US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #7

[Dreadsox]

And I laughed thinking his humor was funny....

It was funny....no?

 

[deep]

it's all fun and games and frolic time in Hawaii

some people in Georgia, did not get the memo

 

[Dreadsox]

Diamond is that you?

 

[anitram]

Oooh is it show and tell?

 

[deep]

Where were you August of 2005?

trying to make a baby or not

Buying a mini-mansion with other people's money.

 

[anitram]

trying to make a baby or not

Not unless that woman had the gestational period of an elephant.

 

[deep]

Not unless that woman had the gestational period of an elephant.

that is why I included "or not".


But I do believe John is more of a 'giver' than he chose to "come clean" with on Nightline.

 

[deep]

Diamond is that you?

I am irritable

I did not get any sleep or six


l
a
s
t


n
i
g
h
t

 

[BVS]

it's all fun and games and frolic time in Hawaii

some people in Georgia, did not get the memo

I do have to say this is one of the biggest stretches I've seen from a respectable FYMer...

It saddens me.

 

[Irvine511]

some people in Georgia, did not get the memo

and the president of Georgia certainly did get the memo from the McCain campaign and the army of lobbyists that told them to pick a fight with Russia so that the McCain campaign could have a big, bad bear to snarl about! what's a few thousand dead Georgians compared to getting McCain back into the news cycle?

what luck!

 

[Irvine511]

Buying a mini-mansion with other people's money.[/QUOTE]




whatever.

that bitch only got one mini-mansion. McCain got [i]eleven[/i]! he like the Michael Phelps of expensive property!

 

[deep]

Could be interesting.

John McCain ponders advantage of promising one-term presidency

Tom Baldwin in Washington

John McCain is considering making a pledge that he would serve only one term in the White House when he accepts the Republican nomination at his party’s convention next month.

A promise not to seek reelection after four years would be unprecedented in modern presidential politics and the idea is understood to be opposed by many senior figures in his campaign who fear that it would reduce his leverage with Congress and create chaos in the Republican Party.

Mr McCain, who has a habit of ignoring advice and bucking conventional wisdom, is attracted by its potential to transform a race that has already showed signs of tightening in recent weeks.

His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is presenting himself as a figure of generational change who can unite America by reaching out to independent and even Republican voters.
Related Links

Perhaps even more importantly it could help Mr McCain — who has his own strong appeal to independent voters — to distance himself farther from the partisan political divisions that have made Washington a byword for inaction and self-serving interests in recent years.

A one-term President would be able to devote all his time to tackling problems — including an ailing economy and two unfinished wars — rather than planning a reelection campaign. Supporters of Hillary Clinton, about a fifth of whom are already backing Mr McCain, could vote for him knowing that their candidate might run again in 2012.

 

[deep]

It saddens me.

Why be sad?


Why be naive?

A very poor speech.

This young man is not ready to be President.


Tear down these walls

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice.

Another supporter of tearing down walls.

 

[maycocksean]

Why be sad?


Why be naive?

A very poor speech.

This young man is not ready to be President.


Tear down these walls

Another supporter of tearing down walls.

Get some sleep, deep. . .

 

[Irvine511]

it gets ever more fascinating.

 

[deep]

I did get some sleep, but I did not get to seven. (wink)

Get some sleep, deep. . .

You know I have told you more than once

I don't dislike Obama

I even like him

I think had Hillary run in 2004 she would have been rejected for not having enough experience, though a very capable person

this 2008 run should have been about learning the ropes, even an old grissly like McCain is a more successful candidate because of his 2000 run.



The problem with Obama is that there is no there,

there


You have even written things like "I think Obama is this or that"

Obama has even in the last few days said something like "I'm new, I'm young, people don't know what I stand for"



and now even his supporters are saying this:

Allies Ask Obama to Make ‘Hope’ More Specific

By PATRICK HEALY
Published: August 16, 2008

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.


These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.

“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

 

[maycocksean]

You know I have told you more than once

I don't dislike Obama

I even like him

I think had Hillary run in 2004 she would have been rejected for not having enough experience, though a very capable person

this 2008 run should have been about learning the ropes, even an old grissly like McCain is a more successful candidate because of his 2000 run.



The problem with Obama is that there is no there,

there


You have even written things like "I think Obama is this or that"

Obama has even in the last few days said something like "I'm new, I'm young, people don't know what I stand for"



and now even his supporters are saying this:

Deep, you know I don't have a problem with the argument about Obama's experience. I think it'sa legitimate concern, and if someone feels strongly enough about it that they wouldn't vote for him, I can respect that. I DO feel that the argument is not unassailable though and we've already gone through the arguments about experience vs. judgement. Would our country have been better off if Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld had been president instead of Bush--after all they had the experience he lacked? The point is I don't think the lack of experience argument is as strong as you think it is. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate argument and I'll give you that. However, what you're actually posting much of the time is the same kind of non-issue nonsense the McCain campaign and many of his supporters are putting out there--not the thoughtful, reasoned objections you claim to hold.

I also don't think Obama is as much an unknown quantiy as you'd like to make him out to be. For me to say "I think Obama will be this or that type of president" doesn't mean I don't really know anything about him. I would never say I "KNOW" what type of president either candidate would be. It's like you've decided--like Sting on the subject of Iraq--on a particular point of view on Obama and are now going to stick to that point of view at all costs and ignoring any evidence or arguments to the contrary. Key is your characterization of Obama (and his supporters) as empty-headed and swept away by charisma and hope. Despite overwhelming evidence particularly on this forum that not all Obama supporters are swept away in a fevered rapture, you continue to maintain this point of view.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Did anyone watch that forum? I saw bits and pieces of it

NY Times
August 18, 2008
Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Before an audience of more than 2,000 people at the church, the candidates answered questions about policy and social issues.

Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.

After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain, and the candidates shook hands and embraced.

Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”

Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

politico.com

August 18, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama: 'I will win'

A confident Barack Obama raised an extraordinary $7.8 million Sunday at three California fundraisers, most if it in large checks to a Democratic Party committee.

“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” he said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

Obama echoed some of the themes he discussed when he described Pennsylvanians as "bitter" and stoked controversy three months ago, but did so much more adroitly.

"Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so," he told the crowd. "It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working."

“So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, this should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ‘em out. But American politics aren’t that simple," he said.

"The fact of the matter is, at a certain point, when government has not been serving the people for this long, people get cynical. They tune out. And they start saying to themselves, a plague on both your houses. They are willing to consume negative information more frequently than positive information, for good reason. They’ve seen how promises haven’t been kept," he said.

 

[anitram]

I DO feel that the argument is not unassailable though and we've already gone through the arguments about experience vs. judgement. Would our country have been better off if Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld had been president instead of Bush--after all they had the experience he lacked?

No kidding.

THIS is the experience and judgment that we're supposed to be salivating over:

Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

No, thanks.

Here.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would submit that Iraq may very well have been handled much differently than we have seen. He certainly has not been supportive of the plan since we invaded. He has been critical of it.

I agree with McCain that Iraq was a priority. I agree that Bagdhad had to be dealt with as it was the driving reason we had troops stationed in the region. All of that needed to change somehow. While you are taking a snapshot of him, with quotes to make your case Anitram, it is absolutely unfair to imply that this man supported the actions and steps this administration took at the time.

And yes, on a military boat, surrounded by military people.....I would have been pumped up at his words. Might I suggest that troops as an audience would have influenced the manner in which he was addressing them?

 

[Irvine511]

I would submit that Iraq may very well have been handled much differently than we have seen. He certainly has not been supportive of the plan since we invaded. He has been critical of it.

I agree with McCain that Iraq was a priority. I agree that Bagdhad had to be dealt with as it was the driving reason we had troops stationed in the region. All of that needed to change somehow. While you are taking a snapshot of him, with quotes to make your case Anitram, it is absolutely unfair to imply that this man supported the actions and steps this administration took at the time.

And yes, on a military boat, surrounded by military people.....I would have been pumped up at his words. Might I suggest that troops as an audience would have influenced the manner in which he was addressing them?

i think this gets to a central question that many have to ask themselves.

was Iraq a mistake, or did we make mistakes in Iraq?

if you believe the former, you should absolutely not vote for John McCain, because he believes the latter. and, despite these past 5 years, McCain still believes that force is often the best way to deal with conflicts and that American inverventionalism, when done correctly, can and will right all wrongs.

he sees nothing fundamentally wrong with the sense of mission of the past 8 years, and he sees nothing fundamentally wrong with invading whatever sovereign nation should it serve in the national interests of the United States irregardless of national law.

for me, this is dangerous because this becomes delusional -- everything could have been fine if we'd just done this, or that, or if this didn't happen, or if only that had happened ... it's a very Vietnam-era rationalization, "we'd have won if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by the lefties ..." it never questions the fundamentals, only the execution.

or, do you believe that Iraq was a bad idea from the start, long before the first bombs fell? that the mission was flawed and destined to fail even before the first American boot stepped on Iraqi soil.

when it comes to foreign policy, this is what, i think separates these two men.

 

[anitram]

I agree with McCain that Iraq was a priority.

You see, I don't.

And I think Irvine gets right to the point here - I could never in good conscience vote for him on this alone (nevermind his anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay abortion and other social views which I find antiquated and offensive).

 

[anitram]

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Wow, speaking of outrageous.

How pathetic, honestly.

 

[Dreadsox]

You see, I don't.

And I think Irvine gets right to the point here - I could never in good conscience vote for him on this alone (nevermind his anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay abortion and other social views which I find antiquated and offensive).

I do not agree with McCain on many social issues. But I do not the war and I apparently feel more comfortable with him and the international climate we seem to be heading towards.

If we are talking about the war, there were more than a majority of democrats who agreed with the President that Iraq was an issue that needed to be dealt with.

I am not sure what you mean by international law, and I do not want to debate UN resolutions, but there have been NONE to my knowledge that indicate the US did anything illegal in reguards to Iraq, in particular because the UN Security Council did authorize the occupation of Iraq, albeit, after the fact (retroactively).

I despise the current administration for treating the country like it could never have supported the war without the WMD issue. I despise the fact that the intelligence reports were cut and pasted to make a case for war. I despise the fact that we did not develop a true international coalition. I am really pissed that the governement has not done a decent job preparing for the after war.

But deep in my very core, I do not believe it was wrong. What was wrong was the international community NOT doing a damn thing about Iraq for years of violating UN Resolutions. What was wrong was the international community using the Food for OIL to benefit their own pockets while everyone knew full well that it was solidifying Saddams power and hurting the Iraqi people. That is where my moral outrage is, and the US has been left for how many years enforcing the no fly zones, and the stationing of troops, which led us to multiple attacks by al-qaeda on the us along with the culmination of 9/11 I feel 100% that it was time for the UN to put up or shut up and bear the burden of the policy.

So no, I am in agreement with him on this issue. I just think it wrong to pin the way it was handled on him, when all along, he was a leading critic of this administration and the war.

 

[Irvine511]

So no, I am in agreement with him on this issue. I just think it wrong to pin the way it was handled on him, when all along, he was a leading critic of this administration and the war.

i remember McCain being a big cheerleader for the administration and for the war.

and i think he'd do it again. and i think he's aching to pick fights with Russia, Iran, and China.

 

[anitram]

I am not sure what you mean by international law, and I do not want to debate UN resolutions, but there have been NONE to my knowledge that indicate the US did anything illegal in reguards to Iraq, in particular because the UN Security Council did authorize the occupation of Iraq, albeit, after the fact (retroactively).

I didn't say anything about international law so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here?

 

[anitram]

So no, I am in agreement with him on this issue. I just think it wrong to pin the way it was handled on him, when all along, he was a leading critic of this administration and the war.

I don't think this is true.

I remember very recently reading an article that set out McCain's support very well, and showcasing that his criticism did not come for months after (following the Mission Accomplished gaffe). This is respecting not simply Bush, but Rumsfeld as well. I'll have to dig it up, but he was simply NOT a leading critic "all along." That is a myth that has somehow been accepted by most people without really digging deeper.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks for the dialogue. We can agree to disagree. I would think it takes time to evaluate an ongoing operation. I hope that was not a dig at me not digging. I think I read enough to be able to form my opinion. I do not think it a myth.

 

[Dreadsox]

I didn't say anything about international law so I'm not really sure what you're referring to here?

That is weird.....I cannot find what I thought I read...lol I must dig deeper...haha