maximum360
Member
Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
In a way, they're beginning answer the question of whether or not Obama can handle the "Republican attack machine". Last week had a lot of nasty accusations, with two people with big media microphones attacking Obama. It seems like if the Clintons keep testing him like this, then this one argument against Obama begins to fade.maximum360 said:Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
ToxicAdam said:You clearly blamed the Lewinsky affair for (the main reason) Gore distanced himself from the Clinton regime.
It was more complicated than that. Gore had an image problem as being a "second fiddle" (much like Bush Sr. had to fight in 88). His campaign felt the best way to do that was to completely break away from that timespan. It wasn't a big deal, because Gore hadn't done anything remarkable during his tenure as vice president anyways (you could make the argument that Hillary had done more in 8 years than Gore had). You couple that, along with the recent spate of other scandals (Eli Gonzalez, Chinese Donors, etc) and it wasn't that hard of a choice. Gore needed the independent vote and there were still many independent voters (in states like Ohio and Florida) that had negative impressions of the morality of the Clintons.
Picking Joe Lieberman (a Clinton critic at the time) was another sign of "breaking free" from the past.
APF said:As I've pointed-out many times, Obama's Pakistan comments, plus some of his major foreign policy and terrorism advisors, don't strike me as any less "belligerent" than Hillary by any means, and in fact make him arguably further to the "right" than actual, living, breathing Neoconservatives in some cases. You can argue this is all reactionary--and I'd largely agree with you--but that assertion doesn't cast him in any particularly good light. The evidence suggests Obama would be an awful foreign policy President.
alr1ghtstart said:Anyone think Obama could win traditionally the red states (i.e. South Carolina)? His number of votes more than doubled any republicans on the ballot. Now, obviously more people will vote in the general election, but with Obama's broad appeal, I think he might be able to do it. Hillary...not so much.
maximum360 said:Either on the NY Times or Newsweek they're using the "Billary" term to describe the Clinton attack force. It got a :lol out of me.
Tamanon said:The Republicans should just fuck with everybody's storylines and make Condi a Veep candidate.
Stoney Mason said:If Bush wasn't so hated I could actually see them doing something like that.
If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.APF said:If McCain "neutralizes" the experience factor, then this only means it's an additional line of argument he can use against Obama in the GE, only to a greater extent, and with the benefit of being a "less-polarizing" opponent who also has a high independent and cross-party appeal.
Hellsing321 said:If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.
Tamanon said:I think she's actually come out of the Bush presidency ok, she doesn't seem to have the stink on her.
True, but if he was able to fight off that stigma in the primaries I don't think it would be a problem in the GE.Tamanon said:To be fair, in the general election, you never win with just the party vote.
APF said:It's got less to do with Dems than with independents; if Obama's biggest draw is courting independents and centrist Republicans, this would be mitigated by a McCain run.
Incognito said:Don't know which Bush presidency you're referring to. She's been a colossal failure both as a National Security Advisor in which she let Cheney and Rumsfeld run laps around her and as Secretary of State where absolutely nothing has been accomplished. It's a little late in the ballgame to start pushing for peace in the Middle East via Israel and Palestine.
APF said:As I've pointed-out many times, Obama's Pakistan comments, plus some of his major foreign policy and terrorism advisors, don't strike me as any less "belligerent" than Hillary by any means, and in fact make him arguably further to the "right" than actual, living, breathing Neoconservatives in some cases. You can argue this is all reactionary--and I'd largely agree with you--but that assertion doesn't cast him in any particularly good light. The evidence suggests Obama would be an awful foreign policy President.
APF said:Incognito: come back to me when they're actually directly competing.
APF said:Amir0x: Just not sure why you're using such a loaded term
Atrus: Oh, the notorious Iran hawk who orchestrated our involvement in the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict?
It's not as if you meant it.Amir0x said:*rubs forehead*
Enough of this PC bullshit, please.
APF said:I very much disagree that he's an expert above anyone else, but more importantly don't avoid his record in those very extremely key instances, both of which led to the major international crises we're dealing with today.
Oh yeah? Well the minish cap sucked!APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
14,300APF said:http://www.google.com/search?q=shyster+jewish
Incognito: actually I was responding to another person's post in "bringing that up," so no.
APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
APF said:Is this where I ask you why I should care about your opinion either, or what books you read? Get off your high horse and stop with the personal attacks.
To think many of us used to defend these guys...sangreal said:
sangreal said:
APF said:
Hellsing321 said:If Obama won the nom wouldn't that mean that democrats don't care about experience? He's been fighting that point all through the primaries I don't see how it would be a problem in the GE if he actually got the nom.
alr1ghtstart said:Anyone think Obama could win traditionally the red states (i.e. South Carolina)? His number of votes more than doubled any republicans on the ballot. Now, obviously more people will vote in the general election, but with Obama's broad appeal, I think he might be able to do it. Hillary...not so much.
APF said:You're making a fairly circular argument here. You question my ability to have an opinion because I'm not an old foreign-policy hand, then when I say you're making an appeal to authority you suggest that's invalid because we're talking about authorities? What you're missing is, if we're not allowed to judge an expert because they're an expert and we're not, then we can't judge them positively or negatively. The larger point is that he helped orchestrate events that led to some of the major foreign policy crises we've been facing for the last decade, a point you continue to resist admitting because it runs counter to your appeals to his authority as a holy expert no one can criticize. Sorry, but I don't buy it, and I have the right to say so.
i'm interested in knowing the book, if you'd care to shareAPF said:I should also point-out that a book I was a technical consultant on--one which highly-spoke to issues with foreign policy relevance, and is regularly cited here in "what are you reading" threads--AFAIK gained more awards and critical-acclaim than the one you're talking about.