OT: 2008 Elections

[pk500]

The other thing is, by the time the election comes around, any infighting among Democrats should be over. I expect both Obama and Clinton to lobby loudly for the nomination, but I think once it's decided, they will both accept it and circle the wagons.

True. But the primary in-fighting will expose weaknesses in both Democratic candidates and also provide winning strategies against both for McCain to exploit.

For example: Look how effective the "3 a.m." ad was for Hillary as she questioned Obama's ability to be commander in chief. You think the McCain team hasn't noted that and won't use similar tactics this summer and fall if Obama is the Democratic nominee?

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

Will a black candidate be enough to galvanize the right wing base to vote en masse for McCain.

You need to explain this line. It comes across as a racist statement. Are you really saying that Republicans will rally around McCain because Obama is black?

[matthewk]

Update:
Apparently hisattendance is still up for debate. According to this artice: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/ ... x?id=72267

I don't see how it's up for debate. Someone writing for a partisan "news" site made a claim that he has no evidence for, and that current evidence suggests is not true. That's a baseless claim unless the author comes up with actual evidence supporting his claim. And I haven't seen any other verified reports that this is true.

It's very much open to debate. It has already been admitted that Obama was in the area at the time, so why couldn't he have been there? Someone said he was. It doesn't matter who the guy is, and I have not seen anyone able to prove he wasn't there to witness it.

[Jared]

It's very much open to debate. It has already been admitted that Obama was in the area at the time, so why couldn't he have been there? Someone said he was. It doesn't matter who the guy is, and I have not seen anyone able to prove he wasn't there to witness it.

That's not the way to evaluate evidence. No one has independently confirmed Newsmax's claims (and it's not like Newsmax has a reputation for journalistic excellent), and the writer of the article is backtracking saying maybe he got the date wrong, and he was caught scrubbing this from his Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the article says that Obama was "nodding his head in agreement" hearing Wright's attacks on America. Does any of that seem above board?

For example, I will now claim that I saw Obama strangle a goat with his bare hands and sacrifice it to Molech yesterday after his race speech. Obama was in Philly at the time, I live within walking distance from where he gave the speech. No one can prove that I wasn't there to witness it. Therefore, I claim that whether Obama is a Molech-worshipping goat strangler or not is "open to debate".

Now my story is absurd, unless you have independent sources that can confirm it, or documentary evidence that it happened. But obviously I don't...and neither does Newsmax. Unless other evidence supporting their claims comes up, it's not even something that's open to debate.

[Brando70]

The other thing is, by the time the election comes around, any infighting among Democrats should be over. I expect both Obama and Clinton to lobby loudly for the nomination, but I think once it's decided, they will both accept it and circle the wagons.

True. But the primary in-fighting will expose weaknesses in both Democratic candidates and also provide winning strategies against both for McCain to exploit.

For example: Look how effective the "3 a.m." ad was for Hillary as she questioned Obama's ability to be commander in chief. You think the McCain team hasn't noted that and won't use similar tactics this summer and fall if Obama is the Democratic nominee?

Take care,
PK

True, but there's plenty to use against McCain. The 100 years in Iraq sound bite, that picture of him giving Bush the most uncomfortable looking man-hug out side of the NBA draft, and some of his pronunciations on other Bush policies. They could also run ads about his immigration legislation to try and get the hardcore anti-immigration folks to stay home -- that's probably the biggest beef with him among conservatives.

I think it will be a close election no matter what. McCain's support among the conservative base is soft. He's like Gore in 2000 in that regard.

[RobVarak]

For example, I will now claim that I saw Obama strangle a goat with his bare hands and sacrifice it to Molech yesterday after his race speech.

That explains how he gets such cuddly coverage by the MSM

[JackB1]

True, but there's plenty to use against McCain. The 100 years in Iraq sound bite, that picture of him giving Bush the most uncomfortable looking man-hug out side of the NBA draft, and some of his pronunciations on other Bush policies. They could also run ads about his immigration legislation to try and get the hardcore anti-immigration folks to stay home -- that's probably the biggest beef with him among conservatives.

What about yesterdays mistake where he claimed Iran was training Al Queda and then sending them into Iraq? Not to mention McCain has go to be the most boring speaker to run for the White House in a long time. He makes Ronald Reagan look like Tony Little. Also, the way he "whistles" his S's makes me crazy.

[pk500]

What about yesterdays mistake where he claimed Iran was training Al Queda and then sending them into Iraq?

We had a vice president who couldn't spell potato.

Not to mention McCain has go to be the most boring speaker to run for the White House in a long time. He makes Ronald Reagan look like Tony Little.

Ever hear Dick Cheney speak? Richard Nixon wasn't exactly a compelling speaker, and Americans elected him twice.

Plus, in this era of soundbites, the ability to master lengthy oratory doesn't mean nearly as much as it did 30 or 40 years ago. If you can put together a good soundbite, you're golden.

Also, the way he "whistles" his S's makes me crazy.

Americans elected a guy to two terms who can't pronounce "nuclear."

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Will a black candidate be enough to galvanize the right wing base to vote en masse for McCain.

You need to explain this line. It comes across as a racist statement. Are you really saying that Republicans will rally around McCain because Obama is black?

First off, you didn't even quote me right.

The right wing base in the republican party is filled by conservative christians. They are not the entire party but they are the base.

My point is in 2000 Bush was able to galvanize the right wing base through his conservative talking points. That is what helped Bush to win. My point is with the absence of that kind of issue, will Obama being an african-american galvanize enough of the right wing conservatives, who have been traditionally anti-minority.

This was in response to PK's post about McCain getting aided by the in-fighting on the Dem's side.

I don't think being black is enough of an issue to get a large majority of republicans to galvanize and support McCain, like they did when fundamental christian ideologies were used by Bush.

[Slumberland]

Ever hear Dick Cheney speak?

I often find Cheney's voice rather soothing. What comes out of his mouth often terrifies me, but it's a calm, sleepy terror.

[JRod]

Paul,

It's going to be a JFK-Nixon moment. Where the moment they (Obama-McCain) stand together on the debate stage American will see the sharp contrast.

[matthewk]

Will a black candidate be enough to galvanize the right wing base to vote en masse for McCain.

You need to explain this line. It comes across as a racist statement. Are you really saying that Republicans will rally around McCain because Obama is black?

First off, you didn't even quote me right.

The right wing base in the republican party is filled by conservative christians. They are not the entire party but they are the base.

My point is in 2000 Bush was able to galvanize the right wing base through his conservative talking points. That is what helped Bush to win. My point is with the absence of that kind of issue, will Obama being an african-american galvanize enough of the right wing conservatives, who have been traditionally anti-minority.

This was in response to PK's post about McCain getting aided by the in-fighting on the Dem's side.

I don't think being black is enough of an issue to get a large majority of republicans to galvanize and support McCain, like they did when fundamental christian ideologies were used by Bush.

How did I not quote you right? Those are the exact words you typed.

So the "conservative christians" are the sub-group you're calling racist? That's SO much better. That's still a quite unfair generalization.

[pk500]

Paul,

It's going to be a JFK-Nixon moment. Where the moment they (Obama-McCain) stand together on the debate stage American will see the sharp contrast.

I don't think McCain owns a little dog named Checkers.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Paul,

It's going to be a JFK-Nixon moment. Where the moment they (Obama-McCain) stand together on the debate stage American will see the sharp contrast.

I don't think McCain owns a little dog named Checkers.

Take care,
PK

I see what JRod is getting at, and in terms of oration nobody can touch Obama. But McCain is much more charismatic and likable than Nixon was. I don't think his temper is even much of an issue as long as he doesn't use it against the wrong target.

McCain always had the best chance of running against the Democrats in this election. He has the moderation of Guilliani without the sleazeball personal baggage, and he's hawkish while admonishing things like torture. His biggest obstacle was not seeming like he wanted to campaign and raising money, both of which were eliminated when everyone but Huckabee self-destructed. And he has more experience than either of his opponents combined. That's a pretty formidable profile.

However, while the Democrats are duking it out, McCain has to run with the albatross of the Bush record around his neck. He can sidestep some of it but he will nevertheless be associated with it because of his party affiliation.

[matthewk]

That's not the way to evaluate evidence. No one has independently confirmed Newsmax's claims (and it's not like Newsmax has a reputation for journalistic excellent), and the writer of the article is backtracking saying maybe he got the date wrong, and he was caught scrubbing this from his Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the article says that Obama was "nodding his head in agreement" hearing Wright's attacks on America. Does any of that seem above board?

I never heard of NewsMax prior to today. I don't know the reporter's history, nor did I hear he was backtracking on his initial statements. I read a blurb on this and figured it had a least some merit for the guy to come out and say something like that. In light of the recent evidence, that case is closed

Still, Obama's camp did admit that he was in the area that morning, so it remains a possibility that he was there.

Even taking out his attendance in that specific instance, there is no way you can convince me that Obama was unaware of Mr. Wright preaching such things.

[TheGamer]

Guys, as someone who has attended Trinity quite a few times, as its my inlaws church, I can tell you that Rev's comments weren't isolated. He has been very consistent in his sermons and social gospel. That being said, I just don't feel that because Barrack attends this church that you have to automatically assume that he shares the same politics as Rev. I think that Obama's background is too diverse to try to pigeonhole him into one line of thinking in regards to race and its evident he loves this country very much to assume he feels the same was Rev.

[RobVarak]

Paul,

It's going to be a JFK-Nixon moment. Where the moment they (Obama-McCain) stand together on the debate stage American will see the sharp contrast.

I've been saying the same thing for months.

America will see an underqualified and inexperienced liberal who's wife has implied that she's never been proud of her country and who's pastor is a propogator of anti-American propoganda standing next to an experienced leader who suffered physically and emotionally for his country like few ever have, and who has made a career out of bipartisanship and with views on the economy, international affairs and social issues are much more closely aligned to those held by the majority of Americans.

Ought to be quite the contrast indeed.

[pk500]

Paul,

It's going to be a JFK-Nixon moment. Where the moment they (Obama-McCain) stand together on the debate stage American will see the sharp contrast.

I've been saying the same thing for months.

America will see an underqualified and inexperienced liberal who's wife has implied that she's never been proud of her country and who's pastor is a propogator of anti-American propoganda standing next to an experienced leader who suffered physically and emotionally for his country like few ever have, and who has made a career out of bipartisanship and with views on the economy, international affairs and social issues are much more closely aligned to those held by the majority of Americans.

Ought to be quite the contrast indeed.

As usual, Rob put eloquently in one post what I've been fumbling along trying to say the last five weeks. BINGO.

I'm still not sure which way I'm going to vote, but the contrast between Obama and McCain -- assuming Obama gets the nomination -- will NOT tilt one-sided toward the younger cat from Illinois.

Take care,
PK

[Slumberland]

Obama's foreign policy speech from today:

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-ob ... aq-speech/

[wco81]

Which of McCain's views on the "economy, international affairs and social issues" are more aligned with the majority of Americans?

Obama probably is more liberal than most Americans, although his U of C policy gurus was viewed as more moderate than Clinton, who tries to tack to "centrist" views (DLC triangulation).

But McCain is tied to Bush by more than party-affiliation. In the early part of Bush's first term, McCain was the maverick, tweaking Bush on things like campaign finance reform and tax cuts.

By the time the 2004 campaign rolled around, McCain embraced Bush, endorsed him, and did the things necessary to get access to Bush's campaign people and fundraisers for his own run in 2008. (one would also think that Bush returning the favor by endorsing McCain was also part of the deal).

And for that, he really courted the cultural conservatives, including the "agents of intolerance," with little success early on.

His bipartisanship rankles conservatives so we'll see. They will probably rally to support the party. The independents, we'll see. Some of them, cared about issues like the environment to vote against Bush in 2000 so will they support the candidate who's inheriting Bush's mantle so to speak?

[RobVarak]

Obama's foreign policy speech from today:

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-ob ... aq-speech/

Lots here to mull over. I have to run, and I'd like to run through it in some depth. The first thing that strikes me is this:

I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.

Hokum! Either he's lying about his real intentions or his intention is to cast Iraq to the wolves and concede the field to al Quaeda. Plain and simple.

"Counter-terrorism" force? Al Quaeda is in Iraq right now in numbers too large for a force of the type he seems to be suggesting. Moreover, al Quaeda aspires to drive an insurgency in Iraq. Countering that threat requires boots on the ground, stabiliztion elements as well as combat.

Even the language is silly and inappropriate. A "base"? Are his foreign policy advisors watching too many James Bond movies? AQI hasn't been operating from a secret mountain lair or underground bunker. They infiltrate, live among the population and ingratiate themselves to the sheiks. There will never be a "base" that the Iraqis "can't destroy."

And as for all that emboldening Iran, the Taliban and North Korea(?), that's just silly. All of those regimes were every bit or more belligerent prior to the war..and 9/11 for that matter. If North Korea has become more aggresive it's due to its deteriorating domestic situation and has not a damn thing to do with Iraq.

Honestly this speech is a major whiff, particularly after the excellent one he delivered yesterday. There is nothing that I see that elevates this beyond mere stump speech nonsense and nothing to indicate that he has the foreign policy wherewithal or advisors necessary to rise above such mediocrity.

I'm actually surprised, because he has done an excellent job heretofore of letting his rhetoric smooth over the deficiencies in his arguments. This is a sensationally poor effort. Somewhere right now there are scores of Democratic foreign policy experts smacking themselves in the forehead like extras auditioning for a V8 commercial.

[RobVarak]

Which of McCain's views on the "economy, international affairs and social issues" are more aligned with the majority of Americans?

Obama probably is more liberal than most Americans, although his U of C policy gurus was viewed as more moderate than Clinton, who tries to tack to "centrist" views (DLC triangulation).

But McCain is tied to Bush by more than party-affiliation. In the early part of Bush's first term, McCain was the maverick, tweaking Bush on things like campaign finance reform and tax cuts.

By the time the 2004 campaign rolled around, McCain embraced Bush, endorsed him, and did the things necessary to get access to Bush's campaign people and fundraisers for his own run in 2008. (one would also think that Bush returning the favor by endorsing McCain was also part of the deal).

And for that, he really courted the cultural conservatives, including the "agents of intolerance," with little success early on.

His bipartisanship rankles conservatives so we'll see. They will probably rally to support the party. The independents, we'll see. Some of them, cared about issues like the environment to vote against Bush in 2000 so will they support the candidate who's inheriting Bush's mantle so to speak?

Recent polls have shown that a majority of American's actually support many of Bush's positions, but not when described as "Bush's positions." This is going to be the key for McCain in the general.

We forget sometimes that America hasn't elected a true full-on liberal since 1968. Carter ran as a stabilizing centrist and the Democrats ever since have been driven by the DLC. It's going to be a hell of a leap to go from electing a two-term tax-cutting social conservative (on the heels of Clinton's almost GOP second term policies and 12 years of Reagan-Bush) to electing a (sorry have to say it) tax and spend, big government progressive.

[wco81]

I have no problem "throwing Iraq to the wolves." The Shiites there who will run the country with Iran's help aren't exactly lambs.

The wild-eyed claims about AQ taking a big country over, when we can barely control it with our boots on the ground, are hollow.

Let them take it over and come out of hiding. Then they're much easier to target, such as in Afghanistan.

The very presence of US troops is what fuels the insurgency and drawing in would-be jihadists.

Worst-case, we have to invade again some years later (the cost-benefit is probably way better than burning money maintaining a big occupation). Staying hasn't solved a damn thing or else we would be able to leave without worrying about who will be in control. That's probably why Sadr is participating in the cease fire, because he's biding his time.

We've waged war and poured resources into this country just to hand the country over to the likes of him?


EDIT: The dire predictions about what would happen if we left have the same tone as WMDs and scar-mongering about remote-controlled aircraft made of balsa with which Iraq would deliver WMD payloads.

There will be sectarian carnage? Maybe. But there has already been carnage and millions who exiled themselves to neighboring countries.

Artificially keeping the different groups apart isn't going to solve anything. Saddam used repression but once we got rid of him, all the hate which had been buried came right up to the top. So all we'd do is defer the clash at best.

[Jared]

Even the language is silly and inappropriate. A "base"? Are his foreign policy advisors watching too many James Bond movies? AQI hasn't been operating from a secret mountain lair or underground bunker. They infiltrate, live among the population and ingratiate themselves to the sheiks. There will never be a "base" that the Iraqis "can't destroy."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 724-3.html

Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured.

So when Obama uses this language, it's silly and inappropriate. But when Bush uses it, what is it?

[RobVarak]

Even the language is silly and inappropriate. A "base"? Are his foreign policy advisors watching too many James Bond movies? AQI hasn't been operating from a secret mountain lair or underground bunker. They infiltrate, live among the population and ingratiate themselves to the sheiks. There will never be a "base" that the Iraqis "can't destroy."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 724-3.html

Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured.

So when Obama uses this language, it's silly and inappropriate. But when Bush uses it, what is it?

Accurate. They used the entire Province as "their base." They did not billed an actual f***in base with perimeter and geographic continutity, which is what Obama's use of the word in his speech and in his online policy statement implies. We didn't "destroy their base" in the literal sense, but rather eliminated the environment that allowed them to live and conduct operations from Anbar.

Even the logic behind Obama's "plan" is lacking, as there will be "bases" all over Iraq the minute we pull out.

I apologize for assuming that the distinction was prima facie obvious. Won't do it again.

Obviously, I wish Obama would admit that his position on Iraq was the same as the one that wco stated. It would be more honest than the song and dance he's trying now. He'd never be elected, because it would be as out of step as the rest of his policies, but it would be honest.