Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? [Archive] - Page 11

Radii

05-07-2008, 02:00 AM

Of course, Union County hasn't reported any votes at all. No one lives there, but...I love how CNN is trying to spin it, while MSNBC is trying to change the conversation in a different manner.

CNN needs to get over it, because no one was asking what the questions were in New Mexico, Texas or other places. But I love how they're trying to spin it. So I'm done with them. It's too late to listen to this.

Perhaps I didn't watch enough of the coverage, i probably watched about 1/2 hour, but my perception was that they weren't trying to spin anything, but that hey, you have the mayor of the biggest city in the county on the air with you, they seem like they're holding up or unnecessarily delaying releasing their voting results, he's giving a bullshit answer and stonewalling you when you ask what seems to me a fair question, so you press him on it. i never got the impression there was any intent to accuse of wrongdoing. Perhaps I didn't watch long enough, or perhaps i was so blown away by the stupidity of the mayor of Gary that I missed everything else though(I'm not being sarcastic here, I got so annoyed listening to him that I just turned the TV off for a few minutes and then turned it back on and continued watching).

SackAttack

05-07-2008, 02:17 AM

Perhaps I didn't watch enough of the coverage, i probably watched about 1/2 hour, but my perception was that they weren't trying to spin anything, but that hey, you have the mayor of the biggest city in the county on the air with you, they seem like they're holding up or unnecessarily delaying releasing their voting results, he's giving a bullshit answer and stonewalling you when you ask what seems to me a fair question, so you press him on it. i never got the impression there was any intent to accuse of wrongdoing. Perhaps I didn't watch long enough, or perhaps i was so blown away by the stupidity of the mayor of Gary that I missed everything else though(I'm not being sarcastic here, I got so annoyed listening to him that I just turned the TV off for a few minutes and then turned it back on and continued watching).

When I was at the gym earlier, they had CNN's coverage on, and during the roundtable discussions, there was all kinds of spin coming from the moderator. I don't think any of it was really NEW - most of it was the lines the Clinton campaign has been trotting out there for a while, such as "she won the states Democrats have to win in November" - but it was evident they favored Senator Clinton.

Radii

05-07-2008, 02:25 AM

When I was at the gym earlier, they had CNN's coverage on, and during the roundtable discussions, there was all kinds of spin coming from the moderator. I don't think any of it was really NEW - most of it was the lines the Clinton campaign has been trotting out there for a while, such as "she won the states Democrats have to win in November" - but it was evident they favored Senator Clinton.

Oh, perhaps I completely misunderstood. I thought the thinking was that CNN was trying to create a corruption story, that something funny was going on in the county, not that they are having any sort of favorite here as far as the race goes.

GrantDawg

05-07-2008, 05:18 AM

I'm having a hard time believing this might actually be over. Hope springs eternal...

Young Drachma

05-07-2008, 07:39 AM

From the Lake County paper last night.
(http://www.post-trib.com/news/elections/lake/934357,LAKERACES0506.article)
"Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley stood by his Democratic counterpart Rudy Clay as the nation waited for vote totals from Lake County. "There's no hanky panky going on," Curley said after members of the national media wondered why Lake County's votes were taking so much longer to count than the rest of the state. "We have more than 11,000 absentee ballots, far more than we've ever had before," Curley said, insisting it simply takes time to get through that many tallies.

The two party chairmen planned to meet at the government center at about 11 p.m., and Curley promised the vote totals would soon be released."

As far as it being over, some privately want it to go on past West Virginia, knowing that Hillary will win there, letting Obama go to Oregon to claim victory in a few weeks.

TroyF

05-07-2008, 09:55 AM

I'm having a hard time believing this might actually be over. Hope springs eternal...

It's been over for a couple of months. It's just that Hillary hasn't realized it.

For those who want Hillary to win, here is her roadmap:

Win every state left 75/25. Then have 58% of the remaining superdelegates vote for you.

If Obama simply splits the rest of the states up 50/50, Hillary would need 78% of the superdelegates to go her way. And if that happens, the dems will get their asses handed to them in the general election.

Nothing has changed. It's over. It's been over. it's just a matter of one candidate admitting it's over so the other one can start to focus on the general election as quickly as possible.

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 10:21 AM

TroyF

05-07-2008, 10:27 AM

I think she's in this until June 3rd, at least. She's got WV and KY coming up (OR she doesn't care about), both of which she is doing well in, and I bet she's holding out hope that she wins both and something miraculous/fishy occurs during the May 31st meeting to decide what to do with Florida and Michigan. At that point, even if things go badly, she might as well stick around for the last primary the following Tuesday.

The latest polls I can find on RCP for OR, KY, and WV show the following:

5/4 - OR - Obama 51, Clinton 39 (52 delegates) - Rasmussen
5/5 - WV - Clinton 56, Obama 27 (28 delegates) - Rasmussen
5/6 - KY - Clinton 62, Obama 28 (51 delegates) - Survey USA

I believe what's she counting on is the "shock and awe" of huge victories in KY and WV, some shenanigans involving FL and MI, and that all of that, coupled with the wins in IN and PA, as well as OH, etc., are what she is going to base her claim to being "more electable" on to the SuperDelegates. That's the only rationale I can see for her staying in it at this point.

The Supers have been her only hope for a long, long time.

The problem is that if the supers decide this when she's lost the popular vote, the state delegate vote and number of states. . . it'll be riot time in Denver, CO.

You are correct though. She's in this thing through June 3rd and probably through the convention. She's going to use a scorched earth campaign to do it too.

At this point, nobody needs to kid themselves. It's over. Obama will be the nominee. Obama's worst case scenario happened and he had a highly publicized scandal. And Hillary still can't make up any ground. He's not going to have another major slip up. Hillary is done. Now it's just a matter of her admitting her fate and moving on.

path12

05-07-2008, 11:22 AM

Just judging by the demeanor of the Clinton advisors on the cable channels, I think what's going on now is the start of the behind-the-scene negotiations to find a way to end this while giving Clinton and her supporters a way to save face. I don't think that will be through a veep nomination, but could well include a way to include Fla and Mich.

Fighter of Foo

05-07-2008, 11:58 AM

Hillary is done. Now it's just a matter of her admitting her fate and moving on.

Good luck waiting on that :rolleyes:

TroyF

05-07-2008, 12:09 PM

Good luck waiting on that :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter to me in the least. I want her to stay in. I'm finding the entire process fascinating. I'm also eager to see how this plays out in the GE in November.

The best thing Hillary can do for the dems is to walk away. Of course that was also the best thing she could have done over a month ago.

Something tells me she doesn't have someone well versed in math on her staff. She really, really needs QS about now.

st.cronin

05-07-2008, 12:18 PM

I don't think this is over, I still expect Clinton to actually win. Florida and Michigan, remember?

JPhillips

05-07-2008, 12:23 PM

It's now to a point where you can include FL and MI as is and she'll still be unable to win popular vote or delegates.

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 12:26 PM

Clinton email from today:

Today, in every way that I know how, I am expressing my personal determination to keep forging forward in this campaign.

After our come-from-behind victory in Indiana, there are just 28 days of voting left. But we've never campaigned with the stakes as high or the time as short as they will be over the next four weeks.

And with you by my side, I'm going to keep fighting for what I believe in until every voter has had his or her say.

From the very beginning, you and I have counted on one another, working through every challenge and seizing every opportunity. That's not just the way our campaign works. That's the way America works.

As we enter the final four weeks of this contest, let's keep working our hearts out.

Contribute now to keep moving our campaign forward.

In six days, we have the chance to show our strength in West Virginia. If you'll stand with me, it's an opportunity I intend to make the most of.

There's no question about it -- we've got to make every one of these next 28 days count -- starting with today.

Contribute now, and let's keep winning together.

As we've told each other time and time again. There will be good days and not so good days in the course of this campaign. But there will never be a day that we can't count on one another.

As we enter the final 28 days of voting, I know you'll give it everything you've got. And you know I will do the same.

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 12:27 PM

McGovern Urges Clinton to Drop Out

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET

Day to Day, May 7, 2008 · Former senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern is calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic presidential race. McGovern has decided to endorse Barack Obama. In doing so, McGovern becomes the first prominent Clinton supporter to call for Sen. Clinton to withdraw from the race.

st.cronin

05-07-2008, 12:28 PM

It's now to a point where you can include FL and MI as is and she'll still be unable to win popular vote or delegates.

Except, Florida and Michigan did not have normal turnout, so including them "as is" is not exactly legitimate, either. Clinton has a good case to make for the superdelegates.

cmp

05-07-2008, 12:31 PM

Except, Florida and Michigan did not have normal turnout, so including them "as is" is not exactly legitimate, either. Clinton has a good case to make for the superdelegates.

Michigan shouldn't be included in any argument for her at all. Obama wasn't even on the ballot, makes it a much different situation than Florida.

TroyF

05-07-2008, 12:35 PM

I don't think this is over, I still expect Clinton to actually win. Florida and Michigan, remember?

They won't seat them as is. she'll win a portion of delegates there, not all of them. The math still stands. She needs over 75% of the remaining delegates and then close to 60% of the supers to win. She's not going to get it. She'll win WV, KY and PR. She'll get her ass kicked hard in OR. She'll lose in SC. She'll have a tough time in Montana. Odds are, that's a 50/50 split in those six states. Let's say we revote in MI and FL and Hillary sweeps with 60% of the vote in both states. She gains 67 delegates. She would still need to win over 70% of the supers at that point.

The math is very, very easy here. It's over. It's all about when Hillary is going to accept/admit it's over.

CamEdwards

05-07-2008, 12:35 PM

QuikSand

05-07-2008, 12:46 PM

The math is very, very easy here. It's over. It's all about when Hillary is going to accept/admit it's over.

I thoroughly agree that to the extent this is about math, it's over.

I still believe that were there a concerted effort by the party leadership to coordinate voting of superdelegates, it would certainly be possible to send things in another direction. If Senator Obama were struck by raving madness and institutionalized tomorrow morning for electroshock therapy... we clearly wouldn't be talking about math any more. The system is designed to have a variety of latitudes involved... mostly to account for extraordinary circumstances, but there remains some opportunity for someone to make that case.

Please don't get me wrong... I think it's over too, I'm just saying that this process is (deliberately) not as simple as an election, where you just count the ballots and it's over.

TroyF

05-07-2008, 12:55 PM

All of the reasons why Hillary can't win the nomination are just that... reasons, not rules. You can argue that Obama has better reasons why the delegates should ultimately nominate him on the first unpledged ballot, but there's absolutely no obligation for them to do so.

Ted Kennedy was down by more than 700 delegates, yet he went to the 1980convention vowing to fight on. Hillary will be a helluva lot closer than that.

I think she'll continue the race at least until at the DNC Rules Committee meets May 31st. That meeting should help determine what happens to the MI and FL delegates, and that should determine her course from June to August.

Please don't misinterpret my remarks here. Hillary can run as long as she wants. She also has a slim, slim shot of catching Obama. And while I think that could damage the dem prospects in November, most think I'm an idiot. I'm ok with that.

I'm just looking at reality Cam. She can fight as long as she wants. The race is over. No matter what the Hillary supporters want to think, she is not winning this battle. It's going to be Obama vs. McCain in November. (With the potential of a third party guy to jump in)

Barring Obama getting caught wiping his ass with an American Flag on a stolen web cam clip, she's not winning 75% of the remaining delegates at stake. It's not happening. The math was tough before Texas and PA. It's far worse than that now. There is no more race for the dem nomination.

PS: Watch all of the supers that switch this week. They may try to speed up the process.

TroyF

05-07-2008, 01:00 PM

I thoroughly agree that to the extent this is about math, it's over.

I still believe that were there a concerted effort by the party leadership to coordinate voting of superdelegates, it would certainly be possible to send things in another direction. If Senator Obama were struck by raving madness and institutionalized tomorrow morning for electroshock therapy... we clearly wouldn't be talking about math any more. The system is designed to have a variety of latitudes involved... mostly to account for extraordinary circumstances, but there remains some opportunity for someone to make that case.

Please don't get me wrong... I think it's over too, I'm just saying that this process is (deliberately) not as simple as an election, where you just count the ballots and it's over.

Don't disagree with you at all here QS. A disaster striking the Obama campaign has really been Hillary's only real hope for two months now. The Wright thing came and went and had little impact on the numbers. Lightning isn't going to strike twice here IMHO. If I end up wrong, I'll take the flak and eat the crow. :)

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 01:04 PM

I'm honestly baffled why the party is letting the Clintons run the show here. Part of Howard Dean's job should be to step in and put an end to this. Instead, a couple of weeks ago he comes out and essentially legitimizes Hillary's chances by saying "we'll see who comes out on top by June 3rd." My only thought is that so many people owe the Clintons so much for how far they've come since the 90s that they are letting them do whatever they want until the Clintons realize they can't go any further, and then they're going to pray the damage doesn't hurt their chances in November. Considering politics is all about stabbing people in the back, I'm still shocked that more people haven't pulled a Bill Richardson on them by now...even if the tide begins to turn that way within the next week.

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 01:07 PM

This seems oddly appropriate:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20080507/2008_05_06t212801_398x450_us_usa_politics.jpg

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 01:43 PM

They won't seat them as is.

TroyF is correct, and he was correct on his prior points.

The Democratic primary is over, and the general election is over. Fumbling the ball on two of the largest states in the country have ruined any chance the democrats had to take the White House in November. McCain has a substantial lead over Obama in Florida polling, and amazingly, Michigan is actually in play.

chesapeake

05-07-2008, 01:44 PM

For the last couple of months, Obama has essentially been the nominee -- barring a complete meltdown. Well, for about 5 weeks, that meltdown was happening. As unbelieveable as it seemed, Obama, because he completely misplayed the Rev. Wright controversy, looked like he could blow this thing. But, last week, he finally cut the cord with the good reverend, and I think the fact that he almost won IN shows that he has found his footing again.

HRC has come too far to just quit less than a month from the finish line. So she'll run for another month and hope Obama hits the wall again and leaves the nomination to her.

Obama's zen really hurt him recently. But he has the ball back in his hands and he can run out the clock, so that same zen turns back into an asset.

Fighter of Foo

05-07-2008, 01:56 PM

McCain has a substantial lead over Obama in Florida polling, and amazingly, Michigan is actually in play.

Where the fcck are you getting this from???

bronconick

05-07-2008, 02:00 PM

chesapeake

05-07-2008, 02:05 PM

The Democratic primary is over, and the general election is over. Fumbling the ball on two of the largest states in the country have ruined any chance the democrats had to take the White House in November. McCain has a substantial lead over Obama in Florida polling, and amazingly, Michigan is actually in play.

Crazy talk. It's May. John Kerry was the unquestioned next president of the United Staes in May. As was Al Gore.

Barring another Obama implosion, they'll come to an agreement before the convention to seat FL and MI delegates in some reasonable combination of HRC and Obama delegates. By the end of June, there will be no reason not to.

MI will be fine in the general election and FL will be competitive, even if it slightly favors the GOP as it has in recent years.

I think you are seriously underestimating several factors, among the most significant of which is money. The GOP and McCain are both seriously struggling to raise money. Both Obama and Clinton are burying McCain in fundraising, and I believe that Obama is millions ahead of McCain as it is in general election contributions. A lot of his supporters maxed out their contributions to him for both cycles.

Democratic Congressional candidates also will substantially outspend their Republican opponents this year, and that will play a role in voter turnout. Heck, in Virginia alone Mark Warner is going to spend about 4 million more than his opponent, even if he doesn't raise another dollar. That adds up.

McCain will lose this badly. The country is tired of the Bush policies on the war, the economy and the Constitution, and I don't beleive that voters will be as easily mislead by swift boats as they were in 2004. Obama is more vulnerable to those kinds of tactics than is Clinton, but I don't think that McCain will be as willing of an accomplice in these endeavors as was Bush.

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 02:24 PM

Crazy talk. It's May. John Kerry was the unquestioned next president of the United Staes in May. As was Al Gore.

Yes, and you can actually go back farther than that. The one constant is that the Democrat's polling numbers peak in the spring. Obama and Clinton should be at least 15 points ahead of McCain in the national polls right now.

st.cronin

05-07-2008, 02:26 PM

Yes, and you can actually go back farther than that. The one constant is that the Democrat's polling numbers peak in the spring. Obama and Clinton should be at least 15 points ahead of McCain in the national polls right now.

Was that true when Clinton was in office?

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 02:29 PM

Was that true when Clinton was in office?

I'm not sure about the 96 numbers against Dole, and whether or not Perot had definitively announced for a 2nd run at this time in the election cycle.

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 02:34 PM

Electoral-vote.com has Obama up 2 on McCain in Michigan for a May 6 poll, and McCain up 1 in Florida from April 29.

Real Clear Politics has McCain up 9 on Obama in Florida, but they're using the April 29 poll, and an April 10 and March 15 poll as an average.

Electoral-vote.com is a joke, and I don't know how anyone who has seriously followed presidential elections over the years can take them seriously.

As for Florida, McCain has a good lead right now, but it's nothing compared to what he will enjoy after their delegates have been formally shut out of the nominating process. Michigan is probably a win for Obama in November, but the fact that he'll have to spend a lot of resources defending the state isn't a good thing for his campaign.

Fighter of Foo

05-07-2008, 02:56 PM

JPhillips

05-07-2008, 02:57 PM

The unseated delegates won't be an issue. As I said above they can be seated as is now and it won't make a difference. If Hillary concedes in early June nobody is going to be thinking about unseated delegates come November. The only way this is an issue is if Hillary takes the nomination to the convention and if that happens the problems will be a whole lot bigger than FL and MI delegates.

JPhillips

05-07-2008, 02:58 PM

Vic likes that one historical trend, but is so tied to seeing the Dems lose that he's unwilling to deal with the other historical trends working against McCain.

Ksyrup

05-07-2008, 03:12 PM

The only way this is an issue is if Hillary takes the nomination to the convention and if that happens the problems will be a whole lot bigger than FL and MI delegates.

If she is really dead-set on trying to win this any way possible, she may very well do that, just in case something else comes up to bite Obama in the ass. The convention is 2.5 months after the last primary, right? That's a lot of time to sit around, and any point of weakness or, say, polls that show her running better against McCain than he is, will give her an argument to take to the convention.

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 03:29 PM

Vic likes that one historical trend, but is so tied to seeing the Dems lose that he's unwilling to deal with the other historical trends working against McCain.

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

QuikSand

05-07-2008, 03:33 PM

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/zell_miller_040901.jpg

Fighter of Foo

05-07-2008, 03:34 PM

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

You didn't answer the question(s) ;)

kurtism

05-07-2008, 03:41 PM

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/zell_miller_040901.jpg

*golf clap*

ISiddiqui

05-07-2008, 05:32 PM

st.cronin

05-07-2008, 05:39 PM

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

JPhillips

05-07-2008, 06:39 PM

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

I agree, I just think it's equally silly to say that McCain has already won at this point.

Buccaneer

05-07-2008, 06:43 PM

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

Except for one very key factor - McCain will not run a campaign as poorly as Dole did. McCain has already shown that he willing to say the right things at the right time (like his recent blue-state tour). Dole never could do that, as much as they tried.

I am agreeing with the conversation regarding Clinton and her chances. As far as the general, there are way too much narrowmindedness to take what anyone says seriously. Imran was the only one who got it right.

VV: You are correct on the peak polling but because of extenduating circumstances in the Dems primaries, their peak will come later in the cycle.

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 07:34 PM

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

Other than age, they don't have that much in common. Dole was always perceived as being mean spirited, even by members of his own party. Additionally, the public never warmed up to the guy on the campaign trail. In that particular trait, Dole probably has more in common with Al Gore and John Kerry than he does with John McCain.

SFL Cat

05-07-2008, 07:40 PM

Since it is likely that this would be Hil's only shot at the presidency, I think she stays in it 'til the bitter end.

I hope she does. That will make for one hell of an entertaining convention. :)

Buccaneer

05-07-2008, 07:42 PM

But nothing controversal is going to happen at the convention. They got all summer to get everyone in line and on the same page.

SFL Cat

05-07-2008, 07:53 PM

They've got disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan. Hillary wins here, and I imagine its close in Michigan. We're talking whole different ballgame if those two states count.

Lots of bad blood between Clinton and Obama and their supporters. I'm not sure either would consent to be a second fiddle on the "dream ticket" some are having orgasms thinking about (Obama-Clinton or vice-versa).

I think if Clinton doesn't drop out prior to the convention, things will be very interesting -- and no one will be happy if the Super Delegates select the nominee.

Scoobz0202

05-07-2008, 08:04 PM

Well, it won't be close in Michigan, because Obama was not even on the ballot.

chesapeake

05-07-2008, 09:11 PM

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

Fair enough. If anyone could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it would be the modern incarnation of the party of Messrs. Jefferson and Jackson.

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I have to assume that McCain will do his best to divert the country's attention away from these basic issues, but I don't think it will work this time. For one, he won't have the money that Bush did in 2004 to get his message out.

And Vic, I don't think that Obama will have to devote that many resources to MI to firm it up. His own particular skills as a candidate lend themselves to maximizing his bounce out of the convention, and I think that will go a long way toward firming up his support in most traditionally Democratic states.

Buccaneer

05-07-2008, 09:36 PM

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I don't discount anything but I also don't assume things will remain the same. When Bush2 came into office in 2001, everyone was wrong as to what the first 4 years would bring. However, I still contend that no matter who becomes President, there will be many things that will remain the same and other things that will be cyclical. US History has never shown linearity in any significant length of time. You could not even imagine what the world would have been like (or how different from today) if what most people had said in the 70s came true.

Vegas Vic

05-07-2008, 11:06 PM

Obama just picked up another defector. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/limbaugh-comes-out-for-obama/)

Galaxy

05-07-2008, 11:12 PM

How do you guys think Congress will shape out? Do you think people will vote in a certain way in relation to how they vote for the President?

Vinatieri for Prez

05-08-2008, 02:14 AM

Curiously, it appears those who ridiculously predicted Obama's demise a month ago, now standby a prediction that McCain will win the general election.

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed. The war, the economy, enough said.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 07:48 AM

Now Pelosi legitimizes Clinton's chances. Dean and Pelosi have both come out essentially supporting the idea that Clinton has a realistic opportunity to win the nomination. Amazing.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 07:50 AM

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed. The war, the economy, enough said.

I want to agree with you (not because I want him to win, but because I think you are right), but on the morning of election day 2004, I probably would have bet my house that Bush would lose, and he didn't. Anything's possible 6 months from now.

TroyF

05-08-2008, 07:52 AM

They've got disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan. Hillary wins here, and I imagine its close in Michigan. We're talking whole different ballgame if those two states count.

Everyone keeps saying this, but it's just wrong. Because of the dems way of doing things in proportional numbers, Hillary isn't going to gain a lot by Florida and Michigan. Even with a double digit win in both Michigan and Florida, Hillary picks up a whopping 33 delegates. If she wins by a 20 point spread (60-40) in both states, she picks up 67 delegates.

Assuming the rest of the states play out even, Hillary would still need well over 60-70% of the supers to go her way.

The FL and MI are just posturing at this point. Hillary has only two outs to win this battle now:

1) Total disaster for Obama. He dies of a heart attack. He gets caught screwing a 10 year old boy. He's caught on tape saying Israel should be bombed. I'm talking something HUGE.

2) The supers go into the back room and agree that Hillary is the candidate.

That's it. Hillary has no chance any other way. If 2 happens, she and the dems can forget about winning in November.

Now if the dems had a Republican style system? Florida and Michigan would be game changers. Now? Those states are irrelevant to the big picture.

flere-imsaho

05-08-2008, 08:28 AM

This is why there is a huge difference between Obama-Wright and McCain-Hagee. The latter is about votes. Relatively speaking, it's not that important whether Hagee endorses McCain or Wright endorses Obama. There is no long-standing relationship there. It is not even remotely comparable. With Wright and Obama the issue is that this is a person by the senator's own statements who is a powerful figure in his life, a spiritual mentor, officiated his wedding and baptism, etc. A key formative influence, personally.

It's like Obama's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. When the Wright stuff first came out, people wondered "what does he really think about race?" So Obama goes on national television and gives a thoughtful explanation of race in America, his views on the question, and an idea of where he'd take the subject if elected President.

When Wright takes his 15 minutes of fame and runs with it, getting more and more histrionic, Obama clearly and completely breaks with Wright and his message.

Obama's been clear to people that he was drawn to Wright because of the quality of his pastoral care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_care). We've now watched as Obama's had to come to terms that a man who he respected on a personal level has indulged in a form a political grandstanding that has only served to alienate the two from each other.

Frankly, I think the whole episode has been an excellent opportunity to learn about the character and views of Obama. Some people just don't seem to want to take this evidence at face value.

Obama could have done the politically expedient thing and threw Wright under the bus as soon as possible. He didn't, because he valued that personal relationship. He tried to explain this as best he could. When Wright gave him no choice, he made the correct decision and threw him under the bus.

Now let's contrast this to McCain. McCain once called Falwell and Robertson "Agents of Intolerance". And rightly so. However, once he started running for president in this election cycle he changed his mind. Suddenly he was speaking at Falwell's University. Suddenly, when asked, he no longer felt they were "Agents of Intolerance".

Last Sunday, McCain said that he was "Proud" to have Hagee's endorsement, but that he didn't agree with his views.

What does this say of the McCain we "know"? It says that once he decided to run for President this time around, he was willing to sacrifice any principles necessary to get the right endorsements and the right contributions.

There's your dichotomy.

If you're not willing to believe Obama because you think he's being two-faced about Wright, then you damn well better be not willing to believe McCain on anything as he's been two-faced about almost every position he's held during the course of this campaign.

Huh. And to think I always thought the converse of evil was good, not patriotism.

Where have you been for the entire Bush Administration?

Electoral-vote.com is a joke, and I don't know how anyone who has seriously followed presidential elections over the years can take them seriously.

Electoral-vote.com is quite clear that until the polls really start rolling, his algorithms result in nothing more than guesses. He's said as much about the current totals on the site. In the past few election cycles the site has been a good predictor starting about 3 months out from the elections.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-08-2008, 09:14 AM

Last Sunday, McCain said that he was "Proud" to have Hagee's endorsement, but that he didn't agree with his views.

What does this say of the McCain we "know"? It says that once he decided to run for President this time around, he was willing to sacrifice any principles necessary to get the right endorsements and the right contributions.

There's your dichotomy.

If it was Obama who was proud to have Hagee's endorsement but noted that he disagreed with his views, we'd be hearing all about how great of a uniter Obama was because he brought people into the fold who he didn't necessarily agree with, but wanted to work with to 'unite' this country. Welcome to politics.

Vegas Vic

05-08-2008, 09:36 AM

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed.

This isn't meant as a slam, it's a legitimate question -- have you seriously followed presidential politics over the years and seen what it takes to assemble an electoral college to get to 270 votes?

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 09:58 AM

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I have to assume that McCain will do his best to divert the country's attention away from these basic issues, but I don't think it will work this time. For one, he won't have the money that Bush did in 2004 to get his message out.

Well, as it has been said, it takes far longer to change someone's public perception than to build one up. McCain is not seen as being a "Bush Republican". Of all the Republican candidates, the Reps actually did the smart thing and picked the guy seen as most not-Bush. I'm not sure that Bush is going to necessarily decide this thing. After all, even the most ardent anti-McCain people are going to admit that McCain has, many times, worked with his political opponents across the aisle. He's worked closely with Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy among others. He is far more willing to listen to others than to simply shut his ears and go with his gut.

That counts for something when you are distancing yourself from W. And remember, even after the Nixon impeachment, Gerald Ford almost won in 1976. People don't automatically impart the sins of the previous President on the candidate of the same party.

chesapeake

05-08-2008, 09:58 AM

Now Pelosi legitimizes Clinton's chances. Dean and Pelosi have both come out essentially supporting the idea that Clinton has a realistic opportunity to win the nomination. Amazing.

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/)

I think Pelosi is being much more circumspect than you are giving her credit for.

"The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.

When asked whether she could see any path to victory for Senator Clinton, Pelosi said "You never know in elections."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of HRC's chances to pull this one out; but it recognizes that if Obama implodes in the next month or two, HRC could back into this thing.

chesapeake

05-08-2008, 10:06 AM

Well, as it has been said, it takes far longer to change someone's public perception than to build one up. McCain is not seen as being a "Bush Republican".

You have identified one of the primary goals for Obama in this election. His campaign SHOULD be focused on making sure that, when voters think of McCain, they think of 100 more years of Bush policy on Iraq and 4 more years of Bush's untax-and-spend economic policies -- both of which he championed in the Senate.

McCain has a little bit of a problem responding. The two current issues that he can point to being a GOP maverick on -- immigration and anti-torture -- are core beliefs of the base he needs to turn out in the fall. Torture he can probably work out a message on, but immigration gets him into deep doo-doo. If the anti-immigrant GOP base doesn't turn out for him in Ohio, he's hosed. And this group will abandon you on that one issue.

chesapeake

05-08-2008, 10:13 AM

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

chesapeake

05-08-2008, 10:26 AM

How do you guys think Congress will shape out? Do you think people will vote in a certain way in relation to how they vote for the President?

Retirements are always a good indicator for which way the wind is blowing.

Retiring House Members (25): 22R 3D
Retiring Senators (5): 5R 0D

Democrats have already picked up 3 House seats from Republicans that have either died or resigned.

Of the top 10 House races that could lead to a seat changing hands, the National Journal has 9R and 1D. The same numbers apply to the Senate.

A couple of the big Senate races are in states that are very competitive in the Presidential race. VA is as close to a lock as you get in May to change from John Warner (R) to Mark Warner (D). New Mexico is right behind. In both cases, the Democrat has a big financial advantage, which will help the entire ticket.

Vegas Vic

05-08-2008, 11:17 AM

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

I see.

He couldn't make Ohio (which went republican in 2000 & 2004) competitive in a primary vs. Clinton, but somehow he's going to beat McCain there in November?

He won the democratic primary in North Carolina with a coalition of African-Americans (who made up 40% of the primary vote) and college students, but somehow he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years. Hillary Clinton got 60% of the democratic white vote. What do you think is going to happen when you throw in a few million republican voters in November.

He got destroyed by Clinton in the Tennessee primary, but he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years.

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 11:20 AM

New Mexico will almost definitely go with McCain in the GE, likely Nevada too, although I don't know their demographics as well.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 11:37 AM

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/)

I think Pelosi is being much more circumspect than you are giving her credit for.

"The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.

When asked whether she could see any path to victory for Senator Clinton, Pelosi said "You never know in elections."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of HRC's chances to pull this one out; but it recognizes that if Obama implodes in the next month or two, HRC could back into this thing.

Anything less than "give it up and quit putting yourself before the party" out of her and Dean's mouths is demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. If Obama is caught in bed with a 10 year old boy, then obviously Clinton is going to jump right to the top, suspended campaign or not. The only chance of winning she has is to turn the process on its ear and have the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, and if the Dems allowed that - coming on the heels of the "stolen election(s)" - they're even stupider than I already think they are.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-08-2008, 11:38 AM

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

I sincerely doubt he's going to win Missouri, and we've been a bellweather state over the past 100 years. We rarely pick the loser. His location won't affect the votes either. Chicago, Illinois may be only 3 hours from our state border, but it's a world away as far as culture goes.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 11:43 AM

IMO the states that could switch from 2004 will be IA, CO, NV, NM(especially if Richardson is VP), OH and VA. I'm not on the NC or TN bandwagon.

As for OH, it's far more receptive to the Democrats than it was four years ago. There is a resurgent Democratic party, a popular Democratic Governor, and a few competitive House races. The Republican brand is also still tarred by the numerous scandals of the state Republican party.

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 11:44 AM

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 11:45 AM

Ksyrup: I don't think either Dean or Pelosi have any right to force someone out of the primaries before they're done. After June 3 they should force a choice by the supers, but candidates shouldn't be pushed by party bosses to quit before the elections are over.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 11:52 AM

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

Did you switch Clinton and Obama's names here by accident?

TroyF

05-08-2008, 11:53 AM

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

There are only two ways st. cronin. I posted them up top. Obama in bed with a 10 year old boy would do it. Or the supers overriding the voters. The first isn't going to happen. If the second happens, it'd be the end of the democratic party as we know it.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-08-2008, 11:55 AM

I posted them up top. Obama in bed with a 10 year old boy would do it.

Can we get off the 10 year old boy?

Wait, that didn't come out right...........

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 11:56 AM

I'm more than happy to see them allow her to continue. And I don't agree with people dropping out early, like the Republican race developed (or didn't, more precisely). But since she can't win, I think it's incumbent upon somebody to stand up and bitch slap her back into reality. Actually, this should have happened after she, in fact, lost Texas - when both she and Bill acknowledged that if they didn't win both Texas and Ohio, her campaign was over.

If she was just running a Huckabee-type race, not focusing on attacking the other guy but playing up her strengths, then I could understand giving her some leeway. But the number of "Hillary is doing things that would make Karl Rove blush" comments I read from Democrats who are angry with her makes me think she's doing more harm than good, and that this is all about her desperately trying to win a race she thinks she is owed, but that Obama has unjustly taken from her.

This is like if someone came in and swept the Repubs up in 1996 and screwed Dole out of his "lifetime achievement award" nomination, and he went Terminator on that person trying to reclaim what was rightfully his.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 12:05 PM

This isn't meant as a slam, it's a legitimate question -- have you seriously followed presidential politics over the years and seen what it takes to assemble an electoral college to get to 270 votes?

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

I already did this the last time you asked; it's somewhere in this thread if you care to search for it.

The question you should be asking is since McCain is starting 10 points behind, how exactly is he supposed to win? Newt was asking this same question earlier in the week.

Not only do I follow elections, I bet heavily on them. I don't make a habit of being spectacularly wrong very often.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-08-2008, 12:27 PM

I don't make a habit of being spectacularly wrong very often.

Of course you don't. If there's one thing we need more of on the internet, it's anonymous message board posters who are rarely wrong.

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 12:36 PM

I already did this the last time you asked; it's somewhere in this thread if you care to search for it.

I have searched the thread and can't find the answer.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 12:36 PM

Of course you don't. If there's one thing we need more of on the internet, it's anonymous message board posters who are rarely wrong.

Oh I'm wrong a lot.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 12:41 PM

Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Page 15 - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1658165)

Probably wrong regarding TN.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 12:45 PM

Speaking of that interplay, have you decided if you want to make the 315 Electoral votes margin bet yet? ;)

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 12:46 PM

Colorado seems like a state where Obama may do better than Clinton or McCain, that I can buy, although I don't think its a slam dunk. The others, not so much. You think Obama can win Idaho?

JonInMiddleGA

05-08-2008, 12:51 PM

Anything less than "give it up and quit putting yourself before the party" out of her and Dean's mouths is demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. If Obama is caught in bed with a 10 year old boy, then obviously Clinton is going to jump right to the top, suspended campaign or not. The only chance of winning she has is to turn the process on its ear and have the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, and if the Dems allowed that - coming on the heels of the "stolen election(s)" - they're even stupider than I already think they are.

Depends upon what the role of the party leadership is.

Is it to put forth the best candidate possible for a win in November? (I would think that's the most obvious role) If so, then they're doing exactly what they should be doing, keeping their best chance at winning in November in play as long as possible, in spite of a process (of their own making) that doesn't seem to be producing that result. And as far as I can tell, there's really been no significant manipulation of the rules or anything, they're largely just letting their process run to a conclusion.

Honestly, I don't get all the angst about how this is playing out. I think it's probably one of the healthiest things I've seen in American politics in years, and I guess you'll just have to take me at my word (or not) that I'd say the same thing if it were happening in the other party. I just don't get the whole "pulling out before mathematical certainty" thing, regardless of the party. And in this particular scenario, I don't see much damage being done to the party's chances November. At that point people are either going to "vote the party" or "vote the candidate" and I really don't think there's much going to be changed about which they decide to do by whatever infighting remains.
The differences -- whether they're policy, personal, social, whatever -- are real, the process is just exposing them, and I think that's a healthy thing (and really wish the same had taken place with the GOP). And letting it play itself out is probably the most respectable thing I've seen from the Dems, or either party for that matter, in a long time.

path12

05-08-2008, 12:59 PM

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 01:21 PM

These are the states that I believe will go blue if its Obama vs. McCain:

Edit: added in the electors, also fixed a couple of obvious errors like leaving out New Jersey.

Hawaii - 4
California -55 (although watch out)
Washington - 11
Oregon - 7
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Iowa - 7
Illinois - 21
Michigan - 17
Pennsylvania - 21
Maryland - 10
Delaware - 3
DC - 3
New York - 31
Connecticut - 7
New Hampshire - 4
Vermont - 3
Maine - 12
Rhode Island - 4
New Jersey - 15

That makes 255, not enough.

New Mexico - 5
Ohio - 25
Florida - 27

That makes 312.

Young Drachma

05-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Why do people think California is going red? Are you on meth?

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Big Latin population. I don't think its likely, but you never know.

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 01:29 PM

dola, also Schwarzenegger keeps getting elected governor, and he's pretty tight with McCain.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 01:43 PM

Wow. I totally agree with Jon on a political matter. I think they have to do it this way also, you have to allow the Clinton supporters to be able to come back to the fold with their heads held high -- so playing it out (at least until you can come to a compromise on FL and MI) allows you to devise a scenario where that can happen.

Forcing the matter right now just reinforces the bad blood between the two camps.

I disagree. They are not forcing the matter; she has lost. The only way she wins is to completely rip her party to shreds, even though it would be by the rules (although FL and MI are big issues on that end), by overriding the delegate and popular vote. I'm not a Democrat and don't give a crap about what happens to the party; I'm just an interested observer amazed at what they are doing to themselves. From what I've read, the "you'd have to be an idiot to vote for Clinton at this point" people in the Obama camp have already made it impossible for Clinton supporters to come back "with their heads held high." The tie between white blue collar voters, Clinton, and the lofty notion that Dems are supposed to be above pandering to them like Republicans supposedly do, has already done its damage. I honestly don't get what they are playing this out for, whether that's respectable or not. I'm fairly certain "respectability" is not high on their list of reasons for letting this go on.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 01:47 PM

Speaking of that interplay, have you decided if you want to make the 315 Electoral votes margin bet yet? ;)

Not yet.;) We'll sort something out once fall rolls around though.

Fighter of Foo

05-08-2008, 01:56 PM

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 01:59 PM

Sorry, my math is wrong. Add in MA and ME and you get 251. My point is that Clinton's math is much, much more favorable, because I think she also gets Florida as a starting point.

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 02:00 PM

Er, actually 259... maybe somebody else should do this...

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 02:00 PM

I can't see McCain winning any of the states you have in the blue column.

I can. I can see McCain winning Pennsylvannia (though he wouldn't if Hillary was the nominee). I think he makes Michigan and New Hampshire tossups as well.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 02:02 PM

According to a bunch of articles out there, Obama plans to declare victory after the OR and KY primaries on May 20th.

path12

05-08-2008, 02:06 PM

I disagree. They are not forcing the matter; she has lost. The only way she wins is to completely rip her party to shreds, even though it would be by the rules (although FL and MI are big issues on that end), by overriding the delegate and popular vote. I'm not a Democrat and don't give a crap about what happens to the party; I'm just an interested observer amazed at what they are doing to themselves. From what I've read, the "you'd have to be an idiot to vote for Clinton at this point" people in the Obama camp have already made it impossible for Clinton supporters to come back "with their heads held high." The tie between white blue collar voters, Clinton, and the lofty notion that Dems are supposed to be above pandering to them like Republicans supposedly do, has already done its damage. I honestly don't get what they are playing this out for, whether that's respectable or not. I'm fairly certain "respectability" is not high on their list of reasons for letting this go on.

Yes, she has lost. No doubt about it, and as a Dem I'm glad she has. But you're not going to bring the party together by forcing the issue right now and rubbing the Clinton supporters noses in it. You'll have a last few weeks of a nominal campaign, starting to turn down the negativity and negotiations behind the scenes to give yourself the best possible chance to heal the party before the convention.

Listen to the majority of Clinton advisors the past couple days. You've still got your Lanny Davis' out there beating the same old drum because 1) you've still got to try and keep some money flowing in if for no other reason than helping retire the debt and 2) you don't negotiate from weakness but have to keep a public persona of fighting on. However, there are more of her advisors like Lisa Caputo who are talking a far more moderate message on the cable networks then they have been.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 02:10 PM

path12

05-08-2008, 02:22 PM

This has nothing to do with Clinton's supporters. This has to do with her and Bill, period. All losing candidates' supporters have to deal with their candidates' losses at some time. Why would asking her to cease a pointless campaign be rubbing her supporters' noses in it?

I imagine that Bill is apopleptic right now. But I disagree with you entirely as to who this is about. They know the money is drying up, and they both are political animals who have legacies to protect. This is all about saving face for them and their supporters, IMO.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 02:29 PM

path12

05-08-2008, 02:34 PM

What "saving face"? How does taking this through May 31st, or June 3rd, or to the convention, "save face"? If anything, she's completely damaged her reputation nationwide among pretty much everybody, including Dems with fond memories of the Clinton Administration. I don't get the connection. If anything, she's not trying to save face, she's trying to steal back the nomination she feels she is owed (both by her husband for sticking by him, and by the party). She's lost face in this whole debacle.

Because middle-age and older women who passionately want Hillary are crucial to Dems and they are rabid right now about feeling that the Democratic party is abandoning them. Check out Talk Left or Taylor Marsh's blog or MyDD. Those are probably the major ones of the Democratic blogs that have drunk the Clinton kool-aid.

But like I said, that's just my opinion.

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 02:41 PM

I think I get what you are saying, but I don't think "saving face" is what you mean. I don't see a connection between what you are arguing and what I would call "saving face."

st.cronin

05-08-2008, 03:55 PM

I've been playing around on this site:

www.predictnovember.com

If the Democrats don't hold Pennsylvania, they have no chance.

http://stcronin.predictnovember.com/map_500.png (http://stcronin.predictnovember.com/)

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 04:02 PM

Interesting post from Gallup, suggesting that Barack Obama may be the next John Kerry.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

Vegas Vic

05-08-2008, 04:38 PM

You forgot ME for 4. MA is 12. I can't see McCain winning any of the states you have in the blue column. That's where Obama STARTS from.

You can't see any chance of McCain winning Pennsylvania? A state where Kerry barely beat Bush in 2004? A state where Obama got trounced in his own party's primary? A state where McCain is in a near dead heat with Obama in current polling? A state that, outside of Philadelphia, has millions of people who "cling to guns and religion"?

McCain has a reasonable chance of picking up this state in November.

JonInMiddleGA

05-08-2008, 05:03 PM

Interesting post from Gallup, suggesting that Barack Obama may be the next John Kerry.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

Interesting read, right up my alley. Thanks for the linkage.

chesapeake

05-08-2008, 05:04 PM

I think there is a reasonable argument that McCain is enjoying something of a high water mark in all these polls. The Democratic base is as fractured as it is going to be during the election year, and he has had a comparatively quiet period to go around to his base to firm it up and raise money. But his fundraising is comparatively lagging and, at best, he only reaches dead heats in national polls and in a number of key states. The GOP's Congressional fundraising has been the worst in modern times. Tom Cole, the head of the House Republican Campaign Committee, told his membership this week that they can expect no help from the national party -- even embattled incumbents.

I'll say it again -- voters are angry and they want change. Now.

Brian Swartz

05-08-2008, 05:32 PM

That argument ignores the fact that McCain can't get in the news now no matter what he does(unless he were to do something horrifically stupid). It's basic common sense that if he were in the news as much as Obama or Clinton, his numbers would improve.

I'd expect Congressional Republicans to get waxed this November(and deservedly so, by the way). The party as a whole is at it's lowest ebb since at least Watergate. But McCain is not suffering from the same opinions, mostly because of his maverick reputation. I think it's entirely possible that McCain could win the presidency while his party loses scores of seats in Congress.

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 06:10 PM

Buccaneer

05-08-2008, 06:14 PM

Why do people think California is going red? Are you on meth?

I still say that California could come more into play than the last 4 elections. You cannot underestimate the Asian votes, Latino votes and those million+ conservative voters of SD/Orange Counties. If I recall, look at the California exit polls from the Dem primary, Asians will not vote for Obama and to some extent, neither will Latinos. Also, this doesn't happen in a vacuum, McCain and Rep party will have something to do with it, in Cal. and elsewhere.

I also think st.cronin's map is close.

Buccaneer

05-08-2008, 06:17 PM

I think it's entirely possible that McCain could win the presidency while his party loses scores of seats in Congress.

Which, to me, is about the only reason to vote for McCain. I have no problem with Congress becoming more (D) - even if that's contradictory to me placing the emphasis on libertarianism to where it counts the most, in the legislature - I would no more desire a straight (D) federal than I would a straigh (R). Ugh.

Vegas Vic

05-08-2008, 06:32 PM

New Mexico will almost definitely go with McCain in the GE, likely Nevada too, although I don't know their demographics as well.

Obama has a legitimate shot to pick up Nevada. McCain isn't very popular here, as he's been on the anti-gaming side of federal legislation. However, to pull it off, Obama needs a huge union and African-American turnout in Clark County to offset the rural areas and more affluent suburbs of Las Vegas like Summerlin and Green Valley, which will go heavily for McCain.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 06:49 PM

The reason I don't buy the "voters are angry" and thus will kill McCain is because if that were true, we'd be seeing it in the polls right now. No way McCain is this close if voters were truely that angry.

JonInMiddleGA

05-08-2008, 06:59 PM

No way McCain is this close if voters were truely that angry.

Eh, just because they're angry doesn't mean they're angry only at the GOP.

Nor does it mean that the angry voters (some of which are also GOP voters) are angry at McCain/are connecting their anger to McCain.

Some Republican voters don't even recognize McCain as their own, seems reasonable to think that there are also Democrat voters who don't either.

flere-imsaho

05-08-2008, 07:00 PM

Wow. I totally agree with Jon on a political matter.

Same here. I think Jon's post there was right on the money.

Er, actually 259... maybe somebody else should do this...

LOL :p

Interesting post from Gallup, suggesting that Barack Obama may be the next John Kerry.

Not convinced. I think the current polling is a bit bunk. I think the polling is being influenced by two things that will change come November:

1. The rival Democratic camps who currently say they won't vote for the other candidate in the GE. Fact is, they probably will, and there's little to no evidence of such a divide following a hotly-contested primary in the past.

2. McCain's getting a boost because no one's been seriously examining him. For instance, there are a lot of pro-choice Democrats & Independents who are polling in support of McCain prior to learning that he's ardently pro-life. I think some of this changes once McCain gets under the spotlight.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 07:05 PM

McCain's getting a boost because no one's been seriously examining him. For instance, there are a lot of pro-choice Democrats & Independents who are polling in support of McCain prior to learning that he's ardently pro-life. I think some of this changes once McCain gets under the spotlight.

One can say the same thing with Obama. His numbers have dropped as some moderates who previously supported him realized how left wing he actually is.

McCain has a Reaganesque teflon quality though. A lot of the bad stories just haven't stuck to him.

flere-imsaho

05-08-2008, 07:08 PM

One can say the same thing with Obama. His numbers have dropped as some moderates who previously supported him realized how left wing he actually is.

I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the polls are currently not terribly indicative of what's going to happen in November.

McCain has a Reaganesque teflon quality though. A lot of the bad stories just haven't stuck to him.

I'd still argue that this is because he hasn't really been scrutinized to this same extent, yet.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 07:10 PM

Exactly what has Obama advocated that is so left wing? The National Journal rating doesn't count. I'm talking about actual votes or proposed policies that are far to the left of Clinton.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 07:12 PM

Exactly what has Obama advocated that is so left wing? The National Journal rating doesn't count. I'm talking about actual votes or proposed policies that are far to the left of Clinton.

How many moderates do you think believe Clinton is moderate/right wing?

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 07:14 PM

I'd still argue that this is because he hasn't really been scrutinized to this same extent, yet.

He's only been square in the public eye since 1998, running for President once, and being one of the big shots in the Senate ;).

For more scrutinized than Obama... though admittedly less than Clinton.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 07:20 PM

I don't care what people believe. I want some actual evidence that he's pursued or is pursuing policies that can reasonably be described as far-left. I get that he'll be labeled as a commie, but I'd expect people here to be able to point out specifics that make Obama far-left.

Specifically I'd like to see positions and polling data that show that position is well outside the views of the majority of Americans.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 07:25 PM

I don't care what people believe.
We are talking about politics right? So, I guess you can be like the Dems in 2004... don't care what people believe and see the other party get the White House ;).

I want some actual evidence that he's pursued or is pursuing policies that can reasonably be described as far-left.
Universal health care (which Obama speaks about, even though he's not demanding everyone gets it) is a left wing policy. As is increasing the capital gains tax (for fairness). Amending NAFTA (and "fair trade agreements") is left wing. Banning permanent replacements for striking workers is left wing. A windfall profit tax on oil companies is left wing.

For those who thought he was a moderate, they've realized that he's not much different than Hillary Clinton in his campaign positions (and more to the left than Bill Clinton was).

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 08:00 PM

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 08:31 PM

I'm not running the campaign, so I don't need to care what people think.

Universal healthcare, amending NAFTA, and windfall profits tax all poll well. I doubt much of anyone cares about replacing striking workers and I doubt capital gains taxes would resonate with the majority of the populace.

There's plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but this idea that he's far-left isn't backed up by any polling data. He's made gaffes, but those aren't policy positions. The Republicans may be able to portray him as far-left, but those of us here that follow things more closely than the average voter should at least present some sort of evidence before presenting the same ole hackery.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 08:32 PM

dola

Cam: Is Ron Paul also left-wing? It may or may not be a good idea, but negotiating with Iran isn't left-wing or right-wing in any meaningful sense.

path12

05-08-2008, 08:39 PM

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

Was it left-wing when Nixon sat down with Brezhnev or Mao? Maybe it's just when proposed by a Democrat. ;)

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 08:58 PM

Was it left-wing when Nixon sat down with Brezhnev or Mao? Maybe it's just when proposed by a Democrat. ;)

Yes, actually. You do realize that in terms of left/right political terms, Nixon was not a rabid right-winger in many respects.

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 09:00 PM

dola

Cam: Is Ron Paul also left-wing? It may or may not be a good idea, but negotiating with Iran isn't left-wing or right-wing in any meaningful sense.

Would "outside the political mainstream" make you feel any better? And hasn't Ron Paul received some support from lefties, in part because of his foreign policy positions?

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 09:47 PM

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 09:49 PM

There's plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but this idea that he's far-left isn't backed up by any polling data.

Wait a minute...what does polling data have to do with whether his policy positions are left-wing or not? Those are fairly well static - they are either left-wing or not. What relevance does how well those positions poll have to whether they are left-wing, moderate, or right-wing positions? They are what they are, and people may or may not support them. That doesn't change the character of the positions themselves.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 10:03 PM

Wait a minute...what does polling data have to do with whether his policy positions are left-wing or not? Those are fairly well static - they are either left-wing or not. What relevance does how well those positions poll have to whether they are left-wing, moderate, or right-wing positions? They are what they are, and people may or may not support them. That doesn't change the character of the positions themselves.

Exactly. And my point was earlier a lot of moderates and conservatives liked him because they thought he was a moderate. They didn't realize he had left wing positions on many issues. He was kind of a black canvas for their hopes and he isn't that.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 10:03 PM

But left/right/center is constantly moving and the only real way to gauge what's far left or far right at any given moment is to compare it to the beliefs of the population at large. On the far extremes it probably never changes, but there are very few extreme ideas being discussed at the national level in the U.S.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 10:04 PM

Exactly. And my point was earlier a lot of moderates and conservatives liked him because they thought he was a moderate. They didn't realize he had left wing positions on many issues. He was kind of a black canvas for their hopes and he isn't that.

You keep making this point, but you aren't providing any evidence. Where's the proof that moderates are fleeing from Obama because they believe him to be far-left?

edit: If you can show some data, I'll believe it, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. A lot of the working class and older people he's having trouble with in the primaries are farther left politically than he is.

Noop

05-08-2008, 10:09 PM

Remember kids.

Right Wing.
Left Wing.
Same Bird.

Good Evening.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 10:09 PM

You keep making this point, but you aren't providing any evidence. Where's the proof that moderates are fleeing from Obama because they believe him to be far-left?

edit: If you can show some data, I'll believe it, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. A lot of the working class and older people he's having trouble with in the primaries are farther left politically than he is.

Look at his falling poll numbers against McCain. Right now in the polls Clinton does better against McCain than Obama! Back in Feb and March Obama was beating McCain by some good numbers. Now... it's a very small number of % points.

flere-imsaho

05-08-2008, 10:15 PM

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

So presumably Reagan was also left-wing.

Edit: Nixon sitting down with Brezhnev & Mao (separately, of course) and Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev are arguably two of the better foreign policy decisions since WWII. If that's considered left-wing, then I definitely think our foreign policy needs to be more left wing, especially after the past 8 years.

Young Drachma

05-08-2008, 10:16 PM

Clinton and sounding the dog whistle (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/124118/7190/790/511780)

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 10:17 PM

Ksyrup

05-08-2008, 10:21 PM

Clinton and sounding the dog whistle (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/124118/7190/790/511780)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Dem Party leaders are morons for letting her get this far and shit all over Obama and the party in general for some self-absorbed ego trip.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 10:25 PM

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being far-left. I get that you detest Obama, and he very well may lose to McCain, but throwing out these attacks as if there facts is beneath you.

Btw, you do realize that the only one to use the terms "far-left" were you, right?

I do have to ask, do you normally think in strawmen? ;)

And if this post was directed at me... I think his falling poll numbers against McCain indicates that a lot of moderates/conservatives who were contemplating voting for him based on his speeches about hope and optimism realized that he wasn't the moderate they thought he was, but was actually more left wing, and closer politically to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer than to Joe Libermann or others in the Gang of 14.

flere-imsaho

05-08-2008, 10:27 PM

Universal health care (which Obama speaks about, even though he's not demanding everyone gets it) is a left wing policy.

It's also pro-business. U.S. companies no longer having to pay for healthcare is now seen as a potentially serious competitive advantage.

As is increasing the capital gains tax (for fairness).

Depends how it's done. Anyway, Obama's just recommending bringing it back up to the level it was in the 90s. Didn't seem to hurt the economy then.

Amending NAFTA (and "fair trade agreements") is left wing.

Depends how they're done. Trade agreements should always be under scrutiny given changing global conditions of competitiveness.

Banning permanent replacements for striking workers is left wing.

I wasn't aware that was a campaign pledge. Linky?

A windfall profit tax on oil companies is left wing.

Nah, it's just pandering for votes. But so is offering to repeal the gas tax for the summer (McCain, Clinton).

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 10:34 PM

I wasn't aware that was a campaign pledge. Linky?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Under "Labor" (and then "Protect Striking Workers").

It's also pro-business. U.S. companies no longer having to pay for healthcare is now seen as a potentially serious competitive advantage.

Whether it be pro-business or not, the policy is seen as left wing by the general public.

Depends how it's done. Anyway, Obama's just recommending bringing it back up to the level it was in the 90s. Didn't seem to hurt the economy then.

There is a reason I added "(for fairness)". The comment seems to indicate that it may not matter if it adds revenue if its fair. That was one of the more interesting things to come out of that much maligned last debate.

Depends how they're done. Trade agreements should always be under scrutiny given changing global conditions of competitiveness.

Quite frankly, I'm an ardent free trader, so I'm not on board with that at all... but most of those interested in redoing NAFTA I think are probably on the left side of the spectrum (not saying some on the right aren't, but the business part of the party I don't think is in favor).

Nah, it's just pandering for votes.

Pandering can be one side of the spectrum or the other. Depends on who the candidate is pandering to.

CamEdwards

05-08-2008, 10:37 PM

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being far-left. I get that you detest Obama, and he very well may lose to McCain, but throwing out these attacks as if there facts is beneath you.

I don't have a link handy, but will continue to look for one, but on Tuesday night E.J. Dionne was on NPR talking about the exit poll results for Indiana and North Carolina. According to him, Obama's support went up the further left you went on the political spectrum. In other words, self-described "very liberal" voters were Obama's biggest supporters. Dionne himself called this a (paraphrase) troubling development or something like that.

Buccaneer

05-08-2008, 10:37 PM

I just find the whole left wing/ring-wing thing to be tedious at best and dishonest at worst. It allows people to not engage the argument by slapping a fairly meaningless label on it. I'm fine with you or anyone else disagreeing with negotiating with Iran as I think there's an interesting an valuable discussion to be had there. I don't, however, find any merit in saying he's a crazy left/right winger.

That doesn't mean I think we should all agree in some post partisan fantasyland. I just want everyone to take the time and effort to discuss the merits of positions as opposed to using tired attack language.

I also believe that it would help if people stop using terms like "far" left/right because they have no idea what they mean by that. In the grand scheme of things, no one has been elected that would be considered far left/right. And compared to many other nations, we're a nation of dead-on centrists.

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 10:37 PM

I think "how left-wing" implies he must be pretty far left, but I'll withdraw that if you like. I'll also agree he's not always close to Lieberman, but on some positions the voting record is closer than McCain's. That argument mostly boils down to Iraq and Iran where he's certainly far away from Lieberman. However, Obama's positions are also closer to the majority of Americans, so is it fair to categorize him as more left wing or is Lieberman more right wing?

As to polling numbers, yes he's lost ground, but nothing I've seen has him losing ground among independents, the closest category to moderate we have. Currently he's losing Democrats, some of which may fairly be described as moderate, but some of which are hard core liberals. Again, I'll believe you if you can provide data, but as of now I haven't seen any proof that Obama is losing moderates due to being left wing.

The you was a more collective you.

ISiddiqui

05-08-2008, 10:43 PM

Again, I'll believe you if you can provide data, but as of now I haven't seen any proof that Obama is losing moderates due to being left wing.

You are mischaracterizing the argument again. Obama losing moderates due to being more left wing that they first thought. Remember when people were complaining about his lack of substance? While it may have been on his website, he wasn't talking about issues all that much and the media wasn't focusing on them?

Well, I also remember people were talking about how a lot of Republicans and Moderates were saying they like Obama and that was showing how he'd be strong in the general. Of course a few people said wait until people find out about his issues.

I think his polling data head to head against McCain dropping from a clear lead in February and March to almost a dead heat now indicates the results of people finding out what he actually believes. As for comparison, Clinton and McCain have always been hovering around each other, which Clinton opening up a decent lead recently (for whatever reason).

JPhillips

05-08-2008, 10:52 PM

But what have they found out about his positions? They've heard a lot about Wright and lapel pins and what have you, but I heard very little about anybody's policy positions during the IN primary runup. At this point I don't think his policy positions have much to do with his problems. I always think the general is about likability and that's where his problem lies. In the end I think he'll prove more likable than McCain and win, but either way left wing policy positions won't have much to do with it.

Cam: I found some CNN exit polling that backs up what you're saying about IN, but in NC that trend doesn't hold as Obama won moderates and very conservative, but oddly lost conservative. Regardless the results in any one state don't mean much and the little comparison I've made to other states doesn't seem to show a trend.

Young Drachma

05-08-2008, 10:53 PM

From here (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2008/05/white-people-all-important-just.html)

Just a reminder, since everyone seems to be forgetting:

According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.

In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.

I'm not saying these are goals to aspire to. I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.

*****

And while we're talking about voting blocs: Since it's now an article of faith that Barack Obama will lose every voting bloc to Republican John McCain that he lost to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton by essentially the same margin, shouldn't we extend that rule to Clinton as well? Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?

Buccaneer

05-08-2008, 11:02 PM

The biggest difference between 1996/2000 and 2008 will be the 3rd-Party factor.

Vegas Vic

05-08-2008, 11:08 PM

Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?

A reasonable assumption would be that Clinton would get close to 90% of the votes of those blacks who showed up to vote. She would be severely hampered by losing the presumably large number of black votes from those who wouldn't even bother to show up.

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 08:24 AM

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

Yes. If everything else about Obama sat perfectly with me, this attitude by itself would make sure that I would oppose his election with all my heart.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Guess you're not much of a talker, huh?

path12

05-09-2008, 10:19 AM

Getting back to the Nixon meeting with both Russia and China example, I think my point is that it proved to be a good idea. It led to increased suspicion between two of our enemies, plus led to the first SALT treaty.

I have no idea where it became a bad idea to talk to enemies. Certainly not during the Cold War where it helped to have that red phone around during the numerous false alarms.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" has somehow metamorphed into "We'll do exactly what we want". That's not an improvement in my opinion.

What do you think Obama plans to do in talking with enemies -- offer them Cleveland?

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 10:29 AM

I think my point of view is more subtle than that. When I listen to what Obama says about foreign policy, to me it sounds like: "I will make the US just another country in the UN. We will not be leaders, we will be followers."

I do not hear that from Clinton or McCain, and I did not hear that from John Kerry. I am not of the opinion that we should "obliterate" Iran (indeed, I have argued against the use of force in Iran in other threads) - I am of the opinion that Iran (for example) will not play nice if they think we are not both able to and willing to punch them in the mouth if their behavior is unacceptable.

chesapeake

05-09-2008, 10:33 AM

A new Diageo/Hotline poll of Dem LVs, taken 4/30-5/3, shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 48-37%. The previous poll, completed 3/31, showed Obama leading HRC 50-38%. In general election matchups, Obama leads John McCain 47-43% and HRC leads McCain 46-43% (release).

Obama's poll numbers are picking back up as 1) the Wright controversy recedes, and 2) he solidified his hold on the Democratic nomination.

His numbers will go up even more after HRC's "White Americans" comment yesterday. What a stupid thing to say.

I'll reiterate the point about money, because I think it is being entirely overlooked. Obama and the Democrats have a commanding financial advantage over McCain and the GOP, and that gap is widening, not shrinking, as each fundraising report comes out. You can be the greatest candidate ever, which McCain most certainly isn't, and if you don't have the money to get your message out, you will lose. Usually badly.

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 10:36 AM

McCain was badly underfunded in the Republican primary, too, and won easily. Just sayin'.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 10:37 AM

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger.

Sorry, don't agree with that even a little bit. Corollary to my above post is that I think the most troubling temptation for America is the tendency to isolationism, both in terms of foreign policy and trade policy.

chesapeake

05-09-2008, 10:47 AM

I think my point of view is more subtle than that. When I listen to what Obama says about foreign policy, to me it sounds like: "I will make the US just another country in the UN. We will not be leaders, we will be followers."

If this is what you are hearing, then Obama needs to do a better job of explaining himself, because that is not what he is saying. This is what he has said is his policy on the use of force:

"No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."

More from the same speech:

"In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community - with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option."

I find this very tough to argue with, especially when put up against McCain's endorsement of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive, unilateral strikes against perceived threats, as eveidenced through the Senator's voting record and public comments.

chesapeake

05-09-2008, 11:11 AM

McCain was badly underfunded in the Republican primary, too, and won easily. Just sayin'.

If it all comes down to driving around small states like New Hampshire and South Carolina in the Straight Talk Express, then I'm with you. But it won't. You can do the early primaries on a shoestring because face-to-face meetings with the candidate are how you get votes.

But in the general election, the candidate may be able to make 3 or 4 trips to Ohio, tops. And that comes at the expense of other states you need to campaign in.

You get your message out with ads. And if the battleground states turn out to be MI, PA, OH, FL or NJ, those ads will have to be bought in some of the most expensive media markets in the country. Under the law, politicians do get cut rates to a certain extent, but not that much of a cut rate.

Since the parties started breaking out of the public financing system, no Republican candidate has been elected to the Presidency without substantially outspending his Democratic opponent. Which is unsurprising, I suppose, because no Republican presidential candidate has every been outspent, and rarely is it close.

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 11:19 AM

Well, we'll see. I really don't have a feel for what will happen in the GE.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 11:49 AM

Do you really think that given our history and military power, ANY country in the world thinks we're not willing and able to kill massive amounts of people whenever we please?

Given that, why would Iran or any other country mess with us if we didn't do something to piss them off to begin with? Leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger.

I'm cribbing shamelessly from Mark Steyn here, but there's a quote from Osama bin Laden, from shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.

To answer your first question... I think there are plenty of countries (as well as non-state actors) who believe we are increasingly incapable of killing "massive amounts of people".

Are we capable of Dresden these days? Are we capable of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we capable of leveling Tehran and salting the earth, even AFTER an attack on our soil?

Since WWII we've waged oxymoronic "nice wars". Hell, even "Shock and Awe" was designed to showcase our military might without actually using it in a way to terrify our enemies into submission.

So you believe that we're acting like the strong horse right now, with our "bigger guns" and whatnot? I think compared to our enemies, we're looking increasingly feeble.

Your statement is also predicated on your belief that people in power are ultimately good people. Given the madmen and tyrants (petty or otherwise) that have been in power across the globe over just the past 50 years, it's a statement that's naive at best.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 11:51 AM

If it all comes down to driving around small states like New Hampshire and South Carolina in the Straight Talk Express, then I'm with you. But it won't. You can do the early primaries on a shoestring because face-to-face meetings with the candidate are how you get votes.

But in the general election, the candidate may be able to make 3 or 4 trips to Ohio, tops. And that comes at the expense of other states you need to campaign in.

You get your message out with ads. And if the battleground states turn out to be MI, PA, OH, FL or NJ, those ads will have to be bought in some of the most expensive media markets in the country. Under the law, politicians do get cut rates to a certain extent, but not that much of a cut rate.

Since the parties started breaking out of the public financing system, no Republican candidate has been elected to the Presidency without substantially outspending his Democratic opponent. Which is unsurprising, I suppose, because no Republican presidential candidate has every been outspent, and rarely is it close.

But Obama's a man of his word, and not a typical politician... right? So I'm sure he'll stick with his promise to use the public financing system if his opponent agrees to do the same. Since McCain's already agreed to do so, that should negate his financial advantage, right? ;)

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 11:53 AM

But Obama's a man of his word, and not a typical politician... right? So I'm sure he'll stick with his promise to use the public financing system if his opponent agrees to do the same. Since McCain's already agreed to do so, that should negate his financial advantage, right? ;)

Quite the comedian, Cam. :)

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 11:57 AM

I thought I read somewhere that Obama has already backed away from that promise, saying something like "it would be really stupid not to use every advantage I have."

-apoc-

05-09-2008, 12:05 PM

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 12:16 PM

You're right, that's totally different.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 12:21 PM

If this is what you are hearing, then Obama needs to do a better job of explaining himself, because that is not what he is saying. This is what he has said is his policy on the use of force:

"No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."

More from the same speech:

"In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community - with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option."

I find this very tough to argue with, especially when put up against McCain's endorsement of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive, unilateral strikes against perceived threats, as eveidenced through the Senator's voting record and public comments.

I don't find this difficult to argue with, but again I'm going to have to crib from Mark Steyn.

We need "muscular alliances". Where do these muscular alliances come from? England, where the Archbishop of Canterbury says England should embrace sharia law? France, where Muslim youth riot, burn cars, attack police, etc. on issues NOT related to declaring war on an Islamic country?

You are assuming our traditional European allies have drifted away from us because of our "imperial arrogance", rather than their own self-interest. In "enlightened democracies" we tend to kowtow to those on the fringe. Look at Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, etc. on the left and Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. on the right. You won't find Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson in Europe. You'll find Mullah Chaudri, Mullah Krekar, and Dyab Abou Jahjah. Are these individuals representative of all Muslims in Europe? No more than Jesse Jackson represents all black Americans, or Pat Robertson represents all Christians in the United States. Yet they still exert influence over our politics the same way fringe Muslims do in Europe.

In my opinion, Obama's failure to both recognize this and present it to the American people is foolish and shortsighted. It does not make me confident that he is prepared to deal with the threats the United States will face over the next decade.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 12:23 PM

I'm cribbing shamelessly from Mark Steyn here, but there's a quote from Osama bin Laden, from shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

To answer your first question... I think there are plenty of countries (as well as non-state actors) who believe we are increasingly incapable of killing "massive amounts of people".

Are we capable of Dresden these days? Are we capable of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we capable of leveling Tehran and salting the earth, even AFTER an attack on our soil?

Since WWII we've waged oxymoronic "nice wars". Hell, even "Shock and Awe" was designed to showcase our military might without actually using it in a way to terrify our enemies into submission.

So you believe that we're acting like the strong horse right now, with our "bigger guns" and whatnot? I think compared to our enemies, we're looking increasingly feeble.

Your statement is also predicated on your belief that people in power are ultimately good people. Given the madmen and tyrants (petty or otherwise) that have been in power across the globe over just the past 50 years, it's a statement that's naive at best.

None of your assumptions are correct. I asked (rhetorically) who doesn't think we're capable of killing massive amounts of people.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 12:25 PM

We need "muscular alliances".

Why?

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 12:29 PM

I am going to say this one more time and I will use caps to maybe get the point across though I doubt the people spouting this care.

OBAMA NEVER MADE A PROMISE TO USE PUBLIC FINANCING!!!!!!!

This is the document in question

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

This is what he said

Now if he doesnt attempt to pursue an aggreement with McCain then you can start bemoaning his breaking of his word until then please stop reapeating talking points.

Talking points? Give me a freaking break.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html

The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows:

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

st.cronin

05-09-2008, 12:29 PM

Foo Fighter, that's Obama's quote, not Cams.

JonInMiddleGA

05-09-2008, 12:34 PM

Under the law, politicians do get cut rates to a certain extent, but not that much of a cut rate.

Actually it can be an extremely cut rate (although stations have gotten smarter through the years at limiting the impact) ... but that isn't at all the same as saying "cheap" either.

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 12:35 PM

I think we can all agree that our current foreign policy is working so well that we shouldn't change it.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 12:40 PM

None of your assumptions are correct. I asked (rhetorically) who doesn't think we're capable of killing massive amounts of people.

Actually, you said:

Do you really think that given our history and military power, ANY country in the world thinks we're not willing and able to kill massive amounts of people whenever we please?

Given that, why would Iran or any other country mess with us if we didn't do something to piss them off to begin with? Leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger.

You might not like the answer you received, but I did answer your question.

Sorry for assuming your statement of "leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger" was based in some sort of belief in the inherent goodness of people. Do you mind telling me why you think our enemies will leave us alone then? Is it predicated on the idea that they fear us? If so, what reason have we given them to fear our response, and what has Obama said that makes you think he'd respond aggressively to a threat or an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests?

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 12:48 PM

threat or an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests

What constitutes a threat and what constitutes US interests? Any President will respond aggressively to an attack on the US, but the whole point is that we shouldn't be attacking threats unless it's our last option. It's a renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 01:01 PM

What constitutes a threat and what constitutes US interests? Any President will respond aggressively to an attack on the US, but the whole point is that we shouldn't be attacking threats unless it's our last option. It's a renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war.

I see. So basically Obama's stance is "You get the first punch, but we'll hit you back"?

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 01:08 PM

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 01:21 PM

Cam: This won't get us anywhere, so why don't we just end it here. You know full well that's not at all what Obama said, but you're going to do your best to get in as many shots as possible. If you want to seriously discuss what constitutes threats and US interests I'm all for it. If this is just a game to throw smears at each other and the candidates I'll cede to you the field.

Actually, I really wasn't trying to "get in a shot". I'm honestly trying to figure out what you mean by a renunciation of the doctrine of preemptive war. "Threats" and "U.S. interests" will mean different things to different people, and ultimately it won't matter what I think constitutes a threat to a U.S. interest. It's up to the president, and I'm not in the running.

So having a debate over that seems pointless, but trying to figure out what Obama's policy actually means doesn't seem pointless, if that makes sense.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 01:33 PM

Do you mind telling me why you think our enemies will leave us alone then? Is it predicated on the idea that they fear us?

If we didn't have a military base in every other country in the world, why would anyone give a shit about us other than economically? We used to have a miltary base in Lebanon. Whatever terrorist group it was didn't want us there and they bombed our barracks. Reagan ordered us out. No more attacks.

How come Switzerland wasn't invaded during WWII when everyone else was? Self defense is essential. Fucking with the rest of the world under the guise of "interests" is not.

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 01:36 PM

But you know full well your quip about Obama was a cheapshot. Look at what he said in the above quoted passage,

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.

The big difference is that the bar for preventive action will likely be raised and the need to get strong international support will be emphasized. IMO it reads much like Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We didn't hesitate to act, but we had strong international backing. In Korea we also acted, but we had strong international backing. I know you can point to a whole host of countries that supported us in Iraq, but we quite consciously went with a needlessly belligerent attitude towards those that had questions about our actions. Most foolishly, we wouldn't consider waiting for 30 days when a host of smaller countries asked for that, so instead of marginalizing those against us we dismissed a host of countries that could have been persuaded to help us. IMO it's that sort of mistake that Obama's talking about.

As to when he might attack before being attacked first? I don't know, but I'd bet it would be in line with the actions of most of our country's Presidents of varying political stripes. The doctrine of preventive war is a recent construct and IMO it hasn't served us very well.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 01:53 PM

But you know full well your quip about Obama was a cheapshot. Look at what he said in the above quoted passage,

The big difference is that the bar for preventive action will likely be raised and the need to get strong international support will be emphasized. IMO it reads much like Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We didn't hesitate to act, but we had strong international backing. In Korea we also acted, but we had strong international backing. I know you can point to a whole host of countries that supported us in Iraq, but we quite consciously went with a needlessly belligerent attitude towards those that had questions about our actions. Most foolishly, we wouldn't consider waiting for 30 days when a host of smaller countries asked for that, so instead of marginalizing those against us we dismissed a host of countries that could have been persuaded to help us. IMO it's that sort of mistake that Obama's talking about.

As to when he might attack before being attacked first? I don't know, but I'd bet it would be in line with the actions of most of our country's Presidents of varying political stripes. The doctrine of preventive war is a recent construct and IMO it hasn't served us very well.

No, it wasn't a cheap shot. It was an honestly asked question, but if you want to believe otherwise I'm not going to expend any more energy trying to satisfy you otherwise.

And actually, I won't point to the countries that supported us in Iraq, because I believe that in our future actions, we're likely to have less support (for the demographic reasons I pointed out on the last page) no matter who's in charge. If the need for international support is emphasized more than it is now, I view that as a mistake, because I don't believe our traditional allies will be in a position to support us against enemies like Iran. I think Obama's position is foolish and not based on the demographic reality of our allies.

I do appreciate the articulation of what you believe Obama's statements to mean though.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 02:06 PM

If we didn't have a military base in every other country in the world, why would anyone give a shit about us other than economically? We used to have a miltary base in Lebanon. Whatever terrorist group it was didn't want us there and they bombed our barracks. Reagan ordered us out. No more attacks.

How come Switzerland wasn't invaded during WWII when everyone else was? Self defense is essential. Fucking with the rest of the world under the guise of "interests" is not.

The bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut are thought to be the work of Hezbollah, with the backing of Iran. Yes, we haven't had any more trouble with Iran or Hezbollah since then.

The U.S. forces in Beirut were also a part of a multi-national force. Along with the U.S. forces who were killed, more than 50 French soldiers were killed.

These bombings took place a few months after the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed.

Are you suggesting we refuse to take part in any multi-national or international peacekeeping operations? How about our embassies? Should we shut them down in addition to our military bases? And most importantly, do you seriously believe Barack Obama subscribes to even 1% of your views?

As for the Swiss and WWII, I would encourage you to read Stephen Halbrook's "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in WWII". Self-defense IS important for a country. One might wonder why Barack Obama refuses to ever talk about the self-defense aspects inherent in the 2nd Amendment, given that the Swiss militia system was one of the key reasons why Germany never invaded. But I digress.

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 02:20 PM

That would be a great campaign event, "The Swiss militia system and the self-defense aspects of the 2nd amendment." That'll get the donations pouring in!

I don't believe Iran is that great a threat. They're certainly behind a resurgent Russia and China in relation of long-term threats. Iran is more of a nuisance than an actual strategic threat. Even if they develop a nuke, which we should work to curtail, they still won't have anywhere near the power of the dominant military force in the region, Israel. I believe that we're focused to tightly on Iraq/Iran while allowing greater threats the freedom of unopposed actions.

I also don't buy Steyn's idea that we're almost besieged by radical Islam. His worldview leaves only military action as a way to achieve our goals and doesn't take into account the reality that our actions have consequences. Perhaps in fifty or one-hundred years things will be different, but it's foolish to argue that right now we can't count on European allies because of the influence of radical Islam on those nation's leaders.

Ksyrup

05-09-2008, 02:28 PM

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 02:41 PM

The bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut are thought to be the work of Hezbollah, with the backing of Iran. Yes, we haven't had any more trouble with Iran or Hezbollah since then.

So then why for the love of God are we starting shit with Iran?

Are you suggesting we refuse to take part in any multi-national or international peacekeeping operations? How about our embassies? Should we shut them down in addition to our military bases? And most importantly, do you seriously believe Barack Obama subscribes to even 1% of your views?

What do peacekeeping and embassies have to do with anything? Way to keep the conversation focused. If two people can't agree on 1% of something, they're not trying.

TroyF

05-09-2008, 02:49 PM

Good sign for Obama...I've seen the same article get revised twice today - first time, the article said he picked up 3 superdelegates; second said he had 5; now he's at 6. Clinton's superdelegates lead is down to 271.5-269.

By Monday, she may not even have the "and I'm leading in superdelegates" argument to make anymore.


At least one of those was a defection from Clinton too.

I expected some dems would try to commit and push her out as quickly as possible. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see a flood of them pour in over the next week to two weeks.

Ksyrup

05-09-2008, 03:02 PM

I don't know why the discrepancy in numbers, but ABC News is actually saying he's taken the lead, 267-266.

JonInMiddleGA

05-09-2008, 03:33 PM

I don't know why the discrepancy in numbers, but ABC News is actually saying he's taken the lead, 267-266.

I think the difference is that at least some sources are now reporting as many as 9 switches today ... but now I notice that those numbers are actually a lower total than the earlier one, not just a different distribution.

Maybe different news organizations are using different sources for their count?

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 03:41 PM

So then why for the love of God are we starting shit with Iran?

Events don't occur in a vacuum. The government of Iran has the same underlying ideology now that it did in the 1980's. The current tension with Iran is not anything new. It's been in place since the Shah was overthrown. I'm not even sure what you mean by "starting shit with Iran", so perhaps you could provide some examples.

What do peacekeeping and embassies have to do with anything? Way to keep the conversation focused. If two people can't agree on 1% of something, they're not trying.

For this, I'm gonna have to quote you.

We used to have a miltary base in Lebanon. Whatever terrorist group it was didn't want us there and they bombed our barracks. Reagan ordered us out. No more attacks.

We did not have a military base in Lebanon. We were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Months before the barracks that housed our Marines were attacked, our U.S. Embassy in Beirut was also attacked, which also was part of the decision to remove our forces from Lebanon.

If you're going to argue, at least argue from some position based in fact. Otherwise I'm going to start introducing unicorns and ogres to the mix.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 04:06 PM

That would be a great campaign event, "The Swiss militia system and the self-defense aspects of the 2nd amendment." That'll get the donations pouring in!

JPhillips: This won't get us anywhere, so why don't we just end it here. You know full well that's not at all what I said, but you're going to do your best to get in as many shots as possible. If you want to... hang on... got a little sand in my vagina...

*scratch scratch*

Ah, that's better. :p

Seriously, to indulge in my digression for a moment, Obama's done a heckuva job talking about the 2nd Amendment rights of hunters, sport shooters, even gun collectors. But because of Chicago's handgun ban, he's never ONCE mentioned the self-defensive aspect of the 2nd Amendment. He's never given an opinion on the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. He's said he hasn't read the briefs, and he told the Chicago Sun-Times that he doesn't like taking a stand on pending cases before the Supreme Court. Of course that didn't stop him from signing onto a Supreme Court amicus brief in the Indiana voter ID case...

I don't believe Iran is that great a threat. They're certainly behind a resurgent Russia and China in relation of long-term threats. Iran is more of a nuisance than an actual strategic threat. Even if they develop a nuke, which we should work to curtail, they still won't have anywhere near the power of the dominant military force in the region, Israel. I believe that we're focused to tightly on Iraq/Iran while allowing greater threats the freedom of unopposed actions.

I'd disagree with you regarding a resurgent Russia. I think we're far more likely to see the implosion of Russia within the next two decades, and the fracturing long before that.

I also don't buy Steyn's idea that we're almost besieged by radical Islam. His worldview leaves only military action as a way to achieve our goals and doesn't take into account the reality that our actions have consequences. Perhaps in fifty or one-hundred years things will be different, but it's foolish to argue that right now we can't count on European allies because of the influence of radical Islam on those nation's leaders.

You might want to talk to Jose Aznar and see how he feels about your position. Granted, he might be more concerned about the influence of radical Islam on voters in a country that just suffered a terrorist attack.

It's more than just radical Islam, btw. As I said before, not every Christian American thinks Pat Robertson speaks for him. But you can't argue that Robertson and the religious right have an influence in this country's political system, even though they only reflect the views of a select part of one demographic.

I think it's human nature that the same holds true in Europe. The most popular baby name in Belgium right now is Mohammed. It's the second most popular name in England (if you count all the variations of the name). In Amsterdam, 24% of the population is Muslim. In Stockholm, it's 20%. London, 17%. In other words, the Muslim population is large enough that politicians would be stupid to ignore them. Throw in the fact that moderate or liberal Muslim voices are often drowned out by extremists and it's not illogical to see how this demographic is already influencing foreign and domestic policy in many European nations.

Fighter of Foo

05-09-2008, 04:16 PM

Events don't occur in a vacuum. The government of Iran has the same underlying ideology now that it did in the 1980's. The current tension with Iran is not anything new. It's been in place since the Shah was overthrown. I'm not even sure what you mean by "starting shit with Iran", so perhaps you could provide some examples.

We did not have a military base in Lebanon. We were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Months before the barracks that housed our Marines were attacked, our U.S. Embassy in Beirut was also attacked, which also was part of the decision to remove our forces from Lebanon.

If you're going to argue, at least argue from some position based in fact. Otherwise I'm going to start introducing unicorns and ogres to the mix.

By starting hit with Iran I'm referring to the Kyl Lieberman resolution and all of the pols saying, "all options are on the table." You know this.

As far as Lebanon, I have no interest in semantics. We were over there. You know this too.

If you're going to argue, do so. If not, have fun with your unicorns.

chesapeake

05-09-2008, 04:35 PM

Actually, I really wasn't trying to "get in a shot". I'm honestly trying to figure out what you mean by a renunciation of the doctrine of preemptive war. "Threats" and "U.S. interests" will mean different things to different people, and ultimately it won't matter what I think constitutes a threat to a U.S. interest. It's up to the president, and I'm not in the running.

So having a debate over that seems pointless, but trying to figure out what Obama's policy actually means doesn't seem pointless, if that makes sense.

I think this is an excellent question, really, and I expect it will be asked of him in one of his debates against McCain. It sure as heck should be, at least. Both candidates should be required to express what kinds of threats may lead them to engage the military.

The same kind of question should be asked of McCain as well. Since he has expressed support of preemptive military action, and voted for it in Iraq, voters should have some idea whether he would do so again and under what circumstances.

I happen to believe that this works out strongly in Obama's favor, but I respect that others will think differently.

chesapeake

05-09-2008, 04:38 PM

I see. So basically Obama's stance is "You get the first punch, but we'll hit you back"?

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2008, 04:51 PM

You might want to talk to Jose Aznar and see how he feels about your position. Granted, he might be more concerned about the influence of radical Islam on voters in a country that just suffered a terrorist attack.

Actually you may wish to talk to Aznar about what happens when you blatently lie about things. The reason he was voted out wasn't because of the Madrid bombings, but because he blamed them on ETA, even though he KNEW they didn't do it. When that got out, he was done. He blatantly lied about a terrorist attack for political gain.

Dutch

05-09-2008, 05:06 PM

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

Well, to be fair, the Taliban "punched" us first. And Saddam ignored the 1991 cease-fire agreement*, under Clinton and Bush. Saddam did so almost daily before we finally "punched" back.

Western planes patrol two "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq and regularly come under fire from Iraqi defences.

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1511540.stm

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 05:21 PM

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

To be fair, it's become a helluva lot easier to throw a punch in the past 225 years. Isolationism's easy when it's actually possible to be isolated.

There's also a difference between picking fights and using preemptive force. Do we require our police officers to shoot everyone they stop for a traffic violation? Of course not. But we also don't insist that they take a bullet before they can shoot at someone who poses a threat to them.

If we wouldn't expect it to be a good policy for the individual police officer or soldier, why on earth would it be a good policy for a military?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2008, 05:22 PM

The no-fly zones, however, were NOT listed under the cease-fire agreement. So one can argue that countries that did those flyovers were violating the cease-fire agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688) as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutros_Boutros-Ghali) called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger)[1] (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3106)[2] (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=308).

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 07:04 PM

Cam: But we wouldn't find it acceptable if police officers started shooting people because they believed they had the capacity to get a gun and fire it.

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 07:30 PM

Cam: But we wouldn't find it acceptable if police officers started shooting people because they believed they had the capacity to get a gun and fire it.

That's true, and it wasn't what I was suggesting. I have a feeling we're mere sentences away from my metaphor awkwardly breaking down, but I'll give it a go regardless. :)

We know there's a gun. Let's (for the sake of the increasingly strained metaphor) say that the gun is on a table in the room with the police officer and the individual. The gun may even be in another room. Regardless, we know there's a gun. We know it's not a good thing for the individual to get the gun.

The officer may not shoot the suspect, but he most certainly doesn't allow him to saunter over to the table and pick up the gun, all the while telling the officer he's not going to do anything bad with it. Remember, this is a guy with a rap sheet (is the metaphor getting ridiculous yet?). We know he's responsible for violent crimes in the past. You don't let him get the gun, and yes, at some point that means you will have to physically use the tools at your disposal to prevent him from doing so.

JPhillips

05-09-2008, 07:47 PM

But the problem is we don't know whether or not the gun is there.

Of course if the gun were really an extremely dangerous badger...

CamEdwards

05-09-2008, 07:55 PM

But the problem is we don't know whether or not the gun is there.

Of course if the gun were really an extremely dangerous badger...

LOL.

I started to continue the analogy, but it's just getting silly. I don't know if I'll have time to visit this thread again until Monday, but thanks for the fun debate today.

Dutch

05-10-2008, 01:44 AM

The no-fly zones, however, were NOT listed under the cease-fire agreement. So one can argue that countries that did those flyovers were violating the cease-fire agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

The United Nations violated the cease-fire agreement by flying humanitarian air coverage? That's funny coming from somebody that insists the UN governs all wars.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 09:25 AM

I don't have a link handy, but will continue to look for one, but on Tuesday night E.J. Dionne was on NPR talking about the exit poll results for Indiana and North Carolina.

Probably All Things Considered on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, NPR doesn't do transcripts a lot (for free), but they usually post ATC on the website in streaming format, broken down by section. The usual Q&A with David Brooks & A.J. Dionne is probably its own section.

According to him, Obama's support went up the further left you went on the political spectrum. In other words, self-described "very liberal" voters were Obama's biggest supporters. Dionne himself called this a (paraphrase) troubling development or something like that.

Again, let's wait until the nomination is resolved. Right now the makeup of Obama's support is skewed due to Clinton.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 09:28 AM

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 09:40 AM

England, where the Archbishop of Canterbury says England should embrace sharia law?

Here's what he actually said:

Williams, speaking to the BBC, said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their laws in Britain and he called for a "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.

And here's what Gordon Brown said:

In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said: "There are instances where the government has made changes in regulations, for example to include sharia-compliant mortgage products, but in general terms, sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of sharia law be used in a civilian court."

If that's what "embrace" means to you, then I submit that you "embrace" gun control laws merely because of the fact of their existence.

In "enlightened democracies" we tend to kowtow to those on the fringe.

I don't agree with this. We perhaps allow them to get more media coverage than they should, and their surrogates in Congress often get them money they shouldn't, but we don't direct our policy efforts specifically to address their views.

And this doesn't happen in Europe, either.

Look at Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, etc. on the left and Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. on the right. You won't find Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson in Europe. You'll find Mullah Chaudri, Mullah Krekar, and Dyab Abou Jahjah.

You'll also find that European politics are influenced by a wide array of non-Muslim radicals, be they separatists, religious fundamentalists, far right-wingers, far left-wingers, etc.... Why do you only mention the Muslims, Cam? Does your argument lack weight without the presence of the Muslim Bogeyman?

ISiddiqui

05-10-2008, 09:47 AM

The United Nations violated the cease-fire agreement by flying humanitarian air coverage? That's funny coming from somebody that insists the UN governs all wars.

Huh? How many strawmen can we count here? ;)

The United Nations, if approved under the Security Council can violate state soveriegnty. Hence approval to invade Iraq to get them out of Kuwait. On the other hand, declaring that a state cannot fly aircraft in its own country without any basis in a cease fire agreement or a SC resolution can't really be legally justified (it can be power justified, and that's what we basically used... if we really wanted it, should have put in the cease fire agreement).

The no fly zones were not enforced by the UN... but by the US, UK, and France.

Now, if China decided that they should fly over parts of the US for "humanitarian reasons" without UN approval or in a treaty agreement, we'd be crying bloody murder.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 10:16 AM

The idea that the U.S. should engage in extremely unilateral foreign policy simply because we can't trust any other countries is the lazy man's foreign policy. Just because it's easy to soundbite and plays well on talk radio doesn't mean it's a great solution.

We used to have diplomats and statesmen in this country who worked long and hard to navigate the international diplomatic waters to put our nation in the best possible positions on any number of fronts (military, economic, political, etc...). We've now been reduced to these organizations being led by a bunch of zero-sum neocons who want the world remade in the U.S.'s image, or otherwise blown up.

This is exactly where we got the facile "you're either with us, or against us" explanation of U.S. foreign policy - a concept which neglects to recognize that the world is not black-and-white, it is gray. A policy which does nothing but a) make enemies and b) paint us into corners.

It limits our options, but it does allow neocon administration officials to take long lunches and get home from work early. After all, they've pushed the real work resulting from this policy to the military, which now has to deal with all of our new enemies.

Some of you need to realize that this experiment is over. It failed. It's now time to get back to work, man the phones, press the flesh, and start building relations, alliances and bridges in the world again - a multi-faced foreign policy that seeks to promote our interests in any way that's viable, makes use of all the tools at our disposal, and can work.

JonInMiddleGA

05-10-2008, 10:27 AM

It failed.

Perhaps.

But given the lack of resolve, character, intelligence, judgement, and common sense in the U.S. at large today, it seems it (and virtually any policy really) was doomed through no fault endemic to the policy itself. We seem to lack the ability to avoid sabotaging pretty much anything we try to do at this point, simply through the weaknesses within.

st.cronin

05-10-2008, 10:40 AM

Flere,

The failures of the administration are failures of execution, not necessarily failures of philosophy. At any rate, I don't think anybody thinks diplomacy is useless or a bad idea. I also confess that McCain's foreign policy philosophy is not particularly articulated or well understood. But the international community simply is not capable of working in a collective, communal way - there is a need for leadership, and that need will be filled by somebody. Because of the US's peculiar qualities (governed by a document which emphasizes individual freedom and individual happiness, for example), I believe the world (and, of course, the US) is better off if the US takes a strong leadership position in the international community.

This is not the same point of view which you are describing and condemning in your post. It may be that McCain doesn't have the vision and ability to execute this vision, but the fact that Obama seems to reject it is extremely troubling to me.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 11:39 AM

Some of you need to realize that this experiment is over. It failed. It's now time to get back to work, man the phones, press the flesh, and start building relations, alliances and bridges in the world again - a multi-faced foreign policy that seeks to promote our interests in any way that's viable, makes use of all the tools at our disposal, and can work.

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

Terrorism is by its very nature the enemy of civilization, and in dealing with nations who refuse to recognize that there is only so far that diplomacy is going to be able to go. There is a fundamental difference of worldview. If we act in an appropriately aggressive way to stamp out terrorism we are going to make a lot of enemies. The question is whether that is an appropriate thing to do and whether or not it is better than the alternative -- I say yes on both counts simply because I've never heard any reasonable alternative(and this is an important enough issue that I considered voting for Kerry in '04, but couldn't because of what I saw as the absolute bankruptcy of his position on the matter).

As has been mentioned there have been failures of execution. The Iraq War was sold horribly, and for some of the wrong reasons. It was executed even worse in some aspects after the initial invasion. As a result we have a mess, but not IMO a worse mess than we would have had if we hadn't done it to begin with and certainly not a worse mess than hiding in America and pretending a modern free society can depend on the oceans to protect us.

DaddyTorgo

05-10-2008, 12:40 PM

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

Terrorism is by its very nature the enemy of civilization, and in dealing with nations who refuse to recognize that there is only so far that diplomacy is going to be able to go. There is a fundamental difference of worldview. If we act in an appropriately aggressive way to stamp out terrorism we are going to make a lot of enemies. The question is whether that is an appropriate thing to do and whether or not it is better than the alternative -- I say yes on both counts simply because I've never heard any reasonable alternative(and this is an important enough issue that I considered voting for Kerry in '04, but couldn't because of what I saw as the absolute bankruptcy of his position on the matter).

As has been mentioned there have been failures of execution. The Iraq War was sold horribly, and for some of the wrong reasons. It was executed even worse in some aspects after the initial invasion. As a result we have a mess, but not IMO a worse mess than we would have had if we hadn't done it to begin with and certainly not a worse mess than hiding in America and pretending a modern free society can depend on the oceans to protect us. 

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

Buccaneer

05-10-2008, 12:51 PM

What constitutes a threat and what constitutes US interests? Any President will respond aggressively to an attack on the US, but the whole point is that we shouldn't be attacking threats unless it's our last option. It's a renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war.

Now left-leaning time.com is advocating invading Myanmar wihout provocation so we can get relief supplies there?

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 12:53 PM

The failures of the administration are failures of execution, not necessarily failures of philosophy.

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

Furthermore, the neocon idea that one should sow Western Democracy at the point of a gun, and that once sown, it will spread in any region, including the Middle East, is fanciful at best.

At any rate, I don't think anybody thinks diplomacy is useless or a bad idea.

I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.

But the international community simply is not capable of working in a collective, communal way - there is a need for leadership, and that need will be filled by somebody. Because of the US's peculiar qualities (governed by a document which emphasizes individual freedom and individual happiness, for example), I believe the world (and, of course, the US) is better off if the US takes a strong leadership position in the international community.

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years and to me, this is the path upon which McCain wants to keep us.

JPhillips

05-10-2008, 01:02 PM

Buc: Left-leaning? Who exactly is left-leaning at Time? As for Burma I'd like to encourage the French to act and we can support with naval/air forces if necessary. As long as we stay within 50 miles or so of the coast I don't think the ruling junta will risk a shooting war.

Brian: What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.

Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

flere-imsaho

05-10-2008, 01:08 PM

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

This is an overly simplistic view.

Public opinion is not "basically pacificistic" on the subject of terrorism worldwide, it is very conflicted.

We do not have only the choices of "acting" or "surrendering".

This is exactly the problem we have in this country.

The War on Terror is a propaganda war. The Islamic Terrorists (and let's not kid ourselves, that's the only kind of terrorist we're talking about here) rely upon their constituents, from financiers to suicide bombers, to believe that they are fighting the good fight against evil and corrupt regimes. If we act in a manner that can be construed to be evil or corrupt (and sadly the history of the invasion of Iraq is now full of examples), we're just doing their job for them.

Ever since the U.S. stopped overtly messing with Middle East politics in 1979 with the fall of the Shah, anyone who has studied the region (and been there) will tell you that slowly but surely moderate elements have sprung up, and interest in, and adoption of, Western and free market ideas and ideals gradually increased. Until 2002.

Since 2002 all of these moderate elements have suffered setbacks. Regimes in the Middle East that were formerly good allies of the U.S. have had to get more radical to appease their radicalized populaces. This is the result of an overt, unilateral and aggressive foreign policy.

We need to get back to what won us the propaganda war against Communism. Let backwards regimes flounder. Give back-channel help to moderate and modernizing regimes. Give behind-the-scenes help to moderate elements in opposing client states. Work diplomatically to open up cracks in opposition states through which our free market tendrils can work.

This was working. The bin laden family used to help the U.S. Government keep tabs on their estranged family member. Now he's probably in Pakistan where no one's inclined to turn him in. Moderate elements used to be gaining some representation in various ME countries (notably Iran). Now they're mostly on the run.

This is what we need to be doing and this is what our foreign policy needs to be able. Always-changing, always-adapting. Not a 21st century crusade, because we'll just lose that battle, like every empire before us has.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 01:14 PM

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

I'm overlooking nothing, and I'm not ignorant, so you're 0-for-2 there. It's a lot more complicated than simply asking whether Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussein were allies. He was funding Palestinian suicide bombers against an American ally(Israel, war by proxy). He was flaunting the UN inspections regime. Iraq was a source of instability in the region of the world where Islamic terrorism flourishes. It's not difficult to imagine how the impact of allowing a regime like that to continue to exist promotes terrorism, and how removing it can diminish it.

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

I wouldn't say that's the least bit clear. Moreover, I would say that the fact that most civilized nations of the world today stand openly against the idea that states who sponsor terrorism should be confronted by whatever means necessary indicates that unilateral action will often be the only reasonable course of action. The other alternatives are to (1) Deny that we have been in a state of war against Islamic terrorism for quite some time now(decades), or (2) Pre-emptively adopt a policy of surrender in that war on any front in which the world community is not willing to act.

I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.

Ridiculous. Bolton was plenty qualified for the job and had experience dealing with the UN. Who do you think should have been sent instead?

My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years

An appropriate stance lies in between those two extremes. Being a 'benevolent older brother' does not have enough teeth. Willingness to act unilaterally if necessary is essential to any nation's defense, not just ours. The characterization of the last 8 years is not entirely accurate either.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 01:26 PM

Public opinion is not "basically pacificistic" on the subject of terrorism worldwide, it is very conflicted.

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?

If we act in a manner that can be construed to be evil or corrupt (and sadly the history of the invasion of Iraq is now full of examples), we're just doing their job for them.

There is only one course of action that satisfies this condition. Total withdrawal from any involvement in international affairs. Anything else can and will be construed as such by many elements. And if we did that, it would be construed as a de facto surrender, an assessment that wouldn't be far off the mark by the way, with disastrous consequences.

We need to get back to what won us the propaganda war against Communism. Let backwards regimes flounder. Give back-channel help to moderate and modernizing regimes. Give behind-the-scenes help to moderate elements in opposing client states. Work diplomatically to open up cracks in opposition states through which our free market tendrils can work.

This was working.

No it wasn't. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were continuously escalating, not decreasing in the time period prior to 2002. This was happening precisely because we were treating it as a criminal issue, and you can issue as many indictments and convictions as you want, but when you are at war the enemy isn't going to care. Acceptance of that as a continuing pattern was, is, and always will be a de facto position of pre-emptive surrender, no matter how you want to dress it up otherwhise.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 01:31 PM

What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.

Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

A lot of things constitute dealing with terrorism, but certainly a definition of that must include confronting it wherever it is found. I think it's clear that the rolls of Al Qaida would have increased regardless of our involvement in Iraq. They certainly weren't going away if we'd stopped at Afghanistan.

I don't think hardly anybody believes that ANY military attack in the ME is a good thing. Certainly there can be substantive reasons to be against the Iraq War but the question then becomes how do we deal with Islamic terrorism? Every idea I've heard has boiled down to either taking action to deprive them of safe havens or acting only when the world community is on our side, and I've already expressed what I think about that one.

JPhillips

05-10-2008, 01:36 PM

Brian: If you see Iraq as a great success story we'll never be able to agree. Have fun.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 01:38 PM

I think I've made it pretty clear in my posts that I don't see it that way. I see it as a mixed bag.

st.cronin

05-10-2008, 01:39 PM

Back on topic: I think Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Now, who's the veep?

DaddyTorgo

05-10-2008, 01:48 PM

ISiddiqui

05-10-2008, 01:50 PM

Richardson definitely brings something to the ticket. He can get Hispanics on board the Obama campaign, whereas, they are more likely to be McCain supporters. Throw states like New Mexico to Obama's side.

st.cronin

05-10-2008, 02:01 PM

There are a LOT of skeletons in Richardson's closet, or actually his living room. I don't think he would be a good choice, although its true he would help with hispanics and the west. On the other hand, Obama-Richardson would be weak in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.

st.cronin

05-10-2008, 02:02 PM

dola

I think Obama-Clinton would be a very strong ticket.

JPhillips

05-10-2008, 02:07 PM

I think the unity ticket is a bad idea. During th campaign it will be hard for Hillary to be subservient to Obama and if he wins having the Clinton team around is a recipe for competing agendas. She may help with some demographic sets, but overall I think it will hurt more than it will help.

For Hillary, I don't see why she'd want the job. I think she'll get a leadership position in the Senate as part of the negotiations for her to drop out and she's far more powerful there than she'll be as Obama's #2.

QuikSand

05-10-2008, 02:10 PM

i'd love to see Joe Biden as V.P. I think he's probably one of the most intelligent and well-spoken potential V.P.'s, and he would also bring a wealth of foreign policy experience to counter the republicans trying to point out Obama's relative foreign policy inexperience.

Plus he's already spoken highly of Obama, calling him (as I recall) "nice and clean."

I think pretty highly of Biden overall, but in the modern campaign setting, I think he's a liability. He talks too much, and too frequently off the cuff, and just by his nature he's bound to be a complete font of material for those who play the gotcha-style sound bite game. I think Obama is too scarred from that sort of thing (in the very immediate past) to see past this serious liability for Biden.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?

They were against the war no matter what, because even if Saddam was developing WMD, it didn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. If anything, it'd probably be used against terrorist groups. And no one believed he had ties with Al Queda. And paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't "funding terrorism", it is providing payment to offset the loss of a potential wage earner. I mean, really... no one is going to be persuaded to blow themselves up because Saddam is paying their families if they do!

st.cronin

05-10-2008, 02:24 PM

JPhillips

05-10-2008, 02:30 PM

I've heard Bayh as a way to connect to the Clinton's. I don't think he offers much, but who knows. Other names I've heard are Napolitano or Sibelius as women governors who would be strong with the same demos as Clinton. Contrary to four or eight years ago the Democratic governor field is pretty deep. Jim Webb is also a possibility.

I love Ted Strickland as he's an old family friend, but he's not great on the stump. He's as honest a politician as I've met ad he's done great things for southern Ohio as a Representative, however, I like him more as the governor of Ohio than the VP. I'm not even sure how strong his support in Ohio is as he was lucky enough to run for governor the year the Ohio Republicans proved themselves both corrupt and incompetent.

Brian Swartz

05-10-2008, 03:00 PM

They were against the war no matter what, because even if Saddam was developing WMD, it didn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. If anything, it'd probably be used against terrorist groups. And no one believed he had ties with Al Queda. And paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't "funding terrorism", it is providing payment to offset the loss of a potential wage earner. I mean, really... no one is going to be persuaded to blow themselves up because Saddam is paying their families if they do!

I fail to see the substantive difference between 'providing paymenet to offset the loss of a potential wage earner' and say, buying weapons or providing training or anything else that would be considered funding terrorism.

On world, opinion, Gallup conducted a poll shortly after 9-11 that is on point. It dealt directly with terrorism. A couple of the questions were extremely enlightening.

The first one dealt with what the U.S. should do in the event they identify the terrorists responsible. Options were attempt to extradite, military force against the countries harboring them, or don't know/no answer. Despite the well-documented failure of using the criminal track to deal with terrorism, it was the overwhelming choice in 34 of the 36 countries polled. Other than the U.S. and Israel, it was almost 3:1 or more against military action in almost every country except for Korea(38 for military action, 54 for extradition). Keep in mind this was at the high point of the groundswell of support for the US. Is it even remotely reasonable to think this attitude has become MORE militaristic in the interim?

On the subject of Obama's running mate, I frankly don't think it matters much. McCain's choice will be far more important.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2008, 03:50 PM

I fail to see the substantive difference between 'providing paymenet to offset the loss of a potential wage earner' and say, buying weapons or providing training or anything else that would be considered funding terrorism.

Then I don't think we have common ground here, because I see an extremely vast difference between the two.

Other than the U.S. and Israel, it was almost 3:1 or more against military action in almost every country except for Korea(38 for military action, 54 for extradition).

Did they ask a follow up on what if the attempt to extradite failed? Other countries tend to be far less militaristic than the US or Isreal, and would rather exhaust the diplomatic angle first. After all, they weren't in nearly such vast opposition to removing Iraq from Kuwait. It's because all the channels had been gone through.