obama Muslim Rumour". But in the end if all else fails I think it is reasonably likely that there will be an attempt on his life, obstensibly from some nutcase but ultimately with the backing of the power elite. Of course Obama still seems like a bit of a long shot for president, with Clinton leading nationally. But things can change very quickly in politics...

davej

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

purple'n'gold

Obama would be no more liable to assassination than any other US president; there are nut cases to suit every possible scenario. Anti this, anti that or just plain mad and wanting to be famous i.e. the lunatic that shot John Lennon.
But, (and I have posted this before), I think that when push comes to shove the democrats will get wobbly and go for John Edwards, they are desperate to win the white house back and who the republicans put up will not in their opinion take a lot of beating. IMO they will take the middle of the road route and opt for Edwards.

Jack Sheehan

purplengold wrote: »

Obama would be no more liable to assassination than any other US president; there are nut cases to suit every possible scenario. Anti this, anti that or just plain mad and wanting to be famous i.e. the lunatic that shot John Lennon.
But, (and I have posted this before), I think that when push comes to shove the democrats will get wobbly and go for John Edwards, they are desperate to win the white house back and who the republicans put up will not in their opinion take a lot of beating. IMO they will take the middle of the road route and opt for Edwards.

Do you really think so? I would have thought that an early victory for obama would make a lot of democrats reconsider him. I certainly hope you're wrong anyway.

purple'n'gold

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Do you really think so? I would have thought that an early victory for obama would make a lot of democrats reconsider him. I certainly hope you're wrong anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he would make an excellent president. It’s just that in my opinion the democrats will go for the middle of the road (Edwards) to try and maximise their vote with all classes and kinds of Americans, I can see him(Obama) as vice president. They would probably see him (Obama) at this stage as being a few years short of being totally acceptable. Hilary is probably seen as being too divisive.

ghostdancer

Obama will not take the VP position, not that it would be offered by Edwards. far more likely the other way round.

Edwards will 90% certainly not win the democratic nomination and 99% will not win the general.
he doesn't even have enough money to keep up with either Obama or Clinton if it goes to the wire, let alone fight a national campaign.

if he won Iowa, he might have been able to win New Hampshire. he didn't. he'll highly unlikely win New Hampshire. after that he's finished.
he will not win Nevada, South Carolina or Florida. even with a win in New Hampshire he'd still be way off the pace in those 3 states. without these he's buried on Feb 5th.

the way it'll probably go for edwards:
2nd/3rd in NH
3rd in NV, SC, Florida.
pick up very few states on Feb 5th
if he hasn't already dropped out just before Feb 5th, he'll definitely do it afterwards.

ghostdancer

davej wrote: »

Therefore there can be almost no doubt that the power elite have at least considered/discussed the possibilty of eliminating him and that these discussions will take on a more concrete dimension if it seems likely he might become president.
davej

:rolleyes:

no, you really should have put it into conspiracy theories, as this is as crackpot loonie as most of the theories in there.

purple'n'gold

ghostdancer wrote: »

Obama will not take the VP position, not that it would be offered by Edwards. far more likely the other way round.

Edwards will 90% certainly not win the democratic nomination and 99% will not win the general.
he doesn't even have enough money to keep up with either Obama or Clinton if it goes to the wire, let alone fight a national campaign.

if he won Iowa, he might have been able to win New Hampshire. he didn't. he'll highly unlikely win New Hampshire. after that he's finished.
he will not win Nevada, South Carolina or Florida. even with a win in New Hampshire he'd still be way off the pace in those 3 states. without these he's buried on Feb 5th.

the way it'll probably go for edwards:
2nd/3rd in NH
3rd in NV, SC, Florida.
pick up very few states on Feb 5th
drop out soon afterwards.

IMO I disagree with you, I think the democrats have a feeling deep down that they will not win the election with either Hilary or Obama. And they would be loathe to throw away the chances of a democratic win when the republicans are so weak. I have a feeling this is going to be quiet different than previous primaries.

Manic Moran

ghostdancer wrote: »

he will not win Nevada, South Carolina or Florida.

As things stand, nobody's going to win Florida. Or Michigan. Unless the States decide to change their dates, the Democratic primaries there won't count.

In fact already we can see evidence of this on Fox News where they seem to have taken a rather soft stance on Clinton

They don't need to take a hard stance on Clinton. With the exception of the Left-wing's dislike of Bush, I've never seen such automatic reviling of a candidate as the Right has of Hillary.

[ETA: Forgot to address the OP. No, I don't think there's any great conspiracy afoot to assasinate Obama. There's always the individual nutjob to worry about, but I'm sure the USSS have thought about that]

NTM

Mr.Micro

I think that Obama is seen somewhat as a maverick and are the Americans really ready to elect a talented,charismatic black president? The majority will IMO plumb for Edwards if it goes down to the wire, with perhaps Obama as vice president, that is if the Democrats get the presidency. The positive note of this is that Clinton hopefully is out of the picture, as she clearly should be on the Republican ticket, out of date and pensioned off.

moe_sizlak

davej wrote: »

Maybe this is better off in the conspiracy theories forum but I've plumbed for here instead as I don't want this to be associated with any greater arc involving new world order conspiracies etc.

I've been thinking about this over the past few months:

The likes of Hilary Clinton, while somewhat unpalatable to republicans and certain powerful lobby groups, is at least a Washington "player". Her main objective seems to be to get into power. For example, she has supported the war in Iraq and "terrorist" declarations against Iran and has the financial backing of major pharamceutical groups.
Obama is much more of an outsider and plans to get rid of, or ignore lobby groups and generally mess up the plans of the power elite by re-distributing wealth, improving education and scaling back American imperialist actions abroad. (By power elite I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_elite). In short he would be completely unacceptable candidate for president.

Therefore there can be almost no doubt that the power elite have at least considered/discussed the possibilty of eliminating him and that these discussions will take on a more concrete dimension if it seems likely he might become president.
I'm sure there are many tactics that might be tried before the "nuclear" option is chosen, such as "swift boating" him or forming a pact with Clinton. In fact already we can see evidence of this on Fox News where they seem to have taken a rather soft stance on Clinton, while at the same time printing headlines like "Obama Muslim Rumour". But in the end if all else fails I think it is reasonably likely that there will be an attempt on his life, obstensibly from some nutcase but ultimately with the backing of the power elite. Of course Obama still seems like a bit of a long shot for president, with Clinton leading nationally. But things can change very quickly in politics...

davej

surely your kidding when you suggest fox news have gone easy on hillary

they have a daily if not hourly hit piece on her , i would go as far as to say that they have been much easier on obama apart from that madrassa school thing they broke

the reason this is i believe is that fox dont believe obama can beat whover the republican nomination is and so they would perfer to see him get the nomination over hillary

i personally think obama is way over hyped and hope he does not get the nomination as i dont think he can beat the republican nomination unless of course its mike huckabee who is only popular really among the ned flanders brigade , thee evangelical while very important to republicans at elections are really only usefull idiots who think the republican party are all christian just because they tick a few boxes with regard same sex marriage etc , the real republican machine,s main priority is whos the best for the rich and for keeping america the dominat force globally , huckabee winning would be unthinkable to the republican machine and especially the neo cons .

it is very noticable recently on fox news how mike huckabee has been shown about the same love usually reserved for democrats , there disdain for him is incredible

rudi is clearly fox news horse and therefore the neo cons horse with mitt romney there 2nd choice
again i dont think obama is all that hot and he hasnt enough experience anyway

go hillary , best of a bad bunch

Lirange

Where did all this supposition about Edwards come from?

He's disproportionately popular in Iowa. Most pundits thought he had to win in Iowa to even be in the picture nationally. The next primary is in New Hampshire ... that will be a two candidate contest between Obama and Hilary. Edwards barely registers in many other places. He's trailing Obama by a good margin in South Carolina even though it's his territory. Edwards is going to get destroyed when the big states vote on Feb 5, called Super Tuesday (NY, California, Florida, etc).

It's funny how after Obama's win in lily white Iowa so many of us outsiders refuse to accept that he has broad appeal.

Lirange

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Many Americans commentators are suggesting that both Edwards and Hilary are further left than Obama. For example, his health care plan doesn't go as far as Hilary's. You don't hear the same anti-corporate rhetoric from him like you do from Edwards.

I think some comments here are from casual observers that haven't done their homework.

silvine

Surely the fact that Obama is black will put some people off voting for him. And with a name like Obama (Osama) it's going to put off some other people too. That may be shallow but it's the reality of a part of American politics.

The same can be said for Hillary being a woman. I read recently that Hillary was doing her level best to play down her femininity and everything about her from her dress to her hair to her manner of speaking was neural and asexual.

AckwelFoley

this 9is not far from possability.. at all..


Personally, i think he hes likely to gey whacked for been a democrat alone.

If he done for because hes black, and the product of a mixed race.. it would be a real shame.

Manic Moran

Lirange wrote: »

Many Americans commentators are suggesting that both Edwards and Hilary are further left than Obama. For example, his health care plan doesn't go as far as Hilary's. You don't hear the same anti-corporate rhetoric from him like you do from Edwards.

The problem is that while position on no item is as extreme to the left as some of the other candidates, there appears to be no hot-ticket item on which his policy appeals to anyone outside of the left. It appears that all his positions are to the left. Pretty much all the other candidates have at least one position which could appeal to a swing voter, such as maybe being against abortion or being pro-gun. As a result, arguing "He's acceptable because none of his positions are as extreme as some" is effectively arguing "Vote for me because I'm the least offensive candidate." Granted, this could actually work given the US election system, but it's a very shaky foundation to run on.

NTM

Gurgle

Slightly off topic, but what amazed me was the fact that the 2 options as democrat candidate were a woman and a black guy.

Could either actually get elected president?

Manic Moran

Sure.

It would depend particularly on how horrible the Republican candidate is. There are one or two out there that you look at and think "Good God, I'd rather vote for the Great Green Arkleseizure if that's what it takes to keep him out of power"

NTM

SpAcEd OuT

Just listening to his victory speech he made a comment about taking the government back from the lobbyists.

He certainly ruffling a few feathers I wouldn't be surprised if we see at the very least a slandering campaign of unprecedented ferocity against him by those who feel his nomination would threaten their interests.

AckwelFoley

Gurgle wrote: »

Could either actually get elected president?

My magic 8 ball tell me its unlikely.

There are the big citys ok, but the rest is full of redecks, and thats a comment that was made too me when i was in New Hampshire last month having a political discussion with some yank friends

murphaph

If Obama is really such a man of the people and willing to destroy the vested interests and lobby groups.......where is he getting his campaign warchest from? Poor blacks in Louisianna? I don't think so. If he's got this far without independent funds he's part of the system. At least Ross Perot was using his own money.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ghostdancer

Manic Moran wrote: »

As things stand, nobody's going to win Florida. Or Michigan. Unless the States decide to change their dates, the Democratic primaries there won't count.

i knew about Michigan, I was unaware that the democratic caucus in florida is currently invalid. thanks for that. i presumed that because the Republican one is fine, and that they're both on the same day, that it was fine.

either way, Edwards is still way off the pace in the state, whether they change the date or not, with Hilary being a good bit clear of both him and Obama...

purple'n'gold

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Just listening to his victory speech he made a comment about taking the government back from the lobbyists.

He certainly ruffling a few feathers I wouldn't be surprised if we see at the very least a slandering campaign of unprecedented ferocity against him by those who feel his nomination would threaten their interests.

You can bet your bottom dollar the diggers are digging already; they will turn over every rock they can to find something, anything on him. It’s all par for the course.

Manic Moran

I'm not entirely sure how the system works, but the Democratic Party punished two states severely by stating that they won't permit the delegates from those states to vote. The Republican party punished a half-dozen states less severely (Including both Florida and Michigan) by allowing only half their delegates to vote.

NTM

purple'n'gold

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The American federal government has a great track record of being anti racist and anti sexist. The great American public are a completely different kettle of fish. And keep benchmarking Bertie out of this please; we’d like to keep it serious. We don’t want anyone sniggering in the background.

ghostdancer

murphaph wrote: »

If Obama is really such a man of the people and willing to destroy the vested interests and lobby groups.......where is he getting his campaign warchest from? Poor blacks in Louisianna? I don't think so. If he's got this far without independent funds he's part of the system. At least Ross Perot was using his own money.

well considering he's been saying this about lobbyists for years and has publically stated that he won't accept donations from lobbyists for his campaign, don't you think that Clinton would have been able to point out if he had been accepting donations?

maybe he's getting so far because people actually believe him and what he stands for.

i can think of one message board which has already donated 20grand+ to his campaign, mostly in <100$ donations. i'm sure there's plenty of others out there that are doing the same.

jonny72

Alot of people talking about policies, etc..

But i think a great many people vote on someone simply based on gut instinct..

Just if they literally "like" the guy (or woman)..

I mean a lot of people i saw interviewed after the last election seemed to care more that they felt they could sit down and have a drink with Bush and he seemed like an allround type of guy.. rather than his policies..

ghostdancer

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how the system works, but the Democratic Party punished two states severely by stating that they won't permit the delegates from those states to vote. The Republican party punished a half-dozen states less severely (Including both Florida and Michigan) by allowing only half their delegates to vote.

NTM

yep, but as far as i can understand, if the democratic primary in florida goes back to Feb 5th, all the delegates will be valid, if not, they won't be allowed to vote at the DNC.
not sure if the Republicans would be allowed do the same. the Democrats aren't allowed canvass in Florida apparently, but the Republican Party has given the go-ahead for theirs to, so I would imagine people like Guiliani who've been doing loads of work down there recently, would be extremely pissed if it was moved back to Feb 5th at this stage....

Gyalist

As much as I'd like to see it happen, I don't think that Obama has a serious chance. My crystal ball predicts that the first non-white President will be Bobby Jindal in 2016.

SpAcEd OuT

Fox news are unbelievable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms