"Clinton's Presidential bid hinges on Failed Surge"

[sirs]

But of course there's no media bas.

Notice the latest "examples" of this non-bias?  We had a story documenting direct connection with terrorist/insurgent activity and their use of Iranian military hardware & weaponry.  Did this get front page status?  Did this get lead story yesterday?  I think NBC led with the death of Barbaro, including the sad interview with the horse's owner.  They eventually moved into the Iranian weapons story. 

You had the Military analyst of the NYTimes "shown the error of his way" for daring to provide a military opinion that ran counter to the template of how the war is supposed to go, and how bad Bush really is.

And how about the ever so frequent stories running of how McCain's political career (read; presidential aspirations) literally "hinges on the success of the surge".  So supposedly if it doesn't go well, he's toast as a presidential nominee, right?  Notice how not once have you heard a story on how Obama's, Clinton's, Biden's, Edwards' or any Dem acutely critical of "the surge", political career could tank with a success of the surge?  Not 1.  Why's that?  Why wouldn't their presidential bids be utterly ruined by a surge success?   Why the focus on McCain & failure?   

McCain can be set up for a fall, but let's not dare put any Dem in such a precarious political position, even if it's all simply based on perception.  But, there's no media bias         

[BT]

Hillary has actually straddled the fence on this one. She was for a surge back in the very beginning. She as well as McCain wanted a much larger ground force.

McCain (and let me go on record as saying i won't vote for him) as well as Hillary would be wise to criticize Bush for his management of the war, critiquing him for paying too much attention to political winds (and the elections of 2004 and 2006) instead of concentrating on the task at hand, which is doing everything within executive powe to complete the second part of the mission. 

[sirs]

Hillary has actually straddled the fence on this one. She was for a surge back in the very beginning. She as well as McCain wanted a much larger ground force.

But is she now?

McCain as well as Hillary would be wise to criticize Bush for his management of the war, critiquing him for paying too much attention to political winds iinstead of concentrating on the task at hand, which is doing everything within executive powe to complete the second part of the mission. 

You'll get that from McCain, but I think the crux of Hillary's critique will largely be against whatever Bush is for, thus the new tact at not favoring any "new surge".  Or do we have something on record from her currently that parallels McCain?

[BT]

To be honest i haven't paid much attention to anti-urge blather. It's gonna happen and time will tell whether it was effective.

I just think the only way for her to spin her vote for the war is to focus on the underlying principles behind it and if need be delineate specific areas she would have handled differently. People need to know she is willing to be tough if necessary.

That may not get her any votes in the primaries from the demanding petulant progressives in the crowd but it will probably gain her some respect from the mainstream in the middle who will decide '08.

[sirs]

To be honest i haven't paid much attention to anti-urge blather. It's gonna happen and time will tell whether it was effective.

Oh, agreed, but my point of the thread continues to be in regards to how the mainscream media paints it.

I just think the only way for her to spin her vote for the war is to focus on the underlying principles behind it and if need be delineate specific areas she would have handled differently. People need to know she is willing to be tough if necessary.  That may not get her any votes in the primaries from the demanding petulant progressives in the crowd but it will probably gain her some respect from the mainstream in the middle who will decide '08.

She's gonna have a hard time pulling that off, since Obama, Edwards, & Biden are already far more left of her, on this topic, and likely to pull in far more votes in the primary.  And you can't get to being an '08 option, unless you've secured the primary nomination.  Personally, I think Edwards (Who's been the most consistent Dem, as it relates to being against the war), and Obama (All hype, and perfect PC Candidate) are by far the folks she's gonna have to defeat in the Dem primary.  And personally, unless one of them completely lays an egg along the campaign trail, or her Clintonistas fire both barrels of dirt they find, I don't see her winning the primary

[BT]

Sirs,

I disagree. I think the Clinton machine can pull in enough markers to negate any netroots appeal of more progressive candidates.  I think Edwards has a shot but he is just as short on experience now as he was 4 years ago and i don't think the election will turn on domestic issues, where Edwards has appeal.

I think foreign affairs, the WOT and yes Iraq will still be very much on peoples minds. And even though Hillary is a lightning rod, she is also precieved as tough almost ruthless, and she should play to her strengths.

'08 will turn on electability. I disagree that Hillary is unelectable. I do agree she wouldn't win by a landslide. It really depends on who her GOP opponent is.

These are interesting times for political observers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As a president, I predict that Hillary would be pretty much the same middle-of-the road quasi populist that Bill was, but less Monica and the scandal.

Certainly she is the most predictable candidate in the race.

Predictability is not all that bad a thing. The Clinton years were not bad: certainly more prosperous and less corrupt than the Reagan years, by any honest index.

He left no major shooting wars behind him, and the budget was headed in the right direction.

Rush made lots of money being annoying, thus amusing the ratwing, which gave them something to do, without doing much harm.
---------------------------------------------
As for the surge, I am pretty sure it will be allowed, and almost equally sure that it will not snatch victory from the jaws of monumental chaos for any significant amount of time.

The premise of the Juniorbushies is essentially dumb: "Give us this one chance; then we will let the Iraqis take responsibility."

If we don't give them their chance, and Iraq's civil war explodes into a huge regional sectarian feud, then we will blame the "Liberals".

On the other hand, if they have their surge and it fails, and explodes into a huge regional sectarian feud, then we can blame the Iraqis.

But what, then, about the problems that stem from the huge regional sectarian feud?

Is this all about sticking BLAME, then?

In any case, 21,500 troops is all we got. If they don't do the trick, we have shot our wad and everyone will know that after that, our actions will be limp-dicked and post coital. Then what?

I tend to think that Iran will eventually have a greater impact on Iraq than the US ever was. Cheney can say that our carrier indicates that "we are here to stay", but no one can question that Iran and Syria (and for that matter, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are all definitely there to stay for longer than any damned US carriers.

[_JS]

'08 will turn on electability. I disagree that Hillary is unelectable. I do agree she wouldn't win by a landslide. It really depends on who her GOP opponent is.

I think that is a fair assessment.

Right now we have candidates who are ahead in polls based only on their name recognition. Remember that Lieberman led all the Democratic polls in the run-up to the 2004 primaries. When the primaries took place "Joe-mentum" was a 2-cycle engine badly in need of repair.

Giuliani is a good example. Here is a guy who is remembered very fondly for his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Yet, he has rather consistently been on the side of gay rights, to the point of living with a gay couple after his wife threw him out. His infidelity to his second wife is well known and he has been married three (or is it four?) times. He is pro-choice and even said he wouldn't support a ban on partial birth abortions.

I'm not saying these things to berate the man at all. My point is that such a stand won't hurt him in New York or New Hampshire. Yet, can he win the closed primary in South Carolina? Can he win Texas? Tennessee? North Carolina? Kansas? Virginia?

And of course the Democrats face the same problem, except that they have been out of office so long that I think they are likely to be more willing to compromise on whomever they see as "electable" (whatever the hell that means).

An interesting group for Republicans will be the Evangelicals that showed a definite apathy in the 2006 midterms. Will the same 33% show up for a Democrat? Will a large number simply not vote at all? Will they turn out for someone like Senator Brownback?

Also, the independents and centrists will be an interesting group to watch as will the Hispanic voters, who decidedly fled from the Republicans in 2006 and voted strongly with the Democrats. In that sense, states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California will be interesting to watch as well as the candidacy of Governor Richardson.

It will be a good race, I imagine. I wonder how many Republicans will show a great distance from President Bush as a positive.

[sirs]

Interesting tangent this thread has gone into.  NOT complaining.  Just an observation     

[Brassmask]

But of course there's no media bas.

Dude, I get so tired of hearing this from the right.  I've come around that there is bias among most reporters and those that aren't biased don't make the big time.  Did FOX put your precious story front and center?  Or were they having round table discussions with Hooters girls again?

Notice the latest "examples" of this non-bias?  We had a story documenting direct connection with terrorist/insurgent activity and their use of Iranian military hardware & weaponry.  Did this get front page status?  Did this get lead story yesterday?  I think NBC led with the death of Barbaro, including the sad interview with the horse's owner.  They eventually moved into the Iranian weapons story.

 

The fact that "insurgents" were using Iranian military equipment is moot.  The insurgents use AMERICAN equipment all the time.  Does that mean the US is supporting them?  ( I would be inclined to say yes, because a grenade used is a grenade sold to the MIC.)

You had the Military analyst of the NYTimes "shown the error of his way" for daring to provide a military opinion that ran counter to the template of how the war is supposed to go, and how bad Bush really is.

?

And how about the ever so frequent stories running of how McCain's political career (read; presidential aspirations) literally "hinges on the success of the surge".  So supposedly if it doesn't go well, he's toast as a presidential nominee, right?  Notice how not once have you heard a story on how Obama's, Clinton's, Biden's, Edwards' or any Dem acutely critical of "the surge", political career could tank with a success of the surge?  Not 1.  Why's that?  Why wouldn't their presidential bids be utterly ruined by a surge success?   Why the focus on McCain & failure? 

 

I don't think that McCain's failure hinges on the Iraq "war".  McCain is already a failure.  He is carrying the baggage of the all the losers on the right who voted for the "war" and who have supported Bush ad nauseam.  McCain is toast for the nomination.  And if he does win the nomination, he will certainly lose.  As a supporter for a failed military action such as what we have in Iraq.  No supporter of the Iraq "war" can win the presidency without stealing it.

McCain can be set up for a fall, but let's not dare put any Dem in such a precarious political position, even if it's all simply based on perception.  But, there's no media bias         

Now you know what it was like for me as a Dean supporter hearing report after report of Dean being "unhinged".  The bias was against Dean.

[sirs]

But of course there's no media bas.

Dude, I get so tired of hearing this from the right.

 

Well of course.  Since you're side's reaping the rewards, hearing of such is obviously going to be annoying.  So long as the status quo remains of course, which of course you're not going to have to worry about, as there's no sign of that trend changing

I've come around that there is bias among most reporters and those that aren't biased don't make the big time.  

Honesty.  Good

Did FOX put your precious story front and center?  Or were they having round table discussions with Hooters girls again?

You seem to be under the impression I watch Fox News.  Wrong again

The fact that "insurgents" were using Iranian military equipment is moot. 

But of course     

The insurgents use AMERICAN equipment all the time.  Does that mean the US is supporting them?  ( I would be inclined to say yes, because a grenade used is a grenade sold to the MIC.)

They either buy or simply are given the Iranian weapons.  Any American weapons are stolen or taken from dead or injured soldiers

I don't think that McCain's failure hinges on the Iraq "war".  McCain is already a failure.  

Well, that's one far left opinion.  Point being you're not writing those stories.  Mainscream media reporters are, with pundits echoing the mantra.  Not that I'd support McCain in any way shape or form.  Just noting the continued blatant double standard, is all

Now you know what it was like for me as a Dean supporter hearing report after report of Dean being "unhinged".  The bias was against Dean.

As facilitated by the Media's favorite poster children, Bill & Hill.  The lean is still there, I'm afraid

[_JS]

Bt & Sirs,

Why would neither of you support McCain? I assume you'd support him in the general election, correct?

In theory he'd support the continued war effort, would he not?

[Mucho]

[sirs]

Bt & Sirs, Why would neither of you support McCain? I assume you'd support him in the general election, correct?

Speaking only for myself, outside of the war support, many of his domestic positions, especially that of tax reform, are much worse than Bush's.  He has no plan, that I'm aware of for dealing with the SS/Medicare disaster heading our way.  Appears to support bigger government, and obviously supports an erosion of the 1st amendment via McCain/Feingold's Incumbant Protection Act, better known as CFR.  He is no Reagan Conservative, as he proports to be.  He's barely a Conservative, if he even is one. 

In theory he'd support the continued war effort, would he not?

Yea, ................and?  Am I to base my support on 1 issue?

[_JS]

Yea, ................and?  Am I to base my support on 1 issue?

As a matter of fact, yes. On this particular issue, if it is as vital as you and Bt have claimed, I would have thought that it would be the sole focus of the 2008 race.