Not too bad, although it brings me no comfort that he's reading Friedman. Friedman is for ignoring.
That last paragraph is pretty much how I'm feeling too, although leaning Obama, probably for dubious reasons (local boy makes good, etc.).
Nothing wrong with that reasoning, says the Carolinian.
We've already discounted. Biden, right? I don't think I could vote for him,even in a general election.
I'm going to be really, really unhappy if it's HRC, but I'll pull the trigger for her in the general if it comes to that.
Still resentful of the U.S. overthrow of Mosedegh, there is no doubt the Iranians would rally around Almandine-Jihad in the event of a military confrontation, and their resentment would solidify for generations. It is doubtful Bush fully comprehends the stakes.
A more visionary candidate would see an opportunity to engage Iran in a renewed relationship predicated on regional stability. Iran has much more to loose than nuclear energy. There are 35 million Kurds and even more Sunnis breathing down their neck. The Iranians understand the chessboard perfectly well, and my vote goes to the candidate(s) who understands this as a diplomatic opportunity.
4:The Obama remark has nothing to do with why I would never vote for Biden. I still hold a grudge from the Clarence Thomas hearings, when he was insufficiently vicious and partisan.
General point about an attack on Iran: Think big, bigger, biggest! Okay, maybe not biggest. But won't be no surgical strike.
I like Obama. Partially because I like what he says. Partially for the very non-Hirshman approved reason that when Obama speaks, I feel happy and hopeful about politics again.
The thing that kills me about all this Iran crazytalk is that if we could just get over the hostages (I know, I know) Iran is actually the best candidate for a long-term ally in the middle east that we have. A more educated public, with more experience with democracy, and a huge population of young people who dig on western culture, than any other mideastern country. It's such a waste that we can't take advantage of the opportunity because of bullshit posturing.
Of course, I say this as if I knew anything about middle east history and politics, when in fact, I do not.
Are we still allied with the Kurds? Is Iran now allied with the Kurds?
Is the alliance relation reliably transitive?
"Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we'll make nuclear fuel available to you, we'll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose."
Didn't the Russians already offer that, only to be turned down?
"Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they're the ones with the economic relationship with Iran"
Would that work without the Russians and Chinese? (Mind, I do not ask in the context of if not, therefore we should bomb them.)
"I can't think of anyone in the Democratic field who sounds like a real problem. "
I suggest that Kucinich has an electability problem.
America could vote for a hobbit with a hot girlfriend. We are a sage people.
I don't even know if i'd vote for HRC in a general, depending on the republican nominee.
9.
Cerebrocat, total agreement. This military posturing thing is totally counter-productive. Actually, Almandine-Jihad is not that popular, witness his electoral losses last month. If we just cool it, maybe talk to the clerics directly, there is an opportunity here. As you point out, the younger generation identifies more with the West and can't wait until the posturing is history. Bide our time, unless, of course, the neo-cons will blow it. And it will a terrible price to pay in the long term.
Almandine-Jihad and Shrub may be on opposite sides of the coin, but it is the same coin in terms of reactiveness. More than ever, we need level heads.
Postscript: The Iranians are a great people. We can't afford to antagonize them with another CIA blunder and loose them forever.
"Postscript: The Iranians are a great people."
Who are some petty people?
Who are some petty people?
Dallas debutantes?
That was a pretty waffling and evasive interview, in lots of ways. It was badly performed by Ezra too. He didn't, for example, ask what our reaction would be to an Israeli strike on Iran, which is the most likely military scenario here. (Not to mention that Ezra talked way too much). Edwards said actually invading Iran would be a bad idea (pretty damn obvious at this point), but refused to rule out all kinds of military options. He was also totally evasive on the Israeli/Palestinian question. IMO not a great showing from the "left wing" candidate.
MQ, there is no shortage of chicken-shit no matter where one turns.
Sic Semper Tyrannis is reporting that it is StratCom drawing up the plans for Iran.
StratCom. Aw fuck.
8.
I get a similar happy, warm and fuzzy feeling about Obama. I'm going to be mightily disappointed if he doesn't run. I could vote for HRC or Edwards but I really, really want to vote for Obama.
13.
Then again, a hobbit with a hot girlfriend might liven things up at the White House.
21. Stratcom
Definitely a brain-vacuum in Washington.
16.
Correction: The CIA blunder was Mosedegh's ouster years ago. The cherry picking of CIA intelligence is the more recent Bush/Cheney blunder. It seems the C/B team is cherry-picking again. Why blame the sins of the spooks for the sins of the kooks?
"Correction: The CIA blunder was Mosedegh's ouster years ago. "
In fairness, they didn't wander off and do that on their own, either; the responsibility was entirely Eisenhower's and Dulles', along with the British.
I still suspect Edwards on the hawkish front. Petey on Yglesias is an enormous Edwards fan, and Petey has major problems. A lot of people are sort of saying "Clinton and Edwards have to say hawkish things to get elected, or think that they do", but that's the kind of "trust me" thing that you should never do. I think that all Democrats are at least as hawkish as they seem, maybe more.
I sort of like Obama, but he's just way too slender and well-groomed.
Ya know, by 2008, we will have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 20 years.
There will be voters in this next Presidential election who have for their ENTIRE LIVES never had anything but a Clinton or a Bush as President. Anyone born in 1967 or after has never voted in a Presidential election where there wasn't a Bush or Clinton on the ticket. 1967!
Enough is enough. There are, what, 300 million people in this country? I think we can find a President outside one of these two families.
Are their any extra Bhuttos or Gandhis? Switching dynasties would be nice.
"I think we can find a President outside one of these two families. "
Clearly, we should instead have a Kennedy.