quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I’m a little surprised that Obama and Clinton are crossing swords on who is going to be tougher using USA military force. In the general election against the Republican nominee, this will likely be essential in order to win the general election. But, in the race for the Democratic Party nomination, because the progressive wing of the Democratic Party tends to favor removal of all (or most) USA military forces from foreign lands, I wonder how they will view these aggressive pronouncements?

---

The thinking now(at least from those incredibly wise and effective "Democratic Beltway experts" )is that potential Democratic
nominees HAVE to ritually diss the party's activist base from the git-go. They assume that if Clinton did it and got elected, it's what everybody has to do(and it explains a lot of the weasel words that Kerry used in 2004 as well.)

The activists will have to coalesce as soon as possible behind an "anti-Beltway" candidate to demonstrate that they can't be treated this way.
They need to do this because 2004 proves, once and for all, that dissing the Dems left wing doesn't gain the party votes anymore.

There are a few good suggestions, including movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but much of the 'difference' in his approach to foreign policy overall seems to come down to tone rather than substance.

I doubt there would be much practical difference between Obama and Clinton in matters of foreign or defence policy.

[ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I'm still backing Kucinich, as are some others, but he has to gain some attention and momentum soon or he's once again not going to go anywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
I doubt there would be much practical difference between Obama and Clinton in matters of foreign or defence policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Unless the Democrats wrest control from the corporate interests and choose a candidate prepared to take a stance that reflects the will of the American people, I predict the Republicans will win again. Approval for Congress is worse, astoundingly, than that for Bush. The Democratic spinmeisters are saying "oh, it is the Republicans they blame for the war". But that is stupid. Voters will blame the Democrats for failing to do what they were elected to do.

---

quote:

---

Regarding the will of the American people, the war was quite popular when things were going well, regardless of the casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians. They don't want a less warmongering president, they want someone who will give them victory at the cheapest possible cost in their own lives and tax dollars. They want future wars conducted more competently. Any candidate talking about a less agressively postured America in the world has no chance of capturing their imaginations. They want their wars and they want them done right. Obama was telling an audience recently that he'd move the troops out of Iraq to carry the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and "Pakistan."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Regarding the will of the American people, the war was quite popular when things were going well, regardless of the casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians. They don't want a less warmongering president, they want someone who will give them victory at the cheapest possible cost in their own lives and tax dollars.

---

Dubya's approval rating right now is almost as low as Nixon's at the height of the Watergate scandal. What the largest percentage of Americans want is for the Republicans not to win election based on several reasons with amoral, warfiteering opportuninism on the far right being one of those reasons. A large number of Americans vote Nader, because they're sick to death of the war-mongering in both mainstream parties. There is little daylight between Democrats on Republicans wrt American empire. So the left wing vote is split just enough sometimes to allow chickenhawk right, who enjoy somwhere around a solid 36 percent of eligible voter support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB] Dubya's approval rating right now is almost as low as Nixon's at the height of the Watergate scandal. What the largest percentage of Americans want is for the Republicans not to win election based on several reasons with amoral, warfiteering opportuninism on the far right being one of those reasons. A large number of Americans vote Nader, because they're sick to death of the war-mongering in both mainstream parties. There is little daylight between Democrats on Republicans wrt American empire. So the left wing vote is split just enough sometimes to allow chickenhawk right, who enjoy somwhere around a solid 36 percent of eligible voter support.QB]

---

quote:

---

Regarding the will of the American people, the war was quite popular when things were going well, regardless of the casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians. They don't want a less warmongering president, they want someone who will give them victory at the cheapest possible cost in their own lives and tax dollars. They want future wars conducted more competently. Any candidate talking about a less agressively postured America in the world has no chance of capturing their imaginations. They want their wars and they want them done right. Obama was telling an audience recently that he'd move the troops out of Iraq to carry the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan and "Pakistan."

---

You are right. They don't care how the gas gets in their tanks or who has to die to get it there so long as it remains plentiful and cheap. In fact, I don;t think they even care about dead, mostly dark skinned, mostly poor Americans. I think what really brings down dubya's approval ratings is the $3 per gallon gasoline.

I remember sitting on an airplane with an American from Georgia. He talked about how his wife is unemployed, how there are no jobs outside of low paid service work, and how things are getting worse. But it was the price of gas that soured him on Bush. He never even mentioned the war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Kucinich has no chance of becoming president. Americans are concerned about extremists’ intent to kill as many Americans as possible and Kucinich could never convince enough voters that he would protect them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I think what really brings down dubya's approval ratings is the $3 per gallon gasoline.

---

No doubt, though I'm sure it's doing wonders for his family's stocks and bonds. And those of all their friends in the oil business.

quote:

---

Sometimes my fatalism slips away from me and I engage in wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I don;t think they even care about dead, mostly dark skinned, mostly poor Americans. I think what really brings down dubya's approval ratings is the $3 per gallon gasoline.
Sometimes my fatalism slips away from me and I engage in wishful thinking.

---

But Brownie did a heck-of-a-job didn't he for all those predominately poor brown skinned folks who were becoming emancipated by thirst and hunger at that sports stadium in New Orleans. As for your momentary departure from fatalism, we all prefer to find evidence of redeeming qualities in other human beings. Being continually disappointed by that search while continuing to do so is a trait of humanism.

[ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

Both Obama and Hillary have begun their general communications strategy prior to actually clinching the nomination.

The general strategy is going to be quite different than the Democratic one, which in the interim leads a gaping hole for third and fourth place contenders such as Edwards and Richardson to come up the middle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Kucinich has no chance of becoming president. Americans are concerned about extremists’ intent to kill as many Americans as possible and Kucinich could never convince enough voters that he would protect them.

---

See, Sven, I also used to think that way about Kucinich. He's supposedly unelectable, and is considered something like a commie by the majority.

That is, untilI saw this Rasmussen Poll. SO please read and make your own conclusions.
Mind ya, this is the guy who is ranked at the bottom of the Democratic contender heap.
Logic states that he would be walloped in any two-way matchup.
So read this poll and make your own assumptions:

quote:

---

Tuesday, July 31, 2007
AdvertismentThe first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey gauging the general election appeal of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D) finds him trailing the top GOP candidates for the presidency. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Kucinich 48% to 34%. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson leads Kucinich 43% to 34%.

Given these choices, the number of voters who would prefer Some Other Candidate jumps to double digits. Thirteen percent (13%) select that option when Giuliani is the GOP candidate. Fourteen percent (14%) prefer a third option with Thompson matched against Kucinich. More voters are Not Sure whom to pick when considering a Kucinich-Thompson contest (9%) than when pondering Kucinich-v.-Giuliani (5%).

Giuliani and Thompson share the top tier in polling on the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Kucinich is a long-shot candidate for the Democratic nomination, currently attracting support in the very low single digits.

---