Election 2008

[explodo]

Hillary Clinton is batshit insane. She wants the uncommitted votes in Michigan to stay as uncommitted (giving Obama 0 delegates) and only have her votes count. So if they voted for her, it's good to count them because we don't want to disenfranchise people. But if they didn't, we don't care about disenfranchising them.

[Guest Jules]

Hillary Clinton is batshit insane. She wants the uncommitted votes in Michigan to stay as uncommitted (giving Obama 0 delegates) and only have her votes count. So if they voted for her, it's good to count them because we don't want to disenfranchise people. But if they didn't, we don't care about disenfranchising them.

finally someone brings their A game

[bjorn_skurj]

Hillary Clinton is batshit insane. She wants the uncommitted votes in Michigan to stay as uncommitted (giving Obama 0 delegates) and only have her votes count. So if they voted for her, it's good to count them because we don't want to disenfranchise people. But if they didn't, we don't care about disenfranchising them.

Maybe she's just trying to save the Democratic Party from itself:

 

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/conte...ll.html?sid=101

[explodo]

Maybe she's just trying to save the Democratic Party from itself:

 

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/conte...ll.html?sid=101

I think it would be pretty easy to make the argument that she hasn't been scrutinized for about a month now, so her polling is going to be higher. Also, Obama honestly performs better in those states than I expected (within the margin of error). And where is the stink being made about polls in Colorado, New Mexico, or California?

 

Besides that, poll numbers don't make her any less insane. America has proven more than a few times that they don't mind voting for crazy fucks hellbent on the destruction of good times.

[bjorn_skurj]

Besides that, poll numbers don't make her any less insane. America has proven more than a few times that they don't mind voting for crazy fucks hellbent on the destruction of good times.

You honestly think Hillary is crazier and will destroy good times more than John McCain?

[uncool2pillow]

Richard Dreyfuss to Play Dick Cheney in Stone's "W"

 

I always thought that his portrayal of the evil Republican in "American President" was based on Cheney. And that was made years before he really became Darth Vader.

[watch me fall]

Finally! I read in EW that they were having a hard time casting that role. Still can't believe Josh Brolin is playing Bush.

 

[uncool2pillow]

Finally! I read in EW that they were having a hard time casting that role. Still can't believe Josh Brolin is playing Bush.

Ironic, his dad played Reagan in the CBS miniseries a few years back.

[watch me fall]

Yeah, he (josh) mentions that in the article. It was a good read.

[bleedorange]

Good article in the Wall Street Journal today from Karl Rove:

 

Obama's Troubling Instincts

 

Especially the last four paragraphs:

 

But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?

 

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so na

[MrRain422]

Meeting with Ahmadinejad wouldn't make much difference anyway since, despite being cast as the bogeyman here in the U.S., he has no power whatsoever over foreign policy or the Iranian military.

 

I'm just saying.

 

Also, meeting with someone is not the same as making a deal with them. There's no harm in meeting with someone -- if they don't come around to your point of view, then you don't make a deal. It's pretty simple. But meetings are a lot more effective than saber-rattling, which only strengthens anti-U.S. sentiment and fear throughout the region.

[Good Old Neon]

Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

 

Interesting, as the same might be said of Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush. I

[bjorn_skurj]

Interesting, as the same might be said of Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush. I

[Good Old Neon]

Why? Everybody knows blood-sucking vampires cast no reflection!

 

 

 

This is pretty rich as well:

 

He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

 

Especially so when you consider he was Bush's Senior Advisor. Reading the entire op-ed, while keeping in mind what we've been witness to these past eight years is, well, it's priceless.

[Beltmann]

But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What' date=' for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? [b']One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?[/b]

I'm not sure, but I doubt Obama would agree with Rove's assertion that one of Obama's top goals is a "precipitous" withdrawal from Iraq. The last statement also has specious wording, since it confuses "talking without preconditions" with "giving them what they want." Does Rove honestly not see the difference? If not, I guess that proves Rove is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

 

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions' date=' he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.[/quote']

That's a fair request. Still, I think the more pressing question is, Shouldn't Rove and Bush explain what they hope to accomplish by not talking to these nations? Don't Rove and Bush owe it to voters to explain, in specific terms, how acting like a third-grader giving the silent treatment will lead our enemies to abandon their hostility?

[Good Old Neon]

That's a fair request. Still, I think the more pressing question is, Shouldn't Rove and Bush explain what they hope to accomplish by not talking to these nations? Don't Rove and Bush owe it to voters to explain, in specific terms, how acting like a third-grader giving the silent treatment will lead our enemies to abandon their hostility?

 

It won

[uncool2pillow]

I thought the rest of the article was better than the last 4 paragraphs. He makes the case that effective diplomacy -- which admittedly, the Bush admin has not been interested in -- requires a lot of hard work in advance. You can't just fly to Tehran or have the president of Iran (I'm too lazy to look up the exact spelling) fly to Washington and meet.

 

Maybe the reason the Bush admin. has turned their back on dimplomacy is exactly because it's hard work.

[bleedorange]

I'm not sure, but I doubt Obama would agree with Rove's assertion that one of Obama's top goals is a "precipitous" withdrawal from Iraq. The last statement also has specious wording, since it confuses "talking without preconditions" with "giving them what they want." Does Rove honestly not see the difference? If not, I guess that proves Rove is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

 

 

That's a fair request. Still, I think the more pressing question is, Shouldn't Rove and Bush explain what they hope to accomplish by not talking to these nations? Don't Rove and Bush owe it to voters to explain, in specific terms, how acting like a third-grader giving the silent treatment will lead our enemies to abandon their hostility?

 

 

From Obama's website:

 

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

 

This seems fairly "precipitous" to me in this instance. Especially when used in the context of troop withdrawal. Therefore making the "specious wording" make sense in light of the fact that he'll remove troops (what Iran would want) before even talking to them or talking to them without preconditions.

[Good Old Neon]

I thought the rest of the article was better than the last 4 paragraphs. He makes the case that effective diplomacy -- which admittedly, the Bush admin has not been interested in -- requires a lot of hard work in advance. You can't just fly to Tehran or have the president of Iran (I'm too lazy to look up the exact spelling) fly to Washington and meet.

 

Maybe the reason the Bush admin. has turned their back on dimplomacy is exactly because it's hard work.

 

Well, during his first debate with Kerry, Bush noted, on 11 separate occasions that

[caliber66]

Ironic, his dad played Reagan in the CBS miniseries a few years back.

That's coincidental, not ironic.

[bjorn_skurj]

I'm not sure, but I doubt Obama would agree with Rove's assertion that one of Obama's top goals is a "precipitous" withdrawal from Iraq. The last statement also has specious wording, since it confuses "talking without preconditions" with "giving them what they want." Does Rove honestly not see the difference? If not, I guess that proves Rove is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

 

 

That's a fair request. Still, I think the more pressing question is, Shouldn't Rove and Bush explain what they hope to accomplish by not talking to these nations? Don't Rove and Bush owe it to voters to explain, in specific terms, how acting like a third-grader giving the silent treatment will lead our enemies to abandon their hostility?

Teh Friedman explains why Iran would see no point in talking to us:

 

"The big debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is over whether or not we should talk to Iran. Obama is in favor; Clinton has been against. Alas, the right question for the next president isn

[uncool2pillow]

That's coincidental, not ironic.

Point taken, now I feel dumber than Alanis Morrisette.

[caliber66]

Point taken, now I feel dumber than Alanis Morrisette.

Josh Brolin was great in Goonies, though, huh?

[bleedorange]

That's a fair request. Still, I think the more pressing question is, Shouldn't Rove and Bush explain what they hope to accomplish by not talking to these nations? Don't Rove and Bush owe it to voters to explain, in specific terms, how acting like a third-grader giving the silent treatment will lead our enemies to abandon their hostility?

 

 

That's a good topic for a different discussion. And I would certainly question a lot of their reasoning over the course of the last 6 years. However, aside from Rove writing the article, isn't the bigger concern that of "where do we go from here"?

[uncool2pillow]

Josh Brolin was great in Goonies, though, huh?

I reminded about once every other month that I'm about the only person born in the 70s who hasn't seen The Goonies.