Who stands to benefit the most from digging into Obama's private information?

[rainbow4321]

1) Repukes: they know that McCain would beat the divisive HRC in November, giving repukes another 4 years. They know she is OUT of the primary unless they come up with explosive stuff about Obama (who would beat McCain in November).

2) HRC: Since she is obviously/mathematically out of the primary race, a repuke winning in Nov would give her a chance to try again in 2012, whereas Obama winning in Nov would keep her from trying again til 2016 (cuz she can't run against a Dem incumbant prez in 2012). So she agrees with the crime being done in hopes of smearing Obama to the point where he loses in November.


What better reason for these two forces to join together in this crime?
Now do they throw each other under the bus since this information has seen the light of day? Or has chimp promised HRC that his regime will stifle any investigation attempt?

[Horse with no Name]

1. Of course you have a link to back up this

libelous claim?

[rainbow4321]

3. Toss in as many "allegeds" as you like into the post

Cuz I'm just doing what everyone else in cyberspace is doing, throwing out possible ALLEGED scenarios.

[LostinVA]

15. Saying "alleged" doesn't hold up in court

[Cali_Democrat]

5. A crime has been committed and we need to get to the bottom of it. nt

[Muttocracy]

2. the media? scandal sells? nt

[samdogmom]

4. Whatever! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out...

Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course!

She's desperate--why wouldn't she do this--she's after the "kitchen sink"--this fits the pattern!

[ginnyinWI]

6. If it were either of them, they didn't find anything, did they.

January--nothing.

February--nothing.

March--nothing yet anyway.


If HRC had found it they would have used it right away--time's running out. Same with the RNC if they want her to win the nomination.

Personally I think it was just some lower level people who didn't realize they were committing a crime, or else felt sure nobody would know. Interesting, though, about who gets suspected. Who has a track record that would make them suspect.

[Hailtothechimp]

7. but how do you explain this story then???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/clinton-camp-to-obama-yo_n_91156.html

Hillary's campaign somehow knew that Obama had visited just one NATO country, and then only on a "brief stopover visit in 2005"? How would they have this information?

And then the day after this was released, the third breach took place. Did somebody go back to the well one time too many?

Looks pretty suspicious to me.

[ginnyinWI]

9. that's not proof. Of course I'm open to new evidence.

:evilgrin:

[CatsDogsBabies]

20. I think that anyone with access to this information

would have been told that unauthorized access is illegal.

[Major Hogwash]

8. No shit, this is a no brainer.

When Rush Limbaugh went on the radio asking republicans to vote for Hillary, you knew they had decided to work hand-in-hand against Obama.

[grasswire]

10. the RNC

They have the means, the motive, and the opportunity. Elements of a crime.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Date of first breach: Jan. 9th, 6 days after Obama won Iowa and

suddenly became a serious contender for the nom. Curiosity? Or "gotta get something on this guy, fast?" The timing is pretty key, I think.

[quakerboy]

12. Both of the Above. n/t

[better tomorrow]

13. The Biometric Authentification System has the most to gain.....

"The chair of Yale's CS department and Connecticut's former consumer protection commissioner are calling for the creation of a robust biometric authentication system on a national scale. They say the system would safeguard privacy and people's personal data far more effectively than paper-based IDs. They also reference the troubled Real ID program, saying that the debate has centered around forms of ID rather than the central issue of authentication. The authors further suggest that the debate has led to confusion between anonymity and privacy: 'Outside our homes, we have always lived in a public space where our open acts are no longer private. Anonymity has not changed that, but has provided an illusion of privacy and security. ... In public space, we engage in open acts where we have no expectation of privacy, as well as private acts that cannot take place within our homes and therefore require authenticating identity to carve a sphere of privacy.' The authors do not provide any suggestions for specific biometric technologies, nor do they discuss the role of the government in such a system. What do you think of a national or international biometrics-based authentication scheme? Is it feasible? How would it work? What safeguards need to be put in place?"
(Slashdot)

[Auntie Bush]

14. According to Keith O. it was hillary. What a fool he's become.

[Forkboy]

16. Maybe someone who wants to make it look like the obvious choice?

And maybe you're taking the bait?

:shrug:

[Rageneau]

17. This conspiracy theory is so cockeyed, it has to come from an Obama supporter, right?

Only someone who sees Hillary's face in his oatmeal could concoct a conspiracy theory as paranoid as this one. So Hillary is behind this passport thing, is she? And why? Because she benefits when this snooping somehow helps McCain win in 2008, giving her a chance to run in 2012 which she otherwise wouldn't have because Obama will be so popular, he's a shoo-in for re-election.

Uh huh. Yeah, that's some real geometric thinking there, Bub.

AFAIAC, the only campaign that could benefit from this incident is Obama's. Because this gives his spokes-folk another chance to do what they do best:

Whine and play the victim.

[rainbow4321]

22. And up until this story broke last night...

A story/suggestion about illegally accessing a candidate's passport info would have been a huge tin foil hat conspiracy dripping with paranoia. Throw into this farfetched conspiracy "and they will wait 2 months to tell him even though they FIRED people over it".


And since it broke, nothing seems too much of a conspiracy theory anymore.

And it is Ms. Bub to you, thank you very much.

[Swamp Rat]

18. McHitler

[dailykoff]

19. HRC, March 12: "do you think it's legitimate

for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/clinton-camp-to-obama-yo_n_91156.html

[leftstreet]

21. What an odd statement

:shrug:

Who knows.