you are letting out too many secrets mate – ssshhhhhhhh with a smile.

S

You seem a little frustrated. Well, it’s 4:00AM.

I’m gonna be frank, my friends. I have no idea what you guys are doing at that time of night having arguments on PP, instead of having your wicked way with a suitably gorgeous woman or running up an embarassingly huge phone bill via those naughty Babestation satellite channels which you’re going to pretend never to have stumbled across.

Sorry, badmaash snarkiness is going to be the limit of my contribution to this thread for the time-being

Oh yes, apart from “Go Obama !”.

Carry on.

Having said that you are 100% right about LBJ. Hillary was perfectly justified using that argument because it tied in with her point about experience.

Also, I do not buy that “experience” crap of hers. Obama worked in the Senate (first as a State legislator and then as a US senator) for longer than she had. And being a wife of a President doesn’t make you experienced, as much as Yoko Ono was not a Beatle because she was married with John.

Having said that you are 100% right about LBJ. Hillary was perfectly justified using that argument because it tied in with her point about experience.

Here is the exchange. This needs to be in context: she was campaigning at that time with the message that: Obama was all talk (just made good speeches), and she was the experienced one – that she would get things done. And then she makes the parallel between MLK (black preacher – the one who had dreams and inspired people) and LBJ (white president who had things done).

Regardless of interpretation, we can agree that it was a gaffe that with her fantasy of being under fire in Bosnia, precipitated her downfall with blacks, Democrats and Independents. And she was unable to recover.

2)Shamit, the Clintons were skillfully playing the race card e.g The Turban photo and Bill’s comment about Obama winning South Carolina.

Having said that you are 100% right about LBJ. Hillary was perfectly justified using that argument because it tied in with her point about experience.

It was unfortunate that the Obama campaign also engaged in race-baiting but I think it wasn’t too serious and probably justified given the cynicism of the other side.

3)Shamit, also good critiques of his policies especially the tax stuff.

Oh no, I get it — I have committed blasphemy — oh the messiah has been challenged…oh i tremble with fear. god get a fucking grip on your obsession will you?

You seem a little frustrated. Well, it’s 4:00AM.

Why don’t you try to reply #33 again tomorrow after a good cup of coffee (or tea)? I might return the favour by telling you what I disagree with Obama.

You are splicing my statements and basically not discussing.

You are doing exactly the same thing to Hillary Clinton’s statement what Obama campaign did and then equating LBJ with a colonial power.

And then you imply I dont know about Federal Election Laws about Contributions and Donations and then when I tell you the limit is actually quite easily circumvented — you say whats your point– wtf????

Oh no, I get it — I have committed blasphemy — oh the messiah has been challenged…oh i tremble with fear.

god get a fucking grip on your obsession will you?

I also said I am not going to get into arguments about Bill Clinton as that is not what this post is about. But he did say and imply that. We all saw it.

I didn’t see it, and I doubt anyone saw it. But I appreciate that you provide evidence that Obama ever said that the Reagan administration was better for the US than the Clinton administration.

So your depiction of history is utterly flawed.

I made a parallel between two personalities who inspired and lead a powerful movement. I still think it stands. Clinton’s words minimised MLK by saying he just inspired and made good speeches… that the real deal was LBJ.

Does that answer your profoundly naive challenge?

I was not trying to challenge you, but to understand what you were talking about. I still do not know what’s your point on this topic of donations. Are you against donations?

But comparing against Jindal (who does not have the automatic support of the second largest population group in the US) — Obama does come up short when comparing CVs.

That’s your opinion. I think Obama’s accomplishments and more importantly his skills are far far better, and far more impressive than Jindal’s – not only as presidential candidates, but also as President.

Climate Change — have to convince the senate — not going to be easy unless you can get China and India to agree on somethings… So where is the fundamental difference –again policy please? show me some — I am probably missing something.

The fundamental difference is that Obama is more knowledgeable than McCain on foreign policy, and he is a guy that has stated he believes in diplomacy including with rogue regimes. And since Democrats are going to win big time on the Senate and the House, Obama will have an easier time making the changes he sees fit.

He avoided saying the phrase special relationship even after directly being asked that question Ravi. I may be stupid but not that stupid and as Brit doesn’t it hurt your pride that our citizens can be extradited but not Americans — Americans are not finger printed when they come here — why should we be…will Obama change any of those things or for that matter any President.

I don’t understand your rant about “special relationship”, but it seems like it is Blair and Brown who should do something about it, not Obama who is not even President!

yeah he agreed to invade Pakistan to capture and kill terrorists which is Bush policy anyway…

Invading Pakistan is not at all like Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Obama didn’t defend that he was going to occupy Pakistan, nor overthrowing its government. These are tactic operations that target Al Qaeda – and only if Pakistan refuses to or is unable to get those people.

Supreme court – Obama would appoint a court which would defend your freedoms mate — and McCain would take that freedom away — liberty and justice for all — and that should include those who are charged but not convicted of heinous crimes. Thats what a liberal democracy does.

Without the bailout and the recapitalisation of banks, I think you would have a financial meltdown and that would affect your economy — or would you prefer that –
On domestic policy Obama is miles and miles ahead of his opponent.

thanks for spotting the nuke thing — you were correct of course and I actually wanted to mean bomb an ally for tactical advantage.

Redistribution of wealth

National Health care (Like the government can run healthcare lol, Look at social security, medicare, the housing markets)(fanny and Freddie.)

Will not take Iran seriously. ( The Nuclear deterent does not scare someone who is willing to be a suicide bomber on a national level)

Wants to eliminate oil in 10 years. ( Other countries are doing all they can to produce or take more- see Russia moving into Georgia) How will America defend itself.

Raise taxes (Dont buy the hype about 95% of poeple will get a tax cut- See Bill Clinton 1992- The headlines will be -Situation to dire for tax cuts, on the contrary in order to survice we will raise taxes accross the board)

Supreme court-

The bail out gave away another part of our constitution,- The battle cry is that for stability we will give away our freedoms- So people do not suffer.

This is just off the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with more.

Do not forget about the silent majority. I call upon all of you that will not stand for this to rise up and show up when it matters. Election day.

Have a nice evening.

I never said I am backing McCain/Palin.

I also said I am not going to get into arguments about Bill Clinton as that is not what this post is about. But he did say and imply that. We all saw it. And by the way Obama is no revolutionary either — name one policy position which is revolutionary and not evolutionary. But lets let that one go.

While I said I would not argue with you by implying I am stupid and don’t know what I am talking about — lets go through at least some of the points that you have raised.

LBJ and the British Raj? Thats the one I never heard.

Okay civil rights legislation in US 101 –

The first civil rights legislation which was not very powerful was passed in 1957 and Eisenhower signed it into law.

MLK was frustrated with Kennedy because he could not get civil rights legislation out of committee. Soon after Kennedy’s death in 1963, MLK told the new President Johnson that there would be more bloodshed on the streets unless Johnson got the act passed. Johnson pulled some interesting moves including wheeling in Claire Engle a Democrat from California to break the filibuster in the senate and get the deal through. Johnson, used all his skills of bullying, powers of patronage and got the bill through and signed it which was attended by MLK. And then in 1965, again they joined hands to pass the National voting rights Act and King got one of the pens that Johnson used in signing the legislation.

Well that was a good gist but if you want to know really what these two great men talked about please read this:

http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/01/mlklbj/

Thats based on the tapes of conversation between LBJ and MLK.

Well if MLK thought Johnson was a great President.-I think Obama could have paid some respect — MLK was the driver of the change in America but he needed some support to institutionalise that change and that is where LBJ came in and did a great job.

So your depiction of history is utterly flawed.

And obn your question about funding — are you really that naive about political donations – okay – here you go

US Presidential Politics – 001 –

1. Companies use subsidiaries and its affiliate auxiliary enterprises (which even could be charitable organisations) to fund campaigns. Each one of those as legal entities provide the maximum.

2. In investment banks and some other major corporations, top executives and sometimes even mid level executive through tacit agreement each donate the maximum possible amount to a campaign thereby not violating campaign laws.

3. There are things called fundraising dinners –where you create a PAC – incorporate it and then an individual can pay upto $25,000 to a PAC — and say a 100 people dinner each paying $10K — now you can do that with a large number of PACs and thats how you raise money. Now you do the math

4. Also, when a Senator or another public official who already has a campaign fund aside from the Presidential campaign fund — they can use that fund to support their Presidential candidacy. Now on that one, the law is interesting, it says Individual fundraising is limited to 95.000 Dollars per legislative period ie That means a private person can donate no more than 95.000 Dollars to a candidate in the present legislative period.

So that limit of $4,600 that people talk about can be circumvented and have been circumvented for ages — and soft money drives US elections.

Does that answer your profoundly naive challenge?

On wow you got one right- but again got something wrong there too.

On the Annenberg thing, I am sorry I should have said the Chicago Annenberg challenge. But it was ayers who got the money and then invited Obama to be the Chair.

You were right on that one.

But you got one key thing wrong –Annenberg was dead when the foundation was giving the money out. And, so it was not a republican thing it was an educational thing and as Chair Obama drove the group. I actually thing it was a good thing. So, why the attack ?

And, I already said he ran a brilliant campaign and I said that his experience is about getting him elected. And you agree so again why attacking me with snide comments?

Comparison with Jindal

I did not compare him to Bush, Clinton, McCain or Palin.

Why I compared him to Jindal?

Another minority Politician who did not wanna run for VP — who is 10 years younger to him– who is currently toast of the country for handing the recent hurricane.

And, again if I were an American I would vote for Obama. So stop butting in with these stupid McCain jibes.

But comparing against Jindal (who does not have the automatic support of the second largest population group in the US) — Obama does come up short when comparing CVs.

And, the point of my post was why I am a bit skeptical. Imagine so much talent, so much promise — yet not much in the achievement column. That bugs me. May be he is too busy running for the next job than doing a job. Valid point I would say.

You were absolutely right on the nuke issue My fault — yeah he agreed to invade Pakistan to capture and kill terrorists which is Bush policy anyway. But he did take nukes off the table — I eat humble pie but it helps me prove my point. There would not be much difference in American foreign policy except for rhetoric and better speeches. America as a nation will always reserve the right to act alone and while we would have Presidents like Clinton or Obama who would minimise that — but if push came to shove America will act alone if they felt threatened. And, they would rather keep the fight on foreign shores rather than on home soil. Thats their mindset. And a change of President does not necessarily change that fundamental mindset – especially in the post 9/11 world.

On Foreign Policy the rhetoric now is very different — in office when your words are the words of the USA then you would try to develop a consensus so that you have Congress and the people behind you. lets look at some of the key foreign policy questions;

For example DO you think Obama’s policy towards Saudi Arabia would be any different than Bush’s? We defend those royal assholes who use torture and curb down on any freedom — and guess what they also fund various activities which are not in either US or British interest. But can Obama act against Saudi Arabia — NO- I would love for him to but he cannot

We define Bush as the ultimate unilateral President? But he worked with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea to resolve the North Korea issue — And on Iran, they are building a coalition and that would continue.
Arab countries don’t like Iran either — remember. And the Israel factor looms large — so Obama meeting ahmedinajad would be objected by people close to him including Tony Lake and Ralph Emmanuel.

Russia — now both parties in Congress and former Secretary of States as well as others know that Russia needs to change its behaviour both internally and externally. No American President would allow Russia to have a veto on who gets into NATO.

The World Trade Agreement — Doha round has failed. Whats next? Are we moving to a bi-lateral agreement and regional agreement phase.. Now again domestic compulsions would not allow the US President to do much when his political capital is at the highest level which is the first 18 months of his Presidency.

Climate Change — have to convince the senate — not going to be easy unless you can get China and India to agree on somethings. Yeah they know they have to do something and both candidates are willing to do it and show some leadership — and it would be related to energy security and guess what not much difference there.

I am talking policy substance and not rhetoric — as rhetoric is campaigning not governing. And after Bush whoever is the 44th president would develop some strong coalitions to work through things. So where is the fundamental difference –again policy please? show me some — I am probably missing something.

On the special relationship

He avoided saying the phrase special relationship even after directly being asked that question Ravi. I may be stupid but not that stupid and as Brit doesn’t it hurt your pride that our citizens can be extradited but not Americans — Americans are not finger printed when they come here — why should we be…will Obama change any of those things or for that matter any President.

I respect Obama and what he has achieved. And, I hope he is the next President of the United States — political reality tells me that I dont expect sea change in American foreign policy — there would be some good movements and there would be some symbolic yet powerful changes especially in rhetoric. But I do not see fundamental difference between the candidates’ foreign policy actions.

<blockquote>

I am a quote!

</blockquote>

<b>I am bold!</b>
<i>I am italic!</i>

It seems however learned a comment is, it doesn’t quite cut it unless its got style.

Would you say it may therefore be better for the world for a McCain victory on the basis he would go fight more wars, create more anti-US hostility and in the process diminish its power overseas?

Lets face it free-trade will be an irrelevance either way, if he goes ‘bomb, bomb, bombbb Iran’.

Your point about AIPAC is very well put.

We’re doomed.

What makes you think in actuality US foreign policy would be any different between McCain and Obama?

For starters, Obama doesn’t sing “Bomb Bomb Iran” to entertain his crowd, make jokes about sending cigars to kill north koreans, or require someone to whisper in his ear the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.

I cannot believe that you have heard both Obama and Biden talk about foreign affairs, and think there is no difference between them and McCain… and Sarah “see Russia from my house” Palin.

So tell me my learned friends why are we so rooting for anyone?

Sanity, intelligence, reason and competence. And if anyone thinks that McCain and Palin represent any of that, then you really have not been following this election as closely as you should.

I do not want to go on about how I think Obama campaign manipulated a comment about LBJ to make it sound like Hillary was criticising MLK.

When she says that MLK only inspired the civil rights movement, but it was LBJ who really made the difference because he agreed and signed it… that’s like saying that Gandhi’s role in the independence was minimum compared to the British Raj who actually signed and conceded the independence.

But, I will say this, Obama went on National TV and said Reagan had a more positive impact on Americans than Clinton.

That’s not true. He was making the point that in 1980, like now, people wanted to fundamentally change the direction of the country. And that while Reagan was more revolutionary in regards to previous administrations, Bill Clinton took the evolutionary approach. He never said that Reagan had a more positive impact than Clinton. Or had better ideas than him (another ridiculous Clinton accusation against Obama).

Why does this man (the first African American to be on the cusp of being the next President of the United States — ever give credit or pay homage to Lyndon Johnson.

I am sure you also feel upset that Indians don’t pay homage to the British Raj on Independence Day, or even to the last viceroy.

And, yes his campaign got more money from ordinary Americans but real bulk money have come from Wall Street and Hollywood.

What’s the difference between “more money” and “real bulk money”? And what is the difference between money coming from ordinary Americans and money from individuals that happen to work in Wall Street and Hollywood? You do realise that donation rules are the same.

And most importantly, when I pit him against someone as young as Jindal — I find his CV very thin.

Obama has as much gubernatorial experience as McCain: which is none. And that’s a lot less than Bush’s as both governor of Texas and as President. Not to mention much less than Palin. What is your point again?

What has Obama run except for his campaign and Ayers Educational fund — not much really. Name two important legislation

First of all, get your facts straight. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge charity which was run by a Republican (Walter Annenberg), and whose wife backs McCain. Ayers attended the open meetings as a guest, not as a member of the board. Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in that charity. And as for his legislative record, here is a summary. And I believe that managing a +$200 million campaign with thousands of volunteers so efficiently, has to count for something.

And he is one of the rare politicians who said nuking an ally is okay to gain a tactical advantage ie killing osama bin laden.

That’s a lie: he never said he would nuke Pakistan.

I think he is a brilliant man — he is a thinker clearly but may be he is another Kennedy huge rhetoric less achievement.

Yes, I agree with you on that one – as a presidential candidate, he has only made speeches and debates, not really done anything he promised to do as President. Why wait until he is President, when you can criticise him now?

Not many US Presidential Candidates come in front of No. 10 Downing Street and when asked about special relationship with Britain — evades the question and says its a historic relationship and that offends me.

Yes, how dare he say that Britain and US have a historic relationship which is the basis of that special relationship he was asked. Bad Obama.

Apologies.

One more thing, none of them is going to rescind the Bush Executive Order which enables American Military and CIA to assasinate individuals they deem to be against American national security interest. After all, if the President of US thinks its a clear and present danger to US national security, then all laws go out of the window. And that is one power, you cant even challenge in the Supreme Court.

Defending national security of US is the primary responsibility of the President and so I dont see that power being taken away by the President himself. Can you guys?