Is the US Dem Party Trying to Commit Suicide?

[magerette]

First, apologies to all the Europeans and other world citizens who are sick of our election--feel free to ignore this thread or post your reactions as you see fit.

Rather than gravedig up some of the old threads where we've touched on this subject in the past while discussing the pestilential and infuriating US primaries ongoing, I thought I'd try to get peoples' thoughts on what the effects of spin, media bombast and overnight punditry from the blogosphere are doing to the credibility of the Democratic contenders, and the party itself in this election. As someone who has voted for both parties, and tries to vote on issues, I'm just appalled at the balls-up this thing is becoming.

This Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302461.html) gives a fairly unbiased--if such a thing is possible in our news system--account of the latest developments in the *latest* out of control non-issue (Obama's 'elitism') to fan the *latest* flames of divisiveness in what IMHO may soon be the *late* party.

This is a wonderful freebie and true gift to McCain, and I would expect the Republican party to be jumping all over Obama for it, and rightly so--instead, the other contender for the Democratic nomination is actually more vitriolic, damaging and poisonous about it, doing her best to inflate the issue to immense proportions and capitalize on it.

However, actually this thread is not about my personal antipathy to the Clinton dynasty, though if you want my take, I agree with Jane Smiley here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/here-we-go-again_1_b_96374.html).

My question is, do the democrats actually want to lose this election? The longer this process goes on of each treating a primary rival as the true opponent, complete with mud-slinging, disingenuous statements from both camps and dueling smoke and mirrors, the harder it's going to be to convince voters that the Democratic party in any way shape or form has their act together enough to have their nominee run the country.

Why is it so hard for anything of substance to be discussed without the most inflammatory and cheap-shot rhetoric coming to the fore? Whenever anybody--candidate, journalist, whoever-- makes a statement about something that matters in this campaign, it seems to get one tenth the exposure as the flimsiest canned-outrage, knee-jerk accusation does.

It's becoming a new super-confrontational mentality--Us vs Them, where the Dem contender's worst enemy is not McCain, but the other democrat, and also Candidate vs Voter, where the voter is demographically identified, courted and discarded state by state.

If the Republicans can win in this election, with eight years of an unpopular war under their belts, 81% of the population believing the country is on the wrong track, and a president whose approval rating is plunging to Nixon levels, in my opinion, the Democratic party is in for a total conflagration.

[Squeek]

Jane Smiley's article illustrates what's wrong with the Democratic party right now: It's acting too tough. The party should lighten up and just get real.

Once I heard a sheriff tell a story about a woman he'd arrested for murdering her husband by shooting him 19 times with a pistol that only held 6 bullets. That meant she had to have reloaded at least three times. At some point he asked her why she shot him 19 times, and she answered, "because I had 19 bullets."

Democrats are understandably determined to fire all their bullets, but there's simply no need. The Republicans are pretty dead already. It's overkill to be so negative.

That's why the party has leaders, to reach better decisions than would otherwise be reached without them. But its leaders are reluctant to upset anyone, and that's why their decisions have been so weak.

"Superdelegates" are a perfect example. They were supposed to become decision makers in the unlikely event of there not being a clear winner going into the Democratic national convention. Not anymore. Now they're not supposed to have any impact at all.

The Democrats are in the rare position of having an easy fight to win. There's no need to be extreme. But Democrats like Jane Smiley don't get it. Every opponent of hers has something wrong with them.

[blatantninja]

This whole thing makes me smile. Not because I necessarily want the Republicans to win (though I think I do like McCain the best), but more because maybe after the miserable failure that is the Democratic race, if the Republicans keep the White house, people will wake up and realize that neither of these parties are worth a shit anymore.

[magerette]

Jane Smiley's article illustrates what's wrong with the Democratic party right now: It's acting too tough. The party should lighten up and just get real.

The Democrats are in the rare position of having an easy fight to win. There's no need to be extreme. But Democrats like Jane Smiley don't get it. Every opponent of hers has something wrong with them.

Yep, maybe the term " nineteen bullets strategy" might need to be coined for this type of thing. There are all too many dems on the other side of the candidate fence who are equally full of indignation, also. I was trying to find a pro-Clinton blog or website to quote with some Obama bashing,-- feel free to post any as I'm sure there have to be some out there-- but it's pretty plain from Clinton's own words that she also feels only her own candidate is right.

However, now that I've cooled off a bit, Smiley is a bit on the liberal holier than thou side :)--I think the sentence that got me to identify was where she said: " I cannot believe how angry this makes me. I cannot believe that after the last seven and a half years, I can even get this angry."

Now that my blood pressure has returned to normal, let me cite this calmer article by Philadelphia columnist John Baer (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/john_baer/20080414_John_Baer__Decades_of_working-class_neglect_-_now_that_s_insulting.html?submit=Vote&17657034=Y&oid=2&mr=1&cid=8500281&pid=17657034) , where he begins with

Some thoughts on the latest diversion of Campaign '08, a campaign apparently hell-bent on keeping the nation mired in its own stupidity.

@blatantninja: I think you have the crux of the matter there--the problem is scrapping all this--the current two party system is an enormous self-perpetuating structure with that hydra-like quality of being able to regrow whatever heads get lopped off in the name of reform with two more equally ugly ones.

[Corwin]

That's what's wrong with much of modern 'democracy'; you end up voting for a party, rather than a person- there's a HUGE difference!!

[dteowner]

I think you're seeing the Ice Queen's penchant to do anything necessary to get what she wants and Obama's lack of experience that would allow him to successfully ignore her.

My tinfoil hat still says that the media is playing games to turn a walk-over election into a genuine contest so they can breathlessly report all the excitement. If it weakens the Dems to the point where McCain eventually wins, I'm going to laugh my butt off. Before all this, the Dems could have hung a sign saying "Not Dubya" on Pamela Anderson and won the election without her saying a word (or maybe even in spite of it).

[Fenris]

Well, even Persons only look for themselves... man, I'd love to see a real democracy where the people really could vote what to do - I heard that in Switzerland it's still this way (but somehow can't believe it ^^)... here in Germany our "Democrats" and our "Republicans" decided that they become best buddies and formed the "great coalition", so that they don't need the voters anymore and can do whatever they want... especially since all the small parties are total Idiots :(

[txa1265]

Not because I necessarily want the Republicans to win (though I think I do like McCain the best)

The problem I see is that based on history, electing McCain means getting the same Republican cronies we've had for 8 years, with many of the same results.

I think you're seeing the Ice Queen's penchant to do anything necessary to get what she wants and Obama's lack of experience that would allow him to successfully ignore her.
That is what I have often said - she will gladly place her need to win above the needs of the people or party or country ... she will destroy them all rather than concede.

My tinfoil hat still says that the media is playing games to turn a walk-over election into a genuine contest so they can breathlessly report all the excitement.
I don't know - there have been 'unfair' complaints from both sides, and the media simply covers what's selling at the moment. It is a byproduct that they benefit from a tight race ... so I can see the thought that they are trying to sway it that way.

[Prime Junta]

My tinfoil hat still says that the media is playing games to turn a walk-over election into a genuine contest so they can breathlessly report all the excitement. If it weakens the Dems to the point where McCain eventually wins, I'm going to laugh my butt off. Before all this, the Dems could have hung a sign saying "Not Dubya" on Pamela Anderson and won the election without her saying a word (or maybe even in spite of it).

The only prob with your tinfoil hat in this case is that "the media" doesn't exist. There's just a huge number of people working with the media. It's their job to write exciting stories. It's a very chaotic process that often involves things that look a lot like lemmings rushing off a cliff in a huge, random mass.

And if you think that the US would be better off with McCain than either of the Dem contenders, I'm afraid you're in for a pretty big disappointment -- I don't know if either of the Dems have serious reform of a badly dysfunctional system on their minds, but I do know that John McCain doesn't.

[Prime Junta]

That is what I have often said - she will gladly place her need to win above the needs of the people or party or country ... she will destroy them all rather than concede.

As opposed to which politician running for president and having a dog's chance of winning...?

You'll never make it to being a serious contender for the office without being absolutely ruthless and absolutely willing to do whatever it takes to get there. That applies to Obama just as much as Hillary (and McCain too). It's also nothing new, nor nothing unique to the USA, nor a sign of a non-functioning democracy. It's just the nature of the beast.

As Winston Churchill put it, "democracy is the worst political system ever, except for all the others."

[dteowner]

The only prob with your tinfoil hat in this case is that "the media" doesn't exist. There's just a huge number of people working with the media. It's their job to write exciting stories. It's a very chaotic process that often involves things that look a lot like lemmings rushing off a cliff in a huge, random mass.Poppycock, I say! Each media outlet has a person or group of folks that decides what stories to run and which ones get buried. I believe they're known by titles such as managing editors and news directors. As you say, there's a million people writing stories every single day, but only a few get "front page" treatment. Obama's recent stupid comment could easily have been completely ignored, but was interpretted in the worst possible light and plastered all over the news. Although I deeply enjoyed her embarassment and discomfort, there really was no significant need for the media to pull out a FoIA suit in order to look at Hillary's daily planner from 10 years ago. A small handful of people chose to make these stories big news. I call them "the media". We can call them "Lois Lane" or "The Illuminati" if you prefer, but that doesn't change anything.

[magerette]

As opposed to which politician running for president and having a dog's chance of winning...?

You'll never make it to being a serious contender for the office without being absolutely ruthless and absolutely willing to do whatever it takes to get there. That applies to Obama just as much as Hillary (and McCain too). It's also nothing new, nor nothing unique to the USA, nor a sign of a non-functioning democracy. It's just the nature of the beast.

As Winston Churchill put it, "democracy is the worst political system ever, except for all the others."

The question isn't whether general elections should be conducted like tea parties, but whether ruthless discrediting and sniping within the same party to discredit an opponent of the same affiliation is counterproductive.

Is it the nature of the beast to have two contenders within the same party, supposedly addressing the same segment of voters, behave as if their primary opponent is a cross between Adolph Hitler(well, this is the internet) Karl Marx and Marie Antoinette? If you read the vitriol being spewed by the 'average joe' Hillary/Obama supporter who posts a comment at these news sites, you see how polarizing and self-defeating all this is becoming.

I agree that in a general election there are few holds barred, but when you only have two significant political parties to represent you, is it too much to ask that there be some leadership and coherence within them?

To me, the end result of this kneecapping strategy is, by constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator, to discredit the party as a whole, making either candidate less credible/electable in the fall. If I were a superdelegate, I'd be hiding under a rock right now.

Also, to side somewhat with dte, while not going so far as to assert a media conspiracy, there's no doubt this stuff attracts viewers. The media is indeed composed of individuals, but it is also amply provided with owners who define policy and editors who choose what exciting Britney tidbits, candidate gaffes and exposures, prostitute scandals in high office, etc. get full and blinding coverage. Obviously, to echo your own statements about corporate necessity, the press feels it has to go with its own interests in doing what it takes to keep people involved and viewing that coverage.

[Prime Junta]

The question isn't whether general elections should be conducted like tea parties, but whether ruthless discrediting and sniping within the same party to discredit an opponent of the same affiliation is counterproductive.

Back when I dabbled in politics, I quite quickly came across the motto that "there are enemies, there are archenemies, and then there are party comrades." That's just how it works. And yes, it is counterproductive, and yes, a well-functioning party should have internal processes that keep the dirty laundry from being aired in public.

But if it doesn't, it's not the candidates' fault -- it's the party's. Which, perhaps, was your original point.

IOW, Hillary is doing just what a politician is supposed to do: playing all-out to win. Just like Obama, for that matter -- why wasn't anybody calling on *him* to quit back when it seemed like he had "no chance" of winning?

It's not a politician's job to quit a race as long as s/he has a chance of winning. It's the party leadership's job to make him/her quit, if it feels that it's in the party's interest that s/he quits, and if it's too chicken to do so, or doesn't have the mechanisms in place to do so, that's the problem right there -- and putting in those mechanisms would be one step towards fixing some of the stuff that's broken about the American system. IOW, if the Dems do manage to lose this one, it just means that the chance of turning the ship around will have been deferred another four years, which isn't that long, really.

[Squeek]

Selecting leaders is all about good judgment. Why shouldn't we expect a candidate to have it? That's crazy. Sure, they want to win (we all want to win), but they're candidates for public office, and that implies public service. Of course they should know when to quit.

If the Democratic primary system worked the way the Republicans' did, Hillary Clinton would be in the lead right now. She might still end up the winner if the superdelegates function as they were intended.

But Democratic Party leadership buckled under pressure when its "superdelegate" concept came under attack. Now its weak system will be even weaker.

I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, and I'm not a fan of Hillary's; but she's qualified to be President. And Barack Obama isn't (not yet, anyway). For some reason, some people consider that offensive, somehow. But whenever any of us applies for a job, our qualifications are the first consideration, aren't they? He's a good guy, and I like him, but he's just not ready to be President.

The best comment I've heard so far is JemyM's (can't believe I'm saying that). It's not a contest for the next American Idol. It's a contest for President. The problem with good judgment is you've got to have it to use it, and I'm not sure many Democrats have it.

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure many *voters* have it.

That's why IMO democracy is a pretty lousy system for hiring competent leaders; however, it's a fairly good system for firing incompetent ones. That makes up for a lot.

[magerette]

Good points, Prime J, and thanks to all for listening and responding. I really feel better for venting my (yes, Hillary inspired) angst--also, catching this discerning video clip (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=166074) from the Daily Show has helped me to put things in perspective. :)

Yes, I'm easily amused...

[magerette]

Was rushed yesterday so I didn't have the time to really respond. I'm not going to rebutt Squeek about Hillary being better equipped to lead--I disagree, but we know that.

Prime J, have you shared your political dabblings with us previously? I would think you had potential there--but whether any sane person would want that life might be a question.

I've had a few thoughts since on what is really going on here--and I'm seeing it as symptomatic of a larger and more serious problem--that neither party has much of substance to offer the voters in the way of solutions and moving forward.

McCain seems to be recycling speeches and concepts from past Republican campaigns, his economic grasp is about on par with mine(not good) and rather than displaying his so-called 'maverick' tendencies, he seems comfortable with being the figurehead for the sequence of proven failures in policy we are already living with. And really, no one in or out of his party appears to care. If he wins, he'll be elected on personality, not policy--or reality either.

The two dems have been cited time and again as being so close on policy positions as to be indistinguishable, and while at least attempting to put forward the concept of change, are campaigning on the past as much as the future. The pictures of Hillary sadly attempting to be one of the boys among the local democratic machine bosses downing her Crown Royal reminded me of old school Chicago backroom politics, something that hasn't worked since 1968. Obama playing to the liberals and the less advantaged is more appealing to me personally, but one doubts it will be that way for a number of voters to the right of his political/social spectrum, so Hillary, who looks much more centrist, may actually have a better shot at the win. And regardless of which should make it, I have a hard time thinking that all the campaign rhetoric is going to find its way into real change.

I'm worried by a lot of things here--mostly that neither party is up to the challenge of dealing with the serious situation we're facing. And Bush is obviously doing his best to leave everything up in the air for the next administration to deal with. The Iran saber rattling from the current administration is insane, the printing money solution to everything is insane--I'm about to get a $1200 tax rebate from funds probably underwritten by the Chinese--and the freakin presidential election is coming down one more time to a 'lesser of two evils' choice.

I don't want to sound completely hopeless, however. Just losing Bush and rejecting a replay of his mess is a major step forward(and I think that will most likely happen, regardless of the Dem candidate--if even *I* would rather vote for Hillary at this point). And I think if the Dems seriously screw up this time around, some remaking of the whole process is in order--a third party or completely re-worked versions of the two existing ones. So actually, this election almost *has* to be a door for a change in one way or another.

[Prime Junta]

Prime J, have you shared your political dabblings with us previously? I would think you had potential there--but whether any sane person would want that life might be a question.

I tried politics once, but quickly discovered that I have zero potential in it. I have a few of the required characteristics, but am lacking one absolutely central one (a will to power) and have another that's something of a showstopper (a tendency to speak my mind regardless of the consequences).

[dteowner]

I've had a few thoughts since on what is really going on here--and I'm seeing it as symptomatic of a larger and more serious problem--that neither party has much of substance to offer the voters in the way of solutions and moving forward.Real solutions will involve pain. You don't get elected selling pain. I figured the person that started the "Free Beer" thread already had a pretty good grasp on that idea, so I'm a little surprised that you're, well, surprised.
McCain seems to be recycling speeches and concepts from past Republican campaigns, his economic grasp is about on par with mine(not good) and rather than displaying his so-called 'maverick' tendencies, he seems comfortable with being the figurehead for the sequence of proven failures in policy we are already living with. And really, no one in or out of his party appears to care. If he wins, he'll be elected on personality, not policy--or reality either.I think you'll see more substance (for better or worse) from McCain after the conventions. Until then, I'm sure he's being advised to be a non-entity while Obama and the Ice Queen embarass each other.
Obama playing to the liberals and the less advantaged is more appealing to me personally, but one doubts it will be that way for a number of voters to the right of his political/social spectrum, so Hillary, who looks much more centrist, may actually have a better shot at the win. And regardless of which should make it, I have a hard time thinking that all the campaign rhetoric is going to find its way into real change. Kinda scary how these people will morph. When would you have ever thought you'd accuse someone of being left of Hillary? Hell, Chairman Mao would look at her and mutter, "crazy liberal". I think you're right about the direction Obama and Clinton are currently pandering, though.
I don't want to sound completely hopeless, however.Oh, cmon, it works fine for me. ;)

[magerette]

Real solutions will involve pain. You don't get elected selling pain. I figured the person that started the "Free Beer" thread already had a pretty good grasp on that idea, so I'm a little surprised that you're, well, surprised.

I think the person that started that thread definitely does--but I hope I also showed the same in my responses. ;)

It's not that I'm surprised in the sense of expecting the campaigns to talk nothing but issues and substance. I agree that nothing difficult or painful or thought-inducing is seen as appropriate in that area--look at what happens when someone tries to make a simple statement and uses an emotionally loaded word instead of a politically correct one.

No, I was meaning more that even under the propaganda and politicking of each party's campaign, I wasn't seeing the ideological back-up. Both parties seem in disarray, fragmented and unsure of what the voter base they've traditionally turned to really wants and what solutions they can provide to the deeper social and political quandaries we're looking at in a new century.

@ Prime J: I don't know about Finland but in the US at least, along with the will to power and the ego to match, large sums of money are also very helpful.

This little slice from Obama on being a pol seems mildly appropriate here:
...One place to start my inquiry was to understand the nature of ambition. Few people end up being US senators by accident; at a minimum, it requires a certain megalomania, a belief that of all the gifted people in your state, you are somehow uniquely qualified to speak on their behalf; a belief sufficiently strong that you are willing to endure the sometimes uplifting occasionally harrowing but always slightly ridiculous process we call campaigns.
from The Audacity of Hope

[skavenhorde]

I haven't been around here for awhile but I got to say "WOW" even the watchers are getting into the debate of whether or not the Hillary and Obama will destroy the Democratic party. I've got nothing to add, other than good for you guys...What I've read here makes more sense then what I've been reading about on MSN...Seems like the real place to get my news is here. Thanks again.

[magerette]

Always good to see you, skav. Don't be a stranger.

[V7]

Kinda scary how these people will morph. When would you have ever thought you'd accuse someone of being left of Hillary? Hell, Chairman Mao would look at her and mutter, "crazy liberal". I think you're right about the direction Obama and Clinton are currently pandering, though.
Oh, cmon, it works fine for me. ;)

Actually I'd put most of the rest of the OECD's conservative governments to the left of Hillary, things like national health care arn't even up for debate in most of the developed world.

As far as the public back and forth between candidates of the two parties I can't think of anywhere else where parties throw the choice of leader to the public, mostly because of whats happening between the Democrats now.

[KazikluBey]

Kinda scary how these people will morph. When would you have ever thought you'd accuse someone of being left of Hillary? Hell, Chairman Mao would look at her and mutter, "crazy liberal".
Oh, definitely. But that would be liberal as in the original "free", "laissez faire" sense... ;)

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_divided_democrats_4

It's happening. :rotfl:

[magerette]

Yep, saw that article earlier. It's beginning to remind me of one of those Nature specials about insects, where you watch in fascinated disgust as Mama Mantis eats daddy's head while they're mating.

I think half the country is sick of it all, and the other half(amongst which I sadly fall) are becoming addicted to the incessant drama. What act will the sideshow feature tomorrow?

[Corwin]

With tongue firmly in cheek ( I'm NOT being serious )- I'm surprised no-one has solved this problem in the 'good old American way', with a bullet!!

[magerette]

Since both candidates will be in his home state this week, I'm just hoping dte can keep his vicious attack dog from savaging either or both of them at some public event.

[Squeek]

Wait. I thought dte was the vicious attack dog. ;)

[magerette]

While we're doing our best with the gallows humor, here, and all in FUN, thought I'd post Lee Stranahan's review(from the commie pinko Huffington Post) of that hot new game, Grand Theft Election VIII (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/grand-theft-election-viii_b_99529.html).

He's a bit harder on Hillary but all the player characters do get a nod:

I've spent all night playing the new Grand Theft Election VIII and it's the most exciting First Political Shooter since the original Grand Theft Election: Bush v. Gore. I don't want to ruin the game for you, but it's just so huge that there's enough game play to last until August...or June, in case your Mom and Howard Dean come into your room and tell you to stop playing.

With all the hype, you've heard the basics of Grand Theft Election VIII by now -- you duck sniper fire, attempt to control superdelegates and do whatever you need to do to win the election. Here are my favorite missions....

Loose Cannon - This is where the fun starts -- as Hillary Clinton. You can literally do or say anything you want - switch accents, change your biography from state to state, and even change the rules as you go along. It's really exhilarating -- the first time you realize you can run up to the Straight Talk Express, grab John McCain from the driver's seat, throw him to the ground, and then actually hijack the bus to run over Barack Obama while your character cackles wildly in 7.1 surround sound. That's when you understand what politics is really all about.

Whack Judas - Playing as Bill Clinton, you get a tip from a very realistic avatar of James Carville. (Insider sources say they reused the Golem avatar from the Lord of the Rings video game.) You pilot Revenge Force One to New Mexico where you track down Gov. Bill Richardson, who has grown a beard to disguise himself. When news cameras catch you beating Richardson over the head with a churro, you must angrily point at the camera and deny that you hit him or that you were ever in New Mexico. Bonus points if you can convince reporters that Richardson was actually playing 'La Raza' card and that Richardson was hitting YOU in the head with a churro...

...Reject, Denounce, Fillet - The gameplay moves to North Carolina and Indiana, where you play as Barack Obama. When two months of rejections and denunciations aren't enough to disassociate yourself from Rev. Wright, the only way to satisfy the press is to slice him up with a machete in a prime time Fox News special hosted by Flavor Flav and Dog the Bounty Hunter.

Strategy Hint: Go for a quick kill and you lose because Sean Hannity says you didn't show Commander In Chief strength by drawing out the pain. Take your time and you lose because Sean Hannity says you were indecisive. Best solution: take out Sean Hannity first.

My only comment is who the heck are Flavor Flav and Dog the Bounty Hunter? Must be political insider humor...

[Corwin]

Where can I buy a copy!! :)

[dteowner]

Poor magerette must have missed out on the 80's. Flav is the little rapper from some rapcrap group (NWA?) that always wore a wall clock around his neck. He's got a reality show on MTV now. pic (http://www.mtv.com/photos/?fid=1533424&pid=1940590) (I now know the rapcrap group was Public Enemy, and I think my IQ actually went down)

Dog (http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/) is, strangely enough, a bounty hunter. Think "Cops", only not quite as intelligent. ;)

[magerette]

Dte, you're once again my gateway to the modern world. Thanks. Sad to note that Dog apparently has no appearances scheduled for me to catch his act. :)

[Squeek]

It's beginning to look more and more as if neither of the remaining two Democratic candidates will be strong enough to justify their validity in this election. That's not to say neither would have any chance of winning, but why settle for a lame horse in this race?

The situation has become septic, getting worse with each passing day. The media is functioning as a catalyst by focussing on each side of the Democrats' polorizing political spin while failing to provide abundant impartial facts. News programs are making a selfish grab for ratings while hosts and pundits are preoccupied with their own celebrity.

Someone in a position of prominence within the party needs to come forward as a credible source of information. They should set aside the competing political spin and explain how the selection process really works. That would immediately begin to alleviate the bitterness.

The media's characterization of delegates is a gross oversimplification. Delegates are a lot more free to think and vote than is being portrayed. The party could still select Al Gore to be its candidate, and that may not be such a bad idea.

[txa1265]

Poor magerette must have missed out on the 80's. Flav is the little rapper from some rapcrap group (NWA?) that always wore a wall clock around his neck. He's got a reality show on MTV now. pic (http://www.mtv.com/photos/?fid=1533424&pid=1940590) (I now know the rapcrap group was Public Enemy, and I think my IQ actually went down)

Dog (http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/) is, strangely enough, a bounty hunter. Think "Cops", only not quite as intelligent. ;)

Actually NWA is one of the seminal rap groups that really spoke to what was going on in cities at the time. They are pretty nasty in general, but 'Compton' is a well constructed song ... that is very offensive ...

Public Enemy I only know / like for their 'Fight the Power' song from Spike Lee's movie 'Do the RIght Thing'

[Prime Junta]

I used to like Public Enemy. But then I would, wouldn't I?

[txa1265]

I used to like Public Enemy. But then I would, wouldn't I?

Talk about typecasting :D

[vanedor]

As far as the public back and forth between candidates of the two parties I can't think of anywhere else where parties throw the choice of leader to the public, mostly because of whats happening between the Democrats now.

Nah, that's done in many other places. Like here in Quebec. The problem with the way it works in the US is that it lasts way too long. Would be much more... drama-free if the cadidate was chosen in all states the same day.

[Squeek]

It's Tuesday night; Obama just delivered a wonderful victory speech, and everyone's waiting to hear from Hillary Clinton. It's time for her to concede defeat and endorse Obama as her party's nominee. Let's see if she does it!

EDIT: Nope!

[dteowner]

It looks like the Ice Queen might steal Hoosierland, so I wouldn't nail her back in her coffin just yet.

[magerette]

God Bless All Hoosiers. She's down to a 51-49 split, up by only 16,000 votes, with most of Lake County still to go. This may be the beginning of the end. Tune in tomorrow for the thrilling conclusion--- and of course all the spewings-forth of the punditry.

[Prime Junta]

/me yawns

Huh? What? Something up? Did they elect her yet?

Oh, okay.

/me goes back to sleep

[txa1265]

She had her 'victory' speech with ~85% of the vote in and no predicted winner, and simultaneously said she would support the democratic front while also implying that she would rip the party apart to its' core to win ... great stuff ...

[Prime Junta]

Okay, I can't resist: time for punditry.

My prediction is that (1) there will be an Obama/Clinton ticket in the not too distant future, (2) the acrimony of the primaries will quickly get swept under the rug, and (3) we'll get into the real action between the "candidate of Hamas" and "McCrazy." Next to that, what we've seen until will look like a big ol' group hug (and will cause it to be quickly forgotten). The public's attention span is pretty short, y'know.

[Squeek]

I'd call that pretty close to mainstream thinking, and it may be right. Too bad characterizations like "candidate of Hamas" and "McCrazy" are so effective.

So far Obama and McCain seem to want to keep it fairly clean. At least that's something.

[magerette]

I tend to agree with Prime J's predictions also, especially about the short attention span thing--but I think Hillary had quite a few nails tapped back into the coffin lid last night, primarily by NOT cementing her Blue Collar vote, and by the failure of the patently ridiculous, over the top positions she jumped all over that not even the mythical 'Joe Redneck' can quite swallow--like the discredited gas tax holiday, the "obliterate" Iran remark, and the latest silliness, how she will suddenly singlehandedly dismantle OPEC, wielding the mighty hammer of the WTO.

She's not out yet, and I certainly wouldn't count her out, but all her arguments have been seriously undercut, and last night she lost all the popular vote she gained by winning Pennsylvania. So, my prediction is she goes on to finish the remaining primaries, pushes for the Florida/Michigan delegates to be counted, and then makes her bid for whatever she can get at that point. I also have a feeling it will be the VP spot. Whether she gets it or not will depend on Obama's position at the time. If he continues to make inroads into her demographic while maintaining his own, he may not need her. And McFossil does daily damage to himself every time he opens his mouth. Around 20% of Republicans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/mccains-rough-night-overs_n_100514.html) in IN & NC voted against him last night--and almost 16,000 voted for Mitt Romney, who's out of the race. People are still voting for Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, fer chrissakes:

In Indiana, McCain earned the backing of 78 percent of Republican primary voters, with exited candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney gaining 10 percent and five percent respectively. Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race, has received seven percent of the vote.

The numbers were even worse in North Carolina, where McCain won 74 percent of the vote, with Huckabee earning 12 percent, Paul earning seven percent, and four percent of Republican primary goers simply voting "no preference."

*breathes small but still paranoid sigh of relief cuz it ain't over yet*

[Corwin]

While I can see the 'political' benefit of an Obama/Clinton ticket, I wonder if Obama would lose some credibility by accepting it. I doubt Billary has any left to lose!!

[dteowner]

I don't see Hillary taking Obama as a veep--that would entail giving up too much limelight. As for Obama, I would think he needs a career politician to offset the "inexperienced" label. While the Ice Queen would sorta fit the bill, I'm thinking Edwards or *gasp* Gore.

[Squeek]

Hillary couldn't very well pick Obama as her running mate, not after claiming he's not qualified. Obama could still pick her, though. He may end up having little other choice. He may have to make that deal with her in order to avoid a long contentious convention process.

Edwards has clearly been holding out for a deal of his own, IMO. His endorsement might enable Obama to avoid having to select Hillary. He would be a good choice, of course, but not really the right one for Obama (too rich).

Like Bush, he's running with very little experience. So he should probably select someone with a lot in order to try to offset that disadvantage. It should be another intellectual. A woman would be good. A Democratic Condoleezza Rice would be cool.

[Prime Junta]

I don't see Hillary taking Obama as a veep--that would entail giving up too much limelight. As for Obama, I would think he needs a career politician to offset the "inexperienced" label. While the Ice Queen would sorta fit the bill, I'm thinking Edwards or *gasp* Gore.

Under normal conditions, that would work. The problem the Dems will be facing now, though, is dealing with the pissed-off people who supported the (narrowly) losing candidate: if they pick someone else for VP, they run a big risk of having the losing candidate's base (blacks for Obama, working-class whites for Clinton) just stay home, or vote for Ralph Nader again. This is a big incentive for the party to run on an Obama/Clinton (or Clinton/Obama) ticket, if the dynamic duo is able to hold their respective noses and do it.

I very much doubt Gore is willing to give the vice-presidency another shot. Besides, he'd be spending half his term scraping the caked-on blood off the walls of his office. Not fun.

[txa1265]

This is a big incentive for the party to run on an Obama/Clinton (or Clinton/Obama) ticket, if the dynamic duo is able to hold their respective noses and do it.

But from Obama's perspective, she has demonstrated that she will gladly sacrifice the party and country for her own personal gains, and the Clintons have a history of this, so what is to stop her from having him killed once in office?

[Prime Junta]

But from Obama's perspective, she has demonstrated that she will gladly sacrifice the party and country for her own personal gains, and the Clintons have a history of this, so what is to stop her from having him killed once in office?

The prospect of being hanged for treason?

[Remus]

Well certainly it would be very interesting if Obama become president and Hillary as vice president. Even if Hillary failed in the primaries, she still has the chance or could make a history as the first female vice president.

[Prime Junta]

By the way, Paul Krugman, who's been staunchly and unflinchingly pro-Hillary, just conceded on her behalf.

OK, barring some truly shocking revelation, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Will he win in November?

(Ref: [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/phase-two/ ]).

I figure that means she really is doomed this time.

[blatantninja]

An Obama/Hillary ticket might not be too good for Obama's life expectancy.

[Prime Junta]

Let me get this straight: do you guys seriously think that Hillary would actually resort to murder to become president?

If so, all I can say is... *somebody* over there has read his Goebbels.

[magerette]

Let me get this straight: do you guys seriously think that Hillary would actually resort to murder to become president?



Frankly it wouldn't surprise me--its a common pundit joke that if he picks her as VP, he'll need to hire food tasters. Nothing would be simpler than to frame his death as a racist extremist 'assassination.' A bomb, (there were bomb threats at one of his IN campaign offices) or a sniper's bullet is never far from our president--or, indeed in this world, any political figure anywhere, as Bhutto and many others have found out.

The only thing that mitigates against it is the fact that she would be the prime suspect. :)

EDIT: And as for her morals, now she's started (to use one of my 'worst cliches in American politics') blatantly playing the race card. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintons_white_Americans.html) Way to take the high road, Hillary. White=hard-working is innuendo-laden viral slurring at it's finest.

[Prime Junta]

Folks, let's get a bit of perspective here.

(1) Assassination is not an accepted feature of the American political landscape.
(2) Bill Clinton didn't manage to get away with a knobwash. Why do you think Hillary would think that she'd get away with murder?
(3) There are some pretty significant inhibitions to killing someone in cold blood. They're not as easy to weaken as you might think -- it takes something like a culture of violence or complete sociopathy to do it. In Hillary's circles, having someone killed is not socially acceptable, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that she's a sociopath.

I mean yeah, she's extremely ambitious, and she plays the political game as hard and nasty as anyone, but there's a long way from that to being an assassin.

And, as I said, if pretty sane people like you are convinced that she is a potential assassin, *someone* out there really knows their propaganda.

[magerette]

I don't think there's actually any serious propaganda out saying she is planning it or capable of it--even in the blogs, and they'll say literally anything. It's more of a cynical private character assessment for me, and I'm sure, not based on anything even as quasi-real as propaganda.

I just say it wouldn't ever surprise me to see a presidential assassination here--after all, I've already seen one, along with RFK and MLK. Actually saying Hillary would stoop to murder is a tin-foil hattish kind of position, but putting her a heartbeat away from the Oval Office makes me queasy on general principles. :)

[dteowner]

Give us a little hyperbole, PJ. If we can't push the Ice Queen into a black hat and have her ride a broom, what fun do we have left?

[Corwin]

Question:- Are there any good white, female options for Obama to select who would make an acceptable VP if he couldn't stomach Billary, but wanted to appeal to that demographic?

[Squeek]

Sure, but they already have better jobs. Both the Senators from California are white women. Then there's Nancy Pelosi.

There's not much for the VP to do unless he's given tasks by the President. He has a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and that's about it. It's a great stepping stone for a run at the presidency, of course. But unless that's your goal, it's four years of twiddling your thumbs.

[dteowner]

Nancy Pelosi meets the criteria, but I don't know that she'd be "neutral" enough for a general election. She's a California democrat, and somewhat extreme on certain issues even for that category. She's Speaker of the House (first woman to hold that position).

[Corwin]

OK, thanks. If the VP job is SO bad, I can't see Billary accepting it. She'd be forced to play second fiddle for 8 years and then likely lose out to a Republican in the following election!!

[txa1265]

The prospect of being hanged for treason?

Sorry - I forgot my 'smiley' ;) I might not think much of the Clintons, but I would not put that sort of thing on them ...

[V7]

I guess it’s symptomatic of the state of American politics that people can’t tell if you’re serious or not from the language alone.

[Remus]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama on Thursday did not rule out selecting rival Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate if he ultimately defeats her in a race in which he has an almost insurmountable lead.

"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.

In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0841282220080508

Personally, i like to see how the American politics turn out to be under the Obama-Clinton administration.

[magerette]

Me, too, Remus. I think it will make a real difference.

By the way, Paul Krugman, who's been staunchly and unflinchingly pro-Hillary, just conceded on her behalf.



(Ref: [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/phase-two/ ]).

I figure that means she really is doomed this time.

Interesting piece--nice graphs. I've read a few other things from him, very pro-Hillary, (and one a bit sniffy that Obama used some of his arguments about the so-called "gas tax holiday" against her.) One of these days I have to find where my husband stashed our copy of Peddling Prosperity and actually read it.

AFA finding some other white female for VP, unlikely I'd say, but should for one reason or another Clinton not be #2, he can probably get a good shot at her base with some "surrogate" which she and Bill will rally round, as indeed it's hoped they'll rally round him--but its useless to theorize in advance of the facts...not that that stops anyone. ;)

[Prime Junta]

Interesting piece--nice graphs. I've read a few other things from him, very pro-Hillary, (and one a bit sniffy that Obama used some of his arguments about the so-called "gas tax holiday" against her.) One of these days I have to find where my husband stashed our copy of Peddling Prosperity and actually read it.

Well, he did have a point on that one -- Obama's argument was the right one for McCain's version of the plan, but not for Hillary's. McCain's plan would have the net effect of transferring money from citizens to oil companies, while Hillary's plan would have the net effect of... well, nothing really. Taking money from one pocket and putting it into another.

AFA finding some other white female for VP, unlikely I'd say, but should for one reason or another Clinton not be #2, he can probably get a good shot at her base with some "surrogate" which she and Bill will rally round, as indeed it's hoped they'll rally round him--but its useless to theorize in advance of the facts...not that that stops anyone. ;)

Nancy Reagan?

[dteowner]

Nancy Reagan?Heretic! Go to your bathroom, slap yourself across the face, and then eat a bar of soap. Naughty, naughty PJ.

[magerette]

Roberta McCain? At 96, she still looks like she could drink Hillary under the table.

Seriously, here's the first in-depth list (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/obama-vice-president-pick_n_100869.html) I've seen on who Obama might choose--there are two women (other than Ms White America) on it:

Janet Napolitano
Another popular Western governor, Napolitano has settled into a second term in McCain's very red home state[Arizona]. She also backed Obama early in the race.

Pros: She has proven her executive capacity in Republican territory, as well as the Southwest, which will help sway Obamicans. A female candidate could also help reunite the Democrats.

Con: Her stance on immigration could prove costly among Hispanic voters.

Kathleen Sebelius
Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as Lieutenant Governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.

Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.

Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.

There are quite a few men on the list, many of whom are just names to me.

[Remus]

Look like Obama will has hard time in selecting one those joinable NPC or adventuring companion...

[Corwin]

Just had to put in a link to today's Socks and Barney (http://www.socksandbarney.com/comics/2008-05-10-socksbarney_136.gif) cartoon.

[Corwin]

Just watched last week's Boston Legal. If you haven't seen it (episode 18 ) try to, it's pertinent to this thread!!

[magerette]

Just had to put in a link to today's Socks and Barney (http://www.socksandbarney.com/comics/2008-05-10-socksbarney_136.gif) cartoon.

Funny stuff, Corwin. :)

There are a few good ones in this round-up (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24548474#24548474) of the late night shows.

[Corwin]

Unfortunately, my system wouldn't play them unless I updated my Flash player. I keep flash stuff banned on my system!!

[magerette]

Too bad--best line for me was from Conan O'Brien:
"Obama is favored in the states of Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Hillary is favored in the state of denial." ;)

[Squeek]

Hillary didn't concede the nomination on a high note tonight like some people thought she might, so it's pretty clear she intends to take this all the way to the convention. Here's how she could actually win.

It's not something politicians are in the habit of discussing openly, but party delegates aren't bound uniformly or, in some cases, even legally. Some are merely bound ethically. That makes them, as a group, capable of changing their mind.

I'm not talking about superdelegates. I'm talking about all the other ones. Each state has its own laws pertaining to party delegates. Some go further than others. Some are better written. Some are more explicit. So some convention delegates are less restricted than others.

If Clinton can make a strong enough case against Obama at the convention, it's certainly possible that she could still get the nomination.

[txa1265]

If Clinton can make a strong enough case against Obama at the convention, it's certainly possible that she could still get the nomination.

I don't see that happening, because ultimately she wants to be the next Democratic president. If she did that she would turn such a significant portion of the electorate against her that the Republicans would almost certainly win and she would be held responsible for the shredding of the party.

She is too smart (and ruthless) for that. She will continue ripping Obama apart, making people question his electability and suitability for office, so that McCain will win, and she can then get an 'I told you so, but you just wouldn't listen!' in, and be the unquestioned nominee in four years.

[Corwin]

Surely Americans aren't so stupid that they wouldn't see through that ploy!! I can't see them rallying behind a Judas.

[V7]

Alot can happen in four years, but I'm not sure being the candidate that couldn't beath the candidate that coulnd't win an election that couldn't be lost makes for a compelling background for a presidential hopeful. I also suspect that if the Dems loose this election after the bitterness of the selection process they're not going to want to see either candidate in four years.

[magerette]

Surely Americans aren't so stupid that they wouldn't see through that ploy!! I can't see them rallying behind a Judas.

While I certainly agree Corwin, Hillary's biggest group of remaining followers, uneducated whites(high school grads or less) making less than $50,000 would never see her that way. They support her virulently--I was on a blog last night(WSJ) where there were many posts like this : (Imagine them all in caps and mis-spelled )" If Hillary loses, I will vote for McCain but I will never vote for Obama." " I will vote for Idi Amin but I will never vote for Obama." "I will vote for Pol Pot...King Kong...Attila the Hun ...(no, I'm not making this up) but I will never vote for Obama."

Never underestimate the power and numbers of stupidity. :) Still, I think Hillary's goal is this election first.

AFA Hillary going all the way to the convention--it could definitely happen, especially if she pulls even one upset in the 5 remaining states or Obama has a bad showing in any of them. As Squeek says, delegates could conceivably change their minds--none has switched from Obama to Clinton so far, but it is possible if something goes very badly wrong for Obama in the next few weeks.

Unlikely, though, I think. And I have to say, if she can pull this out, I'll have to support her, and not vote for Vladimir Putin or something. ;)

[dteowner]

@corwin- not only are we that stupid, but we've got short attention spans.

@V7- if you lose the election, you're done, but there's not nearly as much stigma tied to losing the party nomination. I don't see her choosing to go away, and I don't see her party leadership having any more spine in 4 years than they do now where the Ice Queen is concerned.

[V7]

Perhaps, anyone remember who contested Kerry or Gore?

[dteowner]

Edwards has run for years, as has Lieberman and Kucinich. I don't know that Gore had much competition--the sitting VP is generally an automatic candidate. Bill Bradley ran against Gore, but I don't think he ever got much traction.

[Corwin]

Questions:-If Obama asked her to be his running mate, would she accept? If she did accept and he won, would that preclude her from trying again in 4 years when presumably Obama would seek re-election?

[V7]

I don't think there'd be any legal impediment, the president and VP used to be from different parties, at a practical level though I can't see that being a likely move.

[dteowner]

I don't think a sitting president has been denied the chance to get a second term in modern times. They still have the primaries (can't deny the delegates their all-expense-paid convention), but it's generally guys laying groundwork for either a VP position (if available) or a run 4 years down the road.

[magerette]

Questions:-If Obama asked her to be his running mate, would she accept? If she did accept and he won, would that preclude her from trying again in 4 years when presumably Obama would seek re-election?

No one knows but HRC, but my instinct says she would accept. If so, and he won, it wouldn't be illegal or anything for her to also run in 2012 and contest his pitch. An incumbent running for reelection usually has the full support of his party though, as dte notes, so practically speaking the chances are low that that would happen--unless, of course, his credibility had been seriously undermined. And that's just one more reason why Obama might hesitate to ask her, since she and Bill could easily spend the four years between elections rebuilding their support and sabotaging his.

[Corwin]

Ain't politics FUN!! :)

[magerette]

And getting funner ( for me) as the big important landslide victory in West Virginia meant to be such a media blitz by Ms White America has been just the teensiest bit upstaged by the John Edwards endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/politics/15obama.html?hp) of her "unelectable" rival.

Not that Edwards is huge in and of himself, but he's one of the few more well-known Dem figures who's been holding back on his endorsement. Gore's about the only one left except for the ones who have to stay neutral. Plus Edwards has that Southern accent thing going on. ;) No joy in Hillaryland tonight, I'm afraid.

[Prime Junta]

Yeah, going by her latest comments, it appears that even Senator Clinton realizes that her support is strongest among HillBillies.

/me ducks and runs

[dteowner]

*throws tomato at PJ*

[magerette]

*follows with moldy banana and large groan*

[Corwin]

Wish I'd thought of that one!! :)

[Prime Junta]

First time in a long while that I've found myself positively surprised by a leading American politician's thoughts on foreign policy. This is David Brooks quoting Barack Obama on Lebanon and the wider Middle East. (Can't say I'm terribly impressed by David Brooks, though.)

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?ex=1368676800&en=9ea007e49bea053e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink ]

(You may or may not need to register to read the op-ed.)

[dteowner]

Easy there, PJ.

"Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military..."

A few posts back, you called Dubya everything but a white man for being so ignorant and stupid as to send guns to the Lebanese army. Now you're giving Obama an honorary doctorate for saying the same thing. Perhaps sympathetic politics has clouded your judgement a bit?

[Prime Junta]

That wasn't the bit that surprised me favorably. It was this one:

He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

Also this one:

He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

(Anyway, my point wasn't that there's something wrong about sending the Lebanese army guns. The problem is if you believe that's going to make any difference to their ability to stand up to Hezbollah, and it becomes a disaster if you make supplying these weapons conditional on them standing up to the Hezb.)

[magerette]

The more I read Obama's views and goals the more I think its clear that he's the smartest person running. Far from being the "rainbows and unicorns" niave idealist that he's often painted by the neo-cons, he's actually a pretty shrewd pragmatist and realist. He may be less experienced in years, but he's a quick study, and above all seems to be truly interested in facilitating rather than dictating.

I just hope he's not *too* smart and too "other" for the very conservative majority here.

@dte--he's even able to admit that republicans are occasionally right in that article:
“This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
He's also said several times that I've heard "I don't just get my ideas from democrats." C'mon, hunker up to the campfire with me here and hum a little kum byah. ;)

[Squeek]

If he gets the nomination, I'll undoubtedly vote for Obama, because I think it's time for the Dems to be in charge. I'd be happier if he had more experience, though.

None of the three remaining candidates has ever done the job of President before, but that's to be expected. What bothers me about Obama in particular, though, is his lack of any prior accomplishments at all. What successes can he point to in his political career to make the case that he’ll excel as President?

As far as I can tell, there are none. Right?

So to succeed as President he would need to do work he’s never done before and at a level he's never achieved. Myself, I don’t hire that way. I wouldn’t even recommend that anyone accept a job under those circumstances, because I would consider it a bad career move.

But the presidency is the top job, so there’s no need to think in terms of career, is there?

His rhetoric sometimes sounds a little naive to me, like suggesting there’s hope to be found in conversations that can only lead nowhere. I suppose that may be something beyond my ability to understand, but it just sounds like political snake oil to me. It seems hopeful but just isn’t going to work.

[magerette]

Squeek, your doubts and resistance and distrust are shared by many and with good reason. When someone is building his campaign on being "the new politics" and changing the guard and so forth, it does seem extra bad when you catch them with the same flaws as their predecessors. For better or worse anyone running for president has to be a consumate politician. Snake oil is what's for sale from all of them, I'm afraid. Many things that are said in speeches are hyperbole, and sadly, much of the response any candidate needs comes from questionable rhetoric.

You might find this article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Barack+Obama+Pragmatist&st=nyt&oref=slogin) of interest, about how Obama has climbed the ladder from his start in Chicago. It's not a very flattering view at times, but I think it shows that going from a totally unknown quantity to presidential candidate is something of an achievement on a very concrete level, in and of itself.

This article takes up two different views about who he is and where he stands--I think, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The first view:
“There are some people who say he’s not strong enough on this or that, that he’s wishy-washy, that he’s trying to have it both ways,” said Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and mentor to Mr. Obama. “But he’s not looking for how to exclude the people who don’t agree with him. He’s looking for ways to make the tent as large as possible.”

The more critical view that I think you are experiencing:
Others see his deft movements as a politician’s shifting of positions and alliances for strategic advantage, leaving some disappointed and baffled about where he really stands.

“He has a pattern of forming relationships with various communities and as he takes his next step up, kind of distancing himself from them and then positioning himself as the bridge,” said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication Electronic Intifada, who became acquainted with Mr. Obama in Chicago.

I think Obama, like Clinton, wants to be president very much,and that being the first US President with an african-american heritage has a meaning for him beyond just the usual politician's ego thing. That may be niave of me, of course. He may just be another power hungry pol with a slightly different approach.

His method seems to be to assimilate, facilitate and engage all sides of the table to get what he wants, and I think it's an effective one. Like Prime Junta stated somewhere earlier in this thread, to be a politician and succeed, you need the will to power, but that isn't always the thing you want voters to see. It's going to be disguised as something less threatening: rainbows and unicorns, or patriotism, or becoming the champion of the blue collar class.

Anyway, all I can do is echo Corwin and say I really don't trust any politician to tell me the truth, but we have to pick one of these three, and I want to pick one who has shown s/he can think straight. :)

[dteowner]

The real question is whether his inexperience and desire to be inclusive will make him easy pickin's for special interests and career porkers like Senator Byrd. I certainly consider him less of a threat to my wallet than the Ice Queen, but I would worry greatly about the "advice" the neophyte will get from the variety of shysters that will surround him.

[magerette]

The real question is whether his inexperience and desire to be inclusive will make him easy pickin's for special interests and career porkers like Senator Byrd. I certainly consider him less of a threat to my wallet than the Ice Queen, but I would worry greatly about the "advice" the neophyte will get from the variety of shysters that will surround him.

I don't know about the porkers--I think he's talked too much about not accepting PAC money, the big bad lobbyists and so forth, but I share your worry that he's playing in the big leagues on a college program resume. He's already made some rookie mistakes, and he's undoubtedly going to make a busload more before its all over.

And while it may be the Dems turn in the barrel, this thing isn't over yet. The Republicans may be a bad smell atm, but McCain is very well-liked by almost everybody that might not care too much for the arugula- eating elitist camp, and even by people who hate politicians on sight. It looks to me to be an even more polarizing, nasty, blood- and mud-slinging general than the primaries ever thought about being.

[Squeek]

This certainly may shape up to be a very nasty election, IMO. So far Obama's done a good job of selling his vision of change while deflecting doubts about his character. I think he's probably sincere about wanting to run a clean campaign, but without accomplishments to tout, he may have no choice but to go after his opponent.

So unless he cruises to a comfortable win (and I think that's still possible), Obama may need to go on the attack. That would be especially ugly to see, because both of them are nice guys, IMO. McCain served his country his entire life (as did his father before him and his father before him), and he's a genuine hero.

None of McCain's attacks against Obama have crossed the line so far, IMO. He's been careful to be fair and succeeded.

[magerette]

I agree Squeek, and I think the possibility of McCain beating Obama(or Clinton for different reasons) in November definitely exists despite the Bush/republican fatigue going on.

This guy (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/19053334.html) in a Las Vegas online paper sums it up like this:

Why a McCain victory?
Because presidential races are about one of two things -- a prevailing national mood or a prevailing national fear. The mood is all for the Democrats, but the fear is all of Barack Obama.

Personally, I think there's also considerable fear of where the polices of the last eight years have been taking us, but there's no doubt that a large segment of the population sees it as he states.

Therefore it's quite possible one of the primary strategies Obama's going to be presented with will involve direct attacks on McCain. I sincerely hope he resists this temptation, because frankly he's just nowhere near as good at going negative as the republicans, and also I think it will only alienate the many people who have a good opinion of McCain, many of whom are the independents Obama needs to attract.

And I think McCain needs to resist it, too, as that will draw him into the old school smear stuff he has said he won't engage in. He doesn't need any issues that show him changing his position.

There are going to be a lot of political advisers pushing these two down the low road. The way these candidates handle this will make more of a difference than usual, I think about who votes for whom. I expect all, or at least the worst of the dirt to be slung by those useful people, the "surrogates."


EDIT: May 19th--I have a really bad feeling that Hillary is going to make another death-defying self-resurrection in the next few days. And that can only make things uglier at this point. Some of the polls are showing a very close margin in Oregon, and if she pulls an upset there, this is going to go all the way to the convention.

[magerette]

About that assassination discussion:

Georgia Newspaper Puts Obama in the Crosshairs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/georgia-newspaper-puts-ob_n_102905.html)

The liberals are foaming at the mouth over this, and it backs up some of the internet rumors that the reason Obama didn't personally campaign in WV and KY was at the request of the Secret Service (mega-quantities of death threats.)

[elkston]

Obama is losing the Foreign Policy debate with McCain. Until he comes up with definite, specific plans for FP and communicates them (instead of just deflecting attacks with semantics about "preparations" and "preconditions") he should just shut up and NOT attack McCain either.

He needs to concentrate on domestic things and continue to give details about his plans for change HERE. Then once he is elected, he can get some star diplomats on his team to discuss how we handle our enemies.

[Prime Junta]

I've read some of his stuff on foreign policy, and I tend to agree with you. He's far too intelligent, well-versed, and nuanced about it to ever manage to get elected on it. He'll have to work hard if he wants to polish up the "us'ns and them'ns" rhetoric that's a requirement for not being branded a crypto-Commie traitor there.

[Squeek]

Obama started losing the foreign policy debate the moment he hedged on the idea of abandoning Iraq. That put him in the losing position of having to compete with McCain's understanding of what's happening over there.

It would be convenient to simply claim that those who support the war are too stupid to understand those who oppose it or that they're just a bunch of warmongers. Unfortunately, that's nothing but arrogance.

The inconvenient truth is that the war makes a certain amount of sense at this point. Obama expressed his willingness to continue fighting in Iraq to an appropriate extent. Now he will either have to elaborate on that or jump back to his original position of abandoning the war.

Either way Obama will still need to find a response to McCain's question of what he would talk about when he sits down with terrorists and other scum like Ahmadinejad. It should include a clear description of the point where he would be willing to walk away.

[Prime Junta]

The inconvenient truth is that the war makes a certain amount of sense at this point.

Please elaborate. In what way does the war make sense at this point? "If we pull out, the violence will get worse" is not an acceptable answer.

[Squeek]

Please elaborate. In what way does the war make sense at this point? "If we pull out, the violence will get worse" is not an acceptable answer.The war's been analyzed and debated every step of the way, and arguments for and against it have been made ad nauseum. Even Obama, who opposed it from the start, hedged recently. My understanding of and reference to the points made in favor of it are an acknowledgement of what the war has become and not an argument for its overall justification.

The war is a big hairy problem, unfortunately, and walking away from it will be easier said than done. I think that's obvious. Really, don't you?

[dteowner]

As you yourself have pointed out numerous times, the lack of any stable self-supporting government in Iraq means that removing our military results in a chaotic and bloody power struggle.

[magerette]

Just when I think I've worked up my Clinton tolerance to civil levels, she implodes my blood pressure to the spots-before-the-eyes level. Her latest reason for staying in the race--Obama might be assassinated and then where would our country be without her to leap into the breech? Here's the link to the Politico page on it:

Hillary Cites RFK Assassination (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_s hes_still_in_race.html)

Every time she says something like this she ratchets the hostility level up about ten notches. I hope she enjoys her trip to the dark side, because this is no way to impress anyone with any true abilities or qualifications she may have.

[Squeek]

Wow. This is getting more and more pathetic every day.

[txa1265]

... if Obama does to the theater, will she trot out Abe Lincoln?

[dteowner]

She's running Bill's playbook. Throw some nonsensical mud and then distance yourself from it. Unfortunately, the Ice Queen lacks Bill's political talent and charisma, so she can't pull off that technique.

[Prime Junta]

The war's been analyzed and debated every step of the way, and arguments for and against it have been made ad nauseum. Even Obama, who opposed it from the start, hedged recently. My understanding of and reference to the points made in favor of it are an acknowledgement of what the war has become and not an argument for its overall justification.

The war is a big hairy problem, unfortunately, and walking away from it will be easier said than done. I think that's obvious. Really, don't you?

Of course walking away from it is easier said than done. That doesn't mean that the war makes any more sense now than it did before.

[Prime Junta]

As you yourself have pointed out numerous times, the lack of any stable self-supporting government in Iraq means that removing our military results in a chaotic and bloody power struggle.

In the absence of any strategy to put such a government in place, though, staying there is merely delaying the inevitable. Do you see any such strategy in place?

[dteowner]

I would say the genesis of the government has been going on for quite a while. The fact that all 3 major sects are involved can do nothing but help. It's taken a long time, and will continue to take longer, but the foundation has been set in spite of the best efforts of sweeties like al-Sadr and al-Qaida to divide the country with sectarian hatred.

Now, I suppose I could make some smart comment about how your prediction of inevitable violence is excellent support for my contention that the folks in that neck of the woods (or at least groups within that greater population) are quicker to grab a gun or IED than "Dubya the War Criminal and his band of Merry Neo-Cons" ever were, but it would be impolite to kick you now that you're coming over to my side of the debate. ;)

edit- 2000 posts! Gads, I talk too much.

[Corwin]

On topic, I just had to post today's S&B link; it's perfect!!
http://www.socksandbarney.com/comics/2008-05-24-socksbarney_143.gif

[Prime Junta]

I would say the genesis of the government has been going on for quite a while. The fact that all 3 major sects are involved can do nothing but help. It's taken a long time, and will continue to take longer, but the foundation has been set in spite of the best efforts of sweeties like al-Sadr and al-Qaida to divide the country with sectarian hatred.

And I would say you're wrong, and that the current situation is simply an "indigenous" occupation government artificially propped up by a foreign army, with less potential for survival on its own than Karzai's government in Afghanistan -- or the South Vietnamese government back in the good ol' days of Vietnam.

What evidence do you see to back your view rather than mine?

Edit: You know, actual developments on the ground that suggest that the government is consolidating itself rather than the opposite. Something entirely unlike this [ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQ7to4Zhf0BTz9HqeVbjvvgx9LUQD90QS17O0 ] for example.

And do you feel that "sit tight, bleed, and pray" constitutes a viable strategy for Iraq?

Now, I suppose I could make some smart comment about how your prediction of inevitable violence is excellent support for my contention that the folks in that neck of the woods (or at least groups within that greater population) are quicker to grab a gun or IED than "Dubya the War Criminal and his band of Merry Neo-Cons" ever were, but it would be impolite to kick you now that you're coming over to my side of the debate. ;)

And should you do that, I could simply point to body counts. How many have died from American arms, and how many from Arab arms over the past century?

[dteowner]

Until the Americans start wearing suicide vests, I'll say Arab vs. Arab is far in the lead. We simply can't compete with blowing up a market full of innocents in one fell swoop. Even looking at a broader history, Between Lebanon over the years, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Taliban (rise and fall) and Iraq, the US isn't even close on body count, unless you're going back to blaming us for everything and saying the blood is on our hands by proxy while ignoring who really pulls the trigger.

Now, if you're looking to be specific with your wording (I have to be careful), I'm not aware of any Arab gun manufacturers so that's not exactly a fair contest. Although, I would hypothesize, lacking any real evidence, that Russian weaponry might be more prevalent than American overall.

Your example is an interesting read, but it seems to me that quotes such as these--
"Al-Sistani would love Muqtada (al-Sadr) to disappear but he will not break the community by openly going against a popular Shiite cleric," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite affairs at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "If he orders militias disbanded and a car bomb again kills many Shiites, he will be held responsible."
do more to support my sectarian friction assertion than to refute my government stability assertion. I find it interesting that, for all your pinko commie leanings, you seem to favor strongman governments for stability in that region.

[Prime Junta]

Until the Americans start wearing suicide vests, I'll say Arab vs. Arab is far in the lead.

One word: Custer.

We simply can't compete with blowing up a market full of innocents in one fell swoop.

One word: Hiroshima.

Even looking at a broader history, Between Lebanon over the years, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Taliban (rise and fall) and Iraq, the US isn't even close on body count, unless you're going back to blaming us for everything and saying the blood is on our hands by proxy while ignoring who really pulls the trigger. Now, if you're looking to be specific with your wording (I have to be careful), I'm not aware of any Arab gun manufacturers so that's not exactly a fair contest. Although, I would hypothesize, lacking any real evidence, that Russian weaponry might be more prevalent than American overall.

Dte, do you really think this line of conversation is worth pursuing? 'Cuz I don't. But if you want to get me seriously angry, I do suggest you continue with your "they're all bloodthirsty barbarians with a Culture of Violence(tm) whereas we're all peace, love, bong water and the Religion of Peace" line.

Your example is an interesting read, but it seems to me that quotes such as these--

Yes, we've already established that you're a past master at reading quotes selectively. The point of that article was that Sistani, a "moderate" hitherto in the pro-government camp, has been quietly issuing fatwas justifying armed resistance against Americans, the main backer of the government. But obviously you seem to have missed it, given your wonderfully effective mental filter that simply rejects anything that would put a stain on the lily-white picture you hold of America's foreign policy morality.

"Al-Sistani would love Muqtada (al-Sadr) to disappear but he will not break the community by openly going against a popular Shiite cleric," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite affairs at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "If he orders militias disbanded and a car bomb again kills many Shiites, he will be held responsible."
do more to support my sectarian friction assertion than to refute my government stability assertion. I find it interesting that, for all your pinko commie leanings, you seem to favor strongman governments for stability in that region.

Not exactly, dte. I favor (almost) *any* government over *no* government. We've plenty of experience of what no government looks like there -- Lebanon, 1975 to 1990, Somalia until today, Iraq since the US toppled Saddam, and so on. None of the governments actually in place there, whether we're talking the Shah or Saddam, have come close to being as bad as no government at all.

(The "almost" applies to governments like North Korea or Burma, which are so horrible that even anarchy would be preferable to them. But there hasn't ever been one quite that bad in the Middle East.)

If there is a realistic plan of replacing the coercive governments there with open, democratic, and free ones (whatever that may mean), I will be fervently in favor of them.

But in the absence of such a plan, I am very much against simply toppling -- or destabilizing -- the strongmen. The strongmen are evil, but next to the spectre of civil war, they're the lesser evil.

And no, I have not forgiven, nor will I easily forgive, what America has done in Iraq -- even after you slink back home with your tail between your legs and start spinning stories about what a marvelous victory it was.

[Prime Junta]

Let me rephrase my above statement... and simultaneously impose a little rule on myself here.

It's just this:

I do not accept your claim of American moral superiority relative to the Arabs.

And the rule I impose on myself is this:

I will not get into any discussion here about American moral superiority relative to the Arabs.

As an aside, I try to keep moral arguments out of my political discussions for this very reason -- unless you're preaching to the choir, you'll immediately get into a flamefest, which destroys all possibility of intelligent discourse or finding any common ground.

[dteowner]

One word: Hiroshima.Not Arab related in any way. If you're going to bring in unrelated issues, then I'll throw in the at-least-partially-related Arab/Israeli fiasco, which trumps Hiroshima in body count without even trying.
Dte, do you really think this line of conversation is worth pursuing? 'Cuz I don't. Me either. We've already had a long drag-out over where blame belongs that got us nowhere, so there's really no need to cover that ground again. Moving on.
Yes, we've already established that you're a past master at reading quotes selectively. The point of that article was that Sistani, a "moderate" hitherto in the pro-government camp, has been quietly issuing fatwas justifying armed resistance against Americans, the main backer of the government. But obviously you seem to have missed it, given your wonderfully effective mental filter that simply rejects anything that would put a stain on the lily-white picture you hold of America's foreign policy morality.I know what your intent with the article was. I even agree with your summary. I don't know that it's invalid to cite al-Sistani's turn from tacit US support (kinda sad when "lack of open aggression" qualifies as support, doncha think?) to Shi'ite maneuvering as a sign that the government is a failure. That just moves him to the other side of the equation. Now, I'm not stupid enough to think that al-Sistani abandoning the government in favor of sectarian friction is going to help, but that does seem to strengthen my assertion that you've got a group of people that want the government to work and a group of people that are more interested in making sure their sect gets a few good licks in on the others.
And no, I have not forgiven, nor will I easily forgive, what America has done in Iraq -- even after you slink back home with your tail between your legs and start spinning stories about what a marvelous victory it was.I don't know of many folks that would call taking out Saddam a failure. We're talking a guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens with pleasant methods like poison gas. If we end up, after all is said and done, with nothing better than a new "our dictator that will eventually become a whackjob", we've still bought a better world for the decade or two it will take the new guy to make the transition. Similarly, I don't know if even Dubya would be stupid enough to declare Iraq a "marvelous victory". I certainly wouldn't. When this all got started, Everything Xen (over at the Dot) made the comment that "A whole lot of Americans are going to die to free a people that hate them." That statement has stuck with me over the years. It says quite a bit about everyone involved, to my mind.

[dteowner]

Had a thought.

Would the situation have been different if Saddam had been ousted in exactly the same fashion by (pulling Arab country from hat) Egypt? Assume, for the sake of discussion that Egypt had the firepower to do what we've done. Is it fair to say that half the problem in Iraq is that it's America doing it, rather than the actual events?

[vanedor]

One word: Custer.
So you think Custer decided to commit suicide with his men in order to kill as many indian as possible just like suicide bombers do? That's some serious revisionism, here.


One word: Hiroshima.


Well, Hiroshima did have a pretty positive effect overall in term of saving innocent people lives, in my opinion. If you wanted a more appropriate exemple, I would say the bombing of Dresden.




I don't know of many folks that would call taking out Saddam a failure. We're talking a guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens with pleasant methods like poison gas.

If at least the US-led invasion on Irak had been to save some people lives. The gazing of the kurds, the killings of shiites were long done when the U.S. attacked Irak. They mostly werent even denounced by the time they were commited and just served as convenient reasons to demonstrate that Saddam had to be taken out of power.

There is absolutely no indication that Saddam was going to do so mass killing again. With some good will, peace could have been done with him and he could have served once again as an ally in the region against Iran and the growing terrorism. Instead, we got a mess that got more people killed in a few years than Saddam managed to kill in over 20 years, if you exclude the war against Iran.

Now, whoever get elected after Bush has mostly two options... To continue to attempt to consolidate the current gouvernement in Irak or pull out. I'm not sure yet which option is better and while continuing is certainly costly and cause the death of many people, pulling out would almost certainly cause a bloody civil war. Is it just delayed by the american effort or can it be totally prevented? That's a question I don't think anyone is able to truly answer.

[Prime Junta]

Not Arab related in any way. If you're going to bring in unrelated issues, then I'll throw in the at-least-partially-related Arab/Israeli fiasco, which trumps Hiroshima in body count without even trying.

Dum dum de dum dum...

Me either. We've already had a long drag-out over where blame belongs that got us nowhere, so there's really no need to cover that ground again. Moving on.

Had to get in the last word, though.

I know what your intent with the article was. I even agree with your summary. I don't know that it's invalid to cite al-Sistani's turn from tacit US support (kinda sad when "lack of open aggression" qualifies as support, doncha think?) to Shi'ite maneuvering as a sign that the government is a failure. That just moves him to the other side of the equation. Now, I'm not stupid enough to think that al-Sistani abandoning the government in favor of sectarian friction is going to help, but that does seem to strengthen my assertion that you've got a group of people that want the government to work and a group of people that are more interested in making sure their sect gets a few good licks in on the others.

No, you've *only* got people who want to make sure their sect gets a few good licks in on the others. Plus some people who can be bought. If there is anyone in Iraq actually interested in setting up a genuinely representative national government, they're far too insignificant to count.

I don't know of many folks that would call taking out Saddam a failure. We're talking a guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens with pleasant methods like poison gas.

I do call taking out Saddam a failure. Hell, most Iraqis by now call taking out Saddam a failure. Civil war is much, much worse than living under an authoritarian regime like Saddam's. Believe me -- I know lots of people with experience of living under both.

If we end up, after all is said and done, with nothing better than a new "our dictator that will eventually become a whackjob", we've still bought a better world for the decade or two it will take the new guy to make the transition.

No, you haven't. You've bought a much worse world. You've turned Iraq into the biggest and best terrorist recruitment ground and training camp ever, you've contributed at least several tens of dollars to the dollar price of a barrel of oil, you've killed or indirectly caused the death of between 100,000 and 1,000,000 or so Iraqis. This is in no sense better than not invading Iraq.

Similarly, I don't know if even Dubya would be stupid enough to declare Iraq a "marvelous victory". I certainly wouldn't. When this all got started, Everything Xen (over at the Dot) made the comment that "A whole lot of Americans are going to die to free a people that hate them." That statement has stuck with me over the years. It says quite a bit about everyone involved, to my mind.

Except that "freeing them" is a fiction invented by your leaders -- one that you continue to uncritically accept.

In the Third Reich, you would have made a model Nazi. You're so marvelously good at believing things your dear leaders feed you in order to make you feel good about themselves.

[Prime Junta]

Had a thought.

Would the situation have been different if Saddam had been ousted in exactly the same fashion by (pulling Arab country from hat) Egypt? Assume, for the sake of discussion that Egypt had the firepower to do what we've done. Is it fair to say that half the problem in Iraq is that it's America doing it, rather than the actual events?

That's a very hard question to answer, because I can't think of a credible scenario where and why this would happen. If it did, I suspect that they would be facing a unified Shi'ite-Kurd uprising, with the government based on the Sunnis. If they had enough boots on the ground and enough money, they might even win. The end result would be another war with Iran, with the victor determining the fate of Iraq -- either another Sunni strongman, or a Shi'ite tyranny of the majority with close ties to Iran. There would certainly be huge massacres and ethnic cleansing either way.

[dteowner]

Except that "freeing them" is a fiction invented by your leaders -- one that you continue to uncritically accept.I suppose these guys were paid off to say this, since it's clearly fiction that I've swallowed whole.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=157562&attrib_id=7394

I might make a good stormtrooper in your eyes, but that doesn't change the fact that the ease with which you dismiss any and all dissenting opinions as plainly uneducated wears a bit thin when it's relatively simple to find others (with at least some credibility) that espouse those opinions. It must get lonely being the only intelligent person in the whole world.

[Prime Junta]

I suppose these guys were paid off to say this, since it's clearly fiction that I've swallowed whole.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=157562&attrib_id=7394

The fact that genuine Iraqi democracy activists, or pro-American Iraqis, exist(ed) does not mean that America's motivation was to help them out. Naturally the US government will make the maximum propaganda coin out of them when it finds them.

Seriously, dte -- learn how propaganda works. That way you'll be able to recognize it even when it's your party that feeds it to you.

[dteowner]

*wiping drool from chin*
So lucky
*picking nose*
me have smart friend
*SHINY THING! SHINY SHINY*
tell me how world for real be

[dteowner]

No, you've *only* got people who want to make sure their sect gets a few good licks in on the others. Plus some people who can be bought. If there is anyone in Iraq actually interested in setting up a genuinely representative national government, they're far too insignificant to count.You get so mad at me for some perceived moral superiority. Wouldn't you say that your analysis is truly a sad statement on the Iraqis? Either you're marginalizing a whole lot of good people to make the facts fit your point, or you need to rethink your position next time we have one of those "these people have been killing each other for centuries" debates.

[Prime Junta]

You get so mad at me for some perceived moral superiority.

"Perceived?"

Wouldn't you say that your analysis is truly a sad statement on the Iraqis? Either you're marginalizing a whole lot of good people to make the facts fit your point, or you need to rethink your position next time we have one of those "these people have been killing each other for centuries" debates.

DTE, there won't be any more such debates. I'm giving up on you. A while back it looked like you were re-examining some of your prejudices, but it's clear that you've run right back to their warm embrace. That being the case, there's nothing more for us to talk about.

I do reserve the right to poke fun at you, though, should you trot out a particularly egregious Free Republic talking point.

[dteowner]

You're the one slamming the Iraqi people, so I'm not sure what my prejudices (whatever you've determined them to be) have to do with it, but so it goes.

I said good day sir!

[magerette]

Being as how its Memorial Day, maybe it would be in good taste to acknowledge the service of those young Americans and their Iraqi counterparts who have had their lives taken from them in this conflict, instead of conducting a post-mortem on the whole sorry mess--at least for one day. (I won't say they gave their lives--I dislike that term.)

Dte, I'm a little surprised that $4000+ a second for every day the war continues out of our joint pocketbooks isn't enough to make you re-examine your position a bit. My husband was behind the war at inception, but as a veteran who's been there and done that--two tours in Korea, one in Viet Nam, one in Germany--he has long since acknowledged it as a clusterf**k on the level of Nam or worse--and he's a registered, card-carrying Repub and as conservative as they come politically. He won't vote this fall, simply because all the Dems are too liberal, and McCain is pro-war.

He's a little amazed by my newfound political junkie-hood--I used to leave the room when the News came on--and besides mentioning checking the basement for pods, sometimes these days I catch him humming that line from the old 70's Shel Silverstein song, Redneck-Hippie Romance: "They say a Redneck and a Hippie should never get married, (but we just laughed and done it anyway..)" On the war, however, we're agreed.

Anyway, let us cease sullying the pure hatred of the Hillary-bashing thread with this goofy emphasis on the issues! Here are the latest egregious Clintonisms:


Bill has never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully. (http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/25/bill-clinton-i-have-never-seen-a-candidate-treated-so-disrespectfully/)

Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by blaming Obama (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/25/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html)

[Squeek]

I will not get into any discussion here about American moral superiority relative to the Arabs.You are the champion here of everything relating to the suggestion of American inferiority, PJ. Don't you know that?

[curiously undead]

hey magerette, given those circumstances your husband could still vote for ron paul could he not?

[magerette]

hey magerette, given those circumstances your husband could still vote for ron paul could he not?

Yes, and he might--he's even voted Libertarian in the past . He's pretty disgusted with everyone atm though. ;)

[Prime Junta]

I love you too, Squeek. But I'm married, and I don't swing that way in any case. :kiss:

[Squeek]

I'm guessing you must get beat up a lot in real life.

[dteowner]

It's a pretty complicated situation magerette. Although I understand it's not an entirely realistic stance, I actually lean strongly toward isolationist policy until such time as somebody pokes us with a stick. Once that happened, we opened a door.

Although, like much of America, I was taken in by the WMD argument, I'm still convinced that removing Saddam was a good thing for the world. Between his treatment of his own citizens and his distain for the world community (see Kuwait invasion, see oil-for-food fraud, see UN Inspector expulsions), he was a bad apple and wasn't going to get better. So that's our rationale for going in.

So why stay? Well, surprisingly enough, I agree with PJ that our habit of flopping foreign policy every 4 or 8 years has bad consequences for the people that we meddle with. Since we made the mess by taking Saddam out of the picture, I figure we're obligated to make an honest effort to clean up after ourselves. Walking away while the nutjobs are still trying to tear the country apart doesn't qualify as "honest effort" in my book.

Now, I'm getting very weary of the war. "Honest effort" is all well and good if the people you're helping are making an effort to help themselves. I've slowly come to the realization (which PJ stated perfectly for me this morning, much to my surprise--and there's no sarcasm intended in that nor am I trying to poke PJ on this, I honestly was surprised although based on subsequent events perhaps I misinterpretted his intent) that the Iraqis are too wrapped up in sectarian nonsense and long-standing hatred of the US (justified or not) to help themselves with our assistance. I still wonder if the reconstruction (for lack of a better term) would be such a disaster if any nation other than the US was leading the assistance.

It's a no-win situation. If we stay, we continue to waste lives, waste money, and endure the armchair quarterbacking of the rest of the world. If we pick up stakes, we leave Iraq in a serious mess and endure the armchair quarterbacking of the rest of the world for that.

[POLYGON]

It's a pretty complicated situation magerette. Although I understand it's not an entirely realistic stance, I actually lean strongly toward isolationist policy until such time as somebody pokes us with a stick. Once that happened, we opened a door.

Although, like much of America, I was taken in by the WMD argument, I'm still convinced that removing Saddam was a good thing for the world. Between his treatment of his own citizens and his distain for the world community (see Kuwait invasion, see oil-for-food fraud, see UN Inspector expulsions), he was a bad apple and wasn't going to get better. So that's our rationale for going in.

So why stay? Well, surprisingly enough, I agree with PJ that our habit of flopping foreign policy every 4 or 8 years has bad consequences for the people that we meddle with. Since we made the mess by taking Saddam out of the picture, I figure we're obligated to make an honest effort to clean up after ourselves. Walking away while the nutjobs are still trying to tear the country apart doesn't qualify as "honest effort" in my book.

Now, I'm getting very weary of the war. "Honest effort" is all well and good if the people you're helping are making an effort to help themselves. I've slowly come to the realization (which PJ stated perfectly for me this morning, much to my surprise--and there's no sarcasm intended in that nor am I trying to poke PJ on this, I honestly was surprised although based on subsequent events perhaps I misinterpretted his intent) that