I don't know why the discrepancy in numbers, but ABC News is actually saying he's taken the lead, 267-266.

I think the difference is that at least some sources are now reporting as many as 9 switches today ... but now I notice that those numbers are actually a lower total than the earlier one, not just a different distribution.

Maybe different news organizations are using different sources for their count?

Events don't occur in a vacuum. The government of Iran has the same underlying ideology now that it did in the 1980's. The current tension with Iran is not anything new. It's been in place since the Shah was overthrown. I'm not even sure what you mean by "starting shit with Iran", so perhaps you could provide some examples.



For this, I'm gonna have to quote you.

We did not have a military base in Lebanon. We were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Months before the barracks that housed our Marines were attacked, our U.S. Embassy in Beirut was also attacked, which also was part of the decision to remove our forces from Lebanon.

If you're going to argue, at least argue from some position based in fact. Otherwise I'm going to start introducing unicorns and ogres to the mix.

JPhillips: 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 I said, but you're going to do your best to get in as many shots as possible. If you want to... hang on... got a little sand in my vagina...

*scratch scratch*

Ah, that's better. :p

Seriously, to indulge in my digression for a moment, Obama's done a heckuva job talking about the 2nd Amendment rights of hunters, sport shooters, even gun collectors. But because of Chicago's handgun ban, he's never ONCE mentioned the self-defensive aspect of the 2nd Amendment. He's never given an opinion on the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. He's said he hasn't read the briefs, and he told the Chicago Sun-Times that he doesn't like taking a stand on pending cases before the Supreme Court. Of course that didn't stop him from signing onto a Supreme Court amicus brief in the Indiana voter ID case...



I'd disagree with you regarding a resurgent Russia. I think we're far more likely to see the implosion of Russia within the next two decades, and the fracturing long before that.


You might want to talk to Jose Aznar and see how he feels about your position. Granted, he might be more concerned about the influence of radical Islam on voters in a country that just suffered a terrorist attack.

It's more than just radical Islam, btw. As I said before, not every Christian American thinks Pat Robertson speaks for him. But you can't argue that Robertson and the religious right have an influence in this country's political system, even though they only reflect the views of a select part of one demographic.

I think it's human nature that the same holds true in Europe. The most popular baby name in Belgium right now is Mohammed. It's the second most popular name in England (if you count all the variations of the name). In Amsterdam, 24% of the population is Muslim. In Stockholm, it's 20%. London, 17%. In other words, the Muslim population is large enough that politicians would be stupid to ignore them. Throw in the fact that moderate or liberal Muslim voices are often drowned out by extremists and it's not illogical to see how this demographic is already influencing foreign and domestic policy in many European nations.

By starting hit with Iran I'm referring to the Kyl Lieberman resolution and all of the pols saying, "all options are on the table." You know this.

As far as Lebanon, I have no interest in semantics. We were over there. You know this too.

If you're going to argue, do so. If not, have fun with your unicorns.

I think this is an excellent question, really, and I expect it will be asked of him in one of his debates against McCain. It sure as heck should be, at least. Both candidates should be required to express what kinds of threats may lead them to engage the military.

The same kind of question should be asked of McCain as well. Since he has expressed support of preemptive military action, and voted for it in Iraq, voters should have some idea whether he would do so again and under what circumstances.

I happen to believe that this works out strongly in Obama's favor, but I respect that others will think differently.

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

Actually you may wish to talk to Aznar about what happens when you blatently lie about things. The reason he was voted out wasn't because of the Madrid bombings, but because he blamed them on ETA, even though he KNEW they didn't do it. When that got out, he was done. He blatantly lied about a terrorist attack for political gain.

Well, to be fair, the Taliban "punched" us first. And Saddam ignored the 1991 cease-fire agreement*, under Clinton and Bush. Saddam did so almost daily before we finally "punched" back.

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1511540.stm

To be fair, it's become a helluva lot easier to throw a punch in the past 225 years. Isolationism's easy when it's actually possible to be isolated.

There's also a difference between picking fights and using preemptive force. Do we require our police officers to shoot everyone they stop for a traffic violation? Of course not. But we also don't insist that they take a bullet before they can shoot at someone who poses a threat to them.

If we wouldn't expect it to be a good policy for the individual police officer or soldier, why on earth would it be a good policy for a military?

The no-fly zones, however, were NOT listed under the cease-fire agreement. So one can argue that countries that did those flyovers were violating the cease-fire agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Cam: But we wouldn't find it acceptable if police officers started shooting people because they believed they had the capacity to get a gun and fire it.

That's true, and it wasn't what I was suggesting. I have a feeling we're mere sentences away from my metaphor awkwardly breaking down, but I'll give it a go regardless. :)

We know there's a gun. Let's (for the sake of the increasingly strained metaphor) say that the gun is on a table in the room with the police officer and the individual. The gun may even be in another room. Regardless, we know there's a gun. We know it's not a good thing for the individual to get the gun.

The officer may not shoot the suspect, but he most certainly doesn't allow him to saunter over to the table and pick up the gun, all the while telling the officer he's not going to do anything bad with it. Remember, this is a guy with a rap sheet (is the metaphor getting ridiculous yet?). We know he's responsible for violent crimes in the past. You don't let him get the gun, and yes, at some point that means you will have to physically use the tools at your disposal to prevent him from doing so.

But the problem is we don't know whether or not the gun is there.

Of course if the gun were really an extremely dangerous badger...

LOL.

I started to continue the analogy, but it's just getting silly. I don't know if I'll have time to visit this thread again until Monday, but thanks for the fun debate today.

The United Nations violated the cease-fire agreement by flying humanitarian air coverage? That's funny coming from somebody that insists the UN governs all wars.

Probably All Things Considered on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, NPR doesn't do transcripts a lot (for free), but they usually post ATC on the website in streaming format, broken down by section. The usual Q&A with David Brooks & A.J. Dionne is probably its own section.


Again, let's wait until the nomination is resolved. Right now the makeup of Obama's support is skewed due to Clinton.

Likewise I'd expect McCain to follow the rules laid out in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, but he hasn't done that either.

Here's what he actually said:


And here's what Gordon Brown said:


If that's what "embrace" means to you, then I submit that you "embrace" gun control laws merely because of the fact of their existence.


I don't agree with this. We perhaps allow them to get more media coverage than they should, and their surrogates in Congress often get them money they shouldn't, but we don't direct our policy efforts specifically to address their views.

And this doesn't happen in Europe, either.


You'll also find that European politics are influenced by a wide array of non-Muslim radicals, be they separatists, religious fundamentalists, far right-wingers, far left-wingers, etc.... Why do you only mention the Muslims, Cam? Does your argument lack weight without the presence of the Muslim Bogeyman?

Huh? How many strawmen can we count here? ;)

The United Nations, if approved under the Security Council can violate state soveriegnty. Hence approval to invade Iraq to get them out of Kuwait. On the other hand, declaring that a state cannot fly aircraft in its own country without any basis in a cease fire agreement or a SC resolution can't really be legally justified (it can be power justified, and that's what we basically used... if we really wanted it, should have put in the cease fire agreement).

The no fly zones were not enforced by the UN... but by the US, UK, and France.

Now, if China decided that they should fly over parts of the US for "humanitarian reasons" without UN approval or in a treaty agreement, we'd be crying bloody murder.

The idea that the U.S. should engage in extremely unilateral foreign policy simply because we can't trust any other countries is the lazy man's foreign policy. Just because it's easy to soundbite and plays well on talk radio doesn't mean it's a great solution.

We used to have diplomats and statesmen in this country who worked long and hard to navigate the international diplomatic waters to put our nation in the best possible positions on any number of fronts (military, economic, political, etc...). We've now been reduced to these organizations being led by a bunch of zero-sum neocons who want the world remade in the U.S.'s image, or otherwise blown up.

This is exactly where we got the facile "you're either with us, or against us" explanation of U.S. foreign policy - a concept which neglects to recognize that the world is not black-and-white, it is gray. A policy which does nothing but a) make enemies and b) paint us into corners.

It limits our options, but it does allow neocon administration officials to take long lunches and get home from work early. After all, they've pushed the real work resulting from this policy to the military, which now has to deal with all of our new enemies.

Some of you need to realize that this experiment is over. It failed. It's now time to get back to work, man the phones, press the flesh, and start building relations, alliances and bridges in the world again - a multi-faced foreign policy that seeks to promote our interests in any way that's viable, makes use of all the tools at our disposal, and can work.

Perhaps.

But given the lack of resolve, character, intelligence, judgement, and common sense in the U.S. at large today, it seems it (and virtually any policy really) was doomed through no fault endemic to the policy itself. We seem to lack the ability to avoid sabotaging pretty much anything we try to do at this point, simply through the weaknesses within.

Flere,

The failures of the administration are failures of execution, not necessarily failures of philosophy. At any rate, I don't think anybody thinks diplomacy is useless or a bad idea. I also confess that McCain's foreign policy philosophy is not particularly articulated or well understood. But the international community simply is not capable of working in a collective, communal way - there is a need for leadership, and that need will be filled by somebody. Because of the US's peculiar qualities (governed by a document which emphasizes individual freedom and individual happiness, for example), I believe the world (and, of course, the US) is better off if the US takes a strong leadership position in the international community.

This is not the same point of view which you are describing and condemning in your post. It may be that McCain doesn't have the vision and ability to execute this vision, but the fact that Obama seems to reject it is extremely troubling to me.

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

Terrorism is by its very nature the enemy of civilization, and in dealing with nations who refuse to recognize that there is only so far that diplomacy is going to be able to go. There is a fundamental difference of worldview. If we act in an appropriately aggressive way to stamp out terrorism we are going to make a lot of enemies. The question is whether that is an appropriate thing to do and whether or not it is better than the alternative -- I say yes on both counts simply because I've never heard any reasonable alternative(and this is an important enough issue that I considered voting for Kerry in '04, but couldn't because of what I saw as the absolute bankruptcy of his position on the matter).

As has been mentioned there have been failures of execution. The Iraq War was sold horribly, and for some of the wrong reasons. It was executed even worse in some aspects after the initial invasion. As a result we have a mess, but not IMO a worse mess than we would have had if we hadn't done it to begin with and certainly not a worse mess than hiding in America and pretending a modern free society can depend on the oceans to protect us.

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

Now left-leaning time.com is advocating invading Myanmar wihout provocation so we can get relief supplies there?

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

Furthermore, the neocon idea that one should sow Western Democracy at the point of a gun, and that once sown, it will spread in any region, including the Middle East, is fanciful at best.


I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.


I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years and to me, this is the path upon which McCain wants to keep us.

Buc: Left-leaning? Who exactly is left-leaning at Time? As for Burma I'd like to encourage the French to act and we can support with naval/air forces if necessary. As long as we stay within 50 miles or so of the coast I don't think the ruling junta will risk a shooting war.

Brian: What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.

Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

This is an overly simplistic view.

Public opinion is not "basically pacificistic" on the subject of terrorism worldwide, it is very conflicted.

We do not have only the choices of "acting" or "surrendering".

This is exactly the problem we have in this country.

The War on Terror is a propaganda war. The Islamic Terrorists (and let's not kid ourselves, that's the only kind of terrorist we're talking about here) rely upon their constituents, from financiers to suicide bombers, to believe that they are fighting the good fight against evil and corrupt regimes. If we act in a manner that can be construed to be evil or corrupt (and sadly the history of the invasion of Iraq is now full of examples), we're just doing their job for them.

Ever since the U.S. stopped overtly messing with Middle East politics in 1979 with the fall of the Shah, anyone who has studied the region (and been there) will tell you that slowly but surely moderate elements have sprung up, and interest in, and adoption of, Western and free market ideas and ideals gradually increased. Until 2002.

Since 2002 all of these moderate elements have suffered setbacks. Regimes in the Middle East that were formerly good allies of the U.S. have had to get more radical to appease their radicalized populaces. This is the result of an overt, unilateral and aggressive foreign policy.

We need to get back to what won us the propaganda war against Communism. Let backwards regimes flounder. Give back-channel help to moderate and modernizing regimes. Give behind-the-scenes help to moderate elements in opposing client states. Work diplomatically to open up cracks in opposition states through which our free market tendrils can work.

This was working. The bin laden family used to help the U.S. Government keep tabs on their estranged family member. Now he's probably in Pakistan where no one's inclined to turn him in. Moderate elements used to be gaining some representation in various ME countries (notably Iran). Now they're mostly on the run.

This is what we need to be doing and this is what our foreign policy needs to be able. Always-changing, always-adapting. Not a 21st century crusade, because we'll just lose that battle, like every empire before us has.

I'm overlooking nothing, and I'm not ignorant, so you're 0-for-2 there. It's a lot more complicated than simply asking whether Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussein were allies. He was funding Palestinian suicide bombers against an American ally(Israel, war by proxy). He was flaunting the UN inspections regime. Iraq was a source of instability in the region of the world where Islamic terrorism flourishes. It's not difficult to imagine how the impact of allowing a regime like that to continue to exist promotes terrorism, and how removing it can diminish it.


I wouldn't say that's the least bit clear. Moreover, I would say that the fact that most civilized nations of the world today stand openly against the idea that states who sponsor terrorism should be confronted by whatever means necessary indicates that unilateral action will often be the only reasonable course of action. The other alternatives are to (1) Deny that we have been in a state of war against Islamic terrorism for quite some time now(decades), or (2) Pre-emptively adopt a policy of surrender in that war on any front in which the world community is not willing to act.


Ridiculous. Bolton was plenty qualified for the job and had experience dealing with the UN. Who do you think should have been sent instead?


An appropriate stance lies in between those two extremes. Being a 'benevolent older brother' does not have enough teeth. Willingness to act unilaterally if necessary is essential to any nation's defense, not just ours. The characterization of the last 8 years is not entirely accurate either.

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?


There is only one course of action that satisfies this condition. Total withdrawal from any involvement in international affairs. Anything else can and will be construed as such by many elements. And if we did that, it would be construed as a de facto surrender, an assessment that wouldn't be far off the mark by the way, with disastrous consequences.


No it wasn't. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were continuously escalating, not decreasing in the time period prior to 2002. This was happening precisely because we were treating it as a criminal issue, and you can issue as many indictments and convictions as you want, but when you are at war the enemy isn't going to care. Acceptance of that as a continuing pattern was, is, and always will be a de facto position of pre-emptive surrender, no matter how you want to dress it up otherwhise.

A lot of things constitute dealing with terrorism, but certainly a definition of that must include confronting it wherever it is found. I think it's clear that the rolls of Al Qaida would have increased regardless of our involvement in Iraq. They certainly weren't going away if we'd stopped at Afghanistan.

I don't think hardly anybody believes that ANY military attack in the ME is a good thing. Certainly there can be substantive reasons to be against the Iraq War but the question then becomes how do we deal with Islamic terrorism? Every idea I've heard has boiled down to either taking action to deprive them of safe havens or acting only when the world community is on our side, and I've already expressed what I think about that one.

Brian: If you see Iraq as a great success story we'll never be able to agree. Have fun.

I think I've made it pretty clear in my posts that I don't see it that way. I see it as a mixed bag.

Back on topic: I think Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Now, who's the veep?

i'd love to see Joe Biden as V.P. I think he's probably one of the most intelligent and well-spoken potential V.P.'s, and he would also bring a wealth of foreign policy experience to counter the republicans trying to point out Obama's relative foreign policy inexperience.

Richardson definitely brings something to the ticket. He can get Hispanics on board the Obama campaign, whereas, they are more likely to be McCain supporters. Throw states like New Mexico to Obama's side.

There are a LOT of skeletons in Richardson's closet, or actually his living room. I don't think he would be a good choice, although its true he would help with hispanics and the west. On the other hand, Obama-Richardson would be weak in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.

dola

I think Obama-Clinton would be a very strong ticket.

I think the unity ticket is a bad idea. During th campaign it will be hard for Hillary to be subservient to Obama and if he wins having the Clinton team around is a recipe for competing agendas. She may help with some demographic sets, but overall I think it will hurt more than it will help.

For Hillary, I don't see why she'd want the job. I think she'll get a leadership position in the Senate as part of the negotiations for her to drop out and she's far more powerful there than she'll be as Obama's #2.

Plus he's already spoken highly of Obama, calling him (as I recall) "nice and clean."

I think pretty highly of Biden overall, but in the modern campaign setting, I think he's a liability. He talks too much, and too frequently off the cuff, and just by his nature he's bound to be a complete font of material for those who play the gotcha-style sound bite game. I think Obama is too scarred from that sort of thing (in the very immediate past) to see past this serious liability for Biden.

They were against the war no matter what, because even if Saddam was developing WMD, it didn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. If anything, it'd probably be used against terrorist groups. And no one believed he had ties with Al Queda. And paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't "funding terrorism", it is providing payment to offset the loss of a potential wage earner. I mean, really... no one is going to be persuaded to blow themselves up because Saddam is paying their families if they do!

These are good points, but I just can't think of a better name. Ted Strickland, maybe? Bob Casey?

I've heard Bayh as a way to connect to the Clinton's. I don't think he offers much, but who knows. Other names I've heard are Napolitano or Sibelius as women governors who would be strong with the same demos as Clinton. Contrary to four or eight years ago the Democratic governor field is pretty deep. Jim Webb is also a possibility.

I love Ted Strickland as he's an old family friend, but he's not great on the stump. He's as honest a politician as I've met ad he's done great things for southern Ohio as a Representative, however, I like him more as the governor of Ohio than the VP. I'm not even sure how strong his support in Ohio is as he was lucky enough to run for governor the year the Ohio Republicans proved themselves both corrupt and incompetent.

I fail to see the substantive difference between 'providing paymenet to offset the loss of a potential wage earner' and say, buying weapons or providing training or anything else that would be considered funding terrorism.

On world, opinion, Gallup conducted a poll shortly after 9-11 that is on point. It dealt directly with terrorism. A couple of the questions were extremely enlightening.

The first one dealt with what the U.S. should do in the event they identify the terrorists responsible. Options were attempt to extradite, military force against the countries harboring them, or don't know/no answer. Despite the well-documented failure of using the criminal track to deal with terrorism, it was the overwhelming choice in 34 of the 36 countries polled. Other than the U.S. and Israel, it was almost 3:1 or more against military action in almost every country except for Korea(38 for military action, 54 for extradition). Keep in mind this was at the high point of the groundswell of support for the US. Is it even remotely reasonable to think this attitude has become MORE militaristic in the interim?

On the subject of Obama's running mate, I frankly don't think it matters much. McCain's choice will be far more important.

Then I don't think we have common ground here, because I see an extremely vast difference between the two.


Did they ask a follow up on what if the attempt to extradite failed? Other countries tend to be far less militaristic than the US or Isreal, and would rather exhaust the diplomatic angle first. After all, they weren't in nearly such vast opposition to removing Iraq from Kuwait. It's because all the channels had been gone through.

I agree with this.

Hey, it works in St. McCain's favor. Biden would basically be McCain-lite, just without the history of flip-flopping and the fawning adulation of the MSM.

What about Russ Feingold for veep? Too liberal?

I think Bob Kerrey would be a good choice for Obama.

Biden is one of the two democrats I would have voted for president this year. Bill Richardson is the other one.

Here is your Democratic ticket.

I would love to see Richardson as the VP, he talked by far the most sense of all the candidates this year IMO. No idea how politically viable that is, guess not as I haven't heard anyone in the media really talking about it yet.

Kerry would be a suicidal choice. With allegations of elitism and being out of touch with the working American already against Obama... ugh.

I guess you missed the fact that the U.S. has broad international support in attacking Afghanistan, including a presence even today of NATO forces (where for instance, Canadian soldiers are dying on a weekly basis). You see, that was anti-terrorism war.

Iraq wasn't a terrorism war. And thus it got no support. I'll use Canada again for example. Canada went into Afghanistan and is still there. They said no to Iraq not long after going into Afghanistan. What does this tell you? It tells you that the lack of support for Iraq had nothing to do with being soft on terrorism from U.S. allies, but everything to do with the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or an imminent threat on the U.S.

But you can go ahead and believe whatever you want, I guess.

What are the significance of democratic primaries if "Superdelgates" have the final say? Why on earth does their vote count more than mine?

Shut up, Democrats, you get 2/3 a vote, what more do you want? ;)

Thanks for assuming I've got blinders on, but it just ain't the case. Actually what this tells me is that they still follow the old reactive philosophy that action is only justified after you get hit. Problems with that approach and it's basic ineffectiveness have already been discussed here.

Yes, extremely.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. One harbors bin Laden and has allowed nuclear secrets and equipment to be sold on the black market. The other is the major source of funding (from individuals) for Al Qaeda as well as many of their leaders and foot soldiers.

The "Saddam was a bad man, we had to take him out" argument has long ago been shown not to hold water. We invaded Iraq because George Bush and his neocon cronies wanted to. No more, no less.




No, it means that most states understand risk vs. reward. Invading Afghanistan? Good risk vs. reward. Invading Iraq? Lousy risk vs. reward.

Invading Afghanistan? The Taliban & Al Qaeda are broken up and forced on the run, getting their just desserts. Until we abandon the project and invade Iraq. Invading Iraq? We get rid of a significant Al-Qaeda counter and a significant Iran counter in the heart of the Middle East and replace it with a terrorist training ground and a likely theocratic Shia state in the future.


The scope of international endeavor very rarely boils down to 2 or 3 choices. It doesn't with terrorism, either.


When you send someone to the UN who says this: "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and has as his explicit goal the dismantling of the UN, what exactly are you saying to the international community?


You're misconstruing the polls. Many Europeans were skeptical of the WMD claim, which is a pretty big part of not believing a foray into Iraq was a good thing. Turns out they were right.


Again, international affairs are not that simple. The world is not black-and-white. There are a multitude of options open to any reasonable state.

Foreign policy does not boil down to "We shoot them or we run away".


And terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and proxies have continued to escalate since 2002 (so much so that the Bush Administration directed the State Department to stop keeping data on this).

Just a few weeks ago, General Petraeus, of all people, echoed the conclusion of the combined intelligence agencies in saying that invading Iraq has made the U.S. less safe, not more so.


I'm sorry, was anyone suggesting otherwise? I don't remember this.


Such revisionist history. Al Qaeda was very much on the run after 9/11 and the goodwill we had in the international community was allowing us to go after their support lines in many other countries. The Iraq war changed all that, and has made it much more difficult to pursue Al Qaeda through these avenues.


Every idea doesn't "boil down" to this. That's your own simplistic conclusion. The reality is far more nuanced, and you're still not seeing this.


++

No, it means they understand the concept of Realpolitik.

I don't think you're going to get this, Brian. You want an unambiguous foreign policy, based on simple ideas, pursued aggressively without thought to its ramifications in diplomatic circles.

Well, you've had this for the past 8 years, and the results haven't been all that successful. If you want to keep on this misguided path for a few more years, please feel free to vote for McCain.

Anyway, I'm tired of re-hashing this argument. Feel free to get the last word in and tell me how I'm wrong.

Yep. At this point my guesses would be Richardson, Biden, Bayh or Webb. I think they all probably have various liabilities, as well as strengths, so it's hard to figure which way Obama might go.

I want no such thing, and I've been pretty darn clear about it. Naturally I also disagree about the record of the last 8 years, but I'll respect your wish to drop it here :).

Proving only that it isn't an unqualified success when there is insufficient resolve in the populace behind the policy.

Our enemies know that we'll be taken down from within, that renders the policy less effective than it could be under more solid circumstances.

Claire McCaskill is certainly gunning for a post in Obama's administration. What? Is anyone's guess. But she'll certainly get a gig. Probably not VP, but...she's got to be on the short list if you're beancounting

Well I'm ready for a change of direction. I'm 30 now, and I've spent the bulk of my young adult life under the direction of a misguided, greedy, unintelligent individual. What makes it worse is I didn't vote for him. I think this is the sentiment of most young americans. I've got high school classmates and college fraternity brothers that are serving or served in Iraq, but I will stop now because just thinking about this crap makes me angry.

Question: Does anyone know a site to compare Obama's/McCain's national health plans?

Probably their campaign web sites. Obama advocates a plan that would cover kids, but not mandate adults have coverage. McCain favours the free market generally, under the premise that competition will drive down the costs of health care. There is more detail than that, but the two are fundamental opposites as the GOP will resist any attempts to "nationalize" health care.

Well, McCain's plan isn't just to do nothing (though it does do far, far less than Clinton or Obama). It is relying on, of course, tax cuts to individuals for buying health care.

You want to know how many times I have heard that in the past 40 years from young Americans? You should have heard them after LBJ, or Nixon or (in my case) Carter, or after 8 years of Reagan. 8 years of Clintons produced apathy among the youth to where HRC has been enduring high negatives. Now it repeats for the last 8 years. And it will repeat in the future. Every young generation wants and expects things to be different, until they mature and realize that it's not one individual but a system that is corrupt and entrenched. Until we get voters and the general population to turn their eyes and expectations away from Washington DC and to what you can do locally and among those around you, it will continue.

The focus, I believe, should be on lowering health costs for the majority of Americans, while maintaining high levels of care.

Though I'm not sure McCain's plan will really lower health costs all that much. Sure, the re-importation of foriegn drugs will help with drug costs. But, the rest may lower medical costs, or it may not.

I agree, I don't think any plans will lower costs, esp. in light of increased demands for good services and wonder drugs. We have created higher expectations for health services and will probably not accept, for the majority that are covered well, inferior quality to any great extent and certainly not a one-size-fits-all program that the federal govt would come up with. However, once beyond the working years, then the equation changes.

What's that old sign behind the cash register?
"Quality - Service - Price ... pick any two"

I can't see Bayh. He's an empty suit and his home state is entirely out of play. Senator Webb brings some interesting things to a ticket:
1) A decorated veteran with unimpeachable anti-war credentials;
2) He's a former Navy Secretary under Reagan who has shown appeal to independents and Republicans;
3) He brings a competitive state, Virginia, even more into play.

Speaking of Virginia, they have another intriguing option in Governor Tim Kaine. He's a devoutly religious Catholic who is still getting fairly good poll numbers. Kaine's term runs out in 2009 anyway, and in VA you can't run for re-election. He and Obama are reportedly good friends.

I wish I even had that

I recall Kaine pulling his name out from the possible VP candidates a few weeks ago. As for Webb, he'd be a solid choice, but I really can't think of any other Dems who would be able to retake that Senate seat. And with Warner nearly guarenteed to win the other one, would the Dems want to give up the prospects of having 2 Dem Senators in Va?

Hmm...I didn't hear that Kaine had pulled his name. A lot would depend on what VA's law is regarding Senate replacements. Hypothetically, it is possible that Kaine could appoint a Democrat as Webb's replacement to serve out the remaining 4 years of the term. The bench isn't that deep here in my adopted home state, though, so I don't really know who he might appoint.

Seattle Times mentions Kaine in an article today:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_veeps12.html

So I don't think it's clear-cut that he's withdrawn his name from consideration.

Saw the bit about Kaine here on my local nbc affiliate's website:

http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?s=8205532

I don't want to get into the rest of this in this thread, but that is precisely why most foot soldiers "become terrorists" - it's an economic decision. At the higher levels it is more about ideology, but at the lower levels in Iraq it's about paying anyone $400 to fire an RPG and return with a spent casing.
Who's Claire McCaskill?

MO senator

There is a difference between making money and killing yourself so your family gets money.


I'm not sure if Obama will pick Webb, or if the Dems want him too. They may want the Senate seat too much, and two inexperienced Senators (Webb just got elected, IIRC) may not be the way to go.

++

Actually, this is an "old" Project Management joke as well. I've actually used it a few times in meetings with particularly intractible clients. ;)

Edit: Of course, in my line of work it's the triple-constraint of Time, Quality and Cost.

I don't know that he will pick Webb either, but I'm not sure how much any of these points will factor into Obama's decision. What the party wants is certainly no factor at all; candidates select their own running mates. Provided Obama agrees with you -- that both he and Webb would be vulnerable on the issue of experience -- I could see that being a factor. But he may decide that Webb's 4+ years in the Marines and 5 years as an Assistant SecDef and Secretary of the Navy may be enough to satisfy voters. My sense is that it would.

That said, of the names being tossed around, I'd put Webb behind OH Gov Ted Strickland right now. I think Tim Kaine (assuming he has not pulled himself from consideration) is in the mix, too. All have very strong arguments for selection, and would be assets to the ticket.

Kind of a fun/interesting link: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-05-12.html

Shows how the sitting senators (aside from Hillary, Obama, and McCain) respond when asked about the VP slot.

Some of those are really funny :D.


I especially love Senator Wyden's answer. :D

Those are actually amusing. The thought of Sen. Mikulski "rocking the Naval Observatory" kinda makes me throw up in my mouth though.

dola:

My neighbor (mid 30's, mother of two, hot MILFy type) sent out this email to all the other mom's in the neighborhood today:

Her husband, who works for an acronymed gov't agency in the D.C. area, sent out a reply that said:


:)

This hot MILFy woman should drop her zero and get with a hero. I'd offer my heroic services, but, sadly for her, I'm already married. It's always a shame when hot chicks marry lame dudes like your neighbor.

:)

So in other words, your neighbor wasn't getting laid before the email..and surely won't be now until after the election?

Clinton wins West Virginia. Says tonight that she and Obama "have always stood together" to bring America new leadership. She's pulling closer in the end. They're making the push for more money to pay those bills. I wonder what job they want. Maybe she wants to be on the Supreme Court? They've got to be negotiating something.

And yet there are some in this thread who think West Virginia is in play, even though Bush won it twice in a row, and Obama couldn't even get 30% in his own party's primary.

Is Clinton a Republican? That would explain a lot...

Who the hell said WV is in play or even remotely? Virginia might (unlikely but possible) be in play but WV is a big stretch.

Childers wins in MS. This was a district where 62% voted for Bush in 04. Add this to the losses in special elections in LA and IL and thins look very bad for Republican Congressional candidates. The RCCC spent around 1.3 mil to hold this district and couldn't.

That's going to be the great equalizer for Obama against McCain. But despite Obama's negative demographics and bad feelings from a lot of Dems, many I suspect would vote for Donald Duck (as long as he's not married to Hillary Clinton). That's why the general will be close.

To clarify "negative demographics", I mean some white women, most older Americans, Latinos to some extent, definitely Asians and those ubiquitous WV-type white blue-collars they've been mentioning the past month.

Yeah, GOP congressional races could be a bloodbath this year.

I used to think that Obama was the better candidate against McCain. Now, I'm not sure that either of them will win a heads-up battle against McCain. Both Clinton and Obama, while having good overal vote support, have some electoral college issues that could hurt them in the end.

I always love when these irrelevant comparisons are drawn. People vote for a representative based on his merits or party, not who they cast their ballot for in the presidential election. This area will still go heavily for Republicans in the Presidential election.

A perfect example is that a Democrat was elected as Governor in Kansas a few years back. Under your assumption thinking, that means a major shift has occurred and that Kansas has suddenly swung Democrat. Obviously, that example and your example are both laughable at best.

WTF are you talking about? I always love it when someone so clearly misreads a post that they look silly. I'm not talking about the presidential race. I thought that was obvious by the absence of any reference to the presidential race.