Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Good morning!

warren -------------------------

This is a set-up. For certain reasons, I cannot discuss Chris, Rachel, Chuck and Nora. This much I can say: They are following orders. You are being bamboozled.

Maxtrue:

I find it funny that you are now mad because Obama is agreeing with you! Obama has a realist streak to his Foreign Policy which is crtical in turbulent times.

(Idealism is best saved for the "salad days" to quote Raising Arizona).

And let's talk about Reagan. The reasons why many Americans admire his Presidency is because of Foreign Policy.

(I was only a kid in the 80's so I had no clue about his economic policies.)

But I do know that part of Reagan's legacy was ending the cold war and making great strides in American diplomacy. Plus, the "old gipper" was pretty funny and damn smart.

Finally, being a realist is the only way a Democrat can win the general and defeat the GOP's politics of fear. Obama is setting himself up perfectly for the general.

Obama said:

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world."

Gordo:

If you cannot discuss your reasons than shut up already.

I thought the whole point of this blog was a discussion.

(Anyways, go ahead - open up. How could you get in trouble? What am I going to say: "It's TRUE!! I heard it on a blog from this spy-bot named GORDO who was sent by Taylor Marsh." Hah! I would get laughed out of the room : )

Posted by: warren | March 29, 2008 12:22 PM

It appears you studied history with Peggy Noonan and Chris Matthews
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html

It is not surprising you would find him appealing since it was his rhetoic which made him memorable. Too bad it did not reflect his policies.

warren ---------------------------

Please research JW's " Lost Boys" - all will become understandable. Would really like to be less cryptic, but it has to be this way.

On Capitol Hill, Tutu became a public relations disaster for Reagan. Tutu started off the hearing by saying apartheid itself "is evil, is immoral, is un-Christian, without remainder." I was there, and all breathing stopped, without remainder. Tutu continued:

"In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian. . . . You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/09/reagans_heart_of_darkness/

Max:

"If I get Powers right, we ought to make a new path to prevent genocide and understand we can not win victories anymore, but simple negotiate the best of bad outcomes with our enemies."

The point is to stop treating other sovereign nations as "enemies." How do you think a negotiation would go with countries you have labeled the "Axis of Evil." Give me a freaking break. That is not diplomacy - that is grade-school-bully tactics. (aka "wild wild west").

(And McCain has already cast aspersions at world leaders in Russia, China and Cuba - and the general election hasn't even really got going yet.)

The key to diplomacy is building coalitions and solving common problems. Not "defeating our enemies!!!" That is Bush-speak. More importantly - our real "enemies" consist of brutal dictators and ideologues - not entire countries.

(And just to be clear - it is Samantha Power - no "s" - if we are talking about the same person.)

In 25 years of interviews with his hometown paper that could only be released upon his death, former President Ford said Ronald Reagan received far too much credit for ending the Cold War.

Reagan was "probably the least well informed on the details of running the government of any president I knew," Ford said. In a separate interview he said, "He was just a poor manager, and you can't be president and do a good job unless you manage."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/politics/main2358453.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2358453

"But Obama's message of judgment and ending the mindset that got us into Iraq - "

ROFL, Warren. The very same mindless/mindset that got us into Iraq had attracted the Obamatons to his campaign. Follow me....I am Change....I AM JOSHUA!

Gordo:

I already saw "Lost Boys." That was a great movie. I like vampires.

And dog....Brian is ONLY here for attention. The same reason that the Freepers show up in Democratic message boardsa and oinkers show up on feminist sites.

warren -------------------------

JW is the key to the puzzle.

"The reasons why many Americans admire his Presidency is because of Foreign Policy. "

OH, yeah, Warren....another reason to vote for Obama....his Reagan-worship. Is the Holy One planning to sell drugs to arm Middle Eastern rebels and start covert wars in South America? How does he feel about Death Squads?

Obama is trying to change the Democratic party into Rebublican lite.

Patsi:

The whole reason the people elect a President is so that they can be mindless (at least with respect to politics).

Most Americans don't want to bother themselves with all this political nonsense. They just want to elect a leader they than can trust - so they can go back to focusing on their own lives.

And Obama meets this test with his intelligence, "experienced" supporters (such as Richardson, Kerry, etc.), judgment and the way he has run his campaign. For everyone other than the Clintonites - his organization has been so impressive it is scary (especially to the GOP).

But the big plus about Obama is inspiration. I don't want to get back into the debate about whether "words matter." But I predict the ability to inspire will be one of the greatest assets for Obama if he is elected President.

Yet again Craig you prove my charge regarding your bias. You suppose that Obama's recent boost in the polls is not driven by Obama himself but instead by a PR failure on the part of Hillary. Certainly Hillary's every climbing negatives we can lay at her feet, but that doesn't go a long away in explaining Obama's increasing esteem in the public's eye. The public and pundits alike have been very impressed with the way Obama has handled Wright crisis, as the saying goes "when life hands you lemons..." . You also might at least acknowledge the brilliance of the Obama camp in successfully painting Hillary as the "buzz killer".

And frankly Craig the Rick Sloan scenario is just too vested with magical thinking to be taking seriously by anyone but the most biased.

The whole reason the people elect a President is so that they can be mindless (at least with respect to politics

You have demonstrated point for your side..

Clinton's camp can show her path to victory
Obama's only way to victory is to have Clinton drop out.

In as much that race is now fore front
I beg to ask Mr Obama

Sir will you pardon Abu Jamal Mumia.

Will any one in the Philly area ask him this question?

what effect will an Obama pardon have

The web site Black commentator got me to thinking about what his answer might be.

As an advocate for the Black Panthers, the site claims he is innocent.

Can some ask Mr.Obama that question?

To end the madness

go to AlGore2008.com

send an e-mail asking Al get in to the race

It serves no propose for the democratic party to destroy itself when there is no need to

AlGore2008.com

Sorry good buddy. This is all I could find on the "Lost Boys"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Boys

(this does not scare me too much for the general.)

Dear Democratic Elite: Back Off

If you continue to try to push Hillary Clinton out of the primary race before a clear winner emerges, you're going to accomplish one of two things, neither of which have anything to do with your actual goal. Taking myself out of this equation entirely, if the Obama elite keep pushing their agenda here's what you'll get:

1. Clinton supporters will harden further against voting for Obama if he becomes the nominee. (Hillary fans are already close to this, so don't push them any further, because you can't win in November without them, ...

2. Clinton supporters will protest your overbearing and undemocratic interventionism by casting a protest vote for John McCain. (Lunch bucket and Reagan Dems don't trust McCain on the economy, but Clinton's their man in this race, because they believe she's the one who can get us out of this economic mess, but they hate elitist political snobs even more, so voting for a heroic veteran like McCain won't be that hard for them, especially if these same people took their vote away, too.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/dear-democratic-elite-ba_b_94004.html

A friend sent me this fantastic rendition of The Star Spangled Banner. It's less than two minutes, and well worth the listen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCVS57j284

Patsi:

"Obama is trying to change the Democratic party into Rebublican lite."

I thought Obama was the so-called most liberal man in the Senate.

Don't you see - we are going to pull reverse-reaganism on the GOP. Obamacans are going to outweigh any Reagan Democrats who are supposedly going to vote for 100-years of war and Bush's economic policies.

Warren why are you expecting rational thought from these people? Buddy you're going to get a bad bruise if you keep beating your head against the wall.

WTF:

"Clinton's camp can show her path to victory."

So can Obama's. Keep doing what they have been doing all across the US, i.e., Winning!

(and - "path to victory" sounds like W talking about Iraq. And don't forget moving the goal posts - the Clinton camp has been doing a lot of that. In addition, to some isolated incidents of Senator Clinton "mis-speaking" when she is tired...)

Once again folks - time for the Obama campaign song:

"East Bound And Down"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unvr3mC_QJU

warren ------------------

Again, JW is the key. Who is JW? That along with Lost Boys will end in a successful Google search.

Don't worry Brian. They don't scare me!

Maybe later G-man. I need to take Lucy, aka "the goose", "googles", "Miss Lucy", for a walk.

It is a nice sunny day in NYC!!

For the Clintonites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtkVGClqrT4

(she also goes by "gookies" - but I need to watch using that nickname around Asians. Hah! It is rather tough to explain all of Lucy's nicknames...)

"They don't scare me!"

the fact that they are allowed out without a keeper scares me!

Warren: I think you have been doing a great job advocating for Obama and parrying a lot of the cheap shots slung here. A friend reviewed some recent C List posts; found them to be overwhelmingly pro-Clinton (like upwards of 70%, even without counting trolls and anonymous posts -- which are on the upswing here).

So you are a voice in the wilderness, but an articulate and principled one.

Many thanks from this longtime reader for that.

Best wishes,
dog the bully

Am I my brother's keeper?

(didn't someone famous say that?)

"The whole reason the people elect a President is so that they can be mindless (at least with respect to politics)."

ROFL....you bettcha. Warren, I give you George W Bush.

Brian. Didn't want you to think that I ignored your last in the previous thread:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/obamas-clintonesque-word-games.html#comment-60084

(Although, Warren -- I take your point. Sadly.)

"The whole reason the people elect a President is so that they can be mindless"

Patsi,

I'm not buying all the argument here, but in my experience most people are just standing around, waiting for someone to tell them what to do.

Rick Sloan sounds as if he has a plausible winning formula.

Maybe Stinky and I will drive up to NC and hold signs for a while.

"Don't you see - we are going to pull reverse-reaganism on the GOP. "

Ah. So that's the secret plan. I wondered what the point of it all was. (Aside from the fact that Obama has something of a messianic personality -- like your pal "W" -- and is surrounded by men like Gary Hart and Tom Daschle who believe they can wield some power again.)

"in my experience most people are just standing around, waiting for someone to tell them what to do. "

Thank God Obama came along and played his magic flute for them.

A friend reviewed some recent C List posts; found them to be overwhelmingly pro-Clinton (like upwards of 70%, even without counting trolls and anonymous posts -- which are on the upswing here).

A friend? Your friend Brian perhaps.

Dear brave "A Friend":

Nope. It was not Brian.

Do you honestly think the numbers are that different?

"you are a voice in the wilderness"

Is Guyana still a wilderness?

Craig ,

Sloan's comments are intriguing and I don't know how he's calculating the delegate allocation in her wins and 2nds. First thing comes to mind is to remember that Obama's del count is not inactive. IMHO, he wins after IN counting the SDs plus the FL/MI dels as you suggested yesterday on CM.

"Thank God Obama came along and played his magic flute for them"

Better than the sax.

So what if there are more pro Clinton postings.
This is a open, comment board and anyone who wants to is free to comment. It is the content of the posts that should count.

No one chased anyone away or suggested they no longer post. You are free to make your case.

Watching Leahy yesterday was a joke. Who the hell does he think he is? These guys think we are STUPID! Telling her to quit is just making us more determined. If the circumstances were reversed would it be OK to tell Obama to quit? I doubt it. Leahy looks OLD!

P.S. Obama looked like a boob on the View, and going to a sports bar? What a poser. It is not gonna fly in PA.

"It is the content of the posts that should count."

Oh it does, and why are you so defensive when it's pointed out the bias of this group and the host?

Dear brave "known by the company you keep"

You have made my point with your nick.

And then 2 posts down, a newbie chimes in, "Obama looked like a boob" and then calls him a poser.

You cannot make this up.

Not a newbie. Maybe you missed my posts during one of your promised "this is my last post" posts or is that the other Hussein?

Another great trailmix , Craig!

What makes it great Corey?

Melanie: I have not seen your previous posts, although I no longer read C List as carefully as I used to. Apologies there.

Dear Pearl Clutcher

You spend all your time here complaining about other people's comments.

You seem to want a special little kiddie pool where you can post and no one should be allowed to challenge your statements.

Well real life beckons, hang in there dog, Warren, and Rez.

Dog-apology accepted

"You seem to want a special little kiddie pool where you can post and no one should be allowed to challenge your statements."

As do you, Dkos is waiting for you. Perhaps you have no fear of having your statements challenged because you've hidden your identity behind a list of ever-changing monikers.

Corey...this article should cheer you up big time. (I saw on your blog that you're a big fan of The Whopper)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120672457122272165.html?mod=mm_media_marketing_hs_left

Perhaps you have no fear of having your statements challenged because you've hidden your identity behind a list of ever-changing monikers

Two wrongs don't make a right. My point is still true.

For the umpteenth time, could someone please explain to me why it's necessary to make up new pseudonyms when you could simply continue to post under your existing pseudonym? To bury anonymity under another layer of anonymity? Most of the stuff I'm seeing posted under these fake handles is pretty harmless. What's the big deal? Who or what are you hiding from?

I give up. Gotta go wash the motorcycles now anyway. It's a beautiful day down here in sunny Florida.

Craig,
It's "Tonya", not "Tanya."

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

You, and several others who consistently post here, might consider the truth of this statement....

LL,

They just think it's cool taking a dump is someone's mess kit while they think no one can see them. Go figure.

Yeah, I know. The namechanging is odd behavior for someone presumably of voting age and thus past puberty.

EVERYONE IS FRIGGIN' TESTY AGAIN...
Pffft, whatever...

Oh and in spite of SOME Obama supporters here being ultra insulting to Clinton supporters, I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee...

ET-
As will I...though I'm starting to worry we're in the minority...but McCain scares the **** out of me!
~G

The continuation of the Republican practice of allowing big business to dictate our government's operating principles is what scares the **** out of me!

See Gidget and harborwoman this is the bottom line. We gotta get the Dems back in power. I am frustrated how this nomination is playing out and the mess the DNC has made and all that, but we GOT to remember what the future holds if McBush becomes president. I still want Hillary, but if Obama carries the nomination, I will not only vote for him but enthusiastically encourage others to do so as well. I just have to ignore some voices on here that piss me off so much that makes me want to sit the whole damn thing out... and I don't have to spell out who I mean in particular.

ET

You only think you have the Democrats in power if you choose the one with a radical agenda.

After two years the Congress will be gone, and after four, the White house as well.

Afternoon Flatus. What do you foresee, with the "radical agenda"?

PS: not saying this to bait you; am interested in what you think. FWIW, you are one of the newer posters I read with anticipation of being both amused and informed.

Dear Tom:

Just put me in the Clinton category :-))

P.S.
Got your link...thank you loved it put it in "my favorites"
commented on your blog.
brb its canine romper room here, seems like my "Babies" are restless too :-))
Sincerely,
Heather

I've said this so many times that everyone on here is probably sick of reading it...but we already have the very best government big business can buy. IMO, we've already moved from a democracy to a plutocracy, and it's only going to get worse unless we, the people, work actively to take our government back.

That's why I supported John Edwards. He was the only candidate who openly stood up to big business. Of course, I think that's also the one of the reasons he gained no traction in this race...that and standing in the path of history. He was openly mocked by the media for the silliest of things...like haircuts. And who owns the media? Need I say it? Big business!

Anyway, I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee.

One more plea, EuroTom. I understand that you don't enjoy Brian's posts, but he has just as much right to post here as you or any of your little clique that wants him to go away. It's gone far enough now that the group trying to drive him away has behaved far worse than Brian. You're like a pack of dogs. It's a pain in the ass to those of us who know how to skip the posts of those we don't enjoy or respect, but would like to feel free to read everyone's posts and perhaps engage in some useful discussion. And please don't take this as a slam against you. I actually enjoy your posts, except for when you're going after Brian.

i will try harborwoman.. I truly dislike him with every fiber of my body. I think he is rude, insolent, hateful, mean, arrogant and a total putz. but I will TRY.. I know he has the right to post here, but he said he wouldn't come here anymore and then VOILA he's back. I don't really consider myself part of a clique, just someone who finds the drive-by shooter postings are childish and mean spirited.

So I will try to ignore him, hateful as he is. I realize that when I react, he gets what he wants and the best thing to do is ignore him. And I apologise for my antics in this situation. (But I'm not the anonymous ones posting his "last post"... just thought you'd like to know).

"A clique is a subset of individuals from a larger group, who are more closely identified with one another than the remaining members of the group." -Wikipedia

I don't know what else to call those of you who've banded together to slam Brian every time he appears, or to remind him that he once said he was leaving the blog.

Many people have said they're leaving this blog. Most have returned. Why should he be any different? We all obviously enjoy being here, for whatever the reason, or we wouldn't....

There are a couple of people who post here that I really dislike...at least, I dislike their online personalities...and I'd probably enjoy writing about them the way you wrote about Brian in the first paragraph of your 3:00 PM post...until I thought about the way I was treating them...and the way it made me look. Then I'd feel like s**t...which is why I try to keep my posts and responses as measured as I can.

Thanks for agreeing to at least try.

Harbor: excellent post on plutocracy.

To JennBe, and Heather and Jamie, I wrote a reply to you guys from your comments you put on my blog.. Many thanks!!!

Just a note:

I would just like to clarify where I stand on the Obama issue I am not out to condemn him or or anyone that supports Obama. I may disagree with those that support him, but at all times I will try to be respectful of their views in the same manner that I hope those that support Obama will be of me, and my support of Hillary

I will continue to give constructive criticism on Obama maybe in a tongue irreverent way, but never anything vituperative or insulting.

--Heather

"Madrak: the rule of thumb is that if you read or hear something that makes you hate another Democrat, you need to dig down further because there's more to the story. The real enemy is the media, and they see themselves as the only superdelegates."

http://flprogressive.blogspot.com/

This weekend is a convocation of progressive bloggers. The link is for a transcript of some of the panels. The one on humor is very good, featuring Ted Rall.

There is a lot on how to keep McCain from getting a free ride.

There are a couple of people who post here that I really dislike...at least, I dislike their online personalities...and I'd probably enjoy writing about them the way you wrote about Brian in the first paragraph of your 3:00 PM post...until I thought about the way I was treating them...and the way it made me look. Then I'd feel like s**t...which is why I try to keep my posts and responses as measured as I can.

Thanks for agreeing to at least try.

Posted by: harborwoman | March 29, 2008 3:08 PM

Interesting HW, because after I posted those comments I thought "I will need to apologise to the blog for going on the attack like that." Really, I was planning to do so!! I am not a mean-spirited person, but if I feel like I have been belittled or attacked, I get quite angry. Oh sometimes I just shrug and figure "well if s/he doesn't like me, ok"... I was thinking today that Brian should run for office. He seems quite adept at letting the criticisms roll off him. I often wonder how politicians are able to develop such a thick skin. I know I wouldn't be able to.

Anyway... in unity and thoughts of a nicer blog...

xoxoxo

Great post, kgc! The media as the only superdelegates? Absolutely! They're doing their dead level best to select our candidates for us. Have they already succeeded?

Thanks, Tom. I enjoy your posts...and really appreciate getting the perspective of an ex-pat. Jason's posts have been interesting, too, in that regard. I envy both of you the freedom and courage to go live in another country....

This week I did about 14 hours of Hillary sign holding in the Salem-Keizer area. It is pretty satisfying; a few jerks are obscene or yell insults, but the vast majority are friendly. Some stop to talk. I've found interesting people who support different candidates.

A couple of nights ago I went to Portland to see Gus Van Sant's new movie, Paranoid Park..very good..

I had an hour to kill so I picked a large island at 23rd and Burnside..Three crosswalks intersect.
In the hour I was there I experienced many times more insults than I had in the previous 14 hours.

One 30ish man in a Jaguar stopped his car and screamed obscenities at me. A group of 5 young people told me to get out of Obama's town.

A nice , young jogging couple, (Obama supporters) offered to stay with me until I would leave for my movie.
I declined their generous offer.

I've been working on campaigns since 1960 when my parents took me to see John Kennedy.

There have always been crackpots, the occasional nut.
This year is very different. It is very sad.

Back to Portland with my sign and raingear.

Harborwoman

Have they already succeeded? They certainly have made their choice known. The panels on the link talk about on going efforts to work around the media as well as trying to impact the way politics is covered.

I can't figure out why some candidates or office holders are teflon coated and others are like velcro.

How did McCain escape any damage from the lobbyist story?

Warren,
Reagan called who an evil empire? You have got to be kidding me. We should stop treating nations as enemies because they are nations? How is this in anyway a return to the policies of Reagan and Bush. I think you're losing it completely. NK blinked because they were isolated and not regarded as simply another nation. Ths disparaging view of both Western hegemony and the isolating of offenders runs counter to traditional thinking. Outside the box, Obama? Now it is a different message to get back in the old box...LOL

Powers, who will obviously will be back under an Obama administration pointed out that Clinton was one of the only President who acted to prevent genocide with the encouragment of that "monster" Hillary. Does Obama want to return to that? Do you care to debate this? And why should America not treat a regime like Iran that works towards a nuclear weapon, supports terrorist groups and frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and the defeat of Liberal Democratic hegemony as an enemy? Think that will sell come November?

I will love to see how the NYT and others compares Obama's policy positions and advisors representing anything close to a return to more traditional Reagan and Bush senior foreign policies. Is he refering to Contragate, supporting Saddam, or of Reagan's unilateralist approach that forced the Soviets out of power? Come on Warren, I expect more objectivity from you. The fact you defend this comeplete gaff reveals your faith-based support.

Yep, past Presdients didn't stand up to the behavior of Russia, China and Cuba. Will you show me where JFK and Reagan did not do this? You are so completely wrong it is actually quite funny coming from a smart guy like you. It reveals the extent you worship your leader despite the obvious bullshit he is spouting to reverse the concerns created by his papers, advisors, mentors and contributors. One thing is certain: he made his ideological bed and wrote two books about where he stood. Now, desperate reversals on the stump will not change things.

The essential difference between Obama and Clinton is below.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/004197.html (scroll down for my comment and please excuse the typos)

I explain how Vietnam ended the Liberal Consensus and how Reagan and Clinton kept the Left in exile for two decades until Rove baited them out and Democrats in angst let them into their Party to help beat Bush. Obama dervies both support and policy from this crew while not embracing there most radical or anti-American positions. His affinity for this crowd however, paints his foreign policy in a light he now whats to re-tool. I read your American Spector article and Obama's position is described by most as the most Liberal strategy since Jimmy Carter. Behind the purty words lies the likes of Zbig, Malley, McPeak and Rice as well as Lake and Powers. Come on Warren, get a clue.

The Carter Doctrine actually goes against much of the ranting from Obama and against the Jeffersonian idea of internationalism. Remeber we are one world after all? This wasn't going to be accomplished without the sacrifice and tough determination JFK outlined in his swearing in Speech. Even Powers cries out for intervention against genocide which Reagan and Bush 1 did not want to do. They were more the realists who often prefered enemies of ours to be assisted in attacking each other as Reagan promoted between Iran and Iraq. If I remeber, Democrats deplored this foreign policy though Carter armed OBL after Zbig baited the Soviets into Afghanistan. I'm sure Gordo will recommend you read some Huntington.

If you want to pretend and avoid looking deeper than pandering speeches buy Obama designed to deflect substantial and grounded objections to Obama's policies and inclinations, then what can I say?

Yes, the Democrats vaciliated Bush in invading Afghanistan and forcing Pakistan to side with us. Democrats facilitated removing Saddam and pushing sanctions against Iran. Yes, Democrats facilitated Bush's position in Lebanon and Darfur and support of the colored revolutions. Yes. Democrats did not want to lose Iraq and advocated a surge long before Bush did while demanding Rumsfeld resign. Just read the interview between Russert and Obama just before Obama delivered his 2004 convention speech. Obama professes to seek victory in Iraq. Yes? I am glad that in principle, Democrats supported the logic and condemned the competence in carrying out the "traditional" objectives by Republican Presidents..

Your biggest problem in the post above is that you fail to see what was wrong with Reagan foreign policy and how that contributed to taday's problems. On the other hand, you fail to understand what went right with Reagan's foreign policy in terms of the Cold War. He ignored the Far Left, crusaded against the Soviets, built up a big stick, promoted an economic renewal and gave whatever support he could to those trying to free themselves form another country's oppression. To suggest that Obama should follow the mistakes and ignore the reasons that Reagan was successful indicates both your failure to understand the hisotry and your faith v reason regarding Obama.

I will say it again. Reagan and Bush1, JK, RFK, Truman, Clinton and FDR supported the notion of a benign Western hegemony of Liberal Democracy built upon credible alliances, free markets and unshakable resolve. Obama's Dignified Foreign Policy introduces the view that such hegemony is a pretense for American domination. It clearly reflects a triangulation between Powers, Malley, Zbig, McPeak and Rice. Sorry, Warren, there ought to no place for cultural relativism in the defense of Liberty and national self-interest. Powers can't even get the UN to stop weapons into Darfur while Blacks are bombed into genocide.

Obama's associations with pro Hamas, anti-America and anti-Jewish thinkers presents a fatal problem. This is compounded by a long list of dubious advisors who have never advocated any return to Reagan or Bush 1. It is par for Obama to try and use words to mask his record, associations, former statements and the continued attack on all that is Bush. Let him get Powel's backing or Cohen. Let him get Baker and Scowcroft to stump for him. I am waiting for Fallon to sign up.

It was a bad move design to foll uniformed voters which is about the best thing Obama has going for him. If the Press can manage to filter out a full vetting, Obama has a chance. If hournalists take a go look at the outrageous contradictions and spins Obama has delivered since 2004 and his roots that back twenty years, he will never survive McCain. These stump speeches are jsut digging himself deeper into the garbage. He sure looks funny on the View.

If I were Obama, I would be worried about my own reputation. With each attempt to blow back woories, Obama creates new problems. BY the time he reaches the Oval Office (if he does) his credibility will be so burnt that his four years will likely make Carter look good. Again Warren, how can you call Obama's Liberal foreign policy article anything like a return to the past unless you're talking about Carter's great term? Obama has done what Reagan did not: actually reduce the confidence American's feel should he win the election. Perhaps that is why China, Russia, militants, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Cahvez, Cuba, are all hoping he wins.

Does that at least tell you what the world thinks about Obama's new messge to return America to traditional foreign policy?

"You people can paste my post all you want, I stand behind the sentiment I expressed in it."

Brian,

If you stand behind it, then why aren't you gone? If you don't stand behind it, then why have you not apologized to Craig for calling him a racist?

I have no idea why you consider it a good time to insult, degrade, and injure others, but that does seem to be your idea of fun. I suppose if you are going to stay, we can expect more of the same and should just consider with sympathy the sad and lonely life led by someone who takes their pleasures in that fashion.

Just back from a walk with Lucy, and I had a few thoughts...

As you may have learned, Lucy is getting very good around people (not so much around otra perros), so I have two questions:

1. If Lucy barks because someone suddenly comes out of a door on the street - does she bark because she is afraid or because I am afraid?

2. If an un-supervised 5-year-old kid runs up into Lucy's face to pet her - and she bites him. Who do you blame?

Anyways, don't worry - #2 did not happen. Couple of funny stories from the walk:

-The NYC sidewalks are crowed today. So me and Lucy got pretty close to this guy and his 100-pound sheep dog. Lucy did her thing and we walked by. The guy screams out: "If you let your dog bite mine - I will sue!!" I shot back: "She didn't bite - and there are enough lawsuits in the world!" (And then laughed to myself that after I got done with him in court - all he would have left was his dog ; ).

-Finally, right after that incident - a nice lady walked by and Lucy gravitated to her. Another dog came close and Lucy barked - so I said don't mind the dog - "She like's to be in charge." And the woman replied - "Or wants all the human attention."

And I thought interesting - is there any difference to "being in charge" and "having all the human attention?"

kgc...

I think their success predates the current slate of candidates. The constant media drumbeat about haircuts, or age, or been in the Senate too long, or whatever, has gone a long way toward reducing our options to Clinton, Obama and McCain. But now they're working with what they've got...or what they've wrought.

I do think those of us who are paying attention are in the minority. Most people are simply too busy working and trying to make ends meet, while trying to have some kind of life with their friends and/or families, to even want to pay this much attention to politics. Some of the brightest people I know simply ignore the whole thing until it's reduced to the final two, then begin to make up their minds which way to vote.

I also think the media plays an enormous role in whose teflon works at any given moment, or over any given 'scandal'.

Dog:

Don't worry about dealing with all the cheap shots and trumped-up charges. (That is what I do for a living and it just comes naturally.)

But I take your compliment about being a "voice in the wilderness..."

Thanks!

Warren,

We have a point of agreement. Lost Boys is an entertaining movie and I really love the Santa Cruz boardwalk. It may be one of the last of the true seaside carnival areas complete with salt water taffy and a good wooden roller coaster. :-)

Yes, I was just out on NYC streets too.

A guy from HRC, (Human Rights, not Hillary Clinton) asked me to contribute to their fund. When I told him what Obama just said about returning to Reagan and Bush 1 foreign policy, he was speechless. I asked him as a gay person (which he was), why he found it no problem to support Obama (which he did) when those associated closely to Obama are rather homophobic. He said he "hoped" Obama would reject these things. When I asked him why he didn't like Hillary he said she gets support from the health insurance corporations. He said he thought she was too hawkish and bipartisan. When I asked him what he thinks Obama should do abroad he said, pull our forces out, come home and spend our money on ourselves. Needless to say I did not contribute.

It is beautiful outside however.

Yes, some real differences between Hillary and Obama supporters that purty words will not gloss over.

Melanie:

"and going to a sports bar? What a poser. It is not gonna fly in PA."

Spoken like someone who does not know PA. I am going to make sure I hit some sports bars in PA and talk up Obama.

(And don't worry - I will be "nice enough" to Clinton ; )

""You people can paste my post all you want, I stand behind the sentiment I expressed in it."

Brian,

If you stand behind it, then why aren't you gone? If you don't stand behind it, then why have you not apologized to Craig for calling him a racist?

I have no idea why you consider it a good time to insult, degrade, and injure others, but that does seem to be your idea of fun. I suppose if you are going to stay, we can expect more of the same and should just consider with sympathy the sad and lonely life led by someone who takes their pleasures in that fashion."

STOP IT! PLEASE! This whole crapfest has gotten beyond old. Not one of us knows whose life is actually sad and lonely, nor is it any of our business unless the person living that life chooses to make it so. Can't we please just have reasoned discussions here without someone jumping in to restart the garbage every time it dies down a bit???

And, Jamie...Craig pulls on his big boy trousers daily. If he needs an apology from any of us, he should let us know. Respectfully, it's not your call to make, any more than it would be mine.

Jamie:

Have you ever ridden the Cyclone at Coney Island?

And I love seaside carnival areas - I spent a lot of time in Jersey!

(Time for me and the goose to have some Big Arc chicken - another good eatery in NYC!)

HW

We agree. The media really did a number of Al Gore in 2000. I am encouraged by the increased number of main stream media sites that allow comments.
If there is an error, it shows up very quickly in comments.

Max
Are you suggesting that GWB is a better President than Carter?

kgc...

The ability to interact, as limited as it is, is certainly a plus. But my real hope is that the internet will enable real people to learn and link together to try to achieve real, positive changes. No matter how we go about it, it won't be easy. 'They' have a big head start on us!

Harborwoman
"But my real hope is that the internet will enable real people to learn and link together to try to achieve real, positive changes."

If you have some time check out the link.
That pretty much sums of the goal of the convocation.

It ia a group probably 100-150 who have met through blogs such as Atrios and Firedoglake coming together in person to talk about a progressive agenda and how to deal with the rightwing media.

"Perhaps that is why China, Russia, militants, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Cahvez, Cuba, are all hoping he wins".
-----Max
Max
How has Bush in his 7 long years neutralized the "influence"of this group in the geo-political arena?

Oh, shoot, kgc...Meant to say that I had followed your link and am thrilled with the conversation that is happening there. I bookmarked the site, but will this be an on-going conversation, even after they're no longer meeting face-to-face?

One of the radio shows I listen to in Seattle recently had a full hour of calls from Obama supporters who were asked to explain why the are supporting him. Many of them indicated that Obama would stop the war and spend "that money" in our own country. Not once did the host mention that we are not "paying" for the war...it's going on the card.

While I'm not suggesting that the war isn't a drain of blood and treasure, I believe its been pretty well covered in the media that this war is not part of the normal budget but adding to the national debt. To think that the minute we pull troops out we are going to be wallowing in cash a la Demi Moore on that bed with all that money in Indecent Proposal not gonna happen (you know I like to tie everything to a movie).

DHD: "...What do you foresee, with the "radical agenda"?"

In my mind I see radicalism as something that is one standard deviations, or more, to the left or right of the center of the public opinion distribution.

The subject of the policy is immaterial; what counts is how it's perceived by the public.

If it's under that part of the population distribution embraced by two-thirds of sentient beings, then the policy can be safely enacted by lawmakers without fear of draconian retribution (ouster). That still allows for officials in particular localities voting against a proposal without disrupting it nationwide.

And, it allows for politicians of opposing parties to form coalitions supporting a legislative position.

Trying to force a consensus when the subject is outside parameters will result in what happened with Mrs Clinton's healthcare initiative during her husband's first year. It was only Irish luck that allowed him to recover.

I sense that Mr Obama's core supporters are within that area of the curve to the left of the one standard deviation mark. And, most assuredly this core has shown themselves to be vocal and demanding supporters. If he is to satisfy them, his policies will be to the left of where he needs to be to create working coalitions.

People such as Sen Leahy can afford allying themselves with the core as that position represents Vermont. The same can't be said for Gov Richardson.

I don't know which issue will be the one that sinks Mr Obama. But surely, as the Sun rises in the East, it's out there and will be introduced.

For all you Peggy Noonan fans!
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

HW

It is my call that Brian has called me a racist twice and he has called ET a racist and he has called other people on the blog racist among other insulting names. Apparently, the only criterion for being put in that category is that you disagree with the SOB in even the most minor degree. Until such time as I get a full apology, he doesn't get even a minutes slack from me when he attacks other people.

If he actually wants to post ideas or commentaries rather than spewing forth ugly and vile attacks, I will be glad to consider them. Until then, he is just an abysmal slug who deserves to be stepped upon whenever he brings in the slime.

I just wrote a new blog entry on the democratic race for presidency. Would love to hear comments. it was a free write, and I didn't edit.

Also, the new Vanity Fair has a story called "Doris Day: America's Lonely Sweetheart". Has anyone got the new issue? It has Madonna on the cover. I've been worried about Doris since her son Terry died and I am wondering what might be in the story.
Thanks.

George, it is a close call on the comparison. I would say Bush has more to his credit, but more in terms of incompetence. If Bush was so much worse than Carter, why did he get two terms. Or do you think Bush stole two terms?

It was very incompetent how Carter first allowed Zbig to handle Afghanistan and then Iran and the policies in South and Central America by Carter stunk. About the only thing Carter did right was to get Egypt and Israel together. But then extremists killed Sadat. The very same vermon today's extremists come from. If they had there way they would get rifd of most Muslim governments and replace them with fundi robots to the greater cause.

Given what Bush faced after 9/11, some have a good case that Bush was better than Carter. I would have trusted Carter to convince Musharraf, contain Saddam, reject Chavez, lecture Assad or even get NK to the table. He might have instead lectured us as to why OBL attacked us. Now that would have been a great fireside chat.

One thing is for certain, we don't want to return to Carter, do we? And how is Obama moving away from that? With another speech?

Harborwoman

I think followups will be posted at the link. I have great hopes for them. They have a lot of good ideas.

Clintin "mis-spoke" on the campaign trail today.

She said there are people out there trying to stop these elections.

Incorrect. There are people saying she should end her campaign because they don't see any way she can win.

The elections will happen regardless, and the Dems should use all remaining contests to to sign up new voters.

(Mind you - I don't think Clinton should quit now. I am having too much fun - and I agree with the point that it makes both candidates stronger - as long as they don't smear each other. I think she should step down sometime in April or May - or at whatever point she reaches the same conclusion that Leahy did.)

Warren

Dangerous or difficult dog laws vary from state to state.
If your dog is known to be difficult/dangerous the presumption of fault is with you.

Tom just thought you'd like to know Doris and I share the same birthday.

Marlon Brandon and Alec Baldwin too, Alec and I born on the same day. It was a very good year!

Warren: Um, for me, it's not really an "election" when there is only one person on the ballot. Has John McCain been campaigning in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Oregon and somehow I missed the coverage? I think most people get her point.

Jamie I never apologize for expressing my honest opinion, and I still stand by it, but hay if you want to keep trying to rip into me go for it, I'm tough, I can handle it.

Maxtrue:

Last name = Power.

(Jeez! if you are going to tear someone down and treat her like a "monster" - at least get the woman's name right.)

Tom just thought you'd like to know Doris and I share the same birthday.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | March 29, 2008 4:23 PM

Ok Brian, there is one feather in your cap. :-)

Here's a funny story , one that has gotten a lot of laughs over the years. At a group I belong to , there was a regular poster named Dan. He and another guy spent late nights going back and forth with each other (lightheartedly making fun of each other). Anyway , about 7 or 8 years ago , Dan decided to leave the group. When Dan left he said "I am leaving this place to go and find myself." The guy he used to trade barbs with every night made this legendary remark: "Dan left to find himself , but himself had a head start!"

KGC:

"If your dog is known to be difficult/dangerous the presumption of fault is with you."

No worries. I'll just put Lucy on the stand.

http://www.mycockerspaniel.com/past_contests/sep06.htm

(She could win the jury over ; )

Brian Hussein In NYC,

I enjoyed the Noonan article immensely. The true events of her Bosnia trip are amazing. Totally agreed, she is too modest!

"I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."-GI Joe

well my birthday is the same birthday anniversary of Lucille Ball and also the bombing of Hiroshima. I always joke that's why I'm often funny and often explosive. :-) Anyone else wanna share a birthday they share with someone famous?

Warren

Lucy is very cute but when she is wearing her muzzle it will be harder to tell.

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=2007_Press_Releases_through_June&template=/PressRelease/PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=695&PressReleaseCategoryID=2&ShowArchives=0

ET

Here is the DD website with some commentary. She is 84, lives a quiet luxurious life and rarely leaves home though friends visit.

http://www.dorisday.net/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1975

Hey Warren- I was born and raised in Pittsburgh.What I meant was how Kerry looked dressed up in hunting gear. Obama did NOT fit in. And he knew it. Oh yea he picked Pitt in his bracket! Not pandering though....

George,
1. His support of Columbia (which Oabama would reverse) led to the uncovering of the fact that Chavez gave $300,000,000 to FARC which then tried to get enriched uranium. Buh's constant objection to Chavez did resonate and Chavez lost his referendum of dictaorship despite the US Press defending Chavez.

2. Castro is gone and Bush did not yield.

3. Syria has been isolated with some sanctions and Bush supported the strike on a secret nuclear facility in Syria that Assad was working on with help from NK and Iran. While Zbig was going to talk about shared goals with Assad, someone killed one of the worst terrorists that enjoyed safe passage in Syria.

4. The NIE even concludes that Bush led sanctions on Iran made them stop their nuke program to build a bomb. Most experts agree that our invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with that as well as turn Gaddafi.

5. Bush supported the color revolutions with much success, has promoted NATO expansion and missile defense. These policies backed in large part by Europe have thwarted Russia's desire to reassert it's influence. In China, Bush has failed to thwart Chinese military build up, but has proceed to win some support from China over NK while creating better communication between our military leaders and theirs. Carter on China or Russia....LOL

6. Militants....the record is there...google it.

6. In the Sudan, Bush has been a leading voice in increasing the role of intervention in Darfur. He has given record amounts of money to Africa winning enormous praise from Liberals around the world. He has certainly called for more action in Darfur, Somalia and Kenya than Obama has. US NAvy has acted repeatedly to stop priacy. Think Carter would do that?...LOL

7. Bush got India and Pakistan to back off and for Musharraf to decalre himself an ally in the GWOT. Bush got Musharraf to allow the US to confirm the safe storage of Pakistani nukes. Until Obama spoke up, Musharraf had masked a few Predator attacks on militants. In Afghanistan, Bush drove out the Taliban and restored a Democratic Afghani government.

8. Bush got Gaddafi to come clean making a joke out of Liberal claims that he was building an irrigation system.

9. Bush ended the chance of Saddam getting nukes or causing more trouble. There is now a chance Iraq might move towards a reformed view of Islam.

Can you imagine what Bush might have achieved if sensible Democrats were allowed to reform and improve the thrust of Bush's foreign policy? The simple rejection of everything Bush has tried, advocated or envisoned is a foolish approach to foreign policy. To conclude that everything Bush has done refutes "traditional" foreign policies is also misguided.

I hope I answered that for you.

Tom , here is who I share a birthday with:

Laura Bush , Walter Cronkite , (The late Art Carney) , Ralph Macchio , Eric Karros , Markie Post and Loretta Swit. I was born on the same day and year as Matthew McCaughney and Sean (P. Diddy) Combs.

The chief worry is that Clinton may carry her recent winning streak into Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and other states, leaving her with unquestioned momentum but fewer pledged delegates than Obama. Party leaders then would face a wrenching choice: Steer the nomination to a fading Obama, even as signs suggested Clinton could be the stronger candidate in November; or go with the surging Clinton and risk infuriating Obama's supporters, especially blacks, the Democratic Party's most loyal base.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/29/politics/p064437D20.DTL

I share a birthday with Boris Karloff.

Oh and Will Rogers , too.

Damn Max,

Explain to me why we aren't trying to re-elect him to a third term? I'm confused!

Hey Warren, any chance you practice criminal law? I just got a jury summons!

Maxtrue:

I agree that tough measures must be taken with the raidcal leaders on Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, etc.

But referring to the entire country as an "enemy to US" simply feeds into the propoganda war the extremists are waging.

And like I said - being stupid about measures such as sanctions - makes matters even worse. I think there should be oversight in place to prevent such countries from obtaining certain types of weapons. But often times the world places ecnomic sanctions on a country because its leader is off the reservation (e.g., Iran, N. Korea). What happens? The people suffer, poverty spreads, the people become more extreme and even moderates begin to support the leader we are trying to remove power from.

And when the UN passes sanctions - who do you think that is blamed on by the extemists? You got it. The United States of America.

(And making personal insults about world leaders - as McCain has and Bush does all the time - is childish and counter-productive. And Obama's policy of meeting with our allies as well as our so-called enemies is the right path - even though it must be tread carefully.)

Warren,

I treat Power like a monster, how so? In fact, I've used her comments lately to actually refute some new Obama claims about his foreign policy. Powers is no monster, just a lose cannon with some very impractical ideas and a selective reading of history. I hope Hillary makes her Ambassador to the Sudan or Saudi Arabia.

I make lots of typos...get used to it.

Its bad enough I have to post so many facts that one ought to know given one's passion about a candidate's record and history.

Jamie said:

"It is my call that Brian has called me a racist twice and he has called ET a racist and he has called other people on the blog racist among other insulting names. Apparently, the only criterion for being put in that category is that you disagree with the SOB in even the most minor degree. Until such time as I get a full apology, he doesn't get even a minutes slack from me when he attacks other people.

If he actually wants to post ideas or commentaries rather than spewing forth ugly and vile attacks, I will be glad to consider them. Until then, he is just an abysmal slug who deserves to be stepped upon whenever he brings in the slime."

As you know, Jamie, I agree that it is your call to respond whenever Brian directs his comments at you. Were I you, I'd be mad as hell at him. However, I will never agree that it is your call to demand that he apologize to Craig or anyone else other than you. Also, if you'll read his recent posts, they're pretty calm, reasoned and rational...sometimes with a twist of snark at the end, but I don't find that so different from lots of people's posts here.

All I'm asking for is that we use this blog for reasoned discussion, instead of a group effort to dismiss any one person. All of you who've been involved in that know exactly who you are, and you also know that it's tantamount to schoolyard bullying...the very behavior you've accused your target of using.

ET

You get Lucille Ball and I get Desi Arnaz

Ally:

The result of putting the war on "the card" is depressing the American dollar. And increasing American debt to China. Not a good combination.

Warren.

McCain will bring this up. The NIE despite a foolish wording of deabatable evidence stated clearly that Bush led sanctions caused Iran to blink. No one said that Americans don't like Iranians. We know the people support better relationshps while their hardline government does not. Shall we wait until they have a bomb, or make it difficult on them through sanctions?

Obama failed to support sanctions on Quds who deliver weapons to Hixb'Allah, intel and support to Chavez and probably FARC, weapons to Iraq and even the Taliban and AQ working in Afghanistan. No, he wants to talk.

Bush brought in others over NK and was rather blunt with Musharraf. Hillary. like JFK has gone to Europe and has talked to many allies. Her General was the leader of NATO. I can post the articles here, but if Obama thinks our defense is most served by building news schools, hiring new teachers and bringing prosperity to all the countries that dislike us while opporessed and brain-washed by their own leadership, we will never be safe. It is an absurd solution to pressing problems. Sudan will hardly let us re-educate their people, nor will Iran. You make too much of talking. We do talk, but what will this produce? We talked to the Taliban and they increased their violence thinking we were acting weak. We talked to Sadr, but he now thinks Maliki is getting to powerful for his, or Iran's interests. Pelosi visited Assad and he responded by killing more Lebanese leaders who oppose his influence in Lebanon. When we invaded Iraq, Gaddafi gave us a call.

Of course we must talk, but that isn't the basis of how we craft our NSS. Iran recently said it will not talk to the Democrats should they win. Better relations means people visiting have the opportunity to discover what Iran is up to. NK wants rewards before they even reveal the full extent of their nuclear program.

Let's be serious. The Obama approach is not serious. Purty words like Carter leading to what?

HW

Snark is just silly, but for anything else:

All that is required for evil to exist is that good men do nothing. If he attacks anywhere. I attack.

Hey - didn't Wendy call me "Doris Day" - I need to go pick up Vanity Fair...

Civil law. I don't have the stomach for criminal law...

HarborWoman

Here is another link this one to the panel on economics http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

Just a reminder of what it took for women to get the vote

http://jdurward.blogspot.com/

Jamie...

At this point, if he 'speaks', you and your compadres attack. And, with that, I think I've said enough. I don't think anyone here can doubt my opinion on this issue.