statistically improbable by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:46:09 AM EST
It's been statistically improbable since Iowa... She planned on sweeping Super Tuesday and, when she didn't, she had no backup plan. Middle class white people, like me, voted against her. The black vote went heavily against her, not an inevitable result, Salon had an interesting article about that.

When she started working closely with Scaife and the rest of the Vast right Wing Conspiracy types she really turned off lots of people (like, again, me) who might otherwise have accepted her.

While I probably wouldn't vote for McCain over Clinton, it could be close. Looks like I won't have that worry.

I wonder who President Obama will appoint to his cabinet?

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)



I would have used `implausible' before last night by lm (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:32:23 AM EST
As for McCain v. Clinton, it all depends on the veep slot for me. I don't think there is much question that McCain would make a better president than Clinton. But I can't help but think that McCain is likely to choose somebody utterly repugnant as his running mate. I'd vote for almost anyone rather than have a Giuliani or Romney a heartbeat away from the presidency.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

if he picks anyone he ran against by garlic (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:47:00 AM EST
then the choice was a bad one.

[ Parent ]

McCain would make a better president by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM EST
I dunno. McCain has been ruinning, seemingly, on a platform of "If you liked the last 7 years, I'll give you 4 more of the same!"

He is, I think, somewhat more likely to order an attack on Iran than Hillary.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

Dunno by lm (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:58:53 AM EST
Clinton seems pretty into leveling Tehran.

The question in my mind is more `if we do go to war, which candidate will most competently prosecute it?' I think McCain wins on that. Policy-wise he may be very close to Bush '43, but the cardinal problem of the GWB administration isn't policy decisions, it's the way those policies were enacted. For example, I don't have reason to think that McCain would use personal loyalty to the exclusion of almost every other criteria when filling appointments.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Actually by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
GWB's foreign policy has been fairly bad. From my layman's point of view his economic policies don't seem to be very responsible either.

Frankly I think GWB fails both on policy and the implementation of said policy.

Can you give some examples of what you think his good policies are?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

I didn't say he had good policies by lm (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
I'm saying that he wouldn't be as bad of a president if he weren't incompetent at implementation. For example, the mess in Iraq has gone on far longer than it would have if someone competent had been in charge from the start. It would still have been a mistake, but a far less costly one to both US soldiers and the people of Iraq.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

That's part of the problem by theboz (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:11 AM EST
There was no reason to go into Iraq, and it was a bad idea.  Implementing it the "right" way would have been nothing more than an exercise in turd polishing.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

I think Iraq could have been a good thing by lm (1.00 / 1) #20 Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:22 AM EST
Regardless of having a reason why, if Iraq had been properly invaded, governed and rebuilt, the world could very well be a better place.

But that is really neither here nor there. I think McCain would have been smart enough to properly finish Afghanistan before going into Iraq.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Eh? by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM EST
Why would McCain have invaded Iraq?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Why did the Republican cross the road? by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:41:54 AM EST
I disagree by theboz (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
I disagree only because I'm not aware of any nation being successfully invaded from the outside and made successful by their occupiers.  Even the two most modern examples I can think of, Japan and Germany, were not really successful for a long time after the war, and even then it was a true multinational force involved.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

flamebait by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:39 PM EST
The Brits took a bunch of wilderness and Indians and started something that turned in the USA.

[ Parent ]

So the U.S. is an occupation or colonization? by theboz (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
How many Americans are moving permanently to Iraq and forming their own cities again?
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

I hope you're not looking for serious conversation by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:46:49 PM EST
I did title my post flamebait after all...

Didn't the US snarf Texas and New Mexico from Mexico back in the day? Everyone living there today is almost certainly better off.

The other obvious one I'm thinking of is the dude who unified China way back when, founded the first dynasty. 1 enormous China did very well for itself up until the 1800's or so, arguably better then the 4 or 5 squabbling wee kingdoms could have done.

When the Romans acquired Britain they beat down a bunch of unlettered savages living in mud huts. When the Roman empire collapsed Britain was left on its own, but now they had highways, new towns and infrastructure, new ideas about governance and institutions, a new religion, etc. etc. etc.

The missus just suggested the UN intervention in Cyprus has kept them from killing each other for 40 or 50 years now.

And yeah none of those is a good comparison to Iraq, and you could quibble about any or all of it, but that's history for ya.

[ Parent ]

Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST
McCain is like Bush Lite from all things I see.

That said - I can't see anyone (McBush) thinking an attack against Iran is a good idea. I think some politicians would like to make Iran think it's a possibility - but given our current state of quagmire in Viet Nam there's just no way we can rationally take on another third world country in fisticuffs.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

We can't take on what we've got now. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
See this Slate article for details on how we can't handle Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

Right-O by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
That's why, in my simple mind anyways, the whole "McBush is going to invade Iran" talk is a red herring. Not that I like McCain but I don't think he's as much of an idiot as Bush.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password: