To BG: Yes, though most will not use those words. Believe me, there are good ol’ boys who’re gonna vote this time if either is nominated, that would never have registered before. I work with a couple hundred of them
Sir Rhosis
And I mean good ol’ boys from an area that is strong in evangelicism (is that a word?), not just good old boys in general. Plenty of people will say that they want us out of the war, want this or that which seems liberal and left-leaning on the surface, but will then say, “But, having said that, I’d never vote for a c_ t or a n _ _ _r.”
Sir Rhosis
This April I raised the question, “How many Americans are there, now, who would vote for a Dem but never for a black?” No clear consensus emerged.
To be fair, I have known several evangelicals who are splendid people and boon companions, generous in plenty and cheerful in adversity. They are entirely blind to racism, see a black man as just another set of ears for the Good News. They are innocent of the taint of Calvinism, and bubble with enthusiastic salvation.
I consider their faith hopelessly naive and immune to doubt, and before I would argue them out of it, I would sew my lips shut.
Too late, you already said that wasn’t a gaffe. 
(End of #71.)
That made a great deal of sense vis-a-vis potentially hostile nuclear powers.
Here, though, we’re talking about going after terrorists with nukes. There’s no need to leave nukes ‘on the table’ because there’s nothing you can do to bin Laden’s terrorist hideout with nukes that you can’t do with conventional bombs. Plus there’s the whole business about nukes taking collateral damage to a whole new level.
The only reasons to leave nukes ‘on the table’ in that context is to show that (a) you’re batshit insane, and (b) you’re a ‘serious’ analyst of foreign policy.
To quote Samantha Power, the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard:
Power is obviously not an unbiased source here, but I can’t find the problem in her logic.
Or, as Atrios said earlier today:
You don’t win hearts and minds anywhere by suggesting that you’ll nuke the bad guy who’s hiding out in their neighborhood. If we want to tell the people of Waziristan that their lives don’t mean shit to us, saying we’ve got to keep the nuclear option available is exactly the way to convey that message. Which way does Hillary Clinton think this threat will push them, I wonder?
After all the times the whole racist “these people understand nothing but force” meme has been demonstrated wrong over the past several years, one must hope Hillary’s been paying attention. Maybe she feels she has to prove herself ‘tough’ to win an election. But I sure won’t respect her in the morning.
What has Calvinism to do with racism?
Nothing, the comment is more about my distaste for Calvinistic doctrines, as I see reflected in much of today’s fundamentalism, but markedly less so amongst evangelicals.
I think Clinton will have a lot more problems with the Christian anti-vote than Obama will. Religious conservatives have more issues with gender than with race. And Clinton (in my opinion wrongfully) is perceived as being anti-religious.
On the subject of religious conservatives, I think they’ll be Romney’s downfall. A portion of that will be his Mormonism but I think the real problem will be his political record. He’s conservative enough now to scare away liberals and moderates but his past will worry conservatives. I don’t think they’ll flock to the Democratic candidate but they may decide to just stay home and pray for a better choice in 2012.
Actually, I just missed the reference. But no big deal.
As for the other stuff, we’ll have to disagree. It’s dangerous to state categorically that you’ll take nukes off the table. Why? because then when you get into a conflict with Russia or China, they’ll demand that you take them off the table for them too. And if you don’t, suddenly it sounds like you’re playing nuclear brinksmanship. It’s much better to *always respond by saying, “the official policy of this country is not to discuss the use of nuclear weapons.” Then you can’t get backed into a corner.
That’s why ‘serious policy analysts’ generally support that policy.
I think Hillary has the same kind of problem Rudy Guliani has. She’s been playing to both ends of the political spectrum for so long that her opponents fear that she’ll govern from the left, and yet her constituents also have enough ammo to fear that she won’t.
To some people, she comes across as unprincipled, willing to adopt the more politically expedient position at any given moment. One day she sounds like a hawk, and the next like a dove. One day she’s drafting ‘Hillarycare’ and screaming about a vast right-wing conspiracy, and the next she’s sounding almost like a Republican. That puts people off.
For myself, I’ve grown to admire Hillary a bit, and I never liked her at all when her husband was president. But she impressed me by the way she won New York - not with tricks and a brilliant TV ad campaign, but by actually stumping through the state listening to people. She won re-election in New York in a landslide because, unlike the fears of many that she was just a carpetbagger who would ignore the state for higher ambition (i.e. John Edwards), she actually worked hard for the interests of her state. And she has a very good reputation in the senate. She’s not a polarizing figure like Pelosi. She worked both sides of the aisles, got herself on some powerful committees through merit, and did a good job.
I don’t agree with a lot of what she says, but I have no doubt that as a President she would try her damndest to do the right thing as she sees it. She’d work hard, and I suspect she’d be able to hold her own on the world stage. I don’t feel the same about a number of other candidates on both sides of the political fence.
And when she called for Don Rumsfeld to resign, it turned out she was right.
Actually, Sam, we already have promised not to use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan. We’re a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in which the nuclear powers have agreed not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear powers.
Pakistan, a nuclear power itself and a non-signatory, is an open target.
Unless they change their “stay the course” policy on Iraq, the Pubs will lose.
GOP hopefuls generally agree on Iraq
More and more Americans are waking up to the realization that this conflation of 9/11 and Iraq is a lie perpetrated on them by those who have gambled away the rent and are now compulsively throwing good money after bad in the vain belief that they can some how win it all back. No wonder Ron Paul won the FreedomWorks straw poll.
I’ve gotta say, this strikes me as laughable in its implausibility.
And all we have to say is, "to date, the greatest harm they’ve proved capable of doing was flying planes into three buildings, killing 3000 people. To nuke them - and consequently, to nuke everyone in the vicinity - would be a cure more catastrophic than the disease.
“Like us, you have nukes. When you give them up, we will apply the same policy to you, per the NPT.” (Thanks, Nemo.)
I bet the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers are smart enough to think these things through. Most nations put someone with actual brains in the post, as do we under most Administrations.
I see little evidence that she’s been playing to either end of the political spectrum.
Hillary as a hyperliberal was completely a right-wing invention.
I can only assume those people aren’t paying much attention.
You guys on the right have longer days than the rest of us, that’s all I gotta say.
Not to mention, there’s hardly anything about either ‘Hillarycare’ or her VRWC claim that’s inconsistent with her hawkish foreign-policy stance. And on most domestic issues, she sounds a lot like Bill Clinton ca. 1996. That’s hardly inconsistent.
I mean, I’m no great fan of Hillary, but c’mon.
Speaking of right-wing inventions…
When did she do this? (With the emphasis on ‘when,’ not ‘did.’) If, as I suspect, she was roughly the 37,838,945th person in America to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, that shouldn’t garner much credit.
Not to mention, it was an obvious call, even if we forget about Abu Ghraib. The guy went out of his way to grab authority over the occupation from Colin Powell and the State Department, and then was totally unready when the statue fell. He had his troops stand aside while resources necessary for the occupation got massively looted. He had authority over the Coalition Provisional Authority.
In short, he was a colossal fuckup. Her calling on him to resign merely shows that she has two brain cells to rub together.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Dennis Kucinich will be president before Ron Paul is president!
Sez in the New York Times that they passed earmark reform, and have half as many earmarks this year as the GOP did two years ago.
A reform with unintended consequences, but a reform nonetheless.
And:
Just setting the record straight.
20%
There’s an interesting article in the Economist about the collapse of the Republican Party.
Money quote:
Are you sure it isn’t a memory of her during her husband’s first governorship?
Bill was a governor?
Which state?