Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Curubethion]

The Netherlands? Who knew...

Silly Canadians, don't know what a primary is...

[Mari]

Silly Americans who need such a thing
Hehe, a different system for every country, eh?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

The Netherlands? Who knew...

Considering the influence the American president has on international events, it shouldn't be surprising other countries following your elections. Just don't mess up this time, mkay?

[Nautipus]

I love these little international nitpicks!

It's so fun to watch.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Considering the influence the American president has on international events, it shouldn't be surprising other countries following your elections. Just don't mess up this time, mkay?

It'll be hard not to...once Romney and Fred are out, we'll be left with a buncha kids.

[brownjenkins]

First, great primary analysis Hector!

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Now about Obama and Pakistan.

When he talked about his bombing of Pakistan in the summer, I thought it was an incredibly bad move. However, I don't necessarily disagree with it. One thing for sure, it's a very Bush Doctrinesque idea, and he'd be starting a whole new Iraq situation. Which brings me to this, if the surge is working, the Dems will need to realize this once in office, and not do the stupid thing and pull out. I can't understand this nonsense from the Democrats that they think the surge isn't working because it was "supposed to bring political reconciliation". Uh huh. And therefore we should pull out?

One thing I've come to realize about Dems and Reps on foreign policy: Clinton was very interventionist even if he was ineffective in his missions. Bush was an isolationist until 9/11 which changed his mind.

The ensuing differences between the two parties was partly political (Dems wanted anti-war votes and make Bush look evil).

In other words, whatever the Dems might say about Iraq; they can't pull the troops out, and the mission will continue.

On the above, good in theory but you forget one thing: cost, both in money and in troops.

We won't know if the "surge" is working until will pull out troops. If we have to keep them there for years, then it really isn't a surge, it's a permanent occupation.

The decision the next president will have to make is if keeping the troops their is worth the cost. Call me a cynic, but in that part of the world, I think we could keep them their for twenty years, then pull out, and it would still be a mess.

I'd rather see us return to the days of more surgical strikes (like Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton) where we jumped in, dealt with the real threats, then jumped out until the next threat cropped up.

And maybe we'll even get lucky and they'll work it out themselves. For all of our time in Vietnam from '55 to '75, who would have guessed that they'd turn out to be the country they are today?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

First, great primary analysis Hector!

You're not being sarcastic?

On the above, good in theory but you forget one thing: cost, both in money and in troops.

We won't know if the "surge" is working until will pull out troops. If we have to keep them there for years, then it really isn't a surge, it's a permanent occupation.

Well we can't win if we pull out our troops prematurely, just as we're accomplishing some peace and quiet for the Iraqi Gov't to work in.

The decision the next president will have to make is if keeping the troops their is worth the cost. Call me a cynic, but in that part of the world, I think we could keep them their for twenty years, then pull out, and it would still be a mess.

I disagree. That long things would be "well, they're here". I actually think one of the best things we can do is keep building hospitals, schools etc there, and maybe even pay some super high-wages for doctors to go there. Of course the Democrats would pull the rug from underneath Halliburton, and replace it with their own favorite contracting company that undoubtedly bears some personal profit for the Prez et al.

I'd rather see us return to the days of more surgical strikes (like Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton) where we jumped in, dealt with the real threats, then jumped out until the next threat cropped up.

Well I think we intended that with Afghanistand and Iraq. That was Rumseld's policy, essentially, without the troop flooding of Colin Powell.

And maybe we'll even get lucky and they'll work it out themselves. For all of our time in Vietnam from '55 to '75, who would have guessed that they'd turn out to be the country they are today?

Ok, now here's something I know about...

We lost Vietnam for several reasons. First of all, neither Kennedy or Johnson had the faintest idea on how to wage battle. Johnson, very documentedly pulled some punches that were purely for politics at home. He wouldn't listen to his generals, and then he'd give in to them, etc etc...

Secondly, we didn't HAVE to pull out. There was no big climax in sight for North Vietnam's victory. They were outgunned, and Nixon was bombing quite effectively. With the Paris Peace Treaty tangible, it would have made sense for us to stay. With us still there we would have kept North Vietnam from pulling their backstabbing plan on the South. But Nixon gave in to the retarded anti-war crowd and to some other officials who were just sick of having to be vilified.

None of those administrations had the guts Bush does, temperamentally.

[hectorberlioz]

UPDATE:

Hillary is not losing big. Reassessment by the entire punditry is in order. The numbers are close, with Obama two points behind.

What I'm wondering is, why such a wide lead for Obama in the polls? This was pretty far off for a poll.

Republicans: as I expected, McCain leading. I didn't anticipate by this much. Please lord, please.... End my pain.

[hectorberlioz]

...ok. Time to take a deep breath, take a drink or two, and draw mean pictures involving knives and McCain.

My [Perrier] bottle is almost empty.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Please lord, please.... End my pain.

*shoots hector* God was busy.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

*shoots hector* God was busy.

Jason Statham moment?

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Jason Statham moment?

Thought I killed you.

[hectorberlioz]

UPDATE:

Hillary is leading Obama still...I'm calling it for her.

Romney has closed the gap from 9 points behind to 5/6 points behind. Just 3 more to eke out.....

UPDATE:

According to the numbers at Drudge (65---61 counted for each respectively). McCain/Romney tightens, Clinton/Obama widens.

McCain still wins, but maybe, just maybe Romney can crawl to a three/four point loss as apposed to the five/six earlier.

[hectorberlioz]

Obama---HUGE momentum. The period of "he has to prove beyond Iowa" is over...for now. Everyone is flocking to Obama. This has got to be the biggest shift in serious poll numbers I've ever seen. Last week Hillary was the Dem frontrunner, now there's talk of her dropping out! How did Obama do this? He's gotten better at specifics, and people have started to realize that the ONLY "experience" advantage Hillary has over him is her dismal experience of having to be married to Bill Clinton.
UPDATE: I've called it for Clinton in NH. She's leading consistently, and Obama is losing a little steam. The Obama Dream shattered? A reversal of all the talk today and yesterday? Methinks some polling was a little too beefed.

Hillary---that being said...I'm not sure Hill is done with. As Dick Morris pointed out, Hillary has the establishment support in the Democratic party, which count as delegates when everything is said and done. But she needs to come up with SOMETHING more than the "experience" schtick. She certainly can't afford anymore too many losses. People notice, and establishment is a mid-year thing.
UPDATE: Obviously NOT finished.

[hectorberlioz]

Not that anyone will notice, but I called Clinton before the networks did

Medved: Says independents felt secure about Obama and decided to vote McCain.

Hewitt: Adds that these independents said to themselves "Hey, I'll just vote for the weakest Republican" .

Romney's loss: Five points. Not as bad as I thought, but still a stinger. He can play Michigan hard...we'll see.

McCain's win: not as wide a lead as first indicated. Not a carrying victory like I said. Expect more McHuckabee smooching.

[GrayMouser]

Thompson?

Well, you've got an opportunity for the first woman president, the first black president....why not the first zombie president?

And thanks for the cartoon on McCain - it almost reconciles me to him winning....

[Lady Ravyn]

...and the saddest thing was duncan hunter got a smaller percentage of the reps. than even dennis kucinich did with the dems.!

*sigh* it's gonna suck when i have to resign myself to backing romney (aka hector)

[The Telcontarion]

Election fraud people, that is why Ron Paul did not win:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ot_counted.htm

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Silly Canadians, don't know what a primary is...

Generally the world tends to be more aware of our political system then we are about the worlds. Know a lot about the Canadian nomination system? I sure don’t.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Considering the influence the American president has on international events, it shouldn't be surprising other countries following your elections. Just don't mess up this time, mkay?

Itll be really hard to do worse then what we have currently. After all how can you get worse than The Worst Administration Ever? Even the likes of Romney and Huckabee would be a relative improvement by comparison. So don’t fear to hope world, we should be better off a year from now then we are now. The only question will be will it be too late to fix the damage…

Personally wake me up when its Super Tuesday. I will never understand why we take SO much stock in how a tiny fraction of the national population in obscure small unrepresentative states thinks about who should be president to the point of allowing them to essentially make that decision for us before we have a useful say in it. You miss second place by a few hundred votes and it means you should withdraw? But if you get those few hundred votes everything is different? What kind of nonsense is that. No wonder we are a clueless bunch of sheep being led around by our noses by the press and the pundits. We go along with the nonsense with glee.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hector, you know less about Vietnam than about knitting socks.

As to the primaries...people lie about voting for black candidates, that's #1. They consistantly poll higher than the vote comes in.

That's one of the weaknesses of the whole Obama campaign. Everyone likes have new voters, and young people participating, but you need voters who know the drill and expend some shoeleather, to get your guy elected.

Why don't you like McCain, Hector? His personal life isn't more screwed up than any of the R candidates, except Romney (the only faithful one).