Joe Biden got a talking to when he said that world leaders will test the "young president" Obama. It appears that most of the tests in his first 3-4 weeks have been coming from leaders within our own country, first the Republicans in Congress and now General David Petraeus, who apparently has some political aspirations of his own. But doing an end-around the president is not too smart, is it? Yet another sideshow to distract him from the economic troubles at home? Thanks, but no thanks, General.
Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.
The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.
The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Deepak Chopra from Huffington Post
Mike sent me this link. Well said, Mr. Chopra. I don't see anything wrong with what he said here, not one iota. I like to think that Obama shares this view for the most part, in terms of being against the Iraq war, which is the main reason why I decided to support him. I wish more people would get the picture of what is really happening in our world.
My Uncensored Interview with Deepak Chopra
My Uncensored Interview with Deepak Chopra
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's the economy AND the war, stupid!
America's apathy toward foreign affairs is still alive and well, as her sensitivity toward pocketbook pains is much greater than the lives and money lost in a war of choice. Obama must hit these issues hard and go after McCain. Imagine the economic state that this country would be in had billions of dollars not gotten wasted on the Iraq invasion and occupation. This point must be hammered home to the voters. Can we afford a third-term of Bush? A McBush administration? Now Obama can focus his attention on November.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Bush's War - Frontline
In case you missed it or just want to view it at your leisure...They should really call it Cheney and Rumsfeld's War: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
Monday, January 14, 2008
Obama: Iraq & Health Care
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:33 -0800
If I was voting on either side, my preferences would go like this:
Dems
Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, etc.
GOP
McCain, any of those other guys who have no shot when compared to the rest of this side of the field, Huckabee (despite his evangelical background, he seems more genuine than the remainder of this group), Romney (just seems too slimy and disingenuous -- it's like having Pat Riley or Alex Rodriguez as President), Giuliani (how can he run on a platform of nothing but "I was mayor of NYC on 9/11 -- even though I didn't buy decent radios for the firefighters when I had the chance -- and the city didn't burn itself to the ground so I think I'm the right guy to run the most powerful nation on the planet"?
President Hillary just means the Dem Washington insiders and lobbyists are free to return to K Street. Obama, Kucinich and Edwards would be completely different and probably better alternatives if people really want change in Washington. I'm fairly sure they would hire people that would be good fits for the Cabinet positions.
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:47:54 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: Re: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
>
> I have been to Obama's site long before this exchange, but appreciate the link
> anyway. Here's one I found that has links to all the candidates' websites:
> http://www.presidentialelection.com/candidates/index.htm
>
> I was thinking on the bus ride to work today (if anything, our discussion is
> clarifying my positions and whom I should support) and realized that I will go for
> Obama at the caucus here--mainly for one reason. I don't like to sum up my choice
> by a litmus test, but he did not vote for the war on Iraq. I know the Clinton camp
> is saying, "He voted against the war but voted for its funding". Well, he's
> sensible enough to know that he lost the vote, but he's not gonna leave the troops
> hanging with no money for resources. It would be nonsensical, if not just stupid,
> to keep voting against funding when the war is on. Whether his votes reflect
> pre-calculation on his part for political gain or not, I give him credit for voting
> against the war and having the sense not to vote against funding it, even if it was
> for fear of political fallout. To reiterate, I credit him for making the right
> decision in the first place, and having the sense and wisdom to give the support
> that the military needs. I would trust him to get us out without jeopardizing our
> troops and maintaining some semblance of peace in Iraq.
>
> On health care, none of the Rep candidates' proposals require health coverage for
> all Americans. So where should the compromise be between universal health care and
> not. That seems impossible to reconcile. If Reps support covering some but not
> all, where is the reform? Just cover more than we do now, is that the compromise?
> Reps may be able to argue that they are for change, but not true reform. If Reps
> consider universal health care to be "left-leaning" than how can a compromise happen
> other than getting the Dems and a super majority of the country to give up on
> mandatory coverage for all? That is not for the good of the nation.
>
> I agree with shifting some of the insurance burden from small business employers,
> but not all employers. Health education and prevention is important as well, so
> that people are empowered to improve their health and to lower costs. I believe
> that the independent voters favor a universal, mandatory system; of course, the
> Right sees this as far Left, but the Right is not in tune with the mainstream on
> this issue. The Right is more concerned with preserving the current, unfair system
> that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care corporations
> that run hospitals and clinics, people in the lucrative sectors of the health care
> profession and major corporations--the people who don't need or want universal
> health care. Always frustrating that the Dems are unable to drive this point home.
>
>
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
>
> > YHK: Go to www.barackobama.com<http://www.barackobama.com/> for details. Prior
> > to laying out his actual positions on issues, he spoke about coming together as
> > one nation, moving past party, addressing our nations problems together instead of
> > tanking each others efforts and ending up with squat. I liked all that. I think
> > his first book (the one he actually wrote, instead of the second one ghost-written
> > for a la "Profiles in Courage") was a great book about an amazing individual. I
> > have great respect for him, and think we could do far worse than have a sincere,
> > smart, compassionate, thinking person in the White House. But his policy
> > proposals are rehashes of old left-leaning ideas, not new ideas welcoming
> > participation by all. He knows full well that Republicans won't touch his health
> > plan, his plans for withdrawal from Iraq, etc. So the message of rhetoric
> > combined with proposals comes across to folks like me - who were interested in the
> > prospect of working across party lines with him - as "Let's move beyond partisan
> > fights and work together to solve our problems: Republicans, if you get a running
> > start you can jump waaaaaaay across over here and join us in our effort without
> > our yielding any ground at all." That pig don't fly.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Young H. Kim
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Obama
> >
> > BRM, could you give us some specifics on why/how you concluded that Obama is not
> > close to your views?
> >
> > I wonder if Obama can capture sort of a JFK-esque sea change and actually make
> > it
> > all the way. I do believe that his weakness is lack of experience as an
> > executive
> > and in Washington politics. Hillary may trump him on this. He needs to drive
> > home
> > why he is the one who's ready go as president on Day One. I don't think he's
> > communicated his expertise and knowledge on foreign affairs very convincingly.
> > I
> > think the first critical decisions a president makes are who he chooses to be in
> > his
> > cabinet, but we're too early for that. The lack of experience for any new
> > president
> > can be mitigated by the experts with whom he surrounds himself.
> >
> > I do like his theme of "One America" as opposed to Red or Blue states. Am I
> > correct
> > to recall that he said in some speech that we are "purple" states? That may
> > have
> > been another pundit's comment that I'm recalling.
> >
> > I don't see him as a radically Left Democrat, so I wonder if he'd able to make
> > the
> > drastic reforms such as universal health care and immigration come to fruition.
> > I
> > haven't yet assessed his other domestic and economic positions.
> >
> > --- Brian Menard wrote:
> >
> > > Brian A:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the great explication of your stands. There's actually much with
> > which
> > > I can agree there, even if we might squabble a bit over some of the details.
> > > Indeed, what's broken is not at all easy to fix, and both sides share
> > culpability
> > > for their various contributions. Just curious, as an economic populist, does
> > > Huckabee resonate with you, or does the religion thing override potential
> > economic
> > > affinity. FDT stickers remain on my vehicles, but given his performance to
> > date
> > > I've had to give much time to thinking of backup options. Huckabee had been
> > my
> > > #2, but I recently had an epiphany about how I assessed the field. (And his
> > > alleged us-vs-them comments last week about it being the evangelicals' turn to
> > run
> > > the GOP, if true, will place him further down on my list.) Sixteen months ago
> > I
> > > started a four-month investigation into Obama to see if he might be the right
> > guy
> > > to bring the nation together. As described in previous comments, I decided,
> > once
> > > he started filling in details behind his rhetoric, that he is not the guy.
> > But in
> > > assessing GOP options, I analyzed candidates with a different screen of
> > > priorities, namely, who is closest to what I want. Lately - in part due to
> > our
> > > exchange here, so thanks guys - I appreciate acutely the need to apply the
> > same
> > > test to candidates of both sides to find someone willing to do more than speak
> > > about working together despite having strong views on both (or all) sides;
> > and, if
> > > it was important for me to find a Democratic candidate willing to work with
> > the
> > > other side instead of convert the other side, so it should be with my GOP
> > search.
> > > In 2000, I voted for John McCain in the Virginia primary. In the years since,
> > I
> > > have called him an "opportunist" and other unkind things, swearing I would
> > never
> > > support him in another nomination battle. But looking at the entire field, he
> > > more than anyone seems to me to have a record of really being willing to work
> > with
> > > both sides to do things that need to be done. I'm not yet ready to say I'm
> > > backing him, but going that next step is a whole lot closer than the distance
> > he's
> > > traveled in my esteem in the last few weeks. Perhaps, though, only a third
> > party
> > > will be able to do this (which means that it probably won't get done).
> > >
> > > As for defeat, I do think we are susceptible to invasion, though not by a
> > > uniform-wearing army. (BTW, I think you are the only participant here who has
> > > served in uniform, which I hadn't forgotten - I don't think I've made any
> > comments
> > > that might seem to have overlooked your service, but if I left any such
> > > impression, my apologies...You deserve nothing but credit for your service.)
> > But
> > > that invasion can only come from our sleeping at the guard post. I don't mean
> > we
> > > need to go Tancredo and close the borders while inserting tracking chips into
> > > everyone to follow them around. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors,
> > > shapes, and sizes, and we value freedom - going back to that shocking
> > statement
> > > from our hypocritical Founders' (or, if you want to take it back further, from
> > > Aristotle) that we obtain our rights not from government but by virtue of our
> > > existence. But, given that there are folks who would be quite pleased to stop
> > our
> > > breathing because we breathe (and Ron Paul's idea that if we just offer to
> > trade
> > > with them all will be well...when much of what we have to offer in trade is
> > what
> > > makes them want to eradicate us), prudent caution is in order. We just have
> > to
> > > figure out what "prudent caution" means for us collectively. Meanwhile, your
> > > point about decay from within is quite on target. And I think we're in
> > agreement
> > > (correct me if I'm wrong) that nobody in the arena is addressing the longer
> > term
> > > economic dangers sufficiently. It's not by chance that my kids (ages 7 and 9)
> > and
> > > I go to Mandarin Chinese class on Saturday mornings. Whether to be better
> > > equipped for saving our country or surviving it, we need to know China and
> > > understand our relationship with it in this new century, and we cannot sell
> > our
> > > existence to China in order to defend against terrorist threats. Your USSR
> > > anecdote is scarily apt.
> > >
> > > Finally, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on ignorance. I've got no
> > beef
> > > with real conversation. Thus DoasIsayandnotasIdo Jefferson's quip about no
> > idea
> > > being too dangerous to discuss so long as reason is left free to combat it.
> > > Having grown up as a Republican in intolerant Seattle, where you can be
> > anything
> > > you want to be as long as you think correctly, I appreciate your tone. Thanks
> > for
> > > good dialogue!
> > >
> > > - Brian M.
Subject: RE: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:33 -0800
If I was voting on either side, my preferences would go like this:
Dems
Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, etc.
GOP
McCain, any of those other guys who have no shot when compared to the rest of this side of the field, Huckabee (despite his evangelical background, he seems more genuine than the remainder of this group), Romney (just seems too slimy and disingenuous -- it's like having Pat Riley or Alex Rodriguez as President), Giuliani (how can he run on a platform of nothing but "I was mayor of NYC on 9/11 -- even though I didn't buy decent radios for the firefighters when I had the chance -- and the city didn't burn itself to the ground so I think I'm the right guy to run the most powerful nation on the planet"?
President Hillary just means the Dem Washington insiders and lobbyists are free to return to K Street. Obama, Kucinich and Edwards would be completely different and probably better alternatives if people really want change in Washington. I'm fairly sure they would hire people that would be good fits for the Cabinet positions.
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:47:54 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: Re: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
>
> I have been to Obama's site long before this exchange, but appreciate the link
> anyway. Here's one I found that has links to all the candidates' websites:
> http://www.presidentialelection.com/candidates/index.htm
>
> I was thinking on the bus ride to work today (if anything, our discussion is
> clarifying my positions and whom I should support) and realized that I will go for
> Obama at the caucus here--mainly for one reason. I don't like to sum up my choice
> by a litmus test, but he did not vote for the war on Iraq. I know the Clinton camp
> is saying, "He voted against the war but voted for its funding". Well, he's
> sensible enough to know that he lost the vote, but he's not gonna leave the troops
> hanging with no money for resources. It would be nonsensical, if not just stupid,
> to keep voting against funding when the war is on. Whether his votes reflect
> pre-calculation on his part for political gain or not, I give him credit for voting
> against the war and having the sense not to vote against funding it, even if it was
> for fear of political fallout. To reiterate, I credit him for making the right
> decision in the first place, and having the sense and wisdom to give the support
> that the military needs. I would trust him to get us out without jeopardizing our
> troops and maintaining some semblance of peace in Iraq.
>
> On health care, none of the Rep candidates' proposals require health coverage for
> all Americans. So where should the compromise be between universal health care and
> not. That seems impossible to reconcile. If Reps support covering some but not
> all, where is the reform? Just cover more than we do now, is that the compromise?
> Reps may be able to argue that they are for change, but not true reform. If Reps
> consider universal health care to be "left-leaning" than how can a compromise happen
> other than getting the Dems and a super majority of the country to give up on
> mandatory coverage for all? That is not for the good of the nation.
>
> I agree with shifting some of the insurance burden from small business employers,
> but not all employers. Health education and prevention is important as well, so
> that people are empowered to improve their health and to lower costs. I believe
> that the independent voters favor a universal, mandatory system; of course, the
> Right sees this as far Left, but the Right is not in tune with the mainstream on
> this issue. The Right is more concerned with preserving the current, unfair system
> that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care corporations
> that run hospitals and clinics, people in the lucrative sectors of the health care
> profession and major corporations--the people who don't need or want universal
> health care. Always frustrating that the Dems are unable to drive this point home.
>
>
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
>
> > YHK: Go to www.barackobama.com<http://www.barackobama.com/> for details. Prior
> > to laying out his actual positions on issues, he spoke about coming together as
> > one nation, moving past party, addressing our nations problems together instead of
> > tanking each others efforts and ending up with squat. I liked all that. I think
> > his first book (the one he actually wrote, instead of the second one ghost-written
> > for a la "Profiles in Courage") was a great book about an amazing individual. I
> > have great respect for him, and think we could do far worse than have a sincere,
> > smart, compassionate, thinking person in the White House. But his policy
> > proposals are rehashes of old left-leaning ideas, not new ideas welcoming
> > participation by all. He knows full well that Republicans won't touch his health
> > plan, his plans for withdrawal from Iraq, etc. So the message of rhetoric
> > combined with proposals comes across to folks like me - who were interested in the
> > prospect of working across party lines with him - as "Let's move beyond partisan
> > fights and work together to solve our problems: Republicans, if you get a running
> > start you can jump waaaaaaay across over here and join us in our effort without
> > our yielding any ground at all." That pig don't fly.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Young H. Kim
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Obama
> >
> > BRM, could you give us some specifics on why/how you concluded that Obama is not
> > close to your views?
> >
> > I wonder if Obama can capture sort of a JFK-esque sea change and actually make
> > it
> > all the way. I do believe that his weakness is lack of experience as an
> > executive
> > and in Washington politics. Hillary may trump him on this. He needs to drive
> > home
> > why he is the one who's ready go as president on Day One. I don't think he's
> > communicated his expertise and knowledge on foreign affairs very convincingly.
> > I
> > think the first critical decisions a president makes are who he chooses to be in
> > his
> > cabinet, but we're too early for that. The lack of experience for any new
> > president
> > can be mitigated by the experts with whom he surrounds himself.
> >
> > I do like his theme of "One America" as opposed to Red or Blue states. Am I
> > correct
> > to recall that he said in some speech that we are "purple" states? That may
> > have
> > been another pundit's comment that I'm recalling.
> >
> > I don't see him as a radically Left Democrat, so I wonder if he'd able to make
> > the
> > drastic reforms such as universal health care and immigration come to fruition.
> > I
> > haven't yet assessed his other domestic and economic positions.
> >
> > --- Brian Menard wrote:
> >
> > > Brian A:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the great explication of your stands. There's actually much with
> > which
> > > I can agree there, even if we might squabble a bit over some of the details.
> > > Indeed, what's broken is not at all easy to fix, and both sides share
> > culpability
> > > for their various contributions. Just curious, as an economic populist, does
> > > Huckabee resonate with you, or does the religion thing override potential
> > economic
> > > affinity. FDT stickers remain on my vehicles, but given his performance to
> > date
> > > I've had to give much time to thinking of backup options. Huckabee had been
> > my
> > > #2, but I recently had an epiphany about how I assessed the field. (And his
> > > alleged us-vs-them comments last week about it being the evangelicals' turn to
> > run
> > > the GOP, if true, will place him further down on my list.) Sixteen months ago
> > I
> > > started a four-month investigation into Obama to see if he might be the right
> > guy
> > > to bring the nation together. As described in previous comments, I decided,
> > once
> > > he started filling in details behind his rhetoric, that he is not the guy.
> > But in
> > > assessing GOP options, I analyzed candidates with a different screen of
> > > priorities, namely, who is closest to what I want. Lately - in part due to
> > our
> > > exchange here, so thanks guys - I appreciate acutely the need to apply the
> > same
> > > test to candidates of both sides to find someone willing to do more than speak
> > > about working together despite having strong views on both (or all) sides;
> > and, if
> > > it was important for me to find a Democratic candidate willing to work with
> > the
> > > other side instead of convert the other side, so it should be with my GOP
> > search.
> > > In 2000, I voted for John McCain in the Virginia primary. In the years since,
> > I
> > > have called him an "opportunist" and other unkind things, swearing I would
> > never
> > > support him in another nomination battle. But looking at the entire field, he
> > > more than anyone seems to me to have a record of really being willing to work
> > with
> > > both sides to do things that need to be done. I'm not yet ready to say I'm
> > > backing him, but going that next step is a whole lot closer than the distance
> > he's
> > > traveled in my esteem in the last few weeks. Perhaps, though, only a third
> > party
> > > will be able to do this (which means that it probably won't get done).
> > >
> > > As for defeat, I do think we are susceptible to invasion, though not by a
> > > uniform-wearing army. (BTW, I think you are the only participant here who has
> > > served in uniform, which I hadn't forgotten - I don't think I've made any
> > comments
> > > that might seem to have overlooked your service, but if I left any such
> > > impression, my apologies...You deserve nothing but credit for your service.)
> > But
> > > that invasion can only come from our sleeping at the guard post. I don't mean
> > we
> > > need to go Tancredo and close the borders while inserting tracking chips into
> > > everyone to follow them around. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors,
> > > shapes, and sizes, and we value freedom - going back to that shocking
> > statement
> > > from our hypocritical Founders' (or, if you want to take it back further, from
> > > Aristotle) that we obtain our rights not from government but by virtue of our
> > > existence. But, given that there are folks who would be quite pleased to stop
> > our
> > > breathing because we breathe (and Ron Paul's idea that if we just offer to
> > trade
> > > with them all will be well...when much of what we have to offer in trade is
> > what
> > > makes them want to eradicate us), prudent caution is in order. We just have
> > to
> > > figure out what "prudent caution" means for us collectively. Meanwhile, your
> > > point about decay from within is quite on target. And I think we're in
> > agreement
> > > (correct me if I'm wrong) that nobody in the arena is addressing the longer
> > term
> > > economic dangers sufficiently. It's not by chance that my kids (ages 7 and 9)
> > and
> > > I go to Mandarin Chinese class on Saturday mornings. Whether to be better
> > > equipped for saving our country or surviving it, we need to know China and
> > > understand our relationship with it in this new century, and we cannot sell
> > our
> > > existence to China in order to defend against terrorist threats. Your USSR
> > > anecdote is scarily apt.
> > >
> > > Finally, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on ignorance. I've got no
> > beef
> > > with real conversation. Thus DoasIsayandnotasIdo Jefferson's quip about no
> > idea
> > > being too dangerous to discuss so long as reason is left free to combat it.
> > > Having grown up as a Republican in intolerant Seattle, where you can be
> > anything
> > > you want to be as long as you think correctly, I appreciate your tone. Thanks
> > for
> > > good dialogue!
> > >
> > > - Brian M.
Monday, January 7, 2008
NH Debates, etc.
[Note: This thread goes in chronological order.]
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)