|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Jun 3, 2008 11:51:34 GMT -5
I saw this on another site and thought it would be interesting to discuss here.
This is so plausible to me . . . what do YOU think??
|
|
|
|
Post by Prissy New Year!!! on Jun 3, 2008 11:55:03 GMT -5
I don't want to say that the democratic party is in on the joke. But when I heard that McCain was hinting at only running one term, I felt that the Clintons would be looking towards 2012. I would not be surprised if they try to ruin Obama's chances so that she can run again in 2012. That theory is not new, a lot of folks feel that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Jun 3, 2008 11:57:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Jun 3, 2008 11:57:47 GMT -5
SO MUCH IS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING ON in 2012!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Jun 3, 2008 12:07:22 GMT -5
SO MUCH IS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING ON in 2012!!
Prissy: It's been long rumored that Hillary is running for 2012, we'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't put anything past them! They all work alike. I know one thing, if Obama distanced himself from his longtime associates for nothing . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Jun 3, 2008 12:24:39 GMT -5
I guess I didn't hear...what's supposed to happen in 2012?
|
|
|
|
Post by 123Diva on Jun 3, 2008 12:26:08 GMT -5
Same here.
<----missed the 2012 memo
*hoping this isn't some freaky Nostradamus stuff*
|
|
|
|
Post by coldfront06 on Jun 3, 2008 12:27:54 GMT -5
I don't know about 2012 either...but I was afraid to ask...lol. If its some "the world is going to end" stuff I don't want to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Jun 3, 2008 13:04:49 GMT -5
<----------- wants to know about 2012 ..
|
|
|
|
Post by jay0heavenly on Jun 3, 2008 13:17:36 GMT -5
<====Knows about 2012 <====Won't tell tho lol....psyche... What is supposed to happen in 2012  |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 13:25:38 GMT -5
this is silly.
you can also make gold from lead, the moon landing was staged, and OJ had nothing to do with it.....
gimmeamuhfuggin'break......
|
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 13:26:39 GMT -5
what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?"
sheer buffoonery.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Jun 3, 2008 13:36:42 GMT -5
what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?" sheer buffoonery..... True! And while we have come to know Hilary as a narcissistic, hateful, screaming harpie, we also know that she ain't stupid enough to sabatoge the DNC like that. As I've said before, if she plans on salvaging any kind of political future, she'll bide her time, get back to NY and run for her senate seat again. If she were fool enough to even think something like this, she wouldn't even be elected pooper-scooper in NY afterward! |
|
|
|
Post by coldfront06 on Jun 3, 2008 13:44:56 GMT -5
this is silly. you can also make gold from lead, the moon landing was staged, and OJ had nothing to do with it..... gimmeamuhfuggin'break...... LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by GorgeousNgreen on Jun 3, 2008 13:50:23 GMT -5
what the 2012 thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Jun 3, 2008 13:57:28 GMT -5
what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?" sheer buffoonery.....
How does one "die" in a plane crash but he has a bullet in his head . . . ?  |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:07:37 GMT -5
[ what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?" sheer buffoonery.....
How does one "die" in a plane crash but he has a bullet in his head . . . ? the party is not as split as you may believe it is. Parties more often than not appear "split" during the primary season. Dems will come together once a nominee is in place. The Clinton's were giants.....who got knocked off by a nigga with a funny name, a rock and a sling shot. They are no longer party bosses. Let's be clear, Obama is the clear DNC party boss now. Obama may be fairly new to the national sceene, but he cut his political teeth on Chicago politics. And Chicago politics are by far, as cut throat as they come. |
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Jun 3, 2008 14:07:59 GMT -5
what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?" sheer buffoonery..... They can gain alot in the long run. Blacks in general are starting to feel disenfranchised with the political process (especially the Democratic party). If Barack can bring blacks back into an active political discussion, then the Democrats recover a solid foothold as the latino community is nowhere near a stronghold........ |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:10:21 GMT -5
what does the DNC possibly stand to gain by "setting Obama up to lose?" sheer buffoonery..... They can gain alot in the long run. Blacks in general are starting to feel disenfranchised with the political process (especially the Democratic party). If Barack can bring blacks back into an active political discussion, then the Democrats recover a solid foothold as the latino community is nowhere near a stronghold........ you lost me. it sounds like your responding to the question "what does the DNC stand to gain by setting Obama up to win?" |
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Jun 3, 2008 14:23:04 GMT -5
They can gain alot in the long run. Blacks in general are starting to feel disenfranchised with the political process (especially the Democratic party). If Barack can bring blacks back into an active political discussion, then the Democrats recover a solid foothold as the latino community is nowhere near a stronghold........ you lost me. it sounds like your responding to the question "what does the DNC stand to gain by setting Obama up to win?" No he doesn't need to win the Presidency for the party to rally black folks back into foray. Lets not forget than in 2000, Repubs were able to sway some black voters their way. If Barack wins the nomination, then the party resolidifies the black base. Then in 2012, after a 3rd republican term as president, the Dems have a solid base upon which to win. Hell this election was basically gifted to the dems, and they still found a way to muck it up....... And towards another point....... Obama is not the face of the DNC (not yet).... unfortunately Black folks want that to be true, but he's not. As much as he is winning delegates, Billary is not to far behind, and the popular vote is even closer. |
|
|
|
Post by 123Diva on Jun 3, 2008 14:24:46 GMT -5
<----still wondering about 2012
Somebody needs to tell us...Inquiring minds want to KNOW!
|
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:25:50 GMT -5
so if Obama's not the DNC party boss, who is?
|
|
|
|
Post by coldfront06 on Jun 3, 2008 14:27:19 GMT -5
you lost me. it sounds like your responding to the question "what does the DNC stand to gain by setting Obama up to win?" No he doesn't need to win the Presidency for the party to rally black folks back into foray. Lets not forget than in 2000, Repubs were able to sway some black voters their way. If Barack wins the nomination, then the party resolidifies the black base. Then in 2012, after a 3rd republican term as president, the Dems have a solid base upon which to win. Hell this election was basically gifted to the dems, and they still found a way to muck it up....... And towards another point....... Obama is not the face of the DNC (not yet).... unfortunately Black folks want that to be true, but he's not. As much as he is winning delegates, Billary is not to far behind, and the popular vote is even closer. But thats assuming that the Blacks who become involved because of Obama, will remained involved if Obama is not around. I'm not sure I agree with that...I know lots of Blacks who are energized because of Obama...but it has little to do with the Democratic party. They will lose that base if Obama is fucked over. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:27:54 GMT -5
<----still wondering about 2012 Somebody needs to tell us...Inquiring minds want to KNOW! in 2012........................... Nupey's balls will finally descend.....:smirk: I kid Nupester..... |
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Jun 3, 2008 14:34:54 GMT -5
so if Obama's not the DNC party boss, who is? This traveshamockery of a primary season shows that there isn't a DNC Boss in the sense of who's running the show. Barack has done exactly what the party needed, which was re-energize the grassroots efforts of the party. John Kerry was incapable of this, Al Gore was incapable of this. Barry O has done it, and even without a W in November, the dems can capatilize in 2012... especially with another clusterfuck 4 years. I'm not saying the conspiracy is true. But the Democraps have a lot to gain, by letting Obama make it to the next step, and then backing away from him. ----- Go back to '76 and see Jimmy Carter. And look at what happened after his presidency.... another 12 years of republican rule (Reagan 80-88, Bush 1 88-92)-- You can believe that the Republicans will bring up that Carter had very little hard Washington experience and what a "failure" his presidency was. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:38:38 GMT -5
I'm thinkin' that by capturing the nomination, Obama has captured the title of "party boss." From this point forward, as he goes, so go the Dems....
|
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Jun 3, 2008 14:40:49 GMT -5
I'm thinkin' that by capturing the nomination, Obama has captured the title of "party boss." From this point forward, as he goes, so go the Dems.... Do you believe John Kerry was party boss? Hell no. They may the face the party puts forth..... but nowhere near the boss. |
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Jun 3, 2008 14:44:26 GMT -5
Lol??? Aces? What? Lol.... |
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Jun 3, 2008 14:45:33 GMT -5
No he doesn't need to win the Presidency for the party to rally black folks back into foray. Lets not forget than in 2000, Repubs were able to sway some black voters their way. If Barack wins the nomination, then the party resolidifies the black base. Then in 2012, after a 3rd republican term as president, the Dems have a solid base upon which to win. Hell this election was basically gifted to the dems, and they still found a way to muck it up....... And towards another point....... Obama is not the face of the DNC (not yet).... unfortunately Black folks want that to be true, but he's not. As much as he is winning delegates, Billary is not to far behind, and the popular vote is even closer. But thats assuming that the Blacks who become involved because of Obama, will remained involved if Obama is not around. I'm not sure I agree with that...I know lots of Blacks who are energized because of Obama...but it has little to do with the Democratic party. They will lose that base if Obama is fucked over. If Obama wins the nomination, then loses the Presidency, the Dems can rally around a common enemy. Because after the nomination, any attacks on Obama will be assumed to come from the right. Especially if Hillary gets "behind" him.... The political process is a nasty game, one that I got out of for that reason. I understand how the Democrats operate. I have over 15 years in the game, ranging from state legislature to the governor's office, to the US Congress. I know how the party takes blak folks for granted, and the fact that Obama can bring blacks back to the party in droves. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jun 3, 2008 14:46:31 GMT -5
I'm thinkin' that by capturing the nomination, Obama has captured the title of "party boss." From this point forward, as he goes, so go the Dems.... Do you believe John Kerry was party boss? Hell no. They may the face the party puts forth..... but nowhere near the boss. Kerry didn't put up the numbers vis a vis voters and voter turn out that Obama has. Obama essentially has the mandate of the people, both party insiders and the electorate. He's the party boss. |
|
