Duke it out here. Those participating in the US election threads are advised that they do so at their own risk.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Presidential election minus 21 weeks
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
1,623 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 33 » Show All
14 Repug congress members refuse to endorse McCain and another dozen not committed
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html
Mathew – Hillary will not, could not, must not be appointed to the Supreme Court. She is not qualified to sit on that Court by any stretch of the imagination – it isn’t the NSW Industrial Commission for christ’s sake. As I’ve said before, there are thousands and thousands of relevantly experienced, intelligent lawyers who are currently judges of inferior courts who also would support Roe vWade, and who would have the right to be apoplectic if a legal flake like Hillary got on that bench. It’s laughable. It would also fatally taint Obama’s term if he did that.
Dio #148,
Errrm, newsflash: Hillary Clinton has a postgrad degree in law, and was a practising lawyer from at least 1974 to 1992.
She helped research impeachment precedents for the House Committee seeking to impeach Nixon in 1974.
In 1974 also, Hillary Clinton became one of two female faculy members in the School of Law in the University of Arkansas.
She was named the first female partner of Rose Law Firm in 1979, and was referred to as a “rainmaker”, or a partner who brought in clients. From 1978 to 1992, Hillary Clinton earned more as a lawyer than Bill did as the Governor of Arkansas.
Clinton’s work was noted for its specialisation in copyright infringement and IP fields, although she also did pro bono work in the field of childrens’ law.
Clinton was also described by multiple sources (none in her campaign) as one of the most important scholar-activists of the 1970s and 80s.
So, I’m afraid that you get a big, fat ZERO on that statement, Dio.
Hillary DOES, in fact, have extenstive legal experience and expertise, as well as a lot of history of understanding the theoretical legal principles behind judgements. She would, in fact, make a more-than-competant SCOTUS judge.
150 Sounds like a very bad case of one hand clapping to me. Where is the fight in that?
#154, i just leave the fightin’ & ridin’ to my amigos Ronnie & GG, i just do the lovin’ bit.
From previous thread…eons ago it seems:
2104
Ferny Grover Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Cold Duck…..bbbbbbrbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
That was an awful memory JV. Stop it.
…can I suggest it’s not nearly as bad as the Cold Turkey that Eddy et al will get when all their tiresome huffing and puffing is drowned by Obama’s win in November.
Hi Andrew,
Nice first post.
It is exciting to have you on board. It is lovely to have someone post an opinion backed up by a topical link to a story rather than the usual situation where an opinionated blowhard comes on line and generates nothing but rubbish. And then has the temerity to claim the high ground. Don’t let it happen to you.
My colleague Finns is a great instance of someone who is fearless in his opinions and doesn’t suffer idiots harassing him. You will be wise to heed his example.
153
Mathew Cole
As I reminded everyone yesterday MC, Hillary’s bar exam results:
Failed in D.C
Passed in Arkansas
(I rest my case)
Gruffy and “blowhard” in the same post.
Hand and glove.
JV,
Get over your bitterlessness, call for more VB.
In the spirit of unity , maybe they could get together and promote Hillary Clinton and Harriet Miers to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is not a crony dumping ground of convenience, as Dio and jv have stated.
There are plenty of political positions for Hillary. Her fans needn’t fret.
KR,
Always something interesting to contribute to the discussion.
155 “i just do the lovin’ bit.”
I thought that was what you were deriding on the Federal Politics thread in 117 when you declared ‘one hand clappin’ is not NORMAL, Finns?
Mathew @ 153 –
A recitation of her CV doesn’t cut the mustard. She has not got the relevant experience for that top job. That Bush appointed right-wing bastards does not change that fact. I have many lawyer friends who have better CV’s than that in law, and they would never in a million years be appointed to our High Court. Hillary hasn’t even practiced for some 16 years. You’re kidding, surely.
steve,
You have the in hand story. You are obviously stretching it out.
Matty
Lets take them one by one.
1. She hasn’t practiced law, except as a defendant in twenty years. She has never been a judge.
2. The “rainmaker” title referred to her ability to get clients in the door of her firms practice due to her contacts. The clients were then advised by a lawyer who actually knew something and she came in and said hello occasionally to keep them sweet.
3. She was SACKED from the Nixon impeachment for unethical conduct. (Why the fcuk you people keep walking into that one defies me)
4. Pro bono work on kids law 30 years ago DOES NOT make you fit for the Supreme Court.
5. Her earnings as a lawyer were due to her connections bringing in clients, not due to her skills
6. I doubt that very much copyright law from 30 years ago is extant.
7. Most SCOTUS appointees have at least 35 years of legal experience. Some of them have even been judges which is a HUGE surprise when you are looking for a judge. Hillary has 18 years in the distant past.
She is a pygmy dinosaur legally.
JV,
You should have supported her for POTUS.
Now she might end up somewhere she can do some real damage.
Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Diog, joining Belinda Neal in her anger management course soon?
That’s apart from all the personal issues Hillary has of course, such as a worrying difficulty in distinguishing truth from confabulation. That propensity alone might make her judgement in the evaluation of evidence problematic.
BTW, why is Pru Goward looking like a Japanese Kabuki actress on Jonesy Q&A on ABC1 tonite?
Finns
Nope. Just amused.
BTW Are there any good books on the US’s foreign policy towards China? The wife’s wondering whether to do an essay on it.
GG -[Now she might end up somewhere she can do some real damage.]
That’s right – every time I turn around people are trying to bung her into another bloody job she wouldn’t handle! First POTUS, then Veep and now SCOTUS! Geez. There comes a point where her supporters have to give up surely?
Why can’t she just run off and do some pro bono meals on wheels??
JV,
Is that bitterness I detect?
It must be so terrible when the world refuses to conform to your desired expectations.
I think you and your friends need to embrace your inner Hillary. The world will be a better place.
Diog,
I think she’ll get everything she ever needs from this excellent site:
http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/
eg:
Foreign Policy
* Hu-Fukuda Summit: The East China Sea Dispute
* Ma’s Inaugural Address as President of Taiwan
* Medvedev’s First Visit to China as Russia’s President
* An Assessment of China’s Deepening Ties to Latin America
* Fukuda-Hu Summitry: Mutual Interests, not Mutual Trust?
* Beijing’s Regional Strategy and China-ASEAN Economic Integration
* Trouble and Strife in the South China Sea Part II: The Philippines and China
* Dubai Inc. in China: A New Vista for Gulf-Asia Relations
* Beijing’s Perspectives: Burma?s Referendum and International Discordances
* Trouble and Strife in the South China Sea: Vietnam and China
* Ma Ying-jeou and the Future of Cross-Strait Relations
* Heixiazi Island to Return to PRC by End of 2008
* The Future of China’s Overseas Peacekeeping Operations
* “Honeymoon” for Sino-Japanese Defense Relations
* Lee Myung-bak and the Future of Sino-South Korean Relations
Military/Security
* International Disaster Relief and Humanitarian Assistance: A Future Role for the PLA?
* Sanya Nuclear Submarine Base Shakes Asian Neighbors
* Instability in Tibet and Its Repercussions for Xinjiang
* Chinese Soliders and Arms Exports Embroiled in Zimbabwe’s Electoral Impasse
* Sino-Russian Strategic Partnership Matures
* Terrorism and the Beijing Olympics: Uyghur Discontent
* China?s Ascendancy to a Space Power
* Time for Conflict Prevention Across the Taiwan Strait
* China’s Military Budget Spurs Debate Over the Taiwan Strait
* PLA Navy Modernization: Preparing for ?Informatized? War at Sea
* The PLA’s Evolving Operational Doctrine: Experiments in Modularity
* China’s Revolution in Military Affairs: Rhetoric Versus Reality
* Taiwan’s Spratly Initiative in the South China Sea
* Soldier Scholars: Military Education as an Instrument of China’s Strategic Power
* China’s Expanding Naval Presence Troubles Neighbors
I also find Asian Times an excellent source: http://www.atimes.com/
Enjoy.
And herein lies the difficulty for the HRC cheersquad. Couldn’t have put it better myself, GG.
GG – [embrace your inner Hillary]
No, just bemusement at the Hillarian antics. I haven’t even seen anywhere that Hillary wants SCOTUS – has she said that?
But- I’m very happy with the way things have turned out actually, now you mention it. I thought Obama was the best candidate from the beginning, and the Dem party has agreed with me, the money was put on him early, and I also picked McCain for the Repug nomination early with good odds.
No, you could safely rule out any bitterness on my part. Mostly euphoria really. Thanks for caring though.
As for ‘embracing your inner Hillary’, the concept is one suggestive of a long fruitless search for anything of substance to get a grip on.
Mathew Cole & Optimist
You both are not only wrong you changed the subject of my #14. My post concerned the Iraq vote I referred to Obama’s October 2002 speech and the fact he had no Intel that the Senators had. I had also said neither ‘oz’ Pollies nor even the UN had all this classified Intell (since found corrupted) but the 28 Dems Senators did. The point being they were the only ones with the info to make a sound judgement. So your posts repeating Obama’s uninformed views or his Illinois comments are irrelevant to the point of my post. My point stands which itself was a minor point in my overall post of the UN Inspectors Reports and the alleged authentic CIA/NSA adverse Iraq assessments etc I listed leading to the 28 Dems Senators making at the time a correct yes invasion vote. Obama’s 2002 comments were ‘uninformed’ & just like the ALP’s uninformed comments happened to later proved right but irrelevant to my post’s point which is why I listed both Obama 2002 & the ALP’s 2002 views.
Neither of you challenged the substance of my post ie. the 28 Dems Senators votes. Further , neither of you challenged or addressed Obama’s 2004 comments where he told the Chicago Tribune he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a Senator at the time. Nor did yous challenge his other 2004 quote “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage of the Iraq War” Again as my post indicated he also by then had read or heard of the 2002 Intell that did support an invasion , his stance had altered , ie demonstrating from his 2004 comments that Obama’s ‘uninformed’ 2002 comments are irrelvant in considering the correct then decision that the 28 Dems made. Instead re-look at the post #14 and look at the ‘informed’ parties including the UN Inspectors & the supposed authenic CIA/NSA assessments etc & consider the point of the post , not a side issue that was uninformed & then irrelevant
steve,
Obama is the Democratic (presumptive) nominee.
I am sitting on the fence re POTUS.
Enough moveonedness for you.
BTW do you have any opinions or are you just another sniper.
JV,
Not by what you write. 172 says you are cross. Hide behind 176 now that you are put under pressure and need to write a reply.
Where do you stand?
Cheers.
171 Diog
If your wife is after more scholarly sources than China Brief (174) she could look for:
The new Asian power dynamic / editor, Maharajakrishna Rasgotra
New Delhi ; Thousand Oaks, Calif. : SAGE ; New Delhi : Observer Research Foundation, 2007
China’s expansion into the western hemisphere : implications for Latin America and the United States / Riordan Roett and Guadalupe Paz, editors
Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution Press, 2008
A triad of another kind : the United States, China, and Japan / Ming Zhang, Ronald N. Montaperto
New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1999
The United States, China and Southeast Asian security : a changing of the guard? / Wayne Bert, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
Historical dictionary of United States-China relations / Robert Sutter
Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 2006
178 [BTW do you have any opinions or are you just another sniper.]
Just sussing out the lie of the land but all I can say at this stage is that it seems Hillary has run her race and clearly suffered from ‘candidate’s disease’ by spending more in the campaign than she managed to raise which is never a healthy thing.
I would have been quite happy to see her do well but she didn’t and there comes a time when people have to reassess the situation and move on. There is no point in doing as some did in the last Australian Federal election campaign and blindly supporting a cause that has been and gone with ample evidence available from polls and other sources to allow them to come to another conclusion.
GG even if people don’t know who to support this far out from an election I can understand. But to defend someone who has suspended her campaign is bordering on lunacy in my view. It is an irritating handbrake on the US election thread which adds nothing to the debate and just comes across as sour grapes x 3.
Those mentioning Jindal for VP – save your betting money. Not a chance in hell (pun intended): http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/bobby_jindals_dance_with_the_d.php.
Finns and apres
Thanks for that. I’m back in the good books now!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/going_dutch.html
Excellent article about the course of the presidential campaign
GG
The link Mathew Cole supplied supported my arguments and damaged his !
I’ll quote the reference in full :
“They (Obama’s opponents) argue Obama should answer definitively how he would have voted if were in the Senate at the time of the vote. Obama said in 2004 he can’t answer that question fully because he doesn’t know what intelligence the senators had access to.”
ie. Obama is admitting in 2002 that his 2002 comments were “uninformed’ That was my point. It was also my point re the ALP in ‘oz’. Mathew & optimist shot themselfs in the foot. Only the 28 Dems Senators got all the Intell to make a decision not people outside the Senate
NOTE , the link also does not quote Obama’s other comment
he did not know how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a Senator at the time. Again emphasising the issue of the 28 Dems. Some posters run to Obama’s defence even when the point of my post #14 had no real relevance to Obama at all , he & the ALP were a side point at best
What bullshit Ron. The millions of people that marched against the war in Australia were not uninformed – the exhibited common sense in not swallowing what was obviously a cooked story. Neither were the tens of millions around the world who marched and spoke out. It was small cliques in the corridors of power getting lost in pathetic dossiers prepared by charismatic hawks who you are claiming are ‘informed’ now.
steve,
Nice contribution and exactly what this site needs on an on going basis.
You make some sensible points but regardless of anything, Hillary’s 18 million votes give her a seat at the table regarding the Democratic campaign. How that manifests itself is up to the participants.
However, not accomodating Hillary and more importantly her voting supporters will cause Obama a lot of grief in the long run.
The people who voted for Hillary will not necessarily vote for Obama.
Pancho
your red herring does not wash. Its bullshit. They were uninformed
Last time you came on here with a bullshit red herring on Obama & Kyoto. That is your debating tactic & it does not wash. Fortunately there is ONE Obama supporter here with intellectual honesty to correctly defend the 28 Dems
Pancho Left,
I think you have pinged old son.
EStJ
Obama +13 in Wisconsin, Democratic identification +12. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/wi_poll_obama_13.php
Pretty handy numbers at this stage of the game.
Sorry Ronnie – keep fightin if you want, but you’re wrong.
Pancho 182
While young Bobby Jindal may have been occupying his time playing exorcist, my tips for VP, Sibelius(D) and Sanford(R) were off being courted by The Bilderberg Group.
Follow the scent of power.
Pancho,
Love the rhetoric. You sound almost excited.
The truth is that most Australians were and are ambivalent. Harsh, but it is the truth. As they say, there were an awful lot of Austrlians that did not march.
Where’s Doktor Robert? The masses need the vanguard to lead the march.
That’s true GG, and the only figures I can quote off the top of my head are the about 500,000 that walked through Sydney. In a city of about 4 million. Take away the too young and old (and keep in mind that old advertising adage which claims that if you hear from one person, another 6 are on the same track) and these marches were pretty big events. Certainly like nothing else in the past couple of decades. My point is that there were many, many people who had it right from the start. They didn’t need to read (or not read, in Sen. Clinton’s case – that one’s for you Ron
) a 90 page NIE dossier, which itself cautioned against the rush to war. It was enough to see the pro-war agitation in the PNAC-Cheney group to realise that something wasn’t right.
GG
compare my info per the above link vs Panchos
quote “They (Obama’s opponents) argue Obama should answer definitively how he would have voted if were in the Senate at the time of the vote. Obama said in 2004 he can’t answer that question fully because he doesn’t know what intelligence the senators had access to.”
ie. Obama is admitting in 2004 that his 2002 comments were “uninformed’ , that he Obama did not know how he would have voted !!!
But Pancho’s intellectual argument is the marchers the protesters against invasion were smarter than Obama , they knew how they would have voted !!!
He tried this minor point red herring over Kyoto , which is why when I post blogs they are only for people who think objectively. he should have said Obama was wrong on Kyoto and he should agree with Obama own admission in 2004 above , he didnot know how he’d vote as he had no intell, ie so the marchers didn’t either
Pancho,
How many were shopping at the Rocks anyway?
Sydney pop about 5.5 mill.
Not saying it was not a protest ( the TV cameras were there and they never lie), but………..
Mr and Mrs Western Suburbs meant what?
Still wrong Ron. For the third time before I’m off (and you can bleat into nothingness) Obama’s position on the environment is below. Try to think objectively about it, and put the name of Japanese cities out of your head for a moment:
‘Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.’
And the overwhelming majority opinion about the rush to war just makes your opinion that the few insider parties gunning for it were the ‘informed’ ones look patently rediculous, given what we now can all see (even our ‘informed’ friends).
FINNS
where is that bus , someone else got run over. My post #196 quotes Obama’s own words and own position vs Pancho’s “uninformed” protesters
the bus has niow run over Obama’s own words & own (truthful & correct admissions) he didn’t have the Intell so he didn’t knwo in 2004 how he would have voted in the 2002 resolution vs Pancho whose in favor of the protesters over Obama’s own opinions
As to Kyoto , Pancho still can not justify Obama ’s refusal to say he supports the ratification of Kyoto. Instead he relys on Obam’s red herring that ‘Obama will work with’ but Obama is saying he does not support ratifying Kyoto. Rudd did pre 2007 election. Red herrings re Iraq vote & Kyoto , then he disappeared
Where’s the bus.
Ron,
The barbarians are not listening!
But, you are the star.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 33 » Show All