World Forums

With the Iowa caucuses just concluded, the New Hampshire primary around the corner, figure we might as well have a thread on the topic. I know we have a Politics forum but most of us come here and check what is the discussion de jure. One of the few good things about our place is that you do not have to search through thousands of threads to discuss a topic like it is at other places. I will try to see if it is possible to move some of the comments already made to this thread.

This country will not elect a black president.

Can Obama carry any of the tates in the South?

Can he will Florida? ( Without help from his brother or a transgender Attorney General)

Can he win Ohio?

I don't see him winning any of the so called Republican states and if the GOP elects a moderate and forgets the right wingers, there is no way the Reagan Democrats will elect him.

Will the moderate Jews vote for him?

I don't see the Latino vote going for him in an overwhelming majority.

And yet the pundits are saying that if he wins New Hampshire next week, the whole thing is over. What is ironic is that these pundits live for this moment and yet are ready to call it over so quickly. The big significance of these early primaries is the ability to raise funds if you are successful. Because if you are not, no one is going to add to your war chest.

I agree, there is no way the Democrats take the White House with either Obama or Clinton.

The funny thing is that while the main unasked (but certainly implied) question is whether America's ready to vote for a black man, among the Blacks his standing is rather unclear and certainly underwhelming, to say the least.

Another irony is that considering what candidates stand for and what most of Blacks want, Huckster is probably their man. Not that he's going to get their votes:)

I would have gladly outsourced the job back to Her Majesty, alas Brits are as short on bright politicians as we are, and the rest of the world for that matter as well:)

So Leo, what you are really saying is that we're all now equally miserable communists, electing equally miserable candidates.



This is a sad state of affairs. I can't help but have a macabre sense of humor about all of this.

Mate

Look... quality- and credentials-wise, were our candidates any better 4 or 8 years ago?

Actually, though I've never been his fan, Richard Gephardt is probably a genius as compared to Obama.

Compared to Hillary? I dunno, really... I strongly detest her, for everything she stands for, but my hunch is that being what she is - Cynical Bitch - the country would be better off with her rather than Obama, Edwards, Huck or Romney.

Whichever way I slice it, every potential final contest looks extremely unappealing to me.

The madness but good for the economy, well at least the television sector.

The candidates collectively burned up more than $40 million on Iowa television alone, with Obama spending about $9 million, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton about $7.2 million, and John Edwards $3.2 million, according to Evan Tracey, the head of TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, which follows campaign television advertising.

Tracey said the campaigns will spend more than $26 million on television in New Hampshire, and "no campaign is going to have money to touch all of the Feb. 5 states."

Leo

Actually, yes, I think we had better candidates in the last 2 elections quality if not credentials wise, this being at least 2: Gore and Kerry. I know you won't agree with me on them, but in hindsight, I think on the strength of individual persona, both would have been worthy against the challenges of the last 8 years...especially as compared to Bush.

Bush had decent enough credentials, but not enough quality. The former can be read whilst the latter is a bit more a function of observing somebody carefully in an interactive forum. Suffice to say, I won't be fooled so easily again, which is why I am down at this slate of characters, Democrats and Republicans.

Guys

Until I learn something different, I am going to swing towards Obama. He seems like an idealist and a decent man. He is also not crazy for thinking that the United States can do both good and advance itself by penetrating the 3rd world.

The United States long had a mission with defeating Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and communism. We're in the middle of a war on terror against emergent foes that actually get tacit degrees of support from the aforementioned powers and principalities that we helped elevate. Why not go and engage the source directly? There are lots of Muslims in the 3rd world who can benefit from this kind of engagement.

Let's see. I am waiting to see him in more interactive debates.

Beware of idealists/decent men in politicis. I mean it.

P.S. There is no such thing as a "war on terror". That's why we're going to lose it. I mean it too.

Leo

I'm willing to give Obama the chance to stir up the American people through either inspiration or spite.

Also, idealism need not preclude effectiveness. Never mind that I don't consider Carter an idealist, but rather a sad and opportunistic demagogue, not least for reasons you and I are well aware of. Although Barrack's middle name is Hussein, I think he'll do the right thing...if you catch my drift.

Carter's quality as a human being cannot be questioned. The man walked the talk and is one of the USA's prominent stateman.


How is he an opportunistic demagogue?

Were you lookig for an opportunity to use that phrase? Do you even know what it means?

And if so, how does Carter comapre to reagan and Bush as a man>??

Carter is selling his soul with his demonzing of Israel. He compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, essentially challenging the existence of the Jewish state. He is doing all of this while receiving considerable funding from pro-Islamic sources.

I once believed he was an idealistic, albeit ineffective as a leader due to his lack of resolve and courage to be strong in the face of civilizational malevolence. Now I think he is not even idealistic, but rather a demagoguing opportunist. Sad.

Reagan was absolutely both an idealist and a man of steel who did what he had to do in standing up to communism. He will go down as one of the most influential men in all history for his role in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Bush to me is yet another ineffective idealist, albeit one considerably intellectually limited. I don't at all buy that he himself is the architect of the major initiatives of his administration. This is in sharp contrast to how Reagan passionately and ruthlessly pursued his vision of defeating The Evil Empire, appropriately using his advisers and the resources of this nation. He inspired Americans to pony up in the endeavor. Remember, I was once such person when I was a young US Army officer.

Bush and the war on terror? Don't get me even started.

Your argument is weak. The fact that carter has accurately placed blame on both Israel and the other Middle East countries for the on going conflict is fairly accurate. The problem is that anyone who views the Middle easte problem as a dynamic interaction is often labeled an antisemite. That argument held ground with the Holocaust guilt card that was overplayed. Would you describe a typical day for an Arab in the occupied territories?


What do you call a two tier system of social class based on religion or ethnicity?

How do you explain raegan's idelas of destroying Central America in the name of Fredom and fighting the evil Empire? Are you going to bring back the hundreds of thousands killed in the name of this so called freedom?

Where is Reagan and his policies now that the Evil Empire is gone? Where has the economic boom of the USA trickled ?

Want to explain the inequalities of the USA education system?

Question for the Obama supporters: what has he actually DONE while being a senator???

I mean, what's on his resume???

I believe the republicans have to be held accountable for Bush and the war. And that means they MUST LOSE this election.

But I have to be honest, their candidates look much better than Obama and Edwards.

Do Republicans deserve to lose it? Absolutely. Are their candidates better than Democrats? I'm trying to believe it, but cannot....On the other hand, Obama's nobody.

Obama is the worst naif of the current campaign. Closely followed by the John Fogerty wannabe, aka Huckster.

pramzan, you would be hard pressed to find a major accomplishment when Obama was a state legislator. He has energized people under 30, that's his major accomplishment.

He's got the look, he's got the talk, but can he deliver, better than a cynical bitch to use Leo's apt characterization. I'm not convinced either, but I'd take him before ANY of the Republicans running.

SO far it looks like I'm in Edwards camp; his modest beginnings appeal to me. Frankly, I think he's the most left wing of the serious dems but an ex-trial layers is equal to a cynical bitch.

The race will not end in New Hampshire no matter what. The really SUPER TUESDAY, Feb. 5 (which includes primaries in NY, IL and CA, inter alia) will decide it all for both parties.

Obama is an orator. Great at delivering a speech. But finally is getting noticed, has not delivered anything as a politician. Change is the buzz word. And the new one creeping in this weekend is the middle class. Interesting how all of the candidates are picking up on Edward's theme. Obama is the Seinfeld show of this campaign. Says a lot about nothing.

Bineaz - Is he a lock in Illinois? He had an easy senatorial campaign, running against the idiot from my state, Alan Keyes. Will Illinois Democrats nominated their own. Then again, Hillary is actually from the Illini State too.

BTW, professions of the major candidates ...

Clinton - attorney
Obama - attorney
Giuliani - attorney
Thompson - attorney
Romney - he has a JD but not sure if he ever practiced law
McCain - beer distributor
Huckabee - preachers
Richardson - politician
Paul - Obstetrician-Gynecologist

So while Edwards has the tag as the evil attorney, he is not the only one of the group.

Edwards have not the tag as "evil attorney" for being an attorney in general. He has it because he have been an ambulance chaser which is, among those who are somewhat knowledgeable about economy, about the same as being somewhat of a parasite. While of course (and somewhat to his defence) people subject to various wrongs should be rightfully compensated and it's presumably not his fault that the american tort laws are punitive and hence people can make a profit (exceeding mere restitution) of having been "wronged". And perhaps unfortunately also when nobody have been able to do what's "right" (i.e. avoid a injury) and thus increasing costs for all including those who take normal caution and for instance don't use products in otherways than adviced and so on.
But of course one could say that having been a parasite you presumably know how to fix the holes that allows for exploitations.

Law in itself is no bad thing because it is a rather broad education which gives quite a massive overview about how things actually works in society.
I don't know how it is in other countries but in Sweden the law degree have the common feature with medicine that ethics is a compulsory part. which can come handy for realising that within whichever ideology you have you may have at some point come to a decision based on some rationality, priority or whatever and which not always be pleasant.
Our foreign minister Carl Bildt has a blog where people can comment and you'd be surprised to see how some "armchair" politicians seem to think that they have some ideology where nobody would ever would feel wronged or put at hold (aside of whatever group they've by often less rational reasons have decided are evil). And when such eventually DOES get elected they hardly ever accomplish anything.

And if Mrs Clinton claims that Putin as a former KGB agent per definition does not have a soul..does that mean that CIA and other branches will be terminated? Or does it just mean that he haven't got the soul like for instance Tenet (who Clinton installed) which gave the go ahead for an invasion and start of a war USA didn't really need (and to which Mrs Clinton casted the vote to go ahead)?

As of now, I have no idea who to vote for. I don't like Giuliani or any other Republican candidate and of the Dems I only like (somewhat) Edwards.

I can't vote for Hilary simply because I don't like her and I don't like the fact that since 1988 only a Bush or a Clinton has been Prez. If Hil gets in then the cycle between the Bushs and the Clintons continue and I don't want that.

Obama is a great talker and that's about it. If he's the Dems choice in Nov I'm not sure l can vote for him.

But it's still early. We'll see how the campaign unfolds.

Lillie - You call Edwards an ambulance chaser? Why? Do you know of his legal work? He has represented clients due to personal injury. I have too. Does that make me an ambulance chaser as well?

His case of fame is Lakey v. Sta-Rite Industries, a product liability case that was settled in 1996 for $25 million. A 5-year-old girl was disemboweled by a defective drain in a wading pool. She survived but will never live a full life. The manufacturer continued to make and sell the drain cover despite being sued a dozen times on similar claims. Product liability cases are not created by lawyers. They are created by corporations that figure it is easier to settle cheaply on a claim instead of making products that are safe. Firestone did the same thing.

I have been on both sides when it comes to personal injury. I have had clients who have tried to settle claims on their own only to be frustrated by insurance claim settlers. Then when I make a phone call on their behalf, the tune changes. If these companies would treat people fairly, I would have less business. Yes, there are lawyers that a despise. But it is unfair to label Edwards an ambulance chaser.

Just received an email in regards to Obama titled:

Who is Barack Obama?

It made a big deal about his Muslim background. And it made a bigger deal about the radical Muslim background of his father and step-father. Considering the problems we are going through these days, I am surprised his name and background has not been made an issue. I don't feel right in reprinting the entire email, not certain of the contents (although a reference was made to snopes.com) but it did end as follows:

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Product liability cases are not created by lawyers. They are created by corporations that figure it is easier to settle cheaply on a claim instead of making products that are safe.

I am fully with you on that but I suppose it's the european in me that finds it somewhat repulsive on how the process of it is carried out in USA.
I've had a misdiagnosis myself that led to what is a malpractice which I'm dwelling about the insurance company but I wouldn't think that the doctor would be sued out of practice for it, nor the hospital that operated under necessary budget restrained imposed by politicians who likes do do "oh so well" and nor that I should gain more than I lost by a quite human error. The swedish government have recently awarded some compensation to a woman who had a kid and suffered some problems afterward despite nobody had done anything wrong it was just an unforseeable mishap that can happen to women when delivering a baby =bad luck, which I think adult people reasonably could take into account (odd statement but I think it's gross to think that taxpayers should found "happiness" at too great lengths..it's not like she was totally disabled as far as I've heard about it either).

And in some states I believe it can be difficult to find a pharmacy store that carries a wide range as well due to them having been sued out of practice...how does people in these states view that they have to rely on ordering medicine over the internet (with risk of getting inadequate fraud medicine)?

A little bit on Obama, from the WSJ's Law Blog:

January 4, 2008, 9:10 am

Barack Obama Was Once a Lowly Law-Firm Associate
Posted by Peter Lattman


All anyone can talk about this morning are last night’s big victories by Obama and Huckabee. Oh yeah, and Britney Spears’s meltdown too. Huckabee, a preacher, falls outside of our jurisdiction, and we’ll leave Britney’s woes to TMZ.com. So let’s look at Obama (Harvard Law ‘91).

Last month the Chicago Sun-Times did a deep dive into Barack’s days as a lawyer at Miner, Barnhill & Galland. After Harvard Law, Obama returned to the Windy City and joined the small litigation firm with deep Chicago political connections. As the Law Blog noted, Obama had an offer from Sidley Austin, where he had summered, but instead chose Miner Barnhill.

The story notes that as a junior associate at the small firm Obama played a behind the scenes role on the cases he worked on. It wasn’t too long ago that Obama was a lowly associate, billing out at $165 per hour and drafting legal motions, writing motions and prepping for depositions just like so many of you. “I was an associate, and a lot of my work was in the research and writing,” Obama told the Sun-Times. “I was one of the better writers. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work,” Obama added. “That’s actually something I regret — not doing more trial work.”

Said Judson Miner to the Sun-Times: “Barack was a young kid when he came here. He was not ‘THE Barack Obama’ yet.” And Miner also said: “As smart as he is, he is very quick to appreciate all kinds of nuances with legal issues. He finds it very hard to shoot back a real quick, simple answer. His instinct was to better understand what the nuances were.”

After three years as a full-time associate, he was elected to the State Senate. Miner offered to keep him on salary and let him open an office in Springfield. But it didn’t work out. Recalls Miner: “He’s such an honest guy. On the third day, he calls me up, ‘Jud, I’m not going to have any time here, so I don’t want to take a draw.’” So instead, Obama became “of counsel,” working out of the office during the Legislature’s summer breaks until he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

The story turns up the one oral argument Obama had before the Seventh Circuit, where he volleyed with Judge Richard Posner. (Law Blog Audio Clip of the Day: Click here and listen!) Obama defended a whistleblower who was allegedly blackballed by his bosses after he reported them for fraud. The issue was whether an arbitrator could award punitive damages. Obama won and his client, Ahmad Baravati, got to keep the extra $120,000. “I found he’s a very smart, innovative, skilled, relentless advocate for his client,” Baravati told the Sun-Times. “When I met him, he reminded me of Abraham Lincoln.”

Leo, I still like what I am reading about Obama. Again, I reserve judgment until I thoroughly understand all the candidates, which will take some time. I especially want to hear more of his views with regards to Islam and the war on terror.

Counterintuitive as it sounds, having somebody with a Muslim background and willing to take on Islamic radicalism by leveraging US assets to provide the 3rd world with a viable economic value proposition is intriguing. This is exactly what Pseudoerasmus and I are arguing about at World Crossing, whether of not so called American beneficence has and can be used thusly.

We need such a mission, which is an imperative of security as well as of cultural soul. If we can't, I just don't believe that anybody else can, whereupon the world will eventually slip into the proverbial abyss.

I'm liking Edwards a bit more, although I was disgusted a few months ago when he basically gave canned, peanut gallery answers to interesting questions on the economy and the environment. In my opinion, the Democrats should have an Obama and Edwards ticket, with either being President. If successful, whomever is vice president should eventually win a presidency, withstanding the experience of Al Gore.

"having somebody with a Muslim background and willing to take on Islamic radicalism by leveraging US assets to provide the 3rd world with a viable economic value proposition is intriguing."


Very intriguing indeed, precisely because no such person exists.

Leo

His name is Professor Fouad A. Ajami!

Yeah Mate, I got it, thank you.

Just because Professor Norman Finkelstein hates Israel doesn't mean all Jews do. Just an example.

There is nothing in Obama's bones to fight Islamofascism (the most appropriate description).

Let's see Leo. I am somewhat ignorant, but I will be looking closely at this. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

If freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose (Janis Joplin), then hope is the last resort when all other alternatives are either exhausted or have never existed in the first place:)

Mate

You're going to love this:

"This U.S. president is the most consequential the Middle East has ever seen."


Guess who said that? - You bet, Fouad Ajami. His article in the WSJ is titled quite modestly - Bush of Arabia

Leo

I think you are correct about other alternatives...hence, I hope.

Guess who said that? - You bet, Fouad Ajami. His article in the WSJ is titled quite modestly - Bush of Arabia

I guess I'm in good company!

He's called Bush of Arabia for a reason:

For the past six years Saudi Arabia has taken $900 bil in oil revenue, while "the sparsely populated emirate of Abu Dhabi is said to dispose of a sovereign wealth fund approximating a trillion dollars."

Not bad, eh? It's a huge leverage.

Leo

Do you recall what I posted about foreign powers and principalities now directly buying US assets? I think it was a Dubai interest that took a 7.5% stake in Citigroup. The leverage is no longer a specific trade balance.

The barbarians need not be in the gate when we're their serfs.



What saddens me is that sheer capitalist excess is driving this whole process of selling strategic assets to the highest bidder. This is what the destruction of what was once a proud culture rooted in Western Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage has been reduced to.

I dare say that the Russians, Chinese, and Islamic interests doing the buying reciprocate the same way with their assets. Simply look at how British Petroleum has to divest itself of Russian oil fields and yield to Gazprom.

The secular human libertarians nevertheless write poetically about how we will one day thank the foreigners for saving us with their injections of capital liquidity. Well, one of us is stupid, as I can't think so idealistically.

Mate

Yes I do and read about it before. It's a very unfortunate development, to say the least. But the American capitalism is famous for its resilience, which it has shown so many times before.

The pendulum WILL move in the direction favorite to us and there will be wind again in our sails. China won't fold (though it hasn't experienced herself a truly horryfying economic crisis yet - it will one day), but Russia will. If ever there was a Potemkin village, this one is.

Anyone seen the film "Charlie Wilson's war"? A democrat congressman from Texas who armed Afghanistan to battle the soviets (but failed to recieve budget means to take care of the aftermath).

He's called Bush of Arabia for a reason:

For the past six years Saudi Arabia has taken $900 bil in oil revenue, while "the sparsely populated emirate of Abu Dhabi is said to dispose of a sovereign wealth fund approximating a trillion dollars."

Well..oil price tends to go up with wars...recalling the speech "America is addicted to oil" as part of the motivation factors in engaging in them and he was widely persuaded and supported...