Instead, as early at 7 pm, two full hours before the event a crowd wrapped around the entire recreation field waiting to get in. An estimate 7,000 people showed up inside the ARC and another perhaps 2,000 were eventually turned away. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the crowd was that perhaps 90 percent of it was students.
I originally got into the event as a member of the press corps. However, eventually I went with the Sodexho Food Service Workers who were VIPs and able to go into the “Green Seating Area” which gave them access to the behind the stage seating and eventually a personal meeting with the former President himself (see the other article for more details).
The President was introduced by among others, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Senator Mike Machado, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma from San Francisco, Speaker Fabian Nunez, and Lt. Governor John Garamendi. The special introductions were done by Max Mikalonis, the President of the Davis College Democratic Club, one of the events sponsors and organizers.
The former President showed up his customary 20 minutes late and spoke for upwards of 45 minutes. He himself seemed surprised by how many people showed up. He said he called up Hillary after the debate, and said,
“Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long.”
Clinton spend a good deal of time talking about themes such as the crunch that the middle class are facing in this country, the lack of job growth in the last eight years opposed to his years on the presidency.
One of the big points he made was the housing crisis where people who took out mortgages in good faith were taken advantage of.
He talked about the America’s fall in stature over the last eight years and restoring the trust of the international community.
One of the more important points he made was he felt that in this election–meaning the primary–he was voting for someone–his wife–rather than against someone. He went on to spell out his tremendous respect and personal ties for each of the key challengers. He talked about the service that former Candidate Bill Richardson had served this country both as a cabinet member under him and a Governor. He talked about the service Chris Dodd had given this country as the Senator who sponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first act he signed. He talked about the statesmanship of Joe Biden.
He talked about going to North Carolina to campaign to John Edwards in 1998 and going to Illinois to campaign for Barack Obama in 2004.
He then went on to talk about health care and how important it was that hard working people have access to universal health care. He talked about one of the key failures of his administration, the failure to get universal health care. Pointing out that he was hardly to the first to do so. And that this failure was a failure of Hillary Clinton.
The key he said was not whether you fail, but how you respond to that failure and he listed off a litany of programs that he passed after health care went down that helped out working people in this country. And he made the point that you cannot be afraid to fail. Everyone who attempts to do something will fail at some of their endeavors. You cannot be afraid of failure to the point where you never try to succeed.
Following the speech, the Former President greeted a good portion of the crowd that had swarmed against the barricades, at times threatening to breech those barriers. We were allowed as VIPS to go behind the barricades and wait to meet the President himself. But first we had to wait for the President to sign autographs, shake hands, and take picture with literally hundreds if not thousands of supporters.
Anyone wondering of the strength of the Hillary candidacy amid the enthusiastic throng that got into the ARC needs to reevaluate. If all of these students and young people come out and vote in a few weeks, Hillary Clinton will be in very strong position. If all of these students and many more like them across the nation come out and vote in November, we will see yet another wage of support and a new Democratic President.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
It was good to see all our local politicos that are endorsing Hilary Clinton for President – Steve Souza, Ruth Asmundson, etc. They must be endorsing her because they arrived at 8:30 pm, bypassed the line outside and got seats up on the stage behind Clinton.
It was good to see all our local politicos that are endorsing Hilary Clinton for President – Steve Souza, Ruth Asmundson, etc. They must be endorsing her because they arrived at 8:30 pm, bypassed the line outside and got seats up on the stage behind Clinton.
It was good to see all our local politicos that are endorsing Hilary Clinton for President – Steve Souza, Ruth Asmundson, etc. They must be endorsing her because they arrived at 8:30 pm, bypassed the line outside and got seats up on the stage behind Clinton.
It was good to see all our local politicos that are endorsing Hilary Clinton for President – Steve Souza, Ruth Asmundson, etc. They must be endorsing her because they arrived at 8:30 pm, bypassed the line outside and got seats up on the stage behind Clinton.
There probably would be as large a crowd for an appearance of Brittany Spears. Hillary loses to all the leading Republican candidates in the recent polls. The Independents will vote Republican if she gets the nomination. The Clinton campaign cannot help but get viscious(it’s just their style) as Obama’s threat to their political dynasty continues to grow. This will further alienate even Obama Democratic supporters who will see little difference between Hillary and the inevitable “moderate” “Republican presidential candidate.
There probably would be as large a crowd for an appearance of Brittany Spears. Hillary loses to all the leading Republican candidates in the recent polls. The Independents will vote Republican if she gets the nomination. The Clinton campaign cannot help but get viscious(it’s just their style) as Obama’s threat to their political dynasty continues to grow. This will further alienate even Obama Democratic supporters who will see little difference between Hillary and the inevitable “moderate” “Republican presidential candidate.
There probably would be as large a crowd for an appearance of Brittany Spears. Hillary loses to all the leading Republican candidates in the recent polls. The Independents will vote Republican if she gets the nomination. The Clinton campaign cannot help but get viscious(it’s just their style) as Obama’s threat to their political dynasty continues to grow. This will further alienate even Obama Democratic supporters who will see little difference between Hillary and the inevitable “moderate” “Republican presidential candidate.
There probably would be as large a crowd for an appearance of Brittany Spears. Hillary loses to all the leading Republican candidates in the recent polls. The Independents will vote Republican if she gets the nomination. The Clinton campaign cannot help but get viscious(it’s just their style) as Obama’s threat to their political dynasty continues to grow. This will further alienate even Obama Democratic supporters who will see little difference between Hillary and the inevitable “moderate” “Republican presidential candidate.
Too bad there wasn’t a larger venue. We stood in the cold for 1.5 hrs and did not get in.
Too bad there wasn’t a larger venue. We stood in the cold for 1.5 hrs and did not get in.
Too bad there wasn’t a larger venue. We stood in the cold for 1.5 hrs and did not get in.
Too bad there wasn’t a larger venue. We stood in the cold for 1.5 hrs and did not get in.
Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again.
Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again.
Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again.
Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again.
i would not assume that the size of the crowd reflects support for the clinton campaign, specifically. enthusiasm for democrats in general, quite likely, but my guess is that the same crowd would have turned out for any campaign appearance by the 3 frontrunners.
both clinton and edwards sold out mondavi shows, and that was outside of campaign season. if obama comes to town, he’d be well advised to schedule multiple speeches, or else use the new stadium.
i would not assume that the size of the crowd reflects support for the clinton campaign, specifically. enthusiasm for democrats in general, quite likely, but my guess is that the same crowd would have turned out for any campaign appearance by the 3 frontrunners.
both clinton and edwards sold out mondavi shows, and that was outside of campaign season. if obama comes to town, he’d be well advised to schedule multiple speeches, or else use the new stadium.
i would not assume that the size of the crowd reflects support for the clinton campaign, specifically. enthusiasm for democrats in general, quite likely, but my guess is that the same crowd would have turned out for any campaign appearance by the 3 frontrunners.
both clinton and edwards sold out mondavi shows, and that was outside of campaign season. if obama comes to town, he’d be well advised to schedule multiple speeches, or else use the new stadium.
i would not assume that the size of the crowd reflects support for the clinton campaign, specifically. enthusiasm for democrats in general, quite likely, but my guess is that the same crowd would have turned out for any campaign appearance by the 3 frontrunners.
both clinton and edwards sold out mondavi shows, and that was outside of campaign season. if obama comes to town, he’d be well advised to schedule multiple speeches, or else use the new stadium.
I knew I had made the right decision to forgo this event when the cold winds picked up and thousands were turned away. A good friend pointed out that Asmundson and Souza were out in the cold as well – but there was no surprise to see their picture this morning with them strategically seated behind the former prez.
I knew I had made the right decision to forgo this event when the cold winds picked up and thousands were turned away. A good friend pointed out that Asmundson and Souza were out in the cold as well – but there was no surprise to see their picture this morning with them strategically seated behind the former prez.
I knew I had made the right decision to forgo this event when the cold winds picked up and thousands were turned away. A good friend pointed out that Asmundson and Souza were out in the cold as well – but there was no surprise to see their picture this morning with them strategically seated behind the former prez.
I knew I had made the right decision to forgo this event when the cold winds picked up and thousands were turned away. A good friend pointed out that Asmundson and Souza were out in the cold as well – but there was no surprise to see their picture this morning with them strategically seated behind the former prez.
Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some
h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000. He abandoned his responsibility to his office and to all Americans. His current celebrity status last evening is difficult to fathom.
Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some
h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000. He abandoned his responsibility to his office and to all Americans. His current celebrity status last evening is difficult to fathom.
Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some
h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000. He abandoned his responsibility to his office and to all Americans. His current celebrity status last evening is difficult to fathom.
Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some
h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000. He abandoned his responsibility to his office and to all Americans. His current celebrity status last evening is difficult to fathom.
Why anyone want a complete narcassist in this town is beyond me.. well, different strokes..
I agree with another anonymous. It is much harder for victims of hate crimes get taken seriously when bratty teenagers pull stunts like that.
Why anyone want a complete narcassist in this town is beyond me.. well, different strokes..
I agree with another anonymous. It is much harder for victims of hate crimes get taken seriously when bratty teenagers pull stunts like that.
Why anyone want a complete narcassist in this town is beyond me.. well, different strokes..
I agree with another anonymous. It is much harder for victims of hate crimes get taken seriously when bratty teenagers pull stunts like that.
Why anyone want a complete narcassist in this town is beyond me.. well, different strokes..
I agree with another anonymous. It is much harder for victims of hate crimes get taken seriously when bratty teenagers pull stunts like that.
Is there a another way to post the photos so that they can be viewed in a “slide-show” venue? Thanks for the coverage of the Sodexho workers, hopefully this will translate into more pressure on the UCD administration.
Is there a another way to post the photos so that they can be viewed in a “slide-show” venue? Thanks for the coverage of the Sodexho workers, hopefully this will translate into more pressure on the UCD administration.
Is there a another way to post the photos so that they can be viewed in a “slide-show” venue? Thanks for the coverage of the Sodexho workers, hopefully this will translate into more pressure on the UCD administration.
Is there a another way to post the photos so that they can be viewed in a “slide-show” venue? Thanks for the coverage of the Sodexho workers, hopefully this will translate into more pressure on the UCD administration.
Folks:
This is for everyone:
“Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again. “
If there is something that you guys want covered, I recommend that you either email me or write up a guest commentary. I’m one person trying to cover a large range of stuff.
That is a story that I was hoping to cover but I have a former President coming to town, a primary election a few weeks away, and the most important housing issue coming to a head next week. Plus I’m doing extensive research on a major issue that will likely break in early February.
I worked 16 hours yesterday, if you want something covered write up and email me. I’ve never turned down a guest piece.
The story that Jann Murray-Garcia wrote on and I wrote on several weeks ago was actually not the Holmes Junior High incident but rather an incident that occur before that at two private residences.
I invite anonymous to write a guest commentary on this issue, but I would ask that in the future you not post off-topic posts.
Thank you.
Folks:
This is for everyone:
“Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again. “
If there is something that you guys want covered, I recommend that you either email me or write up a guest commentary. I’m one person trying to cover a large range of stuff.
That is a story that I was hoping to cover but I have a former President coming to town, a primary election a few weeks away, and the most important housing issue coming to a head next week. Plus I’m doing extensive research on a major issue that will likely break in early February.
I worked 16 hours yesterday, if you want something covered write up and email me. I’ve never turned down a guest piece.
The story that Jann Murray-Garcia wrote on and I wrote on several weeks ago was actually not the Holmes Junior High incident but rather an incident that occur before that at two private residences.
I invite anonymous to write a guest commentary on this issue, but I would ask that in the future you not post off-topic posts.
Thank you.
Folks:
This is for everyone:
“Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again. “
If there is something that you guys want covered, I recommend that you either email me or write up a guest commentary. I’m one person trying to cover a large range of stuff.
That is a story that I was hoping to cover but I have a former President coming to town, a primary election a few weeks away, and the most important housing issue coming to a head next week. Plus I’m doing extensive research on a major issue that will likely break in early February.
I worked 16 hours yesterday, if you want something covered write up and email me. I’ve never turned down a guest piece.
The story that Jann Murray-Garcia wrote on and I wrote on several weeks ago was actually not the Holmes Junior High incident but rather an incident that occur before that at two private residences.
I invite anonymous to write a guest commentary on this issue, but I would ask that in the future you not post off-topic posts.
Thank you.
Folks:
This is for everyone:
“Why is the Vanguard not reporting today that the “hate crime” grafitti sprayed at Holmes Junior High School a few weeks ago, was actually done by a young black female student at Holmes? I hope that reporting isn’t going to be “buried” in the back pages of the Vanguard. Wouldn’t want Jann Murray-Garcia to miss the article again. “
If there is something that you guys want covered, I recommend that you either email me or write up a guest commentary. I’m one person trying to cover a large range of stuff.
That is a story that I was hoping to cover but I have a former President coming to town, a primary election a few weeks away, and the most important housing issue coming to a head next week. Plus I’m doing extensive research on a major issue that will likely break in early February.
I worked 16 hours yesterday, if you want something covered write up and email me. I’ve never turned down a guest piece.
The story that Jann Murray-Garcia wrote on and I wrote on several weeks ago was actually not the Holmes Junior High incident but rather an incident that occur before that at two private residences.
I invite anonymous to write a guest commentary on this issue, but I would ask that in the future you not post off-topic posts.
Thank you.
To Mike Adams:
I did not put it in slide show format. I will likely do that later. Just haven’t had a chance to do so this morning.
To Mike Adams:
I did not put it in slide show format. I will likely do that later. Just haven’t had a chance to do so this morning.
To Mike Adams:
I did not put it in slide show format. I will likely do that later. Just haven’t had a chance to do so this morning.
To Mike Adams:
I did not put it in slide show format. I will likely do that later. Just haven’t had a chance to do so this morning.
“Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long.”
One of the problems for Senator Clinton is that her husband is a rockstar and has the tendency to outshine her. My guess is that far fewer people would come out to see Mrs. Clinton than would come to see Bill…. Obama, on the other hand, is a pop idol in his own right. He’s drawing huge crowds of students wherever he goes….
“Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000.”
This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
My take on 2000 is that if Ralph Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won Florida and would have been elected president. Or, if Al Gore had not run against the record of the Clinton Administration, had instead run an upbeat campaign stressing all of the positives of Clinton’s 8 years in office, Gore would have won in Tennessee and Arkansas and would have been elected president.
Unfortunately, Gore ran a John Edwards-esque campaign, stressing all that was wrong and failing. He never talked about the fantastic economy in the Clinton years. He didn’t focus on the successes in Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. Gore sent out a negative vibe, and that hurt his chances with middle of the road independents.
“Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long.”
One of the problems for Senator Clinton is that her husband is a rockstar and has the tendency to outshine her. My guess is that far fewer people would come out to see Mrs. Clinton than would come to see Bill…. Obama, on the other hand, is a pop idol in his own right. He’s drawing huge crowds of students wherever he goes….
“Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000.”
This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
My take on 2000 is that if Ralph Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won Florida and would have been elected president. Or, if Al Gore had not run against the record of the Clinton Administration, had instead run an upbeat campaign stressing all of the positives of Clinton’s 8 years in office, Gore would have won in Tennessee and Arkansas and would have been elected president.
Unfortunately, Gore ran a John Edwards-esque campaign, stressing all that was wrong and failing. He never talked about the fantastic economy in the Clinton years. He didn’t focus on the successes in Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. Gore sent out a negative vibe, and that hurt his chances with middle of the road independents.
“Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long.”
One of the problems for Senator Clinton is that her husband is a rockstar and has the tendency to outshine her. My guess is that far fewer people would come out to see Mrs. Clinton than would come to see Bill…. Obama, on the other hand, is a pop idol in his own right. He’s drawing huge crowds of students wherever he goes….
“Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000.”
This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
My take on 2000 is that if Ralph Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won Florida and would have been elected president. Or, if Al Gore had not run against the record of the Clinton Administration, had instead run an upbeat campaign stressing all of the positives of Clinton’s 8 years in office, Gore would have won in Tennessee and Arkansas and would have been elected president.
Unfortunately, Gore ran a John Edwards-esque campaign, stressing all that was wrong and failing. He never talked about the fantastic economy in the Clinton years. He didn’t focus on the successes in Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. Gore sent out a negative vibe, and that hurt his chances with middle of the road independents.
“Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long.”
One of the problems for Senator Clinton is that her husband is a rockstar and has the tendency to outshine her. My guess is that far fewer people would come out to see Mrs. Clinton than would come to see Bill…. Obama, on the other hand, is a pop idol in his own right. He’s drawing huge crowds of students wherever he goes….
“Just to remind those who were around then, Bill Clinton chose to get some h….. from a 20 y.o. intern and risk incapacitating his presidency as well as enabling Bush to take the presidency in 2000.”
This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
My take on 2000 is that if Ralph Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won Florida and would have been elected president. Or, if Al Gore had not run against the record of the Clinton Administration, had instead run an upbeat campaign stressing all of the positives of Clinton’s 8 years in office, Gore would have won in Tennessee and Arkansas and would have been elected president.
Unfortunately, Gore ran a John Edwards-esque campaign, stressing all that was wrong and failing. He never talked about the fantastic economy in the Clinton years. He didn’t focus on the successes in Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. Gore sent out a negative vibe, and that hurt his chances with middle of the road independents.
Excellent post Rich. I totally echo those sentiments.
Bill ran the business of the country like a very effective CEO. It would have been a big plus if he had run his personal life just as effectively, but given the choice between success as our President and success as a moral person, I’ll choose the former 10 times out of 10.
Excellent post Rich. I totally echo those sentiments.
Bill ran the business of the country like a very effective CEO. It would have been a big plus if he had run his personal life just as effectively, but given the choice between success as our President and success as a moral person, I’ll choose the former 10 times out of 10.
Excellent post Rich. I totally echo those sentiments.
Bill ran the business of the country like a very effective CEO. It would have been a big plus if he had run his personal life just as effectively, but given the choice between success as our President and success as a moral person, I’ll choose the former 10 times out of 10.
Excellent post Rich. I totally echo those sentiments.
Bill ran the business of the country like a very effective CEO. It would have been a big plus if he had run his personal life just as effectively, but given the choice between success as our President and success as a moral person, I’ll choose the former 10 times out of 10.
Rich Rifkin said:
The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money! The Clinton years presaged the bubble bursting, the white-color pillaging of the economy and the undying hatred of the Iraqis for causing the total collapse of their country due to the sanctions..
The Clinton years carried the mark of its namesake, i.e. narcissism and easy gratification(inability to keep it zipped up)
Rich Rifkin said:
The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money! The Clinton years presaged the bubble bursting, the white-color pillaging of the economy and the undying hatred of the Iraqis for causing the total collapse of their country due to the sanctions..
The Clinton years carried the mark of its namesake, i.e. narcissism and easy gratification(inability to keep it zipped up)
Rich Rifkin said:
The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money! The Clinton years presaged the bubble bursting, the white-color pillaging of the economy and the undying hatred of the Iraqis for causing the total collapse of their country due to the sanctions..
The Clinton years carried the mark of its namesake, i.e. narcissism and easy gratification(inability to keep it zipped up)
Rich Rifkin said:
The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.
Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money! The Clinton years presaged the bubble bursting, the white-color pillaging of the economy and the undying hatred of the Iraqis for causing the total collapse of their country due to the sanctions..
The Clinton years carried the mark of its namesake, i.e. narcissism and easy gratification(inability to keep it zipped up)
“This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.”
Rich,
Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls? Those are often unreliable. Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.
Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?
Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office. The World Trade Center, Cobart towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency. That is not what I call peace. That doesn’t mean those were his own fault mind you, but to claim the US was in a state of peace during his presidency is just untrue.
“This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.”
Rich,
Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls? Those are often unreliable. Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.
Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?
Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office. The World Trade Center, Cobart towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency. That is not what I call peace. That doesn’t mean those were his own fault mind you, but to claim the US was in a state of peace during his presidency is just untrue.
“This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.”
Rich,
Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls? Those are often unreliable. Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.
Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?
Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office. The World Trade Center, Cobart towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency. That is not what I call peace. That doesn’t mean those were his own fault mind you, but to claim the US was in a state of peace during his presidency is just untrue.
“This ignores the fact that when Bill Clinton left office, he was the most popular two-term president in U.S. history at his exit. Because of the failed trial in the Senate, following his highly unpopular impeachment, Americans had moved on from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The vast majority of us were pleased with 8 years of a good economy and peace at home and abroad.”
Rich,
Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls? Those are often unreliable. Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.
Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?
Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office. The World Trade Center, Cobart towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency. That is not what I call peace. That doesn’t mean those were his own fault mind you, but to claim the US was in a state of peace during his presidency is just untrue.
“Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money!”
Al Gore never should have hired you as his speechwriter. No wonder he lost.
“Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls?”
According to the Gallup Poll, Clinton left office more popular than any other two-term president in the history of scientific polling.
“Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.”
Gore ran an anti-Clinton campaign, which turned off middle of the road voters.
“Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?”
Clinton didn’t do anything to harm the economy. He was the beneficiary of events beyond his control, but his era’s balanced budgets, modest increases in non-defense spending, reductions in defense waste and free trade treaties all helped.
“Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office.”
It was not “right after” he left office.
“The World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency.”
All those added together don’t add up to one typical day in Iraq, now, in terms of our losses in men and materiel.
In hindsight, I think you can fairly assign Clinton some blame for not responding adequately to the rise of al-Qaeda. But you can’t blame him for 9-11, and certainly you can’t blame him for Bush’s decision to move “the war on terror” to Iraq.
“That is not what I call peace.”
If you compare the years of the Clinton Administration to the other presidents since Eisenhower, his is the most peaceful. Granted, in Ford’s time, we didn’t have much of a war (save the Cold War), but South Vietnam did fall when he was in office. In Carter’s years, we did not lose any soldiers (that I recall right now). But we had endless crises in foreign policy, led by the 444 days of the Iran Hostage situation. In all of the others, we had hot wars.
“Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money!”
Al Gore never should have hired you as his speechwriter. No wonder he lost.
“Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls?”
According to the Gallup Poll, Clinton left office more popular than any other two-term president in the history of scientific polling.
“Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.”
Gore ran an anti-Clinton campaign, which turned off middle of the road voters.
“Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?”
Clinton didn’t do anything to harm the economy. He was the beneficiary of events beyond his control, but his era’s balanced budgets, modest increases in non-defense spending, reductions in defense waste and free trade treaties all helped.
“Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office.”
It was not “right after” he left office.
“The World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency.”
All those added together don’t add up to one typical day in Iraq, now, in terms of our losses in men and materiel.
In hindsight, I think you can fairly assign Clinton some blame for not responding adequately to the rise of al-Qaeda. But you can’t blame him for 9-11, and certainly you can’t blame him for Bush’s decision to move “the war on terror” to Iraq.
“That is not what I call peace.”
If you compare the years of the Clinton Administration to the other presidents since Eisenhower, his is the most peaceful. Granted, in Ford’s time, we didn’t have much of a war (save the Cold War), but South Vietnam did fall when he was in office. In Carter’s years, we did not lose any soldiers (that I recall right now). But we had endless crises in foreign policy, led by the 444 days of the Iran Hostage situation. In all of the others, we had hot wars.
“Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money!”
Al Gore never should have hired you as his speechwriter. No wonder he lost.
“Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls?”
According to the Gallup Poll, Clinton left office more popular than any other two-term president in the history of scientific polling.
“Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.”
Gore ran an anti-Clinton campaign, which turned off middle of the road voters.
“Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?”
Clinton didn’t do anything to harm the economy. He was the beneficiary of events beyond his control, but his era’s balanced budgets, modest increases in non-defense spending, reductions in defense waste and free trade treaties all helped.
“Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office.”
It was not “right after” he left office.
“The World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency.”
All those added together don’t add up to one typical day in Iraq, now, in terms of our losses in men and materiel.
In hindsight, I think you can fairly assign Clinton some blame for not responding adequately to the rise of al-Qaeda. But you can’t blame him for 9-11, and certainly you can’t blame him for Bush’s decision to move “the war on terror” to Iraq.
“That is not what I call peace.”
If you compare the years of the Clinton Administration to the other presidents since Eisenhower, his is the most peaceful. Granted, in Ford’s time, we didn’t have much of a war (save the Cold War), but South Vietnam did fall when he was in office. In Carter’s years, we did not lose any soldiers (that I recall right now). But we had endless crises in foreign policy, led by the 444 days of the Iran Hostage situation. In all of the others, we had hot wars.
“Of course, WE all ignored the death and deprivations caused by the continuous attacks in the no-fly zones,Basra bombing and the sanctions. The Clinton years saw the absence of oversight and regulation and the explosion of corporate/financial/stockmarket malfeasence…but who cared?..everyone was making money!”
Al Gore never should have hired you as his speechwriter. No wonder he lost.
“Fact? According to whom? Public opinion polls?”
According to the Gallup Poll, Clinton left office more popular than any other two-term president in the history of scientific polling.
“Clinton’s leutenant, Gore, was not elected.”
Gore ran an anti-Clinton campaign, which turned off middle of the road voters.
“Eight years of a good economy? And I suppose Clinton created that all by himself?”
Clinton didn’t do anything to harm the economy. He was the beneficiary of events beyond his control, but his era’s balanced budgets, modest increases in non-defense spending, reductions in defense waste and free trade treaties all helped.
“Peace at home? Excuse me, but 9-11 happened right after Clinton left office.”
It was not “right after” he left office.
“The World Trade Center, Khobar Towers and USS Cole were hit during his presidency.”
All those added together don’t add up to one typical day in Iraq, now, in terms of our losses in men and materiel.
In hindsight, I think you can fairly assign Clinton some blame for not responding adequately to the rise of al-Qaeda. But you can’t blame him for 9-11, and certainly you can’t blame him for Bush’s decision to move “the war on terror” to Iraq.
“That is not what I call peace.”
If you compare the years of the Clinton Administration to the other presidents since Eisenhower, his is the most peaceful. Granted, in Ford’s time, we didn’t have much of a war (save the Cold War), but South Vietnam did fall when he was in office. In Carter’s years, we did not lose any soldiers (that I recall right now). But we had endless crises in foreign policy, led by the 444 days of the Iran Hostage situation. In all of the others, we had hot wars.
The Democratic leadership, both statewide and nationally, has an uncanny ability to back the least electable candidates.
For example, the latest Rasmussen poll show Clinton loosing to McCain by a whopping 38% to McCain’s 49%, while Obama trails slightly 43% to McCain’s 46%.
Given Obama’s clearly stronger people skills, I expect these trends to increase, not decrease.
I wish people would spend more time thinking about November.
The Democratic leadership, both statewide and nationally, has an uncanny ability to back the least electable candidates.
For example, the latest Rasmussen poll show Clinton loosing to McCain by a whopping 38% to McCain’s 49%, while Obama trails slightly 43% to McCain’s 46%.
Given Obama’s clearly stronger people skills, I expect these trends to increase, not decrease.
I wish people would spend more time thinking about November.
The Democratic leadership, both statewide and nationally, has an uncanny ability to back the least electable candidates.
For example, the latest Rasmussen poll show Clinton loosing to McCain by a whopping 38% to McCain’s 49%, while Obama trails slightly 43% to McCain’s 46%.
Given Obama’s clearly stronger people skills, I expect these trends to increase, not decrease.
I wish people would spend more time thinking about November.
The Democratic leadership, both statewide and nationally, has an uncanny ability to back the least electable candidates.
For example, the latest Rasmussen poll show Clinton loosing to McCain by a whopping 38% to McCain’s 49%, while Obama trails slightly 43% to McCain’s 46%.
Given Obama’s clearly stronger people skills, I expect these trends to increase, not decrease.
I wish people would spend more time thinking about November.
Sue,
Keep in mind that Obama is likely at his peak, in terms of national popularity right now. After 9 months of the American people hearing about Barack HUSSEIN Obama — that is what all of the right-wingers call him — his negative numbers will go up a lot. Hillary Clinton has been subject to negative press for a long time, so it’s natural that her negatives are higher.
I am unconvinced the GOP will nominate McCain. If they do, then he stands a good chance of winning. But if Huckabee or Romney is the Republican nominee, I don’t think either of them would be a favorite to win in November.
Sue,
Keep in mind that Obama is likely at his peak, in terms of national popularity right now. After 9 months of the American people hearing about Barack HUSSEIN Obama — that is what all of the right-wingers call him — his negative numbers will go up a lot. Hillary Clinton has been subject to negative press for a long time, so it’s natural that her negatives are higher.
I am unconvinced the GOP will nominate McCain. If they do, then he stands a good chance of winning. But if Huckabee or Romney is the Republican nominee, I don’t think either of them would be a favorite to win in November.
Sue,
Keep in mind that Obama is likely at his peak, in terms of national popularity right now. After 9 months of the American people hearing about Barack HUSSEIN Obama — that is what all of the right-wingers call him — his negative numbers will go up a lot. Hillary Clinton has been subject to negative press for a long time, so it’s natural that her negatives are higher.
I am unconvinced the GOP will nominate McCain. If they do, then he stands a good chance of winning. But if Huckabee or Romney is the Republican nominee, I don’t think either of them would be a favorite to win in November.
Sue,
Keep in mind that Obama is likely at his peak, in terms of national popularity right now. After 9 months of the American people hearing about Barack HUSSEIN Obama — that is what all of the right-wingers call him — his negative numbers will go up a lot. Hillary Clinton has been subject to negative press for a long time, so it’s natural that her negatives are higher.
I am unconvinced the GOP will nominate McCain. If they do, then he stands a good chance of winning. But if Huckabee or Romney is the Republican nominee, I don’t think either of them would be a favorite to win in November.
Rich,
I would like to point out another important poll.
A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).
The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks.
In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates or Mormons or thrice divorced candidates, putting Obama in a relatively strong position, demographically speaking.
Mud will be slung at both Clinton and Obama. From what I have seen, Obama seems to be the first Democratic candidate in recent memory who looks like he has the political skills to turn that spin around.
Rich,
I would like to point out another important poll.
A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).
The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks.
In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates or Mormons or thrice divorced candidates, putting Obama in a relatively strong position, demographically speaking.
Mud will be slung at both Clinton and Obama. From what I have seen, Obama seems to be the first Democratic candidate in recent memory who looks like he has the political skills to turn that spin around.
Rich,
I would like to point out another important poll.
A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).
The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks.
In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates or Mormons or thrice divorced candidates, putting Obama in a relatively strong position, demographically speaking.
Mud will be slung at both Clinton and Obama. From what I have seen, Obama seems to be the first Democratic candidate in recent memory who looks like he has the political skills to turn that spin around.
Rich,
I would like to point out another important poll.
A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).
The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks.
In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates or Mormons or thrice divorced candidates, putting Obama in a relatively strong position, demographically speaking.
Mud will be slung at both Clinton and Obama. From what I have seen, Obama seems to be the first Democratic candidate in recent memory who looks like he has the political skills to turn that spin around.
All of my friends who went, and there were a lot who did, are all Obama supporters…people turned out to see Bill not to support Hilary.
Plus its Davis, you dont get this kinda of free access to a global celebrity that often.
All of my friends who went, and there were a lot who did, are all Obama supporters…people turned out to see Bill not to support Hilary.
Plus its Davis, you dont get this kinda of free access to a global celebrity that often.
All of my friends who went, and there were a lot who did, are all Obama supporters…people turned out to see Bill not to support Hilary.
Plus its Davis, you dont get this kinda of free access to a global celebrity that often.
All of my friends who went, and there were a lot who did, are all Obama supporters…people turned out to see Bill not to support Hilary.
Plus its Davis, you dont get this kinda of free access to a global celebrity that often.
there was a point in the pre-program ceremonial “rah-rah” warm-up speeches, where Lois Wolk asked the crowd, “who is going to be our next president/ who are you going to vote for”, and instead of a uniform 7,000+ voices saying hillary, it was more of a mixed bag as people shouted any number of names, including obama, bill, ron paul, as well as hillary.
it was pretty damn funny.
there was a point in the pre-program ceremonial “rah-rah” warm-up speeches, where Lois Wolk asked the crowd, “who is going to be our next president/ who are you going to vote for”, and instead of a uniform 7,000+ voices saying hillary, it was more of a mixed bag as people shouted any number of names, including obama, bill, ron paul, as well as hillary.
it was pretty damn funny.
there was a point in the pre-program ceremonial “rah-rah” warm-up speeches, where Lois Wolk asked the crowd, “who is going to be our next president/ who are you going to vote for”, and instead of a uniform 7,000+ voices saying hillary, it was more of a mixed bag as people shouted any number of names, including obama, bill, ron paul, as well as hillary.
it was pretty damn funny.
there was a point in the pre-program ceremonial “rah-rah” warm-up speeches, where Lois Wolk asked the crowd, “who is going to be our next president/ who are you going to vote for”, and instead of a uniform 7,000+ voices saying hillary, it was more of a mixed bag as people shouted any number of names, including obama, bill, ron paul, as well as hillary.
it was pretty damn funny.
Don’t assume that just because someone was at the event and/or in the bleachers behind the podium that they support or endorse Hillary. Also, other notable local politicos spotted: Christopher Cabaldon, Lamar Heystek, Jim Provenza … and at the Sacramento event, John Ferrera (he works at the Capitol)
Don’t assume that just because someone was at the event and/or in the bleachers behind the podium that they support or endorse Hillary. Also, other notable local politicos spotted: Christopher Cabaldon, Lamar Heystek, Jim Provenza … and at the Sacramento event, John Ferrera (he works at the Capitol)
Don’t assume that just because someone was at the event and/or in the bleachers behind the podium that they support or endorse Hillary. Also, other notable local politicos spotted: Christopher Cabaldon, Lamar Heystek, Jim Provenza … and at the Sacramento event, John Ferrera (he works at the Capitol)
Don’t assume that just because someone was at the event and/or in the bleachers behind the podium that they support or endorse Hillary. Also, other notable local politicos spotted: Christopher Cabaldon, Lamar Heystek, Jim Provenza … and at the Sacramento event, John Ferrera (he works at the Capitol)
“A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
I don’t doubt those poll results at all. However, generalized prejudices tend to change when addressed to an individual.
“42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
If the specific 72 year old is energetic, clear minded and vigrorous, then the prejudice against an elderly candidate is apt to be minimal.
“84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black”
If the specific African-American is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, a much larger percentage would be uncomfortable voting for them.
Barack Obama is a much more likable, intelligent and educated guy than those two. So if he wins the Democratic nomination, it will be interesting to see if racism hurts his general election chances.
All else held equal, I think Senator Obama would have a better chance if his name were Bart O’Hara rather than Barack Hussein Obama. I am quite certain the far right will endlessly refer to him as Hussein. That might not mean anything to fair-minded people. But to the ignorant masses in middle America, that is going to make him sound scary.
“77% for a woman”
I suppose some very conservative Americans harbor anti-female prejudice. However, they probably wouldn’t vote for a Democrat for other reasons, beyond gender.
“The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons…”
I think most of the religious prejudice against Mormons is from conservative Protestants. (I’ve known a number of people who, sadly, have this prejudice.) That is significant (for Gov. Romney), because conservative Protestants make up a significant portion of the Republican primary voters in some states. Romney may overcome this. But he is likely to be hurt by it.
There is also a non-religious, cultural prejudice against Mormons by some liberals. But liberals who hold those views wouldn’t vote for a conservative Republican, regardless of his religious faith.
“… substantial electorate prejudice against evangelicals…
We’ve elected evangelicals as president in recent years (GW Bush and Jimmy Carter), so it’s hard to see how much of a negative that is (in either party).
It seems to me there are two insurmountable prejudices among American voters: 1) atheism and 2) homosexuality. It’s gonna be awhile before a non-believing black lesbian gets elected president.
“A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
I don’t doubt those poll results at all. However, generalized prejudices tend to change when addressed to an individual.
“42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
If the specific 72 year old is energetic, clear minded and vigrorous, then the prejudice against an elderly candidate is apt to be minimal.
“84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black”
If the specific African-American is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, a much larger percentage would be uncomfortable voting for them.
Barack Obama is a much more likable, intelligent and educated guy than those two. So if he wins the Democratic nomination, it will be interesting to see if racism hurts his general election chances.
All else held equal, I think Senator Obama would have a better chance if his name were Bart O’Hara rather than Barack Hussein Obama. I am quite certain the far right will endlessly refer to him as Hussein. That might not mean anything to fair-minded people. But to the ignorant masses in middle America, that is going to make him sound scary.
“77% for a woman”
I suppose some very conservative Americans harbor anti-female prejudice. However, they probably wouldn’t vote for a Democrat for other reasons, beyond gender.
“The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons…”
I think most of the religious prejudice against Mormons is from conservative Protestants. (I’ve known a number of people who, sadly, have this prejudice.) That is significant (for Gov. Romney), because conservative Protestants make up a significant portion of the Republican primary voters in some states. Romney may overcome this. But he is likely to be hurt by it.
There is also a non-religious, cultural prejudice against Mormons by some liberals. But liberals who hold those views wouldn’t vote for a conservative Republican, regardless of his religious faith.
“… substantial electorate prejudice against evangelicals…
We’ve elected evangelicals as president in recent years (GW Bush and Jimmy Carter), so it’s hard to see how much of a negative that is (in either party).
It seems to me there are two insurmountable prejudices among American voters: 1) atheism and 2) homosexuality. It’s gonna be awhile before a non-believing black lesbian gets elected president.
“A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
I don’t doubt those poll results at all. However, generalized prejudices tend to change when addressed to an individual.
“42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
If the specific 72 year old is energetic, clear minded and vigrorous, then the prejudice against an elderly candidate is apt to be minimal.
“84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black”
If the specific African-American is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, a much larger percentage would be uncomfortable voting for them.
Barack Obama is a much more likable, intelligent and educated guy than those two. So if he wins the Democratic nomination, it will be interesting to see if racism hurts his general election chances.
All else held equal, I think Senator Obama would have a better chance if his name were Bart O’Hara rather than Barack Hussein Obama. I am quite certain the far right will endlessly refer to him as Hussein. That might not mean anything to fair-minded people. But to the ignorant masses in middle America, that is going to make him sound scary.
“77% for a woman”
I suppose some very conservative Americans harbor anti-female prejudice. However, they probably wouldn’t vote for a Democrat for other reasons, beyond gender.
“The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons…”
I think most of the religious prejudice against Mormons is from conservative Protestants. (I’ve known a number of people who, sadly, have this prejudice.) That is significant (for Gov. Romney), because conservative Protestants make up a significant portion of the Republican primary voters in some states. Romney may overcome this. But he is likely to be hurt by it.
There is also a non-religious, cultural prejudice against Mormons by some liberals. But liberals who hold those views wouldn’t vote for a conservative Republican, regardless of his religious faith.
“… substantial electorate prejudice against evangelicals…
We’ve elected evangelicals as president in recent years (GW Bush and Jimmy Carter), so it’s hard to see how much of a negative that is (in either party).
It seems to me there are two insurmountable prejudices among American voters: 1) atheism and 2) homosexuality. It’s gonna be awhile before a non-believing black lesbian gets elected president.
“A March 13, 2007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
I don’t doubt those poll results at all. However, generalized prejudices tend to change when addressed to an individual.
“42% for a 72 year old (McCain’s age).”
If the specific 72 year old is energetic, clear minded and vigrorous, then the prejudice against an elderly candidate is apt to be minimal.
“84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black”
If the specific African-American is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, a much larger percentage would be uncomfortable voting for them.
Barack Obama is a much more likable, intelligent and educated guy than those two. So if he wins the Democratic nomination, it will be interesting to see if racism hurts his general election chances.
All else held equal, I think Senator Obama would have a better chance if his name were Bart O’Hara rather than Barack Hussein Obama. I am quite certain the far right will endlessly refer to him as Hussein. That might not mean anything to fair-minded people. But to the ignorant masses in middle America, that is going to make him sound scary.
“77% for a woman”
I suppose some very conservative Americans harbor anti-female prejudice. However, they probably wouldn’t vote for a Democrat for other reasons, beyond gender.
“The polls reveal substantial electorate prejudice against Mormons…”
I think most of the religious prejudice against Mormons is from conservative Protestants. (I’ve known a number of people who, sadly, have this prejudice.) That is significant (for Gov. Romney), because conservative Protestants make up a significant portion of the Republican primary voters in some states. Romney may overcome this. But he is likely to be hurt by it.
There is also a non-religious, cultural prejudice against Mormons by some liberals. But liberals who hold those views wouldn’t vote for a conservative Republican, regardless of his religious faith.
“… substantial electorate prejudice against evangelicals…
We’ve elected evangelicals as president in recent years (GW Bush and Jimmy Carter), so it’s hard to see how much of a negative that is (in either party).
It seems to me there are two insurmountable prejudices among American voters: 1) atheism and 2) homosexuality. It’s gonna be awhile before a non-believing black lesbian gets elected president.
Rich,
The only point I am trying to make is that I think that being a black or woman will be a wash in the November campaign, and that charisma and articulateness will be paramount.
Obama simply runs stronger against hypothetical match-ups, and hence is more electable.
Rich,
The only point I am trying to make is that I think that being a black or woman will be a wash in the November campaign, and that charisma and articulateness will be paramount.
Obama simply runs stronger against hypothetical match-ups, and hence is more electable.
Rich,
The only point I am trying to make is that I think that being a black or woman will be a wash in the November campaign, and that charisma and articulateness will be paramount.
Obama simply runs stronger against hypothetical match-ups, and hence is more electable.
Rich,
The only point I am trying to make is that I think that being a black or woman will be a wash in the November campaign, and that charisma and articulateness will be paramount.
Obama simply runs stronger against hypothetical match-ups, and hence is more electable.
Sue, it appears that you are trying to annoint the winner of the Kentucky Derby on the basis of the horses performance through the first curve. We have the whole back stretch and home stretch to run yet, and there will be lots of tell tale events that will happen during the course of the race.
When it comes to polls, remember Dewey defeated Truman.
Sue, it appears that you are trying to annoint the winner of the Kentucky Derby on the basis of the horses performance through the first curve. We have the whole back stretch and home stretch to run yet, and there will be lots of tell tale events that will happen during the course of the race.
When it comes to polls, remember Dewey defeated Truman.
Sue, it appears that you are trying to annoint the winner of the Kentucky Derby on the basis of the horses performance through the first curve. We have the whole back stretch and home stretch to run yet, and there will be lots of tell tale events that will happen during the course of the race.
When it comes to polls, remember Dewey defeated Truman.
Sue, it appears that you are trying to annoint the winner of the Kentucky Derby on the basis of the horses performance through the first curve. We have the whole back stretch and home stretch to run yet, and there will be lots of tell tale events that will happen during the course of the race.
When it comes to polls, remember Dewey defeated Truman.
Sue and Rich:
The GOP has not yet begun to work on Obama, and there are major questions about his ability to counter them.
Obama’s down-side is that he’s marketed himself as transcendent, pure, apart from the system, and, frankly, messianic (“the one”). This is a very easy frame to corrupt. If you start out with high expectations, any flaw will work to your detriment.
The opposite was Bush in ’00, who we stupidly painted as too dumb to breathe. Rove was tickled with this because all Bush had to do was string three words together to exceed expectations and impress the voters.
The GOP is eating their own medicine on Hillary for this very reason. She has been so demonized that when voters take a close look at her, hey, she’s not that bad after all.
For a great, clear-eyed discussion of polarization, Google “polarizing express” for the LAT oped-ed by Ezra Klein.
Sue and Rich:
The GOP has not yet begun to work on Obama, and there are major questions about his ability to counter them.
Obama’s down-side is that he’s marketed himself as transcendent, pure, apart from the system, and, frankly, messianic (“the one”). This is a very easy frame to corrupt. If you start out with high expectations, any flaw will work to your detriment.
The opposite was Bush in ’00, who we stupidly painted as too dumb to breathe. Rove was tickled with this because all Bush had to do was string three words together to exceed expectations and impress the voters.
The GOP is eating their own medicine on Hillary for this very reason. She has been so demonized that when voters take a close look at her, hey, she’s not that bad after all.
For a great, clear-eyed discussion of polarization, Google “polarizing express” for the LAT oped-ed by Ezra Klein.
Sue and Rich:
The GOP has not yet begun to work on Obama, and there are major questions about his ability to counter them.
Obama’s down-side is that he’s marketed himself as transcendent, pure, apart from the system, and, frankly, messianic (“the one”). This is a very easy frame to corrupt. If you start out with high expectations, any flaw will work to your detriment.
The opposite was Bush in ’00, who we stupidly painted as too dumb to breathe. Rove was tickled with this because all Bush had to do was string three words together to exceed expectations and impress the voters.
The GOP is eating their own medicine on Hillary for this very reason. She has been so demonized that when voters take a close look at her, hey, she’s not that bad after all.
For a great, clear-eyed discussion of polarization, Google “polarizing express” for the LAT oped-ed by Ezra Klein.
Sue and Rich:
The GOP has not yet begun to work on Obama, and there are major questions about his ability to counter them.
Obama’s down-side is that he’s marketed himself as transcendent, pure, apart from the system, and, frankly, messianic (“the one”). This is a very easy frame to corrupt. If you start out with high expectations, any flaw will work to your detriment.
The opposite was Bush in ’00, who we stupidly painted as too dumb to breathe. Rove was tickled with this because all Bush had to do was string three words together to exceed expectations and impress the voters.
The GOP is eating their own medicine on Hillary for this very reason. She has been so demonized that when voters take a close look at her, hey, she’s not that bad after all.
For a great, clear-eyed discussion of polarization, Google “polarizing express” for the LAT oped-ed by Ezra Klein.
Rich,
9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack. This attack would be the precursor to the war in Afghanistan. So the 8-years of peace was an illusion. That is in addition to all of the conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kohbar towers, etc.
You’re comments about gallup? Well if Gallup says in a poll Clinton was the most popular then it must be true. Forget that Gore wanted to ditch Clinton as quickly as possible.
Your claim on Clinton and the economy is hard to quantify. What does non-defense spending have to do with an upswing in the economy? How much did it help? How do you know?
Rich,
9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack. This attack would be the precursor to the war in Afghanistan. So the 8-years of peace was an illusion. That is in addition to all of the conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kohbar towers, etc.
You’re comments about gallup? Well if Gallup says in a poll Clinton was the most popular then it must be true. Forget that Gore wanted to ditch Clinton as quickly as possible.
Your claim on Clinton and the economy is hard to quantify. What does non-defense spending have to do with an upswing in the economy? How much did it help? How do you know?
Rich,
9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack. This attack would be the precursor to the war in Afghanistan. So the 8-years of peace was an illusion. That is in addition to all of the conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kohbar towers, etc.
You’re comments about gallup? Well if Gallup says in a poll Clinton was the most popular then it must be true. Forget that Gore wanted to ditch Clinton as quickly as possible.
Your claim on Clinton and the economy is hard to quantify. What does non-defense spending have to do with an upswing in the economy? How much did it help? How do you know?
Rich,
9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack. This attack would be the precursor to the war in Afghanistan. So the 8-years of peace was an illusion. That is in addition to all of the conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kohbar towers, etc.
You’re comments about gallup? Well if Gallup says in a poll Clinton was the most popular then it must be true. Forget that Gore wanted to ditch Clinton as quickly as possible.
Your claim on Clinton and the economy is hard to quantify. What does non-defense spending have to do with an upswing in the economy? How much did it help? How do you know?
darkside:
There is a more credible reading of history that al Qaeda was an ongoing threat that succeeded when the US government took its eye off the ball. Recall, a number of plots were disrupted during the Clinton years, due in part to their documented obsession with bin Ladin. Once in office, the GWB administration spent all of its mojo on missile defense rather than conventional terrorism. As we have seen many times under GWB, the wheels of government do not turn smoothly under this guy.
darkside:
There is a more credible reading of history that al Qaeda was an ongoing threat that succeeded when the US government took its eye off the ball. Recall, a number of plots were disrupted during the Clinton years, due in part to their documented obsession with bin Ladin. Once in office, the GWB administration spent all of its mojo on missile defense rather than conventional terrorism. As we have seen many times under GWB, the wheels of government do not turn smoothly under this guy.
darkside:
There is a more credible reading of history that al Qaeda was an ongoing threat that succeeded when the US government took its eye off the ball. Recall, a number of plots were disrupted during the Clinton years, due in part to their documented obsession with bin Ladin. Once in office, the GWB administration spent all of its mojo on missile defense rather than conventional terrorism. As we have seen many times under GWB, the wheels of government do not turn smoothly under this guy.
darkside:
There is a more credible reading of history that al Qaeda was an ongoing threat that succeeded when the US government took its eye off the ball. Recall, a number of plots were disrupted during the Clinton years, due in part to their documented obsession with bin Ladin. Once in office, the GWB administration spent all of its mojo on missile defense rather than conventional terrorism. As we have seen many times under GWB, the wheels of government do not turn smoothly under this guy.
Pacific John,
I agree with your points in full.
I don’t think what Sue says is wrong at the present time. However, after 7 months of being attacked by partisans, Barack Obama, who looks very electable right now, might not look that way in November. He has never in his life run in a race in which he faced a barrage of partisan attacks or even a competent partisan opponent. (In his lone race for the U.S. Senate, the Republican candidate dropped out and a complete whacko named Alan Keyes, who was not from Illinois, faced off with Obama.)
One of the advantages Hillary Clinton has, in having been on the national scene for about 17 years, is that every possible attack that could have been launched against her already has been. It is true that, due to those attacks, a sizable minority of the voters don’t like Senator Clinton. But that number is unlikely to grow from here. Obama’s negatives are going to go up a lot, should he win the nomination.
To follow up on John’s point, I’d also suggest that most scholars believe that Gore’s eventual loss was in part because he failed to link himself strongly enough to Clinton’s positive legacy. In other words, he inherited a still strong economy but ran as an economic populist rather than the successor to the economic success of the 1990s. So yes, he ran from Clinton, but it was likely a mistake.
Pacific John,
I agree with your points in full.
I don’t think what Sue says is wrong at the present time. However, after 7 months of being attacked by partisans, Barack Obama, who looks very electable right now, might not look that way in November. He has never in his life run in a race in which he faced a barrage of partisan attacks or even a competent partisan opponent. (In his lone race for the U.S. Senate, the Republican candidate dropped out and a complete whacko named Alan Keyes, who was not from Illinois, faced off with Obama.)
One of the advantages Hillary Clinton has, in having been on the national scene for about 17 years, is that every possible attack that could have been launched against her already has been. It is true that, due to those attacks, a sizable minority of the voters don’t like Senator Clinton. But that number is unlikely to grow from here. Obama’s negatives are going to go up a lot, should he win the nomination.
To follow up on John’s point, I’d also suggest that most scholars believe that Gore’s eventual loss was in part because he failed to link himself strongly enough to Clinton’s positive legacy. In other words, he inherited a still strong economy but ran as an economic populist rather than the successor to the economic success of the 1990s. So yes, he ran from Clinton, but it was likely a mistake.
Pacific John,
I agree with your points in full.
I don’t think what Sue says is wrong at the present time. However, after 7 months of being attacked by partisans, Barack Obama, who looks very electable right now, might not look that way in November. He has never in his life run in a race in which he faced a barrage of partisan attacks or even a competent partisan opponent. (In his lone race for the U.S. Senate, the Republican candidate dropped out and a complete whacko named Alan Keyes, who was not from Illinois, faced off with Obama.)
One of the advantages Hillary Clinton has, in having been on the national scene for about 17 years, is that every possible attack that could have been launched against her already has been. It is true that, due to those attacks, a sizable minority of the voters don’t like Senator Clinton. But that number is unlikely to grow from here. Obama’s negatives are going to go up a lot, should he win the nomination.
To follow up on John’s point, I’d also suggest that most scholars believe that Gore’s eventual loss was in part because he failed to link himself strongly enough to Clinton’s positive legacy. In other words, he inherited a still strong economy but ran as an economic populist rather than the successor to the economic success of the 1990s. So yes, he ran from Clinton, but it was likely a mistake.
Pacific John,
I agree with your points in full.
I don’t think what Sue says is wrong at the present time. However, after 7 months of being attacked by partisans, Barack Obama, who looks very electable right now, might not look that way in November. He has never in his life run in a race in which he faced a barrage of partisan attacks or even a competent partisan opponent. (In his lone race for the U.S. Senate, the Republican candidate dropped out and a complete whacko named Alan Keyes, who was not from Illinois, faced off with Obama.)
One of the advantages Hillary Clinton has, in having been on the national scene for about 17 years, is that every possible attack that could have been launched against her already has been. It is true that, due to those attacks, a sizable minority of the voters don’t like Senator Clinton. But that number is unlikely to grow from here. Obama’s negatives are going to go up a lot, should he win the nomination.
To follow up on John’s point, I’d also suggest that most scholars believe that Gore’s eventual loss was in part because he failed to link himself strongly enough to Clinton’s positive legacy. In other words, he inherited a still strong economy but ran as an economic populist rather than the successor to the economic success of the 1990s. So yes, he ran from Clinton, but it was likely a mistake.
pacific john:
“their documented obsession with bin Ladin.” Oh, really? Considering what Clinton has been shown to do with his time in the oval office, I find that hard to believe.
Second, nothing of this “obsession” you speak of was ever expressed during his term.
GWB had a grand total of 7 months to uncover a massive plot that took a decade to prepare, most of it during Clinton’s term. Get real.
pacific john:
“their documented obsession with bin Ladin.” Oh, really? Considering what Clinton has been shown to do with his time in the oval office, I find that hard to believe.
Second, nothing of this “obsession” you speak of was ever expressed during his term.
GWB had a grand total of 7 months to uncover a massive plot that took a decade to prepare, most of it during Clinton’s term. Get real.
pacific john:
“their documented obsession with bin Ladin.” Oh, really? Considering what Clinton has been shown to do with his time in the oval office, I find that hard to believe.
Second, nothing of this “obsession” you speak of was ever expressed during his term.
GWB had a grand total of 7 months to uncover a massive plot that took a decade to prepare, most of it during Clinton’s term. Get real.
pacific john:
“their documented obsession with bin Ladin.” Oh, really? Considering what Clinton has been shown to do with his time in the oval office, I find that hard to believe.
Second, nothing of this “obsession” you speak of was ever expressed during his term.
GWB had a grand total of 7 months to uncover a massive plot that took a decade to prepare, most of it during Clinton’s term. Get real.
“9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack.”
I think that’s correct. As I said above, I think Bill Clinton deserves some blame for his ineffective response to al-Qaeda.
However, al-Qaeda’s growth and subsequent threat go back to large events which took place many years before Bill Clinton took office. Off the top of my head, I believe these are the most important ones:
1) the generalized failure of almost every Muslim country to govern democratically and adapt to modern technology and develop a healthy commercial sector based on trade and interaction with the world. This failing created room for radicalism to thrive;
2) the Franco-Algerian war, where Muslims learned to use terrorist methods against civilians to oust the French government. Much of what al-Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups have done “to infidels” was first done in Algeria, even though this movement did not spread beyond that country;
3) the Iranian revolution. Yes, I realize that al-Qaeda is a Sunni phenomenon, while the Ayatollahs are Shi’ites (and antagonistic to each other). But, beginning in the early 1970s, in France, it was the Iranian Islamists who inspired a new generation of radicals to rally around theocracy and “the restoration of the caliphate.” That is the motivating force in Islamism, and it spread from those Iranian exiles in France to the rest of the Muslim world;
4)the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Camp David Accords. That led to the popularization of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (where Ayman al-Zwahiri, the brains behind al-Qaeda) and the spread of Islamism to a wider Muslim world. The Islamic Brotherhood then spread Islamism to Palestine, where Hamas and like minded groups became popular for the first time;
Saudi Arabia. No one event there, but the House of Saud, for decades, had been financing the Wahabi version of Islam and this became much worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices rose significantly;
6) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund, organize and train the Mujahadeen;
7) the failure of Pakistan as a state. Because the national government of Pakistan was ineffective and undemocratic, what later became al-Qaeda was able (with Saudi money) to use Pakistan as a breeding ground (in the Islamist madrassas) to develop a huge cadre of followers;
8) the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan and hence, the literal creation of a “base” for al-Qaeda. To some extent, al-Qaeda had other bases in other failed African states at the same time; and
9) The Gulf War and subsequent stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia. This rallied a lot of radical Muslims to organize around the theme of “drving the infidels from our holy land.”
During Clinton’s time in office, al-Qaeda was further helped in its growth by satellite TV and the Internet. Al-Jazeera has been around since 1996, spinning its stories to a large Arab audience with the idea that enemies of Islam are everywhere trying to corrupt Muslim society and Muslims are always the victims in need of heroes like bin Laden; and the Internet has been effectively used to communicate a paranoid message of hate and extremism.
“9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack.”
I think that’s correct. As I said above, I think Bill Clinton deserves some blame for his ineffective response to al-Qaeda.
However, al-Qaeda’s growth and subsequent threat go back to large events which took place many years before Bill Clinton took office. Off the top of my head, I believe these are the most important ones:
1) the generalized failure of almost every Muslim country to govern democratically and adapt to modern technology and develop a healthy commercial sector based on trade and interaction with the world. This failing created room for radicalism to thrive;
2) the Franco-Algerian war, where Muslims learned to use terrorist methods against civilians to oust the French government. Much of what al-Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups have done “to infidels” was first done in Algeria, even though this movement did not spread beyond that country;
3) the Iranian revolution. Yes, I realize that al-Qaeda is a Sunni phenomenon, while the Ayatollahs are Shi’ites (and antagonistic to each other). But, beginning in the early 1970s, in France, it was the Iranian Islamists who inspired a new generation of radicals to rally around theocracy and “the restoration of the caliphate.” That is the motivating force in Islamism, and it spread from those Iranian exiles in France to the rest of the Muslim world;
4)the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Camp David Accords. That led to the popularization of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (where Ayman al-Zwahiri, the brains behind al-Qaeda) and the spread of Islamism to a wider Muslim world. The Islamic Brotherhood then spread Islamism to Palestine, where Hamas and like minded groups became popular for the first time;
Saudi Arabia. No one event there, but the House of Saud, for decades, had been financing the Wahabi version of Islam and this became much worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices rose significantly;
6) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund, organize and train the Mujahadeen;
7) the failure of Pakistan as a state. Because the national government of Pakistan was ineffective and undemocratic, what later became al-Qaeda was able (with Saudi money) to use Pakistan as a breeding ground (in the Islamist madrassas) to develop a huge cadre of followers;
8) the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan and hence, the literal creation of a “base” for al-Qaeda. To some extent, al-Qaeda had other bases in other failed African states at the same time; and
9) The Gulf War and subsequent stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia. This rallied a lot of radical Muslims to organize around the theme of “drving the infidels from our holy land.”
During Clinton’s time in office, al-Qaeda was further helped in its growth by satellite TV and the Internet. Al-Jazeera has been around since 1996, spinning its stories to a large Arab audience with the idea that enemies of Islam are everywhere trying to corrupt Muslim society and Muslims are always the victims in need of heroes like bin Laden; and the Internet has been effectively used to communicate a paranoid message of hate and extremism.
“9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack.”
I think that’s correct. As I said above, I think Bill Clinton deserves some blame for his ineffective response to al-Qaeda.
However, al-Qaeda’s growth and subsequent threat go back to large events which took place many years before Bill Clinton took office. Off the top of my head, I believe these are the most important ones:
1) the generalized failure of almost every Muslim country to govern democratically and adapt to modern technology and develop a healthy commercial sector based on trade and interaction with the world. This failing created room for radicalism to thrive;
2) the Franco-Algerian war, where Muslims learned to use terrorist methods against civilians to oust the French government. Much of what al-Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups have done “to infidels” was first done in Algeria, even though this movement did not spread beyond that country;
3) the Iranian revolution. Yes, I realize that al-Qaeda is a Sunni phenomenon, while the Ayatollahs are Shi’ites (and antagonistic to each other). But, beginning in the early 1970s, in France, it was the Iranian Islamists who inspired a new generation of radicals to rally around theocracy and “the restoration of the caliphate.” That is the motivating force in Islamism, and it spread from those Iranian exiles in France to the rest of the Muslim world;
4)the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Camp David Accords. That led to the popularization of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (where Ayman al-Zwahiri, the brains behind al-Qaeda) and the spread of Islamism to a wider Muslim world. The Islamic Brotherhood then spread Islamism to Palestine, where Hamas and like minded groups became popular for the first time;
Saudi Arabia. No one event there, but the House of Saud, for decades, had been financing the Wahabi version of Islam and this became much worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices rose significantly;
6) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund, organize and train the Mujahadeen;
7) the failure of Pakistan as a state. Because the national government of Pakistan was ineffective and undemocratic, what later became al-Qaeda was able (with Saudi money) to use Pakistan as a breeding ground (in the Islamist madrassas) to develop a huge cadre of followers;
8) the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan and hence, the literal creation of a “base” for al-Qaeda. To some extent, al-Qaeda had other bases in other failed African states at the same time; and
9) The Gulf War and subsequent stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia. This rallied a lot of radical Muslims to organize around the theme of “drving the infidels from our holy land.”
During Clinton’s time in office, al-Qaeda was further helped in its growth by satellite TV and the Internet. Al-Jazeera has been around since 1996, spinning its stories to a large Arab audience with the idea that enemies of Islam are everywhere trying to corrupt Muslim society and Muslims are always the victims in need of heroes like bin Laden; and the Internet has been effectively used to communicate a paranoid message of hate and extremism.
“9-11 didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, but the buildup was happening throughout his presidency. So while we were experiencing our 8 years of peace, Al-Qaeda was preparing for its attack.”
I think that’s correct. As I said above, I think Bill Clinton deserves some blame for his ineffective response to al-Qaeda.
However, al-Qaeda’s growth and subsequent threat go back to large events which took place many years before Bill Clinton took office. Off the top of my head, I believe these are the most important ones:
1) the generalized failure of almost every Muslim country to govern democratically and adapt to modern technology and develop a healthy commercial sector based on trade and interaction with the world. This failing created room for radicalism to thrive;
2) the Franco-Algerian war, where Muslims learned to use terrorist methods against civilians to oust the French government. Much of what al-Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups have done “to infidels” was first done in Algeria, even though this movement did not spread beyond that country;
3) the Iranian revolution. Yes, I realize that al-Qaeda is a Sunni phenomenon, while the Ayatollahs are Shi’ites (and antagonistic to each other). But, beginning in the early 1970s, in France, it was the Iranian Islamists who inspired a new generation of radicals to rally around theocracy and “the restoration of the caliphate.” That is the motivating force in Islamism, and it spread from those Iranian exiles in France to the rest of the Muslim world;
4)the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Camp David Accords. That led to the popularization of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (where Ayman al-Zwahiri, the brains behind al-Qaeda) and the spread of Islamism to a wider Muslim world. The Islamic Brotherhood then spread Islamism to Palestine, where Hamas and like minded groups became popular for the first time;
Saudi Arabia. No one event there, but the House of Saud, for decades, had been financing the Wahabi version of Islam and this became much worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices rose significantly;
6) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund, organize and train the Mujahadeen;
7) the failure of Pakistan as a state. Because the national government of Pakistan was ineffective and undemocratic, what later became al-Qaeda was able (with Saudi money) to use Pakistan as a breeding ground (in the Islamist madrassas) to develop a huge cadre of followers;
8) the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan and hence, the literal creation of a “base” for al-Qaeda. To some extent, al-Qaeda had other bases in other failed African states at the same time; and
9) The Gulf War and subsequent stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia. This rallied a lot of radical Muslims to organize around the theme of “drving the infidels from our holy land.”
During Clinton’s time in office, al-Qaeda was further helped in its growth by satellite TV and the Internet. Al-Jazeera has been around since 1996, spinning its stories to a large Arab audience with the idea that enemies of Islam are everywhere trying to corrupt Muslim society and Muslims are always the victims in need of heroes like bin Laden; and the Internet has been effectively used to communicate a paranoid message of hate and extremism.
These historical narratives of the post-colonial Middle East are creations of the American/European mind-set. What is absolutely essential to “fight terrorism” is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to “walk in their shoes” and comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.
These historical narratives of the post-colonial Middle East are creations of the American/European mind-set. What is absolutely essential to “fight terrorism” is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to “walk in their shoes” and comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.
These historical narratives of the post-colonial Middle East are creations of the American/European mind-set. What is absolutely essential to “fight terrorism” is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to “walk in their shoes” and comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.
These historical narratives of the post-colonial Middle East are creations of the American/European mind-set. What is absolutely essential to “fight terrorism” is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to “walk in their shoes” and comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.
gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.
that message resonated in 2000, even if the electoral vote did not reflect it. clinton won several states with less total votes that gore had when he lost them, because of the split center right vote that went for perot.
while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies. all the deregulation of corporations, especially the telecom deregultion and the repeal of the glass-steagal act’s separation of investment and consumer banking, might have bumped up the stock market back then, but we’re seeing the consequences today in the credit crunch and the subprime debacle.
greenspan looked like a genius in the 90s, if you owned stoock. he looked like a genius in the zeroes, if you owned a house with equity. but one shouldn’t measure bubbles just at the apex.
aws for al-qaeda, i strongly recommend richard clarke’s book “against all enemies.” there was a policy shift in ’00 away from treating terrorism seriously, against the empohatic warning of the clinton administration, that needs to be accounted for. granted, the root causes for such things cannot be found solely in security measures, but nonetheless, i don’t think the cluinton administration can be credibly blamed for 9/11, given how many similar sorts of things they disrupoted on their watch.
on the economic front, i think the clintons deserve a fair share of the blame for the collapses of the current decade, but then i’m more of a new deal democrat than a new democrat.
gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.
that message resonated in 2000, even if the electoral vote did not reflect it. clinton won several states with less total votes that gore had when he lost them, because of the split center right vote that went for perot.
while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies. all the deregulation of corporations, especially the telecom deregultion and the repeal of the glass-steagal act’s separation of investment and consumer banking, might have bumped up the stock market back then, but we’re seeing the consequences today in the credit crunch and the subprime debacle.
greenspan looked like a genius in the 90s, if you owned stoock. he looked like a genius in the zeroes, if you owned a house with equity. but one shouldn’t measure bubbles just at the apex.
aws for al-qaeda, i strongly recommend richard clarke’s book “against all enemies.” there was a policy shift in ’00 away from treating terrorism seriously, against the empohatic warning of the clinton administration, that needs to be accounted for. granted, the root causes for such things cannot be found solely in security measures, but nonetheless, i don’t think the cluinton administration can be credibly blamed for 9/11, given how many similar sorts of things they disrupoted on their watch.
on the economic front, i think the clintons deserve a fair share of the blame for the collapses of the current decade, but then i’m more of a new deal democrat than a new democrat.
gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.
that message resonated in 2000, even if the electoral vote did not reflect it. clinton won several states with less total votes that gore had when he lost them, because of the split center right vote that went for perot.
while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies. all the deregulation of corporations, especially the telecom deregultion and the repeal of the glass-steagal act’s separation of investment and consumer banking, might have bumped up the stock market back then, but we’re seeing the consequences today in the credit crunch and the subprime debacle.
greenspan looked like a genius in the 90s, if you owned stoock. he looked like a genius in the zeroes, if you owned a house with equity. but one shouldn’t measure bubbles just at the apex.
aws for al-qaeda, i strongly recommend richard clarke’s book “against all enemies.” there was a policy shift in ’00 away from treating terrorism seriously, against the empohatic warning of the clinton administration, that needs to be accounted for. granted, the root causes for such things cannot be found solely in security measures, but nonetheless, i don’t think the cluinton administration can be credibly blamed for 9/11, given how many similar sorts of things they disrupoted on their watch.
on the economic front, i think the clintons deserve a fair share of the blame for the collapses of the current decade, but then i’m more of a new deal democrat than a new democrat.
gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.
that message resonated in 2000, even if the electoral vote did not reflect it. clinton won several states with less total votes that gore had when he lost them, because of the split center right vote that went for perot.
while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies. all the deregulation of corporations, especially the telecom deregultion and the repeal of the glass-steagal act’s separation of investment and consumer banking, might have bumped up the stock market back then, but we’re seeing the consequences today in the credit crunch and the subprime debacle.
greenspan looked like a genius in the 90s, if you owned stoock. he looked like a genius in the zeroes, if you owned a house with equity. but one shouldn’t measure bubbles just at the apex.
aws for al-qaeda, i strongly recommend richard clarke’s book “against all enemies.” there was a policy shift in ’00 away from treating terrorism seriously, against the empohatic warning of the clinton administration, that needs to be accounted for. granted, the root causes for such things cannot be found solely in security measures, but nonetheless, i don’t think the cluinton administration can be credibly blamed for 9/11, given how many similar sorts of things they disrupoted on their watch.
on the economic front, i think the clintons deserve a fair share of the blame for the collapses of the current decade, but then i’m more of a new deal democrat than a new democrat.
“What is absolutely essential to ‘fight terrorism’ is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to ‘walk in their shoes'”…
You want us to walk in the shoes of religious fanatics who would (and in some cases have) returned their societies to a medieval model of oppression? Societies where Islamic law rules and women are severely oppressed?
Rather than suggesting (anonymously of course) pompous maxims, think for a moment what these terrorists want. If you have the intellectual capacity to do that, you won’t want to walk in Mr. Bin Laden’s shoes. They don’t smell too good.
“Comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.”
You may not agree with my list of events which helped bring about global Islamic radicalism over a half a century, but clearly I believe those events do just what you suggest: they lay out the historical nexus that gave rise to al-Qaeda and its siblings.
I don’t have any confidence that Islamism will be defeated in my lifetime. But I am certain what will defeat it: the development of a capitalist class in the Muslim world; the subsequent rise of a merchant and professional middle class; followed by democratic forms of government and all the rights and freedoms associated with democracy.
That is how history ends (to use the Fukuyama lexicon). I’m sure it will end that way in the Muslim world, too. I have no idea how long that will take, however. But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path. With the exception of Bosnia, no Muslim majority country has the essential ingredients* for democracy, today. No invading army can create those ingredients.
* Newsweek Editor, Fareed Zakaria, himself a Muslim, wrote an excellent book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad,” which explains just what these ingredients are.
“What is absolutely essential to ‘fight terrorism’ is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to ‘walk in their shoes'”…
You want us to walk in the shoes of religious fanatics who would (and in some cases have) returned their societies to a medieval model of oppression? Societies where Islamic law rules and women are severely oppressed?
Rather than suggesting (anonymously of course) pompous maxims, think for a moment what these terrorists want. If you have the intellectual capacity to do that, you won’t want to walk in Mr. Bin Laden’s shoes. They don’t smell too good.
“Comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.”
You may not agree with my list of events which helped bring about global Islamic radicalism over a half a century, but clearly I believe those events do just what you suggest: they lay out the historical nexus that gave rise to al-Qaeda and its siblings.
I don’t have any confidence that Islamism will be defeated in my lifetime. But I am certain what will defeat it: the development of a capitalist class in the Muslim world; the subsequent rise of a merchant and professional middle class; followed by democratic forms of government and all the rights and freedoms associated with democracy.
That is how history ends (to use the Fukuyama lexicon). I’m sure it will end that way in the Muslim world, too. I have no idea how long that will take, however. But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path. With the exception of Bosnia, no Muslim majority country has the essential ingredients* for democracy, today. No invading army can create those ingredients.
* Newsweek Editor, Fareed Zakaria, himself a Muslim, wrote an excellent book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad,” which explains just what these ingredients are.
“What is absolutely essential to ‘fight terrorism’ is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to ‘walk in their shoes'”…
You want us to walk in the shoes of religious fanatics who would (and in some cases have) returned their societies to a medieval model of oppression? Societies where Islamic law rules and women are severely oppressed?
Rather than suggesting (anonymously of course) pompous maxims, think for a moment what these terrorists want. If you have the intellectual capacity to do that, you won’t want to walk in Mr. Bin Laden’s shoes. They don’t smell too good.
“Comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.”
You may not agree with my list of events which helped bring about global Islamic radicalism over a half a century, but clearly I believe those events do just what you suggest: they lay out the historical nexus that gave rise to al-Qaeda and its siblings.
I don’t have any confidence that Islamism will be defeated in my lifetime. But I am certain what will defeat it: the development of a capitalist class in the Muslim world; the subsequent rise of a merchant and professional middle class; followed by democratic forms of government and all the rights and freedoms associated with democracy.
That is how history ends (to use the Fukuyama lexicon). I’m sure it will end that way in the Muslim world, too. I have no idea how long that will take, however. But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path. With the exception of Bosnia, no Muslim majority country has the essential ingredients* for democracy, today. No invading army can create those ingredients.
* Newsweek Editor, Fareed Zakaria, himself a Muslim, wrote an excellent book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad,” which explains just what these ingredients are.
“What is absolutely essential to ‘fight terrorism’ is to have the intellectual capacity to be able to ‘walk in their shoes'”…
You want us to walk in the shoes of religious fanatics who would (and in some cases have) returned their societies to a medieval model of oppression? Societies where Islamic law rules and women are severely oppressed?
Rather than suggesting (anonymously of course) pompous maxims, think for a moment what these terrorists want. If you have the intellectual capacity to do that, you won’t want to walk in Mr. Bin Laden’s shoes. They don’t smell too good.
“Comprehend the nexus of Islamic fundamentalism with nationalism, historical Pan-Arabism and resistance to post-colonial proxy rule/control of Middle of the Middle East.”
You may not agree with my list of events which helped bring about global Islamic radicalism over a half a century, but clearly I believe those events do just what you suggest: they lay out the historical nexus that gave rise to al-Qaeda and its siblings.
I don’t have any confidence that Islamism will be defeated in my lifetime. But I am certain what will defeat it: the development of a capitalist class in the Muslim world; the subsequent rise of a merchant and professional middle class; followed by democratic forms of government and all the rights and freedoms associated with democracy.
That is how history ends (to use the Fukuyama lexicon). I’m sure it will end that way in the Muslim world, too. I have no idea how long that will take, however. But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path. With the exception of Bosnia, no Muslim majority country has the essential ingredients* for democracy, today. No invading army can create those ingredients.
* Newsweek Editor, Fareed Zakaria, himself a Muslim, wrote an excellent book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad,” which explains just what these ingredients are.
“….But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path.”
…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.
“….But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path.”
…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.
“….But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path.”
…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.
“….But I do know that these countries are a long way from the end of that inevitable path.”
…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.
“gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.”
Clinton faced a serious third party, populist challenger (Perot) in every single state. Gore only faced a serious third party challenger (Nader) in a handful of states. And in Florida, it became obvious what a problem that challenger meant to Gore. Nader also was poorly funded, compared with Perot; and Nader was kept out of the debates, unlike Perot.
If you look at the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000 and compare the Democratic:Republican vote totals, you see that Clinton did just fine:
1992 — Clinton 1.15:1.00
1996 — Clinton 1.21:1.00
2000 — Gore 1.01:1.00
“while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies.”
There is some truth to that. Globalization affected some segments of our economy negatively, even though most gained by it. However, it was not just gains by “upper middle class” people in the ’90s boom. The rising tide lifted (almost) all boats.
Black poverty, for example, shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment reached historic lows in the late ’90s. Welfare loads shrank everywhere. Urban crime rates, aided by the better economy, fell dramatically during that decade.
The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-full guy, like Wu Ming. And that was not a winning message, when you are the incumbent vice president.
“gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.”
Clinton faced a serious third party, populist challenger (Perot) in every single state. Gore only faced a serious third party challenger (Nader) in a handful of states. And in Florida, it became obvious what a problem that challenger meant to Gore. Nader also was poorly funded, compared with Perot; and Nader was kept out of the debates, unlike Perot.
If you look at the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000 and compare the Democratic:Republican vote totals, you see that Clinton did just fine:
1992 — Clinton 1.15:1.00
1996 — Clinton 1.21:1.00
2000 — Gore 1.01:1.00
“while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies.”
There is some truth to that. Globalization affected some segments of our economy negatively, even though most gained by it. However, it was not just gains by “upper middle class” people in the ’90s boom. The rising tide lifted (almost) all boats.
Black poverty, for example, shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment reached historic lows in the late ’90s. Welfare loads shrank everywhere. Urban crime rates, aided by the better economy, fell dramatically during that decade.
The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-full guy, like Wu Ming. And that was not a winning message, when you are the incumbent vice president.
“gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.”
Clinton faced a serious third party, populist challenger (Perot) in every single state. Gore only faced a serious third party challenger (Nader) in a handful of states. And in Florida, it became obvious what a problem that challenger meant to Gore. Nader also was poorly funded, compared with Perot; and Nader was kept out of the debates, unlike Perot.
If you look at the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000 and compare the Democratic:Republican vote totals, you see that Clinton did just fine:
1992 — Clinton 1.15:1.00
1996 — Clinton 1.21:1.00
2000 — Gore 1.01:1.00
“while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies.”
There is some truth to that. Globalization affected some segments of our economy negatively, even though most gained by it. However, it was not just gains by “upper middle class” people in the ’90s boom. The rising tide lifted (almost) all boats.
Black poverty, for example, shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment reached historic lows in the late ’90s. Welfare loads shrank everywhere. Urban crime rates, aided by the better economy, fell dramatically during that decade.
The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-full guy, like Wu Ming. And that was not a winning message, when you are the incumbent vice president.
“gore’s popular vote totals win 2000 were well above anything that clinton ever got, even with a third party challenge from the left drawing off a sizeable % in many states.”
Clinton faced a serious third party, populist challenger (Perot) in every single state. Gore only faced a serious third party challenger (Nader) in a handful of states. And in Florida, it became obvious what a problem that challenger meant to Gore. Nader also was poorly funded, compared with Perot; and Nader was kept out of the debates, unlike Perot.
If you look at the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000 and compare the Democratic:Republican vote totals, you see that Clinton did just fine:
1992 — Clinton 1.15:1.00
1996 — Clinton 1.21:1.00
2000 — Gore 1.01:1.00
“while the 90s were a booming time for many americans, especially the professional upper-middle class that populates davis, the picture didn’t look quite the same in the rust belt and rural economies.”
There is some truth to that. Globalization affected some segments of our economy negatively, even though most gained by it. However, it was not just gains by “upper middle class” people in the ’90s boom. The rising tide lifted (almost) all boats.
Black poverty, for example, shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment reached historic lows in the late ’90s. Welfare loads shrank everywhere. Urban crime rates, aided by the better economy, fell dramatically during that decade.
The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-full guy, like Wu Ming. And that was not a winning message, when you are the incumbent vice president.
EDIT: The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-empty guy, like Wu Ming.
EDIT: The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-empty guy, like Wu Ming.
EDIT: The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-empty guy, like Wu Ming.
EDIT: The problem for Mr. Gore is that he was a glass is half-empty guy, like Wu Ming.
“…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.”
Actually, it’s 180 degrees opposite from that viewpoint. The white man’s burden suggests that advanced peoples need to take primitives to where they need to go. The Zakaria view (which I share) is that they need to develop these institutions on their own. It is for that reason that I believe Bush’s ideal in the Middle East is folly: the ingredients for liberal democracy are not there.
“…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.”
Actually, it’s 180 degrees opposite from that viewpoint. The white man’s burden suggests that advanced peoples need to take primitives to where they need to go. The Zakaria view (which I share) is that they need to develop these institutions on their own. It is for that reason that I believe Bush’s ideal in the Middle East is folly: the ingredients for liberal democracy are not there.
“…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.”
Actually, it’s 180 degrees opposite from that viewpoint. The white man’s burden suggests that advanced peoples need to take primitives to where they need to go. The Zakaria view (which I share) is that they need to develop these institutions on their own. It is for that reason that I believe Bush’s ideal in the Middle East is folly: the ingredients for liberal democracy are not there.
“…sounds an awful lot like the “White Man’s burden” and “Manifest Destiny” credos of the 19th century.”
Actually, it’s 180 degrees opposite from that viewpoint. The white man’s burden suggests that advanced peoples need to take primitives to where they need to go. The Zakaria view (which I share) is that they need to develop these institutions on their own. It is for that reason that I believe Bush’s ideal in the Middle East is folly: the ingredients for liberal democracy are not there.
From Wikipedia:
The term “the white man’s burden” ….. taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”.
From Wikipedia:
The term “the white man’s burden” ….. taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”.
From Wikipedia:
The term “the white man’s burden” ….. taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”.
From Wikipedia:
The term “the white man’s burden” ….. taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”.
Anon,
Kipling’s poem suggests far more than than. The principal idea is to justify colonial rule by whites over darker skinned folks. Zakaria is certainly not advocating that.
The fact that most Islamic countries are backwards — in terms of economic development, incorporation of modern technologies, human and civil rights and democratic governance — is irrefutable and has nothing to do with anyone’s burden.
Anon,
Kipling’s poem suggests far more than than. The principal idea is to justify colonial rule by whites over darker skinned folks. Zakaria is certainly not advocating that.
The fact that most Islamic countries are backwards — in terms of economic development, incorporation of modern technologies, human and civil rights and democratic governance — is irrefutable and has nothing to do with anyone’s burden.
Anon,
Kipling’s poem suggests far more than than. The principal idea is to justify colonial rule by whites over darker skinned folks. Zakaria is certainly not advocating that.
The fact that most Islamic countries are backwards — in terms of economic development, incorporation of modern technologies, human and civil rights and democratic governance — is irrefutable and has nothing to do with anyone’s burden.
Anon,
Kipling’s poem suggests far more than than. The principal idea is to justify colonial rule by whites over darker skinned folks. Zakaria is certainly not advocating that.
The fact that most Islamic countries are backwards — in terms of economic development, incorporation of modern technologies, human and civil rights and democratic governance — is irrefutable and has nothing to do with anyone’s burden.
The one thing about this that I hope people take away from this event is that the youth can be mobilized. When I created the facebook.com event, it became viral instantly. The first mass invite was to about 300 people. Within a hour it amount of people invited jumped to 600.
In the end there were 8000 people invited through just this one website with 2,400 RSVPed to come. Also the cal aggie’s front page got tones of people to show up not to mention the email lists that many groups sent out.
I only wished that there was a venue that could hold 15,000 people (hopefully something indoors as opposed to the stadium)
The one thing about this that I hope people take away from this event is that the youth can be mobilized. When I created the facebook.com event, it became viral instantly. The first mass invite was to about 300 people. Within a hour it amount of people invited jumped to 600.
In the end there were 8000 people invited through just this one website with 2,400 RSVPed to come. Also the cal aggie’s front page got tones of people to show up not to mention the email lists that many groups sent out.
I only wished that there was a venue that could hold 15,000 people (hopefully something indoors as opposed to the stadium)
The one thing about this that I hope people take away from this event is that the youth can be mobilized. When I created the facebook.com event, it became viral instantly. The first mass invite was to about 300 people. Within a hour it amount of people invited jumped to 600.
In the end there were 8000 people invited through just this one website with 2,400 RSVPed to come. Also the cal aggie’s front page got tones of people to show up not to mention the email lists that many groups sent out.
I only wished that there was a venue that could hold 15,000 people (hopefully something indoors as opposed to the stadium)
The one thing about this that I hope people take away from this event is that the youth can be mobilized. When I created the facebook.com event, it became viral instantly. The first mass invite was to about 300 people. Within a hour it amount of people invited jumped to 600.
In the end there were 8000 people invited through just this one website with 2,400 RSVPed to come. Also the cal aggie’s front page got tones of people to show up not to mention the email lists that many groups sent out.
I only wished that there was a venue that could hold 15,000 people (hopefully something indoors as opposed to the stadium)
Can anyone get together here? All your glasses contain an amount of liquid, niether full or empty. The end is coming and none of you see it. Perhaps that is best.
Can anyone get together here? All your glasses contain an amount of liquid, niether full or empty. The end is coming and none of you see it. Perhaps that is best.
Can anyone get together here? All your glasses contain an amount of liquid, niether full or empty. The end is coming and none of you see it. Perhaps that is best.
Can anyone get together here? All your glasses contain an amount of liquid, niether full or empty. The end is coming and none of you see it. Perhaps that is best.