2008 Primaries Thread

So the missile strikes are to prevent it from becoming a theocracy? How would that work?

he's very clear that missile strikes would follow a radical takeover of Pakistan, not precede it, nate. but you're still arguing about how to read the sentence, rite? say i grant your point for purposes of argument that it's about Iran - I couldn't possibly give a shit if after appropriate international efforts (note that the article doesn't get into any of that UN stuff, we're just assuming Obama=Bush here) we strike iranian nuclear facilities - not an invasion and occupation of the country, not bombing tehran - to prevent their violation of international law in getting the bomb and with it the capability to hold policymaking in much of the western world hostage through threats to Israel (among other neighbors), and i imagine lots of other dems feel the same way. we've got a problem with 'preemptively' bombing the shit out of a country, not 'preemptively' bombing a nuclear weapons factory. fuk u if u disagree.

anyway, like that one guy said, the best intel is this is all moot until 3-8 years from our learning that they started up again, and provided that their leadership/our relationship with them hasn't changed. and let's just ignore how O has separated himself, at least rhetorically, from some other candidates on that latter front, rite?

I'm just pointing out that Obama seems to feel the need to make hawkish noises even now - with the unpopularity of the war at all-time highs. So I'm skeptical how principled an anti-war position he would have taken if he had been a US Senator in '02. That's all. I admit it's speculation - though I wouldn't say "baseless" speculation.

that article is from January 2005, btw

obama's comments are worrying.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:12 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

in comparison to whom

jhoshea is otm here

I'm just pointing out that Obama seems to feel the need to make hawkish noises even now - with the unpopularity of the war at all-time highs. So I'm skeptical how principled an anti-war position he would have taken if he had been a US Senator in '02. That's all. I admit it's speculation - though I wouldn't say "baseless" speculation.

-- o. nate, Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:32 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

'hawkish noises' v. practical honesty?

in his 2002 speech he specifically opens with "i don't oppose all wars, i oppose dumb wars." The nonexistent threat of iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction vs. an unstable muslim theocracy holding nukes

in comparison to whom

Kucinich, I assume...?

well, he needs to show some resolve regarding matters of foreign policy, which means introducing the possibility of military force under a very specific set of circumstances. if he came out opposed to using the military in the face of genuine threats, it would play directly into the conception that he is naive and inexperienced re: foreign policy.

ahh yes, now there's a practical candidate we can get behind ... none of this 'if threatened with nuclear annihilation, we would stop it' hawkishness! xp

I don't think it's "hawkish" to accept and discuss the possibility that the military may be necessary to deal with completely unpredictable and violent scenarios

(exactly, im being facetious)

right right too many x-posts

that article is from January 2005, btw

I'm not just referring to that article - but also to his more recent comments about sending troops into Pakistan, or keeping a nuclear option on the table. Maybe there really is a big difference between Obama and Clinton on their relative attitudes about the use of military force, but I'm having a hard time making it out.

recent vote on the Iranian guard is a good indicator

The one he didn't vote on?

the one hrc most certainly did vote on?

i mean if you're looking for distinctions here

weren't his recent comments re: pakistan about 'military force' in a general sense or bill clinton-style airstrikes?

i mean if you're looking for distinctions here

I guess that's a distinction - but it's hard to draw much assurance from it. Maybe he was just tired that day?

he was bombing pakistan

right. so he's not talking about "sending troops" anywhere -- and honestly, i don't think any dem candidate would

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html

+ there was odd stuff going on about the scheduling of the Kyl/Lieberman bill. maybe gabbneb can help us all out there

Anyway - on reflection, I think that Obama probably is a bit more dovish on the whole than Hillary is. Even though I suspect that he might have voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002 if he had been a US Senator, I also am pretty certain that even if Hillary had just been a state senator from New York in 2002, she still wouldn't have made an anti-war speech like Obama made.

clinton's NV chair is harry reid's nephew?

As with his endorsement of Lieberman in '06, I don't care that Obama's "I don't know how I would have voted" line was a save-a-Kerry comment.

Still, Bill Clinton taking someone to task for opportunistic rewriting of their history = sickmaking

the hilary camp keeps using that tact

it's TACK, not TACT

THANK YOU

tack 1 (tk)
n.
...
4.
a. A course of action meant to minimize opposition to the attainment of a goal.
b. An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches.

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.
2. Archaic The sense of touch.

nothing to do with yesterdays events, but a friend of mine just threw this up on his blog and i figured this was as good a place as any to share:
Mike Huckabee congratulates Canadians

a. A course of action meant to minimize opposition to the attainment of a goal.
b. An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tack_(sailing)

I'll just pick out the highlights, but in the course of a single column Rove manages to flag Obama's "trash talking", "his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard", and the alleged fact that "he is often lazy."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063354.php

wow

kerry endorsing obama == edwards is toast?

Kerry is poison. Edwards is safe!

what slot will Bush fill in the Hillary admin? ;-D

I think that Obama probably is a bit more dovish on the whole than Hillary is.

He is. For additional evidence, look at their foreign policy advisors. Democrats who supported the Iraq War and who generally have a more hawkish view of the use of U.S. military power dot HRC's advisory team. Democrats who opposed the Iraq War and who generally have a more tempered view of the use of U.S. military power dot Obama's advisory team. I linked to some of the articles making this point on the old thread.

the way i said it made the link sound tenuous, but dick durbin has been a huge obama advocate - he was going door to door talking to people in NH for him - and he was one of the senates 23 senators voting against it

they're also from the same state

So's Hillary.

durbin is actually a representative here

durbin started the "draft ('draft') obama" movement

but ok

my man George Miller has come out for O, considered a signifier of where Pelosi's sympathies lie

Brand Hillary - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4114520&page=1

i just misread the Edmund Hillary RIP thread title. hmnn...

xpost

As with his endorsement of Lieberman in '06...

Apparently Ned Lamont disagrees with your assessment...

rove is a despicable human being, but.. are "trash talking" and "playing pickup basketball" really offensive racial code?

he's saying that O, like Harold Ford before him, isn't really like that nice, clean-living JC Watts. he's calling him a Sprewell, rather than a Grant Hill (who's endorsed O, btw, even tho his mom once roomed with C). the people who like that sort of thing can come up with the bad words on their own, just like the people who get off on his calling O "prissy." but I dunno, maybe we should give karl rove the benefit of the doubt, you know?

rove is a despicable human being, but.. are "trash talking" and "playing pickup basketball" really offensive racial code?

Yes, it is.

dont forget "lazy"