This is topic Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=052956

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Just getting it ready...we might need it tomorrow night. And I think that as we enter this next phase of the election, it deserves a new thread.

For some general election news from Gallup:

quote:
A new poll released by Gallup Monday suggests McCain may be out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to U.S.-Iranian relations. Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed thought it was a good idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran. When Iran is taken out of the equation, an even higher percentage – 67 percent – responded that they thought it would be a good idea for the president to meet with leaders of countries considered enemies of the United States.
A sign of the times. I think as a country, in many ways we don't think like we did 8 years ago. I think we've grown a lot more skeptical of the "implacable foe" rhetoric we're getting from people like McCain and President Bush. McCain might be doing himself more harm than he thinks if he keeps harping on this.

TIME has an article in it's more recent edition about the differences in the McCain and Obama campaigns. Obama basically already has a 50 state in depth set up. He's up and running in every state with volunteers established and ready to go, with a huge war chest that has no end in sight. McCain on the other hand is leaking staff due to his connections to lobbyists, is struggling with fundraising and is still trying to get operations moving in states he never had to campaign in. It may be that this superlong Primary process really helped Obama out in ways that might not have been obvious a few weeks ago, but he's ready to fight it out anywhere five months before Election Day and McCain, who has had weeks with no Republican opposition is fumbling the ball. It'll be interesting to see how quickly he can put together a national campaign when his best position is as underdog insurgent.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
First Post.

Obama for 08!
 
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
Bob Barr!
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Just when you think the Democrats are experts at losing, the Libertarian Party writes, directs, and stars in a play about Foot Shooting.

Go Obama by the way [Razz]
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
First Post.

Obviously not.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Err...go Cynthia McKinney?

No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Err...go Cynthia McKinney?

No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.

Hey me too, it's kinda nice for once.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
 
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
quote:
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
That's...terrifying. [Angst]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.

It's Happening.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
First Post.

Obviously not.
Check again.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
you can be "first reply". it's just as important.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
i.e. Not at all.

Here's hoping that Clinton takes the high road tonight and concedes. Emphasis on "hoping."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.

Yet the OP is in point of fact numbered 0 (zero). So his is post number 1. Eponymously, his post is "first," although it is not the first post.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.

So, second post. First reply.

It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
If you look at posting history, first posts are numbered zero in perpetuity.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I'm reminded of this xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/386/
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Yeah that's never been linked before.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I think Blayne is attempting to bring the idiotic "First Post!" meme from the World of Warcraft forums to here.

In these forums, there are Blizzard employees (with special blue text) who post on only about 1 out of every 1000 threads, and so there is something of a game to get the first post after a Blizzard employee. Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.

Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
It started at Slashdot years ago, and was immature and pointless then, too.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.

So, second post. First reply.

It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.

That's fine. It'll get back on track as soon as we officially get to the General.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.

Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.

But Lyrhawn is also an Eddie Izzard fan, which must've confused our dear Blayne. He was vying to be the first non-Izzard-fan poster. And he did it! Huzzah! [Hat]

*Sigh*
I'm so burnt out following the primary I wonder how much energy I can muster to follow the news in the general election?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You might be surprised.

This might be a General unlike anything we've seen in recent memory. There's serious talk on both sides of Obama and McCain actually campaigning together, and speaking together at various stops along the way. For all the talk of Lincoln and Douglas, that would actually be a lot closer to what Lincoln and Douglas actually did than the so called debates people are calling for.

There's also talk of more than just the regular three debates, though three have already been scheduled for the Fall. Hopefully we'll get out of the doldrums we're already in where the two of them slam each other back and forth over the same thing day in and day out.

It's a long race boys, take a breath.

You'll find the energy, and I think there'll be plenty to get excited about.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Well, actual unmoderated Lincoln-Douglas style debates would be cool.

But the thought of lots of lots of regular debates just makes me want to pull my covers over my head and not leave my pillow fort until Christmastime .
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were 3 hour long press conferences, seriously. One of them talked for 60 minutes, then another talked 90, then there was a 30 minute rebuttal.

We don't even need no moderators. I think one or two unmoderated debates would be interesting, combined with a YouTube style debate. But moderators, when they are doing their jobs, serve an important function. What we need is more interaction between the candidates. They need to be able to talk to each other, to directly challenge each other, to ask questions of each other, with a fair moderator there to make them behave and actually make them answer the questions instead of using stump speech filler to run out the clock.

I'd like topic oriented debates. One debate on science and technology, one on foreign affairs, one on health care, etc. Cover every topic and don't let them divert the conversation by talking about something else.

I don't want dozens of debates, but I do want honest conversation about topics, and someone there to call them out on it when they start using scare tactic rhetoric. I actually have hope that we might get that this time around.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Lyrhawn, I only take issue with assumption that "they need to be able to talk to each other" suggests, which is that they actually want to.

It's seems pretty clear that the debates are as canned and controlled as they are because that's what the candidates, or their handlers, want to do. It's like a cold war- the candidates get to win by doing the most stump speech preparation, the most research, the most anticipation of questions and needed responses or favorable outcomes, essentially the most stockpiling.

What, in a one on one debate would be demonstrative of the candidates' actual real qualities, is not present in a moderated debate where they don't address each other, and I can't help but think that's exactly what they want.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't much care what they want, I care about what the people need.

I think, given a change in format, these two candidates would actually debate each other rather than regurgitate answers. It might not be a total back and forth, but I know they'd advantage of the format. It's the 30 second this and 60 second that format that really protects them. But a moderator can take care of that. If they could actually find someone decent.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I agree there. It's amazing that in a country of 300 million, we settle on the metiocre voices of the media to deal with politics so heavily.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's because the "media" aren't news services so much as entertainment services now. They're after ratings, not there merely to educate the people on what is happening.

The media shapes public opinion in ways I think no one really understands. They can create and destroy more powerfully than any other entity in the country. And I think they have little appreciation for that power, and little show little in the way of respect for the responsibility that goes along with it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
If anyone's interested my mom (although were canadian) supports Obama she doesn't really understand the issues but likes how Obama grew up/came from nothing.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I want a debate moderated by Jon Stewart. If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
He'd be an interesting choice. I think he harbors a liberal bias, but that's really hard to say. Generally he beats up on anyone and everyone he thinks is being stupid. Since his show really came into its own during Bush's presidency, it's this administration that has taken the brunt of his tongue lashings. But even in the last year and a half with Democrats in control of Congress he hasn't missed many chances to lambast them for what he considers to be inept buffoonery as well. I think he votes Democrat, but hates the whole system entirely. He thinks they all suck, but Democrats suck just a tiny bit less than the other guys. Either that, or like me, he thinks they generally have the right idea, but are utterly incapable of executing those ideas on the national stage.

He's an interesting choice because, given what I think is a liberal leaning, and the perception that he's anti-Republican (based on his attacks on the right), he still has a pretty good relationship with John McCain. McCain has been on his show more often than any other single guest. Clearly McCain is okay with it or he wouldn't keep coming back, so I suspect that, plus the huge youth audience that such a moderator would likely bring out would compel him to probably say yes, maybe. Obama would do it I think because most of his supporters big Stewart fans, and most of the people in Stewart's audience are big Obama supporters.

The funny thing about your comment Sterling, "If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose," is that some of the best commentary in the media today comes layered in between his jokes. I think there are three Jon Stewarts. There's always joking funny Jon Stewart (who I don't even think is really that funny anymore), there's spot-on analysis Jon Stewart, and there's grumpy old jaded cynic Jon Stewart. The third one is what you get when he's interviewed by Larry King or Charlie Rose, when he really shows himself. He's not funny, and he spends most of his time as an iconoclast, taking a swing at anything and everything around him. The first one is never taken seriously because he's a comic.

But the second one is maybe the best newsman alive today. He asks tough questions, presses points that most people let go, and opens up insightful bits of commentary when you least expect it. I trust that the questions he would ask, if he was being serious and wasn't necessarily out to advance an agenda (as I think he would not be), I think he'd ask the perfect questions for this election. And for that matter, he wouldn't take cookie cutter answers without biting back and demanding a real answer. A lot of this gets lost in many of his interviews, especially because there already seems to be a precondition that as a "fake news" show or a "comedy show," nothing that's said has any value, but it's there, and generally pretty easy to spot.

Colbert I think is just as smart, but you don't see it as much because he's more like Stewart was a few years ago. He's funny first and makes the spot-on point second. He does hammer home good points from time to time, but almost never in his interviews, which he's gotten the hang of, but only to make them funny, not to reveal anything. I'm wondering what he'll sound like in a couple years, and if he'll be as jaded as Stewart obviously is.

Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain. I didn't think I'd get it, but I'm really looking forward to the next few months.

However, while I have said in the past that I favor Obama but wouldn't mind McCain in the president's chair, I may have to retract that. McCain has apparently changed his views on presidential power in the last six months. Where he condemned warrentless wiretapping before, now he seems to be condoning it. I want a president who will return the executive branch to being only 1/3 of the government.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Council on Foreign Relations series on Obama's foreign policy advisors

Oddly, none of this content is yet available on the Foreign Affairs site.
 
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
 
If Stewart were to moderate a debate, would that make him the first person to ever host the Oscars and a presidential primary debate?
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
And here's the other side of the coin:

Council on Foreign Relations series on McCain's foreign policy advisors
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.

Given what the Daily Show had to say about the last YouTube debate, I wouldn't hold my breath. [Smile]

I don't know that I would necessarily call Stewart more liberal off the bat than, say, Stephanopoulos. It would be interesting, no doubt- and despite my rather flippant comment, I agree that Stewart might have a better chance of asking a question or two that would actually cut through the baloney than many. Especially if he was permitted to comment on the responses after the rebuttals; I don't think either candidate would likely keep to pat stock responses for long with someone pointing out that they were, in fact, pat stock responses.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain today formally asked Obama to join him for 10 town hall debates, to begin next Wednesday in New York City.

What McCain gets out of this is obvious: Free media. He's way behind Obama in fundraising, and a free 90 minutes or whatever of speechifying every week really helps him level the playing field over the Summer.

Obama's campaign has already enthusiastically responded by saying they're very open to the idea, but actually want the format longer and less structured, which I think leans towards making it more like what we're discussing here. I think he's pushing for an unmoderated debate.

VP Watch

R
There's serious talk now of McCain's top VP choice being LA governor Bobby Jindal. He's the nation's first Indian governor and would be the nation's first Indian VP candidate. He's rumored to be on the short list and has gotten a lot of attention lately. Upsides? He's young, has some executive experience, might help with the minority vote. Downsides? He's only been governor for like six months, hardly enough time to really gain meaningful experience. Before that he was a Rep. in the House. But he's a Republican's Republican. He has a 100% pro-life voting record, he's lockstep on guns, voted to make the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and even to eliminate the ban on oil drilling on the continental shelf. He voted with Republicans 97% of the time in the House. For whatever power a VP has, I think that's going to scare some people away. Moderates and Independents that might like McCain's cross over appeal certainly aren't going to see that reflected in Jindal, though he'd be great at getting Republicans who might not like McCain out to vote. Still, the real possibility that McCain's health might make a downturn makes Jindal a scary replacement for a lot of people. He'd be the youngest president in history if he were to take office (or the youngest VP ever) at 36. He's barely legal. The idea of putting a minority in the VP spot to reach out to minorities seems silly when you're running against a black guy. Besides, all the people who won't vote for Barack Hussain Obama, a black guy from Chicago, are probably going to have the same problem voting for Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, from NOLA. He'd be an unconventional choice, and I wonder what McCain really thinks he'd bring to the ticket. I'd find it curious that McCain would take on a relative newbie when he's hammering Obama so hard on not being experienced enough. Why take on someone that is literally your replacement for the office when he has less experience than even Obama? That could bite him in the butt.

D

And of course you all know that Clinton has been reported to be angling for a VP spot on the Democratic ticket. We'll see how that goes. He's going to face some pressure from diehard Clinton supporters, though most Senators and Democrats in Congress have stated that they will be quiet and let Obama make his own choice. Clinton has done way too much to shoot herself in the foot, and to attempt to harm his campaign, to say nothing of the fact that she, with Bill Clinton, represents part of what Obama wants to change away from. Cementing their place on his ticket harms his own message.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Jindal also seems to be a man after Mike Huckabee's heart. At least in regards to science education and the separation of church and state.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
Jindal is a southerner and he may prevent Obama from plucking and flipping a Lousiana ripe with Katrina resentment against the Bush Administration.

I am torn on the VP thing, Clinton may be the wisest choice to make even if she is not the smartest choice for him to make. The rational choice, the smart choice, the choice that minimizes potential 527 attacks is anyone but Clinton. Unfortunately relying on voters to be rational in their political decision making rather than emotional has not served the democrats well in the last two elections. this is sort of creating a cognitive dissonance for me, before the primary, my main argument against a Clinton candidacy was the high level of irrational/emotional opposition to Hillary Clinton, and now it's flipped around that the argument for a Clinton VP spot is the high level of emotional support for Hillary Clinton. Has there ever been a more bizarre primary? just amazing.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Maybe Hilary could get Secretary of State for Health instead of the VP slot? Obama did emphasize her strength on universal healthcare in his speech yesterday (even though neither of their plans really count as universal healthcare). It's probably highly unlikely but it would be interesting. He would be able to placate Hilary while avoiding Republican attack ads (they wouldn't know of her appointment until he was elected).
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"Jindal also seems to be a man after Mike Huckabee's heart."
quote:
Mr. Jindal said that "there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter"
quote:
...Hillary Clinton said..."More people have voted for me than for anyone who has ever run for the Democratic nomination."
These statements must be read with the sort of close grammatical and definitional care that used to inform her husband’s descriptions of his personal entanglements. They are not quite true in the normal sense, but if made under oath they would not be prosecutable for perjury, either.

Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistry do explain how to make organic out of inorganic.

[ June 04, 2008, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Threads -

You mean HHS? Secretary of Health and Human Services?

Adam_S -

Be careful with that. LA is a weird state this year. The only Democrat really in trouble in the Senate this year is Mary Landrieu in LA. But her brother, whose name escapes me at the moment, was elected as Jindal's Democratic Lieutenant Governor. People are pissed at Republicans nationally for the Katrina response, but they voted in a Republican to replace the Democratic Governor, Blanco. At the millions who left the state never to return were mostly Democratic voters, which might mean the state will skew wildly to the Right this time around, though it remains to be seen if the states nearby that absorbed those refugees like Texas and Georgia can deal with the uptick in Democratic voting there that may follow.

In other words, Louisiana is going to be a weird battleground state this year. It's going to be easy to tie McCain to the "heck of a job Brownie" Bush reaction, considering when the storm hit, Bush was in Arizona celebrating McCain's birthday. He was literally right beside Bush when it happened. Jindal will only have been governor for less than a year by the time the election even takes place, which will limit his influence over the voters. They're still getting to know him.

I'd be skeptical of his ability to deliver his home state this time around.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Caroline Kennedy has been appointed to head the search committee. You know, that's how Dick Cheney started out.

So could Caroline fill the VP shoes? She's certainly attractive and beloved, she's in her 50's. She is thin on experience, though - but the NAACP Legal Commission thing sounds vaguely impressive.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't imagine she would be at all interested and I don't really think she is qualified.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistry do explain how to make organic out of inorganic.

That definition of organic is a bit too simplistic since by it Limestone (calcium carbonate) is organic. We routinely separate inorganic carbon compounds (CO2 and carbonates) from organic carbon compounds.

Photosynthesis explains quite nicely how CO2 and H2O (inorganic compounds) are transformed into organic life everyday on every corner of the planet.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Hillary can't get the Secretary of State slot, because, as we all saw on West Wing, Obama gives that to McCain.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain.

Ron Paul is still in it.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
You're delusional.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I think that the supporters of Ron Paul are going to have a heck of a time against the never let go supporters of Hillary Clinton in the imaginary elections of 08. I just don't think they have enough support among unicorns, leprechauns, or vampires.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The vampires vote Republican and the leprechauns are voting for O'Bama.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
That's my point. To win, you'd need strong support from one of the fairy contigent, the wee folk, or the undead (can't win Chicago without them). Ron Paul doesn't poll strong in any of these.

There was some talk about him courting the hispanic vote by making the chupacabra his running mate, but while it eats goats, it is still having problems swallowing his position on immigration. Plus, after Dick Cheney, many experts doubt that the American people are ready to have another monster as VP.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
heh
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
MrSquicky wins the thread.

Now what will we do until November?
 
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
 
According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
MrSquicky wins the thread.

Yep. Hands down.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Derrell:
According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP

I keep hearing that from Arizonans, but I haven't heard much of that rom a more national perspective. I think the Arizonans are deluding themselves again. [Smile] (I'm from Arizona, so I feel free to mock).
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
That would be a big gamble in trying to turn McCain's home district. Strategically, Sebellius makes more sense.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Squick -

Don't forget that Cheney secured the pivotal Sith vote for Bush.

Napolitano is on the short list probably. The two big push/pull factors are going to be executive experience versus military experience. He needs someone to shore up both of those perceived inadequacies. Any governor who has been around for awhile will fill in the executive gap.

The thing about the military is, I don't necessarily think that prior military service is the be all end all of military experience. Nothing can prepare you for being Commander in Chief, unless maybe you ran NATO or were a CentCom general or some such. McCain flew planes 40 years ago. So? None of the technology or hardward he used back then is in service today. It's not like you really have to be familiar with every piece of machinery or what not. You have experts and Generals around you to present options. Foriegn policy experience and general knowledge about the world in that sense is even more important that prior military experience.

In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.

Don't discount dark horse candidates like former general Wesley Clark.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.

Really? It seems to me that if you were make a Venn diagram where one set represented people who would balk at voting for candidate because he's black and the other set represented people who would balk at voting for a candidate who is black because his choice for VP is Latino, the two sets would overlap almost completely. There's be a tiny sliver of non-overlap there, but not enough be worth factoring into Obama's decision about who to select as his running mate.

On the contrary, I think that Richardson would help enormously with bringing in the Latino vote, which could very well be crucial in Obama's winning the election.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform.
Bill Richardson is my preferred VP candidate for Obama, for all the reasons listed here. He's really the perfect choice.

quote:
If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
I actually think his race is more of a asset then a handicap, since Obama could use a boost with Hispanic voters, and anyone who wouldn't vote for a ticket because there's a Hispanic on it isn't going to vote for a black man anyway.

Richardson and Obama, being 1/4 white and 1/2 white respectively, would almost equal having one white guy [Wink] .

Edit: Ninja'd by Noemon!
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
 
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
quote:
In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.

Right now, I think what might make people *more* nervous about Richardson is the grudge Hillary and her supporters hold against him. Of all the friends and allies that went to Obama, Richardson is the only one that got called "Judas" by James Carville. And the Clinton campaign didn't object to the characterization at all.

If it weren't for that one teensy-weensy stumbling block, he might be ideal - but having people show up at rallies with "Judas" signs might not make for great campaign coverage. [Wink]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
Ninja'd by Noemon!

Mua-ha-ha!
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
I do like what I've read of Sebelius, and think she'd probably be a great choice.

I also wonder if picking Sebelius would help ease the sting of not picking Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama picks a male running mate, and consequently gets accused then of not picking Clinton as a running mate because of her sex.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
What does McCain get out of traveling with Obama for their campaign?

I had to laugh as I pictured it.

Obama gives a speech and 25,000 or 70,000 people show up to listen.

McCain gives a speech and packs the VFW hall with 2000.

Oh and don't count out Ron Paul--you are forgetting the Ron Paul Zombies. Their are a lot of of Ron Paul Zombies around this country.

(Nothing a good chain-saw/rocket launcher couldn't handle though)
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Noemon -

The main reason why I said the whole "if he were white thing" is, I wonder if there are a group of people out there who are nervous about voting for a black guy, but WOULD vote for him if there was a white person on the bottom of the ticket. In other words, does Sebelius or someone similar bring in more white votes that Obama lost just by being black? I have zero polling data on that, it's just a wondering. I think Richardson would bring in a lot of the latino vote, but I wonder how that offsets the white vote, especially electorally, where pockets of latinos are only in large numbers in so many places.

Still, you're probably right, and it makes more sense to go with a probable thing, like the latino vote, rather than the maybe thing, like recapturing white votes.

In other news...

Obama, taking on the mantle as leader of his party, has proclaimed that the Democratic party itself will no longer take PAC or Lobbyist donations. He's hitching the Democratic party to his new movement in politics, and more specifically, his new way of fundraising. This comes on the heels of McCain announcing a record fundraising month in May of $21.5 million. What do you think of that?

Honestly? To me is smacks more of ideology than politics. There's no way that he personally would have been tagged by other Democrats taking those funds, though it is actually a rather small piece of the total pie. I think he's making the change because it's his party now, and he wants it run and operated in a way that fits his own personal ideology. He's the head of a movement as much as he is the head of the party now.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
The candidates on public transit
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Wow, I didn't realize that Obama was such a big fan of mass public transit. Could it be that we'll finally have a government that's serious about bike lanes, high speed rail, subways, buses and other forms of high speed rail?

Awesome link Noemon, thanks.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm listening to McCain's speech from Tuesday and wow, it's riddled with holes. He's being dishonest about Obama's proposed tax hikes at the very least.

Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.

There's plenty of things to hit Obama with that are legitimate points of contention without trying to misrepresent the facts. Besides, he's going to get hammered on it later on, which makes it all the more stupid. And I'll add, from our friends at Factcheck:

McCain wrong on Obama's position on Iranian terrorism.

McCain mistaken on Katrina probe support.

Also included in that last one is a pretty weak attempt to paint Obama as "negative."
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:
We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
Race in that aspect is tricky I think, and depends entirely on who you are talking to. I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white. Debra Dickerson is the one who I think I first saw on TV say that he's not really black because he's not descended from East African slaves, he's WEST African, which I guess cuts down on the genetic afro cred.

I think that for most people, looking black makes you black, regardless of what your other roots are, in the same way that even if a 1,000 people before you aren't, you're considered Jewish if your mother was (I got that right didn't I rivka?). Plessy v. Ferguson near the turn of the 19th century established legally that a man who was 1/8th black was legally ALL black. Maybe in some ways we still haven't quite escaped the definitions of the 19th century south. But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black. He's not viable becuase he's half white, he doesn't get points for that. Overcoming that hurdle of pigment is what's significant, and in that sense, I think it'll perfectly fair to call him the first black president, should he be elected.

On a purely physical level, he IS a black man. You're talking about roots and heritage and genetics, but none of that changes what he looks like for those it matters to. None of those people are going to say, upon learning of his mother: "oh, he's half white, well that's a horse of a different color." For people that don't care about race, it's just a word that they use to physically describe someone, and has no racial overtones at all. For people that do care about race, him being half white is a non-factor.

Sorry that was a bit of a meandering post, it's late.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
I appreciate your response, Lyr.

quote:
But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black.
This is a good point, in that it accurately describes what's been happening in this race. It begs the question, though, of why we're letting these people dictate the tone like that. I understand it in a "beat them on their own terms" kind of way, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.

To be more honest, he has found a nifty way around accepting PAC and lobbyist money.
Fact Check
quote:
Obama: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers – the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that.
Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting each other. However, as we reported previously, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope.

The senator’s official policy “specifically states that the Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs,” according to a campaign spokesperson. Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions. His campaign does take money from spouses of lobbyists, partners in lobbying firms who do not themselves lobby, ex-lobbyists and state lobbyists, according to numerous news reports.

Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank and chairman of its Americas division, has raised money for Obama and encouraged his employees to make contributions, which they did, to the tune of $194,930 as of July 15. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other “bundlers” (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site. (Gravel is correct in that the list previously had totaled 134 people.)

While Obama did sponsor an amendment to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) that would require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, PACs or parties for whom they collected money, action on the measure stalled after it passed the Senate in January. Furthermore, since Obama isn't accepting money from federal lobbyists, the amendment wouldn't even apply to his bundlers.

More from Fact Check
quote:
During his presidential run, Obama has raised $115,163 from "lobbyists," as of March 20, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Obama campaign states that this is all from former lobbyists, not those currently active. That distinction is important for Obama. As we've written before, Obama is doing a bit of a tightrope act here. He does not accept funds from registered federal lobbyists, but he does accept money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists.

If McCain had said he accepted no money from lobbyists or PACs then was caught pulling these stunts I am quite sure the press would hammer him into the ground.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.

$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.

I'm sorry I can't give your post more response time, I just realized I am going to be late for work.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white.
He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.

In a powerful way, I agree with this some aspects of this article. Are we going to get the conversation about education, criminal justice, and the influx of Supermax prisons in the Obama campaign? I don't think so. Instead, Obama is going to spend the next eight months making white people feel like he shares their values. Now, I think he is going to lose anyway, and what's even worse is that I think he is going to lose while sucking up to "middle America." And if he wins, I'm just not convinced he isn't going take the same attitude to the white house, the attitude that threw his priest and Sam Power under a bus. I still think he is a better bet than McCain, with respect to issues like Iraq and the environment and whatever else it is that white liberals like and Obama will champion.

[ June 06, 2008, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Have you ever considered that he might just disagree with you, Irami?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
The attitude of the office was one of, "The Senator agrees, he just can't say." It's been a year, but I can't imagine much has changed.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Because appearing to have such an attitude isn't obviously necessary whether he actually has it or not.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.

$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.

I think they are saying he got $155,163 from former lobbyists but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.

More importantly, it's also pocket change compared to the millions of dollars Obama has raised in his campaign so far from small donors.

quote:
but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins? Should I not donate to Obama's campaign if I sat next to a lobbyist on a bus once?

But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:

But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.

I don't think so. Someone who lobbies a state legislature on issues that are the the realm of state decision makers isn't nearly the conflict of interest for a presidential candidate that someone who is advocating for a change in federal laws is.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it. Obama taking money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists is a way for him and the DNC to get around his promises while the press can print glowing reports about how Obama and the DNC is 'lobbyist influence free'.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
My sister used to be a lobbyist. She is not currently one. She is a huge fan of Obama (who from what I remember of her lobbying work, probably would not have been who her firm would have raised money for). Her husband also LOVES Obama. It seems unfair to me that those two should not be able to donate to him just because of what job my sister used to have. And if my sister did still work as a lobbyist, her husband should be allowed to donate as he pleases. There is a difference between personal and professional contributions and I think Obama's rules designate that. I think that Obama does not see any of his money as from oil or whatever cause, but instead from individuals who support him.

As far as race, my brother in law is half black and he says in white America, there is no such thing as half. You are black and people make sure you know that. Of course, marrying a white woman, he is not really accepted in the black community either, including his own family.
 
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
quote:
My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
I don't know enough about him, really. He has some obvious positives, but this post in The Atlantic lists some of the "baggage" that will have to be assessed by Obama's VP selection committee.

Some key points:

*He's a Dem senator in a red state - no guarantee that another Dem will be elected in his place.

*Even supporters admit he's a poor campaigner

*Referred to affirmative action as "state-sponsored racism" in the same year he endorsed George Allen's Senate run (2000)

*Authored an "infamous" 1979 article titled "Why Women Can't Fight" which was widely disseminated and used against women in the military

*Was accused of showing more sympathy for the accused than the alleged victims in the Tailhook scandal

That's a partial list -- and I can't honestly evaluate the accuracy of these claims without doing further digging. I'll leave that to others - even if "others" means Obama's VP selection team. [Wink]
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alcon:
My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?

I think there's some attractive pros and a couple of cons to him. The pros being that Jim Webb would represent military experience that Obama lacks. Even though I tend to agree with Obama's foreign policy ideas, he still doesn't have military experience to boot. Considering that Obama is against McCain, I think he'll need to get a way to appeal to veterans, and Jim Webb could do that. Further, Webb is a southerner, and I think that quite a few southern states could be put in play with a strong southern appeal. Virginia is already a clear battle ground this year, perhaps there could be more. Webb also could appeal to the nostalgia of Reagan because of his being in the Joint-Chiefs then. This might help Obama pull more right leaning independents and perhaps more Republicans.

A couple of cons on Webb are that he has less legislative experience than Obama. Obama has been constantly hammered for being 'inexperienced' and the polls in South Dakota and Montana show that Obama lost on experience roughly 94-6. Obama needs a face that has more experience to try to grab some of those voters, and according to CNN's exit polls, roughly 1/5 of voters wanted the candidate of experience. (From Montana and South Dakota.) Another con on Webb is that he really hasn't come out of his shell yet on what kind of politician he is. We know he's a great public servant in regards to the military, but when it comes to politics, there is a lingering question of whether or not he'd be able to stick to Obama's message appropriately. Edit to Add: And if what sndrake said is true on what Webb's said before, it adds to my point that Webb might have trouble sticking to Obama's change encompassing message.

All of that said, my preference for VP choices are...
Sebelius
Richardson
And then a toss up between Clark and Webb.

(My ideal cabinet, for any who care... Secretary of Health and Human Services = Clinton (Some arguments could be made to this, I understand, but I think that with her commitment to health care for everyone, having her work through Obama's plan could represent a stronger push for the plan to encompass more people.), AG or Secretary of Labor = Edwards, Secretary of State = Richardson, Secretary of Defense = Clark, VP = Sebelius.

Edit to add: I'm not so sure if those exit polls were CNN now, I took a look again and couldn't find them, while I'm sure I saw those numbers somewhere (The experience numbers and how big of a block experience made) I can't remember where.

[ June 06, 2008, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
On CNN, there is a video of the press complaining that Obama did not bring the press to his meetings with people yesterday. I don't know if I feel comfortable with that level of entitlement from the press core.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it.
And that's where you're wrong. I'm not going to argue that point for anyone other than myself, of course. If McCain (or any other politician) said he didn't take money from federal lobbyists I would not expect that to be extended to anyone other than federal lobbyists. Part of that is probably just my cynicism about politicians in general - I don't expect many of them to stand by anything but the most narrow definition of their promises. If that. [Wink]

Honestly, your habit of insisting there must be a double standard is something that makes it really hard to take your posts seriously. It seems like every time you post about something political you throw in "But if this were a republican everyone would be mad!" or "But if this were a democrat they'd get a free pass!" No, actually most (not all, certainly) people have reasons to their opinions beyond blind partisanship.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
On Webb,

The fact that VA is a red state is irrelevent. There's a Democratic governor that would appoint a Democrat in Webb's place if he were to be appointed VP, so, Democrats wouldn't lose the seat. Besides, there's a titanic battle shaping up this year between two former governors for the open Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. Mark Warner, Democrat, and a Republican whose name I can't remember are both running, and they are both very popular former governors. Warner has been considered for a VP spot too, but he more or less recused himself from consideration. I think Warner has a great chance of winning. The glow of his years as governor is a little brighter than the other guy's.

Webb is more of a Blue Dog Dem. He's so close to the center he probably teeters over to the right a fair bit. I think he'll get a fair bit of consideration for the VP spot, but the biggest reason why is his military credentials. That's why Wesley Clark is going to get a good look. He's got the cred, and at the same time he also is more in line mainstream Democratic views. But really, when you ask yourself "who would I want to actually take over the Oval if something happened to Obama?" I think Sebelius and Richardson are the only two I'd feel comfortable with.

So often we think of Veeps as the guy that balances the electoral math on a ticket. But an honest candidate should really think about who would best fill his shoes should the time come, and I wouldn't likely vote for Webb or Clark for president, not over Sebelius or Richardson. Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I would still really like to see John Edwards as VP but I haven't heard anyone mention his name recently.
 
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
scholarette,

in all fairness to the reporters on the plane last night...

This is how it really went down:

Clinton Meets With Obama, and the Rest Is Secret

quote:
The evening began in routine fashion, with Mr. Obama holding a large rally in northern Virginia. Then, he was scheduled to travel by motorcade to Dulles International Airport and fly to Chicago. The motorcade arrived, but Mr. Obama did not, stirring alarm among reporters who had been aboard the campaign plane for 45 minutes as it sat on the tarmac.

Shortly before takeoff, one part of the secret was divulged. Robert Gibbs, the campaign’s communications director, said Mr. Obama would not be flying to Chicago as previously scheduled. He gave no reason for this mysterious pronouncement and there was little time for questions, considering that the engines had started to whir.

Sunlen Miller, who covers the Obama campaign for ABC News, filed an urgent dispatch via Blackberry to report that the senator had abruptly changed plans and had given the slip to those who were traveling with him all day. “I sent it as the wheels were going up,” Ms. Miller said of her message, recounting the agitation and confusion among her fellow travelers as the 757 lifted off.

It wasn’t until after the plane landed in Chicago — sans the presidential candidate — that Mr. Gibbs confirmed a meeting had taken place between the rivals. Details? None given.

Translation: The press assigned to follow Obama around find themselves locked in on an airplane and flown to Chicago - while the candidate stays back to meet with Clinton.

From what I've seen of the coverage, journalists *not* on the plane found this pretty amusing when they reported it. As for journalists *on* the plane - not so much.

Here's a video of Obama's communications director being confronted by not-so-happy reporters on the plane

This morning on MSNBC, he told Joe Scarborough that he emailed David Axelrod as the plane took off, something along these lines:

If I don't make it through this flight, please make sure my wife and kids are taken care of. My son deserves to go to a good school.

[Wink]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I would still really like to see John Edwards as VP but I haven't heard anyone mention his name recently.

I think I saw a blip on CNN today that Edwards has announced that he doesn't want to be VP.
 
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
quote:
Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
I'm not convinced on that. The anger toward Richardson by the Clinton team and others will be a factor that could weigh against him.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.
On last night's Daily Show, they did a segment on the sexism that Hillary Clinton faced in the campaign by showing commentators blatantly showing their sexism on cable news. I especially enjoyed Glenn Beck's mocking of Hillary Clinton's cleavage and voice, more than anything because it reminded me of just what a tool that guy is and how incredibly sexist and prejudice he can be when he opens his mouth. I've said it before that Hillary faced a sexism in this election that almost seemed to be embraced by those who wanted to see her defeated, and the sad thing is that I see the same kind of attitude towards African Americans in this election.

When Barack Obama spoke about race he claimed that while White America was angry, so too was Black America, and I think part of that anger is encapsulated by what Irami said above. Barack Obama walks a tight-rope that is incredibly thin, he has to appease Hillary Clinton's supporters and white women throughout the country, he has to appease blue-collar white voters throughout the country, and he has to address African American issues without making his white supporters afraid. Of course, there is a belief in this country that the successful black man or woman is one two people: the first is the African American who is not mad about the racial situation in America and who placates white America, assuring them that he is not out to take their jobs or money or success, and the second is the angry black person who is angry about the racial situation and seeks to take the success of white America through programs like Affirmative Action and who embodies that angry black man who wants to take all that white America maintains. It's exactly like what happens when we view Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., and it is that division that is most insidious about the racism that we face.

See, in his statement above, Irami equates appeasing white America with failing black America, as if those were mutually exclusive events. And it might be. It may in fact be the case that appeasing white America inherently implies failing black America, but there is a greater question to be asked here. Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected? And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?

Those are interesting questions about race in America I believe, but it is more interesting to me that suddenly we are faced with issues that are suddenly exclusive to certain races and genders. If Obama is the President of the United States, he will not be the President of white America or of black America, he will be the President of the United States of America, and thus, his problems should be ours and not theirs. And of course, that division is a racial and sexist one that we should face.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected?
Perhaps I'm missing the real crux of your question but to me the answer to that question seems obvious. The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.

The converse isn't true. Its mathematically possible to win a Presidential election in the US without getting a single black vote.

quote:
And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?
The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate. But you asked why the division exists in the first place -- that's a no brainer.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.
To some extent, every candidate must placate the people who will vote for her, but I guess what I am really getting at is whether or not an African American must be forced to do so in a different way when it comes to white America. While John McCain simply has to show up as a white guy for some people to vote for him, it would seem that for some people, Barack Obama's color forces him to prove something beyond what John McCain would ever be forced to prove. In other words, for some people, clearly not all and maybe not even the majority, Obama must prove to those blue-collared white voters that he is not the angry black man who has come to take their children's spots in colleges and whatnot. The same goes for the African American community as well because Barack Obama is faced with the kind of conundrum that Irami seemed to reveal in his earlier post. For some African Americans, becoming that "kind" of black man who tries to fit in with white America makes them insensitive to black issues.

My question really then is why that seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst some African Americans and white Americans, and I believe it's an important question because it speaks to our racial attitudes and biases in this country. Thus, the division I speak of is not merely amongst black and white, but also between what "kind" of black person we see and what "kind" of black person we would elect. And thats a question that I believe defines the racial divides within America.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate.
Slavery is looming, but there was a war to wash away quite a few of the sins. I actually think it was Jim Crow and urban white flight that sealed the deal, and a civil rights movement that was started with a court decision and articulated with an Executive Order. The Supreme Court and the Executive branch aren't the most democratic of institutions, and with Nixon's very effective "Southern Strategy," Bush's timely rumor of McCain's black step child, and the neglect with which criminal justice is administered, American whites have proven time and time again that anytime they feel uncomfortable, they don't have a problem digging their heel into black necks, and this American government is organized to enable them to do so. I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency. If they want to ease racial tension, whites should move back into the cities and send their kids to public schools, as a first step. Voting for Barack Obama is a cheap alternative.

[ June 06, 2008, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Okay, I live in the city and don't have kids. Do I get a pass, or do I still have to feel guilty? Does it help that there were two shootings within a mile of my house within the last week?
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
Slavery is looming, but there was a war to wash away quite a few of the sins. I actually think it was Jim Crow and urban white flight that sealed the deal, and a civil rights movement that was started with a court decision and articulated with an Executive Order. The Supreme Court and the Executive branch aren't the most democratic of institutions, and with Nixon's very effective "Southern Strategy," Bush's timely rumor of McCain's black step child, and the neglect with which criminal justice is administered, American whites have proven time and time again that anytime they feel uncomfortable, they don't have a problem digging their heel into black necks, and this American government is organized to enable them to do so. I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency. If they want to ease racial tension, whites should move back into the cities and send their kids to public schools, as a first step. Voting for Barack Obama is a cheap alternative.
See Irami, I think this is both a cheap trick and highly unproductive if we ever want to fully address and deal with racial problems. This is accusatory and extreme, it tends to lump people into groups they do not belong, and it will cause people to react negatively instead of logically because that's natural. When someone is offended like that, nothing good ever comes from it, and if your purpose was to do just that, then I believe you miss the point of what a productive and useful conversation would and should be.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Why should I give up my beautiful house in the suburbs and send my kids to substandard schools in order to prove I am not a racist? I pay for the schools even if I don't use them.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:
Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
I'm not convinced on that. The anger toward Richardson by the Clinton team and others will be a factor that could weigh against him.
I mean well rounded in who I think would be the best president, best able to take over if anything happened to Obama, not most electable. But even then, I think you drastically overestimate the influence of Richardson's "betrayal" of Clinton. The Clintons and the high powered people that support them might be pissed, but you really think regular Joe citizen guy won't vote for him because he BETRAYED Clinton? To assume that I think vastly overestimates the average person's interest in politics, and further, overestimates their loyalty to the sensibilities of a particular candidate. Absolutely no one is going to NOT vote for Obama because Richardson is there. Anyone who is that pissed is already pissed at Obama for "stealing" the election, Richardson will just be icing on the cake. I'm not even slightly worried about it.

Irami -

Sometimes I feel like you won't be happy until you actually get White America to approve a national referendum on a statement that says: "We hate black people."

quote:
I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency.
And it's statements like this that realy make no sense. I think much of America ALWAYS has to be brought along kicking and screaming, white, black, and everything in between. And who does most of that dragging? White people. White abolitionists, white elements of the Republican party in the 1850's and 60's. Whites by the hundreds of thousands who fought and died in the Civil War not just to preserve the Union but to free slaves. Whites by the millions who voted for people that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. White by the millions who voted for Johnson and got the Civil Rights Act passed. White who fought to end Jim Crow, to end segregation, to elect blacks into local, state and national office.

You think all that happened in a vacuum, or that black America did it to the consternation of every white in the country? Yes, the opposition was whites, but it was progressive whites versus status quo whites, not all whites on one side and all blacks on the other. I'm not trying to say that we did it all, that's absurd. The pioneers in the black community that later became icons have earned their position in history. But they never would have gotten anywhere if not for whites. We did it together.

White America in the way you describe it doesn't exist. We aren't one solid voting bloc that thinks alike and votes alike on every issue. You're treating us the way the whites you don't like treated and treat blacks, as if they are all bad just because of what they are and the stereotypes that go with it. Maybe you should see to your own predjudices before you come after everyone else's.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Consecutive thread titles on Drudge

Obama confidence: 'In 2016, I'll be wrapping up my second term as president'...
McCain would like to see man on Mars...

Guess which particular man [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Why should I give up my beautiful house in the suburbs and send my kids to substandard schools in order to prove I am not a racist? I pay for the schools even if I don't use them.

The argument (which has some merit, IMO) is that at the time of white flight, the schools weren't substandard... Except for the perception that the newly arrived African-Americans in the neighborhood were going to drag it down. Now, I think the argument goes, the only way to really fix the schools is to have folks move back in to town and thus have a real personal investment for improving schools.

For the record, you largely DON'T pay for another town's/city's schools, unless your state funds all of education.

-Bok
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
For the record, you largely DON'T pay for another town's/city's schools, unless your state funds all of education.

-Bok

I thought that was the purpose of Robin Hood laws- to equalize the amount schools get. I think both states I have lived in have had laws like that.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Instead, Obama is going to spend the next eight months making white people feel like he shares their values. Now, I think he is going to lose anyway, and what's even worse is that I think he is going to lose while sucking up to "middle America." And if he wins, I'm just not convinced he isn't going take the same attitude to the white house, the attitude that threw his priest and Sam Power under a bus.
He has to make white americans feel like he shares his values. As though being black makes the effort duplicitous on his part somehow.

Okay. Seriously. Stop.

Stop.

The lens through which you interpret race relations and cultural realities is dominated by ... I don't even know what to call it. Two parts determined attempt to forever maintain race preconceptions, two parts philosophy of adamant and perpetual victimhood, one part double standard, one part assumption that whites will never be able to view blacks as equal, one part sweet&sour, and a dash of Sprite. Call it the Iramipolitan.

You need to stop trying to fit reality into your contrived and preconceived "Racial Contract" notions. The more you talk about race relations, the less you seem to know about them.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
one part assumption that whites will never be able to view blacks as equal
Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equal. I just don't think that they will be able to view us as identical to them, which we aren't, for historical reasons. And in a panicked attempt to maintain their own financial stability, cultural sovereignty, and position of privilege in the hierarchical order, they will continue to look over their own hypocrisies, at home and abroad.

scholarette,

You can't buy your way out of civic responsibility, in military exercise or community engagement. Writing a check is qualitatively different from sending your kid to the military or the local school.

[ June 08, 2008, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You continue to perpetuate the myth that all whites view each other equally and that we view all blacks as different, but the same, and for that matter that all blacks do the same as well.

It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equal. I just don't think that they will be able to view us as identical to them, which we aren't, for historical reasons. And in a panicked attempt to maintain their own financial stability, cultural sovereignty, and position of privilege in the hierarchical order, they will continue to look passed their own hypocrisies, at home and abroad.
'Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equals. I just think that whites will not be able to view blacks as equals.'

You have just offered, as a defense, a totally contradictory double-statement which reinforces what I'm saying about you. How can you sit there, hit the corresponding keys, look at what you wrote, and then think to yourself "Yeah. Hitting 'Add Reply' is a good idea."
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I guess I am missing why my child going to a bad school is my civic responsibility.
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
So Irami Osei-Frimpong, are you going to respond to Humean316 and Lyrhawn's posts? I am anxiously awaiting your response.

[ June 08, 2008, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
quote:
I think that the supporters of Ron Paul are going to have a heck of a time against the never let go supporters of Hillary Clinton in the imaginary elections of 08.
I still support Ron Paul, both financially and with introducing him to people. I have no belief he could possibly win, however I think he still can have an important influence in the Republican party to become more fiscally conservative and to get away from nation building.

Here is Ron Paul talking with Iraq Lawmakers. He is always worth the watch.

Part one: 3:48 minutes
Part two: 9:19 minutes
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Lem,

There isn't much to say. I disagree. De Gustibus Non Disputatum Est.

quote:
You continue to perpetuate the myth that all whites view each other equally and that we view all blacks as different, but the same, and for that matter that all blacks do the same as well.

It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously.

I will say that the "people" referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people.

quote:

This is accusatory and extreme, it tends to lump people into groups they do not belong, and it will cause people to react negatively instead of logically because that's natural.

Two things: 1) They should start learning how to suck it up. 2) "because that's natural" is hardly ever a good excuse for anything regarding human affairs.

[ June 08, 2008, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
And what do you have to say about all the white people who died and/or voted to end inequality? I guess they should just learn to suck it up.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Wow, so every black person takes you seriously, unless they're scared of white people. What sad hubris.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I will say that the "people" referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people.
So every black person who doesn't think you're full of it is afraid of not fitting in?
 
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
 
IMHO opinion race will become less of issue compared to class. I already see a huge disconnect between middle and lower class blacks. It's likely the same disconnect between middle class and lower class whites. Let's be realistic here, middle class white people look down on what they refer to as "white trash" the same way as middle class blacks look down on people from the ghetto.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I wouldn't say they do so "in the same way." I would say they do so about as much.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I can't speak for every individual, I just speak the large swaths as I see them. You can try to catch me in some logical gotcha game if that makes you feel strong, but I don't use the words "every" or "any" too casually or at all.


This comment, "I will say that the 'people' referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people."

Refers directly and only to this comment:

"It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously."

Now, I take people seriously, even if I don't agree with them.

[ June 08, 2008, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
You can try to catch me in some logical gotcha game if that makes you feel strong
You frequently make no sense and say frustratingly racist and accusatory things which are very poorly reasoned. If pointing that out to you is now magically a 'logical gotcha game' that you 'play' to 'feel strong,' then thanks for making me feel like hercules over here.

The people here who aren't me are also touching upon this point, and repeatedly pounce upon your logical errors and fallacious sociological conceptualizations, and it all bounces off of you. You move forward, intent on making statements that I can only generously describe as oblivious. You have to wake up someday and realize some things about how you let fallacy and sweeping, improvised generalizations about blacks and whites (which are ironically more racist than anything else I've even seen in this forum and many others) draw you into making stupid statements and indefensible propositions about 'how society works.'

Or you are going to continue to make no sense and really have no credibility and people will keep needling you for it and pointing out the same obvious flaws that you never correct.

Which makes it more like theatre, but c'mon.
 
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
The Michelle Obama whitey video has finally showed up on youtube, and it is not good. Not good at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi6U811hxE
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
That's a Rick Roll link, everyone.

Come one, dude, really.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Obama and McCain have both turned down an offer to have their townhall be on ABC. The both insist that the townhalls must be viewable on every station, the internet, and whoever else wants to show and see it.

But it's looking like they'll probably happen at some point this summer.
 
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
You would think the GOP website would feature pictures of Mccain, but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate:

http://www.gop.com/

How scared are they? =D
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Re: Senator Obama and accepting contributions from PACs and such, I seem to recall a segment on NPR last Friday I think it was where claims made by both McCain and Obama on the subject of donors-including most of Obama's-were viewed with extreme skepticism.

We'll see how things shake out.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate
Unlike the Democrats whose webpage immediately wants your money which does seem to be very telling and appropriate. DNC
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate
Unlike the Democrats whose webpage immediately wants your money which does seem to be very telling and appropriate. DNC
Isn't it a bit misleading to link us directly to the donation page rather than the DNC home page?

The GOP home page has a page for donations and the link to it is just as prominant and just as close to the top of the home page as the one on the DNC homepage.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Hmm, yes it is....the very first time I went there I just typed in www.dnc.org and that is where I went....I will have to check into this
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
DNC.org does redirect to the donation page for first time visitors; I just tested it.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I can confirm DK's experience. The first time I clicked on it, it took me to the donation page. Since then, it has been the main page.

---

The "smear the opponents" strategy didn't work for the GOP in the special elections. I don't see it working for them now. That strategy looks like it'd be playing to Sen Obama's strong points. He looks better the more people get to know him and, if Sen Clinton is actually seriously going to rally behind him, I don't think he's beatable with a primarily negative campaign.

Besides which, I just think it's wrong to do it that way. The primary focus should be building a case for your candidate. I hope that they move away from this soon. There are important points that need to be made or at least considered for Sen McCain's side. I still hope for a campaign that tries to honestly present the issues for people to choose between. (edit: An ideal campaign shouldn't end with the only real result of one side or the other winning, but rather with people coming to understand where people on the other side are coming from. There are often paths that combine the interests of the varying sides that may be as good or better than trying to pursue one side only, and even when you don't go with a compromise solution, there is value to understanding what other people are thinking. One of the reasons why I think that Barack Obama is a good candidate is that I think he understands this.)

Then again, I don't know the Sen McCain has a chance anyway, with the territory he's picked out. He's got to hope for some really good news from Iraq or really bad news from somewhere else. Without that, Sen Obama is likely to pick up the lion's share of independents and swing voters, and Sen McCain will have to play up the base, which isn't one of his strong points and is likely to hurt him even more further on.

That's the one thing I'm a little upset about. I would have liked to see a McCain campaign aimed at picking up the moderates because of the wedge it would drive between the GOP and their extreme base. It might have gone a long ways towards redeeming the party towards what I always wanted it to be.

[ June 09, 2008, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
You would think the GOP website would feature pictures of Mccain, but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate:

http://www.gop.com/

How scared are they? =D

I (cynically) think their strategy is to get people to NOT pay attention to McCain, because if they did, they probably wouldn't like what they see.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Thanks Squicky...I was thinking it had to be cookie related or something like that. Sneaky Democrats!
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Honestly, I barely think that's bad.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Wow, the redirect to donations page for first-time viewers just seems dumb. Is that really the very first impression they want to make on someone who's never been to their website before? A sidebar link to the donation page from the frontpage, sure. Redirecting straight to the donation page? Stupid.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Wow, the redirect to donations page for first-time viewers just seems dumb. Is that really the very first impression they want to make on someone who's never been to their website before?
I think that the assumption that although this maybe a persons first visit to the website, it is unlike their first impression of the DNC.

I think most people who go to the DNC website aren't going there to decide whether or not they support the democrats.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I would be incredibly surprised if they haven't done research into new users of the DNC website, and figured that a redirection to the donations page best served their goals.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I've never been to the DNC page, and considering their low fundraising figures recently, I'm betting a ton of others haven't either, they all go to Barack Obama's website. Either way I wouldn't care, chances are if you go to the DNC website, you're probably going to donate anyway. Why else go to the DNC site and not the candidate's site?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Democrats woo evangelicals who feel left out by McCain's candidacy
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Ron Paul to End Campaign, Shift Gears to Focus on Advocacy Group
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
There was a Yahoo article yesterday saying Obama was considering Retired Generals for VP. My first thought, "Wasn't Powell a Republican?"
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Party affiliation aside, I think that Powell's been too tarnished by his role in the Bush administration to be an effective VP for Obama.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
There was a time when Powell was respected by the majority of Americans. He blew his credibility with his speech to the UN on Iraq which turned out to be a pack of lies.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yep.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
Ron Paul to End Campaign, Shift Gears to Focus on Advocacy Group

poor lisa.
 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
quote:
poor lisa.
I don't feel bad for Lisa. I am sure I support Ron Paul as much as she does, and I don't feel bad. Ron Paul has said over and over again that his focus/revolution is to help change the Republican Party back to it's more fiscally conservative and non interventionist roots. He is working at using his funds wisely to maximize influence.

Eat that news casters who kept focusing on his libertarian run for presidency and disbelieving him when he said he would not run third party. He's been the most honest republican candidate.

While I would have loved a Ron Paul presidency, I am happy that he is being wise about how best to influence politics and how to use his cash reserves. His book is also timely.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
And he may be out of this race as a candidate, but he's still talking good sense.

The Audacity of No Change At All.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I find whats hes saying completely unsubstantiated by the facts, as a Canadian and a citizen of a country thats taking up the vast lions share of the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan I know only all to well that we NEED MORE US support in Iraq not less, Afghanistan is not a write off like iraq we can accomplish something here we can do something but we can't do it forever.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
When the US is so deep in debt, why on earth should we be spending billions on any other country?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Because it is a reinforcement of the lesson to declining superpowers that Imperial overextension has its unforseen consequences for them and the rest of the world, a rapid withdrawl of American strength too fast and too soon may cause instabilities elsewhere, its a domino effect. Chop off the finger to save the hand, no need to hack off the arm.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
When they talk about generals for VP candidates, I think they are mostly talking about Wesley Clark, but I'm sure there are other dark horse candidates. I think the actual list of candidates is down to like 20 people.

I hope for the country's sake that Ron Paul doesn't return to obscurity. I might not agree with his minimalist policies entirely, but he talks a lot sense, and he deserves a seat at the table.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
What nobody's talking about - America's crumbling infrastructure.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
From Lyrhawn's link
quote:
They blamed much of the decay on shortsighted thinking by local, state and federal officials.
So all the money we have spent so far has been misspent on who knows what and to solve the problem we are going to give the people who created the problem even more money????
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
From Lyrhawn's link
quote:
They blamed much of the decay on shortsighted thinking by local, state and federal officials.
So all the money we have spent so far has been misspent on who knows what and to solve the problem we are going to give the people who created the problem even more money????
Hm.

I wonder if they plan to request supplemental funding?

--j_k
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Looks like Obama is backing away from the series of town hall meetings
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
DK -

From what I've read in numerous other articles, that's largely because the Fed or states will never provide enough money to actually do a real long term project that could last awhile. So instead, they provide just enough money to patch things up and last a little bit longer instead of spending more to do it right. It's a huge problem from top to bottom that requires some serious investigation and fixing, and much more money.

Noemon -

That's disappointing. It's widely assumed that Obama has nothing to gain in such a setting since he has so much more money, McCain needs the free media, plus it's his home turf. But I think Obama absolutely needs the format, both because of his message and because of his percieved lack of hard policy. Hopefully something will change soon and we'll get a couple of these. 10 seems unnecessary. I mean, I just don't think they need that many. But three or four, and then the formal debates if they are really necessary in the Fall, would be sufficient.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, I agree--10 would probably have been overkill, but a handful of them would have been good. I'm not sure that I agree with you that Obama needs these; given the cash advantage he's got, I think that he'll probably just be able to outspend McCain and win that way. However, I wish that he'd have them anyway. I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."

It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
I think you've got an overly optimistic view of how American elections work.

There's a chunk of people out there who won't vote for Sen Obama because he's a Muslim.

---

DK,
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The mayors mentioned in the article aren't the same people who have been making poor, short-sighted decisions on infrastructure.

Also, the article talked about people trying to move away from the short-sighted system into one where infrastructure would hopefully be treated as a long-term investment.

I'm just not sure what you'd like to have happen with infrastructure problems. Could you explain?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Tim Russert collapsed and died while doing voice-overs for Meet the Press. This will have a major impact on how the election is covered, although likely no effect on the outcome.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
I think you've got an overly optimistic view of how American elections work.

: laugh: : No, I'm aware of how naive that wish is.

[Edited to get rid of that stupid emoticon]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Noemon -

I agree that that's how I'd like this election to go as well. I think Obama probably could get by just from outspending McCain all over the board. But I also think he underestimates himself if he thinks he can't take McCain in an open forum.

But really, he's opening himself to a lot of damage by not doing more than one. He says he'll debate "anytime anywhere," attacks the politics of the past, and that he's looking forward to debating McCain, and then only one townhall and the rest are the chereographed debates that we're all grown tired of for 40 years? If I were an independent, that'd push me towards McCain.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Good point, Lyrhawn.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."

It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.

They're the same people who labeled their fist bump a "terrorist fist bump".

It's Fox News. They don't have a sense of decency. That's one of the reasons that a big chunk of their target demo tunes in.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Tim Russert collapsed and died while doing voice-overs for Meet the Press. This will have a major impact on how the election is covered, although likely no effect on the outcome.

RIP. [Frown] Russert had his detractors, but I always liked the guy. He got massive kudos from me last month for being the first prominent newscaster (well, after Olbermann perhaps) to bluntly point out that Obama was, short of complete self-annihilation, going to be the Democratic nominee.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Wow. Thanks for quoting on that, Tarrsk; I missed Dag's post.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I think that going back on what he said and limiting the town hall debates reflects pretty poorly on Sen Obama. I hope that this is just developments along the way and not the final state of things.

10 debates does seem excessive, but 1 seems too few, especially when it is intentionally set for a time where there would be many fewer people watching.

If Sen Obama does have the substance that many people seem to believe he lacks - and I think he does - this is a good way for him to show it. It is also something I think we should expect from our candidates, especially one who has said he would do it anywhere, anytime.
 
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."

It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.

They're the same people who labeled their fist bump a "terrorist fist bump".

It's Fox News. They don't have a sense of decency. That's one of the reasons that a big chunk of their target demo tunes in.

They're rapidly losing viewers this year, faster than the other networks--O'Reilly is behind Olbermann in ratings for the first time.

Also, RIP Tim Russert.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Jesus, that's sudden. I liked Russert. I agree that it'll likely have no effect on the final outcome, but it's sad, both because it's sudden and tragic, and also because we have one less good reporter talking about the process and only more bloviating to fill the void.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
If Sen Obama does have the substance that many people seem to believe he lacks - and I think he does - this is a good way for him to show it. It is also something I think we should expect from our candidates, especially one who has said he would do it anywhere, anytime.

Depends. If they toss him only softballs, like they've done before, it won't highlight anything.

And I don't think he lacks substance. It's that his substance is simply more of the same. There's no "change" here at all.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
proof.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
If you claim you're for change, the burden of proof is on you. You have to say what kind of change you're for. You can't just throw around the word and have it actually mean something.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think there is more then abundant proof discussed on these very forums that reiteration is unnessasary.

If you say the sky is green when it is obviously blue it is up to you.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami:
I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency.

You are a racist. How about that?
 
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."

It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.

Well, it is worth mentioning that Michelle Obama has used the term 'baby's daddy' in reference to Barack at a stump event. Clearly, she doesn't find it to be overwhelmingly offensive.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I'm not sure how the two are equivalent. "baby moma" is a derogatory slang term applied to black single mothers. Does "baby's daddy" have a similar connotation of which I am not aware or do they just sound similar to you?
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Here's what she actually said:

quote:
My husband, my man, my honey, my babies' daddy, Barack Obama!
"Baby momma" has a bunch of bad connotations to it. "Baby daddy" does too, for similar reasons. "Babies' daddy" does not in the context of her statement. The two aren't even comparable.

--j_k
 
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I'm not sure how the two are equivalent. "baby moma" is a derogatory slang term applied to black single mothers. Does "baby's daddy" have a similar connotation of which I am not aware or do they just sound similar to you?

A brief history of baby-daddies.

I'll agree it's disrespectful. I don't think it is (necessarily) racist.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
US military attacks inside Pakistani territory and may have killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

Why is this relevent to this thread? Remember awhile ago when Obama said he'd attack inside Pakistan if he had actionable intel? Remember when he was roundly criticized for it by members of this Administration, and Republicans everywhere?

President Bush this last week in Europe also promised that diplomacy was the best way to go with Iran, despite the fact that he with others have roundly criticized Obama for wanting to meet with their leaders.

We don't yet know whether or not any Pakistanis were actually killed, but it seems like it may have been bungled, and possibly at the worst possible time for US/Pakistani relations that are already frayed very, very thin.

I guess my point is twoful: Interesting that so many would criticize Obama on one hand and trumpet the President on the other when they seem to have similar ideas. On the other hand, Obama would hardly want to say "hey, the President and I are buddy buddy on military issues!" considering the railing he's doing against the President.

Though he might get by on something close to "the President is finally starting to make some good choices..." to change the dialogue to his favor. Bush is taking a dramatically different track with Europe recently to try and get stuff done, even showing remorse over his previous "tough talk" style of "diplomacy."

The President certainly doesn't have a problem being in the limelight during the election.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
McCain opposes the right to habeas corpus and the 6th Amendment.

[ June 14, 2008, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?

Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:


quote:
My husband, my man, my honey, my babies' daddy, Barack Obama!
"Baby momma" has a bunch of bad connotations to it. "Baby daddy" does too, for similar reasons. "Babies' daddy" does not in the context of her statement. The two aren't even comparable.

--j_k

Agreed. Here it's obviously a pop culture reference, and not some kind of racial gaff. As part of a list of appellations, it's tame.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I'll agree it's disrespectful. I don't think it is (necessarily) racist.
I think it's pretty dumb of FOX to have done but not necessarily any dumber than letting Michelle Malkin be a regular guest.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It is racist, because "baby mama" is a woman who has children with a man who is not her husband or boyfriend or partner. It means that not only did she have kids while not married, she had them with someone with whom she was not even romantically involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8

There was no context, and it was not respectful. For MO's comment, calling Barack her babies' daddy was part of a long list of traits that started with "my husband." Not even comparable.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?

Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?

Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
If the terrorists were fleeing through the mojave desert when they were hit with said ICBM, sure why not? You afraid the cacti will form a PAC?
 
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It is racist, because "baby mama" is a woman who has children with a man who is not her husband or boyfriend or partner. It means that not only did she have kids while not married, she had them with someone with whom she was not even romantically involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8

There was no context, and it was not respectful. For MO's comment, calling Barack her babies' daddy was part of a long list of traits that started with "my husband." Not even comparable.

You've completely neglected to explain why this is 'racist'. Disrespectful, sure. Baby-mama is not an exclusively black term.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Baby-mama is not an exclusively black term.
But it did start in the black community to address a rampant, complicated problem in the black community, a profound problem with the state of black love, and one that in no way touches the Obama family. You can talk about Obama this and Obama that, but he seems every bit the good husband and father. It's as if someone said that Obama got his domestic policy ideas from the 48 Laws of Power, looking passed his background as a constitutional scholar and a legislator. It's disrespectful and it's racist, but it's not a big deal. The guy is running for president, people are going to call him names.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
From the article aspectre linked to above:
quote:
It also looked calculated to spark debate on the future of the Supreme Court – one of the most important election issues for many conservative voters.

I suspect that this is a miscalculation on McCain's part, if this is really his intent. The future of the Supreme Court is important to many people across the political spectrum. I could see this turning moderates away from his camp, and I could certainly see it being enough to drive disenfranchised Clinton supporters to hold their noses and vote for Obama.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I agree. I think it'll play excellently with his base, but this election is largely I think going to be won in the middle, as much as it will be about bringing out voters from their respective bases, and for all his tough talk, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on. I think if McCain and his ilk had their way, they'd do away with the Supreme Court entirely.

At the same time, Obama has to be careful with his rhetoric, or McCain will easily paint him as a terrorist appeasor. Still, I lean heavily towards agreeing with Obama. We're a nation of laws. We've already experienced a degree of, for lack of a more potent phrase, inter arma enim silent leges, but when we deny these rights that we consider fundamental not just for Americans but for ALL people eveywhere, you have to really start wondering who we are as a people. The Founders talked about inalienable rights for all men, not just for Americans. I think that'll be the best argument for him to use against McCain's "but Obama wants to give special rights court dates to people who just a few months ago were killing Americans!"

Blayne -

quote:
So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
In Blackblade's hypothetical, I wouldn't be completely fine with it, but I certainly wouldn't declare war on Russia over it. There are, by the way, lots and lots of degrees between "COMPLETELY fine" and war.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Al Gore is endorsing Obama tonight in Detroit.

I was going to go see it, it's at the Joe (Joe Louis Arena) and it's free, but my grandpa is coming into town tonight and I'm not even sure I'd be able to get in anyway. I wouldn't be able to leave until 5 and doors open at 6. Much as I'd love to see Gore and Obama, I think I might pass.

Interesting though that a second major endorsement is being done in Michigan. Obama is certainly taking our "battleground" status seriously.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Tough luck, Blayne, ya hafta root for McCain. China's official news organ, the People'sDaily has slammed Obama.
OTOH, Irami's gained support for his contention that Obama is "just another whitey dedicated to keeping the black race down."
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I read the article aspectre and unless our understanding of english is radically different from each other it didn't "slam" Obama it merely cautioned its possible American readers to not hold to high of expectations of wide ranging reforms.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
MrSquicky
From the article:
quote:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to abandon the tradition of earmark spending, in which individual lawmakers often deliver dollops of taxpayer money to small local projects that don't provide much help for the long-term needs of their districts.

"We're as guilty as anybody," Bloomberg admitted. "We ask for money for things that are totally local, and why the federal government does it, I don't know. They shouldn't be doing it, although we will continue to ask as long as they are giving it out. Our senators have the obligation to bring home the bacon like everybody else does. ... Seems to me the Senate should get together and say together, 'We're not going to do it anymore.' "


 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm not getting the relevance of that DK. Could you explain?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:

OTOH, Irami's gained support for his contention that Obama is "just another whitey dedicated to keeping the black race down."

The greater danger is ceding whites the power to pick and choose black leaders. It's like the Archbishop of Canterbury picking the Pope.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Or like people of goodwill taking a racist like yourself seriously.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
. . . I really don't know what you mean by that, because the most obvious way I can interpret that in the context of Obama is that you think any black President would need to be elected by black people but not white people, and I think that is too absurd even for you.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Squicky -

DK is talking about the discussion we had at the top of this page about infrastructure spending and earmarks. Honestly I'm not sure what point he is making though I think he is saying that Bloomberg is admitting that Mayors ask for and use these funds even though everyone realizes that it'll have no long term good.

But in the same article he decries the practice and says that Congress needs to say no and stop doing it, but he also says that they need to start doing projects with long term interests in mind, and I agree.
 
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
Heh.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There are a few of those coming out soon, and on the other side against Obama.

The PACs are coming...
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Lyr,
I get what conversation he's referencing. I just don't see what he is trying to say with that quote. From what I can tell, it doesn't support what he was saying.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Obama leads McCain in swing states
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Squick -

Ah okay. Yeah I'm with you there, I don't really get what he's saying with that either. Knowing him, I think I know what he's TRYING to say, but without explicitly stating his point, you could take that article a couple different ways.

Strider -

Wow, that's a huge reversal from before. Obama was trying to make an argument as to how he could win without those states, more or less writing Florida off entirely and hoping to keep MI and PA and maybe pickup OH and then leverage the difference with VA and maybe SC. The electoral college is looking funkier all the time. Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.

In general news -

It looks like the latest controversy is going to be over Continental Shelf Drilling, or offshore drilling, which has been banned for like 20 years. Bush is saying it's the way we secure energy independence, and I'll leave out for a moment the ridiculousness of that argument. McCain in 2000 was against the practice, and is now supporting it. Ironically, the two states that perhaps have the biggest stake in the issue are California and Florida, both who have Republican governors, and both who oppose the Federal government forcing offshore drilling on them. Arnold says no, outright. Charlie Crist in Florida says he isn't going to reject the idea, but that state governments should decide, and nearly every coastal state says no, emphatically. Most everyone loves the idea of more domestic production, but no one wants it in THEIR back yard. Especially in a swing state like Florida, McCain is going to have a hard sell with this one, and it might be a great place for Obama to pick up some points.

Florida would've been a great place for one of those townhall meetings that he turned down. Bad move Obama.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.
Depending on the states, that could be a huge deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more press. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that some states are agreeing to drop the electoral college "winner-take-all" system for the general election?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
President Bush is pushing for starting off-shore drilling. From what I've read, Sen McCain is saying that he wants to end the federal ban, but leave it up to the states to decide.

---

I never took the primary matchup polls seriously for either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama versus Sen McCain. The supporters for either had no resaon to say that they would vote for the other Democratic candidate and lots of reasons to say that they wouldn't.

I'm pretty sure, come November, nearly all the states that could be in play are going to be.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:
Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.
Depending on the states, that could be a huge deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more press. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that some states are agreeing to drop the electoral college "winner-take-all" system for the general election?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement to apportion electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. So even if a majority of voters in the state vote for one guy, whoever wins the national popular vote gets all the electoral votes. Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey have all signed onto the Compact and it is now state law. New Jersey has swingstate potential, but Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii have traditionally been fairly safe Democratic states.

I took am surprised, given the fact that Illinois has 21 electoral votes, and as Obama's home state is expected to go to him. But if McCain gets the popular vote, that's a big swath of votes he'd steal away.

The measure was passed in both houses of the California state legislature last year but was vetoed, and has since again been introduced and sits in the Senate I believe after being passed by the House. Similar measured have been introduced in one or both houses of state legislatures in North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and a couple others and still remain in the legislature as introduced legislation.

All in all, between the four states that have signed on, there are 50 electoral votes that will automatically go to the national popular vote winner regardless of who that state actually votes for. (IL - 21, HI - 4, MD - 10, NJ - 15).

Largeley I see this is as a lose only position for Obama, since I think he'll win all, or at least three of those states, and if McCain can win the popular vote it'll be an electoral landslide, but frankly I don't see that happening. I think Obama's voter registration efforts in communities and enthusiasm for his campaign make him far more likely to win the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral college. Far more in the south, where Democratic turnout especially among the African American population is often depressed, there will be a huge uptick this year in turnout, that even if it doesn't win him those states I think will put him over the top in the popular vote.

So whenever you see any speculation for those four states this year, it's likely the commentators are just wrong.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
All in all, between the four states that have signed on, there are 50 electoral votes that will automatically go to the national popular vote winner regardless of who that state actually votes for. (IL - 21, HI - 4, MD - 10, NJ - 15).
Wow. That's amazingly stupid.
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Wow. That's amazingly stupid.

How so?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I suppose those votes could represent the spill over votes we get from every state where you don't have quite enough for another electoral vote.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
I'd just like to say thanks to all of you who regularly post links and the like- I come to Hatrack to get my news more than any other place. So yeah- keep up the good work!
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
How so? They're giving away their votes. A majority votes for one guy in the state and because of the national popular vote, the guy they voted for gets nothing? Yeah, that's beyond stupid.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I thought there was a condition on those laws that they didn't go into effect until enough states had signed on that there were enough electoral votes committed to decide the election. In other words, once states totally 270 electoral votes make a similar law, then each of their electoral votes goes to the winner of the popular vote. In the meantime they are assigned in the old way.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yep, that's the case.

quote:
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Kat - You could make the same argument for the status quo. I vote for a certain guy in my state but since my guy gets however many less votes, every vote that was cast for him makes zero difference nationally since the winner take all system means the minority is entirely shut out for that state, and the guy I vote for gets nothing.

Eljay -

Whoops, apparently I don't know what I'm talking about. I missed the part about when it goes into effect, and frankly that makes a heck of a lot more sense. Thanks for the correction. Sorry about that!
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yeah, it would be pretty silly otherwise. I remember reading about it in 2004, though, and I was pretty sure there was that loophole there. It's basically an end-run around the electoral college, and I think it has a much better chance of getting the president directly elected (effectively) than trying to actually abolish the electoral college. I also don't think it will get enough states to sign on until/unless we have another situation where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the election. Too much inertia otherwise.
 
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
I saw this on DailyKos. Their post said that it made McCain look "creepy" but I think it shows that he has a sense of humor..

Using something like this against McCain would be pretty dumb...

[ June 19, 2008, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Obama won't accept public financing for the general

quote:
Sen. Barack Obama notified supporters Thursday that he has decided not to accept public financing for his general election campaign.
Sen.

In an e-mail message, Obama said the decision means that his campaign will forgo about $85 million in public funds that would be available when he officially becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in August.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama wrote. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

What do you think? This decision does allow him to raise and spend significantly more money than he would be able to otherwise, so its not exactly like this is going to hurt the campaign, just the opposite.

[ June 19, 2008, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I agree that it's a neccesary step Obama's campaign had to do. The extra money will outweigh the political hay McCain is trying to make out of it.

I see that AP has swallowed the meme that Obama "committed" to take public financing in the general, despite the weak language he used in a questionnaire last year.
quote:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.
[snip snip]
Last year, both Obama and McCain indicated in separate commitments that they would participate in the public system for the general election, as long as both candidates agreed.

In response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, which is made up of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Not much of a commitment.
*shrug* Obama's campaign did have talks with McCain's about this. They were fruitless.

I do admire this from the McCain campaign:
quote:
"Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds."
I admire both it's chutzpah, coming from a candidate who's thumbed his nose at the FEC, and it's sly use of Watergate. It implies corruption without needing to lay out a case for it.

Ultimately, I don't think the McCain campaign will change any significant number of votes by harping on this.

quotes from
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080619/D91D8NV80.html
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The most frightening possible outcome of this is a court action in, say, Maryland about what the actual popular vote count in Florida was.

Granted, the odds of that happening are slim, because one state totals have much less impact under a national popular vote system. But if the disputed amount in one state exceeds the national margin, the resulting legal tangle would be impressive, to say the least.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
He never promised to accept public funding, though I think that he probably didn't live up to aggressively pursuing a publically financed general election.

Considering how Barack Obama has raised most of his funds from small donations, I think he's pretty close to the spirit of public financing anyway.

Maybe a minor bad, but pretty minor to me.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
McCain Camp Timeline of Obama and Public Funding Hmmm, there's a little more to it. Obama's said a bevy (a pack?) of weasel words about accepting public financing, not just that Nov. '07 questionnaire.

AND McCain's using Clinton's blasts about this issue against Obama.

Yeah, nobody saw that coming. [Wall Bash] [Grumble]

I still hope the issue won't get any traction. McCain's weak statement washing his hands of any responsibility for 3rd party attack groups helps Obama's case.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I have no problem with him turning it down. The grand majority of his money is coming from small five, ten and twenty five dollar donations to his campaign from regular people, over a million of them now, including me as of a few days ago.

If he can outraise the government election fund using regular citizens to do so, then I think that's not only fair, I think it's preferable. I still think the public financing option should be available to level the playing field a bit, but I'm okay with this. Republicans have had a fundraising advantage for years, and now McCain is going to cry foul? Meh.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
(After reading the linked time line) Yeah, but there is the problem of him making a commitment to this several times. If he's going to break that now, I'd like him to be upfront about it. "Yes, I said this. It was a mistake to bind myself like that. I feel confident that with the lion's share of my fund raising coming from regular people that the spirit of what I was trying to do is intact."

I'd respect a politician who realizes they want to change their course and owns up to it, while also remaining true to the basic principle of the thing.

[ June 19, 2008, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
two funny headlines on the cnn political ticker...almost back to back

Cindy McCain: Families of candidates not fair game
Cindy McCain not backing down on Michelle Obama comment
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The grand majority of his money is coming from small five, ten and twenty five dollar donations to his campaign from regular people
Can you provide a definitive source on that. I haven't seen one that I'd feel comfortable citing to, but the consensus seems to be that most of his money comes from $200+ donations, and that he has a lot of max ($2300) donors. Also I've seen claims that he has a significant number of $200,000+ bundlers.

I've also seen claims such as the one you make here. Neither side seems to be sourced better than the other. I'd love to see something definitive on this one way or the other.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I think the Obama camp tries to stress the small donations as much as possible to make a point. I agree that must also get a good bit of larger donations as well, or he wouldn't have raised as much money as he did, but I also think it's fair to say he's raised an unprecedented amount from smaller donors.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The NYT articles said that 90% of his money came in increments of less than $100.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?hp

quote:
All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.

 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Unless he mispoke, I'm pretty sure it's the latter.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Ok- is this really the story or is this the news "interpreting" things? Obama said that he thinks we can fight terrorists within the bounds of the Constitution and McCain responded that's naive, pre 9-11 thinking. Surely a candidate running for a position where they take an oath to uphold the Constitution is not really saying that.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
This is not making sense to me.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
scholarette,
That's most likely coming from their reactions to the recent Supreme Court rulings on the prisoners in Guantanamo. I'd be amazed if it wasn't some pretty out there extrapolation of something like this.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I'm of a few minds about this. I wish Obama would have accepted the public financing because I don't like the idea of any candidate buying an election, and I'm sure Obama is going to be able to outraise McCain by a large margin. I liked the idea of them going forth with even monetary resources. Then again, why not raise the limit and let individuals donate as much as they'd like?

The good part of public financing, for me, was that it would lead to a campaign that depended on the quality of the message rather than the number of donors. I don't envy McCain's position here. I mean, for a candidate to champion limited government, but then have his hand out to the voters is a peculiar position. The truth is, I'd rather have public financing and relatively free and equal media time for the candidates. I'm not sure that raising money should be the primary objective for the future President of the United States.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
This is not making sense to me.
Suppose I receive individual contributions in the following amounts:

10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.

These total $550. 9 of these contributions are $90 or less. That means 90% of the individual contributions are $90 or less.

However, only 450 out of 550, or 81%, of the total money contributed came from contributions of $90 or less.

The maximum donation by law is $2300. Each single max contribution is greater than 25 $90 contributions. This would magnify the effect I illustrated above. If we had 10 $90 donations and one max donation, the total donations would be $2750. 90% of the individual donations are still $90 or less. But now only 16% of the total amounted donated comes from individual donations of $90 or less.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Again, I don't have hard figures on Obama's finances. I just know that the statement presented is ambiguous about which meaning applies.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
I'm of a few minds about this. I wish Obama would have accepted the public financing because I don't like the idea of any candidate buying an election, and I'm sure Obama is going to be able to outraise McCain by a large margin. I liked the idea of them going forth with even monetary resources. Then again, why not raise the limit and let individuals donate as much as they'd like?

The good part of public financing, for me, was that it would lead to a campaign that depended on the quality of the message rather than the number of donors. I don't envy McCain's position here. I mean, for a candidate to champion limited government, but then have his hand out to the voters is a peculiar position. The truth is, I'd rather have public financing and relatively free and equal media time for the candidates. I'm not sure that raising money should be the primary objective for the future President of the United States.

Firstly by putting a cap on it, hopefully it will lessen the impact of lobbyists on the electoral process making it a campaign that relies on public support rather then the support of the rich and powerful.

I think the truth of the matter is that I don't think people really trust whichever organization is in charge of "keeping things fair" to remain fair.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Depending on your opinion, that'd either be the FEC or Congress. I certainly don't trust Congress on it, and as of now, the FEC is without a quorum, and can't do anything at all.

Congressional Democrats are forcing the issue on McCain's own public financing problems, to come to a decision on whether or not he broke the law on loans he received.

I'm surprised McCain hasn't made any comments about his flipflopping on OCS drilling. I agree with Squicky on Obama and public finance though. While I don't have a problem with him opting out of the system, I would have liked to see him give a better explanation.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Finally found what looks to be hard data:

quote:
But the taxpayer-financed system, administered by the Federal Election Commission, and Obama's chosen path diverge in significant ways. Obama's campaign isn't built entirely on small donors--about 55 percent of his total haul so far has come from big donors (those giving more than $200), CRP has found.
Not sure why $200 is the cutoff for "big donor."

Here's a summary:

Obama has 141,658 donors who've given over $200, 28,215 who've given the max of $2300. He's received 55% of his money from those giving over $200, and 28% from those giving the max.

For McCain, it's 52,564 donors who've given over $200, 15,953 who've given the max of $2300. He's received 76% of his money from those giving over $200, and 46% from those giving the max.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Woah. From the Fix today:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

quote:
A single question in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll says all you need to know about the problems facing Republicans in the fall election.

Asked if the election were held today which party's candidate would they vote for in their own congressional district, 53 percent of registered voters said they would back the Democratic candidate, compared with just 38 percent said they would support the Republican candidate.


 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yeah, it's looking ugly for Congressional Republicans this Fall. I think they're going to lose as many as six Senate seats, with only one real chance to pick up a seat, in Louisiana from embattled Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Plus I think they'll hold on the Minnesota, as I really don't see Al Franken winning, but you never know. Even he has a lot going for him.

But the problem for Republicans is downticket racing. It was bad enough 2 years ago during the midterms when they took heavy losses, but this time around, Democrats and independents are flocking to and rallying around Obama, which will have a huge effect on downticket racing, which is most significant because Obama is campaigning in every state, which few Democrats I can think of in recent memory have really tried seriously. It will drive up turnout in districts that are usually heavily Republican, largely because Democrats don't bother voting in presidential years because they think there's no point.

Combine that with a glaring lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side, their lack of rallying around McCain as a standard bearer, and the three big failures this year in special election runoffs, most notably in MS-01, and yeah, they have a big, big problem.

I don't think Democrats will come away with a fillibuster proof 60-40 advantage, but I think it could be as wide as 57-43, which will still give them a big advantage. Republicans will have to be careful in how they use their fillibuster, or Democrats will threaten to do what Republicans threatened to do a few years back, which is to change rules to eliminate the fillibuster entirely. And either way, inaction will only spur more losses amongst them, and they'll be forced to negotiate rather than stymie with those kinds of margins. In the House, Republicans have a chance to steal back some of the seats they lost in the midterms. A lot of right leaning Blue Dog Dems got elected to Republican districts by slim margins, and the glow might have worn off two years later, giving a lot of Republicans a chance to win back their seats, but incumbency is a big advantage. Besides, they're going to lose in a lot of new places. I could see a net gain of another 20 seats for Democrats this Fall easily, barring a major shift in the country's politics. If the economy is still bad in six months, which I think it will be, and the war in Iraq isn't doing anything, or even gets worse, then McCain will be in even more trouble, and it'll spell doom all over the map.

Even Ted Stevens of Alaska might lose his seat, which is telling. Alaksa has voted Republican in every presidential election except 1964 since it became a state. He's been in the Senate representing Alaska since 1968, along with Alaska's only Representative, who has been elected to 17 straight terms in office. He's popular because of his ability to bring home a surprising amount of money to a state with a relatively tiny population. But he's facing a big challenge from I think the former mayor of Anchorage, and is also facing multiple charges of corruption and is being investigated by the IRS and FBI.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think that more democrats will vote in Texas this year, not enough to flip us, but it will not be the blowout it normally is. The primary showed that there are more of us out there and just knowing that should help get people out voting.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Plus I think they'll hold on the Minnesota, as I really don't see Al Franken winning, but you never know. Even he has a lot going for him.

Franken isn't the only option. Former Governor Ventura is thinking about entering the race as a third party candidate. [Smile]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Obama backs FISA legislation
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
ElJay -

That's interesting! I hadn't heard that. Ventura is a weird figure in Minnesota politics. He's anti-teacher lobbys, which will hurt him with liberals, but he's also pro abortion, and pro gay rights, which will kill him with the Republicans. With any serious opposition, I wonder if he'd really draw moderate votes from both sides and make it a real three way race. He does have a few good ideas to my mind, but he also seems to be a bit of a gaffe machine, and didn't run for reelection after having a sharp drop in popularity. And all that will come back in a campaign. I don't know enough about politics at the state level in Minnesota to know which side his running would help more.

Noemon -

Looks tactical to me. In general it looks tactical. Democrats caved because they want the issue settled before we really get into the thick of the election so Republicans can't hammer them for being weak on domestic security, and in order to do that they granted retroactive immunity, not even knowing what the hell they are granting immunity for. It was a political move. I'm glad the program has ended, and that FISA courts would be restored to their rightful place, but Americans deserve to know what happened to their records and how such a breach was allowed to happen.

As for Obama, I'm not satisfied with his explanation. On the surface it looks EXACTLY like old school politics and smacks a bit of a sort of betrayal of his espoused principles. The bill still has to be voted on by the Senate I think, so we'll see what happens. I'm most interested in hearing Dodd's speech on the matter, as he has been an ardent and well spoken opponent of the provision, and is also an Obama supporter.

Voting for a bell that has something in it that you oppose isn't automatically wrong. It happens all the time. No bill is perfect and no one is ever 100% totally satisfied with a bill. But the pill he has to swallow here was pretty big. I would have either liked to see him reject the bill entirely with that provision and then campaigned on why he thought he was right, or I would have liked to see something more strong than "we'll get 'em next time!" as his defense for this caving.

Bit of a let down, but that's my knee-jerk reaction. I was pretty stunned when I heard about the deal that Hoyer announced today when I was listening on NPR, and I'm even more stunned to find Obama supporting it. But like most times, I'm still awaiting more details and analysis.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm starting to wonder about the money issue at hand now over fundraising. I'm reading stories about how Obama will raise half a billion dollars for the Fall campaign, and that he'll outspend McCain by as much as 8 to 1, and since McCain will have nearly $90 million for the Fall Campaign, that's a crazy guess.

But Obama's fundraising seems to have tapered off a bit in recent months, even as McCain's has picked up a bit. McCain can't actually raise that much more money from what I understand. Since he is taking public financing, he's limited to what he can raise, and from what I can tell, he's over the limit for what he can spend for the primaries, which technically we're still in for another month and a half.

Election day is four months and change away. Obama has less than $35 million on hand, and he's raising between $35 and $50 million a month on average. Where is this massive war chest supposed to come from that everyone is talking about? Even if he raised $60 million every month for the next four months, he still wouldn't have the vast sums of money that a lot of analysts are talking about. Is there an element I'm missing here, or is there some really faulty journalism going on?

Recent reports have questioned the money advantage that many assume the Democrats will have. May was the weakest month yet for Obama, and was McCain's strongest. The RNC has several times over the funds that the weakened DNC has. That means it will fall on Obama to spend to help a lot of downticket races that traditionally the DNC would fund. Obama has raised almost $300 million so far in this campaign, which is a massive amount of money, but that represents over a year of fundraising. How is he supposed to raise that again, and then another half of that, in three or four months? Something's not right here.

In polling news, Obama has surged to a 15 point lead in a recent Newsweek poll. Not like it means anything this far out.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Lyr, the DNC is cash-poor, but the democratic senate and congressional re-election groups have a very large advantage over their Republican counterparts.

At least, if electoral-vote.com is to be believed.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm looking at the site, but I don't see where they is any kind of fundraising breakdown. Can you link me?

Edit to add: On rereading your post, are you talking about the DCCC and it's Senate counterpart?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain unveils plan to spur innovation on cars to get us off foreign oil.

quote:
Still, what's clear is that energy policy is a major issue in this year's election, and nothing highlights that more vividly than today's bold proposal by Senator McCain to offer a "$300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

You read that right: McCain wants the U.S. government to offer $300 million for the development of a car battery that is 30% cheaper than current technology

quote:
For starters, he suggested that automakers that fail to meet current efficiency standards should be subjected to greater fines. He also wants to see Detroit build more flex-fuel vehicles, and proposes more incentives "to increase use of domestic and foreign alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol." (One way he wants to increase the use of foreign ethanol is through the abolition of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is cheaper and far less energy-intensive to produce; he also wants to reduce or eliminate subsidies for American corn-based ethanol) Finally, McCain discussed a 'Clean Car Challenge' that would "provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell."
What I'm most curious to hear is how Congressional Republicans respond to this, but I certainly have no problem with it. Private donors have already already come together to create the $10 million X Prize, to the winner of a competition to create a 100mpg car that is commercially viable, and is relatively cheap. But a major boost in funding will I think get more people involved and result in better, faster results.

The tax credit sounds good but, I don't think it'd do much. Tax credits only work for people who pay enough taxes to get the money back. McCain is offering tax credits for so many things, who but the uber wealthy will actually pay enough taxes to actually collect on all these things? Someone making $25K a year isn't going to get enough out of a credit like that to make buying such a car affordable. It's the problem with offering $5K tax credits for health care to the poor when the poor pay few or no taxes.

I think the better solution would be to give the tax credits to the car manufacturers themselves. They can fully realize the benefits, collect full value, and then drop the price of the car accordingly, which will make it much more affordable to regular people. It's either that or I find a rich friend to cosign with so they can write me a check after I buy it.

But the idea is sound, it's beyond sound, it's awesome. I hope Obama comes back with something equally impressive! This is the beginning of what could be the kind of debate on science and technology that I was waiting for. Regardless, it's an impressive announcement that, given the Congress, stands a good chance of becoming law if he's elected.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
One way [McCain] wants to increase the use of foreign ethanol is through the abolition of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is cheaper and far less energy-intensive to produce
I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.

Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


I think the better solution would be to give the tax credits to the car manufacturers themselves. They can fully realize the benefits, collect full value, and then drop the price of the car accordingly, which will make it much more affordable to regular people. It's either that or I find a rich friend to cosign with so they can write me a check after I buy it.

Isn't that what the proposal is? According to the part you quoted:

quote:
Finally, McCain discussed a 'Clean Car Challenge' that would "provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell."

 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The tax credit sounds good but, I don't think it'd do much. Tax credits only work for people who pay enough taxes to get the money back. McCain is offering tax credits for so many things, who but the uber wealthy will actually pay enough taxes to actually collect on all these things? Someone making $25K a year isn't going to get enough out of a credit like that to make buying such a car affordable. It's the problem with offering $5K tax credits for health care to the poor when the poor pay few or no taxes.
That depends on how the credit is designed. Some tax credits, such as the EIC, are "refundable" and can reduce tax liability below zero. These types of credits aren't limited by how much tax one earns.

Do you have some information that the credits proposed are not refundable? I've been very annoyed with the coverage of tax credits in this campaign because the articles seldom mention this aspect of the plan. And it's crucial.

Edit: plus, what dkw said.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sorry dkw. I actually read three or four different articles on McCain's proposal, and most of those I read said that he was offering the credits to consumers, not the manufacturers. I'm going to have to look into that and report back, because there seems to be conflicting info.

Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit. But I'll be the first to admit that tax law isn't my forte.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit.
That's correct for some tax credits, not others. My complaint with the coverage is that it almost never makes it clear what type of tax credits are being discussed.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain's words specifically:

quote:
For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
On credits: Ah okay. I didn't know that. And I agree, the coverage often sucks. It's those details that could make or break the actual usefulness of many of these proposals for the majority of people.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
McCain's words specifically:

quote:
For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.

Well that could certainly go either way. He needs to clarify.
 
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
quote:

I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.

Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.

The usual sugar-cane plantation sites over here in Brazil are, generally, far away from the rainforest, whose biggest predators, nowadays, are ILLEGAL loggers and cattle dealers. Ethanol is a major fuel option over here since the 70's. Today it's waaaaay cheaper than gasoline.

Oh, yes. See... I'm all for preserving my country's endangered rainforests. Heck! I "preach" a lot about that in my classes and to people in general. Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already! [Wink]
 
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
Obama asks contributors to help Clinton with debt

quote:
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, retire her debt, an Obama campaign source said Tuesday.

Obama did not direct members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign, the source said, but asked them to do so if they were so inclined.

Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination this month.

She has amassed a campaign debt of about $22 million, but about $12 million of that is money the New York senator loaned to the campaign herself.

Individual donors can contribute $2,300 to individual candidates.

Interesting move. I'm not sure exactly what the desired message is: "we're on the same side, we help each other"? I just hope people don't see this as a pity move by Obama.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Not pity, pragmatic. There's been talk about him doing it since before she conceded. If she has to focus on fundraising to pay off her debt, she can't focus on campaigning for him. If his donors help her pay if off she'll be a lot more motivated to help get him elected. Especially since if she doesn't pay back the part she loaned herself before sometime in August she loses all but $250,000 of it.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Helping someone who has $100 million pay off her debts is just about the lowest priority I can come up with.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yep. If I wanted to support Hillary, I would have given her money before.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
It must be hard to fundraise to pay off debts. I can't imagine what an effective "pitch" would be.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
She doesn't have $100 million. She's made $108 million over the past 8 years. I imagine she's spent some of that on, say, her house in New York and townhouse in DC and a bunch of pantsuits, among other things. And even if she had it, her debts are going to basically equal a quarter of that. I would have a real hard time paying off debts equal to a quarter of my net worth, and probably wouldn't be able to pay off debts equal to a quarter of my income for the past 8 years.

Granted, we're talking about vastly different amounts of money, and she probably can afford to lose the money she's loaned her own campaign. Especially since Bill is probably going to continue pulling in huge speaking and consulting fees for the forseeable future. But I can understand her wanting to not loan her campaign any more money to pay off debts. . . I think it's reasonable for Obama to ask his large donors to consider donating to her to cover the $10 million or so she owes other people. The request only went to people who have already donated the maximum to his campaign, so presumeably they are people who can afford to kick another grand or two to her. I get Obama's fundraising emails, and I've certainly only gotton ones asking for more money to him, nothing for her.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Ralph Nader: Obama mining "white guilt"

Y'know, he's probably a good part of the reason Bush won in 2000. And he's continued to run in election after election, long after there was anything to be gained from it beyond stroking his own ego.

But I think this is the first time I've really wanted to say: Nader? Shut the hell up.

This is not helpful to the nationwide discussion. It's tacky, insensitive, and stupid. Do you have so little of merit to say for yourself that you're attacking a candidate for not echoing you?!

[ June 25, 2008, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
I'd have more respect for Nader if he would run for government offices other than President. Try to get a governorship or a become a congressional representative, go for something that he might have a shot at winning instead of being a candidate just to have a soapbox.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday.

"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards,"

I agree, and I'm glad Nader spoke up. I'm also shocked that nobody has spoken out about this.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American."
A swing and a miss.

--j_k
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Yep. If I wanted to support Hillary, I would have given her money before.

Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?

Eduardo -

I don't know, most of what I read on Brazil, other than illegal logging is that an area of the size of Massachussetts disappears every year (or so) due to slash and burn tactics used on the Amazon to clear more land for farmers. Vast tracts of new farm land crop up every year where there wasn't any before. And yeah, I can easily see how it'd look pretty silly for a nation that has clearcut its way from coast to coast to lecture another country about deforestation, but there's two things to that: 1. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was stupid of us to do it, and we'll pay local consequences for it. 2. Climatologically, your forests are more valuable than ours. The value of the Amazon as a carbon sink is dramatically more important than the forests of the American east or even more so than Alaskan forests.

To be fair, I'm perfectly okay with coming to some sort of international agreement whereby Brazil gets some sort of compensation or benefit from keeping the Amazon intact. Once it's gone it's gone, and it's your demand for more exports and ours for imports that's fueling the deforestation as much as anything else.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Oh one more thing. I think it's Noemon that's the big Sam Powers fan, but either way I think you'd all appreciate this article she wrote for TIME magazine on American leaders dealing with enemies abroad.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Thanks Lyrhawn!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?
I might have made a donation back in March to get her to drop out sooner. A pity she never tried that as a fund raising tack. 'I'll suspend my compaign as soon as I've raised enough money to pay my debts'. I bet it would have been popular enough to crash her fund raising web page.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already!
Eduardo, You do realize how utterly obsurd that is? America and Europe aren't monolythic creatures. Its not as though we think and act in unison first destroying our own habitat and then chiding others for doing the same.

The Americans or Europeans who are gungho to drill and excavate in Alaska are almost never the same people as those who are trying to halt destruction of tropical rainforests. Those who are destroying North American Temperate forests by over logging, are not the same people who are worried about destruction of tropical rainforests.


I have donated money to groups who work to preserve Tropical Rainforests in places like Brazil. I've donated alot more of both by money and time trying to preserve forests and wildlands in North America. The only thing I have in common with the people who destroyed the forests of the US and Europe, or the people who want to drill the Alaskan wild life refuge or strip mine Montana, is that we were born on the same continent. I can't see that this makes me responsible for their actions or a hypocrit because I'd like to see other places in the world avoid similar mistakes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
But I think this is the first time I've really wanted to say: Nader? Shut the hell up.

Good luck getting that guy to shut up. He's like a relevance zombie.
 
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
The Rabbit, as I said, I'm all for Rainforest preservation, and I did mention that I believe people here are talking in good faith (although many others, unfortunately, have a hidden agenda in their 'protect the Amazon' statement).
The most important part in my post is that, usually, sugar-cane farmers do not burn the Amazon because the best areas for such plantations are elsewhere in Brazil.
It would be nice if all enviromentalists were as you, but it just isn't true. Anyway, sorry if you found fault in my previous statement. My bad.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"DON’T fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be 'a big advantage' for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had 'helped' Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary."
"...McCain terror expert...former C.I.A. director James Woolsey...cheerleader for Ahmad Chalabi...who helped promote phony Iraqi W.M.D. intelligence in 2002."

Editing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith cuz I keep misremembering his last name.

[ June 29, 2008, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Can someone explain to me is so awful about Wesley Clark's comments which McCain attacked and Obama rejected?
quote:
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not,' " Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences either nor has he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable point to bring up if people are talking about experience. I do think military service is a plus for a president, particularly because it usually means a bit more understanding of what war really is before getting the country into one. But it seems to me that McCain's senate experience is much more relevant than his POW experience.

I don't see why this should be a closed topic. If anything, McCain and his campaign should treat it as an open door to have a discussion on why military experience matters and what a person gains from it - I don't think that's a hard thing to convice people of, and it seems a better reply to Clark's comments than dismissing them they way they seem to be. But I'd really like to hear from someone who feels differently on this, because I feel like I'm missing something here.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I agree with you. We have gotten really touchy, though, and anything that looks like he is dissing someone's military service is problematic for Senator Obama since he hasn't served int the military and is already fighting the "unpatriotic" rap. I think General Clark has every right to bring this up.
 
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
I see nothing wrong with those comments. He basically just said that being a POW doesn't qualify McCain to be president. Which it really doesn't.

And he said it after praising McCain and his service and saying he was a hero... I don't get it.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think it was slate that said that this campaign seems to be the umbrage campaign. Personally, I am getting sick of it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I was hoping that Obama wouldn't reject his comments. I think what Clark said was perfectly fair, and actually respectful all things considered.

It's a perfectly valid point to bring up, and just goes to show, like kate said, how touchy we are, and how scared everyone is of being painted as unpatriotic. It also goes to show, I think, that military glorification is a part of our culture now.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Of course, belittling the service of democrats is fair game.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Of course, belittling the service of democrats is fair game.

Just because a member of McCain's Truth Squad used to be a Swift Boater does not mean McCain agrees with them. And besides, the Swift Boaters were about bringing forth truth, whereas Clark is just trying to make McCain look bad. [Taunt]
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Obama to expand Bush's faith-based programs
quote:
Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.


 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.

And then you have Barack Obama started to try and get more evangelical votes. Since most of my friends and family are unequivocal members of the Christian right it's interesting to see that really none of them like McCain, but don't know what to think of Obama.

That's the most fascinating part of this election to me, but that's for religious reasons more than it is for political ones.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.
And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate. They'll be baffled.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
Yeah. Huckabee might be a somewhat safe choice though for that regard- I don't know too much about his other credentials and how he'd fit with the McCain campaign and message.
 
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate.

While I agree, for me it would simplify things as I wanted Romney in the first place. Huckabee always seems a little out there with mis-placed priorities to boot.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.

The Republican/McCain attack machine appears to be up and running too. McCain's new web attack ad, and misleading Republican attack ad on taxes.

I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too. There's a tv version of the web ad that's been airing that portrays McCain as the savior of the environment and Obama as unwilling to do anything for innovation. It leaves me seething every time I see it. It says Obama is against cutting the gas tax, which is true, but doesn't mention any of the couple hundred economists who say that it's a bad idea because people will just drive more and drive the price back up. It says he is against nuclear power, which is just a blatent lie. He doesn't love it, but he realizes it'll probably be necessary. It says he is against innovation, but he proposed a $150 billion energy initiative to get us off oil and into future energy products. An idea that McCain attacked. And Obama has said no to OCS drilling because there are a lot of unused leases that oil companies aren't drilling on, it won't yield results for a decade, and I can't think of a single state that is clamoring for a repeal of the moratorium. It's just such a dishonest ad, and I'm surprised to see him come out with such a dishonestly negative ad so quickly.

Now I'm wondering what's out there with Obama's name on it. Anyone catch any bad Obama ads on TV?

In other news Obama will be holding his acceptance speech not at the 20,000 seat convention center where the Democratic National Convention is, but instead at the 75,000 seat Invesco Field where I think the Broncos play. While it might seem a no brainer that he'll be able to fill all the seats, I wonder if that'll be the case. It's summer in an outdoor stadium with a dynamic and popular figure, so maybe. He filled 20,000 seats easy here in Detroit. I suppose if they don't charge, or don't charge much, for tickets to get in, they won't have a problem.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Now I'm wondering what's out there with Obama's name on it. Anyone catch any bad Obama ads on TV?
The answer is on the website you link to for your anti-McCain message
Obama Work Claim
and just to go back a bit...
Obama's Lame Claim
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.

Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.


quote:
I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too.
That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Obama interview with Military Times
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Good Interview. The Military Times Editorial Board should be allowed to host a debate.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.
I agree. And the analysts even say so. Historically polls this far out are wrong as often as they are right.

quote:
That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
It's curious. From everything I've read McCain is way behind Obama in terms of organization. I think it's possible that Obama just doesn't want to spend the money this far out, he'd rather wait until people start to pay more attention. But he's still spending big chunks of money, mostly in states that didn't get a lot of attention during the primaries. He spent a lot of time im Missouri, and he has Claire McCaskill schilling for him whenever she's home. She apparently is gaining a lot of importance pretty quickly for a freshman senator.

I have seen a few Obama ads, just not as many as McCain. But Obama is pushing for a 50 state strategy this time around, which McCain can't hope to keep up with. It's possible that a lot of his money is going right now to places he didn't see a lot of during the primaries, and is thus keeping away from places that already know him well.

Here's some pretty big VP news: Webb says no to being VP. With Webb out of the running, that really widens the guessing game. I think that pushes Biden, Richardson and Sibelius into the top three most obvious choices.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, I saw that bit about Webb on TPM earlier this afternoon. Interesting, eh? Sebelius is definitely the person I'd like to see in the VP slot, but I feel like either she or Richardson would be good choices. I'm not so sure about Biden. On the one hand, he's got a ton of great experience. On the other hand, he can barely open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Webb has plenty of time to run for higher office if he so chooses to. He probably felt that this wasn't his time, and it might be a good choice, as the Republicans would be sure to hit the Dems for running two first term senators on the same ticket.

I agree about Biden. He DOES speak rather...candidly. Sometimes I appreciate the straight talk he gives, or at least the bluntness of it, but it'd likely offer up too much ammunition to the opposition. I agree on Sebelius. I think electorally she brings women and the midwest to the table, but I think Richardson is just the better VP. I think his vast international, domestic and executive experience make him the perfect second in line in case anything happens to Obama. I think they are both responsible choices, and I think they'd both do a great job of filling in any gaps that Obama might have in his own experience.

DK -

I don't count the job thing. He works a summer job, it might me mildly dishonest if you take "worked my way through school" to mean that he worked a job while he was taking classes, but this isn't a vital matter of policy OR of personal history, and as such, the distinction doesn't much matter to me, which is why I didn't include it when I brought up those others.

But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Obama may not have the experience of being shot down while flying a fighter plane in Vietnam, but he now has the experience of a forced landing in St. Louis during a July heat wave.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Was it a corkscrew landing? Because if it wasn't, it doesn't count for nothin'.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.

Agreed. Obama's decision to not accept public financing was made out of political expediency, and nothing else. His attempts to frame it as anything else are just spin.

[Edit--I can't really blame him for going with the private financing, but I was a bit saddened to see him do it. I really liked the idea of he and McCain going toe to toe on equal footing, and the winner becoming so by virtue of the strength of his arguments. We've been over that, though.]
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I saw a clip where Obama raised his hand that he supported public financing for elections. Is there any other evidence that he had committed to using public financing for his campaign? His raising his hand in response to that question doesn't say to me that he agreed to USE public financing, only that he supported its existence.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Top of page post!! Mwhahaha!! [Evil Laugh] [Evil Laugh] [Taunt] [Evil Laugh] [Evil Laugh]


*runs away cackling madly*
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, he talked about it quite a bit early on, before it became clear what a fundraising juggernaut his machine would turn out to be.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Some perspectives from around Asia on the presidential election:

http://www.danwei.org/the_thomas_crampton_channel/china_votes_for_obama.php
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
One possible place for addressinf concerns about Senator Obama's "drift" that has some chance of getting to him. Go to one of these.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/listening/
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I gained respect for Jackson after the remark. For all the pomp surrounding Jackson's considerable ego, Jackson making such a visceral remark off-camera shows that he is still invested in the black community.

There is a way to make blue-blood look good. The Kennedys did. Chris Dodd does it. John Biden does it. On being considered for VP:


quote:

"I made it clear to him and everybody else, I never worked for anybody in my life. I got here when I was 29. I never had a boss. I don't know how I'd handle it."



[ July 12, 2008, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Slate had a vote to select VP candidates for both Obama and McCain.

Results are here.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Oh, that's accurate. Ron Paul followed by Mitt Romney. [Roll Eyes]

Though I've never seen the name Sarah Palin before, I don't think. I'll check that out.
Sweet.
http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Impeachment hearings passed in the House. 9 republicans voted for impeachment hearings. Ron Paul notably, but perhaps not surprisingly, voted for the hearings.

EDIT: Paul's vote differs from his previous vote on Kucinich's impeachment articles. His position is based on supposed constitutional violations rather than Kucinich's which focuses on Bush's actions leading up to the war with Iraq.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Woah.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
That blog post is terrible, Threads.

Here's a somewhat more understandable version of what's happened (courtesy of AP).

The lone article of impeachment has not "passed" in the House. It has been sent to committee as have all Kucinich's previous articles of impeachment. In this case, however, the Speaker indicated that there would actually be hearings regarding the article. She pointed out that this was not, in any way, the first step to removing Pres. Bush from office. Rather it was just a forum for discussing the current administrations abuses of executive power.

To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Or maybe this is the only way Cheney gets a crack at the Oval office. [Angst]
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
The house sent Kucinich's impeachment articles against Cheney to committee last year. I guess it's Bush's turn this year.

Also, on the vote, 100% of the Democrats in the House supported it. As a side note, of the recent House votes listed at GovTrack, the Dems refused to break ranks much more often than the GOPers (for Dems, 98% support or higher on 55% of votes; for GOP, 98% support or higher on 34% of votes). The GOP got this "iron-fisted party" (to quote the DailyKos post) reputation under Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, but recently it's been the Dems who have been afraid to break with party leadership. Maybe Nancy Pelosi needs a catchy nickname: Nancy "the Screwdriver" Pelosi, perhaps.

<edit>Oops; I included both House and Senate votes. If we restrict just to the House, we have 65% for Dems and 41% for GOPers. Averaging over the 17 House votes listed, Dems garnered 98.7% unity while GOPers achieved 95%. Anyway you slice it, the Democrats are a more cohesive party right now.</edit>
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.

To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I think you will find that when a party is in the majority, there is a strong pressure to tow the line to actually make that majority matter.

I wonder if there are stats on it out there?

-Bok
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.

I guess they have been pretty busy over the past two years. They were probably so swamped that the soonest they could get to this just happens to be a couple of months before the election.
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
I think you will find that when a party is in the majority, there is a strong pressure to tow the line to actually make that majority matter.

My hypothesis is that its a second order effect. I would guess that in 2005, when (IIRC) the GOP still controlled the House but Dems were widely viewed as "on the rise" that you saw greater Dem cohesiveness. I think it's a natural ebb and flow, but that it's not tied to power but perceived changes in power. By that hypothesis, the greater cohesiveness among Dems indicates a perceived continued ascendancy (which matches polling data for the upcoming election).
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080718/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_obama_dc

Where is the judgement here? It is likely not to be a big deal, but why would he even mention it?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
How many "gaffes" does Senator McCain get to make before he stops being the candidate with foreign policy experience?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Which recent gaffe are you referring to? His referring to the non-existant border of Iraq and Pakistan, or his twice referencing the present day non-existant country of Czechoslovakia?

Their excuse seems to keep being that he's constantly misspeaking. I think it's less damaging to his foreign policy experience than it is contributing to the "old man constantly forgets things" problem. I think at this point, the second problem is going to end up hurting him more. No matter how many little gaffes he makes, I don't think Obama will be able to dislodge his foreign policy cred with a nation that really isn't that interested in geographic or even geopolitical details like that. But Obama COULD successfully make him look like an old dottering mistake ridden fool. That only servces to make Obama look more young and vibrant, and McCain more old and knocking on death's door.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I stopped caring about the election when I realized that they are closer to each other than either of them are to me. Both of them are going to ignore education and punt on criminal justice. They are both pro-death penalty, and to be honest, in terms of alternative energy, I think it's even money between them.

I took Bush's win in '04 pretty hard, and I'm not going to vote for Obama just to vote against McCain. And since I can't stomach voting for Cynthia "Don't you know who I am" McKinney, I guess it's going to be Nader.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
How would you know? He could very well go off his rocker and order some random country of brown people nuked.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
I thought the same thing in 2000 Bush vs Gore. While I suppose the world has not technically ended, the difference between Bush and Gore has turned out to be far more consequential than I would ever have imagined.

The difference between the republicans and the democrats are indeed very small compared to the difference between political parties in most other countries, but Bush has shown us exactly how great the consequences of those small differences can be.

I'm quite confident that a Barack Obama America won't be my ideal America, but I'm also certain that an Obama America is far more likely than a McCain America to be an America I can live with.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
While I suppose the world has not technically ended
But it has ended in a general sense? Really? Things are that bad? We are that close to having the world end?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I don't think "generally" is the proper antonym to "technically" in this sense, perhaps "metaphorically" might be better.

"The end of the world" is a common metaphor for generic catastrophe and in my opinion Bush's presidency has been catastrophic in many many ways.

[ July 22, 2008, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Nader, Irami? Really?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Here is Nader's position on education.

quote:

The federal government must not impose an overemphasis on high-stakes standardized tests. Such testing has a negative impact on student learning, curriculum, and teaching by resulting in excessive time devoted to narrow test participation, de-enrichment of the curriculum, false accountability, equity and cultural bias, and excessive use of financial resources for testing, among other problems. Federal law should be transformed to one that supports teachers and students -- from one that relies primarily on standardized tests and punishment. The government should encourage schools to infuse their curriculum with civic experiences that teaches students both how to connect classroom learning to the outside world and how to practice democracy.

Obama's

quote:
Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.

Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels.
Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.

There are a lot of bells and whistles in Obama's plan, but I think it's still fundamentally wrong.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
That still doesn't explain a vote for Nader. Nader's position on most things is closer to my own as well, but that doesn't actually matter since he has no chance of being elected President in 2008.

The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.

Given the option of using your vote to help choose whether McCain or Obama will be our next President, or using your vote in symbolic protest of these options -- why would you choose the latter.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.

Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.

Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.

I think the Iraqi PM is really putting the republicans in a tight spot.

The unspoken goal of the Republicans in Iraq has always been to set up permanent US military presence there. The right wing won't consider it "victory" unless the US is able to maintain a military presence in the region to protect oil interests and Israel. What's more, the McCain campaign is heavily invested in the argument that democrats want to "cut and run" and don't have the stomach to continue the fight against terror. Additionally, the republicans have been pushing the "surge has been successful" angle as evidence that the proposed democratic time table for withdrawal is unneeded.

The recent revelation that the Bush administration's current proposal included defacto permanent US military bases in Iraq (despite admin claims to the contrary) set off a fire storm in the Iraqi parliament. The Iraqi leaders know that their government will never be considered legitimate as long as US forces remain in Iraq. They know that setting a time table for US withdrawal is the primary thing they need to stabilize the country. Now they've put themselves on record in support of a Time-Table that closely matches the one Obama has proposed.

How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.

If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".

It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:
The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.

Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.

I think the trip was a couple things. Before he even went, the trip was both necessary and fraught with possible pitfalls. McCain has said dozens of times that he should go, and when he went, it could look like he only did it because McCain challeneged him to rather than because he actually wanted to or needed to. Frankly I think CODELs are a big waste of time generally, but I'll make an exception for this one only because Senator Jack Reed is there with him, and he has a reputation on MidEast CODELs for getting around the handholding and talking to people on the ground that can offer unvarnished opinions on what is really going on.

McCain has spent Obama's entire trip hammering away at him, sometimes unfairly misrepresenting his positions and statements, but I think on the whole he's got the general gist right. The media precursored the whole trip as a giant potential disaster, but I think thus far it's been largely pretty mundane.

If you look at the regular news, you'd probably just see McCain breathing fire and Obama looking like a statesmen, which you'd think would be bad enough, but not really. If you look a little closer to the news this week, you see that the White House sent a peace envoy to meet with Iranian diplomats, and that Al-Maliki has agreed with Obama that there should be a timetable for withdrawel, added to recent disagreements with the White House over any sort of long term agreement on the composition of US forces in Iraq, which Maliki and others in Iraq have said will NOT be a permanant fixture, and many there favor a designated deadline for withdrawel.

Add to that some of McCain's recent verbal gaffes on things like where Iraq and Pakistan are on the map (or he's just confusing Iraq and Iran), not knowing (twice) that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country, and his previous Sunni-Shiite gaffes, and I think you have a feeble looking McCain lashing out, and a prescient looking Obama that the rest of the world wants to deal with and that Iraqi leaders agree with and appear to be supporting.

It's really all in how you frame it though. Despite these facts, recent national polling data shows McCain with a 20 point lead over Obama in "would the candidate make a good Commander in Chief?" On the bright side for Obama: 1. That's pretty much the only thing that McCain leads Obama in. 2. At present, this isn't about Iraq and terrorism, it's about the economy. The fact that McCain is spending so much time on the war I think proves how desperate he is to keep the country fixed on the issue because he knows that's how he wins. Obama to his credit is doing a halfway decent job of pivoting between the economy, where he is strong, and trying to bone up on his foreign policy cred to take that issue away from McCain.

But the bigger problem? Other than die hard politicos like anyone reading this thread, no one really gives a damn this far out. For all the hand wringing and tours and the tens of millions of dollars they've spent on ads (McCain REALLY pumped out the ad buy in June), the polls haven't budged, and Obama still leads by a couple points.

There's a lot of murmering in the blogosphere, even on CNN I think, about the McCain camp naming a VP this week, and most of that buzz is centered around LA Governor Bobby Jindal, who McCain is set to meet with later in the week.

And news for Lisa: Ron Paul is apparently holding his OWN convention as an offshoot of the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis next month. He just recently announced that he was moving it to a larger 18,000 seat venue due to overwhelming responses to his initial announcement.

Also McCain and Obama released their fundraising totals for June. McCain raised $21 million in June, his best month yet, while Obama raised close to $52 million. Hillary Clinton, with $25 million plus in campaign debt raised about two and a half million, retiring 10% of her debt. She used that money to pay small vendors that she still owed rather than the big ticket items like herself, or her campaign strategist Mark Penn who she owes upwards of a million dollars.

McCain has been spending through the roof lately on ad buys while Obama's spending, while decent, isn't really up there. It might seem countintuitive given that Obama has more than twice as much cash on hand as McCain, but the reason lies in public financing. McCain needs to drain his campaign coffers before the end of August when he'll get the 80 some odd million dollars for the general election campaign. Obama however needs to keep the war chest intact and puff it up as big as he can going into the real election cycle, which starts as soon as the conventions are over. McCain will likely continue to outspend Obama for the next month before Obama releases a floodtide of ads all over the country.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.

If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".

It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.

Give the Republicans more credit than that, they're masters at this. The average American isn't well informed on the inner workings and hold ups of the long term force agreement between Iraq and the US. I'd be surprised if the average American even knew we were in current negotiations for such an agreement.

Republicans get by this one just by not talking about it. McCain can continue to hammer away at Obama, and the White House's recent forwarding of an email praising Obama's plan and Maliki's comment will get buried and trampled over in the press for a couple days. And I have little doubt that the Democrats will let the matter drop because they just aren't good at this kind of politics (the winning kind I mean). The Iraqi government has sinced backed off of Maliki's comment, though since then Maliki has said that he thinks Obama will win the election (the guy certainly speaks his mind).

I personally think you're right Rabbit, in that this is a lose/lose for McCain. Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination, despite the fact that he and Bush have said all along that they leave if the Iraqis asked us to leave. Somewhere along the line he's going to have to break a promise to someone. I think this is really going to come to center stage in the coming months as Bush pressures Maliki to make a deal before his term is up. If Bush really pushes and Maliki balks, or worse, plainly sets a date for withdrawel, that's going to be a dagger in McCain's campaign.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.

The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands.
Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked.
Senator Says He Still Doesn't Support Surge
quote:
So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent. Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

quote:
DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.

The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.

Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore.
I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands.
Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked.

Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?

Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.

quote:
Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore.
I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?

I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.

As for the Rev. Wright, Wright was acting like a rabid dog who in spirit left Obama long before Obama left him. Who cares if Obama stutters? I have seen him give plenty of speeches without a problem. Stuttering has nothing to do with one's mental faculties.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?

I'm not.
quote:
Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.


 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?

I'm not.
quote:
Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
The Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge
quote:
In October 2006 -- three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled -- Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."
quote:
On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly."

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked." Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

quote:
I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.
I don't think you seem to realize that Iraq would not be able to have Iraqis step up to the plate without Americans shuffling in and stabilizing the country first. Unless you think that the new Iraq would have arisen anway?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Funny but I see no evidence of the surge fixing anything either.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
President Bush spent 4 years in charge of war strategy that was flawed and failed.

Suddenly he proposes a surge of even more troops.

Is it surprising that opponents were against the idea? Is it surprising that they had and have real concerns about the surge's dilatory effects on troop strength, morale, and ability to recover?

Then things seem to be getting better, and everyone who was for the Surge starts yelling--See, it worked.

But most of what I've discovered that worked was General Patreus's (sp--sorry) changing some of the Neo-Cons basic premises. He returned to protecting the people, not the assets. He returned to negotiation with the people in power (Sunni Clan leaders, Sheiks, Etc), not the people we wanted in power (Malaki and others). He got tough with the powers that were corrupting the Iraq government--drug dealers, Shiah fanatics, Sectarianists.

Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?

Of course he did.

Did he need too? That is not clear to me.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.

For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?

Of course he did.

Did he need too? That is not clear to me.

He's repeatedly said he needed to. Sunni leaders have not only said the extra troops have worked, they've gone on record asking that they not be removed prematurely.

Here's a Post editorial on Obama's visit to Iraq

quote:
Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home."

quote:
Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination
The Iraqi position is not incompatible with McCain's. Both are based on more than just time and contain clear links between readiness of Iraqi forces and withdrawal.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.
I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.

Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
And having created a significant milestone toward the manner of leaving that most Americans support, the surge has worked so far.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.
It is only unprovoked if you ignore over a decade of UN sanctions and resolutions. Hussein agreed to terms and failed to live up to them...for over a decade...and there were clear consequences to his actions. It was not unprovoked.
quote:
Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
Really? One of the major sources of anger in the Muslim world is our bases in Saudi Arabia? I think that is a vast oversimplification if not a complete misstatement. I believe the radical Muslims' source of anger is our way of life rather than a military base.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
quote:
I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
So you wouldn't mind if, say, Canada put a military base down the road from your house? How about Egypt putting a base in Northern Virginia, near DC? China has a lot of defense considerations in the Pacific, so a base on the outskirts of LA wouldn't be too bad.

Of course there are some monetary advantages to having a big military base in your area. (So maybe promise a new Indian Air-Force Base to Cleveland will win some Ohio votes?)but there are criminal and legitimate problems as well. When a US Soldier was found raping a young Okanawan girl many Japanese say our bases there as terrible.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Really? One of the major sources of anger in the Muslim world is our bases in Saudi Arabia? I think that is a vast oversimplification if not a complete misstatement. I believe the radical Muslims' source of anger is our way of life rather than a military base.
Big fan of the kool-aid eh?

No seriously, the American presense in KKMC and other Saudi military bases was a primary recruitment tool for terrorist organizations in the 90's. They didn't put up recruitment posters talking about how evil Americans were for driving cars and eating McDonalds, they put up posters saying that heathens were desecrating the holiest sites in the Muslim religion by having troops in the same sand where Mecca and Medina are. That and our support of Israel were the two biggest recruitment tools then had until Iraq. Most American forces have pulled out of KKMC since then, there are only a handful left. But that's really a moot point now since they have Iraq to use for propaganda fodder.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Here's a Post editorial on Obama's visit to Iraq

The post also ran this response to the Maliki withdrawl flap, written by a McCain adviser. Essentially it boils down to: Maliki is a politician, doing what politicians do. Ask the top Iraqi military commander and defense minister and they project an ideal withdrawl date between 2013 and 2020. With the caveat that it should be tied to conditions on the ground. Essentially the Petraeus/McCain line. So Obama agrees with the politician and McCain agrees with the people actually responsible for keeping the peace (both US and Iraqi).

For balance, there's also this rapturous analysis of Obama's ability to think geo-strategically, based on his assertion that we need to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
When I read Obama's Iraq strategy, I always got the impression that the 16 month time frame was best case scenario. Kinda like how when I say, I'm going to do x and y and get my thesis in May, I know that if z goes horribly wrong (as it has) I am going to modify that plan.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
When I read Obama's Iraq strategy, I always got the impression that the 16 month time frame was best case scenario. Kinda like how when I say, I'm going to do x and y and get my thesis in May, I know that if z goes horribly wrong (as it has) I am going to modify that plan.

I believe your impression is wrong. The main critique of Obama's rhetoric is that he has (thus far) refused to tie his withdrawl deadline to conditions on the ground.

That said, he has moderated significantly over the past few months, and now includes the presence of a long term "residual force" of unspecified size as part of his plan. It may be that he'll add further nuance to his plan in order to demonstrate that 16 months is a best case scenario (indeed, better than the best case the perennially sunny al-Maliki can envision).
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Senoj, that's not true. Since I've been paying attention (before the primaries), Barack's position has never been "16 months, come hell or high water".

Have the media only been reporting the "16 month" line? Yeah, probably. But on the web articles EDIT: I mean sites like cnn.com, I realize that Obama's site has modified the language recently, there has always been some equivocation, as far as actual time, and how many forces would be left.

It's fashionable that this is some new revelation, but IMO it is just revisionist history based on the sound bite media.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sustaining current, or near current troop levels in Iraq until 2020, or even 2013 is ridiculous. Regardless of policy, it's not financially or physically sustainable. Key positions are understaffed in the army, though the new benefits package that Congress may pass in the new GI Bill might help with that in the future, but that's a guess. Regardless, we don't have the money, not with the massive domestic spending that will be required in the next decade to begin work on a number of things from education to necessary infrastructure improvements. That's to say nothing of the huge costs that are going to be paid over the coming years from veteran's benefits and care, and to the rebuilding of our military machinery.

Five years has cost us upwards of a trillion dollars, with perhaps another trillion in legacy costs. Another 5 is stupid. Another 12 is madness.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
Senoj, that's not true. Since I've been paying attention (before the primaries), Barack's position has never been "16 months, come hell or high water".

Looking back at his 2007 Act, it seems you're right. He explicitly states that the deadline is a goal, not an actual deadline.

<edit>However, remembering the rhetoric during the primary (which I understand can be...overheated) I think there was a definite "iron will" aspect to his withdrawal plan.</edit>

If that's what he means, why isn't he saying that? The plan on his website reinforces the wrong interpretation, IMO.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well, it it all depends on the clause "responsible and phased", doesn't it? I don't know why the site isn't clearer. Probably because he doesn't personally oversee it's updating. I agree it is much more ambiguous than previous and current statements elsewhere.

I agree that the rhetoric was strong, I also think he put it such to contrast him as opposed to the then hand-waving of the administration about any thought of an end.

-Bok
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The UN sanctions on Iraq were immoral and flawed and certainly doesn't equate to "regime change" as a viable consequence. And how do you know he failed to live up to them? Many documentaries I have read have shown very much that Iraq for the most part have lived up to them, they ceased their chemical and nuclear weapons programs and no evidence of a continuation of such programs have ever been found.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
He who defends everything, defends nothing.

Frederick the Great.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this, but I wanted to share that a friend of mine is throwing a big birthday party/fundraiser for Obama(her birthday...fundraiser for Obama. [Smile] ) because, "the best birthday present i can have is an intelligent man as the president of this country."

edit: I'm seeing the oddest ad at the bottom of the screen right now.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Bobby Jindal said today that he won't be Vice President at a press conference after he met with McCain.

The VP game gets more interesting every week.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program.
Yes, that would be a much bigger mess.

Assuming, of course, that lives of american servicemen and iraqi civilians matter less than those few billions, and discounting entirely the loss of billions from our own end.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program.
Since the US occupation began, $16 billion for the Iraq Oil for Food Program (money that was in the program before the war began), disappeared unaccounted for. In addition, at least $15 billion of US tax payer funds are unaccounted for. That is 3 times what people accuse Hussein of embezzling from the Oil for Food fund over 10 year period.

But then even though we can't account for that $31 billion dollars, we can be pretty confident its not in Hussein's hands so Alles Gut!!

I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him. If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.

Perhaps there is some hypothetical world where Hussein was deposed without killing thousands and harming millions. Perhaps there is some hypothetical world, where following the deposal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq quickly became a bastion of freedom and prosperity. But that isn't our reality.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Assuming, of course, that lives of american servicemen and iraqi civilians matter less than those few billions, and discounting entirely the loss of billions from our own end.
How much harm would Iraq have done with the billions? They had already shown a willingness to use WMDs...although I am sure you believe Iraq was a peaceful paradise before mean old evil America invaded for no reason whatsoever.
quote:
The UN sanctions on Iraq were immoral and flawed and certainly doesn't equate to "regime change" as a viable consequence.
The UN certainly did not believe their resolutions were immoral, neither did the rest of the world.
quote:
Many documentaries I have read have shown very much that Iraq for the most part have lived up to them, they ceased their chemical and nuclear weapons programs and no evidence of a continuation of such programs have ever been found.
Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not. Go back and do some reading on the decade after the first gulf war for more information. History did not start the day President Bush was elected.
quote:
I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him. If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.

Perhaps there is some hypothetical world where Hussein was deposed without killing thousands and harming millions. Perhaps there is some hypothetical world, where following the deposal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq quickly became a bastion of freedom and prosperity. But that isn't our reality.

Unless of course you or one of your family was killed by Saddam, raped by his sons, worked in the child slave labor camps, and so on. After the first gulf war, Iraq stood up to the world and said we will not comply. The world backed down and said let's make a deal. The UN made some great 'deals', along with Russia, France, Germany, Jordan, and Turkey. Iraq had money to pay to the families of suicide bombers. Iraq had money to fund terrorist training.
Your 'world at peace' with Saddam is a total hypothetical situation and was not reality. Saddam defied the world at will with little to no consequences.
Iraq has a chance to become a better country, to become a friend of the US, none of that was possible under Saddam.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:

How much harm would Iraq have done with the billions? They had already shown a willingness to use WMDs...although

Saddam's use of WMDs happened two decades before we invaded and we didn't have any problem with it at the time. In fact, we sold him the weapons.

quote:
I am sure you believe Iraq was a peaceful paradise before mean old evil America invaded for no reason whatsoever.
While Iraq had plenty of serious problems before we invaded, the invasion has made it far worse. It's not a question of Iraq was bad before the invasion and is better now. Or Iraq was great before our invasion and worse now. The reality is that although Iraq had be problems before we invaded, it has had much bigger problems since.

Oh, and I quite confident that the Bush administration didn't invade for no reason at all. Just that those reasons were immoral and illegal.

quote:
Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not.
Not true! Iraq had destroyed all their WMDs as required by the UN treaties before the invasion.

quote:
Unless of course you or one of your family was killed by Saddam, raped by his sons, worked in the child slave labor camps, and so on.
Unless you or one of your family was murdered by Blackwater, raped by US soldiers, or tortured in US prison run prisons.

You are missing the point when you continue to repeat how bad things were under Saddam Hussein. The point is, they aren't any better, in fact in many measurable ways they are worse, now.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
While Iraq made some token payments to the families of suicide bombers, no evidence has been found that it was a significant supporter of terrorism in money or other assistance. In fact, quite a lot of evidence has been found otherwise.

I was for toppling Saddam's regime, but quite quickly in the planning for this invasion I realized I was not for the way we were going to do it. We needed to meet the obligation we entered into when we invaded the country by leaving it better than we found it.

As for the surge, I was calling for a massively increased troop presence on a scale beyond what happened at the peak of the surge over a year before we started hearing about a planned 'surge'. I think the surge was too little, too late, but that it was better than nothing. It is working, but only in a limited sense. It has not yet brought us particularly near an acceptable state of affairs in Iraq.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Your 'world at peace' with Saddam is a total hypothetical situation and was not reality. Saddam defied the world at will with little to no consequences.
Saddam lost a war, was required by the UN to disarm and complied, he was subject to very severe sanctions the adverse impacts of which have been well documented and his country was bombed nearly continously for 10 years,

I have never claimed there was a world at Peace with Saddam. There was a world in which the CIA and UN judged that Saddam was contained by sanctions. Now there is a world in which Saddam's regime has been deposed by a violent and illegal invasion.

By all measures, things are worse now than they were before. Your claims that things would be worse if we hadn't invaded because Saddam would likely have continued the same behavior pattern he'd established during the previous 10 years of sanctions don't hold water because things were measurably better during those 10 years than they have been since.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him.

I'm with you up to this point...
quote:
If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.
...but I think telling me what I have to conclude, implicitly assuming you have accurately understood all the ramifications of the war while I haven't, is arrogant. For instance, I think democracy in Iraq is of high value. I think the intimidation that lead to Libya abandoning its terrorist support and nuclear ambitions is a positive. I think having US stabilizing forces on the ground at the time of the Iraqi civil war to keep the nation from falling into a failed state (which is what I think would have happened had Saddam Hussein departed through more organic means) is a huge positive.

I think the death and destruction are tragic; I think war is evil; I think the mismanagement was criminal. None of that means that I must think the world is worse off as a consequence, because no one can see all the ends from the beginnings. Making absolute declarations of what must be concluded is arrogant in the extreme. Come back in 50 years and I think we can perhaps decide what must be concluded about the Iraq war. Maybe.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Libya had abandoned its terrorist support before 2001.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I didn't know we had good evidence of when they had abandoned terrorist support. I do know they didn't take significant measures to normalize relations (including dismantling WMD programs) until 2003.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I think having US stabilizing forces on the ground at the time of the Iraqi civil war to keep the nation from falling into a failed state (which is what I think would have happened had Saddam Hussein departed through more organic means) is a huge positive.
I think US forces on the ground were a destabilizing influence in the sectarian civil war which did ensue because of our invasion. Iraq has been a failed state that is s a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory since the invasions. In fact, that is the grounds on which we continue to justify our occupation of the country.

quote:
None of that means that I must think the world is worse off as a consequence, because no one can see all the ends from the beginnings.
I do not claim to see the end from the beginning. I claim to see the current situation. We may indeed have a different assessment of this war in 20 or 50 years, but that assessment could be either far better or far worse. So all I can do is assess on the present, on the harms and benefits to date.

Right now the overall human rights situation in Iraq (democracy added in) is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. Living conditions are worse, safety is worse, health care and sanitation are worse, crime is worse, economic conditions are worse.

Yeah, voting is great -- but would you be willing to give up your job, your electricity, your running water, your health care, and your personal safety for it? If your children were among the hundreds killed by US bombs, would you be saying that voting was worth the sacrifice?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Yeah, voting is great -- but would you be willing to give up your job, your electricity, your running water, your health care, and your personal safety for it? If your children were among the hundreds killed by US bombs, would you be saying that voting was worth the sacrifice?
You are under the incorrect assumption that all Iraqis had running water, health care, and personal safety with Saddam. What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons?
Here is a link you should really check out about your assumptions.
A Better Life
quote:
On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.
quote:
Locally, unhappiness is highest by far with the availability of jobs (69 percent say it's bad) and the supply of electricity (64 percent negative). Local schools are rated positively (by 72 percent), and smaller majorities give positive ratings to the availability of basic household goods and the adequacy of local crime protection. About half give positive ratings to the availability of medical care, clean water and household goods beyond the basics, and to local government.

Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war. However, for some, local security clearly is a great concern; 22 percent call it the single biggest problem in their lives, more than any other mention ("no job" is second, 12 percent). Local security concerns peak in greater Baghdad, where they're cited by 36 percent as the top problem, compared to a low of 8 percent in Kurdistan.

Notably, across the country, no more than 26 percent say any of these conditions are worse now than a year ago; in each about four in 10 or more say things are better; and in each sizable majorities — mostly three-quarters — expect things to improve over the next 12 months.


 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
You are under the incorrect assumption that all Iraqis had running water, health care, and personal safety with Saddam.
They were more reliable than they have been since the invasion.

quote:
What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons?
I already answered that one. I would feel just about the same as if my family or my children were killed or raped or tortured by US soldiers or mercenaries. To me it doesn't matter who does the killing and raping, its an issue of how much of it is going. From what I can tell, conditions have not improved in this regard.

I just don't see that its an improvement to have foreign NGO's embezzling the aid money for your country rather than having your own leader doing the embezzling. I just don't see that its a big improvement to be raped by US soldiers rather than Saddam's sons. To me, it just doesn't seem an improvement to be tortured by US occupies rather than your own corrupt government.

That's my point. Things were bad under Hussein but they are worse in most regards now. You can keep repeating how bad things were under Hussein until you get blisters on your typing fingers and it won't mean a thing unless you can show me that things are better now.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true! Iraq had destroyed all their WMDs as required by the UN treaties before the invasion.

if your statement is true, can you explain...
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
"Material breach" seems to refer to Saddam's obstructions of weapons inspections, not possession of actual WMD material.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
BTW, DK, The poll referenced in the link you gave was from March of 2004, one year after the invasion. Here is a link to a more recent (2007) poll. link

It found that in 2007, Iraqi's were far more pessimistic.

According to the 2007 poll when Iraqi's were asked to compare their current situation to the situation under Saddam Hussein, that
54 percent of Iraqi's thought the security situation was very bad or quite bad, 79% thought the availability of jobs was very bad or quite bad, 51% percent thought the electricity supply was very bad and 37% rated it as quite bad.
69% rated the water supply as very bad or quite bad. 57% thought their local governments were either very bad or quite bad. 77 % rated their freedom to live where they choose as either very bad or quite bad.

Less than 45% of Iraqi's felt that democracy was the best political system for Iraq now and only a little over 50% felt that democracy would be the best political system for Iraq in 5 years. Both those numbers fell sharply between 2005 and 2007.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
That's my point. Things were bad under Hussein but they are worse in most regards now. You can keep repeating how bad things were under Hussein until you get blisters on your typing fingers and it won't mean a thing unless you can show me that things are better now.
I' assuming you have not seen my post above...not that I will expect you to believe any of it
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I think I responded to your post above by first noting that the poll referenced in your post is now 4 years out of date. I then updated it with the more recent data.

Not that I expect you will believe any of it either.
 
Posted by memeyou (Member # 11696) on :
 
Mr Rabbit:

Between 2004 and 2007 there has been a sharp rise and recently, fall, in outside terror-style attacks in Iraq.

The poll immediately after the war, before the intense rise in terrorist attacks, reflects the assumption everyone had that the fighting was over, and the rebuilding had begun.

The more recent poll (March 2007) reflects the sentiment of the population near the height of the attacks. I find it suprising how optimistic a lot of the people still are, tbh, considering this was at the low point in the new 'war' after the war that ousted Saddam.

Since this poll (March 2007 - July 2008) there has been a sharp decline in these outside terror-style attacks. I believe it would be interesting to see what opinion polls on these subjects are like today.


__________________________

www.foodbared.com - food good enough to blog about
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
In any number of polls, at least two-thirds of Iraqis want us out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126866.html
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
memeyou, Using a signature to advertise an outside site, no matter how well meaning, is considered bad taste around these parts.

You don't have to stop, but I figured I'd give you a heads-up, since you are new.

-Bok
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons?
It's too bad that the Bush administration didn't make this case to the American people. Instead, we were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (which we have never found), ties to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda hated Saddam), and ties to 9/11 (which was completely false). The case for the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with what was happening to the Iraqi people, and though it was not sold as a human rights mission, it was sold as an invasion to augment the war on terror. It is clear to me that this was not a humanitarian mission by the Bush Administration, this was the Bush Administration placing the Iraqi's themselves on the front lines so that Iraqis and not Americans would have to die in this new war.

The world may be a better place without Saddam, but that is surely not the reason we took him out in the first place. And to me, that matters.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Mr Rabbit
I usually go with Rabbit, Ms. Rabbit, or Doc Rabbit. The Rabbit is a she.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Well... Here's the thing.

Baghdad is now a maze of reinforced concrete walls.

Hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of Iraqis have fled Iraq, and most show no intention of returning in the near future. This includes a great number of professionals (doctors, lawyers, news and entertainment media people, architects...) who are generally viewed as being highly necessary to re-creating a stable and forward-moving state.

Much of the U.S. progress in Iraq has come from creating alliances with Sunni militia groups, groups whose loyalties and actions when not under the eye of American forces are reasonably up for question. On the other side, the Prime Minister of Iraq apparently has ties to Shia Iran... And despite promises of reform, reports of rape and torture by Iraqi police forces continue.

And meanwhile, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, which is once more the world's opium dealer.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If the polls say that many Iraqis think things are better than they were under Saddam, but they want U.S. forces out of Iraq, one really must consider a) what those absent refugees might say if they were present to participate in such a poll, and b) that the long-repressed Shia majority in Iraq is now in ascendancy, which to some minds eclipses lack of electricity and health care.

This Iraq is not... Stable. And it doesn't look like it's going the right way, frankly.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
First ever political ad on MTV blasts Obama

I'm not sure what to make of this really. I suppose it's the conservatives who are using MTV to strike down Obama's popularity with youth. I don't think it will be effective at all really.

Honestly though... the only thing political thing that MTV should do is well- nothing.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's a great place to advertise if you're going after Obama.

However I agree with Shawshank that it probably won't really sway them. Most of the young people who are for Obama aren't going to be swayed away by a 30 second spot.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:


If the polls say that many Iraqis think things are better than they were under Saddam, but they want U.S. forces out of Iraq, one really must consider a) what those absent refugees might say if they were present to participate in such a poll, and b) that the long-repressed Shia majority in Iraq is now in ascendancy, which to some minds eclipses lack of electricity and health care.


Also, c) the ones who aren't present to pardticipate in polls because they are dead.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
I'd just like to pause and thank you guys for your invaluable analysis of all the flood of various news articles and everything so that

1. I can understand the current political weather and
2. it makes me more aware of the issues that I need to be aware of when making my political decisions.

Specifically it's useful because this is the first presidential election I've been able to vote in.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Also, c) the ones who aren't present to participate in polls because they are dead.

Indeed.

EDIT to ADD: Although I must make a parallel point. While I don't in any way mean to dismiss or minimize the grim death toll among Iraqi citizenry, many of the civilians killed in Iraq seem to have been the targets of random or quasi-random violence; while bombers may target areas particular to the Shia or Sunni (or Turkamen... Or Kurd...), those struck down by the violence seem to be a more or less random sampling of their populations. Part of what makes the fleeing refugees so frightening, by comparison, is that they're largely people who, having the wherewithal to leave their country, choose to do so.

Or to put it another way: all you need to do to be a victim of violence in Iraq is to be looking to buy food in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you're fleeing the country, you're probably taking material resources and valuable skills with you.

[ July 25, 2008, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Sterling, we might also include in that death toll people who died because proper food, water, and medical care are less available now. Especially since many of the refugees with valuable skills are doctors.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sterling, we might also include in that death toll people who died because proper food, water, and medical care are less available now. Especially since many of the refugees with valuable skills are doctors.

I think the toll has been tragic; I'm not sure that the picture in Iraq would be better after the inevitable civil war after Saddam Hussein died. In fact I think it would be much worse.

So making emotional statements about the Iraq war dead, while valid, ignores a lot of other important factors.

If we're going to engage in hypotheticals about how people without a voice may or may not feel, ideally, you'd like to go back to the days before the war began, give Iraqis a clear and accurate view of what the world would be like under the two possible scenarios (invade/not invade) and ask what they'd prefer. Perhaps someone would choose invasion, even if it meant their own death, if it also meant that their children wouldn't perish in the Iraqi Civil War of 2020.

Sidenote: If we want to talk about this further, I think we should start (or resurrect) and Iraq War thread, rather than clogging up the General Election thread.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Agreed (with regard to both the death toll and moving on to other subjects.)
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
100 days to the election.

Obama seems to be spending a lot of time lately talking about Afghanistan. It's interesting to see how this will play out with people. People are split down the middle on Iraq, but Afghanistan is very much the forgotten war. I supported going into Afghanistan back in 2001, and I still think that, with international support, that it's a battle worth fighting, so long as we have European, local, and especially Pakistani support. Without those things I'm much more hesitant.

But how will this play out? Obama is saying get out of Iraq, get out of Iraq, but he wants to shift troops and dollars to Afghanistan. On the one hand, I think it'll serve to bolster his tough guy cred. He's worried about McCain's attacks that he wants us to lose and wants to abandon the war on terror, but he's changing the argument by saying Afghanistan is the REAL war on terror and that he wants to reinvest new resources there from Iraq. On the other hand, he really risks criticism from his anti-war base.

He's walking a careful line, but McCain I think isn't being as artful in his attacks as he could be. He's wielding a club instead of a scalpal.

Obama is on CNN right now on the "Unity" presidential forum. His speaking style has evolved a bit I think over the last year. He stuttered and fumbled a bit more six or seven months ago than he does now. He still stutters a bit, but I think now it's less of a stutter than it is taking a pause to gather his thoughts before he gets going, because once he really starts talking, he goes on a roll. I just think he's much more obvious in his choosing of words than most people.

Some of the glow has worn off of Obama for me recently, mostly because of his vote on the FISA bill, but because of a few other "move to the center" things he's done lately too. But some of what I've heard on his trip and what I've heard in this forum and other snippets of interviews I think have reminded me of what I liked about him in the first place.

I do feel a bit sorry for McCain lately. The press coverage of Obama has been glowing lately. They've been treating him I guess like a bit of a rock star. Of course there's been plenty of hand wringing about the trip he made and they've been critiquing his every move, but mostly I think it was positive press, and regardless, it was free media. McCain on the other hand has barely been heard from, and when we have heard from him, he's been rambling about a grocery store or giving angry diatribes about how Obama wants to lose the war to win the election (yipes! usually you have your staff say stuff like that). He's getting angry I think, and it's only going to make it harder for him to regain control of the conversation.
 
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The press coverage of Obama has been glowing lately. They've been treating him I guess like a bit of a rock star. Of course there's been plenty of hand wringing about the trip he made and they've been critiquing his every move, but mostly I think it was positive press, and regardless, it was free media.

"And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

"Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center."
-LA Times
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
But how will this play out? Obama is saying get out of Iraq, get out of Iraq, but he wants to shift troops and dollars to Afghanistan. On the one hand, I think it'll serve to bolster his tough guy cred. He's worried about McCain's attacks that he wants us to lose and wants to abandon the war on terror, but he's changing the argument by saying Afghanistan is the REAL war on terror and that he wants to reinvest new resources there from Iraq. On the other hand, he really risks criticism from his anti-war base.

I'm not sure about that last part. How much of Obama's "anti-war base" is actually anti-any war and how much is anti-Iraq war? I, for one, was completely in favor of invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban there, but opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning - with Afghanistan being one of the really big reasons.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
LSM -

Huh, I've seen polling data recently that somewhat refutes that, but I'll have to find it. The last poll on the media I found asked if there was a media bias for Obama and something like three quarters of the people said yes, and maybe 10% said there was one for McCain. But I guess technically that's a different question since one is about press coverage and one is about the quality of the coverage. Personally from what I've seen, there's been a lot of talk from the pundits about the potential failures of Obama's actions in recent weeks. They're microanalyzing his every move, which could be potentially disastrous, except I don't think most people, except hyperpolitical ones, really watch the 24 news networks enough for the cumulative effects of all that coverage to mean anything. The fact that they cover every speech, every movement, every event I think regardless of their commentary ends up being more of a good thing. It's free media. I really do wish they'd cut out the "If Obama can win this tiny percentage of people in this one state with this many electoral college votes, he'll win it all!" hypotheticals crap. We're still 100 days out and they have polling data on top of polling data that refutes itself.

The media's attempt to make themselves seem important is infringing on the election itself.

Enigmatic -

That's a good question, and I've yet to see anything resembling a poll that attempts to answer it. I was in favor of Afghanistan too, and was totally opposed to Iraq from the beginning, but it's five years after the invasion of Iraq, and I think a lot of people want to just wash their hands of the whole region. I'd be curious to see numbers on who thinks we should ditch Iraq and bolster Afghanistan and who says let's just dump the whole thing.
 
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
Reminds me of a phrase I recently heard:

There is no liberal news bias, there is no conservative news bias. There is a sensationalist bias.

The MSM does not want a Democrat to win, the MSM does not want a Republican to win. It wants its story to win.

Edit: Except maybe Fox, which apparently is a White House mouth piece.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That sounds about right to me, much of the time.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius:
Reminds me of a phrase I recently heard:

There is no liberal news bias, there is no conservative news bias. There is a sensationalist bias.

If by "recently" you mean "stated by Enigmatic nearly every time media bias comes up"... [Wink]

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
Well then... why don't we have a face-palm smiley?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Has anyone else heard that perhaps Caroline Kennedy could be picked as a running mate for Obama? (I know she's on the "search" committee, supposedly helping him find a running mate, but yesterday for the first time I heard someone say she could be it.)

That would be a very hard ticket to beat. Caroline is considered a sort of "princess" of sorts - the daughter of the late great JFK who is revered by many.

If this was already in this thread, I apologize. I didn't see it. Just wondered if anyone else had heard that. I don't know where the person who mentioned it to me heard the idea.

(Edit: found a linky)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Not a big fan of at least two of the types of reactions this story could generate, but in spirit of full disclosure this is a story of potential interest:
quote:
... stories have surfaced about Democrat Barack Obama’s own, more personal, connections to China. Obama’s estranged half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, is an entrepreneur who has been living in Shenzhen with a Chinese girlfriend for several years. Neither man seems particularly eager to talk to the press about the others’ existence, but reports indicate Ndesandjo has been promoting cheap exports with his consulting business, Worldnexus. The tie is a potential political bombshell for Obama in a country deeply fearful of what China’s inexpensive goods mean for jobs at home.
link
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Is Kennedy really still revered by many people? Who?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Kennedy might be good on the "do no harm" part of what a VP has to do for a ticket, but she brings absolutely nothing to the ticket. Obama at least needs to take a stab at shoring up his shortcomings, and Kennedy doesn't accomplish that at all.

There're increased rumors circling around Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, which is a little surprising since I swear he said last year that he didn't want the job at all, he wanted to spend more time with his family, but maybe it was naive to think that'd last. Kaine is young, very popular, has a good record, has never been in Washington and thus fits into Obama's new outsider way of doing things. But he's only been governor for three years, which means limited executive experience, and it does nothing for his military cred.

I'm not bothered by that though. No one candidate is going to do ALL those things for him. Even Richardson, arguably the most well rounded of potential running mates, doesn't have the military experience. Kaine I think sets Virginia solidly in the Obama column, and that in itself is a major coup. Win every state Gore won in 2000 and flip Virginia and that's the ball game. Plus I think Kaine is a great choice to run for office on his own in eight years.

Mucus -

I don't see that being all that big of a deal. A half brother that Obama doesn't even talk to? What are they going to pull out of the closet next, a fourth cousin twice removed that had an abortion? It's a non-issue. I don't think that means it won't come up, but I think MOST people who were already thinking about voting for Obama won't be swayed by something like that.
 
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
quote:
Not a big fan of at least two of the types of reactions this story could generate, but in spirit of full disclosure this is a story of potential interest:

quote: ... stories have surfaced about Democrat Barack Obama’s own, more personal, connections to China. Obama’s estranged half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, is an entrepreneur who has been living in Shenzhen with a Chinese girlfriend for several years. Neither man seems particularly eager to talk to the press about the others’ existence, but reports indicate Ndesandjo has been promoting cheap exports with his consulting business, Worldnexus. The tie is a potential political bombshell for Obama in a country deeply fearful of what China’s inexpensive goods mean for jobs at home.

link

Doesn't estranged generally mean that Obama's pissed off at him? And it sounds like with good reason...

This really shouldn't hurt him. We all have relatives who do things that we wouldn't, that we're not happy about. Most of us don't even really hold it against said relatives too much, we sorta shrug our shoulders and say "well, that's just cousin Bob for you." But from the sound of this, Obama does hold it against his half-brother. So what can people possibly say? That he has a relative somewhere making an arse of himself, that he's already pretty much denounced and rejected?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What, by the way, happened to Senator McCain running a campaign on the issues? What is that garbage ad he is running about Senator Obama going to the gym but not bothering to visit the troops? How is that about the issues?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Is Kennedy really still revered by many people? Who?

Heck, I don't know. I don't revere him. He is often held up (in public speeches, etc.) in a fond manner, and people are always quoting him. The whole Camelot thing.
(I'm not a Democrat, so I have no idea why people liked him)

Caroline Kennedy would have more name recognition than, say, Tim Kaine -- who I had never heard of until they started considering him.

How much experience does it really take to be Veep? I mean, they go to official funerals and do a lot of political social things (which I suppose she would probably be comfortable with).

Unless, of course, something happens to the president. Then experience would be very important.

I could see this choice as appeasing to those who wanted Hillary just to have a woman in the higher office. And Caroline would be more likable.

But like Lyrhawn said, it probably won't be her. Because everyone's saying Tim Kaine. It was just a rumor anyway.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Lyrhawn: I never said it was a "big" deal. I did say that it was of potential interest. It may be just another small tidbit that right-wing pundits might attempt to make trouble with in the same vein as other small tricks such as "Barack *Hussein* Obama." It may not mean much to the informed that are ready to vote for Obama and the optimist in me hopes that you're right. However, the pessimist in me doesn't want to underestimate the potential of the dangerously partially-informed "do not want prayer mats in the White House" crowd.

quote:
Originally posted by Alcon:
Doesn't estranged generally mean that Obama's pissed off at him? And it sounds like with good reason... he has a relative somewhere making an arse of himself, that he's already pretty much denounced and rejected?

Thats precisely one reaction I'm not a fan of. I do not see any reason that Obama's half-brother should be considered an "arse" and a couple reasons that he should be proud of what he's accomplished.


Anyways, I'm just passing along the news and giving everyone a heads-up. No need to shoot the messenger.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
quote:
...as a professor...Obama was in the business of complication, showing that even the best-reasoned rules have unintended consequences, that competing legal interests cannot always be resolved, that a rule that promotes justice in one case can be unfair in the next.
"When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of," Mr. Rodriguez said. "He was a lot more fun to listen to back then."


 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
If anything that makes me happier. I honestly wonder if a candidate can have that kind of campaign and succeed anymore when the opposition so willingly pounces on people for trying nuance in a nation that prides itself on short, quick, blunt answers. Anyone who tries a multipronged response will be dubbed wishy washy or a flipflopper and they'll hit back with their own 10 word answer and they'll likely succeed.

Certainly any pretext of this being a civil high minded campaign has totally evaporated recently. But knowing that Obama DOES have that kind of mind, and that behind the scenes he is considering issues that way makes me hopeful about what kind of president he'll be.

I'm wondering what McCain is trying to do recently with the Iraq war thing. Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground. A year ago even he was saying "we'll be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." McCain is turning that into "Obama totally agrees with me," and then the other day said that he'd support a timetable so long as the conditions were right.

Why is he trying to make his position identical to Obama's, and in doing so, make it look like Obama just changed his mind? I'm not sure I get the angle. Is he trying to make Obama look late to the game while making himself look prescient? I can't see what he stands to gain out of neutralizing the issue entirely.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
House panel votes to cite Rove for contempt.

As there are already pending court cases on the extent of executive privilege, this action probably won't have any significant consequences for a while.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Agreed. For it to proceed any further, I think Pelosi would have to give the okay, and I'm not sure if she will or not. I tend to lean towards her not giving the okay, for the potential backlash it'd have against her. There are lower profile people that are already on the books for contempt that have been voted on by that panel that could approve and avoid part of the media firestorm. If those cases go well, then she could go after Rove with a much freer hand.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
and he also said that he would be CIC and do what he felt was best despite what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
and he also said that he would be CIC and do what he felt was best despite what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
If you actually come at assessing Obama (or whoever) with good faith, these aren't contradictory.

-Bok
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
_7/31/2008_ "Despite continued statements from the White House that former aides are protected by 'executive privilege' and cannot be subpoenaed, a federal judge ruled Thursday that former White House aides are, in fact, subject to subpoena.
The ruling takes on special meaning in the wake of the Karl Rove incident, where the former White House deputy chief of staff ignored a subpoena and refused to testify before a Congressional committee, citing the very protection the Federal Judge overruled.
Others facing subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 include Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers. President Bush has maintained that they cannot be forced to testify. However, U.S. District Judge John Bates sided with Congress Thursday, ruling that aides can be subpoenaed."
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
If you actually come at assessing Obama (or whoever) with good faith, these aren't contradictory.
This is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with me. I'm having a harder time assuming Obama's good faith.

[ July 31, 2008, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I thought it was an issue with you for a while now.

-Bok
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Link

Now that he has the nomination in the bag, this isn't exactly a courageous stand for democracy.


__________________

quote:
I thought it was an issue with you for a while now.

-Bok

I've found him appalling since he got rid of Wright.

[ August 04, 2008, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yes, but it also isn't at all a surprise. We knew six months ago that whoever the nominee was, he or she would insist that the full delegations be sat.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
Watching a speech live on CNN by Obama outlining his energy policy. He says he's going to end foreign oil imports from Middle East and Venezuela wtihin 10 years. He wants to give 150 billion dollars over 10 years towards that goal.

He's in Michigan today, and he's talking more about the economic benefits of getting rid of our addiction to foreign oil- which is a much better track than talking about Global Warming. The time has come that people are starting to feel the economic crunch of oil.

In addition he says 10% the nation's power supply will come from renewable resources by the end of his first term.

Not a full transcript, but a CNN overview plus McCain's counter

[ August 04, 2008, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Shawshank ]
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I've always had the vague idea, and I could be wrong, that Middle East and Venezuela oil was more important to stabilizing the world economy than US power, and the only effective way to curb the power of those regions was to develop technology that does not depend upon oil, then export that technology.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
Well in a very short time, we will not be the biggest user of oil in the world- China is very quickly taking that role.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm watching too.

I'm liking some of it and not liking others. I think he's pandering far too much with the windfall profits tax to give money back to people in the form of a rebate. I think it's a bad idea that won't have any real impact, but I also doubt it will actually get past Republicans, so I'm not really worried.

Pretty much everything else he is saying is like it came right out of my head. New T&D infrastructure all over the country for efficiency and to connect renewables to the market, new sustainable biofuels, plug in hybrids, renewable energy, efficiency standards, regulations and upgrades. etc etc.

And for Michigan, he's certainly talking to the right crowd, and I don't really call it pandering in the way I call that oil tax crap pandering. That's classic Robin Hood pandering where you take directly from the rich and give directly to the poor. Here he has a national plan for energy independence and he's talking the upside for Michigan workers, which is a national version of what Governor Granholm has been saying for at least four years now. And really it makes perfect sense since Michigan's manufacturing base and alternative energy potential is just perfect for this new energy plan. The only pandering I really heard was offering government loans to auto companies to help them retool, which I don't think is necessary (yet) for GM or Ford, but meh, they're loans not giveaways.

On the whole I like the speech. It's precisely tailored to be the best speech on the environment he could give Michigan. It's not about hugging trees, though we in Michigan love our wilderness, it's about jobs and the economy. He's tying the energy crisis directly to the economy and giving a "two birds with one stone" solution that makes sense. I like it.

I'll also say that I actually like his stance on OCS drilling now. My main opposition to OCS drilling was that Republicans have been treating it like some silver bullet. I know that isn't the only thing they want, but it's the only thing they are harping on when frankly, it just isn't that important. I'm okay with OCS drilling, a limited amount, so long as it is part of a much larger energy strategy. Also, I like that he's willing to compromise in order to get legislation passed rather than just sink the whole plan over a single issue. Willingness to compromise has been sorely lacking over the last few years, on BOTH sides. So call it a flip flop if you want, but I like it.

Shawshank -

I'm not sure if it'll be a "very short time." The US stills uses 1/5th of the world's daily production, and while China AND India are both growing their usage in leaps and bounds, I still think it will be a couple years before they reach our level of waste, even though I think they already have more cars on the road than we do. So maybe I could be wrong on that. Either way, China is actually spending tons of cash on renewables right now. Not as much as they need to, since their problem will only exponentially grow larger than ours, but they're on track to have a lot more installed renewable power than us in a few years.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
I guess I should have specified what I meant by a "very short time" I meant a couple of years. That seems to me to be a very short time in terms of something as important as becoming the world's biggest user of oil.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The US stills uses 1/5th of the world's daily production, and while China AND India are both growing their usage in leaps and bounds, I still think it will be a couple years before they reach our level of waste

As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).

As for Obama's energy policy, it's one of the areas I disagree with him most strongly. I think ethanol corn subsidies he pushes are a bad investment. They're expensive, they're not energy efficient, they require dramatic infrastructure change. They make mid-Western farmers happy, but they should make every energy consumer shudder (IMO).

Politically, I think focusing on electric (which is "safe" in the sense that the US can supply our own energy needs electrically) rather than fuel-based is much smarter. This does nothing environmentally (in fact it hurts more than it helps), but it does address the significant security/economic concerns.

Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy. Pitch it as a point of American pride, like the victory gardens and nylon drives during WWII. Convincing people to leave their thermostats five degrees lower in the winter and five degrees higher in the summer will have a bigger impact on fossil fuel consumption that any "alternative energy plan."
 
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
 
I'm pretty sure Obama's already talking up the conservation aspect--hence the McCain campaign making fun of him for telling people to keep their tires properly inflated so they could have better gas mileage.

I'm not too worried about Obama's tie to the corn ethanol people. I feel like he'll happily use their money to get elected and then point out to them how much more power they'd be able to produce in Iowa by building windmills rather than growing cord.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Obama vows to protect NASA budget

I suspect that he's just trying to shore up votes in Florida, but time will tell (well, probably).
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Proposed Rule: OuterContinentalShelf Drilling
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).

On the other hand, the US consumes roughly ten times as much oil and produces roughly ten times as much waste as Canada. Whats up with that, eh?

(If it was unclear, I'm just noting that these kinds of statistics would be much more useful if you take into account the differing populations)
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).
I wasn't talking about that kind of waste, but you're right.

quote:
As for Obama's energy policy, it's one of the areas I disagree with him most strongly. I think ethanol corn subsidies he pushes are a bad investment. They're expensive, they're not energy efficient, they require dramatic infrastructure change. They make mid-Western farmers happy, but they should make every energy consumer shudder (IMO).
Both McCain and Obama support ethanol, but I don't think either of them wants corn to be the main source of it. Obama just today was talking about a cellulosic ethanol plant opening in Michigan that uses wood scraps as a fuel source. Corn based ethanol is an awful idea, but it's just a stopgap measure to get us to the better stuff like wood scraps, miscanthus, algae, and maybe even trash someday. We're almost there, but not large scale operations yet.

quote:
Politically, I think focusing on electric (which is "safe" in the sense that the US can supply our own energy needs electrically) rather than fuel-based is much smarter. This does nothing environmentally (in fact it hurts more than it helps), but it does address the significant security/economic concerns.
I strongly disagree that electric hurts more than it helps. But electric plug in hybrids was a major point of Obama's address today.

quote:
Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy. Pitch it as a point of American pride, like the victory gardens and nylon drives during WWII. Convincing people to leave their thermostats five degrees lower in the winter and five degrees higher in the summer will have a bigger impact on fossil fuel consumption that any "alternative energy plan."
Obama did exactly this today as well. He even used the victory garden type example and spoke about reducing our total usage via efficiency upgrades.

I think talsmitde is right. First off he is pushing efficiency and being made fun of for it by McCain. Second I expect a similar reaction for ethanol as well. I think he'll start to call for a cut to corn subsidies in favor of second generation subsidies, and soon the technology and feasibility will make that politically possible.

Noemon -

That's interesting, and I think there's more than a little pandering there, but it might just be a two birds with one stone sort of thing. A lot of people like the idea of increased or even stable funding for NASA, and I'm one of them.

aspectre -

Are you sure that's the same change that's being discussed now? That link is to a two year old paper.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Republicans make a joke out of national conservation measures proposed by Obama - And why they're wrong.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Both McCain and Obama support ethanol, but I don't think either of them wants corn to be the main source of it. Obama just today was talking about a cellulosic ethanol plant opening in Michigan that uses wood scraps as a fuel source. Corn based ethanol is an awful idea, but it's just a stopgap measure to get us to the better stuff like wood scraps, miscanthus, algae, and maybe even trash someday. We're almost there, but not large scale operations yet.

I still think it's a red herring. Although his rhetoric is about next generation biofuels, he has endorsed and voted for significant benefits to corn-based ethanol producers. McCain hasn't, to my knowledge.
quote:
I strongly disagree that electric hurts more than it helps. But electric plug in hybrids was a major point of Obama's address today.
True, but McCain was talking about them first. Obama's insistence only on "clean coal" technology would blunt the ecologic impact of going electric, but it also makes the sort of gains he's proposing economically infeasible (since clean coal technology is a long way away). Essentially, Obama's moratorium on new coal plants would price the plug-in electric hybrids he spoke of out of the market until gas reached a couple times what it costs today.
quote:
quote:
Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy.
Obama did exactly this today as well. He even used the victory garden type example and spoke about reducing our total usage via efficiency upgrades.
Can you point me to where that is in the transcript?

To be more clear about what I meant; both McCain and Obama claim we can reduce our footprint through innovation, by making cars/appliances/houses/industrials more efficient. I think that's wrong. Making things more efficient just means we will consume more. It's the traffic/bandwidth principle. When traffic gets congested, the immediate solution is always to add another lane to the highway (or more bandwidth to the internet connection). But traffic always expands to fill the new capacity. The same is true with increasing efficiency. For instance, car engines are 25% more efficient today than they were 15 years ago. Yet each car pollutes more, because we've made our cars bigger, heavier, with stronger engines and more electonics, meaning the efficiency is swallowed up by added consumption.

So until someone says "you will have to start doing without some of the comforts you've enjoyed up until now" I won't believe they have a real plan for cutting carbon emissions.
quote:
I think talsmitde is right. First off he is pushing efficiency and being made fun of for it by McCain. Second I expect a similar reaction for ethanol as well. I think he'll start to call for a cut to corn subsidies in favor of second generation subsidies, and soon the technology and feasibility will make that politically possible.
The tire inflation thing -- totally classless on McCain's part. And stupid, too.

As for an Illinois senator who wants to win Iowa and Indiana calling for a cut in corn subsidies -- I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe after the election when subsidies are less politically expedient.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
I still think it's a red herring. Although his rhetoric is about next generation biofuels, he has endorsed and voted for significant benefits to corn-based ethanol producers. McCain hasn't, to my knowledge.
That's because McCain finds a way to be out of the room whenever the vote is being taken. But after years of opposition to corn based ethanol he switched positions on it when he started running for president. I don't have a problem with flip flops so long as you have a good reason for it.

quote:
True, but McCain was talking about them first. Obama's insistence only on "clean coal" technology would blunt the ecologic impact of going electric, but it also makes the sort of gains he's proposing economically infeasible (since clean coal technology is a long way away). Essentially, Obama's moratorium on new coal plants would price the plug-in electric hybrids he spoke of out of the market until gas reached a couple times what it costs today.
I disagree. There's already enough energy to power two thirds of the US LDV fleet currently available during the night. 70% of the people in the LDV fleet switched over to PHEVs, they could charge up at night and drive 40 miles the next day on electric only and we'd need no additional electrical generating capacity. That's why we need a two tiered pricing system. Using his (and others') proposed $7K tax credit for PHEVs, that brings the price down to what an average person can probably afford, and with the savings from increased fuel efficiency and the nature of a PHEV, they'll end up coming out ahead.

I'll cover the last point and such later, my laptop is out of power.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Here's the fact sheet used for the speech from his website.

I'll look for the transcript later. But I think you overestimate the value of a president asking for certain kinds of sacrifices in today's day and age. He can only do so much.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
According to TopGear, 80% of C02 emmisions come from nature.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
There's already enough energy to power two thirds of the US LDV fleet currently available during the night. 70% of the people in the LDV fleet switched over to PHEVs, they could charge up at night and drive 40 miles the next day on electric only and we'd need no additional electrical generating capacity. That's why we need a two tiered pricing system. Using his (and others') proposed $7K tax credit for PHEVs, that brings the price down to what an average person can probably afford, and with the savings from increased fuel efficiency and the nature of a PHEV, they'll end up coming out ahead.

If we use the current electric grid to power our PHEVs we will release about twice as much CO2 as we did previously using fuel-based vehicles. Until clean coal is viable, or until we go significantly more nuclear, PHEVs represent a near doubling of carbon emissions.

Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? All these have non-negligble environmental impact, suffer from "not in my backyard" syndrome, and are tied to a limited set of specific geographic locations. Furthermore, getting anything like the amount of power necessary to supply a modest transition to PHEVs with those sorts of renewables will be hugely expensive.

I don't see congress, or a President worried about re-election, doing anything to increase the net portion of our electricity derived from these sources. The same is probably true of nuclear (although it is a more versatile and economic option). Which is why I think going electric will result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.

Tell people to drive less, buy smaller houses (less expensive to heat/cool), turn off the A/C, warm less in the winter, turn off their computers and lights, use canvas bags to transport groceries. And properly inflate their tires. If we want to decrease our national carbon footprint, this is what citizens can realistically do (IMO). I think Obama could generate a lot of enthusiasm for this sort of self-sacrifice; he should do it.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
According to TopGear, 80% of C02 emmisions come from nature.

Its closer to 90%, but still irrelevant.

Nature both emits CO2 into the atmosphere and sequesters it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and absorption in the oceans. Industrial emission of CO2 throws that cycle out of balance resulting in a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I've been checking 538 pretty frequently over the past few weeks, and decided to crunch a few numbers.

Based on current model estimates, I categorized the electoral votes into certains (> 10% spread), likelies (10 > x > 5% spread), leans (5 > x > 2%), and toss-ups (< 2% spread).

The results:
Certains: Obama = 168, McCain = 123
Likelies: Obama = 70, McCain = 34
Leans: Obama = 26, McCain = 70
Toss-ups: Obama = 29, McCain = 18

Total: Obama = 293, McCain = 245

If we say all but the toss-ups go to whomever is leading currently, we have 16 scenarios. Of those 16 scenarios, we get Obama victories in all but 2. If McCain sweeps the toss-ups, he wins.

If McCain wins VA, OH, CO and loses NV it's a tie which then goes to the House for resolution, where each state delegation gets a single vote. By my count, state delegations by party lines have a 27-21 advantage for Dems (with two states evenly split), which means a victory for Obama.

If we consider both the leans and the toss-ups as in play and the rest as constant, there are 328/8192 winning scenarios for McCain. The largest group consists of:

Hold VA, FL, IN, MO, NC and capture OH, MI (64/328)

<edit> And in the case of both toss-ups and leans being in contention, there are 36/8192 scenarios that lead to a tie which would then be decided in Obama's favor by the House</edit>
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
If current trends continue, it's hard to imagine Obama losing. That said, the candidates haven't even picked VPs yet.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Well, McCain has been gaining in the polls lately. Obama's victory still seems likely to me, but it isn't an absolutely foregone conclusion.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Senoj -

quote:
If we use the current electric grid to power our PHEVs we will release about twice as much CO2 as we did previously using fuel-based vehicles. Until clean coal is viable, or until we go significantly more nuclear, PHEVs represent a near doubling of carbon emissions.
Again, not true. Well, possible untrue, it depends entirely on what structure you are using to power the cars. I imagining that in your hypothetical version of powering a PHEV LDV fleet, we're all charging our cars at 4 in the afternoon. But you seem to have totally ignored what I said about charging at night. We have most of the power we need so long as those PHEV owners charge their cars at night. A great many power plants stay on through the night because it just doesn't make sense to turn them off for a few hours and then back on again, so massive amounts of energy races around the electrical grid and then just fizzles out. Harnessing that energy would be a freebie.

quote:
Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? All these have non-negligble environmental impact, suffer from "not in my backyard" syndrome, and are tied to a limited set of specific geographic locations. Furthermore, getting anything like the amount of power necessary to supply a modest transition to PHEVs with those sorts of renewables will be hugely expensive.
Eh, solar wind and geothermal are arguable on their impact on the environment. And if you compare them to the scale of coal and oil plants, then I don't think it's much of a contest at all. Also I don't think they all suffer from NIMBY at all (well, I think hydroelectric does), considering the large number of homes putting up solar power on their roofs. Besides, most largescale solar power plants being planned are in the desert, most wind power are out in the plains where population density is at its lowest, and geothermal looks like a smaller version of any other power plant.

And even if all that weren't true, it's a lot easier to control emissions from one power plant than from a million little ones all driving around on the road. This is why Obama is pushing next generation technologies for a modern T&D network to get power from the renewables to people, upping efficiency standards and working on smartgrid technology.

Sterling -

I don't know, if current trends continue, that is, McCain gaining in the poll in fits and starts and his insanely negative ad blitz continuing then I think it'll be a much tougher Fall than most of us imagined. But things are going to turn on their heads after the conventions. First off, Obama is going to spend a LOT more money than he is now, and McCain's spending will start to fall off in some areas. McCain has to more or less empty his coffers now in preperation for the big infusion of money he'll be getting from public financing. Obama has to build up a bit of a war chest and then pump out the money in the Fall. Plus people will really start paying attention.

I think things will heat up a lot in the Fall and it could still go either way, though I do think things currently favor Obama.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Wind doesn't suffer from NIMBY? There have been numerous cases all over the news about communities being against windfarms, even when those windfarms would only be disrupting their skyline out on the ocean.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
And yet it's still the fastest growing energy source in America, with a four year waiting period at GE for new turbines and so many more waiting in the wings that GE had to stop taking orders. The news doesn't cover the farms that get made, they cover the ones that don't.
 
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
 
Solar in the southwest, wind in the midwest and the great plains, tidal and wind along the coasts, hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear to cover what's not covered by that . . . and I have a feeling that federal and state zoning laws for power plants are going to be rewritten in such a way to sidestep NIMBYism.

And Lyrhawn's right about wind farms being built--my home state of Delaware is getting a massive wind farm off its Atlantic coast.

As for trends in the polling, etc., I'm still of the opinion that McCain going negative in such a massive way does significant damage to his brand and the more he continues to use the typical Republican machinery (Schmidt, et. al.), the more backlash he'll suffer.

And it's really amazing to see how we still perceive the MSM as favoring Obama when McCain's gotten a free ride from CBS on the surge interview and lots of pundits on the grind of every daily news cycle.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, there are definitely wind farms being built. But there are also prime locations where wind farms are having hard times being built. The Cape Cod wind farm was projected to be able to start generating electricity by the end of 2007. Due to holdups from Ted Kennedy and lots of other people with land in the area, they won't even be ready to contemplate building until the end of 2008, at least.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
At current levels of technology, there is simply no way that green energy can make a significant dent (say, above 20%) in the US's power needs without sending the cost of energy skyrocketing. I've only been working in the power markets for two months now, but I have learned that much.

Wind farms aren't reliable enough, especially during peak hours; solar power has the same problem too. Both tend to be most effective located away from the population centers - which means transmission costs & losses are going to kill you - or have the NIMBY problem that fugu points out. The big hydroelectric sources have been tapped, or can't be tapped because of environmental concerns (salmon, etc). Geothermal isn't located where we need it. Tidal isn't a player at all, given current technology levels.

I'm all for green power, but there are some major, major technological and logistical problems that need to be solved for it to be a workable solution for our energy needs. It's really frustrating to hear the candidates debating and putting forward ideas that I know (from just two months study, mind) aren't realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes. If a candidate wants to be serious on green power, here's the package to be unveiling:

Remove subsidies for the use of green power (such as corn ethanol). They don't work very well, result in the preservation of inefficient ways when better ones come along, and create entire industries around maximizing how much subsidy is received for minimum cost (often implying minimum environmental benefit).

Step up scientific R&D. Less the practical stuff; once that's within reach, companies are plenty interested. More the raw research that will be the practical stuff in ten years or more.

And, most important in the short term, put a lot of effort into clearing unnecessary regulatory hurdles and preventing unreasonable red tape from other sources; perhaps some funding to be used in carrying out necessary evaluations, because many of these installations do require significant evaluation for environmental and other reasons.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Jhai & fugu-

Have you seen anything from Steve Koonin? He's a former Cal Tech physics professor who's now chief scientist for BP.

Here's a lecture he gave at UC Berkley. He spoke here at MIT not long ago and I found it very interesting.

He makes much the same point, that renewables aren't ready (particularly solar). He starts out talking geopolitically, and looks at energy from economic, political, security and ecological standpoints. Highly recommended viewing.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Two of my favorite quotes from today's news cycle:

"It will be interesting to watch this debate between John McCain and John McCain" (Obama on McCain's reversal regarding proper tire inflation)

“Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan,” (McCain rep Tucker Bounds on Paris Hilton's mocking commercial)
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Senoj, I haven't seen that lecture by Steve Koonin, although I do recognize the name. I check it out when I get a chance - thanks for the link!
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
A Baghdad reporter's angle on the troop surge.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
This article rings as totally bogus to me as most all farmers I know are extremely unhappy with the Farm Bill - in fact our own Kansas reps voted against it. The current Farm Bill is totally geared toward Big Corn; Big Ethanol and Food Stamps -- very little in it at all about regular smaller and medium sized farming operations.

I don't think it will hurt McCain (as the articles tries to say it will) because most voters around here agree with him when it comes to this current policy.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
This is one of the few things that I agree with McCain on over Obama. The Farm Bill was a giant waste of money, again.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I got the email mentioned in this snopes article today. I sent back the snopes article so they could make up their own minds with all of the facts. I really hate biased emails like that, no matter what side they're on.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

I saw a video on a friend's picture blog about why Obama is so scary. It was so full of misinformation and vaguely concealed racist remarks it wasn't funny. Really, it wasn't funny. I couldn't believe such a good friend would post something so inflammatory without fact-checking.

Disagree with Obama's or McCain's policies--FINE, but these emails and accusations involving missing flag pins, etc. are offensive.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
I got the email mentioned in this snopes article today. I sent back the snopes article so they could make up their own minds with all of the facts. I really hate biased emails like that, no matter what side they're on.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

The first rule of lying on the internet: Don't use your real name.

--j_k
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Edwards admits to affair during campaign.

Guess he's not going to be VP.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
that's the first thing i thought as well.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Never saw any possibility of selection as VicePresident. FAR too weak a showing during the campaign for the Nomination.
Mine was "He ain't gonna be a major speaker at the Convention."
And the second was, "His lying killed the highly possible appointments to USAttorneyGeneral then to SCotUS*."

* SupremeCourt of the UnitedStates.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
This happened in 2006 and he still decided to pursue the nomination?

--j_k
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Big ups to him on his timing, though. The man's been denying it for nearly a year now, and look what day he decides to `fess up!
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
This happened in 2006 and he still decided to pursue the nomination?

There's certainly been precedent of philandering Southern politicians successfully gaining the nomination despite previous affairs.

I feel sorry for their family; I hope they (particularly Elizabeth Edwards) can deal with the trauma inflicted.

On the heartless, political side: For a few years after Clinton and Condit I wondered what had happened to the good old-fashioned Democratic sex scandal. Everything was Mark Foley and Larry Craig. But now we've had, in quick succession, Newsom, Vallaigarosa, Kilpatrick, Spitzer and now Edwards. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Please oh please oh please let Obama have stayed faithful to his wife.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Please oh please oh please let Obama have stayed faithful to his wife.
Yeah, him not doing so and being exposed would be a double-tap to the head for sure. It'd suck in a lot of ways. I say that as a fence-sitter, too.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What do you mean by double-tap to the head? I can't quite parse your sentence.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Sorry. That's nerdy gamer/action movie fan lingo. 'Double-tap' meaning two shots fired one right after the other, and hitting very close together.

A deadly blow, in other words.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I think if he had done so, he would've gotten it out when he got everything else out in his autobiography. He shed a lot of demons there, and I think if he had anymore, it would've been best to get rid of them then.

But say it did come out next week that years ago he had an affair...doesn't the fact that McCain had an affair, a divorce, and a remarriage give him some leeway? McCain's past infidelities haven't gotten the tiniest bit of sunlight during this campaign, which is actually something I'm happy about, because I'd rather this be about policy, but I can't help but wonder what would happen with McCain's own past if something about Obama were to come out.

This Edwards thing is a bit shocking. I always liked him, and I still do despite this admittal. It's just strange when it comes at you from left field. I really don't think Edwards was a VP contender, but I DO think he had a serious shot at AG or SecLabor. I don't know if those chances are shot now, but they certainly took a big hit.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
But say it did come out next week that years ago he had an affair...doesn't the fact that McCain had an affair, a divorce, and a remarriage give him some leeway? McCain's past infidelities haven't gotten the tiniest bit of sunlight during this campaign, which is actually something I'm happy about, because I'd rather this be about policy, but I can't help but wonder what would happen with McCain's own past if something about Obama were to come out.
I don't know, Lyrhawn. A lot of Senator Obama's oomph is about image, integrity, a new sort of politics, a new sort of politician in fact. The good guy.

If a lot of shine comes off of that chrome, well...then he starts to look a lot more like business as usual. In this layman's opinion, the Obama campaign dies on the vine if that happens. In particular, because he disclosed some things and not that. And even more so if such a thing happened after his autobiography.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing it further personally. It started out with me just agreeing with katharina. I don't suspect it of him.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
John Edwards's statement.
Elizabeth Edwards's statement.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Edwards admits to affair during campaign.

In a very shallow confession, I must admit something. I mean seriously, you have a shot at the president and probably some pretty influential positions, you're decent looking, and much of the country is watching you ... so the stakes are pretty high. Then you go and have an affair with well, a pretty average looking woman.

I mean, what gives? If you *must* do something like this why not make it worth your while? Why risk it all on something so mediocre? Goes for Clinton with Lewinsky too.

Is it just the 'forbidden' nature of the affair and the high stakes in getting caught acting like a psychological "beer goggles"? Weird.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
For some people, it may just be the first instance of "Wow, there's someone who's drawn to my power, this is really heady..." Possibly combined with the timing of "I've been going through some really rough times, I deserve a break."

And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Attractiveness cannot be measured by a photograph.

I find the idea that somehow it would be more "worth it" if the women in question were superficially better looking to be ridiculous.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Mucus,

Politicians are people too, and people are prone to weakness. I don't say that in that he's weaker because she's 'average looking' (frankly a part of me wonders if that picture wasn't selected for its average-lookingness).

And despite how incredibly lazy politicians seem sometimes (hey big recesses!), on the campaign trail life is extremely stressful. Especially that particular campaign trail.

Into this situation comes the woman making documentaries on his campaign. Surely they at the very least respected one another already, or they wouldn't have that kind of business relationship. To make such films a good deal of time must have been spent in close proximity, conducting interviews and just being there to observe.

Who can say what the connection between them was? And I reject the silly notion that because she appears mediocre in a couple of photographs we've seen, she must be a mediocre woman, or that physical attractiveness is the only lure for affairs. Honestly, that idea you're suggesting is possibly even rude and insulting.

Sterling,

quote:
And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
Some women too, unless she was an especially crapphy documentary filmmaker and didn't realize he was married.

------------

The most irritating thing about this situation, for me personally (never having been a fan of Edwards, and thus having no 'personal' stake in his disgrace) is that he is probably going to 'get away' with timing his 'admission' like he has.

Olypmics, war in Georgia, falling oil prices, talk of troop withdrawls in Iraq, bizarre and dramatic missing-baby headlines in the news...really, Edwards has hit the jackpot when it comes to fortuitous timing to make this sort of statement.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Sterling,

quote:
And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
Some women too, unless she was an especially crapphy documentary filmmaker and didn't realize he was married.
In as much as she shouldn't have had a fling with Edwards, yes. But there's something of a difference between "this is stupid, this is immoral, this is unprofessional, I shouldn't do this" and "if I do this, I could destroy almost everything I've worked for for the last twenty years."

There are rare exceptions, but sex scandals are usually the province of male politicians. And the women involved with said politicians usually find it much easier to fade from the spotlight.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
There are rare exceptions, but sex scandals are usually the province of male politicians. And the women involved with said politicians usually find it much easier to fade from the spotlight.
This might have something to do with the fact that presently, politics is usually the province of male politicians.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
This might have something to do with the fact that presently, politics is usually the province of male politicians.

That's undoubtedly part of it, but I would be lying if I said I thought it was the only, or even the biggest, part of it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
That's undoubtedly part of it, but I would be lying if I said I thought it was the only, or even the biggest, part of it.
Why? Because men are more prone to cheating?
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
They probably are, a little, but no, that's not why.

I think men who have worked hard to achieve power are more likely to feel that they "deserve" perks outside the strictest definitions of their job benefits. It's been observed, for example, that men are more likely than women to believe they're entitled to "free time" to cope with the stresses of their jobs.

I also think men with power are more likely to use it as an inducement to sex. That's partly just the state of sexual relations in our time. Powerful men are considered attractive; powerful women are considered intimidating. I wouldn't be the first to observe that many women who have risen to high positions in corporations have felt a need to downplay their sexuality as part of their persona. Power + female still creates a cognitive dissonance in a lot of people.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
Power + female still creates a cognitive dissonance in a lot of people.
And of course, if a man is a domineering and commanding boss, he is looked at differently than a woman in the same position. For instance, one is called a bitch and the other is not.

I'll say the same thing about John Edwards that I did about John McCain--who gives a crap? If we expect perfection out of our politicians, then clearly we aim too high, and this means nothing to the issues and problems we face or that Edwards promoted. In some sense, I think this is where this nihilism and cynicism about our country and politicians come from, we expect perfection from those who could never actually provide it, and when we are disappointed, we look at the world as if it is to blame.

People aren't perfect, politicians aren't perfect, and humanity is flawed. Sounds like a reason for theme music and a big red banner to me...
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I'll say the same thing about John Edwards that I did about John McCain--who gives a crap? If we expect perfection out of our politicians, then clearly we aim too high, and this means nothing to the issues and problems we face or that Edwards promoted.
I give a crap. It's not an instant deal-breaker for me in a politician, but it does erode my respect for them substantially. As it does with an ordinary person actually, while remembering that of course I cannot know all the circumstances and thus my opinion is to some extent uninformed.

Call me crazy, I just don't quite trust someone to keep their word when I learn they can't honor their marriage oaths. Or at least, can't trust them as much. That doesn't mean that the person (italicized for the sexism on display in this thread lately) who does honor their vows isn't a liar in other, more serious ways, or that the one who doesn't honor those vows isn't the one I should vote for.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
It would be sort of an interesting exercise to make a list of faults that, if found in our candidates, we really wouldn't care about.

"After his Saturday Night Live appearance, John McCain didn't go to the wrap party."

"Despite spending much of his youth in Hawaii, Barack Obama still frequently mispronounces Hawaiian words."

(not real examples.)
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
(frankly a part of me wonders if that picture wasn't selected for its average-lookingness).

Good point. It is possible.

quote:
Honestly, that idea you're suggesting is possibly even rude and insulting.

I did specifically point out that it was a very shallow observation. Of course its rude and insulting.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Well, this new revelation will certainly change some things.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Heh. Nice.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Well, this new revelation will certainly change some things.

I think it is every American's patriotic duty NOT to link this video and to do anything they can within reason to kill it's very existence.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
I thought it was pretty funny.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Some of the knockoffs I'm seeing now are pretty dumb, but I thought the original was funny, clever and pretty tasteful.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Was McCain's speech copied from Wikipedia?

My initial reaction was a chuckle at the thought of the guy who's supposed to be stronger on foreign policy experience cribbing notes from Wikipedia like a kid writing a book report. But honestly, I'm not so sure this is a big deal even if true.

I mean, pretty much all politicans have speech writers to start with, so for the most part we're not expecting their speeches to be entirely their own words. And they have to research facts somewhere. Before the internet would anyone have cared if some lines in a speech were similar to those in a history book or encyclopedia?

The only thing that does seem wrong about this is the editablity of wikipedia and the potential for inaccuracy or vandalism. I hope McCain or his writers weren't using wiki as a sole source, because it's just too easy to get misinformation on there (at least temporarily).

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Newsweek: The Danger of Appeasing Russia.

I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.

--j_k
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
McCain says that in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h_ZbW2REcI

wow.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I didn't see what came after it, did he qualify that statement with something afterwards?

If he didn't, that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard him say, and beyond that, shows a striking amount of naivete that I didn't think someone with his experience would be capable of.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I too would like to see more context on the above clip.

otoh this clip has plenty of context. according to Hannity while there is a double standard for sex scandals that favor democrats John McCain's affair is off limits because he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. (it starts to get explosive around the 2:45 range):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDewF41rJI
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Is it just me, or would Nathan Lane make a GREAT Hannity in a movie?
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
: laugh : he really would.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I would certainly watch Nathan Lane as Hannity a helluva lot more than Hannity as Hannity.

Any medium, for that matter. Print, radio, television, smoke signal...
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
What about semaphore? Nathan Lane has always been a poor semaphore performer. It's widely viewed as his Achilles' heel.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
otoh this clip has plenty of context. according to Hannity while there is a double standard for sex scandals that favor democrats John McCain's affair is off limits because he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. (it starts to get explosive around the 2:45 range):
Hannity's point was McCain had just come back from Vietnam and may have not been in the best state of mind to make rational decisions. A lot of returning Vietnam vets had many similar issues. The point wasn't that McCain's affair is off-limits but that there is more to the story than he simply cheated on his wife. We don't know what McCain's state of mind was 30 years ago as a returning Vietnam vet who was in a prison camp for 5 1/2 years. I think McCain might have been having a little more stress and pyschological trauma to deal with than Edwards did when Edwards was cheating.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That's an excellent point, and I should have known a theater buff like yourself would pick up on that!

Still prefer Lane. Even on the telegraph!
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Hannity's point was McCain had just come back from Vietnam and may have not been in the best state of mind to make rational decisions.

McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
From wikipedia...
quote:
During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[178] McCain had extramarital affairs,[178] and he later said, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[179] His wife Carol later stated that the failure was not due to her accident or Vietnam and that "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[180] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg, believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[180] According to John McCain, "I had changed, she had changed. People who have been apart that much change."[180]

 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
From wikipedia...
quote:
During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[178] McCain had extramarital affairs,[178] and he later said, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[179] His wife Carol later stated that the failure was not due to her accident or Vietnam and that "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[180] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg, believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[180] According to John McCain, "I had changed, she had changed. People who have been apart that much change."[180]

I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.

[Edited to include the post I was responding to, since I had the misfortune to make a TOPP.]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
During the time between John McCain being released and his affair with Cindy Hensley, he had his flight status reinstated, became a celebrated commanding officer of a training squadron, and then became the Navy's liason to the Senate. 3 years after the affair and 2 years after his divorce and then remarriage, he was elected to Congress, where he was then elected to lead the incoming freshman Republicans.

This was not a man noticably making very poor decisions through stress. edit: And even given that, he didn't just cheat on Carol McCain. He treated her horribly.

---

edit: I made my peace with it in 2000 because he owned up to it being his fault and admitting that he behaved very poorly. Given that it around 2 decades before and what I'd seen of him, I was willing to accept that he had grown a lot since then. But it was definitely a large black mark for me, as I think it should be for anyone who can seriously claim to be a character/values voter.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
To add on to Noemon's point, from the LA Times:

quote:
In a recent interview, McCain said he did not want to revisit the breakup of his marriage. "I have a very good relationship with my first wife," he said. In his autobiography, he wrote: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."
He doesn't seem to put the blame on his POW horror.

In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?

Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.

-Bok
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
quote:
Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.



So that's what he's up to....
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.
I made an assumption on my first post based upon the youtube clip that McCain would have taken the stance the Vietnam affected him more than he says it did but after I read your snarky post I did a wiki lookup I found more information than either of us had posted so I posted what I found. It was meant to clarify the discussion based upon wikipedia. Unlike this type of post:
quote:
In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?
which is clearly just meant to demean McCain with 'facts' and then followed by
quote:
Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.

which was posted to make critiscm of Obama seem ludicrous.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
DK,
Do you think that a candidate cheating on his wife is a big deal?
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
DK, I am serious in one regard to the Obama stuff. It is making the rounds in email, and being referenced in some conservative circles... And it is being believed by some people.

As for McCain, which part is untrue?

-He has a well documented affair 30 years ago.
-He was rumored to have an affair much more recently, and in the article I linked to, there are some Republicans who have viewed (and may continue to view, not that there is a way to know) McCain as a womanizer.
-He was under investigation in the Keating Five scandal, and even if he didn't break the law (which I assume he didn't), it certainly was not good judgment on his part to be associated close enough to be investigated?
-Link to segment on mispeak by McCain about the border of Iraq and Pakistan
-He has on a few occassions confused Sunni and Shiite, in relation to what affiliations Iran and Al-Qaida have with each group

Yes, these can all be rationalized away, and may be uncharitable, but compare them to the base speculation about Obama that I posted above. The gulf in viciousness, if both are taking seriously, is huge. One is saying that maybe McCain's judgment isn't all that good... The other is saying that Obama will literally bring the end times upon us all.

Note also, I said "with the innuendo", which means I'm well aware the McCain criticisms are arguable points, that can be used to smear the candidate. Then again, they are all documented by the press, whereas the Obama stuff is speculation.

There's plenty to criticize Obama on: his lack of national experience, particularly as this pertains to his foreign policy; his healthcare plan; even his tax plan. Yet it seems most would rather play to baser mistrust and call him the Anti-Christ. There's even a McCain internet ad that lifts heavily from the Left Behind series as far as terminology and imagery in attacking Obama.

-Bok
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
DK,
Do you think that a candidate cheating on his wife is a big deal?

Yes, it is a big deal. It is a big deal to the wife (or husband) and to the family. Elected officials know they can be blackmailed if they are discovered. Cheating is a very devastating event usually for all involved. An affair many years ago is much different than an active affair today. People can learn from their mistakes.
More to the point, I could vote for someone if they had an affair. There are a lot of 'depends' on whether or not I would though. We are all human with the same human weaknesses and at times those weaknesses can overcome our better judgement. A current affair would definitely lessen my opinion of them and may cause me to combine that with other critiscms and vote for the other candidate.
I am not a fan of McCain but Obama's policies are even worse so I do feel like I am having to choose between awful and very bad.
 
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
 
Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
Newsweek: The Danger of Appeasing Russia.

I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.

--j_k

And a counterpoint.

--j_k
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain: Life Begins at Conception...and how it might hurt him.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Yeah, I saw that article, Lyr. I don't buy it. On that issue, the general populace just wants enough info to put you in column A or column B.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm not so worried about a lot of people looking at his statement and saying "oh my, what a can of worms that opens!" People just don't think like that.

But I can already see the ads on TV saying McCain wants to do away with all birth control. If life does begin at conception, then any assault on even a zygote is the same thing as murder. So McCain either has to defend murder, or be against all birth control. Now I personally am not a big fan of black and white positions. But I think Obama, or his surrogates, or even just pissed off women's groups (who have a lot of money and power) perhaps in conjunction with pharmeceutical companies afraid of what this might mean for birth control pills and what not will have a very, very easy time pinning McCain into a corner and forcing him to choose, and I think given his weakness with social conservatives he'll have to side with them.

It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
Newsweek: The Danger of Appeasing Russia.

I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.

--j_k

And a counterpoint.

--j_k

Those were both interesting reads. Thanks for the links.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Are Democrats Now Pro-Life?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
No, I think they're trying to combat a couple of decades of Republicans saying they love baby killing. Even the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice monniker suggests that anyone who is for a right to choose is naturally against life, and therefore supports murder. It's part of the lexicon of the abortion debate. It's designed to make Pro-Lifers look like they actively support and like baby killing. At least that's how I frequently see the debate being framed.

When Democrats try and take a middle road, which frankly I don't see as a middle road, they get called flip floppers and wafflers who can't make a choice. Most Democrats are in favor of a ban on late-term abortions so long as there is an exception for the life of the mother. Does that make them Pro-Life? Is that an abandonment of Roe?

This is a tough discussion to have without really going into all the smaller parts that make it up. Any debate on abortion has to include a discussion on Sex Education, which is another topic Republicans and Democrats seem to widely diverge at. Democrats think comprehensive SexEd will reduce the overall number of unwanted pregnancies, and the numbers seem to bear them out on that. And they're okay with placing abortions into a strict set of circumstances, like no late-term abortions with some exceptions. The other side seems to take a "just say no" approach to SexEd, and then outlaws all abortion with no exceptions (though this does vary I think). To a Democrat, that looks ridiculous because it ups the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and puts women in a potentially life threatening situation, and results in hundreds, thousands, and some day millions of unwanted babies.

I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
Like that'll be left alone anyway if he stays silent on the subject? Yeah right. McCain has taken a First Strike approach to campaigning thus far, I don't see why that'd stop in the Fall.

Besides, hardcore Social Conservatives are either going to stay home or vote McCain. Obama has way too many votes that he can pick up in the middle with Independents that he needs to wrest from McCain if he's going to win critical swing states. The question is whether it's a net gain or not, and I think it would be.

And either way, neither of them will have a choice once the PACs get into the mix.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.

Heaven forbid that a complicated question has a complicated answer. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
McCain said he supported stem cell research, though he didn't specify embryonic vs. all other stem cell research, so that's a bit strange.

I don't think you can say human rights begin at conception and support embryonic stem cell research. Though him not thinking of test tube babies as conceived would not come as a surprise.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm not sure how he could reconcile test tube babies as not being concieved with the whole idea of what conception is. Egg meets sperm = Baby. That's precisely what test tube babies are, they just aren't implanted, but his statement on when life begins has nothing to do with implantation, it starts at a point before that.

If I had to guess, I'd say he supports non-embryonic stem cell research, or at least, that's what he supports NOW. Given recent advances in medical research though, I don't know how much static he'll get for that.

I think these are questions that women's groups will MAKE him answer, that before this recent statement he could skate by with campaign one liners that they so often use. But now that he has taken a firm position, he's going to get asked a lot of follow ups. No matter how he answers them, he's going to upset someone. I think Obama gets by here because he gave the answer everyone pretty much expects from a Democrat, which boils down to "safe, legal and rare," or what I call S&S (Safe & Seldom).

None of this will matter if no one ever pushes this on him and makes him answer questions about it, but there's a lot of potential for it. It's a pinatta waiting to be whacked.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
That conundrum is easy to finesse. You just say you were talking about the newer, less-proven, non-embryonic stem cell research. And then send some sort of attack toward Obama to distract the press from following up on any potential discrepency between the latest statement, and any past statements (if there are any).

For all the media that Obama gets, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt like McCain has gotten. I mean, McCain's even has the networks redacting verbal gaffes from interviews prior to airing... [EDIT: Note, I don't mean to say that McCain has been making the networks do it. I just mean that it has happened).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230001

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
We'll see. If Obama and his surrogates, or the pro-choice establishment decide to make an issue out of his statements, I don't see him getting out of it without giving either some specifics, or a lot of room for Obama to fill in the blanks himself. McCain is the one who has pioneered that tactic in this campaign (though hardly the first to use it). If you don't define yourself, your opponent will. The longer McCain dodges, the more time Obama will have to run ads saying Mccain is anti-birth control, anti-fertility science (artificial insemination, etc), anti-reproductive rights, anti-choice, anti-women and whatever else he wants, until McCain either confirms or denies, and if he denies, he hurts himself with social conservatives after saying he's the pro-life candidate.

I'm not saying he won't have his own mud to sling, but he's going to throw it anyway.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm

The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
DK -

With articles like that, I'm not surprised.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shawshank:
Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.

Yes. I thought it was very good. I didn't see it at the time it happened, but watched the videos here: Videos & Transcript

edit: (I know nothing about that site or its origins -- I only pulled it up because it had the videos when I was doing a Google search for videos of the forum to watch - so ignore anything else on the site)

[ August 19, 2008, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Positive new poll numbers for McCain

Obama's numbers have been in decline for a month now, and the electoral map at 538.com is pretty close to parity.

Most analysts seem to chalk up the swing to McCain's successful attacks, or (in the case of the Reuters article) to Obama's eroding his base with his pivot to the center. I think it's just Obama fatigue: there were so many stories about him that the population has just got tired, like a kid with a new toy once the shine has worn off.

I think that Obama's numbers will increase again in September when school's back in and he starts spending his gobs and gobs of un-campaign-finance-reform cash, while McCain will be forced to rein in his spending significantly.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.

Do you have any other pronouncements you'd like to make about the reasons people who disagree with you support enactment of particular statutes?

There's a significant difference between the new law as described and the existing statute - specifically the "reasonable chance" portion. The old law made a requirement that the doctor try to save the lives of SOME fetuses who were entirely separate from the mother and who breathed or had a heartbeat. The new law says, essentially, that when interpreting laws with the word "person", "human being", etc., a member of the species homo sapiens that has been fully extracted or expulsed from the human body.

The laws do different things. To be precise, the second law encompasses the first and much more.

You want to disagree with the law, fine. But, especially in the context of accusing others of dishonesty, don't make up claims about the only logical reason they might want to do something.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?

What would be done differently in practice under the new law?

The new law would indeed have done more. It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.

I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest. It is no secret that he is pro-choice, but painting a picture of live babies in waste bins because he wouldn't support this measure is just false.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?
They're not in the existing law,. They're in the new law. And that's the point - the new law does something different than the old law. So the existence of the old law does not mean that the "only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack."

Anyone who desires the things the new law does has logical reasons other than undermining Roe for supporting this law.

quote:
It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.
It (at least the second version in the Illinois Senate also opposed by Obama) would have defined a fetus that is outside the mother as a person. How does that undermine Roe v. Wade?

quote:
I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest.
That's fairly irrelevant to whether your comments about the reasons of those who supported the law are truthful.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
How would the new law have been better? What would physicians be required to do differently?

What is the point of defining the fetus as a person if not to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
What is the point of defining the fetus as a person if not to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
How does defining an entity outside the mother's body as a person chip away at Roe?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
If it doesn't, why is it important?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You made an accusation - that there was no logical reason to introduce this bill other than to undermine Roe and allow this kind of attack on Obama. I would think someone speaking for those she disagrees with in this way would be able to articulate how it undermines Roe.

I have already explained the differences between the old and new laws. If you have a specific question about those differences - like the one I already answered - I'm happy to answer them. Are you willing to back up your statement about other people's reasons for doing something you disagree with?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You're right. I can really have no idea what goes on in the minds of other people. The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons or to provide ammunition for attacks.

The only reason that seems logical to me to establish that fetuses are persons is to undermine abortion rights.

What other reasons seem logical to you? How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons
Well of course it defines some fetuses as people - that's the express point of the bill. You still haven't explained how defining these fetuses - that are outside the mother - as persons chips away at Roe, which only addresses fetuses inside the mother.

quote:
How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
Why does anything have to change about how doctors treat them for this law to be supportable?

The section of the bill directly addressing this used backhanded language to define the entity as a person solely for the purposes of the criminal code. What's wrong with recognizing the backwardness of that language ("shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual") and correcting it?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"Why not" has never struck me as a good reason for legislation.

It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?

And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
He isn't saying "why not", he's saying there was a problem ("backwardness of that language") from his perspective (and presumably that of some legislators), and that this legislation corrects it.

That's not "why not".
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

"X shall not be construed to mean not Y" is not the same as "X means Y".

And although I am not a lawyer, that language did not seem all that backward.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I was under the impression that one of the major effects of that law would be the different treatment of non-viable fetuses. That is, doctors would be forced by law to attempt to keep alive infants after an unsuccessful abortion even if that infant had no chance at any life besides a very short one filled with agony, which, as I understood it (don't recall my source and it could have been heavily biased), were basically the only ones not covered by the existing law.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?
So you don't consider a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from its mother to be a person?

Whether or not the fetus is inside the womb is the absolute touchstone of Roe. It seems strange to see a law as undermining something when it, in fact, explicitly recognizes the limitations on the law's reach created by Roe and its progeny.

Moreover, the "not a big leap" assessment is highly inaccurate. The leap involved requires overturning Roe (more specifically, Casey). That's not just a big leap. It's a huge leap.

quote:
And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
Because the old law left it ambiguous whether a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from the mother was a person. In fact, it created a pretty strong argument that, outside the criminal code, the fetus should not be considered a person. Correcting this seems to me to be beneficial in and of itself.

quote:
I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
Yep. And I don't like the former and do like the latter, for a variety of reasons, none of which include it undermining Roe - because it doesn't do that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't know if I do or not, in every circumstance, from a legal standpoint. I don't know, from a legal standpoint, whether a "pulsation of the umbilical cord" is sufficient to grant a fetus the same rights as a person.

So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change. What are your reasons for liking the change?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change.
I'm having a real hard time seeing you as participating with a good motive here, Kate. You're presenting this as if I haven't said it's a change from the very beginning. The whole crux of my point has been that the new law is different from the old law, in direct refutation of your original point that this law did nothing. I've been consistent on this point from the beginning.

Moreover, you're continuing to quiz me on my beliefs here without answering the most relevant question on your own: How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.

I've given reasons for liking the change already: removing the ambiguity from the old law and granting the protections of the law to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
quote:
How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.
I haven't really followed the debate on this failed law much, but even I've heard it described it as having a primary purpose of undermining Roe vs. Wade from several sources. Apparently you have not, but I'm willing to bet that boots has. I don't know if this description is her main reason for thinking that it would, but it seems to me that this would be a consistent and reasonable explanation of her comments.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's mostly what I've seen the bill described as too. I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision? Unless the entire point of the law is to have someone break it and then take the whole thing to court to make up an excuse for the court to revisit Roe and perhaps overturn it? That's pretty elaborate, and there's no guarantee that the court will even hear the case, if it even gets that far.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
My participation is trying to refute the attacks (see Darknight's post) on Senator Obama. The way his vote on this bill My original point was that viable fetuses already had legal protection even before the abortion procedure was started.

I get that you like a law that grants legal standing to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother. I am asking why. What does that practically get them that they didn't already have? Is it a recognition of "soul" in some way? And I don't necessarily equate a pulsating umbilical cord or even having a heartbeat as "living".

Now, taken with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act*, also sponsored by Senator Winkler, it would have made the doctors and hospitals liable civilly liable for damages including punitive damages. Is that the benefit? To make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions?

That would be a practical benefit, I suppose.

* http://tinyurl.com/5ak2hx

edited to make tinyurl
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
Don't know where to put this...Barack Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President ?

"...credible source...", and based on research they're giving it a 50% chance.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Um, if the law Obama opposed doesn't affect Roe v. Wade (as alleged), then why should it be mentioned in regard to Obama's record on abortion?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
*checks* Nope. No text message.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision?
Well, if my first post on this is accurate, a potential affect would be to make abortion more horrifying to some by creating situations where some failed abortions lead to forcing the doctors and nurses to do preserve the doomed agony that the infants would be in.

Not all eroding would necesarily be legal, although there certainly could be legal angles as well.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision?
It can't.

quote:
My participation is trying to refute the attacks (see Darknight's post) on Senator Obama.
If that was all your participation was, I wouldn't have replied. But it went well beyond that, into an area that interests me and in which I have a view that you claimed could not be logical.

quote:
My original point was that viable fetuses already had legal protection even before the abortion procedure was started.
Well, no. Your original point was that, because the legal protection already existed, there was no logical reason to support the new bill other than to undermine Roe. You have continued to assert that this undermines Roe. I'm still interested in an explanation of how it undermines Roe.

quote:
I get that you like a law that grants legal standing to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother. I am asking why.
Because I like the law to more closely reflect reality.

quote:
Now, taken with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act*, also sponsored by Senator Winkler, it would have made the doctors and hospitals liable civilly liable for damages including punitive damages. Is that the benefit? To make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions?
The Birth Infant Liability Act does this whether the law we've been talking about exists or not - as you should know, since you've repeated many times that there's no difference in the care received under the old law and the new law.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Um, if the law Obama opposed doesn't affect Roe v. Wade (as alleged), then why should it be mentioned in regard to Obama's record on abortion?
Because one of the aftereffects of some abortions is a living, damaged infant. And Roe v. Wade says NOTHING about the state's right to protect such people. So it's relevant to abortion, but does not undermine Roe v. Wade.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
But, again, there was a law dealing with any infants that had a reasonable chance of surviving. By my understanding, the effect of this law wasn't going to be saving any infants, but rather prolonging the agony of ones that didn't have a chance at life.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into effect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into affect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
It was not clear under existing non-criminal Illinois law whether it was considered a person or not.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
Don't know where to put this...Barack Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President ?

"...credible source...", and based on research they're giving it a 50% chance.

The convention starts in five days, but I think there's a decent chance that you'll actually hear who it is before the actual convention. I think it's possible he's waiting for Olympics mania to die down a bit, which makes me think he'll announce this weekend.

As for the buzz? Blah blah blah. CNN has a different story on their ticket every day about how so and so has the inside track at the moment. The same six or seven names keep floating around in some endless cycle. Most of what I've been hearing lately revolves around Biden, Bayh and Kaine. But who knows? It could still be someone out of the blue like Tom Dashle, though I really really hope not. Or heck it could be Clinton, though again, I really hope not.

I think we'll find out this weekend, but at the very least we'll know this time next week for sure. Kind of sucks that he has to pick first, allowing McCain to pick his in response, but, at the same time I'd be very, very surprised if Obama's choice had any effect on McCain's. McCain has totally different problems than Obama to address with his VP pick. And speculation isn't nearly so rampant.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into affect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
It was not clear under existing non-criminal Illinois law whether it was considered a person or not.
But it was under the Illinois Abortion Law. Specifically.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
But it was under the Illinois Abortion Law. Specifically.
No it wasn't. You took me to task about that just a few posts ago.

Edit: here it is:

quote:
I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
No. I was pointing out that there was a difference in the two statements. The Illinois Law (unless it has been changed which is possible) states:

quote:
Without in any way restricting the right of privacy of a woman or the right of a woman to an abortion under those decisions, the General Assembly of the State of Illinois do solemnly declare and find in reaffirmation of the longstanding policy of this State, that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State.
But, unlike the new proposal, the Illinois Abortion Law includes specific language regarding Roe v. Wade.

Should we move this to a different thread?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That's not the same thing, Kate.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Sigh. Okay. I still don't understand what you think the purpose of the new proposal was. It still seems to me that viable fetuses would have gained nothing under the new proposal. I wish you could/would explain why you think a new bill was necessary.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I have explained it. My explanation has nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. Perhaps your insistence that an explanation have such a connection is blocking you from seeing my explanation.

Once more: Because I like the law to more closely reflect reality. To expand: I consider a human being to exist from the moment of conception. Roe prevents state legislatures from saying that. The new law pushes the operative, general legal definition to the

The old law did not have such a general legal, operative definition. It had an inoperative definition "for purposes of the unborn child's right to life" and an operative "unimplying" construct that applied only in the context of criminal laws.

I wish you would explain how this law undermines Roe.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.
How? A state law can't limit the scope of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

quote:
I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law.
The existing Illinois law spoke about the fetus from the time of conception. It was necessary to carve out the Roe exception because of that. And, even so, it wasn't an operational law.

quote:
Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
According to the NYSUN article, he voted against at least one version of the bill that had the limiting language in it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Does anyone have a link that has the language of the bills, his actual votes (yes, no or present) and his explanations (at the time and now) for why he voted the way he did?

All the articles I've seen thus far have been sorely lacking in the kind of information I would need to form an opinion on this matter.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
An opinion on the matter or an opinion on Obama's opinion on the matter?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
An opinion on Obama's opinion.

I haven't actually been following this thing all that closely, and I'm not 100% familiar with the issue at hand, but I can easily surmise where, if I were to become more informed, my opinion would likely lie.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
at a town hall yesterday:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions [...] My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can't even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't reenact the draft I don't think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

JOHN MCCAIN: Ma'am let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
How? A state law can't limit the scope of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
And a moment of silence is not school prayer nor is teaching intelligent design necessarily bringing creationism back into schools, but they are both steps in christian activist groups' plans to accomplish these things.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Kate's justification for asserting that it undermined Roe was that it was "not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb." She considers this such an obvious conclusion that she found it necessary to ask me, "You really couldn't see that?"

I have responded to that by pointing out that overcoming a supreme court interpretation is, in fact, a very big leap. I have responded to her theory that it somehow worked with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act "make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions" by pointing out that the IBILA has the exact same effect whether the new law exists or not.

Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe. My response is that whether that language exists or not, the effect of the state law is exactly the same. Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe. This in and of itself makes your response off-point: the person I responded to doesn't seem to accept your premise that the effects of the bill with the language will undermine Roe. That is the context in which I posted my response.

Moreover, even if I accept your admittedly weakly-sourced theory that the intent is to force doctors to make infants live in agony to make abortion seem more horrifying, we still don't arrive at the conclusion that this undermines Roe. It might lessen the public's support for Roe. But there's zero chance it would allow for the passage of a constitutional amendment or the appointment of new SCOTUS justices who might overturn Roe/Casey/etc. Also, being a "step in ... plans" to accomplish legal change is not "undermining" a SCOTUS precedent.

Finally, whether some people see this as a step to having Roe overturned or not, it is patently clear that there are logical reasons for supporting the law other than undermining Roe or allowing attacks on those who vote against it.

For example, I see it as remedying a moral hole in the law to the greatest extent allowed by Roe and its progeny.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I find most of your conclusions there poorly founded. The things that you are claiming that Kate must believe don't seem to me to be either necessities nor actually likely to be true.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
As I understand it, the bill in question would grant things to the infants in question beyond that of just personhood.

I'm not sure if I've got this right, but the law was saying that, no matter what the doctors or their legal guardians thought, these doomed to a short life full of pain infants must have every reasonable measure used to keep them alive. If my understanding is correct, this is not something that is shared with the general class of people, correct?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I find most of your conclusions there poorly founded. The things that you are claiming that Kate must believe don't seem to me to be either necessities nor actually likely to be true.
How? Kate said it undermined Roe because it didn't have the language in it. How does that not imply that she thinks the law with the language doesn't undermine Roe?

quote:
I'm not sure if I've got this right, but the law was saying that, no matter what the doctors or their legal guardians thought, these doomed to a short life full of pain infants must have every reasonable measure used to keep them alive. If my understanding is correct, this is not something that is shared with the general class of people, correct?
Can you quote the part of the law you think says this? The federal one (not primary source) - which is by all accounts identical to the middle version of the law (not the one that passed in Illinois, but with the additional sentence we've been discussing) - does one thing and one thing only: create an interpretive canon stating that, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

The second subsection defines born alive. The third says this has no effect on existing law about rights accruing before birth.

That's it. Unless it is required that a physician treat any person at any time who is in unbearable agony, it creates no such obligation. To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case, but I claim no expertise in that area.

All this, of course, is contingent on news reports that the law was essentially identical to the federal one. I've only found potentially biased sources on this matter, but here's one version of the text which seems to support that.

If anyone can link the primary source documents for those - I don't have time to delve into Illinois's online legislative system, assuming there is one - it would clear this up.

Ironically, the 1975 law could be construed as imposing that obligation, although I don't know if it has or not.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
How? Kate said it undermined Roe because it didn't have the language in it. How does that not imply that she thinks the law with the language doesn't undermine Roe?
I'm going to go out on an enormous limb here and suggest that boots doesn't think that any law that doesn't have language in it that says that it doesn't undermine Roe v. Wade undermines Roe v. Wade and that, perhaps, there is more to her objection than that.

---

edit:

I've tried to make it clear that I really don't know anything definite about the specifics of this law. I really know only second hand impressions of this issue that I may not even remember correctly. It is incredibly minor to me and is only an issue at all because it is dishonestly brought up by Republican attack dogs.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I'm going to go out on an enormous limb here and suggest that boots doesn't think that any law that doesn't have language in it that says that it doesn't undermine Roe v. Wade undermines Roe v. Wade and that, perhaps, there is more to her objection than that.
And - not perhaps, but definitely - there's much more to my objection to her objection than that.

My response does not depend on the premise that Kate's position is that the lack of such language being a necessary and sufficient condition to undermines Roe v. Wade. I don't believe she thinks that and have nowhere said so.

Rather, it depends on her express statement that the lack of such of such language was enough to cause THIS law to undermine-Roe-ness.

She's already said that she doesn't think THIS law with the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language does not, in fact undermine Roe.

In short, you've badly misinterpreted me.

quote:
I've tried to make it clear that I really don't know anything definite about the specifics of this law. I really know only second hand impressions of this issue that I may not even remember correctly. It is incredibly minor to me and is only an issue at all because it is dishonestly brought up by Republican attack dogs.
And the response to those "dogs" has also been measurably dishonest.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
I'm not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:
Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
Could you explain?

---
edit:
I'm also not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:
Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.

 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Because you seem to think that it's about a general case. It's patently not. It was a summary of something Kate said on this page:

quote:
It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.
Now, neither Kate nor I explicitly limited our statement to this law under discussion. But it's pretty clear that we both are discussing this law. It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I'm also not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:
Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.

I don't know how you misinterpreted that, either. But you did, to the extent you think I'm making a statement about "any law."
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Not to me it isn't.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
After re-reading this part of the thread, I think it might be helpful to explain that by "undermine" I don't mean that one particular act or law will do this all by itself. I think that opponents of abortion "push" at the legal protections of choice - chip at it. It is the cumulative effect of many such acts that I believe is the threat to Roe v. Wade.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
That was excedingly clear to me, boots.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Not to me it isn't.
Her statement on the subject:

quote:
It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
She posted the above in response to my request that she "explain how this law undermines Roe." The response given was that it lacked "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.

It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.

Moreover, tKate has earlier asserted that Obama didn't vote for it because it would undermine Roe. She stated in the above that he would vote for a law with the language. Therefore, it's clear (assuming Kate's account is true, which I do), that Obama thinks the language would cure the bill of undermining Roe.

As to whether this reflects Kate's position, I can't be sure. I have independent basis for reaching my conclusion. But this certainly strengthens the conclusion because she generally supports Obama's position on this law.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
After re-reading this part of the thread, I think it might be helpful to explain that by "undermine" I don't mean that one particular act or law will do this all by itself. I think that opponents of abortion "push" at the legal protections of choice - chip at it. It is the cumulative effect of many such acts that I believe is the threat to Roe v. Wade.
Which brings me back to a slightly modified version of my original question: which legal protection of choice does this "chip at"?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
I don't see it this way. In fact, I don't think that that is even a fair interpretation.

The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.
Yes. The lack of language in THIS law. That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language. You're now agreeing with me.

Especially considering that you said this:

quote:
quote:
It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Not to me it isn't.
How on earth is it NOT clear to you that Kate thinks the language would cure the law, given that you've now said that an explicit provision is needed for the "parts of this law [that] could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights"?

I'll also note that I've asked repeatedly what those provisions that chip away at Roe might be. Still no answer.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Does anyone have a link that has the language of the bills, his actual votes (yes, no or present) and his explanations (at the time and now) for why he voted the way he did?

All the articles I've seen thus far have been sorely lacking in the kind of information I would need to form an opinion on this matter.

Lyrhawn, I am assuming that you have checked the links on Senator Obama's web site which link to the bills themselves and cite contemporary news articles where he explains his vote. The links are helpful. For example, you can link the existing law which gives you the name of the bill and then you can look that up. Or the dates of the newspaper articles. The web site is a good place to start.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php

One excerpt:
quote:
REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

Bolding mine. Honestly, if Senator Obama thinks that the clarifying language was necessary - and presumably it was in the Federal bill for some reason - I don't understand why it is so beyond comprehension that I would think so.

And I don't know that I agree with Senator Obama's position. Abortion is something about which I am fairly conflicted. I usually come down on the pro-choice side of the argument, but not always.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
No, it doesn't.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Bolding mine. Honestly, if Senator Obama thinks that the clarifying language was necessary - and presumably it was in the Federal bill for some reason - I don't understand why it is so beyond comprehension that I would think so.
It's not beyond comprehension. I've just yet to hear any plausible way by which the law without the language chips away at Roe.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.

Would you care to explain, or will you just make another statement that I'm wrong without bothering to explain?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.

 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Also, to quote myself again:
quote:
Well, if my first post on this is accurate, a potential affect would be to make abortion more horrifying to some by creating situations where some failed abortions lead to forcing the doctors and nurses to do preserve the doomed agony that the infants would be in.

Not all eroding would necesarily be legal, although there certainly could be legal angles as well.


 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It's now clear what I meant. Just to prevent any additional confusion, I am happy to qualify it: The meaning I had for what I said is the same as the meaning "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that."

Any continued insistence otherwise by you will be willfully ignoring what I mean.

The relevant part was whether the language cured any defects. The current squabble over what I meant doesn't affect that conclusion.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So, you now agree that this doesn't necessarily entail that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
So, you now agree that this doesn't necessarily entail that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language?
No.

Edit: more explicitly, it necessarily entails "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."

Edit 2: Of course I still await someone - anyone - pointing out which parts of the law could do that.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
more explicitly, it necessarily entails "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."
Right, which is a fundamentally different statement from what you said and is also fundamentally different from the approach you've been taking up to this point.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, it's not.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Of course it is. I already highlighted the differences for you.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No "of course" about it.

You're wrong. It's really quite simple.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I don't think me (and by my estimation, boots) meaning something different from what you want us to mean makes me automatically wrong.

You don't understand what we are saying. That's not really a problem. But when you're going to address what we've said when you don't understand it and respond to being informed that how your characterization of what we said is incorrect and having where this is incorrect pointed out to you with "You're wrong." that kind of is a problem.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I don't think me (and by my estimation, boots) meaning something different from what you want us to mean makes me automatically wrong.

You don't understand what we are saying.

Wrong. The problem is you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of my objection, and from that misunderstanding reached the conclusion that I have misunderstood you.

Which is fine. I ignored you all of yesterday - which turned out to be wise since you didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you posted the bit about infants dying in agony being somehow relevant to this law - and wish I had continued to do so. But you're wrong about what I've said. None of the "explanations" you've posted in an attempt to clarify your meaning change my basic point or make it less applicable. If you think they do, it means you're wrong about what I've been saying.

That kind of is a problem.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What I think I understand is that you think that if there isn't "fatal" element in one particular proposal, that that particular proposal is "harmless" to Roe v. Wade. And that none of the proposals Senator Obama voted against (or failed to vote for) has such a "fatal" element.

Is that right? Honestly, I'm finding some of what you are writing to be confusing. Probably since I am not a lawyer!

I do know that people other than Senator Obama have expressed the same concern about "undermining" regarding these bills.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
No. I'm pretty sure I understand your objection. The problem, as I see it, is that you don't seem to see a difference between saying that there are things that suggest that there may be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case.

The distinction between may and must, between what the law itself could do versus what it could be used to do, and between knowing that this is the case and things suggesting that this is the case are all important ones to me. If they are not to you, I think you are very wrong.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The problem, as I see it, is that you don't seem to see a difference between saying that there are things that suggest that there may be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case.
Nope. I see the difference just fine.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Well, those are the differences in what I said (and what I think boots was saying) versus what you said I said, as I've pointed out twice now, but you say that there aren't any differences between them.

Is there some interpretation of your statement that I'm missing that makes it so, for example, your use of the word must really means may?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
First please point out where I said there "must" "be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case."

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and the only use of "must" by me I can find doesn't say that at all.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Oh, my bad. I thought there was a must in the statement I've been quoting.

I should have been saying "necessarily entails that there is". As far as I can see, that's semantically equivilent to must.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I did a search to find the "must" quote because I wasn't sure. Unfortunately, my browser doesn't have a semantically equivalent search.

Please quote the specific statement.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.

 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ah, I see. I've already clarified that I meant "more explicitly, it necessarily entails 'that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights.'" Call this one B. Call the one you quoted ("That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language") A.

You said that B "is a fundamentally different statement from [A]* and is also fundamentally different from the approach you've been taking up to this point."

I'm telling you that when I said A, I meant the same meaning as presented by B. To the extent you think that my point would be different if A and B meant (to me) different things, you have misinterpreted my point.

*This is how I interpreted your use of pronouns in that sentence - that is, I interpreted "what you said" as referring to A. Please clarify if you meant something different.

Edit to change a B to an A.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
To the extent you think that my point would be different if A and B meant (to me) different things, you have misinterpreted my point.
Yes, but the statements A and B have the three differences I pointed out. If they mean the same thing to you, then these differences are not meaningful to you, which, you've said is not the case.

Both can't be true. They are either not equivilent statements or you don't recognize a difference in those three things I pointed out. You can't have it both ways.

You've been addressing boots and myself as if we were saying there must be things in the law that challenge Roe v. Wade. This is the third time I've pointed out that this is not what we were saying and presented the three substantive differences between them.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Yes, but the statements A and B have the three differences I pointed out. If they mean the same thing to you, then these differences are not meaningful to you, which, you've said is not the case.
They have three differences to you AS YOU WERE USING THE WORDS. Not as I was using those words.

Forget I said A. Pretend I only said B. My point remains the exact same. If it's different to you, it means you misinterpreted it.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
err...I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I said B. You didn't, except when quoting me. You were using my words to characterize what I said as being the same as what you said. If the rather bizarre way you were using the words doesn't match up with how I meant them, well, that's my whole point. You are not addressing what people said, but instead what you wanted them to say.

In that case, your point is what? That what I meant when I wrote those words is not important because you want them to mean something else?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
My point is that your wording made meaning that was unclear to you in my original wording more clear.

Forget I used A. Pretend I used B. Pretend I meant exactly what you meant. It doesn't change my point, at all.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm unclear of what point you think this doesn't change. Could you explain? I can't see any point that you've made in relation to this that isn't changed by this.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Whether it's classified as "could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights" or "might chip away at Roe or abortion rights" or "will undermine Roe," I'd still like to see the parts of the law that can/might/will do so and an explanation of how. My point is utterly unrelated to the probability being assigned or the specific affect.

I'll make it even more general: I'd like to see identified the parts of the law that, absent corrective language, might affect Roe or abortion rights in any way and to see a brief explanation of how it might do that.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
That's not a point. That's a demand.

You made various points, but they were not valid absent your "must".

---

edit: Also, do you now admit that the statement that you made and the statement that I made are different? Because, you know, you were awful emphatic and insulting in saying that they weren't.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
We're done, Squick. None of my points relied on the differences that could be read into the statements. To the extent you think my points relied on such differences, you misinterpreted what I meant.

That's not debatable - it's simply a true statement.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And my point was that, until my requests (not demands) are met, I don't see how this law has ANY affect on Roe or abortion rights, with or without the language. I might not see how it would affect Roe or abortion rights after having my request answer, either.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Points that were changed (they have a pretty good correspondence to points that I challenged you on):
quote:
Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
quote:
Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
quote:
It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
quote:
It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
quote:
That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
And then there was the whole section where you emphatically and insultingly maintained that there was no difference between what I said and what you did.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
And my point was that, until my requests (not demands) are met, I don't see how this law has ANY affect on Roe or abortion rights, with or without the language. I might not see how it would affect Roe or abortion rights after having my request answer, either.
Which is fine, but is not actually related very much to what boots was saying. You want an exact part of the law that clearly challenges it. Great, but boots certainly didn't through anything she said suggest that she had one and what she said can stand without fulfilling your demands.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
This point is not affected by the characterization of the effects of the bill on Roe or abortion rights and the probabilities of those effects occurring.

(Also, this is almost a direct quote to Kate's answer to my request that she "explain how this law undermines Roe." Again, her answer was, "It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.")

quote:
Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
Same.

quote:
It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Same.

quote:
It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
I have since clarified that this would only be true because THIS bill contained provisions that "could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."

Again, if you think using B instead of A changes the meaning of those points, you have misunderstood them.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
If it doesn't make any difference, why would the federal legislature and the Illinois state legislature in the existing law have included such language? Most of them are lawyers; I would think that they had some idea what they were doing.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
If it doesn't make any difference, why would the federal legislature and the Illinois state legislature in the existing law have included such language? Most of them are lawyers; I would think that they had some idea what they were doing.
I'm a lawyer, too, and I can't see where a definition that someone outside the mother is a person at law could have an effect on the mother's rights to terminate the pregnancy before the triggering event in this law occurs.

If it was necessary, I'd think it'd be easy to say why.

Edit: And if it wasn't necessary, but just convinced some people to vote for it to overcome a fear they couldn't define, I'm fine with that. But it doesn't mean I agree that the original version could have chipped away at anything.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So you don't think that there was any reason for it to be included in the other laws?

---

edit: Ok, so you won't answer. Here's the thing. You don't think there was any reason. boots does. She may not know what that reason is, but, as I've now pointed out for the fourth time, she suspects that there could be a reason for this. Because you keep treating her differently from this (and resisting all attempts to get you to realize that you are wrong), you are not addressing what she said.

[ August 21, 2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Newspeople are speculating that Obama will announce his VP candidate before the weekend at a rally in Springfield, Illinois.

They're saying we're in the "final hours" before the announcement. Interesting to time it just as the Olympics are closing. I have to imagine a lot of people will be keeping an eye on the closing ceremonies tomorrow, though for me, all my favorite events and races are pretty much done, and I'm not a huge fan of the ceremonies.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Because you keep treating her differently from this (and resisting all attempts to get you to realize that you are wrong)
What the hell am I wrong about concerning her view? She thinks the law without the explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language could undermine Roe (her words, not mine).

Based on that, I've asked for specifics about how it could do this. I've spent a page going back and forth with you about something else. But what I've asked of Kate is to explain how.

So how am I treating her "differently from this"?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Going back to the A and B statements, you're treating her like she said A when what she really said was B. Go back and read what I wrote there. If you actually try to see where those three differences are and what they mean, I think you could get it.

Or you know, just keep insisting that she had to mean what you want her to mean.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The impression I get from those worried about this law is that it'll be used in concert with other possible future laws in an attempt to form a framework with which to unseat Roe. The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.

But I think the fear is that a law like this could be appealed up to the SC level, and a ruling, with a more favorable court to Conservative issues than has been had in decades, could uphold all or part of the law, since only the SC can overturn what the previous court has done. Obviously a law saying abortion is against the law is unlikely to be passed by the Illinois state legislature, or for that matter the US Congress, so they try something small just to get their foot in the door. If the SC rules that babies in this situation are people, then they can push it one step further and ask how they aren't people seconds before when they are in the womb.

I think it might be that such a hypothetical, (which isn't really totally outside the bounds of possibility is it?) is really the endgame of proponents of such a bill, since the opponents state that this bill would do nothing that wasn't already covered by existing law.

That's my take on what the fears of the opponents of the bill are. I can't say how likely I think such a thing is, even down to the actual act of the SC taking up the case should it get that far, if such a case was even brought, but it's not utterly impossible.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Going back to the A and B statements, you're treating her like she said A when what she really said was B. Go back and read what I wrote there.
I am not treating her like she said A. Whether she said A or B, I still want to know the specifics. And my reason for wanting to know the specifics is utterly unrelated to the differences between A and B.

Is that really so hard for you to grasp?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
And my reason for wanting to know the specifics is utterly unrelated to the differences between A and B.
But it isn't.

I'll quote myself again:
quote:
You don't think there was any reason. boots does. She may not know what that reason is, but, as I've now pointed out for the fourth time, she suspects that there could be a reason for this.
quote:
Which is fine, but is not actually related very much to what boots was saying. You want an exact part of the law that clearly challenges it. Great, but boots certainly didn't through anything she said suggest that she had one and what she said can stand without fulfilling your demands.
You're as wrong here as when you incorrectly tried to claim that there was no difference between what I said and what you were cliaming it to be.

---

To get back to abstract letters. boots, if I read her right, believes what she does because of X. You keep saying, "Well, you must believe Y then. Now show me Y."
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You can stop quoting yourself merely to repeat a point - it's as unconvincing the second (and third, fourth, and fifth) time as it is the first.

I would like to know specifics. Certainly she doesn't have to provide them. Certainly she can think that the language is needed without being able to provide them.

But she can't convince me that the language is needed without providing them. Nor - at least to date - can she make me understand why she thinks that way, even absent a desire to convince me.

Nor can she really support her original statement that there is no logical reason to support this law absent that language other than to undermine Roe or allow attacks like the ones on Obama without such specifics. Her later qualified statement limiting that lack of logical reason only to her doesn't require specifics, either.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
To get back to abstract letters. boots, if I read her right, believes what she does because of X. You keep saying, "Well, you must believe Y then. Now show me Y."
Nope. You're wrong. I'm not saying show me Y. First I said show me specifics about Y, relying on her own use of Y. When that became a problem for you, I changed that to show me specifics about X.

And you still. can't. let. it. go.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't anymore which is A and which is B. Lyrhawn is capturing a sense of why I think there is concern. If there are a lot of laws clamoring about the personhood of a fetus, that "pushes" against the Roe v Wade dam. The clarifying language mitigates that. At least that is the impression I get from the legislators who framed the laws. I think that many of them are smart and learned enough about the law that I would hesitate to dismiss their concerns as "vague fears".

And if it were just vague fears, why wouldn't the proposers include the meaningless language in order to allay those fears and get their proposal passed?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I think that many of them are smart and learned enough about the law that I would hesitate to dismiss their concerns as "vague fears".
Until they provide specifics, though, that's exactly what they are - vague.

Moreover, I didn't dismiss them. I remain unconvinced that the possibility for undermining Roe with this law exists, but I specifically said that I support adding the language to get the support of people who fear the use of the law to undermine Roe.

quote:
And if it were just vague fears, why wouldn't the proposers include the meaningless language in order to allay those fears and get their proposal passed?
They did - the law with that language passed federally and in Illinois.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Yes. And Senator Obama said that he would have supported those. He is being hammered for not supporting the Illinois proposal where the sponsors would not include that language.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Yes. And Senator Obama said that he would have supported those. He is being hammered for not supporting the Illinois proposal where the sponsors would not include that language.
There's some evidence that's been cited in the mainstream press that he actually voted against a version of the bill with that language.

I have no idea if it's true or not. I'm not particularly interested in how Obama voted on it with and without the language, but it's something that could be definitively answered with the proper legislative records.

It will have no effect on my vote either way.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
VP non-announcement. Obama has said he's decided on his running mate, but hasn't said who it is or when he'll announce who it is. I find that a little annoying.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I find it a little amusing. The press is RIDICULOUS when it comes to this VP thing. They're staking out potential VP's houses on a 24 basis trying to glean hints and clues from random statements. They look stupid, but they don't realize it, and I think it's a sign of A. Nothing better to talk about. And B. Being lazy. Because there IS better stuff to talk about, they just aren't going out to look for it.

The other day the Obama camp sent out an email to the press saying something like "VP announcement, and the winner is..." and on the inside of the email (that was the subject line) it said "just kidding!"

The press need to get over themselves and stop hyping up things that don't require or deserve hype. Besides, I'm willing to bet that by this time tomorrow, or shortly thereafter, you'll know who he picked. I'd be surprised if it didn't leak out sooner. Whoever it is will be getting on a plane tonight.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I agree with Lyrhawn. I think it's pretty amusing. Isn't he supposed to email/text his supporters with his pick before making a public announcement?
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yep, and I'm signed up for the text. As I'm sure is every reporter covering the election, so it'll be on the news sites as soon as it's out.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.

The sky is not green only because of SC precedent?

Take your logic the other way, Lyrhawn. Because of Roe, a baby I've given birth to should be killable without guilt because only a few moments before it was?
 
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
 
I am very much having a problem with McCain not being able to remember how many houses he owns - exactly how many does he own that he doesn't remember offhand? It annoys me that here we are in the middle of a mortgate crisis with tons of families not being able to afford to stay in their homes; either McCain owns so many houses that the number is significantly above that of regular middle-class Americans, or he is getting to the age where he can't remember the most basic information a person should know off the top of their heads. Either way, I am more and more not being able to stand him.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Between that and his various slips about the Middle East (Sunni and Shia, Al Qaeda/Iran), it is a little troubling. More and more, it's just like, "I don't hate you, you just really, really shouldn't be president."
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:
The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.

The sky is not green only because of SC precedent?

Well I worded that wrong, or at the very least could have worded it better. My point was that Congress could pass all the laws they wanted declaring the sky to be green, but until a higher power (in this case the Supreme Court) changed their ruling, none of those laws would matter because they'd be struck down just like the initial one was when Roe was first established. Maybe not the best comparison to mix laws of science with laws of the land, but I think you get the drift.

quote:
Take your logic the other way, Lyrhawn. Because of Roe, a baby I've given birth to should be killable without guilt because only a few moments before it was?
I'm not quite able to parse that pooka. I didn't actually say what my personal feelings were on the subject because I didn't want to get bogged down in a debate on it, at least not in this thread. I was just trying to help clear up what looked like some misunderstandings, and for that matter, trying to get a better sense of Obama's thought process. My own views of abortion are a mishmash of both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
In other news, Obama's VP will be announced tomorrow morning, and speculation is swelling around Biden.

I think Biden is a great choice. He only has two or three real drawbacks: 1. Obama is the change candidate, and Biden has been in Washington I think as long as McCain has. 2. He hasn't always been very careful about holding his tongue, which means there are a LOT of quotes for the media to prey on. 3. Same as number two, except I'm sure there is more to come in the future.

The real thing I see as a great opening for McCain is the change vs. experience argument. Obama will say that he chose Biden because he wanted someone who could do the job of president in case Obama dies for whatever reason, and that's why he chose him despite his time in Washington. The question there is: so wait, McCain is Washington through and through, and has the experience, but don't vote for him, while Biden is Washington through and through and you should vote for him BECAUSE he has the experience? Hard to bash McCain on one side while praising Biden on the other side of the same coin. I'm wondering though if that argument isn't a tad too complex for the American electorate though, so he might get away with it.

Biden has a lot of great experience, has NO problem telling truth to power, and should shore up ANY concerns about Obama and foreign policy experience, as Biden arguably knows more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Senate. He's also a great attack dog. He can rip someone to shreds, cut through the bull, and come across as a straight talker all while smiling and not looking like a douche doing it. He's smart, eloquent, and acutally pretty damned funny too. A nice unfortunate bonus also is that Biden, according to the tax returns and what not from the primaries, was the poorest of the candidates. I think his net worth is well under $100,000. He's a regular guy, and unlike a lot of people in the Senate, hasn't amassed wealth from his position. I think he might actually have quite a bit of debt. In other words, I think he'll come across (as he well may be) as a perfectly regular guy. I like him personally, I was sort of rooting for him or Chris Dodd as underdog candidates back in the primaries, and was secretly hoping one of them would make it as VP.

Electorally? Tim Kaine would be better, giving Obama a much bigger leg up on Virginia, but he might not even need him. Or Evan Bayh, for Indiana. It's not like Deleware is in any trouble of flipping, and even if it was, so what? But actually the scuttlebutt is that Biden is very, very popular in Pennsylvania, and Obama could use the extra push there to make sure they stay Blue. Between that and governor Rendell, that should be a nice one-two punch.

If it's Biden, I'll be satisfied, but I won't be at all surprised if the media have it wrong and it ends up coming out of left field. It DOES match up with what the rumors have been saying about Obama struggling with choosing between change vs. experience, and some of the qualities he's listed as wanting.

Edit to add: Word is, the Secret Service has been dispatched to Biden's house.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jh:
I am very much having a problem with McCain not being able to remember how many houses he owns - exactly how many does he own that he doesn't remember offhand? It annoys me that here we are in the middle of a mortgate crisis with tons of families not being able to afford to stay in their homes; either McCain owns so many houses that the number is significantly above that of regular middle-class Americans, or he is getting to the age where he can't remember the most basic information a person should know off the top of their heads. Either way, I am more and more not being able to stand him.

My brother may not know the number of houses he owns. His wife is a real estate agent and he flips houses, as well as renting them out. Since McCain's wife handles their investments, it is possible that he is not aware of what exactly she has invested in at any given moment. He might have done better by saying, well, my wife has numerous investments.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I think that would've been much, much better. No matter how he answers that question he looks like a rich muckety muck, but at least he could have foisted that off on his wife instead of either looking like a non-chalant elitist or a forgetful old man.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I can't quite place why, but I have a negative opinion of Biden. Does it go back to the Clarence Thomas hearings? Well, anyway, I guess you want to pick someone that is like nails on the chalkboard to the other side.

As far as birth and choice go, I have to say - though I understand it is the law of the land - that I am mystified by the right to abort as an inalienable right we were endowed with by our creator, and that we must steer well clear around it. Of course, someone will point out that the creator is never mentioned in the constitution, but that is the declaration of independence. Whatever.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
CNN confirms that Obama has picked Biden as his VP.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
CNN is calling Biden a confirmed choice for VP citing two deeply entrenched Democratic (but unnamed) sources. Looks like Biden is it.

quote:
As far as birth and choice go, I have to say - though I understand it is the law of the land - that I am mystified by the right to abort as an inalienable right we were endowed with by our creator, and that we must steer well clear around it. Of course, someone will point out that the creator is never mentioned in the constitution, but that is the declaration of independence. Whatever.
Part of why I almost never take abortion into account when I vote is that, while my own feelings on the subject are fixed, I have a hard time forcing those feelings on other people. I don't like abortion; I think using abortion as a means of birth control is a wretched practice that destoys life as a result of irresponsible decisions. I have no problem however with birth control methods, or with abortion if the life of the mother is in question. So while I don't like it, in a specific set of circumstances, I have a hard time saying that my point of view should be the law of the land. So I would rarely if ever vote for a candidate based on their position, but, I would take into consideration their REASONING for their positions or changes in positions when making my choice.

I doubt I'll ever get elected with a position like that. I'd probably piss EVERYONE off.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Eh, Biden's wiki article says he has supported federalizing Iraq, which is something I proposed a couple of years ago. By proposed, I mean I posted about it on Ornery and then consulted my atlas of the middle east and realized Iraq doesn't break into 3 states so easily. But maybe it could work as 10 or something.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yuck.

Don't get me wrong, before Great Britain played Cartographer over there, Iraq WAS three different countries, but it'd never work like that now. Most of the oil is in the north and south, and all the Sunnis in the middle would cry bloody murder and blow the crap out of their neighbors if that happened. The only other thing that'd make sense to me would be to try and merge southern Iraq with Kuwait, as it used to be before Iraq was formed, give Saudi Arabia the middle of Iraq, and let the north form a free Kurdistan. That let's the middle and bottom into countries with established governments, let's the middle benefit from Saudi oil wealth and benefits the Saudis by giving them very, VERY much needed labor to work those fields, and lets the north have what they've always wanted, which is more than tacit, but real independence.

I doubt that'd work either, but 3 or even 10 independent states would be even less likely to work either. It's just too messed up over there.
 
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
I still think this is all a massive head-fake, and Biden is not the guy. I think it's Brian Schweitzer of Montana.

But we'll know in a few hours.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I've heard his name seriously thrown out there, and I've heard it might be a possible head fake, but if it is, it's the best in political history.

I mean, setting aside the easy stuff like feeding false information via surrogates, they got the Secret Service to go to his house. Besides...why bother? Just for fun?
 
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
Ok. I was wrong. It's Biden. Confirmed on the website.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Yesterday the New York Times ran an opinion piece on why Biden would make the best VP. I don't know much about the man, but alot of the reasoning made sense.

Now to remedy some of my ignorance concerning Biden.

*goes off to sail the endless seas of teh intarwebs.*
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I like Joe Biden. He isn't going to lead the reform I want to see, but whereas I think Obama is weaselly; Biden is too proud for that nonsense.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
man, I'm watching Obama introduce Biden, and he's really hammering home his working class origins. If he says "that scrappy kid from Scranton" one more time I'll be upset.
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Biden is a baffling choice, from where I'm standing. I don't see how he's an asset. He's mainly known for speaking frankly, which is something that Obama already clearly decided was getting him into too much trouble. Is it Obama's intent to use Biden to say all the potentially offensive things?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Isn't that what VP candidates are for? To be attack dogs so the presidential candidate can stay above the fray?
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
As someone who hadn't seriously considered Biden until the past few weeks, I actually think he's a surprisingly savvy pick. Biden brings to the ticket some of the most extensive foreign policy experience in the Senate, and serious working class cred (IIRC, he's something like the 99th wealthiest senator). He's also extremely popular among older Americans, and due to his temperament and oratory style, will make for a very good attack dog as well.

More importantly, he blunts the effectiveness of the McCain campaign's most successful attacks so far. The McCain criticisms that have gotten the most traction are the ones about Obama's "celebrity" status, and his relative lack of foreign policy experience. Regarding the former, Biden is about as blue-collar as you can get in national politics, and unlike other recent "politicians you could have a beer with" (*cough* Bush *cough*), he actually came from humble origins. Regarding the latter, he's spent decades at the forefront of Senate foreign policy, and despite an unfortunate vote in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq, has spent the past five years as one of the Bush administration's most outspoken critics.

I've read a lot of stuff today about how the selection of Biden amounts to an admission of weakness by Obama, much as Kerry's selection of Edwards was viewed as an admission that the candidate was an aging patrician who needed someone young and sexy to appeal to the youth. Much of the liberal blogosphere is disappointed that Obama didn't go with a "reinforcing" VP pick (i.e. someone who "reinforces" his dominant narratives of change and Washington outsiderdom), such as Tim Kaine.

However, I think comparing Kerry/Edwards with Obama/Biden is somewhat missing the point. Selecting a reinforcing VP versus a "filling in the gaps" VP isn't an ideological decision- it's not like a reinforcing VP will always be better, or vice versa. Rather, a given situation will play better one way or the other. Kerry selecting Edwards was boneheaded because it addressed a problem that wasn't really there. Yes, Kerry was viewed as an old Massachusetts patrician, but it's not like the Bush/Cheney ticket had anything more to offer to young voters. Therefore, the young vote (which tends to lean idealistic and liberal on the issues) was with Kerry whether he picked Edwards or not.

Obama's selection of Biden, on the other hand, very directly confronts the main problem facing his campaign right now. McCain has been moving up in the polls because his attacks on Obama for being a Hollywood elitist and too inexperienced to successfully fix the Iraq situation, justified or not, have been resonating with the American public. Having Joe Biden at his side allows Obama to neatly counter both arguments, much as Obama's own speech on race during the primaries effectively countered Hillary's and the media's growing obsession with Reverend Wright.

Of course, only time will tell if this move ends up working how I expect it to. McCain does have the advantage in that he now has a week to find the best Republican VP candidate to counteract the Biden effect- not to mention that his party convention now knows the identities of both of their targets, whereas the Democrats still only know the one.

It's going to be an interesting few months. [Smile]
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Go Barack America! [Smile]

I've always liked Biden. I'm a little worried about how his next "gaffe" will be taken out of context, but not that much. I seriously doubt he'll have that significant of an impact on the outcome either way.

Edit: Oh my...McCain is actually using that clip from the Daily Show in one of his ads? Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Actually, your comment sounds a lot more childlike than McCain's use of that clip.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gh6r5ALVMo

Fox News edits daily show clips [Frown]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.

This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Actually, your comment sounds a lot more childlike than McCain's use of that clip.
Does not. [Taunt]

[Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by docmagik:
I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."

Seriously! I kept yelling "YOU MEAN FIGURATIVELY!" at the TV. I mean, to literally move the planet in the wrong direction would involve some sort of massive rocket strapped onto the planet.

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.

This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.

If you're talking about the criticism of Fox news selectively excerpting, then you've got to be kidding. I'm sure there are MUCH more ridiculous criticisms of a news show out there [Smile]

Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
The only thing ridiculous here is using the word "news" in relation to Fox News.

quote:
Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
The line is exactly where you think it is: where bias begins. It's kind of like asking where the sky ends: it's easy, it's where the ground begins.

The problem with anything concerning the testimonial evidence of liberal or conservative blogs or news shows is that inherent bias plays a big role in what is presented as news. For instance, if a liberal says "I love America, but some people hate America", a conservative blog could excerpt the line and say "I...hate America". And thats the problem with what Fox News does, it's obvious bias toward the Republican party presents something that is neither entirely true nor accurately representative of what happens. Of course, it is the difference between politics and reality, something that the current administration and the one before it seemed to have difficulty grasping*, but more than that, it is how we use our paintbrush that creates the negative atmosphere and divisive sort of politics that turn so many off from cable news and politics.

That's why they say that "being President of this country is entirely about character." It is something that Obama needs to learn quickly too...
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
FOX News excerpted a joke from a bit about comparative medical histories of the two candidates to only play what they considered to be the funny bit, that mocking Obama.

I'd be curious to know how often they play Daily Show excerpts, and whether they ever use any that mock Republicans. And was this played on FOX News, where a reasonable expectation exists for unbiased reporting, or on a FOX news show that allows commentary, which can be as biased as it wants to be?

I wouldn't know myself, because I've long ago stopped watching any of them. I stick with a variety of news sources, try to read the original documents when I can, and utterly ignore TV commentators and opinion shows because frankly I've gotten sick of them. Everything is spin, everything is scorn, and playing to the emotions over reason is what gets the ratings. The heck with all of them.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
ya but the Colbert Report and Daily Show Satirisize all that.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.

And it rings true to me. Given the republican mantra that reigned from about 2003-2006, where Bush administration spokespeople would shake their heads at public criticism and say: "we need to do a better job of explaining and convincing the public that Bush is right." Or there were those incredible little touches, like Michael Bolton saying on The daily Show: "President Bush has a duty to the people who voted for him." [Emphasis Mine]

It will make McCain look like a clown if he jumps on Biden's criticism of Obama, because it's obvious that Biden is meant to fill the gaps in Obama's campaign, with his critical eye included. Biden also seems like he's miles away from what the NY Times called "limousine democrats," like Al Gore, who can embarrass the party and give ammunition to republicans who want to call Obama an elitist.

He's also old enough so that he may be seen as a permanent adviser to Obama, rather than an absentee vice-president waiting to run for himself. And, in a strange way, he gives the mainstream media something to shoot at. They've been so careful with Obama on TV, attacking only people who were tangentially related to his campaign with repeated sound bites, it's contributed to the whole "messiah" aspect of Obama that could lead to a backlash. Biden has the potential of looking a little more human, as there are a few little quirky things for the press to trot out while they introduce him.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.

Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.

Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.

If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.

This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.

I've seen worse.

The unfortunate part is that while this guy is being a watchdog and doing a thorough job of showing us what's going on with this clip, he misses the more basic underlying reason for its existence.

It just looks to me like ineptness on the part of the reporters, PAs, or whoever puts those "throw-to" segments together. The bit with one sheet of paper is easy to show, it's only a few seconds, and the fact that it isn't, out of context "funny," isn't something I'd expect a reporter to notice, considering what passes for humor with them.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that this kind of thing might happen in the specific because there is an overarching culture at FOX news that favors McCain and looks for inconsistency and weakness among liberals. Stewart making fun of Obama, while McCain goes unmentioned, does make Obama look a little ridiculous, and the fact that the joke, out of context again, isn't funny does also make Stewart look dumb.

That being said, these very ernest after-the-fact youtube dissections of 8 seconds of FOX news coverage, designed to imply that FOX is involved in some very clearly stated plan to support John McCain in specific ways by misquoting Jon Stewart make liberals look stupid too.

It's perfectly plausible that the culture of Fox News encourages this kind of petty quibling with the truth, but if that's the case, then we should deal with that problem on its own terms, rather than insisting that this is FOX's specific plan. Seeing a pattern of behavior that clearly demonstrates a non-objective viewpoint, I could be convinced that this specific incident wasn't the product of sheer incompetence, rather than sinister design (which, by the way, would be way too obvious right?).

I tend to believe it was a mix of the two though. Your villains can't be both diabolical AND asinine. That's movie stuff.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:

Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.

Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.

If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.

I don't think the burden rests with Stewart to claim that he has a point beyond humor. The point in his segment was self-evident. He has a right to say what he wants on his show, and he has a right to claim that he has no responsibility to the public to be "fair and balanced." That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.

He may not really have much to object to in this case (it wouldn't be worth it), but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts. If you think it was, then you are willing to accept a lower standard of reporting than I am. I'm referring to the characterization of the joke, made by FOX news. It wasn't *untrue* but it was out of context, and I prefer not to be misled generally.

In this particular case I think your right, it isn't a big deal really, but I generally disagree with the above reasoning.


Edit: Actually what puts me off most about the thing in reflection is that they took a standard Jon Stewart double-take and acted like it was funny even though he's being doing the same joke for, what, 10 years? It's just like any news program to pick a tired horse, and then show the clip in such a way as to make it unfunny, and then to have some other PA write a description of the clip that is inaccurate. We should expect better. That and the news shouldn't try to be funny, because they suck at it.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.

You absolutely missed my point here. Whether he objects or not is pretty much irrelevant, hence the subordination of that point with parentheses.

The point is that it's not a news show, and he's been aggressive in using that fact to defend his imbalance.

quote:
but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts.
What facts? He made a series of jokes, based on some facts. Fox reported one of the jokes.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The JOKES are the facts, in this case. They reported on a joke, and they reported inaccurately on that joke. Stewart himself is irrelevant to the situation, as is the style of his show- they just did a poor job of representing what was said- that's what I'm saying.

Edit: inaccurately is too strong a word. Poorly, misleadingly maybe. Ineptly.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The JOKES are the facts, in this case. They reported on a joke, and they reported inaccurately on that joke.
No, they failed to report other jokes in the same bit.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired. The video explains this. The bit shown was the punchline of the larger joke- the news program concealed that fact.

I know you understand what I am saying, and it's ok to disagree with me. Just please don't tell me that you don't get the fact that what was aired was only part of the larger joke, and that airing the one part without the other, while framing it as "Stewart pokes fun at Obama," is different than picking one of two separate but equivalent jokes. Just please, grant me that small courtesy of recognizing that the greater joke might be seen, by some, as something that doesn't exactly stand up to editing very well. That is all that I now wish to express. That is all I now care about, that you recognize this possibility.

Second thoughts, I don't actually care what you think, I don't know why I said that. You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
I see. I disagree about proper joke excerpting protocol, and I'm a "Bushey talking about a 'time horizon' instead of a 'timeline.'"

I don't know which possibility is scarier: That you actually think that - which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people think - or that you're just saying that to score cheap points.

Either way, it's ridiculous.

quote:
Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired.
Really? Can you quote the part where you used the word "feel" or something equivalent? Because you said "they reported inaccurately on that joke" and later changed "inaccurate" to "poorly, misleading."

It's one thing to say that's what you meant. But you certainly didn't it "say very clearly," with or without the emphasis on "I felt."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well, the fact that you disagree doesn't make you a Bushey, but the manner in which you choose to disagree reminds me of a Bushey- so what you think has nothing really to do with it. You should read my carefully.

I don't know which possibility is scarier, that you actually thought I said that, which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people are saying, or that you are just saying that because you love to argue with people over nothing really at all.

Either way. Ridiculous.


As for the other thing, it's all over my previous posts, that in my opinion the reporting sucked. That's very very clear. That was my point. That was my only really salient point, that in all of this, there is a reporter with talent somewhere, out of a job, and that's too bad.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Edit: You know what, never mind. This is just the usual crap. You want to know why Fox News is popular? Because lots of people like to categorize people who disagree with them in the same way you did.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
No, I think Fox news is popular because a lot of people are idiots. Now, I am categorizing them, that's true, but it's such a broad demographic.

One thing I didn't really try to do was associate you with that demographic, which you're trying to do with me. So that's nice. Also weird, because I'm the one criticizing them, and you were the one defending them for their awful reporting. Now I fit right in with them, sure.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I'm sorry, thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well, not the only way *possible.* They could just be kind of inept, which is what I am thinking. Maybe the sinister kind of inept, like the lesser henchmen of a true mastermind?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I'm sorry,
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.

quote:
thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
Oh, please. For the cheap seats:

STEWART WAS MAKING A JOKE! Obama's medical record is not one page. He was poking fun at both candidates. Fox picked one.

So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down.

I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I think it's perfectly acceptable, depending on the argument, to hold the position that the only acceptable or justified way to believe X is Y. Does it really bother you when people do this? I mean, you do it, too. We all do.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down."

No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie. What, are you so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see that?* Or are you just so blazingly stupid that you don't think that holding a up a one-page medical report can be considered "having some fun with Barak Obama?"*

See, it doesn't take any actual effort to do that.

*Unlike Paul, I don't actually think that these are the only two possibilities. See, I can actually imagine that someone can think that something not actually critical of Obama is not "poking fun at" or "having fun with" Obama. I don't agree, and I've argued that case, but I can imagine it, and therefore see why someone who thinks that isn't being either partisan or idiotic. I wonder why Paul can't.

Check out classic SNL skits about how much Carter knows on a call in show for a good example of this.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
FOX (as well as other media) don't lie so much as "select" what truth they tell. If Candidate X has done 4 good things and 7 bad things and Candidate Y has done 12 good things and 2 bad things is it a lie to report specifically on the 4 good things about Candidate X and the two bad things about Candidate Y?

The facts they are reporting are true - as far as they go. The impression they give is not.

If some comedian pokes fun at both candidate, it is accurate to report that the comedian made fun of Candidate X and to repeat and amplify only that side of the story.

It is accurate, but it isn't honest.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
Hey, much more brazen than usual. Classy, Paul!

------

If it is accurate, then it is honest, by many standards of that word. When dishonesty comes in is when they say or imply that that's all there is to that candidate or figure or whoever they're covering.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
I'm sorry,
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.

At least you were able to capture the spirit of the out of context quote so nicely.

quote:
I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
or HAS IT???

Dag reports, nobody gets to decide.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
or HAS IT???
Yes, it has.

quote:
Dag reports, nobody gets to decide.
No, Dag observes and announces his observations. No one has even tried to state that this hasn't happened here. One person has said there's nothing wrong with it. You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

It is accurate, but it isn't honest.

Well, is it accurate though? Drew Pinsky rails against things similar to what you mentioned. For instance, he'll point out on his talk show that a mainstream news article will be researched, say on a medical topic, and 9 doctors will give the same opinion, while one doctor, or more likely an advocacy group or an author will give a dissenting opinion, which is, to the medical community, WAY out of line, and the news story will feature the "two viewpoints" as if they share equal footing in the real world. He complains of this kind of thing happening in many news situations, where he'll be put up as side A of discussion against a side B that is essentially in outer space on the topic, and the news will treat them as if they're equals, making it "fair and balanced."

He also rails mightily against inaccurate news reporting, regarding perscription medication studies. A single study will demonstrate a single possible danger of a widespread, lifesaving medication, and fail to have any perspective either on the meaning of said study, or on the fact that their inaccurate reporting of it will potentially endanger the thousands of people who take the drug. For instance, a recent study showed that Statin was unpromising as a treatment for, I think, intracardial valve disease, and so the news reported that the study showed it had no effect on coronary heart disease, which is the drugs MAIN application, its effect having been proven in many studies. The news services didn't understand the difference, and so some of Drew's patients called his office to ask if they should stop taking the drug, which was helping to save their lives.

And in all that, the media has no real responsibility to the people it hurts with its casual dissemination of inaccuracies.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.

Well, I know who to go to if I need to know if something's funny, from now on. Thank you Dag. You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.

Edit:

quote:
Dag observes and announces his observations.
OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie."

They absolutely did, and you absolutely are.* There is no honest way to view the joke Stewart was making as "Jon Stewart Pokes fun at Obama's Medical Record." It is a factually inaccurate assessment of what was happening, and I don't give media outlets the benefit of the doubt for lying vs not when they make factual inaccuracies of this sort, because they have a responsibility for factual accuracy.

There might be alternatives other then idiocy, or partisanship... but they aren't any prettier.

*Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives. I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
There is no honest way to view the joke Stewart was making as "Jon Stewart Pokes fun at Obama's Medical Record."
You're wrong. I note that you've simply restated your position, ignoring the arguments I've presented to the contrary.

Stewart most certainly had some fun with Obama in that segment. He also had some fun with McCain.

quote:
Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives.
This is quite patently untrue.

quote:
I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
I wonder why you post something so untrue.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
You guys realize that you are just arguing at each other at this point right? Nothing is actually going to get done because the argument isn't even about the facts anymore anyway, it's about the people and how bad they are.

Kinda indicative of all of our politics these days, don't you guys think? Two sides yelling at each other, not about the issues, not about how to best help people or about how to do the right thing, but about how much the other side sucks.

It's too bad too because it is people like us that will be the only people who can really make a difference in this world. That is if we can ever get out of our damn way...
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives.
I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Where is that switch?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's in my brain, the part that listens for ridiculous rants and then ignores them.

It's easy to pretend Dagonee is some apologist partisan hack. It's not remotely true, though. It's certainly easier than pointing out specifically when it happens why he is supposedly such a person.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.

Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.

Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.

Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.

If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.

Dammit, I just lost a whole post. Here are the highlights:

I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.

As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain. Your defense of Fox seems to hinge on Stewart's self professed lack of interest or lack of seriousness in the grand scheme of things, and that sounds like a pretty dicey place to put the crux of your argument. I think Stewart, as an iconoclast, will make fun of anyone, but I never think they are just jokes. He's making a point, even if he claims he isn't when he's in character.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch."

You mean my parody of what dagonee was saying? Yeah. I wouldn't really expect you to have noticed that. I also wouldn't have expected you to notice that he's defending the indefensible here. Its not the only time he's done it, either. Another thing I wouldn't expect you to notice.

I mean, seriously? Thinking this is responsible reporting? I guess Fox has won...
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I'd hope so. I heard that if you don't watch Fox the terrorists win!
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I'd hope so. I heard that if you don't watch Fox the terrorists win!
The fun part of this conversation is that you're joking when you say something like that. Paul isn't.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
fox sucks, stewart is funny, y'all crazier than me, peace out \m/
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain.

I think it's more than that, really. The excerpting changes the apparent point. It doesn't "take one of Stewart's jokes"; it takes a clip of Stewart and uses it to make a different joke.

In context, Stewart is saying "McCain's ailments are a tome, whereas Obama's ailments from a period two-and-a-half times as long can be fit on one page." Without that context, it appears as "Obama released his medical history as one page, clearly he's hiding something."

This is somewhat similar to when the ad campaign for "The Last Boyscout" turned Ebert's "...so panders to its chosen audience that it will probably be a tremendous hit" into "a tremendous hit."

The criticism of Fox here is entirely valid.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Shall we take a poll, perhaps?

Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.

Shall we take a poll, perhaps?

I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Sterling,

Of course not. I only made that statement in light of Orincoro's nonsense.

--------

quote:
I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*

It didn't reek of desperation, and even if Dagonee did feel like he 'has a job' here, Paul clearly does as well. And I don't see you taking shots on him. So obviously what you find amusing isn't that someone thinks they 'have a job'.

You know what reeks of desperation? "You're a liar! You're a liar!" followed by off-topic mockery.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?

Since it seems that on this board, it's not the unfounded accusations of bad behavior but the defense against such accusations that generally draws the criticism (Rakeesh excepted), I suppose I must now answer the libel Paul has decided to post against me.

Recall the crux of his accusation: "I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?"

Here's one where I go after an anti-illegal-alien plan in Prince William county, sua sponte. (By the way Paul, I also attacked the Minutemen at Ornery).

I am repeatedly on record as endorsing the most "liberal" dissent in Hamdi (the one written by Scalia and joined by Stevens) which was far, far harsher on the Bush administration than even the more traditional liberal justices' opinion on the subject.

Let's see, of the Dagonee-hating triumvirate of Ornery (that would be Paul, KnightEnder, and Pete at Home), one third of that is because of my defense of the idea of civil gay marriage rights. And I KNOW you know about that one Paul.

In a recent thread about First Amendment protection against tort claims arising from exorcisms, I first said that it appears most likely the court finding such protection was "off its rocker." After research, I concluded that the court was wrong, but that it wasn't as nuts as the newspaper article had implied.

My opinion of Libby's pardon (1) it wasn't despicable; (2) but I opposed it and think it "sucks"; and (3) that Bush's stated reasons for the commutation didn't add up.

I can't find them now,* but I've condemned enough boneheaded statements by conservatives on this board that I have been accused by them of being liberal - always good for a laugh, and pretty much the flip side of what Paul has done in this thread (blame partisanship for disagreement).

*possibly because of these individuals' penchant for thread-deleting.

Of course, I've done the same thing at Ornery with respect to cherrypoptart, for example.

This, of course, shouldn't have been necessary. Paul should have done the research to back up such a statement. Of course, I seldom use words such as "indefensible" or "idiotic" in those posts, so maybe I haven't been vehement enough to qualify by Paul's standards.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*

I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.

I don't know that I've called anyone here a liar, that I can remember. Have I? I've mocked people, sure, but I don't think I've called a lot of people liars. I could be wrong, I suppose, it just doesn't sound like something I'd say. Are you conflating my mockery with someone else's
accusations?

quote:
the libel Paul has decided to post against me.
Is libel the appropriate term if the person posting something false about you doesn't know your entire posting history on every topic? Also, what part of what Paul wrote wasn't opinion, but stated fact?

I just want to know your reasons for such strong language. It would be unfair to bully people with claims of libel if that isn't what it is.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.
I...that's...*sputter*

------

No, wait, actually: you're still an ass! [Smile] At least in this thread, lately. Whew, that was close! You almost zinged me good there, Orincoro!

quote:
You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.

OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.

Talk to me more about sixth-grade stuff, Orincoro. It's really savvy and sophisticated when you do! Jackass.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well there's a drinking fountain RIGHT IN the room! And you get to read "The Giver," which is a good book about a boy who has to share the memories of the whole village because they live in "sameness." I won't ruin it for you.

And then at 10:15 you get a WHOLE HOUR of PE. We play Pinball, which is like dodge ball, but with pins! I get to work on the yearbook this year. I usually eat in the courtyard and play basketball. I have about a million friends, and everybody likes me. The only thing I don't like is math. Math sucks! We have to do 30 problems a day. That's like a million problems almost!

What do you have to read at your school?

Pen Pals for Life
Ori
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Re: the topic:

DNC plans "one nation" theme

McCain ad: Obama "snubbed" Clinton

And finally Kristol pushes Lieberman as McCain VP - I'm not so sure about this one. I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.

--j_k
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think McCain actually is going to have a hard time picking his vp. Social conservatives seem barely on his side, high probability of them just sitting the election out. So, he really needs someone to appeal to them. BUT, then he risks alienating the independents, who are getting a bit more iffy about him as he has been hitting party lines more frequently.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?
Yes, Dag, it is, but let me explain why.

When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people. Some of those people might agree, some of them would probably disagree, but I suspect a lot of them would just as soon stay out of it, finding the whole thing kind of petty and childish. Very little here ever actually "comes down to a poll" here on Hatrack, but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.

Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out." Far from disputing the point being made, it just keeps it in the forefront for longer and lends it an air of worthiness for discussion when it might have just been dismissed as ridiculous.

How do I put this...

Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation. For what it's worth, though we often disagree politically, I would never describe your opinion as nothing more than political partisanship, or suggest it is without value, or that your presence at Hatrack isn't worthwhile. It's not, it is of value, and it is worthwhile.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
quote:
McCain ad: Obama "snubbed" Clinton
now if that doesn't reek of desperation, I don't know what does.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.
Well, my political hopes were pretty doused when Obama picked Biden; it's only fair that Republicans suffer the same way.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.

When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.

Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I get my news for the Daily Show. [Smile]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'll admit, I was confusing Sen Biden with Sen Dodd. I wasn't sure why people were so down on him. Now, I sort of get it.

I changed my registration to Democrat in order to vote for Sen Obama in the primaries. He's been disappointing me ever since.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:
Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out."

I completely agree.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I get my news for the Daily Show. [Smile]

... me too.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:

Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?

The Daily show and Colbert Report are in a position where they maintain viewership through conscientious attention to what is really motivating people. They, unlike the mainstream news, are capable of challenging dishonesty and falsehood in the face of its own obvious ridiculousness. And unlike other opinion shows, say the O'Reilly Factor, they don't fall victim that often to their own kind of barb, because they, imo, are doing it all for the sake of their viewers, and not themselves. In a word, they are honest.

That's not something you'd have an easy time saying about Michael Moore, or Bil O'Reilly.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I find it interesting that so many Conservative and Republican spokesmen are predicting and promoting an Anti-Obama Hillary Loyal backlash while I've yet to hear of an Anti-McCain Huckabee Loyal backlash, or Mitt Romney, or Paul-ists from the Democrat/Liberal end of the field.

Is this A)because they know something we don't? I've seen no sign of it other than their Casandra impersonations. B) because the Democrats don't want to stoop that low? I've seem them stoop low on other things. C) because the Democrats aren't smart enough to play this card? Unless it doesn't pan out. D) the Republicans are more desparate and will try for anything? E) The Democrats are know to be less loyal and more self destructive. F) Something I don't know and haven't guessed yet.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.


quote:
When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Maybe they shouldn't be, but they're just as, if not better, informed as people who watch CNN, MSNBC and other "news" channels. And by the way, I think CNN and the others are just there for entertainment purposes as well, not just shows like Crossfire or the O'Reilley Factor, I mean in general.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Jon Stewart reads my mind...and rips the mainstream media a new one.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Daily Show viewers have to be better informed or they won't get all the jokes. It's self-selecting.

Whereas to really appreciate most of the other news shows, it's better if you don't know as much. [Smile]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.

When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.

Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?

Colbert and Jon Stewart are funnier?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Anyone watch the first night of the Convention? I caught most of Michelle's speech and liked what I heard. I think her job was promoting the Obama values and repackaging the Obama brand as an everyman. They can save the attack dog stuff for Biden, and the Clintons. I think she did a great job. I missed most of the rest, but I'll probably go back and read what Kennedy had to say.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Turns out that Barack is not the best public speaker in the Obama family.
 
Posted by flyonwall (Member # 11733) on :
 
Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Turns out that Barack is not the best public speaker in the Obama family.

We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.

Michelle on the other hand is more like a fast flowing stream. It's a constant, steady stream of powerful but smooth sentences that flow out of her. She's a powerful speaker who is clear and easy to understand without looking like she's above the fray. She sounds like she could be someone you know. I think she'll be pretty tremendous in this upcoming General Election and I think she'd make a fantastic first lady. I found her to be surprisingly compelling.

I don't know how good a speaker Cindy McCain is, because she's taken more of a Laura Bush role, but I'll be surprised if she's nearly as good.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?

I'm inclined to say that, because they don't have to aspire to journalistic integrity (whatever that means, nowadays), they can actually put two and two together. Rather than saying "New bombings in Iraq, diplomatic strife with Iran, Taliban back on the rise in Afghanistan", they can say "As demonstrated by xyz, America has a history of interventions in the Middle East with grotesque, unintended consequences (only, of course, they say it in a much funnier way.)

Arguably, O'Reilly (and many of the Fox team) connect the dots as well, but they tend to do it in a "do you see the truth of what we're saying, or is there something wrong with you" fashion, while Colbert and Stewart are more of a "You do realize that, by laughing, you're recognizing some validity in what we're saying?..."

Which may well be why Fox would like to filch a little of Stewart's mojo.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.

Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flyonwall:
Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that [Smile]

Enter the low level campaign volunteer?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around. He'll have to be careful. He can't risk the balancing act that Obama is doing. He needs a young, capable conservative for his VP running mate, which I think narrows the field a bit more.

Orincoro -

Shame on you, that's not how we welcome newcomers. [Wink] Besides, maybe it's really Michelle Obama in disguise!

Welcome fly, what brings you to Hatrack?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Sterling,

quote:


When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people.

That's one way to put it. As for me, the guy who actually said it, I say it was neither bullying nor threatening, it was responding in kind to a very similar stance taken by Orincoro, one which amounted to saying, "What're you good for around here, anyway?"

quote:
...but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.
Me too.

quote:

Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary.

*shrug* It's far from transparently obvious to everyone, or even always for that matter. It's a claim that's been made several times by several people over a long period.

quote:


Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation.

*shrug* As for me, I don't think I lend any rhetorical or logical defense when I posted recently in this thread. I just think Dagonee's a pretty spiffy guy who doesn't deserve the bile spewed at him by some, and when I get especially tired of it, and notice it, I say so. Look at my post count in this thread. I'm clearly not interested in scoring points for myself as far as these discussions go, otherwise I'd be more active.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.


I read somewhere, but can't for the life of me remember where, that Senator Obama overcame a severe stuttering problem as a child.

edit to add: I remember this from back when he was running for Senate so I don't think I am getting him confused with Senator Biden who, I think stuttered as well.

[ August 26, 2008, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I don't like the "One Nation" theme, especially in a campaign that's not known for tolerance and diversity, and where the unifying principle is "Obama for President" or the vaguely loaded concept of Change.

What kind of change?
Change for the better, of course.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Obama isn't hiding his policy positions Irami.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
The answers provided here have a way of begging more questions.
 
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around...

Biden may be thought of along these lines if stories like this start breaking... As sad as it is, I think they might continue.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
From Michelle Obama, I wanted her to get this ethic:

quote:
The child of Marian and Fraser Robinson, a stay-at-home mother and a city pump operator, Michelle was raised in a close-knit family that ate every meal together, played Monopoly and read together. "Nobody emphasized public service. What was emphasized was doing what you love to do and you'll be good at whatever you do," says Craig Robinson, Michelle's brother, who left his banking job after a decade to coach college basketball.
Here you have a family that's held up as an exemplary model of the noble American working class ethic where nobody emphasized public service. There is a complicated situation. This is the America we need to understand and address because I believe there are deeply compelling and problematic issues at play.

[ August 26, 2008, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Some thoughts on tonight:

I thought Kucinich's speech was simply fantastic. Incredibly rousing...I didn't know he could do that.

I also though Brian Schweitzer's speech was really powerful. I think I missed the beginning of it, but I liked that he focused so much on energy independence.

I missed Warner's so I'll have to go find that now and listen.

I thought Hilary did a good job of getting the point across. I think she could've been a bit more forceful though. She definitely made the case against McCain, and that's good. But I would've like to see her express real frustration and disappointment with supporters of hers who say they'll vote for McCain. Really drive home the point that that would be an extremely counterproductive move. Which she did to a certain degree. I guess as an Obama supporter I can't really speak for how her speech affected the Hilary supporters, but I'd love to find out.

I think in all the night went really well. Some quality speeches, some good anti McCain rhetoric, and some nice pro Obama rallying. I'm very curious to see what kind of bounce Obama gets after this week.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I only heard part of one speech (Ohio governor, I think), but it was very off-putting. I'm not interested in hearing school-boy taunts of The Other Guy in the place of an actual plan of action.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
hmmm...I take back some of what i said. i was watching online and my feed cut out for a minute during the time when she said this:

quote:
were you in this just for me or were you in this for the larger causes? Isn't that the right question for Democrats?
That's sort of the thing I was hoping she would say. But stronger still.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
kat, I agree with you, but after Monday night all the commentary was on how the Democrats "wasted" the first night by being too soft on McCain/the GOP, and that that's why they've lost in the past, that they give reasoned and balanced speeches and then the Republicans go out and attack. I don't know how much I believe that is really the reason people vote the way they do, but it is certainly the conventional wisdom, that you can't win by taking about your actual plans.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I thought Clinton's speech was strong, and said what needed to be said, but it didn't move me the way Michelle Obama's speech of the previous day had.

I did find the "she didn't say he's ready to lead!" response from the McCain camp incredibly weak. What, you think she said he "must be president" [despite not being ready to lead]?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
No kidding. But they have to criticize something, or else it's a tacit agreement that the speech was correct in it's assertions.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, she didn't say that. She didn't talk about Obama's ability at all, really. Just that he had to be president (presumably so McCain wouldn't be). That's not pro-Obama, that's pro-Democrats.

Obama supporters were hoping for more of a "He's our best person for the job" speech, and they weren't going to get it.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I don't get these disgruntled HIlary supporters. The PUMAs. Their biggest complaint seems to be that the process was corrupted. That the party leadership screwed Hilary over and pushed Obama on the people. What world are they living in?

The party leadership was all about Hilary. She was their shoo in. Obama was completely ignored until the movement became too large to ignore. Hilary lost. There was no corruption involved. Is it just a mass case of denial?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech. Just wait, when Sen. Biden gets up to speak, and everyone sees him as an old political hack (only six years younger than McCain), totally lackluster, they're going to be asking even louder why this guy is on the ticket and Hillary is not.

Frankly, I am amazed at how many things the Dems have have done wrong in the past year. Just watch--Obama will not get any bounce in the polls after the Dem convention. The day after, McCain will announce his veep pick, and completely knock Obama and the Dems out of the news cycle.

Already, the Gop is running ads consisting of outtakes from speeches by Hillary talking about Obama's lack of experience, and how even McCain has more experience, so would appeal to voters over Obama on that issue. I think the GOP has a library full of Hillary outtakes they are ready to run.

If Obama loses, then Hillary can run again in 2012, with the slogan, "I told you so."
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Would the GOP be running different ads if Hilary was the VP pick? They ran ads of Biden criticizing Obama when Biden was announced. They'd be running the same ads with Hilary criticizing Obama regardless of her position in his candidacy.
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
I don't get why Dems have to be wondering...I think it's pretty clear why she's not on the ticket; you even listed some reasons yourself that make her teaming with Obama look stupid and contradictory to voters on both sides.

She may have given a decent speech, but it's not like she could afford not to. I very much get the impression she's a Democrat through and through, and would love to take back those sound bites of her criticizing Obama if she could; but deep down, she wishes it were her, and perhaps for that reason, did not "knock it out of the ballpark" as everyone thought/hoped she would. I don't think we need so much of an Us vs. Them speech, as we do a "Obama's your man" one.

Of course, maybe she'd feel she'd be lying if she were to claim that he's the president we all need, but when has a politician ever been afraid to lie for the good of the party? [Wink]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech.

Not really. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm not wondering that at all. Clinton is a divisive figure, and her presence on the ticket would likely galvanize the right. She would also be likely to maintain the broader role that the office of VP has taken on under Bush/Cheney, which would likely be something that Obama wouldn't want. Taking Clinton as VP could have been spun to look like weakness, with Obama caving to the demands of the Clintons. There is little love lost between Obama and the Clintons; all other things aside, mutual dislike is a good reason for Obama to choose someone other than her as his VP. I could go on and on; there are myriad reasons why Obama would opt not to include Clinton on the ticket.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I like living in an America with PUMAs. I hope Obama's people don't try to put Biden on a leash. He is running for VP. The position lets you take greater chances and make more gaffes. Let Biden be Biden. With Biden as the VP, I'm probably going to vote for Obama, but I do hope that Obama shows some courage, and talks tough to America.

[ August 27, 2008, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Ron, in your eyes, the Dems can do no right. You'd have been criticizing them if Obama had picked Clinton just as much. I'm surprised that you're "amazed" at how many things the Dems have done wrong.

-Bok
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Bokonon, it's just that few political parties in modern history have made so many major mistakes and miscalculations that alienate massive numbers of people as this year's Dems. They've shot themselves in the foot so often, they have to dance on their knees now. Half their budget must go for spin-doctors, and the other half for orthopedic doctors.

Frankly, if the Dems had used better judgment, they could have won this election in a landslide. But it no longer appears so likely to me that will happen.

Sure, Sen. Hillary was no one I would vote for, but Obama is much further to the left, has no experience, and I have zero confidence in him. Of the two, I would prefer her to be president, if the GOP loses. Though I do shudder to think of Bill Clinton in the White House again--with nothing to do. (Hide the interns!)
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
If the Democratic party were half as inept as you say, it would've burst into flames years ago.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
notice ron has been slowly lowering and lowering the bar since the beginning?

2007: The dems are really going to shoot themselves, Hillary is going to win Obama can't possibly win the primaries!

Later: Obama may have won 11 states in a row but he still won't win the nomination he doesn't stand a chance!

Later: Okay Maybe Obama has more super delegates and normal delegates but the Party will still shoot themselves and choose Hillary!

Now: Obama will not win the Presidency!

Probably Later: Obama Won't win a second term!

After that: The constitutional admendment for letting him have a third term won't possibly pass!
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well, I'd agree with him on the last one. I'd vote against an amendment like that, no matter how well Obama had carried out the duties of the presidency.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't think Dems have made that many mistakes, I just think Republicans are THAT good at politics. Obama hasn't been losing ground lately because he has bad ideas, he's been losing ground because the McCain attack machine is working overtime to smear him all across the board. Factcheck.org must be paying its employees overtime trying to correct all the crap he's slinging at Obama, and if you listen to Republican talking points and read polling data, the most oft stated lies are the ones that are sticking the best and reducing Obama's lead. To be fair, Obama is throwing out a share of untruths as well, but they aren't sticking nearly as well.

This hasn't been a campaign about policy or substance so far. And for the Republicans, it can't be. I think if this election becomes about substantive debate, the Republicans lose hands down, which is why I think Obama is going to cream McCain in the debates and pick up 5 or 6 points.

With the coverage of the major news networks, I might add, It's going to be nearly impossible for Dems to get a bounce off this thing. Maybe if you're watching on C-SPAN, which I've switched to, you get unfilitered content, but watching it on CNN or MSNBC or Fox is like watching the Convention through media goggles. They're constantly harping on the speakers, saying they aren't doing well enough, saying what they should be doing, and leaving out whole speeches, often when those speeches do the things that they say aren't being done. I almost wish they hadn't covered it at all and just let us watch the keynote speeches like 4 years ago. I expect the same awful coverage when the Republicans have their next week.

I'm still not worried though. I really think the debates are going to decide this election. I think the polls are off, especially when they say that 55% of people in Florida want a Democrat to win the White House but only 46% choose Obama to win. There's a disconnect. I don't take any of it seriously until after the first debate. That's when most people start to tune in and really pay attention. The rest of this spectacle is for the hardcore enthusiasts of politics (like anyone in this thread). If Obama is tied or behind heading into October, I'll be a little worried.

But I don't think the Democrats have run a particularly awful campaign. I do think that they'd be doing a lot better if Clinton or Obama had dropped out a long time ago. Other than that, maybe they should have gone a lot more negative a lot sooner. Obama's gravy train ended when McCain started throwing thunderbolts at him, and he tried to reason his way out of it instead of hitting back. I also think that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama but was pining for Clinton is an idiot to vote for McCain. They're diametrically opposed on so many issues that it makes no logical sense to me. But hey, that's the American electorate!
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
One Obama supporter's take on Hillary's speech. His commentary is significantly more critical than anything I've heard from McCain's camp. I wonder if McCain et al aren't commenting because as far as they're concerned the speech spoke for itself.

In full disclosure, I didn't watch the speech. It was pretty late on the Eastern seaboard, but I toughed it out through Chelsea's poorly-narrated and poorly-themed montage. I got right up through the introduction. And then the image of Bill Clinton, biting his lip and tearing up in faux sincerity, mouthing repeatedly "I Love You." Turned the t.v. off and went bed.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I think the montage was pretty decent. I mean I wouldn't buy the DVD or anything, but it wasn't awful. But the constant camera pans over to Bill mouthing "I love you," looked either staged or that he knew the camera would pan over at some point and was just guessing. I feel horrible for saying that, because I hate being so cynical over people's actions in that type of situation, but considering which two people it was, it's hard not be. Still, I like to think that it was sincere, even if there's a nagging doubt in the back of my head that it's all staged.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Translations from WorldMeetsUS:

The choice of Biden garners approval internationally, even if domestic opinions are mixed:
Arab News, Saudi Arabia: Biden a "canny choice"
Times of India: Biden "bodes well" for the subcontinent
The Hankyoreh, SKorea: Why the Choice of Biden Offers Hope to Koreans

But some feel he adds little to the ticket, and that overlooking Hillary may cost him the election:
TimesOnline: Biden is no threat to Obama - but no asset

And still others say he needs specifics:
Globe and Mail, Canada
O Globo, Brazil

--j_k
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I'm actually a little surprised more hasn't been made over the dissonance in the GOP refrain of "things are going great!" while pointedly trying to avoid being seen anywhere near the gentleman in charge while things were going "great".

No one has a crystal ball, and I would advise against confusing one's hopes with accurate predictions. McCain hasn't even picked his VP yet. It seems common sense (or at least conventional wisdom) that, if nothing else comes of the convention, Hillary's speech will mean that some of her people who were on the line will go to Obama, and some who were thinking of going to McCain will just sit out. That alone is probably enough to put Obama back in the lead by at least a few percentage points. That lead may or may not be eliminated by the subsequent McCain VP pick and GOP convention.

I would note that McCain has hardly been without missteps of his own that have alienated portions of the "core" party. Obama has made significant inroads with the evangelicals, and there are a number of states that are considered to be "in play" this year that would have been shoe-ins in previous years. Also, McCain is having difficulty escaping rumors that he tends left on some issues, and his closeness to Lieberman seems to put some GOP voters off.

Time will tell.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There was a poll I read recently that was talking about common misconceptions over candidates, and one of them is that a lot of people think McCain is pro-choice because of his "independent maverick" image. This actually helps him with independents but hurts him with Evangelicals wary of him. So McCain might actually have to spend some money defending his position on abortion.

I think a neat, and funny, ad from Obama against McCain would be to try and pick apart this maverick thing. Bring up all of his positions and then show his position and ask the question: So how is he a Maverick? Abortion? Against it. Alternative Energy? Nice idea but keeps voting against it. Iraq? Votes with Bush 100% of the time. And so on and so on. He keeps calling himself a maverick with seemingly no proof behind it. Obama has just started recently to use the "votes with Bush 95% of the time" thing, which is good, but I think they need to break it down by subject to really pull people in. Bush can't win the election for the Democrats, they have to win it themselves.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Bill Clinton sure knows how to give a speech.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Whew. The entertaining part is going to be watching Republicans try and spin that as anything but a whole hearted effort. I saw a couple points they could try and nail him on. Clinton didn't necessarily say that Obama had the experience, he said that with Biden on the team they had what was needed together, but if you listen to the WHOLE of the speech, he painted a picture of a presidential candidate with great judgement and a keen mind, and implied that those things were far more important than experience. He also drew parallels to his own presidency and said they tried to use all these same arguments against him, and that they were wrong. Die hard Republicans won't buy that, but they aren't the ones he's talking to anyway.

As for "Do the Clintons support Obama?" I think he put that to rest. As for "Did he give a ringing endorsement of Obama?" He did. It was far less self-serving than Hillary's, which I think almost had to be to placate her supporters. I think he laid out his case for Obama and did it well. If Biden can light it up, this'll be a great night.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Kerry is giving one hell of a speech too.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Kerry is giving one hell of a speech too.

What at least three people have yet to fall asleep?

I'm kinda mad I missed Mr. Clinton's speech, now I have to rely on transcripts until I can catch it on youtube.

I think for those supporters of Hillary who are still incensed, their major complaints are that women have been struggling for years to break through this barrier, and Hillary seemed like the logical conclusion of that effort. She was displaced by a newcomer, who they feel should have waited out of courtesy. The media decided that Obama was their darling, and since all major media outlets are run from the top by men, it's easy to believe that women were being told to stay in their place and keep quiet.

Hillary is probably their greatest,(currently) champion, and nobody will likely have as good a chance of winning the presidency now, or in the foreseeable future.

In the NYTs they asked a Hillary supporter if she would vote for Obama in November, and her response, referring to Clinton was, "Of course I will, she just told us to."

On the one hand, it's good that greater unity is likely being achieved, on the other, I'm not sure I like sharing a vote with people that malleable. What is even more stupid are the Hillary supporters who in spite of her endorsement, still hate Obama. It's as if their support of her is so deep even she can't refuse it.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Joe Biden did his job. Nice work Biden. Nice work, DNC.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.

I think Clinton's best line was something like "the world has always been benefitted less by our example of power than our power of example." Something like that, but it was a great line.

Biden was great too. Nice backstory, nice positives for Obama, and nice scathing attack on McCain. Also, Biden's mom sounds like an awesome person and a great mom too.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I just got home for Biden's speech. I'll check out Kerry's tomorrow on online.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Did anyone see Richardson? It was the only speech I missed tonight that I wanted to see.

I got my mom to watch some of it, and she didn't get why so many people she'd never heard of were giving speeches all saying the same thing. I think her exact words were: "Is everyone in the Democratic party giving a speech?" I had to explain to her that it's pretty much every Democrat up for a major office that needs the face time on prime time. It's no wonder people get bored during these things. They weren't designed for regular people, they're designed for diehards. At least before 9pm they are.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
It's been a while since I checked it, but http://www.pollster.com/ has a fun little interactive color coded map/toy thing.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.

His hypothetical debate between "Senator McCain" and "Candidate McCain" was great, very reminiscent of that classic Daily Show clip where they have "Governor Bush" debate "President Bush."
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
McCain picks VP, announcement expected Thursday

--j_k
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I didn't see much of Clinton's speech, but what I did see was pitch perfect. Honestly, I think the Clintons just schooled the GOP in the art of politics. I think Hillary led with a feint, and when the conservative talking heads lunged (on the "she didn't say Obama was ready to lead" point, which I agree with Sterling was very weak) Bill laid them out cold.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
Lyrhawn - according to the channel I was watching last night, Richardson's speech got moved to tonight. So you didn't miss it.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Warning :: Rant ahead

There are a couple of things that are bugging me (and part of it goes to why I found the Chelsea montage poor). The assumption is that most disgruntled Hillary supporters are women who wanted a woman president; I think that's completely wrong. Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.

As for McCain, I think he's got the inverse problem. He's spent his career in the Senate as a realist, a Republican centrist in a time of Reagan idealism. But for the past eight years, he's positioned himself to be able to mollify the currently-in-power idealogues within his party (at the expense of tarnishing his "maverick" image). I think he's been more successful than Obama in mollifying the opposing wing of his own party (to the "why aren't we talking about GOP dissonance" point) because he's invested more time preparing for it. That said, the dittoheads are still leery, which is why there were major news items last week about Rush's threats over McCain's potential not-completely-pro-life VP picks (Lieberman and Ridge).

About the picking of VPs: I think the Obama camp has done a much better job of using the media than the McCain camp. Obama's staff managed to strike the perfect balance between teasing and coy, with leaks allowing the press to vet various candidates (Bayh, Sibelius, Kaine, etc.) and generate buzz. McCain's taken a much more private approach, or at least has been much less successful at getting the press to present the story. I think when it comes to framing the story in most media (television, newsprint, blogosphere), the Dems do a much better job than the GOP. When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).

Lastly, I hate that I care so much about the presidential election. Whether Obama wins or McCain wins, I don't honestly believe my world or my way of life will be dramatically different in four years, or eight years, or twenty years. I wish my local elections were as entertaining (or generated as significant levels of media coverage), because I think time spent focusing on how much money to allocate to repaving roads and how my school board will be constituted will have a much bigger impact on my life than offshore oil drilling or the constitution of the US Supreme Court.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Washington Post piece giving an overview of the Republican platform.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).
This suggests that how one handles the media is the only way to play the game. I think Republicans are better at it personally, but I don't think that's the entire game. I think Republicans are more willing to take a stand and trust the American people to back them up, even if they're totally wrong, because Democrats constantly back down under such pressure, even when they are right. I think that's why Democrats tend to win in spite of themselves, because they're scared to death of the American people, and are willing to compromise their stated principles to do what's popular over what's right.

That's all part of the political game. The war in Iraq is the perfect example. The midterms of 2006 were hailed far and wide as a referendum on Republican support for the war. I don't think anyone voting didn't think that their vote was going to have a serious effect on the war, or at least hoped it would. It caused a nationwide upheavel of the political landscape, ushering Democrats into state houses, governor's mansions, the US Senate and House all across the nation. And what did Democrats do with their mandate? Not a damn thing. Why? Because every time they paid lip service to the whole ending the war thing, Republicans trotted out their "Democrats are unpatriotic and hate the troops" mantra and Democrats backed down every single time. They said there wouldn't be a blank check for the war, and yet Bush isn't complaining about funding, just the hassle he has to go through to get it. Nothing has changed. Democrats could have ended the war a year ago quite simply by cutting off the funding for it. They could have sent Bush a letter saying "Sorry, your wellspring of money has dried up, so if you plan to feed or clothe the troops, you'd better bring them home. You have a year, tell the Iraqis to figure it out." In such a situation, what would Bush do? He can't veto such a measure, since there's nothing to veto. If Congress doesn't pass a spending bill, the money doesn't get spent. Congress has constantly refused to use the power of the purse against Bush. It's bad enough they've abdicated their oversight responsibilities, but they've given the White House wide control over the budget too. Why even bother with Congress? Instead of doing that though, they kept saying "benchmarks and time tables," and when the Republicans refused to back down (because they KNEW the Democrats would cave) the Democrats, of course, caved, and gave in to pretty much every demand that Bush had saying "drat, they bested us again!" You might say it's a pretty dramatic way to end the war, and Republicans would have framed the issue first off as beint anti-troops and second as anti-American safety. Considering the nationwide pro-Democratic vote, I don't think they would have had a problem with the safety issue. Americans wanted to end the war. On the other point, they could stand up for themselves and say "Look, this is the only way to end the war given Republican opposition, and it will only hurt the troops if President Bush refuses to bring them home, so it's really his fault." But they never tried it because they didn't trust the American people to side with them, despite the massive number of votes for them only months prior.

I still won't vote for Republicans until they get better policies, and I'll still vote for Democrats because I think they have better ideas, when they actually enforce them. But not a day goes by that I don't turn on the TV and wish to high heaven that the Democrats would friggin' man up, grow a pair, and fight back once and awhile. More specifically, I wish they'd do two things: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.

[/rant]

In other news, McCain is to announce his VP pick tomorrow, but I bet it's leaked by tonight for two reasons. 1. I think that like Obama's pick, he just won't be able to keep it under wraps. The media will find out. 2. I think he WANTS them to find out ahead of his official announcement to cut into Obama's post-speeh afterglow as much as possible. He if times it right, it'll end the Democratic Convention instantly and launch the focus onto the Republican Convention. There are conflicting reports that he has and has not picked, but he's supposed to start making calls later tonight. Rumors are swelling around two oft named favorites, Romney and Pawlenty. Joe Lieberman is on the short list, supposedly, and a woman is said to be in the running (which I take to mean either KBH or Sarah Palin of Alaska). There are a lot of other names too, but these are the ones being talked about the most. I bet we find out in about 12 hours.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.

Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.

Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".

I was thinking this morning, of the "Kennedy Assassination Quiz Show Game" skit from SNL.

In it, contestants are given 10 seconds to recite their conspiracy theory for the Kennedy assassination. The first contestant starts with the Mafia and its ties to the CIA, and then runs out of time. The second talks about the KGB and Lyndon Johnson, then runs out of time. The third says "A tiger got him" and wins, because he's able to completely verbalize his theory in the allotted time.

It loses a lot of funny in the telling, but it was a good skit.

I agree our political discourse needs more dialogue and less demagoguery. I don't believe there's any truth to the assertion that Democrats are unique in their ability to wrestle with nuance. Nor do I believe that they lack an ability to couch their doctrines in bumper sticker length sound bites for ease of consumption. This is exactly the sort of simplistic and counterproductive meme that I think detrimentally misleads Democrats into believing Republicans have a populist advantage. It's also, IMO, part of why the competing "elitist" meme is so current among Republicans, despite a similar lack of grounding in reality.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.

Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.

Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".

I agree, but then I have to go into my rant on how much I hate the media, and that's a whole different can of worms. I think the media are probably 40% to blame for the current state of politics in America. I blame 40/40/20, media/US Government officials/the American people. The media stopped being effective when they started caring less about their jobs as informers of the public and started caring more about making money and ratings. I think the media in America has always had partisan rags, and has always been a business, but the noise to substance ratio used to be far, far more skewed towards substance, whereas today it's far, far more skewed towards noise. They suck at what they're supposed to do, politicians take advantage of it, and we're complicit in the whole thing by not DEMANDING better politicians and better coverage. Blogs have tried to pick up the slack with a new 21st century sort of muckraking, but they just don't have either the access or the face time that the big hitters do. I think part of the problem is that Americans are lazy and just want the information laid out for them (but again, that's a separate rant as well). There will always be bad journalists, and dirty campaigns. Heck, they go back to Thomas Jefferson. But the advent of the 24 hour news networks has really turned everything on its head. They talk just to hear themselves talk, because there isn't always something super exciting going on, so they sensationalize things that really aren't that exciting and push and pull Americans all over the place, placing emphasis on things better left silent and refusing to cover the larger issues of the day. No one is asking hard questions and demanding good answers.

I think the current crop of media people cater to the lowest common denominator both in the American electorate and in the American government.

[/smaller rant]
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Headline on cnn.com:

quote:
Obama expected to address change in speech
Noooooo...really?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And bloggers don't really fill the gap with most people. Not everybody is "wired". Especially in poorer or more rural areas or among older voters. We forget how new the internet is. I didn't use a computer till I was out of college and wasn't connected to anything until I was in my thirties.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.
As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is. Sure, he was against the Iraq war, not out of a principled stand against violence, but only so that he can put more troops in Afghanistan. He is pro-death penalty. He likes the architecture of NCLB; he just wants to put more money in it. Liberals don't even like the architecture. If Evan Bayh-- the paragon centrist-- were pro-choice, or even Pro-Choiceish, I don't know how much daylight there would be between Bayh and Obama.

Obama has a bit of loft in his rhetoric, which gives the appearance of being a liberal, but he just employs picturesque metaphors to support down the middle policies.

[ August 28, 2008, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is.

In my case, I assume he's liberal not because he's black, but because his support base is young and he has the backing of the Kennedy contingent that lost out back in 1980, as well as the early and continuing support from MoveOn.org. Not to mention his positioning in his primary run against Clinton, where he pretty willingly held himself up as the "progressive" candidate to Clinton's realist-centrist. None of that is issue-based, however.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.

Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".

I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.

Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".

I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
Both sides have mastered the smear tactic. I think they were referring to simple slogans for their own positions.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't see a difference between the parties there, either.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
Headline on cnn.com:

quote:
Obama expected to address change in speech
Noooooo...really?
:: laugh ::

I read that same headline to my office mates this morning, followed by "really? No foolin'?"
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
To be fair, NCLB is a liberal policy by definition. Rather than a federalist approach where you let the states have the most control of their education programs, you have regulations and testing that's required from Washington. That said, you have fairly strong points on the other aspects of Obama's liberalism.

I've been loving this convention, it's been fun, the speeches are nice, we've been getting more than we hoped for in needed speeches, (Michelle Obama proving patriotism, Senator and President Clinton showing ardent support for Obama, etc.) and we have a great amount of energy being built.

By the way, Gallup's daily tracking poll may be showing the start of a bump.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?

Who are you trying to fool?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
To be fair, NCLB is a liberal policy by definition. Rather than a federalist approach where you let the states have the most control of their education programs, you have regulations and testing that's required from Washington. That said, you have fairly strong points on the other aspects of Obama's liberalism.
All the talk about how to implement testing, accountability, and competition without actually talking about what we are trying to test for, account for, and maximize smells like of some MBA or management consultant gone wild in the Department of Education, trying to control, manipulate, and make more efficient, without actually thinking.

________

Win or lose, Obama has given a lot of speeches. Most people live and die without the opportunity to give a speech as big as the DNC Keynote, then the Announcement Speech, the race speech, and the Berlin Speech. The pressure is almost dizzying.

Here is a great video with Nader:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22886841#26439584

[ August 28, 2008, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
You know, I keep looking for these liberal beliefs of Obama's. He's not out suggesting we nationalize the oil industry or that we delve into communisism or that we tax the church to pay for abortion clinics or anything radical. I haven't heard much liberal from him at all, except that he's not afraid of the word liberal and that he wants to take it back from the Republican Spin-Masters who've turned it into a dirty word.

The only reason I hear people are saying he's too liberal is because other people are saying he's to liberal. And that started as dirt thrown at him by his opponents.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I haven't even heard him say the word Liberal.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Okay, so Irami's rebuke sent me looking for statistical data.

In the past three years, National Journal rated Obama the 16th, 10th, and 1st most liberal Senator. There are concerns over methodology, however, particularly regarding the most recent year in which Obama missed several votes which might have pulled his rank lower due to campaigning.

A more academic analysis is done at voteview.com, run by some Political Scientists at UCSD. They discuss in a great write-up here** the comparable liberality of Clinton and Obama. Using their methodology, for the first two years he was in the Senate, Obama was the 21st most liberal Senator; for the second two years he was tied with Biden as the 10th most liberal Senator.

All of which is to say, Obama is left of center for the national party. He's no Russ Feingold, but it's far from inaccurate to call him a liberal.

** For those interested, when full voting history is considered, McCain is much closer to center than Obama. However, just considering his last six years of Senate service, he has moved dramatically to the right. In each of the past three Senates he's ranked as one of the five most conservative Senators. The graphs show that McCain, with his full service considered, skews center much more strongly than his recent votes would indicate. For me, this somewhat validates my opinion that he's spent the last eight years laying the groundwork for mollifying the right wing of the Republican party.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Um, wow.

quote:
A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.

"So I have a solution [to the health care crisis]. And it will cost not one thin dime," John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, told the Dallas Morning News in an interview published Thursday.

"The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

-----

UPDATE: McCain's campaign says they do not consider Goodman to be an official campaign adviser.


 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:

"The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."


That doesn't even make sense.

.

(I should clarify - ElJay didn't say that - a quote in her post did. ElJay would never say such non-nonsensical things) [Smile]
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
The rest of what he said doesn't make sense, to me, either. [Smile] And although the McCain campaign doesn't consider him an official advisor, apparently he was instrumental in helping write McCain's health plan. I haven't read McCain's plan in detail, but I still must say I don't find that comforting.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
It's stretching the definition of "insurance" to mean "when you get sick you are insured you will be seen by someone who can help, provided you can get there in time and make it through the triage" which is not what is usually meant by "insurance."

And it strikes me as pretty counterproductive to the discussion to play such silly semantic games.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Exactly.

Plus one the big points of having insurance is that you can get preventative care, or when something goes wrong get it fixed when it's still minor (and cheaper) before it gets bad enough to go to the emergency room. Wasn't there a study recently that showed that providing free preventative care to the most frequent patients seen at a large urban emergency room saved the hospital a lot of money, since the care was cheaper and they didn't have to take the loss on the emergency visits? I think it was linked here within the last year. . .
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
If he was instrumental in helping write mccain's health care plan, the dems should have a field day with this.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's not stretching the definition of insurance, it's totally changing it. Insurance is how you pay for a service, an emergency room is the service itself. Plus Eljay's point about preventative care, which is a huge, huge point all by itself, but suggesting that er's are health insurance is stupid. Anyone can go to the er right now, and come out with thousands and thousands of dollars in bills, which is the entire point of insurance.

It's no wonder McCain's healthcare plan is all smoke and mirrors.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And people still get billed for emergency care. It isn't like trips to the emergency room are free. The "I went to the ER because I couldn't afford to go to a doctor, so now I am in bankruptcy" scenario is not a good one.

Especially when you add the "and by that time it was too late" epilogue.

edit to add: "They aren't homeless; they're campers!"

[ August 28, 2008, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I have nothing good to say about the comment being discussed.

But I do find the idea that insurance should pay for preventative care to underscore one of the huge disconnects in health care policy and how it is discussed. Insurance is usually used to pool risk - usually because the risk only happens to a small percentage of the pool.

Now, that's not to say that a health care plan shouldn't pay for preventative care. Obviously, that makes good financial sense. But such a plan isn't insurance. This is a comment about the term "health insurance" and its use in the policy discussion.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.
Hell, that's like saying nobody in the United States is technically homeless if they have access to shelters.

And that we should change the definition of homeless to that effect.

Voila, problem solved. Hi my name is JOHN GOODMAN and i have BRAINWORMS
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Hell, that's like saying nobody in the United States is technically homeless if they have access to shelters.

It would be, if shelters were required by law not to turn people away.

I agree with Dag; people are talking about universal health care when they talk about preventitive procedures, not insurance.

As a question, if we as a nation had the resources to either a) provide preventive care or b) provide insurance against catastrophic illness, which should we morally do? Perhaps that should go in it's own thread; if the discussion takes off I'll likely move it there.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I agree with Dag that people are talking about healthcare (not necessarily universal) rather than pure insurance. I think that's a subtle but perhaps important difference that people often consider synonymous.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
The reason that they consider it synonymous is not that any insurer with a brain would provide preventive care so as to cut the risk and cost of covering catastrophic care.

In other words, "I can't afford my Insulin so I went to the Emergency Room when the Diabetic Coma struck." It costs the insurance company much less to provide Insulin than to take care of a coma patient.

Preventive Care is a way for the Insurers to lower risk, while also providing extra services so actually being able to increase income.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
I'm not finding Obama's speech to be his most inspiring but I can see the points he's trying to hit. He has complimented Bill Clinton's administration, mentioned progress in equality for women, and specified what needs to be changed ("let me specify EXACTLY what I mean by change..."). I think his goal was to make his speech as bulletproof as possible to criticism rather than as inspirational as possible.

EDIT: I'm not saying it's boring [Razz]
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
I think his goal was to make his speech as bulletproof as possible to criticism rather than as inspirational as possible.
Agreed. I think he did that pretty well.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Well, I didn't catch it all. I came in around 10:30.

It's hard for me, as a McCain supporter, to know how unpartisan this opinion is, but I thought the speech was really flat. Maybe I just wasn't the right audience.

A lot of the words were right, but it seemed like he was trying to be all things to all people. He had his set of talking points, and he hit them methodically and without spirit.

Best moment: "That's a debate I'm ready to have" looking dead into the camera. That was great. But compared to his Keynote address in 2004, this was, to me, disappointing. He brought back some of the same themes (even some of the same rhetoric, i.e. "they didn't fight for a red America, or a blue America, but the United States of America"), but it seemed like he didn't have the same energy.

And I simply don't believe that he really has a plan, or even an understanding of the costs, of all the new benefits he mentioned tonight. His speech was a litany of new entitlements that he claims can be paid for through closing corporate tax loopholes and making judicious, line-by-line budget cuts. I'm skeptical.

Despite his speechwriters' best efforts, it didn't put to rest my concerns about his ability to lead from day one (to steal one of Clinton's lines) or his temperment to get detail oriented in setting a real agenda. The details were there, but it just seemed his heart (and his head) weren't in it.

Anyway, one man's (likely very biased) opinion.
 
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
 
Did anyone else notice how Obama started speaking in a deep southern accent the last two minutes of his speech? Directly after talking about Dr. King? Even though I understand that politicians are going to use basic "mind games", it still really bugs me.

Other than that, I really liked what he had to say about not wanting more of the same. Let's just hope his change is a better one.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I never noticed that. When did Sen. Obama ever live in the deep south?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Senoj -

I agree and disagree. The thing is, there was absolutely no way he was going be able to meet the insanely high expectations that everyone had of him. I mean, a speech given on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's speech, and this being the first black nominee, and after all the speeches that came before given by both him and others, it was just never going to happen. So instead of the over the top energetic magic, he set out to mollify the biggest criticisms against him. I think he did that.

Frankly I got bored during the opening part. The biographical stuff was all old news. I understand why he had to do it, but for those of us who've already heard it, I was nodding off. He heated it up part way through when he both took it to McCain and clearly laid out his own plans and issues (and it was nice that he brought up some social issues for the first time in the election). I liked how he didn't try and use them as wedge issues either, he tried to plot the middle course where we agree instead of sticking to the Left side.

Was it as soaring as the 2004 speech? Nope, and for good reason. He's given the soaring speeches, and the more he gives them, the more he gets attacked for it, so he decided to up the substance to poetry ratio.

We have a $3 TRILLION dollar budget. I have zero trouble believing that Obama can find massive cuts that can be made in the budget to pay for what he wants to do, and frankly I think it all needs to be done, so someone is going to have to make the tough choices. I don't know where the "litany of new entitlements" comes from. Other than healthcare, what was he talking about that was a new idea?

Clearly he has a plan. He just told it to you in pretty clear detail, and it's a lot more detailed than McCain's. And I think their criticisms on McCain, that Republicans just say you're on your own, is a rebuke of pretty core Republican ideals at a time when people are struggling to get by. I think it'll resonate. That you don't like his plan is fine, but I'm sick of the people who say that Obama doesn't have a plan. I'd say they're just lazy and don't look it up when it's clearly there, but the man keeps telling people his plan.

Ron & landy -

I listened to the speech, and didn't hear the accent. I'll have to listen to it again later when it's on YouTube.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I thought it was great. I agree it was slow at the beginning and for me a lot of it was rehash. But I thought he really kicked it into gear as he went along and became really inspirational. But like Lyrhawn says, stayed focused on the specifics. I absolutely love his speeches where he goes off on tangents talking about lofty ideals, but with all the criticism he's gotten for being all talk, I thought it was smart to not go there too much.

Our local campaign had a big convention watch party tonight and after Gore's speech and his speech we had a large rush of people signing up to volunteer.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I didn't hear an accent either.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
I thought it was great. For the last month, Obama has shown little to no leadership whatsoever, and I began to doubt whether he had what it takes to be President. For instance, it was not, no matter what others say, Hillary Clinton's job to get her supporters to vote for Obama, it was Obama's job, and as a leader, he failed to realize that very notion. For over a month now, McCain has attacked Obama from many sides, and in his attempt to stay above the fray, he has not answered back. Just like when Clinton went on the roll at the end of the primaries, when these attacks came from the McCain campaign came out, Barack Obama stood on the sideline because he is not one to attack or smear. What he failed to realize was that you don't have to smear someone in order to rebut an argument, you don't have to appeal to fear and the worst of us as people, you simply have to argue the argument and not the person, and if you do that, you are righteous and nothing like Karl Rove.

Tonight, he took those criticisms that I had, and turned them into something positive. More importantly however, he showed why he is better than John McCain and why he will be a great President. Great speech.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
"Despite his speechwriters' best efforts..."

Obama writes his own speeches.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I suspect that he was purposely allowing the McCain campaign to get as dirty as they wanted, until it became a joke. Setting himself up for this speech when he could answer them all calmly and reasonably.
 
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I like the 538 analysis that basically said Obama didn't meet expectations, he defied them. Let's face it, with a greek-temple inspired back drop and an audience of 80,000 people were expecting him to give a rhetorically rich, yet substantively weak speech. Instead he gave us the opposite.

So I agree with SenojRetep in that it wasn't the inspirational speech we know he gives so often and so well, instead he gave the speech that to me, essentially said "Game on!"

This next part is going to be my politically naive analysis on how I view this speech in context to the general election. So if you don't want to read it, or just ignore it completely I'm completely fine with it.

[Naive soap-box ramblings]

I think the average voter decides who to cast their ballot for based off of three things. One is the issues, the voter has their own checklist of what they believe on the issues, so when it comes to choosing a candidate, they find which candidate shares the same opinion on the most issues. You could also see this as the logos appeal of the candidate if you're into classic philosophy.

The second aspect a voter looks to is how they feel when thinking of the candidate. When you hear the name Obama or McCain, you have an immediate gut reaction. Now, while my opinion is very biased, when I think of Obama I think 'warm, compassionate, family-oriented man.' When I think of McCain I think of 'Stubborn, crotchety old man.' You can think of this as the pathos appeal of the candidate, again, if you like classic philosophy.

And the last is their credibility. This is seen in their organizational abilities as well as who supports them. Their ethos, in other words.

What I've seen is Obama building Pathos and Ethos over the past 18 months. My opinion on Pathos is that it takes a lot of time to create a gut reaction to a candidate. You have to hear a consistent message from them, and it will slowly influence your opinion on them. Obama is constantly talking about hope, change, and a bright future. That makes him more alluring. McCain, however, is focusing on negative Obama ads, he sounds bitter and vicious. Because he's been releasing these ads so enthusiastically, it portrays a negative light on him too. There's a sort of rule, if I recall, that Negative campaigning has no positive result in regards to the favorability of a candidate. The question is who will be hurt more by releasing a negative ad. So theoretically if Obama stayed positive and did a better job keeping himself in a positive light than McCain's attempts at taking him down, Obama would do better because McCain's negativity reflects badly on him.

On the Ethos, I can sum this up fairly quickly. Obama is dominating in this arena because of his organizational skills. He knows how to build a strong coalition and grass roots movement. Remember how McCain's campaign almost fizzled out last year because of a bad team? This kind of thing affects voters. Obama built a team that's tightly knit together, yet expansive and effective. That's why he lost only one caucus state. Obama is continuing to do well in this aspect as well, for example in Indiana McCain doesn't even have a field office. Obama has somewhere around 20 fully staffed offices. While this doesn't create an immediate movement in the polls like new advertisements do, it helps to create a network of hard support, not soft.

So what am I getting at?

Obama has built a huge image of himself as a nice guy who builds killer campaigns. McCain is essentially relying on 'not the taxing, weak and poor-judging democrat.' Also Obama is winning in the Ethos department. So the last thing Obama needs to win is the logos, which can be won in a short time-frame. All Obama would need to do is cut the 'nice-guy' act for a couple of weeks, open the flood gates of negative attacks on McCain, and people will remember those for issue selection.

It takes time to create a gut reaction(pathos), but people will only remember the issues for a few weeks back.

I think this is what his speech tonight showed. He was starting to show that he is a grounded candidate who can fight on the issues, and as the election day rolls close, I'm pretty sure we'll see some exciting things from Obama. If I recall correctly that's what his campaign strategy has almost always been. Be the nice guy through the campaign until the last few weeks when you go all out against the other candidate. I seem to recall in some local Illinois election, he even petitioned to have his opponent removed from the ballot for technical reasons.

[/Naive Soap-box Ramblings]

For those of you who didn't read my silly, politically neophyte rant, I can sum it up as I really liked his speech tonight. [Smile]
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
For those interested, here is the full text of the speech.

The fact that that wasn't a speechwriter's job is even less disheartening. Honestly, I was inspired by Obama in 2004; he spoke passionately about strengthening families and communities and returning civility to our political dialogue. And while he still mentioned those things, his passion is largely gone. Maybe he reined in his rhetoric to avoid attacks, but for me (and it sounds like many others) it was a disappointment.

New entitlements (more appropriately, new spending; they aren't all entitlements):

- Tax breaks for companies that create good jobs in America
- Eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the startups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
- Cut taxes for 95% of all working families
- In ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East
- Tap our natural gas reserves
- Invest in clean coal technology
- Find ways to safely harness nuclear power
- Help our auto companies retool
- Make it easier for the American people to afford these new [high fuel-efficiency] cars.
- Invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy
- Provide every child a world-class education
- Invest in early childhood education.
- Recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support.
- [In exchange for] commitment to serving your community or your country, make sure you can afford a college education.
- Lower premiums of all current health care participants
- Congressional healthcare coverage for those currently without healthcare.
- Regulation of insurance companies so they will stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.
- Help families with paid sick days and better family leave
- Change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses;
- Protect Social Security for future generations.

Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like he would like to compel business to allow employees to take paid leave if a dependent is sick. Back of the envelope calculations: 150 million workers, 100 million with dependents, additional 1-2 weeks of sick leave per worker, median salary of $50,000/year (or appr. $1000/wk) results in about $1 trillion lost revenue annually. Calculated another way, current GDP is about $14 trillion, with about 2/3 (say $10 trillion) generated by workers with dependents. If we take one productive week out (due to dependent illness), we lose about $100 billion in GDP. So this line will cost either businesses or the government between $100 billion and $1 trillion annually in lost production/revenue. It's nice to say we want to protect jobs, but it comes at a cost. I'm sure I've overestimated it here (and I'm also sure there's no way this actually happens), but I just don't believe there's been an honest accounting.

Wikipedia lists last years federal budget as $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending (additional $1.8 in mandatory spending). $1.1 trillion is a big number, and I know we can trim a lot of that money. I just don't think that it, combined with closing tax loopholes, will begin to fix health care, let alone energy, let alone education, let alone social security. And that's before you give 95% of the country tax cuts.

If we want universal health care, every tax payer better believe they are going to pay for it with higher taxes and lower wages. Which is fine if that's what we want. If we want energy independence in 10 years, every tax payer better believe they will pay for it with higher energy costs and more taxes. If we want to fix social security, every worker better realize they'll pay for it with higher taxes and longer careers. We can do all these things, but pretending we can do them without paying for them is fiscally irresponsible.

This certainly isn't strictly a Barack Obama problem; all national politicians do it. For the past eight years, we've had a president and congresses who've been egregious in the disconnect between what we take in and what we spend. Fiscal reality is one of the first things a lot of the voters Obama's trying to capture in CO, NM, NV and NH consider. And I don't see reality reflected in these plans.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Senoj: Yes all those things require money, and tax increases are most likely where these funds will come from. But not every tax must by necessity target working Americans. There are corporate taxes, roll back of dead end grants and subsidies, import taxes for certain goods, etc.

And yes while my social security contribution might increase in order to make it secure at least I'll get SOMETHING, whereas before I was paying for nothing. While my medicare tax will increase so that I'm paying for subsidized health insurance through the government, at least I'll have stable health insurance. I'd be happy to pay for these sorts of things if they were affordable. My wife can't get health insurance because she is taking medication that automatically disqualifies her from coverage. Our only options are to do without for now, or lie to insurance companies, which we're not willing to do.

Investing in alternate energy costs more money now, but compared to the cost of just sucking down oil until reality catches up with us and wide spread panic seizes the nation when we realize there isn't anymore oil to use here or anywhere else is certainly preferable. Gas will continue to get more expensive, wind and solar power can only get cheaper as the technology improves. I'm tentatively interested in more nuclear power, but I keep hearing that we don't have as much uranium available as one might think.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Well, I didn't catch it all. I came in around 10:30.

It's hard for me, as a McCain supporter, to know how unpartisan this opinion is, but I thought the speech was really flat. Maybe I just wasn't the right audience.

A lot of the words were right, but it seemed like he was trying to be all things to all people. He had his set of talking points, and he hit them methodically and without spirit.

Best moment: "That's a debate I'm ready to have" looking dead into the camera. That was great. But compared to his Keynote address in 2004, this was, to me, disappointing. He brought back some of the same themes (even some of the same rhetoric, i.e. "they didn't fight for a red America, or a blue America, but the United States of America"), but it seemed like he didn't have the same energy.

And I simply don't believe that he really has a plan, or even an understanding of the costs, of all the new benefits he mentioned tonight. His speech was a litany of new entitlements that he claims can be paid for through closing corporate tax loopholes and making judicious, line-by-line budget cuts. I'm skeptical.

Despite his speechwriters' best efforts, it didn't put to rest my concerns about his ability to lead from day one (to steal one of Clinton's lines) or his temperment to get detail oriented in setting a real agenda. The details were there, but it just seemed his heart (and his head) weren't in it.

Anyway, one man's (likely very biased) opinion.

Have you read the NYT article on his economic plan? It's pretty good at outlining his policy. There are also some charts and progressions (at the Washington Post?) that show how the tax cuts (or hikes) of both candidates would affect various income levels.

I can't remember which article it was, but looking at the tax plans, I think a group computed that Obama's plan would only bee 400 billion in the red, as opposed to almost a trillion for McCain's plan.

Food for thought.

-Bok
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
BB, I agree. My point wasn't that these are good things or worthy investments, it was that I don't believe Obama presented the reality that we all *must* pay for these things, either through lower wages (because our bosses are being taxed at a higher rate), higher prices (because of increased import taxes) or higher taxes ourselves. Probably all three.

They're not bad things, some of them are great ideas (like energy independence), but they will all cost money. A lot more money than I think can be generated through efficiency efforts and closing corporate loopholes alone.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
I can't remember which article it was, but looking at the tax plans, I think a group computed that Obama's plan would only bee 400 billion in the red, as opposed to almost a trillion for McCain's plan.

Wait, McCain has an economic plan? (tongue in cheek).

<edit>I know McCain is making the same sort of empty promises. I don't like them when he makes them either. I hate that our country, has moved from tax and spend, to just plain spend, and it's been led by Republicans and a misapplication of Keynesian economics. If Obama really wants a change for the better (and I believe he does) I think his responsibility rhetoric should extend beyond parents turning off the tv and include government only spending what it takes in.

Perot in '08.</edit>
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like...
The second hit on Google for a search of obama sick paid is Obama's website. On this topic it says his plan is:
1) "require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year"

2) "expand the FMLA to cover businesses with 25 or more employees" (instead of 50 or more employees)

3) "Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave ... encourage all of the states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers."

So, I think your calculations are way off.

Just for starters you don't account for the workers who already get paid sick days...
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like he would like to compel business to allow employees to take paid leave if a dependent is sick. Back of the envelope calculations: 150 million workers, 100 million with dependents, additional 1-2 weeks of sick leave per worker, median salary of $50,000/year (or appr. $1000/wk) results in about $1 trillion lost revenue annually. Calculated another way, current GDP is about $14 trillion, with about 2/3 (say $10 trillion) generated by workers with dependents. If we take one productive week out (due to dependent illness), we lose about $100 billion in GDP. So this line will cost either businesses or the government between $100 billion and $1 trillion annually in lost production/revenue. It's nice to say we want to protect jobs, but it comes at a cost. I'm sure I've overestimated it here (and I'm also sure there's no way this actually happens), but I just don't believe there's been an honest accounting.
Your calculation assumes that the status quo in terms of worker productivity versus wages and benefits is an acceptable situation. I don't think the Obama campaign shares your view. Obama said in his speech that over the last eight years, worker productivity has risen while working and middle class wages have declined.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Please, Senator McCain, please pick Gov. Palin.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
NCLB was cosponsored by President Bush and by Ted Kennedy....and then approved by a bipartisan congress. I would think Ted Kennedy is a decent definition of liberal. It is odd how he is almost never mentioned in connection with NCLB though
 
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
kmbboots - Looks like he listened... ; )
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sarah Palin!

Wow, interesting choice.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It was a joint proposal, but co-sponsored is the wrong term, as sponsorship of a bill can only be done by a member of the chamber in question. Bush cannot sponsor any bills.

twinky: what Obama said isn't quite accurate. There's been no general change in poor and middle-class wages using the same inflation measure across the economy, up or down. However, when using measures of inflation weighted for the different consumption baskets of different levels of income, there has been an increase in wages (as in, people can buy more of what they actually buy on what they're receiving in wages). That is, the wage increase has been hidden in many things becoming dramatically cheaper. It is still a weak increase, but there's a very simple explanation for that: the war in Iraq. It siphons off large amounts of consumer surplus. There's no need for any drastic policy changes, just eliminate that gigantic line item and wages should be free to again increase at normal rates.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, and Kennedy has said things several times along the lines of, I supported this, I thought it was a good idea, the evidence has proven me wrong. That's why he isn't villainized for proposing it. Bush still thinks NCLB is basically working as it was implemented, which seems to be rather delusional. Whether it would work given more funding is another question entirely, of course, though my personal position is that there's no good reason for NCLB to exist: that the Federal gov't should generally stay out of eduction.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's a very, very clever choice. I won't say it's a good one, but it hits precisely the right demographics.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
I'm not sure why people think closing corporate tax loopholes is such a great thing? If you take money away from the corporation, guess who is going to 'replace' that money. Allentown, PA lost Mack Trucks because of taxes.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I must admit I don't know much about her.

*goes to read*
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Tom, I think too clever. The only real argument that Senator McCain has had was the experience, "lead on day one" argument. He is 72 years old. His VP had better fill those qualifications. I'm not sure that 19 months as governor really counts Or being the mayor of a smallish town? Runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Do they think that disaffected Clinton supporters will accept this substitute?

Geographically she shores up...Alaska? Were they worried?

Presumably there is a plan, but I am baffled.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*nod* I think the Obama camp is going to start hitting McCain's age and medical condition pretty hard right now. He's made what I think is a brilliant choice, but the "is she ready to be president" question is the obvious line of attack.
 
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
DK: I'm in favor of closing tax loopholes mostly because they reduce the complexity of the tax code. I'm perfectly fine with figuring out how much was saved on the legitimate loopholes and lowering overall tax rates by the appropriate fractional amount.

Loopholes that advantage one particular form of production over another (such as Mack Trucks) are bad. They result in things being produced that are not as much wanted (relative to their price) as other things, because they distort the cost landscape.

As for who is paying it, that's simple: a combination of the corporation (in the form of lower profits) and the consumer (in the form of higher prices).
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job.
I would imagine that they could afford at least two full-time childcare professionals.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.

She's also going to have to go on national TV and debate Joe Biden on national issues - including foreign policy.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
That occurred to me too, Tres.

I predict Biden destroying her in debate.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.
They just need to emphasize that McCain is not going to die.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not so sure about Biden destroying her in debates. From looking at her record, she's the sort to be able to take apart flimsy, blustered campaign positions piece by piece. And if Biden gets upset, he's lost.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Here's an excellent post dismantling the problems with the household income argument put forward by many (including Obama):

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/08/measuring-inequ.html
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
That occurred to me too, Tres.

I predict Biden destroying her in debate.

There is now danger in this. Thanks to low-level background sexism in this country.

-Bok
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Looks like they are really going after the unhappy Hillary voters, putting a whole lot of hope on turning them with, "see, we can put a Woman as VP. To bad the Dems won't."
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The only real argument that Senator McCain has had was the experience, "lead on day one" argument. He is 72 years old. His VP had better fill those qualifications. I'm not sure that 19 months as governor really counts Or being the mayor of a smallish town? Runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Do they think that disaffected Clinton supporters will accept this substitute?

Where will Palin help him? With Western-style socially ambivalent, fiscally conservative types. Exactly the unclaimed voters who can tip the election for him. Her selection is for McCain exactly what Schweitzer's selection for Obama would have been. And if it's coupled with the sort of fiscally responsible platform I ranted about a couple of hours ago, I think it isn't hard to see McCain riding it to the presidency.

That there are experience costs is undeniable, but if the election is about issues, particularly fiscal and government spending issues, I think it's a win. I'd love to see McCain return to his Maverick roots (rather than just the image) and I think that this VP selection is part of a move in that direction. If he's unable move the dialogue in that direction, though, I think it'll be disastrous. If the focus remains the economy and foreign policy, I see it as bad. But if this is really a change election (or reform, as the McCain camp prefers) then McCain just made a strong statement that his is the real outsider's platform.

It has very little (but not nothing) to do with her gender, IMO.

<edit>And I want to point out that her 19 months of Executive experience is more than the sum total of the Democratic platform. Not that it matters much, but still, there's Senate experience and then there's executive experience.</edit>
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
She's a great demographic choice. Other than that, does absolutely nothing and opens McCain up to the same attacks he's using against Obama. I KNEW he wasn't going to pick KBH, her Pro-choice stance ruled her out, and Palin was the only other woman even considered in contention. She's a hardcore conservative, and a women, but being a hardcore conservative is actually going to turn a lot of women off, of course having her be a woman alone is going to probably draw a lot of votes off. It's a demographic tizzy.

But Tom's right, the age attacks are going to come flying now. McCain has been attacking Obama for being inexperienced and for choosing Biden to shore up his supposed weaknesses. So McCain picks an inexperienced woman who is young and vibrant to shore up his own weaknesses? It's an odd choice for a guy who thinks experience is so important. If he dies, he'll leave a president in charge that has less experience even than Obama.

It's clever, but maybe too clever in the end. It's hard to say yet though. I have no idea how people will react to this.

quote:
I'd love to see McCain return to his Maverick roots (rather than just the image) and I think that this VP selection is part of a move in that direction.
If he was still a Maverick, he'd have picked Lieberman. He picked Palin becuase of demographics and because he needed a staunch conservative. It was a political choice.

Edit to add:

I was thinking about a TV ad to use against Palin. The idea that just any woman would be good enough to woo disaffected Hillary voters seems silly to me. I think a great ad would be to put Palin and Clinton on the same screen and say "she's no Hillary." People might say "well then why isn't Hillary on the ticket?" and I think you blunt that by having Hillary herself be the voice on the ad and be in the ad herself saying that Palin is no Hillary, and that she supports Obama. Lots of people, as has been mentioned, won't like seeing a man attack her, so have prominent Democratic women stand up and say it, and I think that makes Clinton the Dems' new attack dog.

"She's no Hillary" should be the new slogan. People didn't like Hillary because she was the first woman, it's because she's the first QUALIFIED woman, and people are all sad because there aren't any more qualified women around. McCain just grabbed the closest telegenic Republican woman and tossed her on the ticket. "She's no Hillary."

[ August 29, 2008, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.

Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that is even better than my (guilty pleasure) new favorite slogan.

"She would be a heartbeat away from being President. Previous experience - being a heartbeat away from being Miss Alaska."
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Wow. I knew all that stuff about changing the way we did politics was all talk.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.

Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
Somehow I think that argument will fall silent when that experience is 18 months long and from ALASKA. Obama has a body of work in government and community organizing before that. It's not like he doesn't know what executives do. What major decisions has Palin had to make? I'm sure running the Eskimo military has given her some serious military and foreign policy cred.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Wow. I knew all that stuff about changing the way we did politics was all talk.

I would be disappointed if Senator Obama used that line. I don't think my getting a guilty giggle out of it is quite the same thing.

To be serious, how can we believe any of what the McCain campaign has been touting up till now if this is a person who he believes can be commander in chief?

edit to add: Wasilla Alaska is where she was mayor. Population roughly 8,500.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
There's a February interview with her on C-SPAN right now, if anyone can or wants to watch.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
I think the Obama camp needs to ask voters the question a lot are overlooking.

Can they see Palin as president?

While being a mother of five, former beauty pagent runner-up may make her appear folksy and attractive to the heartland, is she the type of person you want negotiating with Ahmadinejad? Do you see her being able to do something about curbing terrorism around the world?

Make her seem as unpresidential as her resume makes her out to be, and this vp pick will be a huge black eye for McCain.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
To be serious, how can we believe any of what the McCain campaign has been touting up till now if this is a person who he believes can be commander in chief?

I don't really see how this changes that equation. The point is that McCain has the experience, not that his VP has it. I'm aware of the argument -- that the VP should have it as well since McCain might not live through his first or second term -- but I don't think it's terribly compelling. By that time, the VP will have accrued even more executive experience by virtue of having been in office.

I think she's a smart choice and contrasts extremely well with the safe, boring pick of Biden.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
There's been no general change in poor and middle-class wages using the same inflation measure across the economy, up or down. However, when using measures of inflation weighted for the different consumption baskets of different levels of income, there has been an increase in wages (as in, people can buy more of what they actually buy on what they're receiving in wages).

Okay. This is an aside, but will that remain true if fuel costs remain high or increase further? I don't expect you to have a crystal ball or anything, but I certainly see that having an impact on what low and middle income earners are able to buy.

quote:
That is, the wage increase has been hidden in many things becoming dramatically cheaper. It is still a weak increase, but there's a very simple explanation for that: the war in Iraq. It siphons off large amounts of consumer surplus. There's no need for any drastic policy changes, just eliminate that gigantic line item and wages should be free to again increase at normal rates.
Fair enough. [Smile]

As another aside, I suspect that in this event the allotments of vacation and sick leave would remain among the lowest in the industrialized world, which IIRC is where they are now. Offhand, I can't think of another country with lower norms for paid time off among workers. That makes me predisposed to support Obama's position, since I already think American workers should get more vacation and sick leave.

(And yes, there's a reason I care about that, but I'm not going to have that particular conversation here. [Smile] )
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Before becoming governor, she chaired Alaska's energy committee. And, what do you know, energy is a central issue in this election. (That said, I'm less than thrilled about her support for drilling in ANWR).

Another reason to love Palin is she rose to the governorship by fighting government corruption and spending, and when she got there she appointed a bi-partisan cabinet. She's the one who killed Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere. I really think McCain is about to make a big rhetorical shift and start pushing his clean government, anti-spending cred.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
Also, I just want to point out, the tactless way she made a desperate grab at Hillary voters was a little pathetic. Women didn't want Hillary just because of her anatomy, they waned her because she is one the few females with the experience who sided with them on social issues they care about. Hillary was for pro-choice, equal wages, gay rights. Hillary was a feminists's dream candidate.

Palin, however, got tapped for VP just because of her ovaries. It's a purley political appointment. If I was a feminist, I would be outraged. They have been fighting the objectification of woman for ages, but now Palin is VP because she is an attractive woman with zero substance.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Protestations aside, the female-centric blogs I read are thrilled with the choice, even if they don't plan on voting for her. Regardless of issues, both candidtes can now claim to be making history. I think it was a brilliant political move.

Why are the Republicans so much better at this?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
McCain has anti-spending cred? When's the last time he voted no on the massive budgest the Republicans have been pushing through? He can't talk about spending, he'll get lambasted. Besides, he has tons of new spending provisions on top of tax cuts.

I'll say this about Palin: I've been watching her for the last 15-20 or so, and she's incredibly engaging. I don't know if I like her policies, but I already find myself liking her as a person. She's nice, engaging, seems smart and is great at answering questions and pivoting those she doesn't really want to answer but not making it look like a pivot. Hearing her talk about hunting and fishing I feel like she could be from Michigan. I didn't grow up doing either of those things except in Boy Scouts, but I grew up around people who did, and she feels like she could be from somewhere upstate.

Traditionally VPs are attack dogs, which is a role I think Biden will do well, but I can't see her doing it, and I don't think I'd want to. Nice Sarah Palin is drawing me in. Angry Sarah Palin would probably turn me off. I don't think it's just because it's a woman by the way, because angry Hillary didn't turn me off. I think they have to be careful in how they use her.

Kat -

Well, in this specific instance I don't think they are particularly better. Don't get me wrong, it's fantastic press right now, but it's a totally unknown long term pick for the next few weeks, or she could end up being a knockout, no one knows.

But I think if things had gone the other way around and McCain had been forced to pick his VP first, there is no way he would have picked Palin. She was a response to the Democratic side. Had he gone first, it would have been someone else, and Obama might have picked someone else to balance. This one I think is less about Republicans being better at politics than it is about having the benefit of choosing second and being second: This is a hail mary play.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
I don't think they are better. "Political move" are the key words here. He made a VP pick that would help him win, not a VP pick that would be suitable to run the country should the worst happen.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I don't think she was at all tactless with the reference to Hilary and to Geraldine Ferraro.

I think it was entirely appropriate to commend the women who came before her in running for national office. I think it would have been far more tactless to ignore them.

She said Hilary ran with determination and grace - I think those are two descriptors that work well, because Hilary was certainly determined, and her speech at the convention supporting Obama was certainly gracious.

Palin did a really good job with her speech - she obviously knows how to command a crowd and handle live speeches, which is a skill every politician needs. She's better at it, I think, than most.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
When she said something along the lines of "We women aren't out of it just yet" made it seem like she expected women to vote for her just based on the fact that she is a women. She disregarded that Ferraro and Clinton, two dems, were so strongly supported by females because they champion causes that are important to other females, not simply because they are females themselves.

But having said that, I'm sure Palin will attract the vote of every Hillary supporter who is pro-life and pro-gun.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I really think McCain is about to make a big rhetorical shift and start pushing his clean government, anti-spending cred.
I do, too. If he's smart, he'll realize that Obama has, by pandering to the center, opened himself to an integrity-based attack.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
She disregarded that Ferraro and Clinton, two dems, were so strongly supported by females because they champion causes that are important to other females, not simply because they are females themselves.
That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, at least Alaska runs in the black on budget (not that I know if any of that is Palin's doing.)

When I was in Alaska, the locals all told me about how they don't have a lot of the taxes we do, because the state is self-supporting.

I tried to just look that up on Alaska's government web site; but apparently everyone else is looking it up too, because the server was unavailable.

I did find this article that says Alaska has a 7.7 BILLION surplus (of money) this year.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't think Dems hoped that was the case until just recently. *laugh*
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.

The alternative is that women vote for women soley based on gender. I'll give them more credit than that; the same way I give black people more credit than voting for Obama simply because he's black.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I did find this article that says Alaska has a 7.7 BILLION surplus (of money) this year.
It's worth noting that Alaska has an oil pipeline and no population worth speaking of. [Wink]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Alaska runs in the black on budget because there's oil there, and because it gets ridiculous amounts of federal money per capita. For instance, that $7.7 billion is less than the amount Alaska gets from the Federal gov't in a year (though I don't know if it is bigger than the amount Alaska gets above what it pays in; from what I can gather, it isn't, but only by one or two billion).

Re: wages, if oil costs again increase dramatically, it will affect things short term, but I suspect that the long term effects will be mitigated by societal lifestyle changes. However, another prolonged dramatic increase isn't very likely for a while.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
The alternative is that women vote for women soley based on gender. I'll give them more credit than that; the same way I give black people more credit than voting for Obama simply because he's black.
If you don't live in a black and white world, another alternative is that women vote for all sorts of reasons, and SOME will vote for the ticket because it has a woman on it and they can stomach the rest. How many is the "some" may determine the election.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The reason Alaksa is drowning in money is because the price of oil is through the roof. The ad writes itself. "Palin didn't balance the state budget; while the rest of us are suffering at the pump, Palin and Alaska are drowning in oil wealth."

The only reason Alaska is doing so well is oil revenue. That and tourism (but mostly that) are Alaska's only real industries.

quote:
That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.
I think it WILL be. Women vote with Democrats, by and large, because of healthcare, education, and the economy. They aren't going to give up the soccer mom issues just to vote for a woman, at least, not in droves. I think it's insulting to women to suggest that they would. Healthcare, education and the economy are bread and butter Democratic issues this time around, and you'll start to see Obama really hammering them home in the coming weeks I think, whereas McCain, near as I can tell, has nothing in the hopper for education, a tax cut and a tax increase for healthcare that wouldn't really do anything, and more budget busting tax cuts for the upper class (and some more of us too, to be fair) for the economy. Or at least, that's how Obama will frame it. And a lot of those hardcore feminists that might vote for a woman just to vote for a woman aren't going to vote for a pro-life one.

Give this thing time for the excitement to die down, and when everyone comes back to Earth, I think we'll see it's not the game changer the pundits are saying.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
The women who supported Hillary and switched to McCain based on Palin would be voting against their own interests. Some people you can't reason with or predict.

The people who vote for Palin simply because she is a woman were lost to Obama since before he declared his candidacy. I can only hope America's electoral system isn't held hostage by that demographic.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't be an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Palin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.

____

As to Obama's speech: the first half seemed about the economy, security, and why we should be scared to vote for McCain; the second half seemed about how the economy wasn't the most important issue and how we shouldn't be scared to vote against anyone. In the middle were policy changes. The speech was fine. It had something for everyone, but I don't like how it hung together.

[ August 29, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I wonder if the women who will vote for her just on gender will be cancelled out by the socially conservative men who will stay home rather than vote for a woman?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm sure that's something the GOP has already polled and found to be a worthwhile risk. I think the men that are afraid of Palin will still pull the lever for McCain and the women who don't like McCain will still pull it for Palin. They'll push whichever part of the ticket they need to draw people in. Might work, might not, but I'm sure they've worked it out.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
The women who supported Hillary and switched to McCain based on Palin would be voting against their own interests. Some people you can't reason with or predict.
This assumes that 1) such women think and vote identically; and 2) all their interests are served by the Dems and none by the GOP.

If, as is more likely, there are diverse opinions on diverse issues and some are served by Dems and some are served by the GOP, then the woman vice-president nudges them over a line they were already close to.

quote:
And a lot of those hardcore feminists that might vote for a woman just to vote for a woman aren't going to vote for a pro-life one.
Equating feminism with support for abortion is a long-term falsehood. They are not equivalent.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
Does anyone else get a female Dan Quayle vibe?

Also, your second point is accurate. Yes, if those women were already in the bag for Clinton, considering how vastly different the social policies are between democrate and republican, it's fair to assume they are voting against their own interests.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
Boy, I guess it's great that McCain made the experience and celebrity arguments against Obama before he picked Gov. Palin or that might have been a bit of a hypocritical pick.

ETA: And the thing about Gov. Palin is that she does reveal an inherent sexism here that Hillary Clinton was not able too, most likely because of who she was, and though that's a harsh thing to say about Mrs. Clinton, it is true. There are different kinds of sexism that are influenced by bias and other factors, and Gov. Palin will be influential in battling sexism because she is not the kind of figure Hillary Clinton was in this election. Of course, in and of itself, the fact that Gov. Palin will be influential in battling sexism where Sen. Clinton won't is sexist as well, but that's a whole other thing.

[ August 29, 2008, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
I don't think they are better. "Political move" are the key words here. He made a VP pick that would help him win, not a VP pick that would be suitable to run the country should the worst happen.
that 'he' applies to Obama as well
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
I don't think that applies to Biden. The top job of VP is to be able to assume the role of President should something happen. Sure, Biden helps Obama with foriegn policy cred, but he is also a good pick for the country to be a potential commander in chief. Palin is not.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Yes, if those women were already in the bag for Clinton, considering how vastly different the social policies are between democrate and republican, it's fair to assume they are voting against their own interests.
Perhaps social policies are not the only issue informing someone's vote. Or maybe they consider having a woman in or near the presidency is also a social issue.

Or maybe, just maybe, Dems addressed some concerns, the GOP addressed others, and the female factor pushes them over the edge. Not everyone is a dyed-in-the-wool member of one party or the other. Human nature being as complex as it is, I suspect that most are not.

It doesn't make a voter shallow to be complex.
 
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
[QB]
quote:
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Paulin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.
It absolutely would be an issue for me if it were a man. I consider parenting to be the most important job for both me and my husband. Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
I don't think that applies to Biden. The top job of VP is to be able to assume the role of President should something happen. Sure, Biden helps Obama with foriegn policy cred, but he is also a good pick for the country to be a potential commander in chief. Palin is not.
So Biden is the best choice? Really? He has an awful problem with telling his own history and for making racist jokes so I might think twice about him
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I'd advise against underestimating Palin. She took on an incumbent and won, and put herself forward as an icon of incorruptability as the major Republican politician of Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, began to self-destruct on charges of corruption.

And my Alaskan past can't help but huff and puff a little at the idea that Governor of Alaska is an easy job. Yes, Alaska has money (look up the "Permanent Fund Dividend" some time), but it also has difficulty bringing in good people in fields other than oil (a lot of people don't want to come to a state where you can, on many days, completely miss seeing the sun just by going to work or school) and a terrain and climate that make it incredibly difficult to maintain a transportation infrastructure.

I like to think that most women will look past her gender when it comes time to vote, but the bright bulbs who have turned their support for Hillary into support for McCain remind me that the electorate is full of surprises.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Brinestone: President is a time-destroying job. It looks to me that logic would make it so that any parent (of a child under some young age) should never try to be President.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Actually, no those are the same things.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
So anyone with a special-needs child cannot have a job or else they are an irresponsible parent? Being able to hire the very best caregivers is a bad plan? Seriously?
 
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.

Somehow I think that argument will fall silent when that experience is 18 months long and from ALASKA. [/QB]
Totally. We haven't had a vice-president from a state that small since... Dick Cheney. [Wink]
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
So Biden is the best choice? Really? He has an awful problem with telling his own history and for making racist jokes so I might think twice about him

I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
I doubt it. The republicans main strategy now is using jaded Hilary voters to push McCain over the top. Choosing Hillary is the anti-venom to that. If McCain had to choose his VP first, I doubt it would have been Palin, not with the possibility that Obama may choose Hillary was still in the air
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gecko:
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.

Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:

Brinestone:

Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?

Irami: Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Paulin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.

Brinestone: It absolutely would be an issue for me if it were a man. I consider parenting to be the most important job for both me and my husband. Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.

Brinestone, you are on the wrong side of this. What you are saying is that anyone with a special needs child shouldn't be President. It's not too far to say that anyone with many children or any child shouldn't be President, because the job takes time away. Do you really not think that it is impossible for someone with the material and political resources of the VP to make sure her baby received the exemplary care.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.

quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:
You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Actually, no those are the same things.
Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.

I really don't even see how you can seriously make that argument, you'll have to expand on it.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.

For once, we agree.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.

If you mean the original vote then technically he didn't vote for the war, he voted to give Bush the authority that ended up leading to the war. It's a tricky bit of semantics there, but I think it's an important division. Had the measure they voted on said "it's war time!" I don't think it would have passed. I think many of them, Biden included, thought that Bush would use that measure to pursue an aggressive diplomacy that never ended up happening.

Once the invasion was underway, Biden knew tha tmore troops would be needed to forestall a massive insurgency and house to house fighting that was to come. He wanted to use the same doctrine that we used to fight the Gulf War, which was overwhelming military power to blanket the country, which was an attempt to stop from happening exactly what happened.

He opposed sending more troops for the surge because he didn't see it solving the overarching governmental problems. Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.

Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good and a bad idea. It remains to be seen if Iraq CAN function as a single state democracy, and that question may not be answered for decades. Splitting it into three countries would have gotten rid of a lot of the problems they have now, but would have created a host of new ones as well. The Kurds would have been elated, but then we would have needed to deal with a pissed off and militarized Turkey ready to invade. The Sunni center would have been almost totally robbed of oil wealth and a Arabian port city, which would have left them economically destitute. The Shi'a south would have had oil wealth, an Arabian port city, and likely, close ties to Iran afterwards, creating a problem for Saudi Arabia. All in all we could have partitioned and left the mess for them to figure out, and it might have made the internal situation a lot better, but it would've spilled into several other nations' borders. I don't necessarily think it's a worse idea than invading in the first place was.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
There's a theory that this is why traditional Mormons tend to do okay (all that emphasis on education), but are generally absent from the top tiers of most fields.

I'm a big fan of families, but I also think that this attitude can lead to insularity in the sense that it leaves public life to Other People. This means only those of whom I disapprove get to be in charge. That is also irresponsible.

*shrug* While I wouldn't tell any individual how to do their job or live their life, I also would never refuse to vote for someone whose views I support because I think their very attempt to be part of the government indicates a character flaw.

This kind of attitude would also mean you can't be a good parent and a soldier, or a good parent with any kind of high-pressure job.

Besides, Palin is married and she has considerable resources. It is possible to provide fulfill family responsibilities without ignoring the rest of the world as well.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.
This does not address Biden's demand for more troops then his reversal for not wanting more troops. I will stop now that I see you changed your post significantly
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Sorry, I missed that bit about wanting troops and then not wanting troops so I added a paragraph to address it.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
It is possible to provide fulfill family responsibilities without ignoring the rest of the world as well.
Especially if you consider your political position to be real public service.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Gecko:
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.

Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
Do the Kurds have a say in whether they need to remain in Iraq and Turkey, rather than have their own independent Kurdistan?

Iraq was created by Europe. I suspect that if you were to ask them, a lot of Iraqis would happily split into separate countries.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.

Very cool. That would really be something. You've almost convinced me to vote for McCain (although being from Chicago, my vote doesn't count in presidential elections anyway).
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I think they may have underestimated Senator Clinton.

She doesn't want to be President. She wants to be the first Woman President.

If McCain gets elected there is a good chance that Governor Palin will succeed him due to his age. That would mean that Senator Clinton, even if she won an election next time, would not be forever remembered as number 1.

She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh, I imagine she'd swallow hard and be willing to be second in order to hold the office.

However, in eight years, she'll be too old.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.
The problem with being an idealist (this is Obama's problem too actually) is that some will say you fail to understand reality and that lofty goals are meaningless in the face of real-life problems. So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.

quote:
She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
Which perfectly embodies the sexism and the difference between Gov. Palin and Sen. Clinton that I argued about.

I think this could be a great experiment with Fox News, will they be as sexist towards Gov. Palin that they were towards Sen. Clinton?

ETA: Let's see if Fox is *really* fair and balanced.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.
Do I really think it matters? Yes. Do I think the majority of the electorate think it matters? Well I guess we'll find out in 60 days or so, but I think it matters to some of them, and not to others. I think that being qualified or not qualified CAN be a political problem or asset in getting elected, but I don't think all political assets or problems make you able or unable to actually do the job. I don't think they are interchangable. I see what you're trying to say, and maybe in the present you have a point, but history doesn't forgive that sort of thing.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, I imagine she'd swallow hard and be willing to be second in order to hold the office.

However, in eight years, she'll be too old.

I don't understand why people keep saying this. McCain is 72 right now, so why would Hillary be too old at 68, especially when women usually live longer than men?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Part of that is probably because a lot of people already think that 72 is too old. And I'd argue that women and men have life expectancy differences because men are stupid and don't seek care where women do, so it's our own fault, but it's not really relevent.

I think that for as many people that are saying that this was her turn that Obama screwed up, there will be just as many saying in four or eight years that she missed her chance and she should let it go. I think she COULD run, and could win the nomination, but there are a lot of rising stars in the party that aren't at all going to feel they owe her anything and won't feel bad about taking her out. I think this election was the passing of the torch in the Democratic party, and she'll be hard pressed to wrench it back from them.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Gecko:
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.

Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
The majority of them are saying what I am.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
The formatting is a bit screwed up with a copy and paste but ...:

quote:

IRAQ POLL 2007
The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.

...

Q14 Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?
2007
2005
2004
%
%
%
One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad,
58
70
79
A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad
28
18
14
A country divided into separate independent states
14
9
4
Refused/don’t know
-
3
3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6454251.stm

While support for a unified Iraq may be changing toward a more federal and provincial structure, there is still overwhelming (86%) support against separation into different countries, at least as of 2007.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
I'm sure the 2000 people the reporters questioned are the average Iraqi just trying to go to work and mind his own buisness. Those are in the minority in Iraq.

Plus, who did they ask? Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd? You can't lump all three under the term "Iraqi" and pretend it doesn't matter. Each group has vastly different goals and alligences.
 
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
quote:
Brinestone: President is a time-destroying job. It looks to me that logic would make it so that any parent (of a child under some young age) should never try to be President.
I think you're trying to argue with me, but that is basically what I'm saying. And by "some young age," I mean two years of age or so. It's just two years of your life. Try to become president or VP next term if that's what you want. But babies need lots of face time with their parents in order to develop bonds with them, and, like you said, being president is time-destroying. Campaigning for presidency may be even worse.

quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
So anyone with a special-needs child cannot have a job or else they are an irresponsible parent? Being able to hire the very best caregivers is a bad plan? Seriously?

Did I say they couldn't have a job? (No, I didn't.) I said I wouldn't vote for someone who took a time-destroying job when their child (especially special-needs) was literally an infant. Hiring great caregivers is wonderful if you can also participate at least minimally with your child. I don't believe someone campaigning for presidency and then serving as vice president can do that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Senator McCain's choice is also likely to make sure that abortion is front and center in this campaign.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
I see what you're trying to say, and maybe in the present you have a point, but history doesn't forgive that sort of thing.
Well, no history doesn't, but then again, most voters don't care about history.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, I'm about the only die hard McCainiac here, so I may be biased, but I think Palin was a very canny choice. Sure she doesn't bring a very electoral-rich state with her, but I think she brings a lot more interest to McCain's campaign that Biden brings to Obama. Biden filled in some of Obama's gaps, where Palin adds to McCain's assets. Also, a huge sigh of relief that McCain dodged the Romney bullet.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
McCain's used his first big decision as President to put the country in danger. Putting someone so unqualifie