Can't stick around to chat, but I thought you guys might want to see my photos from the Obama rally at UCLA today. He wasn't there (I heard he was in Delaware or something) but we got Caroline Kennedy, Oprah, and Michelle Obama, who is one hell of a fierce speaker in her own right. The whole rally was very "women" focused, and at the end they brought out - surprise! - Maria Shriver, first lady of California. She spoke highly of Obama and while she never outright said she endorsed him, she encouraged everyone to take this moment in their lives and vote their heart. She also cracked a couple of jokes about what ramifications this appearance might cause in her home life. The crowd went absolutely nuts when she appeared. It was a lot of fun!
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
A. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of the environment, homosexuals,
and Hillary.
B. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad
guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
C. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
D. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran.
E. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
F. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches,while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
G. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
H. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.
I. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health
care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the
best interests of the public at heart.
J. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
K. A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable offense,
but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
solid defense policy.
L. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
M. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's driving and military records are none of our business.
N. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
O. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
Bush did in the '60s is irrelevant.
If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in '08. Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
Here's a reasonable substitute for your dem list, aking...
1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy Progressive Income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Central Bank
6. Government control of communication and transportation
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate Farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education
While I strongly question the wisdom of invading Iraq, Obama's call for an immediate/quick withdraw is in my mind ludicrous. It has no basis in reality or understanding of what is going on right now in Iraq. There is no single military leader out there whom you could find that would support such a scheme. If anything, they are asking for more troops so they can continue their gains, and Obama wants to do the opposite! What is going to happen when we start pulling two combat brigades a month? How will the troops left in the rear deal with the almost certain implosion of the government into civil war? My brother and cousin are in this war, right in the most active combat areas. So, I admittedly have a very personal stake in this one issue.
Patrick,
Iraq is more of civil war between tribes. There has been no political solution. The lull in the violence has many causes including that the Al-Quaeda elements offended the local populace and warring Sunni factions came together with the Americans to rout them.
The thing that hasn't happened... is we haven't had an honest discussion about Iraq. There is no "combat." That ended years ago. You have occupation and an unresolved political problem that has a precedent in Yugoslavia. There's a armed struggle for power and a desire by Al Quaeda to tie up the US as long as possible in an attempt to bankrupt us and make us the pariah of the Arab world.
NATO finally did the right thing in Yugoslavia. BUt the country, which never was a real country, was cobbled together at the end of a war by the Victors. Such is also Iraq. Iraq isn't a real nation-state. The only thing that kept it together was an iron fist. Tito and Saddam Hussein had a great deal in common.
Obama gave a really good speech on Iraq that addressed these issues last fall. I would track it down and give it a look. An honest appraisal is the first step towards a real solution to the mess we, intoxicated by propaganda and lies, walked into.
Clinton Makes January Haul Public
By Matthew Mosk
It's hard to dispute that the fundraising story from January was Democrat Barack Obama's announcement last week that he had raised $32 million for the month -- a number that dwarfs any monthly total he or his rivals posted during the course of last year.
But the impressiveness of that number remained unclear because Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, had not disclosed the amount she raised during a period where she and Obama repeatedly traded bursts of momentum.
Now, that mystery appears to be solved -- Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told NBC's Tim Russert this evening that her campaign raised "about 13 million, $13.5 million" last month.
Heh... Turns out there's a huge Barack Obama phone bank two doors down from me in this apartment building, and they've got about 20 people making calls to people in the neighborhood. I got a call from them a few minutes ago, and it looks like I'll be spending some time passing out leaflets with them tomorrow morning before I head in to work.
I overheard one of the people there saying that, despite NYC supposedly being Clinton territory, he's gotten a lot of positive feedback from the people he's been talking to. I hope that's a good omen.
As for me, I'm still registered to vote in the neighborhood up by Columbia University, so it looks like I'll be taking a long subway ride up there after work. I've always voted in general elections, but this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to vote in a primary.
I have an extra ticket to the Obama event (the Obamas will be there to watch the results come in) here tomorrow night in Chicago, If anyone wants to go, email me.
Obama was out in the Meadowlands for an event today, but I couldn't make it. If it had taken place on an evening or weekend, and if it were someplace with better public transit access, I would have been there.
I also missed a chance to see him at Washington Square Park a couple months ago.... Arrgh.
vamure - I wasnt trying to be funny - im a registered dem but only so i can participate in Chicago elections/primaries. I agree the republicans have been taken over by shitheads from somewhere down south ( of chicago) and I think Obama is what the country needs just to break the stagnation. But I really dont agree with about 80% of the democratic platform. I just hope Obam is more moderate once elected, more business savy, fixes the L trains, and gets us the olympics.
Krugman is a fucking shill. Notice he doesnt actually analyze obamas plan, he analyzes a plan that "broadly resembles" it. A plan that costs 102 billion doesnt "broadly resemble" obamas plan, which well accounted for at 50 B. It broadly resembles hillarys plan, which does in fact cost 120 billion dollars. 50 billion vs 120 billion isnt a "slightly higher cost". Every serious independent analysis of these two plans does come out with obamas going father to reduce overall costs, father to reduce premiums, and legitimately leaving no one who both wants and cant afford health insurance. Hillarys plan is basically to write a 120 billion dollar check to the insurance companies, and then garnishing wages or god knows what to punish anyone who still cant afford it. Not to mention, unless the dems take 2/3s of both houses of congress (which with hill on the ticket, they wont) you arent going to get a mandate through congress. This whole pile of shit is an election ploy and hill knows it.
For Patrick,
Look man, my heart goes out to to your brother and your cousin, but Iraq isnt a fucking US colony. The Iraqis may not want us out tomorrow, but they sure as hell dont want us still there 100 years from now. McCains plan sounds great if this is 1940, but this is the 21st century now. Im sad to say to the man but the world has changed. Its just a fact of life. I mean I respect his military experience, but hes so lost in this WW2 culturally ignorant mindframe he cant see out of it. Hes no better than bush. Iraq wasnt a just a tactical failure, it was a fundamental error in judgement and displayed such a profound lack of foresight and cultural awareness its caused more harm to americas diplomatic influence in 6 years than any blunder in our history. Hes making the same mistakes Bush made, the same mistakes Regan made, and hes committing us to the same insane cultural murder-suicide pact with the jihadis that Bin Laden has been dreaming for. The man just cant see the forest for the trees.
Maybe the best thing about nominating Obama will be we will finally get to have this debate. When Obama says "its not just about ending the war, its about ending the mentality that got is into it in the first place," he means it. The level of self-deception and lack of historal-introspection in this country borders on the pathological. The middle east isnt a gas pump. The world isnt Americas fucking plantation. The arab world doesnt want some patronizing western stewardship. They just want some respect. They want to be treated like actual human beings and not bomb fodder. They want to be able to control their own political fates. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Now of course, its true, we are in this mess now and we cant just pull out in 6 months without any forethought or preparation. It has to be a very careful process handing things over to them. But the Iraqi government (and the whole middle east for that matter) does need to know we are leaving, and when. Until they get that message they simply have no incentive to do anything. They can squabble and filibuster and jockey for oil money as long as they want. Theres no urgency to get their own police and military together because who cares? The americans stirred up this fucking mess let them take the heat. And its not even their fault, all theyve ever wanted was some legitimate control over their own affairs, and as long as we're there, as long as theyre dumping most of their gdp into halliburtons profit margin, the government just looks like a hapless puppet regime. The sad fact of the matter is our posture there does more to reinforce the propaganda and recruiting of the people we are fighting than it does to benefit our cause.
What matters more than anything is that we change the terms of the discussion we are having with that entire region. Like I said, I respect McCains experience, but the way hes framing this thing is fundamentally insane. This isnt a choice between victory and surrender. Its a choice between diplomatically resolving conflicts or just trying to kill enough people that the militias just give up. Even if you do it, all youve accomplished is to raise another generation of people with every right to hate america and everything it represents. Its so mindnumbingly counter productive I can scarcely believe people seriously buy into it. All of the serious gains made there have been made because of political and diplomatic exchanges. Anbar didnt go genocide when we turned it over to the people there, neither did the south when the British pulled out. In fact, surprise, surprise, hey killed off al qaeda themselves and got down to resolving their own conflicts. Until we can make similar political exchanges the greater government and the greater region there is no progress that can be made. Until we can re-frame this conflict as a legitimate dialog, until we can say we arent in some cosmic-death pact, until we can just engage them at the table the same way we would with europe or china nothing is going to change.
Feel free to pass it on, especially if you know any women who still might be on the fence and you think it might help.
And, Patrick, your post above disturbs me, for a number of reasons:
1. While I strongly question the wisdom of invading Iraq, Obama's call for an immediate/quick withdraw is in my mind ludicrous. - No one actually believes that Obama is being literal when he says he's going to pull out troops *immediately*, like the day after inauguration or whatever. I happen to think that he's intelligent enough to realize how nuanced the situation is, and I find people who think he doesn't understand this to be naive.
2. ...And domestic issues like healthcare are simply not highest priority to me (even though I lack affordable healthcare). - That statement is both laughable and offensive. What about when your brother and cousin come home from Iraq, and have a hard time getting even a basic check-up at the VA hospital because the healthcare system in this country - and especially in the government - is so screwed up? Will you care about it then?
3. ...and that whole crying episode of Hillary's was really revolting (a woman that strong and smart does NOT cry in public unless it is scripted). - Sorry but most people aren't robots like Mitt Romney. Real people cry sometimes, and it's not revolting, it's human. McCain's gotten choked up in public before, doesn't that mean he's crossed off your list as well? Or do you employ double standards to go along with your generalizations?
My best friend was in Iraq for a year, and he was there when Saddam was captured. He's excited about politics for the first time in his life, this year, and he's leaning towards Obama....he says he's looking forward to actually voting for someone instead of voting against a candidate this time around.
This episode of Charlie Rose has two really intelligent military analysts (who both happen to be women) discussing the counterinsurgency in Iraq. It debunks the direct causal relationship between the surge and the decline in violence. One of the women is also an advisor to Obama:
after 8 years of the Republican Attack Machine, Obama vs. Clinton sounds like a simple petty argument.
Passionate Obama-itez can certainly out rationalize the history, therory ,and, criticsm of every nuace of Hillary VS Obamar.., but I am sleeping better already knowing that at least one of them is going to work out....albeit naive.
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 5, 2008
I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her.
But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.
Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.
But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.
On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.”
Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”
In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.
But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.
At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”
Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.
The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she’s learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.
Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system.
They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.
Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”
He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.
Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.
Well, I overslept this morning and missed my window to stand outside in the rain with the Obama crowd. Hopefully he'll win big today and I'll have more opportunities to volunteer with his camp.
That David Brooks column sounds par for the course for Hillary. My former boss had the exact same personality type... It was always all about her, regardless of any merit in the other person's ideas.
well if the cordiality of debate is any indication this may be one of the most reasonable general elections in us history...
somehow I doubt it though.
On the Regan thing, I suppose I was just referring to his mid-east policy, cowboy diplomacy, propping up dictators, handing out nerve gas like candy to Saddam hussein and all that. Im a young guy, too young perhaps to claim a real understanding of Regans roll in bringing down the USSR, but I find the case pretty compelling that the biggest factor was just that the economic system there was unsustainable and doomed to fail on its own eventually anyway, and if anything it was nixon playing the china card that sealed the deal.
Its a complex thing, so who knows. At any rate there are plenty of legitimate bones one can pick with the Regan years.
Obama '08
It looks good but only if you can get your friends out to vote and introduce them to Barack Obama.
FIRED UP AND READY TO GO!!!!!
"OBAMA IS LEADING CA"
God I hope that poll is accurate. Cali would be HUGE.
We saw that on the news and dad said he was having a Bobby 68' flashback. I couldve smacked him.
Dont jinx shit like that!
According to point-spreads.com by way of Sportbook, these are the current (Feb. 1) odds of winning the 2008 Presidential Election:
Clinton 5-4
Obama 5-2
McCain 2-1
Romney 10-1
Huckabee 60-1
Against Clinton, Obama is still the (betting) underdog so I guess he's the Giants to Clinton's Patriots (but not as much of an underdog as NY).
vamure, by now you have to know what this is about: hope
I think we will be surprised on Web. morning.
Yes, he's definitely go the big MO...
Geez, spelling! "he's definitely got"
Have you seen the video youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&3
It's quite good.
And the CBS/NY Times poll has Obama and Clinton tied at 41%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/03/opinion/polls/main3783743.shtml#share
well, one underdog's won...
Can't stick around to chat, but I thought you guys might want to see my photos from the Obama rally at UCLA today. He wasn't there (I heard he was in Delaware or something) but we got Caroline Kennedy, Oprah, and Michelle Obama, who is one hell of a fierce speaker in her own right. The whole rally was very "women" focused, and at the end they brought out - surprise! - Maria Shriver, first lady of California. She spoke highly of Obama and while she never outright said she endorsed him, she encouraged everyone to take this moment in their lives and vote their heart. She also cracked a couple of jokes about what ramifications this appearance might cause in her home life. The crowd went absolutely nuts when she appeared. It was a lot of fun!
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
A. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of the environment, homosexuals,
and Hillary.
B. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad
guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
C. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
D. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran.
E. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
F. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches,while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
G. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
H. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.
I. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health
care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the
best interests of the public at heart.
J. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
K. A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable offense,
but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
solid defense policy.
L. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
M. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's driving and military records are none of our business.
N. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
O. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
Bush did in the '60s is irrelevant.
If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in '08. Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
Does anyone have a list like above except anti dem?? for comparison sakes
As much as I hate ad-infested AOL stories, see this.
Tomorrow will be very interesting indeed...
Here's a reasonable substitute for your dem list, aking...
1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy Progressive Income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Central Bank
6. Government control of communication and transportation
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate Farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education
SandRoad, you're an absolute fucking idiot if you seriously believe that's what Democrats believe. You shouldn't be permitted to breed.
Does that mean our date is off?
Don't you have a militia meeting or something to go to?
i thought the dem list seemed off, at least i hope it is.
is the rep list off or fairly accurate?
Yeeeeahhh...the Republican list is 100% accurate.
how about
THEY'RE BOTH SIMPLIFIED STEREOTYPES
although the Republican one has at least some basis in reality
The Rep one is an exaggerated stereotype.
You may have to google the "dem" list.
Patrick,
Iraq is more of civil war between tribes. There has been no political solution. The lull in the violence has many causes including that the Al-Quaeda elements offended the local populace and warring Sunni factions came together with the Americans to rout them.
The thing that hasn't happened... is we haven't had an honest discussion about Iraq. There is no "combat." That ended years ago. You have occupation and an unresolved political problem that has a precedent in Yugoslavia. There's a armed struggle for power and a desire by Al Quaeda to tie up the US as long as possible in an attempt to bankrupt us and make us the pariah of the Arab world.
NATO finally did the right thing in Yugoslavia. BUt the country, which never was a real country, was cobbled together at the end of a war by the Victors. Such is also Iraq. Iraq isn't a real nation-state. The only thing that kept it together was an iron fist. Tito and Saddam Hussein had a great deal in common.
Obama gave a really good speech on Iraq that addressed these issues last fall. I would track it down and give it a look. An honest appraisal is the first step towards a real solution to the mess we, intoxicated by propaganda and lies, walked into.
Couple of interesting pieces in today's Washington Post:
Obama vs. the Phobocracy
Barack Obama represents the triumph of hope over fear.
The Boomers Had Their Day. Make Way for the Millennials
Get over it, baby boomers.
That democrat list is actualy basicly what the dems core party promotes - I think the 26 republican points are over the top.
Oh, only the Republican list is over the top, I see.
evilp, you're so funny, you crack me up.
Clinton Makes January Haul Public
By Matthew Mosk
It's hard to dispute that the fundraising story from January was Democrat Barack Obama's announcement last week that he had raised $32 million for the month -- a number that dwarfs any monthly total he or his rivals posted during the course of last year.
But the impressiveness of that number remained unclear because Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, had not disclosed the amount she raised during a period where she and Obama repeatedly traded bursts of momentum.
Now, that mystery appears to be solved -- Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told NBC's Tim Russert this evening that her campaign raised "about 13 million, $13.5 million" last month.
Heh... Turns out there's a huge Barack Obama phone bank two doors down from me in this apartment building, and they've got about 20 people making calls to people in the neighborhood. I got a call from them a few minutes ago, and it looks like I'll be spending some time passing out leaflets with them tomorrow morning before I head in to work.
I overheard one of the people there saying that, despite NYC supposedly being Clinton territory, he's gotten a lot of positive feedback from the people he's been talking to. I hope that's a good omen.
As for me, I'm still registered to vote in the neighborhood up by Columbia University, so it looks like I'll be taking a long subway ride up there after work. I've always voted in general elections, but this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to vote in a primary.
Good for you, LIG.
I have an extra ticket to the Obama event (the Obamas will be there to watch the results come in) here tomorrow night in Chicago, If anyone wants to go, email me.
Obama was out in the Meadowlands for an event today, but I couldn't make it. If it had taken place on an evening or weekend, and if it were someplace with better public transit access, I would have been there.
I also missed a chance to see him at Washington Square Park a couple months ago.... Arrgh.
vamure - I wasnt trying to be funny - im a registered dem but only so i can participate in Chicago elections/primaries. I agree the republicans have been taken over by shitheads from somewhere down south ( of chicago) and I think Obama is what the country needs just to break the stagnation. But I really dont agree with about 80% of the democratic platform. I just hope Obam is more moderate once elected, more business savy, fixes the L trains, and gets us the olympics.
Well, I certainly agree with that last sentence...I hope he can get stuff done too, 'cause sometimes dreams die hard.
Krugman is a fucking shill. Notice he doesnt actually analyze obamas plan, he analyzes a plan that "broadly resembles" it. A plan that costs 102 billion doesnt "broadly resemble" obamas plan, which well accounted for at 50 B. It broadly resembles hillarys plan, which does in fact cost 120 billion dollars. 50 billion vs 120 billion isnt a "slightly higher cost". Every serious independent analysis of these two plans does come out with obamas going father to reduce overall costs, father to reduce premiums, and legitimately leaving no one who both wants and cant afford health insurance. Hillarys plan is basically to write a 120 billion dollar check to the insurance companies, and then garnishing wages or god knows what to punish anyone who still cant afford it. Not to mention, unless the dems take 2/3s of both houses of congress (which with hill on the ticket, they wont) you arent going to get a mandate through congress. This whole pile of shit is an election ploy and hill knows it.
For Patrick,
Look man, my heart goes out to to your brother and your cousin, but Iraq isnt a fucking US colony. The Iraqis may not want us out tomorrow, but they sure as hell dont want us still there 100 years from now. McCains plan sounds great if this is 1940, but this is the 21st century now. Im sad to say to the man but the world has changed. Its just a fact of life. I mean I respect his military experience, but hes so lost in this WW2 culturally ignorant mindframe he cant see out of it. Hes no better than bush. Iraq wasnt a just a tactical failure, it was a fundamental error in judgement and displayed such a profound lack of foresight and cultural awareness its caused more harm to americas diplomatic influence in 6 years than any blunder in our history. Hes making the same mistakes Bush made, the same mistakes Regan made, and hes committing us to the same insane cultural murder-suicide pact with the jihadis that Bin Laden has been dreaming for. The man just cant see the forest for the trees.
Maybe the best thing about nominating Obama will be we will finally get to have this debate. When Obama says "its not just about ending the war, its about ending the mentality that got is into it in the first place," he means it. The level of self-deception and lack of historal-introspection in this country borders on the pathological. The middle east isnt a gas pump. The world isnt Americas fucking plantation. The arab world doesnt want some patronizing western stewardship. They just want some respect. They want to be treated like actual human beings and not bomb fodder. They want to be able to control their own political fates. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Now of course, its true, we are in this mess now and we cant just pull out in 6 months without any forethought or preparation. It has to be a very careful process handing things over to them. But the Iraqi government (and the whole middle east for that matter) does need to know we are leaving, and when. Until they get that message they simply have no incentive to do anything. They can squabble and filibuster and jockey for oil money as long as they want. Theres no urgency to get their own police and military together because who cares? The americans stirred up this fucking mess let them take the heat. And its not even their fault, all theyve ever wanted was some legitimate control over their own affairs, and as long as we're there, as long as theyre dumping most of their gdp into halliburtons profit margin, the government just looks like a hapless puppet regime. The sad fact of the matter is our posture there does more to reinforce the propaganda and recruiting of the people we are fighting than it does to benefit our cause.
What matters more than anything is that we change the terms of the discussion we are having with that entire region. Like I said, I respect McCains experience, but the way hes framing this thing is fundamentally insane. This isnt a choice between victory and surrender. Its a choice between diplomatically resolving conflicts or just trying to kill enough people that the militias just give up. Even if you do it, all youve accomplished is to raise another generation of people with every right to hate america and everything it represents. Its so mindnumbingly counter productive I can scarcely believe people seriously buy into it. All of the serious gains made there have been made because of political and diplomatic exchanges. Anbar didnt go genocide when we turned it over to the people there, neither did the south when the British pulled out. In fact, surprise, surprise, hey killed off al qaeda themselves and got down to resolving their own conflicts. Until we can make similar political exchanges the greater government and the greater region there is no progress that can be made. Until we can re-frame this conflict as a legitimate dialog, until we can say we arent in some cosmic-death pact, until we can just engage them at the table the same way we would with europe or china nothing is going to change.
R U TALKIN' TO ME?
Feel free to pass it on, especially if you know any women who still might be on the fence and you think it might help.
And, Patrick, your post above disturbs me, for a number of reasons:
1. While I strongly question the wisdom of invading Iraq, Obama's call for an immediate/quick withdraw is in my mind ludicrous. - No one actually believes that Obama is being literal when he says he's going to pull out troops *immediately*, like the day after inauguration or whatever. I happen to think that he's intelligent enough to realize how nuanced the situation is, and I find people who think he doesn't understand this to be naive.
2. ...And domestic issues like healthcare are simply not highest priority to me (even though I lack affordable healthcare). - That statement is both laughable and offensive. What about when your brother and cousin come home from Iraq, and have a hard time getting even a basic check-up at the VA hospital because the healthcare system in this country - and especially in the government - is so screwed up? Will you care about it then?
3. ...and that whole crying episode of Hillary's was really revolting (a woman that strong and smart does NOT cry in public unless it is scripted). - Sorry but most people aren't robots like Mitt Romney. Real people cry sometimes, and it's not revolting, it's human. McCain's gotten choked up in public before, doesn't that mean he's crossed off your list as well? Or do you employ double standards to go along with your generalizations?
My best friend was in Iraq for a year, and he was there when Saddam was captured. He's excited about politics for the first time in his life, this year, and he's leaning towards Obama....he says he's looking forward to actually voting for someone instead of voting against a candidate this time around.
Emily - I wish Michelle was running for president. What an amazing woman.
Obama would be a good running mate for Hilary
I think as Al Gore found out, there isn't much of a role for a VP when you have two co-presidents in office.
Hillary was just ranked the number 1 recepient of lobbyist money amongst the presidential candidates:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik
This episode of Charlie Rose has two really intelligent military analysts (who both happen to be women) discussing the counterinsurgency in Iraq. It debunks the direct causal relationship between the surge and the decline in violence. One of the women is also an advisor to Obama:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/24/2/a-discussion-about-counterinsurgency
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3921174507489063835:1489000:1858000&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
after 8 years of the Republican Attack Machine, Obama vs. Clinton sounds like a simple petty argument.
Passionate Obama-itez can certainly out rationalize the history, therory ,and, criticsm of every nuace of Hillary VS Obamar.., but I am sleeping better already knowing that at least one of them is going to work out....albeit naive.
ff33
"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
-John Quincy Adams
upon being named VP
I think it's more than a petty argument. Hillary's style may prevent her from getting anything done as president. Here's an op-ed from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ex=1359954000&en=adb5cc5a1e91c2b6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Cooper Concerns
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 5, 2008
I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her.
But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.
Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.
But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.
On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.”
Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”
In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.
But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.
At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”
Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.
The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she’s learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.
Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system.
They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.
Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”
He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.
Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.
remarkable.
yeah, I guess I agree
Well, I overslept this morning and missed my window to stand outside in the rain with the Obama crowd. Hopefully he'll win big today and I'll have more opportunities to volunteer with his camp.
That David Brooks column sounds par for the course for Hillary. My former boss had the exact same personality type... It was always all about her, regardless of any merit in the other person's ideas.
VOTE today and take friends.
well if the cordiality of debate is any indication this may be one of the most reasonable general elections in us history...
somehow I doubt it though.
On the Regan thing, I suppose I was just referring to his mid-east policy, cowboy diplomacy, propping up dictators, handing out nerve gas like candy to Saddam hussein and all that. Im a young guy, too young perhaps to claim a real understanding of Regans roll in bringing down the USSR, but I find the case pretty compelling that the biggest factor was just that the economic system there was unsustainable and doomed to fail on its own eventually anyway, and if anything it was nixon playing the china card that sealed the deal.
Its a complex thing, so who knows. At any rate there are plenty of legitimate bones one can pick with the Regan years.
AND he took a picture with it. wow
OK what states do you think will go for Obama? In rough order of likelihood I would guess (not having looked closely at the polls):
DC
Hawaii
Mississippi
Idaho
Montana
South Dakota
Wyoming
Nebraska
Virginia
Maryland
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Indiana
Washington
Oregon
I think it will come down to not losing too badly in Ohio & Pennsylvania. If he can bring those within 10 points he should win.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.