Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[JPhillips]

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.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Clinton and sounding the dog whistle

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Universal health care (which Obama speaks about, even though he's not demanding everyone gets it) is a left wing policy.

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

As is increasing the capital gains tax (for fairness).

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.

Amending NAFTA (and "fair trade agreements") is left wing.

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

Banning permanent replacements for striking workers is left wing.

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

A windfall profit tax on oil companies is left wing.

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

Nah, it's just pandering for votes.

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

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).

[JPhillips]

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.

[Young Drachma]

From here

Just a reminder, since everyone seems to be forgetting:

According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.

In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.

I'm not saying these are goals to aspire to. I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.

*****

And while we're talking about voting blocs: Since it's now an article of faith that Barack Obama will lose every voting bloc to Republican John McCain that he lost to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton by essentially the same margin, shouldn't we extend that rule to Clinton as well? Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?

[Buccaneer]

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

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Following that logic, shouldn't we assume that she'll get less than 10% of the black vote against John McCain, just as she does against Obama?

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

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

[path12]

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?

[st.cronin]

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.

[chesapeake]

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.

[st.cronin]

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

[Fighter of Foo]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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."

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.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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.

[st.cronin]

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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.

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

when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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.

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?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

[st.cronin]

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."

[-apoc-]

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

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Now if he doesnt attempt to pursue an aggreement with McCain then you can start bemoaning his breaking of his word until then please stop reapeating talking points.

[st.cronin]

You're right, that's totally different.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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.

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

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

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

We need "muscular alliances".

Why?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

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

Now if he doesnt attempt to pursue an aggreement with McCain then you can start bemoaning his breaking of his word until then please stop reapeating talking points.

Talking points? Give me a freaking break.

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

The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows:

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

[st.cronin]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Under the law, politicians do get cut rates to a certain extent, but not that much of a cut rate.

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.

[JPhillips]

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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

Actually, you said:

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.

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?

[JPhillips]

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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"?

[JPhillips]

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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 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.

[JPhillips]

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

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.

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Ksyrup]

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

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

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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?

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.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

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.