reader @ 261
Good insight. And I agree with your judgement about the inevitability of that outcome, if the democrats follow their usual thinking and usual advisors.

There are very strong factors pushing for an attack on Iran, most notably the lobby whose name invokes moderation, and they are going to hedge their bets but they’ll back the candidate most likely to attack Iran. …

…to rid Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction, an objective that had already been accomplished by Hilary’s husband, without the spilling of American blood and without the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. And he did so in the wisest of military traditions:

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins,
but excels in winning with ease. But his victories bring him neither
reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage. For inasmuch as they
are gained over circumstnces that have not come to light, the world at
large knows nothing of them, and he therfore wins no reputation for
wisdom; and inasmuch as the hostile state submits before there has
been any bloodshed, he receives no credit for courage. [Sun Tzu, The
Art of War, 400BC]

…
IMHO, clever campaign advisors could, with the help of wise military folks, exploit this comparision.

How knowledgeable of you to notice the Sun Tzu point.

There’s an old line about magic tricks and circus tricks. If they’re done too well and don’t appear risky, then the audience will tire of your show. But, the truly skilled artist is the one who entertains the audience by adding an element of risk to thrill the audience as well as amaze them.

To achieve a political victory without it being noticed is surely something of which we’ve never heard.

So, what are we likely to see in the coming months which will be ‘normal’ politics? Speeches, investigations, committee hearings, a few indictments, perhaps even one or two more resignations from the Bush administratin (if we’re lucky).

But, what is going to amaze us? Gore thrills us, but at this point I don’t see him taking the leap. Bush amazes us in a spectacularly destructive way, so we can always look for him to say something goofy. Rove…yeah, Rove knows how to manipulate, but it’s not ever uplifting. Besides, his guy is toast, so who is he working for? No, we have to look to world events and how the political candidates for prez respond. A lot has already happened, so we might notice some trends shaping up — even if the general public isn’t quite clued in yet.

Who will amaze AND make it look spectacular or exciting? Maybe Obama could. Come primary time Edwards might. Bill Clinton could speak up and make something interesting happen; though I don’t know what it would be. I suppose there are some individuals who could endorse a candidate in the Fall, but who would have more impact than the candidates themselves? Nope, it looks like world events Bush and then candidates responses to it. A winner will naturally emerge.

“The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets,” Clark said. “It’s not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It’s really going to be found in changing the conditions. It’s going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy.”

~ Gen. Wesley Clark, October 17, 2001, Annual Lecture sponsored by the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University.

The biggest shock about Hillary (and BTW, I was overjoyed when she won her N.Y. senate seat. We came very near to seeing Trent Lott get down on all fours to eat his hairpiece, under the capitol rotunda) aside from her support for the shitmire, is that she just isn’t very politically sharp. And evidently, neither is her staff.

For us, politically, she’s a train-wreck waiting to happen. I’m not endorsing Edwards, but I hope he beats her by 15 points in Iowa.

:o)

OT but important in regards to the previous thread on right wing think tanks promoting dictatorship. The NSDAP in Germany critiqued the Weimar government at every opportunity to undermine the people’s confindence in democracy. They posited the proposition that fascism was the only realistic alternative for returning the German nation to power and productivity. The right wing think tanks in America are attempting the same strategy. First they undermine the people’s confidence in government per se and are now undermining the notion of “democracy.” The left needs to tackle the problems created by the Heritage Foundation, the AEI, Cato Institute et al. This is a difficult proposition given the fact that they are now seen as “legitmate” players on the political scene. They have to be exposed as the anti-democratic, anti-American threats that they truly are.

Ultimately, the American voters have to be sold on the notion that “quality of life” is the standard by which to judge a government — not GDP, aggregate wealth, the Dow Jones indes, or anything else that simply reflects how the wealthy are doing.

The AEI will grant that freedom and democracy are good things. But they mean “freedom to commit economic piracy” and “the most democratic government money can buy.”

Oh, behave!

No. :o)

How many people on here think that, as Hillary said in the most recent debate, that we’re safer now than before 9-11?

I hate that she said that.

No. :o)

How many people on here think that, as Hillary said in the most recent debate, that we’re safer now than before 9-11?