Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, and don't contractors actually cost more money than troops? i'm not sure about that, but i feel like i heard that sometime in the past.

[dieblucasdie]

An order of magnitude more money than conventional salaried troops.  (Granted, some of that can be attributed to their level of experience.  But, then again no regular Army has gotten drunk and shot the Iraqi vice-president's bodyguard.)

[melancolley]

Speaking of contractors...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14945

[RavingLunatic]

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.

You really think so?  I mean, both Obama and Hillary want to increase the size of our military by 90,000-100,000 troops, and I haven't heard either of them talk about cuts in military spending and this is the primary season. Seems to me like they're pretty much trying to out-tough each other on this issue, and things'll only get worse come general election time.

Troops don't cost as much as capital military expenditures do.  Salary for 90,000 troops is cheaper than a dozen F-22s or refitting a few aircraft carriers.   It's also more economically redistributive, and better for the work force as a whole.

True, but I haven't heard either of them say anything about cutting wasteful military contracts either. The bigger question to me is why do they think we need 90,000 more troops? What exactly are they planning? An invasion of Venezuela? All this militarism just disturbs me.

[Thermofusion]

Leveraging the Politics of Race and Gender

This editorial is 1) remarkably even-handed 2) sees the big picture and 3) is absolutely, infallibly on the mark.

It casually destroys the nonsensical argument that Clinton is any better suited to addressing women's issues than Obama, and instead indicates that both candidates are EQUALLY capable of tackling global racial and gender inequities, and as of yet NEITHER candidate has demonstrated that they're up to the game. 

And the most important point Ramdas makes (and a much better rebuke than I was able to come up with to the two or three prominent posters in one of the previous threads who openly admitted that they were voting for Clinton solely for astonishly misinformed "symbolic" reasons*): simply being a woman or being of mixed race DOESN'T automatically turn you into a shining symbol of change and hope -- whatever little symbolic value a female or black U.S. President has ain't gonna mean shit to a socially oppressed African woman fighting off a mob of armed rapists.  Only if Obama and/or Clinton tap into what makes them different and use it to inform a more sensitive, conscious understanding of the reality of global sociopolitical inequities, and how they extend to those persecuted of race and/or gender, can they prove to be a true symbol. 

(*and honestly, if women's rights happens to be your #1 issue this election, and you WEREN'T supporting Edwards, then you were frankly clueless or not paying attention.  On that front, J-Ed had the drop on BOTH Clinton and Obama quite handily, symbols be damned)

[DCDave]

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.

You really think so?  I mean, both Obama and Hillary want to increase the size of our military by 90,000-100,000 troops, and I haven't heard either of them talk about cuts in military spending and this is the primary season. Seems to me like they're pretty much trying to out-tough each other on this issue, and things'll only get worse come general election time.

Troops don't cost as much as capital military expenditures do.  Salary for 90,000 troops is cheaper than a dozen F-22s or refitting a few aircraft carriers.   It's also more economically redistributive, and better for the work force as a whole.

True, but I haven't heard either of them say anything about cutting wasteful military contracts either. The bigger question to me is why do they think we need 90,000 more troops? What exactly are they planning? An invasion of Venezuela? All this militarism just disturbs me.

How successful have the last few U.N. peacekeeping missions been?  Have we had the troops needed to support the Sudanese peacekeeping effort?  What about Liberia? 

[DCDave]

Most baffling quote of the day

"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us."

WHAT NON-INSURGENCY WAR IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

[ellaguru]

Most baffling quote of the day

"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us."

WHAT NON-INSURGENCY WAR IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

Sounds like he's calling the election for the Democrats.

[DCDave]

Did you hear about his "What happens if things go badly in Iraq between now and the election?" "I lose" comment?

[Augo]

Got a link for that Dave?

[DCDave]

ROCKY RIVER, Ohio — John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can’t, “then I lose. I lose,” the Republican said.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/mccain-i-must-convince-americans-on-iraq-or-i-lose-or-not/

[elpollodiablo]

Is there anywhere I can watch/listen to the debate online?

[Augo]

Thanks Dave.  What a buffoon, that guy.

[hannah]

Someone may have posted this already, but geez do I find it despicable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html

Geraldine Ferraro:

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

[hannah]

Also, on funnier note, theNew York Times asked a handful of pundits and politicos to list some questions they'd love to ask at tonight's debate.

An adviser to the Giuliani campaign asks, "The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution bars any former president from election to a third term. Is it truly consistent with the spirit of the Constitution to have the same professional couple occupying the White House for 12 years? Isn’t this all the more true when Bill Clinton promised that voters would receive, during his first term, 'two for the price of one'?"

Of course, lest we forget, Giuliani wanted to extend his mayoral term past the limits allowed by law.

 

[guanajuato]

clinton really needs to turn up her game in this debate thus far, cuz she's alookin wonky so far. she's coming across a little harder, compared to recent performances, but compared to the guy on the right, if he was tupac, she'd be kid n play.

dizzam, she looked bad when she was blabbering and brian williams was like, senator clinton this is tv, we have to go to commercial! he looked like he was ready to FIGHT. man, big hill is a b52 in a spiral, whirling through white clouds, when is this thing gonna crash?!

[guanajuato]

this debate is givin me a lot of sympathy for big hill.  she just cannot match this guy. i'm curious what it woulda been like it if it woulda been big bill vs obama on a stage like this. bill is an incredibly charismatic figure (or he was back in the day, his recent buffoonery on the campaign trail is not bill in his prime) and it would make good tv. i think i'd still put my money on obama. he cuts such a powerful presence. while it's obvious that this campaign is not going the way the clintons had hoped, at this point i'm wondering how obama operates backstage, how he deals in the backrooms.

damn russert is just goin after clinton tonight.

[davy]

my favorite part was "fine then, i denounce and reject him."

[hannah]

whoa, did my post get deleted? I'm going crazy. I thought I used to have a post here.

[hannah]

anyhow, that Farakkhan question was ridiculous

[dieblucasdie]

Ugh, they actually gave a serious airing to that bullshit?  I hate TV news so much.

[jebreject]

my favorite part was "fine then, i denounce and reject him."

what's the context for this?

[dieblucasdie]

I assume probably the Farakkhan thing.

[jebreject]

i'm having a little trouble figuring out what "the farakkhan thing" is though

[dieblucasdie]

Oh sorry.  Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.  His church's pastor's daughter's nonprofit once gave an award honoring Farrakhan (for his charity work).

It's about as important as it sounds.