Replies

1. Bill and Hillary Clinton were both extremely surprised and shocked that Hillary did not win (and in fact came in 3rd) in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. They did not have a heads-up about this. If the "bankrollers" had told Hillary in 2007 that she would not be going back to the White House, she would not have been able to raise any money to start her campaign.

2. It is common in both major parties that the person who gives the keynote speech at a convention, as Obama did in 2004, will be widely talked about as a candidate for the next election. This is especially true if the speech goes over well.

So your conspiracy theory should probably focus on the people in the Democratic party who picked Obama to give this speech and why they did so.

My theory is that the Clinton's pushed an Obama candidacy, never thinking that he could win.

Considering the shape of the GOP in 2008, the Dem nominee was a shoo-in to win; and I think they wanted Obama as the sacrificial lamb. They had already scared away the big names, and they need someone to give them a little substance in the primaries.

At his age, he had plenty of more years to make a strong run, and they sold it to him as a dry run.

Then Obama made some deals with the Superdelegates and the money people and stabbed the Clinton's in the back. As a way of placating them, (and not revealing the genesis of the Obama campaign) Hillary was given the State Department.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were both extremely surprised and shocked that Hillary did not win (and in fact came in 3rd) in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. They did not have a heads-up about this. If the "bankrollers" had told Hillary in 2007 that she would not be going back to the White House, she would not have been able to raise any money to start her campaign.

It is common in both major parties that the person who gives the keynote speech at a convention, as Obama did in 2004, will be widely talked about as a candidate for the next election. This is especially true if the speech goes over well.

So your conspiracy theory should probably focus on the people in the Democratic party who picked Obama to give this speech and why they did so.

Important points, all of them. But as for the first point, I should qualify myself a bit: the Powers That Be need not be monolithic, nor need the "panel" in question be so formalized as, say, a gathering of Freemasonic Grand Masters.

But that panel conspiracy I mentioned wasn't mine. Someone else suggested it somewhere. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it and that's what's bugging my brain. I don't even remember it well enough to remember what sort of demographic were these "Powers That Be"--top party officials, rich guys, or what.