They've been spending a lot of time together, and Lieberman helped McCain with that correction during a speech yesterday. I don't know--it's worth examining, though.

3/19/2008 1:24:39 AM

Who will be the first to call this bipartisan...

3/19/2008 1:28:19 AM

I don't think all those people complaining about how liberal McCain is would like this too much.

3/19/2008 1:28:24 AM

Hmm--Lieberman endorsed McCain, too. I think they'd get it from both sides, though--from the conservatives like ^ indicated and from many liberals that still have a bad taste because of (1) Lieberman's position on Iraq and (2) his outsmarting them in Connecticut.

3/19/2008 2:10:13 AM

maybe i'm wrong, but i think this would be a bad move in terms of electability.

3/19/2008 2:12:38 AM

^ I think so, too. But McCain's a so-called maverick, and such a pick might give some Democrats an excuse to vote for him.

3/19/2008 2:26:12 AM

Yeah, I think for the most part Republicans are going to come around (right now) and vote McCain because they're morbidly scared of either Hillary or Obama in the White House. Kind of like how lots of Democrats say they don't support Hillary but you know damn well they would vote for her if she wins the nomination.

I honestly think a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be enough to turn off a huge number of conservatives and make them stay home. It would draw in a lot of Democratic votes if they ran against Hillary, I think but not so much against Obama. Probably would be a bad move.

3/19/2008 2:39:06 AM

Uh.

ATTN: Democrats

Would you vote for this ticket?

3/19/2008 2:59:13 AM

I hold my final decision until I see the actual matchup and at least 2 debates, but probably not.

3/19/2008 3:28:48 AM

Quote :

"I don't think all those people complaining about how liberal McCain is would like this too much."

Agreed. Two old white men aren't going to win Democrats away from a charismatic young blackish man. Maybe if Hillary is the nominee, but not Barack.

3/19/2008 5:48:05 AM

I don't think race is the determining factor.

I can think of a few old white men Dems would vote for over, say, Alan Keyes.

3/19/2008 6:35:27 AM

Condi for VP then?

Old white lady for Pres. vs. young black lady for VP?

3/19/2008 7:07:50 AM

^ That would be interesting. McCain-Rice 2008, huh?

3/19/2008 7:11:20 AM

I don't think that America is race obsessed in a negative sense, not in the sense that there are progressive Democrats who wouldn't vote for Obama on his race (there are definitely reactionaries out there to whom this would matter), but I don't underestimate the need for normally listless left-leaning voters to absolve themselves from years of inherited racism by voting for a charismatic black man. Granted there is an energy in Obama that hasn't been seen this side of Jack Kennedy, but BHO is no JFK.

3/19/2008 7:11:40 AM

Quote :

"but I don't underestimate the need for normally listless left-leaning voters to absolve themselves from years of inherited racism by voting for a charismatic black man."

Maybe. I have trouble imagining this determining anyone's vote, but they do say many folks vote almost at random. I would bet the major differences on policy will matter more. Is that too optimistic? While Obama's diverse background certainly appeals to me, it wouldn't count for much if he were a wild militarist. Please don't pull a Ferraro here.

3/19/2008 7:21:09 AM

Quote :

"maybe i'm wrong, but i think this would be a bad move in terms of electability. "

I personally like it, but it wont happen because my party must appease the old crusty white man side (like my Dad) who are already holding their noses to vote for McCain, to win the election.

It will be a young man/woman with a proven conservative record.

3/19/2008 7:47:36 AM

Ann Coulter? haha

3/19/2008 7:48:20 AM

Quote :

"Maybe. I have trouble imagining this determining anyone's vote, but they do say many folks vote almost at random."

You're probably right in that it won't determine the choice of people who vote regularly, it will encourage otherwise uninterested people to vote.

Quote :

"I would bet the major differences on policy will matter more."

If policy mattered, Obama would have been gone much earlier in the primaries. Ask an Obama supporter to give you concrete reasons for why they support him. There aren't many who can do it.


Perhaps he is the perfect candidate; multi-cultural, attractive, youthful, charismatic, and completely devoid of all that boring policy stuff.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 8:03 AM. Reason : take that Kurt Vonnegut.]

3/19/2008 8:00:02 AM

Quote :

"Ann Coulter? haha"

that would probably make me vote for OB

3/19/2008 8:02:28 AM

Quote :

"If policy mattered, Obama would have been gone much earlier in the primaries. Ask an Obama supporter to give you concrete reasons for why they support him. There aren't many who can do it."

Oh dear. It seems the Socks virus is spreading.

Yes, charisma matters, especially when the candidates hold similar positions. In context, folks like Obama because of his personal charm. This doesn't mean they'd feel the same way if he were a Reagan Republican. It doesn't make them mindless zombies.

3/19/2008 8:06:42 AM

^ But the fact is that most Obama supporters really have no clue what policies he proposes bellow the headlines.

"He supports Universal Health Care!" Okay, but does the way he want to achieve it make sense? Not really. And none of his supporters that I've ever met actually support his plan as proposed. They insist that it will be improved through the legislative process. Hope springs enternal I guess.

"He wants to leave Iraq!" Okay. When? In 2006 he said we shouldn't use congressionally mandated time-tables. that we should leave when the realities on the ground say we should leave. When he reversed position in 2007, he made it clear we would stay if the Iraqi government met goals outlined by the Bush administration. Yet, most of this supporters I meet think we will be out of Iraq by 2010.

People have a very vauge idea about what Obama stands for, and they like the broad strokes, but anytime you see anyone actually endorsing Obama they do it because of the "Hope" he inspires and the "new face" he will project to the world community (Andrew Sullivan's words, not mine). This election is 10% about policy, 90% about "history", "charisma", and bullshit.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 8:38 AM. Reason : ``]

3/19/2008 8:37:45 AM

Clinton isn't terribly different on those things, though.

Both are distinct from for-a-hundred-years McCain.

3/19/2008 8:43:32 AM

^ Are you sure? While Obama claims to want to withdraw the troops immediatley, his 2007 legislation leaves open the possibility of an indefinate stay. In 2006, Obama said we should not leave if our leaving would result in the country falling into Chaos. Since he has started running for president, he doesn't stump about that too much, but his former foreign policy adviser, Samantha Powers, has said several times that we should not leave if it would result in civil war. So when exactly do we leave?????

Obama's position on Iraq is just not very clear at all. Hillary can't attack him politically on it, because her position is unclear as well. But McCain is going to kill Obama in the debates over this. Whether that will mean anything for the election, I don't know. Like I said, no one gives to fucks about policy.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM. Reason : ``]

3/19/2008 9:01:54 AM

Quote :

"Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Quote :

"Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Pretty similar. There's nothing equivalent on McCain's Iraq page:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

3/19/2008 9:08:10 AM

IF these two get together, we can say bye to Iran.

3/19/2008 9:17:47 AM

I like Lieberman, but not as a VP candidate for McCain. Plenty of moderates and liberals will vote for McCain anyway. He doesn't need to do anything else.


^ and is that so bad? Is a moderate Iran a bad thing?

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 9:33:18 AM

if he joins mccain i hope the same the same thing that happened in 2000 will happen this year

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM. Reason : haha ^ is talking about going to war with iran....these people have no clue how the world works]

3/19/2008 9:41:06 AM

^^^^ That doesn't change the fact that the majority of voters who support him, that I have talked to (anecdotal, not empirical, I know) haven't a clue what he really stands for.

Again, maybe having no legislative record is an electoral advantage, and I don't deny the right of Americans to vote for whoever they chose to vote for, but there are men like Edwards who had substantially more detailed policy positions and men like Biden who had both the policy and the experience to back it up, that were never really serious contenders.

Exuberance is beating experience. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it isn't, time will tell, but you won't convince me that a large portion of Obama's supporters are voting on emotion.




Either way, both of their positions on Iraq are politically shaped and bear no resemblance to what they'll be able to do in reality.

Quote :

"He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

Horseshit. The only reason entire brigades are able to rotate so quickly in the current state of operations is because their equipment remains in theater. You start a retrograde operation where you're pulling equipment as well as people out of Iraq and watch the place disentigrate into chaos and US troops will be the primary target.

Quote :

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats"

How exactly does he plan on doing that? Does he think that a small contingent of Marines will truly be able to secure the embassy of a nation in chaos?


The real difference between his plan and Hillary's is this statement:

Quote :

"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

The 60 days thing is a throwaway. You can begin the process within 60 days with no real action, but at least she publically states that she'll at least talk to the JCS.

3/19/2008 9:44:09 AM

GoldenViper,

The more you read about this, the more you will see that Obama says a lot of things. Sure he wants an "immediate" withdrawal, but WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? When will the majority of American troops leave Iraq? That is the question of importance, and you won't find an answer in the sound-bytes on his website. And you actually won't find the answer even if you read his previous speeches or legislation he's introduced. His position is totally, 100% unclear.

Here's Obama in 2006:

Quote :

"But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them... We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America... But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home. What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy. "

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

10 months later, Obama introduced legislation (S. 433) to "immediatley" begin redeploying troops out of Iraq. However, he put some major conditions on that withdrawal. In his legislation, he said the President (meaning Bush) has the power to such redeployment (upon certification to Congress that) if that action (1) such action is in the U.S. national interest; and (2) the government of Iraq is taking specified actions. And said that redeployment would only be renewed when:

Quote :

"Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving such suspension or suspension renewal. "

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:14:./temp/~bd5itU:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|

Now, ignoring the fact that his stance on time-tables totally reversed itself in less than a year, the bill leaves the President and Congress the ability to suspend withdrawal for an indefinate period of time. Is that what he means by "immediate"? I don't know. And no one is asking...yet.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ``]

3/19/2008 9:45:13 AM

I think it's reasonable to consider war with Iran a bad thing.

Somehow, I doubt military action would immediately make Iran moderate.

As the bombs fall, Ehsan looks at the sky.
"I understand now," he says. "Why didn't I see it before? The US is not, in fact, the Great Satan. I renounce all forms of terrorism. Americans and Iranians can work together to create a better world!"
In the background, children cry. Ehsan turns to see shrapnel cut down an already wounded cleric.
"God bless America."

3/19/2008 9:46:18 AM

an invasion of Iran would be a disaster and isn't going to happen without a draft.

3/19/2008 9:49:15 AM

Quote :

"And you actually won't find the answer even if you read his previous speeches or legislation he's introduced. His position is totally, 100% unclear."

That's more less true for all candidates. Regardless of what they say before getting the job, they'll do whatever once in office. Still, I'd feel far more comfortable voting for Clinton or Obama than a hawk like McCain. At least the two Democrats offer the possibility of a quick withdraw. McCain offers the possibility of staying for a hundred years.

Quote :

"an invasion of Iran would be a disaster and isn't going to happen without a draft."

Doesn't mean we couldn't do a bit of bombing, though.

3/19/2008 9:53:27 AM

invasion of Iran would be a terrible thing. no doubt about that.

the only thing that might get bombed would be a nuclear facility and it would probably be done so by the Isrealis. the US doesnt have enough political capital now with the world to go and bomb someone without security council approval.

3/19/2008 9:56:00 AM

Quote :

"it would probably be done so by the Isrealis"

Meaning they would fly over Iraq. Meaning we gave them permission. Meaning all hell would break loose across the Middle East.

3/19/2008 10:01:13 AM

the Isrealis do very little to obtain permission from anyone. they would probably ask us for the airspace, we would tell them no, then they would fly through it anyway. although they could deviate through Saudi Arabia and the Saudis would also do very little to stop them.

we would protest pubically but we wouldnt shoot them down (we would probably cheer privately).

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 10:03:07 AM

Perception is reality in the Arab world. These are people who think Jews destroyed the WTC to give us an excuse to invade Iraq. If Israelis, with or without our explicit permission, cross any airspace we control (and believe me, we'd know they were there) then the reprocussions would be massive.

As, ostensibly, the worlds premier world air power, do you really think we'd let Israeli aircraft cross our airspace?

3/19/2008 10:07:12 AM

Quote :

"haha ^ is talking about going to war with iran....these people have no clue how the world works"

DNL claims I don't know how the world works...

Quote :

"We can't fight Hitler! It would be disaster!"

Quote :

"THere's no way we can take on Germany AND Japan! THese people have no idea what they're talking about"

Quote :

"We can't blockade Cuba! That will surely set off a nuclear war!"

Quote :

"We can't use language like 'Evil Empire!' We need to be the Soviet's friends! With all of this arms race thing, it'll surely end in destruction!"

3/19/2008 10:10:25 AM

^^yes. like I said, we would publically decry it but we wouldnt launch SAM's at them. it would be like the British crossing our airspace without permission.

additionally, think back to the Iranian speed boat encounters with the destroyers. we did not fire on them in international waters and they are not friendly with us.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 10:10:49 AM

GoldenViper

Well, McCain has been very clear about staying in Iraq. And there is really nothing to suggest Obama will get us of Iraq any time soon. Here's his (former) foreign policy asviser Samantha Powers:

Quote :

"What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says. The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?" "You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'" "

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

It's just that no one is actually listening to what he and his campaign is saying. We are going to be in Iraq for years to come. No matter who is in office. The question is, who will do the best job as Comander in Chief?

And I would note that your comments only re-enforce my hypothesis that started this discussion: that the specifics of Obama's policies don't matter. In fact, that Obama is an unknown commodity is actually a selling point!

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : correction]

3/19/2008 10:12:13 AM

^ Commander in Chief

3/19/2008 10:14:38 AM

^^^^ Iran =/= Hitler. But like I've said before, and will say again, if we invade Iran, be prepared for the draft. I know I've gotten into arguments with people in this very thread who were all excited about invading Iran, but aren't too keen on going themselves.


^^^ We didn't fire on them because we didn't want to provoke an international incident, we were in international waters and they didn't shoot at us.

I don't think it is going to happen though. I'm sure we're threatening Israel with shooting down their aircraft if they cross into US airspace and they know we're all they've got right now in the world. They also realize that we won't be in any place to help them if Iraq were to suddenly flare back up into violence. It would be extremely hard to hold back the Shi'a militias if Jews bombed the Iran.

3/19/2008 10:16:37 AM

I remember a war back in the 60s where the Jews were able to pretty much hold their own... and in decisive fashion.

3/19/2008 10:17:48 AM

We're a long way from the 60s brother. Either way, it would be a disaster for the United States. I don't see us letting it happen.

3/19/2008 10:20:52 AM

I disagree. If anything were to happen over Iran... it would most likely be the Jews bombing some nuclear facilities like they did in Iraq... I don't think WE will engage Iran, but the Jewish military and the Jewish intelligence is second to none in this world (well at least the intel is second to none)

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 10:24:20 AM

Please to explain how the primary US ally in the Middle East, a nation and people hated with the utmost intensity by the Arab and Persian world, bombing nuclear facilities of a major Shi'a nation would not be a disaster to a nation finally getting the lid on violence in a 70% Shi'a country.

3/19/2008 10:26:41 AM

I dont see us or anyone telling the Isrealis what they can or cannot do. They dont care about the consequences for us or Iraq....they care about their own national security. Hard to blame them for that.

Iran has said plenty to provoke Isreal as well as show themselves as a threat to the Isreali people. If history has taught us anything, Isreal will do what it feels it has to in order to protect itself....world or US blessing be damned.

There was a mysterious concrete facility in Syria a few months back that agrees, not to mention Saddam's nuclear facilities of the late 80's. No permission was asked or given then.

3/19/2008 10:27:31 AM

Quote :

"We will wipe Israel from the face of the map"

- Hamas / Ahmadinijad

We can't tell the Israelis what to do given that.

3/19/2008 10:30:22 AM

Ok, my last input before I leave this roundabout of circular argument and go to lunch.

Israel will do what it wants. Fine.
Israel bombed facilities in Syria and Iraq. They did a smash up job.

The USAF wasn't in between them and their objective the last times. Their objective wasn't going to be a foreign policy disaster to the United States the last times. Their objectiove wasn't going to be directly contrary to the interests of the United States the last times. Do we see a discrepancy in your analogies?

3/19/2008 10:30:23 AM

I understand your point and I am not saying the US wouldnt be pissed about it and/or tell them not do, but like you said, Isreal does what it wants and I cant imagine a scenario in which we would kill Isreali pilots for invading our airspace as a pass-through. That will not happen and it would also cause an international incident.

3/19/2008 10:33:38 AM

why is Lieberman still a democrat again?

3/19/2008 10:35:18 AM