2008 Primaries Thread

yeah but the news going into last night was that hillary "won" super tuesday, but now its a lot closer.

xxxxp

I couldn't vote in the primary, but I lean towards Obama because his speeches, books, and bearing suggest levelheadednes. Not for a second do I think he's a pacifist, though. Quite the contrary: something in his determination suggests that he could handle a conflict that takes years of continued US military might.

Plus, let's remember our history: you don't get to be a "great" president without a major conflict, and if there's one thing -- the only thing -- that Obama's got in common with JFK, it' san angling for greatness.

My mom called me to say that she cried while voting for Hills yesterday.

aw

ice cold, hoos

naw dude for srs!

Not for a second do I think he's a pacifist, though.

actually, the most batshit thing i recall him saying thus far was suggesting the use of american troops in pakistan's nw frontier whether musharraf/whomever liked it or not

HOOS is a champion of the aw thread.

it was bombing, not troops iirc

x-post

and frankly given Pakistan's totally fucked up regime and public pronouncements that they have no interest in getting Bin Laden, I think that's totally justified policy (probably not too smar to say so on the stump tho)

you are an internet hard man

Shakey, did you read the piece on Bhutto in The New Yorker a couple of issues back?

nah I don't read the New Yorker

(altho I was never really a Bhutto-booster if that's what you're getting at)

actually, the most batshit thing i recall him saying thus far was suggesting the use of american troops in pakistan's nw frontier whether musharraf/whomever liked it or not

Or this could have been the oft-used Dem tactic of hitting from the right (i.e. Kennedy blaming Eisenhower-Nixon for a "missile gap," Mondale suggesting during the debates that Reagan was soft on communism).

rather similar to McCain suggesting we could have troops in Iraq for a 100 years.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking will not begin to reflect the impact of Tuesday's voting on national Democratic preferences until tomorrow.

Shakey, check it out, for real.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_coll

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Real Clear Politics polling averages show Hillary's national lead shrinking to 2.7 points.

Hillary's eating tacos! - http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Cant_wait_for_Texas.html

A smart political scientist at Chicago gives some thoughts on Obama's "metapolitics" that I think say clearly what some of Obama's supporters on this thread have been getting at:

http://sgrp.typepad.com/sgrp/2008/01/politicsmetapol.html

I have to admit that although I'm fine with either candidate, there's something a bit depressing about the idea of a Clinton/McCain race, the idea that what's seems like such an important election might be between two candidates that their respective parties just can't get that excited about.

("fine with either" meaning Clinton/Obama, obv)

I'm finding it interesting how often people are conflating Bill and Hillary (Billary) and it makes me wonder what kind of influence he has in her campaign and in what ways she is substantially different from him?

she doesn't bang interns

(btw I'm still making my way through that NYer piece but I'm not entirely sure what you were getting at by posting it...? I'm aware of Bhutto's history, the complexities of the relations between various parties, Musharraf's intransigence, etc.)

Given how fucked up Pakistan is and the fact that they have the bomb, bombing the NW frontier might end up us giving us far worse blowback than any pay-off we might get.

I'm finding it interesting how often people are conflating Bill and Hillary (Billary) and it makes me wonder what kind of influence he has in her campaign and in what ways she is substantially different from him?

Perhaps, Michael, because the Screaming Lobster of Hope insists on the conflation?

Yeah, no shit. Americans get so trigger happy with aerial bombardment, like it's got no consequences.

otm

this makes me optimistic:

Five reasons Hillary should be worried

but i imagine you could just as easily write up a "Five reasons Obama should be worried"

Given how fucked up Pakistan is and the fact that they have the bomb, bombing the NW frontier might end up us giving us far worse blowback than any pay-off we might get.

there is obviously that potential. all kinds of scenarios are possible. I am reminded of the time we allegedly "let Bin Laden go" when a drone plane couldn't get permission to bomb a convoy, a scenario which is quite different from a "shock and awe" campaign. I'm not advocating anything specific - and Obama's comments were clearly calculated for political effect - but at the same time I agree with him in principle that we shouldn't take any options off the table, particularly in regards to an illegitimate regime that has no real control over much of its territory.

Should we bomb them before or after we stop giving Musharraf billions of dollars?

And what is this table people are always putting bombs on?

I guess my point is there are ways we could deploy force to capture Bin Laden that wouldn't necessarily result in an insane nuclear disaster (just as there are ways we could do it, clumsily, and subsequently screw ourselves and Pakistan). What would some of you guys posit as a best-case scenario? Clearly things are fucked as they are now, the Taliban is operating with impunity and we're propping up an increasingly delegitimized and useless military dictatorship that is undermining the very democratic institutions we would most like to see established. A worst case scenario is obviously insane Islamists in charge with the bomb, somehow getting one delivered via terrorists to America (which, I gotta say, seems highly HIGHLY unlikely for all kinds of reasons). Is there nothing better than these two scenarios, given how complicated things are...? Should using our own special forces in the way they're intended - quietly and deliberately and carefully - not play any role here?

I can't believe I'm advocating for some kind of military intervention at all, but the fact that Bin Laden hasn't been caught seems completely fucking ridiculous and galling to me.

NBC reports youth vote tripled in GA and quintupled in NY

This thread is now longer than the one that spawned it.

I thought "the U.S." was interested in seeing Pakistan not disintegrate, not promoting democratic institutions. This is probably not the thread for this discussion though.

Tim Russert sez that only 45,000 votes between Obama and HRC.

I thought "the U.S." was interested in seeing Pakistan not disintegrate, not promoting democratic institutions

seems assbackwards to me. the latter is by far more important than the former. who cares about these arbitrary colonialist border designations.

x-post

I wonder how many dollars difference between Obama and HRC now?

In other news, some of HRC's senior staff volunteered to work without pay this month.

pakistan is approaching twice the size of iraq, has six times as many people, a more forbidding terrain and a nuclear weapon. a bombing campaign isn't going to do anything but piss even more muslims off. a ground campaign without the express and overwhelming support of the pakistani government, army and people is both absurd and impossible, leaving alone the current state of the us military.

i mean sure, keep your options on the table, but get a fucking grip on what they actually are.

You are kidding, right? We give money to Musharraf to keep the country together so the bombs stay right in our corner.

Also invading countries and massacring their people on flimsy security pretexts is, like, wrong and shit.

fwiw Clinton is probably bears as much responsibility as any other president for convincing Americans that it's ok to sort of *spot bomb* at will.

I thought I made it fairly clear I'm not advocating an invasion or massacre.

This thread is now longer than the one that spawned it.

And thus, if I'm not mistaken, the longest thread in ILX history.

Pretty sure top three are:

2008 Primaries Thread: 7253+
Your 2008 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread: 7238
try glasgow more: 6800+

I think a Chicago thread from a couple years ago might be 4th. Dave Matthews only has about 2500.

We give money to Musharraf to keep the country together so the bombs stay right in our corner.

uh, I'm pretty sure the nukes aren't being stashed in the non-federally governed northwest provinces

x-post

http://www.willisms.com/archives/shawn.jpg

the NWFP /= Pakistan

fwiw Clinton is probably bears as much responsibility as any other president for convincing Americans that it's ok to sort of *spot bomb* at will.

This can't be said often enough.