finknottle

Unlike Obama, who would never pander to get the Hillary holdouts behind him! As for his choice, wasn't it a clear pander to get foreign policy voters? And perhaps not a very good one, considering that he opposed the first gulf war, but was a forcefull adocate of the second...

And in the end, pointing to the blunders of fools before you doesn't help your judgement in the here and now. Maybe the chaos in 2005/6/7 was all directly Bush's fault - fine. I'll buy that. But Obama and McCain looked a the same situation and came up with starkly different assesments. Obama wanted a public timetable for a full withdrawl beginning immediately. McCain wanted no public timetable for US action, and a build up of troops to restore order until the Iraqi's can get on their feet.

No, that's revisionist. Recall the early Democratic debates, with a divide opening up between a side led by Obama and Richardson arguing for a unilateral time-table leading to complete withdrawl, and a side led by Clinton arguing for no fixed public timetable and some residual forces. Biden was with Obama, but argued for an orderly dismemberment of the country into three parts on the way out. 'Cut and run' (an inflammatory way of putting it) was clearly what the Obama camp was arguing for in 2007/early 08: an immedate timetable, full withdrawl, no ifs-and-or buts depending on the situation on the ground.

I think the papers had it right when they described it as more Vegas than Athens. Much ado about nothing, in the end. But I did think it *did* look too puny. It looked more like a prop.

Nah. I was simply wrong.

Thank you - you are quite correct. GHW Bush was not a governor, yet he beat Governor Dukakis. My 'real' thesis is that experience managing large organizations is rewarded, for which Governor is a proxy and legislator is the antithesis. For what it's worth, Bush I worked in the oil industry for 15 year, founding and heading a company during that period, and also was DCI (in addition to being a congressman, ambassador to the UN, and to China). He packaged himself sucessfully as having real-world management experence. He ran on his business creditentials, not his legislative ones. So I really consider 1988 almost as 'manager beats manager'

What on earth do you think this refers to, if not retention?

Actually, this shows that having managed a state trumps being a legislator. 2004 - Governor beats Senator 2004 - Governor beats Senator 1996 - Governor beats Senator 1992 - Governor beats Governor 1988 - Governor beats Governor 1984 - Governor beats Senator 1980 - Governor beats Governor

He was a career officer, not a short-timer like Kerry. Among other things, he was the commanding officer of a base in Florida. That meant that he has at least *some* experience running an organization. Remind me again how many people Obama has had working under him outside of election campaigns? 4 or 5 staffers?

No, not a mind reader; he's a text reader. He applied a crazy thing called reading comprehension to divine the meaning of the following passage:

In your world the guys doing the landscaping and laying blacktop are Americans??? Maybe in Buffalo, but in the mid-Atlantic I have not seen a non-immigrant in any of those jobs (except as job foremen) for over a decade.

You are willfully confusing his point with his challange. His point is only that there are jobs that americans won't do because they are too demanding. Have you ever done non-union manual labor? Without coffee breaks and air-conditioned offices? Picking lettuce *all day* is a lot harder than tooling around in Iraq. Less dangerous, sure. But 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, all year long in the fields will grind you up, and that's the scenario he's talking about. He was not saying that $50\hr was the going rate, he was making a challenge about people's staying power. Years go I worked for a non-union shipping company loading and unloading packages. The money was good ($18\hr in '86), and the shifts were only 5 hours a day, but it was so exhausting that we would *never* have anyone last more than two days - they would jump ship for minimum wage jobs in fast food. As for the jobs you cite, don't forget that you sit around in them, post on twobillsdrive, have breaks, dress decently, chit-chat with other employees, get training, have a career path, retirement plans and benefits ... I'd say picking lettuce would have to pay *at least* 50% more than a whitecollar job before any qualified people started to jump-ship. And as to going to Iraq, a great many people do not see it the way you do. Some see it as an opportunity to do good, some see it as a chance for some adventure in life. When you are 50, do you want tjhe highlight of your youth to have been the years spent in war-torn Iraq or the years picking lettuce? I bet there is not a single person there right now that would trade it for picking lettuce at the same salary.

I'm going out on a limb, and predicting that the biggest suprise of the year will be the below-the-radar tapping of Colin Powell. McCain will charge his perceived weakness head-on (his age), and America will respond with delight at the prospect of 'Grumpy Old Men' smackin' around the dweebs.

There was a nightline in 2004 that was never aired in which Obama appears to be against timetables in Iraq; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...a-in-never.html

I didn't mean to suggest you did. I was only making the point that amidst all the discussion about Russia's motives, nobody brought up the assassination attempt. Had the two presidents been killed, it would have been a perfect excuse for the Russian peace keepers stationed in South Ossetia to quickly move in to 're-establish order.'

Holy Cow!!! I can't believe that amidst all the discussion of Georgia, everybody forgot about the most recent attempt on an American President: Georgia, 2005. The guy was eventually found, captured after a shootout, and given a life sentence. It has never been satisfactorily publicized whether he acted alone or was an agent of a foreign power. According to press reports, he had lived below poverty with his mother all his life, yet had a house full of weaponry. http://www.ndgold.com/2007/01/george-w-bus...ttempt-in-2005/ http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/383/15835_Bush.html

If the DNC had its way, they were given to Obama - see Michigan.

Unfortunately the paper didn't list the attempts they counted, just the criteria.

74 incidents in the US since 1949: http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf The link is a study of the would-be assassins, to profile them (if I'm allowed to say that) and their motives. It looks at attempts on public figures, which it defines as - People under Secret Service protection, - Prominant federal and local public officials (congressmen, governors, mayors, cabinet members, etc) - Sports and Entertainment celebrities - Prominant businessmen The findings are that attackers tend to be better educated than average, socially awkward, usually no military experience, many having interests in radical causes but usually not members of said organizations (fewer than 10%), and usually unemployed. Criminal history seems not too far out of line for males - 1/5 arrested for a violent crime, 1/10 served time, 2/3 never incarcerated at any level. Goals are not cleanly broken out, since many had several. Only 68% said harm to the victim was the *primary* cause. 38% gave noteriety as *a* goal, and 22% gave suicide as *a* goal. The paper does not single out racism as a statistically significant motive in the profiles. However, it does note that people motivated by ideosyncratic beliefs (save the world, bring attention to a cause, etc) are more likely to attack an ordinary public figure such as a celebrity rather than a protected individual such as the president. I'm inclined to put racism in that bin (remember the anti-semetic Order in 1984? They targeted radio talkshow hosts). Attackers of the President were more likely interested in self-noteriety or suicide. A very common thread is that would-be assassins usually attack the office/role rather than the individual (per the above). As Puerto Rican activist Oscar Collazo put it, "I did not come to Washington to shoot Mr. Truman. I came to Washington to shoot the President of the United States."

Or known to have been attempted - I'm not aware of anything in the last 35 years. As empirical evidence goes, it's a lot better than "I've talked to prejudiced people, so surely there must be some whose prejudices are so strong that they would react violently to a black president" (though apparently not a black Secretary of State, or record-demolishing golfer, or television superstar, or QB of your pro football team, ....) Looking at the record is the difference between probability and possibility. Everything is possible - by your logic, Obama should be just as worried that someone will go after him to impress Jodie Foster.

Please enlighten me - When was the last time there was an assassination attempt on a public figure for reasons of race? It is a *very* simple question. Why should I believe that a racially motivated assassination attempt is any more likely than a random one motivated by insanity ala Hinkley?

90% of people are sheep. That's science talking.

I'm not overly sympathetic to the sexism double-standard; it's a double-edged sword that also gave her an advantage. I *am* more bothered by the double-standard exhibited in her contesting Obama's coronation. The pressure put on her by the media to bow out early, and the trashing of her, her supporters, and their motives, was fairly unprecedented. By way of example, the newly beatified party favorite Ted Kennedy didn't withdraw from his challenge to (sitting) President Carter until the end of the convention, despite being easily eliminated in the delegate count! http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272008/posto...ight_126276.htm

You were responding to my statement that I think it is entirely fair to infer that you meant that they cared enough to take action, otherwise what was the point of your rebuttal? But if you didn't, then we come back to the same point - I've never met anyone bothered enough by the thought of a minority in power to effect their actions, and I suspect you have not either. They may think it is a mistake because of some prejudicial opinion, but the depth of their emotion is about the same at that of thinking their boss is a jerk. So where are all these dangerous racists you speak of, that they are statistically different from the occasional nutjobs who shoot up schools or go after a president to impress an actress?

The petulant children are those who think that just because a candidate has locked up a nomination, everyone must automatically support him over the other party in the general election. And if they don't, it's Hillay's fault... or racism... or they are stupid poopie-heads. Wah! Partisan democrats have a lot more in common with the partisan republicans than they want to admit.