McCain has at least admitted he's hopeless on economics, while I think the man who offers hope is also pretty hopeless and vague on the subject too.
My thinking as well.Looks like all hope for change and Mr. Magic Motto aka Barack Obama might gonna make it as nominee. That would probably afford the White House another 4 years free of female or black presidents.
You mean Hillary Clinton would have a better chance at winning the Presidency? There's been a few articles recently that make a good argument that Obama would fare better, especially amongst the indpendents and the disillusioned Republicans, whereas Clinton is too polarising.Looks like all hope for change and Mr. Magic Motto aka Barack Obama might gonna make it as nominee. That would probably afford the White House another 4 years free of female or black presidents.
Who has a plan of returning the troops in six weeks? Could you please point us to it?I have no idea how America "feels" but from my impression Barack Obama is a political light-weight and the momentum he has now may have been gone to the elections. Currently he has to win the hearts and minds of Democratic party members, while he has to win hearts and minds of the whole nation in November. When the pre-election is over the candidate goes into heavy maintenance and out comes the candidate II. I guess both Clinton and Obama will be more cautious on their Iraq-position after the pre-election. the plan of returning the troops in six weeks is like taking a direct giant shit on the close to 4000 graves of the killed soldiers (not to speak of 100000+ killed Iraqis, ahh, nobody cares about them).
I'd be interested in knowing by what criteria Condi Rice qualifies as presidential material. While I would put her stint to date as Secretary of State as no better than mediocre, it was really her previous role as National Security Adviser which, we now know, left a lot to be desired. In this role she certainly never advised the president of anything much in a field as crucial as any to the national interest. She was little more than an office manager when, as we now know, she took very little interest in national security and counterterrorism matters, even though, we now know, there was a lot of material available which was not acted upon. I am certainly not saying that 9/11 could have been prevented, but I believe she failed to lead the government into a changed attitude of mind in dealing with numerous post-cold war problems. Now, that's not to say she couldn't pull something out of a hat and change her reputation in the remaining year of her current job or indeed in coming years in other jobs to build a platform for the highest office, but I wouldn't put money on it.I would love to see Condi and or Colin Powell run at some point but I know Powell will not run out of family considerations. MS Rice is a possibility.
I suppose you could argue that Obama is now more than a candidate or a politician. He has become something of a movement.With respect to your assessment of Obama's political heft, you may turn out to be correct, however, he has made it much further than expected so far up against those with far greater political experience than he.
Yes, I hear the "movement candidate" label for Obama and, without quesiton, that has much truth to it. An interesting question would be what separates one movement candidate from another? Why did Obama catch fire when Ron Paul did not? Or, perhaps more precisely, why does Obama's movement vote when Paul's does not?I suppose you could argue that Obama is now more than a candidate or a politician. He has become something of a movement.With respect to your assessment of Obama's political heft, you may turn out to be correct, however, he has made it much further than expected so far up against those with far greater political experience than he.
Not sure, but maybe because support for and interest in Obama is much more widespread and socially diversified, plus he has a certain oratorical persona. In Paul's case his support is narrower - I understand his support is concentrated among young people, especially young men aged between 18 and 30, as we have seen from this and other internet discussion forums.... Why did Obama catch fire when Ron Paul did not? Or, perhaps more precisely, why does Obama's movement vote when Paul's does not?
I am sure I heard it in a speech from Hillary Clinton. And I guess Obama has even more contra Iraq on the agenda.Who has a plan of returning the troops in six weeks? Could you please point us to it?
No, Clinton and Obama are broadly the same on Iraq, advocating major reductions in forces in the first year or so, subject to what they find on the ground. They admit the need to maintaining some numbers for counterterrorism purposes and force protection for the embassy and civilian personnel and so on. I discussed this earlier in this thread. They maintain some wiggle room on the issue. I think they will find it more difficult to deliver major reductions in the first year of office than they think.I am sure I heard it in a speech from Hillary Clinton. And I guess Obama has even more contra Iraq on the agenda.
I would even go as far as saying there will be no reduction at all. But today's campaigning is for the Democratic party and the complicated reality of the involvement of the US in Iraq is not something Clinton can tell the people in one speech, especially as the naked truth is never really a welcomed guest at party events. I guess Clinton and Obama have been briefed that they should be very cautious on this issue and use their most unspecific wording.No, Clinton and Obama are broadly the same on Iraq, advocating major reductions in forces in the first year or so, subject to what they find on the ground. They admit the need to maintaining some numbers for counterterrorism purposes and force protection for the embassy and civilian personnel and so on. I discussed this earlier in this thread. They maintain some wiggle room on the issue. I think they will find it more difficult to deliver major reductions in the first year of office than they think.I am sure I heard it in a speech from Hillary Clinton. And I guess Obama has even more contra Iraq on the agenda.
I said I would love to see her run, not that I would blindly vote for her based on what I know of her past government achievements. It's only after a non political candidate (never run / elected to public office) throws their hat into the ring that we begin to find out what they think. Until that time 75% of what they say is what their boss thinks / wants.I'd be interested in knowing by what criteria Condi Rice qualifies as presidential material. While I would put her stint to date as Secretary of State as no better than mediocre, it was really her previous role as National Security Adviser which, we now know, left a lot to be desired. In this role she certainly never advised the president of anything much in a field as crucial as any to the national interest. She was little more than an office manager when, as we now know, she took very little interest in national security and counterterrorism matters, even though, we now know, there was a lot of material available which was not acted upon. I am certainly not saying that 9/11 could have been prevented, but I believe she failed to lead the government into a changed attitude of mind in dealing with numerous post-cold war problems. Now, that's not to say she couldn't pull something out of a hat and change her reputation in the remaining year of her current job or indeed in coming years in other jobs to build a platform for the highest office, but I wouldn't put money on it.I would love to see Condi and or Colin Powell run at some point but I know Powell will not run out of family considerations. MS Rice is a possibility.
I am sure both Clinton and Obama are smart enough to realize that the reality in Iraq will be far more complex than they have articulated in the campaign, especially Clinton, I would say, who I think has been closer to real-world problems of this sort. I do think the next president, whoever he/she is, will continue to find Iraq a very troubling and complex issue. If we withdraw too soon, there will be complaints from the military and the right/center that all the gains, such as they are, of the past year or so will be lost. If we don't withdraw materially, the left will be up in arms and mutter betrayal.I would even go as far as saying there will be no reduction at all. But today's campaigning is for the Democratic party and the complicated reality of the involvement of the US in Iraq is not something Clinton can tell the people in one speech, especially as the naked truth is never really a welcomed guest at party events. I guess Clinton and Obama have been briefed that they should be very cautious on this issue and use their most unspecific wording.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest
