Have a great weekend, folks.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
Marmot’s Open Thread #32
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on January 5, 2008 at 8:56 am, filed under Blogging. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
38 Comments
Limatime! Comes To Korea
http://eastwindupchronicle.com/?p=992
Now that Iowa has trimmed down the US presidential field a bit, I was wondering just what do we know about the Dem and GOP candidates on foreign policy in Asia? We’ve heard plenty on Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, but has any candidate talked about the est of the world outside of Iowa?
There was also that Krugman editorial that Obama supporters conveniently took exclusively as criticism of Obama, when most of the piece had to do with dealing with China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....nted=print
(Registration-Required)
“On the Republican side, foreign policy talk is all bluster and braggadocio. To listen to the G.O.P. candidates, you’d think it was still February 2003, when the national discourse was dominated by people who thought that American military might was sufficient to shock and awe the rest of the world into doing our bidding.
Memo: China has 50 times the population of Iraq.
The Democrats in general make far more sense. But among at least some of Barack Obama’s supporters there seems to be a belief that if their candidate is elected, the world’s problems will melt away in the face of his multicultural charisma.
Memo: It won’t work on the Chinese.
The truth is that China is too big to be bullied, and the Chinese are too cynical to be charmed. But while they are our competitors in important respects, they’re not our enemies, and they can be dealt with.
A lot of Americans, when they think about the next president’s foreign-policy qualifications, seem to be looking for a hero — someone who will stand tall against terrorists, or transform the world with his optimism.
But what they should be looking for is something more prosaic — a good negotiator, someone who can bargain effectively with some very tough customers and get the deals we need on energy, currency policy and carbon credits.”
Here! Here!
Hey, Robert.
Maybe I missed it, but since the Nomad has closed up shop this week, I was expecting to see the dude get some props here.
Let’s do that.
Props.
So, this question is for anyone who lives/is from the southern hemisphere… since the summer/winter period is opposite of the northern hemisphere, do you guys think it’s unfair that the Winter Olympics is always scheduled when it is winter in the northern hemisphere? (in that 1. athletes would not be used to the weather and 2. hosting Winter Olympics would become very difficult)
Iowa will ultimately not have a big impact on the election. The national front runners are still the national front runners.
Iowa has a whopping 7 electoral college votes.
NH has 4.
Millions and millions and only 11 EC votes up for grabs.
Ultimately I do not think Obama can hold enough water to get elected he may need a VP stance or SEC of State position first. His inexperience will come back to hurt him and let’s face it the people who come out to vote are older and thats who HC is banking on.
Take a look at what Giuliani is doing, basically not conforming to the natural process of caucus/primary. He is focused on states that will significantly boost his chance to get the republican nom.
You gotta hope for a Giuliani vs Clinton race. That will be a sweet no holds barred fight to the death!!!
“Iowa has a whopping 7 electoral college votes.
NH has 4.”
I think the point is that whoever wins the 2 of the first 3 primary win almost always (if not always) wins the primary election. Your point on electoral counts is moot when it’s just the primaries (obviously whoever wins the respective primary will focus on big swing states).
Iowa has elected only one non-incumbent Democrat, and New Hampshire six, of either party since 1952.
I’m waiting until South Carolina to decide.
Does anyone understand what’s going on with the whole Shin Jung-Ah scandal? Apparently she really DID attend Yale?
#5 ”You gotta hope for a Giuliani vs Clinton race.
You’re joking, right?
#8,
Nope, she didn’t.
http://english.donga.com/srv/s.....7122884558
http://www.newsday.com/news/lo.....7621.story
A film about the origins of Jesus! (work safe this time^^)
http://video.google.com/videop.....2995115331
Was Hurricane Katrina a government conspiracy? What REALLY made the levees fail? See the answers here:
http://kcufbmud.com
http://www.boingboing.net/2007.....ews-z.html
read this before you invest 2 hrs into cinemagauche’s film.
2 hrs, there are other things to do, too, you know?
No need to become a schizophrenic.
I think Huckabee is going to be new President of USA. I think the US public will resist higher taxes in the face of an on-coming recession. Obama vs Huckabee.
1/ stocks down
2/ people liking bonds.
3/ people are getting fired. Jobs down.
4/ inflation up.
5/ retail sales down.
This is due to people who bought housing they couldn’t afford under Bush’s low interest rates. Low interest rates saved the corps, though.
Republicans will provide better health care, but not as much as Democrats. This will be true, simply based on competition for votes alone. Competition will benefit the consumer, err, the voter. I am thoroughly shocked that McCain is getting ignored. All said and done, people should fervently pray that George W. Bush turns the economy away from recession by the time he leaves office. US recession will hurt US and the WORLD that sells stuff to the US. Such, as South Korea.
John McCain should be next US President, most ideally.
mcain could beat either clinton or obama
giliani would give a good fight not sure if he could beat them
and as pointed out before the point is not moot about iowa
in the big picture its not as important as everyone tries to make it out to be
WJK - all that bad economic news, plus stalemate in Iraq, is why the American electorate will support a democrat in the next election. I actually think Obama has the best shot against Republicans because of his appeal to independents, and Hillary’s high unfavorable ratings. The way momentum seems to matter, especially in this contracted primary season, would appear to hurt Giuliani’s Florida strategy. I wonder if he and Clinton can continue to hold on to high national support if they keep losing in early primaries.
McCain reminds me a bit of GHW Bush. McCain’s moderate views make him appealing to independent and centrist Democratic voters, but he doesn’t inspire much enthusiasm from the GOP faithful. I’d love to see Guliani win the nomimation. His 9-11 Tourette’s Syndrome will repel voters into pulling the lever for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, whoever gets the Democratic nod.
#13:
Watch for McCain to take New Hampshire!
Sonagi:
I’ve seen national polls putting both Giuliani and McCain ahead of any Dem. It will be interesting to see if Giuliani’s Feb 5 strategy pays off.
But, I doubt Iowa will mean anything in August.
bill o’reilly lays the smackdown on obama’s thugs!
SWEET!!!!
lets hope obama wins new hampshire to clear the way for another 4 years republican representation for the US
once the pretenders are gone and the viable candidates are left obama’s radical foreign policy views will be brought to light
i mean this guy wants to sit down and make concessions to iran
he wants to bag and run in iraq not even giving notion to the idea of stability in the country is taking form over violence
i honestly think that once all is said and done people will realize that being a good speaker will not translate into being a good president
but hey bill clinton fooled a lot of people
You mean to say “a lot of people are fools” mcnugget.
The election theft of 2000 and the hopeless jerk the Democrats ran in the next race has lead me to despair of the two main political parties in the US now. They begin to resemble Korean politicians more and more and pose the question “just what does it mean to be American nowadays and what is in it for me?!”
#18:
No speaking ability didn’t turn out to be a good indication of leadership skill, either. I’ll be relieved to watch a presidential speech after 2009 without having to cringe over every stutter, flutter, choke, pause, and improvisation.
But, when it comes to persuading people to support good compromise programs, like workfare or balancing the Reagan deficit, communication skills do come in handy. Exactly what does a president do besides talk and schmooze anyway? I’m more interested in the people he/she brings along as advisors.
This is where I’m worried about Obama and Giuliani most.
I wonder what the landscape of the United States and American politics would have been after 1992 if Ross Perot hadn’t run and taken up 18.9% of the popular vote. The race between Clinton (43%) and Bush (37.4%) might have been a lot different.
Funny, how people accuse the second Bush of stealing the 2000 election, but they don’t thank Mr. Perot for the outcome of the 1992 election.
A truth that was shown to use quite brilliantly in the 80s by Ronald Reagan.
Huckabee shouldn’t be put in charge of a 7/11, let alone the most powerful nation on Earth. Clinton and Giuliani are greasy opportunists. And McCain will whore his ideals out to anyone he thinks can get him elected.
When compared to that crew of trash, Obama seems to be be the logical choice of anyone with a sense of morals.
I was struck by this odd bit of news from the UK where a middle-aged couple were thrown out of a shopping mall for photographing their grand-kids.
Perhaps Robert should be careful not to be caught up in the “war on terror” when he is out and about taking pictures.
P.S. Good point Willie_G . . .
#24,
I wonder if they could sue the guard for slander.
Obama brings a lot more to the table than simply the ability to move voters through stirring oratory. The guy’s smart - head of the Harvard Law Review, and has shown the ability to get things done by working with the opposition. There’s no doubt he’d assemble a top notch foreign policy team, and can understand and analyze problems much better than the present guy can. Yes, he’s young and inexperienced, and you can expect some hostile powers may try to test his resolve - but he’ll be ready for them. The odds are looking increasingly bad for Hillary. Even after getting trounced in Iowa, she refuses to change her “experience” strategy, when its clear the electorate wants “change” - not that there’s too much else she can do to differentiate herself from the other two. When she talks about experience, though, I mainly think about her 8 years in the White House exercising authority from the non-elected position of First Lady, which doesn’t sit well. She claims that experience will help her be effective, but I draw the opposite conclusion. She’s so polarizing, and her relations with the “vast right wing conspiracy” are so bad in the aftermath of Monica-Gate and the impeachment, I think she’s really motivated by revenge, first and foremost, and would be locked in a drawn out conflict with Republicans in Congress. Even though polls show a draw between Obama and Clinton in N Hampshire, the way Edwards sensed vulnerability and went her in the debates seems to indicate that she may actually be in a weaker position - the candidates probably have access to better data than the rest of us. Obama can draw the independents to the primary, I bet he wins NH, then takes S Carolina.
The Republican field looks like it may stay crowded for some time - each guy has an advantage in some region (McCain in NH maybe West, Huckaby in the MW and South, Giuliani in Flordia/NY, Romney second everywhere, Ron Paul with his dedicated following). They should be beating on each other for quite some time - ought to be fun to watch!
That’s because Ross Perot’s running as an independent did not constitute election fraud nor deprive anyone of their constitutional right to vote.
Absolutely, there’s no rule against winning with a simple plurality of the votes. If 10 people ran for President, you might be able to win with only 11% support. Yes, but depriving voters of their rights should have been illegal. And, the way political way in which the Supreme Ct. voted, with all the supposed ’states righters’ violating their supposed core constitutional principles by siding with the federal govt in order to give the victory to the Republicans was disgusting.
I think you’ll like Maureen Dowd’s latest column, dokdo. “… Hillary tried to purloin more of the Obama message. Besides saying the word “change” as often as possible…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....ref=slogin
You could, but it would be damn hard to do so, since then you would have to win two elections. Assuming that 11% support didn’t net you enough of the electoral vote for a majority, the House of Representatives would end up choosing the President in a one state, one vote slugfest that would probably drag on for months.
How to Rig an Election: Convicted Phone-jammer Tells All
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....amp;page=1
Obama Takes the Lead in NH!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....id=topnews
I would think that dishonesty about the content of the story, as reported by the publisher and by ABC News, should be more upsetting than dirty tricks by political operatives. “Election-rigging” takes more than spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the opponent and stymieing the opponent’s campaign staff.
It’s not Perot’s fault more people didn’t vote for him.
3 mins of girls in bikinis washing cars. A little refreshment after a rough weekend of race-baiting at the ‘Hole.
http://www.autojunk.nl/clips/view/132707
Sweeet!
All right.
A little something for those of you who like beer and guitars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8O5wZAd2z4