2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7160 of them)

sriracha for asian food, obv

Hurting 2, Thursday, 28 February 2008 05:28 (eighteen years ago)

Sriracha + cider vinegar = perfect pepper sauce for peas or greens. No need for making any more of that stuff ever.

Rock Hardy, Thursday, 28 February 2008 05:29 (eighteen years ago)

damnit it's midnight and you're making me want some greens

Hurting 2, Thursday, 28 February 2008 05:30 (eighteen years ago)

Try the sriracha + vinegar, I'm more OTM than nabisco, srsly.

Rock Hardy, Thursday, 28 February 2008 05:32 (eighteen years ago)

Middle Tennessee State poll: McCain beats Obama in TN, but leads Clinton under 50%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/27/mtsu_poll_clinton_stronger_than_obama_in_tennessee.html

gabbneb, Thursday, 28 February 2008 05:53 (eighteen years ago)

Dang, this McCain bio they're running on MSNBC right now is pretty harrowing...especially the French documentary footage inside the Hanoi Hilton.

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 28 February 2008 06:41 (eighteen years ago)

z-post

As a former Tennessee resident, I can tell you that outside of Nashville and Memphis, the state is about as red as states can get.

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 28 February 2008 06:42 (eighteen years ago)

btw dudes obama rally tonight was awesome

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:28 (eighteen years ago)

Can I ask another stupid European question? What is the point of these rallies? Only people who are already going to vote for the candidate in question are there, right?

StanM, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:39 (eighteen years ago)

(apologies to other Europeans who aren't stupid)

StanM, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:40 (eighteen years ago)

they are

a) fundraisers
b) to motivate people to vote
c) to scare up support

remy bean, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:42 (eighteen years ago)

Only people who are already going to vote for the candidate in question are there, right?

Not necessarily. In the bubble of Pol Junkies I'd forgotten that to a large national audience Obama is still an unknown figure. I overheard a half-dozen or so saying they were excited about the rally, but a lot more saying that they 'didn't really know much about him, but wanna check it out anyway. It looks like a big deal.' I get the sense from the rally that a lot of those people, who walked in largely unaware of O's Big Hope persona thing, walked out as supporters.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:47 (eighteen years ago)

Cool, thx! I wouldn't think about going to see any politician I didn't already support or at least know of speak in my hometown, but then they don't do that kind of thing over here at all.

StanM, Thursday, 28 February 2008 07:49 (eighteen years ago)

They do in some European countries. They certainly do in France - they even have a special word for it: un meeting.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 February 2008 08:49 (eighteen years ago)

Really? I thought the French hated borrowing words from English.

Tuomas, Thursday, 28 February 2008 08:51 (eighteen years ago)

they couldn't hate it if they'd never done it

roxymuzak, Thursday, 28 February 2008 08:59 (eighteen years ago)

finally saw the snl debate sketch that was some weak shit as executed.

tremendoid, Thursday, 28 February 2008 09:00 (eighteen years ago)

The French have a vast amount of words borrowed from English. They rarely mean exactly what they mean in English though.

xpost

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 February 2008 09:07 (eighteen years ago)

from informed comment:

So first came the question posed by Tim Russert and Barack Obama's answer in Tuesday evening's debate in Cleveland, which went like this according to the official transcript:

' MR. RUSSERT: . . . do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: . . . Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan. . .'

Note that Obama was simply responding to Russert's hypothetical, which assumed that the US was already out of Iraq but that in the aftermath, there was "insurrection" or "civil war." The world that Russert imagined was presumably one in which Iraq had firmed up enough for the US to get out, but then at some later time it developed substantial civil unrest. Russert was presumably attempting to find out if the Democratic candidates were adopting an isolationist position, of getting out and staying out. Obama implied that no, if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and formed a new base years from now, he would "act" in such a way as to "secure American interests." He is not an isolationist. Note that he was not specific about how exactly he would act.

So then, according to MSNBC, McCain tried to make some hay, admitting he had not actually heard Obama's exact statement.

' “…I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.” '

But Obama had not said anything of the sort. He was answering a journalist's question about the future. That McCain cannot be bothered to get the exact quote before he puts words in his opponent's mouth and makes a lot of wild, inaccurate charges, doesn't suggest he could be trusted with sensitive diplomacy or other presidential tasks.

Moreover, the allegation that he makes about there being 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' that could well take over the country is part lie and part insanity. The Sunni Arabs are no more than 20% of the Iraqi population. How could a tiny minority from within them take over the whole?

The technical definition of al-Qaeda is operatives who have sworn fealty to Usama bin Laden. There were only a few hundred of them. I doubt whether more than a handful of such individuals are in Iraq.

So there isn't any "al-Qaeda" in Iraq in the technical sense. There are "Excommunicating Holy Warriors" (Takfiri Jihadis), i.e. devotees of political Islam who are violent and willing to deploy terror for political purposes. They declare other Muslims who disagree with them "not Muslims,"-- thus the "excommunicating" bit. But there are only a few hundred foreign fighters. A small minority of Iraqis has associated with them. They don't call themselves 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' The major such group is "The Islamic State of Iraq." And to say that they have "bases" in Iraq is pretty grandiose. They have some safe houses and try to take and hold neighborhoods, so far with indifferent success.

The idea that this small minority of violent Muslim fundamentalists could take over Iraq is completely crazy. They haven't even been able to keep their toehold in Baghdad-- the Sunnis have been largely ethnically cleansed from the capital by Shiite militias.

So the Shiites would not allow an "al-Qaeda" takeover of Iraq. Neither would the Kurds. Nor would most Sunni Arabs (as in al-Anbar Province, where the Dulaim tribe is at daggers drawn with the Excommunicating Holy Warriors).

Moreover, the neighbors would not allow the radical Sunnis to take over. Iran would sit on its hands while Shiites were massacred in Baghdad? Secular Turkey would allow this development? Baathist Syria? Hashemite Jordan (which played a major role in tracking down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)?

McCain's assertions that "al-Qaeda" has a strong position in Iraq or has any chance of taking over the country if the US leaves are both inaccurate. One is an error, the other is a dark but insubstantial fantasy.

Obama replied:

'“I've got some news for John McCain, that is there was no such thing Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade.

“I've got some news for John McCain. I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war, along with George Bush that should have never been authorized, never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001. I've been paying attention John McCain!

“John McCain may like to say that he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell. But so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars and that I intend to bring to an end so that we can actually start going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan, like we should have been doing in the first place. That's the news John McCain! '

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:04 (eighteen years ago)

tl;dr or whatever right, but that was particularly satisfying for me

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:04 (eighteen years ago)

and i think showcases the kind of thinking both of them are going to display in the ge

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:05 (eighteen years ago)

I find that a really frustrating repetitive tactic on Obama's part - when other candidates question what he'll do about the war, he points out that they voted for it in the first place. At some point, that becomes irrelevant!

Maria, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

Perversely I think McCain's going to get a lot of traction with Iraq. What coherent position can Obama come up with? It will be impossible to pull out all troops any time soon, without stoking a civil war that will make 2006 seem like a picnic. As president, he'd end up forced to keep troops in a war he never agreed with. However wrong, McCain's position is more coherent: he agreed with the war, he agreed with the surge, and he's going to keep the troops there.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:09 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think it would be incoherent for Obama to keep troops in a war he never agreed with - it's just practical. It's not like he can time travel and stop the war if elected president. I think he could quite coherently say the war was a mistake that he was against, and he'll bring a different philosophy to the White House, without advocating total withdrawal. But he's not! So you're right, McCain is going to get a lot of traction with this.

Maria, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:15 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think it would be incoherent for Obama to keep troops in a war he never agreed with

Perhaps not incoherent, but a very difficult message to enunciate: "This war was a futile mistake, but we're going to go on fighting" will not exactly stir either the pro- or anti-war constituencies.

Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:30 (eighteen years ago)

"This war did not need to be fought. But we now have a responsibility to the people of Iraq and to our own citizens who have sacrificed so much to leave Iraq better than we found it."

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:52 (eighteen years ago)

"This war did not need to be fought. But we now have a responsibility to the people of Iraq and to our own citizens who have sacrificed so much to leave Iraq better than we found it."

This is pretty much the line taken by every politician in Britain at the moment, and most people seem to agree with it.

onimo, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

So are the permanent bases that are being built going to be abandoned and the confiscated oil wells given back to Iraq? Nice!

StanM, Thursday, 28 February 2008 13:00 (eighteen years ago)

"confiscated" makes them sound like yo-yos that'll be given back after class.

onimo, Thursday, 28 February 2008 13:03 (eighteen years ago)

what's great about the "leave iraq better than we found it" line is that it can be adopted by anyone, agreed to by everyone, and leaves the door open to install a puppet dictator who will cut sweetheart deals for american oil companies while keeping russia and china out

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 28 February 2008 13:23 (eighteen years ago)

Iraq: Take Only PIctures, Leave Only Footprints

gabbneb, Thursday, 28 February 2008 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

Dr. Halperin hooks the candidates up to the Dole-ometer - http://thepage.time.com/mccain-clinton-or-obama/

gabbneb, Thursday, 28 February 2008 14:01 (eighteen years ago)

Bloomberg's non-campaign ends.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:10 (eighteen years ago)

Bloomberg for VEEP?

Ed, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:11 (eighteen years ago)

more like treasury secretary

jhøshea, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

its werid my mental image of hillary doesnt look like this - then in pictures she always looks like this

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_clinton_ohio_080228_ms.jpg

its cause this is a put on no?

jhøshea, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

say it b4, say it again

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/9813/blackholesunag2.jpg

m bison, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:25 (eighteen years ago)

This has been troubling me all day:

If Obama was asked 'Boxers or Briefs?' was Hillary asked if she wore a Thong?

More disturbing than troubling.

Ed, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:26 (eighteen years ago)

She clearly wears one of those remote control vibrating butterfly things - every time Bill pushes the button you see that weird smile on her face.

StanM, Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

as a lurker i would like to note that daria was right

thomp, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

well, i have to say this has been a notable lapse

deej, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_clinton_ohio_080228_ms.jpg

"Oh thank you for coming. Yes, he was such a good man and we'll all miss him so. No, I'll call you soon."

Pleasant Plains, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

lol

Mark Clemente, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

daria was right about what?

i think she caught a lot of really egregious shit on this thread, btw

gff, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

as a lurker i would like to note that daria was right

?

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

People wouldn't have been as dickish to her if she hadn't put on fucking horse blinders for 80000 posts.

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

She clearly wears one of those remote control vibrating butterfly things - every time Bill pushes the button you see that weird smile on her face.

-- StanM, Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:28 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

deej, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

i think daria got the shit she deserved, but you tards getting all kenan on this thread about hillary are making it harder to justify telling daria shes loco

deej, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

^^^this

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:56 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfslim/2295439206/

daria-g, Thursday, 28 February 2008 17:17 (eighteen years ago)


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.