I don't know if anyone else on BTF has speculated that Kathleen Sebelius will be Barack Obama's running mate. If not, let me be the first: Governor Sebelius (KS) will be his choice.

That said, many of the foreigners I deal with, particularly Euros and Latinos, as well as some Asians, see America as being politically backwards and immature (many are puzzled as to why we care about where Obama goes to church or what kind of guy his pastor is, why we ##### about taxes so much, and were deeply puzzled as to why we cared about Clinton's getting blow jobs), are very aware of out history of racism and not as aware of the ways we have improved in that area. In addition, many don't get why we elected Bush twice. As such, they tend to see the possibility of our electing BO (or HC) as an indicator of progress.

Too bad for McCain he doesn't have you working for him; that paragraph alone is enough to get him elected.

Ah, but we've been well paid for agreeing to remain hidden in the background, in gleeful anticipation of Der Tag. Then the forced conversions to Husseinism, the feminazification of our military, and the disarming by the splibs of the fays will begin.

Sibelius? Hmm. She has been seen smiling with war criminals.

I think I remember catching the first minute of her response to Bush's State of the Union address in 2008 and turning it off in disgust over it's relentless boilerplate.

And secondly, because I think that Obama becoming President would transform the way America is perceived abroad.

Up until the point Obama does in fact turn "free trade" into "fair trade" with other nations, I
mostly agree with this statement. Couple new trade barriers with the growing anger in Europe about what the weak dollar is doing to their exports and we're going to be just as unpopular.

Amusingly enough, his "bitter" comment actually improved his standing with me because of the trade barrier barb. Hopefully, the Canadian claim that someone in Obama's camp told them not to worry is true, too. It's something I'm going to watch and if it looks like he's good on trade, I may swing back towards him again.

Fair enough, but even Alou, who has no use at all for Obama, said so, which I think is a more interesting take than my "report."

Well hang on a minute.

Obama getting elected would raise my opinion of America too, in a sensible and in a not-so-sensible way. Sensibly, I'd like to think that a black man can be elected President - not-so-sensibly, the election of Obama would be a real and decisive break from the Bush Presidency in a way that neither McCain nor Clinton would be. And I really want there to be a decisive break with the Bush years - and so do most non-Americans, IMHO. I do not care about the disaster of a candidate that was Kerry - Bush getting re-elected in 2004 was (1) inexplicable to me (2) a disaster for American democracy. Obama would be a breath of fresh air.

So it's not at all true to say that I have no use for Obama. The only problem is that he's completely unqualified and economically illiterate. And I tend to weight that kind of stuff much more heavily than the wishy-washy stuff.

I don't know if anyone else on BTF has speculated that Kathleen Sebelius will be Barack Obama's running mate. If not, let me be the first: Governor Sebelius (KS) will be his choice.

I don't know if anyone else has speculated that here, but I've seen it speculated. Interesting. I don't know much about her; I gather she's quite well-liked by Kansans, though. (How long has she been in office? I never heard about her until this campaign cycle, not that I follow Kansas state government terribly closely.)

I've heard Napolitano's name thrown out there too.

That photo linked in 3603 compels the comment:

Were she constitutionally eligible, Jennifer Granholm (also pictured) would be a terrific choice.

economically illiterate.

Joe Sheehan concurs.

Looking at the Wikipedia page on female governors--did Washington state, of all places, really have a governor named Dixy Lee Ray? That's hilarious.

Reminds me of that Brewers non-prospect from the 80s, Billy Joe Robidoux, who I'd've bet money was from Louisiana just from his name. Naturally, he was from Maine.

heard Napolitano's name thrown out there too.


Joey, baby - dont get crazy

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnette_Napolitano

Joey, baby - dont get crazy

?

I don't think age should be a huge factor/deal breaker, but I can see its being a factor for some.

I don't think age BY ITSELF should be a factor, no. My concern about McCain isn't that he's old; it's whether he's starting to lose mental sharpness and focus. I don't think we can afford that right now.

-- MWE

This was covered here, in part, a long time ago, in the first thread, when Joey trashed Demos and Obama based on the idea that Obama is nowhere in this if he were a white guy.

Geraldine Ferraro was the first to publicly say it, and I just had the audacity to point out that she was stating an uncomfortable truth.

Isn't it a little embarrassing to you that this primary has now almost completely polarized along racial lines? And do you honestly believe that Obama would be getting over 90% of the black vote over Hillary if he were a white guy? You may as well just be honest, because to lie about this would be so utterly absurd.

I don't know if anyone else on BTF has speculated that Kathleen Sebelius will be Barack Obama's running mate. If not, let me be the first: Governor Sebelius (KS) will be his choice.

I think she's come up in other threads. It's a reasonable guess, given that they gave her the State of the Union response assignment this year. But, well, did you watch that thing? She was awful.

he only problem is that he's completely unqualified and economically illiterate.

Of course, on the economic illiteracy scale, McCain is off the charts.

Isn't it a little embarrassing to you that this primary has now almost completely polarized along racial lines?

Yeah, it almost looks like the 2004 general election when Bush won the white vote 58-41 and lost the black vote 11-88. Is that embarrassing?

But, well, did you watch that thing? She was awful.

I didn't see it at the time, but just YouTubed it. My god. She gave that speech like a high school freshman reading a book report aloud. She's about as animated as Ben Stein's character from "The Wonder Years."

I downplayed the importance of charisma in a VP candidate in my earlier comment on Richardson, but good lord. That SOTU response is simply painful to watch.

I love how John Boner is ######## and moaning about "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, the minority doesn't get to speak and offer amendments! waaaaaaaah!"

Didn't Congressional Republicans threaten to get rid of the ####### filibuster a few years back?

Isn't it a little embarrassing to you that this primary has now almost completely polarized along racial lines?

No.

(Assuming this is not rhetorical).

Didn't Congressional Republicans threaten to get rid of the ####### filibuster a few years back?

Yeah, but that was different!

Why, I'm not sure. But it was!

Apparently, even C-Span's jazzing it up for the May sweeps.

Nine motions to adjourn, after the Republicans are 0-8.

WTF are they doing?

No.

Needless to say, you can't dispute the basic factuality of what Ferraro said, because it's 100% true. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it.

If multiracial Barack Obama is white Barry O'Rama instead, he's nowhere except in the Senate chamber, because he wouldn't have gotten 30% of the black vote, much less over 90%.

Obama's race may have helped him appeal to African Americans, but it sure as hell doesn't explain his utter domination of that demographic during the primary season. Clinton went into the primary season with much greater support among A/A voters than Obama. (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Obama was the same race then that he is now.) It isn't Obama's fault those voters eventually saw through Clinton's divisiveness and pandering (or, as the election season progressed, outright disrespect).

I think Andrew Sullivan summed it up well.

I agree Clinton's loss of support from black voters is "embarrassing" from her perspective, but she's got nobody but herself and her surrogates to blame for that.

You know it, I know, and everybody else knows it.

Anybody ever see Aykroyd imitate Dole on SNL back in the '88-'92 period? Awesome. "I know it, you know it, the American people know it..."

Bet it's on youtube.

Incidentally, an older guy I know (Demo) who used to do gov biz in DC dealt with Dole a couple of times at some length and said Dole was really smart with a great dry sense of humor.

The "Granholm for VP if She Were an American" is well past expiration date - she'd be a terrible choice for the Democrats. No Democrat should want anything to do with Michigan and their one-state recession and if Rasmussen's approval ratings for governors are of any value, only Blagojevich is clearly more disapproved of than her, among governors.

This was covered here, in part, a long time ago, in the first thread, when Joey trashed Demos and Obama based on the idea that Obama is nowhere in this if he were a white guy.

Yeah, the fact that he's young, dynamic, intelligent, and preaching hope and optimism to a country SLIGHTLY fed up with the current presidency really has nothing to do with it at all.

Needless to say, you can't dispute the basic factuality of what Ferraro said, because it's 100% true. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it.

Yawn. This shtick is tired like the macarena and Jason Kendall.

My god. She gave that speech like a high school freshman reading a book report aloud

Here in the heartland, we value our high school freshmen. We never tire of hearing them read book reports. It's time to get to work and listen to more freshmen.

If multiracial Barack Obama is white Barry O'Rama, he's nowhere except in the Senate chamber

I really don't understand this point. What other African-American politicians have put together a plurality of the delegates for a Presidential nomination? How is being a person of color somehow a big advantage for Obama when it wasn't much of an advantage to Shirley Chisholm, or Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes?

Needless to say, you can't dispute the basic factuality of what Ferraro said, because it's 100% true. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it.

Yawn.

Yeah, and they say that yawning can be contagious.

If multiracial Barack Obama is white Barry O'Rama, he's nowhere except in the Senate chamber

I really don't understand this point. What other African-American politicians have put together a plurality of the delegates for a Presidential nomination? How is being a person of color somehow a big advantage for Obama when it wasn't much of an advantage to Shirley Chisholm, or Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes?

Don't try to confuse poor Joey's simpleminded narrative, Bob. It's not very sporting of you.

If multiracial Barack Obama is white Barry O'Rama instead, he's nowhere except in the Senate chamber, because he wouldn't have gotten 30% of the black vote, much less over 90%.

On the other hand, he'd probably have a higher percentage of white votes. Identity politics and all that.

Goody. Another protest vote.

In a case where one party's clearly wasting time, it needs to be legal for the opposition party to #####-slap the time-wasting party.

On the other hand, he'd probably have a higher percentage of white votes. Identity politics and all that.

If Obama was white, he'd be JFK. (Young, gifted speaker from the senate and all.)

It's not very sporting of you

Sorry, Andy. Hanging curveball, and all that :)

0-12!

"Billy Joe Robidoux, who I'd've bet money was from Louisiana just from his name. Naturally, he was from Maine."

... Billy Joe's probably related to the Louisiana Cajuns. Most of the French people in Maine descend from Quebeckers who came down as farm laborers, harvesting potatoes. And likewise, the Cajuns (or Acadians) were originally French Canadians, I think from Nova Scotia.

A large part (not all) of Obama's appeal is that he's black. Of course that's the case, and it's dishonest to deny it. Now, just being black isn't enough - it's also being a good public speaker, and having a good campaign organisation, and being fortunate with timing, and so on. But if he were white he would not be JFK, he would be John Edwards.

But you know what? I don't see why this is a bad thing. I think it's actually a pretty good thing, and I don't see any need for Obama supporters to apologise for it. Of course it would be better if we lived in a perfectly colourblind world, but we don't, and given the horrible lack of African-American representation in politics I'd much rather that being black was seen as a positive than a negative factor in a candidate.

So f--- Geraldine Ferraro. Because you know what? Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be a Senator if she weren't a woman.

or Arcadians

Save them for Election Day.

#### you, Boner.

EDIT: Rich fixed it already. :)

C-SPAN Game Chatter, I love it.

I think we're one more protest vote away from punches being thrown.

The hell?

0-15!

Even the C-Span voiceover guy sounds pissed.

what vote are they fillibustering?

what vote are they fillibustering?

Can't technically filibuster in the house, but what the Republicans are doing is close enough; they're moving to adjourn every few minutes over the Iraq War Spending bill, for some reason or another.

the only problem is that he's (Obama) completely unqualified and economically illiterate.

Of course, on the economic illiteracy scale, McCain is off the charts.

That was my thought as well - McCain is really, really unimpressive in this area.

I'm guessing if Obama picks someone like Kitty Sobs, with her lightish, non-national security background (8 years in the House, then time with the Kansas state insurance commission), he'll be greeted with the same scorn Mondale got with his stunt-pick of Ferraro in 1984, since he'd clearly be picking her because she's a woman.

So Clinton leaks that she loaned her own campaign $6.4 million. Nice. Push donors, spend little, stay in for two more weeks, treat the campaign as your own personal fundraiser, and in that way pay your self off and get out of personal debt for the campaign.

Didn't someone in this thread claim that the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran was just leftwing paranoia?

Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11

WASHINGTON, 5 May (IPS) - Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.

So f--- Geraldine Ferraro. Because you know what? Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be a Senator if she weren't a woman.

Specifically, a woman married to a former two-term president of the United States.

But you know what? I don't see why this is a bad thing. I think it's actually a pretty good thing, and I don't see any need for Obama supporters to apologise for it.

That, too. In any event, Joey's only pretending to give a rat's ass about racial polarization in this instance because Obama threatens his partisan interests.

So Clinton leaks that she loaned her own campaign $6.4 million. Nice. Push donors, spend little, stay in for two more weeks, treat the campaign as your own personal fundraiser, and in that way pay your self off and get out of personal debt for the campaign.

Well, better to be shameless than shameless and broke, I guess.

A large part (not all) of Obama's appeal is that he's black. Of course that's the case, and it's dishonest to deny it. Now, just being black isn't enough - it's also being a good public speaker, and having a good campaign organisation, and being fortunate with timing, and so on. But if he were white he would not be JFK, he would be John Edwards.

So you think the reason that no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is that none of them have ever had the political skill of John Edwards?

So you think the reason that no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is that none of them have ever had the political skill of John Edwards?

Ouch. Somebody just got dunked on.

Obama's race may have helped him appeal to African Americans, but it sure as hell doesn't explain his utter domination of that demographic during the primary season. Clinton went into the primary season with much greater support among A/A voters than Obama. (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Obama was the same race then that he is now.) It isn't Obama's fault those voters eventually saw through Clinton's divisiveness and pandering (or, as the election season progressed, outright disrespect).

I don't know what basis there is for these claims, unless by "went into" you mean before any primaries began and nobody knew who Obama was and Hillary was the only one with name recognition. Obama has been blowing out Hillary among blacks from the beginning.

I don't know what basis there is for these claims, unless by "went into" you mean before any primaries began and nobody knew who Obama was and Hillary was the only one with name recognition.

Yes. Which, in and of itself, indicates his race isn't the sole basis of his popularity, no? (Not that you're arguing it's the sole factor; I'm speaking to our addled friend here.)

Didn't someone in this thread claim that the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran was just leftwing paranoia?

Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11

WASHINGTON, 5 May (IPS) - Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.

I don't know when Introductory Physical Science became a credible news source, but of course this bolsters the notion that it was leftwing paranoia. After all, it's almost 7 years after "three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks," and it hasn't happened.

Didn't someone in this thread claim that the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran was just leftwing paranoia?

If making a policy of regime change is evidence of an imminent attack, then one might as well say that Bill Clinton planned the Iraq invasion by lieu of making regime change the official policy of the US government in 1998 by signing the Iraq Liberation Act.

And if a policy of regime change is evidence of an imminent attack, where's the attack? What's Bush saving it for, his 3rd term? It's been 6 1/2 years.

You should change your handle to WAR CRIMEZZZ! or maybe OMG TEH BLACK L00LERC0PTERS.

Didn't someone in this thread claim that the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran was just leftwing paranoia?

I don't recall claiming it was leftwing paranoia; I do recall saying I saw insufficient evidence to support the idea. Still don't. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you think the reason that no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is that none of them have ever had the political skill of John Edwards?

Well, John Edwards himself has never come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination.

But the reason no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is because of the Voting Rights Act. As implemented, it treats black voters as a means to get black politicians elected, so black politicians virtually all come from heavily black districts. So they're much farther left than the overall electorate. Nancy Pelosi couldn't get the nomination, either. (The difference is that there are plenty of whites in more moderate districts, but not blacks.)

you mean before any primaries began and nobody knew who Obama was and Hillary was the only one with name recognition.

Obama was well-known among Demos after his speech at the DNC, was the subject of national columns, was on the cover of a couple of national magazines, and appeared on Oprah where she basically begged him to run. One reason he got rolling so fast was he was already somewhat of celeb. before he decided to run. The real question was whether he would go now, or wait until '12 or '16.

And, of course, Edwards was also already nationally known, so while HC was the favorite and most famous, she was not the "only one with name recognition."

As far as black support, I have heard/read many blacks say that they got on the bandwagon when BO won Iowa--that was when they realized he could actually be a real contender. There is also little question, as kevin and Andy and others have said, that some blacks have circled the wagons around Obama for a variety of reasons as the campaign has progressed.

I recall Obama and Clinton being fairly even among blacks before Obama really took off. Better than he was doing among whites, of course, but I don't think it was overwhelming.

Man you guys still going at it? Longest thread ever isn't it?

Not even close! American Red Cross thread made it to 5801 and lasted from 8/30/05 to 9/22/05.

You should change your handle to WAR CRIMEZZZ! or maybe OMG TEH BLACK L00LERC0PTERS.

Joe, I understand the idea of actually, you know, reading, before reacting is sometimes alien to you, but hey...

Perhaps this time around you'll note the article stated "Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran,..." If you think military means something other than attack, more power to you and your unusual imagination, I guess. As for your hysterical misreading, "evidence of imminent attack", where I wrote simply "the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran", again, I can't help you. It's clear enough you'll see what you want to see, regardless of what's actually in front of you.

And conflating the likelihood of the Bush administration having committed war crimes in Iraq with black helicopters? Really? Are you getting your logic and talking points straight from Rush?

If Obama wins the nomination and loses in the election, is the narrative going to be Clinton ruining things by dividing the democratic base, or will it be Clinton foresaw that Obama would not be able to stand up to McCain which is why she stayed in the fight?

I take my #3666 comment back. I guess, is Clinton staying in the race so awful when Obama does not have an overwhelming lead, or that Obama is incapable of winning without the super-delegates as well. There is nothing to be gained for the Democrat voters by carrying through with Clinton and Obama competing?

At this point, with so few delegates left to fight over, Obama's lead really is overwhelming. Clinton needs such a high percentage of uncommitted superdelegates that Obama would have to be hit by a bus, or get caught with a boy scout, not to win. Continuing only helps McCain, by keeping the focus off of him, and does help Hillary by getting the saps to pay off the money she loaned her campaign--other than that, I don't see any positives to her continuing.

If Obama wins the nomination and loses in the election, is the narrative going to be Clinton ruining things by dividing the democratic base, or will it be Clinton foresaw that Obama would not be able to stand up to McCain which is why she stayed in the fight?

I would think that this would depend in great parton how vigorously she campaigned for Obama, particularly among her base of white females and older white working class males. She's got a lot to make up for in terms of how she's tried to tear Obama down, using tactics straight out of the Republican playbook, but she says that "if" (ho ho) she loses the nomination, she'll campaign up and down for the nominee. We'll see how much she puts her heart into this.

At this point, with so few delegates left to fight over, Obama's lead really is overwhelming.

If by overwhelming is that Clinton can't win outright, then it applies to Obama too. No?

I think there's a small benefit for Obama, in that Clinton is probably spending some money trying to dig up something she can hammer McCain with, but it's much outweighed by the drawbacks. Staying in makes sense for Hillary -- she might as well keep raising, since she loses if the game ends now and she's mostly playing with other people's money anyway. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of wanting a Democratic victory.

The only other alternative that makes sense is if she knows some particularly damaging piece of information about Obama, and expects it to destroy his chances in the general once it comes out. But I can't see Hillary Clinton not releasing such information herself if she had it. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

Perhaps this time around you'll note the article stated "Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran,..." If you think military means something other than attack, more power to you and your unusual imagination, I guess.

So, by mentioning military assistance and the desire to remove the regime, Clinton was authorizing what, exactly? Luring Hussein out of his gingerbread house with a candy cane? Considering he went on to order military strikes, the idea that the ILA was non-military in nature is preposterous.

Sheesh, I'm a registered Democrat. Maybe you're telling the truth about being conservative after all because your posts read like a right-winger trying to parody a Democrat.

But I can't see Hillary Clinton not releasing such information herself if she had it. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

I'm morally certain that if Hillary had the goods on Obama, such that she could have won the nomination by destroying him, she would not have hesitated to do so. Hell, I'm not convinced that if she's Obama's veep nominee, she wouldn't wreck his shot in '08 in order to improve her chances of winning the presidency in 2012.

If by overwhelming is that Clinton can't win outright, then it applies to Obama too. No?

Well, it does seem like Obama can lose every remaining primary by an unthinkable 60-40 popular vote, and still only need a very small percentage of the remaining, unpledged superdelegates to go his way, for him to take the nomination.

Obama getting elected would raise my opinion of America too, in a sensible and in a not-so-sensible way. Sensibly, I'd like to think that a black man can be elected President - not-so-sensibly, the election of Obama would be a real and decisive break from the Bush Presidency in a way that neither McCain nor Clinton would be. And I really want there to be a decisive break with the Bush years - and so do most non-Americans, IMHO. I do not care about the disaster of a candidate that was Kerry - Bush getting re-elected in 2004 was (1) inexplicable to me (2) a disaster for American democracy. Obama would be a breath of fresh air.

Exactly how most Australians think, Alou.

Just because there's been no attack on Iran doesn't mean it wasn't in the works. Iraq has gone terribly though, and people are so against that war right now that starting a second pre-emptive war might lead to a revolt in the streets here (ok, probably not). Though he aspires to it, Bush is not a dictator and we still do live in a democracy. The Iraq invasion was carried out at least initially with solid public support, which is why so many on both sides are upset that the evidence presented was in many cases knowingly manipulated. I think any case for war with Iran would be subjected to much more intense scrutiny. A lot of the chatter from pundits on the 24 hours news shows sounded very similar to what was going on in the year before Iraq was invaded- floating the idea, seeing what people thought. Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they weren't planning a war...

I know this topic has passed, but the school where I teach is surrounded by police cars and news vans after the guy who robbed a bank and killed a Philly police sargeant with an ak47 was arrested 1/2 block from the front door of the school. This should be a productive instructional day.

Just because there's been no attack on Iran doesn't mean it wasn't in the works. Iraq has gone terribly though, and people are so against that war right now that starting a second pre-emptive war might lead to a revolt in the streets here (ok, probably not).

There was easily more than a year between when they supposedly planned this war in Iran and the start of hostilities in Iraq and a longer period before it was unpopular. The fact is, one can't complain about Bush's weak evidence for the need to go to war in Iraq and than turn around and complain about a war that didn't happen base on evidence that is even weaker than Bush's.

Well, the war in Iraq was in the works from the beginning of his term. That fits in there too.

I know this topic has passed, but the school where I teach is surrounded by police cars and news vans after the guy who robbed a bank and killed a Philly police sargeant with an ak47 was arrested 1/2 block from the front door of the school. This should be a productive instructional day.

I feel you, my friend. I feel you.

Maybe today's the day you teach the kids how to talk to the media?

than turn around and complain

Be careful. If Rich is around he'll tell you it's "then"...

No one's complaining- and please, every point a liberal makes isn't a complaint despite what Fox News says- the point was made above that the Dems "fear-mongered" Iran in the 2004 election. There was enough evidence to suggest that the Bush admin. was at least seriously considering it, so trying to vote Bush out based on that fear was a legitimate tactic. Now, I don't think you needed to add Iran to the case against Bush in 2004, but some were suggesting that the damage was done with Iraq, and some Dems were saying "if you think it can't get worse...". Just because it didn't get worse doesn't mean that some military confrontation with Iran wasn't considered and (thankfully, we can all agree) dismissed.

If Bush had decided not to invade Iraq b/c the public wasn't buying what he was selling (IIRC, polls were between 60-75% pro-war in the months leading up to it), if the mainstream media had hit Bush harder on his evidence rather than cheerleading it, and we didn't invade Iraq, that doesn't mean that the fear about invading Iraq would've been illegitimate.

So you think the reason that no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is that none of them have ever had the political skill of John Edwards?

This is so stupid.

Firstly, it's not a question of "ever." 100, 50, maybe even 30 years ago, there really were insuperable obstacles for a black man (or woman) to be elected President. Secondly, most black politicians are on the far left of the political spectrum (at least as concerns modern American politics). So they aren't going to get elected based on their policy choices, regardless of their skill or race. And finally, blacks are actually quite a small proportion of the population - somewhere around 12%. So it would be very surprising if there were lots of black Presidential nominees.

EDIT: Oh, and of course, most blacks are Democrats. So realistically it's only one major party nomination that's open.

one can't complain about Bush's weak evidence

So pointing out that Bush lied to get us into Iraq is "complaining" as well? Smoking gun speech, deliberately false linking of Saddam to bin Laden, trumped-up claims about WMD, ect, all just complaints. Genius...

No one's complaining- and please, every point a liberal makes isn't a complaint despite what Fox News says- the point was made above that the Dems "fear-mongered" Iran in the 2004 election. There was enough evidence to suggest that the Bush admin. was at least seriously considering it, so trying to vote Bush out based on that fear was a legitimate tactic.

Except you're basing it on evidence that wasn't specifically known at the time. Even if a simple policy of regime change was evidence of an imminent military invasion, if it wasn't known about until after 2004. Take Jeremiah Wright's claim that AIDS was created by the government to kill blacks. It's still fearmongering even if it's true because he doesn't have the evidence to justify that basis.


So pointing out that Bush lied to get us into Iraq is "complaining" as well? Smoking gun speech, deliberately false linking of Saddam to bin Laden, trumped-up claims about WMD, ect, all just complaints. Genius...

And finding fault in someone for a war that never happened is simply a complaint as well?

I was against the War in Iraq because it was a shitty idea, that Bush had committed the fault of believing evidence that matched what he wanted to believe and had delusions about the success of his plan. But I'm not against the War in Iraq because Bush is some evil dictator, or, as arkitekton tries to put it in his oh-so-incoherent way, "clinically psychotic." Bush believed there were WMDs as Clinton and many Clinton administration officials did. He also was predisposed to believe in other bad intelligence, because it matched his expectations, which is something most people do.

As a previous poster hinted at, I think we'd be a lot more successful at stopping the war in Iraq so many loud voices weren't acting like the moonbats Republicans claim they are. The people who claim Bush is "psychotic" or it's some secret Haliburton conspiracy or he's some Machiavellian evil or shout WAR CRIMES! every 5 seconds have been Bush's allies by giving the Republicans an easy excuse to mock and ignore the legitimate anti-war people.

the only problem is that he's (Obama) completely unqualified and economically illiterate.



Of course, on the economic illiteracy scale, McCain is off the charts.


That was my thought as well - McCain is really, really unimpressive in this area.

Or maybe both realize that the president does very little to move or hinder the economy.

Obama getting elected would raise my opinion of America too, in a sensible and in a not-so-sensible way. Sensibly, I'd like to think that a black man can be elected President - not-so-sensibly, the election of Obama would be a real and decisive break from the Bush Presidency in a way that neither McCain nor Clinton would be. And I really want there to be a decisive break with the Bush years - and so do most non-Americans, IMHO. I do not care about the disaster of a candidate that was Kerry - Bush getting re-elected in 2004 was (1) inexplicable to me (2) a disaster for American democracy. Obama would be a breath of fresh air.

1) It really isn't a concern what other countries want our government to do. The US government exists to protect and serve American, not world interest. I can see how having the world like you and help you promotes American interest but if we disagree, we disagree. I don't hate the French because they didn't support our Iraq War - it's their country, their choice. But, likewise, they don't get a say in how we run our affairs.

2) I get that the Bush presidency has been bad for America. He's been an ineffective leader and made some terrible choices. But, how is it a disaster for American democracy? He was elected by the rules of the land. He didn't overthrow an existing elected government by force. I think his critics make the mistake of overstepping. He's been a bad president. We've had them before and survived. The American people simply need to take another look at their constitution and realize that they, themselves are the government and stop being so whiny and petulant about what that man did. He got elected. It sucks, but there it is.

I do get how wanting a clean break with the Bush/Clinton/Bush monotony feels. Though I disagree with him on most policy matters, that is one appealing feature of Obama. I doubt I vote for him but I doubt I will be terribly disappointed if he wins. Given that, I hope his VP choice is someone who hasn't been a prominent figure the last 20 years and that he fills his cabinet with fresh faces too. The bureaucracy is deep enough and powerful enough (and cumbersome enough) to protect against inexperience.

---

My guess is that Iran was on the table after Iraq welcomed us with parades. I suspect that had Iraq gone how the idiot neo-cons thought it would, we would, indeed, have gone into Iran. And, really, had Iraq gone that way, it might have made some sense. It would have turned us into an Empire pretty quick to control the Gulf so thoroughly. But, of course, no country was going to welcome us that way. If Iraq didn't, Iran certainly wouldn't. The Iraq War was just plain idiocy, I think.

So f--- Geraldine Ferraro. Because you know what? Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be a Senator if she weren't a woman.

Or if Rudy Guliani hadn't been stricken with prostate cancer.

So f--- Geraldine Ferraro. Because you know what? Hillary Clinton wouldn't even be a Senator if she weren't a woman.

Or if Rudy Guliani hadn't been stricken with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is sexist.

I like how Hillary's campaign is slowly trying to get her ensconced as VP now that she has little leverage - there are plenty of people Obama can get to hold the line with white moderates that don't have Hillary's baggage. I'm suddenly in the mood to listen to Götterdämerung.

I get that the Bush presidency has been bad for America. He's been an ineffective leader and made some terrible choices. But, how is it a disaster for American democracy? He was elected by the rules of the land. He didn't overthrow an existing elected government by force. I think his critics make the mistake of overstepping. He's been a bad president. We've had them before and survived. The American people simply need to take another look at their constitution and realize that they, themselves are the government and stop being so whiny and petulant about what that man did. He got elected. It sucks, but there it is.

Well I think we're actually in agreement. I don't think *he* was a disaster for democracy. I think that the primary function of democracy is to remove incompetent/corrupt/malign/failing leaders, because it is the threat of removal at the next election that keeps politicans on the rails. If someone can have a first term as bad as Bush and get re-elected, then I regard it as a disaster - and yes, the blame falls 100% on the American electorate.

Or if Rudy Guliani hadn't been stricken with prostate cancer.

He had some success in the polling earlier, but his popularity was probably at its nadir at the time of the 2000 election. I think Lazio could've won, but he really blundered, especially with that horrible debate stunt.

Except you're basing it on evidence that wasn't specifically known at the time. Even if a simple policy of regime change was evidence of an imminent military invasion, if it wasn't known about until after 2004.

I'm trying to avoid having the Iraq war argument all over again, which is why I'm specifically talking about use of Iran as a legitimate or illegitimate campaign tactic against Bush in 2004. He does talk to "God" for advice on foreign policy. A lot of his supporters, ones I've talked to, are pretty happy with that. Evangelicals who believe that it is not their place to understand "God's plan" are OK with him doing things that are morally questionable b/c they believe it's all part of a bigger picture they're not privy too. This isn't a caricature, this is what at least some of the remaining 30% believe is going on and why they still back Bush's actions. Pre-emptive war is morally uncomfortable for a lot of people, not only on the left, and Bush asking people to have faith in his judgment is a really powerful force for people who seriously believe that his judgment is divinely inspired. When you have a leader who has shown a willingness to engage in such a war once, who has talked tough about Iran, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that if elected, he would do so again. That's the only issue I'm trying to speak to here- the use of Iran as an issue in the 2004 campaign.

I disagree with pretty much everything you've said about the left's characterization of Bush, but really, do we want to go through this same argument again? I'm not going to convince you that the sanctioned use of torture is a war crime. You're not going to convince me Bush isn't a tool for larger political and financial interests. Unless you're trying to get this thread to 10,000 posts, let's just stick to the question that was posed, OK? I know one of your hobbies is mocking and deligitimatizing the views of the left-wing protest movement. But if you can resist, please do...

huzzah for danz's 3683 & bunyon's 3684. A rare and sweet thing when back-to-back posts make much sense.

Q about Clinton dropping out: I understand the thinking that maybe, just maybe, Obama will do something real dumb and the superDELs will give the whole bag to Clinton... but can't you ALWAYS postulate that kind of scenario? Should Huck or Romney justified staying in in case McCain has a debilitating health problem between March and July? Hey, if it happens, the convention makes a decision; that's how it's designed. Hillary could put her campaign on hold, and always re-enter at the Dem convention if some huge Obamagate showed up.

So, is there any reason (besides raw ambition) for her to continue campaigning?

Obama getting elected would raise my opinion of America too, in a sensible and in a not-so-sensible way. Sensibly, I'd like to think that a black man can be elected President - not-so-sensibly, the election of Obama would be a real and decisive break from the Bush Presidency in a way that neither McCain nor Clinton would be. And I really want there to be a decisive break with the Bush years - and so do most non-Americans, IMHO. I do not care about the disaster of a candidate that was Kerry - Bush getting re-elected in 2004 was (1) inexplicable to me (2) a disaster for American democracy. Obama would be a breath of fresh air.

A break from the Bush administration would be welcome, but we'll get that no matter who winds up in office. Whoever the next president is will take pains to distinguish themselves from Bush.

I disagree with the notion that Europeans will fall into some narrative along the lines of, "America elected a black guy, so now they're enlightened and we should be nice to them." Perhaps that will be the consensus among some of the international European elite, but in my experience, Europeans are far more likely to harbor racist beliefs or make racist statements than Americans. I've repeatedly heard European friends and co-workers make racist comments that no American would ever make in polite company. The Asian countries are probably worse than the Europeans in this regard.

1) It really isn't a concern what other countries want our government to do. The US government exists to protect and serve American, not world interest. I can see how having the world like you and help you promotes American interest but if we disagree, we disagree. I don't hate the French because they didn't support our Iraq War - it's their country, their choice. But, likewise, they don't get a say in how we run our affairs.

I agree with this 100%. Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us".

and yes, the blame falls 100% on the American electorate.

And the Democrats for running John Kerry against Bush.

Hell, you can't even blame the media (except that they gave so much time to the Swift-Boaters)- by 2004 they'd come around to the fact that they were wrong about Iraq and were actually apologizing for being so uncritical/non-objective/jingoistic in their coverage.

I agree with this 100%. Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us".

People want to be liked.

So, is there any reason (besides raw ambition) for her to continue campaigning?

Delusion.

Obama is not just "a black guy." He's the son of an Kenyan man. This is actually kind of a big deal for a country that is perceived as caring very little about what happens in Africa. It's not so much an issue of racial identity as it is of political identity. I'm not saying anyone should vote for him because of this, but it may result in Obama and by extension the US being perceived as more sensitive to what happens there. Being more attentive to and informed about what happens in Africa is in our best interest, from an enlightened self-interest standpoint, but that's really a different issue...

But, likewise, they don't get a say in how we run our affairs.

Iraq was a French affair. We deposed a regime that they had strong economic ties to. Our relationship with France is important, and to the extent that the decision to overthrow that regime has impacted that relationship, it does matter what France thinks about the US's foreign policy choices. It's not binary- either we let French interests dictate American foreign policy or we don't- but it's worth taking into account how US actions are going to impact relations with our strategic allies.

Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us".

Well, it's in America's best interest to have as much goodwill built up as possible with other countries, so that they're more inclined to help us when we need their help. Suppose it really was in America's best interest to invade Iran (purely hypothetically) - at this point, there's no chance that Bush could convince most European nations to help us with such an invasion, because they don't trust him and see what a lousy job he did with the aftermath of Iraq. Maybe it would be better to say that it's helpful to have other countries trust us.

I agree with this 100%. Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us".

It's not exactly #1 on my list of things to consider, but given how important "soft power" is going to be in a future where technology will democratize, in a sense, the use of lethal force, it's at least a consideration in my mind.

Not to mention that almost anything the USA, being a global hyperpower, does have global implications in a way that's just not the case when we're talking about Suriname or Slovenia or Sri Lanka.

I don't think either of these is the same thing as "letting France (or whomever) running our country."

I think that the primary function of democracy is to remove incompetent/corrupt/malign/failing leaders, because it is the threat of removal at the next election that keeps politicans on the rails

This is one reason why I'm less convinced all the time that the 22nd Amendment was such a great idea. Presidents have had second-term problems since George Washington, of course, but the last few have been awful: Nixon mired in Watergate, Reagan in Iran/Contra, Clinton impeached, Bush with Katrina and Iraq. Particularly in the 2005-09 cycle, it seemed like the 2008 Presidential campaign started the day after Election Day '04, and the lame-duck effect has been intense. On the whole, perpetual re-eligibility is still probably a bad idea (potential Presidents-for-life are the bane of any republic), but one wonders if things would have gone better for any of these guys if they'd been looking at another referendum on themselves after eight years.

Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us"

I doubt it's a desire to be liked. It's a desire to have an effective foreign policy. I don't know whether 41 was "liked" abroad or not, but I will hand it to him that he was able to get an international consensus on Kuwait, for instance, because he was respected in Europe, Asia, the Middle East. 43, not so much.

As a previous poster hinted at, I think we'd be a lot more successful at stopping the war in Iraq so many loud voices weren't acting like the moonbats Republicans claim they are. The people who claim Bush is "psychotic" or it's some secret Haliburton conspiracy or he's some Machiavellian evil or shout WAR CRIMES! every 5 seconds have been Bush's allies by giving the Republicans an easy excuse to mock and ignore the legitimate anti-war people.

I think that it was me saying that, although some other poster may have also done so.

That, plus the tactics used. It's not clear to me that protests and rallies and demonstrations are ever actually an effective way to accomplish anything -- but the way those things are run ensure that they'll never be.

1) It really isn't a concern what other countries want our government to do. The US government exists to protect and serve American, not world interest. I can see how having the world like you and help you promotes American interest but if we disagree, we disagree. I don't hate the French because they didn't support our Iraq War - it's their country, their choice. But, likewise, they don't get a say in how we run our affairs.

I agree with this 100%. Probably why I'm so mystified that people would actually vote based on whether they think other countries will "like us".

This seems pretty basic to me.

For instance, it is in America's interest that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. Outside of military intervention - which CENTCOM has ruled out time and again - this can only be achieved through multilateral diplomatic pressure. The US cannot unilaterally prevent Iran from acquiring weapons, they need the support of the EU, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and a wide variety of other actors.

The US needs the support of lots of other countries in order to achieve its goals. If the US consistently tells the world it doesn't care what they think of US actions, the US will have less social-political capital that the country can use to achieve its ends in the international arena. This is PoliSci 101 stuff.