2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

Bill Clinton: NEVER MET THE WOMAN

obama spends every christmas in hawaii

DOES HE PLAY TINO'S BREAKS FOR HOLIDAY CHEER?!?

xp lol

Obama: “If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can’t meet with some half-baked dictator is ridiculous.”

POW

oh snap

ZINGBAMA!

The guy's got oomph.

In a couple of months I'm going to the wedding of the daughter of a former Republican candidate for President. It's at their place in the mountains, a massive, multistory mansion with sauna and jacuzzi. They always call it "the cabin".

lamar alexander?

whos daughter is it tell us

And like every other time I hang out with them, I am going to avoid discussing politics assiduously.

balls I will not be drawn but your guess is very good.

Obama: “If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can’t meet with some half-baked dictator is ridiculous.”

Yeah, but the reason why you don't meet with half-baked dictators is because you don't want to boost their prestige at home and around the world. Meeting with the President of the US is considered a mark of importance. Everyone accepted that China and the USSR were important international actors to be taken seriously.

and venezuela and iran aren't? if we can blow billions propping up mubarek we can sit at a table w/ iran even if it's just to say yah trick yah.

Bush just met with the king of Bahrain

That's a good point, o. nate, but not one to be overly rigid about, especially if other tactics aren't working.

yeah pretending that ahmadinejad is the next hitler really knocked him down a peg didn't it

oh never mind kim jong il he's just a quirky guy w/ weapons capable of hitting Hawaii/ West Coast USA.

i.e. we meet with nations based on their importance TO US, and Iran and Venezuela are important to us

I mean has anyone been able to explain what this supposed "importance" that Ahmadinejad would gain by meeting with our president would actually translate to on the world stage? How would the sheer fact of such a meeting actually translate to any change in Ahmadinejad's standing in the world?

I just figured out who balls is.

Yeah, but the reason why you don't meet with half-baked dictators is because you don't want to boost their prestige at home and around the world. Meeting with the President of the US is considered a mark of importance. Everyone accepted that China and the USSR were important international actors to be taken seriously.

-- o. nate, Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:53 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

verbatim from 'the west wing'!!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/new_poll_shows_no_imbalance_in.php

When the analysis is limited to those who identify themselves as Democrats, just 20% of Obama supporters say they would not vote for Clinton in the fall, and 25% of Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama.

This is some bullshit. What are these people thinking?

This was good too, from the same fundraiser at Credit Suisse offices. Team HRC had criticized this move.

"The American people are tired of the sniping from the Clinton campaign, both real and imagined," said Jen Psaki, Obama's traveling press secretary. "Today's event was a general fundraiser in a room paid for by our campaign and attended by people from varied backgrounds who are committed to changing the tone of our politics-and rejecting the kind of tactics that the Clinton campaign is now embracing...Any suggestion that this was a fundraiser hosted by the mortgage industry is as imaginary as the other tall tales that have been coming out of the Clinton campaign lately."

Obama: “If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can’t meet with some half-baked dictator is ridiculous.”

This argument is completely flawed and conjuring Yalta or Hangzhou is a disservice to Senator Obama because the history simply does not support his claim.

Vienna however does more for his argument but I would wager most historians would argue this was a mistake for President Kennedy and it intensified Premier Khrushchev anti-American rhetoric which likely intensified the cold war.

Everyone accepted that China and the USSR were important international actors to be taken seriously.

this is bullshit. any bio of Mao will tell you that his whole reason for meeting with the US was NOT because he was an "important int'l actor", but because he desperately craved to be seen as such. In fact, China at the time was broke and largely considered a joke and a pariah by both non-Communist and Communist countries alike. Nixon went to China and inexplicably caved into all of Mao's demands and walked away with nothing in return, except for the marginal uptick in his own political profile.

no dont you see nixon "opened up china" so we can fund their ongoing program of tibetan killing

I wouldn't put it past Kissinger.

^^^ fo realz

In both cases, considering the long term goal of winning the Cold War (in the ideological sense of making Communism look less inevitable and less attractive), they ended up playing to our advantage.

In any case, it seems to me that with both Venezuela and Iran that we are actually STRENGTHENING the hardline anti-US elements in those countries by refusing to talk to them. Ahmadinejad has actually gained standing, in some senses, from our refusal to talk to him .

In any case, it seems to me that with both Venezuela and Iran that we are actually STRENGTHENING the hardline anti-US elements in those countries by refusing to talk to them. Ahmadinejad has actually gained standing, in some senses, from our refusal to talk to him .

No he hasn’t. His unpopularity has only intensified in the last year in Iran and abroad. The same can be said about President Chávez.

The current American stance of ‘wait and see’ is probably the correct strategy for relations with both countries. They will likely both fall apart in the near future as long as the United States does not pursue the carrot or the stick.

Hurting OTM. Not talking to him gave him some leverage to play the aggrieved non-Western nation card. If you take that away, or some of it, the inane and extreme stuff that Ahmedinejad says would stand out more.

Mr. G, as long as the POTUS doesn't waste a lot of time with them, it's more to our advantage especially since s/he would be under no obligation to agree to any of their wackiness. Just talking to them makes us look less like dicks.

dude Goodman where do you come up with this crap (a la Hillary's gonna win Colorado! etc)

Any popularity Ahmadinejad has/had comes primarily from his oppostition to us. I think if our whole approach to the middle-east had been less hard-line and bullying, he likely never even would have been elected.

As for Chavez's popularity waning, I'm not entirely convinced.

Point me to a group of people who have become more sympathetic toward President Ahmadinejad since he notched up the rhetoric. Even Iran’s closest Arab allies still see Iran as a failed state on the brink of internal disaster.

dude Goodman where do you come up with this crap (a la Hillary's gonna win Colorado! etc)

I said Sentator Clinton would be more likely to win Colorado than Senator Obama not that she would win. Actually, I believe I was clear on saying that neither will win.

closest Arab allies

Who? Syria? And who else?

Point me to a group of people who have become more sympathetic toward President Ahmadinejad since he notched up the rhetoric.

Rural Iranians - i.e., Ahmedinijad's voting base

haha M I was just about to say that... I guess Russia is technically an "ally"?

Venezuelans

Mr. G, as long as the POTUS doesn't waste a lot of time with them, it's more to our advantage especially since s/he would be under no obligation to agree to any of their wackiness. Just talking to them makes us look less like dicks.

Michael, personally, at least on less cynical days I agree with you.

Actually, even on the most cynical of days I would argue that there are a number of states that we should interact with whom we have not in the recent past for whatever but Iran and Venezuela are two that I find to be a hard pill to swallow. However, I’m open to the suggestion but largely skeptical.

The current American stance of ‘wait and see’ is probably the correct strategy for relations with both countries. They will likely both fall apart in the near future as long as the United States does not pursue the carrot or the stick.

The US is actively trying to undermine both Chavez and Ahmadinejad with espionage and by funding their enemies. It's hardly a "wait and see" strategy in either case.

Venezuelans

lol

Just like the rhtoric that we use against Castro has strengthened his hand with Cubans who otherwise know that something's not working there. Patriotism may be the last (or first as some would have it) refuge of a scoundrel, but it's still a powerful force, especially for those that feel aggrieved.

Ahmedinejad's unpopularity has as much to do with rationing and getting rid of gas subsidies as anything.

I've alway assumed that balls was bl0un7, am i wrong?

Yeah, no, that was my guess.