Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Dreams and Nightmares

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-04-2008, 01:02 PM
ogieogie ogieogie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Bob, if I'm not mistaken it isn't MOOM-by, but rather MUM-by; as in, "Mummy is mumbling about mums."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:15 PM
rgajria rgajria is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 177
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogieogie View Post
Bob, if I'm not mistaken it isn't MOOM-by, but rather MUM-by; as in, "Mummy is mumbling about mums."
In Marathi and Gujarati, it sounds like Moom-Baie
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-04-2008, 01:23 PM
David Edenden David Edenden is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Anyuser Anyuser is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 141
Default Russia

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Edenden View Post
Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.
I completely agree. What genius decided that third-world countries on Russia's border should be in NATO? The next thing you know, we've got Russians buddying up to Hugo Chavez and sailing warships through the Panama canal.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:19 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Holbrook

A different viewpoint from Ezra:

Quote:
Dick Holbrooke is a complicated political figure. To many, he represents the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party, the very type of adviser and outlook that led to the party's complicity in the Iraq War. But he's also, by wide acclaim, the most talented diplomat in the party. His work on the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, is legendary. So it makes sense that Obama is considering nominating him to be the key diplomatic envoy to South Asia, which would give him primary responsibility over Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. That makes sense. The guy's a good diplomat. Give him a diplomatic job.
What was so frustrating about the constant drumbeat to make Holbrooke Secretary of State was that on the questions of grand strategy, he had failed. He'd not only supported the war in Iraq, but pushed the party to do the same. It was a costly error, and as the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy voice, it was, in large part, his error. But that doesn't obviate the fact that he excelled in aggressive, crisis-oriented diplomacy. This position would play to those strengths. He's being placed where he's succeeded, rather than failing upward into the realms where he faltered.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:36 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Holbrooke

Firstly, if in all these appointments, pundits keep singling out unique issues bullet by bullet, the only beneficiary of this annoying process will be the power utilities and blogs. After eight years of incompetence - which on Iraq was more damning than the decision to go to war - a guy with any laurels is welcome, particularly if it's in the area where his job portfolio will be. There's the dynastic and emoluments clause issues with Clinton, but many would give her a pass because they just enjoy the drama. Pundits also over-emphasize each individual's resume points at the expense of whatever group dynamic and policy line emerges within the Obama administration national security team. After his successful campaign, I'm slightly willing to believe Obama can run his office well more than I would ever dream that Clinton could do anything but cackle and sob on cue.

And, gawd, screw Howard Wolfson - that's a anti point all to itself.

Last edited by Baltimoron; 12-04-2008 at 07:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2008, 04:18 PM
David Edenden David Edenden is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: Russia

What is really interesting to me is the consensus among the entire US political class to continue to confront Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The US has spent almost 20 years getting in the face of the Russians, while at the same time, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan continue to be festering sores.

My assumption when the Berlin Wall fell, was that the US would waste no time in disbanding Nato, leaving Europe so that is could allocate resources to other hot spots.

I'm not sure why it didn't but here are a few possibilities (Memo to Bob: good Bloggingheads topic)

1. US policy makers were Russian centric and continued to overstate the "Russian treat" merely to ensured their jobs.

2. A desire to punish the Russians, as a people for, causing the world so much pain for their support for communism.

3. Continuing Nato as a vehicle for US hegemony in the world. Their motto: "Can't dominate the world, if we can't dominate Europe"

Here is what I have written in the last year.

Quote:
Nato is retired, as a cold war relic, and replaced by a reformed and revitalized OSCE where Russia can wield its deserved influence. The US can then withdraw its troops from Europe and send them to Iraq! Have specific detailed plans for this reform and publicize it widely to the US/EU public. For example, all members of the OSCE would be considered associate members of the EU if they so wish. All peoples of the OSCE can work in the EU with an easily obtained work visa.


Quote:
The UN is a flawed organization ... which cannot be reformed. My solution is keep the UN, but expand the OSCE to include all true democratic countries of the world and have this group take over most of the "functions" of the UN in areas of human rights and aid to the Third World. In a real sense, we can start from scratch. Eventually, the UN will wither away and "the lion will lie down with the lamb"!

Last edited by David Edenden; 12-04-2008 at 04:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:16 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Russia

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Edenden View Post
3. Continuing Nato as a vehicle for US hegemony in the world.
Bingo.

It's entirely economic. The west wanted the labor markets, the consumer markets, the resources, and everything else we could get from Eastern Europe. And we don't want to compete with Russia to get them.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a once per century opportunity for American business to enter new markets and, especially, tap vast new pools of cheap, non-unionized labor.

And for those out there who think the Democrats are some kind of liberal party, Edenen is right: There is a mutual consensus by both parties to exploit Eastern Europe (and labor throughout the world) to the maximum extent possible.

Democrats and Republicans differ in many, many important respects, but they are almost indistinguisable on economic matters. (Domestically, at least (NOT in Eastern Europe), Democrats have traditionally been allies of organized labor. But Bill Clinton started the trend in the Democratic Party away from that historical alliance, leaving American labor without any friends at all in the political process, save for an ever-shrinking labor coalition that exists within the Demoratic Party as a minority.)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-05-2008, 11:03 AM
David Edenden David Edenden is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: Russia

I guess what I am saying, maybe not very coherently, is that continued US hegemony in Europe, via control of Nato, has not been in the interest of the US in its global responsibilities.

The EU has 500 million people with a standard of living approaching the US. Russia has a population of 142 million (and falling).Europe can handle Russia with zero problems.

It is amazing that the entire US political class can convince the American people that Russia is still treat. The only threat that Russia poses is its continued orneriness in supporting Iran in response to the continuing US policy of coming to Russia's doorstep and pissing on it welcome mat.

If Kagan, Holebrooke and company advocated a Nato clone to encircle China, people would think they were nuts, but because old habits die hard, its it easy to gain support for encircling Russia, for no good reason, I might add.

And don't get me started on Russian moves on Georgia or the Ukraine. When the US expels Turkey from Nato for trying to wipe out ethnic Kurdish culture off the map, or when John McCain says "We are all Kurdish" in response to Turkey's denial of basic haman rights to Kurds, then I might listen to Kagan's concerns about Georgia.

Memo to Bob Wright: get Kagan and Holbrooke to discuss how brilliant they were in advocating the baiting of Russia for the last twenty years!

In the mean time, the clock is ticking in Iran!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:18 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Edenden View Post
Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.
Who would you like to see nominated to be the next US Secretary of State? Does Macedonia have any allies in American politics? I know you were hot for McCain. do you think Macedonia would do better with some kind of neocon in the State Department?

Note: These are sincere questions.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-05-2008, 11:38 AM
David Edenden David Edenden is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

McCain as president would have continued Bush's policy of recognizing Macedonia's by its constitutional name.

Obama is really a "same old, same old" politician caving to the Greek lobby, but I really think that Hillary Clinton is just fine. If she could fashion a coherent policy on the Balkans it would be a great help for peace in that fractured region. Here is what I have said about current US policy in the past.

Quote:
The Balkan counties are being destabilized, but not by Russia. They are destabilized by the US/EU and the destabilization program seems to have its own momentum without a brake or reverse gear! If Olli Rehn can make any sense of the US/EU policies below, I am willing to listen.

US/EU to Serbia: Kosovo must be independent. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

US/EU to Kosovo: No union with Albania. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

US/EU to Bosnia: No independence for Republica Srbska. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

US/EU to Macedonia: Increased rights for Albanians. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

US/EU to Bulgaria and Greece: No rights for ethnic Macedonians. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

US/EU Russia: Subsidize oil to Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia. "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

The best favor that Bush can do for Obama is to secure a vote in the UN recognizing the "Republic of Macedonia" by its constitution name, rather than "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (aka FYROM ... a ****** name).

That would get this issue off the table an stabilize Macedonia. If not, Albanians in Macedonia (25% of the population, will continue to bide their time for the opportunity to partition Macedonia in favor of a "Greater Albania"

In the meantime, lest you think that people in the Balkans have no sense of humour, check this out. (here) (here)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:08 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Speaking of Hitchens and his Clinton Derangement Syndrome, there's video available of him appearing on Hardball a few days ago, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

I like Hitch a lot and often think he has smart things to say. This, to put it mildly, is not one of those times. It's not just a matter of disagreeing with him, as I do, say, on Iraq. This is just nutcase behavior.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-04-2008 at 02:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:15 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

I didn't like Hitchens way back in the 1990s when he was writing for The Nation. I can't tell what he's trying to say. I think he's baffling on purpose. Like he's hiding something. Or maybe his point is, "I feel scorn! Scorn I tells you!" and that's what's supposed to come across.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:23 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
I didn't like Hitchens way back in the 1990s when he was writing for The Nation. I can't tell what he's trying to say. I think he's baffling on purpose. Like he's hiding something. Or maybe his point is, "I feel scorn! Scorn I tells you!" and that's what's supposed to come across.
I understand the main thrust of his argument to be that the Clintons are pathologically self-interested, and that their quest for both power and money is always paramount, no matter what positions they hold.

I think there might be a kernel of truth in there somewhere, especially regarding Bill's appetites and desire to remain a player on the world stage, but I really don't see the problems as anywhere near as severe as Hitch sees them. I think they're better people than he gives them credit for. I also think Bob is right when he says that even if you posit that Hillary has further political ambitions and give her no credit for being a team player, her best bet for her own interests is to work towards making the Obama Administration a success.

The biggest immediate problem, as I see it, is the MSM's (and others') obsession with everything Clinton, and their determination to grasp at anything to continue the narrative that they are an endless psychodrama.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-04-2008 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:45 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Sorry, I wasn't clear (how ironic) -- I meant I often can't tell what point Hitchens is trying to make. I had the same problem with the late Buckley.

I think it'll be a while before we know what Obama's plan is for HRC. He sure didn't hire her for her managerial skills.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:21 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
The biggest immediate problem, as I see it, is the MSM's (and others') obsession with everything Clinton, and their determination to grasp at anything to continue the narrative that they are an endless psychodrama.
A-freakin'-men!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:03 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
....even if you posit that Hillary has further political ambitions and give her no credit for being a team player, her best bet for her own interests is to work towards making the Obama Administration a success.
Seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is just playing yet more of his strategic poker (an excellent & necessary political skill for which I give him much credit):

1) When HRC shines, she really does well, hence why not give her a run at it as there's, perhaps oddly, a certain amount of prestige that shines on a foreign head of state when meeting with a "Clinton." She can be both tough and charismatic while also commanding considerable respect in foreign capitals. So, were this scenario to work out, Obama could benefit greatly, remaining somewhat taciturn in the background in some "tough cases," allowing HRC to play "bad cop," but a bad cop fully controlled by Police Chief Obama.

2) This nicely placates any HRC supporters still feeling "burned" from the fisticuffs of the Primaries.

3) If she, and/or Bill act up too much, as with most Secretaries of State, she can be "eased out" after the first couple years, when HRC loyalists have more or less let go of old "wounds."

4) Meanwhile, if he does find either the need or the political interest in easing her out, great, he will have succeeded in robbing her of any power she might otherwise have been able to mount in the Senate. Result: she would then have no particularly bright prospects for any sort of political future and (along with Bill whose "Foundation pulpit" is also destroyed), Clinton competition would be history.

Hopefully, the coterie of folks around Obama just itching to torpedo HRC will learn to chill a little, HRC will do a brilliant job as SOC (which she is certainly capable of doing), and it will all be win-win. Not holding my breath on this one, though.

EW
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:25 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastwest View Post
Seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is just playing yet more of his strategic poker (an excellent & necessary political skill for which I give him much credit):

1) When HRC shines, she really does well, hence why not give her a run at it as there's, perhaps oddly, a certain amount of prestige that shines on a foreign head of state when meeting with a "Clinton." She can be both tough and charismatic while also commanding considerable respect in foreign capitals. So, were this scenario to work out, Obama could benefit greatly, remaining somewhat taciturn in the background in some "tough cases," allowing HRC to play "bad cop," but a bad cop fully controlled by Police Chief Obama.

2) This nicely placates any HRC supporters still feeling "burned" from the fisticuffs of the Primaries.

3) If she, and/or Bill act up too much, as with most Secretaries of State, she can be "eased out" after the first couple years, when HRC loyalists have more or less let go of old "wounds."

4) Meanwhile, if he does find either the need or the political interest in easing her out, great, he will have succeeded in robbing her of any power she might otherwise have been able to mount in the Senate. Result: she would then have no particularly bright prospects for any sort of political future and (along with Bill whose "Foundation pulpit" is also destroyed), Clinton competition would be history.

Hopefully, the coterie of folks around Obama just itching to torpedo HRC will learn to chill a little, HRC will do a brilliant job as SOC (which she is certainly capable of doing), and it will all be win-win. Not holding my breath on this one, though.

EW
Good analysis. I agree completely.

I'm curious; What do you think of the Lieberman decision? Allowing him to keep his chairmanship and his honor?

Should the Dems have given in to their inner-Republican and punished him for his heresy? Or were they smart to let him retain his dignity and turn him into an ally?

(Personally, I believe it was incredibly smart to keep him on the team, despite the obvious desire on the part of many to give into the irrational impulse to punish him. I'm slightly torn on the issue, but not much.)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-05-2008, 04:07 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I'm curious; What do you think of the Lieberman decision? Allowing him to keep his chairmanship and his honor?

Should the Dems have given in to their inner-Republican and punished him for his heresy? Or were they smart to let him retain his dignity and turn him into an ally?
It's just more good poker playing. Lieberman is of course a nauseatingly despicable person, the sort one would only shake hands with whilst wearing rubber gloves. But he can be useful. If publicly humiliated, he could do a lot of damage. So Obama was right to intervene early and set the tone for a reconciliation. I'm sure he had to hold his nose while doing it, though.

EW
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-05-2008, 04:26 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Good analysis. I agree completely.
Addendum: Also, what better way to destroy a political opponent than to put them in an impossible situation with heavy responsibilities where they're likely to fail most of the time? Nobody can make India and Pakistan love one another. Nobody can get the Palistinians and Israelis to cozy up. Who's going to make N. Korea into a teddy-bear? Taint nobody gonna charm Putin out of being a cunning KGB mafioso. Chavez, etc. will just call her a whore to her face. I suspect HRC couldl look real dirty and damaged before too long whilst Obama smiles thinly a smoothly from his distant perch in the Oval Office.

Should serious dissonances arise in the House of Obama, he will have no end of opportunities to let HRC take the blame for failures and gradually make her own way toward the logical exit, to be replaced by a fresh face in whom he has greater trust, with whom he has better chemistry, and over whom he has greater control (S. Rice, S. Power, etc.).

None of this either really good or bad. Politics is a black art (no pun intended), and you either master it or get ruined by it. Obama seems to have a pretty good hit rate so far. Hopefully he'll be a survivor, but a survivor with an essentially benign and populist agenda.

EW

Last edited by Eastwest; 12-05-2008 at 04:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-05-2008, 11:47 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastwest View Post
Seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is just playing yet more of his strategic poker (an excellent & necessary political skill for which I give him much credit): ...
Your scenarios hang together well. I think there is a lot of prestige associated with the Clintons worldwide. For better or worse, they are de facto royalty in some lights, and are at least seen as the top tier of American political power in many others. So, yes, HRC could be a very good Secretary of State.

I also agree with you in the machinations scenario. For the moment, I would like not to assume the worst about the Clintons, but I have thought plenty of times since HRC's name was floated for this job that this could be seen as Obama skillfully defusing a potential threat of disruption to his agenda.

If you continue with that second line of thinking, though, you have to admit that the Clintons are at least as able to figure this out as we are. So under the assumption that HRC's self-interest is paramount, what do you think made her take the job? Would you say that she viewed returning to the Senate as anti-climactic after coming so close to winning the presidency? Especially since she really is not much more than a junior member of that body? Do you think she thinks the SoS job gives her more power, or is a step up, and/or does more to enhance her future political ambitions?

Or do you think that she sees this as a good way to cap her career? After all, there is potential for enormous success in that job; e.g., making real progress on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-05-2008, 07:28 PM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Or do you think that she sees this as a good way to cap her career? After all, there is potential for enormous success in that job; e.g., making real progress on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
I've mostly just been riffing here on what's perhaps been going on in Barack's head in his doing the unthinkable, doing what for many of his young Lefty loyalists is surely appalling: Bringing on board the dreaded Clinton she-devil. (I of course completely disdain those HRC conspiracy-theory scenarios as ghosts of primary-era hysteria.)

Now, as for HRC herself, I think she genuinely does have the best of motivations, really does want to make a difference, really does feel she can do it better from the inside than from the outside, and really does feel that, if anybody can crowbar some of these intractable international disputes into shape, she is the one to do it.

HRC has real moxie, a can-do attitude, can deliver "an offer you can't refuse" with a charming smile, and doesn't mind playing royalty on the world stage at all. So she might be right: Maybe she (perhaps with a little extra help from Bill) really can make a difference on seemingly insoluable issues like Israel-Palestine and India-Kashmir.

But both HRC and Bill have to know they're both taking a huge gamble here. Barack could get really peeved at them a year or two down the line, could make them both look really tainted and evil, and so could effectively sideline them from developing the glowing legacy which they both want to create for themselves.

A quick flip side: Obama needs as many big-league power players working on his side as he can get. His only real issue would be whether or not he can keep them under control, playing out of his playbook. I think he's quite confident this won't be a problem and if things go sour, he can show H&B the door fairly easily.

So, yeah, a really fascinating drama unfolding as a big crew of impressive heavy-hitters decide they want to have a go at playing on the same team. Should be awesome to watch as, given the unprecedentedly freaky nature of US economic and international vulnerabilities, the fallout from failure could be catastrophic.

So far, I'm really impressed with the signs out of Obama. I think he ought to just keep doing what he's doing: pulling in the best and brightest, including the likes even of seemingly peripheral but potentially very useful figures like Bill Gates, Buffet, etc.

You couldn't come up with a more fascinating plot even writing your own story line. Movies will be made. My biggest freak-out scenario at this point is whether or not he's going to be taken down by a white-supremacist bullet.

EW
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-05-2008, 07:36 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastwest View Post
I've mostly just been riffing here on what's perhaps been going on in Barack's head in his doing the unthinkable, doing what for many of his young Lefty loyalists is surely appalling: Bringing on board the dreaded Clinton she-devil. (I of course completely disdain those HRC conspiracy-theory scenarios as ghosts of primary-era hysteria.)
At this point, I think there's far more angst about the Clintons from the Villagers than from the young Obamabots.

Quote:
Now, as for HRC herself, I think she genuinely does have the best of motivations, really does want to make a difference, really does feel she can do it better from the inside than from the outside, and really does feel that, if anybody can crowbar some of these intractable international disputes into shape, she is the one to do it.

HRC has real moxie, a can-do attitude, can deliver "an offer you can't refuse" with a charming smile, and doesn't mind playing royalty on the world stage at all. So she might be right: Maybe she (perhaps with a little extra help from Bill) really can make a difference on seemingly insoluable issues like Israel-Palestine and India-Kashmir.
Well said. I could believe all of that on any day when I'm not at my most pessimistic or cynical.

Quote:
So far, I'm really impressed with the signs out of Obama.
Delighted to hear that. For reinforcement, did you see this?

Quote:
My biggest freak-out scenario at this point is whether or not he's going to be taken down by a white-supremacist bullet.
That dark thought never completely leaves my mind, either, but if there's one branch of the gummint I'm always confident about, it's the Secret Service.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2008, 02:15 PM
robinho robinho is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: new york
Posts: 5
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Mumbai was Mumbai before it was Bombay. The Brits bastardised it, then the Hindus re-appropriated it in the '90s. Having said that, I don't think too many people mind if you call it 'Bombay' (the train station is still 'VT' not 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus'). I for one refuse to call 'Paris' 'Paree' or 'Rome' 'Roma' for fear of appearing a pretentious tool.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:14 PM
rgajria rgajria is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 177
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinho View Post
Mumbai was Mumbai before it was Bombay. The Brits bastardised it, then the Hindus re-appropriated it in the '90s.
It was a cluster of fishing villages before the Brits settled and created the city. They bastardized the Portuguese name. Whether Mumbai or Mumba Devi or Mumba Aai was the name of one of the villages is unclear. Gujarati and Marathi residents called it Mumbai when speaking in their native dialect. It wasn't just Bombay but was also referred to and still is as Bambai.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:18 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgajria View Post
It was a cluster of fishing villages before the Brits settled and created the city. They bastardized the Portuguese name. Whether Mumbai or Mumba Devi or Mumba Aai was the name of one of the villages is unclear. Gujarati and Marathi residents called it Mumbai when speaking in their native dialect. It wasn't just Bombay but was also referred to and still is as Bambai.
Let's settle this once and for all, the neocon way:

Bomb it, and rename it Dallas.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-04-2008, 11:08 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Let's settle this once and for all, the neocon way:

Bomb it, and rename it Dallas.
ROFL!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:49 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by robinho View Post
Mumbai was Mumbai before it was Bombay.

djw has a good post on LGM, with lots of links, on this issue.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:22 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

I think the catalog of Clinton transgressions qualifies as something more than just a 'kernal of truth'. How anyone can read the Hitchens article and see no big deal is beyond me (for that matter having even to read the article to know about the Clintons' sleazy dealings, this is all old news).

Love most of what Hitchens writes and have never once lowered myself to playing the 'drink' card when I've disagreed with him. After many drinks he can still slaughter the Chomskys, Galloways and Coles of this world with facts.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-04-2008, 04:49 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
I think the catalog of Clinton transgressions qualifies as something more than just a 'kernal of truth'.
I was speaking more of their behavior going forward than what can be listed from their past, and whether it would hamper HRC's ability to do a good job as SecState. As for their past, though, I remain unconvinced that they aren't anything more than run of the mill as far as politicians feathering their nests and doing favors for their friends goes. I think it's just the case that they've had a glaring and well-funded spotlight held on them for the past two decades. I'd love to see what could be turned up if the same effort were applied to either of the George Bushes, for example. The rich and politically powerful are pretty much all alike in this regard.

Quote:
Love most of what Hitchens writes and have never once lowered myself to playing the 'drink' card when I've disagreed with him.
Agreed. This is lame, not to mention making the accuser sound like a bluenosed scold.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:46 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

Bob misses the point on gun ownership. Plaxico Burress is the exact person NOT to have armed in public because he 1) broke the law, 2) did not know how to safely handle a firearm and 3) lied to both hospital and police authorites over the incident.

It's like Diane Feinstein and her CA gun legislation back in the 80s. The look on her face when told that gun manufacturers were already adjusting weapon design to circumvent her poorly written law before it was even passed was a great illustration of people having no clue about something trying to control it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-04-2008, 03:52 PM
BeachFrontView BeachFrontView is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 94
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

I've Got A Fever, And The Only Prescription Is More Mickey Kaus.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-04-2008, 04:27 PM
BeachFrontView BeachFrontView is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 94
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...8:11&out=18:25
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:11 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.

What are the odds?:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...6:52&out=46:56

Last edited by uncle ebeneezer; 12-04-2008 at 06:17 PM.. Reason: Better title??
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-05-2008, 12:49 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
LOL @ uncle eb . . .
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-05-2008, 01:36 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
LOL! Just, you know, on the off chance that some non-nerds are listening....
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-05-2008, 01:58 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
It goes to a new level in the TNC/BB diavlog -- an xkcd reference!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-05-2008, 02:35 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
It goes to a new level in the TNC/BB diavlog -- an xkcd reference!
No doubt.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-05-2008 at 02:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:53 PM
donbrekt donbrekt is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Dreams and Nightmares

It's petty, I know, but both Bob and Mickey seem a little bleary on pronunciation today. Bob: Does "diffuse" really sound like "die-fuse" in your world? Mickey: What is "jihard"?

That is all.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.