Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 397 Comments
AREN'T THERE ANY GROWN UPS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
Geprge W. Bush was not even talking about Obamaa. Leave it to Mr. Obama and his advisors to take a speech by a lame duck-figure head president to try and score political points. While Bush has been clearly been a bad president to date, this is dispicable on the part of the Obama campaign to use this speech to try and score political points.
With this said Bush has been quite the appeaser himself. Bush expects the Israelis to negotiate with the terrorists in Fatah. Also, Bush seems to have tried to appease Syria at the expense of Lebanon. Bush seems to be a hypocrite but the speech was not directed at Mr. Obama.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.05.2008 @ 22:08
I'm being quite real. Yes, I think "bitter enemies" is probably spot on. Folks can and do take the US government to the cleaners. We are being used for what they can get out of us. In other words, they say one thing to us but do another. I'm not necessarily saying don't deal with them where we may have a common interest. It should be understood that these people are not our friends but instead are our enemies. Right now it seems we have common enemies. As such, they may not actively turn on us, yet.
No where did I see where you advocated a military response. There is no leverage that we can use diplomatically and the military is to busy right now to pose a credible threat to Hezbollah. There's little to nothing we can do here.
If Barack Obama or John McCain for that matter want to put their diplomatic skills to work, I have a suggestion. The problem: we are WAY to dependent on foreign oil. The solution: We have vast oil reserves in the US. In addition to this we have huge reserves of coal here as well. Using coal to oil technolgy that is available right now we probably have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We need to build more oil refineries and we need to tap into our own reserves. This would give us some leverage when dealing our enemies. Why have'nt we done it? Oil interests will generally say it is because of environmental regulations. Envrionmental groups will blame the oil companies. Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain should use their diplomatic skills to forge a compromise between big environmental grousp and big oil so that our own oil reserves can be tapped into and we can build more refineries. This might yield positive results for the American people. A fruitless diplomatic mission to Syria will probably yield nothing. We have no "carrots" to offer Syria that they cannot get elsewhere or that they would be interested in and we have no credible "sticks" to use either.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 12.05.2008 @ 17:17
There is very little that the United States can actually do here. There is no military option. The US military is stretched to thin to present a credible conventional military response to this situation. Also, we have to understand that neither the Siniora government or Hezbollah are allies of the US. Both are bitter enemies of America. If we are going to support one or the other, it is only a question of which one is the least bad of the options but again their is very little we can actually do in this situation.
Siniora govt. a "bitter enemy?"
We don't usually give extensive foreign aid to "bitter enemies" nor do we agree to train their army, nor do we have so many visits from top levels of "bitter enemy" governments (Hariri, Jumblatt, Siniora, Gemayal, have all been to the White House).
And who is advocating an American military response? Do you see it anywhere in the article? This is a Lebanese problem for sure - but a UN unwilling to enforce its own resolutions regarding Hezballah disarmament and conducting the Hariri tribunal that would prove Syrian-Hezbullah complicity in numerous political assassinations also has something to do with the situation.
"Bitter enemies?" Get real.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 12.05.2008 @ 08:57
PARTY LIKE IT'S 1980 ALL OVER AGAIN
I think this analysis is spot on. Like you I hope its wrong but it probably isn't.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 6.05.2008 @ 16:27
DELEGATE PROJECTION SHOWS OBAMA A SHOO-IN
"All of those issues will resonate with independents..." Yes they probably will. As such, those issues are going to resonate with the super delegates and other decision makers within the Democratic party.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 5.05.2008 @ 10:17
I agree taht it will be a tall order for Mrs. Clinton to get 90% of the reamining super delegates. It is more likely than not that Mr. Obama will get the nomination. In any event, it will take more than the Wright controversy to derail Mr. Obama at this point. There is a strong possibilty that more will happen. As the electorate learns more about Mr. Obama, the polls which reflect the mood of the voters at a given time seem to be getting tighter.
I don't think 55% is ridiculous at all and I think its quite realistic. Given that the polls seem to be tightening and more is learned about all of the candidates the opinions of the electorate seem to be in a state of flux right now. I'm pretty sure Mr. Obama's campaign is not operating as though the candidate has a 98.5% chance of victory. For his sake, I sure hope not.
When the convention starts, if the super delegates and the Democratic party leaders believe that Mrs. Clinton has a better chance of winning the general election than Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination even if Mr. Obama has more pledged delegates. I find nothing idiotic in denying the nomination to Mr. Obama if party leaders do not think he can win the general election.
Again, it is more likely than not that Mr. Obama will get the nomination but I think it is premature to declare him a shoo-in. I think it was Yogi Berra who used to say, "it ain't over till its over." This one's far from over. As someone else once said, "get ya popcorn ready." This one's gonna be interesting.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 4.05.2008 @ 18:36
I must have missed the "angry" responses. Obama will likely win the nomination. There is no question about that but he is by no means a shoo in. Republican attack ads will not matter. What will ultimately matter to the super delegates is who has the better chance to win the general election. If it turns out that this is Mrs. Clinton, the super delegates who go with her will likely be commended by a large majority of the press and the electorate. I say Obama has approximately a 55% chance of getting the nomination with Clinton having a 45% chance of getting the nomination. Alot can and will happen between now and August. If mew information comes out or the mood of the electorate changes, super delegates can likely change as well. The point is it seems premature to count Mrs. Clinton out at this time.
HE IS ONLY GOING TO NEED ABOUT 40 SUPERS AT MOST TO WIN. THAT MEANS THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL HAVE TO GET AROUND 90% OF THE REMAINING SUPERDELEGATES TO DENY HIM VICTORY.
55% is a ridiculous number, not connected to reality in any way. Try 98.5% as a true reflection of Obama's chances.
And to believe that once Obama has enough delegates pledged to him - both supers and others - that the Democratic party will deny him the nomination is idiotic.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 4.05.2008 @ 14:09
FOR THE LAST TIME - BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
It seems to be by no means certain that Obama will get the Democractic party nomination. By the time of the convention, if enough super delegates decide that Obama cannot win in the general election, the super delegates will award the nomination to Clinton. I do agree that it is more likely than not that Obama will get the nomination but it does not seem to be certain. I would havdicap this at about 55-45. This means that there is about a 55% chance that Obama will get the nomination and about a 45% chance that it will go to Clinton. Alot can still happen between now and August. I think it may be premature to count Clinton out at this point. Witht that said it will take more than the Wright controversy to derail the Obama campaign.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 4.05.2008 @ 01:51
WILL THE NEXT AMERICAN PRESIDENT BETRAY LEBANON?
Unfortunately there may be very little the US can actually do for Lebanon even if it wants to. The US faces a massive national debt, its Army is worn down almost to the breaking point from continued operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world, and it currently must rely on others to supply much of its energy needs. The US has almost no leverage that it can use against Syria to get them to stop interfering in the affairs of Lebanon and I just don't envision the American people being willing to be dfawn into a fight with Syria over "freedom and independence."
In addition to this, the American military will be withdrawn from Iraq in its entirety within the next year because the worn down Army cannot continue these operations for much longer. After this happens, the US will have even less leverage over Syria than the very little leverage it currently has.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.04.2008 @ 19:24
THE WHINER VERSUS THE IRON LADY
I should have typed "the best thing the US can do is to stay out of Israel's way." I apologize for the error.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.04.2008 @ 12:23
