The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

chinthee

Governor Richardson backs Obama

Governor Richardson backs Obama - Yahoo! News

This was an important endorsement. It will give Obama a booster shot with the important Hispanic vote, which has largely backed Clinton to date. It also signals a look ahead at one of Obama's future cabinet choices or perhaps VP.

Norton

Good observation CT. Hispanic vote is not very important in the remaining primaries but Richardson's support will help in the general election. Clinton's must be furious over this give Richardson was a close friend of Clinton's as well as serving on Pres Clinton cabinet. He is also a super delegate and has a lot of influence to sway other super delegates to support Obama. The super delegates that have been sitting on the fence may well come out for Obama in the next few days because of Richardson's endorsement.

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

raycarey

^^^the more time that the media has to investigate his suspicious claims during that period, the worse it will be for mccain.

i hope you're right....obama has won more states, has more delegates, and is leading in the popular vote by nearly 700,000.....at this point it's little more than a media driven concoction that clinton has any real chance at the nomination.

Jet Gorgon

Richardson = Veep. methinks.
Saw the vid of the anouncement -- Bambi was grinning like a Cheshire cat. I've noticed that his smile is getting quite lopsided these days. I bet that physiogamy would note a character flaw in that.

Boon Mee

Heh...

RASMUSSEN: "Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 42%."

stroller

Hmm, yeh, sure:
"Physiogamy means reading one's character by face and appearance.This science originated from India and spread to Iran, Rome, and France.Thereafter other countries have also made further research in this science."

What's your hair like, Jet?
"Hair : Long, dark hair are considered as part of beauty. Shoulder length hair (naturally) indicate a self praising, envious and jealous woman. If the hair is red in color, the woman is considered to be harsh tempered, quarrelsome and ill natured. Black and curly hair indicate that the woman is lucky and wealthy. A woman with thick, coarse, short and rough hair is considered to have bad luck. When hair is soft, silky, thin, dark, very long upto knees, it is an indication of beauty and good luck."
Physiognomy Of Women - Face

Texpat

By David Kuhn
Politico
March 25, 2008

John McCain is scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy speech Wednesday in Los Angeles, one with a heavy Iraq focus, but chances are Democrats won’t be listening. They’ve already distilled his views into an easy to remember formulation: 100 years of war.

It is a reference to an offhand remark made by McCain in January about the possible duration of the U.S. presence in Iraq, a comment that Democrats now portray as the equivalent of the McCain Doctrine.

Though it’s not exactly an accurate representation of McCain’s views, Democratic strategists view the “100 years” remark as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him by framing the Vietnam War hero as a warmonger who envisions an American presence in Iraq without end.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began citing McCain’s remark in Democratic debates not long after he made it and their campaigns have stepped up the focus in recent weeks.

On a recent conference call with reporters, Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s bulldog operative, mentioned four times in two minutes that John McCain “wants to be in Iraq for 100 years.”

“Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he’s offering us a 100 year occupation,” said Obama last week, in a speech marking the 5-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

McCain never actually went so far as to call for a century-long occupation. Rather, in response to a New Hampshire town hall questioner who asked about President Bush’s statement that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, McCain interrupted and said, “Make it 100.”

“We've been in South Korea . . . we’ve been in Japan for 60 years,” he continued. “We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

McCain has found himself clarifying the remark ever since, from CNN’s Larry King show to exchanges with reporters on his campaign bus. In subsequent interviews, McCain has taken to saying the U.S. presence could be 1,000 years—or even one million years—in an attempt to make the case that the length of the presence is less important to Americans than the amount of casualties taken.

“The point he was making is really post war. He’s not even taken a position,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s top adviser. “He’s trying to explain whether you could have a presence, a base, in Iraq after war, and the American people would accept it. His argument always was, if we are not taking casualties, well they’ve accepted it in Japan, Korea and Germany.”

While reporters may have let up on the issue, Democrats have not.

“This is the middle of an entrenched, ethnic, religious, guerrilla war. The idea to stick it out for 100 years before they settle it is crazy on the substance and insane on the tactics,” said Jonathan Prince, a Democratic strategist who helped run John Edwards’ presidential campaign.

Regardless of what McCain meant, Democrats view his remark as a rare opportunity to define him early enough in the campaign to make the charges stick.

Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years' - David Paul Kuhn - Politico.com

I hope the US maintains a presence in Iraq. Recall the last time the West left in a flurry. This could well be a precursor to regional stability. Having a permanent, US presence without the bullshit politics and impermanance that was realized with Saudia Arabia.

Jet Gorgon

^ Agree, Texy. Better to have a foothold in potential hot spots or for strategic purposes. Saves dragging the fleet and/or troops halfway round the world when something happens or somebody hollers for American help. Troops are needed for the embassy anyway, right?

Texpat

Well about 20 or 30.

I can't help but think of the wasted effort by countless countries in trying to settle the middle east. Maybe the answer is to move in, figuratively. Maybe not. Glad I'm not in the forces any longer. I count those months in that region among my worst.

Over the decades, it seems Africa has eclipsed the ME as a troubled region. How long till nobody gives a shit about the ME?

Anyway. Whoever wins the election inherits the problem. I hope they remember gobal reach is a tenent of force projection.

stroller

Literally, surely.

Wasn't this the plan all along underneath the all the BS?

Hootad Binky

Is it fine with them?

McCain doesn't seem to know that Iran is Shia, not Sunni, and that there is absolutely no connection between Al-Queda and Iran - even Bush knows that But then again, this is the guy who likes to sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" a la Beach Boys at town hall meetings. The market he visited in Baghdad last year is now a no-go zone, and I sincerely hope he can dodge the Shia missiles now raining down on the Green Zone, next time he checks on "Surge" progress.

__________________
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. -Oscar Wilde

Jet Gorgon

^ Shiite, Sunni and Kurd.
I like the new flame war -- Clinton (notice the press says the Clintons, plural) calling Richardson Judas for going to the Obama camp, Obama camp calling dirties on Hilde's "mispoken" (geez, call them like they are: LIES) stuff about her Bosnia
visit, etc, and the aide saying the stain is worse than that on Monica's dress. 555 Now Hilde's going after Bambi's pastor links coz the press is calling her on her LIES. McCain needs do nothing -- let the Dems kill each other off.
Clinton also wants to save the poor people who are facing mortgage foreclosures. Aww. FO. I equate it to folks who get a visa card. Spend, spend, spend. Then, suddenly, they have to PAY the bill. Ohhhh. My answer: be responsible for yourself. If you cannot afford it, don't fekin buy it.

Hootad Binky

How do you feel about the Bear Stearns $29-billion bail-out that tax payers have to underwrite?

Jet Gorgon

^ You changed the subject. Never mind. Better than bailing out mortgage owners who will never pay. Bear employed alot of people, and if it failed, the market would go tits up. JP bailed it out, gave the gov $1 bil, raised the buyout price and helped to steady the market. Don't forget Hooty, that may people's retirement savings are in mutual funds (ie, equities, like your Canadian RRSP). The market crashes, and well, it's the dirty 30s again, innit?

Hootad Binky

So investment banks that pay millions in bonuses to incompetent executives must be bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars in exchange for worthless debt, but it is less reasonable for taxpayers to directly help other taxpayers? These sub-prime mortgages were dreamed up and actively marketed by the banking and credit industry, not consumers.

Jet Gorgon

^ Incompetent executives? Pick an industry and you'll find many in any. Throw the government in there, too (ah, kickbacks).
Subprime loans were initially devised for self-employed folks who made a good living but did not have a "steady" income (ie, a paycheck from an employer every two weeks). Then the small lenders (you know the type, akin to to cash loan on your paycheck scammers who charge 20% or more in interest) decided to dish out these loans, at exorbitant rates, to any Jane or Joe, probably even welfare cases. Could they afford it? No. Did they take the loan out anyway? Seems many sure did. Why should I have to bail them out? Will they EVER repay? NO. Bail out the banks and they will regroup, get back to business and repay. Don't forget, banks pay way more taxes than the Joes on the street.
Yep, bank execs and many staff get big bonuses (the secretaries and mailroom clerks do, as well) when times are good. And so many of them should.
Let a bank like Bear Sterns fail and the whole market will collapse on fear and a lack of confidence. Bail out the taxpayer and not the banks? 555 Guess you will never need a loan for a car or home or business investment, but maybe if you need one, you could ask Joe to share his bailout money.

Hootad Binky

Right, so millionaire bankers who helped propagate this disaster get bonuses and bailouts, and regular Joes get the bill + bankruptcy?

stroller

Sure, but this is besides the point.
Should taxpayers money be used to bail out private enterprises? Isn't it the risk of failure which is the moral justification for profits and obscenely high pay packages?

I don't think the bad loans are any more likely to be paid back with this strategy.

Hootad Binky

It's a license to steal, imho.

Boon Mee

Heh...

"22% of Democrats Want Clinton to Drop Out; 22% Say Obama Should Withdraw."

Well, guess that decides it, eh?
8 Years with John McCain will be vastly preferable to either of the above two...

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก