It says they knew we couldn't do anything militarily in Georgia, even if we wanted to, which we don't.

Agreed; I was thinking more about Ukraine vis-a-vis #970 (and more significantly, Poland), rather than Georgia per se.

Nothing, unless you think the United States should stand firmly with the institutions of human progress and the peoples who want to progress through them.

Turning a regional conflict in Georgia/South Ossetia into a global conflict is "progress"?

Matt Yglesias recently made this point really well, and I'm just going to quote him:

I think a lot of people have a tendency to wave the flag of “morality” or “idealism” in foreign policy as a way of evading responsibility for the consequences of their ideas. At the extreme, I think everyone agrees with this. There would have been nothing “moral” about it if Dwight Eisenhower had taken an “idealistic” stand over Hungary in 1956 and wound up causing a nuclear war. Nor would the fact that the resulting war would, in an important sense, have been the result of immoral Soviet actions really done a great deal to exculpate Eisenhower. There’s nothing new about this idea, it’s all in Max Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation” where he says that in the political domain we need an ethic of responsibility, where you put forth initiatives that actually lead to good consequences.

In foreign policy, this is the animating ideal behind Lieven & Hulsman’s concept of Ethical Realism which despite some disagreements on policy specifics, I think is generally the right way to think about this stuff. When I say that maintaining a good relationship with Russia and China so as to allow for progress on nuclear proliferation, climate change, and international terrorism rather than a new era of cold wars and proxy conflict is so important that we need to let some other stuff slide, I’m not saying we need to set morality aside in order to pursue our interests. I’m saying that, morally speaking, the one course is better than the other. Trying to promote a world in which peaceful cooperation and commerce predominate over coercion and violent conflict is a profoundly moral approach, even if it at times requires people to temper the natural human instinct toward moralistic posturing.

I added the bold cause that's, like, the point.

Turning a regional conflict in Georgia/South Ossetia into a global conflict is "progress"?

People who think that there are good guys and bad guys in that war are naive.


One can only hope that people who try to make excuses for Russia's behaviour are naive.

I make no excuses for Russia. What I'm asking is that people talk about American policy within the scope of, let's say, reality. What actions do you propose and what would their effects be? That is the only sphere in which the discussion of the ethics of political actions is meaningful. Everything else is wankery.

I make no excuses for Russia. What I'm asking is that people talk about American policy within the scope of, let's say, reality. What actions do you propose and what would their effects be? That is the only sphere in which the discussion of the ethics of political actions is meaningful. Everything else is wankery.

Well, the post I was answering to certainly tried to muddy the waters as to who was to blame....

As for your question, a superpower can't evade responsibilty whatever they do, non-action also have consequences. One thing the US should do is to protest loudly.

I make no excuses for Russia. What I'm asking is that people talk about American policy within the scope of, let's say, reality. What actions do you propose and what would their effects be? That is the only sphere in which the discussion of the ethics of political actions is meaningful. Everything else is wankery.

This is fine, but it presupposes an ability to distinguish wishes from reality. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently thought that the only consequence of invading Iraq was going to be having to pay double overtime to the street sweepers who were going to have to pick up all those flowers from the victory parade.

Itza from the other thread:

Georgia is far away, hard to resupply, and nobody's ally. Ukraine is closer, easy to supply, a real ally, and a fairly important country. Also, it would be a lot tougher nut to crack, because of its size.

This is the big power game, the way it has always been played. Georgia is a small country, which cannot defend itself, cannot be easily defended by anyone else due to its location, was already partially occupied (in Abkhazia and Ossetia) and was for that reason surrounded by troops ready to move on it. The calculations were clear: Russia just had to push the button, and they were off.

Ukraine is a large country, which can defend itself, and which can easily be defended and re-supplied. Any Russian preparations for an invasion would be large, noisy and obvious. All that NATO would have to do to deter Russia, is to hold war games in Ukraine (they have already held exercises with them), and leave some troops and missiles behind. The calculations become very different.

***

Bunyon from the other thread:

***

I would dissolve the G8 and reform as the G7. I would push them out (or keep them from joining if they're not already in) the WTO. I would, as Srul said, hold war games in Ukraine and makes calls to ports in the area that may be under threat. I would wrap up our misadventures in Iraq as quickly as possible and start rebuilding our military. I'd do whatever else I could think of to make clear that we aren't using force in Georgia because we can't, not because we are unwilling.

***

What I noted about both of these posts from this thread, which were far better than anything I could have said, was there was no mention of McCain, Bush or Obama. I believe that well-conducted foreign policy has a strong moral element, as Matt notes, but is also at its best a very calculated and pragmatic endeavor.

Even if true and not self-evidently absurd, this line of thought would not change one iota that fact that Russian belligerance is the "instigator of the danger" we now face...

So Georgia didn't bomb the hell out of the capital of S. Ossetia, sparking the Russian response?

They're self-evidently not satisfied with their illegal annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and have moved to threats against other sovereign and democratic nations including Poland and the Baltics, as well as shipping in the Black Sea.

'Cold war wankery' is a good term for this kind of analysis, such as it is. BTW, Condasleeza Rice visited Georgia back in July, with the US military running joint operations with Georgians shortly afterwards.

Certainly Russia is no angel in this conflict, but to think they would sit idly by after an attack on an breakaway province whose citizens hold Russian passports and killing Russian soldiers is what is absurd, not to mention the provocation of ringing Russia with former Soviet states as NATO members and US clients.

My primary question has been answered in the exchange. The neocon reflex towards military dominance of the planet is questioned by others, but I don't see anybody questioning the basic premise of US right to act around the planet however it sees fit -- and that includes both overt and covert US military action, the bombing and invading of sovereign states that have not attacked or even threatened the US, or any collateral damage that has resulted in millions of non-combatant deaths through US military action or financial and military aid to states that will do our bidding.

Obviously we will continue to sleep well while our proxies domestic and foreign commit crimes in our name. None of us will have to worry about US warplanes dropping bombs on our houses, or being disappeared off the streets and into concentration camps or torture chambers in foreign countries. At least not yet.

You can dismiss my posts as absurd or naive, but no one has disputed the facts contained therein, or even tried.

Robin, what thread are you refering too? Link pls. Thats good stuff.

Georgia was trying to protect it's boarders from insurgents. Last I checked when you have an internal revolution, the response for the legit government is usually to put it down.

This is fine, but it presupposes an ability to distinguish wishes from reality. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently thought that the only consequence of invading Iraq was going to be having to pay double overtime to the street sweepers who were going to have to pick up all those flowers from the victory parade.

I say this with all due respect, Andy, but that's a pretty naive remark. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were doubtless aware that the likely result of the war was phenomenal profits for the oil industry, phenomenal profits for the military industrial complex, a concentration of power in the executive branch, and so on.

The point of the war in Iraq was to have... a war in Iraq.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/tht_jaffe22/P100/

There you go, MHS.

ark--

How is that new business venture you mentioned going?

You can dismiss my posts as absurd or naive, but no one has disputed the facts contained therein, or even tried.

Some of your alleged "facts" are absurd, but it's clear that it'd be pretty pointless to contest them, but what the hell:

or any collateral damage that has resulted in millions of non-combatant deaths through US military action or financial and military aid to states that will do our bidding.

millions? are you straining to draw a moral equivalency between teh US and Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China and Pol Pot?

Condasleeza Rice visited Georgia back in July, with the US military running joint operations with Georgians shortly afterwards.

Oh my God, our Secretary of State visited a foreign country, what is the world coming to?

Joint Military exercises? Do you know how many countries we do that with? Do you know how many countries have joint military exercises with other countries???

So Georgia didn't bomb the hell out of the capital of S. Ossetia, sparking the Russian response?

Bomb the "hell out of" apparently not- Russian civil agencies accidently admitted that the entire South Ossetia death toll is about 130- which is an approx 1o minute death toll when Russia decides to restrain a breakaway province of its own. Also- it's pretty obvious (to everyone except you apparently) that Russia deliberately had its pararmilitray Ossteian thugs provoke Georgia with random attacks before this- Russia had everything lined up for its "counter" invasion- presumably if Georgia hadn't been dumb enough to take the bait they simply would have faked an incident like Nazi Germany did just prior to the invasion of Poland.

not to mention the provocation of ringing Russia with former Soviet states as NATO members and US clients.

and if Russia had actually succeeded into turning into some form of liberal democracy this would be a complete non-issue- it didn't and now the ex-KGB goons who run the Govt there want to reconstitute the old Russian Empire.

Certainly Russia is no angel in this conflict, but to think they would sit idly by after an attack on an breakaway province whose citizens hold Russian passports and killing Russian soldiers is what is absurd, not to mention the provocation of ringing Russia with former Soviet states as NATO members and US clients.


Only took 37 posts for someone to claim that Russia's aggression resulted from foreign "provocation."

No great surprise obviously, given 971, but I'd have taken the "over" on 37.

It says they knew we couldn't do anything militarily in Georgia, even if we wanted to, which we don't. We don't have the military assets available for quick deployment and we don't have the logistics tail to support them adequately in that part of the world.

... I don't know, if we really wanted to eff with them (and were unconcerned with the long term consequences*), we could start arming the jihadis in places like Chechnya with real weapons.


* Long term consequences like years later having a real tall building fall on me while I was minding my business taking a stroll one Tuesday morning...

Putting aside this specific dispute, no one except David had any comment on the Guatemala exchange back five or six pages ago. Is denial at work when considering all of the blood that's been shed by the United States since its inception up to the present day, or is it merely acceptance that the United States must necessarily use nasty means to achieve 'our' national ends more often than not?

I didn't remark on it because U.S. guilt in this regard seems obvious (and ongoing). It was as though you had seen fit to mention the sky was blue. I've also posted variously on the idiocy of American exceptionalism. I am a little suprised you didn't get more vitriol from the right wingnuts here.

Obviously we will continue to sleep well while our proxies domestic and foreign commit crimes in our name. None of us will have to worry about US warplanes dropping bombs on our houses, or being disappeared off the streets and into concentration camps or torture chambers in foreign countries. At least not yet.


No, all we'll have to worry about are passenger planes being flown into our 100-story skyscrapers filled with civilians.

===============================
I say this with all due respect, Andy, but that's a pretty naive remark. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were doubtless aware that the likely result of the war was phenomenal profits for the oil industry, phenomenal profits for the military industrial complex, a concentration of power in the executive branch, and so on.
===============================

I would just like to say to our conservative and libertarian friends out there that this man does not speak for the rest of us Obama supporters. I hope you guys don't take him seriously. Remember, all political parties have their share of loony black helicopter mouthbreathers and we can no more muzzle our "arks" than the right can muzzle the Ann Coulters. For all the problems we have in this country, it makes me feel optimistic that people like this are mainly sources of amusement rather than electoral candidates.

Last I checked when you have an internal revolution, the response for the legit government is usually to put it down.

Like Russia with Chechnya and Serbia with Kosovo?

Onto JP's response.

millions? are you straining to draw a moral equivalency between teh US and Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China and Pol Pot?

Millions easily, esp. when you count results like the 200,000 in Guatemala that would not have died if the US did not overthrow the democratically-elected Arbenz government and then supply direct aid for the next 40 years. Since our invasion of Iraq, almost 100,000 civilian deaths have been the result. While obviously fighting and terrorist acts between Sunni and Shia are a sizable part of this toll, all are undisputably the result of the US invasion and occupation. Saddam was a murderous thug, but he couldn't rack up a total like that. Guatemala is far from the only government we've helped to overthrow, Iraq far from the only war we've started. You can get really big numbers as you travel back to the beginnings and the campaigns of Indian extermination. You could look at single wars like in the Philippines. Support for military dictatorship in Indonesia and providing direct assistance for killing of at least 100,000 commnists and their supporters. Napalming and carpet bombing Vietnam.

There's no need to draw any moral equivalence between these US actions and history's monsters you mention. Just judge them on their own merits.


Oh my God, our Secretary of State visited a foreign country, what is the world coming to?

Per capita, Georgia receives the second-largest chunk of US foreign aid. Who knows what message Rice delivered behind closed doors, but I would imagine US aid has some strings attached to it.

Joint Military exercises? Do you know how many countries we do that with?

Yes, our military has garrisons all around the planet, not merely in Georgia.

Russian civil agencies accidently admitted that the entire South Ossetia death toll is about 130...

Okay, 130 pales in comparison to the death toll in most other military attacks on civilian populations. A point for you.

Also- it's pretty obvious (to everyone except you apparently) that Russia deliberately had its pararmilitray Ossteian thugs provoke Georgia with random attacks before this- Russia had everything lined up for its "counter" invasion- presumably if Georgia hadn't been dumb enough to take the bait they simply would have faked an incident like Nazi Germany did just prior to the invasion of Poland.

Again, Russia's a bear, not a lamb, but Georgia's hardly Poland to Russia's Nazis here.

...if Russia had actually succeeded into turning into some form of liberal democracy...

This begs too many questions to delve into further right now, but it's funny how there's always a good reason for every US action, from the Indian wars 'til today.

I'm sure I'll be accused of leftist anti-Americanism, but it's not about 'anti-Americanism', but anti-imperialism that posits us as the good guys with good intentions in any and all cases of foreign adventure, and the millions (easily) dead as the result. Good cases can be made for some of these actions, the 'other side' are not innocents corrupted in most instances, and world civilization rests upon murder at its foundation long before there was a United States.

I personally believe the United States has at its roots much good and has given great benefit to the world, but only an honest, open-eyed look at its history and ongoing conduct can prevent the evil it has perpetrated too often in the name of good. And ironically, much of the perpetrating has been done in the name of liberalism and further left activity, and much of the critique of imperialism I offer has conservative political sources. Why is it in the US interest to dominate the world and reconstruct it in our image?

I sincerely thank you, JP, for responding. I can accept a pragmatic or even Machiavellian rationale for the exercise of power, but not one that forgets the unpleasant facts of our actions in the world, or pretends they don't exist.

Ark --

If I don't ignore your olive branches, I'll be dismissed as fringy and unserious by the local arbiters of acceptable political discourse.

But perhaps that water is long under the bridge. Again, I don't think it's stupidity, except in the sense that we all more or less are brought up in our culture's stories before we can question them, and this training is not easy to question later in life.

God knows I've got my own issues with authority. It's blown my mind to realize just how much my actions and reactions to my father have shaped my choices in life. I've lived like the ####### elephants in the circus who grew up with a leg chain and do not realize they could break it easily as an adult.

Kneejerk leftism is one such response, but I don't think my posts here are an example of that. I just want to see reality as it is and live with it with a measure of peace and equanimity, and respond with anger and action in appropriate measure.

I'll gladly give up any idealism in exchange.

So Georgia didn't bomb the hell out of the capital of S. Ossetia, sparking the Russian response?

FWIW, I've read accounts from the area stating that the Georgian "attack" on the 7th was in fact in response to Ossetian (and Russian) attacks on the 6th, and that the Russian invasion force was on the move before that Georgian attack ever occurred. True? False? Half-true? Beats me. But I don't think the situation is nearly as clear-cut as you suggest. Of course, when it comes to international politics, what is ever clear-cut?

This begs too many questions to delve into further right now, but it's funny how there's always a good reason for every US action, from the Indian wars 'til today.

I can only assume that you meant this in the sense of "there's an excuse for every appalling thing the U.S. does", as the literal meaning is somewhat tautological.

While I am sympathetic to the position that we ought to consider carefully before taking action in the international sphere, we don't accrue guilt only for the actions we take, but also for the actions we don't take.

I would just like to say to our conservative and libertarian friends out there that this man does not speak for the rest of us Obama supporters. I hope you guys don't take him seriously. Remember, all political parties have their share of loony black helicopter mouthbreathers and we can no more muzzle our "arks" than the right can muzzle the Ann Coulters. For all the problems we have in this country, it makes me feel optimistic that people like this are mainly sources of amusement rather than electoral candidates.

DL, if you had troubled to actually dispute a single point, you might have garnered a little credibility--as it is, you come across as hopelessly naive. Do you think that astute commentators of any stripe, in 2002, missed the obvious "advantages" of a war in the Middle East that would accrue to some groups and people? Do you think this administration was oblivious to those advantages? Do you think they truly believed that US was in real danger from Saddam Hussein?

It's well-meaning ninnies like you, who are unwilling to admit that some leaders are, simply, sociopathically indifferent, who are part of the problem. Allow me to introduce you to George Orwell, who wrote all too well about the advantages to the ruling class of war, and to Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in the Corps' history, who wrote a book on the subject you dismiss because, I guess, it makes you queasy. It's called War is a Racket. Here's a sample of Butler's writing:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

How is that new business venture you mentioned going?

It's going well, rr, thanks. The search for land on which to build the first house is narrowing. In the northeast there's a powerful need for SuperInsulated homes, and that I can do them for only a few more bucks than regular construction is a powerful selling point--at least, I've been getting good responses to it as a selling point. Getting the first one built is the only significant hurdle, particularly when I can guarantee annual heating bills in upstate NY of $500 or less. When I get rolling I'll offer to finance the small cost above what it costs to build a typical house out of the savings on a buyer's energy bill, so that's a smaller hurdle that should be easy enough to clear. In other words, it's looking good. So many people up here are just getting killed on their fuel bills--$4000 a year isn't unusual--there's a lot of fear, and it's so simple to solve.

How's everything with you?

I don't think the situation is nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.

My main issue is that the fact of the Georgian attack has been swallowed in a 'bad Russia' narrative -- a narrative that also ignores the US role in promoting Saakashvili and Georgia as a 'democratic' pawn in our geopolitical game. Perhaps the lecture from Condi that countries don't go invading other countries in the 21st century pricked a sore spot. There's also the fact that most of S. Ossetia are de-facto Russian citizens and overwhelmingly support independence from Georgia. Or the acknowledgment that Russia might have a good rationale in protecting its borders with US-client states. The US certainly has a long history of hypervigilance against any European influence in the Western Hemisphere.

While I am sympathetic to the position that we ought to consider carefully before taking action in the international sphere, we don't accrue guilt only for the actions we take, but also for the actions we don't take.

I'm not an isolationist, but we have our thumb in every pie on the planet. "American exceptionalism" is the preferred term, I believe. We're right even when we're wrong.

Butler's most well-known for his allegation of a planned coup d'etat against FDR.

There's also the fact that most of S. Ossetia are de-facto Russian citizens and overwhelmingly support independence from Georgia.

I don't know what a "de facto" citizen is, but "most" of S. Ossetia is not actually Russian citizens; Russia has been handing out Russian passports left and right in recent years. And ethnic Georgians have been expelled from S. Ossetia over the last twenty years; that's the only reason why "most" are anything.

So Georgia didn't bomb the hell out of the capital of S. Ossetia, sparking the Russian response?

For a guy who has problems with authority, you're awfully quick to stand up for a dictator.

What happened in Georgia would be analogous to ethnic French Canadians living in Maine, supported by the Canadian government, attempting to break half the state away from the U.S. and have it become a part of Canada. The governor of Maine mobilized the national guard to prevent this, and Canada responded by sending armored columns into Boston. While I personally can't think of a city that deserves to be flattened by tanks more than Boston, there's no question Canada is the aggressor in this scenario.

You can say Georgia was foolish for allowing Russia to provoke it, but to claim what happened was a result of Georgian aggression is wrong.

Again, Russia's a bear, not a lamb, but Georgia's hardly Poland to Russia's Nazis here.

But the comparison still holds up - Poland can hardly claim to be an innocent observer in those years considering they gleefully supported the German invasion of Czechoslovakia and joined in the looting (with limited success, only getting a small bit of land).

Trying to promote a world in which peaceful cooperation and commerce predominate over coercion and violent conflict is a profoundly moral approach,

And that's precisely the world one is supporting by supporting Georgia.

Rumors abound in Europe that the order has come from the Kremlin to the Russian energy companies to prepare to cut off a material portion of Europe's energy supplies as soon as next week's EU summit.

I guess everyone's heard about McCain's VP pick by now. This is the greatest choice since Geraldine Ferraro, and it probably sews up the critical state of Alaska for the GOP---you go, girl!

And that's precisely the world one is supporting by supporting Georgia.

That's fine. The question is, how do we support Georgia? How far should the U.S. be willing to go?

And almost as importantly, what are the other world powers going to do? What is Germany willing to do? What is France, Italy, Spain, the U.K., Poland, etc., willing to do? What is China willing to do? Because the U.S. simply cannot afford to unilaterally take on Russia over this.

McCain has picked Sarah Palin.

I wonder if she'll be accused at some point of having had an abortion :-) (Just like some of the baseless attacks leveled at Obama for secretly being Muslim, etc.)

EDIT: Didn't realize Andy had beaten me to it.

What happened in Georgia would be analogous to ethnic French Canadians living in Maine, supported by the Canadian government, attempting to break half the state away from the U.S.

Hey that actually happened- not Canada and Maine but... you know... ethnic Americans... living in Mexico... supported by the US Government... attempting to break away with 1/3 of the Country... and succeeding... and eventually the US absorbing that 1/3 after we beat the snot out of Mexico....

Essentially, the initial S Ossetian breakaway from Georgian control 10-12 years ago is analogous to the Texican war for independence- the US annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican-American War is analogous to Russia's recent invasion of Georgia. What's missing is that no Russian Politcian (that we know of) is playing the Lincoln role (He stood up in Congress in 1850 and said something very unpopular at the time [I paraphrase] "what we are doing isn't right").

Of course there are complicating factors- the region now known as Georgia and its people were subsumed by the Russian empire some 150-200 years ago- what were Georgia's borders before then? (I belive it had been an independent state in medieval times- but was under Ottoman control immediately prior to its absorption into Russia) Did it have any? when was it a functioning independent state? When the borders of the SSR known as Georgia were formalized- with the region known as South Ossetia inside them- what was the basis for that?

McCain has picked Sarah Palin.

Admittedly this will give McCain the chance of capturing the anti-choice, gender-obsessed, pro-Alaska oil drilling, born-again Christian wing of the Hillary voters. I look forward to hearing from some of them.

Trying to promote a world in which peaceful cooperation and commerce predominate over coercion and violent conflict is a profoundly moral approach,

And that's precisely the world one is supporting by supporting Georgia.

Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment (*), but I don't really understand its applicability here. Not standing up to authoritarians who are themselves employing coercion and violent conflict is not "promoting peaceful cooperation."



(*) It's basically a libertarian sentiment. Or, rather, the libertarian sentiment. Would that more liberals would accept that commerce -- which represents peaceful cooperation -- is profoundly moral.

The state comptroller for Hawaii wasn't available?

What's missing is that no Russian Politcian (that we know of) is playing the Lincoln role (He stood up in Congress in 1850 and said something very unpopular at the time [I paraphrase] "what we are doing isn't right").

A lot of people were against that war. Thoreau went to jail (well, for one day) for refusing to pay his taxes in protest.

Abolitionists felt (probably correctly) that the war was an attempt to expand the institution of slavery.

McCain has picked Sarah Palin.

Woohoo! I don't know what it does electorally (*), but I'm very happy with the pick itself. Palin is a libertarianish Republican, a genuine small government conservative. (Most Alaskan politicians are libertarianish on civil liberties but are big on pork. Palin is good on economics too.)



(*) Except, as I've said before, that the evidence that veeps matter for electoral purposes in the modern era is slim-to-none.

Hey that actually happened- not Canada and Maine but... you know... ethnic Americans... living in Mexico... supported by the US Government... attempting to break away with 1/3 of the Country... and succeeding... and eventually the US absorbing that 1/3 after we beat the snot out of Mexico....

The main distinction was that the Texas-Mexico part of the conflict was not an attempt to create an ethnically pure state. American immigrants to what's now Texas ("Ethnic Americans??????") were not trying to drive out Mexicans, nor vice versa.

(Which is not to say that they were pure; as JRE noted, it was largely about slavery.)

(*) Except, as I've said before, that the evidence that veeps matter for electoral purposes in the modern era is slim-to-none.

True historically, though one suspects a pick with as little elected experience as Palin for a POTUS candidate whose primary argument is his opponent's lack of experience might have more (negative) impact than most. Seems to me Palin makes McCain's argument that Obama's too green to be president a much tougher sell. Particularly given McCain's age, the thought of Palin being the proverbial heartbeat away is likely to neuter McCain's "experience" attacks on Obama, particularly in light of Biden's foreign policy expertise.

Palin is a libertarianish Republican, a genuine small government conservative. (Most Alaskan politicians are libertarianish on civil liberties but are big on pork. Palin is good on economics too.)

What is the general libertarian stance on abortion? (I ask this in all seriousness.) Because Palin's firmly pro-life.

The Palin pick is a great pick, b/c unlike Obama, she's actually done stuff. Andy - you miss the point completely about her. It's not about securing Alaska, even jokingly, it's about showing a few things: one, you get an accomplished politician with genuine conservative credibility; two, you get a woman, who's balanced family and career extremely well; three, you get youth balanced with accomplishment - she's younger than Obama and, again, has done stuff; four, you get her incredible family - from her son about to serve in Iraq to her boy with Downs, to her native Eskimo husband. She's a knockout no-brainer. She kills the "same-old same-old" argument with her governmental reform credibility, her youth and sex. An incredible, incredible pick.

What is the general libertarian stance on abortion? (I ask this in all seriousness.)

"general" there isn't one- seems to me that most libertarians have agreed to disagree with eachother on that topic.

Palin is a libertarianish Republican, a genuine small government conservative.

BZZZT Wrong! No, she's not.

She is only opposed to government activism NOW because she wants Big oil to have a free hand to exploits Alaska's resources to put money in her and her constituents' pockets.

She's like those pseudo States Rights activists who only believe in States Rights when the Federal government is controlled by the other party- or the pseudo fiscal conservatives who only really object to what the other [party wants to spend $ on and will spend like mad themselves once in power.

What is the general libertarian stance on abortion? (I ask this in all seriousness.)

It varies. IMO, the only no-brainer libertarian position would be opposition to government funding, but I could certainly see a libertarian argument that abortion is murder and should thus be illegal on those grounds. As a practical matter, most libertarians I know, including me, tend to be pro-choice but opposed to Roe v. Wade.

What is the general libertarian stance on abortion?

There is probably no general libertarian stance on abortion, just like there is probably no general libertarian position on dogfighting or vegetarianism.

True historically, though one suspects a pick with as little elected experience as Palin for a campaign whose primary argument is his opponent's lack of experience might have more (negative) impact than most. Seems to me Palin makes McCain's argument that Obama's too green to be president a much tougher sell. Particularly given McCain's age, the thought of Palin being the proverbial heartbeat away is likely to neuter McCain's "experience" attacks on Obama, particularly in light of Biden's foreign policy expertise.

Yeah, but the other side is that Obama is selling change and picked an old Washington warhorse. The rhetoric from the McCain campaign at the time of the announcment talked abiut bipartisanship, bringing change to Washington, etc. Palin may be very smart, etc. don't know, so I don't want to put her down. But I am reminded of this post by old friend Joey B on an Eliot Spitzer thread:

And it hardly needs to be said that the Hillary gang are the last ones who should be saying that other people are "lucky to be who they are", as if their gal really made it on her own without any help.

But this is what happens when you live in the cesspool of identity politics.

***

Both McCain and Obama tried to pick someone who appeals to voters that they won't appeal to, obviously, but it seems to me that McCain is making too blatant an attempt to go after disgruntled Hillaristas. But it may be a good move. Too early to tell.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

b/c unlike Obama, she's actually done stuff.

Yes apparently she's threatened to fire a public official if he didn't fire her sister's soon to be ex-husband....


Since I'm neither a democrat or a republican, let me tell you, I think this is shaping up to be highly entertaining race.

Love the choice! She's hot, she killed that creep Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere, she can explain the real truth about ANWR to all of America (it's not Yellowstone, it's a frozen desolate wasteland), and she can show Barack Obama the proper way to load, aim, and fire a rifle.

JC, don't get me wrong. Like 99% of everyone outside Alaska, I'd never heard of Sarah Palin until an hour ago, and she may be everything you say, and more. And it does show McCain's occasional flair for going outside the box.

But that doesn't change two key points:

---Palin totally negates McCain's attacks on Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials, especially considering McCain's age. She is first in the succession line, after all, and McCain wouldn't be the first president to fail to complete his term.

---And as I said, she pretty much eliminates any lingering fantasies that any Hillaryista might have about McCain's stance on abortion rights, since she's dead set against them. The only Hillary fans left to support McCain are going to be the Right to Life and gender-obsessed among them---and those women are also going to have to overlook McCain's nasty jokes* about not only women in general, but Hillary in particular. Her anti-Roe stance wouldn't matter to you, but the vast majority of Democrats don't share that POV.

*I should add that those jokes of McCain's were (to me, anyway) just throwaway one liners of no real consequence, but the sort of women who have been the biggest Hillary holdouts are also the ones most likely to be offended by his remarks.

b/c unlike Obama, she's actually done stuff.

Yeah, keep pushing that meme, and see how it flies. The "stuff" she's done has nothing to do with the very area of policy that's seen as Obama's chief vulnerability.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

That was my thought- usually you see wild poll swings from March-April-May-June-July-August-September of a presidential election year- but now? If you go to Real Clear Politics and look at the averaged polls- they've been holding pretty steady McCain v. Obama head to head (every now and then individual polls produce outliers- but the current weighted average 47.5-44.0 in favor of Obama has pretty much held steady for MONTHS-

McCain may have thought that fighting a conservative (in the tactical not political sense) campaign was going to lose the election (barring a major Obama screwup)- so he's enlivened things up now

Yeah, keep pushing that meme, and see how it flies. The "stuff" she's done has nothing to do with the very area of policy that's seen as Obama's chief vulnerability.

(1) Please stop saying "meme."
(2) He has done next to nothing and less than her. So, if your point is that McCain's VP pick has done as little in FP as Biden's P pick, I'll take that point.

Both McCain and Obama tried to pick someone who appeals to voters that they won't appeal to, obviously, but it seems to me that McCain is making too blatant an attempt to go after disgruntled Hillaristas.

Yes. It makes sense strategically if you start with the premise that the female electorate is really feckin' stupid.

And by that, I do not mean that intelligent women cannot or should not agree with Palin on the issues. I mean that on issues that matter politically to the largest swath of women voters, there is nothing in Palin's record to suggest that most women voters would be swayed by Palin to switch sides, other than her being a woman.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

I don't think Romney was a safer choice. His mormonism alienates a lot of Evangelicals. Also, a white male multimillionaire businessman is a GREAT target for Democrats in this environment. Also, his healthcare thing in Mass. is proving to be a disaster.

Palin is MUCH tougher for the Dems to demonize. Basically impossible.

She's strong on defense (I'm assuming) and like McCain, her family walks the walk. She's pro-life, and again, walks the walk by havind her Down's child.

I think she's a very safe choice, and exciting.

(1) Please stop saying "meme."

Stop pushing them, and I'll have little reason to use the word.

2) He has done next to nothing and less than her.

Obama has a hell of a lot more experience as an elected official than Palin has. You're apparently equating "anything" with "experience as a governor," to the exclusion of everything else. Unpersuasive.

Palin is MUCH tougher for the Dems to demonize. Basically impossible.

She's in favor of drilling in ANWR and she was on Alaska's Oil and Gas commission- impossible to "demonize" now in 2008, with $4.00 gas prices and Oil companies making record profits?
They'll be able to demonize her in exactly the same way as they've demonized Cheney (for all the good it's done them)

Palin also shores up McCain with his right wing. The female and youth aspects are a bonus, but she's well regarded by conservatives. Plus ignorant voters might get confused and think McCain has one of the Pythons as his VP, which can only work to his advantage.

She's in favor of drilling in ANWR and she was on Alaska's Oil and Gas commission- impossible to "demonize" now in 2008, with $4.00 gas prices and Oil companies making record profits?
They'll be able to demonize her in exactly the same way as they've demonized Cheney (for all the good it's done them)

Wouldn't the $4 gas prices indicate that we SHOULD drill in ANWAR?

Something like 70% of Americans support expanded offshore drilling. I'd be shocked if the ratio wasn't the same for ANWAR.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

This gets to the heart of the matter. IMO Palin was chosen for three reasons, in ascending order:

1. She's an outside the box choice, and as such sure to generate a lot of buzz for at least a few days, if Gustav doesn't steal her thunder.

2. She's a woman. In that sense, she's little more than a Republican version of Geraldine Ferraro in terms of the obviousness of the motivation for the choice.

3. She's not Mitt Romney, or any of the other lame choices that McCain had to choose among, all of whom the polls indicated would have made voters LESS likely to vote for McCain.

I have read quite a bit about Palin, so I had definitely heard of her--have never heard her talk.

I think the fact that Joey B feels so good about it indicates she won't appeal much to swing voters/centrists. I have never believed that McCain was in danger of not having the hard, evangelical right out there on election day, but she may help with that if it is actually a problem. Palin is, as JC and Joey's posts indicate, a feel-good pick for righties because it is, by the standards of these things, exciting.

Biden didn't get anybody pumped, including me, but he does serve specific purposes in that he might help with older and rust-belt voters in PA and OH, who might have drifted to McCain.

It is going to be close, no matter what.

IMO Palin was chosen for three reasons, in ascending order:

I wouldn't be surprised if those were McCain's reasons- and in that order.

Palin is MUCH tougher for the Dems to demonize. Basically impossible.

You don't really need to "demonize" Palin in order to convince voters that she's not necessarily qualified for the vice presidency. Of course this is a concept that might be above the GOP's pay grade.

What is the general libertarian stance on abortion? (I ask this in all seriousness.) Because Palin's firmly pro-life.

Most libertarians tend to be pro-choice, but there's no official libertarian position on the subject, because it depends on how one views the status of a fetus.

like McCain, her family walks the walk.

RDF. Yeah, divorcing his dying wife so he can marry a millionaire heiress is all about "walking the walk."

I mean, I think the "family values" stuff is kind of a silly campaign issue, but if that sort of thing matters to you, McCain simply gets his head handed to him by both Obama and Biden in terms of personal narrative WRT successfully creating "traditional families."

I think the fact that Joey B feels so good about it indicates she won't appeal much to swing voters/centrists.

I think she'll appeal big-time to rural and blue-collar social conservatives.

I imagine she's going to criscross rural PA, MI, OH, MO etc. talking about abortion, God, guns and supporting our troops.

Increasing turnout among these voters is critical for McCain.

If he can take PA or MI and hold OH, he's basically won.

Biden didn't get anybody pumped, including me, but he does serve specific purposes in that he might help with older and rust-belt voters in PA and OH, who might have drifted to McCain.

This is not true. Biden gots lots of people pumped. Even David Brooks wrote about what a great choice it was, the idea being that it was evidence Obama could make a good executive decision. Which, of course, is important b/c it was his first public decision.

Most libertarians tend to be pro-choice, but there's no official libertarian position on the subject, because it depends on how one views the status of a fetus.

Fair enough. I sort of figured that to be the case, and opposition to government funding of abortions to be a given.

I think the fact that Joey B feels so good about it indicates she won't appeal much to swing voters/centrists.

I have a "Joey B" in my office- but his reaction was 180 degrees away- my resident rightwinger believes McCain just threw the election away... he believes the pick was done to poach some discontented Hillaryistas- but their is just no way on earth that any significant mass of liberal fems are going to vote for McCain and Palin.

From what I've been reading she's some kind of uber-conservative she's for everything liberals are against and vice-versa- in that sense picking her was meant by McCain as a way of reassuring the Pat Dobson/ Rush Limbaugh branches

RDF. Yeah, divorcing his dying wife so he can marry a millionaire heiress is all about "walking the walk."

I was talking about national defense. No one can say the McCain family hasn't put their asses on the line with their beliefs.

You don't really need to "demonize" Palin in order to convince voters that she's not necessarily qualified for the vice presidency. Of course this is a concept that might be above the GOP's pay grade.

If she's not qualified than how the hell is Obama? And he's going for a higher "pay-grade".

Her presence will mute McCain's ability to talk experience,but there's no way Obama can go there.

---Palin totally negates McCain's attacks on Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials, especially considering McCain's age. She is first in the succession line, after all, and McCain wouldn't be the first president to fail to complete his term.

No, but he would be the first one in forty-five years to fail to do so. (Unless you think he's going to arrange a coverup of a break-in at DNC headquarters.)

I do see the risk that Democrats will try that line of argument, but McCain can say, "That's why I picked her to be vice president rather than president." It's certainly no more than the risk that Republicans will use the fact that Biden has been in Washington his entire adult life as an argument against Obama's "change" rhetoric.

McCain's first wife died?

I don't think Romney was a safer choice. His mormonism alienates a lot of Evangelicals. Also, a white male multimillionaire businessman is a GREAT target for Democrats in this environment.

I thought it was going to be Pawlenty, anyway, but Romney's selling point is that he has exp "doing stuff" as JC likes to say. Palin is a countermove to Biden--a reactive move. If Obama had picked Clinton, I doubt Palin gets the job. Also, Obama himself, as the speech last night indicated yet again, sells himself as not "demonizing" anyone. He (and Biden) will talk about all the stuff JC did--her courage, her great family, the great frontier of Alaska, how her story is inspiring--and then say he disagrees with her on just about everything. That is what Obama does. I agree that Romney was an easy target for Demos, but he had other selling points.

I note that as I was posting, snapper used the word "exciting" as I had. That is what this is about.

FWIW, I work with a bunch of Hillaristas, and they are all sneering at it. One of them said, "Do the Republicans think I am stupid?" I think the answer may be "yes."

She's in favor of drilling in ANWR and she was on Alaska's Oil and Gas commission- impossible to "demonize" now in 2008, with $4.00 gas prices and Oil companies making record profits?
They'll be able to demonize her in exactly the same way as they've demonized Cheney (for all the good it's done them)

Since these sorts of arguments are not about substance but about image, they won't be able to. Cheney fits the stereotype of a rich old white guy evil businessman; Palin, obviously, doesn't.

RDF. Yeah, divorcing his dying wife so he can marry a millionaire heiress is all about "walking the walk."

Yes; I hate it when people like Albert Belle and McCain's dying wife are still alive 30 years later.



(For the record, she was not dying, is not dead, and is a McCain defender and supporter.)

You don't really need to "demonize" Palin in order to convince voters that she's not necessarily qualified for the vice presidency. Of course this is a concept that might be above the GOP's pay grade.

If she's not qualified than how the hell is Obama? And he's going for a higher "pay-grade".

For starters, Obama managed to convince over 17 million Democrats to vote for him in the primary of his qualifications to be president, and now has the support of the vast majority of Hillaryistas, in spite of the PUMAs.

By contrast, Palin has convinced 114,000 voters that she's qualified to run the state of Alaska, and convinced John McCain that she's better qualified to be president than Mitt Romney.

But then given the general lameness of the GOP field this year, perhaps she might have beaten them all.

FWIW, I work with a bunch of Hillaristas, and they are all sneering at it.

I'm having a hard time believing that Clinton supporters will really end up voting McCain in the fall, no matter what. I'm just surprised that they're still ########.

FWIW, I work with a bunch of Hillaristas, and they are all sneering at it. One of them said, "Do the Republicans think I am stupid?" I think the answer may be "yes."

My mom is thrilled by the choice. Maybe that will change when it dawns on her that she's being manipulated, but she doesn't care that much about the issues and was incredibly unhappy with the way Hillary was treated.

(2) He has done next to nothing and less than her.

Too true: she's done the grueling beauty pageant circuit, he hasn't.

No, but he would be the first one in forty-five years to fail to do so.

McCain is easily in better health and physical condition than half the guys posting here at this site, including some of the guys that are half his age. He's going to be around for many more years to come.

The only thing I know about Palin is that she's currently under investigation for breach of powers concerning the sister's husband malarkey. Now, let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she's innovent, but isn't that going to be something of a sideshow? And although she hasn't been subpoenad, I thought it hadn't been ruled out either if they ceased cooperating? It certainly doesn't have any bearing on her ability to be the VP, but couldn't it become problematic if the commission investigating suddenly decide they need to her give evidence in, say, early November?

Since anything appearing in the onion is by definition more relevant than anyone's VP candidate choice...

WASHINGTON—Following Russia's controversial military excursions into neighboring Georgia, the Bush administration made its most direct commitment to the U.S.'s Eastern European allies to date by "strongly advising" those countries not to border Russia under any circumstance. "The United States stands by its allies, but will not be able to defend our friends in the region if they continue to share geographical lines with Russia," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a Monday press conference. "We also recommend that those nations who may not border Russia but were once a part of the USSR immediately cease and desist from having had that history with the Soviet Union." Rice later pledged financial aid to the victims of devastating flooding in the West African nation of Togo, effective upon the country first meeting the stipulation of removing itself from under water.

This is not true. Biden gots lots of people pumped.

If you are being serious, I mean regular Demo voters, not right-wing newspaper columnists. I think Biden was a good choice to BE VP, given Obama's background. If Obama wins, I think many voters 40 and over will be glad Biden is there. The guy knows forign policy and he knows the system and the skeletons in DC. RUNNING as VP, I don't think he will change many minds (as DMN said, most VPs don't).

Again, the purpose of Biden electorally is to target a few key areas.

I think she'll appeal big-time to rural and blue-collar social conservatives.

I imagine she's going to criscross rural PA, MI, OH, MO etc. talking about abortion, God, guns and supporting our troops.

Increasing turnout among these voters is critical for McCain.

If McCain is in really in trouble turning out "rural social conservatives" to vote against a fairly leftist, pro-choice black guy with a Muslim name, then he has bigger problems than anyone can solve.*

The odd thing about McCain is that I think everybody underrates him a little bit--Demos, Repubs, the media. But I don't think Obama underrates him. That is one reason Obama has a good chance to win.

*And no they are not all racists, before I get the "liberal snob" crap hung on me. But my people come from Ohio and Kentucky, and I have spent time there and in PA. And some of those people are racist, just like some of my friends out here in California ARE condescending Liberal snobs.

McCain is easily in better health and physical condition than half the guys posting here at this site, including some of the guys that are half his age. He's going to be around for many more years to come.

It doesn't have that much to do with physical condition. Age is a killer for many reasons - seemingly benign cancers your body has co-existed with for years suddenly become malignant etc. It isn't death you necessarily worry about either, but long-term incapacitation.

EDIT: Not that age necessarily makes McCain a worse choice for president. It just means he is more likely to become incapacitated or worse than even unfit guys half his age.

Both McCain and Obama tried to pick someone who appeals to voters that they won't appeal to, obviously, but it seems to me that McCain is making too blatant an attempt to go after disgruntled Hillaristas. But it may be a good move. Too early to tell.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

It's blatant, but it will work to some degree, since it absolutely gives women who are not pro-choice fanatics a place to go. McCain only needs to swing a small % of disaffected women in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Agreed, that it means McCain felt he was running behind.

The specific point is, what states might she swing to McCain--will she bring out enough christian voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and along with the Republican's natural Diebold advantage swing enough women who otherwise would have gone for Obama, to tip those states to McCain?

To wit:

My mom is thrilled by the choice. Maybe that will change when it dawns on her that she's being manipulated, but she doesn't care that much about the issues and was incredibly unhappy with the way Hillary was treated.

***

BZZZT Wrong! No, she's not.

That's clear enough. There isn't an authentic, small-government conservative Republican in the Senate or holding a governorship. It's merely the sales pitch. No one other than David really thinks TastyBread tastes better, do they?

Now, are the Democrats going to crucify her in any way they can, or are they going to lose yet another mud-wrestling knife-fight for the Presidency of the United States?

She's in favor of drilling in ANWR and she was on Alaska's Oil and Gas commission- impossible to "demonize" now in 2008, with $4.00 gas prices and Oil companies making record profits?
They'll be able to demonize her in exactly the same way as they've demonized Cheney (for all the good it's done them)

Since these sorts of arguments are not about substance but about image, they won't be able to. Cheney fits the stereotype of a rich old white guy evil businessman; Palin, obviously, doesn't.

Irrelevant and immaterial. The idea that substance is more meaningful in this election than image is preposterous. That's not the way we do things in the US.

The posters who have focused on what this means in the battleground states have it right, at least as far as results go. As for attacking Palin, the Dems have the prefect knife-fighter for that little murder: Hillary. She's perceived as experienced, and will be perceived as a lot more experienced than Palin. She's also got the motivation in that now, if McCain wins, the chance that Hillary becomes the first female president plummets. McCain may have inadvertantly given her the motivation she needs to really help elect Obama.

McCain is easily in better health and physical condition than half the guys posting here at this site, including some of the guys that are half his age.

And you know this how?

As for attacking Palin, the Dems have the prefect knife-fighter for that little murder: Hillary. She's perceived as experienced, and will be perceived as a lot more experienced than Palin. She's also got the motivation in that now, if McCain wins, the chance that Hillary becomes the first female president plummets. McCain may have inadvertantly given her the motivation she needs to really help elect Obama.

I hadn't thought about that angle, but it's certainly a good point to consider.

As for attacking Palin, the Dems have the prefect knife-fighter for that little murder: Hillary. She's perceived as experienced, and will be perceived as a lot more experienced than Palin. She's also got the motivation in that now, if McCain wins, the chance that Hillary becomes the first female president plummets. McCain may have inadvertantly given her the motivation she needs to really help elect Obama.

Hillary has NO interest in Obama winning. She doesn't care about being first, she just wants to be President. If Obama wins she can't run until 2016. No way she savages an attractive woman candidate. Not in her best interests at all.

Do you really think the Clintons care about the party? They are already printing up the Hillary 2012 signs.

My mom is thrilled by the choice. Maybe that will change when it dawns on her that she's being manipulated, but she doesn't care that much about the issues and was incredibly unhappy with the way Hillary was treated.

My mom is a Hillaryista who loathes Obama and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances. She liked Romney and is confused by the Palin pick, but then, she's not a conservative. In any event, it hasn't changed her mind about voting for McCain. Should be a fun race to watch unfold.

If McCain is in really in trouble turning out "rural social conservatives" to vote against a fairly leftist, pro-choice black guy with a Muslim name, then he has bigger problems than anyone can solve.*

To turn people out on election day, it helps to give them something to vote for as well as against.

The specific point is, what states might she swing to McCain--will she bring out enough christian voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and along with the Republican's natural Diebold advantage swing enough women who otherwise would have gone for Obama, to tip those states to McCain?

Well, I addressed this upthread. I think McCain will need to get those people on his own, and I don't see Palin as being more helpful with actual undecideds than a guy like Biden, who, DC vet though he is, does have something of a common touch. Joey B's point is valid, though, in that I would think someone saying "We will drill the shitt out of Alaska and lower your gas prices" would sell there.

But again, I think the "rural social conservatives" will be out there when it comes down to it, anyway, just like the Hillaristas will be out there for Obama.

During the Obama/Clinton fight, one of the RCP numbers analysts wrote a good column, in which he talked about the fact that voters being "firm" is often overrated. Whether you are someone who has volunteered 2000 hours for Obama or McCain, can't sleep on Nov 3 and cries if your man loses, or if you decide on Nov 2, your vote counts just the same. The HRC army is no longer excited, but their votes will count the same. And Joey B, snapper and JC may be excited, (feel those nipples!) but they were going to vote for McCain anyway.

snapper,

Glad to see you participating. Hope you keep doing so.

My mom is a Hillaryista who loathes Obama and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances. She liked Romney and is confused by the Palin pick, but then, she's not a conservative. In any event, it hasn't changed her mind about voting for McCain. Should be a fun race to watch unfold.

Good Face, you've got to check out this ongoing discussion thread on a Hillary Clinton fan site. I love it!

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26089

The HRC army is no longer excited, but their votes will count the same.

Not if they stay home.

snapper,

Glad to see you participating. Hope you keep doing so.

Thanks, if things stay slow at work, I'll try.

ark,

That business idea sounds like it really might work. Good luck with that.

Hillary has NO interest in Obama winning. She doesn't care about being first, she just wants to be President. If Obama wins she can't run until 2016. No way she savages an attractive woman candidate. Not in her best interests at all.

Do you really think the Clintons care about the party? They are already printing up the Hillary 2012 signs

.

I tend to reject one-way reads of people like this. I am an ark fan, but I have never been on board with a lot of his tone about W. I assume HRC's motivations are mixed, like those of 99.9% of humans, and I said last night that that HRC would not be human if a big part of her did not want Obama to lose.

That said, both she and Bill have to avoid any impression that they are not doing enough for Obama.

It also indicates to me that McCain's crew feels like they were headed for a loss with a safer choice like Romney.

Definitely. My wife and I were discussing it as she dropped me off at the train this morning, and we agreed that what McCain needed was a gamble, but not a crazy gamble (like Lieberman). Romney would have been a terrible choice; I think the notion that evangelicals won't support Romney is wrong, but Romney simply wasn't liked by anybody. I don't mean he was hated; I mean he wasn't liked. Except perhaps in the Mormon community, there was nobody on earth passionate about Mitt Romney.

Not if they stay home.

I don't think they will. It is easy to talk about staying home NOW. November will be different.

Good Face, you've got to check out this ongoing discussion thread on a Hillary Clinton fan site. I love it!

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26089

I can see where Joey spends the rest of his time these days. Talk about circle jerk websites....

That said, both she and Bill have to avoid any impression that they are not doing enough for Obama.

Correct. They have to do enough not to alienate Obama's core supporters, especially blacks, but in their hearts, they'd prefer a loss.

I can see where Joey spends the rest of his time these days. Talk about circle jerk websites....

Yeah, I went there, too. Joey is actually very smart, so I expected better.

but in their hearts, they'd prefer a loss.

I don't know what is in their hearts. But you may be right.

My mom is a Hillaryista who loathes Obama and wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances. She liked Romney and is confused by the Palin pick, but then, she's not a conservative. In any event, it hasn't changed her mind about voting for McCain. Should be a fun race to watch unfold.

***

Both you and Esoteric have reported stuff like this (Esoteric about lesbian collaegues IIRC).

My exp is different. Still good to know.