A
Alu862
Guest
Shows again that she doesn't know much about foreign policy.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
She doesnt need to know everything about it. In the White House she'll have a whole platoon of foreign policy experts whose job would be to provide her with the facts, options, their opinions and she just has the make the judgement calls. Leaders at the top need to have helicopter vision and the ability to focus on the critical issues without being bogged down by the nitty gritty.
What does Obama know about foreign policy? Nothing either. He's all talk and little boy innocence. Palin strikes me as someone much tougher than Obama. She will be no walkover once she learns the ropes. She's called "Barracuda" for a god reason.
A
Alu862
Guest
To say Obama is weak compared to her is too general. Experience is only one factor in leadership; knowledge and understanding is. She does'nt even know what the Bush doctrine is!
Wait for the VP debates. Then we shall see who is the better.
Anyway they will lose because the " ci sun bark jee" of her and McCain bad !!
Hehehhehe.
LOL. I didnt know what the Bush doctrine is either. Before this week, I dont think many people know what the Bush doctrine is. But most people capable of rational thinking - and especially in positions of leadership - will know what is a pre-emptive strike, and nobody needs to know what is the Bush doctrine to defend himself by making the first strike when you know someone else is about to hit you. If tomorrow all the Royal Malaysian Infantry and Armoured Divisions roll down the NS Highway towards JB without warning, Mindef is going to mobilise you and your friends and the S'pore F15s will be flying over Malacca and that's not the Bush Doctrine in play. It's called Basic Instinct.
A
Alu862
Guest
Obama's Altitude Sickness
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A15
The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"
Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.
But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.
It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.
Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.
Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.
His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.
From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.
The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.
One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.
But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/11/AR2008091102840.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A15
The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"
Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.
But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.
It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.
Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.
Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.
His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.
From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.
The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.
One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.
But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/11/AR2008091102840.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
A
Alu862
Guest
They should ask her about SG human rights record. Heh.
That's only if their foreign policy experts and advisers are not yes man. If Palin and McCain employ yes men loyalists who will not dissent, then we basically return to the days of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And the end result is incompetence and too much exclusive power on the executive side of government.
I'm sorry dude, but when it comes to policy, Obama and Biden has the better ones, simply because where McCain sees real and imagined threats, Obama and Biden sees opportunities. And simply put, McCain and Palin cannot go back to the yesteryear of the 50s- which they want to.
America cannot simply think that they can return, and don't expect consequences.
A
Alu862
Guest
Polls are not the truth; votes will tell.
From the Gut
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 9, 2008
If John McCain can win this election race with a 50-pound ball called “George W. Bush” wrapped around one ankle and a 50-pound ball called “The U.S. Economy” wrapped around the other, then he deserves to represent America in the next Olympics in any race he wants — swimming, cycling or track — I don’t care how old he is. He would be the Michael Phelps of politics.
I confess, I watch politics from afar, but here’s what I’ve been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama’s coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.
Somebody needs to tell Obama that if he wants the chance to calmly answer the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House, he is going to need to start slamming down some phones at 3 p.m. along the campaign trail. I like much of what he has to say, especially about energy, but I don’t think people are feeling it in their guts, and I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs.
If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details. If you don’t connect with them on a gut level, you can’t show them enough details. Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan.
But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. Forget trashing McCain’s ideas. If Obama wants to rally his base, he has to be more passionate about his own ideas. I have long felt that what propelled Obama early was the fact that many Americans understand in their guts that we need a change, but the change we need is to focus on nation-building at home. We’re in decline. We need to get back to work on our country. And that is going to require strong, smart government.
Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.
In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president. Mine will not be a presidency that is confined to the first 100 days. But that is what we have fallen into, folks. The first 100 days have become the only 100 days. Once they are over, presidents are told that they have to trim their sails to get ready for the midterm elections, and once the midterms are over they are told that they have to trim their sails and get ready for the next presidential election. We can’t solve our problems with a government of 100 days. I am going to work the hard problems the hard way for 1,461 days.”
I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
As Neil Oxman, political consultant at The Campaign Group, put it to me: For half the country, “Sarah Palin is Roseanne from the ‘Roseanne’ show. ‘Roseanne’ was the No. 1 comedy five years in a row and seven out of nine in the top 10.” She is connecting at a gut level. So does McCain — and, therefore, they don’t need to give their constituents many details.
This race has a long way to go. It is still Obama’s election to lose. But Obama got where he is today by defining himself as the agent of change and by defining change as the issue in this election. McCain, with Palin’s help, has once again not only made Obama’s experience an issue, but has now moved in on Obama’s strength and tried to define the G.O.P. ticket as the party of “change.”
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame. But what this has done is to make the word “change” as a campaign slogan meaningless. Obama will need to find another way to connect his ideas — clearly, crisply and passionately.
Because, while the pollsters tell us it is still really close, my own totally unscientific, seat of the pants poll tells me this: When you say Obama’s name today and ask people for their first impression — a quick, flash, gut, first impression — no single word or phrase or policy comes to mind. His opponents will fill that vacuum if he doesn’t. They already are
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 9, 2008
If John McCain can win this election race with a 50-pound ball called “George W. Bush” wrapped around one ankle and a 50-pound ball called “The U.S. Economy” wrapped around the other, then he deserves to represent America in the next Olympics in any race he wants — swimming, cycling or track — I don’t care how old he is. He would be the Michael Phelps of politics.
I confess, I watch politics from afar, but here’s what I’ve been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama’s coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.
Somebody needs to tell Obama that if he wants the chance to calmly answer the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House, he is going to need to start slamming down some phones at 3 p.m. along the campaign trail. I like much of what he has to say, especially about energy, but I don’t think people are feeling it in their guts, and I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs.
If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details. If you don’t connect with them on a gut level, you can’t show them enough details. Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan.
But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. Forget trashing McCain’s ideas. If Obama wants to rally his base, he has to be more passionate about his own ideas. I have long felt that what propelled Obama early was the fact that many Americans understand in their guts that we need a change, but the change we need is to focus on nation-building at home. We’re in decline. We need to get back to work on our country. And that is going to require strong, smart government.
Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.
In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president. Mine will not be a presidency that is confined to the first 100 days. But that is what we have fallen into, folks. The first 100 days have become the only 100 days. Once they are over, presidents are told that they have to trim their sails to get ready for the midterm elections, and once the midterms are over they are told that they have to trim their sails and get ready for the next presidential election. We can’t solve our problems with a government of 100 days. I am going to work the hard problems the hard way for 1,461 days.”
I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
As Neil Oxman, political consultant at The Campaign Group, put it to me: For half the country, “Sarah Palin is Roseanne from the ‘Roseanne’ show. ‘Roseanne’ was the No. 1 comedy five years in a row and seven out of nine in the top 10.” She is connecting at a gut level. So does McCain — and, therefore, they don’t need to give their constituents many details.
This race has a long way to go. It is still Obama’s election to lose. But Obama got where he is today by defining himself as the agent of change and by defining change as the issue in this election. McCain, with Palin’s help, has once again not only made Obama’s experience an issue, but has now moved in on Obama’s strength and tried to define the G.O.P. ticket as the party of “change.”
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame. But what this has done is to make the word “change” as a campaign slogan meaningless. Obama will need to find another way to connect his ideas — clearly, crisply and passionately.
Because, while the pollsters tell us it is still really close, my own totally unscientific, seat of the pants poll tells me this: When you say Obama’s name today and ask people for their first impression — a quick, flash, gut, first impression — no single word or phrase or policy comes to mind. His opponents will fill that vacuum if he doesn’t. They already are
A
Alu862
Guest
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/12/chance.russia.palin.perspect.cnn
Even Russians don't like her
Even Russians don't like her
Thomas Friedman has always been a Democrat; he's a liberal inclined columnist, as like Paul Krugman. And he has often stated that McCain and Palin, no matter what the choice Palin is, that both of the Republican ticket are simply wrong, almost wrong.
So yes, his column about McCain and Palin possibly winning the November elections despite being with Bush 95% of the time is a timely reminder to the Democrats- but its not say, PeasantJudge, that McCain would change tack just after he's elected.
Because if you look at McCain's record, he's got a habit of being impulsive and not consulting people, and then sticking to his guns even when the situation goes wrong on him. I have already highlighted the fact that in the immediate months after 9/11, he was on the sunday talk show circuit, praising Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and suggesting that the people and the two US legislative bodies should give the trio the blank cheque to invade Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'to get rid of terrorism'.
If he were President at that time, we would have been in deep trouble, I reckon, simply because 1) these three were not involved in 911. 2)Osama would have been very happy indeed if the US did invade the other 3- this would mean that the US would be too distracted putting out fires somewhere else, instead of focusing on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
So yes, his column about McCain and Palin possibly winning the November elections despite being with Bush 95% of the time is a timely reminder to the Democrats- but its not say, PeasantJudge, that McCain would change tack just after he's elected.
Because if you look at McCain's record, he's got a habit of being impulsive and not consulting people, and then sticking to his guns even when the situation goes wrong on him. I have already highlighted the fact that in the immediate months after 9/11, he was on the sunday talk show circuit, praising Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and suggesting that the people and the two US legislative bodies should give the trio the blank cheque to invade Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'to get rid of terrorism'.
If he were President at that time, we would have been in deep trouble, I reckon, simply because 1) these three were not involved in 911. 2)Osama would have been very happy indeed if the US did invade the other 3- this would mean that the US would be too distracted putting out fires somewhere else, instead of focusing on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Last edited:
A
Alu862
Guest
In a wawy the Democrats brought in some one sort of neutral who picked someone not so neutral. Obama was not around to vote for the Iraq war, but he chose Biden, who DID vote fro the Iraq war as did Hilary Clinton. So in the end, it may not have been so good with the Pres elect having voted for the war.
McCain I'm sure voted for the war. Palin of course we know, didn't vote. So the Republicans and Democrats and sort of equal in this respect.
McCain I'm sure voted for the war. Palin of course we know, didn't vote. So the Republicans and Democrats and sort of equal in this respect.
Biden did vote for the war, but immediately came out swinging in autumn 2003, when he realised that there was a beginnings of an insurgency and sectarian violence. He did repudiate his vote quickly, saying that his vote was a misjudgment and a mistake. Clinton however did not, following the advice of Mark Penn, her pollster and campaign strategist.
Another point about this is that Obama doesn't want a VP who will agree with him 24/7. He wants someone who can flexibly push back and pull whenever the situation demands it. This means that Biden will have a say in the appointing of cabinet secretaries if the Democrats win the Presidential electins in November, and more likely than not, the set up will reflect a Cabinet that is more professional, and less likely to be filled with yes men and blind loyalties.
Besides, President Clinton, after he was elected in 1992, with Al Gore- who was also a different type of personality, and who could dissent- also had a Cabinet that was filled with people of diverse opinions. So he avoided the yes-men mistake that Bush had in the 90s. And that's why Clinton was able to make better decisions during his presidency.
Similar threads
