Obama Flirts with New Hampshire

-

obama 1.jpg
Barack Obama is sizzling — and now he’s flirting with New Hampshire.
There is no doubt about it — and it looks like what was a Mark Warner-Hillary Rodham Clinton battle will increasingly look like a primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama. Edwards is still in — but he’s not getting much oxygen in the press. I still like Wesley Clark as well.
The next campaign will be about the Iraq War, potentially the Iran War — and a competition of “personal narratives” — what each of these candidates overcame in their lives.
McCain, Obama, Clinton, Clark — all have compelling narratives.
I was just traveling in the UAE with the first woman Governor of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, and her Democratic powerhouse husband Bill Shaheen. As hard as I tried, I didn’t get any sense of who they might support in New Hampshire in 2008.
Wesley Clark was also in Dubai and good some good face time with the Shaheen political franchise.
The campaigns they have helped run or chaired included Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Al Gore and John Kerry. While their candidates aren’t batting 1000 on getting into the White House — they certainly have a good record for New Hampshire primary wins.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

71 comments on “Obama Flirts with New Hampshire

  1. sharan says:

    I cant say anything about this topic.
    Because i cant understand.
    Can i get clear explaination about this topic.
    ==============================================
    sharanya
    Indiana Treatment Centers

    Reply

  2. peter8528 says:

    This is a new site for me.I joined it because their lot to learn in this site.hope i could get more information about Obama Flirts.
    ==================================================
    Peter
    http://www.addictionrecovery.net/new-hampshire

    Reply

  3. peter8528 says:

    Well i am new to this site,
    but it has many important thinks to learn.
    can i find much more details about Obama Flirts
    ====================================================
    Peter
    Addiction Recovery New Hampshire

    Reply

  4. Mr. Cortez says:

    Obama has the answers and is very good at stating what the country needs most.

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    O-bomb-a and the War Party
    Barack Obama: He’s more of the same…
    by Justin Raimondo
    “Among the Democratic Party’s liberal antiwar wing, hopes were high that Barack Obama would become their voice when he made an impressive speech in which he called attention to the likely consequences of an invasion and characterized the entire project as a “dumb war.” At last! A Democrat with the guts to call out the Bush administration in no uncertain terms!
    Alas, it was not to be…
    He was against the war during the campaign for the Senate seat he now occupies, but once he got into office he came around to the War Party’s position, one that closely mimics warhawk John McCain’s “we’re in it and we gotta win it” stance. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Obama attacked the Bush administration for exaggerating the threat from Iraq and attacking war opponents as unpatriotic, yet he came out with a position not too far from that of the White House:
    “Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are involved in shaping our national security policies should do what we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient. I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of events on the ground.”
    The buzzwords and catch-phrases come at us a mile a minute “responsible,” “a stable foundation for the future,” “we owe it to the Iraqi people” until he finally comes out with his actual position:
    “In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home.”
    Extinguish the insurgency — how? With more troops? By carpet-bombing Iraqi cities?”
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10181

    Reply

  6. pauline says:

    “If you support any offensive war, consider yourself just as culpable of murder as the most insane serial killer.”
    Sarah Bellum

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    Might be an opportunity for Powell to redeem his legacy.
    Posted by steambomb
    His legacy is already cast in stone. You can’t reverse history. By rights, his “legacy” should include some prison time.

    Reply

  8. steambomb says:

    Nothing wrong with Obama, but this is not the time for another foreign policy novice.
    Bring on Wesley Clark!
    Posted by lina at December 11, 2006 11:07 AM
    A caller into the Ed Schultz show today raised an interesting Idea. Obama/Powell. Might be an opportunity for Powell to redeem his legacy.

    Reply

  9. Den Valdron says:

    bored

    Reply

  10. winnipeger says:

    amused

    Reply

  11. Den Valdron says:

    Bored

    Reply

  12. winnipeger says:

    forgive me, den, but i don’t take kindly to being threatened, either online or in meatspace. remember this “greatest hit” of yours?
    “You should also take it as an article of faith that I’m a great deal meaner, I don’t mind getting nasty or going for the jugular, the low road and the gutter are just fine with me, and I do like to make it hurt.”
    for someone who has alot to say about u.s foreign policy, you sure don’t practice the diplomacy you preach. but, that’s certainly nothing new here. “the world is on fire,” little boy, den screams — with a can of gasoline in one hand and matches in the other.
    it’s no wonder that steve is actively involved in shaping this country’s foreign policy, while you, poa and others are sitting at home wringing your hands, typing obsenities and threatening strangers on *someone elses* blog.
    but if you insist, den, i know you suck slurpees real good. gurgle. gurgle. LOL

    Reply

  13. Den Valdron says:

    And still nothing of substance? It’s hard to find a jugular when you offer up nothing but smirking mush, slurpee boy. You began as empty wind, and this is how you end. Pathetic.
    At the end of the day, you have a lot in common with the genuine anti-semites that I’ve met.

    Reply

  14. winnipeger says:

    goodbye, den. it’s certainly been a pleasure, tough guy.
    you sure do, “go for the jugular.” LOL

    Reply

  15. Den Valdron says:

    I notice that you haven’t said anything of substance anywhere long the line. You haven’t rendered any opinion on a substantive issue. Is Barack Obama a fit presidential candidate? You don’t register an opinion on the subject.
    Instead, here as in other threads, you choose to engage a pointless personal discussion, in your childish way engaging in passive-aggressive gamesmanship directed at another poster. This in fact seems to be the consistent MO for you on other threads.
    You engage in willful misconstruction to the point of dishonesty, you certainly engage in outright dishonesty. This discussion has done nothing more than confirm my initial suspicion that you are an infantile, mal-developed personality incapable of real dialogue.
    Just as well I’ve never had occasion to exchange words with you before. It’s not, in hindsight, as if you ever had anything to offer but your own masturbation. Truthfully, its not exciting to anyone but yourself.
    Back to your seven-eleven now, wallow in the infantile mush that passes for your thought, I’m sure some pre-teen will be impressed, particularly if you bribe her or him with a slurpee.
    goodbye.

    Reply

  16. winnipeger says:

    funny. the two biggest blowhards here sick of my big mouth?!
    priceless!

    Reply

  17. Den Valdron says:

    POA, I’m pretty sure everyone’s as sick of his running off at the mouth.
    Winnipeg’s also the flambe capital of the world, and here we have a perfect example.

    Reply

  18. winnipeger says:

    Is anyone else as sick of this irritating little pissant’s constant running off at the mouth as I am?
    Posted by: Pissed Off American at December 12, 2006 10:16 PM
    talking about yourself in the second person, poa?
    why don’t you SHUT UP and build me stool.

    Reply

  19. Pissed Off American says:

    you just might have a future in the WWF. i can see it now; den valdron vs. triple H for the heavyweight title! who is nastier? inquiring minds want to know.
    Posted by winnipeger
    Is anyone else as sick of this irritating little pissant’s constant running off at the mouth as I am?

    Reply

  20. winnipeger says:

    for any unfortunate souls still reading this thread,
    winnipeg is the slurpee capital of the world.
    but “hitting on pree teens?!”
    c’mon, den. for a self-professed bad-ass you’re repartee is pretty lame. methinks i smell a munchkin.

    Reply

  21. Den Valdron says:

    Shouldn’t you be harassing Carol for alleged anti-semitism? Or hitting on pre-teens? What exactly can you get one to do for the price of a slurpee? Never mind, I could care less.

    Reply

  22. winnipeger says:

    den,
    thanks. the feelings are mutual. i’m really not interested in your *agressive* games either. but please send the following into vince mcmahon–it’s classic:
    “You should also take it as an article of faith that I’m a great deal meaner, I don’t mind getting nasty or going for the jugular, the low road and the gutter are just fine with me, and I do like to make it hurt.”
    you just might have a future in the WWF. i can see it now; den valdron vs. triple H for the heavyweight title! who is nastier? inquiring minds want to know.

    Reply

  23. Den Valdron says:

    Thank you Winnipeger. As you’ll recall, you’re the one that sought out a personal conversation. Too bad, so sad if you don’t like it. I really am not terribly interested in your passive aggressive games. Perhaps you could take it back to your 7-11 in Transcona?

    Reply

  24. winnipeger says:

    den,
    i impressed by the sheer volume of your post and i agree with much that you write. please forgive me if i don’t have the time to devote to a detailed rebuttal. quite simply, my life does not permit at this point.
    so you’re in “junkyard dog mode” these days? so you’re a “great deal meaner” than those you’ve never met (seems like a problematic assertion, but hey)? you “don’t mind getting nasty or going for the jugular?” “the low road and the gutter are just fine,” with you? you really “like to make it hurt?”
    yippee, den. i didn’t know that we’re auditioning for the world wide wrestling federation here. somehow i thought that this is a political blog.
    and now for a few specific responses:
    “I’ve taught the holocaust in High School, fought the Malcolm Ross’s and Ernst Zundel’s of the world, and seen first hand the real thing, both in terms of racists, hate crime desecrations and the historical record.”
    i’m certainly heartened to hear that you are familiar with the subject of the holocaust and anti-semitism.
    “Unfortunately, the meaning of the terms ‘anti-semite’ and ‘anti-semitism’ has been completely degraded and considerably perverted by some who simply use it as a stick to beat on anyone who disagrees with them about Israel or the more questionable aspects of its foreign policy or domestic management of populations.”
    clearly, such is not the case on this blog. we disagree about many israeli policies, yet i have never cast this aspersion on you. in fact, many of the commenters disagree with me and a few others on the majority of these issues, and indeed, noone has labeled them anti-semites. carroll, however, is a different story. she has repeatedly demonstrated a hatred of israelis and jews in particular and this is an obvious example of anti-semitism. unless, that is, you think it’s acceptable to dream about “ripping jews intestines out and shoving them down their throats” this is a direct quote. you decide. anti-semitic? forget about her recent rhetoric questioning the validity of the holocaust and describing the conference in iran, with david duke as a presenter as a “good thing.” what do you think, den?
    “Now, perhaps I’m doing you a wrong, and you are not deserving of the opprobrium I offer up. It’s entirely possible that your comments are moderate and reasonable and you do not wave the bloody rag of anti-semitism as a political tool to crush those whose opinions annoy you. Possible.”
    thank you, den. i don’t.
    “I’m happy enough to have a civil conversation with you or anyone. But civil means keeping it civil, sticking to facts and arguments, listening carefully, speaking politely, and avoiding barbed words chosen for emotional freight. I’m happy to do all that.
    Your choice.”
    interesting words coming from the person who just accused me of, “hitting on pre-teens at a Transcona Seven-Eleven.” classic double-speak, my friend. talk is certainly cheap… and even cheaper on anonymous online forums.
    do what you will, den. i have no doubt that you are an intelligent person with some insightful life experience to share, but when you threaten others with small-penis BS like this:
    “You should also take it as an article of faith that I’m a great deal meaner, I don’t mind getting nasty or going for the jugular, the low road and the gutter are just fine with me, and I do like to make it hurt.”
    it only makes me laugh and shake my head.
    sorry, den.

    Reply

  25. Robert Morrow says:

    Regarding Bilderberger. Expect Barrack Obama to get that invitation next year for summer 2007; Obama probably has it already on his calendar. He is a lead pipe cinch to go and that will be a sure fire sign that the liberal elites are very serious about his candidacy. Actually, they aleady are.

    Reply

  26. Den Valdron says:

    For what its worth, Barack Obama seems distinctly unqualified as a Presidential candidate.
    His political career consists of winning a single victory in the US Senate. It was a victory in which the Republicans were in such disarray that their preferred candidate, a Jack Ryan I believe, imploded amid allegations of political dirty tricks, wife abuse and group sex. Thereafter, the Republicans fielded a late entry candidate, certifiable lunatic Alan Keyes, and followed up by failing to support or fund him.
    Obama in this case simply won by showing up. Perhaps he was a good campaigner, a magnetic speaker, a decisive and brilliant individual. None of this was necessary in a race where his opposition consistently exploded or imploded.
    Thereafter, as I understand it, he gave one very very good and impressive speech at a Democratic National Convention.
    And that’s it.
    Barack Obama has not taken any significant leading position on any real issue of the day. He has not spoken out strongly for or against the Iraq War. He’s not stood up for civil rights. He has not opposed or taken a clear stance on the War on Terror. Afghanistan? Tax Cuts? Trade deficits? Economic policy? Foreign relations?
    Sorry, Obama is simply not there. At best he’s simply gone with the flow, or tried for some Kerry’esque ‘Can’t we all get along’ shtick.
    Obama has not pioneered any major piece of legislation. He has not been at the center of any fight against a major piece of legislation. He has not distinguished himself in Committee work, in Hearings, or on the floor of the Senate.
    He has no substantial record as a State Governor, Lieutenant Governor, High Official or State legislator.
    All he’s really got for a record apart from a good keynote speech and a throwaway Senate Win is a few cotton candy books long on treacly sentiment and damned short on policy and thinking.
    Basically, there’s simply no record to assess for Obama.
    So what are we left with, Obama’s ongoing performance as a politician?
    Well, on that front, he’s chosen Joe Lieberman as a mentor. Like Lieberman he’s made a lot of hay attacking his fellow Democrats and giving aid and comfort to the Republicans. He’s on record as kissing McCain’s ass after McCain handed out a bitchslap to him. He continually talks about the need to cater to or embrace the religious right, even while this religious right gives him the back of the hand. But in his pursuit of the religious vote, he seems bent on criticizing Democrats for not being sufficiently sympathetic or tolerant of creationism and millenialism.
    Perhaps because of his accommodationist sympathies, he has failed to distinguish himself politically or to take clear stands on issues. Worst of all, he seems unable to align with or speak on behalf of any Democratic constituencies.
    In short, he’s an empty suit. There’s no record with discussing, and there’s no indication in his ongoing behaviour or politics that he’s got a spine, or principles or insight anywhere.
    His political approach, such as it is, seems as hypernuanced and obscure as Kerry, as accommodationist and regressive as Lieberman. He’s not as unctiously offensive as Lieberman, not as relentlessly dull and ineffectual seeming as Kerry. Rather, he seems to find a middle between the two.
    Both men are bland, not fire and ice, but rather warm coals and melting snow. Obama does little more than amount to a tepid form of lukewarm water.
    Sure, he can wear an ill fitting suit, and he’s got a short haircut, and he can talk nice. But let’s be serious.

    Reply

  27. Den Valdron says:

    You’ll forgive me, Winnipeger, I seem to be in a junkyard dog mode these days, and prone to stripping flesh right down to the bone. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that since I recognize this mode I feel particularly bad about it or reluctant to do it at the least provocation. It’s one of those caveat emptor things.
    With respect to the various problems facing the United States, my assessment is that Americans either generally, or in terms of elites such as those that our friend Steve represents have no real clue as to how much trouble they’re in. The facts are there, but the nation and the elite travel along blithely on a cloud of unreality or indifference.
    A textbook example of this is the Baker Commission’s suggestion that despite drawdown, a long term military presence in Iraq is sustainable. In reality, the Iraq military venture is on the verge of catastrophic collapse. But this is only one of endless examples. Steve himself continually assumes, despite evidence to the contrary, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Steve continues to speculate about Iran’s imaginary plans, while discussing equally imaginary plans to foil these ambitions.
    And so it goes. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem prepared to even acknowledge the nations problems, much less wrestle with them. Instead, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman pontificate on flag burning amendments and video game violence. Lieberman’s stance on Iraq is oblivious to reality. Clinton avoids meaningful discussion of the subject and can’t even be moved to discuss a controversial police murder of her constituents.
    Indeed, public discussion in the United States is a tropic stew of spin, talking points, appeals to red meat and racism, reflexive antagonism and short term thinking on every level. It’s as if the Titanic, having sighted the iceberg, settled on full speed ahead, and having hit the iceberg, reversed engines temporarily, built up a good head of steam, and is bent on hitting it as many times as necessary.
    Having surveyed much of the American political spectrum, I’m astonished at the poor quality of thought going on, even on allegedly liberal and left wing sites. Maybe its something in the water, I don’t know.
    But regardless of your views, there is quite a lot of evidence as the dominant American viewpoint being one of utter obliviousness to its circumstances. It is a nation choking on its own illusions. The comment that it is a nation ‘trapped in a bad Stephen King novel, and doesn’t even know it’ is appropriate. Certainly those at the center of 9/11 and Katrina knew horror face to face, but these occurrences have produced no general awakening in American consciousness.
    On the issue of ‘anti-semites’, I can say that unlike certain people, I have actually met genuine anti-semites.
    In particular, I’ve gotten into quite violent arguments with people who saw history from the Sumerians on as a recurring cycle of civilizations emerging, being infiltrated by semites, collapsing, and being replaced by new civilizations, which were then in turn infiltrated by semites, collapsed, and replaced ad infinitum. It was deeply disturbing and deeply pathological.
    I’ve taught the holocaust in High School, fought the Malcolm Ross’s and Ernst Zundel’s of the world, and seen first hand the real thing, both in terms of racists, hate crime desecrations and the historical record.
    Unfortunately, the meaning of the terms ‘anti-semite’ and ‘anti-semitism’ has been completely degraded and considerably perverted by some who simply use it as a stick to beat on anyone who disagrees with them about Israel or the more questionable aspects of its foreign policy or domestic management of populations.
    It’s used as an ultimate trump card, and in such use it degrades and coarsens all dialogue and discussion. It is a term which should not be thrown around lightly, and all too often is. It is a term that I avoid using except in the most egregious circumstances, and even in those circumstances my preference is to demonstrate conclusively the bankruptcy of my opponent than call him names.
    As I’ve demonstrated, and as you’ve complained, anyone can take a cheap shot. Did you feel it added anything to the discussion when I did it? Do you feel that taking such shots on other people really contributes to the discussions. Do you see any kinship between my drawing blood on you, and your libel of others? Apparently not, since your automatic reflex was to complain about my being mean to you and to continue to denounce someone as an anti-semite?
    Now, perhaps I’m doing you a wrong, and you are not deserving of the opprobrium I offer up. It’s entirely possible that your comments are moderate and reasonable and you do not wave the bloody rag of anti-semitism as a political tool to crush those whose opinions annoy you. Possible. Or maybe you’re some sarcastic smart ass whose opinions on the middle east are no thicker or deeper than the shallow boosterism of cheering on the home team, right or wrong, and where upping the ante to the point where you can scream ‘anti-semite’ is a terrific way to win your arguments. That’s also possible.
    So, two possibilities, and how to choose? A quandary, is it not. I suppose that you can engage in self reflection, test your own conscience and come to your own conclusions as to who is staring back from the mirror. And others can draw their conclusions. As for me, here I am in junkyard dog mode, and you’ve chosen to specifically go out of your way and address and engage me personally in a manner that some might perhaps find challenging…. Oh my. There are unpleasant potentials here, aren’t there?
    So tell you what. You can take it for granted that I am at the least, generally as smart and well informed as you are. You should also take it as an article of faith that I’m a great deal meaner, I don’t mind getting nasty or going for the jugular, the low road and the gutter are just fine with me, and I do like to make it hurt. But I don’t have to be mean, and I’m happy enough to set aside instincts and junkyard dog mode, avoid it and carry on a civil conversation.
    I’m happy enough to have a civil conversation with you or anyone. But civil means keeping it civil, sticking to facts and arguments, listening carefully, speaking politely, and avoiding barbed words chosen for emotional freight. I’m happy to do all that.
    Your choice.

    Reply

  28. MP says:

    Oh karenk…fire away…everyone else does.
    Much, much stranger things have been said on these comments.

    Reply

  29. karenk says:

    OHH I’m gonna get serious flack for this one…and I hate to admit it myself but… Even though people say one thing,the REALITY is(even in NY, forget the deep south), the majority of people are not gonna vote for a black guy for president(even if he’s only half black). I would though. But the reality is, the majority won’t-not ready. Sorry.

    Reply

  30. winnipeger says:

    please quote me correctly, den. i didn’t say “Grand overgeneralizations.” i said “grand generalizations.” and yes, i do believe you make them when you say:
    “As for my vantage point, it’s the vantage point of watching a great nation leap headfirst into the toilet. It’s the vantage point of watching a horrific act of self immolation. America has turned into a bad Stephen King novel, and doesn’t even know it.”
    so “america” doesn’t know it’s in trouble? really? check the right-track, wrong-track polls, den. MOST of america knows it’s in trouble… big trouble.
    and in regards to the other insult you level against me, i do not accuse others of anti-semitism at the drop of a “handerkerchief.” but, i DO believe it exists. do you? when someone (carroll) threatens to “rip the intestines” out of israelis and jews and “shove them down their throats,” or when she says that she thinks the conference in iran questioning whether or not the holocaust ever happened, participants of which include the former head of the KKK, is a GOOD thing, yeah, i do believe the shoe fits.
    as far a the following statement:
    “But what the heck, its easier to dismiss my views as superficial generalizations, isn’t it. It give you more time to indulge Likud-style hysteria and hit on pre-teens at a Transcona Seven-Eleven.”
    1. i’m not dismissing your views above as generalizations, but the following statement (which you made earlier in this thread IS,
    “America has turned into a bad Stephen King novel, and doesn’t even know it.”
    2. the last sentence above is completely juvenile and objectionable. for someone who is so smart, you’re also pretty stupid. i don’t think there is any reason to accuse anyone on this blog of pedophilia and i’m sure that steve would agree.
    p.s. i am not, nor have i ever been a supporter of the likud.

    Reply

  31. Den Valdron says:

    Robert Morrow’s hate filled rant consisting of wall to wall lies about the imaginary misdeeds of the Clinton administration is duly noted.

    Reply

  32. Den Valdron says:

    “Grand overgeneralizations”? That’s rich coming from a man who screams ‘Anti-Semite’ at the sign of a dropped handkerchief.
    As to the state of America:
    – The military commissions act, which terminates habeas corpus, authorizes torture, and essentially shreds the bill of rights.
    – A network of secret overseas prisons, including Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and unnamed facilities in Eastern Europe, complete with secret prisoners, secret interrogations, and continuing efforts to keep them out of the reach of US law.
    – A disastrous failing war in Iraq which has killed 3000 Americans and 600,000 Iraqi’s, and which has effectively castrated American military power, and worse, castrated America’s international goodwill and soft power.
    – Another disastrous failing war in Afghanistan. Yes, Bush is making the world safe for heroin.
    – A colossal ongoing international trade deficit, year after year in the neighborhood of half a trillion, cumulatively now probably around a few trillion dollars.
    – A collossal ongoing government deficit, year after year in the neighborhood of several hundred billion dollars, now cumulatively around a few trillion dollars.
    – A progressive decay of government functions and services which in part resulted in the FEMA/New Orleans debacle. Over 1500 dead and one of America’s premiere cities still in ruins years later.
    – A systematic failure of security, resulting in 9/11. Another 3000 dead Americans.
    The bottom line is, take a good look at America, and you see a country literally eating its own seed corn. A nation engaged in massive transfers of wealth to the richest, all the while punishing its own middle and working class, exporting or dissolving its economic fundamentals and driving up debt to unsustainable levels. It is a country mismanaged to colossal levels.
    Combined with that is an erosion of its international position, due to weakening economy and appalling bad judgement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bad judgement has eroded America’s position in latin America, central asia and east asia, either by taking resources and attention or alienating local powers. Worse, the likely and imminent collapse of the United States in its occupations will likely shift the entire middle eastern region away from American influence, and this is a vital strategic region.
    In short, the United States has over the last six years made a series of disastrously bad choices, be they military, international, political, domestic and financial. At the best, the United States will pay for these decisions for a generation or more. At worst, the United States may well have inflicted a perfect storm.
    Beyond that, there is the moral misconduct of the Bush administration, which has already announced it will not honour subpoenas from congress. It has already misused the intelligence capacities of the Department of Homeland Security for political purposes (in the case of both the Texas legislators, and in case of Bolton’s access to secret cables on other American diplomats {literally, Bolton was spying on Powell}). The Administration has engaged in covert spying upon American citizens, in direct violation of the FISA law. The Administration has arbitrarily designated American citizens detained in the United States as ‘enemy combatants’. The administration has authorized the illegal use of torture techniques such as waterboarding, and in fact, persons have died under interrogation. The President of the United States, through the use of signing statements has essentially announced selective adherence to any law of congress.
    All of this is disturbing enough, and sets a very bad series of precedents available for misuse. What is most disturbing is the willingness to misuse for political purposes. I’ve already mentioned Bolton and the Texas Legislators, in which confidential or security information was disposed to political uses. The Plame affair is also another sign of political misconduct, in that case, destroying an intelligence asset for revenge against a person speaking out.
    All of this culminates in the atrocity known as the Military Commissions act, which is simply egregious on every front. As I’ve said, it legitimizes torture, immunizes torturers, it shreds the constitution and even the basic right of habeas corpus.
    The overall picture that emerges is a bad one, perhaps a nightmarish one. It is not a picture of a single atrocity or blunder or pustule of evil. Rather, it is a mosaic, part incompetence, part malice, which collectively creates an inescapable picture.
    But what the heck, its easier to dismiss my views as superficial generalizations, isn’t it. It give you more time to indulge Likud-style hysteria and hit on pre-teens at a Transcona Seven-Eleven.

    Reply

  33. Robert Morrow says:

    Barack Obama is my selection for TIME person of the year. I think that he is a very special candidate for the Democrats. People mention “experience.” He sure doesn’t have the 35-year experience of personally violating hundreds of people like that pair of co-dependent, enabling Clinton sociopaths do. If Ronald Reagan, on the verge of losing his marbles and Bill Clinton, sticking cigars up the vaginas of interns and LOSING the nuclear launch codes, can run the White House then ANYONE can. Just stick a decent person in there with the ability to delegate to competent people and that’s all you need.
    Democrats are extremely concerned that Hillary will be a lightening rod that will cost them the election in 2008. They should be extremely concerned that Hillary and Bill use violence and criminal intimidation tactics to achieve and maintain power. Some of the Clinton thugs were Buddy Young, Anthony Pellicano, Jack Palladino and Terry Lenzer. Did I mention Anthony Pellicano is now in JAIL in LA and charged with the same kind of criminal intimidation crap he did for Hillary in the 1990’s.
    So I will take John Edwards or Barack OBAMA any day over Hillary, America’s Gollom – that shrieking, cursing, domestically violent woman who made deal with the Devil. Hillary is just not worthy of the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama, although a little green in a good way, certainly is.

    Reply

  34. winnipeger says:

    “As for my vantage point, it’s the vantage point of watching a great nation leap headfirst into the toilet. It’s the vantage point of watching a horrific act of self immolation. America has turned into a bad Stephen King novel, and doesn’t even know it.”
    those sure are some grand generalizations, den. but, hey, go for it. life is much easier that way.

    Reply

  35. Frank says:

    BUSH ON HIS LEGACY: “I’LL BE DEAD WHEN THEY GET IT RIGHT”
    Being already brain dead makes the prophecy redundant.

    Reply

  36. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “I say this in all kindness…those of you on here pimping for one presidential hopeful or another are wasting your time….beside the fact that you don’t even know how to get our interest with the rote talking points re deux….no one cares right now….between now and next year the world will revolve and everything will change…including the talking points.”
    I agree…the world will change a lot between now and then. OTOH, if you don’t care about potential candidates, then you will get Bush III and maybe IV because you’ll leave the field to those who do.

    Reply

  37. liz says:

    Obama is Mr. FeelGood. He’s pretty, Democrat, speaks well, sounds reasonable and has absolutely nothing to bring to the office of President of the United States. I have no doubt he would be better than the current resident but he has zero foreign policy experience, very little legislative experience, he wasn’t born here either, could be a muslim, does anyone know? And frankly he ” feels good but can’t hold the water”. We just had a prez that couldn’t hold the water… so let’s try someone with some real experience and a clear mission and vision…..
    it ain’t Mr. FeelGood here……..

    Reply

  38. Marky says:

    It’s all about reading.
    Can you imagine someone voting for Bush if all they had to go on were his paper record and accurate transcripts of his public words?
    Also, the ubiquitous GOP practice of highly selective, out of context quoting is totally ineffective on a literate public. For example, not one person who read the Kerry botched joke in context could conclude that he intended to insult the troops—it’s an impossible reading. And yet even Democrats fell over themselves to bury the hatchet in Kerry because they want someone who speaks perfectly and never utters a single sentence which, out of context, can be turned against him. Such a person does not exist.. and certainly no Republican is like that.
    Notice that the Republicans, by and large, don’t have the problem that their candidates are pilloried for misspeaking—that’s because GOP public figures don’t go around attacking each other for trivial slips.
    The Democrats have fallen so far into the victim role that they reject qualified candidates who are not verbally careful and polished for someone like Obama. Obama himself has probably restrained his natural temperament just to avoid an “Obama scream” moment.
    The circular firing squad that makes up the Democratic leadership have only themselves to blame here.
    If they would stand by Dean, Feingold, Gore and others, instead of hacking them to pieces for the viewing pleasure of Republicans, the Democratic party would probably already be impeaching Bush, and with full public support.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    I say this in all kindness…those of you on here pimping for one presidential hopeful or another are wasting your time….beside the fact that you don’t even know how to get our interest with the rote talking points re deux….no one cares right now….between now and next year the world will revolve and everything will change…including the talking points.

    Reply

  40. Den Valdron says:

    Where do I live, Winnipeger? Well, let’s just say I don’t live in Transcona, St. Vitale, the Maples, Tuxedo, Headingly, St. James, North End, the Exchange District, Riverfront, Corydon, Osborne Village or Pembina.
    As for my vantage point, it’s the vantage point of watching a great nation leap headfirst into the toilet. It’s the vantage point of watching a horrific act of self immolation. America has turned into a bad Stephen King novel, and doesn’t even know it.

    Reply

  41. winnipeger says:

    a short aside:
    just looking at the picture of BO at the top of this thread, i’m reminded that i inherently distrust those individuals who stand on stage pointing and waving at nobody while 50 cameras shoot away.
    disturbing.

    Reply

  42. Clarkin08 says:

    The google search comparison really should recognize that General Clark is searched for by some as “Wes” and others as “Wesley”. Hillary and Barack on the other hand do not get searched for as “Hill Clinton” and “Bar Obama”. Anyway, taking this into account, I returned 1,780,000 google searches for Barack Obama, 3,090,000 for Hillary Clinton, and a total of 3,320,000 for Wes or Wesley Clark. Perhaps this is because as “nocore” has pointed out at the Huffington blog:
    – Wes Clark has more national security experience than Hillary and Obama combined.
    – Wes Clark has more international diplomatic experience than Hillary and Obama combined.
    – Wes Clark has more environmental expertise than Hillary and Obama combined.
    – Wes Clark did more to get Democrats elected in 2006 than Hillary and Obama combined.
    – Wes Clark speaks more languages than Hillary and Obama combined.
    – Wes Clark has greater red state-crossover appeal than Hillary or Obama.
    – Wes Clark has a more Progressive health care plan than Hillary or Obama.
    – Wes Clark has won a war. Neither Hillary nor Obama can make this claim.
    – Wes Clark was against the Iraq War from Day One. Obama was also. But Hillary was 100% for it.
    – Wes Clark has offered a comprehensive plan forward on Iraq. Hillary and Obama have only mustered a few vagaries.
    – Wes Clark is the only 2008 Democrat who gets treated with cowering deference on right wing talk shows. Hillary and Obama get jumped all over and disrespected up and down.
    – Wes Clark is a perfect foil against the 2008 GOP strategy: “Democrats Can’t Keep You Safe”. Hillary and Obama have little to bring to the table in this department.
    – Wes Clark is a bedrock Progressive on domestic policy. Hillary and Obama are safety-first centrists.
    So, my fellow political watchers, which of these three do you think is best qualified to be President of the United States?

    Reply

  43. winnipeger says:

    den,
    would you be willing to say where you live? i’d be interested to know a bit about your vantage point in the world.

    Reply

  44. Frank says:

    Glad to see others feel the same way…Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark for me. The rest too sleazy, or too inexperienced.
    Once the lens of scrunity on Obama is brought to focus, watch out for imperfections, which will be magnified beyond reasonableness by the side of darkness.

    Reply

  45. Pissed Off American says:

    “As I am wont to say all too often when contemplating America: What the hell is wrong with you people?”
    Posted by Den Valdron
    Well, Den. We no longer choose candidates by experience or qualifications. We select from carefully marketed figureheads, presented to us by a media that is pimping for big business and global interests. A politician becomes popular because he is marketed as being popular. It is that simple.
    What is wrong with us? We are fat. Lazy. Disengaged. Wasteful. Self-centered, and ego-centric. And across the board, ignorant. And all those traits have been nurtured by our corrupt and elitist ruling class. Our ignorance works in thier favor.
    Any more questions?

    Reply

  46. Den Valdron says:

    Barack Obama – He’s what you get if you make a computer composite of John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and then eliminate both history and accomplishment.
    As I am wont to say all too often when contemplating America: What the hell is wrong with you people?

    Reply

  47. Roger says:

    As of 12/11/2006 7:30 p.m. Central Standard Time, Wesley clark trailed Barak Obama in Google hits 1,080,000 to 1,600,000. Hillary got 2,030,000 hits, which is not impressive, considering that she’s been in the limelight for 14 years or so.

    Reply

  48. jen says:

    I agree with those who believe Obama would be better off in the VP slot for 8 years (under Clark if this country has any good sense). That could put the White House in Dem hands until 2024!
    The fact that Corporate press is now pushing he and Senator Clinton should tell us something…

    Reply

  49. peg says:

    after New Hampshire, it’s off to South Carolina….
    Clark would have a great chance because of the high military population — and unfortunaely — the high percentage of Faux news watchers, which Clark appears on regularly. Whenever his name is brought up, no negative terms are heard — at least in this part of the state (strom thurmond’s neck of the woods) which happens to be the reddest area.

    Reply

  50. Ben says:

    Obama is my Senator. I think he has far too little executive-level experience to be running for President, should he decide to do so. With just two years in office, there is far too little known about his positions. Perhaps a run in 2016 would be better – after 8 years as Vice President.
    Wes Clark, on the other hand, is the complete package ready to hit the ground running. He has tons of executive-level experience, foreign policy experience, and a very attractive domestic policy vision for America.
    2009 is not the time for a Junior Senator to start On the Job Training!

    Reply

  51. Marky says:

    Speaking of Gore, I think it would do good for the country to get over the obsession with looks. I think its fair to say that most people would say Bush is better looking than Kerry, and I recall that Howard Dean’s bull neck was considered a detriment to his chances.
    Hell, the overattention to superficial temperament should go too. A lot of people, even on the left, are excessively harsh on Kerry because he comes across as cold. How about listening to what he says? Even better, how about reading it?

    Reply

  52. Marky says:

    I don’t think Obama’s problem is lack of conviction, but rather excessive caution.
    He comes across to me as someone who would be quite a “decider” if he became President, but his desire to keep his political baggage light until he gets to the White House is unattractive compared to someone like Gore.

    Reply

  53. pauline says:

    Carroll wrote:
    “A lot of good speeches but where is the meat?”
    Does anybody know Obama’s real stance on the Iraqi war?
    He wasn’t part of the Senate in October, 2002, so we can’t even measure him like the rest of the establishment politicians who illegally and unconstitutionally voted for a “war resolution” rather than a “declaration of war” as our constitution demands.
    I’d say he’s a “smooth” speaker, not a “great” speaker, but certainly no Ralph Nader or Jim Webb in taking a definitive stance, one way or the other, on the war.

    Reply

  54. jinny says:

    Hi Linda:
    Need to make it clear that Wes Clark did not move to Los Angeles in order to take up the Senior Fellowship at the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA.
    Wes and Gert Clark own a home in Little Rock. They visit LA frequently as their only son, Wes Jr, lives there with his wife Astrid and their two grandchildren.

    Reply

  55. Rob says:

    The big question to me is whether Obama will be able to withstand the media scrutiny once it begins and will he able to offer detailed solutions to a nation’s problems. Charisma will not take him all the way. He will need a lot of substance once he gets onstage with Clinton, Clark, Dodd, Biden, and others who have decades of knowledge and experience.

    Reply

  56. Carroll says:

    As the old sales pros say..”sell the sizzle” not the steak.
    Unfortunately a lot of people buy the sizzle……which is why this country is in the condition it is.
    Obama reminds me of the other media creatons like Reagen and Edwards.
    A lot of good speeches but where is the meat?

    Reply

  57. Linda says:

    I posted back in September that a Clark/Obama or Clark/Edwards ticket would be ideal and also about Clark’s move to LA. The public is hungry for new faces and new ideas–and that puts Clinton, Gore, Kerry at a distinct disadvantage. They also want military/foreign policy experience, and one term in the Senate is not enough to get Obama or Edwards to the top of the ticket.
    Wes Clark moved to LA a couple months ago and is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. Ron Burkle is a So Cal billionnaire who was a big supporter of Bill Clinton and Gore. Of course, to my knowledge, Burkle hasn’t decided who he will support in 2008. But by positioning himself with LA as his base and home (None of the potential 2008 candidates is from CA.),Clark will be in good shape to go after all the movie industry and other LA big contributors to Democrats.

    Reply

  58. lugbolt says:

    Social justice and foreign policy=Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards. That’s my 2 cents.

    Reply

  59. AK says:

    Steve:
    What does it matter who the “powerhouse” Shaheens support? When Obama wasn’t even on the political map in Illinois, the Democratic Party overwhelmingly supported Dan Hynes whose candidacy was inferior to Obama’s in every conceivable way. The voters of Illinois recognized that, and voted for Obama over Hynes in the Democratic Senate Primary by a 2-to-1 margin.
    Assuming no scandals or significant rhetorical gaffes, Obama would lose New Hampshire only if he were to be overwhelmingly outspent by his competitors. He was losing by a wide margin to liberal multi-millionaire Blair Hull for most of the 2004 Illinois Senate primary until Hull was publicly accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife. Hull was outspending Obama substantially because at first, the latter’s campaign was small potatoes and struggled to attract big funders.
    If another Blair Hull emerges among the Democrats competing for New Hampshire, and Obama can’t keep pace at the bank, then his candidacy there might be in trouble. But if he CAN keep pace with 2008’s Blair Hull, he’ll eat the NH competition for lunch in that trademark affable Obama way.

    Reply

  60. pauline says:

    What’s all the crap about the Bilderberg group, the super-rich from Europe and the U.S. who are really the ones who decide which candidates can become the U.S. presidential and vice-presidential candidates?
    I was told Kerry and Bush both attended (by invitation only) past Bilderberg meetings, so, if true, I guess to the super-rich, it didn’t matter who won the 2004 election.
    “Bilderberg has a proven history of acting in a kingmaker capacity. Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair attended before becoming President and Prime Minister and the mainstream media reported that Bilderberg selected John Edwards as Kerry’s running mate in 2004.”
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/150606clintonattend.htm

    Reply

  61. Zathras says:

    There have always been differences between the things needed to be elected President and those needed to be a good President. As the business of the permanent campaign has taken over more and more of the business of government, those differences seem to have multiplied, which people ought to find troubling.
    Would so many people be as enthusiastic now about Barack Obama if he looked like Bernie Sanders or Carl Levin? That question answers itself. Carefully avoiding taking positions to which major organized interests in one’s party might object is a widely-recognized way to negotiate the nomination process, but one that inconveniently removes one good way for the public to distinguish between candidates who can handle the Presidency and those who would find themselves well out of their depth if they actually got elected.
    “Compelling personal stories” and the relentless exposition (and manipulation) thereof are de riguer for candidates who want to impress easily impressed people in the media and elsewhere that they have overcome great trial and hardship. Finally, it’s become a given among national media to write off the question of whether a prospective candidate has accomplished very much in public life as a factor in assessing his (or her) Presidential candidacy. The disadvantages of this fact are too obvious to merit their being listed here.
    The last 16 years or so will not go down as a high point in the history of the American Presidency. Perhaps the most significant reason for this is that as a nation we have come to take for granted that the people who should be President are the people who can negotiate a nomination process that has little to do with separating candidates able to serve effectively from those who cannot — a process that, in reality, imposes substantial handicaps on candidates unwilling to devote themselves completely to skills that will be useless to them, or at least to the country, if they do get elected.
    Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, are in different ways ideally suited to compete in this process. So was George Bush six years ago. Any of these candidates can generate a certain amount of excitement among specific groups of people, but the only way a good President will emerge at the end of the process is by sheer dumb luck.

    Reply

  62. TruthSeeker says:

    Just to expand on my comment above. I really think a Clark/Obama ticket is attractive because Clark has the military experience and Obama generates excitement which could attract donors. Also, they are both deep thinkers well-versed in global affairs.

    Reply

  63. TruthSeeker says:

    I would definitely vote for a Clark/Obama ticket!

    Reply

  64. Dan Kervick says:

    **There is no doubt about it — and it looks like what was a Mark Warner-Hillary Rodham Clinton battle will increasingly look like a primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama. Edwards is still in — but he’s not getting much oxygen in the press. I still like Wesley Clark as well.**
    I’ve lived in New Hampshire since 1990, Steve, and so this will be my fifth NH primary. I can tell you that it is way too early to start predicting the shape or outcome of the 2008 primary.
    Primary results in NH tend to be decided by performance on the ground and under the microscope, not by national media buzz. Many an early front-runner has collapsed, and many dark horses have risen and made their case on the merits in up-close evaluation.
    Herd effects are less significant. What will matter is how candidates do at all those civic group chicken dinners, house gatherings, street corner meet and greets, local radio call-in shows, school assemblies, and evening news interviews on Channel 9; and also how well they do in gathering local endorsements, generating favorable neighborly word-of-mouth and organizing and motivating canvassing teams. Candidates win the primary one voter at a clip.
    Edwards did quite well here in 2004, and still has a strong, sizeable and loyal following. He showed well in a recent straw poll:
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2006/11/mccain_clinton.html
    Tom Vilsack also toured the state a couple of weeks ago and acquitted himself quite well, I thought, in the interviews I heard. He comes off as no-flash, high-substance everyman with an executive mindset and suprisingly passionate positions on energy and climate security.
    I’m not entirely sure Iraq will turn out to be the decisive issue in the primary – as opposed to the general election. That’s because my sense is that all the major Democratic candidates are gravitating toward a consensus position on what to do next. Of course much depends on what actually happens in Iraq over the next few months.
    This thing has barely started.

    Reply

  65. lina says:

    good point about Webb. In fact, Clark should hire Webb’s entire campaign team (Steve Jarding, et. al.) and get it started.
    Do it Wes!

    Reply

  66. Greg P says:

    Interesting… A month ago, I thought that Obama was clearly running for the VP slot, but with the rumblings about Al Gore having died down, it’s looking a bit different.
    You’re right that foreign policy is going to be the driving issue in the Democratic primary season, and the two presumptive candidates who would stand to benefit right now would be Clark and Obama. I was a Clark supporter in the 2003-4 primary cycle, and still find him of interest — in particular, his longstanding call for a regional approach to Iraq, and talks with Iran and Syria, are looking more and more prescient, and may look even more so by late 2007… I’m not sure he’ll be able to raise enough money to be competitive, though — his 2003 effort was heavily dependent on fundraisers closely tied to the Clintons. If he’s going to run now, he’d be running as an outsider, and have to rely more on Internet fundraising and free media. (But hey, Jim Webb won a primary as a poorly funded outsider, so maybe it’s become a bit more ‘doable’ in the age of the Internet.)
    Reading Obama’s book is now on my to-do list for the holidays…

    Reply

  67. lina says:

    Nothing wrong with Obama, but this is not the time for another foreign policy novice.
    Bring on Wesley Clark!

    Reply

  68. p.lukasiak says:

    yeah, I was over Obama a while ago too — the main reason I was hoping Harold Ford would win would be that the media would cut way back on its Obama worship if they had another young, attractive, charismatic (not to mention ‘moderate’) black Democrat to hype.
    Obama may be sizzling, but he’s a flash in the pan. Charisma alone isn’t going to be enough in 2008 — people are going to want answers, and Obama doesn’t have any.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *