The new Primary Thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your bizarre argument.

A number of people have agreed that Obama is more bold on certain plans (Iraq, which both Arrian and Cyclotron said Obama has a bolder stance).

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).

Obama wants to protect the embassy. I'd imagine troops fighting AQ would definitely fall under "combat troops". Obama's sounds like he's going to pull more out faster.

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.

Because President Bush's administration was so similar to President Clinton's .

As Ramo pointed out, Edwards had a far more "change" platform, and has no family connections, but he wasn't even close to being considered the "change candidate".

Remember, there were more than 2 candidates when this race started.

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.

As of yet. Until the Republican attack machine gets its legs going (I'm thinking that "most liberal Senator" survey is going to get a LOT of play in any general election involving him)

[Ramo]

Obama wants to protect the embassy. I'd imagine troops fighting AQ would definitely fall under "combat troops". Obama's sounds like he's going to pull more out faster.

Wrong.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

[Ramo]

A number of people have agreed that Obama is more bold on certain plans (Iraq, which both Arrian and Cyclotron said Obama has a bolder stance).

Too bold to get through Congress. My very first response to you specifically pointed out the difference in domestic and foreign policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
JFK didn't have excessively bold proposals! That was your original argument.

The "New Frontier" was just... what? Something that could have come out of the Eisenhower administration?

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

Which, of course, means that it'll get the lobbyists out of the process.

[Ramo]

Look, there are plenty of good reasons to support Clinton over Obama. I'm a little bit conflicted myself. Your argument, that his proposals are too bold to stand up to Republican opposition, is not one of them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Wrong.

AQ making a base within Iraq means simply fighting AQ?!

And that means keeping combat troops in to fight AQ?! So basically you are arguing that Obama is not arguing for a withdrawl from Iraq at all? Him and McCain may be closer on this issue than we all think?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because President Bush's administration was so similar to President Clinton's .

You're being deliberately obtuse. Obama's emphasis has been change - not just away from Bush, but away from "traditional" politics, from partisanship, and so on. If you think the "change" mantra is just about being different than Bush, you haven't been paying attention.

As for Edwards, he was hardly a new name in American politics, and didn't get as much coverage as the either two anyway because of his perceived lower level of support. Saying that the news media discounts less popular candidates too quickly is, unfortunately, a valid complaint - but it doesn't mean there is some pro-Obama bias.

As of yet. Until the Republican attack machine gets its legs going (I'm thinking that "most liberal Senator" survey is going to get a LOT of play in any general election involving him)

Probably. As it stands, however, I think his crossover appeal is more telling than his primary election rhetoric. One expects primary rhetoric to be more radical and bold as a matter of course.

[Dinner]

Interesting back room deals in West Virginia. McCain knows he's not going to get many votes from the extreme right so he wants to keep Huckabee in the campaign to syphon votes off of Romney. For his part Huckabee wants to keep his campaign alive and possibly cherry pick a spot in any future McCain administration.

So to this end McCain had all of his supporters switch there votes during the second round of caucus voting to deny Romney a win. This meant Huckabee won instead of Romney. Stategic move on the part of McCain.

[EPW]

I just voted

OObama
91-No
92-Yes
93-No
94,95,96,97-Yes

[Ramo]

The "New Frontier" was just... what? Something that could have come out of the Eisenhower administration?

Probably some of it. Even more by a Nixon Admin elected in 1960.

LBJ was much more ambitious than JFK.

Which, of course, means that it'll get the lobbyists out of the process.

Obama's theory is that various badies occupy a void partially left by the lack of popular participation in government. With public financing of Congressional elections, the process could be significantly cleaned up... More citizen activism, less money from powerful interests in government are cornerstones of Obama's campaign (and, incidentally, he passed lobbying reform and ethics reform in the Senate).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by EPW
I just voted

OObama
91-No
92-Yes
93-No
94,95,96,97-Yes

It was Obama and "No" across the board for me.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


It was Obama and "No" across the board for me.

I figure 94-97 will pay for 92

[Ramo]

AQ making a base within Iraq means simply fighting AQ?!

What the hell are you talking about? If there's any AQI left (and I don't know if there will be), Obama is committing to fight it.

And that means keeping combat troops in to fight AQ?!

Combat brigades, in the current debate, has been specifically defined to exclude antiterror forces. Haven't you paid any attention at all to the debate that happened over and over again in Congress? You know, the legislation that Bush vetoed?

So basically you are arguing that Obama is not arguing for a withdrawl from Iraq at all? Him and McCain may be closer on this issue than we all think?

It's magnitude. McCain is for over a hundred thousand troops in Iraq, Clinton is for 20-40 thousand, Obama is probably for 5-30. Something like that.

[Dinner]

I voted Obama.
Yes - 91, 92, 93
No - All the damn Indian gambling proposals. I didn't like how it would exempt massive new developments on Reservations from environmental review. When I lived in Santa Barbara the Chumash Casino wanted to expand into a Las Vegas sized casino but they didn't want to pay for improved road access or policing for the areas effected. The environmental review was the only way hold a hammer to the injuns forcing them to agree to pay for the social effects of the development.

Net result: Chumash agreed to pay for the road expansions, traffic midigation, and increased police patrols. They would never have done that without local Politicians refusing to pass the environment review unless the environmental impacts were dealt with.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by EPW
I figure 94-97 will pay for 92

I'm against 92 because it only cuts fees for people who can afford college - those who can't afford it get financial aid, so lowering fees won't help poor students at all.

As for 94-97, I'm against Indian Gambling in principle, so that was easy.