Biden is one of the two democrats I would have voted for president this year. Bill Richardson is the other one.

Here is your Democratic ticket.

I would love to see Richardson as the VP, he talked by far the most sense of all the candidates this year IMO. No idea how politically viable that is, guess not as I haven't heard anyone in the media really talking about it yet.

Kerry would be a suicidal choice. With allegations of elitism and being out of touch with the working American already against Obama... ugh.

I guess you missed the fact that the U.S. has broad international support in attacking Afghanistan, including a presence even today of NATO forces (where for instance, Canadian soldiers are dying on a weekly basis). You see, that was anti-terrorism war.

Iraq wasn't a terrorism war. And thus it got no support. I'll use Canada again for example. Canada went into Afghanistan and is still there. They said no to Iraq not long after going into Afghanistan. What does this tell you? It tells you that the lack of support for Iraq had nothing to do with being soft on terrorism from U.S. allies, but everything to do with the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or an imminent threat on the U.S.

But you can go ahead and believe whatever you want, I guess.

What are the significance of democratic primaries if "Superdelgates" have the final say? Why on earth does their vote count more than mine?

Shut up, Democrats, you get 2/3 a vote, what more do you want? ;)

Thanks for assuming I've got blinders on, but it just ain't the case. Actually what this tells me is that they still follow the old reactive philosophy that action is only justified after you get hit. Problems with that approach and it's basic ineffectiveness have already been discussed here.

Yes, extremely.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. One harbors bin Laden and has allowed nuclear secrets and equipment to be sold on the black market. The other is the major source of funding (from individuals) for Al Qaeda as well as many of their leaders and foot soldiers.

The "Saddam was a bad man, we had to take him out" argument has long ago been shown not to hold water. We invaded Iraq because George Bush and his neocon cronies wanted to. No more, no less.




No, it means that most states understand risk vs. reward. Invading Afghanistan? Good risk vs. reward. Invading Iraq? Lousy risk vs. reward.

Invading Afghanistan? The Taliban & Al Qaeda are broken up and forced on the run, getting their just desserts. Until we abandon the project and invade Iraq. Invading Iraq? We get rid of a significant Al-Qaeda counter and a significant Iran counter in the heart of the Middle East and replace it with a terrorist training ground and a likely theocratic Shia state in the future.


The scope of international endeavor very rarely boils down to 2 or 3 choices. It doesn't with terrorism, either.


When you send someone to the UN who says this: "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and has as his explicit goal the dismantling of the UN, what exactly are you saying to the international community?


You're misconstruing the polls. Many Europeans were skeptical of the WMD claim, which is a pretty big part of not believing a foray into Iraq was a good thing. Turns out they were right.


Again, international affairs are not that simple. The world is not black-and-white. There are a multitude of options open to any reasonable state.

Foreign policy does not boil down to "We shoot them or we run away".


And terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and proxies have continued to escalate since 2002 (so much so that the Bush Administration directed the State Department to stop keeping data on this).

Just a few weeks ago, General Petraeus, of all people, echoed the conclusion of the combined intelligence agencies in saying that invading Iraq has made the U.S. less safe, not more so.


I'm sorry, was anyone suggesting otherwise? I don't remember this.


Such revisionist history. Al Qaeda was very much on the run after 9/11 and the goodwill we had in the international community was allowing us to go after their support lines in many other countries. The Iraq war changed all that, and has made it much more difficult to pursue Al Qaeda through these avenues.


Every idea doesn't "boil down" to this. That's your own simplistic conclusion. The reality is far more nuanced, and you're still not seeing this.


++

No, it means they understand the concept of Realpolitik.

I don't think you're going to get this, Brian. You want an unambiguous foreign policy, based on simple ideas, pursued aggressively without thought to its ramifications in diplomatic circles.

Well, you've had this for the past 8 years, and the results haven't been all that successful. If you want to keep on this misguided path for a few more years, please feel free to vote for McCain.

Anyway, I'm tired of re-hashing this argument. Feel free to get the last word in and tell me how I'm wrong.

Yep. At this point my guesses would be Richardson, Biden, Bayh or Webb. I think they all probably have various liabilities, as well as strengths, so it's hard to figure which way Obama might go.

I want no such thing, and I've been pretty darn clear about it. Naturally I also disagree about the record of the last 8 years, but I'll respect your wish to drop it here :).

Proving only that it isn't an unqualified success when there is insufficient resolve in the populace behind the policy.

Our enemies know that we'll be taken down from within, that renders the policy less effective than it could be under more solid circumstances.

Claire McCaskill is certainly gunning for a post in Obama's administration. What? Is anyone's guess. But she'll certainly get a gig. Probably not VP, but...she's got to be on the short list if you're beancounting

Well I'm ready for a change of direction. I'm 30 now, and I've spent the bulk of my young adult life under the direction of a misguided, greedy, unintelligent individual. What makes it worse is I didn't vote for him. I think this is the sentiment of most young americans. I've got high school classmates and college fraternity brothers that are serving or served in Iraq, but I will stop now because just thinking about this crap makes me angry.

Question: Does anyone know a site to compare Obama's/McCain's national health plans?

Probably their campaign web sites. Obama advocates a plan that would cover kids, but not mandate adults have coverage. McCain favours the free market generally, under the premise that competition will drive down the costs of health care. There is more detail than that, but the two are fundamental opposites as the GOP will resist any attempts to "nationalize" health care.

Well, McCain's plan isn't just to do nothing (though it does do far, far less than Clinton or Obama). It is relying on, of course, tax cuts to individuals for buying health care.

You want to know how many times I have heard that in the past 40 years from young Americans? You should have heard them after LBJ, or Nixon or (in my case) Carter, or after 8 years of Reagan. 8 years of Clintons produced apathy among the youth to where HRC has been enduring high negatives. Now it repeats for the last 8 years. And it will repeat in the future. Every young generation wants and expects things to be different, until they mature and realize that it's not one individual but a system that is corrupt and entrenched. Until we get voters and the general population to turn their eyes and expectations away from Washington DC and to what you can do locally and among those around you, it will continue.

The focus, I believe, should be on lowering health costs for the majority of Americans, while maintaining high levels of care.

Though I'm not sure McCain's plan will really lower health costs all that much. Sure, the re-importation of foriegn drugs will help with drug costs. But, the rest may lower medical costs, or it may not.

I agree, I don't think any plans will lower costs, esp. in light of increased demands for good services and wonder drugs. We have created higher expectations for health services and will probably not accept, for the majority that are covered well, inferior quality to any great extent and certainly not a one-size-fits-all program that the federal govt would come up with. However, once beyond the working years, then the equation changes.

What's that old sign behind the cash register?
"Quality - Service - Price ... pick any two"

I can't see Bayh. He's an empty suit and his home state is entirely out of play. Senator Webb brings some interesting things to a ticket:
1) A decorated veteran with unimpeachable anti-war credentials;
2) He's a former Navy Secretary under Reagan who has shown appeal to independents and Republicans;
3) He brings a competitive state, Virginia, even more into play.

Speaking of Virginia, they have another intriguing option in Governor Tim Kaine. He's a devoutly religious Catholic who is still getting fairly good poll numbers. Kaine's term runs out in 2009 anyway, and in VA you can't run for re-election. He and Obama are reportedly good friends.

I wish I even had that

I recall Kaine pulling his name out from the possible VP candidates a few weeks ago. As for Webb, he'd be a solid choice, but I really can't think of any other Dems who would be able to retake that Senate seat. And with Warner nearly guarenteed to win the other one, would the Dems want to give up the prospects of having 2 Dem Senators in Va?

Hmm...I didn't hear that Kaine had pulled his name. A lot would depend on what VA's law is regarding Senate replacements. Hypothetically, it is possible that Kaine could appoint a Democrat as Webb's replacement to serve out the remaining 4 years of the term. The bench isn't that deep here in my adopted home state, though, so I don't really know who he might appoint.

Seattle Times mentions Kaine in an article today:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_veeps12.html

So I don't think it's clear-cut that he's withdrawn his name from consideration.

Saw the bit about Kaine here on my local nbc affiliate's website:

http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?s=8205532

I don't want to get into the rest of this in this thread, but that is precisely why most foot soldiers "become terrorists" - it's an economic decision. At the higher levels it is more about ideology, but at the lower levels in Iraq it's about paying anyone $400 to fire an RPG and return with a spent casing.
Who's Claire McCaskill?

MO senator

There is a difference between making money and killing yourself so your family gets money.


I'm not sure if Obama will pick Webb, or if the Dems want him too. They may want the Senate seat too much, and two inexperienced Senators (Webb just got elected, IIRC) may not be the way to go.

++

Actually, this is an "old" Project Management joke as well. I've actually used it a few times in meetings with particularly intractible clients. ;)

Edit: Of course, in my line of work it's the triple-constraint of Time, Quality and Cost.

I don't know that he will pick Webb either, but I'm not sure how much any of these points will factor into Obama's decision. What the party wants is certainly no factor at all; candidates select their own running mates. Provided Obama agrees with you -- that both he and Webb would be vulnerable on the issue of experience -- I could see that being a factor. But he may decide that Webb's 4+ years in the Marines and 5 years as an Assistant SecDef and Secretary of the Navy may be enough to satisfy voters. My sense is that it would.

That said, of the names being tossed around, I'd put Webb behind OH Gov Ted Strickland right now. I think Tim Kaine (assuming he has not pulled himself from consideration) is in the mix, too. All have very strong arguments for selection, and would be assets to the ticket.

Kind of a fun/interesting link: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-05-12.html

Shows how the sitting senators (aside from Hillary, Obama, and McCain) respond when asked about the VP slot.

Some of those are really funny :D.


I especially love Senator Wyden's answer. :D

Those are actually amusing. The thought of Sen. Mikulski "rocking the Naval Observatory" kinda makes me throw up in my mouth though.

dola:

My neighbor (mid 30's, mother of two, hot MILFy type) sent out this email to all the other mom's in the neighborhood today:

Her husband, who works for an acronymed gov't agency in the D.C. area, sent out a reply that said:


:)

This hot MILFy woman should drop her zero and get with a hero. I'd offer my heroic services, but, sadly for her, I'm already married. It's always a shame when hot chicks marry lame dudes like your neighbor.

:)

So in other words, your neighbor wasn't getting laid before the email..and surely won't be now until after the election?

Clinton wins West Virginia. Says tonight that she and Obama "have always stood together" to bring America new leadership. She's pulling closer in the end. They're making the push for more money to pay those bills. I wonder what job they want. Maybe she wants to be on the Supreme Court? They've got to be negotiating something.

And yet there are some in this thread who think West Virginia is in play, even though Bush won it twice in a row, and Obama couldn't even get 30% in his own party's primary.

Is Clinton a Republican? That would explain a lot...

Who the hell said WV is in play or even remotely? Virginia might (unlikely but possible) be in play but WV is a big stretch.

Childers wins in MS. This was a district where 62% voted for Bush in 04. Add this to the losses in special elections in LA and IL and thins look very bad for Republican Congressional candidates. The RCCC spent around 1.3 mil to hold this district and couldn't.

That's going to be the great equalizer for Obama against McCain. But despite Obama's negative demographics and bad feelings from a lot of Dems, many I suspect would vote for Donald Duck (as long as he's not married to Hillary Clinton). That's why the general will be close.

To clarify "negative demographics", I mean some white women, most older Americans, Latinos to some extent, definitely Asians and those ubiquitous WV-type white blue-collars they've been mentioning the past month.

Yeah, GOP congressional races could be a bloodbath this year.

I used to think that Obama was the better candidate against McCain. Now, I'm not sure that either of them will win a heads-up battle against McCain. Both Clinton and Obama, while having good overal vote support, have some electoral college issues that could hurt them in the end.

I always love when these irrelevant comparisons are drawn. People vote for a representative based on his merits or party, not who they cast their ballot for in the presidential election. This area will still go heavily for Republicans in the Presidential election.

A perfect example is that a Democrat was elected as Governor in Kansas a few years back. Under your assumption thinking, that means a major shift has occurred and that Kansas has suddenly swung Democrat. Obviously, that example and your example are both laughable at best.

WTF are you talking about? I always love it when someone so clearly misreads a post that they look silly. I'm not talking about the presidential race. I thought that was obvious by the absence of any reference to the presidential race.