US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think Hillary is the antichrist. I just believe she is hastening his arrival.

So what does the wink mean? Are you serious or not.

I have dumped my oldest friend [over 30 years] over this business so excuse me if I fail to see the humor. I think this country is in deep trouble and there is no joking about it. The foundations of liberty and democracy are under attack and religious zealotry and terrorism are being used as motives/justifiers.

Soldiers swear to protect the Constitution with their life. I think it's time the rest of this country started taking it seriously and stop making a mockery of the democratic process. It should be cherished.

 

[BobG]

Not a stellar performance by Clinton last night. Her comment about "change you can Xerox" didn't seem to go over nearly as well as she thought it might.

I bet Rush Limbaugh won't be too proud to plagiarize her comment come Fall, though.

 

[Art]

Not a stellar performance by Clinton last night. Her comment about "change you can Xerox" didn't seem to go over nearly as well as she thought it might.

I bet Rush Limbaugh won't be too proud to plagiarize her comment come Fall, though.

It was ironic that her answer to the last question for which she won most plaudits was plagiarised almost verbatim from a speech 2 months ago by Edwards

 

[chemisttree]

It was ironic that her answer to the last question for which she won most plaudits was plagiarised almost verbatim from a speech 2 months ago by Edwards

Would you expect anything different from someone who plagiarized her husband's record/experience?

 

[chemisttree]

Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)

 

[turbo]

Would you expect anything different from someone who plagiarized her husband's record/experience?

You mean her much-vaunted "35 years of experience"? I'm getting sicker of that phrase with every passing day. 35 years of what? Of being a lawyer? Of being a Wal-Mart board member? Of being the brains behind Bill Clinton? I wish she'd get specific about how she was serving her country for those 35 years.

 

[Art]

Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)

I'm curious, why is the hispanic vote so much in favour of Hillary? Presumably immigration is a big issue with them but aren't both candidates policies on this pretty much identical?

 

[chemisttree]

Her roots in the state, as she never fails to remind voters, reach far back. One of her national co-chairs, Raul Yzaguirre, remembers meeting Clinton in 1972, when she went to south Texas to register Hispanic voters for George McGovern. "It was a bit of a culture clash," he says, recalling the blond, bespectacled young woman who asked him how to make tamales. When her husband was president, she visited repeatedly, and over the years she's become steeped in Tejano culture.

The border area holds the most promise for her, with its rich reservoir of Latino voters—a group that's been a base of support. Hidalgo County, home to McAllen, is 90 percent Mexican-American and a place where the old-timers used to place two photos on the mantel: one of the pope and one of JFK. "We're the bluest part of a Red State," says Jerry Polinard of the University of Texas-Pan American. "When we talk about building a fence down here, we talk about building one on the north to keep the Republicans out." But under the state's inscrutable delegate-allocation system, this heavily Hispanic area will have comparatively fewer delegates to award. So Clinton will have to compete for voters all over: liberals in Austin, old-line Democrats in the middle, blacks in Houston and Dallas, and rural traditionalists east and west.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/112777

She's been here before. She's baaack...

Maybe she'll be the first hispanic president!

 

[lisab]

Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)

Actually I really can't guess why...can you be so kind as to enlighten me?

 

[lisab]

chemistree, I just read your post - it came up before I finished mine.

Well I'll be darned, I didn't know she had a lot of contacts in Texas.

 

[Astronuc]

Well more primaries coming up including Vt, and 2 biggies, Tx and Oh.

So http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080228/us_time/doesexperiencematterinapresident;_ylt=An.xizFL6EjZhuevrl1lbx2s0NUE

Until one is elected president, it would seem one has no experience.

So what experience are they talking about?

 

[Art]

So what experience are they talking about?

It seems it used to mean being a blood relative of a former president but this is now being stretched to sleeping with one. In which case Monica Lewinsky has as much experience as Hillary, in fact given Hillary's hatchet face probably more

 

[russ_watters]

Well more primaries coming up including Vt, and 2 biggies, Tx and Oh.

So http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080228/us_time/doesexperiencematterinapresident;_ylt=An.xizFL6EjZhuevrl1lbx2s0NUE

Until one is elected president, it would seem one has no experience.

So what experience are they talking about?

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

 

[turbo]

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

If a person has governed a state successfully and has demonstrated good fiscal stewardship during times of of economic instability, such as the present time, it would make him or very much more electable in my eyes. States can't print money, and they are not allowed to run deficits, so governors have to balance income with expenditures, while staying within debt/borrowing limits established by the legislature.

 

[Astronuc]

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

I was thinking of some executive position, e.g. corporate CEO/president or governor. However, being governor certainly didn't help Bush be more responsible or honest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While the "experienced" politicians fell for cheap tricks by Saddam intended to convince his neighbors that he had wmds, Obama saw through it all. So much for experience.

I say that not having one's head up their behind is more valuable than experience. And Obama has something else: Obama has vision - You know, that thing that Bush senior tried to get. ["gotta get that vision thing" - GHWB]

 

[Astronuc]

Mike Bloomberg - I’m Not Running for President, but ...

WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.

Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.

In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.

. . . .

Things to consider in moving forward.

Clearly the challenges ahead are enormous, even without repairing the damage that the Bush administration has inflicted upon the US and world.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

I can't speak to the 'best' adjective, but here is the American experience on experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_executive_experience"
Looks like we're headed for the first President with no executive experience since Kennedy.

 

[Astronuc]

Being governor didn't help Clinton or Bush when it came to foreign policy. Clinton's policy was bad, and Bush's was worse.


The question then does McCain or Obama, or even Clinton, have a good grasp of current issue in foreign affairs?

Then how about domestic policy? How will the next president deal with the tremendous deficit spending?

Perhaps it's time to implement a program of austerity and stop living beyond the means of the economy. It's time to reduce Federal spending or increase taxes.

 

[NateTG]

Perhaps it's time to implement a program of austerity and stop living beyond the means of the economy. It's time to reduce Federal spending or increase taxes.

Hear hear!

Of course, there is little pressure on the government to do either of those compared to the forces for pork-barrel and tax reductions.

 

[mheslep]

Generally, the experience considered best as a prerequisite for being President is experience running the executive branch of a government. Ie, a governorship.

Or at least executive responsibility of some kind of large organization.

 

[mheslep]

While the "experienced" politicians fell for cheap tricks by Saddam intended to convince his neighbors that he had wmds, Obama saw through it all. So much for experience.

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

BARACK OBAMA: As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.

 

[Astronuc]

Al Qaida is a name that anyone can use. AQI is not necessarily the same as bin Laden's AQ, a distinction that the current administration (and others) is unable to make. I think Obama was referring to bin Laden's group, not AQI.

AQI was apparently organized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and lead by him until he was killed by US airstrike in 2006. The AQI pledged allegiance to AQ, and apparently AQ is enouraging AQI, and perhaps providing material and financial support.

It will take some time to extricate the US from Iraq. But then the Bush administration seems none to eager.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

 

[mheslep]

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Yes of course I read the '03 speech. It's still a nonsensical extrapolation from that speech to say Obama 'saw through' 'cheap tricks by Saddam intended to convince his neighbors that he had wmds'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He clearly state that Saddam was not a threat in spite of the fear mongering. Also, that is from 2002, not 2003, so he was far ahead of the pack. Cheney still hasn't figured it out and he had the most experience of anyone.

Wmds were allegedly the reason for the attack and the reason that Saddam was perceived as an imminent threat.

 

[mheslep]

Al Qaida is a name that anyone can use.

I don't agree but if true then Sen Obama's statement is meaningless.

AQI is not necessarily the same as bin Laden's AQ, a distinction that the current administration (and others) is unable to make. ..

AQI was apparently organized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and lead by him until he was killed by US airstrike in 2006. The AQI pledged allegiance to AQ, and apparently AQ is enouraging AQI, and perhaps providing material and financial support.

A distinction without a practical difference, as the 2nd paragraph starts to show. Add to it that Z. ran camps in Afghanistan starting in '99, fought in Afghanistan w/ the Taliban and AQ in '03, got his startup money for AQI directly from bin Laden, and Z. in Iraq and AQ communicated frequently.

...I think Obama was referring to bin Laden's group, not AQI...

Based on what possible statements?

 

[mheslep]

He clearly state that Saddam was not a threat in spite of the fear mongering.

As that is a completely different statement from the 'cheap tricks' statement, Ill take it as a retraction.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like we're headed for the first President with no executive experience since Kennedy.

Obama, HRC and MCain have some executive experience. Obama was Director of the Developing Communities Project and President of the Harvard Law Review. Hillary was Chairwoman of the Legal Services Corporation and the Children's Defense Fund. McCain was VP, Public Relations for an Annheuser-Busch distributor.

Ridiculous. The Senator spoke against Iraq mainly on the basis that he thought it was poor judgment and a 'rash war' (2003 speech) Please cite anything, anywhere alluding to how he 'saw through' Hussein's internal manipulations of his own command chain to pretend he had WMD.

In his 2002 speech, Obama did not explicitly state anything about internal manipulations by Saddam, but did state that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US or to the Middle East. He also mentions that Saddam only "coveted" nuclear capability.

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

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

Obama's plan calls for a phased withdrawal of major combat forces over a period of 16 months. He has also said, dozens of times now, that he will leave behind a residual force, primarily composed of Spec Ops teams, to continue targeted strikes against AQ. Since we know that AQ-I accounts for only about 10% of the violence in Iraq, a significant drawdown in US force presence is not contradictory to maintaining the ability to strike at Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

See also Congressional Research Services reports RL32217 and RL 31339.

 

[mheslep]

Obama's plan calls for a phased withdrawal of major combat forces over a period of 16 months.

Indeed it does. That's roughly two brigades a month, which is also the current rate of withdrawal through this summer.

He has also said, dozens of times now, that he will leave behind a residual force, primarily composed of Spec Ops teams, to continue targeted strikes against AQ.

Saying it repeatedly does not make it reasonable. There's many things wrong with this:
1. Spec Ops teams are not meant to be 'left behind' as the don't have the logistics trail to sustain themselves, that's why they're lightweight. They're meant to go in ahead of or along side major forces. Somalia is an tragic example of what can happen when Spec Ops are ill used - and for much the same reason - a political authority that wanted it both ways - to pretend it was addressing the problem without committing the forces to do so (armor requests refused, etc).
2. Spec Ops depend on good intelligence to be effective. They can't scour the countryside. In the last year Spec Ops have been http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/general-barry-r-mccaffrey-report.htm" [see 1b] coming from civilians now co-located w/ take and hold surge troops.
3. A plan to leave behind SO forces doesn't address the issue of a major invasion by Iran or other neighbors fearful of Iraqi disintegration.

I'll give Sen O. this much: his draw down and token leave behind plan is much more plausible now given the up trend of the last 6-8 months. A year or two ago such and idea was just pander.

Since we know that AQ-I accounts for only about 10% of the violence in Iraq, a significant drawdown in US force presence is not contradictory to maintaining the ability to strike at Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Its fair to say AQI is responsible for only 10% of the direct violence, and currently the figure is probably even less as the Sunnis have turned on AQI. However, planning against this figure linearly is unwise as AQ has had vastly larger indirect impact on the violence, as demonstrated by the 'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200454.html" which really ignited the shia-sunni struggles, and AQ's greater propensity for indiscriminate civilian massacres in general. The point being here, that the goal of US should be to withdraw when Iraq is capable of governing and securing itself, as McCain has stated many times.