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.