• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

A Reminder: First Presidential DEBATE **Today** At 7:00 PM EST On MSNBC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yamauchi said:
I think Biden did the best tonight. He knows what he's talking about. I've been talking about an Iraqi federation for three years. When Biden first came out with his plan, the Republicans told the public that no Iraqis wanted a federation. Well, now there's legislation in the Iraqi parliament to create an autonomous zone in the south modeled after the successful Kurdistan Region. The Iraqi who was on The Daily Show said that his nation will either have to become a federation or confederation. And with a recent estimate putting oil reserves in Sunni Arab Iraq at 100 billion barrels, something tells me the Sunnis won't have as many objections in the coming months.

The constitution of Iraq lays the foundation for a federal state. I believe that the best option for that nation is to split it up into three republics, each with its own president, loosely governed as a confederation. The Kurds will declare independent regardless, so the focus is on the Sunnis and Shias. Since the US will be pulling out in the next 2-3 years, I think we have to focus on preventing a seemingly inevitable genocide. Formerly mixed cities are almost homogenous now, proving that relocation can and will happen. The Iraqi government even has plans to relocate tens of thousands of Arabs out of Kirkuk by the end of the year. I think this is the key to the future of Iraq. This sort of segregation does not bring peace, but it does bring security.
Click to expand...

Ideally, this Republican would like to see some combination of Biden's political strategy (decentralization/partition) backed by McCain's military strategy of a surge (which is working on the whole, albeit with a temporary increase in American casualties). However, at this stage in the game I'm not sure that's the best approach due to Turkey. Turkey is viciously suppressing a Kurdish independence movement in its own territory (some 20% of Turkey is Kurdish) and they have all but declared they would invade an independent or semi-independent Kurdistan in order to protect their own borders. If Biden could get Turkey to back off on their militarism, I think that would be the best plan, but until Turkey is out of the picture partition ultimately has to be as well. As messy as it is now, it would be even uglier with the Turkish military in the fray.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Unfortunately, I expect the liberal wing of the party to make the same mistake as it did in 2004, and go with a weak polarizing nominee instead of a strong-willed maverick who can attract independents and Republicans.
Click to expand...
Mistake?

President Bush runs the most polarizing, uncompromising administration in US history. Error is impossible, any internal debate is entirely hidden. Presidential campaign consists of a very focused message, light on details, heavy on rhetoric. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say every time he opened his mouth.

Up until the election cycle Democrats play the lapdog with a feeble protest here and there. Even when the campaign starts there's no party wide message, no catch phrases, no signature issue. They nominate Kerry who over thinks himself, trips over complicated policy details and gets portrayed as a "flip-flopper". Democrats lose.

Polarizing is apparently the way to go. The Democrats just did a real poor job of it last time.
 
DS-61-5 said:
Ideally, this Republican would like to see some combination of Biden's political strategy (decentralization/partition) backed by McCain's military strategy of a surge (which is working on the whole, albeit with a temporary increase in American casualties). However, at this stage in the game I'm not sure that's the best approach due to Turkey. Turkey is viciously suppressing a Kurdish independence movement in its own territory (some 20% of Turkey is Kurdish) and they have all but declared they would invade an independent or semi-independent Kurdistan in order to protect their own borders. If Biden could get Turkey to back off on their militarism, I think that would be the best plan, but until Turkey is out of the picture partition ultimately has to be as well. As messy as it is now, it would be even uglier with the Turkish military in the fray.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a Democrat but I agree with you entirely. I do support the surge and I support McCain's approach. Turkey, I agree, is a problem, and it's such a complicated issue. There is the threat that if we are too tough with the military, the Islamists will gain popularity and power, etc.
 
Vincey37 said:
Mistake?

President Bush runs the most polarizing, uncompromising administration in US history. Error is impossible, any internal debate is entirely hidden. Presidential campaign consists of a very focused message, light on details, heavy on rhetoric. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say every time he opened his mouth.

Up until the election cycle Democrats play the lapdog with a feeble protest here and there. Even when the campaign starts there's no party wide message, no catch phrases, no signature issue. They nominate Kerry who over thinks himself, trips over complicated policy details and gets portrayed as a "flip-flopper". Democrats lose.

Polarizing is apparently the way to go. The Democrats just did a real poor job of it last time.
Click to expand...

Rhetorically, sure, but not in terms of policy. With the exception of the tax cuts, his domestic policy during his first term was almost entirely defined by compromise- No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D, pretty large expansion of discretionary spending on education, HHS, etc. It's an irony I'll never understand- Republicans should dislike him (or reluctantly back him, as I did solely for his judicial nominations) and Democrats love him based on his policies. Yet, as Michael Barone has noted, politics is cultural and rhetorical, not about policy. How else to explain the fact Republicans have gone from virtual isolationists to Wilsonians chomping at the bit to spread democracy everywhere within a few years?
 
DS-61-5 said:
Yet, as Michael Barone has noted, politics is cultural and rhetorical, not about policy. How else to explain the fact Republicans have gone from virtual isolationists to Wilsonians chomping at the bit to spread democracy everywhere within a few years?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt Bush would be unpopular had Iraq been about democracy spreading. But that was always the backup reasoning and only really came into play after no WMDs were found. Better democracy spreaders than wrong.
 
DS-61-5 said:
Ideally, this Republican would like to see some combination of Biden's political strategy (decentralization/partition) backed by McCain's military strategy of a surge (which is working on the whole, albeit with a temporary increase in American casualties). However, at this stage in the game I'm not sure that's the best approach due to Turkey. Turkey is viciously suppressing a Kurdish independence movement in its own territory (some 20% of Turkey is Kurdish) and they have all but declared they would invade an independent or semi-independent Kurdistan in order to protect their own borders. If Biden could get Turkey to back off on their militarism, I think that would be the best plan, but until Turkey is out of the picture partition ultimately has to be as well. As messy as it is now, it would be even uglier with the Turkish military in the fray.
Click to expand...


ok, the "surge" working?
[URL="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17134253.htm"[/URL]

[URL="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4749595.html"[/URL]

shit, just are those two links... and what's this about a temporary rise in casualties, battlefield deaths have been going up since before the "surge" began.

and have you ever heard of the PKK? it's a terrorist organization. they have killed turkish civilians and soldiers for many, many years. turkey has every right to destroy their training camps.
 
Vincey37 said:
Better democracy spreaders than wrong.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you're right about this, and I'm terrified that this mentality has converted an entire generation of Republicans into backing a Wilsonian mentality they should not.


evil solrac v3.0 said:
ok, the "surge" working?
[URL="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17134253.htm"[/URL]

[URL="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4749595.html"[/URL]

shit, just are those two links... and what's this about a temporary rise in casualties, battlefield deaths have been going up since before the "surge" began.

and have you ever heard of the PKK? it's a terrorist organization. they have killed turkish civilians and soldiers for many, many years. turkey has every right to destroy their training camps.
Click to expand...

First, as I noted, one doesn't measure military success simply in terms of casualties. All of you throwing data about heightened death tolls- They really have nothing to do with whether an operation accomplishes its strategic goals or not. Telling me something I already conceded and/or offering the smarmy "I lolled" doesn't exactly persuade me.

Yes, I know what the PKK is, and the Turks are right in trying to stop it. With that being said, they have used the PKK as a pretext to suppress non-terrorist Kurdish nationals- they're not just blowing up some camps out in the desert. Remember, this is a country where insulting Turkishness is a crime punishable by prison- far from the happy liberal democracy it signs itself up as on the EU membership (and yes, I know the EU is starting to punish Holocaust denying in a similar way, but that only means the EU is moving away from liberalism, not that Turkey is moving toward it).
 
After seeing not one second of the debate, and instead reading this thread, it seems to me like Obama not having any conviction whatsoever is a strategy. Maybe a poor one, but if he were to choose sides or provide particular viewpoints, that would allow the competition (whether Democrats now or Republicans later) to use that as ammunition against him.

Am I wrong, or was something else going on?

I'm sure the guy has a plan and opinions on every little thing, but shielding himself from scrutiny is probably a good idea considering what it takes to win the candidacy and presidency.

And yes, I understand that saying nothing at all can have the opposite effect and also hurt him in the long run. But providing talking points at such an early stage does allow the competition to better nurture perverted (or fair) criticisms into mainstream thought.
 
Socreges said:
After seeing not one second of the debate, and instead reading this thread, it seems to me like Obama not having any conviction whatsoever is a strategy. Maybe a poor one, but if he were to choose sides or provide particular viewpoints, that would allow the competition (whether Democrats now or Republicans later) to use that as ammunition against him.

Am I wrong, or was something else going on?

I'm sure the guy has a plan and opinions on every little thing, but shielding himself from scrutiny is probably a good idea considering what it takes to win the candidacy and presidency.

And yes, I understand that saying nothing at all can have the opposite effect and also hurt him in the long run. But providing talking points at such an early stage does allow the competition to better nurture perverted (or fair) criticisms into mainstream thought.
Click to expand...
Wait, you missed the awesomeness that is Mike Gravel???
 
Socreges said:
Don't remind me. :(
Click to expand...
Imagine if Wilson from Dennis the Menace somehow wandered on stage for the debate and NO ONE TOLD HIM TO GET OFF THE STAGE. Man, was it seven different kinds of awesome.
 
The National Journal says soon as the debate was over Joe Bide surprisingly ran to Hillary's room and had a talk with her. Seems like Biden after his rather stellar performance is hoping he can take over the "frontrunner" of VP hopefuls from Richardson.
 
DS-61-5 said:
First, as I noted, one doesn't measure military success simply in terms of casualties. All of you throwing data about heightened death tolls- They really have nothing to do with whether an operation accomplishes its strategic goals or not.
Click to expand...

How do you know the surge is working? What measurements are you using?
 
Why are we arguing about the surge? This is a topic about the democratic primary. There isn't a single democrat or democrat candidate in support of the surge!
 
Cheebs said:
The National Journal says soon as the debate was over Joe Bide surprisingly ran to Hillary's room and had a talk with her. Seems like Biden after his rather stellar performance is hoping he can take over the "frontrunner" of VP hopefuls from Richardson.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....I would love to have Biden as VP. He so good in his interviews. I like when he went on the Bill Mohar show.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Hmmm.....I would love to have Biden as VP. He so good in his interviews. I like when he went on the Bill Mahar show.
Click to expand...


Biden easily has more personality than any of the other candidates (with the possible exception being Edwards). He was funny as hell on the John Stewart show too.
 
LegendofJoe said:
Biden easily has more personality than any of the other candidates (with the possible exception being Edwards). He was funny as hell on the John Stewart show too.
Click to expand...
He is very personable and folksy and pulls it off without the southern accent that tends to be a requirement for that.
 
It's gonna sound pretty stupid, but I don't even care that much which one of them is elected, but one of them has to become the president. Whichever it would be, it can't be worse than right now.

Gravel was pure awsomness. :lol I'm rewatching his parts on Youtube right now. Too bad I can't find a video from after the debate (the one Truimph is talking about). I also agree with what he says, and isn't afraid to make everything so vague and neutral to not lose votes (probably because he doesn't have a change to be elected anyway :)).

Biden and Edwards have a lot of charisma. Dodd has it too.

Listening to Clinton is rather awkward in a way, but appearently (going by what people say) she did better than expected.

Kucinich didn't to too well in my eyes. The *mini constitution* thing was stupid, and as a whole, he didn't come of confident.

I don't really understand the hype behind Obama. He did pretty poor, dodging every question and hesitating a lot to make sure he didn't lose votes.

Richardson is a good speaker, but just going by this debate alone, I think I don't agree with him a lot.


In the end it doesn't matter which one get the presidential election ticket, just pick the one (or duo) who is most likely to win the hearts and minds of the American people.
I should read up on their points of view to make a choice.
 
I was just rewatching the gravel stuff. :lol


I loved this part:
Gravel: "Who the hell are you going to nuke Barack?"
Obama: "I am not planning to nuke anyone right now."
Gravel: " Well, I guess we are safe for awhile then!"
Click to expand...
 
Gravel: "Who the hell are you going to nuke Barack?"
Obama: "I am not planning to nuke anyone right now."
Gravel: " Well, I guess we are safe for awhile then!"
Click to expand...

:lol :lol :lol

I can't believe I missed this debate. I'm gonna have to track down the video now.
 
I watched a good chunk of the segments via MSNBC's broke-ass site (the video section has always been abysmal, but more so for OS X users), and my general viewpoint was that Clinton & Biden articulated themselves the best, by getting specific into addressing the Qs at hand within the time limits. Edwards and Obama pulled fairly typical performances, painting in generally broad strokes, though Edwards deserves all the credit in the world for being aggressive in laying out specific policies so early in his campaign, though I don't necessarily agree with them. I was hoping to see Richardson more confidently air policies, and while he did, and I agree with some of his foreign policy issues, he seemed to waffle in a couple of places and overemphasize it at the expense of other Qs. Also, Dodd deserves real credit for placing the gay marriage issue as the very real, civil rights issue it is, though the distinction between marriage and unions to me has always been nonsensical. Not a bad debate all around, if a little shortlived and shallow.
 
thefit said:
Gravel is your sure bet if you want to get a true old school Democrat. Did you know he was the one who single handedly filibustered Nixon to end the the Draft during Vietnam and won and his history of of how we ended up in Vietnam is considered the truest and most accurate account ands still used today in studies of that conflict. He is a true hidden treasure.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, just checked Wikipedia and it was Gravel that got the Pentagon Papers released publicly by inserting them into the congressional record! This guy is like Forrest Gump, he was everywhere.
 
Ouch

wiki on Gravel said:
Through February 2007, opinion polls of contenders for the Democratic nomination have all shown Gravel with a 1% or less support level. At the end of March 2007, his campaign had less than $500 in cash on hand against debts of nearly $90,000.[10]
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2026 Reminder - Don’t just work and sleep, find and act on your passion
2
51
821
Toons replied
Mel Gibson has unveiled the first look at “The Resurrection of the Christ”
2
77
633
The Fartist replied
First look at Martin Scorsese’s ‘What Happens At Night’ starring Leonardo DiCaprio And Jennifer Lawrence
1
196
DKehoe replied
Just a reminder how awesome Eddie Van Halen was
8
578
EviLore replied
Mandalorian and Grogu first clip
4 5 6 7 8
378
2K
kpopSuperstar replied
Top Bottom