Election 2008

[bjorn_skurj]

Oh sorry I didn

[MattZ]

But where does he say that he's completely supportive of the president? He's talking about one strategic agreement "at this stage". That's hardly the same thing as supporting the policy in general and its a million miles away from being completely supportive of the president.

 

I agree that my memory was of him saying "I completely stand behind the president" and that's not quite what he said. But you aren't going to at least give me a tad of an acknowledgment? This is back in 2004. And my original point was that it is disingenuous for BO to say he's been against the war from the beginning. This reads to me like a guy who opposed the war, saw the war was going well, and wanted to hedge for political reasons.

 

Now, he's campaigning as the guy who's been against the war all along... No matter how you slice it, if he acknowledges in 2004 that there's not much of a difference between his position and Bush's position, then he's either:

(1) in favor of the war; or

(2) supportive of the level of troops in 2004.

 

Aren't either of those points a fair knock? And if he was hedging for political purposes, isn't that what you've been criticizing HRC for? Doing what she needs to do to get elected?

[MrRain422]

It's only a fair knock if you see the decision to invade and the decision to stay once we already invaded as exactly the same thing. He was opposed to the invasion, but once we invaded, thought it irresponsible to leave at that time in the midst of the chaos we created. I don't see that as a contradiction in the slightest.

 

Edit: The war was going well in 2004?

[Beltmann]

Now, he's campaigning as the guy who's been against the war all along... No matter how you slice it, if he acknowledges in 2004 that there's not much of a difference between his position and Bush's position, then he's either:

(1) in favor of the war; or

(2) supportive of the level of troops in 2004.

Or...

(3) still convinced the invasion was a colossal mistake (still opposed to the war) but aware that a mess has now been made, which muddies the issue considerably

[bjorn_skurj]

1. NAFTA is a complicated issue. I think it has been good for some, not so good for others. In theory, it should be good for everyone, as it would tend to lower the price of goods and services. I will say that anyone in the U.S. who thinks they are going to make a living doing a manufacturing gig is probably wrong.

2. Being for or against the Iraq war tends to point toward judgment skills. I would give a slight edge to Barack in this case, but his talk about how we should set a firm deadline for withdrawal so as to compel Iraq to get its shit together does not give me the happy feeling. I fear that result would either lead to a three-way civil war with a sidebar war of Turkey v. the Kurds, or another Saddam. (If that happens, then what was the point of removing him in the first place?) Either way increases Iran's influence in the region, which I don't think is good. We never should have gone into Iraq like we did, but putting our national head in the sand now won't do either.

[MattZ]

It's only a fair knock if you see the decision to invade and the decision to stay once we already invaded as exactly the same thing.

 

Ok, but it wasn't just a decision to stay once we were there. There were decisions about how to conduct the war too, right? Troop levels? Plans to get out? The snippet is taken out of context but I wonder what he meant...

 

He was opposed to the invasion, but once we invaded, thought it irresponsible to leave at that time in the midst of the chaos we created. I don't see that as a contradiction in the slightest.

 

What about the chaos if we leave now? Is that a contradiction?

 

Edit: The war was going well in 2004?

 

Who knows? The quote is taken out of context - I dont know what he's referring to... Elections? Troop levels? Political hedging?

 

Seriously - this horse is dead. I just wanted to post that quote since I didn't find it yesterday. I will reiterate that I'm happy with BO in the White House -- I just doubt that there's as big of a difference between BO and HRC as people claim.

[MattZ]

Or...

(3) still convinced the invasion was a colossal mistake (still opposed to the war) but aware that a mess has now been made, which muddies the issue considerably

 

Of course, but still, he said his stance was not all that different than Bush's. He could have said there weren't enough troops, or he's worried about no exit strategy. He could have stood up and continued to say that he was opposed to the war, no?

 

The issue is certainly muddy - but if it's muddy why say you are similar to Bush? Why not just say you oppose the war, you support the troops. End of story?

[MrRain422]

It's really impossible to know what he's even talking about in that quote though. Definately need some context to make any sort of real judgement. He could have been talking about the Iraq policy in general, but he may have also been referring to some specific aspect of it in response to a question.

[LouieB]

This election is hardly about what anyone said or did last year or five years ago or 30 years ago...it is simply a chance to shake stuff up and maybe things will change....or maybe they won't. but at least we will have elected someone other than a white male for a change and that may be good enough for now...

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

This election is hardly about what anyone said or did last year or five years ago or 30 years ago...it is simply a chance to shake stuff up and maybe things will change....or maybe they won't. but at least we will have elected someone other than a white male for a change and that may be good enough for now...

 

LouieB

This kind of contradicts your Rezco point, no?

 

And, isn't McCain a white male?

[Gobias Industries]

And, isn't McCain a white male?

 

Someone other

[Reni]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_..._hastert_s_seat

 

I am totally shocked and oh so pleased. I never thought I would see a Dem in Hastert's seat! In addition, Jim Oberweis can't seem to get elected, EVER.....which is hilarious.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Some of the coverage have suggested that this a bellwether for the Democrats, but I'm not so sure. I think it may just be an indictment of 14th district Repubs for nominating Oberweis.

[laurie]

Here in Chicago (Obama's home town, but everyone knows that...) we get a front row seat to Tony Rezko's ongoing corruption trial, which will (sadly) eventually get mentioned more often than not in the presidential campaign.

 

Things are so corrupt here in IL that these local politics will certainly impact Obama's future no matter what the outcome. I would like to be all rosie about all this, but frankly politics is a dirty dirty business and IL is one of dirtiest places in the country, both city and statewide. The local press continues to hound Obama on his relationship with Rezko and he continues to refuse to answer all questions.

 

LouieB

 

It can't be any worse than whitewater. We just couldn't understand how any one could vote for a third term republican.

banking problems, war, unemployment, lower wages, no healthcare, and religious right wing facists!

[LouieB]

It can't be any worse than whitewater. We just couldn't understand how any one could vote for a third term republican.

banking problems, war, unemployment, lower wages, no healthcare, and religious right wing facists!

Not worse than Whitewater....that's not really my point I guess....nor is it a reason not to vote for Barak, because I certainly did and will do so again as soon as he is nominated...

 

I just have a slightly jaundiced view of the Obama phenomenon, not because I think he is bright, articulate and will ultimately make a far better president than W, but because politics is a VERY dirty business and Obama was only a short time ago an unknown state senator from Chicago, who has had his career boosted by the same folks that have boosted every other Illinois political figure since that is how business is done here. David Axelrod, who I admire greatly for his work with Harold Washington, is also an ally of Daley and his machine.

 

No one from IL can be completely clean. Having said that......Barak has my full support (although I don't hate Hillary, since she is from here too...)

 

Hey Laurie..time to get you a cool avatar...

 

LouieB

[ikol]

It can't be any worse than whitewater. We just couldn't understand how any one could vote for a third term republican.

banking problems, war, unemployment, lower wages, no healthcare, and religious right wing facists!

 

Maybe a slight exaggeration.

[mountain bed]

At this point in time I don't see how McCain stands a chance. First off, the Dems have been outvoting Reps in the primaries by a large margin.

 

Here's how I see McCain's big problem. He simply cannot afford to alienate the Republican base, who are already miffed that he's not a true conservative (whatever that means). So he's gonna have to cuddle up to those people... but if he does that, a majority of independent voters and Reagan Democrats (who loathe W.) will be turned off by him. Catch-22.

 

His only hope as I see it is to crank up the fear factor full-throttle. Which he undoubtedly will do. Yuck.

[laurie]

Not worse than Whitewater....that's not really my point I guess....nor is it a reason not to vote for Barak, because I certainly did and will do so again as soon as he is nominated...

 

I just have a slightly jaundiced view of the Obama phenomenon, not because I think he is bright, articulate and will ultimately make a far better president than W, but because politics is a VERY dirty business and Obama was only a short time ago an unknown state senator from Chicago, who has had his career boosted by the same folks that have boosted every other Illinois political figure since that is how business is done here. David Axelrod, who I admire greatly for his work with Harold Washington, is also an ally of Daley and his machine.

 

No one from IL can be completely clean. Having said that......Barak has my full support (although I don't hate Hillary, since she is from here too...)

 

Hey Laurie..time to get you a cool avatar...

 

LouieB

[/quo

 

What I (rick) am trying to say is that we all have some dirt in our background that we would like to erase. I voted for

Obama and hope he gets the nomination. But the bottom line is we need to get rid of the GOP.

[Guest Speed Racer]

At this point in time I don't see how McCain stands a chance. First off, the Dems have been outvoting Reps in the primaries by a large margin.

 

Here's how I see McCain's big problem. He simply cannot afford to alienate the Republican base, who are already miffed that he's not a true conservative (whatever that means). So he's gonna have to cuddle up to those people... but if he does that, a majority of independent voters and Reagan Democrats (who loathe W.) will be turned off by him. Catch-22.

 

His only hope as I see it is to crank up the fear factor full-throttle. Which he undoubtedly will do. Yuck.

 

Are you kidding? Republicans weren't voting or caucusing not because of lack of interest, but because it would be like voting for rain in Seattle. After Romney dropped out there was no reason for Johnny GOP to drive in sub zero weather to caucus for/against a certainty. The DFL race has been so close this whole primary season that every single vote counts. If the competition margins were swapped, I bet we'd see a lot more GOPs than Dems out there at the polls, or given that we have a Republican incumbent, at least an equitable amount of GOPs and Dems.

 

I think that Hillary would get bounced on her fanny if she ran against McCain. Two old guard, moderate senators running against each other, except that one was a POW with a more extensive record in general. That, and a robot for a spouse. You definitely can't preprogram Bill, and I feel like he has the potential to be a liability in a presidential race (as in last month when he kept losing his temper at Obama - he came off like a 12 year-old boy).

[laurie]

Are you kidding? Republicans weren't voting or caucusing not because of lack of interest, but because it would be like voting for rain in Seattle. After Romney dropped out there was no reason for Johnny GOP to drive in sub zero weather to caucus for/against a certainty. The DFL race has been so close this whole primary season that every single vote counts. If the competition margins were swapped, I bet we'd see a lot more GOPs than Dems out there at the polls, or given that we have a Republican incumbent, at least an equitable amount of GOPs and Dems.

 

I think that Hillary would get bounced on her fanny if she ran against McCain. Two old guard, moderate senators running against each other, except that one was a POW with a more extensive record in general. That, and a robot for a spouse. You definitely can't preprogram Bill, and I feel like he has the potential to be a liability in a presidential race (as in last month when he kept losing his temper at Obama - he came off like a 12 year-old boy).

 

John McCain is in the final scene of Dr. Strangelove

[Reni]

Dems have been coming out in far greater numbers since day one of the primary season.

[laurie]

Are you kidding? Republicans weren't voting or caucusing not because of lack of interest, but because it would be like voting for rain in Seattle. After Romney dropped out there was no reason for Johnny GOP to drive in sub zero weather to caucus for/against a certainty. The DFL race has been so close this whole primary season that every single vote counts. If the competition margins were swapped, I bet we'd see a lot more GOPs than Dems out there at the polls, or given that we have a Republican incumbent, at least an equitable amount of GOPs and Dems.

 

I think that Hillary would get bounced on her fanny if she ran against McCain. Two old guard, moderate senators running against each other, except that one was a POW with a more extensive record in general. That, and a robot for a spouse. You definitely can't preprogram Bill, and I feel like he has the potential to be a liability in a presidential race (as in last month when he kept losing his temper at Obama - he came off like a 12 year-old boy).

 

Can you explain "DFL"

[laurie]

Sure, but many recent criticisms of the Clintons tend to resort to buzz words like "triangulation" and to me that's just part of what a pol needs to do to get things done in DC. And what Obama will need to do also. I think we agree there.

 

With 4 more years in the Senate we'd have more evidence of whether Obama really was able to bring people together or whether he'd start to listen to his advisors who tell him he's too "liberal" or too "soft on terror" and whether he'd morph into a more "electable" candidate.

 

I admire your passion and your willingness to go back and forth with me on this stuff. Like I said to MrRain, I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

 

Both Bill & "little" George were nothing more Govenors.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Dems have been coming out in far greater numbers since day one of the primary season.

 

I still don't think that correlates at all to what the general election turnout will be. Democrats were coming out both to vote against an incumbent Republican (symbolically, mind you), and also because of an incredibly tight race from the start.

 

Remember, in primaries you're voting within a party and that can dramatically affect motivation to leave the house. Staying home can imply that you still support your party, just no one candidate. Staying home next November is an "if you're not for us, you're against us" move. Just because you don't give a hoot who represents your party doesn't mean you don't care who's president, and I really hope Democrats don't bank too much on primary turnouts as an indication of the general election.

 

Can you explain "DFL"

 

Um..."Democratic-Farmer-Labor," i.e. Democrats? Pardon the Minnesota slip.

[Reni]

I am not saying that the Dems necessarily have an upper hand in the fall, due to primary turnout.....I was just correcting your assumption that Republicans weren't coming out to vote, because it had already been decided.