...that Obama is unlikely to win. Michael Weiss writes extensively about his Iraq minefield:
...there is every expectation that Obama will have his bluff called sooner or later. Adolph Reed, a prominent black leftist intellectual who teaches political science at the University of Pennsylvania, published a fascinating and undervalued essay in current issue of The Progressive magazine. It is titled "Obama No." Professor Reed has followed the resistible rise of this young Chicago politico for quite some time, and he never liked what he saw:
Obama's style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It's like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that's so big that they can't hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they've told different people.
Again, for various reasons, this is not the kind of thing that Hillary! was able to use against Obama, but it will be devastating to him in the fall.
This sentiment seems like wishful thinking to me, it's too rational. We know already that Obama is duplicious because he told one thing to voters and Ohio and exactly opposite thing to Canadians (we just do not know to whom of the two he lied). And it only hurt him a little bit, and only because voters in Ohio remembered it. It did not hurt him in North Carolina at all. People just do not have long enough memory to remember Obama's lies, without the friendly help of the media at least, and the media is going their utmost to whitewash Obama. He is unstoppable.
"Obama ... told one thing to voters in Ohio and exactly opposite thing to Canadians (we just do not know to whom of the two he lied)."
Sure we do, Peter. He lied to both of them. He always does.
Obama couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
Obama couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
Barbara, that's very harsh.
He's not Bill Clinton. I'm sure that if he found it politically advantageous to tell the truth, he'd do so.
By the way, how are you, and where have you been? Long time, no comment.
Michael Weiss writes extensively about his Iraq minefield
It's a welcome change to talk about an actual issue instead of attacking personalities.
It's inconsistent and suspicious to insist that Iraq isn't a quagmire, and then turn around and smugly predict that the next president will be stuck in this non-quagmire for the duration. A majority of the public is suspicious too. We're winning all the time, the White House and Pentagon and McCain keep saying, but "winning" is a dead ringer for going nowhere. Most voters may not know much about why it's taking so long --- for instance most voters don't know that Prime Minister Maliki fronts for pro-Iranian Shiite revolutionaries --- but they know enough to mark the calendar.
Yes, Obama wouldn't be able to bring the troops home right away, but Iraq is not so much of a quagmire that he could never achieve it. Four years would be enough time. McCain, on the other hand, can't possibly keep his promise of ending the Iraq war in four years by "winning" it. "Winning" is what we've already been doing in Iraq for 5 years, and that might as well be 50 years, or 200 years, or however long it takes for the US to admit to error and quit.
The bigger question is whether McCain will use shine the spotlight - or will he be too afraid of being labeled a 'racist?" And the Dems and their major media cohort are on the other hand being merciless in 'piling on' if anyone dares criticize 'Barak the Messiah'
Another: I think there's a lot to the theory that due to generational change, there may be enough naive people out there ready and willing to vote for empty promises. The last time was Carter's win. I fear that happening again, but Barak may do a hell of a lot more damage due to his combination of Carter's naivite _and_ leftism way beyond Carter's (the Carter of 1976, that is).
Finally, that McCain looks 'old,' isn't as smooth a talker as Barak, and is prone to being too frank or to outbursts are other concerns.
Conclusion:I gave Barak an 80%+ liklihood of winning against McCain months ago. I see no reason to change that.
I think the Democrats could probably nominate a dead dog or a clay brick this November and win. I don't think anyone is paying the least bit attention to what Barack Obama says. He's just a cool metrosexual mixed-race dude, an emblem of the 21st century, and that's all he needs to be. He's gotten as far as he has precisely by not saying anything of substance.
Why would that change in the fall? Republicans aren't going to vote for him anyway. Democrats will no matter what. Independents are at this point pissed off at the Republicans because they didn't provide Heaven on Earth fast enough, or turned out to be, golly, just about as venal and corrupt as all the rest of us, so...they'll pull the switch for Barack, too. The number of voters out there who (1) care deeply about The Issues and who (2) could be convinced by a rational argument one way or the other and (3) who, strangely enough, have paid no attention so far, so that an argument coming in October might change their mind, is, I think, a set of pretty near measure zero.
Basically I think it's an unserious election, so the surfer dude with the good shades wins. And it's unserious because no American under the age of 35 even remembers what a serious existential threat to American existence, liberty or prosperity feels like. (Yeah, 9/11 was a wake-up call to some people -- but, obviously, only a minority.)
I'm reminded less of Carter in '76 than Kennedy in 1960. That, too, was an election where people were "tired" of the grim weight of the Cold War, after 15 years of vigilance and fright, and being led by unsmiling men -- Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon -- and they gladly turned to the handsome young energetic guy (Kennedy) with ebullience and energy and promises to tackle the old stubborn problems with New Ideas. It was also an election where the youth vote was energized and came out in force for "their" (i.e. the young) guy.
A good reason to be cautious about predicting a McCain victory over Obama is that Obama is raising much more money than McCain -- in part because Obama, using the internet, is doing much better at the small donations that McCain-Feingold has pushed campaigns toward.
Karma can be painful, Senator McCain.
Jim says: It's inconsistent and suspicious to insist that Iraq isn't a quagmire
It's also false to think it is. Read Michael Yon's new book to get a much better picture of what we're doing over there. "Winning" will take a while because we're doing so much more than killing the opposition. We're nation building right now and that takes time. I like Yon's work because he doesn't hesitate to swing for the fence, no matter who's in the wrong. To continue to insist that Iraq is a quagmire for the soldiers is incorrect. To insist Iraq is a quagmire for the populace of Iraq is incorrect. To insist Iraq is a political quagmire, now that might be closer to the truth.
Read Michael Yon's new book to get a much better picture of what we're doing over there.
Michael Yon's book has a great deal to say about his belief that we're winning, without saying much at all about what we're winning. But that is the real problem. The White House --- not just this presidency but any sane presidency --- could never be happy with the pro-Iranian Shiite revolution that we have won for Iraq.
Yon is interesting (sort of) as an earnest fanatic. I can't say that he's a straight talker, but he admits to the awful truth when it really bothers him that other people think that it's awful. Certainly if I almost went to trial for murder, I wouldn't write a book about it! Yon's article in the Wall Street Journal is a case in point. In this article he grapples with the fact that the Anbar Awaking Councils are a system amnesty and bribery for former insurgents. At least he admits that that's what they are.
Yon says that it's not so bad that they're paid, because "soldiers everywhere are paid". What is logic is missing is that they're not just paid, we have to pay them. The Iraqi government hates the Awakening Councils and won't pay them one red cent. Until this year, the Iraqi government didn't even pay the Iraqi Army; we paid. Flush with a record $70 billion in oil revenue, Iraq has now agreed to pay half for its army, or $2.8 billion; we still have to pay for the other half. Just beneath the surface of our victory-in-progress, the truth is that the US does not actually trust any Iraqi Arab who isn't paid by the US. Progress is 100% rented. In fact it's rented at more than a 100% rate, because the US can't trust some of the Iraqis that it pays. For example, there is Michael Yon's account of the Anbar police captain arrested by a US army brigade.
There is also the fact that the Awakening Council guys are paid with amnesty as well as cash. It's funny because amnesty is such a dirty word in the context of another conservative cause, the war on illegal immigration. Consider the relative position of a former insurgent in Anbar and a Mexican worker in the US. Did the Mexican ever fight for Al Qaeda? Does he live by sharia? Does Homeland Security write him a check to fend him off, on top of granting amnesty?
Yon sourly admits, "The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best." In the next sentence he goes onto the silver lining, but no matter how much that silver lining dazzles him, he does admit to the black cloud that would make the Iraq war last forever. He doesn't admit that the central government is outright pro-Iranian (except for some bitter token Sunnis), but I'm sure that he knows it.
To insist Iraq is a quagmire for the populace of Iraq is incorrect.
It's a quagmire for the US.
To insist Iraq is a political quagmire, now that might be closer to the truth.
Yeah, no kidding.
Jim converses...To insist Iraq is a political quagmire, now that might be closer to the truth.
Yeah, no kidding.
See? There you have it. Its a political quagmire. How did it get to be that way?
Jim said...Michael Yon's book has a great deal to say about his belief that we're winning, without saying much at all about what we're winning.
He put it quite well. We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi populace by a display of courage and compassion.
Jim says...Flush with a record $70 billion in oil revenue, Iraq has now agreed to pay half for its army, or $2.8 billion; we still have to pay for the other half.
Great, so they're paying half. That's half we're NOT paying anymore, so something's going right. But just like someone suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder, things are all black and white for you. They're starting to pay up, that's a good thing.
Jim says...Yon sourly admits, "The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best." In the next sentence he goes onto the silver lining, but no matter how much that silver lining dazzles him, he does admit to the black cloud that would make the Iraq war last forever.
Great, can YOU admit there is a silver lining? Obviously not since your black and white world will allow only gloom and doom.
We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi populace by a display of courage and compassion.
That is a steaming pile from a fanatic who has been a big source of them his whole life. If we were truly winning hearts and minds in Iraq, then we wouldn't need paid amnesty for former insurgents. If Yon thinks that paid amnesty is the same as winning hearts and minds, then he also doesn't know the difference between a girlfriend and a prostitute.
Even if we were winning the hearts and minds of the Sunnis that Yon met briefly --- we clearly aren't but let's say we were --- it wouldn't bring logic to the enterprise, because the Shiites run Iraq now.
Great, can YOU admit there is a silver lining?
Not while we're still getting rained on. When they finally end the anti-American war in Iraq, then I'd be happy to give some of them an A for effort.
Carl Pham wrote:
"I think the Democrats could probably nominate a dead dog or a clay brick..."
That's what they've done, I just can't figure out which is which.