Which country?

It's January, 2009 and President Obama has a plan.  Sure, he knew that reversing the Bush tax cuts wasn't going to plug the holes in the economy.  He's got a recession AND a deficit AND baby boomer retirement entitlements to deal with.  

He's got to stop that $5billion/month going into Iraq.  But if he just picks up and leaves, who is going to save the Sunnis?  Who is going to stop Iran's hegemony?  If he could just get some international peacekeepers and some good will on the Arab Street.  

Israel!  Heck, they have the atomic bomb, they'll be ok.  Hasn't Zbig been telling him this for months?  If Obama pressures Israel to make reasonable concessions on the Palestinians or risk a cut in U.S. aid, what are they going to do?  Obama has a mandate and those neocons and Hillary AIPAC lovers can just try to pick a fight.  Compare that to Saudi and Chavez and such coming in with increaed production and/or lower oil prices.  

Yes, it's a new day.

tep:  I read your comments carefully, respect you a lot, agree with you often, and have learned a lot from you.  But on the subject of Barack Obama, have you considered the possibility that there is something you're just not getting?

How would McCain be different, Lymon?

Jack, have you considered that the Senator is asking us to turn the country over to someone in his early 40s, who has not one day of executive experience at any level, with less than one term under his belt?  I defy you to find a less experienced presidential front-runner in our lifetime.

And all, as far as I can tell, because he can give a good speech, and I'll regret saying this, because his mother married a Kenyan.  Besides that, he's Dan Quayle.

Yes, JackR, you're probably right. It's now official, I'm a fogey. Well, at least I can afford single malt now.

" Besides that, he's Dan Quayle."

Dan Quayle? You're calling Barack a dumbass?

No, Roz, not by a long-shot.  He's not that, certainly.  But he is FAR less experienced in national politics than Quayle was in 1988, when he was put on the ticket with George I.  For his trouble he was savaged by the media for 4 years.

Barack's time is coming.

Now, Butch, don't be potatoe-headed about this.

I knew Dan Quayle, I shared bags of chips with Dan Quayle, and Obama's no Dan Quayle.

Tep, you ask too many tough questions!

I am somewhat concerned by Obama's lack of experience.  My concern includes wondering how this lack of experience will play out in the general election.  But who knows, maybe I will learn to appreciate him.

I also consider Edwards to be inexperienced.  Besides, his "corporations are the root of all evil" rhetoric is getting old.

Experienced candidates Dodd and Biden are out of the race.  Bill Richardson's candidacy is going nowhere.  

Yes, I am somewhat disappointed with the Democratic choices this election cycle.  I am currently a lukewarm supporter of Hilary Clinton (I vote on February 5).

There is still my back of the mind thought that a John McCain presidency with Democrats controlling Congress may actually be a good thing.

Yes, tep, nobody here but us old-fogey potatoe heads.  LOL

I wish that McCain were younger, that Rudy were more judicious, that Huckabee was less regionally parochial, that Mitt Romeny wasn't a programmed stiff.

And that Hillary were charming and actually had relevant experience, Obama were truly a new JFK in sharing his center to right politics.  And that Ron Paul was urbane.

Truth is, there is not one fuly satisfying candidate on either side.  And this with a nation of 330,000,000.

It's Groucho Marx in reverse nowadays.  Anybody who'd want to be president, you wouldn't want to have.

.

"But on the subject of Barack Obama, have you considered the possibility that there is something you're just not getting?"

What is it that you get?

The guy may be great, but as of now he hasn't done anything to show it. And wait till the Republicans start going after him.

Hillary is not as bad as Marty thinks she is, but I was disappointed in her tear-jerky response to her loss in Iowa.  

Bill thinks the whole thing is like a fairy tale, he is wrong it’s like the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta: The Mikado with Hillary as Katisha and Obama as Nanki Poo. Oh yes, the voter is in the role of Yam-Yam. The press is Koko, the Lord High Executioner, and  

... and Jackson is the guy who reads off the list of people you'd like to execute

Yeah, Obama is inexperienced.  I recall a similar accusation levied at Dubya in 2000, who basically had the same level of political experience (governors in TX don't do much).  The GOP response is that Dubya was a "manager," and that he would appoint smart people to positions of authority.  This seemed to sell.  Of course, Dubya ended up ignoring anyone that didn't agree with him, so that didn't matter much.

Can Obama use the same "appoint smart people" line?  Not in the primaries, obviously, but perhaps it will work in the general election.  I also think that Obama, unlike Dubya, would actually *listen* to those smart people when they disagreed with him.

Ooh... polls just closed.  Gotta go!

What the hell is Peretz talking about?  I've lived half my life in Israel and EVERYBODY in Israel desperately loves Clinton except for some on the religious right.  If he were to say that Israelis didn't love Clinton he'd be an outright liar, so instead he says "well, they love him, but..."

Hogwash.

" and Jackson is the guy who reads off the list of people you'd like to execute"

I wish, job taken already, though, by the Lord HIgh executioner which is the media. Didn't you notice that the  media let's each of us read the list by ourselves, tep.

"What the hell is Peretz talking about?"

To be fair, he is quoting high officials whose job is to defend the small country.

"  I've lived half my life in Israel and EVERYBODY in Israel desperately loves Clinton except for some on the religious right.  If he were to say that Israelis didn't love Clinton he'd be an outright liar, so instead he says "well, they love him, but...""

I agree.

I can't understand why Marty can support Obama given the fact that Zbig is on his team. Irrational Clinton hatred? From my reading of the Jerusalem Post, Hillary is the favored Democrat. On the Republican side it's McCain (and Giuliani). So Israelis must be relieved tonight after the Iowa farce. I would respect anyone who chooses not to run in such a ridiculous, undemocratic race.

Peretz, I am referencing your before post headed "Exhilaration", your awful and vile  screed entitled "Bill Clinton screws another presidential candidate--his wife.", and all of your posionous posts about Hillary Clinton.

I also note my New Years reolution to not get persoanal or nasty or insulting with anyone in these posting exchanges.

I had dinner tonight --the Grouper was excellent--with two friends, one of whom--Canada's best civil litigation lawyer-- kept checking his Blackberry only to report McCain won and Hillary was holding a small lead with 1/3 of the precincts in. I couldn't believe what he was saying, and I bet my other friend breakfast this Saturday at the Four Seasons in Toronto--at the Studio Cafe, great spot-, -that she would lose, out of nervousness , because I did not want to jinx her.

I got home, saw the ther net work projections, called my wagering friend and told him, and I quote verbatim, "Best fucking breakfast I'll ever pay for.", did about 8,000 high fives with my wife who loves Hillary more than me, and then Peretz i thought about you.

I have no idea whether Hillary will win the nomination. I surely hope so. But, Peretz, clearly, the age of Clinton is not over and one more thing, in breach of my resolution, : YOU ARE A PUTZ WRIT LARGE!

I don't think Barack is anti-Israel.  But Marty should freak when he reads this:

electronicintifada.net/.../article6619.shtml

Hahahahaha Marty's gonna love the picture of Obama with Edward Said.

"I can't understand why Marty can support Obama given the fact that Zbig is on his team. Irrational Clinton hatred?"

I believe it is Clinton hatred. I also think that it's vanity. Peretz would love to have one of his students become Prez. He almost got his wish with Gore (for whom I voted), and is pissed that it didn't work out.

He is hoping (there that word again) that Obama will make up for Gore's defeat.

Basman, my urbane and wise friend - to actually read you calling Marty a putz writ large feels like hell just froze over in the best possible way.

"when Clinton steamrolled Ehud Barak into concessions that were unwise and perilous".

Oh boy, have you got it wrong, Mr. Peretz.

You can't possibly walk around underestimating Ehud Barak's arrogant stupidity like this. He may even get insulted for God's sake!

No, no. Our Barak is holding fast to this infinite territory of unfaltering imbecility on his own thank you, and he don't need no Clinton to support or steamroll him anywhere.

Just take a look around at everything he does and says. No Clinton there to guide him.  Remember this last war we've had in Lebanon?  It was yet another magnificent enterprise registered to this asshole's name.

It could have been nice actually if Barak were but a stupid dummy, whom you could push around. But on top of everything else he's a smug egomaniac,  who never doubts his own lunatic ideas.

And no one in Israel ascribes that shameful fiasco of his to Clinton either.

We know better than that.

itz..

wow...you are my hero.

My New Year's Resolution confined me to a rather tepid "don't underestimate HC"

you gave a swift kick to the nuts...

you the man...

man, i am afraid the amount of animosity being generated between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters is basically going to screw the Democrats. This is reaching Yankee-Red Sox kind of animosity. Don't forget, Kennedy Carter fight handed Reagan a landslide whereas it might have been much less of a victory for Reagan.

I have my own theory why Obama lost NH. Independents saw a 10 point Obama lead and a much less McCain lead so decided not to waste their vote on a sure winner like Obama but supported McCain instead. That said, it is time for Edwards to leave the race. Lord knows where his 20% will go, maybe some will stay home, but the remainder is the key. He has got to get out before super tuesday because if he doesn't the losing nominee will be convinced that Edwards siphoned off the votes from the deserving winner and we will have a large dispirited group of Democrats who are convinced they were cheated.

He has got to get out before super tuesday because if he doesn't the losing nominee will be convinced that Edwards siphoned off the votes from the deserving winner and we will have a large dispirited group of Democrats who are convinced they were cheated.

Great point: but because I think Edwards's votes will go to Hillary I hope he stays in as promised by him. i.5 cheers for Edwards, go Edwards.

I don't buy the argument that Obama supporting Independents opted out of the Democratic primary and voted instead for McCain in the Republican primary. If that were so, why was Hillary's - and Obama's - total vote so much higher than McCains? Obama percentage tracked the polls. Hillary's was substantially higher, indicating that the "undecideds" broke for Hillary. This is the Bradley effect. Precisely the same thing happened in when Bradley ran for Governor.  

Blackton: "Great point: but because I think Edwards's votes will go to Hillary I hope he stays in as promised by him. i.5 cheers for Edwards, go Edwards."

This is incoherent: I meant to say "the Edwards's votes will go to Obama". Sorry, as if the free world can rest easier now that I have explained myself some.

r-ennis: The Bradley effect here makes not a lot of sense to me because as I understand it the exit poll tracking was congruent with the results. Why not lie then too?

Unless the Bradley effect is not a function of telling pollsters one racial thing and then doing another racial thing. But if it is not that, then what is it? if it is not that, it seems to me that it is simply undecideds, whose undecidedness does not show up in polling except as undecideds, voting in the end as they finally decide. By why wouldn't their decision link up to the general trend in the polling? The Bradley effect as I understand it has a specific racial thrust: when there is a black candidate--Dinkins, Wilder, Bradley--the results deviate significantly from the polling because people give the pollsters a politically correct answer and then vote differently because they really don't want to vote for a black candidate. I have great doubts that this verson of the Bradley effect was operating in N.H. In my view the undecideds broke Hillary's way in a meaningful way and a lot of people changed their minds, both of which, to my mind, had not so much to with race as such and more to do with the candidates as such.

basman, yeah when I read it I was totally at a loss. I am not sure why you think building a tidal wave of resentment towards Hillary by Obama supporters with her essentially backdooring her way in is such a good thing. If Hillary beats Obama straight up then it means that she has a real shot at winning the general, that I can not deny, and I think in such a situation Obama supporters will deal with it and move on. If she wins the Democratic nomination with 37% of the vote then she will be beaten in the general. Don't get me wrong, I have doubts about Obama as well, I just think he has a better shot of getting elected and governing well. As I said, after SC and after Edwards takes another third place he has to get out, and then hopefully the Democratic party can choose a candidate straight up.

was is no one talking about the Bill Bradley effect, the one where people do a head fake, spin move, and drain the outside shot?

Blackton it's not in principle a good thing or a bad thing for Edwards to stay in: it's just politics. Me being for Hillary, I'm for whatever that's kosher that helps her. Which ever of the two of Hillary or Obama win--with Edwards in or out--will get his/her party strongly behind him/her. And Edwards staying in means that his policies and positions help shape the campaign and the framing of the issues. I believe he'll get out only if he sees it in his interest to get out, and I don't fault him for that at all. The virtue of a straight up battle, such as it is, will not imho cause to Edwards to get out, nor ought to it; it's too abstract a reason.

When Bradley played for the Knicks, my, my, wasn't that a team.

Blackton it's not in principle a good thing or a bad thing for Edwards to stay in: it's just politics. Me being for Hillary, I'm for whatever that's kosher that helps her. Which ever of the two of Hillary or Obama win--with Edwards in or out--will get his/her party strongly behind him/her. And Edwards staying in means that his policies and positions help shape the campaign and the framing of the issues. I believe he'll get out only if he sees it in his interest to get out, and I don't fault him for that at all. The virtue of a straight up battle, such as it is, will not imho cause to Edwards to get out, nor ought to it; it's too abstract a reason.

When Bradley played for the Knicks, my, my, wasn't that a team.

itz.

shit yeah that was a team. Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusshere, Bill Bradley...

I cried when they beat my Lakers, in what was that, 1970?

Those Knicks; those Lakers: man were those the days.

"...what was that, 1970?"

Don't ask my friend, don't ask.