Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

double post

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I could see a Richardson/Clinton ticket. (In that order.)

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I'm not convinced all the Obama people are firmly committed. When they see the groundswell for Richardson, some of them might be pried loose.

With Richardson, we still have the ethnic thing going, the troops leave Iraq so we should get the non-flakey anti-war crowd--and immunize the Party against RPaul, and we get the Gore environmentalists. Richardson has possibilities. (But yes, I want a better health care program.) With 3/4's of the country over-weight, is Richardson's weight really a problem? He can run as a hero for the hefties.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Tell the Obama people that if he stays in the Senate another term or two, or better still serves as governor, gets a little older, and in the meantime backs Richardson/Clinton, then we will listen to him on issues he considers important and also back him next time around.

What do you say, RTeacher? Did we mention that Richardson deeply respects Eastern religions?

Czarjorge · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject:

If you want to keep this as realistic as possible the Obama people can't jump ship. In an actual caucus once you've 'cast' for a viable candidate that's it, you've voted.

If it's a fifty/fifty split then, and there would be two delegates, each representing half of the district. So, say the mock distict has 100 registered dems then both would have 50 'votes' in the county caucus.

And why Richardson? Yeah, he was governor, but of a state with one of the worst economies in the country. And a Rep would spank him on the national from when it comes to immigration.

I do like Biden though, when it comes time to caucus for real I doubt I'll get to caucus for Obama, so I'm hoping I can go with Biden instead. It's too bad people are keyed in on Obama's "lack of experience." I actually take that as a strength, not weakness. He's more idealistic than realistic, and that's what the US needs.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

I agree America needs to be more realistic, especially in foreign affairs. What do "idealistic" and "realistic" mean to you, by the way? People like Jefferson, McKinley, Wilson, JFK, and W. Bush speak idealistically (saving the world for democracy and freedom, etc.); people like Washington and Adams, FDR, Eisenhower, and Nixon/Kissinger speak realistically, that is, about American interests, and usually amorally.

Obama is slowly getting away from idealism and becoming a realist every day. This encourages me. But, your assertion notwithstanding, he is not quite there yet.

Czarjorge · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject:

Sorry, I edited that sentence. It was poorly written. I blame the insomnia, and the sugary Xmas cookies.

Though I see what you're saying given the distinction you raise between idealistic and realistic. Though a number of people, Ron Paul amongst them, would probably call FDR an idealist, the new deal was definitely an idealistic program.

I guess I would say there is a third category, the cynic. I think Bush, or the people who run him, are cynical. Nixon was cynical.

Or maybe it would be better to make two camps in the idealistic group, 'liberal' and 'conservative.' Neither word has any real meaning any more, but are accepted, just like 'American,' however unfortunate their usage.

Either way, what I like about Obama is that he seems open minded in a way I haven't seen from a politician in my lifetime. Some people might think saying he's sit down with Ahmadinejad is a bad thing, that it gives away a bargaining chip. I think that the refusal to bargain is a non-starter where diplomacy is concerned. 'Do what we say or we won't talk to you' seems an unreasonable way to operate in terms of foreign policy. I also believe that Obama has the potential to bring many diverse groups together. The point I was trying to make is that relative inexperience also gives him the view of an outsider, or a person who is not so specialized that they can't see the big picture anymore. And that, in my opinion, is a strength at this point in the US's history.

Additionally, his "inexperience" also gives him more clout diplomatically as he's not part of the groups that have generated the international dislike of the US. Khadafi said he would work with the US to fight terrorism, but was rebuffed by the Bushies. Obama might be the man to wed the idealism of giving this kind of man another chance with the pragmatism of using him to our own ends. Why we'll work with Musharraf and not Khadafi I don't understand, but I digress.

Aside from that, I just like Obama. He seems sincere without seeming harsh, and I can only say that about Biden, who I don't think has a chance nationally.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Czarjorge · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject:

Fair enough. I'm coming more from a philosophy background as far as the terminology goes.

See, we can have a reasoned discussion. Was that so bad?

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Czarjorge · Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject:

Yes, but that's not my finger.

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

I'm sticking with "Obama-rama" (Once you go black, you never go back - unless there's a hot Asian chick ...)

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

In case anyone missed it:

State Football Championships

Class 4A - Bettendorf def. Ankeny 21-16
Class 3A - Keokuk def. Sioux City Heelan 42-7
Class 2A - Solon def. Central Lyon 24-7
Class 1A - Council Bluffs St. Albert def. Iowa City Regina 7-6
Class A - Wapsie Valley def. Lawton-Bronson 22-14
8-man - Stanton def. Armstrong-Ringsted 32-24