The new Primary Thread

[Kuciwalker]

I doubt there will be a filibuster proof Democratic Majority in the Senate. If there is, I'd rather not see a bolder President in charge. A bold slide to the left is not something I'd be happy to see after a bold slide to the right when Bush had his Republican majorities with a wussy Dem minority who wouldn't use their powers to stop legislation.

I'd rather someone who take things back to the middle.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
And anyways, my point is that they are roughly equally bold on domestic policy - where Congress has the most discretion, and that Imran's original objection (that his proposals would be killed by Republicans) is bull****.

Why exactly is it bull****? Because you have another opinion? That's nice and all, but I think his reaching for bold statements means that he's going to try to pursue bold policy.

That he'll actually become what his endorsers have called him, the next JFK. Only this time he won't have an LBJ to get things done for him.

You have to ask yourself why Obama is getting so much traction for "Change", while people aren't saying the same about Clinton. The other alternative is claiming media bias either for Obama or against Clinton.

He has differences on foreign policy, and I find that very appealing. But Congress certainly isn't going to care about having 5,000 troops in Iraq instead of 20,000 (or whatever the distinction in numbers happens to be) if they can't do anything about getting 150,000 troops out of there. If anything, Clinton's position would be less tenable.

I'd imagine someone saying we'll have all combat brigades out in 16 months (bold statement!!) may have a more difficult time with the Republicans than someone who says we'll take out a few early on and then see what the situation is, but eventually we want to be out of there in 4 years.

[Arrian]

Obama's withdrawl plan is definitely more "bold." And it makes me squirm a little bit.

I like some of his other FP statements, though.

-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You have to ask yourself why Obama is getting so much traction for "Change", while people aren't saying the same about Clinton. The other alternative is claiming media bias either for Obama or against Clinton.

Isn't that self-evident? And no, the answer isn't "media bias" or "bold statements."

By the way, I think that the way most conservatives feel about Hillary would tend to outweigh the "less bold" statements she might make on the primary campaign trail. And it is the primary campaign trail, after all, where the candidates are trying to rouse the base into action and bring in moderates, not the general, which makes your extrapolation of "bold statements" into ineffective policy even more dubious.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Arrian
Obama's withdrawl plan is definitely more "bold." And it makes me squirm a little bit.

Me too... with joy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't that self-evident? And no, the answer isn't "media bias" or "bold statements."

What? That's he's black?

And it is the primary campaign trail, after all, where the candidates are trying to rouse the base into action and bring in moderates, not the general, which makes your extrapolation of "bold statements" into poor policy even more dubious.

Because he can quickly change gears from the "change" candidate once the general comes around?! Don't think so. What he going to say, you know that fairly strict timetable about Iraq? Yeah, just for primary voters. ?!

[Ramo]

Why exactly is it bull****? Because you have another opinion? That's nice and all, but I think his reaching for bold statements means that he's going to try to pursue bold policy.

That he'll actually become what his endorsers have called him, the next JFK. Only this time he won't have an LBJ to get things done for him.

So, you're saying that because some people compare Obama to JFK who had a very moderate agenda (Nixon competed with him for civil rights voters), due to his capacity to inspire, Obama is after a more radical domestic agenda than Clinton? That's a compelling argument...

I'd imagine someone saying we'll have all combat brigades out in 16 months (bold statement!!) may have a more difficult time with the Republicans than someone who says we'll take out a few early on and then see what the situation is, but eventually we want to be out of there in 4 years.

That's the standard Dem platform. Clinton pushed legislation that did exactly this. I don't think her language is "eventually be out in 4 years," but if it is, that counts as a flip flop (and may be what Obama was attacking).

Anyways, that's not something a Republican minority in Congress is going to stop. And if it were something that they could stop (say, if Iraq turns into Disneyland), the relatively small differences between Clinton and Obama on the matter aren't going to matter.

[Ramo]

You have to ask yourself why Obama is getting so much traction for "Change", while people aren't saying the same about Clinton. The other alternative is claiming media bias either for Obama or against Clinton.

Because he's after changing our politics (bringing more people into the system, getting lobbyists out, collective action: the whole good government strain of liberalism). The one who was campaigning on most radically changing our policies was Edwards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
So, you're saying that because some people compare Obama to JFK who had a very moderate agenda (Nixon competed with him for civil rights voters), due to his capacity to inspire, Obama is after a more radical domestic agenda than Clinton? That's a compelling argument...

Where exactly do you get this stuff?

Next JFK, you know, talked in bold statements and basically did jack ****. But looked good while he didn't do much of anything.

That's the standard Dem platform. Clinton pushed legislation that did exactly this. I don't think her language is "eventually be out in 4 years," but if it is, that counts as a flip flop (and may be what Obama was attacking).

Personally I think saying we'll pull out a certain number and then evaluate a proper timetable rather than say we'll take out 2 brigades a month (or whatever) is far more responsible.

And Obama wasn't attacking a "flip-flop", he was attacking that he is more committed to getting the troops out quicker than Clinton is. If there was a flip, Obama didn't say anything about it.

Anyways, that's not something a Republican minority in Congress is going to stop. And if it were something that they could stop (say, if Iraq turns into Disneyland), the relatively small differences between Clinton and Obama on the matter aren't going to matter.

I think its a bit easier to push it if you argue for a partial drawdown and then an evaluation of the situation on the ground rather than "16 months all combat brigades out".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because he's after changing our politics (bringing more people into the system, getting lobbyists out, collective action: the whole good government strain of liberalism). The one who was campaigning on most radically changing our policies was Edwards.

So you are arguing that he's tapping into naivety. I see.

It's because he's making bold pronouncements about change rather than going into the details on his policies.

[snoopy369]

Experience often can have negative elements to it as well as positive ones. Experienced folks prefer to do things the old way, while young, 'naive' as you say, people sometimes can come up with new ways of looking at old problems.

They also don't have the old animosities (sometimes, anyway), and can work with people that the old guard had personal conflicts with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

young, 'naive' as you say, people sometimes can come up with new ways of looking at old problems

Like... "getting the lobbyists out"?!

[Ramo]

Where exactly do you get this stuff?

Your bizarre argument. Honestly, that was one of the more convoluted things I've read in a while.

Personally I think saying we'll pull out a certain number

In Clinton's words, it's the "vast majority." We're talking about a difference of a couple ten of thousand at most. Probably less. There's total ambiguity in "combat troops" (which specifically exclude troops to fight AQI and protect the embassy - incidentally Clinton's reasons for keeping troops there as well).

I think its a bit easier to push it if you argue for a partial drawdown and then an evaluation of the situation on the ground rather than "16 months all combat brigades out".

He doesn't have to push. Congress can't stop him absent, again, Iraq turning into Disneyland.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What? That's he's black?

Because it's Hillary Clinton. She was in the White House for 8 years. She's married to a former president. It's hard to point to her and say "change" given that everyone who is old enough to vote remembers her being in the WH. It should be pretty obvious that a virtual no-name with no family connections at all would get more play out of the mantra of "change" than President Clinton's wife.

I mean, seriously, because he's black? Where do you get this stuff?

Because he can quickly change gears from the "change" candidate once the general comes around?! Don't think so. What he going to say, you know that fairly strict timetable about Iraq? Yeah, just for primary voters. ?!

I didn't say he'll change gears from being the "change" candidate; against a Republican he's going to be working that angle. I think it would be foolish, however, to interpret his statements on the primary campaign as somehow relevant to how "bold" or uncompromising somebody is going to be in office. If anything, the most telling indicator of that is how many moderate and lapsed Republican votes he's able to get, and so far he has done remarkably well in that regard.

[Ramo]

Next JFK, you know, talked in bold statements and basically did jack ****. But looked good while he didn't do much of anything.

JFK didn't have excessively bold proposals! That was your original argument.

So you are arguing that he's tapping into naivety. I see.

No, he has a demonstrable ability to bring more people into the process. His campaign is community organization, writ large.