SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SiouxPal who wrote (322116)1/21/2007 9:14:35 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576160
 
"Certainly Obama will most likely not get the presidential nod this time, but he could certainly get VP."

Maybe. Right now his role will be to draw fire. Which is already happening. Every possible thing in his background will be dragged out, and if they can't find something, they will make stuff up. If he survives this, then he has a great shot at VP. If he doesn't, he goes back until the next election cycle or two to recover.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (322116)1/21/2007 10:44:59 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576160
 
BS. Obama is nowhere within a hundred million miles of the Dem nomination. You are living in a fantasy world. By your standards Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee back in '76 or whenever he ran. And Howard Dean would be president now.

Do you know what would have happened if Dems had nominated Jackson, Dean, Jerry Brown, Eugene McCarthy or whomever the leftward base loved as the anti establishment candidate? They would have ended up just like McGovern and Dukakis did. Losing 45-49 states.

Listen my friend, the deck in the presidential races is stacked against democrats. The electoral system means the GOP can win even if they lose the popular vote. And this country is split 42.5-42.5% so the only voters which matter in the end are the 15% inbetween, and only those who decide swing states which are mainly white and fairly conservative. So maybe 2% of voters really matter. And those voters are almost all white and fairly conservative. Which is precisely why Hillary is trying to pander to them. But those voters would likely choose McCain or Romney over Obama. They are turned off with Bush but not all Republicans.

Obama could be a very helpful VP or Senatorial cheerleader. But he could also hand the GOP back congress and the White House if he's too successful. So beware who you support, especially when the GOP smear machine is salivating to get to your guy, and has already begun painting him as "Borat Hussein Osama".

Also, it would not be real smearveting. Obama was indeed raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and his father was a Muslim Kenyan, both Al Qaida countries. Which is exactly why Obama always talks about us getting beyond labels and names. Because he starts out with the worst ones imaginable. He is also arguably the most liberal guy in the Senate and has had a loit of close dealings with Jesse Jackson, which is death when it comes to the national election. So don't get mad at me, I'm just preparing you. A little reality check.

All that said, Obama is a wonderful democratic leader, just not for the top job.



To: SiouxPal who wrote (322116)1/21/2007 11:04:30 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576160
 
Tom Friedman's Flexible Deadlines

Iraq's 'decisive' six months have lasted two and a half years

5/16/06

New York Times foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman is considered by many of his media colleagues to be one of the wisest observers of international affairs. "You have a global brain, my friend," MSNBC host Chris Matthews once told Friedman (4/21/05). "You're amazing. You amaze me every time you write a book."

Such praise is not uncommon. Friedman's appeal seems to rest on his ability to discuss complex issues in the simplest possible terms.
On a recent episode of MSNBC's Hardball (5/11/06), for example, Friedman boiled down the intricacies of the Iraq situation into a make-or-break deadline: "Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."

That confident prediction would seem a lot more insightful, however, if Friedman hadn't been making essentially the same forecast almost since the beginning of the Iraq War. A review of Friedman's punditry reveals a long series of similar do-or-die dates that never seem to get any closer.

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
(New York Times, 11/30/03)

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of—I know a lot of these guys—reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
(NPR's Fresh Air, 6/3/04)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 10/3/04)

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
(New York Times, 11/28/04)

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one."
(NBC's Meet the Press, 9/25/05)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
(New York Times, 9/28/05)

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 12/18/05)

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election—you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
(PBS's Charlie Rose Show, 12/20/05)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
(New York Times, 12/21/05)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
(Oprah Winfrey Show, 1/23/06)

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
(CBS, 1/31/06)

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
(NBC's Today, 3/2/06)

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
(CNN, 4/23/06)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
(MSNBC's Hardball, 5/11/06)

fair.org