a thread for all teh related stories, comments, rants and perhaps another live debate commentary.

I'll start it off with an interesting Obama quote.

quote:

"It was an era known as the gilded age," said the Illinois senator. "Theodore Roosevelt decided not to play along."

I'd forgotten how long the presidential election process is. I'm bored already and it's barely started. They should just turn it into American President^TM and let Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul decide.

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:
I'd forgotten how long the presidential election process is. I'm bored already and it's barely started. They should just turn it into American President^TM and let Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul decide.

why settle for anything less?

Technically, it hasn't even started yet. All this hyperbole is merely rhetoric. I figured this thread would take some bumping untill things got really heated next year.

The 'Merikan Idle thing would be hysterical. We'd end up with William Hung as pres....prolly wouldn't be so bad...

So that's not what happened last time?

there was no election last time. I honestly think GW might attempt to pull an FDR and stay a third term.

"I honestly think GW might attempt to pull an FDR and stay a third term".



Ed Sullivan- "So- is that your crash helmet?"
Jose Gimenez- "Oh, I hope not!"

I am interested to know what the members here think of Obama's comment about engaging the leaders of the "rogue states" in meetings if he gets elected.

Good idea? Bad idea? Waste of time? Campaign bravado?

News,
I had to check this: campaign bravado, yes -- and also a possibly good idea, depending on the circumstances.

I believe in Hillary, though.

(N.Y.Times:

The candidates were asked at the debate if they would be willing to meet unconditionally with those five leaders, people the Bush administration regards as hostile at best. Mr. Obama said he would, citing a history of American diplomacy with enemies.

“It is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them,” he said.

He also recalled President Ronald Reagan as excoriating Soviet leaders publicly while negotiating with them privately, an example that Mrs. Clinton has also used, almost word-for-word, in criticizing current White House diplomatic strategy.

Mrs. Clinton replied next, and chose not to reach for the Soviet example. Instead she gave a toughly worded answer about the complexities of diplomacy, an answer that was not inconsistent with her past remarks, yet that conveyed sharpened skepticism about the leaders of nations like Iran and North Korea.

While pledging a “very vigorous diplomatic effort” including presidential envoys “to test the waters,” she said she would not “promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.”

“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be,” she added to applause.

Within hours, Clinton advisers were arguing that Mr. Obama’s response was too soft, while Obama advisers were making two points: That their candidate was not promising meetings but said only that he was willing to consider them, and that Mrs. Clinton’s response mirrored the president’s pattern of not meeting with leaders of “rogue nations,” as he calls them.

By yesterday morning, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had prepared memorandums to showcase these talking points.)

quote:

“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” Mrs. Clinton said.

HA!

quote:

Originally posted by RUR:
"I honestly think GW might attempt to pull an FDR and stay a third term".

Precisely.

Boogerhead-"Precisely".
Jose Gimenez- "Oh, I hope not!"

quote:

"I honestly think GW might attempt to pull an FDR and stay a third term".

To be honest, given the amount of hubris that Dubya and Cheney have shown, it would not surprise me at all. I don't think that Bush would be the one to initiate any third term, Cheney on the other hand, most definitely.

Aisha, thanks for posting that article and your opinions. I don't neccesarily see some form of diplomatic contact as a bad thing, not at all. I do agree with what Hilary said about testing the waters, that can't hurt, who knows what may come of it? I suppose any dialogue is better than none.

If an election is allowed to occur, I think Hillary is a shoe-in.

However, I think there is an equally good chance that W inc. will find or create an excuse to "postpone" the election.

Either way the Bilderburgers will be running the show.

quote:

Originally posted by limbojim:
If an election is allowed to occur, I think Hillary is a shoe-in.

However, I think there is an equally good chance that W inc. will find or create an excuse to "postpone" the election.

Either way the Bilderburgers will be running the show.

sooo what's with the same avatar?

This one's up for grabs.

(on second thought, it's neither a new sun nor a limbo Jim, but anyway, it's up for grabs)

What worries me about Clinton is that she might feel a chip on her shoulder, as the first female president, concerning issues of defense.

Unfortunately, I won't pay for cable TV, so the only Democratic debate I was able to watch in its entirety was the one on Public TV, hosted by Tavis Smiley at Howard U, where for some reason they chose to not discuss the war. Judging from that it seems clear that Clinton is the superior politician.

But from the rhetoric I've heard, she doesn't have a clue about how to deal with insurgency and/or terrorism, just plenty of talk about "Getting tough on terrorism" and other such Rumsfeldian sentiments. I also seem to recall that she was the only Democrat who stood up to endorse Bush's dubious innuendo about a link between AQ and Saddam Hussein. That makes me think she would say anything at all for political gain.

quote:

Originally posted by Newsun:
I am interested to know what the members here think of Obama's comment about engaging the leaders of the "rogue states" in meetings if he gets elected.

Good idea? Bad idea? Waste of time? Campaign bravado?

I think that if he went into the meeting with the belief that he was dealing with the leader of a "Rogue State" state it wouldn't be genuine diplomacy. It's only one step down from believing their regime is evil and if Bush is right about one thing it's this: you don't negotiate with evil, you fight it.

What worries me would be that the next president would treat negotiations the way Clinton says she's afraid the other leaders would, as a propaganda device, which come to think of it is also the way Bush has used them. Does anyone else remember Hussein's regime cooperating with the arms inspectors while Bush's regime kept demanding more concessions like allowing the U.S. to take chosen scientists and their families out of the country for questioning?

No regime, even a benevolent and democratic one could comply to that demand and retain credibility, yet the U.S. just accepted that as being uncooperative. Anyone who studied the First World War should be familiar with that particular technique.

I don't think there is any hope of improvement in this regard until the U.S. (and the rest of us) abandon the asinine assumption that we start from the position of moral superiority.

but, that's our God Given Right™. If it weren't for that mindset, there would be no countries or governments at all. Get real. Only an asshole that thought like that would want the office of the president in the first place.

Hillary has already displayed, during her years as a lawyer and a first lady, that money talks. She'll do what will profit her the most, and say what she thinks we'll want to hear. I don't think for a second that she's stoopid enough to try and pull our troops out of Iraq or anything of that nature because too many of her cronies are getting rich off this war, just like BuschCo.

It is a sad fucking state of affairs when only the greediest, most morally bankrupt motherfucker even has a shot at running, let alone actually winning the election.

There is no way for a common, honest person to attain the office. It would defeat the purpose of such a bizzare power structure.

If voting could change the system, it would be against the law.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
but, that's our God Given Right™. If it weren't for that mindset, there would be no countries or governments at all. Get real. Only an asshole that thought like that would want the office of the president in the first place.

Nonsense. Nations form because of cultural similarities, geographic practicalities and a common sense realization that there is 'us' and 'them' and the only way to protect 'us' and to get the best lifestyle possible is by standing together.

A need to believe that we are superior to outsiders isn't necessary to identify with the rest of the group.

Governments and bureaucracies would form simply because it was the only practical way of attaining the best results and maintaining group cohesiveness.