US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't think age is the problem, Ivan - it's ignorance. McCain repeated those untruths several times over the course of days. His grasp of the sociology and history of the Middle East is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, by painting Iran as the region's bad guys, he gives Bush and Cheney more cover for their wish to attack Iran. I really don't want McCain to succeed Bush, because I don't expect that his foreign policy will be an improvement.

Is that a commonality amongst American politicians, or at least presidential candidates? I wonder? How are Clinton and Obama on history and sociology of the ME? Could this be more spin, is he more aware than perhaps his comments let on? After all a significant proportion of Republican voters probably believe that Al-Qaeda are responsible for most of the violence in the ME, instead of a series of autonomous groups. It's true to say though that with the advent of the internet and other technologies, these groups are far less autonomous than they used to be. But even so some are actually radically opposed to each other. The Iranians and the Sunni insurgents for example, don't exactly share a very good history. Neither do the Taliban and the Iranians, or certain Mujahadeen. Although there certainly are links between Iran and Hezbollah, though how far they go I'm not sure. And let's look at the 60 or so terrorist groups to see who they share ties with. It's a bit of a morass to be frank.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is that a commonality amongst American politicians, or at least presidential candidates? I wonder? How are Clinton and Obama on history and sociology of the ME?

I doubt either of them could be as ignorant as McCain has made himself look. But in general, I notice a weakness in global socio-political awareness. I remember one of the Democratic debates when Hillary was asked about Dmitry Medvedev, and while she got his name right, she really struggled to pronounce it. How can Americans be some ignorant about the most common Russian names? Hasn't anyone read Sun Tzu here?

Could this be more spin, is he more aware than perhaps his comments let on? After all a significant proportion of Republican voters probably believe that Al-Qaeda are responsible for most of the violence in the ME, instead of a series of autonomous groups.

He has to be aware that an intentional spin on this would not get past the press.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I doubt either of them could be as ignorant as McCain has made himself look. But in general, I notice a weakness in global socio-political awareness. I remember one of the Democratic debates when Hillary was asked about Dmitry Medvedev, and while she got his name right, she really struggled to pronounce it. How can Americans be some ignorant about the most common Russian names? Hasn't anyone read Sun Tzu here?

The Sun is a comic more than a Newspaper, if its in The Sun it's either false or it's a slow news week and it's false. However for a change I suspect they are right. I blame the education system. I hate to make generalisations but in my experience, only well educated Americans seem to be aware of the ME, and it's complicated history and even then only those who interest themselves in politics rather than running for government, if you see what I mean. Oh sorry you meant Sun Tzu. hehe just my little joke. Maybe they should of taken the words the enemy of my enemy is my friend on board when Iran offered to help the US fight the Taliban? Mutual enemies... To be honest if they had they wouldn't actually be at war with Iraq without the approval of the UNSC.

Every blade of grass, every bird in flight is significant to the wise leader.

keep your friends close your enemies closer

Sun Tzu.

Still very apt today.

Haven't read the whole thing but its quotes litter the internet. So if you hang around long enough in the interweb ether you pick it up.

He has to be aware that an intentional spin on this would not get past the press.

True, good point. But then that leads to the question how many Republican voters take notice of the press, and how many fox news, or other? But yeah I guess it seems like a gaff under that light.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, it was all over the news during his ME trip. I thought that everybody had heard these gaffes by now. At one point, Lieberman stepped into correct him, but that certainly should not have been necessary. ...

"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda. I am sorry," the Arizona senator said.

Yes, ok as you say a gaffe. Its certainly not something 'he believes'.

 

[mheslep]

...when any reasonably well-informed person knows that AQI is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the violence.

There's very good arguments that AQI was the primer cord that ignited much of the other violence e.g. the golden dome attack. Whether or not AQI gets the credit is arguable; there's no question it was there intention.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

There's very good arguments that AQI was the primer cord that ignited much of the other violence e.g. the golden dome attack. Whether or not AQI gets the credit is arguable; there's no question it was there intention.

To be frank though saying they are the primer cord is false, there were a myriad of groups there before, if anything was the primer cord it has been Western influence in the ME since 1914. The groups are the natural result of kicking bees nests without caring which species of bees you upset, for the reason of - let's face it - oil and economics and political clout. We can see a logical path from oil being discovered in the ME, to WWII where it was the be all and end all to the modern era. And lead Germany to gain oil fields in the ME then lose them and turn to using coal to make oil, the British, and allies, the manipulation of treaties and so on. It's a rich complicated history that revolves around not caring who you upset and why.

If you really know the history, it's a morass of hypocrisy, lies and diplomatic wrangling, where the West lit the touch paper.

I doubt most people are aware of the half of it.

 

[turbo]

Yes, ok as you say a gaffe. Its certainly not something 'he believes'.

Unfortunately, it appears that he did believe it, as he repeated it several times in different settings over a period of days. He said that it is "common knowledge". Who in their right mind would believe that Iranian Shiite mullahs would train Sunni militants, then ship them back to Iraq to kill Shiites? That is absolutely ridiculous, and it points to a fundamental ignorance about the political/military dynamics in that area of the world. You'd think that a presidential candidate would take great pains to be educated/briefed on at least the fundamentals, seeing that we have troops trying to ride herd on a civil war between these two groups.

 

[Astronuc]

There's very good arguments that AQI was the primer cord that ignited much of the other violence e.g. the golden dome attack. Whether or not AQI gets the credit is arguable; there's no question it was there intention.

Actually there are very poor arguements that AQI (Musab al-Zarqawi's group) is the primer cord. The insurgency began in June '83 with Bremer's order to dismiss and disband the Iraqi army. They had no money and no possibilities - except to fight the occupying foreign forces. This has been well documented and the Bush administration still denies it.

al Zarqawi's group became aligned with bin Laden's al Qaida in late 2004, about 16 months after the insurgency began.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, ok as you say a gaffe. Its certainly not something 'he believes'.

I don't know what belief has to do with anything here. But McCain claiming he misspoke about Iran-al Qaeda carries about as much conviction as Clinton claiming she misspoke about Bosnia. You can slip up once, but you can't slip up twice or thrice about the same thing and call it a "slip up". Only difference between Clinton and McCain: Clinton knew she was wrong!

 

[turbo]

Only difference between Clinton and McCain: Clinton knew she was wrong!

Clinton knew she was flat-out lying! At least McCain can take shelter under ignorance rather than mendacity, if he would like to come off as stupid instead of dishonest.

 

[mheslep]

Actually there are very poor arguements that AQI (Musab al-Zarqawi's group) is the primer cord. The insurgency began in June '83 with Bremer's order to dismiss and disband the Iraqi army. They had no money and no possibilities - except to fight the occupying foreign forces. This has been well documented and the Bush administration still denies it.

al Zarqawi's group became aligned with bin Laden's al Qaida in late 2004, about 16 months after the insurgency began.

Yes 'primer' is poor choice, I didn't mean AQI started the early insurgency, but that his group was responsible for a huge up swing in the violence. W/ regards to alignment in '04, that is incorrect per this and numerous other sources.
http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2006/06/10/iraq-a-timeline-of-abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

...
February 22, 2006: Armed gunmen affiliated with al-Zarqawi’s group blow up the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a sacred site to Iraq Shi’a. The attack sets off days of intense sectarian violence across Iraq.
...
April 2002: Al-Zarqawi leaves Iran and enters Iraq.

December 2001: Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi flees to Iran.

2000: Al-Zarqawi sets up an Al-Qaeda training camp near the western Afghan city of Herat.

1999: Al-Zarqawi is freed from jail under amnesty granted by Jordanian King Abdullah shortly after he took office. Al-Zarqawi travels via Pakistan to Afghanistan, where he joins up with Al-Qaeda.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes 'primer' is poor choice, I didn't mean AQI started the early insurgency, but that his group was responsible for a huge up swing in the violence. W/ regards to alignment in '04, that's false.
http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2006/06/10/iraq-a-timeline-of-abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

I don't see anything that clearly falsifies what Astro was saying, but if anything, the phrase "joins up with al Qaeda" is misleading.

I'm going to go linkless now, out of laziness, and summarize what I've gotten from varied readings (primarily FAS and/or Globalsecurity).

First off, Zarqawi was essentially a rival to bin Laden, though not an enemy by any stretch, during the 80s. When he went back to Afghanistan after his stint in Germany, he set up base near the Afghan-Iran border and had his own training camp there. During this time, he established contacts with bin Laden but still maintained his own operation some 300 odd miles away.

When he came to Kurdish-occupied Iraq, he did not come there as a part of AQ. He joined with Ansar al Islam in their fight against Kurdish warlords, to set up Sharia-based settlements in Kurdistan. He had no operational ties with Saddam, and the Baathists are thought to have attempted, several times, to infiltrate Ansar. And it was only in late 2004 that he actually merged with bin Laden's AQ.

(links provided upon request, I'm too tired now to go digging)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone else watch the McLaughlin Group tonight? Even the likes of Pat Buchanan and Monica Crowley were virtually gushing over Obama! I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in the 20+ years that I've been watching the show.

Re Nader, Eleanor Cliff cited a cartoon in which an aging Ralph Nader is seen along with the caption: "Unsafe at any speed".

 

[russ_watters]

I doubt either of them could be as ignorant as McCain has made himself look.

Well Hillary, at the very least, has proven herself to be quite ignorant of the events of her own life!

 

[Poop-Loops]

No no no, there is a HUGE difference between ignorance and a flat out lie. I think it's safe to say McCain just had his facts confused, or just didn't know them in the first place. But Hillary damn well knew what she was doing. You don't attempt to prove that you are "leader material" by saying you went to Bosnia and an 8-year-old girl was already there ready to read a poem. Oh, and you brought your only child along.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, McCain was confused and Hillary was lying. Combine the two and we get Bush!

Who wins? Obama.

 

[turbo]

Yes, McCain was confused and Hillary was lying. Combine the two and we get Bush!

Hillary for VP! (on the GOP ticket) She's damaging the Democratic party's chances in the general election by doing her best to make Obama look unelectable. If she hijacks the superdelegates and pulls off a Dem nomination, look for mass defections to McCain and four more years of an expensive and futile war that is wrecking our all-volunteer military.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I see Buchanan and Crowley gushing over Obama I know that anything is possible! I expect that sort of thing from Cliff, but Crowley?!

Obama might just be the next President.

 

[turbo]

Only anecdotal, but my sister-in-law called yesterday after watching Obama on "The View". She's very excited about his candidacy and it seems like she's going to vote Democratic in the general election for the first time in her life. She called to see how to access streaming video of that show on the Internet so she could convert her husband, too.

 

[turbo]

I just read a pretty decent article by Eric Deggans, the gist of which was "Why didn't journalists who accompanied Clinton to Bosnia point out that 'evasive maneuvers, sniper fire, running for cover' etc were all lies?" Why was it a comedian with a seemingly dead career who had to point this out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-deggans/why-did-it-take-sinbad-to_b_93972.html

CBS's Sharyl Attkisson, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, and former MTV News reporter Tabitha Soren were all on the trip, and they knew that Clinton's description of the situation was a pack of lies. Why didn't at least one of them speak up before Sinbad let the cat out of the bag? What happened to journalistic integrity? Does it get tossed when you want access to the candidate whose veracity you should be examining?

 

[Astronuc]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

. . . .

"What got me about Hillary was her attitude of entitlement, like he messed up her plan, like he had no reason to be there," Sinbad said. "I got angry. I actually got angry! I said, 'I will be for Obama like never before.'"

. . . .

The Clinton campaign doesn't seem amused by Sinbad's commentary or his recollection of the 1996 Bosnia trip as more depressing than harrowing.

Defending Clinton's characterization of her Bosnia mission, campaign spokesman Phil Singer kindly provided experts from news stories written about the trip at the time, including a Washington Post story from May 26, 1996, that said, "This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

The operative word in the last sentence is "potential" as in "well it could be". I don't imagine the Clinton campaign is happy about any contradiction of their fantasies.

Well think about this - without Obama, we'd have a choice of Clinton or McCain - which seems a lot like Bush vs Gore, or Bush vs Kerry.

With Obama, the US has a viable third alternative - and Obama may be the best choice overall.

 

[Gokul43201]

"This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

No, it wasn't. Pat Nixon made a trip to 'Nam in '69.

 

[Poop-Loops]

History wins again!

 

[turbo]

Obama is ahead in the popular vote, states won, and in pledged delegates, and the results in Texas last weekend bolstered him even more. The only way that Clinton could overtake him is a mass exodus to her by the Superdelegates, overriding the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses.

Why is this unlikely? Many of these Superdelegates are going to be on the ballot next November. Why should they back a presidential candidate with such high negatives, when they could back a candidate who has proven his ability to motivate voters, and build a grass-roots movement to bring new voters (many of them young) to the polls? I can't imagine a Congressional candidate (even a "safe" incumbent) or Senatorial candidate that would not want to benefit from a fresh infusion of progressive voters. Also, if these Superdelegates hail from a state that went strongly to Obama, and they support Clinton, they may be on the receiving end of some backlash from their constituents who would (rightly) feel disenfranchised.

Unless Bill and Hill have some serious dirt on them, the Superdelegates are going to look out for their own best interests and support the candidate that can boost Dem attendance in the general election, and possibly prompt a good many Independents to help give a new Democratic president a stronger filibuster-proof Senate and a loyal progressive House. By this metric, the Clinton campaign is already over. The remaining question is how long will she stay in the race to try to make Obama look unelectable?

 

[Gokul43201]

By this metric, the Clinton campaign is already over. The remaining question is how long will she stay in the race to try to make Obama look unelectable?

The one remaining "metric" is the scandal metric. Another Wright could destroy Obama...or maybe even the same one making a comeback. You wonder why Hillary has suddenly become chummy with the vast right wing conspiracy?

 

[Astronuc]

I remember a comment a couple of years or so ago, that Rupert Murdoch (FOX) had become a good friend of the Clinton's.

One of my very conservative colleagues who tends to vote Republican considers McCain and Clinton to be in the same boat.

 

[Gokul43201]

What's interesting is that while many people consider the fringe inhabiting Dems and Reps to be essentially woven of the same authoritarianist-corporatist cloth, it seems just as arguable that their in-party rivals, the other fringe inhabiting libertarians (like Gravel and Paul), are also birds of a feather.

PS: Gravel's back, as a Libertarian hopeful. Will he have to fight Paul for that ticket?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama continues to chip away at Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday showed.

The New York senator's lead over Obama now stands at 6 points in the new poll, 50-44 percent. [continued]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/democrats.pennsylvania/?iref=mpstoryview

 

[WheelsRCool]

I think I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch donated money to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I would not vote for any of the candidates but unfortunately they are the only choices, in my opinion a Left-leaning Republican, a solid Democrat (Hillary), and what seems a socialist (Obama) with questionable loyalty issues.

 

[Gokul43201]

Question: Does the 22nd Amendment put any restrictions on an ex-President running/serving as VP?

 

[BobG]

Question: Does the 22nd Amendment put any restrictions on an ex-President running/serving as VP?

Yes. The Vice President has to be eligible to be President. Between the 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, 25th Amendment, and the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, the Vice President has the same eligibility requirements as the President, since the main duty of the Vice President is to succeed the President if he/she dies. (Others in the line of Presidential succession are just skipped if they're not eligible since they have actual jobs separate from succeeding the President).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes. The Vice President has to be eligible to be President. Between the 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, 25th Amendment, and the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, the Vice President has the same eligibility requirements as the President, since the main duty of the Vice President is to succeed the President if he/she dies. (Others in the line of Presidential succession are just skipped if they're not eligible since they have actual jobs separate from succeeding the President).

Where does the Constitution specifically exclude a former President from running as VP?

The only stipulation is that a person can only be elected as President twice. I see nothing that would prevent a former President from running as a Vice President.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...

Why do you ask, Gokul? Is McCain planning to ask Bush to run as his VP?

 

[Poop-Loops]

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-767929.jpg

He has his eyes closed and everything.

 

[BobG]

Where does the Constitution specifically exclude a former President from running as VP?

The only stipulation is that a person can only be elected as President twice. I see nothing that would prevent a former President from running as a Vice President.



Why do you ask, Gokul? Is McCain planning to ask Bush to run as his VP?

A former President isn't prevented from running as Vice President. They just have to be eligible to be elected President. Both Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush could be Vice President.

Relying on a single word, "elected", isn't going to provide much of a loop-hole since the intent is clear. It's the equivalent of the argument that the income tax is unconstitutional since the copy of the amendments that were voted on by the states weren't identical to each other (in fact, in the old days, it was virtually assured that every copy of any amendment voted on by the states would have some differences between the versions).

And, technically, a person doesn't actually have to be eligible in order to be elected. They just have to be eligible in order to serve. For example, if a Presidential candidate were a natural born citizen, but had lived most of their life overseas, they might have resided in the United States for less than 14 years. They could still be elected, but the Vice President would serve as President until the elected President had met the 14 year requirement.

 

[Art]

From the 12th Amendment

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Guess that rules out Bill