<p>I-Dad’s #239 is a good draft statement of my positions. No wonder we often agree.</p>
<p>No way we are coming out of Iraq.</p>
<p>No way.</p>
<p>The politicians are hoping to get the situation morphed into post-war Germany–not post-war Vietnam. Obviously they think we cannot handle the truth.</p>
<p>If we had any doubt about what the Chinese would do if we left a vacuum in Iraq, we need only take a tour through West Africa where the Chinese are pouring billions into infrastructure for first option on that tiny portion of the oil market. What they wouldn’t do for a crack at first dibs on Iraqi oil.</p>
<p>Think they’d find Iraq tough after Sudan or Zimbabwe?</p>
<p>Americans don’t do ‘bitter’ very well. The Chinese expect bitter.</p>
<p>ps mini is electable as a Green Party Candidate in one country at least.</p>
<h1>231.</h1>
<p>Maybe none. Then It will be China’s problem, not ours [USA]. So is Oil the reason why Cheney started a war 4 years ago?</p>
<p>The Chinese may not be stupid enough to sink 160,000 troops into a quagmire.</p>
<p>The problem with the oil argument is that it’s an illusion until the Iraqi get done killing each other. Oil production is lower today than it was at the time of the invasion. There is zero government in the Basra region – the British have been driven back to a single base, where they are trying to figure out how to get out. The southern part of Iraq is a tribal war zone with competing Shia militias fighting each other for control.</p>
<p>If the Chinese can go in there and get an oil infrastructure jumpstarted, bully for them. Heck, cancel the Haliburton contract and hire the Chinese, because nobody else has been able to get oil, or electricity, or water flowing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baloney. That’s not what any politicians looking for reelection have in mind. Have you seen the approval ratings for the occupation of Iraq? Ask the Republicans up for Senate election in 2008 how much they want a permanent force in Iraq! Ask John Sununu how the troops in Iraq are working out for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only in part. The neocon philosophy, as developed by Cheney and Wolfowitz a while back is even a bit more far-reaching. The theory basically goes that, since the US has unmatched military might, we should use it to impose “our way” on countries that don’t play nice. The neocons were actually hoping for a terror attack to use as a pretext for initiating military action. </p>
<p>There are some who suggest that the reason the Bush administration ignored the Al Queda threat is that they actually wanted an attack…although obviously nobody expected something like 9/11. BTW, Iraq was always the goal from the day Bush took office. Rumsfeld brought up Iraq on the afternoon of 9/11.</p>
<p>There’s the chance that the more people see Hillary in the heat of battle, the more they will become even more turned off to her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ouch. Even yesterday’s yellow suit didn’t soften her remarks. She can’t hide who she really is.</p>
<p>Giuliani may be one mean SOB also; but people can more readily tolerate this in a man. In fact, his biggest selling point is his “leadership quality.”</p>
<p>Hillary is just all over the map because she doesn’t have a genuine bone in her body (the only genuine thing about her is her naked ambition). It’s actually painful to watch, if you ask me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. Actually, I read something recently that stated they brought it up the day after he was elected. I don’t remember, but I can believe that’s true.</p>
<p>ID: Thanks for including that post about HC’s detailed plans for Iraq. Interesting.</p>
<p>HH: They <em>all</em> suffer from “naked ambition.” Nobody gets to this point (running for US President) without it. The goal/hope is to find someone who is smart, sane, and capable (among other things) and (1) get us out of our current mess ASAP. (Of course, this goes without saying that he/she has to be a Democrat.) ;)</p>
<p>True, but with Hillary it appears to be on a whole other level.</p>
<p>I wonder what i-dad thinks of the fact that she’s come out swinging so hard against Obama so early. Mistake?</p>
<p>Someone mentioned that the candidates will swing hardest at anyone viewed as a threat.</p>
<p>If Hillary’s machine is as well oiled as we think, she is probably trying very hard behind the scene to get Obama to “team” with her as her VP. That is certainly one way to reduce her competition…:o</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean, “swinging so hard”? </p>
<p>Obama has stood up on a soapbox and promised a campaign of “a new kind of politics” about “hope” and “honesty” and puppies and unicorns and can’t we all just get along while holding hands and singing Kumbaya.</p>
<p>Then he has the “audacity” to turn around and call Hillary Clinton “Bush Cheney Lite” in his morning stump speech? Them’s fightin’ words of the highest order to a Democrat. Almost as bad as when Obama’s ad guy did the attack ad morphing Howard Dean and Osama Bin Laden four years ago. So Clinton asked a simple question, “whatever happened to the politics of hope?” to call him on his hypocrisy. It wasn’t like she accused him of murdering a staffer and moving the body to a park in Washington DC. This was not exactly a below the belt punch.</p>
<p>Clinton has explicitly stated from the start of the campaign that she will not initiate negative campaigning, but if punched, she will hit back swiftly and decisively. This is a candidate who has seen the hardest punches a political smear campaign can deliver and understands that you don’t just sit back like John Kerry and take the swiftboating. It’s something that many of her supporters appreciate because we know the gameplan of the Republicans in general election and expect a nominee who can run an aggressive major league campaign instead of the amateur hour efforts we’ve seen in the last two cycles.</p>
<p>It’s like the Obama effort to smear Clinton by distributing the Punjab memo without attribution. By the next morning, the Clinton campaign had given the memo (with attribution) to the New York Times which ran a story exposing Obama’s negative campaign and his borderline ethnic slurs against Indian Americans. Obama spent the next three days apologizing to Indian American groups and capped off the episode 10 days later when he had to watch Clinton raise $3 million from an energized Indian American fundraiser. His punch missed and he got decked with a left hook counterpunch. Welcome to the big leagues.</p>
<p>There’s another subtext. Democrats are little weary of Obama always lumping Democrats with Republicans when he does his scold routine. This is, after all, the Democratic primary nomination battle. The whole point of the 2008 election is to hang Iraq and corruption and cronyism and incompetence around the Republicans’ neck.</p>
<p>From a political standpoint, Obama made his second serious blunder of this year’s debates when he dove headfirst into a foreign policy question without stopping to think (like a President must). One of your favorite columnists, the Washington Post’s Charles Krautheimer, nailed his problem perfectly in this morning’s column:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/strike_two_for_obama.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/strike_two_for_obama.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, one thing’s for sure-- the Republicans would love to see that ticket (Clinton/Obama).</p>
<p>Since I-Dad is so good about dropping quotes, I think that this article is worth reading. It provides a little perspective on Hillary’s last campaign from another angle! </p>
<p>The article is from August 2005, but clearly highlights that the Clinton political “machine” controls the liberal media… ;)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/13/125805.shtml[/url]”>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/13/125805.shtml</a></p>
<p>Post 251: Yes, and that’s my point, or one of them. If Clinton is the nominee, it is much more likely that Obama will be chosen as VP. I doubt that Edwards would accept that. That will mean that the ticket will “look” left to the country & to the Reps, who have STATED that they can’t wait to see that ticket.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. Interestingly, the Republican blogs and pundits this week were riddled with examples of respect for Clinton. Not the wacko red-meat right wingers, of course…but the country-club Republicans. She’s winning people over with her consistently commanding debate performances.</p>
<p>I have always believed that, at the end of the day, the number one threshold a candidate must cross in the '08 election is demonstrating the toughness and resolve to deal with terrorism. It is simply not possible to overestimate the impact of 9/11 on the American psyche.</p>
<p>The Republicans would rather run against somebody they can smear as a minor leaguer in over his head trying to face big league pitching for the first time.</p>
<p>I think Hillary is scared to death of Obama. As such, we will see more and more negative press about him. It seems that is how she campaigns!</p>
<p>I suppose if she intends to have him as a running mate she needs to be careful. The momentum seems to be in HIS favor, not hers.</p>
<p>If she is too negative, and her goon squad leaks too much information to the press, it could backfire. 
</p>
<p>“The Republicans would rather run against somebody they can smear as a minor leaguer in over his head trying to face big league pitching for the first time.”</p>
<p>History does not bear this out. What delights them are candidates they can label ideologically, which is far more incendiary. That strategy has been proven to be much more effective than ‘he/she’s not experienced enough.’</p>
<p>Why is it that when Hillary smears an opponent, it is considered to be “Big League” competition, yet when an opponent plays the same game, it is considered to be “Minor League” ???</p>
<p>(P.S. It is possible that many folks would rather deal with a minor league player who passes all the drug tests and plays an honest game!) Food for thought.</p>
<p>Obama is perfect for the Republicans. David Corn, Washington editor of ultra-lefty magazine The Nation, outlined the advertising strategy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for VP candidates, we are getting months ahead of ourselves. However, Clinton’s choice would be dictated by Mark Penn’s polling and the electoral college. Personally, my heart likes Obama, but my head says Mark Warner (who would put Virginia in play), Tom Vilsack (who would put Iowa in play) or Richardson (who would put NM in play). I think Richardson has too many skeletons in the closest, of the kind Clinton doesn’t need (womanizing). Long shots might be Wes Clark or Jim Webb. I wouldn’t rule out Obama, but he’s hurting himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I said that. I think anyone who wants to play on the national Presidential campaign stage should expect to see a steady diet of 90 mph fastballs up under the chin AND should be prepared to knock down opposing batters in return.</p>
<p>Players who have some time in the big leagues usually handle big league pitching better than those who don’t. I don’t think anyone has a Karl Rove fast ball in the Illinois state legislature.</p>
<p>
Most</a> of that was ludicrous. Thank goodness Jeanine Pirro’s, “I just signed my tax return, but didn’t know what was on it” Senate campaign went down in flames. Pirro shot herself in the foot quite nicely starting with the long silence in her first big speech because she mislaid a page. The latest victim of her legacy a guy who spent years in prison because she refused to look at DNA evidence that proved him innocent. As for the rest, the press didn’t report that people at a convention spat on police and Clinton apolgized is news? cmon! Hilary is responsible for viagra in the prisons? Because of a co-presidency? What planet are these people on?</p>