'08 - Who do you want?

[green 6]

Green has spent this afternoon talking with her Yankee bro, that skinny cat who lives in Virginia. She has carefully discussed with him the discussions which have been undertaken on this site. She has even displayed her own personal fondness for the lovely Obama, and has found herself whining to her bro, eh...about his choice. Nevertheless, Green's American bro has finally spoken to her about American politics and this is what he has said: the Green American bro dude would be content to see Hilary in office as Pres with the splendid Obama sitting in as co-chair or, um, as vice-president for the next 4 to 8 years. He certainly hopes to see Obama as President ... eventually, eh.

[transformer 1]

Oh DerickM--you absolutely slay me! Did you make up all of your last post yourself or did you copy it from somewhere?

I'll add the next events on the schedule (if I may be so bold):

3:00 AM Ted Kennedy floats to the surface of the body of Water his car just sank in and his female companion inexplicably doesn't make it...

3:05 AM Bill Clinton is named the new Democratic nominee

3:10 AM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

LOL!

[DerickM 1]

I wish, the post and variations thereof of have been floating around the net since the stone age

[transformer 1]

Then I must be WAY too youthful to have heard of them (yeah, right)! LOL!

[smatyas 0]

Anyone see the new AP poll?

ap_pewpoll_candidates?

[DerickM 1]

how will the recent assassination of Bhutto affect the upcoming election?

[miztrniceguy 1]

she's not likely to be re-elected

[mrspruett 0]

she's not likely to be re-elected

Bwahaaaahaaa! That is most definitely a safe bet........

[Chris_NJ 9]

she's not likely to be re-elected

:omg: LMAO HAHAHAHAHA

[green 6]

how will the recent assassination of Bhutto affect the upcoming election?

This is a good question. It will be interesting to watch what goes on over the next few months. The latest news that I heard is that the election in Pakistan will still take place in January but to what effect? The head of a major party has been assassinated. Pakistan does have nuclear capabilities and it does share a porous border with Afghanistan and it is an Islamic country. It is not, economically speaking, a developing nation in the same way that India is; it is far less healthy. The U.S. has, I have heard, been pumping a lot of money into Pakistan in order to shore the country up; this money is also to assist the government of Pakistan in blocking the Taliban from entering the country from Afghanistan as well as stopping all Taliban activities on their own soil.

I have heard that the stock markets have reacted negatively to this news of Bhutto's death and oil prices have already gone up. The coming months will be interesting ones.

[DerickM 1]

she's not likely to be re-elected

true, however I was thinking of the upcoming election here in the US.

[miztrniceguy 1]

true, however I was thinking of the upcoming election here in the US.

she's not running here, either

[marjon9 6]

she's not running here, either

true, but even so she probably has poll numbers well above some of the "candidates" who actually are running here.

I'm looking forward to getting past Iowa and New Hampshire so we can get the roster of candidates down to the low hundreds.

Concerning Derick's actual question, I think this assassination may generally help Republicans like Giuliani because people still seem to have the odd misconception that Republicans are "better" on national security. I just don't happen to agree that dropping bombs is the correct solution to all national security problems, so I don't agree that Republicans are better on national security.

In my book a candidate is "better" on national security when he or she can at least imagine solving problems without dropping bombs, and when he or she is able to at least consider the ways that the actions of the United States may not always be perfectly correct, and may generate legitimate grievances among others who suffer consequences of U.S. actions. If some day our leaders have the maturity to understand that every action of the United States is not necessarily the perfect realization of god's will, only then can real progress in world peace be achieved. And only then can hope to avoid nuk-u-lar conflict (if you'll pardon the expression).

I'm not saying that our leaders should ever put the interests of the United States below the interests of any others at any time. But I am saying that it IS in U.S. interests to be at peace, and that we cannot achieve peace when our actions have the effect of destroying the environment and crushing the legitimate aspirations of many others through our blunt force cave man foreign policies.

I also think it is generally disgusting the way the candidates have scurried around like crabs on a hot beach trying to gain some advantage from this tragedy. The major candidates are all the same. Every one of them.

On a personal note I think that this assassination was a major loss. It really set back prospects for world peace, for reasons both real and symbolic. Bhutto may not have been perfect by any means, but her influence in this dangerous part of the world was really positive at this time. I was surprised how saddened I was to hear of the assassination.

[green 6]

I second Marjon's response. I have posted about this at some length elsewhere but I will recap: it seems to me that Bhutto's candidacy held out enormous hope to the west. She was well-educated, she was a woman, she was a modernist, and she was a candidate who held an enormous fan base. This was why she was assassinated.

We in the west could have worked with her but now she is gone. This is a bummer for us and a real tragedy for Pakistan, a country which is, I believe, sliding backwards into feudalism.

[InTheCityGirl 0]

Yes, Green, you are most likely correct.

I have to say I saw Barack Obama on Jon Stewart on Tivo last night with my DH. I voted for him here on the poll. I guess I should be embarrassed that a fake news program on the comedy channel is a source of political info but then again we discuss our digestive tracts on this site. . .