I watched Meet The Press this Sunday and was astounded by how closely the Republicans are hugging Bush. If I were McCain I would be "defending" Obama against Bush's appeasement charge, not joining with Bush in his ridiculous posturing. I'd be all, like, "Obama has the right to say he'd do thing differently, without being called unpatriotic." If McCain wasn't so fossilized, he'd adapt to Bush's low approval rating by casting himself as a strong man who can afford to be generous to the young whipersnapper. Instead he plays the role of an old king who must be deposed for spring to come again. To tell the truth, I am not so much an Obama fan as I am sick and tired of the Republicans. I SO want to see them punished. I want Rove, Bush, Cheney et al to go down in a landslide.

Talk about moving the goal post! Since when was winning defined by having the majority of the pledged delegates?

Obama has won barely 50% of the vote in the democratic primaries and less if you count FL and MI.  

Should Obama be the nominee, he will be the nominee with the weakest percentage of party support since Jimmy Carter in 1980.  And Carter had more democratic support in 1980 then Obama has now.

And so many of those 17 million (49%) democratic voters who supported Hillary will NOT vote for Obama because of his obnoxious Hillary hating supporters.  So the Obama supporters will get just what they deserve – President John McCain!

Yes, we can – ugh.  No, you can’t - not without the Hillary voters!

By the way, is one effect of the McCain candidacy that we are seeing more middle-aged bald guys among the punditocracy?..... Buchanan, Murphy, Barnicle, Shrum .. married to one, Obama Grandmama 'o8

Obama we love you.Way to go Oregon.We love Oregon too.Thanks for blowing all the pundits steam out of the water that Obama cannot win the white vote.

Seems as though mccain is as out of touch with his campaign staff as he is with America! No more free ride, expose mccain for the hypocrite and fraud he is!

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
See the TN Republican commercial everyone is talking about. Link at my blog.

Jim: '...Let's weight the large cities containing big African-American populations w/ MORE DELEGATES than the rest of the state b/c of WHITE GUILT...'

NO !
The districts that got extra weight were those that VOTED CONSISTENTLY DEMOCRATIC !
So many AA districts got extra weight
Jimle as that
States that voted Democratic in the last election got more wieght....
Which state would you weigh more: Republican Texas or Democratic New York ?
Remember, Jim these are DEMOCRATIC priamries...

That said the Primary system needs some adjustments
Continue to allow elected officials to to Super Delegates.... Senators, Representatives and Governors

But, get rid of the party apparatchiks as Super Delegates

Mandate REAL PUNISHMENT for states that vote out of turn...
Michigan and Florida office holders were active in breaking the rules..... Punish them !!

Leave Iowa and New Hampshire as the beginning caucus and primary states
Those voters seem serious and educated about hte election

REWARD THEM

ROY WILSON, CRESTLINE, CA (Sent Monday, May 19, 2008 9:53 AM), comparing apples to oranges has not been accepted in any other comparison as of yet.  Why would you try to use that with politics?

If you think that your vote totals of the primaries carry over to the General elections then why have primaries.

It make some people look like complete idiots when they try to justify the outcome of events prior to the events.

Just pipe down and vote in November, either choice you make just vote.

To MSierra, SF,

I would not be on Biden being the Veep nominee.  As experienced as Biden is, he is still an easterner and would not add that much to an Obama ticket.  He is more likely to get a cabinet post (Defense or State) if he wants it.

The best VP choice for Obama would be Bill Richardson.  He would draw Latino voters as well as strengthen Obama's overall position in the West.

Biden is sounding like a viable VP candidate with each passing day.

A Dissertation on Disillusionment: http://blakeneven.blogspot.com

Bush's message to Iran -

(1)we will surround you on both sides, Afghanistan and Iraq, with our military and governments we installed,

(2) we called you part of the "axis of evil,"

(3) we invade unfriendly nations that don't have nuclear weapons.

Why would Iran have an interest in having nuclear weapons?

THE SHEEP ARE GATHERING AROUND OBAMA, FOR THEY HAVE NO MINDS OF THEIR OWN.

Roy Wilson from Monday, May 19, 2008 9:53 AM),
Lot of respect for your opinion and numbers.  But, here's the problem.  That's not the deal that any of the 2008 Dem nominees agreed upon.
I like the current system but would like to tweak it to ALL primaries.  Then, go with a percentage of the popular vote.  This way, we don't always end up with politicians from Caly, Texas, Florida and New York (because those states have the most electoral votes and candidates from those states, especially if early, could snuff out others).

Again, the current system is set up as proportional.  That's why Obama is leading Clinton right now.

MCSame and Bush are one and the same.

Anyone with half a brain can see that.

And we are all full aware what GWB has done to this country.

Try as he may, McBush is OLD news.

The Pubs don't even stand a chance.  They can't even hold on to their LONG held congressional seats.

OUT with the OLD.


Obama 08

As one of the caucus goers from Iowa, I'd like to speak to all the Clinton supporters who want FL and MI votes to count and then say that she won the popular vote.  

How is it fair to say that your votes should count to make Hillary the nominee and that the superdelegates should vote for her based on the popular vote when you have to not count my vote in Iowa to make that happen?  Each state has their own system and the caucus states are a part of the democratic process.  It might interest many Clinton supporters to know that in my district, as well as many others, Obama won much more of the popular vote, which is why he came away with more delegates.

I know everyone wants their candidate to be the nominee, but if you want to claim victory, do it honestly and by the rules.  Trying to justify counting a FL vote for Hillary and taking away my legally-cast vote for Obama in Iowa is hypocritical and shows that you don't care about anything but Hillary winning at any cost.

And isn't that characteristic one of the things that has kept many from voting for Hillary in the first place?
 

Gag me out with this "working class whites" BS.  You would think the only people who work white or otherwise lived in 3 to 4 states.  How do you explain Obama winning 30+ states or are you trying to tell us that the population of these states is all black or that people who work there don't work or all rich?  to me it sounds like a easy way for you guys to try and hide your own racism.  I don't remember you wailing on in states that he won....some by 40+ points.  BTW how many times has Hillary done this compared to  Obama.  If you want to be racist fine just say so up front and stop hiding behind these meaningless arguements.  What every the color of the voters or regardless how hard they work he has put together the winning combination and in the end that is what matters and only that, now and in the GE

What about Nader?

Ralph Nader 2008/12!!!

Don't forget Jack B. Johnson's Delegate switch in Maryland.

YES WE CAN.

Vote against the Democratic Party. It’s the only way to send the message that sexism has to be thrown under the bus, “sweetie.”

VOTE AGAINST OBAMA.

NOT SO MUCH FOR MCCAIN AS IT IS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

To: Roy Wilson, In answer to your question about the system the dems use to elect the nominee, I agree the system has to be revamped a bit, but I disagree that if it were the same as the Republican system that Hillary would have won. The problem was not with the system, the problem was the Hillary and her campaign  never read the rules. They just signed all the necessary documents and "assumed" she wouldn't have a problem winning so they picked the wrong strategy and were doomed from the start. Had the rules been identical to the Republican's then Obama's campaign would have adjusted its strategy accordingly. Simply put, Obama, Axlerod & Plouff read the rules and played by them, Hillary and Penn didn't read the rules and after finding themselves being thumped they tried everything they could to change the rules.

The system itself has worked fine. Obama has been "vetted" and learned that he has to toughen up, respond quickly and powerfully and not stand by , like Kerry did, when people attack him. Obama, having to answer for Rev Wright and other stuff, has done more to prepare himself for the Republicans than if Hillary had dropped out ofter Iowa. I have a strange feeling that Hillary knew she wasn't going to win , but by staying in and attacking Obama she has done more to help assure he is ready for November than anyone could have done. In other words, Hillary has already helped Obama immeasurably by making a "vetted warrior out of the junior Senator from Illinois." The woman is smarter than any of us really know. She isn't going to do anything to lose the Whitehouse for the Dems nd thereby damage her power base in the party.

The dems have also registered more voters than anytime in recent history, they have raised more money than any political candidates in world history and the press is almost 95% always about the dems, leaving John McCain to have to resort to corny jokes about his age on SNL just to get some free camera time.

Obama will win simply because he is using those ears of his to listen to what "we the people" are saying.

It's not only that McCain's staff are lobbyists, it's that they lobby for groups like the junta of Myammar (trying to improve its image) when that junta has been in the news as keeping aid from its own people, or for Airbus (against US industries like Boeing), taking away US industry jobs.

Obama has baggage that tops Hillary's baggage - his association with domestic terrorists and an American Hating racist preacher and his unpatriotic wife.

Thanks Obamabots...you handed us a loser candidate worse than Mondale!

ROY WILSON, CRESTLINE, CA

"IF THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES WERE DESIGNED THE SAME AS THE GENERAL ELECTION (ELECTORAL VOTES BY STATE, WINNER TAKES ALL – WHICH MAKES THE MOST SENSE, SINCE THAT’S HOW THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS DONE) CLINTON WOULD HAVE 295 VOTES (ONLY 270 NEEDED TO WIN) AND OBAMA WOULD ONLY HAVE 206........................  THE SILLY CAUCUS SYSTEM REALLY SKEWS THE RESULTS AND ALLOWS ACTIVISTS TO UNDULY INFLUENCE THE NOMINATION.

Roy, do you not see any difference between 2 Democratic rivals vying for the nomination and the general election between a Republicon and a Democrat?
...Why all of a sudden are caucuses silly?  (because they didn't favor Hillary).  Why are activists voting in the causcus not a good thing?  Aren't the activists the ones who are the most involved in the electoral process, the ones who are most likely to be paying close attention to what goes on in the campaigns  as well as the ones most likely to be aware of the 'untruths' that come from the politicians?  

Re: The Battle To Stereotype

The error here, as Chris Matthews pointed out in his evisceration of Kevin James, is equating the concepts of negotiation with appeasement--this falls away with any intelligent examination, i.e.:

This issue, like so much, requires a focus on the larger goal--a change to a new Administration, and away from the policies and positions of the past, as illustrated well by the "appeasement" debate of the last week:

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hot-bush-injection-brief-history-of.html

Monday, May 19, 2008
Hot Bush "Injection": A Brief History of Appeasement

It was this morning, while on the elliptical machine, that I heard the 20th (when I began counting) reference to Bush having "injected" foreign policy, via his raising of "appeasement" before the Knesset, into the Democratic campaign debate.

Aside from the face that a Bush injection would likely require more investigation from the FDA and CDC than vaccinations laced with 50% thimerosal, the discussion, which has shown surprising legs, has revealed a remarkable lack of basic knowledge about the distinctions between negotiation (e.g. Nixon's intervention with, at the time a rogue Chinese state, which largely prevented conflict and helped to usher China into the family of nations; ) and appeasement--ranging from the Kevin James school of international policy negotiation through utter lack of knowledge to more informed but still significantly incomplete or incorrect understandings of appeasement as it has been used in this context.

Therefore, I provide you with brief, fully accurate history of the "appeasement" that has been raised in these debates, so that those who wish to use actual fact in advancing their arguments can do so (For those who wish to continue to rely on insinuation, distortion, or the ritual, repetitive, seemingly talismanic use of the cry "He's an appeaser! You know! Like Munich! Like Chamberlain!" without knowing what this actually means. Please proceed to Remedial History, room 101B. No gum).

The Munich Agreement:

The Brief Pre-History of Munich:

Hitler, levered into power in January of 1933 (ironically after their first significant national election outcome decrease in 1932, after which they very well may have faded into their earlier insignificance) through the dramatic miscalculations of former Chancellor Von Papen (who, in his proposed role as Vice-Chancellor, hoped to be the "power behind the throne", and to return to the Chancellorship) and prominent Nationalist Alfred Hugenberg, among others to isolate and co-opt Hitler in a cabinet of Conservative Nationalists ("We've hired him"--Von Papen; "We've boxed him in"-Hugenberg), who persuaded the reluctant, aging President Hindenberg to accept this agreement, soon gained primacy and control over the cabinet, government, and increasingly the nation, through a series of questionable legislative (e.g. "The Enabling Act") and viciously revolutionary and counter-revolutionary (i.e., the elimination of other political parties, the Rohm Purge, brutal and cynical anti-Semitic actions by the SA, the Gleischaltung or "Coordination" of virtually all German organizations and press in 1934) actions.

After gaining such control, and with an autarkic economy that, from the start, invested huge sums in rearmament, Hitler brought the German military into coordination as well, under the aegis of the compliant General Blomberg, and with a shared mission of challenging the restraints placed upon German armament under the Versailles Treaty which followed World War I (Hitler's railing against this treaty had been a key element in the rise of the Nazis to power, particularly in the most dire economic phases of the Weimar Republic). In a series of shocking and escalating violations of this treaty, Germany announced the reestablishment of the German Air Force (1935), the reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936) and the Anschluss of Austria (1937), Hitler began an express drive for expansion conveyed as a correction of the Versailles Treaty, but in fact a clearly stated intent to increase the "living space" (Lebensraum) of Germany, and to attain hegemony in Europe (and, eventually, beyond).

In 1938, under the pretext of incorporating the Sudeten Germans who lived in Czechoslovakia (and utilizing Czech Nazi sympathizers to provoke manufactured "incidents" among this group), Hitler continued this expansionist drive by threatening, beginning in the famous "Weekend Crisis" of May 20-22, 1938, to attack Czechoslovakia on behalf of the Sudetens. Months of anti-Czech propaganda created by the Goebbels-controlled ministry continued through June, July and August. Following a vicious tirade at the conclusion of the Party Congress against the Czechs on Sept. 12, threatening action if the "issues" regarding the Sudetenland were not resolved. This provoked a wave of fear and disturbance across France and the Sudetenland.

As a result, on September 15, Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to meet with Hitler. Hitler, in this first meeting, presented Chamberlain with an apparent fait accompli, stating that he would settle the matter himself "one way or another", clearly implying force. Chamberlain met this with the remark that under such conditions, there was no further point in talking--after which, Hitler tactically receded and stated that if the question of incorporation of the Sudetenland was open, discussions should continue. Hitler's ultimate goal here was to use the tactic of Sudeten independence to force Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudeten potion of its nation to Germany, claiming that "we want to Czechs"--e.g., the remaining part of the country--and that without such an incorporation, he would attack--thus unleashing the protective guarantees of France to Czechoslovakia, and thereby, a second World War.

Under such pressure, France, Britain placed pressure on Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland. Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (the French premier) provided the basis for the Munich Agreement--which indeed carved off the Sudetenland, leading to Chamberlain's notorious statement of "peace in our time"--set along side Goebbels statement that "We have achieved everything we wanted according to the small plan, while the big plan is...for the moment, not realizable".

Hitler, in fact, intended to incorporate the rest of Czechoslovakia--and was described as disappointed that the agreement had denied him the opportunity for a war against the Czechs that would allow him this full territorial conquest in a single step. In March of 1939, following a similar propaganda barrage regarding Slovakian nationalist independence, Hitler threatened Czech President Benes with the razing of Belgrade, should he not cede the rest of the nation. Under such threat, Benes collapsed, and the Germans seized the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia without resistance.

Ironically, these constant risk-all gambits led Hitler to his fatal mistake--the conquest of Poland, which, although "victorious", led Britain, France, and ultimately the USA to enter the fight against Germany, and Germany to seek to end the battle against these enemies by removing their most likely ally--the Soviet Union--a combined two front battle which led to the downfall of Nazi Germany.

This was appeasement.

The appeasement here was agreeing to give away Czechoslovakia--carving it into sections, and giving the section, and eventually the nation, away. It was shameful--and wrong.


Negotiation: Talking To Leaders

Despite the endless rhetoric of the past week, negotiation is not appeasement.

Two of many examples:

Nixon's Rapprochement With China:

Despite the well-known failings of the Nixon Presidency, Nixon's engagement with China remains a signal achievement. Note that Nixon, throughout his career, was an ardent fighter of Communism. Thus, we might have fully expected him to take the "negotiation is weakness" position with a country that, at the time, was regarded as a rogue nation in the West.

Nevertheless, this fervent anti-Communist chose to negotiate--a marked change from previous U.S. policy--and continued to do so even as highly inflammatory border attacks occurred between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, stating that "We simply cannot afford to leave China outside the family of nations." (a statement that would likely draw errant fire of commentators from the Right if it were uttered today). With a persistent diplomacy through 1969-1972, culminating in a meeting with Chou en Lai, these negotiations led to a dramatic thawing of relations with both China and the Soviet Union--where, in meetings with Leonid Brezhnev, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, a trade agreement worth a billion dollars, and a SALT treaty were signed.

Here, talk--negotiation--decried as weakness this past week--and at the time of these negotiations--led to success.

Reagan and Gorbachev

Reagan, of course, was noted for referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire."

Despite this stance, he too was willing to negotiate with Gorbachev in the interests of nuclear disarmament--and despite the objections of many on the Right, whose statements at the time regarding the weakness of negotiation could be easily grafted onto the present debates.

As we know, Reagan's meetings, according to Alan Greenspan, "started the sequence of geopolitical initiatives that led Mr. Gorbachev to figuratively tear down the Berlin Wall", and contributed to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Many from the right called for aggressive military action--for missiles first, rather than negotiation
.
Talk--negotiation--led to success.

Note that in each case, the President talked with a leader who they regarded as hostile--in the face of those who argued then, as they do now, that talking--negotiation--signifies weakness.

In each case, talking--strong, informed negotiation--did not result in appeasement of the aggressor, but instead resulted in the desired outcome--in one case, the component breakup of the aggressor nation--in another the end of a threat of nuclear conflict--without a single loss of life.

Negotiation is not appeasement.

When negotiation is chosen, however, it will be the case that those who simply wished for the visceral strike--the simplistic first solution of subduing an enemy through the use of might--will not find its satisfaction. We have seen the results of this position, throughout the years--from the events recounted in the first section, to the present.

Perhaps, in negotiation, it is *they* who have been appeased.

If so, given history--this was a favorable outcome indeed.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hot-bush-injection-brief-history-of.html

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):