Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[miyi]

After Clinton's RFK comment, I think her VP chances are slim. Unless Obama is willing to let that slide.

 

[lordHokage]

After Clinton's RFK comment, I think her VP chances are slim. Unless Obama is willing to let that slide.

I agree, Senator Clinton and her beloved husband are making to many mistakes for the VP post.

 

[miyi]

The obsession floating around right now in the mainstream media about Senator Barack Obama, being the first African American Presidential candidate to clinch the nomination in a major political party, raises an important question.

While I congratulate Senator Obama, like most Americans do, for having gotten this far, why the obligatory mention and emphasis placed on his "race"?

As a big fan of sports, and being a hardcore fan of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I hardly notice the fact that they are African Americans, because what I admire about them is what they can do. And whenever a sports commentator makes an obligatory mention saying something along the lines of, "the first African American to break this record", and so on, I wonder why it's so necessary and so politically correct.

I think most young Americans think in a similar vain, and this pluralistic and tolerant culture can be attributed to the fact that we've been exposed to so many cultures from around the world, the internet, mass media, TV and music.

It's often the older generation that think in terms of "race", feeling an urgent need to make a political commentary about the issue of "race" and how far we've progressed.

This is understandable, having themselves experienced and witnessed the evolution of such progress, and having grown up in the 60's and 70's.

The irony, however, is that the longer we are fixated on this notion of "race" and "identity", far from achieving a color-blind society, what we are actually perpetuating is this notion that we are all inherently different, and a sense of "separatism" that seeps into our consciousness and proud of being "different", which creates more division than it is unifying.

We should celebrate, indeed, that Obama has been allowed as "equal" of an opportunity deserving to all American citizen to run for the Presidential office.

But at the same time, we should not forget that we are judging him not by his racial identity, but by his merits, because it's his policies that will impact the world, and that's what ultimately matters. Focusing on identities, instead of commonness, tends to divide...and the mainstream media seems to be doing a lot of that, lately.

---

ok, having congratulated Obama and all that, it's back to the usual assault on Obama....

first order of business:

Ex-Obama Fund-Raiser ['Tony' Rezko] Is Convicted of Fraud

---

Obama says Iraq War weakens Israel

Posted June 4, 2008 10:12 AM
The Swamp

by Mike Dorning

In his first foreign policy speech of the general election campaign, Barack Obama went before the most influential pro-Israel lobbying organization to declare the security of the Jewish state "sacrosanct" and make the case that his Republican opponent's policies would strengthen its enemies.

A day after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama, an early opponent of the Iraq War, argued that Republican rival John McCain's support for a sustained war effort in Iraq would only bolster neighboring Iran's ability to threaten Israel.

"Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran," Obama said. "I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it is precisely what has strengthened it."

Obama also defended his professed willingness to hold talks with pariah regimes including Iran in his speech before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause," Obama said. "If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council."

Obama also pledged to support $30 billion in U.S. aid to Israel over the next decade and a change in export controls so that arms and military technology can be transferred to Israel on the same terms as are available to NATO allies.

Democratic rival Hillary Clinton is due to follow him on the stage shortly.


ok, let me just get this straight....so, being in Iraq have bolstered al Qaida and Iran, and have made them bigger threats to Israel..

but he also said, in another place (in a non-Jewish crowd), that Iran is only a "tiny" threat.

Two exactly different messages, two very different crowd.


This isn't the first time Obama has done this doublespeak circus act.

One that comes to mind was when he was speaking in San Francisco, talking about the people of Ohio and Pennsylvania, of how they have become "bitter", so they cling to "religion" and "guns".


The point is...Obama will doublespeak, to win votes. He'll say what the crowd wants to hear, and he'll tweak the messages in different places that he goes. In short, he is as dishonest as most ordinary politician.

With all the promises of "change" and "hope", I understand now why he speaks with little substance...being as vague as possible gives him flexibility...to allow for message-tweaking for different audiences.

---

You have to wonder, why are so many of Obama's supporters so unabashedly uncritical of him when he continues to make false, misinformed, and misleading claims about the current situation in Iraq?

Peter Wehner here does a very good job of dissecting Obama's factually bankrupt speeches that very few are bold enough to call him on.


The only exception to this rule is one Obama supporter, Andrew Sullivan, who is at least intellectually honest enough to acknowledge what is fact, and he makes an astute observation about Obama:

if Obama blindly insists nothing has changed, has no interest in reality on the ground, refuses to hear dissent, and does not acknowledge the surprising progress that has occurred there recently ... he would be George W. Bush in reverse.

---

In other news, I want this man as Mccain's running mate:

touted as the future of the GOP, Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal...this guy actually has done a remarkable job with the reconstruction efforts of post-Katrina Lousiana, and fought corruption...he's young, smart, a great speaker, possibly a future President, if he keeps up with this kind of performance.


Other VP candidates I'd like:

Colin Powell
Condi Rice
Mitt Romney
Joe Lieberman

But out of those 4, I really like Powell....I've been wanting him to run for President ever since during Bill Clinton was in the White House. Well, too bad, he'd have to settle for VP for now.

 

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

Why is Israel such a big issue with american politicians? The main focus should be on the country USA.

 

[miyi]

Why is Israel such a big issue with american politicians? The main focus should be on the country USA.

But in fact, USA is the main focus. Everything else is of second level of importance.

Israel is important because they are an important Middle East ally.

Plus the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been the constant source of anti-Americanism in the Middle East for so long, and it's a sensitive issue, and a crucial one that needs to be resolved ASAP.

As long as this issue has not been settled, there's little hope of peace in the Middle East. It's the backbone of the entire region, so to speak. It's both a strength, because they bear the brunt of the fighting, but it's also a source of weakness for USA, because they're a constant target, and we do what we can to assist our ally.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, I would argue, is far more crucial than any other conflict in the Middle East, including the Iraq War.

And it's ugly. The sad thing about it is that the Palestinians suffer the most. But at the same time, it's difficult to satisfy all parties. It's a real mess, with no clear cut solutions. But it's extremely important.

Why is it important? because "Israel" and "American imperialism" are the two constantly cited reasons why there are problems in the Middle East. It's never the problem of the government to address social and economic problems at home....it's always best to blame it on Israel and America. Saddam, Ahmadenejad, Nasser, Osama bin Laden...you name it....they've all cited this conflict as the big reason to justify their hatred for all things "western". Yet they do little to bear responsibility for their own failures at governing. Of course, that's just my opinion.

America and Israel isn't perfect. We do bear part of the responsibility for causing some of this anger, but violence and terror, by groups like al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizballah, etc., are not justified. I can debate this topic in great detail that it deserves, but in another thread.

.....


In other news...

More on Obama...and his [long list of] 'associates':

Jim Johnson

 

[mrcongojack]

How is it "doublespeak" to say that, while a threat is small, it can become a worse threat? Especially since it is true. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded. Now, they have a foothold in the region. The Iraq War opened the door for Al Qaeda to come in and attain new members. And without Iraq to hold it in check, Iran has become a larger threat. Again, not as large a threat as the USSR, but larger. Maintaining an active presence in the Middle East has led to a surge in Al Qaeda membership and has led to just about every extremist movement, from Islamo-fascists to communists (yes, there are commies vying for power in Iraq. There not all that powerful in the region, but they're there).

And why should Obama vet a guy who is volunteering to help choose his running mate? If this guy was his running mate I would understand all of this hoopla, but the guy's just helping Obama narrow down the field. Johnson's just assessing the electability of the 20 or so potential running mates and is assessing how much dirt each of them has. He has done this for Kerry and Mondale as well during there campaigns. He isn't deciding policy. Heck, he hasn't even worked for Countrywide or lobbying for the mortgage companies. All this brew-haha is over the fact he got a ridiculously good loan(which, while not illegal, is shady). Besides, the guy John McCain has on this job is far worse. McCain's guy, Arthur Culvahouse, who was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and for Lockheed Martin.

All of this crap about outing lobbyists and he-said-she-said is a distraction. Let's talk about the issues. Like the economy. McCain's economic policy is a joke. He is going to do what Reagan and Bush did before him: cut taxes and increase spending, leading to an even larger deficit. He also supported the "gas tax holiday", which would take off a whopping 18 cents out of the price of gas in exchange for a large reduction in the amount of cash spent fixing up our aging infrastructure.

 

[miyi]

How is it "doublespeak" to say that, while a threat is small, it can become a worse threat?

Iran is not a small threat. Obama compares Iran as a small threat in comparison to USSR, which has an element of truth to it.

Granted, in terms of weapons capabilities, Iran pales in comparison to USSR. But here's the difference:

USSR was not stupid enough to use their weapons...they were just as afraid as we are, in short it's called: Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). I'm sure you know this.

When you deal with Islamist fanaticism, there's no such thing as thinking rationally. Everything is governed by a higher being, and what is instructed of you is [God's] will. While I'm not saying Iran as a whole are radical Islamists, they have elected a guy who is. Even Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the de facto ruler of Iran, has often criticized the Iranian President for being too aggressive in foreign policy (and even he probably thinks Ahmadenejad is even too fanatic than him).

Iran is not a small threat, because they represent the Shia Muslims throughout the entire Muslim world. Even all Sunni Arab countries are afraid of Shia Iran from becoming too powerful, and they secretly want Israel to keep Iran in check, if Iran ever becomes way too powerful.

And last, Osama bin Laden is an Islamist terrorist, and under Bill Clinton, we underestimated him and assumed he was a "small threat". Do you consider him, and what he have organized as a global network of terror, as a small threat, still? This is one guy we're talking about, and to think Iran, an entire country, is a "small threat", we'd be falling under the same trap as Bill Clinton who underestimated Osama bin Laden.

It really is amazing how Bush gets all the blame for 9/11, considering that Osama bin Laden has been active and declared War on America since 1997, and started blowing US property under Bill's term.

So when Obama makes a claim that Iran is a small threat, but when he speaks to potential Jewish voters, he then switches his speech and say they are a big threat, that is by definition "double speak".

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded.

perhaps we'll never know for sure if this assertion is correct, but under the intelligence advice available at the time, Bush had every reason to suspect and err on the side of caution.

Iraq did use WMD's during the Iran-Iraq War (the death toll of this war was about a million, I think.....hardly anyone knows about this forgotten war.....probably the most horrid war ever since World War II).

Saddam has commited mass genocide and we did nothing to stop him (you guessed it....Bill Clinton was in charge back then).

He did have WMD's at one point. After the 1991 Gulf War, we had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq under the condition that he stop his nuclear weapons program and inspectors be allowed to inspect regularly.....he disobeyed so many UN Resolutions, blocked UN Weapons inspectors several times, and leading up to pre-Iraq War of 2003, he kept violating UN Resolutions, and Bush finally ended the cease-fire agreement of 1991 claiming that Iraq had breached the contract. (So when people say we violated the UN, this is debatable. Iraq was the violator, the USA was not).

So here's some new uncovered evidence about Iraq, Saddam, and links to global terrorism, inlcuding al-Qaida.....I've cited this many times, but nobody seems to pay any attention:

Saddam's terror links, and Al-Qaida

Saddam's Terror ties

These above reports suggest that indeed, Saddam had significant ties to global terrorists, weather they were secular or Islamist or jihadist or even Al-Qaida. What we know for sure, is that Saddam, at the very least, cooperated with these groups, and keeping him in power, who knows what could have happened. It's far wiser to assume Bush was correct in removing him from power, than not. To suggest otherwise would be to say:

[1] Saddam terrorizing his own people, we will allow to happen, since we think their suffering does not affect our national interest

[2] Saddam's cooperation with other terrorist groups are not to be taken seriously, despite his past history of terrorism himself.

Now, they [Al-Qaida] have a foothold in the region. The Iraq War opened the door for Al Qaeda to come in and attain new members.

That assertion might be correct before the "troop surge", but this assertion now is moot. It does not match with current facts on the ground.

Evidence significantly indicates that violence in Iraq has been at its lowest in four years, and whenever people continue to call the Iraq War as a "civil war", it is false.

It is not a civil war anymore. The Iraqis are fighting al-Qaida, and cooperating with US troops in this effort. To suggest that there is still civil war is dishonest.

Furthermore, Al-Qaida in Iraq is weakening. What stronghold? Maybe back in 2005, but not in 2008.

Please read Al Qaida losing confidence and tacitly admitting defeat in Iraq:

Al-Qaida discusses losing Iraq

Osama bin Laden himself changing the focus from Iraq to Israel-Palestine conflict as now the main focus....another way of saying: we, the al-Qaida, have now lost in Iraq

And without Iraq to hold it [al-Qaida or Iran?] in check, Iran has become a larger threat. Again, not as large a threat as the USSR, but larger.

Iraq would not allow Iran to occupy Iraq any more than they would allow USA to occupy Iraq. They were once bitter enemies. Despite the large Shia majority in Iraq, Shia Iraqis are nationalists and would not allow neighboring Shia Iran to intervene in their affairs. Iran knows this, Iraq knows this, USA knows this.

Iran perhaps have a bigger influence in Iraq (due to Saddam's absence), but they clearly would prefer a stabilized Iraq than an unstabilized one, because the latter scenario would threaten Iran's national security, and they cannot afford any of that. They're having enough trouble pacifying their own Iranian Kurdish population as it is.

The reason Iran is interfering in Iraq's affairs, is because they have a vested interest in the region....probably economically motivated. More important, they are competing with USA for this region.

Iran supplies Shia militias in Iraq in order to disrupt USA's Iraq Reconstruction efforts. Why do they do this? To discredit USA and to paint USA as the "Great Satan"...part of their anti-US propaganda.

Iran is a bigger threat today is partly true. But equally true is that it is in both Iran and USA's best interests to stabilize Iraq, and a stabilized Iraq would at the very least, remain neutral if a future US-Iran confrontation ever occurs. Iraq wants to stay out.

Iran getting stronger has very little to do with al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden himself is a Sunni Wahhabist, not a Shia. Bin Laden is opposed to any non-Muslim and apostates. Apostates would be any Muslim who are not Muslim enough, or Wahhabist enough...and that includes Shia Iranians.

Maintaining an active presence in the Middle East has led to a surge in Al Qaeda membership and has led to just about every extremist movement, from Islamo-fascists to communists (yes, there are commies vying for power in Iraq. There not all that powerful in the region, but they're there).

Again, this is probably true in 2005, but the current trend for 2008 is that worldwide, the Muslim world is turning against Al-Qaida, and have been cracking down on terrorists more seriously and effectively more than ever.

Here's the latest in the NYTimes, suggesting that in Asia, they have made significant gains in cracking down on Terrorists, further signs of Al-Qaida weakening, and moderate Muslims finally having the backbone to rise to the challenge of fighting terrorists that have damaged Islam's reputation and have held them hostage in all these years. It's about time.


One last thing about Iraq before switching the topic back to Obama...

We assume that fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan/Pakistan region would have been far easier, right?

Why would anyone assume that, in the first place?

Where the war is fought does not make any difference at all. It just so happens that when we fought in Iraq, al-Qaida followed.

To assume that al-Qaida would have been easier prey had we fought in Afghanistan/Pakistan, rather than Iraq, shows little understanding we have of this enemy.

al-Qaida is unique, in that they are highly de-centralized, and highly mobile. They are elusive. Where we fight them, does not make any difference, whatsoever. The difficulty in defeating them remains unchanged, regardless of location.

This blogger explains this far better than I can:

One Way or Another, We Were Going to Have that War with al Qaeda

---

And why should Obama vet a guy who is volunteering to help choose his running mate? If this guy was his running mate I would understand all of this hoopla, but the guy's just helping Obama narrow down the field. Johnson's just assessing the electability of the 20 or so potential running mates and is assessing how much dirt each of them has. He has done this for Kerry and Mondale as well during there campaigns. He isn't deciding policy. Heck, he hasn't even worked for Countrywide or lobbying for the mortgage companies. All this brew-haha is over the fact he got a ridiculously good loan(which, while not illegal, is shady). Besides, the guy John McCain has on this job is far worse. McCain's guy, Arthur Culvahouse, who was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and for Lockheed Martin.

All this means is that, Obama is caught in another predicament that he shouldn't have been in in the first place. He continues to make these blunders that, apparently every politicians are prone to. But Obama makes himself appear perfect....he is not.

Let's talk about the issues. Like the economy. McCain's economic policy is a joke.

Has anyone heard about Obama's only accomplishment as an Illinois Senator?

Obama came up with a bill cleverly called as: "The Global Poverty Act"

Some things to know about this bill:

It will make USA subservient to the UN, who will be in charge of taxing the US a whopping total of 0.7 percent of the national GDP.....that is equivalent to $845 billion US Dollars

How much does the Iraq War cost? since 2003 up until now, it's roughly: $544 billion US Dollars.

This bill, while I am a very staunch supporter of eradicating poverty around the globe, is not going to solve anything, and it will only be counterproductive.

The US has been a leading foreign aid contributor since WWII....and in many cases, whenever the UN distributes foreign aid, they make the same mistake over and over of handing it to despots. These dictators, what do they do? they keep the wealth to themselves, instead of aiding the poor.

It would be far more effective if we improve Africa's agriculture and infrastructure (I'll use Africe as an example). The aim should not be short-term charity, as Obama proposes. Our aim should be focused on making Africa (and all other aid recepients of this donation) self-sufficient in terms of agriculture, economy, trade, education....etc..


What does Obama's bill do? UN will be in charge of US taxpayer and how it will be distributed.

Last thing: according to some estimates, the per capita income tax will amount to roughly $8000 US dollars.

Does Obama ever talk about this? the media?

 

[mrcongojack]

Will Obama's plans work? Probably not. But his plans are paid for. John McCain's economic plan leaves us with a larger deficit (http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-deficit-tax-cuts-plutocracy-and.html). Obviously Obama's plans aren't going to make the deficit disappear, but his policies aren't going to make it grow by leaps and bounds like McCain's.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad dude. So are the leaders of North Korea, China, several African nations, etc... Why should the US act as global cop? It costs us too much, and it doesn't work. 9/10 times we intervene in the affairs of other nations, we end up making ourselves more enemies. I personally don't like having that many enemies.

Yeah, Al Qaeda is all over the place. Does that mean we should invade Pakistan and the Philippines? Obviously we need to track down Al Qaeda and other terrorists. But if the opinion of the US approved abroad, perhaps fewer people would join organizations like this.

You talk a lot about Middle Eastern culture and how they are big on honor and not surrendering. If this is true, why deal with them?

But Obama makes himself appear perfect...

Obama doesn't go around saying he is perfect. Many of his supporters do, but what hard core supporter of a politician doesn't? Hillary's hardcore supporters did it, Ron Paul's supporters did it, Romney's supporters did it, Edwards's supporters did it. I'm not sure McCain has any hard core supporters, and if they do they are very quiet. Besides, Johnson has stepped down from the vetting job. Culvahouse has not. And he was/is an actual lobbyist.

 

[miyi]

this is my last word about Iraq, I will exhaust this topic in this single post.

Will Obama's plans work? Probably not. But his plans are paid for. John McCain's economic plan leaves us with a larger deficit (http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-deficit-tax-cuts-plutocracy-and.html). Obviously Obama's plans aren't going to make the deficit disappear, but his policies aren't going to make it grow by leaps and bounds like McCain's.

The blog that you just cited, was referring to a NYTimes article. So I read that article, and the analysis that the NYTimes was referring to was done by experts at the Congressional Budget Office. So I tried going directly to the source, but unfortunately I cannot find this study, as hard as I tried. So I'll have to rely on what the NYTimes say. They said, according to the study, it is estimated that Mccain would put the country at a far larger deficit than Obama (by 3 times). The study also notes that Obama would also put the country in a bigger deficit than current, although not as much as Mccains.

Of course, these are just estimates. What I want to find out, however, if these estimates included in the equation Obama's proposed "Global Poverty Act", which is still in the process of being passed/ratified. Remember, this bill is roughly $ 845 billion in a span of about a decade. That's a significant chunk that needs to be included in any estimates, since what we're trying to calculate here are the candidate's economic proposals/policy, afterall.

Here's a much better article on this (I don't really trust the NYTimes...they're very biased), if you don't mind:

Obama vs. Mccain, Businessweek

The above article concludes an almost similar findings. It, too, gave Obama the edge...under proposed economic policies by the two candidates, Mccain is said to possibly increase deficit to 3.7 trillion dollars, while Obama an increase of 2.7 trillion.....still a relatively big gap. But this doesn't factor in Obama's Global Poverty Bill, again, I think to be fair, we need to include this. So that would close the gap a little bit, but even still, Obama wins.

These are all good signs for Obama. But on a realistic level, what is obvious here is that both candidates will be terrible when it comes to economy, no matter how you look at it.

They won't really solve our current economic's woes, both in the short and long terms. Here's an unbiased article analyzing both candidate's economic policies, and in fact he's very critical at both candidates, showing why their policies are weak and how they can be improved in a more pragmatic manner:

Forbes

Again, I think in this article, Obama has the slight edge.

So in sum, both candidates poor when it comes to economy, but Obama is a better choice, significantly....but note that they're estimates, and they can change over time, and like I said, Obama's bill must be included in this estimate to be fair.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad dude. So are the leaders of North Korea, China, several African nations, etc... Why should the US act as global cop? It costs us too much, and it doesn't work. 9/10 times we intervene in the affairs of other nations, we end up making ourselves more enemies. I personally don't like having that many enemies.

I concede to you that Obama's strong suit could very well be domestic policy, and that includes the economy.

But in foreign policy, I don't care how much spin Democrats put on this, but Mccain is more preferrable.

Mccain was very critical of Bush (and many Republicans criticized him for this) and he was the architect of the troop surge....the dramatic reversal and impact Mccain's plan had, on Iraq, is nothing short of remarkable....probably one of the best turnarounds in the nation's war history.

You argue that we "act as a global cop"....this is only true if it serves our national interest. Our acting as a global cop is only serving our purpose if it protects our own national self interest. That's the truth about foreign policy, and it isn't about morals. It was never about morals. In fact, no country is stupid enough to act on foreign policy dictated by morals. No country has, and unlikely any country ever will.

Acting as a global cop and pretending it's based on morals is just another way of justifying that foreign policy.

It is part of legitimizing any foreign policy action. You need some sort of rationale to legitimize anything you do.

An example: keeping forces in Korea, was a direct result of the Korean cease-fire in the 1950's, that is still ongoing.

What's the purpose? Is it based on morals? Not necessarily. We might pretend that it is. We might say something like: to keep the South Koreans safe. Well, that's all partly true. But it isn't the overriding reason why we sacrifice that many troops as peace-keepers.

The true purpose is to protect the Pacific Ocean region, mainly to prevent any potential threat from China. That is how our global-cop policy serves our national interest, morals aside.

Africa, another example: we do less of a global cop there, but we still try to assist in aid. what's the purpose? morals? not necessarily the main reason, although for me, personally, that ought to be the damn main reason.

We give foreign aid in Africa mainly to maintain a positive world image. It helps us keep friends more than we gain enemies.

Last example: Iraq...the real reason we invaded Iraq was to remove Saddam, in order to pressure Israel into signing a peace treaty with Palestine....

The only way that Israel would ever consent to such American pressure is if they get an assurance from us that we will remove Saddam.

Removing Saddam would then give Israel a little breathing space (Saddam once had a nuclear reactor that was nearly fully operative.....Saddam could have easily wiped out Israel....luckily Israel intercepted and destroyed that reactor).

With enough room for Israel to work in safety without Saddam to worry about, Israel would be able to relax their aggressive foreign policy in favor of a dovish-type towards Palestine, and this will enable the two sides to reach a peace agreement that would be more plausible, than under a hawkish-Israel government.

Resolving the Israel-Palestine region would drastically improve our image in the Middle East, and the anti-Americanism would dramatically slowly disappear....that was the actual intention and rationale that came into thought, when invading Iraq.

Also another reason was the fact that Saddam was a potential threat, a possible middle-link or someone that played some role in terrorism. We had intelligence that indicated this at the time, and we could not afford to not take action.

But the UN was unlikely to authorize an Iraq invasion (France, China, Russia were all threatening to veto, and they have their own selfish reasons for doing so)....and the last thing we needed at the time was for the world and Saddam to know in detail our full intentions and our plans. That would have undermined and defeated the purpose of "pre-emptive" war.

So we needed to find a way to override the UN quickly without losing any momentum.

What Bush needed to make this happen....in the best interest of the security of the USA in mind (not so that he can "lie" to the American people just for fun), he needed to sell the war in order to sway world public opinion. The last thing we needed at this time was the world to not be on our side. We needed every single country on our side of the aisle, on the fight against terrorism, as much as possible.

Although intelligence at the time pointed to the possibility that Saddam might indeed still have WMDs operational, although not clear proof, Bush capitalized on this and used this to sell the war. (former Bush aide, Mcclellan, I'm sure, have enlightened the Democrats about this in his latest book).

Not that Bush needed to sell the Iraq war on the basis of WMDs as justification.....in fact, this was his biggest mistake, and it haunted his entire Presidency trying to explain to people why he hadn't found WMDs, which diverted the attention to the larger goal of winning in Iraq....and when the executive branch is having to fight Iraq, the legislative branch, and public opinion combined, it was all a recipe for disaster.

All the justification for Iraq invasion that was necessary, was to remove an evil dictator who posed a threat to national security in their potential support for terrorism. That's the only explanation Bush needed to give the public, and not about WMDs. But the world was fixated on that last tiny detail, for some odd reason.

In short, the invasion of Iraq is an example of playing "global-cop" in order to protect our national interest. Defeating Terrorism can only be made possible with reduced anti-Americanism in the Middle East. To do that, you'd need a peace in the Israel-Palestine region. To achieve this, you need to remove Saddam Hussein. That's how the dots are all connected. But very few people get this, especially not to be heard in the mainstream media, who at the very least has a limited understanding of the overall purpose of the Iraq War.

Israel-Arab conflict is the crux of the problem that has plagued our relations in the Middle East. The sooner this is resolved, the sooner Terrorism disappears.


Unfortunately, this is not how it all panned out for Bush.

I don't know if it is our guilt in Vietnam, but we invested only a half-hearted effort in Iraq, which is why we struggled in the first place. While the Bush administration is largely at fault, so too is the rest of the country, and in its division and partisan politics.


Another thing I forgot to mention....a "liberated Iraq", a form of quasi-Democracy in Iraq, are all something that we had hoped in Iraq.

The thinking was so that it would pressure Middle Eastern Islamic regimes to experiment on some kind of Reformation (much like our Protestant Reformation, which ushered an era of Revolutions, Enlightenment, Industrialization and Modernization).

This has been attempted in a half-hearted fashion only once in the Middle East, by a secular reformist in Turkey, by a guy known as Ataturk. They were half-way there, but didn't quite completely modernized. Turkey today is partly Western and overall it has retained its rich Islamic past. It's economy, education, government, etc.....they are something to be emulated in the Middle East. It's such a stark contrast to how vastly different life can be, without an element of modernization. But modernization cannot be reached, without Democratization, which is why building a democratic Middle East is vital to our national interest.

Why is modernizing and democratizing important? because it will effectively reduce global terrorism.

Once we understand all of these things, you begin to start appreciating that what we are trying to do in Iraq, is fundamentally crucial, and connected to the fight against terrorism.

The Iraq War, as portrayed in the media, isn't just some oversimplified "invasion" or as some Democrats calls it (like Rachel Maddow the other day), a "colonization". Far from the truth. We would never wish that, and it contradicts with the whole notion of developing friendly relations with Middle Easterners, who are culturally opposed to the idea of being "occupied", and most importantly, the idea of being "colonized". The primary reason why the Middle East is in such disarray today is the result of British and French colonization and Middle East exploitation in the early twentieth Century.

And also, Iraq and Vietnam are not analogous. The media people needs to stop making these false analogies.

Yeah, Al Qaeda is all over the place. Does that mean we should invade Pakistan and the Philippines? Obviously we need to track down Al Qaeda and other terrorists. But if the opinion of the US approved abroad, perhaps fewer people would join organizations like this.

^you nailed it right there.

Al-Qaida is in fact, everywhere, and that point needs to be emphasized.

By everywhere, what this means is that they aren't like your traditional enemy where they are a fixed target. In fact, they aren't even detectable, because virtually anyone can embrace the al-qaida's ideologies. A person here in the US, using an internet, can decide on a whim to become a member of al-qaida and act on their behalf. We cannot defeat al-qaida on a one-vs.-one basis. We must root out it's base, its fundamentalism --- it's appeal.

Our goal, then, is to tackle the root of the problem. What is the reason al-qaida and other terrorist groups hate us?

Our foreign policy.

Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a major big first step to solving this problem.

But that will not satisfy these terrorist groups. What we need is to make Middle Eastern moderate Muslims our allies in fighting terrorists. This is already happening in many parts of the world, especially in Asia, it is gaining a lot of force and momentum.

Our goal is to make friends, to fight with us, against a common enemy, which are these terrorist groups, such as al-qaida.

How can we make our Middle Eastern friends to turn against the Terrorists? by empowering them.

What are some of the major problems in the Middle East right now? poverty, economy, inequality, lack of access to education, bad government, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Normally, the terrorists would blame the above social and economic (as well as political) problems as products of the Western imperialists, of which America and Israel are the last surviving.

We need to reverse this propaganda and convey to the Middle Easterners that we intend to repair and assist them in these areas, because in fact, we are not the ones creating those problems for them. By conveying to them that we aren't the culprits of their social ills, this would provide them some incentive to cooperate with us in fighting terrorism.

If you understand that, then you can see why what we're doing in Iraq (reconstructing Iraq's government, economy, and military)..........all fits in this larger puzzle of fighting terrorism.

Which is why success, liberation, stabilization, democratization and modernization in Iraq (and anywhere else in the Middle East), will force Terrorism to lose it's appeal, because they'll lose in the propaganda war.

That's the underlying purpose of why Iraq is crucial to the larger problem of terrorism.

Mccain understands this, Obama doesn't. A foreign policy that not only protects national interest abroad, but also security at home, is of utmost importance.

Domestic policy would not exist without a foreign policy that protects your very existence.

Terrorism and nuclear weapons capabilities...that's what we're potentially dealing with here. There would be no such thing as a M.A.D., if this happens.

You talk a lot about Middle Eastern culture and how they are big on honor and not surrendering. If this is true, why deal with them?

Because we have no other choice.

I also forgot to mention that they are pragmatic.

They know when they are defeated, and so they would, under this scenario, prefer a cease-fire (the term is called "hudna").

When the situation returns to a point where they feel they need to defend their faith all over again, then the jihad cycle repeats.

But if there is peace, what is the point of Jihad? if they do not feel threatened by us, then they won't threaten us. Peace is possible between Muslims and non-Muslims (assuming we get rid of Islamic terrorism, which is incompatible with non-Muslims, including us).

Believe it or not, at one point, the Muslim world was in relative peace, while the Western World was in constant conflict and chaos.

We underwent a reformation phase, and only after separating the church and state were we able to modernize, and form a tolerant multicultural society.

This is what many are hoping will happen in the Middle East...something similar.

Obama doesn't go around saying he is perfect. Many of his supporters do, but what hard core supporter of a politician doesn't? Hillary's hardcore supporters did it, Ron Paul's supporters did it, Romney's supporters did it, Edwards's supporters did it. I'm not sure McCain has any hard core supporters, and if they do they are very quiet. Besides, Johnson has stepped down from the vetting job. Culvahouse has not. And he was/is an actual lobbyist.

Ok, let me rephrase it....Obama portrays himself as the reformer of the corrupt Washington. His association with guys like Jim Johnson clearly shows that he cannot walk his talk.

***

here's the bottomline. The world is envious of USA, and there are many vying for the top spot. Which is why USA is not getting a lot of love. But think of all the past empires....one way or another, some big giant is bound to take our place in the future, and then they'll be the next to be criticized and envied. It's how the world works. Taken into full perspective, given our flaws and imperfection, the USA, by comparison to the past great Giants, have been a benevolent power overall. We've bailed out Europe twice in what would have otherwise could have been their demise. We've made blunders, but who hasn't? But the threat we are facing today are serious, and USA will defend itself, regardless of what the world thinks. That is our prerogative. We should not be so self-conscious and guilty of what the world public opinion thinks, when it's our security that is at stake. That comes first. And no it isn't fear mongering or paranoia...I've studied foreign politics and the reality is ugly, and it can get uglier unless we do something about it.

This election could become by far the most important election in the 21st century. Obama could have been my President any day, at any given time. He would have been a damn good one. But I cannot elect this man in this particular time, not when he downplays the current trouble we are in. So I'm stuck with Mccain, fortunately.

---

[update]


lol, some more dirt on Obama....

This video was taken on April 5, 2004. Note the date.

Now, compare his view today on Iraq...very different, right?

Apparently, there's more story behind this. Well, it's more of a developing theory for now, so take it with a grain of salt. But it's quite interesting, nevertheless.

It's all related to Tony Rezko, the guy who was just recently convicted of corruption charges on 16 counts...another Obama associate, now disowned. How many more friends, Obama, will you disown?

---

and just for fun, here's some really funny Obama gaffe:

Obama loses his train of thought.


[update 2]

ahh...I guess this isn't merely a theory. It's quite real, but I highly doubt that anyone in the pro-Obama-mainstream-media will pick up on this story.

Apparently, Obama's former buddy, Tony Rezko (the guy who was recently convicted of corruption charges the day Obama clinched the Democratic nomination), was friends also with another ex-convict, Aiham Alsammarae.

Alsammarae, an ex-Iraqi Minister of Electricity, contributing $2,300 to Obama's campaign. He collaborated with Tony Rezko on some shady corruption schemes many times before.

What's more mind-boggling is Alsammarae's position on Iraq...He uttered recently in a press conference, something to the effect of hoping that the Iraqi insurgency succeeds in killing as many US troops as possible so they can get out of Iraq.

Of course, the predictable response by the Obama staff will be something like: "here we go again with the guilt by association game....this is just a distraction to the main issues".

Obama's friends, as I've said many times before, if you put them all in one room and ask them their political views, they will all consistently be anti-American.

And yet here is this guy running for the highest position in American government, pandering to a collective body of largely pro-American voters.

 

[miyi]

Obama, race card

I knew it.

I was anticipating this moment.

Remember, I started a thread called Is the GOP Racist?

Since after the turbulent era of the 1960s, The Party of Lincoln have been demonized by the Democrats as racists.

So whenever a Republican says anything critical of Obama, he is automatically a racist. Or at least that's what the Obama staffers would have you believe.

Remember, here is a guy who claims he will unite the country, whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican. Yet, here he goes accusing Republicans for using race-baiting tactics, a tactic Hillary Clinton herself, has used against him.

Un-freaking-believable.


Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear, Yahoo News

Who’s playing the race card?, Hot Air

So I'm afraid to let you all know, guys....I am a racist. It's not ok to criticize Obama or else you are just another racist.

 

[redcometfm]

Re: Obama, race card

Ugh, Obama's such a shallow retard. Plus if he's really convinced the GOP is racist, I wonder what he thinks about the fact that under every GOP Administration since the 60's, we've sent forces out to help many different nations, particularly the Middle East. What did the Democrats do? They had Jimmy Carter. And had Bill Clinton. Get a blowjob. Oh, and give back the oil fields. Besides the Civil Rights Movement (which had people from both sides), the Dems have nothing else to show their party is politically correct in terms of race more so than the GOP.
What a prick.

 

[miyi]

Re: Obama, race card

I don't know if it's another gaffe from Obama or what, but he makes it abundantly clear, that he thinks ALL Republicans are racists...and I'll quote his words again to put it into context:

It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

I wonder if he'll be able to recant this statement, or maybe he'll do another doublespeak circus back flips that he always does.

I admit, Obama is very clever. His ability to portray himself as the victim standing up against all odds, is reminiscent of all the great charismatic populist leaders in history.

But his greatest strength is his ability to demonize his enemy.

First, he re-defines the word "patriotism", so that the new meaning goes something like: criticize your country to the point where it's embarrassing to be an American. This is so he can use his coin-phrase, "change we can believe in".

Then he paints Mccain as a Bush clone, just because he's a member of the same party. Now, ain't that brilliant?

And now, the last attack: paint the Republican party as racists.

Mccain, too bad you chose the wrong party...it's game over.

 

[redcometfm]

Re: Obama, race card

I dont think the Republicans are done. Obama's bullshit is definetly going to catch up with him as well as his pussy-tactics towards the Middle East. Obama's had alot of flip flops and screw ups, far more so noticable than any McCain has possibly made. Im sure he has plenty to weaken him within the next 100+ days.

 

[Lelo]

WOW the posts are long in this thread.

I havent been paying attention to the elections that much, and I dont care who wins, as long as we get Bush out of office as soon as possible, thats all I care about

 

[miyi]

One of Obama's staffer, General Wesley Clark, made a controversial statement just this week, suggesting that McCain's military experience does not necessarily equate him as fit to be President.

Granted, what Clark is essentially saying here is true. Of course, you're not required to have military experience to qualify for the Presidency. But I would argue, as most would, that to have an illustrious military background as did John McCain....it certainly does not hurt. It in fact gives him a slight edge. Clark, on the other hand, is saying McCain's war record, is irrelevant. Whether one agrees with Clark or not, is disputable.

But all that being said, that was not what bothered me.

It is the manner in which General Clark made this gratuitous remark, that disgusts me. I cannot think of any other motive for Clark to have made such a tactless comment, other than to undermine John McCain's heroism by minimizing as much as possible, his war credentials. All this, in an effort to say he is no more than qualified than Barack Obama is for the office of President.

If Wesley Clark is indeed questioning John McCain's qualifications, then a perfectly acceptable litmus test, if any, is a person's character.

The Jerusalem Post did an excellent piece on John McCain's background, and his character, that is not much talked about in public.

here's a brief excerpt:

It's pretty amazing when you think about it. War hero John McCain has been in the public eye almost his entire adult life. He's run numerous campaigns, served in Congress for 25 years, and is in his second run for the presidency.

Yet, there is so much of his life that reveals an absolutely sterling character, but remains largely unknown to the public. And in spite of the tremendous political advantages that publicity could confer, McCain instinctively keeps that information private. Although as a presidential candidate he may be forced to overcome this reticence, he honorably shies away from using his personal heroics for political gain.

How aware is the public that McCain has raised seven children? Or that he adopted his two oldest sons as small boys (children from his wife's prior marriage)? Or that he has raised a Bangladeshi girl with severe health problems adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage? Or that his own sons have served in the military, including in Iraq?

It's widely known that McCain, a Navy pilot, was shot down, captured and tortured by the North Vietnamese for 5 and a half years - an episode worth a forthcoming column all its own. But few are aware that he refused early release until all the POWs captured before him were freed, and that he refused special treatment offered once it was discovered that he was the "crown prince" (the son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet) because he wouldn't provide the enemy with any propaganda victories.

Even fewer seem to know that those years were a fraction of a 22-year Navy career. Although broken and battered, after his release from Vietnamese captivity he went right back to the Navy, where he continued to serve for an additional eight years.

Both Israel and America honor military service, knowing all too well the sacrifice of those who step up, stand guard, and put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens from the ever-present threat of harm.

Readers in Israel, where military and national service is intertwined with society perhaps more than in any other free country, especially appreciate the McCain family's tradition of military service and the intergenerational transmission of values that comes with it.

Anyone can talk about "supporting our troops"; the McCains serve. McCain's father and grandfather were respected American admirals. Of McCain's four sons, three have gone the military route. One was a Navy pilot like his father, one enlisted in the Marines at age 17 and recently completed a tour in Iraq, and one is completing his education at the Naval Academy (raising the strong possibility that, for the first time in half a century, the United States will have a president with a son at war).

Yet, likely because of those same values, McCain maintains a strict code of silence about his sons' military service, no matter how legitimate his pride or politically useful their military status. Through 2007, McCain was the strongest Senate advocate of vastly increasing troop levels in Iraq, strongly influencing the administration's wildly successful "surge" strategy.

Yet McCain never brought up his own son's service in some of the roughest areas of Iraq. His principled refusal of political advantage from his son's Iraq service extends to refusal even to be interviewed on the subject, or to introduce his son to campaign audiences.

Also little-known is the story of McCain's youngest child. As a result of a 1991 Cindy McCain visit to Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, the McCains adopted an infant daughter dying from a host of health issues. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save the little girl's life, so the McCains, already the parents of six children, brought the child home to America, and paid for desperately needed surgeries and years of rehabilitation. That child is their teenage daughter Bridget. In fact, there was a second infant girl brought back from the orphanage that the McCains saved. She ended up being adopted by one of McCain's aides, Wes Gullett, and his wife. "We were called at midnight by Cindy," Gullett has stated, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the LA airport."

[...]

 

[Gold Knight]

Man, Reverend Jesse Jackson's comments on Obama.... O____O

 

[miyi]

I actually agree with Barack Obama's message of "self-help" and "personal responsibility", urging the Black Community to strive for excellence despite racial inequality.

I think that message captures the essence of the values of the American people as a whole. Aim high, never quit, etc. etc.

And for Reverend Jesse Jackson to disagree with this, is fine. He's entitled to his opinions. But his scathing remarks, which unfortunately for him, was recorded via mic, while at the same time campaigning for Obama, is utterly stupid, to say the least.

Although Jackson apologized, it would be wise for Jackson to distance himself from Obama, as he'd only be a distraction to the campaign.



[update]

in other news, I really liked this piece written by Pat Buchanan (from RealClearPolitics.com):

July 08, 2008
Don't Misunderestimate Obama
By Patrick Buchanan

With 68 percent of Americans believing George Bush has done a poor job, and 82 percent saying the country is on the wrong track, the election of 2008 will turn on one issue: Barack Obama.

If Sen. Obama can convince the people he is "one of us," and not some snooty radical liberal from Chicago's Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America as a fever swamp of racism and reaction, a la the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator will be the next president.

The election of 2008 thus mirrors the election of 1980.

Then, the country wanted Jimmy Carter gone. Americans had had enough of 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and 7 percent unemployment. They wanted the Iranian hostage crisis ended, violently if necessary. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America wanted a leader who would not kiss Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek but reassert American power.

The issue then was Ronald Reagan. Portrayed as some Al Capp cartoon of a crazed right-winger and B-Grade Hollywood actor given to spouting Reader's Digest bromides, Reagan was regarded as ridiculous by much of the media and too big a risk by much of the nation.

In one debate with Carter, Reagan erased the misperceptions and turned a close race into a cakewalk. That is Barack's opportunity.

A savvy politician, he has measured correctly the hurdle he must surmount and is moving expeditiously to alter an image of him forged by his own past associations and policy positions. In three weeks, he has jettisoned his new politics in a stunning display of raw pragmatism.

A prime minister must be "a good butcher," H.H. Asquith told Winston Churchill on naming him First Lord of the Admiralty, "and there are several who need to be pole-axed now." Four years later, Asquith would pole-axe Churchill over the Dardanelles disaster.

Obama is not lacking in this capacity that Richard Nixon, too, felt was an indispensable attribute of a statesman.

Samantha Power was tossed off Barack's sledge after calling Hillary a "monster" and suggesting Barack's Iraq timetable was not set in concrete. Robert Malley was canned for having talked to Hamas, though that was his portfolio at a think tank for conflict resolution.

Barack pole-axed pastor Wright and, though he said he could no more repudiate his church than his family, shortly after the second time Wright went off, Barack severed all ties to Trinity United.

Barack has spoken of how he cringed at the racist reaction of his white grandmother after she was accosted by a black man on a bus. Grandma has now been rehabilitated in a new ad as the loving woman who inculcated good old Kansas values into little Barack.

When his own surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, suggested John McCain's war service did not automatically qualify him as presidential timber, a storm erupted. Barack proceeded to cut the general's legs off.

His had been one of a few Senate voices to speak of Palestinian suffering. But Barack's address to the Israeli lobby read like it was plagiarized from the collected works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

When the Supreme Court declared every citizen has a Second Amendment right to a handgun, Barack stood with Justice Scalia. When Scalia said the court ought not to have taken away Louisiana's right to execute child rapists, Barack was with him again.

When Congress voted the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding with the Bush administration in wiretapping citizens, Barack stood with Bush and the telecoms. Fearing it might cost him his huge money-raising advantage over McCain, Barack tossed campaign finance reform over the side.

In Ohio, Barack was a populist opponent of NAFTA. He is now a free-trader. Yet when economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told the Canadians pretty much the same thing, Barack disinherited him.

As July 4 approached, Barack gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org for their "General Betray Us" ad mocking Gen. David Petraeus. And that flag pin Barack got rid of after 9-11, calling it a "substitute ... for real patriotism"? It's back on the lapel.

Last week, Barack said that, after he meets with Petraeus and his field commanders in Iraq, he might "refine" his commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months.

And finally, Obama has co-opted President Bush's faith-based initiative and claimed it as his own.

What is Obama up to? Having secured the nomination, he is moving to convince the nation he is neither a black militant nor a radical, but a man of the center who will even listen to the right.

Though infuriating to readers of The Huffington Post, this may save Barack. For in Middle America folks worry less about politicians adjusting positions than about True Believers willing to go over the cliff with flags flying -- and taking us with them.

Reagan was no Barry Goldwater. He knew when to "hold 'em," and he knew when to "fold 'em." Yet, America still knew who Reagan was.

We may be misunderestimating Barack. But the question of 2008 remains: When all is said and done, who is this guy?

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

 

[Gold Knight]

What bothers me the most about Obama right now is that he seems too young and inexperienced to make the right decisions. Sure, he knows how to give a good speech, but only when he has people writing it for him. McCain has challenged him to town meeting and Obama declined. That's because Obama doesn't do as well when he has to talk on the fly. McCain is a lot more experienced in such matters, of course, but I could forgive Obama if he was actually truthful about not liking town meetings - however his book said that he loves 'em. So, it's clear Obama is afraid of debating with McCain.

 

[miyi]

Well I credit Obama for declining a town hall debate format...if that's his weak spot, it's smart of him for declining...you wouldn't want to give your opponent any advantage, even in the slightest.

Judging on strategy alone, Obama has outperformed McCain in just about every way imaginable, yet surprisingly McCain is still in it.

If McCain can somehow energize the Republican Party base, and focus on the issues, and focus on his strengths, he has a good chance of winning.

Let the Obama people do all the ad hominem stuff. What will benefit McCain in the long run is his refusal to play dirty politics, but lately he's been taking the bait and reacting to every Obama attack, when he shouldn't have to.

He needs to stop being so defensive about separating himself from President Bush, and focus on how he can improve the situation right now and in the future.

Besides, Obama's "McBush" attacks will get old. There's a reason why McCain earned the reputation of "maverick" -- it's that he doesn't always vote along party line on certain key issues, and a great example is advocating for a troop surge that was at the time very unpopular even with the Republican Party. So if anything, I'm sure the electorate are smart enough to discern that the "McBush" attack does not hold water.

Also, McCain really needs to keep repeating the fact that it's the Democratic Congress that has been in control since 2006, because somehow, this fact is relatively unknown to the average joe/jane. Which is why you can virtually blame every problem on Bush, and the world will believe it as fact.

And McCain needs to connect better with the people. No, he doesn't necessarily need to be a master "orator" like Obama...but someone who can speak the same language and sensibilities as the voters. Ronald Reagan did this brilliantly.

Lastly, McCain needs to focus on two things: the economy, and national security (afterall, both are interconnected, and foreign policy is McCain's strong suit). If he sticks to this game plan, he'll be fine.

 

[Gold Knight]

Sure, it's smart of Obama to decline if he believes that he couldn't deal with having a town hall debate format with McCain as his opponent, but what happens when he becomes President and he has to talk to ambassadors and leaders all over the world and he shows the same kind of awkwardness when he's being himself and talking on the fly? Is that the kind of leader that we would appreciate having? He's no Kennedy - JFK was superb in dealing with people. He's no Bill Clinton either in that respect.

I think that's why McCain is still in it: his experience with such matters. While I agree that he shouldn't react to everything, I think McCain has to show some resistance to Obama's comments though. Otherwise people will feel like he doesn't care enough about how people perceive him. I want a leader with passion about what he does.