Kind of early (imagine that!) to still be able to tell... but it is a good time to compile some thoughts and analyze some match ups, and it might be fun!

Republicans.

Wow.. what a clusterfuck.
At this point I think the strongest Republican Candidate, John McCain will get the bid, but nothing is certain yet. McCain has the intense hatred of the far right of the party and their energy and grassroots will be sorely missed as the Free Republic crowd will probably sit this election out en masse. He may also be hurt by a early Thompson withdrawl at this point. Even though Thompson may endorse McCain, his base will gravitate more toward Huckabee.
Is Guiliani out? Probably. His Florida strategy is either the most brillant political move in the history of politics or the stupidest fucking thing I have ever seen. Im leaning toward the latter.
Ron Paul has been very impressive and has done a great job building a movement, especially in young people, that will have a say in the direction the Republican Party is going from this point foward, but obviously, he isnt a contender for President.
The biggest sigh of relief for Democrats should be about Fred Thompson. He was the one candidate that could have united the party and presented a solid Conservative front. Its a shame the man was a horrid, lazy campaigner. He could have been dangerous, but after a weak 3rd place finish in SC, its pretty much over for him. He has no money, no momentum, no reason for campaigning on.
Romney still has an outside chance as well. But he really is the re-incarnation of John Kerry. His plastic veneer, inability to project honesty and authenticity, and the refusal of the evangelicals to vote for him really doom his campaign.

Democrats

At this point any honest assessment has to say this is still a 50/50 race.
South Carolina is a big must win for Obama. If he doesnt win in SC, he is done, if he does win, then he becomes the front runner. Amazing.
Barak Obama, a 1 term senator has battled the awesome Clinton political Machine to a standstill. This by itself is a political feat that is pretty epic in proportion. This isnt a general election, this for Obama is a the going up against the party establishment and pulling off something akin to a Coup D'Etat.
My prediction is that Obama will win in SC. He then gets massive momentum going into Super Tuesday. The country will break in very interesting ways. Obama will win the South, Midwest and the Northeast (they will be close, but Obama will come out on top in most of these states), Clinton will dominate the West. California will decide who is the nominee.

At this point I don't know. My head says Clinton will win. The machine efficency of her campaign apparatus is overwhelming. My gut, and hope, says that Obama will, that his incredible political acumen (at this point, the equal to or greater than Bill Clintons) will find a way to pull it out.

General Election match ups.
Clinton V McCain. Winner = McCain
Many people like myself can live with a McCain Presidency more than we can live with a Hillary one. She loses on the "I can live with" factor. Alot depends on his choice of VP. Lindsey Graham? Or does he go with a more conservative (Duncan Hunter) choice to try to unite the party.

Obama V McCain. Winner = Obama
Classic new vs old match up. McCain is great, but he will never be able to match the energy and enthusiasm of a Obama campaign. Debates will destroy the Grumpy McCain in the face of the charismatic, optimistic Obama.

Romney V. Clinton
Clinton in a walk. Not a good match up for Romney. Hillary can be more likable phoney than Romney can. Romney cannot unite the base, and has been making multiple gaffes along the campaign trail. I don't see him being able to drum up excitement.

Romney V. Obama
Romney actually has a chance in this match up. He counters Obamas strengths and weaknesses well. The focus on change and the real world business experience, as well as more professional style provide a clear contrast to Obama.

Anyone v Huckabee
Anyone

Anyone V Guiliani
Even though he has a shot against Hillary, its a long one. He gets wtfpwned in the South and has way too many chinks in his armor that the Clintons will be able to exploit mercilessly. His wife Judith is a severe liability as is his past.

I agree with your assessment of the Republican candidates.

As for the Democrats, it will be a battle of generations, I believe.

Obama is appealing to the younger generation due to his youth and ability to connect with them; and, they don't invest the time to look closer at their candidate to see how little substance is actually there.

Hillary is getting the female vote as well as those of the older generation who look at the candidates more in terms of a potential Commander in Chief; which candidate is going to do the best job of protecting me and my children, and my country.

I think the nastiness is going to start escalating soon, and that we will see Clinton (Bill, most likely) doing a better job of pointing out the lack of substance in Hillary's challengers; there will be more focus on Edward's sole accomplishments as Senator of getting a couple Post Office name changes, and Obama seldom taking a position but instead voting as "present" in Senate roll calls on legislation.

Obama is a charismatic speaker who can hit the hot buttons and generate excitement, but he needs more than that to run a country. Folks will see that he is a talker, and they will vote for a doer.

I think people realize in the end that it is less important to like the candidate than to be able to trust in their ability. That is why I believe McCain will get the Republican nod, and Clinton the Democrat.

Lincoln had 1 term in the House under his belt when he became president.

Mostly because he was a good talker.

just sayin'

He also caused the entire country to split in two and shoot at each other.

Oh come on, to blame the civil war on Lincoln is folly.

Oh come on, to blame the civil war on Lincoln is folly.

That's what they said about Fulton's Steamboat too. :cool:

I was trying to use a period term just to be fun!

Oh come on, to blame the civil war on Lincoln is folly.

While I was being sarcastic, the blame for the "War Between The States" lies entirely 100% on Lincoln's shoulders. His election directly led to South Carolina seceeding from the Union (followed shortly there after by Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia). He called for the creation of the volunteer army, he declared war on the Confederacy and blockcaded their ports, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring all slaves in the Confederate States free.

Though blame doesn't seem to be the right word, its like blaming the invention of the lightbulb on Thomas Edison or blaming the quantum theory on Einstein. Lincoln very well could have let the South seceed, but he chose to pick a fight (and a good thing he did!)

fair enough

Whats ironic is that Lincoln and Obama both call from Illinois. The major issue of his running for office centered around slavery of African Americans, Obama is the first African American running for office. There are quite a few parallels there.

My ex-girlfriend (Laylaa if anyone remembers her) is running Hillary's campaign in Maryland and I can't help but agree with her on most points, but I'd be equally happy with Obama. I even like Edwards a lot, and McCain, and Ron Paul. I'm actually pretty pleased with most of the options and look forward to the next few years, I predict a lot of repair and change for the good in regards to our economy and our foreign policy.

I am very optimistic of the next 4 years.

I am very optimistic of the next 4 years.

After the past 8 years, the quality of leadership can go nowhere but up. Granted, whoever wins is going to have a Herculean task, so don't expect perfection. It is encouraging to see some other than the status-quo, older WASP guy in a red power tie giving this a go and actually making headway. It does send a signal that the voter is willing to entertain a notion that the status-quo is so hopelessly broken that whoever has the best means of fixing it has the public's attention. A woman and an African American running for president and not just on a token ticket would have been complete taboo 50 years ago.

Whoever wins gets to be the face of the US government and that face is supposed to have the answers for the stumbling economy, a war in mulitple countries, the usual problems of healthcare, education and infrastructure, and the 800 pound global warming gorilla. Bush was able to use the GWOT as an excuse to sweep everything else but the wars under the rug for the most part. The new president is not going to have that fallback.

A woman and an African American running for president and not just on a token ticket would have been complete taboo 50 years ago.



After the past eight years, Space Ghost and Bozo the Clown would be welcome on a ticket.

See now that's the most ignorant mindset I've ever heard. Another Clinton ticket will bring us deep into financial ruin, another mindset that'll have even more countries spitting on us and top that off with more moral corruption.

Fight war fucking hard, fight it to win from the get go and get it over with.

You will NEVER reason with bin Laden and his ilk, take away his money and tactics by bombing the shit out of the areas he calls his own.

Never go to war to win hearts, go to war to beatem and make them afraid.

Clinton in power will mean ruin for the nation, Obama in power has a lil more hope but he bends and sways too much to the engineered polls.

McCain/huckabee ticket is the only answer imho.

Long as we're tough on the Iran/NKorea fools of the world ....tough enough to make them wonder is the only answer.

Quit playing with these fools dammit

And yes, I'm tired and weary of politics atm ;(

See now that's the most ignorant mindset I've ever heard.


Dear god, i think we just witnessed the supreme irony.

Folks will see that he is a talker, and they will vote for a doer.
Folks do that?
Especially after living for 8 years what a "doer" did, I wonder if most won't be glad enough with a talker. ;)


You will NEVER reason with bin Laden and his ilk, take away his money and tactics by bombing the shit out of the areas he calls his own.
I would say that your first statement implies that you *don't* bomb the shit out of them.

Huckabee is a funny dude.

But having a guy who wants to amend the constitution to make it more in line with the bible and doesnt believe in evolution the VP of a 73 year old President?

No fucking thanks.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

Yea.. No thanks.

Huckabee is a Democrat plant, or might as well be. He's the Republican version of Al Sharpton, but Shaprton has better hair.

He is pandering to non-issues with identity politics that will most certainly cost him the election if he does manage to get the (very unlikely) nomination. I disliked him before the SC primary and after I what I saw there last week, I now hate him.

Yea, no thanks.

I will not be at all surprised to hear more of a Lindsey Graham nod for VP with McCain.

I have lost all faith (ironic choice of words) in Huckabee as a politician; he is a preacher masquerading as a politician to further the religious right's agenda. Now that he has won a state's initial vote he has gotten more vocal with his intentions, as quoted above. He scares the shit out of me.

And while I would prefer voting for McCain, I am going to take the devil's advocate position for a moment and ask Fandros how he knows the future so well as to predict financial ruin if Clinton gets in, when the last Clinton presidency brought us out of debt? And I do not recall any countries spitting on us until that fucking cowboy in the White House now started his crazy shit of being the supreme planetary commander. Fact is, we were respected one hell of a lot more under Clinton than Bush, on the global scene.


I really should edit this to say that yes, there have been countries opposed to us, and people protesting in the streets spitting on our flag before Bushie. We could probably go back as far as Teddy Roosevelt's term in office with that stuff.

Respect? Sometimes it's good not to be respected.

During the '04 election is was a big deal that Bush had split us away from France and Germany. That's changed and it was a great thing. We weren't the problem, they were.

No, playing up the international card kumbaya group hug doesn't have any value to me.

Should we pick who the world thinks is a "Great Leader" or should we pick a leader that's great for our country?

Personally, none of the candidates really sticks out to me.

Oh and that whole, "Clinton got us out of debt" argument really doesn't sit well with me...

On paper? Sure, if you didn't want the Armed Forces to do any work, have any parts, or be able to pay service members (I remember having to deliver pizzas to make ends meet at the end of my enlistment).

Yea. France and Germany really suffered from not supporting us.

I bet they sure do wish they could go back in time and jump on the Bush Express.

I'd expect no other response from the Putinista.

Should we pick who the world thinks is a "Great Leader" or should we pick a leader that's great for our country?

Personally, none of the candidates really sticks out to me.

Oh and that whole, "Clinton got us out of debt" argument really doesn't sit well with me...

On paper? Sure, if you didn't want the Armed Forces to do any work, have any parts, or be able to pay service members (I remember having to deliver pizzas to make ends meet at the end of my enlistment).

Actually it is congress that is responsible for the military spending, as it was a republican congress through the Clinton years. Congress approves base closures, equipment budgets, veterens benefits etc... not the president. It is a known fact that the military has been underfunded by more republicans than by democrats. There has been a myth created that the republicans are more military friendly than are the democrats and that is plainly and simply not true.

Doesn't Congress also have to pass any budget the President proposes?

Wouldn't they be responsible for "getting us out of debt" as well?

Sure, if you didn't want the Armed Forces to do any work, have any parts, or be able to pay service members (I remember having to deliver pizzas to make ends meet at the end of my enlistment).

That whole "Clinton cut the military" argument always cracks me up. He was following the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs on most of those cuts, except for the ones that the "elected representatives" put their two cents in for, to keep monies flowing to their respective states.

And you can hardly lay the poor salaries of the military at Clinton's feet, Sixee. I received less than $150 a month when I first enlisted in '69. Military salaries were never high, and rose (barely) with the cost of living index. When I was discharged in '71 at a 40% disability rating, I received approx $97 a month; it is now up to about $460, so the salaries have increased quite a bit. Obviously though, they are still not the place to look if planning on a comfortable retirement.


And an additional thought, regarding the budget, Congress has to pass a budget which the President than signs off on or vetoes. The President can do a Bushie and refuse to sign off on a budget unless it is exactly what he wants, and hold the country hostage to his whims, as long as he has enough support to prevent a veto override.

I'd expect no other response from the Putinista.

Keep chugging that happy juice!

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2006/bush-kool-aid-bof.jpg

Thats the problem with you Neo Cons, and yes akipt, you are a Neo Con.

You don't dwell in the world of reality, you expend your political thought into the creation of mythologies and a make believe world that you REALLY wish existed, but doesnt.

Kissinger was right. The world isnt black and white. We arent the good guys every single time, 365 days a year 24 hours a day. The United States isnt a super hero. We are a nation who has to at times make concessions not only with other nations but with ourselves.

You create this ridiculous Cult of Reagan, elevating him to near godhood status and throwing his name out in political debate like Amens at a Sunday Service. You can't help yourselves, its in your nature. And it is amusing to watch your Presidential contenders shred themselves trying to live up to some make believe standard of a figure that never really existed.

You create divisions by applying asinine labels on people and events that have no real bearing on reality, other than it supports this complex fantasy world that has been so carefully constructed and is so rapidly crashing down on our heads.






Its why your partys ideology failed in Iraq, because Freedom and Free Markets arent some snake oil to be applied and miracles commence.
Its why you can't deal with Iran, because they are Evil, like Sauron and cant be reasoned with
Its why Libruls are evil and only the brave Conservatives are the wingnuts holding together Western Civilization.
Its why Global Warming isnt a real thing to be worried about, but a gigantic cabal of greedy scientists faking data to keep grant money rolling in.
Its why the Clintons are simultaneously morons and masters of the Cabal
Its why every time a newstory doesnt agree with you its the MSM Bias
Its why George Soros and the ACLU are behind every corner trying to destroy America
Its why 3/7 of your Candidates for President dont believe in Evolution
Its why your "Family Values" candidates get caught in bathroom stalls, former champions of the grand illusion, illuminated by the light of reality.
Its why our health care is "the best in the world"
Its why swarms of Illegal Aliens are a greater threat to Americans than cancer.
Its why torture is ok when WE do it
Its going to be enjoyable watching the collapse of the present Conservative Party. The illusion is no longer maintainable. Your true believer, George W Bush has inadvertantly shown the Emperor has no clothes, but you keep remarking about how nice his coat is.
The Democrats arent great, hell they arent even good, but they have one ability that your party does not, thats the ability to change. Its the nature of Liberalism. To adjust, shift and react. The nature of Conservatism is to hold on, preserve, and to have faith in what you are told to have faith in. Maybe in 2012 you all will dig up Reagan and run his carcass as your candidate. He'll prolly get more votes than Romney. Oh yea.. FRED THOMPSON IS STILL GONNA WIN IT! WHOO HOO!

Enjoy the band as it plays, and I hope you have a cozy deck chair.

After the past eight years, Space Ghost and Bozo the Clown would be welcome on a ticket.

I won a bucket of gum and tootsie rolls on the Bozo show, I'd gladly support his candidacy for president!

I used to always watch that show as a kid ROFL.

Back on topic, I just really don't know who is going to win the nod from either side. It's certainly interesting though. I echo the same feelings about Huckabee though, he is a funny guy but no damn way do I want him as my president.

If there is one canidate that can sell us all a thimble of hope and not a bucket of fear, then they have my vote. GWOT is certainly an issue, but it has polarized the country instead of uniting it and we live under the banner of the "Terror Threat Level" ticker. United we stand, divided we fall, right?

The best choice for the White House now is someone who can be the spokesperson for some kind of reasonable positive goal here at home in the US. We went to the moon under the shadow of the Cold War, which presented a much greater risk of ultimate destruction than what terrorists present us with. We blow alot of our hard earned and rapidly depreciating dollars on forcing freedom down the throats of other nations while robbing ourselves of opportunity to keep the country innovating and leading on ALL fronts. Otherwise, some other nation such as China or group of nations such as the EU is going to take that ball that we dropped by leaving our own people uninspired and uncaring about the future and we will wake up asking why we are suddenly a second tier nation in the scheme of things. If being conservative is preserving our way of life, than there is some sad irony being missed by people in authority.

yes akipt, you are a Neo Con. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but no I'm not.

You don't dwell in the world of realityComing from someone who wishes he could vote for Putin, I'm not terribly troubled by your allegations.

You create this ridiculous Cult of Reagan, elevating him to near godhood status and throwing his name out in political debate like Amens at a Sunday Service. Perhaps you just derailed yourself into some other reality here, but I don't recall talking much about Reagan since he died.

blah blah blah... Yeah, you must have slipped on your own drool and bumped your head again. Run along to your mommy and she can kiss the booboo for ya.

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but no I'm not.

Coming from someone who wishes he could vote for Putin, I'm not terribly troubled by your allegations.

Perhaps you just derailed yourself into some other reality here, but I don't recall talking much about Reagan since he died.

blah blah blah... Yeah, you must have slipped on your own drool and bumped your head again. Run along to your mommy and she can kiss the booboo for ya.

Amazingly enough you didn't have anything to say about the rest of his post which was very true.

Amazing!

Amazing!

Indeed

I may be the only one.....but a paul/edwards ticket would not only get my vote. but give me a hard on as well.
Damn right I'd be willing to go for something that radical!! could be the kick in the ass this country needs. we keep getting handed 2 options of the same BS over and over again. how well has that been working out for the majority?

I may be the only one.....but a paul/edwards ticket would not only get my vote. but give me a hard on as well.
Damn right I'd be willing to go for something that radical!!

Yeah, radical......but what else? Paul has some ideas that resonate, but his age and location on the fringe make him a moot point, pretty much. Edwards has relegated himself to also-ran status through the combination of his career in the Seante and the last campaign with Kerry and his subsequent critique of his running mate. His poor kid to riches to snob life style is not winning many friends in high places either, politically.

Sorry Vel, but I am afraid the only use the hard one would get from this union would be a three-way circle jerk.

Just spilled a glass of wine watching David Letterman bit.

Crew member was in the audience to get folk's opinions on the candidates, and one guy gets up and says he believes the country is ready for a woman in the White House. Letterman asks, "So you support Hillary Clinton?" The guy says, "No, I mean John Edwards".

Veteran GOP strategist Roger Stone has set up a charming anti-Hillary 527 (http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/). Classy!

Veteran GOP strategist Roger Stone has set up a charming anti-Hillary 527 (http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/). Classy!

Another great example of the kind of acting without thinking that has been destroying the Republicans.

Heh.. its kinda funny.

All the far right really has is left is juvenile attempts to annoy liberals. They have no candidates, they have no political future, they have been throughly discredited, disgraced and discarded.

So if the price of my schadenfreude is some idiotic Libruls = Hitler book, another Ann Coulter histrionic screed or some lame ass CUNT 527 then I welcome that fee and pay it gladly.

Sadly L2 I see nothing on the left so strong you should waste time lampooning the right.

So many flawed options, not one true leader amongst them. ;(

"We want government to do it's job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep."




This excerpt from one of the candidate speeches has me getting much closer to making my firm decision on a vote.

But I still love the speech given at the end of the movie to the full Congress by the President right before "suffering a major stroke" in the movie "Dave". 'I was hired to do a job, and a temp job at that.'

"We want government to do it's job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep."




This excerpt from one of the candidate speeches has me getting much closer to making my firm decision on a vote.

But I still love the speech given at the end of the movie to the full Congress by the President right before "suffering a major stroke" in the movie "Dave". 'I was hired to do a job, and a temp job at that.'

Who was that quote from?

McCain

McCain

Interesting... I wrote him off initially because of his Bomb Iran song, and his 100 Years in Iraq, but I will take a second look.

I can guarantee he's said something at some point that will appeal to you.

lmao

I like obama, contrary to Bil's assesment of young people, i read up on him and have checked his stances out and I like him. Yes he is young and tahts appealling. also he is smart, which anything after hearing King George talk is a pleasent change.

Mostly I like him because of the all the candidates repub or democ, he is the only one that i dont feel like i am voting for the lesser of a evil as it were.

Yes, my quote was from McCain, in his speech after winning South Carolina. I left it anonymous at first for folks to see the wording rather than the speaker. Some good speechifying there.

As far as Obama, I have to go with the same fault the Clintons and Edwards have pointed out: voting present rather than taking a stand shows a fair degree of non-involvement, and Obama has done more of that than he has of taking a stand. I want a leader who leads, not just shows up.



BTW, Grey, how many beers you have before typing that post?

These are the strongest runners or considered the strongest runners in an election that probably will determine if the US adapts and overcomes or gets left in the breakdown lane:

John McCain:
Strengths:
Has been on the down and out. Should have the ability to relate with the people and think out of the box. 30 million dollar war chest

Weakness:
Might do better running as an Indie. If he can run under the Republican umbrella without actually carrying it for them, he might actually apeal to alot of fence sitters who are tired of the same ole same ole. If he holds the party line, we do indeed get more of the same ole same ole.

Rudy Giuliani:
Strengths:
Proven track record as mayor of NYC. Name and reputation is well known to the whole nation and not just NYC. 45 million dollar war chest.

Weaknesses:
What works for NYC will not work for the whole nation. Foriegn policy? Urban East Coaster may not relate well to..lets say...a black man from South Carolina. Christian Coalition's man, which means you might as well have Pat Robertson.

Gov. Mike Huckabee:
Strengths:
Charisma. Good speaker. Wants to focus more on improving domestic policy (States first) such as fiscal resposibility. 2 million dollars to play with.

Weaknesses:
Unknown to most other than his home state. Still walks the Neo-Con line, but in a manner more reflective of cleaning up Bush's bungles and not really introducing anything new. Plays up the God card a bit too much. Not a big proponent of emerging techs in medical and energy.

Ron Paul:
Strengths:
He is all about a smaller footprint for the Federal Government. No United States Empire/Hegomony. More open minded on Bio-Medical research, which represents the Next Big Thing for creating jobs and industries in a country that needs just that. 8 million dollars to play with.

Weaknesses:
Unknown. Takes the smaller footprint a bit too far in some reguards, as he seeks to sever ties with most global organizations and go the isolationist route.

Mitt Romney:
Strengths: Um. He was a governor? 62 million dollars to spend.

Weaknesses: has Kerry-itus but is running as a Republican. Who knows what you will end up with if you back this guy.

Hilary Clinton:
Strengths:
The complete political machine, she has the experience and connections to accomplish much. Massive 90 million dollar campaign fund. Christian Coalition hates her. Supports emerging but controversial techs.
Weaknesses:
She walks the liberal democrat line to a "T". Is there room for compromise? Can she think outside the box? Clinton brand name is stigma for some. Does a good job of outlining problems but solutions would be nice too and how would they be paid for.

John Edwards:

Strengths:
Hilary Clinton for those uncomfortable voting for a woman or a Clinton. 30 million dollars to spend.

Weakness:
Hilary Clinton for those uncomfortable voting for a woman or a Clinton. Would probably make the perfect running mate for Hilary for V.P.

Barack Obama
Strengths:
By far the most diverse runner, potentially able to mend alot of fences both internally and abroad. In tune with the issues. Focuses on reasonable compromises. 80 million bucks to utilize.

Weaknesses:
Comes across as being somewhat euridite/elitist. His diversity and background will indeed be a huge pill for some and he will not get any attention as a result reguardless if he has good ideas or bad.


There are also the usual filler types.
Thompson has a 12 million dollar pot, but has not really made a big splash. It seems the Repubs always have alot more canidates than anyone else, and most are vanilla or just more of the same old shit. If the Republicans want to go anywhere, they need to be a bit more intune with the voters and not their party rhetoric.

If I were to vote next month, McCain or Obama have the best chance depending on how issues develop with Obama first and McCain 2nd. Both seem to have reasonable agendas based on good sense and particulars on some issues can be lived with. The more extreme policys will be whittled down by Congress anyway.

As far as Obama, I have to go with the same fault the Clintons and Edwards have pointed out: voting present rather than taking a stand shows a fair degree of non-involvement, and Obama has done more of that than he has of taking a stand. I want a leader who leads, not just shows up.A take or two (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437) on Obama's "present" votes. You might also read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) about Obama's work in gathering bipartisan votes for a bill to mandate recording of police interrogations during his Illinois days.

And, let us not forget that McCain missed 42 straight (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_misses_42_straight_vote.html) votes and has the most (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/) missed votes of anyone not suffering from a brain hemorrhage.

I heard Obama's response to that after Hillary hit him with it in the last debate. Spank!

BTW, Grey, how many beers you have before typing that post?

none i just am a shitty typer.

A take or two (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437) on Obama's "present" votes. You might also read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) about Obama's work in gathering bipartisan votes for a bill to mandate recording of police interrogations during his Illinois days.

And, let us not forget that McCain missed 42 straight (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_misses_42_straight_vote.html) votes and has the most (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/) missed votes of anyone not suffering from a brain hemorrhage.

Yeppers, was waiting for this. McCain has missed Senate votes while campaigning for President, and none of those missed votes would have changed the outcome of legislation. As was pointed out in that piece, he would be there if his vote was needed, which is quite different from being there and not taking a position at all, which is the charge against Obama.
And even those trying to explain away or justify his 'present' votes seemed to be struggling, offering only their opinions of why he may have done so.

I think after seeing the reaction of some in the African-American community to Obama's response to the question of whether Clinton was the first black president there might be another issue to talk about more than his voting record; apprently some were a tad disturbed by Obama's use of a racial stereotype in answering the question, saying he needed to check out Clinton's dance moves and stuff before accepting him as a 'Brother'. I am amused that some are taking it that seriously. It simply shows that Obama is a great orator with a prepared speech, but is as prone to gaffes as anyone else with off the cuff comments.

Let's face it, people in this country are simply fed up with politics and politicians; the lies, the spinning of truths, the invasion into our daily lives, the consistent failure to do what they promise, and so on and so on. Folks want something new and different, and Obama rides in on the wave of enthusiasm created by his book and a good speech that is given over and over and over. He is shrewd, and is capitalizing on folk's need for a change. I just don't believe he has the goods to deliver on his oratory. He is not the person I want as a Commander in Chief charged with protecting my family and country; not this early in his career, at any rate.

I, being an old fart, am more comfortable having experienced folks at the helm, and so I will be voting for McCain or Clinton, depending on the nominees. Two very different people with differing ideas for what is best for the country, but I believe both have a deep love for their country, and that resounds with me more than all the rhetoric and debating and talking points.

/shrug American democracy.....gotta' love it! :)

Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running For President'

After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge." ...

In a show of respect, Clinton then completed his introduction of Hillary Clinton, calling her a "wonderful wife and worthy political adversary," and warmly shook her hand as she approached the podium. A clearly shocked Mrs. Clinton got halfway through her speech about the nation's obligation to its children before walking briskly offstage.

"No longer will I have to endure watching candidates like Hillary Clinton engaging in single-pump handshakes with voters, as I use every last ounce of restraint not to shout out, 'No! Warm double-clasp! Warm double-clasp!'" Clinton said. "America deserves someone who can do it right."...

Although some have pointed out that it is unconstitutional for Clinton to run for a third term in office, he has silenced most critics by urging voters "not to worry about the Constitution for now" and assuring them he will address those legal issues immediately after regaining control of the White House.



Onion ftw

^^ LOL, I love the onion. But, was it me or did anyone else picture that as you read it? I could almost see it :p

The irony is that as much as the Bushies have been tripping over each other to find ways to justify his ignoring the Constitution, they would be apopleptic at the thought of Bill ignoring the same and choosing to run again.

It is only okay to ignore the Constitution if you are spying on your own citizens, seizing property, holding people without access to counsel indefintiely without charges, etc. It is not okay to ignore it if you want to do a better job leading the country than the current administration.

Dennis K has taken his wife and left the building, easing the stress on the remaining Democratic candidates.

What will the news cameras focus on now with her gone?

Thompson and wife out, too. The eye candy has left the campaign.

I've watched most of the debates now... I'm beyond amazed at how long these people can talk and not say anything of substance at all - sophistry at its finest. I seriously doubt that I will vote for anyone at this point. Seriously, just listen to the bullshit they drone on about. Their ability as rhetoricians aside, none of these candidates have offered anything concrete enough to be worthy of serious consideration. American politics suck. =(

A lot of it has to do with debate format. 90 seconds is simply not enough time to outline a coherent policy on anything, and barely enough to even present a viewpoint on what a policy should look like. Debates are all about rhetoric, trying to find "gotcha's" to hit other candidates with and trying to avoid being hit with same, by other candidates and by the questioner.

This isn't entirely the candidates', or even the media's fault. I'm not sure today's populace will sit still for a 4 hour exchange in the manner of Lincoln and Douglas. It's time-consuming and tedious to read through, say, a plan for universal health coverage, while very easy to simply say, "zomg, Hillary-care!"

To see more of a candidate you really have to hit his or her website, read policy positions and try to glean out some sort of plan from what lies therein. If that seems too bs-laden, there are a host of pundits, periodicals and political bloggers happy to present their viewpoint as well.

EDIT: Debates would benefit from a more diverse format, too, in particular with the questioners. I could do with fewer debates moderated by Tim Russert, Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer. More interesting would be a Republican debate moderated by someone from NRO and a Dem debate moderated by someone from The Nation. Then maybe a second debate where the roles are reversed, with conservative moderators questioning the Dems and vice versa.

/agree Thor

At the same time, with such exhaustive preparation, if you can't articulate your stance on key topic in 90 seconds then you might not be suited to be the leader of the free world.

Well, a huge part of the problem is that most Americans don't even vote based on the issues. I seriously doubt that most of the voting populace can offer clear, articulable reasons why they have chosen their respective candidate. I've tried this out on many of my friends and family, and only a few have offered up anything I'd consider informed enough to justify voting.

My parents like George Bush because "he seems like a good man" (And their taxes are lower). One friend said he liked George Bush because of, and I quote, "Afghanistan". He wasn't really able to go much further with the idea. Another is all about Obama, but all he can say is "changeeeeee" (Much like the homeless people on that South Park episode!) People from New York (At least in DC, national trends aside) love Rudy - I never hear anything about tax cuts or crime reduction though - it's more like "GIANTS! RUDY! BIG BLUE!"

The only thing more depressing is listening to someone explain to me why they want to vote for Mike Huckabee. http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t257/evanluerding/emot-bang.gif

We live in the age of the soundbite.

Well, a huge part of the problem is that most Americans don't even vote based on the issues. I seriously doubt that most of the voting populace can offer clear, articulable reasons why they have chosen their respective candidate. I've tried this out on many of my friends and family, and only a few have offered up anything I'd consider informed enough to justify voting.

My parents like George Bush because "he seems like a good man" (And their taxes are lower). One friend said he liked George Bush because of, and I quote, "Afghanistan". He wasn't really able to go much further with the idea. Another is all about Obama, but all he can say is "changeeeeee" (Much like the homeless people on that South Park episode!) People from New York (At least in DC, national trends aside) love Rudy - I never hear anything about tax cuts or crime reduction though - it's more like "GIANTS! RUDY! BIG BLUE!"

The only thing more depressing is listening to someone explain to me why they want to vote for Mike Huckabee. http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t257/evanluerding/emot-bang.gif


Sadly, you are correct. I do the same thing with my friends and family and get similar answers. It's disgusting but it's also amusing to say "did you know that candidate x feels x way about x thing" and see their faces, then I suggest they do a little research :) Sad...sad...sad... :(

We live in the age of the soundbite.
I don't think that's the issue at all. Throughout history, simple ideas and short quotes are the vast majority of the ones that have stuck.

I disagree. If you want your message out there, custom build it to be a Drudge Headline, or usable in a 2 minute segment of the evening news, or neatly contained in as the headline of a Daily Post article.

I further disagree with the assessment of which Ideas stick.

The Federalist Papers
The Wealth of Nations
Leviathan
The Communist Manifesto
The Origin of Species
Second Treatise of Government
Thus Spake Zarathustra
The Interpretation of Dreams
Ethics by Aristotle
The Declaration of Independence/ the Rights of Man
Plato's Republic/Symposium
Critique of Pure Reason
On War
History by Herodotus

Not one of those works contain a soundbite, yet they have stuck and changed our world in monumental ways, and continue to.

Only in age of mass communication have we been so influenced by so little substance.
Ideas have no weight, they merely have to feel right. But thats the world we live in, a billion people screaming at the top of their lungs on 20 different platforms, but nobody saying a goddamn thing.

thank god the political discourse over here hasnt reached the bumper sticker level yet.

The only thing more depressing is listening to someone explain to me why they want to vote for Mike Huckabee. http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t257/evanluerding/emot-bang.gif


Following his statement that he would work to make our Constitution more in line with God's words, rather than trying to make God's words fit the Constitution, I have used that whenever folks come to me with pro-Huckabee rhetoric. This has occurred at least ten times, and every single time the people were unaware of his ideas on the subject; shocked, disbelief, and slow attitude adjustment to needing to do more research. It seems none of them really want a preacher in the White house.

I disagree. If you want your message out there, custom build it to be a Drudge Headline, or usable in a 2 minute segment of the evening news, or neatly contained in as the headline of a Daily Post article.

I further disagree with the assessment of which Ideas stick.

The Federalist Papers
The Wealth of Nations
Leviathan
The Communist Manifesto
The Origin of Species
Second Treatise of Government
Thus Spake Zarathustra
The Interpretation of Dreams
Ethics by Aristotle
The Declaration of Independence/ the Rights of Man
Plato's Republic/Symposium
Critique of Pure Reason
On War
History by Herodotus
You're confusing literature that influences relatively few with ideas that influence many. In a presidential election, the later is clearly more significant. That's nothing new that came with TV or the Intertubes.

The succinct and concise has and will always prevail over the wordy and meandering. The historical examples are endless.

The book Made to Stick has a lot of great insight into the phenomenon and explains how it works on a psychological level.

Only in age of mass communication have we been so influenced by so little substance.
Ideas have no weight, they merely have to feel right. But thats the world we live in, a billion people screaming at the top of their lungs on 20 different platforms, but nobody saying a goddamn thing.
That's exactly what differentiates those with substance though. If you have something worth saying, you should be able to boil it down into a focused, concise idea that shines through the noise. We see this happen regularly.

If anything, the background noise just provides stark contrast.

How many of those great thought provoking works have come during the age of mass communication?

You arn't going to see much on the issues because most of the runners are not that far along and instead are appealing to the voters emotions. Thats to figure out after the media blitz that is running for president is over and you can have some quiet time in the Oval Office. Otherwise its more like children's TV programming. Say the same thing over and over until it sticks. In that case, Barney the Purple Dinosaur could probably win an election.

Perhaps some runners have changes in mind so sweeping that it would be too much of a shock, or perhaps others have no desire to do much more but continue with the status quo, which is also the kiss of death while campaigning.

We are a Microwave Dinner culture these days. Since either Americans have so little time or the time we have is mismanaged, EVERYTHING gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Reality TV. Games like WoW (Yes, WoW is the lowest common denominator of MMOs. Its still fun, just like masturbation, which is the lowest common denominator of sex) that offer no penalities for dying and rewards to not be online. Any fast food joint. YouTube. The list goes on and on of examples of things in life where we take the instant complex carbohydrates path for a quick fix, such as a catchy political sound bite, instead of being able to slow down and do something that is much more stimulating but takes more time.

The way this campaign season looks, it will not be an issues focused race until the conventions are over, and the nominees are certain. Then, the two nominees will sharpen their message on issues related rhetoric, and attempt to pursuade voters that thier solutions to the nations ills are better than the other party offers.

And, we still could have Bloomberg enter as an Indie and really get the conversation moving in unexpected directions.

You're confusing literature
No, these books represent ideas, you are confusing slogans with Ideas.

that influences relatively few with ideas that influence many.
You think those works have influenced very few? Wow.
Each of those books have changed the world in significant ways. They did so because of the ideas contained inside changed the way millions of people thought/think.
Id say anyone with an education worth a shit and in the political/social/human affairs field has read at least half of those.

The succinct and concise has and will always prevail over the wordy and meandering.
You are confusing marketing with ideas. We live in an age where we can market a piece of shit, but at the end of the day its still a piece of shit.
Thats part of the problem. You advocate flash over substance. That the value of ideas is outweighed by the ability to get people to buy whatever crap you are selling.
(like Saddam = 9/11 perhaps?)

That's exactly what differentiates those with substance though. If you have something worth saying, you should be able to boil it down into a focused, concise idea that shines through the noise. We see this happen regularly.

If anything, the background noise just provides stark contrast

Again, you are focusing on the bright shiny package and are less concerned about the product inside. Which is the problem with our society and the age of the soundbite. Anything, any crap, can be packaged and sold.
Why should people bother to build powerful empirical arguments when you can sell that soundbite, get people to buy your image, put lipstick on that pig and get it elected to President.

These books matter to few in the sense that no one is going to read Hobbes or Kant and then decide how to vote. They matter in a very real and obvious sense, however, if you follow the pedigree of ideas and realize that our entire concept of Western democracy is founded in these works.

As a Polisci major I struggle to work through something like the Leviathan. Most of those books are never going to be read by anyone outside of academia. I believe we covered the Federalist papers in highschool (At least #10) and maybe read a little bit of the Republic, but that is it.

Back 70 - 100 years ago, they were required reading for every schoolboy, at least in college or very good preps.

You think those works have influenced very few? Wow.

Id say anyone with an education worth a shit and in the political/social/human affairs field has read at least half of those.
You're still completely missing the point.

Those people represent an extreme minority of the voters in our country. Those ideas have likely helped form many of our leaders (throughout history, globally), but the best leaders are leaders partly because they are able to distill those ideas into what you would disdain as sound-bites.

That is not a recent development.

You advocate flash over substance. That the value of ideas is outweighed by the ability to get people to buy whatever crap you are selling.
Advocate? Absolutely not. Please show me where I advocated it as a positive trait of society.

Personally, I wish it weren't the case. That doesn't change how the human mind does and has always worked though.

Or, take it from some guys who came long before the information age:

Brevity is the best recommendation of speech, whether in a senator or an orator.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief.
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences; what others say in a whole book.
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.

Back 70 - 100 years ago, they were required reading for every schoolboy, at least in college or very good preps.
Most people back then were either working on the farm or the factory. Sorry LL but this isn't Masterpiece Theater. Most people don't have time for such lofty pursuits because they are too busy trying to make a living. People who pursue politics tend to know these titles because they are groomed for leadership. The lofty 1% to rule the other 99%. Being the blue collar working class that I am (military NCO) who typically works 80 plus hours a week, the less is more approuch always wins. I am either too tired or want to spend my meager free time doing something else and leave it to those of soft hands and high intellects to figure out all the hard stuff.

Just wanted to Chime in... Obama destroyed Hilary in South Carolina today :)

Damn his speeches are inspirational.

Just wanted to Chime in... Obama destroyed Hilary in South Carolina today :)

Damn his speeches are inspirational.

The Obama win in S.Carolina was expected by everyone who has been awake the last week or two. He is an exceptionally inspirational speaker. It would be nice though to hear something different now and then, rather than the same speech over and over. Even better, I would dearly love to hear him speak of how he plans to accomplish the change he keeps promising, with only the pen of Presidential power to wield; would he emulate Bush and force his agenda to be the only one passed? I don't think he would have the backing of either party for his vetoes to survive over-rides.

Has anyone else had the thought that if Obama wins the Presidency, his private reaction is going to be "Oh Crap, I didn't think I was actually gonna WIN!?!?"

Hearing the whole fiasco with Bill, Hillary, and Obama last week, I wonder if behind closed doors Bill isn't being told to keep his Presidential piehole shut.

Hey all http://ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

Hope everyone had a good holiday; I've been away from the board for a while for a variety of reasons, the largest part being that I have had a full house off and on for the past five weeks with various folks coming down over the holidays and I just shipped Faervas back up to Chicago on Saturday. I was motivated to post today because of something curious that happened to me over the weekend; my mother and sister, usually diametrically opposed to me on the political spectrum (and who don't talk to me about politics because of this) *both* called me this weekend to try to ferret out whom I would be supporting this year in the Presidential race. Clearly, the... baffling slate of Republican offerings this year as well as the distinct sensation that something is rotten in Denmark has them stirred up enough to want to talk about it.

The conversation with my younger sister was particularly, erm interesting: she spoke out against Hillary with a surprising amount of venom, but when I asked her what specifically she didn't like about her, the *most* coherent things that came out of her mouth was that Ms. Clinton was 'dykey' and 'wears pantsuits'; nothing was mentioned about any of her positions, political history, or potential political baggage. Later in the conversation, she confessed that she thought that being President was 'a guy's job' and that she shouldn't be running anyway... Did I mention that this girl is related to me, and was raised in California? My mother, for her part, being a rabid Law and Order fan and having *some* regard for the separation of church and state, expressed her disappointment that Fred Thompson had dropped out of the race, and seemed to be at a loss, as was, ultimately, my sister.

This certainly is one of the more... interesting fields of candidates we've had in a while, and I think that if there was ever a time in recent history where an Obama (as a young reconstructionist candidate) stood a real chance of being elected, this is it. Between the utter bankruptcy (in every sense of the word) of the previous Neo-Con/Evangelical coalition's model and the public's unease about the long-brewing economic catastrophe at home, even people like my mother (hard line economic conservative and moderately evangelical) sense that something has to change.

I don't know that I'm ready to swallow the Obama Kool-Aid yet, though. He's an eloquent and impassioned speaker, and has reasonably well-thought out positions, but unless he can motivate Congress and the other governmental institutions (now packed with zealots, thanks GWB http://ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif ) to buy what he's selling, I think he'll get eaten alive by the way in which politics is actually carried out in Washington, rough and tumble Illinois politics notwithstanding - and his recent seeming loss at how to handle the Clintons' bare-knuckle recent attacks (regardless of how one feels about them) seems to hint of potential trouble in that arena. I also have real concerns about his (lack of) experience on the foreign policy front given how ugly the current world stage is - but it's hard to imagine any approach to foreign policy *more* catastrophic than our most recent one.

While I have serious misgivings about Clinton, I think her experience and knowledge base both with regard to the world arena and economic policy (and the inner workings of power brokering with regard to both) give her an edge that should not be taken lightly. It really *is* a shame, however, that Al Gore did not consider running this time around as I don't think many people on either side of the aisle at this point would question either his sincerity or his credentials with regard to becoming a president motivated towards reconstructive change.

For the record, however, and much to my family members' dismay, I have been, up to this point, favoring John Edwards, and it's a shame that he had to run in the shadow of two candidates who garner a great amount of attention because of their histories and race/gender. I think he is (as much so as a southern lawyer can be, anyway ;) ) sincere about his populism, I think that he has a firmer grasp on the economic realities of what our selling America's infrastructure down the river has done, and a more constructive approach to trying to address that decay, than the other two candidates do.

Also, I tend to buy what he is selling for a somewhat warm and fuzzy reason having to do with character, a demonstration of such being his extensive involvement with and work on post-Katrina cleanup and reconstruction efforts. Sure, he may have been somewhat cynically looking at how the action would make him look, and have looked on it as a political 'investment', but he wasn't running for president, or holding any office, or getting paid for his work, when he took several hundred college students to the Gulf Coast in early 2006 to clean up debris and help build housing for displaced residents; it was (as nearly as I can tell) a genuinely motivated desire both to help the residents of the area and also to expose those students, who have led a relatively priveleged life, to another side of life in America and to engender an understanding of what the word 'social contract' means with regards to how we care for our fellow Americans. I also like his proposed "Brownie's Law": that political appointees to high level positions actually have to *have* appropriate experience to hold those positions.

This went on too long as usual, but I'll close by mentioning that my officemate, a 60-something self-identified "Jack Kemp Republican", is supporting Hillary this year. I do think this election is going to set records for the proportion of folks who cross the aisle, and not entirely in one direction; I also know some Democrats who are looking at the field and who have told me that, if McCain gets the Republican nod, he'll likely get their vote.

I'll be arguably throwing my vote away for Edwards next month (assuming he's still in the race, which I expect he will be), but this year promises to be a wild ride...

Regards,
Nydia

Here is a conversation i imagined.

Hillary: BIll, you are going to attack Obama verbally for me.
Bill: Why i like him, and i'm enjoying being retired.
Hillary: Cause you owe me.
Bill: owe you for....oh, that still huh..../sigh ok fine.

Bill: Barak, dude the wifes riding me about being in the spotlight so just roll with the punches...since the monica thing i havent heard the end of it.
Barak: ok, fire away....

Seriously, shes trying to sling dirt and even the crowd boo'd her for her lame attempts. Also, most the older men i know INSTANTLY voted for Obama the second Hillary delivered that holding back tear speech. That single moment sent women in politics back 25 years.

Obama is more of a symbol then a good presidential candidate in my opinion. Fortunately for him, he is a symbol many Americans believe that we need. The man may have his faults, or lack of experience, but it is his ability to think outside the box that will give him a chance at making it past the primary.

He made a really good point in his speech after he won SC, and I found it very true personally...

"We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose." - Barack Obama

He has proven that he has the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life, and his lack of experience may also end up being a positive, seeing as how most who have experience in washington politics, end up tainted by the experience.

Hilary cannot compare, she represents the exact point of Obama's next major quote.

"We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again." - Barack Obama

Hilary has spent far too much time attempting to bring Obama down, and has failed not only in her attempts, but as more importantly driven people away from her and to Obama.

Obama needs to spend a bit more time speaking about what he will actually do as president, but I think that he is starting to do so now.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record since you all have heard it many times but... I want change!!!!!!

seeing as how most who have experience in washington politics, end up tainted by the experience.

Getting really tired of the "experiance" phrase. GW and his senior officials brought probably close to if not over 200 years collective political "experiance". BOY that worked out pretty F'ing well now has'nt it?

Saw Obama speak today at school. It was pretty much the same 'change' speech he always gives. He's a good orator, although I had to suffer through Ted Kennedy first. He gave another impromptu speech outside afterwards - same thing. With his charisma, he should at least be a good statesman.

Ted Kennedy being all in for Obama did not signify good things for me.

Talk about powers that be that mutate and live inside the Beltway for no other purpose than to propogate same in same out...

I remember hearing Obama speak at the Democratic convention last go round and thinking he was a powerful persona.

But change for the sake of change with not one damn hint of the structure of said change means lil to me.

Ted Kennedy being all in for Obama did not signify good things for me.

Talk about powers that be that mutate and live inside the Beltway for no other purpose than to propogate same in same out...

I remember hearing Obama speak at the Democratic convention last go round and thinking he was a powerful persona.

But change for the sake of change with not one damn hint of the structure of said change means lil to me.

I don't like Ted Kennedy at all. http://www.alliednetservices.com/clipart/vwbug_002.jpg

That said, I do like Obama and I think it will be greatly beneficial for his campaign. I do agree with both of the last two points - I really like his character but I'm ready for some more substance.

I remember hearing Obama speak at the Democratic convention last go round and thinking he was a powerful persona.

But change for the sake of change with not one damn hint of the structure of said change means lil to me.

I somewhat agree with you, however I think the single action of saying no to lobbyists and not supporting AIPAC is almost good enough for him to replace Bush.

Add in his personality and ability to motivate people to cross party lines(And I know MANY republicans here in California that have been motivated to do just that, Including my Father who is and has always been a Republican) and he really does end up being a good choice.

Sorry, I really don't think he is immune to money and power. He will become like every other politician in Washington; Trying to get set up for his 2nd term, and pad his retirement fund.

It would be nice to see a sane, Libertatian win the nomination, but I know that's just a pipe dream....

I heard a news story about people saying Obama will win just because his public speaking will hopefully improve the general outview the world has on us. GW's mocked world wide for his speaking ability and Mad TV, SNL have had 8 wounderful years of parady without the need for much creativity.

In one month all those same networks will be picking on Obama....it's what sells.

Sorry, I really don't think he is immune to money and power. He will become like every other politician in Washington; Trying to get set up for his 2nd term, and pad his retirement fund.

It would be nice to see a sane, Libertatian win the nomination, but I know that's just a pipe dream....

Isn't that where his personal traits come into play? It is possible for someone to NOT fall victim to money and power. The only question is, Is he the one?

I think so.

That's the least of problems with Sixee's post, which...

*Assumes that all politicans are susceptible to corruption;
*Assumes that every other politican is simply present to acquire more terms in office and prepare for retirement;
*Assumes that being an elected official is actually a great way to prepare for retirement (as opposed to the private sector, where most such made or will make their fortunes)
*Appears to suggest that a libertarian wouldn't be susceptible to money and power like other politicians;
*Assumes that there is a sane libertarian.

hahahaha touche Thormir!

Thor, you are right.....
Hoping for a sane Libertarian is like wishing for a unicorn.... :p

However, if the rest of my assertations are so unfounded, why is the state of our politics so dismal?

There are corrupt politicians, and many of them that are, generally tend to be trying extend thier power, and line thier pockets along the way.

Perhaps Obama will be able to resist the influence. I hope there's more content to his character than the color of his skin.

And I certainly hope he can offer more than polished speech making skills.

Substance, would be nice.

Substance, would be nice.

Well, personally to me his substance is in his character. I don't care to hear about his plan if I trust him and believe him to be a honest individual who can lead the country.

Hilary has tons of plans, but I wouldn't vote for her if she sent me regular payments for her entire term in office.

Well, personally to me his substance is in his character. I don't care to hear about his plan if I trust him and believe him to be a honest individual who can lead the country.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

Sen. Obama is right in not getting too detailed with any plans he may or may not have. Sen. Clinton would easily bury him in policy-wonk details. And where she's over policied in the past (Hillary Care v1.0) she's learned to make it more media digestable now. No, hope is his best bet.

Well, personally to me his substance is in his character. I don't care to hear about his plan if I trust him and believe him to be a honest individual who can lead the country.



That is about as bad as a woman saying she'd vote for x b/c he is cute and b/c y is ugly. Good job no wonder we have assholes in positions of authority people don't vote based on merit or experience but rather gut feelings?

That is about as bad as a woman saying she'd vote for x b/c he is cute and b/c y is ugly. Good job no wonder we have assholes in positions of authority people don't vote based on merit or experience but rather gut feelings?

There is a difference between voting for someone because of how they look and believing in them being capable of leading a country, especially towards a different direction then its headed. You need someone different to get something different.

He sums it up very well...

""We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose." - Barack Obama

I trust him more then any other candidate to be true to his words, and I actually like the direction he wants America to head. There is nothing at all comparable between this and picking the "cute candidate"

Edit- Is it also not a gut feeling that determines whether or not you trust the candidate you vote for to do the things they promise?

Jedd, what direction has he shown he'll lead you to? Merely shouting out CHANGE and FOLLOW ME doesn't equate to a plan.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Obama over the other Democrats...but if he won't form a platform showing how he'd lead he's not capable of leading imho.

Jedd, what direction has he shown he'll lead you to? Merely shouting out CHANGE and FOLLOW ME doesn't equate to a plan.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Obama over the other Democrats...but if he won't form a platform showing how he'd lead he's not capable of leading imho.

I think his "Change" slogan went a bit too far, almost out of his hands... I don't believe that he wanted to have his entire campaign revolving around Change and nothing else, but it seems to have caught on very fast and become a big talking point of Obama supporters.

He has shown that he is willing to step away from traditional Washington politics in the form of hiring lobbyists to run his campaign, as well as not giving in to taking donations from said lobbyists.

He is the only candidate that will give the middle finger to AIPAC and that means alot to me. The President of the US should not be doing what is in the interest of anyone other then the American people. He is articulate, educated, and inspirational.

The direction that he has shown that he will lead us to is anywhere but the way we are going... and with the path we are headed towards, anything else will do.

If you go to barackobama.com you can see where he stands on any number of issues. He tells where he stands, and how he intends to address said issues. Like people said, you only get a finite amount of face time to speak to the media, so you will see the politicians voice what they think needs to be said the loudest in that short amount of face time. I much prefer his "change" rhetoric than Hillary's mudslinging rhetoric.

My ideal race is McCain for the reasons that Bylimet has laid out, and Obama for the things I've seen him say and things I've read.

[QUOTE=Jedd Corpse]

He has shown that he is willing to step away from traditional Washington politics in the form of hiring lobbyists to run his campaign, as well as not giving in to taking donations from said lobbyists.
QUOTE]

Ill give Obama that surviving the Daley's and Ill. coruption issues makes him look like a saint.

Another one bites the dust....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

Guiliani apparently pulling out too.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/fl.primary/index.html

Guiliani will endorse Mccain from what the news is reporting, I haven't heard who Edwards is endorsing yet.

Guiliani will endorse Mccain from what the news is reporting, I haven't heard who Edwards is endorsing yet.

His hairstylist?

His hairstylist?

WOW thats funny. Come up with that all by yourself?

George Bush has THREE hair and makeup artists who follow him wherever he goes. Obama has 1, Hillary has 2, Edwards has 1, McCain has 1. Ever since the first televised debate politicians have had hair and makeup people on staff and paid quite a bit to keep themselves looking good in front of the camera.

(and I don't know what they get paid but I do know my daily rate is $350 a day and hair / makeup artists generally charge $450 - $600 a day. Obviously for a full time position they'd make less, but full time Audio Recordists make around $75k a year so I'd assume around $100k a year - each)

WOW thats funny. Come up with that all by yourself?

Yes I did. In fact I was giggling as I typed it

George Bush has THREE hair and makeup artists who follow him wherever he goes. Obama has 1, Hillary has 2, Edwards has 1, McCain has 1. Ever since the first televised debate politicians have had hair and makeup people on staff and paid quite a bit to keep themselves looking good in front of the camera.

So Hillary's campaign will be base on the fact that she has 1 less hairstylist than the current administration? Obama's on the fact that he has 2 less? http://ayonae.ro/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Don't you think that rather than getting all wound up around the axle about a hair stylist comment, you might take a few steps back, and laugh at it? Because your hero got called it quits, you are going to get all pouty?

(and I don't know what they get paid but I do know my daily rate is $350 a day and hair / makeup artists generally charge $450 - $600 a day. Obviously for a full time position they'd make less, but full time Audio Recordists make around $75k a year so I'd assume around $100k a year - each)

There's a statement about getting a life I wanted to put in here, but I think it might be taken as a personal attack.....

I'm sure whomever wins the Presidency will take on the full assortment of hair and makeup staff (2-3) the previous presidents and vice presidents and cabinet members have. The Joint Chiefs and Michael Hayden are the only Government bigwig peoples I've ever worked with that didn't have their own makeup staff and we had to hire one for them for the shoots.

And yes, I think its stupid and childish to make fun at someone running for office for doing something EVERYONE else does and not for their ideals and policy. I've equally defended Romney because he's gotten the raw deal over his religion when thats only a small insignifigant fascet of his campaign.

So, Edwards had the opportunity to get even better hair care? OH THE HUMANITY!

And if Hillary wins, that means she'll have 5 people to work on her hair? Wouldn't that be grounds for impeachment proceedings?

Wouldn't that be grounds for impeachment proceedings?

Only if the Republicans control the house :rolleyes:

I was sorry to see Edwards go, but I'm glad to see him do so in such a classy fashion. Interestingly, now that he's out of the race, the split among his supporters seems to be, at least so far (and based on some informal conversations here), running along generational lines, with most of the younger folks preferring Obama, and most of the over 45s gravitating towards either Clinton or in some cases, McCain.

If the election goes down to McCain/Obama it will be a very difficult decision for me.

Regards,
Nydia

...and Michael Hayden are the only Government bigwig peoples...That struck me as funny for some reason.

Giuliani endorsing McCain as I type.

Well he doesn't need a hair person :) but they still do his makeup

If the election goes down to McCain/Obama it will be a very difficult decision for me.

Regards,
Nydia

I was having that conversation with my mother, who hates Hillary because she stood by Bill rather than walk; she figures, as do others, that standing by him was part of the deal for his support on her turn now.

Anyway, discussing an Obama/McCain race, the point I scored on with my mother was national security/foreign relations/WAR; which of the two would you feel more confident in to manage threats and current hostilities, and to work toward making a safer future for the grandkids? It is easy to trust on a gut level that Obama wants to create an environment of change in the capital. It is also easy to see him respond to a national crisis/attack like a deer in the headlights; he needs more seasoning, and some of that "experience" that he is so quick to disdain.

I was having that conversation with my mother, who hates Hillary because she stood by Bill rather than walk; she figures, as do others, that standing by him was part of the deal for his support on her turn now.

Anyway, discussing an Obama/McCain race, the point I scored on with my mother was national security/foreign relations/WAR; which of the two would you feel more confident in to manage threats and current hostilities, and to work toward making a safer future for the grandkids? It is easy to trust on a gut level that Obama wants to create an environment of change in the capital. It is also easy to see him respond to a national crisis/attack like a deer in the headlights; he needs more seasoning, and some of that "experience" that he is so quick to disdain.

In case you didn't notice... We live in the United States of America, the worlds only Hyper Power. I refuse to believe that Obama is any less qualified to protect me then Mccain. Hell, a lot of people who use that excuse had voted for Bush as well.

I trust Obama will make me safe by changing the way our country interacts with the rest of the world... If less people hate you, you have less people to worry about wanting to kill you.

I don't buy that Mccain can do that any better, regardless of his service record.

Your kidding yourself if Obama can get the rest of the world to all of a sudden...OMG love the US. The people who hate us, will always hate us..

World relations is last on my agenda...lets take care of buisness here at home.

Bylimet, I have to disagree with you here. Be it Obama, McCain, Nader, or Perot whomever becomes President doesn't directly have to deal with the plan making regarding to National Security, Foreign Relations, or War. We've all seen that Bush sat and was able to finish reading his book and pose for a few photo ops immediately following the 9/11 attacks, because the Pentagon was already well under way investigating and creating plans of what to do. They choose their advisors, which I am sure will be extremely capable in both Obama and McCain's cases. They listen to their plans and they choose the best course of action under heavy advise. Just because someone is only a Senator for 1 term doesn't mean they won't know how to react to an attack. Someone in this thread or a different one pointed out many of the similarities between Lincoln and Obama. Lincoln certainly knew how to handle a war in his own backyard after 1 term in the Senate. I'd prefer someone skeptical about our goals and successes overseas than someone who is praising our efforts thus far and feels that it is going smoothly and great and was the perfect call.

As far as dealing with National Security and Foreign Relations, if nothing else the past 8 years should have taught us that experience isn't a boon in this regard.

Your kidding yourself if Obama can get the rest of the world to all of a sudden...OMG love the US. The people who hate us, will always hate us..

World relations is last on my agenda...lets take care of buisness here at home.

Spending 2 trillion dollars on a war overseas affects us "here at home"

Lincoln certainly knew how to handle a war in his own backyard after 1 term in the Senate.Bush has more in common with Lincoln in that regard.

The lack of depth here is almost startling!

Comparing the last eight years to any conversation regarding experience is just silly, as Bush did not have experience with much of anything outside of Texas. He had people around him with plenty of experience, and as has been widely written about, he rarely followed any of those advisors' suggestions. He was a cowboy doing as he wanted.

When I talk about McCain and my belief he would be better for national security and foreign relations, I am looking at his lengthy history working in those areas, developing relationships, establishing a reputation, learning the workings of the various systems, as well as how his personal experiences have shaped his approach and opinions. He also has been able to cultivate working relationships with many of those who may well be picked to serve as his advisors and cabinet, so that work can begin sooner on affecting change where change is needed.

As far as the comment of him praising our efforts, why wouldn't he? He was a proponent of the "surge". He listened to the military and those in the DoD about the situation and what options were available, and he backed them on the need to put more troops in Baghdad to better smother the violence there. It has been working, for the most part, and he has been vocal in supporting that. He has supported making it safer for our troops, and that gets him slighted. Under the circumstances, the "surge" was indeed the perfect call, as it has reduced casualties. Seeing it would take at least six months to pull everyone out, the folks there on the ground deserve to be as safe as we can make it. McCain understands that, but I guess would be better to have been skeptical.

It is the candidates that are talking about how soon they will get the troops home that are naive, showing thier ignorance of logistics and security.

Regardless of who wins, or who we back as our choice, cleaning up the Bush mess is going to take a huge effort and consideration should be given to who is in the best position to hit the ground running with regard to that task.

The lack of depth here is almost startling!

Comparing the last eight years to any conversation regarding experience is just silly, as Bush did not have experience with much of anything outside of Texas. He had people around him with plenty of experience, and as has been widely written about, he rarely followed any of those advisors' suggestions. He was a cowboy doing as he wanted.

When I talk about McCain and my belief he would be better for national security and foreign relations, I am looking at his lengthy history working in those areas, developing relationships, establishing a reputation, learning the workings of the various systems, as well as how his personal experiences have shaped his approach and opinions. He also has been able to cultivate working relationships with many of those who may well be picked to serve as his advisors and cabinet, so that work can begin sooner on affecting change where change is needed.

As far as the comment of him praising our efforts, why wouldn't he? He was a proponent of the "surge". He listened to the military and those in the DoD about the situation and what options were available, and he backed them on the need to put more troops in Baghdad to better smother the violence there. It has been working, for the most part, and he has been vocal in supporting that. He has supported making it safer for our troops, and that gets him slighted. Under the circumstances, the "surge" was indeed the perfect call, as it has reduced casualties. Seeing it would take at least six months to pull everyone out, the folks there on the ground deserve to be as safe as we can make it. McCain understands that, but I guess would be better to have been skeptical.

It is the candidates that are talking about how soon they will get the troops home that are naive, showing thier ignorance of logistics and security.

Regardless of who wins, or who we back as our choice, cleaning up the Bush mess is going to take a huge effort and consideration should be given to who is in the best position to hit the ground running with regard to that task.

What I am really tired of hearing about though is how we need a president like Mccain because we are at war...

What we really need is a president who can reverse this whirlpool like effect of us heading towards war after war without bettering our relations with the rest of the world, but rather destroying said relations, and destroying the value of the dollar.

Mccain himself has said he doesn't know much about Economics...Great, middle of a recession and we should concentrate on everything except the economy? So now we have to vote for him because he will be ready to manage the war? Newsflash, The war should have never even happened.

People need to stop voting on a person because he can better continue a fiasco started by possibly one of the worst presidents in US history, and vote for the person who can get us back on top as a strong, powerful nation on a different path.

Under the circumstances, the "surge" was indeed the perfect call, as it has reduced casualties. Simply wasn't the purpose of the surge, however, but a beneficial and logical side effect. McCain's "walk thru the market" and his rhetoric regarding its peaceful conditions (that lasted roughly 24 hours) suggest he's less clear-eyed about Iraq than perceived. He supports continued war there and will happily keep us there for the rest of the century to keep that surge a'working. No thanks.

What I am really tired of hearing about though is how we need a president like Mccain because we are at war...

What we really need is a president who can reverse this whirlpool like effect of us heading towards war after war without bettering our relations with the rest of the world, but rather destroying said relations, and destroying the value of the dollar.

Mccain himself has said he doesn't know much about Economics...Great, middle of a recession and we should concentrate on everything except the economy? So now we have to vote for him because he will be ready to manage the war? Newsflash, The war should have never even happened.

People need to stop voting on a person because he can better continue a fiasco started by possibly one of the worst presidents in US history, and vote for the person who can get us back on top as a strong, powerful nation on a different path.

It is a fact that we are at war, Jedd. Take off your blinders, please.

How much does McCain need to know about Economics, if he can appoint experts as advisors?

Whether the war should have happened or not is irrelevant; it has been going on for five years because of the Bush administration, with a clueless CIC pursuing his own agenda.

Nobody has said anything about continuing a fiasco other than you. I have pointed out how McCain has shown the traits to accomplish what you say we should want in who we vote for, if we want to regain our postion as a strong, powerful nation on a different path.

Why do you insist on seeing things with such a drastic case of tunnel-vision? A criminal organization attacked the U.S., England, Spain, Indonesia, and has threatened more of the same. We are at war with them, and pursuing them. That Bush diverted our forces and resources from fully following that action needs to be cleaned up, but thinking it can be done by making a few campaign promises or signing off on an executive order or two is really naive.

What has Obama said or done that makes you think he is more capable than McCain of accomplishing that objective?

It is a fact that we are at war, Jedd. Take off your blinders, please.

How much does McCain need to know about Economics, if he can appoint experts as advisors?

Whether the war should have happened or not is irrelevant; it has been going on for five years because of the Bush administration, with a clueless CIC pursuing his own agenda.

Nobody has said anything about continuing a fiasco other than you. I have pointed out how McCain has shown the traits to accomplish what you say we should want in who we vote for, if we want to regain our postion as a strong, powerful nation on a different path.

Why do you insist on seeing things with such a drastic case of tunnel-vision? A criminal organization attacked the U.S., England, Spain, Indonesia, and has threatened more of the same. We are at war with them, and pursuing them. That Bush diverted our forces and resources from fully following that action needs to be cleaned up, but thinking it can be done by making a few campaign promises or signing off on an executive order or two is really naive.

What has Obama said or done that makes you think he is more capable than McCain of accomplishing that objective?

Excuse me?

When did the War in Iraq become the War on Terror? That was a War completely based on our presidents goals and desires.

That was a completely seperate war started by us, based on factors that we were shown proved to be false. Mccain sounds like a bumbling idiot. He couldn't even grasp what the whole world grasped regarding the Romney and time tables issue.

We don't need another idiot like Bush, who cannot even grasp common sense.

If you think Mccain can hire advisors to help him handle our failing economy, then I will call you and raise you Advisors for Obama regarding the current wars we are waging.

If they are held on equal status based on advisors filling in the gap, Obama destroys Mccain in everything else that counts.

Excuse me?

When did the War in Iraq become the War on Terror?





Where have I said that?

You are reading what I am trying to explain to you through a frame of reference that is only allowing you to interpret things to fit your position. This is why you are so difficult to debate with, because you make everything fit your preconceived notion of matters.

I have never claimed at any time that the pursuit and war against AQ and the war with Saddam are the same, or even can be justified as having the same goal. In fact, I have said almost exactly what you just did about it being a war based on what Dubya wanted. What I have said is that now that we are entrenched in the Bush Blunder in Iraq, it is important that the maximum effort is put forth to protect our troops from harm, which is what the "surge" backed by McCain is all about.

I get that you support Obama. I see him as having a future in politics, but am not willing to entrust the country to him at this time.

The difference between you and me here is that I don't need to be petty and call him names to explain my points.

Simply wasn't the purpose of the surge, however, but a beneficial and logical side effect. McCain's "walk thru the market" and his rhetoric regarding its peaceful conditions (that lasted roughly 24 hours) suggest he's less clear-eyed about Iraq than perceived. He supports continued war there and will happily keep us there for the rest of the century to keep that surge a'working. No thanks.

Word. Bylimet, any thoughts? And a belief that going into Iraq was (at the time and in hindsight) a good idea can far too easily lead to a trip through Iran or worse in the next 4-8 years.

Where have I said that?

You are reading what I am trying to explain to you through a frame of reference that is only allowing you to interpret things to fit your position. This is why you are so difficult to debate with, because you make everything fit your preconceived notion of matters.

I have never claimed at any time that the pursuit and war against AQ and the war with Saddam are the same, or even can be justified as having the same goal. In fact, I have said almost exactly what you just did about it being a war based on what Dubya wanted. What I have said is that now that we are entrenched in the Bush Blunder in Iraq, it is important that the maximum effort is put forth to protect our troops from harm, which is what the "surge" backed by McCain is all about.

I get that you support Obama. I see him as having a future in politics, but am not willing to entrust the country to him at this time.

The difference between you and me here is that I don't need to be petty and call him names to explain my points.

You did however say they started the war... they as in the terrorists... So one would assume you also thought they started the Iraq war.

I am sorry, but if you watched the Debate tonight Byl, you will have seen Mccain as a fool as I did. He makes mistakes, and instead of owning up to them, he digs himself deeper into the hole. He made himself look so dumb tonight, It wasn't me who had to make it seem so.

And the problem with your logic is that, You are willing to put someone who agrees with bush to clean up his mess, yet you are missing the point that since he agrees with bush, we will have more problems of the same sort with him as President.

As it has been posted, Iran, and many more wars in our near future if Mccain is elected. You may have no problem with that, but some of us see it as the reason he fails to make a good president.

Jedd judging others for looking stupid in the face of their own innane behavior....

rich

Jedd judging others for looking stupid in the face of their own innane behavior....

rich

Fandros making idiotic comments that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed....

rich

Word. Bylimet, any thoughts? And a belief that going into Iraq was (at the time and in hindsight) a good idea can far too easily lead to a trip through Iran or worse in the next 4-8 years.

Again, I have never said that anything about going into Iraq was good. It was a Cheney-Bush agenda item that was going to happen regardless of the attack on the U.S., in my opinion. I have always been vocal on the boards in my opposition to our invasion of Iraq, but I will always be supportive of the troops that are on the ground; they don't make the decisions on where they are posted.

I do believe that the "surge" was the proper call at this time, because it was aimed at controlling the forces that were causing the most violence and casualties in the Baghdad area, by putting more troops into the area. This is not even close to being in favor of the war, but is a realistic view of what needs to be done to better safeguard our soldiers.

I am a fervent McCain supporter, obviously. But if it comes down to Romney or Obama, I won't vote for Romney. And I always vote.


And, fyi, trying to be hip or "urban" with the street slang ("Word.") is really unimpressive when debating (or baiting) someone in their 50's.

You still haven't addressed the fact that McCain is saying the war both was a good idea at the time and he still thinks going in was a good idea. You also haven't addressed the fact that McCain took a bunch of cameras into a marketplace roped off and surrounded by secret service and marines and said "Hey look America, this is so safe! Everything is peachy keen here"

There are definitely things to like about him, but he's been just as misguided as Bush about Iraq from the beginning which lends me to believe he'll be equally as misguided when it comes to Iran or any other place "harboring WMDs and funding terrorists".

How much does McCain need to know about Economics, if he can appoint experts as advisors?



When the economy is the number one issue from the voting public right now, I'd say a working knowledge of it would be important.

What I don't understand is why you lay into someone that says, I don't care about the military experience of one candidate, they can appoint experts and advisors, yet you use the same reasoning when that person feels the economy is something the President should be competant.

At the time, Iraq looked like a duck, and walked like a duck. It wasn't till after we had killed the bird, plucked its feathers, and cooked it, that we realized it was a chicken.
Everyone thought Iraq could develop WMD's at the time including Obama:


'I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/09/thomas-b-edsall-the-atte_n_59875.html

While he does go on to say that he doesn't think Iraq is an iminent threat, and that he opposes "dumb wars", by his own statements above, we had enough reasons to pursue the war in Iraq.

Is the answer immediate withdrawl of all US troops? No, that would be as bad, if not worse, than the initial invasion.

McCain's line of thinking is, let's fix the admitted mess in Iraq, the best we can, and follow another path.

The only thing I have seen from Obama is
"It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,"
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/REPOSITORY/707200317

No plan of action, just a withdrawl, that will leave a void.

Who do you think will fill that void?

Jedd judging others for looking stupid in the face of their own innane behavior....

rich

Jedd isn't running for President.

At the time, Iraq looked like a duck, and walked like a duck. It wasn't till after we had killed the bird, plucked its feathers, and cooked it, that we realized it was a chicken.


That made me LOL

At the time, Iraq looked like a duck, and walked like a duck. It wasn't till after we had killed the bird, plucked its feathers, and cooked it, that we realized it was a chicken.
Everyone thought Iraq could develop WMD's at the time including Obama:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/09/thomas-b-edsall-the-atte_n_59875.html

While he does go on to say that he doesn't think Iraq is an iminent threat, and that he opposes "dumb wars", by his own statements above, we had enough reasons to pursue the war in Iraq.

Is the answer immediate withdrawl of all US troops? No, that would be as bad, if not worse, than the initial invasion.

McCain's line of thinking is, let's fix the admitted mess in Iraq, the best we can, and follow another path.

The only thing I have seen from Obama is

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/REPOSITORY/707200317

No plan of action, just a withdrawl, that will leave a void.

Who do you think will fill that void?

Once again the failing of the current administration comes into play here. A president like Obama would have already been in contact with the Iranians, who have already been helping with Iraq, and who it would benefit most to have a stable Iraq next door.

If Obama becomes president, and withdraws our troops, I will put my money on him fixing relations between us and Iran, and having Iran play a big role in stabilizing Iraq.

That is the problem for me with a president like Mccain. He is the same as Bush. No thinking outside the box, no talking to enemies to work on relations. We need something new and different. Bottom line is, for the last 30 years, no president has stepped far enough outside the box, and it has led us into this war. When does conventional thinking become unconventional?

If Obama becomes president, and withdraws our troops, I will put my money on him fixing relations between us and Iran, and having Iran play a big role in stabilizing Iraq.



Can he do that before Al-Qadia fills the void we leave?

Will the Iranians be able to move quickly enough to prevent that from happening?

Will the Iraqi's take offense to thier former enemies telling them how to do things?

Can Iran be entrusted not to turn Iraq into Western Iran?

Can he do that before Al-Qadia fills the void we leave?

He would have to have the Iranians get involved before we withdraw, and have us pull out slowly as the Iranians move in to help. Al Qaeda is also a big enemy of Iran's so you can bet on support in keeping them out of Iraq.

Will the Iranians be able to move quickly enough to prevent that from happening?

The Iranians are mobilizing in preperation for a possible war in defense against the US, they are probably more ready to move in if relations are fixed then any other force in the region. They also have influence in certain parts of Iraq already, which will help right off the bat.

Will the Iraqi's take offense to thier former enemies telling them how to do things?

Some will, however you can rest assured that they would rather have Muslim soldiers whether shia or sunni, rather then American troops in their country. Iran would face many of the same problems we faced, but it would most likely reduce dramaticaly.

Can Iran be entrusted not to turn Iraq into Western Iran?

Iran would be under the eyes of the international community. There is no way they would be able take Iraq for their own. Iran is a pretty big country, with many parts that are still uninhabited. Iranians will also have to deal with the US if they went against the deals and promises made.

At this current stage it would be impossible, but if Iran is treated like a partner it could open up alot of different possibilities in the Middle East. It all comes down to an American president who is willing to take the step, and perhaps a new president in Iran, which is by the way shaping up real nice. There is a strong candidate that is pro regime(which helps him stay in the race and have the blessings of the supreme leader), but thinks Ahmadenijad was a horrible leader in starting a confrontation with the west. He believes that opening Iran up to the world is the right way to do things and not shutting the doors.

Time will tell if we pick the right leader or not. Hopefully we do.

Here is Obama on what he will do as president regarding Iraq, straight from his website.


Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard much from the Obama camp to change America. They keep talking about change, but what *exactly* is that change? I feel like his platform is "vote for me because I'm the black guy," and that worries me. I have similar thoughts on Clinton, but trust her yet even less as a Washington insider. I think Iraq is undoubtedly an important issue, but nearly everyone agrees it's time to pull out. What about domestic plans? We haven't heard much from Obama besides "Change for America." I'm a registered Independent, and have had Democrat leanings, but someone throw me a fricking bone.

As much as I don't want to say it, I'm actually liking Romney because I feel like he's got a plan. For a while, I refused to listen to anything he had to say on the basis that he was Mormon. But as I read some of his ideas on Slashdot, such as his ideas for H1-B reform, I realized he's got some practical ideas. America needs a CEO right now, not another politician. As we're heading into a recession, a businessman like Romney can mitigate the turbulence of some economic instability (Apple posted their best quarter ever and their stock took a huge dive from $200 to $130!).

This is what Romney has to say about H1-B visas:[...] The H1B in particular, allows US employers to temporarily seek help from skilled foreigners, they have to have the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree to qualify. We used to give, in the late 90s, 100-150k a year, there’s at least demand for 200k a year. In the last couple of years, the US quota for that has been brought down to 65k, and that was last year and this year. A lot of Silicon Valley startups and large companies in particular are saying it’s really hurting them with their hiring.

I like H1B visas. I like the idea of the best and brightest in the world coming here. I’d rather have them come here permanently rather than come and go, but I believe our visa program is designed to help us solve gaps in our employment pool. Where there are individuals who have skills that we do not have in abundance here, I’d like to bring them here and contribute to our economy. Ultimately we’re in a competitive battle with the rest of the world; a battle where we need to stay the most powerful nation in the world. And the only way our nation stays ahead forever is with superior technology and innovation. And if we need additional folks who have skills that can contribute to our country then by all means lets welcome them in and if we see that our kids are not competing in certain areas lets help our kinds understand what they need to become competitive. As a naturalized US citizen myself, I like a lot of what he has to say. I'm from Taiwan (Republic of China) and my family and I followed the rules to get here legally by bringing skills to this country. Why are we rewarding those who come here illegally and in practice giving those who immigrated here legally the middle finger? Why not bring the best to this country? Do you know that we bring in more than half a million of international students to US, yet we only give a path to citizenship and a working visa to only 65,000 of them? We train them, we subsidize some of their education, and they go back to their home countries with all the skills we taught them? Why not recruit them to stay in the States?

I've noticed the US has a greater problem--a dislike of anyone who doesn't look "American." I was in a taxi in New York once, and the driver asks me, "Where are you from?" I said Phoenix, AZ. He said, "Where are you really from?" Again, I repeated, "Phoenix!" What else was he expecting me to say? The irony is that the United States is a country made of foreigners; the only ones who could claim to be truly American to the core are the natives (the Native American tribes).

Okay, I've delved into a whole bag of worms. But my point is, how does any company work? Any sports team? You hire the best, of course. Romney wants to do that. I haven't heard any competing plan from the Democrats other than giving handfuls of unskilled illegal immigrant labor a permanent path to citizenship.

By the way, Romney has an incredible business resume. If he can run this country like he runs a business we'll be in good hands. Completed undergraduate work at Stanford/BYU as well as completed a simultaneous Harvard MBA/JD program, graduating in the top 5% in his law class. Worked for Boston Consulting for a few years, then moved to Bain and Company and later founded Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that has launched hundreds of companies on a successful course, including Staples, Domino's Pizza, and The Sports Authority. Return a $100m profit from the Winter olympic games in Salt Lake City despite corruption and turmoil and $300m deficit. Served as Governor of MA, balancing the budget ever year and providing health care for everyone in MA. Don't tell me that is not a fantastic resume.

I'm not saying that I will not vote for Obama, but I need to see his platform. All I'm seeing is that he's a social worker. We need someone who can turn the economy around.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

McCain's strategy keeps the US in the driver's seat.

Obama's puts Iran there.

Given Iran's track record, I'd throw in with the U.S. making things happen.

the US hasnt been in the drivers seat for years, wtf are you smoking?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

McCain's strategy keeps the US in the driver's seat.

Obama's puts Iran there.

Given Iran's track record, I'd throw in with the U.S. making things happen.

It is nice that people don't mind being in the drivers seat of a sinking ship, but the reality is that Mccain will lead us down the same path Bush did. If you like that, hey thats on you.

The difference is Obama is willing to do things differently. There is no guarante with either Mccain or Obama that we would be safer, However I do believe that opening America up to the world the way Obama would, is a good way to improve America.

He hasn't said it would all be in the hands of Iran, he has simply said that he will involve Iraq's neighbors. Iran being one of them. I am just at a loss as to why people want someone to be our president because of a war that needs to eventually end, when that person thought the war was not only necessary, but that there are more wars that we should be prepared to wage. When that person is willing to commit our soldiers to 100 years of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran...

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard much from the Obama camp to change America. They keep talking about change, but what *exactly* is that change? I feel like his platform is "vote for me because I'm the black guy," and that worries me. I have similar thoughts on Clinton, but trust her yet even less as a Washington insider. I think Iraq is undoubtedly an important issue, but nearly everyone agrees it's time to pull out. What about domestic plans? We haven't heard much from Obama besides "Change for America." I'm a registered Independent, and have had Democrat leanings, but someone throw me a fricking bone.

www.barackobama.com

There is a tab called Issues, that shows you his stance on everything, and what he would do as President.

Jedd, I know and I've seen that. He's got some very good ideas. But the ultimate problem is that he hasn't show he's capable of implementing them. He's an extremely good orator. But he only talks about change. Why not talk about these in his speeches rather than jaded speeches of "we believe in change"? His speeches need to talk about these ideas rather than using his evangelical approach to arouse change. That's my biggest gripe with Obama. I even went to one of his fundraiser dinners before and took a picture with him.

If we elect McCain, by the way, I'm going to find my passport to Taiwan or apply for a passport in Hong Kong. I don't want to be drafted to a war that we start that has no purpose or meaning. It is over if we elect a senile old man who has been desperate to be president for years (especially now that he's 71). And I'm living in Arizona, for heaven's sake. (Isn't our draft age still 27?)

It was also McCain's idea to have amnesty. It makes me angry that my friends in college who have graduated and have been job searching in the US are forced to go back after a year because the US only gives out 65,000 H1-B visas for the 200,000 that have a bachelor's, master's or PhD/MD/JD--and yet they're talking about giving AMNESTY to those who came here illegally and typically bring unskilled labor?

Jedd, I know and I've seen that. He's got some very good ideas. But the ultimate problem is that he hasn't show he's capable of implementing them. He's an extremely good orator. But he only talks about change. Why not talk about these in his speeches rather than jaded speeches of "we believe in change." His speeches need to talk about these ideas rather than using his evangelical approach to arouse change. That's my biggest gripe with Obama. I even went to one of his fundraiser dinners before and took a picture with him.


The reason quite frankly is Hillary Clinton. She has put Bill Clinton on Bash Obama duty, therefore she spends all her time talking about what she would do as president, and Obama has to spend his time refuting Bill's bullshit, and try to defend himself while still keeping a positive image.

Therefore, he has to play on Change... Change from the kind of politics that Hillary and Bill are taking part in, change change change... It is all he has time to get out. Before Bill became a factor, it wasn't yet so much about policy and what you want to do, rather then inspire people to believe you are the right one for the job, which he did and still does rather well.

It is a shame that Obama does not recieve the platform to speak about his plans as often as Hillary for example, but his plans are clearly on his website for us to see, If we see in him a man of conviction, a man with character. A man that you can look at and say, I am proud to call him my President. Then we should take the time to step away from the political bullshit he is unfortunately involved in and take it into our hands to research his ideas.

I agree for the most part, Jedd. And sometimes I regret that Al Gore didn't make a last-minute run for President because politics wouldn't have been as polarized as they are today.

I don't want to close, Jedd, without mentioning that although the Obama website provides some plans, they provide no details. I want details; a plan without details is the same as having no plan at all.

Jedd, you're willingness to throw Isreal under the Iranian bus is disturbing. Until Iran recognizes the right of Isreal to exist and admits it to the international community, no partnership. Neville Chamberlain went down that route with disastrous consequences.

I agree for the most part, Jedd. And sometimes I regret that Al Gore didn't make a last-minute run for President because politics wouldn't have been as polarized as they are today.

I don't want to close, Jedd, without mentioning that although the Obama website provides some plans, they provide no details. I want details; a plan without details is the same as having no plan at all.

I did find a pretty good amount of detail on his site, at least equivalent to any other candidates details. The question is, do you believe in him to do his best to do what he says he plans on doing?

Jedd, you're willingness to throw Isreal under the Iranian bus is disturbing. Until Iran recognizes the right of Isreal to exist and admits it to the international community, no partnership. Neville Chamberlain went down that route with disastrous consequences.

Iran has offered to accept and recognize Israel, and to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. Cheney and Bush, didn't want to hear it in 2005.

Well guess what... Obama would probably have discussed it with the Iranians.

Israel cannot be taken seriously until they take care of the problems they are facing with the Palestinians. They have bitten off more then they can chew, and that is a topic for another thread.

This is not about Iran, this is about the Candidates for President.

The Iranian situation is directly related to our Presidential election atm Jedd.

Iran can't/won't/shouldn't be pulled into discussions until the Iraq and Israel situations are resolved.

As for your 2005 statement about Iran willing to recognize Israel. Did a lil research, because I've found you to be a liar, and it seems the international community considered the statement to be another Imanutjob bs statement.

Iran has offered to accept and recognize Israel, and to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. Cheney and Bush, didn't want to hear it in 2005.

Well guess what... Obama would probably have discussed it with the Iranians.

Israel cannot be taken seriously until they take care of the problems they are facing with the Palestinians. They have bitten off more then they can chew, and that is a topic for another thread.

This is not about Iran, this is about the Candidates for President.

Sorry, Jedd, but you have made it about Iran with your comments of what Obama would do setting up relations with Iran in conjunction with a pullout from Iraq. If Obama did as you suggest, the Saudis would not accept it, nor would Israel, nor would Egypt, Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon would be doubtful, and that leaves Syria as the only country in the area that could be counted on to support Iran's role as you describe with Iraq. Thumbing his nose at long-standing allies to make deals with Iran regarding Iraq would not serve the country any better than the crap Bush has handed us.

As far as Iran's attitude toward Israel having improved, Ahmanutjob just insulted them again while giving a speech about having a nuclear plant online providing power to the electric grid within a year; he called Israel a "filthy entity". Not what I would call 'accepting'.

As far as Romney and his CEO background, Bush and Cheney had that CEO experience too, as well as Bush having experience as a state governor; this administration has operated like the country was a business that had to answer to Bush-Cheney, Ltd and do as told or else. I am not sure how different Romney would be as far as being the chief executive, and that unsureness keeps me from looking to closely at him.

Regarding my saying McCain can get advisors was tossing back what had been said already. But it is true, seeing he has the relationships in place already with those that work more closely with economic matters.

Again, I want someone like the title character in the movie "DAVE", who really understands the concept of working for the people. None of these candidates fit what I would like to see as a potential president completely, and it is obvious most have the same problem. There are still 10 months to go, and minds very well can change. I know I have already gotten the week of the election set aside for vacation.


Of course, Nader has set up an exploratory committee for a possible entry into the race.....that should really toss a fresh dynamic into the mix. :rolleyes:

The Iranian situation is directly related to our Presidential election atm Jedd.

Iran can't/won't/shouldn't be pulled into discussions until the Iraq and Israel situations are resolved.

As for your 2005 statement about Iran willing to recognize Israel. Did a lil research, because I've found you to be a liar, and it seems the international community considered the statement to be another Imanutjob bs statement.

Sorry 2003...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539

Sorry, Jedd, but you have made it about Iran with your comments of what Obama would do setting up relations with Iran in conjunction with a pullout from Iraq. If Obama did as you suggest, the Saudis would not accept it, nor would Israel, nor would Egypt, Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon would be doubtful, and that leaves Syria as the only country in the area that could be counted on to support Iran's role as you describe with Iraq. Thumbing his nose at long-standing allies to make deals with Iran regarding Iraq would not serve the country any better than the crap Bush has handed us.

As far as Iran's attitude toward Israel having improved, Ahmanutjob just insulted them again while giving a speech about having a nuclear plant online providing power to the electric grid within a year; he called Israel a "filthy entity". Not what I would call 'accepting'.



What business is it to Saudi Arabia what happens in Iraq??? :confused: I will not continue responding regarding Iran, because I know what will end up happening to the thread, and I don't have time for another one of those threads right now.

-Edit- Let me clarify... Why does it matter what Saudi Arabia thinks about our actions in regards to Iraq? They are allies and they border Iraq, but still. They should have just as much worry as any other nation which borders Iraq. No more, and no less

Of course, Nader has set up an exploratory committee for a possible entry into the race.....that should really toss a fresh dynamic into the mix. :rolleyes:

I know this is superficial, but I'd never vote for Nader. He's just to scummy looking. He looks like a used car salesman.

What business is it to Saudi Arabia what happens in Iraq???

Well, it directly affects their economy. We run military missions from their soil into Iraq. They'd have to deal with even more Al-Quaida next door than they are currently dealing with in Saudi Arabia. There's many things that are relevant to the Saudis regarding Iraq.

Well, it directly affects their economy. We run military missions from their soil into Iraq. They'd have to deal with even more Al-Quaida next door than they are currently dealing with in Saudi Arabia. There's many things that are relevant to the Saudis regarding Iraq.

Ah, but it has nothing to do with them being our allies. Saudi Arabia is well aware that Iran and most other nations in the area are vehemently against Al Queda. All bordering Iraq would have concern over what happens. But Saudi Arabia would not cry for a minute if we pulled out of Iraq and Iranians began assisting Iraqi's.

However remember, this would be only after proper relations with the US were established. Which would be after many concessions by Iran, as well as some by the US. All it takes is a US backhand to even lift 5 inches and Saudi Arabia will sit and say "Yes sir"

Also remember this - Iran has just started repairing relations with Egypt, and many other local nations. As a matter of fact, Ahmadenijad is making the first visit of an Iranian president to Baghdad(Iraq) in history at the request of the Iraqi government. There is alot more trust then is visible to us in the region at the moment.

The point of all this is that Obama would be the kind of president where all options would TRULY be on the table in every regard both military and diplomatically. I will take my chances with a man afraid of no option, over any man who only sees one.

With Huckabee likely to remain a nonfactor I'll either go with Romney or McCain.

Wish the left had provided a more stable experienced option. I love the ad with Hilary claiming something like 35 years of White House experience....how in the hell lmao.

Far too many polarizing aspects anymore to get a true moderate with a strong hand and fiscal sense ;(

With Huckabee likely to remain a nonfactor I'll either go with Romney or McCain.

Wish the left had provided a more stable experienced option. I love the ad with Hilary claiming something like 35 years of White House experience....how in the hell lmao.

Far too many polarizing aspects anymore to get a true moderate with a strong hand and fiscal sense ;(

I hate Hillary!!!

Wish the left had provided a more stable experienced option. I love the ad with Hilary claiming something like 35 years of White House experience....how in the hell lmao.

It very much was like that, but it wasn't that. It was 35 years of public service. However I say her count is a bit off.

1973 - 1979: Lawyer, I'm not gonna count this.
1979 - 1992: First Lady of Arkansas (not counting 1982, thats 13 years)
1993 - 2001: First Lady (8 years)
2001 - 2008: Senator (7 years)

By my count thats 28. Only by adding in 7 years of being a lawyer does she reach that 35, and that doesn't count in my book :)

Unless she's adding in time that Bill was doing public service too! Zing!

What business is it to Saudi Arabia what happens in Iraq???


You paint yourself as being so knowledgable of the region, so why are you so ignorant of the Sunni-Shiite schism?

If Obama was to do as you have suggested, it would be the same as the U.S. sanctioning the tipping of the balance in the region to a Shiite predominance, and that would make the region even more volatile, as well as give more fodder for those recruiting potential terrorists.

Saddam was suffered by the Saudis and others because he provided a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

You paint yourself as being so knowledgable of the region, so why are you so ignorant of the Sunni-Shiite schism?

If Obama was to do as you have suggested, it would be the same as the U.S. sanctioning the tipping of the balance in the region to a Shiite predominance, and that would make the region even more volatile, as well as give more fodder for those recruiting potential terrorists.

Saudi Arabia would have an option to get involved, but will not do so because they are alot about accepting gifts and making money... Never about doing anything in return. Don't expect it to be as big of a deal as you think... Iran already has a lot of Shiite influence in the region, even within Iraq.

Its not as if Iran would be taking over Iraq, only assisting the Iraqi government

And I never said that was Obama's plan, I simply laid out a possibility that would be impossible under any other president.

Obama's plan is more realistic and makes perfect sense.

It very much was like that, but it wasn't that. It was 35 years of public service. However I say her count is a bit off.

1973 - 1979: Lawyer, I'm not gonna count this.
1979 - 1992: First Lady of Arkansas (not counting 1982, thats 13 years)
1993 - 2001: First Lady (8 years)
2001 - 2008: Senator (7 years)

By my count thats 28. Only by adding in 7 years of being a lawyer does she reach that 35, and that doesn't count in my book :)

Depending on the type of legal work she was doing while practicing law, she could very well claim it as part of her experience in public service. Why should her view of the merits of her experience be any less valid than your judgement of them? Simply two different frames of reference.

This is what the whole democratic process is about. Everyone has their own view, or frame of reference. We then attempt to choose the person that most closely fits that view, and support them. Where it goes to hell is when we start vilifying those that do not fit our view, which is not so much about the other candidates being bad as about us getting too full of ourselves, as though we are the only ones with the right way of looking at things.

I am not aiming this at you Kel, but your comment on her lawyer years sort of crystallized what I had been wanting to say for a while. It is something we all do, whether in greater or lesser degrees, including myself.

And I never said that was Obama's plan, I simply laid out a possibility that would be impossible under any other president.

Obama's plan is more realistic and makes perfect sense.

And if you take the time to read, rather than react, you will note I said "if Obama did as you suggested".

Byl, i wasnt alive to compare, but is the charisma of Obama, even close to JFK's youthful appeal?

Byl, i wasnt alive to compare, but is the charisma of Obama, even close to JFK's youthful appeal?

Keep in mind I was in 6th grade when he was assassinated.

What I do remember was a feeling of excitement when the grownups talked about him, that I never associated with any other elections; and, elections were always a topic at family gatherings. All the magazines (Look, Life, Saturday Evening Post) had great photo spreads on the family, and I remember youth being a big part of the discussions. He was not a father figure, which most seemed to be looking for in a President.

(On a side note, I was within fifty feet of LBJ when he was campaigning in Minnesota against Goldwater and had a clear view of him, and while it was cool for me being a kid still, that same sense of people being exicted was gone)

Now when making a comparison to Obama, I think it might be better to look at what ALL of the Kennedy family has had to say. I am extremely impressed with the words of Caroline Kennedy, because she has never in my recollection come out like this on behalf of any candidate before, and I have the utmost respect for that lady. At the same time, the family of Robert Kennedy is reacting somewhat differently to Obama; it is exactly that differing perception among a group of people that are usually fairly close in their politics that speaks loudest. We have not had enough time to really see what Obama is about, so we have those who are captivated by the persona and oratory, as well as those who are skeptical of it.

Yes, the excitement feels like the JFK-esque atmosphere, but for different reasons. JFK was a war hero with a young wife and children talking about the need for people to take an active role in their country, and setting lofty goals that people wanted to believe we could achieve (like going to the moon). Obama is riding the wave of change people are craving after sixteen years of political gridlock, vitriol, scandals, etc. He has done a fantastic job of tapping into people's belief that things can be different. Both were campaigning on the theme of change at a time when people were desparately wanting exactly that.

I hope at some point Obama uses his talents to broach that topic some of us have discussed here, and which JFK was a big supporter of; giving back to your country, in the form of some type of service or commitment. It would be a great time for that, with the unemployment and economic picture we are looking at currently. He would be better able to sell an idea of public service than the rest of the candidates, due mostly to that charisma he has.

That kind of thinking and some details to go with it is what could win him the nomination, and maybe even the election. People need hope, but they also need to have something to do to feel they are contributing.

JFK gave us the Peace Corps (along with Sargent Shriver); let's see what Obama can come up with to focus that energy he has been generating.

And let's hope, that if he is elected President, some a-hole with a firearm and a mental disorder doesn't try and assasinate him, a la Kennedy(s).

While he's not my first choice as President, if he were elected, I'd go along with it. He's not so radical (unless you count the color of his skin) that I'd oppose his Presidency.

BTW, would electing a semi African-American (his mom was white) make people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton STHU about a black man not being able to get a fair shake in America? Or will the perception be he isn't "black enough"?

He's not so radical (unless you count the color of his skin) that I'd oppose his Presidency.


That's a really really really sad comment there that makes you look horribly like a racist. How can you with a straight face say that someone being black equates them to being a radical? That comment there almost embarasses me to share a forum with you on a daily basis.

That's one of the most offensive things I've ever read on this board.

I just meant that we have never elected someone other than the standard White Guy before.
I didn't mean that I thought he was radical because of the color of his skin, only that others might think so, hence the you in the statement as opposed to I.

I am in no way, racist....

Reading comprehension FTW.....

I hope at some point Obama uses his talents to broach that topic some of us have discussed here, and which JFK was a big supporter of; giving back to your country, in the form of some type of service or commitment. It would be a great time for that, with the unemployment and economic picture we are looking at currently. He would be better able to sell an idea of public service than the rest of the candidates, due mostly to that charisma he has.Byl, you can find Obama's plans in that regard here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/).

BTW, would electing a semi African-American (his mom was white) make people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton STHU about a black man not being able to get a fair shake in America? Or will the perception be he isn't "black enough"?It will be that he's not black enough, the moment it turns out he isn't just president to promote their agenda. He dresses too nicely and speaks too eloquently. The same thing has been said about Colin Powell, Rice, and even Bill Cosby. If you don't talk and act like you're straight out of the hood, there's a false perception that you sold out to the white man.

Oddly, and interestingly, it suggests that race is becoming less of an issue than class is.

Byl, you can find Obama's plans in that regard here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/).

Thanks Thor. That link is an eye-opener.

Yeah Thor, a real eye opener. Looks like he's thought that part out pretty extensively.
Kanyli I think you just hit the nail right on the head there, +rep to you.

It will be that he's not black enough, the moment it turns out he isn't just president to promote their agenda. He dresses too nicely and speaks too eloquently. The same thing has been said about Colin Powell, Rice, and even Bill Cosby. If you don't talk and act like you're straight out of the hood, there's a false perception that you sold out to the white man.

Oddly, and interestingly, it suggests that race is becoming less of an issue than class is.Recalling their comments during the Don Imus affair, I don't think that Sharpton or Jackson would criticize Obama for not being or acting like he's "out of the hood." Both inveigh against the negative aspects of "rap culture," so I don't see that as an issue. Obama appeals strongly to the educated "wine-drinking" demographic (as opposed to the "beer-drinking" demographic). My impression is that Kanyli is part right: Jackson and Sharpton would be unhappy with Obama if he didn't help enough -- by their estimations -- to elevate more young blacks into the kind of position that Obama himself enjoys (not because he's not 'gangsta' enough or something).

However, if Obama does become President, I suspect they'll hold their tongues unless their cultural concerns are actively opposed. It's hard to say that blacks can't get anywhere when one is President. More likely, they'll do what they've been doing -- calling attention to what they perceive as racial injustice where it happens, for better or for worse.

I just meant that we have never elected someone other than the standard White Guy before.
I didn't mean that I thought he was radical because of the color of his skin, only that others might think so, hence the you in the statement as opposed to I.

I am in no way, racist....

Reading comprehension FTW.....

The you wasn't bolded until 15 minutes after you posted it initially, and not until a while after I posted my retort. Yes, bolding the you changes the dynamic of the post dramatically now, which a person reading this thread now won't see in it's original form.

Obama appeals strongly to the educated "wine-drinking" demographic (as opposed to the "beer-drinking" demographic).

Hey now!! I only don't drink wine because I get indigestion. My wife on the other hand...

...drinks because of her husband? I kid! I kid! :p

My impression is that Kanyli is part right: Jackson and Sharpton would be unhappy with Obama if he didn't help enough -- by their estimations -- to elevate more young blacks into the kind of position that Obama himself enjoys (not because he's not 'gangsta' enough or something).
.

The problem to me is the attitude of Jackson and Sharpton here. Obama worked hard to overcome any perceived (real or not) hardships relating to the color of his skin through education and hard work. If Sharpton and Jackson really want to elevate young blacks into positions of power, they need to emphasize education and hardwork to an entire generation, and not just point to the 'man is keeping them down' remarks that seems to be their daily fodder.

Everyone in this country has to work hard if they are to be ultimately successful. Jackson and Sharpton had to work hard to get where they are in life. They should put a much larger emphesis on that than trying to tear down anything another group of people might say that a black individual might or might not see as a slight. Jackson and Sharpton need to understand that until they focus on issues within their own communities that tear down opportunities, they will never be ultimately happy with any result. You don't see Jackson and Sharpton focus on rap music that degrades their own race and women, which IMO is much more damaging than something an idiot named Imus says on the radio about a basketball team.

I think Jackson and Sharpton could do great work if they'd actually focus on important issues in black communities instead of trying to blame the white individuals for all the ills of their society. You very rarely see them address issues of voluntary segregation, and the propagation of crime in predominantly black communities. Until they start to focus more on those issues, they are just scraping the surface of any tangible good they could accomplish like the Reverend Dr. King.

Interesting...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Actually, they do speak about many of these very subjects -- this just doesn't get the same press as something like the Jena 6.

Sharpton organizing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080800661.html) a multi-city protest against denigrating rap lyrics. Jackson here (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Rev.Jesse.Jackson.2.336413.html)

Both do emphasize the need for black youth to get away (http://www.wbaltv.com/education/14061028/detail.html) from the gun and drug culture. They also try to bring to light instances where racial injustice takes place. There are definite misteps in this regard, which hurts their cause, but matters that might otherwise be overlooked do get air time by their efforts (which is in large part why they remain popular with large segments of black society).

They do focus a lot on black communities and the problems therein; you just don't hear about it much. Also, negative characterizations of both are so prevalent that there's little focusing on the positives they do bring to the table.

All that said, I've never liked Sharpton, and I would like to see some new leadership emerge to engage these issues.

I would like to see some new leadership emerge to engage these issues.

I believe we are seeing that now, not just with Obama but also some of the other young (under 55) black men and women who have been getting more involved in both the political and business worlds, and within both parties.

I know I am much more inclined to pay attention to what Leonard Pitts Jr. (columnist for the Miami Herald) has to say about racial matters, and the affects on all matters of today's America by race relations, than either Sharpton or Jackson. Well presented, thought out opinions and arguments are better received than the knee-jerk reactions we have grown too used to from the 60's and 70's holdovers.

I think that Jackson in particular has been tarred with the extremist, knee-jerk brush too much, when he has done a lot of good work not just within and for the Black community, but on poverty issues as well (Rainbow/PUSH coalition). I was a Jesse Jackson delegate to the county convention in 1988, along with 17 African-Americans, and that in itself says something about how far we've come; while I feel that Jackson was the right choice for the Democrats at that time (but they were staring in the face of 8 years of a charismatic Reagan presidency and didn't stand much of a chance and began their slide into trying to package themselves as 'Republican lite'), the country wasn't ready for his brand of populism. Look at the issues that are at the top of the Democratic list now!

Interestingly, I was 25 at the time, and stirred by Jackson's message of hope and social and economic justice. Now, I am nearly 45, and my idealism has been tempered by 20 years of our elected leaders selling us down the river, and Obama's pretty and elevated rhetoric leaves me somewhat skeptical and dubious, despite his having been anointed by Kennedy, et al. We saw a contrast in the candidates' styles and fundamental approaches last night, but I guess I am cynical enough these days that I place slightly more trust (at this juncture) in the old battle-axe than the young mover and shaker.

Regards,
Nydia

Oh, I just wanted to say, re Edwards' exit from the race, that the remarks from some of the pundits about his supporters made me positively ill. Multiple commentators made statements along the lines that Edwards' supporters favored him largely because they 'didn't believe that a woman or an african american could or should win the office of President'. I just want to say that this is a vile, steaming load of crap and indicative of internalized racism/sexism on the part of the journalists. All of the Edwards supporters I know supported him because he had the most clearly populist and best articulated plan for addressing major economic, social, and integrity issues with regard to our government, and his supporters were on average *more* progressive, and *more* likely to be willing to support a minority or female candidate than the rank and file Democrat - provided the message was the right one. Edwards was the true populist, he passed the smell test, and in political context should be viewed as more truly the descendant of Jackson's political evolutionary line than Obama is.

Regards,
Nydia

Interestingly, I've read that while Edwards really shifted toward a more populist stance than in 2004, his core constituency -- older, relatively conservative white males -- really didn't change much (I can't find the data atm unfortunately). There could be a lot of reasons for this that those pundits don't take into account. For whatever reason, many people (and I'm thinking this poll was Iowa-centric) voted their demography rather than ideology.

There's plenty of strangeness in the election. Look at McCain, who is as hawkish as they come and would happily stay in Iraq for the rest of the century, but who nonetheless gets a lot of support (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-welch1feb01,0,7490638.story) from anti-war independents.

There's plenty of strangeness in the election. Look at McCain, who is as hawkish as they come and would happily stay in Iraq for the rest of the century, but who nonetheless gets a lot of support (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-welch1feb01,0,7490638.story) from anti-war independents.

McCain was on Leno last night, and commented that remaining in Iraq would be much the same as remaining in Germany and the other countries where we have bases, once the local army is up to the task of handling their own security. Maintaining a prescence on foreign soil has always had it's share of both positive and negative effects.

Yeah, I've heard him make that argument before, but Iraq is nothing like Germany, Korea, or Japan, nor is it likely to be. And hell, even Iraq's own Defense Minister said Iraq wouldn't be ready to assume security responsibilities til 2018. How many trillions more do you want to spend on Iraq, and what do you expect the nation to gain from it?

Yeah, I've heard him make that argument before, but Iraq is nothing like Germany, Korea, or Japan, nor is it likely to be. And hell, even Iraq's own Defense Minister said Iraq wouldn't be ready to assume security responsibilities til 2018. How many trillions more do you want to spend on Iraq, and what do you expect the nation to gain from it?

Personally, I don't want us to spend anything on Iraq because it had and has nothing to do with our stated goal of bringing OBL and his bunch to justice. However, Bush-Cheney shoved a debacle down the country's collective throat; and, due to the piss-poor management and planning of that war, we now have certain obligations that we need to honor or we will simply increase the harm already done to our nation and it's reputation and international standing.

With the exception of the recognition that we are willing to fix something if we break it, I am not sure that there is much to be gained. The varied alliances we have in the area have all been affected in some regard by this mistaken conflict, and so cleaning up after making a mess will do more to enhance our stature; leaving the country broken, with it's infrastructure in a shambles, would only serve to rubber stamp what the enemies of the U.S. have been claiming when recruiting fresh fodder.

Maybe this will teach us to pay more attention in the future when someone reminds us that when you break it, you buy it.

...we now have certain obligations that we need to honor or we will simply increase the harm already done to our nation and it's reputation and international standing.Several dozen corners turned ago I was more sympathetic to this view, but I no longer find it compelling. The primary reason is that a real fixing of the country depends on the Iraqi leaderships coming together into a cohesive unit, and that just hasn't been happening. Hell, look at the state (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080131/wl_nm/iraq_dc_1) of the re-Baathification law some people were peeing themselves in joy over.

We've done our part, really, in trying to fix this mess. It sucks, but if you try to repair a friend's broken vase, and the friend's family are fighting you and each other over it and smashing the vase even further, it's time to leave a bottle of glue on the coffee table and head home (where you could then think up better metaphors than that one).

Several dozen corners turned ago I was more sympathetic to this view, but I no longer find it compelling. The primary reason is that a real fixing of the country depends on the Iraqi leaderships coming together into a cohesive unit, and that just hasn't been happening. Hell, look at the state (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080131/wl_nm/iraq_dc_1) of the re-Baathification law some people were peeing themselves in joy over.

.

Unfortunately, by attempting to force our concept of Democratic rule on these people we have ensured that the leadership will not stand up to serious challenges. There are two types of government that have shown they can work in the region: one rules by religious doctrine, and the other rules with an iron fist. Lebanon has tried to break free of that mold, only to have it's leading proponents of change assassinated.

But, to simply say that we are going to leave the electric grid, the clean water system, the oil industry, the economic and employment prospects in a shambles after we are responsible for fucking them up, just because the government is not working how we want it to, is not right, IMO. We have caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to become refugees because of our actions, but we should just shrug and forget that?

We need to address those areas, get things running at least as well as they were before we invaded, and then those who need to talk about wins and losses can look for something to grab on to; but, unless our mission was to invade and terrorize a country's population, leaving it without even half of the basics that were available under the dictator, we have no business talking about pulling everyone out yet.

I would much rather have the Iraq clusterfuck be considered a legacy of the Bush-Cheney cartel than a symbol of how America "pursues justice" and cleans up after itself.

But, to simply say that we are going to leave the electric grid, the clean water system, the oil industry, the economic and employment prospects in a shambles after we are responsible for fucking them up, just because the government is not working how we want it to, is not right, IMO.Again, total agreement several years ago, but now...really, how long will that take? The process of rebuilding is riddled with corruption and has made mediocre progress at best over the last 4 years. We're just throwing good money after bad at this point.

Again, total agreement several years ago, but now...really, how long will that take? The process of rebuilding is riddled with corruption and has made mediocre progress at best over the last 4 years. We're just throwing good money after bad at this point.

So, why not clean up the corruption and make things work, rather than giving up and telling those we have so violently intruded on that they are of no importance to us?

I am not going to go into my whole Halliburton spiel, but a start on getting the job done right may be to take Cheney's cohorts out of the picture, and actually bid projects out to companies without any conflict of interest. Hell, the Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers could probably have made much more progress on infrastructure repairs than Halliburton, with it's layers of administrative bullshit, has done. Our own corrupt administration is as much at fault for the mess still needing attention as the corruption in Baghdad.

Went back to Feb., 2007 for this info that L2 posted, but it is relevant to this discussion of both why we have the mess in Iraq and why folks are clamoring for change:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The problem with Haliburton is if you look at the time of events with Dick Cheney. It's nothing illegal, but it does leave one with a bad taste in the mouth.
Cheney starts out as intern for Nixon, eventually proceeds to work for "The Office of Economic Development", leaves in 1973 to become CEO of the investment firm of Bradey Woods, and CEO at the tender age of 32.

A couple years later, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are serving as G. Fords Chief of Staff and Sec of Defense respectively. They carry out the "Halloween Massacre", replacing many, many key people with their own, including George HW Bush as director of the CIA. It became obvious to many that Ford wasn't the one running the show. He was out of his depth and virtually ceded power to Cheney in the decision making process. Hes runs Fords highly unsuccessful election campaign and loses badly. He has however, placed many key allies in important places.

Bush 41 repays old debts and Cheney is named Sec of Defense. Under his watch the Government gives 9 million dollars to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to conduct a study to determine if privatization of certain tasks in the military is a good idea...
Surprisingly, KBR says its not only a good idea.. its a GREAT idea. Even more surprisingly, when the LOGCAP bid is awarded, it is awarded to KBR, which btw, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton.
In an amazing turn of coincidence, during the formation of this report, Halliburtons entire focus of business changed to meet such needs that the Government may have.

Three years later, Dick Cheney is named CEO of Halliburton and his net worth goes from a couple million to several hundred million in very short time. Also coincidently, during this time, Cheney negotiates a 7.1 Billion dollar merger between Halliburton and Dresser Industries, a company that GHW Bush served as CEO of and was on the Board of Directors for 20 years. It goes deeper than this if you look at Zapata Oil, but the shadiness becomes so profuse that its tough to seperate fact from speculation.

Later, Cheney is instrumental in GWBush move for the presidency. He leads Bush's efforts to find a good VP, surprisingly, his efforts come in vain and Bush asks Cheney to be his VP, poor old Cheney is reluctant, has to virtually be BEGGED to do it... but finally agrees to it.

Cheney has been playing the same game for years, trading money for power then power for money.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Keeping in mind that Cheney was the one who turned down the offer from Iran in 2003 to do much of what Bush is now demanding from them, and that Cheney was the one who was consistently pushing for an Iraq invasion due to the "overwhelming evidence of WMD's", it is the involvement of Cheney in those countries of the Mid-East we are at odds with that needs to be investigated. We should not abandon the innocent people we invaded simply because our own leadership was corrupt. The awarding of no-bid contracts to HB, and then renewing them even after they admit to fraudulent overcharges, is criminal.

I believe we can change the poor performance regarding repairing the country we destroyed, and it may just be someone like Obama who can make that progress; but, I don't believe even Obama would be wanting to just leave those folks in the conditions we created.

Sorry, I got carried away. Must be the wine. :eek:

Can't fault anyone for enjoying their wine!
So, why not clean up the corruption and make things work, rather than giving up and telling those we have so violently intruded on that they are of no importance to us?I think we can project their importance to us (whatever meaning we may give the phrase) from afar. Aid in return for accomplishment, rather than pouring money into the black hole of incompleted projects. Force the Iraqis to build themselves a civilized society from the ground up instead of having our shadow on every move. If they can't put something together themselves, then we're wasting our time there now anyway.

If they can't put something together themselves, then we're wasting our time there now anyway.

Let us not forget that they are a country of people who have not had the opportunity to do much for themselves in a couple generations. It may need to be learned.

Troubling news...

Military unready for homeland attack, says study

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in -- you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.
Don't Miss

"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.

Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

While noting that equipment for the reserves has increased in recent years, the report details a shortfall of about $48 billion for equipment as of 2007. And in a detailed map, it shows that in more than half the states, Army Guard units have less than 50 percent of the equipment they need.

Overall, the panel made 95 separate recommendations, including many personnel, pay, benefits, promotional and other policy changes. The majority, commission members said Thursday, could be implemented immediately or in quick fashion after congressional action. But other more substantive overhauls, Punaro said, could take years.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.

Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops -- to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/guarding.america.ap/index.html

"While noting that equipment for the reserves has increased in recent years, the report details a shortfall of about $48 billion for equipment as of 2007."


Umm, how much is that tax-rebate program going to cost?

On another note, regarding the elections, while channel surfing I came across the Fox program with blowhard and wuss....err, Hannity & Combs, or however it is spelled....
Anyway, everyone's favorite shrill harpy, Ms. Coulter, proclaimed that she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain was the nominee for the Republican Party. So the question must be asked, who is this a bigger threat to?

Anyway, everyone's favorite shrill harpy, Ms. Coulter, proclaimed that she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain was the nominee for the Republican Party. So the question must be asked, who is this a bigger threat to?

I posted a link oh... about 8-10 hours ago about the Coulter thing :P

Let us not forget that they are a country of people who have not had the opportunity to do much for themselves in a couple generations. It may need to be learned.Oh I don't know, it's not like the stuff didn't work under Saddam, and native Iraqis put it together and cared for it. I don't know what proportion of those persons were Baathists, however, so the electronics might require specialized help. Even so, years later whoever we've got over there hasn't solved the problem. Maybe Iraqis could hire someone more productive.

I posted a link oh... about 8-10 hours ago about the Coulter thing :P

Did some digging, and found it about the tenth article down in your link, hehe. But thanks for that link, cus lots of other good items there as well.
Need to spread more tho', so no rep for joo for sharing the info. :cool:

I'm just giving you shit.

awaiting the Coulter vs McCain springer episode.

awaiting the Coulter vs McCain springer episode.

Please don't tell me we export the Jerry Springer show :eek:

i regret to inform you that yes, yes you do, you also export dr phil and ricky =(

i regret to inform you that yes, yes you do, you also export dr phil and ricky =(

And our shame continues to grow.....:o

Pure Fun (http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?g_lat=34.066311964721045&g_lon=-118.39038848876953&zoom=12&width=0.087890625&height=0.07281942618292447&btn=mix&off=100)

Unbelievable! :eek:


Bush must be falling head over heels for this lady, and her use of technology to publicize what need not be public. Politics continues to get scarier and scarier.

Donate in $250 increments to avoid those public lists. ;)

Heh, neat.

Apparently software developers have been donating more to Republican candidates than to Democratic candidates by a more than 2:1 margin. Mathematicians, 3:1 Democratic. Engineers, 1.8:1 Republican. Physicists, 1.5:1 Democratic. Professors, nearly 6:1 Democratic. Retired, almost even (slight edge to Democrats).

All calculations are based on public records filed with the FEC of contributions by all individuals totaling more than $200 (and some totaling less than $200) to a single Republican or Democratic presidential campaign or national committee for the 2004 and 2008 election cycles.

i regret to inform you that yes, yes you do, you also export dr phil and ricky =(

I didn't realize ricki lake and springer were still being produced...

no no, its reruns, which makes it even more pathetic i guess.