Barack Obama (election coverage only-official)

[fourteenandoh]

has nothing to do with Obama but will give you an idea about how its possible for him to speak to 200,000 people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/ny...d26&ei=5087%0A

How, by the way, did anyone figure that 300,000 people came to hear Elton John or 750,000 for Garth Brooks?
?You would get in a room with the producer, with a police official, and a person from parks, and someone would say, ?What does it look like to you??? said Doug Blonsky, a former city parks administrator who is now the president of the Central Park Conservancy. ?The producer would say, ?I need it to be higher than the last one.? That?s the kind of science that went into it.?

[MuckFich06]

When you get past the whole surge part of the argument over Iraq, I think these comments summarize the differences quite well:

Matthew Yglesias (July 25, 2008) - Krauthammer's Case (Foreign Policy)

In Version 1 of the argument over whether or not the United States should embrace the Bush/McCain vision of a neoimperial relationship with Iraq, the tendency on the right was to simply deny that this was what they were proposing. The Iraqis, you see, really wanted to be part of an American imperium. Thus in that sense it's good to see Charles Krauthammer's demented column in reaction to Maliki's endorsement of a timeline for withdrawal.


Now Krauthammer is willing to more-or-less squarely put the issue on the table -- he wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, Bush wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, and McCain wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, but Iraqis don't and thus Maliki prefers Obama, the American candidate who doesn't favor an imperial relationship with Iraq. Of course Krauthammer doesn't quite put it that way, but that's what he's saying -- we ought to vote for McCain because McCain will do a better job of strong-arming the Iraqis into accepting a relationship they find repugnant. The trouble here is that any such strong-arming only guarantees that we'll prolong the Iraq operation. Newfound allies, for example, who decided to side with us against al-Qaeda may think again if they decide that U.S. policy is being animated by the Krauthammer-style sentiments. And across the Arab world, everyone's worst impressions of American power will be reconfirmed. And for what? To mitigate political risk for western oil companies? To provide a convenient base of operations for attacks on Iran that we shouldn't launch anyway?

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

It is ridiculous that Obama would rather pander and stutter than admit the surge worked. McCain is saying this because Obama refuses to admit the surge worked. Either Obama doesn't listen when people told him it worked, or he just has no idea whats going on. It really isn't debatable as to whether the surge worked or not. I agree that McCain might be taking too far, but this is a love tap compared to usual politics. If you don't like McCain for this, you must hate everyone.

If that is so, then you say, "It is ridiculous that Obama would rather pander and stutter than admit the surge worked."

You do NOT say that he would rather knowingly [censored] up foreign policy and by implication allow the ememy to kill needless civilians in future incidents because he wanted to be President. If you can't see that Big, I don't know what to tell you. There is a difference. There is a line you do not cross.

So don't tell me all of the things that McCain meant about the surge. And it is indeed debatable whether the surge "worked" You tell me the goal of the surge. Less deaths of soldiers? Worked. Stop violence against citizens? Failed. Lessened Al quida in Iraq with Sunni help? Yes...but was the success due to Sunnis and tribal change of heart or from more GI boots on the ground? Has it placated the goals of the leader of the mahdi Army? Nope. Calmed the country down from its prior [censored]ed up pace of bombings and rocket attacks? yeah. Ensured democracy in Iraq and a stable government - not by a long shot.

So no matter the way we look at the other issues, disagreeing with administration and Bush III strategy is many things, but not treason and not a reason to say that your opponent will sacrifice the welfare of our troops and our country to get elected - which is what the prick DID say.

On this one, you have a blind spot, because there can be no defense of the statement. Your other points are certainly debatable by both sides and not in any way "out there", but your willingness to accept that sort of poison from a candidate is puzzling, as you would go ape [censored] if Obama used the similar charge. Although treason is punishable by death and the rape of a child i don't think is.

[MuckFich06]

The Surge is "working":

Day Before McCain Touts Security, Pro-American Iraqi Leader Killed

"If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically," the Senator's prepared remarks read. "Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheiks who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely."


Sadly, the day before the address, a female suicide bomber set off a massive bomb that targeted and killed one of those Sunni leaders that McCain referenced. As the New York Times reported on Friday

McCain's overcharged rhetoric is bordering on reckless. If the lid blows off that powder keg over there, he will look like an old fool. For the sake of the Iraqis and our troops, I hope it doesn't happen. I really do want to know exactly what he is going to do to achieve this honorable "victory" he keeps talking about in the next 4 years. Obama's "somewhat stable mess" with us not dumping 100+ billion a year into the country sounds reasonable to me.

McCain also needs to think about what he is saying about our troops. Their service has been in honor and is never in vein. We have given the Iraqis an opportunity, but they have to want it. It's not the fault of our troops if they don't. I wonder if McCain thinks his own service wasn't honorable since we didn't "win" in Vietnam.

In other news, former Iraq Prime Minister Allawi discounted the effectiveness of the surge in his testimony to Congress today:

Former Iraqi PM Allawi Testifies Before Congress, Blasts Maliki | War on Iraq | AlterNet

Allawi blasted the so-called surge, saying that it failed in its primary objective, namely, to end the Iraqi civil war and foster political reconciliation. He said that General Petraeus personally came to his house early in 2007 to assure him that the surge would accomplish its intended objective. Instead, things got worse, said Allawi.

"There is an urgent need to build nonsectarian institutions," he told the committee. Sitting alone, dressed conservatively in a gray suit, Allawi said that Iraq's police and army are still organized on a sectarian basis. Asked about the importance of U.S. training for Iraqi forces, Allawi said, "The issue is not training. By and large, training is secondary." The problem, he said, is that the police and army are not loyal to Iraq, not loyal to a national chain of command, but report informally to Shiite militias.

[MuckFich06]

Obama quote of the week:

Was there anything that you saw on this trip that changed your mind? John McCain, as you know, is saying, "Well, he already knew what he was going to think before he got there."

Well, I thought John also suggested that I'm always changing my mind, so he's got to make up his mind about what he says about my mind.

Obama: 'We Have a Daunting Task' - TIME

[DaytonBuck]

China, India and Brazil had the fastest growth in number millionaires in the world last year. Those countries focus on progress as in growing the pie and we look at progress as the government giving 300 million people free doctor's visits. You do the math as to who is gong to win the 21st century.