U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

first of all, we're ignoring the fact that there's very little evidence to prove that obama will ultimately take the election over mccain this early in the game. just because he's our nearly unanimous internet message board fave, that doesn't mean he has it in the bag.

you honestly think mccain has a chance in hell? 14% of americans think the country is moving in the right direction. Historians are considering this period of unease with past periods including the red scare, the great depression, and the early 80's inflation. All of which resulted in a change of government. That's some shit not even the PUMA retards can drown out with their fabricated indignation. With or without a Clinton VP. That's not to say its in the bag for Obama. Just that, imho, Mccain has a better chance of popping a vein in his forehead and dying during the next altercation with a reporter than he does winning this election. I honestly think Clinton has a better shot with a suspended campaign.

Originally Posted by cacophony

and as i said i think it's highly doubtful any country is carefully crafting its foreign policy based on the singular hypothetical of one american leader over another.

Obviously I can't prove otherwise, anymore than you can disprove such backdoor machinations. But there's an argument to be made that the Iraq war would never have happened had it not been for a bush presidency. And still it wouldn't have happened had it not been for a Cheney vice presidency. even more so it wouldn't have happened had it not been for the pro-israel progressive politics of the Cheney advisors. Here's the link to the Front line doc summarizing this. And feel free to draw your own conclusions.

But basically, you take away the people, you've taken away the ingredients for the first and hopefully last preemptive war America will undertake.

So governments can, and probably do, recognize this and can plan accordingly.

Originally Posted by cacophony

second, i'm not aware of anything that definitively says an obama presidency would totally turn US policy towards israel on its ear. that's the biggest problem with obama, he's been definitive about almost nothing. and in fact he's spent much time in recent weeks courting the jewish holdout votes by emphasizing his continued support for israel. so how is there "nothing hypothetical" at this point about his stance on israel?

Everyone seems to be assuming that Obama will not strike Iran. Its not my assumption, but I'm basing my argument on that since people who are smarter and have a lot more information seem to be promoting that.

However, I think you're right to be frustrated with his inelegant, nebulous stance on Israel, and I'll concede the point that he hasn't really been clear what he's going to do that will be any different than the preceding presidencies. So yes things are definitely hypothetical, but I would argue that this may be a positive thing for his campaign since he's following the administration whose deaf dumb and blind resolve in the face of terrific contrary evidence has been a tragic flaw. SOmething the Clinton campaign should have understood better. Maybe people want someone who can admit they are wrong, even if it means they don't always act like they are right.

[Deckard]

Cacophony, I'm not suggesting Israel is "carefully crafting" its policy around American elections - that does make it sound America-centric. But it would be bizarre to think they weren't factoring in the outcome of your country's election given the weight you carry in the world. And "factoring in" would absolutely encompass whether to do what they planned to do before a potential President Obama... or risk waiting til after.

As Strangelet says, a President Obama may well turn out to disappoint many who are hoping for a break in America's unflinching support of (or bias towards) Israel over and above the Palestinians. He may even opt to attack Iran himself, or - if Israel attacks - sit silently by while the world is demanding that he call for a ceasefire, as with Bush/Blair and Lebanon.

But at this point in time, there's no getting away from the fact that - for whatever reason - possibly his willingness to talk about dialogue with Israel's enemies, possibly the idiotic suspicion that he's a closet Muslim - whatever the reason, there absolutely is suspicion about Obama's position on Israel, suspicion that he lacks the will to sufficiently defend it and/or side with it. Immediately upon winning the Democratic ticket, Obama's first speech - to AIPAC - wasn't exactly arranged as a cosy get-together and thank-you session to his support base, was it?

And yes, I also find this odd, given the effort he goes to to reassure on these matters. (Remember this?)

[cacophony]

what i'm having a hard time resolving in the argument is that you guys are saying it seems likely obama will be the next president. and that in spite of the fact he's been wishy-washy on his policy towards israel, it doesn't seem likely he'd be the pillar of support that previous presidents have been.

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by cacophony

what i'm having a hard time resolving in the argument is that you guys are saying it seems likely obama will be the next president.

For my part, I talked about "the possibility of an Obama victory". I don't personally yet deem it 'probable' or more likely than a McCain victory. Others may disagree. Either way though, with the two neck and neck, we're not exactly talking much less than a 50% chance, so it's still what I would call a very realistic prospect. I see it as quite realistic to think that considerations and contingencies will be made from that kind of chance. I don't see it as America-centric to expect that kind of risk assessment, given the role American foreign policy plays in the world.

Originally Posted by cacophony

and that in spite of the fact he's been wishy-washy on his policy towards israel, it doesn't seem likely he'd be the pillar of support that previous presidents have been.

That's not my judgment, because I'm the same as you, I'm seeing statements that would suggest a new approach to Middle East relations, and other statements that suggest more of the same unwavering support. But the point is, plenty of people have been questioning whether he'd be the same "pillar of support" for Israel that previous presidents have been. I think we can certainly say at this point that an unwavering pillar of support and/or hawkish approach is not as guaranteed as it might be under McCain, or has been under Bush, or might have been under many of the other candidates the parties put up. Obama is making certain people nervous in that sense, and some may see it as prudent to prepare for the worst.

Originally Posted by cacophony

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?

Well if we go with that conclusion, then my point is that it would make sense for them to strike Iran before the election, not after. Strike before and they still have the Bush/Cheney administration in the White House, there's zero chance of negotiation with Iran.

After the election, with a ~50% chance of a President Obama, and given what he's said about a different approach to foreign policy, possibly engaging in negotiation with Iran, well a strike during that time would completely isolate Israel. Politically it would be a disaster.

That's why I've been wondering, with the prospect of an Obama presidency and what that might entail, and with the recent 'rehearsals' last week, whether we might see an Israeli strike on Iran this year. If they're going to do it (and they're a lot closer to Iran than any of us, the threat will feel much greater to them), it would be the lesser of evils to do it before the election.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i realized today that i never got back to you. i'm not dredging this up now to reopen old wounds, rather to address the issues you wanted addressed.

No wounds here to worry about. I like discussing this stuff.

Originally Posted by cacophony

i won't disagree that the degree of offensiveness lies on both sides of the issue, both intent and perception. i think in any discussion about potentially offensive language you have to take both sides into consideration. in this case the comment was notable enough to enough people to have been raised as an issue in the first place. how many words did obama utter in that one appearance that day? how many made national news? that speaks to an established precedence for the potential volatility of the word. if we can accept that, then we have to accept that his intent isn't purely the issue here.

Absolutely agreed. As I said, I believe that both intent and perception were at issue here.

Originally Posted by cacophony

i see your point, although i will say there's a massive difference between the hystrionic feminism of a college aged girl just coming to terms with her "womyn" power and the more general segment of the american populace that reacted to obama's comment. undoubtedly in college i spewed similar hysteria about the plight of women in the western world, just as i undoubtedly spewed some fairly offensive anti-christianity arguments during my most vocal pro-atheist phase. it's both blessing and curse that college opens us up to new ideas at an age when we're most vulnerable to charismatic thinking.

It was an intentionally extreme example that I used for two reasons. One, since it happened to me, the incident influenced my thinking on this subject as I matured and remained vivid in my memory, and two, it's extreme nature makes the point of perception versus intent ultra-clearly.

Originally Posted by cacophony

so while i appreciate your example and i understand the point you're trying to illustrate, i have to take it with a grain of salt. which is not meant to diminish her feelings on the subject. i'm just saying it would be as though we were discussing legislation about animal cruelty and you used an example about a PETA activist to prove the counterpoint. when you have an issue that's supported by a fairly general slice of the population, you can't entirely depend on extremist parallels to create a counterpoint.

I agree, but I would like to point out that I didn't "entirely depend on extremist parallels to create a counterpoint". I only used a personal story as a single example to clearly illustrate my point that simply because someone takes offense at a comment doesn't inherently mean the comment was offensive.

Originally Posted by cacophony

and i guess my point is that all we know of obama is what's edited in to nightly news reels. we know what he's allowed himself to express in public when people are watching.

There are other factors we can consider in reaching our conclusions as well, and that directly influence my thoughts on the subject. One big one would be Michelle Obama. It's clear that given her resume and her strikingly articulate public persona, she's a very strong and intelligent woman. Generally speaking, I think the odds are that a woman like her wouldn't be likely to settle down to raise a family with a raging misogynist. And please note that I said "wouldn't be likely" there....I'm not drawing any definitive conclusions here, I'm just playing the odds. Similarly, as far as I've seen, many men who are primarily raised by strong, independent-minded women as Obama's mother appears to have been, tend to come away from it with a better understanding and appreciation of women than most other men have. Again, not a certainty in Obama's case, but a strong likelihood. And even beyond that, the man has two young daughters. The vast majority of men I know who have daughters have been made more sensitive to the needs and feelings of women as a result. And frankly, the few I know who have run counter to this have ended up divorced, or at best in dysfunctional marriages.

So when I look at all of these things collectively, coupled with a public persona that gives no indication outside of the "sweetie" comment that there's any hint of misogyny, then I conclude that the chances of Obama being a sexist are extremely slim at worst.

Originally Posted by cacophony

we don't really know any politician's overall demeanor. i would go so far as to argue that the "hillary is a bitch" people don't know jack shit about what she's like outside of the public eye. she's got a family and friends and a longstanding career as evidence that what we see on the news isn't necessarily 100% of her personality. obama and every other politician live in the same dichotomy.

I would agree. By all accounts, Hillary is supposed to be a warm and appealing person according to those who know her personally.

Originally Posted by cacophony

the men in that photo are most certainly older than 15. the only way i can substantiate that claim is to say i spend a lot of time on shorpy and there's a comparable appearance among age groups in photographs of that era and those are young men, not boys. additionally, even if your age assessment were accurate i can assure you that photographer captions on images of white males in that age group are typically referred to at the very least as "young men." 15 year olds were not kids during that era, remember. by the age of 15 most young men had been working hard labor for years.

You're absolutely right about the context....that people around 15-17 or so would have been typically referred to as at least "young men" back in the year of that photo, but I still think they look like they're 15 at the oldest. I'm also typically pretty terrible at guessing ages though, so who knows?

Originally Posted by cacophony

and i would agree, as i think it was my original point, that the use of "boy" was not intended as derogatory. it was a generally accepted colloquial way to refer to black men during that time. but does that mean that the usage was not offensive? would you consider calling a black man "boy" now? i'm going to guess you're like anyone else and you wouldn't because you understand how strongly offensive it is.

Again, I'm bad at guessing ages. But if someone looks like a boy, then I'll call 'em a boy. I'm a huge opponent of political correctness for it's own sake, meaning that I won't typically lie on the off chance that someone may be unjustifiably offended, like in the example I gave of my feminist college friend.

Originally Posted by cacophony

the point to be resolved is whether obama's use of sweetie in that context was ultimately offensive. i would argue that is is, not because of his intent but because of the perception of the community that the word applies to. just like the photographer referring to those young men as "boys" during a time when the intent had nothing to do with maliciousness.

Since we're summing up our points here, I absolutely agree that his use of the word "sweetie" was offensive. What I disagree with is any assertion that it's a sign of a deeper misogyny on his part, because there's simply no evidence to support that point.

Originally Posted by cacophony

apologies from politicians are rarely anything to get excited about. they apologize when they're caught. they apologize when they're caught text messaging lewd sentiments to underage pages. they apologize when they cheat on their wives. they apologize when they out CIA agents. a politician's apology is one of the most worthless things on the planet.

but you're right in that the issue is a fairly small one unless and until he demonstrates a pattern of disrespect. unfortunately i don't blow off this one incident as just one incident. i see it as someone who had not yet set a pattern suddenly setting up the potential for a pattern. he took the first step. you can't create a pattern without that first step. he is more disappointing to me than someone who never made a slip in the first place.

I certainly didn't get "excited" about his apology, but I did find it appropriate and sufficient for the situation. He made a poor choice of words, and he apologized for it. We have every reason to believe this was an isolated instance, so there ya' have it. I'm not blowing it off as much as I am giving it only as much concern as I feel it deserves. A I said before, if a deeper pattern of sexist behavior emerges, then that's a different story. But I refuse to judge someone based on an isolated mistake.

Originally Posted by cacophony

do i ultimately think someone should weigh their support of him based on this one slip? of course not. but i find it irresponsible to simply brush it away. it's an element of a potential leader's personality. i want to see how he handles himself with regards to this issue going forward. hopefully it was just a one-off mistake. fantastic if that's the case. but i'm not going to forget it happened.

It shouldn't necessarily be forgotten, but it certainly shouldn't be dwelled upon in my opinion. I don't think we disagree on this by all that much ultimately, but my basic approach to people, and this has left me disappointed more than once, is that they're basically okay until they prove otherwise to me. Obama hasn't proved otherwise to me yet.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

you honestly think mccain has a chance in hell? 14% of americans think the country is moving in the right direction. Historians are considering this period of unease with past periods including the red scare, the great depression, and the early 80's inflation. All of which resulted in a change of government. That's some shit not even the PUMA retards can drown out with their fabricated indignation. With or without a Clinton VP. That's not to say its in the bag for Obama. Just that, imho, Mccain has a better chance of popping a vein in his forehead and dying during the next altercation with a reporter than he does winning this election. I honestly think Clinton has a better shot with a suspended campaign.

I'm a life-long Boston sports fan, so I'm conditioned to expect a loss until the final buzzer tells me otherwise.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sean

There are other factors we can consider in reaching our conclusions as well, and that directly influence my thoughts on the subject. One big one would be Michelle Obama. It's clear that given her resume and her strikingly articulate public persona, she's a very strong and intelligent woman. Generally speaking, I think the odds are that a woman like her wouldn't be likely to settle down to raise a family with a raging misogynist.

hillary clinton married an unapologetic repeat womanizer. they also raised a daughter.

[Deckard]

Further to what i was saying about the belief that Obama will be viewed as "soft on Iran"...

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win' (06/22/08)

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

[Deckard]

In light of this as well....
McCain Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain
...I wonder if we'll see an Iranian "event" occurring between now and the election, that will require a "strong and decisive response"?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

hillary clinton married an unapologetic repeat womanizer. they also raised a daughter.

True, and in her case, my opinion has always been that much of her commitment to the marriage likely has to do with political expediency. As of now, Michelle Obama has given no indication that she shares similar ambitions. Luckily for us all, there's only one Hillary Clinton....