Obama's Nightmare Scenario: Hillary Makes Her Move

In the last post I talked about a scenario where the city of Denver is thrown into chaos by a false-flag operation by the GOP to assure Obama loses.

But there's another scenario I'd like to discuss:

One where Obama doesn't even end up as the nominee.

Again, look at the chessboard and where the pieces are. See how the moves could play out from here.

First we have Hillary's name being put on the nomination ballot as a favor to her and her supporters.

"I am convinced that honoring Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong, united fashion," Obama said in a statement.

Observers have been wondering for months whether there continues to be a rift between the two former opponents, and there have been several reports that Clinton supporters plan to demonstrate at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver, Colo.

Placing both names in nomination will serve as "a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation's primary contests," said another joint statement by the campaigns of Obama and Clinton.

A move to restore party unity, while the Hillary or Bust faction of the Democrats proudly call themselves the PUMAs...Party Unity, My Ass! It's not being put on for their show. It's being put on like wool over our eyes.

Second, both Bill and Hillary will speak at the convention. I am convinced they will make the case not for Hillary, but against Obama.

Third, party leaders are now openly questioning Obama, and the Village media is going right along with it, a week before the convention.

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.

These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.

“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”Does this look like party unity to you? It looks like a revolt to me. These are folks supposedly on Obama's side, but is this being sent as a clear warning that the Democrats believe Obama should decline the nomination for Hillary? When's the last time you heard of a presumptive nominee getting attacked like this a week before the convention?

Fourth, The Media is playing along. Everywhere you look we're being told that "Obama has a slim lead that is tightening." He's not 15 or 20 points ahead when by all accounts he should be. The Village seems to think Obama has already lost. McCain is the maverick underdog, while Obama is the faltering and fading star. The reality is McCain is running a miserable campaign...but the Village and the noise machine are selling the "Obama is in trouble" narrative as hard as they can in a year when the GOP as a whole is about to find itself losing another 30 seats in the House and possibly enough in the Senate to give the Dems a filibuster proof 60.

And yet the "Obama in trouble" narrative won't end. Why is that?

The obvious answer is that Hillary's move won't come now, but in 2012. She figures she can beat McCain. But there's still a slight chance that she'll go for the brass ring. Obama won't have the support when he needs it. It could happen...there's a chance the nomination vote will get held up, then contested...then fought out for real. Neither side will have the 2,118 needed for the nomination.

A brutal floor fight could go Hillary's way. Things would have to play perfectly for her, but it's possible. Obama could give up for the good of the party.

From there it's anyone's guess. I'm hoping I'm crazy. But I forsee some bad, bad things in Denver for Obama.

Chicago 1968 Redux And What It Means For America

Over at BT, Steven D talks about First Amendment rights and the DNC Convention opening in a week. He brings up a very good point about the Village perception of the convention in Denver however.

But seriously, with all this talk and speculation about "violence" at the Democratic Convention it does make me wonder if someone in the government (i.e., the Bush administration) or the RNC has a false flag operation set to go to disrupt the convention and give the appearance that Democrats/Liberals are dangerous, violent, irrational and anti-American. Sort of like the ads we keep seeing from the McCain camp. Just saying, there appears to be something rank and rotten emanating from all this fear mongering and speculation about massive and violent protests which will, of course, require a massive police response along the lines of Chicago in 1968 or Seattle during the WTO meeting there in 1999.

Am I crazy, or does anyone else smell a rat? It's not like our government doesn't have a history of infiltrating protest groups for the purpose of instigating violence which can than be blamed on the "Left." Or has anyone forgotten Cointelpro already? Frankly, after 8 years of vote suppression, vote stealing, corrupt political prosecutions by the DOJ, unwarranted domestic surveillance and spying on Americans on an unprecedented scale, and a host of other dirty tricks by republicans, why should we believe they will not take the opportunity to deliberately attempt to disrupt the Democratic Convention in which the the first African American nominee of either party for President is to receive his widest national exposure to date?

After all, we know the Denver cops have a converted warehouse that they plan on using as a massive detention center and that Rush Limbaugh has said on his radio show in April that "Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats" like it would be a GOOD IDEA to make sure that would happen.

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

And with the American people angrier than ever at the GOP, suddenly the Village is mightily concerned that the DEMOCRATIC national convention will the site of riots and tear gas. What's wrong with THAT logic?

Not to at all suggest that rioting at the Repulican National Convention is a good idea, mind you. But it makes no sense to riot in Denver unless you're trying to discredit the Dems and scare the voters. And yet the Village is expecting it to happen, and so are the Denver cops. The nutjobs on the right are hard at work trying to spread the meme that Barack Obama is so hated by his own party that a massive riot in Denver is inevitable, and every time I see that put out there, it's connected to a group called Re-Create '68.

The interesting thing is that this group is indeed protesting the convention...but is protesting it peacefully while giving a large three-day concert. And yet the right is licking their chops, saying R68 is going to burn the city down and assure McCain wins this fall.

Something's not right here. I'm sure the Bushies would love nothing better than to declare Denver under martial law for a week and make sure the convention is canceled or delayed, blame the "liberals" and assure that the GOP remains in power for another four years.

Think about what that would do. Think honestly about the third and fourth order consequences of this. Look at the chessboard and make the moves in your head.

You'd have images of riots and cops busting in heads, the right winger SCREAMING on the teevee about those dirty fucking America hating liberals and how if Obama is elected every US city over 5,000 people will burn in dirty hippie flames. The Republicans would lock the Twin Cities down for their convention fucking tanks at the Mall of America, and of course it would go off without a hitch, the media would report happily. Denver would have served as a lesson, and a brutal, brutal warning to the peaceful protesters. Of course, more "violent protesters" would be detained ahead of the convention in Minneapolis as a "safety precaution after Denver." The need for more domestic surveillance like the kind suggested yesterday would be "instantly made clear".

The ads would write themselves. For the next two months the airwaves would be filled with replays of the "Denver Riots" and the guilt welded on to every Democrat in the country as permanent baggage. The GOP would promise bold new measures to make sure "we never have another Denver."

McCain would win in a landslide. Most likely, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate would be intact, but barely. It wouldn't matter however. Republicans bring American order and safety! Democrats bring un-American hippie chaos and death! President McCain would make his first priority to announce even MORE new domestic safety measures to "prevent any more domestic terrorism like Denver" from happening again. Just like after September 11, we would do everything he asked. Anytime the Dems tried to do anything, they would be literally beaten with images of the "Denver Riots."

The RNC convention in the Twin Cities meanwhile would become the symbol for the new locked down, police state America. Even more power would be invested in the executive branch, law enforcement would have sweeping new abilities, and the "surveillance state" would become a fact of life, like it is now in the UK. We would be told before we can defeat enemies in Iran and Russia, we would have to defeat enemies in Indiana and Rhode Island. Clean, neat, orderly America!

The next target would be the internet. Once it became clear that the "Denver terrorists" were using the ordinary internet to coordinate their activities, the GOP would demand an "iPatriot Act" that would subject all electronic communication to monitoring. We would be told it was necessary to stop another Denver, and of course we would comply. The internet would get locked down, and free speech and uncontrolled information on the net would be a thing of the past. We'd make the Great Firewall Of China look like a broken Commodore 64.

Of course, the logical endpoint of all this would be where the Constitution would be suspended for terrorists, then criminals in general, and then citizens. And it all would have started in Denver.

One week from now.

How easy would it be to sell a Denver Riot to the media and the world?

It's already been done. And you know what? If the Denver Riot plan doesn't work, the GOP has Plan B.

Be prepared.

Clark Bar-red

A few days ago I speculated that with the theme of the DNC's night where the Veep would speak being called "Securing America", a dead match for the name of Gen. Wesley Clark's political action committee, that it was a subtle hint that Clark might be Obama's selection.

It seems now that this is no longer the case.

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Clark says he's available, but he confirms he's been asked to stay home.

I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Having Clark at the convention as a courtesy to a candidate and as a courtesy to somebody who has publicly defended Obama on national security issues seems like a no-brainer, even if he's not speaking. There's more to this that either side is saying, because the Obama folks aren't this ham-handed.