The new Primary Thread

[DinoDoc]

You seem like you'll be too depressed by then.

[Arrian]

Zkrib,

Here's how the debate is proceeding in my head:

- I like all that stuff about Obama being reasonable and likeable and whatnot. And I do have a knee-jerk anti-Hillary reaction (which I try to conciously counter as best I can).

- At the same time, I'm distrustful of his big claims (change!). How many politicians have promised change? How many have delivered? How many who delivered actually did good?

- Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... ugh.

- On healthcare, my head says Hillary and my heart says Obama. I get the economics of forcing everyone into the system. I am squeamish about the whole forcing thing, though.

- I do think Obama is more likely to win a general election, but I am a little worried about the "empty suit" charges sticking.

- Clinton gets a big demerit from me for her Iraq war vote, and her refusal to admit error. Obama gets a small cookie for being against, but since he wasn't in the US senate at the time I can't give him too much credit for that position.

- Obama did say something wonky a while back re: going into Pakistan to get Osama with or without the Pakistani's permission. That gives me pause.

- The fiscal conservative in me hates them all, and is prone to hijacking the debate and frothing at the mouth for an hour or two.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That's pretty piss poor logic, IMO. The state will always have an effect on the voting, it will just do so in a different way. Ohio's 20 EC votes may have tipped the election in Bush's favor, but that was unique to that particular state at that particular time. If, in this next election, Ohio votes exactly the same but the Dems (or the Repubs) are already ahead by 24 EC votes, then Ohio's contribution to the Presidential outcome is jack****, and the voters in Ohio might as well have stayed home.

Edit: Not to mention that if Ohio had split its 20 votes, it still would have decided the election in favor of Bush in 2004. Same power.

That's entirely invalid logic yourself... Ohio, as an entity, has a net effect on the election of ABS(Rdel-Ddel). The fact that the election was decided by other states is irrelevant, as the election occurs concurrently - only Hawaii and to a lesser extent Alaska really have any negative effect from predetermined outcomes. (Can you imagine if Hawaii actually determined an election? ) Your vote is your vote, regardless of whether you win or lose, and it is your say.

However, let's put it to you this way. Arrian is 50-50 between Obama and Clinton, or let's say 52-48 for Obama to make it interesting. He can either:
* Cast a vote for Obama
* Cast 0.52 for Obama and 0.48 for Clinton

If he does the latter, he ultimately reduces his net vote - his say - to 0.04. If everyone else casts 1 vote for one candidate, he is given practically no say in the election.

In a multiparty system, this is not quite as true - it is still generally true, but you could cast your vote 0.5-0.5-0 and have some say still, net. In a system where you elect multiple people - for example, the House, or the Senate - it is less relevant, both because individuals are not the same as their party, and because both can still represent their state's interests regardless of the R-D split. If anything, you should argue for an elimination of the Presidency entirely and a conversion to Prime Minister - that would be more representative, because you would use the members of congress to make the selection, and then delegate more power to Congress.

[Arrian]

If he does the latter, he ultimately reduces his net vote - his say - to 0.04. If everyone else casts 1 vote for one candidate, he is given practically no say in the election.

This only works if one state splits up its electors and all the others stick to "winner takes all." In that case, well, yeah. The sane option is to decide the election on popular vote alone, the end.

-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You guys better get used to Hillary as your nominee.

You say this as if it were an insult or something. I think most Obama supporters will not have any problems turning around and supporting Hillary if she wins the primary, especially considering the alternatives.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Hillary has admitted she did NOT read the Intelligence reports about Iraq, only Senators are allowed to read these as their classified and its now widely known that they showed Bush was talking out of his ass about Iraq. I find that simply in excusable.

[snoopy369]

There are many sane options, that being only one of them...

Honestly I don't see what the problems many have with the EC come from, unless it's irritation at the 2000 result (and wasn't that also true in 1960 the other way?). It does precisely what it's intended to do. I suppose if you're opposed to the current 'federated states' system, and in favor of a much stronger federal government, then I understand it... but otherwise, EC does what it's supposed to do, and determines the choice of the various states for President. It's no different than any non-proportional parliamentary system; and prop-rep has plenty of its own problems.

[Arrian]

Impaler,

Do you have a link for that? That would be enough to push me right over into the Obama camp.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

snoopy,

The EC irritates me precisely because it works the way it was intended to work. I don't like the underlying purpose. I don't think that I, in a small low-pop state, should have more say than someone from NY.

-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Arrian
Impaler,

Do you have a link for that? That would be enough to push me right over into the Obama camp.
-Arrian

It is true, but she wasn't alone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.

The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, was briefed on the intelligence report multiple times, a spokesperson told CNN.

Clinton is one of six presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 who voted for the resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Candidate and then-Sen. John Edwards "read and was briefed on the intelligence" while sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a spokesman said. Edwards has called his vote for the 2002 resolution a mistake. Another Democratic candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, said he read the report.

A spokesman for presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd said the Connecticut Democrat did not read the document, either.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona also voted in favor of the resolution without reading the report.

A spokesman for McCain told CNN his boss was briefed on the document "numerous times, and read the executive summary."

Other candidates were not available for comment Monday.

Misleading report

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

That was wrong, but that wasn't established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003.

The intelligence report did contain passages that raised questions about the weapons conclusions, said John McLaughlin, then deputy director of the CIA.

"I think if someone read the entire report, they would walk away thinking the intelligence community generally thinks he has weapons of mass destruction, but there are quite a bit of differences," he said.

McLaughlin, now a CNN contributor, said dissenting views by the State Department, Department of Energy and the Air Force made up about 10 to 12 pages of the report -- but critics say those dissents were not highlighted.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he held a closed session at which members could read the report along with top CIA officials. (Watch Sen. Biden say he couldn't vote against funding the war and put troops in greater jeopardy )

Biden told CNN that he read the dissents in the report and he "spoke to the ones who dissented."

Biden ended up voting for the resolution, but argued that he was casting a vote "to avoid a war."

"It was a vote to give the authority to the president to avoid war by keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein," the Delaware Democrat said Monday.

He said Bush initially told Congress he would allow inspectors to certify whether Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs.

"The president misused the power we gave him under that resolution," said Biden.

Bush said war was necessary because Iraq was deceiving weapons inspectors and had demonstrated its unwillingness to disarm.

A U.S.-led survey later concluded that Iraq had attempted to conceal some weapons-related research from the United Nations, but had abandoned its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in the 1990s.

So it appeared that most Senators didn't read the report... but read briefings of them given to them by their staffs.

Of course the question is, isn't that a common practice among Senators and, even, Presidents.

[Cyclotron]

Biden ended up voting for the resolution, but argued that he was casting a vote "to avoid a war."

"It was a vote to give the authority to the president to avoid war by keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein," the Delaware Democrat said Monday.

He said Bush initially told Congress he would allow inspectors to certify whether Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs.

"The president misused the power we gave him under that resolution," said Biden.

What a tremendous moron.

[Arrian]

True that. Though one would like to believe that if they're considering authorizing a war (or "use of force"), they might bother to actually read the damn thing themselves. *********.

6 senators out of 100 read it. Oy.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Hmm, more than six read it, apparently. Many who did read it voted yea. Many who didn't voted nay.

Minor demerit for Hillary.

-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

As I said, the intelligence shouldn't even have been necessary. Whether Iraq possessed WMDs or not was immaterial; they had never attacked us before. Any supposed link with Al Qaeda could have been disproved by mere common sense.