The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[SportsDino]

I think George Washington would be severely disappointed in our present Congress. Partisan bickering over something that can get a 99-0 vote?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

... and make it harder for the majority to get things done.

Discomfitting the enemy is rarely a bad thing.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd be curious as to their rationale beyond...business as usual.

Nobody remembers obstructionism, while everyone remembers votes, since the voting record is what gets used during elections.

[Greyroofoo]

I thought this was funny albeit somewhat slanted

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

[Flasch186]

FWIW if the Daily Show bet is on this was a bad week for the under since Stewart was crushing the Dem's.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I thought this was funny albeit somewhat slanted

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

That's fucking awesome. Is that Jim Carrey as Reagan?

[molson]

It's inevitable that this will happen, because it's really the only option. Still, i wonder if there will be any non-ACLU Democratic party backlash. Probably not a lot. We've seen a lot of this in Obama's foreign policy: Have a plan, learn reality, change plan. I'm glad he's willing to at least change these plans, that does show character. But I'll always wonder if he knew reality earlier and pandered to the left, or was really this ignorant.

White House considers military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- White House advisers are considering recommending alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a military court instead of a civilian one in New York City, a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.

In November, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his intention to try Mohammed in a New York civilian court.

"I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years," Holder said last month. "The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures."

A firestorm of opposition erupted from both New York officials and top Republicans after Holder's announcement.

New York police have estimated the cost to the city would exceed $200 million per year in a trial that could last years. They have said, among other things, that they would need to install more than 2,000 checkpoints in Lower Manhattan.

Also, some congressional leaders have argued Mohammed should not be entitled to all the protections and privileges a defendant receives in civilian court. Last month, several lawmakers tied funding to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to holding a military trial for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists.

To try Mohammed and others "as common criminals, giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens in our courts, is justice according to 'Alice in Wonderland,'" said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, argued that "our military justice system is best able to protect the American people."

Holder said last month the Justice Department "will have to take into account" the views of other political leaders and residents. "At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday the administration was evaluating its options "based on New York City logistical and security concerns."

Gibbs and senior presidential adviser David Axelrod have said previously that President Obama believes the trial should take place in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

The senior administration official emphasized that no final recommendation has been given to the president and therefore no final decision regarding the 9/11 terror trial has been made.

The official said administration advisers hope a decision will be made before the president leaves for an overseas trip on March 18.

Progressive activists blasted the potential administration switch.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law."

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

That's fucking awesome. Is that Jim Carrey as Reagan?

I believe it is, I also think Ron Howard directed

[Dutch]

It's inevitable that this will happen, because it's really the only option. Still, i wonder if there will be any non-ACLU Democratic party backlash. Probably not a lot. We've seen a lot of this in Obama's foreign policy: Have a plan, learn reality, change plan. I'm glad he's willing to at least change these plans, that does show character. But I'll always wonder if he knew reality earlier and pandered to the left, or was really this ignorant.

Criticize Obama all you want for the economy, but I'm actually impressed/surprised with his foreign policy strength so far. He's very conservative in this arena.

President Obama is the best thing that has happened to Bush's foreign policy strategy. With Bush out of the picture, the Bush plan is getting implemented without resistance from anyone. We've increased troop strengths, renewed the Patriot Act, increased our presence in the Middle East, reduced protestors to zero here and abroad, removed all discussion of withdrawal deadlines, kept Gitmo open, and now we've approved military tribunals without contest from the Democrats. It's even won President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Brilliant!

I am more than satisfied with President Obama's handling of foreign policy so far.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Criticize Obama all you want for the economy, but I'm actually impressed/surprised with his foreign policy strength so far. He's very conservative in this arena.

President Obama is the best thing that has happened to Bush's foreign policy strategy. With Bush out of the picture, the Bush plan is getting implemented without resistance from anyone. We've increased troop strengths, renewed the Patriot Act, increased our presence in the Middle East, reduced protestors to zero here and abroad, removed all discussion of withdrawal deadlines, kept Gitmo open, and now we've approved military tribunals without contest from the Democrats. It's even won President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Brilliant!

I am more than satisfied with President Obama's handling of foreign policy so far.

I have to agree with this. I can't imagine one thing McCain would have done differently here - yet he would have been fought every step of the way. If we can just find a way to jumpstart the economy, I'm not sure Obama can't get out of this hole we're in. Hopefully, it happens soon.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Criticize Obama all you want for the economy, but I'm actually impressed/surprised with his foreign policy strength so far. He's very conservative in this arena.

President Obama is the best thing that has happened to Bush's foreign policy strategy. With Bush out of the picture, the Bush plan is getting implemented without resistance from anyone. We've increased troop strengths, renewed the Patriot Act, increased our presence in the Middle East, reduced protestors to zero here and abroad, removed all discussion of withdrawal deadlines, kept Gitmo open, and now we've approved military tribunals without contest from the Democrats. It's even won President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Brilliant!

I am more than satisfied with President Obama's handling of foreign policy so far.

That's one way of looking at. I too, am quite relieved that Obama has basically just continued Bush's foreign policy (piece by piece), and that does offset, to some degree, my annoyance with message of "change" that got him into the white house. That shouldn't bug me though, as his supporters were the ones that were duped, not me (and they don't seem to care).

I think Obama is brilliant enough though, for all of this to have been calculated in advance. I can't wait to see what his approach will be in 2012.

[SportsDino]

Bah I only wasted a vote on Obama in the off-hope we could get out of a useless and expensive war (that doesn't make us a bit safer, despite what testosterone junkies might say). That he has co-opted Bush has only made me determined to undermine the political system as much as possible in the future.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think Obama's supporters were duped so much as they weren't born in 2008 and never saw a presidential campaign before, and they also didn't randomly forget everything John McCain said during his campaign.

[lungs]

This Obama supporter doesn't feel duped at all, as I felt Obama would be pragmatic on foreign policy. I highly doubt he would have gone into Iraq in the first place but that is just speculation. But when he was handed a war that for all intents and purposes is winding down, I don't see how much deviation there would be from the previous administration.

I still think we will see some differences in foreign policy, especially in regard to a country like Cuba and the ridiculous embargo. Not saying it will be lifted completely, but we've already seen some easing of restrictions whereas Bush strengthened restrictions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Eh, I'm disappointed in this because it's stupid. The courts can handle these guys, have handled worse, and we ought to be able to do so without conceding to conservative bed wetting. Once again Democrats punt on being strong and right because you're not allowed to be any more further left than center-right in America when it comes to national security issues.

Lot of recliner generals in this country that politicians need to appease.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

That's one way of looking at. I too, am quite relieved that Obama has basically just continued Bush's foreign policy (piece by piece), and that does offset, to some degree, my annoyance with message of "change" that got him into the white house. That shouldn't bug me though, as his supporters were the ones that were duped, not me (and they don't seem to care).

I think Obama is brilliant enough though, for all of this to have been calculated in advance. I can't wait to see what his approach will be in 2012.

You're absolutely right this was calculated. Very similiar to how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were calculated. We knew very well that Bush could initiate this and his replacement could apologize it away. We get what we wanted from the Middle East, endured a few years of protest from our economic competition, and then praise, reward, and Peace prizes from those same competitors when we get the new guy in office.

It's all working out fantastically so far.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We knew very well that Bush could initiate this and his replacement could apologize it away.

I'm sure this comes as a great comfort to the families of all who died, not to mention the actual people who have been permanently injured.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm sure this comes as a great comfort to the families of all who died, not to mention the actual people who have been permanently injured.

I'm sure it doesn't at all. I'm not sure what that has to do with Obama backing off the values and platforms he presented to those people about his foreign policy though.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lungs

This Obama supporter doesn't feel duped at all, as I felt Obama would be pragmatic on foreign policy.

I feel like I have to explain this every five pages or so, but despite how you guys want to paint Obama supporters, the vast majority of us didn't expect the troops to come home and Gitmo to be closed in February, 2009. Oh, and ponies.

I mean, by this logic, I have to assume that those of you who voted for Bush in 2000 did so expecting him to implement a Christian conservative theocratic state, right?

And I'm not sure how some of you can think that Obama is simply continuing Bush's foreign policy when there are a number of substantial differences. Unlike Bush, Obama's team have taken a tough line with Iraq's government and started to draw down troops regardless of that government's ability to meet its targets.

Unlike Bush, Obama's team has paid attention to Afghanistan and implemented an actual strategy to engage the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And critically, unlike Bush, Obama's team has managed to engage and work closely with Pakistan to execute this strategy.

And in fact, that last example is an indicator of the greatest shift of all, from unilateralism to multilateralism. If people can't see what a big shift that is, then I'm not sure you really understand some of the basic concepts of foreign policy in the 21st century.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure it doesn't at all. I'm not sure what that has to do with Obama backing off the values and platforms he presented to those people about his foreign policy though.

Read for context.

Dutch's post (and things he's said on this topic in the past) intimates that it's OK to effectively dupe a whole population in order to conduct a war that they'll eventually all resent. Further, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those who served and died under what were, effectively, false pretences.

It's also, um, a bit elitist, don't you think? I thought that kind of elitism was only reserved for Obama....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Criticize Obama all you want for the economy, but I'm actually impressed/surprised with his foreign policy strength so far. He's very conservative in this arena.

President Obama is the best thing that has happened to Bush's foreign policy strategy. With Bush out of the picture, the Bush plan is getting implemented without resistance from anyone.

So it's Bush's foreign policy, but it's Obama's economy? That's one of the more pure examples of partisanship I've seen in a while, well done.

[ace1914]

I'm a very big Obama supporter and I never expected him to pull out 130,000 troops immediately. That's just plain idiotic. There would be an immediate vacuum left within Iraq where a war displaced over 3 million people. That would truly make Iraq ground zero for any Anti-American terrorist groups. No law, no order and Iran licking their gotdamn chops if we left Iraq in shambles.

So instead of focusing the troops in an unjust war, he is actually leading a tough charge against the very people who claim to have committed 911 and you guys are knocking him for that? I don't get it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I'm a very big Obama supporter and I never expected him to pull out 130,000 troops immediately. That's just plain idiotic. There would be an immediate vacuum left within Iraq where a war displaced over 3 million people. That would truly make Iraq ground zero for any Anti-American terrorist groups. No law, no order and Iran licking their gotdamn chops if we left Iraq in shambles.

So instead of focusing the troops in an unjust war, he is actually leading a tough charge against the very people who claim to have committed 911 and you guys are knocking him for that? I don't get it.

Did you expect them out within the 16 month timeframe he promised in the campaign?

I'm not knocking him for his actual actions here, just the now-forgotten rhetoric that got him in the white house. He's like a salesman who just has to beat the price offered by his competition. When he was running in the primaries, against other Democrats, he had to promise a lot more to distinguish himself from them. Once the competition was just McCain, he could scale back those promises and still offer "more" than McCain, from the liberal prospective. Now, in office, he can (and has) scale back those promises even more, because his only competition is a Republican in 2012, and he's only going to be judged against the prior, terrible administration.

And I never quite understood the whole "Afghanistan = good war", "Iraq = bad war" angle. Wherever we are, the "very people who claim to have committed 9/11" will come to fight us. Certainly, it would have been more prudent to choose Afghanistan as the primary battlefield years ago. But now, we have two places teetering the line between stablity and extremist takeover. It seems to me there's more at stake in Iraq. A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan puts us back to where we were pre-9/11. Which wasn't a good state of affairs, but Afghanistan at least isn't a signficant country with an infrastructure to cause problems beyond what terrorists can come up with in a shithole in the middle of nowhere. 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere. Iraq is wealthier, has more infrastructure, is a much more loaded potential prize for extremists.

And what did ever happen to those Iraq timelines for withdrawal that were such a heated issue under Bush?

[lungs]

Anybody that listens to campaign promises from either side is a moron.

Campaign promises are meant to be broken. Didn't Bush campaign against nation building?

Campaigning should be cut down to one month so we don't have to listen to the diarrhea that comes from the mouth of both candidates about stuff that will never happen.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

molson, your point again seems to be that Obama told my campaign promises that he couldn't fulfill.

I don't think you would find many here that would be surprised by that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lungs

Anybody that listens to campaign promises from either side is a moron.

Campaign promises are meant to be broken. Didn't Bush campaign against nation building?

Campaigning should be cut down to one month so we don't have to listen to the diarrhea that comes from the mouth of both candidates about stuff that will never happen.

gotta say that i kinda agree with you here. far too much campaigning versus actual governing going on in politics these days.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

gotta say that i kinda agree with you here. far too much campaigning versus actual governing going on in politics these days.

I was being dramatic for effect, of course.

But yeah... Surprise elections would be ideal. Nobody knows they are coming.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

molson, your point again seems to be that Obama told my campaign promises that he couldn't fulfill.

I don't think you would find many here that would be surprised by that.

It's not just that - it's how this image he projected for himself WAS the thing that got him the nomination, and eventually the presidency.

Obama started the campaign as a super-liberal, and got more and more moderate as his Democratic challengers got knocked off.

Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but Obama used this stuff to distinguish himself from fellow Democrats. That's why he got this shot at the nomination so early. He was exciting, different, and promised way more than anyone else.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but Obama used this stuff to distinguish himself from fellow Democrats. That's why he got this shot at the nomination so early. He was exciting, different, and promised way more than anyone else.

Maybe others should take notes.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It was a very well run campaign, no argument from me there.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

And what did ever happen to those Iraq timelines for withdrawal that were such a heated issue under Bush?

I thought there was still a timeline of combat troops starting to leaving Aug. 2010 and last combat troops out Aug. 2011, with 35k still around for the long haul?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not just that - it's how this image he projected for himself WAS the thing that got him the nomination, and eventually the presidency.

Obama started the campaign as a super-liberal, and got more and more moderate as his Democratic challengers got knocked off.

Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but Obama used this stuff to distinguish himself from fellow Democrats. That's why he got this shot at the nomination so early. He was exciting, different, and promised way more than anyone else.

Honestly I don't see what the problem is. He tried to change the things he wanted early but didn't know real politics in Washington. Young idealist runs 100 mph into a rock called Washington.


I think he's doing fine, 1/4 of the way through his presidency.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Did you expect them out within the 16 month timeframe he promised in the campaign?

Sixteen months was a goal, not a timetable. If he wasn't making any progress on that front I'd be concerned. Contrary to popular belief, those of us on the left can also be grounded in reality on such matters.

And I never quite understood the whole "Afghanistan = good war", "Iraq = bad war" angle. Wherever we are, the "very people who claim to have committed 9/11" will come to fight us.

Interesting idea you raise here. Maybe we should want them to "come here" so we can fight them on our home turf.

Certainly, it would have been more prudent to choose Afghanistan as the primary battlefield years ago. But now, we have two places teetering the line between stablity and extremist takeover. It seems to me there's more at stake in Iraq. A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan puts us back to where we were pre-9/11. Which wasn't a good state of affairs, but Afghanistan at least isn't a signficant country with an infrastructure to cause problems beyond what terrorists can come up with in a shithole in the middle of nowhere. 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere. Iraq is wealthier, has more infrastructure, is a much more loaded potential prize for extremists.

You're mixing two things. The Afghanistan = good war / Iraq = bad war thing stems from how they came about, not their current situation.

And honestly, if 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere (and let's face it, it wasn't planned in Afghanistan), maybe we should invade some place like Saudi Arabia instead?

Originally Posted by lungs

Maybe others should take notes.

Yeah, like molson.

George "No nation building" "compassionate conservative" Bush

Bill "Third Way" Clinton

George "No New Taxes" Bush

Ronald "Small Government" Reagan

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not knocking him for his actual actions here, just the now-forgotten rhetoric that got him in the white house. He's like a salesman who just has to beat the price offered by his competition. When he was running in the primaries, against other Democrats, he had to promise a lot more to distinguish himself from them. Once the competition was just McCain, he could scale back those promises and still offer "more" than McCain, from the liberal prospective. Now, in office, he can (and has) scale back those promises even more, because his only competition is a Republican in 2012, and he's only going to be judged against the prior, terrible administration.

Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but Obama used this stuff to distinguish himself from fellow Democrats. That's why he got this shot at the nomination so early. He was exciting, different, and promised way more than anyone else.

I'm going to channel Jon for a moment and suggest that you expunge the alluvium from your genital canal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And I never quite understood the whole "Afghanistan = good war", "Iraq = bad war" angle. Wherever we are, the "very people who claim to have committed 9/11" will come to fight us. Certainly, it would have been more prudent to choose Afghanistan as the primary battlefield years ago. But now, we have two places teetering the line between stablity and extremist takeover. It seems to me there's more at stake in Iraq. A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan puts us back to where we were pre-9/11. Which wasn't a good state of affairs, but Afghanistan at least isn't a signficant country with an infrastructure to cause problems beyond what terrorists can come up with in a shithole in the middle of nowhere. 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere. Iraq is wealthier, has more infrastructure, is a much more loaded potential prize for extremists.

You can make that case now, but not before the war. That's I guess where Iraq = Bad in the mind of many. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact, most terrorists like Bin Laden despised Saddam. Now it might be a terrorist hot bed thanks to us going in there and starting a war. We made things worse in the Middle East and in Iraq. That's why I think there is more mental fatigue in relation to Iraq.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can make that case now, but not before the war. That's I guess where Iraq = Bad in the mind of many. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact, most terrorists like Bin Laden despised Saddam. Now it might be a terrorist hot bed thanks to us going in there and starting a war. We made things worse in the Middle East and in Iraq. That's why I think there is more mental fatigue in relation to Iraq.

That's exactly my point - Afghanistan is still widely considerd the "correct war", even though things have changed. I presume this is for political reasons, since the Iraq war is less popular, just because of the ways the wars started.

The way the wars started shouldn't effect the way they're fought now.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's exactly my point - Afghanistan is still widely considerd the "correct war", even though things have changed. I presume this is for political reasons, since the Iraq war is less popular, just because of the ways the wars started.

The way the wars started shouldn't effect the way they're fought now.

That's wrong. Afghanistan is considered the "correct war" because it's the one that we should have gotten into in the first place based on events at that time. The one that wasn't sold to the public based on lies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Honestly I don't see what the problem is. He tried to change the things he wanted early but didn't know real politics in Washington. Young idealist runs 100 mph into a rock called Washington.

[/b][/i]

Right, and because of the idealism, he made promises, (or as flere-imsaho calls them, "goals"), that convinced others to vote for him over more competent Democratic candidates who did understand Washington. So at best, the only reason he's in the White House is his ignorance about reality (though I lean more towards it being intentional deception).

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's wrong. Afghanistan is considered the "correct war" because it's the one that we should have gotten into in the first place based on events at that time. The one that wasn't sold to the public based on lies.

So because it was the right war almost 10 years ago, it continues to be the correct war forever?

[molson]

Dola - What we're doing in Afghanistan now isn't what we went there to do. It's a different war now. It's a war about stabilization - just like Iraq.

Either we want to stabilize these places or we don't. I don't think Iraq is less important to stabilize just because it was a mistake to go in there in the first place.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

So because it was the right war almost 10 years ago, it continues to be the correct war forever?

I'm not sure where you get this "correct" and "incorrect" monikor from. I've NEVER heard them referred to that way.

No, I don't think it continues to be the correct war forever. I just think that the tag of "correct" is probably lingering. The value-judgement implied by it is not one that's constantly being reassessed, but rather one that was made shortly after it began.

Honestly, now that we went into Iraq and messed it up even more, we should be there just as much as we should be in Afghanistan.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I just think that the tag of "correct" is probably lingering.

I think that's absolutely right. And for that reason, Afghanistan will always be the more popular war, just because that's everybody's habit. That's why we're ramping things up there and slowing down things in Iraq. And Iraq dragging out will hurt Obama more politically than Afghanistan going badly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that's absolutely right. And for that reason, Afghanistan will always be the more popular war, just because that's everybody's habit. That's why we're ramping things up there and slowing down things in Iraq. And Iraq dragging out will hurt Obama more politicall than Afghanistan going badly.

I disagree re:Iraq/Afghanistan political fallout.

I also think that Iraq has a higher probability of being able to assist with its own stabilization than Afghanistan has currently. Iraq is much closer to being a functioning country than Afghanistan is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Any of the Democratic candidates in 2008 would be in about the same position as they Obama is now. The idea that Hillary, Edwards, or any of the also-rans would've been more competent is just silly and this is coming from somebody who had Obama as about his 5th choice. They all had the same platform with small differences.

I mostly agree. Certainly others would at least be more experienced, and perhaps better at manuvering the realities of Washington. But otherwise, that's kind of my point. The only positive thing that truly seperated Obama from the pack were the big ambitions.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol -- i just couldn't resist posting this

Originally Posted by dailykos and whoever they linked the story from (edit: medicine hat news in alberta CA)...editorializing is dailykos

Wow.

She touched on climate change, saying that her skepticism has been proven by several recent controversies and that money shouldn't be spent on "pie-in-the-sky, snake-oil ideas."

The vocal opponent of health care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," she said. "And I think now, isn't that ironic."

Who is "she?"

She is Sarah Palin.

Sarah "Death Panels" Palin. Sarah "Socialism" Palin.

Sarah Palin's freeloading family used to border-hop for Canadian socialist, single payer, death panel health care for themselves, only to return to the U.S., where she grew up to dedicate herself to denying affordable care to you, largely by hoping you'll believe that the Canadian health care she crossed the border to get sucks so badly, it'll kill you.

Oh, not to mention the favorite Republican claim that passing health care reform in this country will supposedly rip off taxpayers by making health care available to border-hoppers!

Who here lives up near the border? How does this work? Was Palin's family sticking Canadian taxpayers for the bill, or do Americans pay up front for treatment in Canada?

Palin thinks the word for this is "ironic."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So because it was the right war almost 10 years ago, it continues to be the correct war forever?

Not forever, but at least until we capture/kill bin Laden and his sidekick.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

...and the only thing that separated Dubya from other Republicans was his last name, the only thing that separated Clinton from other Democrats was his charisma and geographical location. Aside from minor candidates with no real support, there are going to be no major ideological differences between candidates in a party primary, so things come down to the intangibles.

As for whether people would be better an manuevering Washington, it's not like there are a bunch of greenhorns in the Obama administration. It'd as full of old Democratic establishment pols as any other White House. So, it's not the people being hired. So, Hillary? Hell, she was the original socialist Anti-Christ so it's not like she could've done much more. Edwards? Yeah, he's shown himself to be a genius. Biden? He's the VP. Richardson? Was Governor, so really hasn't dealt with Washington in a long time. Dodd? Meh.

The truth is, no matter who was the nominee, the Republican plan was always going to be to obstruct, Corporate Whore Democrats were always going to block progress, and things were always going to be tough.

All good points.

I think though, that when people getting into comparing Obama with the past, and "that's just how it is" kind of stuff, that's what I think affirms my point, and things just get us to the agree/disagree level.

To me, that Obama campaign promised so much more, a new America, etc, and the wild celebrations after the election confirmed to me that a lot of people bought into it. He was supposed to be something different than we've had before, someone uncomparable to past presidents. If you read those old campaign speeches.... I'm convinced that those expectations is what got him a lot of the votes from the masses (though not from those in this thread, but certainly enough to get him the election), and other disagree...

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not forever, but at least until we capture/kill bin Laden and his sidekick.

If that's still the primary objective of the war, we're certainly going about things a strange way over there....

I'm not sure how the possible presence of bin Laden in Afghanistan justifies another expensive military quagmire with no exit strategy, no clear objectives - all the things that are/were bad about Iraq.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If that's still the primary objective of the war, we're certainly going about things a strange way over there....

I'm not sure how the possible presence of bin Laden in Afghanistan justifies another expensive military quagmire with no exit strategy, no clear objectives - all the things that are/were bad about Iraq.

I'm no fan of the nation building part of the strategy, but the increased attacks on AQ and Taliban leaders are exactly what we should have been ding years ago IMO.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That's exactly my point - Afghanistan is still widely considerd the "correct war", even though things have changed. I presume this is for political reasons, since the Iraq war is less popular, just because of the ways the wars started.

The way the wars started shouldn't effect the way they're fought now.

Of course it's political. The wars were political and Obama carrying them on is political. There is an element of society that wants us to blow people up from the comfort of their recliner.

It's naive to believe you can end terrorism by pointing to a few lines on the map and saying "blow it up". That's essentially what they're doing and it's dressed up to gain political points.

[flere-imsaho]

It's been a year and two months. Let's see how badly I did.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

ECONOMY

Hopes:

• U.S. out of recession by early 2010.
• DOW back over 10,000 by 2011.
• The Obama team figures out how to get Wall Street to finally resolve all the bad debts out there (the weakness of the American economy isn't addressed in full until this is, in my opinion).
• In 2009, an Obama "reconstruction" plan passes Congress that is designed to rebuild the U.S. for the 21st century. It includes:
  • Substantial investment in R&D efforts for "21st century" industries, such as technology, biotechnology, pharma, green technologies, etc....
  • Infrastructure upgrades (roads, rail, ATC, internet backbone)
• Better regulatory powers, and a will to use them intelligently, at the SEC.

More or less completely wrong here, but they were hopes.

Predictions:

• U.S. out of recession by late 2010.
• DOW goes back over 10,000 during primary season for 2012 elections.
• Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.
• Chrysler fails and its parts are bought up by competitors (foreign & domestic). Ford ends up needing that line of credit, but turns out OK. GM is kept on life support by the government through 2010 and restructuring starts to pay off in 2011.
• A short-term stimulus package of tax breaks and generalized pork is passed in early 2009.
• A long-term "reconstruction" package is finally passed in mid/late-2009 and demonstrates the first serious test of Obama's influence over Congress. Relations are soured between the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress over the latter's lack of willingness to pass legislation over the objections of vocal minorities amongst the GOP in Congress. This drives the liberal blogosphere absolutely ballistic. The "reconstruction" package contains some forward-looking initiatives, but is also at least half pork.

I'd say about 50% here. Some of the stuff could still happen. Interestingly, if you change the last bullet from a stimulus bill to HCR, I'm more-or-less spot on! I mean, it was even "passed", though not as a whole.

SUPREME COURT

Hopes: Stevens (age: 88, reason: age), Ginsburg (75, health), Scalia (72, age), Kennedy (72, age), Breyer (70, age), and Souter (69, age/desire to retire) all retire and are replaced by young (around 50), brilliant, accomplished and just-left-of-center progressive justices. Furthermore, Thomas experiences an epiphany and changes from a reliable but incomprehensible right-wing vote to a reliable but still incomprehensible left-wing vote. Roberts decides he doesn't want to be remembered as a Chief Justice who was always in the minority and so migrates to the center. Alito doesn't change, and becomes a bitter, disillusioned man.

Predictions: Early retirements for Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. Easy confirmations for replacements who are young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. Later retirements for Kennedy and Breyer. More difficult confirmation for replacements due to aforementioned ineptitude of Democratic leadership in Congress and increasing hostility between them and Obama White House. Eventual replacements are confirmed with good majorities (think Roberts) and are still young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. In these later confirmations especially, the influence of "moderate" Republicans such as John McCain and Olympia Snowe are significant.

The hopes were more-or-less a joke, but I'm 1/3 for calling retirements, and I think Sotomayor more-or-less conforms to the description of a replacement justice. She also had an easier confirmation than I figured.

FOREIGN POLICY

Hopes:

• Majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010 in advance of current plan due to unexpected improvement in security and political stability.
• Resurgent Afghanistani government and invigorated Pakistani administration, with U.S. and NATO backing, rout Taliban in border regions. Afghanistan secure enough by early 2012 to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
• During the above operations OBL is mortally wounded by shrapnel but lives for a few days before dying. His body is discovered by Pakistani troops who overrun his position. Later, a video of OBL during his last days taken by a lapsed militant surfaces and shows a mentally enfeebled, ranting, humiliated, and afraid OBL. Negative impact to AQ recruitment & fundraising is significant.
• The Obama administration manages to engage again-Russian President Putin on a number of military and economic concords, with the result being a less-aggressive Russia and a more open state-influenced quasi-free market state.
• The Obama administration convinces China to institute real regulatory oversight for its factories so they stop sending deadly toys, drugs and food to the U.S.
• Obama & Clinton manage, in 2011, to broker a "Good Friday"-type in Israel/Palestine.
• Responding to backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranian Supreme Council do not support Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential Election, and instead allow a "reformer" (by Iranian standards) to win the Presidency. By 2012, in response to further backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranians wind up their nuclear program and begin to open up their society.

A complete miss except for Afghanistan, where it's clear that the U.S. and Pakistan are working together and seeing big success against the Taliban in the border regions. Good stuff!

Predictions:

• U.S. troops leave Iraq on schedule in 2011 but Iraqi state remains tenuous and violence/security comes and goes.
• A renewed emphasis on Afghanistan pushes the Taliban back and the situation by 2012 is a three-way on-and-off conflict between U.S.-supported Afghanistanis, the Taliban, and Pakistan in the border regions.
• OBL is found dead by U.S. special forces. The U.S. claims he died of renal failure. Most of the Islamic world feels it's likely the soldiers killed him. No one ever finds out the truth.
• Obama's charisma on the world stage isolates again-Russian President Vladimir Putin, who continues to intimidate neighbors and run Russia as a quasi-authoritarian state. Despite this, the Obama administration, through backchannel diplomacy, is able to engage Russia more often at the U.N. Security Council on various issues and is able, more than once, to play Russia off against China.
• Nothing significant happens in relations with China.
• Obama gets Iran to re-commit to a serious weapons inspection program, but there continue to be problems.
• Following what's essentially a pitched war between Israel and Hamas in 2009 and 2010, Obama & Clinton broker a "cessation" agreement between the two (who have, by this time, very war-weary populaces) in 2011. It doesn't solve anything permanently, but gets the violence to stop and sets the stage for long-term shuttle talks that are still underway in 2013.

Too early to tell on most, but prospects for my predictions look good, I think. I should note that apparently shuttle diplomacy is actually currently underway in Israel/Palestine.

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.

Almost exactly right except for the Senate seat total.