White House in 2008

BubberMiley · February 12, 2007

He made his first big stupid mistake yesterday. Australia's Howard questioned his cut and run policy and Obama basically sneered at Australia's contribution to the war.

Obama was just pointing out the empty rhetoric of all the chickenhawk neocons who bluster that we must fight the good fight in this clash of civilizations, but aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifice themselves. They don't send enough troops to get the job done; they send lots of money, but it all mysteriously goes missing; and they never enlist themselves because they have "other priorities."

southerncomfort · February 12, 2007

I wouldn't put my money on Hilary or Obama, I'd go for Rudy, but its still early. Mind you Hilary has the best money making machine so who knows. Honestly do you really think that the U.S. is ready for Hilary or Obama.

Catchme · February 12, 2007

He made his first big stupid mistake yesterday. Australia's Howard questioned his cut and run policy and Obama basically sneered at Australia's contribution to the war.

Obama was just pointing out the empty rhetoric of all the chickenhawk neocons who bluster that we must fight the good fight in this clash of civilizations, but aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifice themselves. They don't send enough troops to get the job done; they send lots of money, but it all mysteriously goes missing; and they never enlist themselves because they have "other priorities."

Have looked all over the net, to see if Austrailia was upset, or even had heard about Obama's remarks and nary a thing was about that I could find.

In fact, the only thing I could find about Howards remarks to Obama was in an Irish on line paper citing Reuters. Maybe search engines have not yet picked up on it though.

But it is interesting, as Americans on both side of the house condemned Howard, so they do not think Obama made any type of sniping commentary. And you are quite right Obama did not slam AU's contributions at all.

Howard criticisms empty rhetoric, says Obama
US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has dismissed as "empty rhetoric" criticisms of his proposals to pull US troops out of Iraq from the Australian prime minister.

John Howard had said at the weekend that terrorist leaders would be hoping Mr Obama and the Democratic Party won the presidential elections in 2008 because Mr Obama wanted to remove US troops from Iraq by March 31st of that year.

Mr Howard, a staunch ally of President Bush, denied his remarks were diplomatically inappropriate.

Mr Obama said he was flattered that one of Mr Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack and challenged Mr Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Mr Obama said in Iowa.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

US senators from both major parties have criticised Mr Howard for his comments.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/.../breaking11.htm

scribblet · February 12, 2007

It seems they have heard of in New Zealand too LOL

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959637a12.html

Howard not sorry for Obama attack

Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has hit back at criticism over his attack on US presidential candidate Barack Obama's Iraq policy.

Mr Howard said the Labor Party had no right to attack him because it often criticised US President George Bush over the Iraq war and no one accused Labor of putting the US alliance in jeopardy.

jdobbin · February 12, 2007

Howard not sorry for Obama attack

Howard must be looking for anything to help pull him out of the political slump he is in.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/ho...0523956770.html

Black Dog · February 12, 2007

Though it's all a waste of time if Gulliani is running for the GOP. A social moderate (he's pro-choice, pro-SSM....) that's also fiscally conservative and strong on security is a tough candidate to beat in the US.

Are you kidding? The Dems won't have to beat Gulianani because he won't get that far. His social vews make him poison to the "family values" crowd. Plus he's from the northeast, which makes him poison to the south. Afte rthat: who's left on the G.O.P side? I don't think he has a shot even if he makes his stump speech at the primaries nailed to the Ground Zero Cross. My money is on "maverick" McCain getting the nod.

Remiel · February 12, 2007

How quick you are to fumble for a justification for your hypocrisy. If there is anything that the Republican administration has proven is that you don't have to be in the top job to have most of the power. A few new faces in the Oval Office isn't going to magically get rid of all the player who have been at the centre of this crap. As for McCain, he has already been shown to be a sell-out, after that thing with the virtually useless McCain amendment.

Black Dog · February 12, 2007

He made his first big stupid mistake yesterday. Australia's Howard questioned his cut and run policy and Obama basically sneered at Australia's contribution to the war. By doing so he insulted all Australians, and showed contempt for their troops. He's also denigrating the contribution of all the other small nations which have contributed troops to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying, in effect "If you don't have tens of thousands of troops in the field like us, then shut your mouth. We don't want your opinion."

No. What Obama said was that Howard should put his money where his mouth is. After all, if Iraq is as important as Howard says it is, why does Australia have less than 2,000 troops deployed there? Why aren't they doing more to help? The gaffe was Howard's, not Obama's.

Remiel:

How quick you are to fumble for a justification for your hypocrisy. If there is anything that the Republican administration has proven is that you don't have to be in the top job to have most of the power. A few new faces in the Oval Office isn't going to magically get rid of all the player who have been at the centre of this crap. As for McCain, he has already been shown to be a sell-out, after that thing with the virtually useless McCain amendment.

Who are you talking to?

Remiel · February 12, 2007

Argus. Not sure why I waste the time...

daniel · February 12, 2007

And running for the Republicans:

Cheney/Perle

Black Dog · February 12, 2007

I'd like to see Cheney run for Prez, if only to see what kind of campaign he'd mount. Imagine the slogans....

Vote for Cheney or Go F**k Yourself!

Vote for Cheney or he'll shoot you in the face

Cheney '08: he's got heart (now with 39% actual human tissue)

Argus · February 12, 2007

Dion pounding the pulpit about the environment is like Dick Cheney pounding the pulpit, running for president, claiming that the US needs to get out of Iraq and never should have gone in.

That's a very weak analogy. It's not like Dion ever actively campaigned against the environment, as the Conservatives have done.

I think you mean they campaigned against wasting money on trying to stop the ocean from washing ashore, don't you?

newbie · February 13, 2007

"...Honestly do you really think that the U.S. is ready for Hilary or Obama."

Long overdue in my books

BubberMiley · February 13, 2007

I don't think the U.S. was ready for Bush/Cheney, but I also don't think the general population as a whole would have a problem with a woman or black president.

Adelle · February 14, 2007

Ok, lets move on to possible policies.

I have heard they are both anti-Iraq war (not necessarily anti-war) as are most dems so how long could the US expect to remain in Iraq and would they be willing 'put it on the line' for a cause in the future?

With a woman pres would they revisit the ERA (god knows the need to)? They do need to address the 'pink collar getto' and the 'glass ceiling'. Mind, with a being woman pres to begin with ... was that glass breaking??

Will they be able to walk the line between 'Femi-nazi's' and 'Old Boys', and various race activists.

I have already heard some say that Obama isn't really black or isn't black enough (I think the term used to be Milato) so would Clinton be considered 'woman enough'? Would she be - unofficially - treated like some other female heads of state (Campbell - symbolic bimbo, Thatcher - man with tits, Gandi - daddys girl)?

Would governement be less intrusive and invasive or more so?

Will Hillary pose for Playboy? (Ok, that one is a LOL). It might be a nice 'body issue' thing, like the DOVE commercials, but we know how uptight Americans seem to be about nudity and 'depravity' (sic).

Any thing else anyone can think of?

ft.niagara · February 18, 2007

Remiel:
How quick you are to fumble for a justification for your hypocrisy. If there is anything that the Republican administration has proven is that you don't have to be in the top job to have most of the power. A few new faces in the Oval Office isn't going to magically get rid of all the player who have been at the centre of this crap. As for McCain, he has already been shown to be a sell-out, after that thing with the virtually useless McCain amendment.

Who are you talking to?

Argus. Not sure why I waste the time...

Remiel, does it seem sometimes like you are unappreciated and just talking to yourself? It's ok, 'cause you are.

ft.niagara · February 18, 2007

Ok, lets move on to possible policies.

Who are you, a social studies teacher?

ClearWest · February 18, 2007

Barrack Hussein Obama? Don't Americans find this alarming?

Seriously though, I definitely do not think that the Republicans are out of the running. Voters have short memories - and they're more willing to forgive a party's faults if there is a new leader on board. Why else would our Liberals still be in the running? Why else does the BC provincial NDP still exist? They should have lost their right to govern years ago.

Bytheway, he has a smaller chance at winning, but it would be awesome to see this guy get in: Ron Paul, running for the Republican party.

BubberMiley · February 19, 2007

Why else does the BC provincial NDP still exist? They should have lost their right to govern years ago.

News flash: They lost their right to govern years ago.

ClearWest · February 19, 2007

Why else does the BC provincial NDP still exist? They should have lost their right to govern years ago.

News flash: They lost their right to govern years ago.

Uh... they have 33 out of 79 seats in the legislature. That's a gain of 31 from their previous standing. This tells me that people have short memories or are quite forgiving of their favourite parties.

BubberMiley · February 19, 2007

Uh... they have 33 out of 79 seats in the legislature. That's a gain of 31 from their previous standing. This tells me that people have short memories or are quite forgiving of their favourite parties.

Uh...do you even know what "government" means? 33 out of 79 seats does not a government make.

ClearWest · February 19, 2007

Uh... they have 33 out of 79 seats in the legislature. That's a gain of 31 from their previous standing. This tells me that people have short memories or are quite forgiving of their favourite parties.

Uh...do you even know what "government" means? 33 out of 79 seats does not a government make.

Yeah, but they certainly (God forbid) have a chance of regaining majority status - it's not like that 'right' has been taken away from them.

Adelle · February 19, 2007

Who are you, a social studies teacher?

No, just a student. The possibility of a woman and negro holding the highest office is just one thing to look at. The fact that it is even a possibility says a lot in itself. Since this area is about "Relations" I am also wondering what we could expect from them. De-militarize the boarder, more open trade and immigration, higher minimum wage or status quo, business-as-usual, all-we-wanted-was-the-power-and-money. I mean, look at the Liberal Party here. Now that the are on the outside wanting in, they have done more (and promised to do more) in the pass 6 months than they did in 13 years in power. (promise everything, do nothing). Others noted the NDP in BC. I am sure people could say the same about the Conservative Party and the PC party-that-was.

ft.niagara · February 20, 2007

Since this area is about "Relations" I am also wondering what we could expect from them.

You mean Can expect from the Negro and the Woman. Both together, or one or the other?

I think both would be harder on trade. Neither militaristic. Both would be expected to have initiatives for minorities, and both probably would. Hillary would not be second to Obama. Obama might take a second spot to Hillary.

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

What is the chance that Ms Clinton and Mr Obama end up as Prez/Vice in 2008 and what do you thing their agenda will be.

I'd have to say that would be the weakest presidential ticket ever offered to the US electorate.

Two Senators, one of which is a rookie. No executive experience between either of them.

I have been hearing quite a bit about both of them and I can't see any sort of Republican win here, even if they ran Jesus and Mohamed (two very influential fellows) as candidates.

Then you just don't know US politics. It ain't Canada down there. These are the people who not only elected GW Bush, but re-elected him. Don't underestimate the electoral power of the Republican party.