Big Latin population. I don't think its likely, but you never know.

dola, also Schwarzenegger keeps getting elected governor, and he's pretty tight with McCain.

I disagree. They are not forcing the matter; she has lost. The only way she wins is to completely rip her party to shreds, even though it would be by the rules (although FL and MI are big issues on that end), by overriding the delegate and popular vote. I'm not a Democrat and don't give a crap about what happens to the party; I'm just an interested observer amazed at what they are doing to themselves. From what I've read, the "you'd have to be an idiot to vote for Clinton at this point" people in the Obama camp have already made it impossible for Clinton supporters to come back "with their heads held high." The tie between white blue collar voters, Clinton, and the lofty notion that Dems are supposed to be above pandering to them like Republicans supposedly do, has already done its damage. I honestly don't get what they are playing this out for, whether that's respectable or not. I'm fairly certain "respectability" is not high on their list of reasons for letting this go on.

Not yet.;) We'll sort something out once fall rolls around though.

You forgot ME for 4. MA is 12. I can't see McCain winning any of the states you have in the blue column. That's where Obama STARTS from.

Sorry, my math is wrong. Add in MA and ME and you get 251. My point is that Clinton's math is much, much more favorable, because I think she also gets Florida as a starting point.

Er, actually 259... maybe somebody else should do this...

I can. I can see McCain winning Pennsylvannia (though he wouldn't if Hillary was the nominee). I think he makes Michigan and New Hampshire tossups as well.

According to a bunch of articles out there, Obama plans to declare victory after the OR and KY primaries on May 20th.

Yes, she has lost. No doubt about it, and as a Dem I'm glad she has. But you're not going to bring the party together by forcing the issue right now and rubbing the Clinton supporters noses in it. You'll have a last few weeks of a nominal campaign, starting to turn down the negativity and negotiations behind the scenes to give yourself the best possible chance to heal the party before the convention.

Listen to the majority of Clinton advisors the past couple days. You've still got your Lanny Davis' out there beating the same old drum because 1) you've still got to try and keep some money flowing in if for no other reason than helping retire the debt and 2) you don't negotiate from weakness but have to keep a public persona of fighting on. However, there are more of her advisors like Lisa Caputo who are talking a far more moderate message on the cable networks then they have been.

This has nothing to do with Clinton's supporters. This has to do with her and Bill, period. All losing candidates' supporters have to deal with their candidates' losses at some time. Why would asking her to cease a pointless campaign be rubbing her supporters' noses in it?

I imagine that Bill is apopleptic right now. But I disagree with you entirely as to who this is about. They know the money is drying up, and they both are political animals who have legacies to protect. This is all about saving face for them and their supporters, IMO.

What "saving face"? How does taking this through May 31st, or June 3rd, or to the convention, "save face"? If anything, she's completely damaged her reputation nationwide among pretty much everybody, including Dems with fond memories of the Clinton Administration. I don't get the connection. If anything, she's not trying to save face, she's trying to steal back the nomination she feels she is owed (both by her husband for sticking by him, and by the party). She's lost face in this whole debacle.

Because middle-age and older women who passionately want Hillary are crucial to Dems and they are rabid right now about feeling that the Democratic party is abandoning them. Check out Talk Left or Taylor Marsh's blog or MyDD. Those are probably the major ones of the Democratic blogs that have drunk the Clinton kool-aid.

But like I said, that's just my opinion.

I think I get what you are saying, but I don't think "saving face" is what you mean. I don't see a connection between what you are arguing and what I would call "saving face."

I've been playing around on this site:

www.predictnovember.com

If the Democrats don't hold Pennsylvania, they have no chance.

Interesting post from Gallup, suggesting that Barack Obama may be the next John Kerry.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Ob...rrys-2004.aspx

You can't see any chance of McCain winning Pennsylvania? A state where Kerry barely beat Bush in 2004? A state where Obama got trounced in his own party's primary? A state where McCain is in a near dead heat with Obama in current polling? A state that, outside of Philadelphia, has millions of people who "cling to guns and religion"?

McCain has a reasonable chance of picking up this state in November.

Interesting read, right up my alley. Thanks for the linkage.

I think there is a reasonable argument that McCain is enjoying something of a high water mark in all these polls. The Democratic base is as fractured as it is going to be during the election year, and he has had a comparatively quiet period to go around to his base to firm it up and raise money. But his fundraising is comparatively lagging and, at best, he only reaches dead heats in national polls and in a number of key states. The GOP's Congressional fundraising has been the worst in modern times. Tom Cole, the head of the House Republican Campaign Committee, told his membership this week that they can expect no help from the national party -- even embattled incumbents.

I'll say it again -- voters are angry and they want change. Now.

That argument ignores the fact that McCain can't get in the news now no matter what he does(unless he were to do something horrifically stupid). It's basic common sense that if he were in the news as much as Obama or Clinton, his numbers would improve.

I'd expect Congressional Republicans to get waxed this November(and deservedly so, by the way). The party as a whole is at it's lowest ebb since at least Watergate. But McCain is not suffering from the same opinions, mostly because of his maverick reputation. I think it's entirely possible that McCain could win the presidency while his party loses scores of seats in Congress.

I think that's a very likely outcome as well.

I still say that California could come more into play than the last 4 elections. You cannot underestimate the Asian votes, Latino votes and those million+ conservative voters of SD/Orange Counties. If I recall, look at the California exit polls from the Dem primary, Asians will not vote for Obama and to some extent, neither will Latinos. Also, this doesn't happen in a vacuum, McCain and Rep party will have something to do with it, in Cal. and elsewhere.

I also think st.cronin's map is close.

Which, to me, is about the only reason to vote for McCain. I have no problem with Congress becoming more (D) - even if that's contradictory to me placing the emphasis on libertarianism to where it counts the most, in the legislature - I would no more desire a straight (D) federal than I would a straigh (R). Ugh.

Obama has a legitimate shot to pick up Nevada. McCain isn't very popular here, as he's been on the anti-gaming side of federal legislation. However, to pull it off, Obama needs a huge union and African-American turnout in Clark County to offset the rural areas and more affluent suburbs of Las Vegas like Summerlin and Green Valley, which will go heavily for McCain.

The reason I don't buy the "voters are angry" and thus will kill McCain is because if that were true, we'd be seeing it in the polls right now. No way McCain is this close if voters were truely that angry.

Eh, just because they're angry doesn't mean they're angry only at the GOP.

Nor does it mean that the angry voters (some of which are also GOP voters) are angry at McCain/are connecting their anger to McCain.

Some Republican voters don't even recognize McCain as their own, seems reasonable to think that there are also Democrat voters who don't either.

Same here. I think Jon's post there was right on the money.


LOL :p


Not convinced. I think the current polling is a bit bunk. I think the polling is being influenced by two things that will change come November:

1. The rival Democratic camps who currently say they won't vote for the other candidate in the GE. Fact is, they probably will, and there's little to no evidence of such a divide following a hotly-contested primary in the past.

2. McCain's getting a boost because no one's been seriously examining him. For instance, there are a lot of pro-choice Democrats & Independents who are polling in support of McCain prior to learning that he's ardently pro-life. I think some of this changes once McCain gets under the spotlight.

One can say the same thing with Obama. His numbers have dropped as some moderates who previously supported him realized how left wing he actually is.

McCain has a Reaganesque teflon quality though. A lot of the bad stories just haven't stuck to him.

I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the polls are currently not terribly indicative of what's going to happen in November.


I'd still argue that this is because he hasn't really been scrutinized to this same extent, yet.

Exactly what has Obama advocated that is so left wing? The National Journal rating doesn't count. I'm talking about actual votes or proposed policies that are far to the left of Clinton.

How many moderates do you think believe Clinton is moderate/right wing?

He's only been square in the public eye since 1998, running for President once, and being one of the big shots in the Senate ;).

For more scrutinized than Obama... though admittedly less than Clinton.

I don't care what people believe. I want some actual evidence that he's pursued or is pursuing policies that can reasonably be described as far-left. I get that he'll be labeled as a commie, but I'd expect people here to be able to point out specifics that make Obama far-left.

Specifically I'd like to see positions and polling data that show that position is well outside the views of the majority of Americans.

We are talking about politics right? So, I guess you can be like the Dems in 2004... don't care what people believe and see the other party get the White House ;).


Universal health care (which Obama speaks about, even though he's not demanding everyone gets it) is a left wing policy. As is increasing the capital gains tax (for fairness). Amending NAFTA (and "fair trade agreements") is left wing. Banning permanent replacements for striking workers is left wing. A windfall profit tax on oil companies is left wing.

For those who thought he was a moderate, they've realized that he's not much different than Hillary Clinton in his campaign positions (and more to the left than Bill Clinton was).

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

I'm not running the campaign, so I don't need to care what people think.

Universal healthcare, amending NAFTA, and windfall profits tax all poll well. I doubt much of anyone cares about replacing striking workers and I doubt capital gains taxes would resonate with the majority of the populace.

There's plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but this idea that he's far-left isn't backed up by any polling data. He's made gaffes, but those aren't policy positions. The Republicans may be able to portray him as far-left, but those of us here that follow things more closely than the average voter should at least present some sort of evidence before presenting the same ole hackery.

dola

Cam: Is Ron Paul also left-wing? It may or may not be a good idea, but negotiating with Iran isn't left-wing or right-wing in any meaningful sense.

Was it left-wing when Nixon sat down with Brezhnev or Mao? Maybe it's just when proposed by a Democrat. ;)

Yes, actually. You do realize that in terms of left/right political terms, Nixon was not a rabid right-winger in many respects.

Would "outside the political mainstream" make you feel any better? And hasn't Ron Paul received some support from lefties, in part because of his foreign policy positions?

I just find the whole left wing/ring-wing thing to be tedious at best and dishonest at worst. It allows people to not engage the argument by slapping a fairly meaningless label on it. I'm fine with you or anyone else disagreeing with negotiating with Iran as I think there's an interesting an valuable discussion to be had there. I don't, however, find any merit in saying he's a crazy left/right winger.

That doesn't mean I think we should all agree in some post partisan fantasyland. I just want everyone to take the time and effort to discuss the merits of positions as opposed to using tired attack language.

Wait a minute...what does polling data have to do with whether his policy positions are left-wing or not? Those are fairly well static - they are either left-wing or not. What relevance does how well those positions poll have to whether they are left-wing, moderate, or right-wing positions? They are what they are, and people may or may not support them. That doesn't change the character of the positions themselves.

Exactly. And my point was earlier a lot of moderates and conservatives liked him because they thought he was a moderate. They didn't realize he had left wing positions on many issues. He was kind of a black canvas for their hopes and he isn't that.

But left/right/center is constantly moving and the only real way to gauge what's far left or far right at any given moment is to compare it to the beliefs of the population at large. On the far extremes it probably never changes, but there are very few extreme ideas being discussed at the national level in the U.S.

You keep making this point, but you aren't providing any evidence. Where's the proof that moderates are fleeing from Obama because they believe him to be far-left?

edit: If you can show some data, I'll believe it, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. A lot of the working class and older people he's having trouble with in the primaries are farther left politically than he is.

Remember kids.

Right Wing.
Left Wing.
Same Bird.


Good Evening.

Look at his falling poll numbers against McCain. Right now in the polls Clinton does better against McCain than Obama! Back in Feb and March Obama was beating McCain by some good numbers. Now... it's a very small number of % points.

So presumably Reagan was also left-wing.

Edit: Nixon sitting down with Brezhnev & Mao (separately, of course) and Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev are arguably two of the better foreign policy decisions since WWII. If that's considered left-wing, then I definitely think our foreign policy needs to be more left wing, especially after the past 8 years.

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being far-left. I get that you detest Obama, and he very well may lose to McCain, but throwing out these attacks as if there facts is beneath you.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Dem Party leaders are morons for letting her get this far and shit all over Obama and the party in general for some self-absorbed ego trip.

Btw, you do realize that the only one to use the terms "far-left" were you, right?

I do have to ask, do you normally think in strawmen? ;)


And if this post was directed at me... I think his falling poll numbers against McCain indicates that a lot of moderates/conservatives who were contemplating voting for him based on his speeches about hope and optimism realized that he wasn't the moderate they thought he was, but was actually more left wing, and closer politically to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer than to Joe Libermann or others in the Gang of 14.

It's also pro-business. U.S. companies no longer having to pay for healthcare is now seen as a potentially serious competitive advantage.


Depends how it's done. Anyway, Obama's just recommending bringing it back up to the level it was in the 90s. Didn't seem to hurt the economy then.


Depends how they're done. Trade agreements should always be under scrutiny given changing global conditions of competitiveness.


I wasn't aware that was a campaign pledge. Linky?


Nah, it's just pandering for votes. But so is offering to repeal the gas tax for the summer (McCain, Clinton).

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Under "Labor" (and then "Protect Striking Workers").


Whether it be pro-business or not, the policy is seen as left wing by the general public.


There is a reason I added "(for fairness)". The comment seems to indicate that it may not matter if it adds revenue if its fair. That was one of the more interesting things to come out of that much maligned last debate.


Quite frankly, I'm an ardent free trader, so I'm not on board with that at all... but most of those interested in redoing NAFTA I think are probably on the left side of the spectrum (not saying some on the right aren't, but the business part of the party I don't think is in favor).


Pandering can be one side of the spectrum or the other. Depends on who the candidate is pandering to.

I don't have a link handy, but will continue to look for one, but on Tuesday night E.J. Dionne was on NPR talking about the exit poll results for Indiana and North Carolina. According to him, Obama's support went up the further left you went on the political spectrum. In other words, self-described "very liberal" voters were Obama's biggest supporters. Dionne himself called this a (paraphrase) troubling development or something like that.

I also believe that it would help if people stop using terms like "far" left/right because they have no idea what they mean by that. In the grand scheme of things, no one has been elected that would be considered far left/right. And compared to many other nations, we're a nation of dead-on centrists.

I think "how left-wing" implies he must be pretty far left, but I'll withdraw that if you like. I'll also agree he's not always close to Lieberman, but on some positions the voting record is closer than McCain's. That argument mostly boils down to Iraq and Iran where he's certainly far away from Lieberman. However, Obama's positions are also closer to the majority of Americans, so is it fair to categorize him as more left wing or is Lieberman more right wing?

As to polling numbers, yes he's lost ground, but nothing I've seen has him losing ground among independents, the closest category to moderate we have. Currently he's losing Democrats, some of which may fairly be described as moderate, but some of which are hard core liberals. Again, I'll believe you if you can provide data, but as of now I haven't seen any proof that Obama is losing moderates due to being left wing.

The you was a more collective you.

You are mischaracterizing the argument again. Obama losing moderates due to being more left wing that they first thought. Remember when people were complaining about his lack of substance? While it may have been on his website, he wasn't talking about issues all that much and the media wasn't focusing on them?

Well, I also remember people were talking about how a lot of Republicans and Moderates were saying they like Obama and that was showing how he'd be strong in the general. Of course a few people said wait until people find out about his issues.

I think his polling data head to head against McCain dropping from a clear lead in February and March to almost a dead heat now indicates the results of people finding out what he actually believes. As for comparison, Clinton and McCain have always been hovering around each other, which Clinton opening up a decent lead recently (for whatever reason).

But what have they found out about his positions? They've heard a lot about Wright and lapel pins and what have you, but I heard very little about anybody's policy positions during the IN primary runup. At this point I don't think his policy positions have much to do with his problems. I always think the general is about likability and that's where his problem lies. In the end I think he'll prove more likable than McCain and win, but either way left wing policy positions won't have much to do with it.

Cam: I found some CNN exit polling that backs up what you're saying about IN, but in NC that trend doesn't hold as Obama won moderates and very conservative, but oddly lost conservative. Regardless the results in any one state don't mean much and the little comparison I've made to other states doesn't seem to show a trend.

From here

The biggest difference between 1996/2000 and 2008 will be the 3rd-Party factor.

A reasonable assumption would be that Clinton would get close to 90% of the votes of those blacks who showed up to vote. She would be severely hampered by losing the presumably large number of black votes from those who wouldn't even bother to show up.

Yes. If everything else about Obama sat perfectly with me, this attitude by itself would make sure that I would oppose his election with all my heart.

Guess you're not much of a talker, huh?

Getting back to the Nixon meeting with both Russia and China example, I think my point is that it proved to be a good idea. It led to increased suspicion between two of our enemies, plus led to the first SALT treaty.

I have no idea where it became a bad idea to talk to enemies. Certainly not during the Cold War where it helped to have that red phone around during the numerous false alarms.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" has somehow metamorphed into "We'll do exactly what we want". That's not an improvement in my opinion.

What do you think Obama plans to do in talking with enemies -- offer them Cleveland?

I think my point of view is more subtle than that. When I listen to what Obama says about foreign policy, to me it sounds like: "I will make the US just another country in the UN. We will not be leaders, we will be followers."

I do not hear that from Clinton or McCain, and I did not hear that from John Kerry. I am not of the opinion that we should "obliterate" Iran (indeed, I have argued against the use of force in Iran in other threads) - I am of the opinion that Iran (for example) will not play nice if they think we are not both able to and willing to punch them in the mouth if their behavior is unacceptable.

A new Diageo/Hotline poll of Dem LVs, taken 4/30-5/3, shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 48-37%. The previous poll, completed 3/31, showed Obama leading HRC 50-38%. In general election matchups, Obama leads John McCain 47-43% and HRC leads McCain 46-43% (release).

Obama's poll numbers are picking back up as 1) the Wright controversy recedes, and 2) he solidified his hold on the Democratic nomination.

His numbers will go up even more after HRC's "White Americans" comment yesterday. What a stupid thing to say.

I'll reiterate the point about money, because I think it is being entirely overlooked. Obama and the Democrats have a commanding financial advantage over McCain and the GOP, and that gap is widening, not shrinking, as each fundraising report comes out. You can be the greatest candidate ever, which McCain most certainly isn't, and if you don't have the money to get your message out, you will lose. Usually badly.

McCain was badly underfunded in the Republican primary, too, and won easily. Just sayin'.

Do you really think that given our history and military power, ANY country in the world thinks we're not willing and able to kill massive amounts of people whenever we please?

Given that, why would Iran or any other country mess with us if we didn't do something to piss them off to begin with? Leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger.

Sorry, don't agree with that even a little bit. Corollary to my above post is that I think the most troubling temptation for America is the tendency to isolationism, both in terms of foreign policy and trade policy.

If this is what you are hearing, then Obama needs to do a better job of explaining himself, because that is not what he is saying. This is what he has said is his policy on the use of force:

"No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."

More from the same speech:

"In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community - with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option."

I find this very tough to argue with, especially when put up against McCain's endorsement of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive, unilateral strikes against perceived threats, as eveidenced through the Senator's voting record and public comments.

If it all comes down to driving around small states like New Hampshire and South Carolina in the Straight Talk Express, then I'm with you. But it won't. You can do the early primaries on a shoestring because face-to-face meetings with the candidate are how you get votes.

But in the general election, the candidate may be able to make 3 or 4 trips to Ohio, tops. And that comes at the expense of other states you need to campaign in.

You get your message out with ads. And if the battleground states turn out to be MI, PA, OH, FL or NJ, those ads will have to be bought in some of the most expensive media markets in the country. Under the law, politicians do get cut rates to a certain extent, but not that much of a cut rate.

Since the parties started breaking out of the public financing system, no Republican candidate has been elected to the Presidency without substantially outspending his Democratic opponent. Which is unsurprising, I suppose, because no Republican presidential candidate has every been outspent, and rarely is it close.

Well, we'll see. I really don't have a feel for what will happen in the GE.

I'm cribbing shamelessly from Mark Steyn here, but there's a quote from Osama bin Laden, from shortly after the 9/11 attacks.


To answer your first question... I think there are plenty of countries (as well as non-state actors) who believe we are increasingly incapable of killing "massive amounts of people".

Are we capable of Dresden these days? Are we capable of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we capable of leveling Tehran and salting the earth, even AFTER an attack on our soil?

Since WWII we've waged oxymoronic "nice wars". Hell, even "Shock and Awe" was designed to showcase our military might without actually using it in a way to terrify our enemies into submission.

So you believe that we're acting like the strong horse right now, with our "bigger guns" and whatnot? I think compared to our enemies, we're looking increasingly feeble.

Your statement is also predicated on your belief that people in power are ultimately good people. Given the madmen and tyrants (petty or otherwise) that have been in power across the globe over just the past 50 years, it's a statement that's naive at best.

But Obama's a man of his word, and not a typical politician... right? So I'm sure he'll stick with his promise to use the public financing system if his opponent agrees to do the same. Since McCain's already agreed to do so, that should negate his financial advantage, right? ;)

Quite the comedian, Cam. :)

I thought I read somewhere that Obama has already backed away from that promise, saying something like "it would be really stupid not to use every advantage I have."

I am going to say this one more time and I will use caps to maybe get the point across though I doubt the people spouting this care.

OBAMA NEVER MADE A PROMISE TO USE PUBLIC FINANCING!!!!!!!

This is the document in question

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...a_02192008.pdf

This is what he said

You're right, that's totally different.

I don't find this difficult to argue with, but again I'm going to have to crib from Mark Steyn.

We need "muscular alliances". Where do these muscular alliances come from? England, where the Archbishop of Canterbury says England should embrace sharia law? France, where Muslim youth riot, burn cars, attack police, etc. on issues NOT related to declaring war on an Islamic country?

You are assuming our traditional European allies have drifted away from us because of our "imperial arrogance", rather than their own self-interest. In "enlightened democracies" we tend to kowtow to those on the fringe. Look at Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, etc. on the left and Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. on the right. You won't find Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson in Europe. You'll find Mullah Chaudri, Mullah Krekar, and Dyab Abou Jahjah. Are these individuals representative of all Muslims in Europe? No more than Jesse Jackson represents all black Americans, or Pat Robertson represents all Christians in the United States. Yet they still exert influence over our politics the same way fringe Muslims do in Europe.

In my opinion, Obama's failure to both recognize this and present it to the American people is foolish and shortsighted. It does not make me confident that he is prepared to deal with the threats the United States will face over the next decade.

None of your assumptions are correct. I asked (rhetorically) who doesn't think we're capable of killing massive amounts of people.

Why?

Talking points? Give me a freaking break.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...ma_pledge.html

Foo Fighter, that's Obama's quote, not Cams.

Actually it can be an extremely cut rate (although stations have gotten smarter through the years at limiting the impact) ... but that isn't at all the same as saying "cheap" either.

I think we can all agree that our current foreign policy is working so well that we shouldn't change it.

Actually, you said:

You might not like the answer you received, but I did answer your question.

Sorry for assuming your statement of "leave people alone and they'll respond in kind, especially if our guns are bigger" was based in some sort of belief in the inherent goodness of people. Do you mind telling me why you think our enemies will leave us alone then? Is it predicated on the idea that they fear us? If so, what reason have we given them to fear our response, and what has Obama said that makes you think he'd respond aggressively to a threat or an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests?

What constitutes a threat and what constitutes US interests? Any President will respond aggressively to an attack on the US, but the whole point is that we shouldn't be attacking threats unless it's our last option. It's a renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war.

I see. So basically Obama's stance is "You get the first punch, but we'll hit you back"?

Cam: This won't get us anywhere, so why don't we just end it here. You know full well that's not at all what Obama said, but you're going to do your best to get in as many shots as possible. If you want to seriously discuss what constitutes threats and US interests I'm all for it. If this is just a game to throw smears at each other and the candidates I'll cede to you the field.

Actually, I really wasn't trying to "get in a shot". I'm honestly trying to figure out what you mean by a renunciation of the doctrine of preemptive war. "Threats" and "U.S. interests" will mean different things to different people, and ultimately it won't matter what I think constitutes a threat to a U.S. interest. It's up to the president, and I'm not in the running.

So having a debate over that seems pointless, but trying to figure out what Obama's policy actually means doesn't seem pointless, if that makes sense.

If we didn't have a military base in every other country in the world, why would anyone give a shit about us other than economically? We used to have a miltary base in Lebanon. Whatever terrorist group it was didn't want us there and they bombed our barracks. Reagan ordered us out. No more attacks.

How come Switzerland wasn't invaded during WWII when everyone else was? Self defense is essential. Fucking with the rest of the world under the guise of "interests" is not.

But you know full well your quip about Obama was a cheapshot. Look at what he said in the above quoted passage,


The big difference is that the bar for preventive action will likely be raised and the need to get strong international support will be emphasized. IMO it reads much like Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We didn't hesitate to act, but we had strong international backing. In Korea we also acted, but we had strong international backing. I know you can point to a whole host of countries that supported us in Iraq, but we quite consciously went with a needlessly belligerent attitude towards those that had questions about our actions. Most foolishly, we wouldn't consider waiting for 30 days when a host of smaller countries asked for that, so instead of marginalizing those against us we dismissed a host of countries that could have been persuaded to help us. IMO it's that sort of mistake that Obama's talking about.

As to when he might attack before being attacked first? I don't know, but I'd bet it would be in line with the actions of most of our country's Presidents of varying political stripes. The doctrine of preventive war is a recent construct and IMO it hasn't served us very well.

No, it wasn't a cheap shot. It was an honestly asked question, but if you want to believe otherwise I'm not going to expend any more energy trying to satisfy you otherwise.

And actually, I won't point to the countries that supported us in Iraq, because I believe that in our future actions, we're likely to have less support (for the demographic reasons I pointed out on the last page) no matter who's in charge. If the need for international support is emphasized more than it is now, I view that as a mistake, because I don't believe our traditional allies will be in a position to support us against enemies like Iran. I think Obama's position is foolish and not based on the demographic reality of our allies.

I do appreciate the articulation of what you believe Obama's statements to mean though.

The bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut are thought to be the work of Hezbollah, with the backing of Iran. Yes, we haven't had any more trouble with Iran or Hezbollah since then.

The U.S. forces in Beirut were also a part of a multi-national force. Along with the U.S. forces who were killed, more than 50 French soldiers were killed.

These bombings took place a few months after the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed.

Are you suggesting we refuse to take part in any multi-national or international peacekeeping operations? How about our embassies? Should we shut them down in addition to our military bases? And most importantly, do you seriously believe Barack Obama subscribes to even 1% of your views?

As for the Swiss and WWII, I would encourage you to read Stephen Halbrook's "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in WWII". Self-defense IS important for a country. One might wonder why Barack Obama refuses to ever talk about the self-defense aspects inherent in the 2nd Amendment, given that the Swiss militia system was one of the key reasons why Germany never invaded. But I digress.

That would be a great campaign event, "The Swiss militia system and the self-defense aspects of the 2nd amendment." That'll get the donations pouring in!

I don't believe Iran is that great a threat. They're certainly behind a resurgent Russia and China in relation of long-term threats. Iran is more of a nuisance than an actual strategic threat. Even if they develop a nuke, which we should work to curtail, they still won't have anywhere near the power of the dominant military force in the region, Israel. I believe that we're focused to tightly on Iraq/Iran while allowing greater threats the freedom of unopposed actions.

I also don't buy Steyn's idea that we're almost besieged by radical Islam. His worldview leaves only military action as a way to achieve our goals and doesn't take into account the reality that our actions have consequences. Perhaps in fifty or one-hundred years things will be different, but it's foolish to argue that right now we can't count on European allies because of the influence of radical Islam on those nation's leaders.

Good sign for Obama...I've seen the same article get revised twice today - first time, the article said he picked up 3 superdelegates; second said he had 5; now he's at 6. Clinton's superdelegates lead is down to 271.5-269.

By Monday, she may not even have the "and I'm leading in superdelegates" argument to make anymore.

So then why for the love of God are we starting shit with Iran?


What do peacekeeping and embassies have to do with anything? Way to keep the conversation focused. If two people can't agree on 1% of something, they're not trying.

At least one of those was a defection from Clinton too.

I expected some dems would try to commit and push her out as quickly as possible. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see a flood of them pour in over the next week to two weeks.