I don't know the candidates that well yet, I'll have to see some debates before I can really form an opinion, but so far I think Obama looks like a very decent guy.

I already think it's great that there's a chance that the USA will get a black or a female president after 43 straight white males in a row.

democratic - obama/edwards ticket, or richardson

republican - ron paul cause hes not like past republicans because he still follows ideals of real republicans

just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it

Don't matter who it is they're still gonna murder loads of people.

ohhh, touche.

Quoted from somedude210

just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it

I know, honestly

I don't think we've really heard them speak enough to come to any sort of conclusive decision. At least I haven't. But I have my leanings.

Someone should start a thread about the new prime minister or something. Or is that not a big deal over there? Doesn't really seem to be. Which is interesting. I'd start one, but I know nothing about the guy. I can't even think of his name at the moment. Gordon?

Quoted from somedude210

just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it

Why not?

Quoted from Sandra

Gordon?

Brown.

Not Gordon Blair as one Congressman referred to him in an interview on UK TV recently! LOL ;D

Quoted from Sandra

Why not?

I think Hillary has a good chance. Bill was a popular president and I think that people expect Hillary to be pretty much identical to her husband politically. I also think a lot of women will vote for her simply because she's the first woman who's got a chance to become president.

the problem with hillary is that shes trying to appease to many people at once and is losing the focus of the campaign.

Don't matter who we get in to lead they will order us to kill. In an election I choose to vote for myself. The system is evil but just because there are no better ones don't mean that I should vote for an evil one. Only you can lead yourself.

I'd like to know what people think of Giuliani. What he did for NYC was amazing. I mean, if you were there in the 70's and 80's, it was a real crap hole. Now it's like Disney. The guy can get things done and he's pretty liberal for a republican. I still haven't made my mind up one way or the other though. I'm trying not to let the fellow New Yorker Italian thing bias me, but you know.  ;)

hes milking 9/11 dry and hes trying to cover up his liberalness. i dont know about him, i still like ron paul for the republican seat, hes at least a republican by defination

I actually like Hilary for the most part, although I don't agree with her stance on gay marriage. (I think civil unions are kind of lame. Just let them get married already!) However, I don't think she will win. The United States might be ready to elect a black president, but not a woman one. Especially not one with so much baggage.

or her pro war stance :S

I wouldn't exactly call it a pro war stance. From what I've heard, she thinks that getting into the war in the first place was a big mistake, but to withdraw now would cause more problems. I don't agree with that either, but like I said, not exactly a pro war stance.

Quoted from Mairi

The United States might be ready to elect a black president, but not a woman one. Especially not one with so much baggage.

This I don't know about. I think she has a real shot. If she's able to develop some sort of personality in the months to come I'd say she has a damn good chance of being our first female president. Plus some people think it's a two for one thing with Bill.

I don't know. It seems Britain is just so ahead in these things. I don't think Canada will elect a woman PM either. I mean, we have had one already (Kim Campell) but she wasn't elected, she was appointed because Brian Mulroney resigned.

You do have a point about the two-for one thing, though. That was a big part of Bill's campaign.

Quoted from Mairi

(I think civil unions are kind of lame. Just let them get married already!)

Yeah!

Marriage is something between a man and a woman two people that love each other.

heres something i always wondered, if all the jokes about marriage were true, wouldnt they want to let them get married since they were gonna end up as miserable as every other married person? ;D

Isn't gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts? Hey one state out of 50! Not bad! But I mean considering the history of tolerance in this country that's actally a miracle in itself. Do you think any of us will live to see the day when gay marriage is recognized in say Mississippi? Ha.

yes yes, i live in the bay state, now known as the gay state. but also remember that massachusetts is still the most liberal state in the country

Massachusetts is the most liberal state? I thought that was California. I mean, that's what most people would think but I guess not.  

Quoted from The End

Brown.

Yeah, you guys don't seem at all phased that your country just changed leaders after, what, ten years or so? Must be nice.

It's because they all seem to cock it up in there own inmitable way.

Quoted from Sandra

Massachusetts is the most liberal state? I thought that was California. I mean, that's what most people would think but I guess not.  

Cali does have medical marijuana, whereas Mass still treats it like it's heroin or something. Those good, Calvinistic puritan values still cling, generations later.

:)

yea yea, but in the grand scheme of things, we're both the most liberal states, we have gay marriage, you have weed

Yeah, weed. That's okay. But don't you DARE lite up a REAL cigarette while your here! This is the non-smoking state you know.

Sandra, do you feel like a New Yorker or a Californian?

Noam Chomsky.

:)

Quoted from Mairi

Sandra, do you feel like a New Yorker or a Californian?

A New Yorker. I'm not a Californian in any way. Except maybe the accent change.

Quoted from somedude210

hes milking 9/11 dry and hes trying to cover up his liberalness. i dont know about him, i still like ron paul for the republican seat, hes at least a republican by defination

He's milking 9/11? I haven't really seen this. He was amazing through that whole thing though and I think if he wants to mention it he has the right. He was down there as it was happening watching people jump for God's sake. I mean, if that didn't have a profound impact on him then I don't know what would. I won't fault him for bringing it up.

Quoted from Sandra

He's milking 9/11? I haven't really seen this. He was amazing through that whole thing though and I think if he wants to mention it he has the right. He was down there as it was happening watching people jump for God's sake. I mean, if that didn't have a profound impact on him then I don't know what would. I won't fault him for bringing it up.

Interesting, because a friend of mine from another forum who is a New Yorker feels differently. She wrote this...

Quoted Text

'May I remind all you good folks that Rudy Giuliani was NOT a hero to New Yorkers. Much of the human sacrifice was caused by his poor planning, and all his grandstanding in the days after the attack can't erase that. If any of you were thinking of voting for him as president, DON'T.'

Differing perceptions. Interesting.

:)

Ron Paul is for sure the best Republican candidate I think.


He wants to impeach Bush
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

well put Pasta

and gulianni is milking 9/11 dry. every speech, he manages to say it 3 or 4 times. if it wasnt for that, he would've never ran for president in the first place

^Reminds me of that Family Guy episode where Lois is running for mayor and her answer to everything is "9/11" and the people love it.

Quoted from Klang

Interesting, because a friend of mine from another forum who is a New Yorker feels differently. She wrote this...



Differing perceptions. Interesting.

:)

I'd like to know how someone could have planned for something like 9/11. Blaming someone after the fact for not having a plan in place for something so out of left field is pretty much a waste of time. Not every New Yorker loves Rudy that's for sure. With people like him you either love him or hate him. That's just the way it is with strong personalities. But they can't deny what he did for the City and I doubt they'd ever want to go back to living in a pre Rudy city. If the person saying this even remembers what that was like. I'm not saying I'd vote for him cuz like I've said I haven't started listening enough, but I don't think him mentioning 9/11 would prevent me if I agreed with him on most other things. That would be sort of petty. But whatever.

Quoted from somedude210

well put Pasta

and gulianni is milking 9/11 dry. every speech, he manages to say it 3 or 4 times. if it wasnt for that, he would've never ran for president in the first place

Not true. People were asking him to run before 9/11. It was always a possibility. As for the 9/11 stuff. Why does that annoy you so much? I mean, seriously, I haven't listened to him speak that much but what's he saying that gets you?

Good points.

:)

I got this email today, and I'm interested in comments on it. It's from MoveOn org. (The numbers represent footnotes linking to the source. I'm only reproducing the beginning of the message here. I can copy in the whole thing if anyone's interested.)


This weekend, Rudy Giuliani launched a series of attacks on us (MoveOn) for exposing the White House spin on the "surge."

Giuliani is hoping to scare war critics into staying silent. But that isn't going to happen. We've put together a rapid-response ad which demonstrates that Giuliani doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to leadership on Iraq: He was booted from the Iraq Study Group after missing meeting after meeting so he could make millions of dollars giving speeches.

We want voters to know that Giuliani can't be trusted on Iraq. Can you help with $250 to get this ad on the air in Iowa? Click here to see the ad and contribute:

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/giuliani.html?id=11257-3207800-5KEQ_f&t=3

The facts are very clear: When it really mattered, Giuliani chose to make big money from speeches rather than helping figure out a strategy for Iraq.

The Iraq Study group (ISG) was a bipartisan panel appointed by Congress in March of 2006 to evaluate the situation in Iraq and make policy recommendations on the war. Sometimes it's referred to as the Baker-Hamilton commission.

Giuliani originally said that he looked forward to participating in the group,1 but then he never showed up to any of the meetings.

Newsday reported earlier this year that, "Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said."2

Giuliani later said that he couldn't participate in the group because of "time constraints." A close look at his financial records shows that those time constraints actually consisted of a series of speeches that he made millions of dollars on.3

* In April of last year. Giuliani skipped a meeting and made $200,000 giving a keynote speech at an economic conference in South Korea.4
* The next month he skipped another meeting to give a $100,000 speech on "leadership" in Atlanta. Later that day, he attended a $100-a-ticket political fundraiser for conservative activist Ralph Reed.5
For Giuliani to claim any authority on handling the war in Iraq when he abdicated his responsibilities to the Iraq Study Group is a plain betrayal of the nation's trust. In fact, Stephen Hess, who served on the panel and has served in Republican and Democratic administrations, said, "Leaving that study group was not exactly an act of courage."6

Mudslinging. Each and every candidate can have an e-mail like that written about them. You just have to use common sense.

im still going to vote ron paul for republican candidate. at least he has common sense

Just don't go voting for someone who doesn't have a chance and is there to basically f-up the elections like that whole Ralph Nader farce. Again, go with your common sense. The lesser of two evils. It's all we've got. You can fantasize about the perfect candidate, but don't let your idealism get in the way of actually accepting the fact that we've basically got two choices and you need to pick the best of those two. Nice as it is to say you were different, but it gets us nowhere.

I really don't care who the republican candidate will be, cause I don't want the next president to be a republican anyway.

actually, ron paul may have a chance. not a huge chance, but its still possible.


and ill probably vote obama or edwards for the democratic candidate. just no hillary

hilary!!

Dillary!

:P

hilary dillary dang!!!thats what we'll be saying in a few years...

Neocon 'godfather' Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran

ONE of the founding fathers of neoconservatism has privately urged President George W Bush to bomb Iran rather than allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.

Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement who has joined Rudolph Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser, held an unpublicised meeting with Bush late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

The encounter reveals the enduring influence of the neoconservatives at the highest reaches of the White House, despite some high-profile casualties in the past year.

Full story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece

Kind of puts paid to Giuliani’s hopes of being President then.

intellectual guru and he wants to bomb iran off the map? isnt that kinda an oxymoron?

Quoted from somedude210

intellectual guru and he wants to bomb iran off the map? isnt that kinda an oxymoron?

Well, some kind of moron, anyway.

Hilary and i hope she finds a stud intern and gets some action in the Oval office   ;D ;)

DaveRam :P

As an Aussie, I'm too far away to make a judgement and I don't get a vote anyway. But I love to keep informed on politics and I desparately want to see someone with a brain get elected after 8 years of the Dubya Shrub.

On the democratic side it looks like there will be a titanic battle between Obama and Clinton. While philosophically I am more "democrat" than "republican" I feel no great desire to see either elected. A moderate Republican would do fine. I hear McCain won the latest primary, which was a bit of a shock to me. I thought he was a spent force. What do you US forum members think of McCain?

Homer Simpson?

I think i prefer Barack Obama to the other runners.But i think his campaign needs a bit more back-bone instead of the constant 'change' speeches ringing out.But lets be honest,George bush is the devil on earth........they cant get much worse.

I don't usually pay much attention to the primaries, but the Democratic race looks like being pretty interesting. Is the average American ready for a black president? I doubt it. Is the average American ready for a female president? Probably not, though I give Hilary a better chance. I think they're going to cancel each other out, which will lead to more votes for Edwards. It's his for the taking.

John Kerry has just thrown his weight behind Barack Obama today, so that might make a difference.

My friend had an interesting take on the Iowa Republican caucuses, where Fundamentalist Mike Huckabee won receiving 34% of the electorate and Mitt Romney (Latter Day Saints) finished second with 25%. At first blush this looks terrible; America is well on its way towards establishing a theocracy under the American Taliban. But perhaps the real answer is more encouraging: more and more people who used to vote Republican have simply abandoned the party. They've finally realized that these extremists do _not_ represent their views, and plan to vote Democratic this term.

I've talked to many of these converts myself. For women, the Katrina disaster was a big motivator. For some, Bush's unauthorized spying on Americans (when methods legally available were not used) was a deciding factor. The Republicans successfully appealed to their most radical base for the last few elections. But most Republicans don't hold these radical views. They want health care and a decent education and, oh, jobs would be nice. I don't think they want a holy war with the Mideast-- can anyone who considers him/herself a moderate Republican comment on this?

I really don't know. I'm living in a country that elected Bush twice, thinks reality TV is entertaining, and wants to get rich so they can treat everyone else like crap, just like the rich people are doing today. Not a healthy place. But I really do think that the majority of my fellow Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the unholy alliance between government and corporate interests is designed to shut them out of that piece of the pie that they'd give _anything_ to get, so they'd better settle for some responsible government before they find themselves taking the bus to work in our crappy excuse for a mass-transit system and wondering what the hell happened to their discretionary income.

From this distance all I can say is that it is a good sign that this election is generating such real interest in the voters. The higher the turnout the more credable the result, regardless of whether it goes for or against you. It's about the best you can ask for in a democracy.

Absolutely! I spent most of my efforts in the last election not supporting a specific candidate, but getting out the vote-- registering people, calling them, knocking on doors, following up on election day. I have my views, obviously, but for a representative democracy to be "representative", it ought to reflect the views of the majority-- which our government clearly does not. I've been fed up for 8 years, but other people are reaching their individual "enough" lines. I hope it's not too few or too late.

No-one's told me what they think of McCain yet, He seems like a really decent guy, and apparently he has strong personal links to our Aussie politicans, so that's a big thumbs up from my viewpoint. I really hope the Republicans go for a moderate candidate this time. Actually, I think they'll have to, because after 8 years of the Dubya Shrub surely the Democratic candidate will wipe the floor with any Neo-con the Republicans may nominate.  

if i vote republican (highly unlikely) i'd go for McCain because hes actually honest...well as much as one for a politician

for democrats, which i'm going to end up voting for, i want Edwards to win, he has some interesting and actual plans. i wouldve voted for richardson if he had a shot and didnt drop out. Obama has the charisma and can talk the talk, and hillary is just hillary.

I'm wondering how long it will be before Edwards starts pulling into the lead, once the novelty of a black man, and a woman has worn off.

As chris rock said last night on UK TV...'Bush must have messed things up real bad that we got a black man & a woman in the running.' lol

Answering the McCain question-- he started strong last time, offering a moderate or compromise view that was appealing to many Americans. But he got crushed by his party because he wasn't playing ball. They withdrew support, ran false ads, the works (same thing they do to the democratic candidates). So a tame McCain revised his opinions to suck up to the (then) powers that be, in hopes to not end his political career.

The Democrats are always like herding cats; that's why "divide and conquer" works so well on them. They tend to be more thoughtful and independent. The Republicans are your power block; you're with us or against us, and if the latter, then you're all the way out.

That's why, even though I think McCain isn't a bad person, he caved before and he will cave again to the tyranny of his party. He can't be trusted, because he runs with jackals, literally back-room politicians who decide everything. I'm sick of a powerless puppet figurehead.

As far as smarts, all our contenders are smarter than Bush. That's a pretty low bar, but a reaction is understandable. Hilary did appeal to me for her keen intelligence and experience, but she's been running a very dirty campaign. In Iowa, a series of push-polls went out to voters ("Would you vote for Obama if you knew he was raised in a terrorist camp?" that sort of thing)-- to all the toprunners except Clinton. My, I wonder who was behind that?  ::) My sister reports people following Edwards volunteers around and taking their literature off the door to leave their own handouts (saves finding the sympathetic base on your own). Just dirty pool. From an experienced politician like Clinton, I expect she knows these tactics are successful. But I'm sick of corruption. I want someone more upright, not just another brand of sleaze.

I also see Clinton as too willing to compromise. As has been pointed out with Bill's administration, he saved his "campaign promises" to fight pollution, enact social advances, etc. until the end of his term, so he wouldn't offend his corporate buddies. Then the new administration came in and repealed all of them. So Bill could pretend he acted in good faith, while he was just another one snacking at the executive feed trough. I don't expect Mrs. Bill to be any different. I want change, not a new flavor of more of the same.

Obama talks well, but I'm not sure he has the spine to pull off actual change. I would hope he'd get a lot of excellent support from people who are eager to see him succeed. It could be good. But I think for a real hard-line stance against the corporate interests who are poisoning our government, I'd back up Edwards. Obama is inspirational; Edwards is pissed.  ;D I'm pissed. We're a match made in heaven!

Seriously, either of these guys would be great, and a vast improvement (need I say) over the dangerous outlaws we have now. I don't worry so much about the Democrat selections. What I worry about is a third party (which we desperately need) coming in and splitting the vote, a la Ross Perot. Many people (myself included) are hideously disappointed with the Democrats -- they are such wimps! So populist voters could easily be seduced into making a different choice-- and that would leave the old power-block Republicans in place, which is what keeps getting them in. I don't see them abandoning their winning formula now.

I can hope the Democrats start to act as if they have conviction -- as presidential candidate Chris Dodd did when he left his Iowa campaign to lead (successfully) a filibuster in Congress. At stake was a controversial measure that would give special legal protections to the telecom industry-- prevent them from being investigated for unlawful spying (another in-advance pardon, folks), and renew no-acccountability government spying powers. I mean, hello! Yes, this is the kind of action free citizens want. I wish they would realize that people want this behavior and would support them more for doing it.

Quoted from An Apple Beatle

As chris rock said last night on UK TV...'Bush must have messed things up real bad that we got a black man & a woman in the running.' lol

Love it! Chris rocks! :D

I still think Ringo has a good chance.

Thank you, harihead! That was fascinating, if a little depressing as well! ;D

welcome to reality

George Bush. He has shown he has the right stuff, and is the kind of man we all need for these times of troubles. Besides, he's always been a good boy, and has trouble keeping friends.

Signed, Barbara Bush

Popularity polls over here in the Netherlands tell that Hillary is our #1, followed closely by Obama. Nevertheless, when asked who the Dutch expect to be the next president, Obama won.

Quoted from Sandra

I'd like to know what people think of Giuliani. What he did for NYC was amazing. I mean, if you were there in the 70's and 80's, it was a real crap hole. Now it's like Disney. The guy can get things done and he's pretty liberal for a republican. I still haven't made my mind up one way or the other though. I'm trying not to let the fellow New Yorker Italian thing bias me, but you know.  ;)

Giuliani is the true Bush/Cheney heir, peddling fear being his strongest suit.

I would hope Ron Paul
He actually has some sense..

I like Mitt Romney, he's the smartest one out there.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I'm wondering how long it will be before Edwards starts pulling into the lead, once the novelty of a black man, and a woman has worn off.

What a smart arse I am then! ;D

According to the news this morning Obama is Irish well at least part of him is , His Great Great Great Grandfather came from Moneygall :)

I hope Obama will win. He seems like a smart, reliable, decent and reasonable man.

Quoted from Joost

I hope Obama will win. He seems like a smart, reliable, decent and reasonable man.

Oh please. He's a politician! ;)

Reposting the link here because it's such a great song:

Yes, We Can! - Si, Se Puede!

The "Yes We Can" song is a great song. Play it and cry. Here's a link to the song & video, featuring a star cast, by Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas. Inspired by Barack Obama's 'Yes We Can' speech.

http://www.yeswecansong.com

http://www.barackobama.com/

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Oh please. He's a politician! ;)

I meant smart, reliable, decent and reasonable for a politician.  ;)

We had a little political discussion in class today and this one girl said something that made everybody go  :o  :-/

She said that O'Bama wasn't going to get elected because 1. He's black 2. He'll get assassinated because he's black and 3. His name is too close to Osama.

:-/ Yikes

I think this person is voicing a lot of the common fears. A friend recently saw Obama speak and she reported she was relieved to see that he was very well guarded. Still, when a very charasmatic individual emerges, you always have the danger of some fool trying to off him or her.

As far as the "he's black" and "his name sounds like", there are plenty of dead-ignorant Americans to whom this will make a difference. Our election process often shows off the intelligence of our great nation to the rest of the world, and we haven't been holding up too well in that regard.

Quoted from JimmyMcCullochFan

We had a little political discussion in class today and this one girl said something that made everybody go  :o  :-/

She said that O'Bama wasn't going to get elected because 1. He's black 2. He'll get assassinated because he's black and 3. His name is too close to Osama.

:-/ Yikes

That's actually pretty observant. An awful lot of people will not vote for him because he's black.

Clinton and Obama both have a different but absolutely equal advantage and disadvantage. Some people will vote for Obama because he's not female, some will vote for Clinton because she's not black.

Get used to saying 'President McCain'.

Sorry to come over all clueless like, but why does Hillary Clinton's web site only list 49 states?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Get used to saying 'President McCain'.

If that happens I'll go live in whatever 50th state is sliding under the radar...

A couple of friends of mine were just talking about Obama and assassination. I was shocked. I hadn't even given the possibility a thought! Personally, I don't think this country is in that place anymore. The two I was chatting with are both older people and were around in the sixties, so I guess to them it's more of a reality. I just don't believe people in this country have that intense level of hatred towards African American's anymore. Not to that extent. I mean, there's always a faction and I believe that faction is very small and stupid and not a threat. I also believe that he's got one hell of a security team and will not put himself at such risk. But that's just me trying to have faith in humanity. Probably just being naive and stupid though as was pointed out to me by my baby boomer friends!  :P

Anyway, I think if anything the hatred aimed at us from outside the country has brought a feeling of closeness with one another regardless of race. At least it felt that way right after you know what. I still think those feelings prevail on some level. But then I live in a VERY liberal city where people are extremely accepting of one another. Maybe that's affected my judgment.

Quoted from Sandra

A couple of friends of mine were just talking about Obama and assassination.

That thought occurred to me, too, I'm sorry to say. It's not the racist angle that concerns me so much as it is the loser looking for his fifteen minutes of fame bit.

As for the broader question of who should become president, I'm still naively idealistic enough (just) to hope that a guy like Obama could make a difference. I'm also cynical enough to know where I'd place my bet on his chances of succeeding.

Obama made another terrific speech, this time addressing the unpopular racial question. In my mind, he handles these types of divisive issues beautifully.

You can watch or read the whole speech here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3511&id=12333-1263300-H1Mh81&t=546

If you're busy, here's a highlight from the speech:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3510&id=12333-1263300-H1Mh81&t=547

I have the dreadful impression that Jeremiah Wright just tilted this race back towards Senator Clinton, perhaps decisively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18wright.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

After watching a documentary on television about the Iraq swindle, I have lost all faith in politicians. In the end, it's all just a bunch of liars.
Sorry, no offence intended, but it was another drop in a full bucket.

I watched Obamas speech on BBC and I liked what he said but...I reckon Hilary got to Jeremiah.

I mostly agree Bobber...I also saw that an ex-CIA agent of 20 years experience is releasing a book on Iraq...In the interview he pretty much declares that Sunny's & Muslims should be left to civil war by pulling American troops out and his other big statement is that the US should not rely on Gulf oil. It's all a bloody mess.

Quoted from An Apple Beatle

and his other big statement is that the US should not rely on Gulf oil. It's all a bloody mess.

What an original thought! And let's not forget all the fresh water they pipe in from Canada.

Don't know if we watched the same.  :)  My main thing is that in order to go to war, lies were collected and presented as the truth. It is proven that Bush and Blair went to war (and other countries as well because 'if you are not with us, you are against us') based on lies. The complete statement Colin Powell made in the UN meeting was a big lie. He might not have known that himself, but probably he was used. To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president and one of the most powerful men on Earth to this very day. And our own administration over here still has some of the same people on high posts, who were involved in getting along with these lies. They have never been called to justice. In the documentary it was proven that the press and the public were manipulated by the militairy and so administrations of the US and (in a lesser degree) the UK. In the first days of the Iraq War they were told nothing but a few positive points in order to make us believe that it would all soon be over without much loss of lives. And once again, the lie has been proven a lie. Now, how can I be convinced of the credibility and integrity of ANY politician anywhere on this planet? It looks like a complete set up. The Dutch administration went along with Bush and a short time later, the Dutch minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (then of Foreign Affairs) became the new secretary general of the NATO. It is all planned, they all shake hands and have a few laughs together. There might be some politicians who are truely working on the people's case, but even in my own village, it's mostly for their own good that they base their decisions on.

The Danes also went along with it. But just before the last election, when the Prime Minister - Anders Fogh Rasmussen - realised he was behind in the polls, he pulled the Danish troops out.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

What an original thought! And let's not forget all the fresh water they pipe in from Canada.

Well I did think that they would preserve Alaska's oil supplies first by draining the middle east. lol

Quoted from Bobber

Don't know if we watched the same.  :)  My main thing is that in order to go to war, lies were collected and presented as the truth. It is proven that Bush and Blair went to war (and other countries as well because 'if you are not with us, you are against us') based on lies. The complete statement Colin Powell made in the UN meeting was a big lie. He might not have known that himself, but probably he was used. To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president and one of the most powerful men on Earth to this very day. And our own administration over here still has some of the same people on high posts, who were involved in getting along with these lies. They have never been called to justice. In the documentary it was proven that the press and the public were manipulated by the militairy and so administrations of the US and (in a lesser degree) the UK. In the first days of the Iraq War they were told nothing but a few positive points in order to make us believe that it would all soon be over without much loss of lives. And once again, the lie has been proven a lie. Now, how can I be convinced of the credibility and integrity of ANY politician anywhere on this planet? It looks like a complete set up. The Dutch administration went along with Bush and a short time later, the Dutch minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (then of Foreign Affairs) became the new secretary general of the NATO. It is all planned, they all shake hands and have a few laughs together. There might be some politicians who are truely working on the people's case, but even in my own village, it's mostly for their own good that they base their decisions on.

I agree Bobber....it sounds like my local council......Corruption at every level and those in power only care about career/wage enhancement.

Quoted Text

To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president

Yes, our Congress has no backbone. They should have impeached the creep.

I do think there are fair-minded people who get into politics. I think it's easy to be corrupted, but I do think a lot of people are sincere and community minded when they start.

As for Wright, I watched one news clip from Fox with his supposed "anti-American" comments, and he was saying things like, "We were lied to about weapons of mass destruction" (does anyone doubt this now?) and "America is controlled by rich white people" (does anyone doubt _that_ either)? To me, this is the kind of passionate preaching that goes on in these types of churches, intended to fire up the congregation. I don't know. I only watched it once, but I suppose I'm missing what it is that has everyone in an uproar. (For what it's worth, I never understood the wild enthusiasm over the Da Vinci Code, either. I read the book and said, "Um, was this the bit that had everyone worked up?")

Hilary
but I can't vote so oh well

Warning: USA-centric post to follow, no offense intended to all the wonderful people on this forum that hail from elsewhere ...

Either one is fine (Hillary or Obama), as long as they win in November!

If I knew for sure that Obama had the cojones to be tough when needed, he'd have my full support, for what it's worth. He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ... will he be able to be get things done when his opponents spit in the hand he extends in partnership?

Hillary is tough and competent, nothing to be taken for granted after the last 8 years of hell. If I knew for sure that as President she wouldn't be so polarizing to her opponents that there would be NO chance of breaking the gridlock in D.C. strangling the entire nation, SHE'd have my full support. But heaven forbid, what if she is the ONLY thing that could mobilize the radical rabid repulsive right to get over their self-pity and off their couches to vote in the election?!!!

I don't know any of those things for sure, so I'm not really sure who of the two would be the best president. All I know is that it CAN'T be a Republican. That would be like giving the OK for the Republicans (and their empowering cla$$) to twist the knife that Bush has already stabbed into the heart of our fine country (and soul, if that is possible). (Sorry for the sad meta4, harihead feel free to edit...)

FWIW, when I voted in the Democratic primaries (TX), I voted for Hillary. I suppose that was an "old person's vote" for the known with less upside, over the unknown with more upside but more also downside.

:)

Quoted from alexis

He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ...

Obama's real problem is that he is raising expectations that aren't going to be met. "New" politics always becomes "old" as soon as it clashes with the simple reality of having to get something done, and Obama's task is going to be managing that transition. In other words, either before the election or some time soon after (assuming that he is the nominee and wins), he is going to need a second act. He is a marvelously gifted rhetorician, but he cannot simply keep going on about "change." He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.

If Hilary learnt from Bill, then she learnt that you postpone all decision making to the end of your term and what was that flouride water thing he passed?....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol

Quoted from An Apple Beatle

....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol

Some commentators over here have been saying the same thing: that Obama's biggest test is surviving the Clintons' Lee Atwater style brick-to-the-head tactics. John McCain and the congressional Republicans are small potatoes by comparison. There's an old joke about lawyers that also suits the Clintons:

Three reasons why scientists would rather use lawyers instead of rats in their lab experiments:
1) There are more of them.
2) You don't have to worry about your lab assistants becoming attached to them.
3) There are some things that rats will just refuse to do as a matter of principle.
;)

Thanks, Geoff, you made my morning.

Agree with  An Apple Beatle that Bill Clinton postponed his vital legislation until the very end of his term-- that way he wouldn't upset his corporate buddies. He could say to his base, "I tried" and say to his funders, "You'll only have to put up with this for 6 months, then the next guy will repeal everything" (which Bush did).

We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government.

I see Hillary as "old school, more of the same". I wanted to get behind her, but she has completely lost my respect. If she wins the election, I might actually have to sit out, as I can vote for neither "Forever War" McCain or Clinton. And I have never missed an election.

Re: Obama:

Quoted Text

He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.

Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan? I know he's a dope, but he's also our president and as far as I can tell, he doesn't have plans for anything. Upon entering office, he hadn't any plans except "How the heck can we get our hands on more MidEast oil?" which never went anywhere until after 9/11, and then the world gave him a pass. His only "plan" since then has been "stay the course", even when the course has been proven disastrous, and the mass murderer who started it, Bin Laden, walks free. Did you ever see a more incompetent attempt at follow-up than the United States' arthritic response to Afghanistan? Except Katrina; we couldn't handle Katrina either and it was right here.

I can't believe people still want more of the same, but that's what you'll be getting with McCain. At least Clinton will do some things I approve of, but her liplock with big business will mean America will continue to go down the tubes.

Quoted from harihead

Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan?  

I think you can see what Bush was essentially about in some of his pre-911 agenda items, especially his tax cuts. He's really the most ploddingly conventional of Republican politicians: reduce high-end tax rates; investment and growth follow; everybody's better off. There is probably a grain of truth in this, and anyway if you leave your tax rates comparatively high the money just goes offshore, but I'd prefer tax cuts to go to the middle classes myself. They're most likely to invest in homes, spend the cash on consumer goods, or invest it in the form of education for themselves or their kids. This is all to the good. Tom Daschle and the Senate Democrats insisted on this during the fight over the 2001 round of tax cuts, and I think they were right.

Politically, he was utterly ordinary, too: his electoral strategy simply consisted of rounding up the Republican base with post-1980 boilerplate, and offering a few goodies to sway suburban voters in swing states like Ohio and Florida. ("No Child Left Behind," etc.) Karl Rove is considered a masterful political tactitian, but that strategy is in fact the simplest and most obvious one to use if your base is the numerically larger one.

But please go vote: whatever I think of Hillary Clinton's miserable tactics (and noticeably self-dramatizing posturing), I'll still go vote for her (nose definitely held if not held high) because she could well achieve some things. Another Clinton presidency probably won't be any more edifying than the first, but she's intelligent and capable- even likable, according to some, when she isn't performing for the cameras.

Thanks, Geoff. Perhaps I didn't see Bush spell out his platform because he didn't need to; everyone already knew what he wanted to do. Thank you for the great summary.

Yes, I will vote for whatever candidate the Dems put forward. I like your phrase: nose definitely held if not held high. I'll be thinking that when I cast my ballot (of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).

Oh, Thomas Jefferson. If you could see us now...

Quoted from harihead

  
   ...   We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government...

I know you were just abbreviating, it's really not that simple of course. We all agree that one of the major flaws of the political system is the apparently unfettered and exclusive access that big donors (corporations and the like) have to Congress and the President, indeed to government at all levels.

But each of us are citizens, each with our own "private" interests. What if my uncle wants to keep a proposed highway from running through his  farm, one that has been in the family for generations? The highway happens to be $trongly $ponsored by the consortium of small oil refiners in the southern part of the state looking to reduce their transportation costs. They don't give a hoot what properties the highway goes through, or the damage to the way of life building the highway will cause - it's just a simple dollars and cents issue to them.

As it turns out, one of the candidates on the election ballot is also strongly against the higway, so my uncle contributes to his campaign, and actually organizes many other like-minded property owners to contribute as well. Then when the candidate is elected (yipee!), my uncle's group hires someone with experience in government to work to get on the legislator's schedule and convince him to make it a priority to block the legislation funding the highway. This person my uncle's group has hired, yes a lobbyist  :D (angry2) , even buys ads on local TV and radio in the legislator's district, to sway people against the highway. My uncle invites the legislator to his farm, (transportation at my uncle's expense), shows him around and takes him hunting, to show him a way of life that would be lost if the proposed highway is not blocked.

My hypothetical uncle is a "special", or "private", interest, as are his partners in that effort, as we all are. So, yes, we all agree buying legislators' votes by corporations is wrong and immoral.  But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of allowing democracy to work as intended - citizens having access to legislators, and legislators voting to reflect the will of the people. Likewise, not all money spent in the process is inherently evil, as maybe the examples above show.

It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  (the unsaid to follow of course is: "burn her"!). Where I work, the majority of the people (or at least the loudest) are radical right Republicans, and so Fox News is on in the lunch room. I hear the bubbleheads there talk about money that the "Environmental Special Interests" or "Anti-War Special Interests" spend, with the same disdain/hatred we may talk about "Big Oil" or the NRA.  It's too simple to tar everyone we don't agree with with the same brush, calling them a "special interest" . All the candidates, Obama and Clinton included, are guilty of this type of pandering, apparently having low expectations of their supporters ("Let's toss them red meat here, they'll cheer loudly at this point of the speech").

The hard part is precisely defining at what point the process moves from reasonable into sleazy. The candidates don't seem to address that very often, and as long as their constituents don't hold them to task, they never will. Our responsibility as citizens is to make our government better (like life in general, complaining about it while doing otherwise doesn't carry much weight). Voting for the candidate who comes closest to the ideal, and then working with them and the process from there, seems a good place to start.

Quoted from harihead

(of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).

You'll be fine if you're not in Florida! ;)

By the way, have a look at Maureen Dowd's Bushworld: Enter At Your Own Risk. It's culled from her NYT columns. Not the last word on W's presidency, of course, but better than most and definitely readable (sez the shamelessly partisan Democrat).

Quoted from alexis

It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  

I agree, which is why I tried (and failed!) to use a different term. I enjoyed your example of citizen involvement in government. I tried (along with the rest of the neighborhood) to get a highway rerouted from going in back of my house. No luck. We all showed up-- all of us-- and it was, "Sign this piece of paper to say you're protesting, but the deal is done and you're getting this road whether you like it or not." Most of us sold and got out before the highway went in. It just ruined the town, cutting it in two. So it's a double-edged sword; you have to have enough people to make your protest meaningful, but you get too many and suddenly you're a "special interest" and not representing the citizen population anymore. Tough call!

Geoff, thanks for the reference to Maureen Dowd's Bushworld. I'll give that a look.

Quoted from harihead

Did you ever see a more incompetent attempt at follow-up than the United States' arthritic response to Afghanistan? Except Katrina; we couldn't handle Katrina either and it was right here.

This was either hysterically funny, or tragically sad. Let's mobilise the military to deal with the after effects of a hurricane, and nobody shows up. I bet Iran are quaking in their boots!!

All the candidates, Obama and Clinton included, are guilty of this type of pandering, apparently having low expectations of their supporters ("Let's toss them red meat here, they'll cheer loudly at this point of the speech").

Pandering takes more entertaining forms, too: in Ohio, Clinton was playing Dolly Parton's '9 to 5' at her rallies and dropping her 'g's' (as in thinkin', goin', etc.). It seems to me her campaign was running TV ads that tried to make her out to be just another workin' girl, too. All conjured up by her campaign team after feeding a whack of demographic reports into a computer, of course. Mitt Romney, whose campaign tried and failed with just this sort of focus-grouped nonsense, must be banging his head in frustration.

Quoted from harihead

... I tried (along with the rest of the neighborhood) to get a highway rerouted from going in back of my house. No luck. We all showed up-- all of us-- and it was, "Sign this piece of paper to say you're protesting, but the deal is done and you're getting this road whether you like it or not." Most of us sold and got out before the highway went in. It just ruined the town, cutting it in two. So it's a double-edged sword; you have to have enough people to make your protest meaningful, but you get too many and suddenly you're a "special interest" and not representing the citizen population anymore. Tough call!

...

Oh my gosh, that is just horrible! As much as we like to think we have some rights, in the end if the government wants something, it will be satisfied. I remember hearing about an example of eminent domain (that term makes it sound so majestic!) recently where a town basically evicted a whole neighborhood, stating they needed the land for public use, sorry guys! They then went and SOLD IT TO A CONDO DEVELOPER! When they were sued, they said well, just because the condo developer got rich doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Needless to say, the original inhabitants were not amused. I think this one went all the way to the Supreme Court (a.k.a. "Bushworld"!), does anyone remember how it turned out?

Did you mean Kelo v. New London from 2005?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/nyregion/08domain.html?scp=2&sq=kelo+suzette&st=nyt

Quoted from Geoff

Did you mean Kelo v. New London from 2005?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/nyregion/08domain.html?scp=2&sq=kelo+suzette&st=nyt

Yes that was it, thanks!

I remember now that David Souter, not one usually considered part of "Bushworld" (aka US Supreme Court), actually voted for this bizarre interpretation of eminent domain. He has a house up in Maine or somewhere, and I remember that the people in his small town tried to get the local city council to vote to "acquire" Souter's property for the "public benefit" of the town. It never did ultimately come off, I wonder if it made any impression on him or not...?

Quoted from alexis

Yes that was it, thanks!

I remember now that David Souter, not one usually considered part of "Bushworld" (aka US Supreme Court), actually voted for this bizarre interpretation of eminent domain. He has a house up in Maine or somewhere, and I remember that the people in his small town tried to get the local city council to vote to "acquire" Souter's property for the "public benefit" of the town. It never did ultimately come off, I wonder if it made any impression on him or not...?

It was in New Hampshire, actually. As I'm sure you know, the state motto there is "Live Free Or Die," and you mess with those people at your own risk.

Scroll down to the "Personal" section here; there's a line or two about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

Too good not to post:


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BfNqhV5hg4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

I'm going to miss the Clintons when they're finally gone.

I think the Democrats or screwing themselves right now. Too much double talk going on. Obama trying to defend his affiliation with his minister and yet somehow pretend he didn't know he felt that way all those years? And Hillary was pretty stupid for the I was fired on lie. What was she thinking??? I hope they get it together soon. This is disheartening and the Republicans are loving it.

Quoted from Sandra

This is disheartening and the Republicans are loving it.

You bet. I haven't got the polls handy, but according to this morning's Meet The Press (the Brooks-Beinart segment), McCain's positives are now in the sixties and independents, who had been leaning heavily Democratic, are now tilting Republican. In straight up electoral matches, McCain edges Clinton and Obama comes out slightly ahead of McCain. This at a time when the incumbent Republican president is at historic lows in the popularity polls, the economy is sliding, and we are stuck in a war nobody knows how to end. Hillary Clinton is threatening to fight all the way to the delegate credentials committee at the convention if necessary. As the old joke goes, the Democrats' idea of a firing squad is to form a circle.

My favorite non-story of the campaign:


Senior Democrats Mull Al Gore's Nomination

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:02am BST 31/03/2008

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml


The sources are all former Gore retainers, you'll notice. ;D

Geoff, stop depressing me!!!!

Okay, you can depress me. I'm really enjoying your political commentary. This pisses me off: "The bloody civil war". Democrats fracturing in all directions is not what we need more of!

I blame Clinton and her all-consuming ambition for the degree of division we now have. I don't think she wants so much to do good for the country as to do good for Hillary. Can we call back the Founding Fathers and have do-overs?

Quoted from harihead

I blame Clinton and her all-consuming ambition for the degree of division we now have. I don't think she wants so much to do good for the country as to do good for Hillary.

I've actually made at least some effort to try to keep an open mind about the Clintons despite all the evidence, but after that Bosnia business I came to the same conclusion Peggy Noonan did the other day in the WSJ:


Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008; Page W18

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html


I'd just add that this is the Clintons as we've known them since 1992; Bill being the guy who made himself famous that year for claiming that he'd tried- but not inhaled, God forbid!- the weed.  ;D

From this morning's New York Times. Kristol's best column for them so far, I think:


The Shape of the Race to Come

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: April 7, 2008
I’ve spent a fair amount of time the last couple of weeks with conservatives of all ages and leanings. Call it my very own listening tour.

It began with a series of conversations with a group of Weekly Standard subscribers. Then, last week, I had lunch with the only three conservatives in Cambridge, Mass.; participated in an event in New York with the leadership of Vets for Freedom; mixed and mingled with Republicans before a speech in Michigan; and, on Friday, attended a reception for friends of Bill Buckley after his memorial service at St. Patrick’s, then discussed politics that evening with conservative college students at Georgetown University.

Apart from accumulating a few frequent flier miles, what do I have to show for my travels? I can report that lots of conservatives and Republicans expect Barack Obama to be our next president.

Some Republicans are grasping at the idea that a long, bitter fight for the Democratic nomination will weaken Obama. Their hopes are about to be dashed. After the results are in from Pennsylvania on April 22, or from Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, it should become clear that Hillary Clinton won’t be able to catch Obama in the overall popular vote. Without that possibility, Clinton won’t have a shot at persuading superdelegates to break her way.

So Clinton will probably concede by mid-May. She’ll be a gracious loser (they’ll hide Bill away somewhere). The weeks that follow will be a Democratic lovefest. And the money will keep pouring in to the Obama campaign, ensuring Democratic dominance of the airwaves in the summer.

The Democratic convention is the last week in August. Shortly before, Obama will pick his running mate. He’ll have good choices available to him: experienced figures like Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, a senator with military service like Rhode Island’s Jack Reed — or, of course, Hillary Clinton. Then the Hollywood-produced and directed Democratic convention will be all uplifting Change and inspiring Hope, and it will work.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign will be slow taking off. Fund-raising will continue to be anemic. And his team will need to manage a G.O.P. convention at which Bush and Cheney will have to be loyally hailed for their achievements, even as John McCain tries to turn the page.

It’s going to be a summer of love for Obama, and a tough few months for McCain.

McCain’s comeback should begin just after Labor Day, on Sept. 4, with a strong acceptance speech at the Republican convention. The presidential debates will also provide an opportunity. Expectations for Obama will be too high, people will forget he isn’t as good a debater as he is a speaker — and McCain could well rise to the occasion.

More fundamental will be the question of the discrepancy between the image of Obama the uniter and the reality of Obama the liberal. That hasn’t been much of a problem for Obama in the Democratic contest, since Clinton hasn’t attacked from the right or even the center.

But Republicans will. Last week, over drinks, one Republican strategist not affiliated with the McCain campaign mused about how an independent advertising effort against Obama might work. “Barack Obama: He’s not who you think he is” would be the theme. The supporting evidence would come from his left-wing voting record in Illinois and Washington, spiced up with fun video clips of Reverend Wright.

Who ultimately wins? In politics, as in life, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Many Republicans I know see the weaknesses of their party and of the McCain campaign all too clearly, and assume Obama will prevail.

But a surprising number of Democrats with whom I’ve spoken expect a McCain victory. One told me he was struck by the current polls showing a dead-even race, suggesting both a surprising openness to McCain among Americans who disapprove of Bush and a striking hesitation among the same voters about Obama.

Then there’s the fact that we’re at war. As a Congressional staffer put it, “Here’s something to consider: Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain’s secret weapon — among Clinton supporters — may be Hillary’s 3 a.m. national security ad.”

And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”

In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07kristol.html?ref=opinion

I don't think Hilary's problem is that she wants this too much, to an "unhealthy" degree in some fashion. Her problem is that she can't hide it as well as the others in the race. IMO, nobody goes through the living torture of running unless they want to win very much. She's behind, she's desperate, her campaign is falling apart and she's sleep-deprived - all things guaranteed to let things pass through the "filters" that all the candidates try to keep in place at all costs.

Kristol doesn't impress me, given his track of support for policies aimed almost exclusively at enriching the very very most wealthy in this country at the expense of everybody else. Unsaid in his article is how Obama could paint McCain in more than one unflattering light:

1) "He's not who he says he is" - McCain actually has many documentable interactions with lobbyists that bely his squeeky clean image. Maybe the leopard really can't change his spots (can you spell Keating 5?).

2) "Military experience" - If that's what it takes to say we will stay in Iraq for 100 years, and to be clueless about the major alliances in the region ("Al Qaeda and Iran are working closely together..."), well give me less of that military experience please!

3) "Are you better off than you were before the McCain/Bush/Republican machine took over"?

Say no more!

I'm not a conservative myself, and many of Kristol's other columns for the Times have left me cold, but as an assessment of how the campaign may go, I think there's a lot of sense in there.

Speaking of McCain, Frank Rich had a good take on him in yesterday's Times:


Tet Happened, and No One Cared

By FRANK RICH
Published: April 6, 2008

REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is “willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (as Mr. Obama said) or “willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong.

What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” See for yourself on YouTube.

But Mr. McCain shouldn’t protest too much about the Democrats’ bogus attack. For him, this sideshow is a political lifeline, allowing him to skate away from his many other, far more worrying canards about Iraq. If anything, that misused quote may be one of his more benign fairy tales. How delightful to fantasize that staying the Bush-Petraeus course will transform Iraq into pacific postwar Japan. Iraq’s sects have remained at each other’s throats since their country was carved out of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Perhaps magical thinking can bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians, too.

Everything else Mr. McCain has to say about Iraq is more troubling, and I don’t mean just his recent serial gaffe conflating Shiite Iran and Sunni Qaeda. The sum total of his public record suggests that he could well prolong the war for another century — not because he’s the crazed militarist portrayed by Democrats, but through sheer inertia, bad judgment and blundering.

So far his bizarre pronouncements have been drowned out by the Democrats’ din. They’ve also been underplayed by a press that coddles Ol’ Man Straight Talk and that rarely looks more deeply into the “surge is success” propaganda than it did into Mr. Bush’s announcement of the end of “major combat operations” five years ago. The electorate doesn’t want to hear much anyway about a war it long ago soundly rejected.

For the majority of Americans who haven’t met any of the brave troops who’ve been cavalierly tossed into the quagmire, the war is out of sight and mind in a way Vietnam never was. Only 28 percent of Americans knew American casualties in Iraq were nearing 4,000 last month, according to the Pew Research Center. The Project for Excellence in Journalism found that by March 2008 the percentage of prominent news stories that were about Iraq had fallen to about one-fifth of what it was in January 2007. It’s a poignant commentary on the whole war that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the nonpartisan advocacy group, was reduced to protesting the lack of coverage.

That’s why it’s no surprise that so few stopped to absorb the disastrous six-day battle of Basra that ended last week — a mini-Tet that belied the “success” of the surge. Even fewer noticed that the presumptive Republican nominee seemed at least as oblivious to what was going down as President Bush, no tiny feat.

In Mr. Bush’s telling, Basra was a “defining moment in the history of a free Iraq.” He praised the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and boasted repeatedly that the Iraqi forces were fighting “in the lead.” The Pentagon spokesman declared that this splendid engagement was “a byproduct of the success of the surge.”

It was a defining moment all right. Mr. Maliki’s impulsive and ill-planned attempt to vanquish the militias in southern Iraq loyal to his Shiite rival, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was a failure that left Mr. Sadr more secure than before. Though some Iraqi armed forces were briefly in the lead, others mutinied. Eventually American and British forces and air power had to ride to the rescue in both Basra and Baghdad. Even then, the result was at best a standoff, with huge casualties. The battle ended only when Mr. Maliki’s own political minions sought a cease-fire.

Mr. McCain was just as wrong about Basra as he was in 2003, when he said the war would be “brief” and be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. Or as he was in the 1990s, when he championed extravagant State Department funding for the war instigator Ahmad Chalabi, who’d already been branded untrustworthy by the C.I.A. (The relationship between Mr. Chalabi and the former lobbyist Charles Black, now a chief McCain campaign strategist, is explored in a new book, “The Man Who Pushed America to War,” by Aram Roston.)

As for Basra, Mr. McCain told Joe Klein of Time in January that it was “not a problem.” He told John King of CNN while in Baghdad last month that Mr. Sadr’s “influence has been on the wane for a long time.” When the battle ended last week, Mr. McCain said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.” At least the last of those sentences was accurate. It was indeed the losing side — Maliki’s — that pleaded for the cease-fire.

Perhaps all these mistaken judgments can be attributed to the fog of war. But Mr. McCain’s bigger strategic picture, immutable no matter what happens on the ground, is foggier still. Like Mr. Bush, he keeps selling Iraq as the central front in the war on Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda was not even a participant in the Basra battle, which was an eruption of a Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war. (Al Qaeda is busy enough in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the actual central front in the war on terror.)

Mr. McCain is also fond of portraying Mr. Maliki’s “democracy” in Iraq as an essential bulwark against Iran; his surrogate Lindsey Graham habitually refers to Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army as “Iranian-backed militias.” But the political coalition and militia propping up Mr. Maliki are even closer to Iran than the Sadrists. McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that the Maliki-Sadr cease-fire was not only brokered in Iran but by a general whose name is on the Treasury Department’s terrorist list: the commander of the Quds force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

So this is where this latest defining moment in Iraq leaves us: with victories for Iran and Mr. Sadr, and with Iraqi forces that still can’t stand up (training cost to American taxpayers so far: $22 billion) so we can stand down. The Baghdad Green Zone, pummeled with lethal mortar fire, proved vulnerable once again. Basra remains so perilous that Britain has had to suddenly halt its planned troop withdrawals. Tony Blair had ordered the drawdown a year ago, after declaring that “the next chapter in Basra’s history will be written by the Iraqis.”

The surge is a success in exactly one way: American forces, by putting their lives on the line and benefiting from a now-defunct Sadr cease-fire, have reduced violence in Baghdad (though only to early 2005 levels). But as the Middle East scholar Juan Cole has written, “the ‘surge’ was never meant to be the objective but rather the means.”

None of the objectives have been met. Remember that “return on success” — as in returning troops — that Mr. Bush promised in January’s State of the Union? We will end 2008 with more Americans in Iraq than the 132,000 at the time the surge began. Even Gen. David Petraeus said last month that there has not been “sufficient progress” on the other most important objective, Iraqi political reconciliation. Mr. Maliki’s move against Mr. Sadr in Basra, done without even consulting Iraq’s “democratically elected” Parliament, was an attempt to take out his opponent by force rather than wait for the October provincial elections.

Not that other metrics are any brighter. At last, oil production sometimes reaches prewar levels. But a third or more of the oil, as The New York Times reported, is siphoned off to the black market, where it finances the insurgency. The projected date for turning over security operations to the Iraqis — first set for the end of 2006 by Iraqi officials, then moved up to the end of 2007 and July 2008 by our own Defense Department — is omitted entirely in the latest Pentagon report.

“We’re succeeding,” Mr. McCain said after his last trip to Iraq. “I don’t care what anybody says.” Again, it’s the last sentence that’s accurate. When General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress again this week — against the backdrop of a million-Iraqi, anti-American protest called by Mr. Sadr — Mr. McCain will ram home all this “success” no matter the facts.

The difference between the Democrats and Mr. McCain going forward is clear enough: They want to find a way out of the morass, however provisional and imperfect, and he equates staying the disastrous course with patriotism. Mr. McCain’s doomed promise of military “victory” in Iraq is akin to Wile E. Coyote’s perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner, with much higher carnage. This isn’t patriotism. As the old saying goes, doing the same thing over and over again and hoping you’ll get a different result is the definition of insanity.

The Democrats should also stop repeating their 100-years-war calumny against Mr. McCain. There’s too much at stake for America for them to add their own petty distortions to an epic tragedy that only a long-overdue national reckoning with hard truths can bring to an end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06rich.html

I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....

Quoted from DarkSweetLady

I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....

Hi DSL - no trouble caused, I think all are welcome on this forum!

Remember to always ask yourself - WWGD?

Quoted from DarkSweetLady

I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....

Perfectly all right; just say whatever you think. All I'm doing here is throwing my two cents worth in, and it may be overvalued at even that price! :)

But keep an eye on Romney, though: he gives every sign of wanting to run again, and may well do so in 2012 or 2016. He's 61 right now, I think.

anyone but bush :) ;) :P ;D

Quoted from theBEATLESrock_on

anyone but bush :) ;) :P ;D

He's done, but don't forget about brother Jeb.

Just a heads up.... ;D

hehe...i am so sick of having to call bush mr. president. i have been waiting for this moment for along time

I can't wait to see the memoir we finally get out of him. Bet Cheney ghost writes it. ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from Geoff

I can't wait to see the memoir we finally get out of him. Bet Cheney ghost writes it. ;D

Working title:
"How I got my heart rate in the cardio range, and stayed in shape despite a bum knee, during my Presidency. Oh, and some of that other stuff, you know."

How about: "Everything I know about hunting I learned from Dick Cheney."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

bang bang, you're dead! (well, almost)

One more campaign turn for anyone keeping track... :)



How Obama Fell to Earth

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 18, 2008

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I think both Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for their quite appalling behaviour. If these were children we'd send them to bed early without any supper. In fact  I've seen children behave better than that. Frankly I feel sorry the teaching profession that does it's best to establish good values amongst it's pupils, and send them out into the world as responsible adults, only for them to go home and see these two poor excuses for human beings on the TV. Bloody shocking. And let's not forget that these two are handing the title of Leader of The Free World to a Republican. Again! I do hope that the rest of the free world can think up some good ways of repaying them!

I don't believe David Brooks' gloom saying anymore than I believed the earlier dazzle-eyed excitement. It's a long, wearing race, and commentators are trying to turn this into a soap opera as opposed to an effort to inform the public. And the candidates are apparently (to my disappointment) pitching their appeals on that level.

What's really digusting is the state of American integrity is so bad I have no confidence in the voting system. Right now it's down to who can rig the machines the best. Since I really believe the Republicans are behind most of the hinkey mess, that means how well can the Democrats counter with paper trails etc., and how ugly will the arguing be. I really think the United States needs to be supervised like the childish country it's become. We aren't adults anymore, we're spoiled children. It shows in our values and in our political process.

Quoted from harihead

I don't believe David Brooks' gloom saying anymore than I believed the earlier dazzle-eyed excitement.

A sensible stance, and we're going to see some more turns in the conventional wisdom about this campaign and its candidates before this is over. But I have noticed that some of my Republican friends are feeling downright perky these days: I was talking to a guy the other day who said we (meaning his side) either get to run against a condescending Adlai Stevenson liberal or a serial liar who's married to another serial liar. I told him that after Labor Day his guy was going to have to start defending his Iraq War policy and explain why he couldn't keep his Sunnis and Shiites and Al Qaeda straight. He asked me who I thought working class voters in Ohio would go for: the guy who wants to win that war or the guy who just called them all losers for having guns and being religious?

Quoted from Geoff

It was in New Hampshire, actually. As I'm sure you know, the state motto there is "Live Free Or Die," and you mess with those people at your own risk.

Scroll down to the "Personal" section here; there's a line or two about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

I love that motto for some reason. It cracks me up. That and Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Those revolutionaries weren't playing. Oh, Fight or Die was another great one. Been watching the John Adams Bio on HBO. Love the scene where the battered rebels walk by carrying those flags.

From this morning's NYT


Road Map to Defeat

By BOB HERBERT
Published: April 19, 2008
The Democrats are doing everything they can to blow this presidential election. This is a skill that comes naturally to the party. There is no such thing as a can’t-miss year for the Democrats. They are truly gifted at finding ways to lose.

Jimmy Carter managed to win the White House in 1976 by looking pious and riding a wave of anti-Watergate revulsion. After four hapless years, he dutifully handed the keys back to the G.O.P.

Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn’t let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.

That’s been it for the party for the past 40 years. The Democrats have become so psychologically battered by these many decades in the leadership wilderness that they consider the Clinton years, during which the president was impeached and they lost control of both houses of Congress, to have been a period of triumph.

Now comes 2008, a can’t-lose year if there ever was one. A united Democratic Party should be able to win this election in a walk. The economy is terrible and getting worse. The Republicans are demoralized. John McCain is no J.F.K. And the country wants to elect a Democrat.

So what are the Democrats doing? The Clintons are running around with flamethrowers, gleefully trying to incinerate the prospects of the party’s leading candidate, Barack Obama. As Bill Clinton put it last month: “If a politician doesn’t want to get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office.”

Senator Obama, for his part, seems to have lost sight of the unifying message that proved so compelling early in his campaign and has stumbled into weird cultural predicaments that have caused some people to rethink his candidacy.

While some of those predicaments raise legitimate concerns (his former pastor, his comments in San Francisco) and some do not (stupid questions about wearing a flag pin), he has allowed them to fester unnecessarily. The way for a candidate to eventually change the subject is to offer policy prescriptions so creative and compelling that they generate excitement among the electorate and can’t be ignored by the press.

Voters want more from Senator Obama. He’s given a series of wonderful