Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>IR, he's already mentioned that he plans on talking to them. From his website:</p>

<p><em>Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.</em></p>

<p>From that I assume he is betting that the cult of personality that is currently being created, combined with the general sigh of relief expressed worldwide when Bush leaves office, will be enough to woo North Korea and Iran to abandon the very programs that force the world to pay attention to them. It's either that or his breath is so bad it can be classified as an offensive weapon, forcing Kim Jong-il and Ahmadinejad to capitulate to our demands.</p>
 
<p>Yes, invade North Korea and take our their leader. Destabilize the region with 3 of the top 12 economies all within missle and artillery range. Good luck trying to obtain the cooperation of South Korea with possibility for heavy civilian deaths and infrastructure damage. I am sure China would love to have the US setup a new military state that they border against, perhaps creating the 51st state within the Union. Just go ahead and invade because they are a threat to us and it does not matter what interest others in the region might have they should be eliminated because they don't listen to us big boys. </p>

<p>This type of armchair decisionmaking is all BS to me. It amazes me to see people making decisions about the lives of millions of others just because of a perception. Walk the streets of Shanghai or Seoul and meet the people who have a lot more vested interest in this matter than we do. You will find that people do not live in fear of this 'rogue nation' like we do. </p>
 
<p>"Also, be careful about suggesting that the US should waltz into the tribal regions of Pakistan and take out bin Laden."</p>

<p>We have a right to go into the tribal region of Pakistan to capture the terrorist that was responsible for 911 if their government can't deliver him to us within a reasonable time frame. Any fair-minded individual would agree and understand.</p>

<p>Consider if an American went down to Mexico and killed 3,000 of its citizens and then returned and hid out in the hinterlands, like the Inland Empire, for example. If our government was too lazy or inept to root out the rogue and hand him over to Mexico, I would understand if the Mexican Army came to the IE to get him themselves. I may not like it, but I would understand. If they didn't come over and capture the rogue, I would think they were pansies for doing the "politically expedient" thing instead of the right thing.</p>
 
<em>"From that I assume he is betting that the cult of personality that is currently being created, combined with the general sigh of relief expressed worldwide when Bush leaves office, will be enough to woo North Korea and Iran to abandon the very programs that force the world to pay attention to them. It's either that or his breath is so bad it can be classified as an offensive weapon, forcing Kim Jong-il and Ahmadinejad to capitulate to our demands."</em>





I agree with your assessment. He does seem to be banking heavily on his personality.
 
I don't think Obama has a particular plan for North Korea or Iran. Neither does McCain or Hillary or, for that matter, Bush. Bluntly, there's not much we can do. A truly massive energy conservation program would put the thumbscrews on Iran but I don't see anything on the needed scale happening. In any case, neither is a particular threat to us unless we appear to threaten the existence of their governing regimes.
 
<p>Here's an article reprinting a letter Rev Wright wrote a year ago:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/flashback-wrights-lette_n_93820.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/flashback-wrights-lette_n_93820.html</a></p>
 
<p>23% of white Dems who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/25-of-antiobama-dems-th_b_93806.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/25-of-antiobama-dems-th_b_93806.html</a></p>

<p>I think most people make up their minds about who to vote for within 30 seconds of hearing about a candidate. They then look for reasons to make their choice seem reasonable rather than intuitive. I bet I do the same thing.</p>

<p>I think one reason that Barack has appeal to so many "younger" voters is that he seems open and sincere. (He may not be those things, but he appears to be.) After 7 years of the secretive Bush, Cheney, and (previously) Rumsfeld, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Also, it seems to me that the authoritarian model of leadership is fading away. People want leaders that lead more by consensus. Obama comes across as more like that kind of leader than either Clinton or McCain. The desire for this type of leadership seems like a generational thing to me. People I see that entered the work force in the past 5-10 years have wanted to do important work immediately and wanted to be involved in decisions. They don't see as much value in "paying your dues." I think a lot of this has been fueled by the tech boom where workers know more about the tech than their bosses. What do you think - is there something to this or am I wacked? Or both! </p>
 
<p>The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. </p>

<p><strong>Jean Giraudoux -</strong><em>French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist (1882 - 1944)</em></p>

<p>As for young workers, they always think they know more than their boss. What they fail to grasp is how much they don't know. In many ways they try to reinvent the wheel, and while that may occasionally be succesful, you don't hear about the failures unless they are spectacular. The current financial crisis is an excellent example and, when it is done, the older survivors will have to deal with a new group of recent grads that are sure that they know more than their bosses.</p>
 
<p>Nude, </p>

<p> While i generally agree with you on the bosses issue. I will say most bosses won't even listen to IDEAS. One of the main tenants of being an LEADER is to be open minded to other possibilites. As of late, most aren't....</p>

<p>Having lived under McCain and Clinton, I must say I'm willing to get other people a chance. I'm outright against Hilliary, she has showed zero work for any of the people in this country. She has had 16+ years to make her mark and work hard for the people she claims to be working for. I see little. </p>

<p>McCain is almost the same. I see he's done a few things, but mostly he's stuck in the big busienss of Washington, Arizona has been a VERY distant memory. When I lived in AZ, I would see him in the news but it was usually for something not related to the state.</p>

<p>I'm still working on Obama, the research isn't done yet. </p>

<p>As for North Korea, Iran and Pakistan, well i'll keep my trap shut....</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
lending maestro:



We did offer support to Saddam when he was fighting Iran. We also (with the British) lent the technical know how that allowed Japan to build a modern fleet (and help contain Russian aspirations in the Pacific), and they eventually used that know how against Pearl Harbor and Singapore. We were allied with the French during our Revolution, and a few years later, at conflict over the XYZ affair. In the '40's, we were allied with the Chinese, in the '50's we we at war with them, and in the '70's we were engaging them so that both of us could thumb our noses at the USSR. The Romans also lent their support to Arminius in his attempts to unify the German Tribes, and if you want the ultimate in historical alliance turning to enmity (and the ultimate in political triangulation), look no further than Alcibiades.



Just because we mave have a common interest with a nation at one time doesn't mean that interest will continue indefinately. What is important is whether or not they evolve to pose a risk.





Major S.



There is no gaurantee that we would have been able to capture Osama. He was able to evade the Soviets for years. Nations can be routinely humbled when they assume with all of their technology and might that they can find an insurgent leader. Look at Guzman (Shining Path - 12 years) and Subcommante Marcos (14 years and continuing). In both cases, the government was conducting a search on home turf, and controlled the information and communication infrastructure, and still their targets evaded capture.



In regards to your assertion that we should have stayed out of Iraq and allowed the Kurds to revolt and the Iranians to invade, this is the reason why Saddam was willing to play chicken with us (or so he and other senior leaders indicated after they were captured. He felt that the Iranians and Kurds needed to believe that he had a active WMD program, and for them to believe, he needed us to believe.



However, your scenario that has Iran invading and the Kurds revolting is not a good one. If the Kurds had gone into rebellion, and were having success, the Turks would have come across their border in force. If the Iranians had come across in the south, the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's would have freaked (the Iranians are Shia and ethnically Persian, and the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are Sunni and and ethnically Arab - there is no love lost between the groups). Unchecked Iranian agression across the border into another state to it's west would have also garnered the attention of one other nation - Isreal. Iraq is the natural barrier between Iran and Isreal (Jordan is also in the way, but they would have a hard time stopping Iran). Isreal has been willing to sit out the developments in that part of the region (as opposed to the '80's and there flyby of Osirik), because they believe that we will control things in the Iraq Theatre of Operations.



All in all, this would be pretty much a nightmare scenario, and God forbid if Turk and Iranian forces stumbled upon each other and things got hot between Iran and one of our NATO allies.



In regards to Pakistan: All in all they have been very gracious to us. We need to respect their hospitality, and seek to operate their in a way that doesn't flaunt their hospitality (in their case, insure plausible deniability on some instances, and leadership in others).



T!m:



Yes we did use nuclear weapons against targets in Japan at the end of World War II. The difference is that we are a liberal democracy that has a constant turnover of power, regardless of who is elected in the fall, they guy that you do not like (and that much of the world doesn't seem to like) will be termed out, not because of war or internal strife or armed insurrection against him, but because that is how we do it over here. That is how it works in a democracy. Saddam was a one man show. We are much less likely to deal that card than your average unstable, irrational, mass mudering thug. Remember, he used Sarin on his OWN people. The last person to use poisin gas on his own peole was Hitler (remember Zyklon B?). In fact, one of the reasons that we are considered safer is that it has been a long time since two liberal democracies were at war with each other - almost 200 years.
 
<em>"I think most people make up their minds about who to vote for within 30 seconds of hearing about a candidate. They then look for reasons to make their choice seem reasonable rather than intuitive. I bet I do the same thing."</em>





Have you ever read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316172324">Blink</a>, by Malcolm Gladwell. The author explores the validity of intuitive knowing and the way people make up their minds almost instantly. It turns out people are remarkably good at this and it is an important component of decision making.
 
Perception is generally not reality. . .



Another great analysis done by the people at electoral-vote.com. The site took rating conducted by 7 "liberal" groups (i.e. ACLU, NAACP) on each senator's voting record. A 100 means that the senator is very liberal (voted with the group's agendas) and a 0 means a very conservative senator.



Obama scored a 80 which means he is basically left of center, Clinton scored a 82.



McCain, the great mediator and centralist? He scored a 9. .. 2 points more conservative than Brownback and 4 points more conservative than McConnell.



<a href="http://electoral-vote.com/">http://electoral-vote.com/</a>



This website gives out the various rating that elected officials got from interest groups.



<a href="http://www.votesmart.org/official_five_categories.php?dist=issue_rating_category.php">http://www.votesmart.org/official_five_categories.php?dist=issue_rating_category.php</a>
 
Thanks for that post Irvinecommuter - that analysis is very interesting and it shoots down some of my preconceptions/notions about the candidates - specifically I have felt that Obama seems more liberal than Clinton and that McCain is more moderate than conservation - need to rethink that a bit.....
 
Who to vote for?

Hillary makes up war stories, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/jon-stewart-awards-obama_n_95875.html">Barack is a dick</a>, and

<a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/asked-about-the-economy-mccain-cites-reagans-example/">McCain wants to balance the budget by increasing the deficit?</a>



:grrr:
 
True, Tim --- the choices leave something to be desired. But when considered against this:

<======

It's hard to imagine any of our 2008 choices could do much worse....
 
<a href="http://www.charlotte.com/559/story/581394.html">B.E.T. founder Johnson agrees with Ferraro about Obama</a>

<blockquote>Wading back into the Democratic presidential race, billionaire businessman Bob Johnson said Monday that Sen. Barack Obama would not be his party's leading candidate if he were white.



Johnson's comments to the Observer echoed those of former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. She stepped down as an adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton last month after saying Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white.



"<strong>What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not</strong>... ."</blockquote>
Does this make the founder of Black Entertainment Television a racist?

<blockquote>"Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial ... it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."</blockquote>
Therein lies the problem with political correctness in America; truth takes a backseat to sensitivity. Raising questions about the electability of a candidate based on the ethnicity of those voting for them has become taboo, if that candidate is black. One cannot even question the possibility that the candidate's popularity is due to his skin color without being accused of having a racial motive, unless the one doing the questioning is black.

<blockquote>The Obama campaign dismissed Johnson's comments.



"This is just one in a long line of absurd comments by Bob Johnson and other Clinton supporters who will say or do anything to get the nomination," said spokesman Dan Leistikow. "The American people are tired of this and are ready to turn the page on these kind of attack politics."</blockquote>
Yes, Dan, you are right. Any possible reason for not supporting Obama must be absurd. Merely mentioning that he enjoys overwhelming support from black voters is the very essence of attack politics. I get the message... if I don't vote for Obama, I must be a racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top