What happens after HRC or Obama win?

[SmackFu]

Obama will be the magical politician who easily gets all his promises done in his first 90 days of office, and then sleeps on the couch in the Oval Office for the other 3 years.

[RickJay]

@Shodan

Actually, I was thinking more of Iran or North Korea starting something to test [list=A][li]the first woman President, or [*]an inexperienced President Obama[/list]Or some major push in Iraq, or even stepped up activity in Pakistan. [/li]
But didn’t the first attacks on the WTC happen within a few weeks of Clinton taking office? Although that, too, may be happenstance.

On the other hand, the Tet Offensive happened in the last year of the administration of a hawkish President, as did the invasion of Czechoslovakia the same year; the Iranian hostage crisis happened in 1979, the al-Qaida attacks on U.S. embassies happened in the sixth year of Clinton’s presidency, so on and so forth. You have to figure that 25% of all international incidents are going to happen in the year following a Presidential election, right?

I can believe the Soviet Union might once have considered doing something to test a new President, all other things being equal, but even they had other considerations (and there would be reasons to NOT do such a thing, from their perspective; how do you know the new Prez won’t freak out and launch nukes?) But I really, honestly, from the limited study I’ve done of it, don’t believe an Islamic fundamentalist cares one way or the other. They don’t really perceive there to be a difference between Democrats and Republicans, or one President to another; they all support Israel and are decadent Westerners who prop up Middle Eastern dictatorships, so they’re all bad.

[Shodan]

@RickJay

You have to figure that 25% of all international incidents are going to happen in the year following a Presidential election, right?

Certainly, and as I said, there is always going to be something going on.

I can believe the Soviet Union might once have considered doing something to test a new President, all other things being equal, but even they had other considerations (and there would be reasons to NOT do such a thing, from their perspective; how do you know the new Prez won’t freak out and launch nukes?) But I really, honestly, from the limited study I’ve done of it, don’t believe an Islamic fundamentalist cares one way or the other. They don’t really perceive there to be a difference between Democrats and Republicans, or one President to another; they all support Israel and are decadent Westerners who prop up Middle Eastern dictatorships, so they’re all bad.

Although the Iranians deliberately waited until Carter was out of office before releasing the hostages. Although they didn’t do that because they liked Reagan better than Carter, just to rub Carter’s and the worlds’ nose in Carter’s weakness and basic ineffectualism during the whole mess.

I wonder if the Islamo-fascists would react any more poorly to a woman President. I should do some checking, and see if they disliked Bhutto any more than they would have a male politician of the same stripe.

What I mean is, given the lower status of women and their rights under radical Islam, if they would be any more enraged at a woman President than they are already at the West for supporting Israel, etc., as you mentioned.

It would be like asking how they would respond to a President Lieberman rather than a President who was a Christian.

Regards,
Shodan

[Phlosphr]

@Shodan

<snip

I wonder if the Islamo-fascists would react any more poorly to a woman President. I should do some checking, and see if they disliked Bhutto any more than they would have a male politician of the same stripe.

What I mean is, given the lower status of women and their rights under radical Islam, if they would be any more enraged at a woman President than they are already at the West for supporting Israel, etc., as you mentioned.

I’d like to hear an informed answer on this as well, as this very thing has gone through my head once or twice…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Although the Iranians deliberately waited until Carter was out of office before releasing the hostages. Although they didn’t do that because they liked Reagan better than Carter, just to rub Carter’s and the worlds’ nose in Carter’s weakness and basic ineffectualism during the whole mess.

So the entire Iran Contra thing never got you thinking that maybe Reagan bought them off? We know for a fact that Reagan was negotiating with Iran while he was running for President.

[tnetennba]

@Liberal

The difference, as far as I’m concerned, is that Obama has the potential to inspire and unify the nation, while Hillary does not.

Ditto.

[Shodan]

@Damuri Ajashi

So the entire Iran Contra thing never got you thinking that maybe Reagan bought them off? We know for a fact that Reagan was negotiating with Iran while he was running for President.

Both the House and the Senate investigated this. The Senate’s report concluded that

“by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages”.

The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were “wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence.” The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

Bonus question - which political party was in control of the House of Representatives during 1993?

That well-known tool of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy[sup]TM[/sup] and notorious Reagan apologist rag the Village Voice concluded that

…almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying.

Newsweek and The New Republic came to somewhat similar conclusions - to wit

Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately.

Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.

Wait now, let me guess - it was the guy on the grassy knoll, wasn’t it?

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

My response to the OP: 41 or more GOP Senators will block cloture on Hillary’s or Obama’s entire legislative agenda. The press will blame the failure to pass legislation on the President and the Democrats, for being insufficiently willing to work with the GOP, while ignoring the GOP’s complete intransigence.

[Captain_Amazing]

@RTFirefly

My response to the OP: 41 or more GOP Senators will block cloture on Hillary’s or Obama’s entire legislative agenda.

Who knows…with the way that things are going, we might come close to a fillibuster proof senate this year. The only Democratic seat that’s weak is Louisiana, and, if we’re lucky, the Dems could pick up Alaska, Colorado. Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia. So, if everything goes right, a fillibuster gets harder.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain Amazing

Who knows…with the way that things are going, we might come close to a fillibuster proof senate this year. The only Democratic seat that’s weak is Louisiana, and, if we’re lucky, the Dems could pick up Alaska, Colorado. Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia. So, if everything goes right, a fillibuster gets harder.

We’ll see: November’s a long way off, and it’s hard to see what’ll happen. Just the choice of Dem Presidential nominee might make a big difference. If the Dems, or Dem-allied 527s, are able to define McCain in a negative light, then that would depress GOP turnout, which would help.

Stronger candidates than we seem to have in places like Oregon and NC would make a big difference, too.