Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Which pretty much backs up Patrick Cockburn's assertion that Iraq as a nation has ceased to exist.
although from that poll -
Overall, our poll found Iraqis still want to be Iraqi.
When asked if they support a "united Iraq", 66% responded positively.
but yeah, the reality is there's a lot of people with guns and most of them are probably in that other 44%.
-
The latest opinion poll in Iraq bares out what James says about the Kurds - 73% saying life was "quite good or very good".
But with Sunnis it's pretty much the reverse - 67% stating things weren't going well, to say the least.
72% oppose the presence of US troops but 63% believe the Americans should leave only after a period during which security and government get stronger.
On the invasion itself, there's a big divide - 95% of Sunnis say the invasion was wrong. 65% of Shia say it was right, as do 87% of Kurds.
-
Meanwhile, a Clinton-supporting Daily Kos diarist walks away in protest at the site's tenor and Kos says, whatever.
and that whatever was -
Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.
I really do wonder how Obama of all people gets to have such obnoxious supporters. It's a bit of a paradox.
-
And I prefer to get my fiction from novelists not pollsters.
I completely agree to an extent, Kerry was 14% ahead of Bush at this stage of the election cycle, but besides our own personal preferences, the polls are the only form of factual evidence in any Who Will Beat McCain argument.
I've said before that it's much too hard to answer that one and one might as well vote for the person whose policies one prefers. But I see very little criticism of Clinton based on her policies, rather it's she's supposedly divisive, she'll cause the Dems to lose etc. For which the only evidence we have - the polls - says is not true. The netroots might threaten revolt but that's only one section of Democrat voters.
What the polls show at present is that there is very little difference in voting patterns with either Obama or Clinton having the nomination. There's no big defection away from voting for the Democrat party just because sections of voters don't get their preferred candidate.
Toast, but then toast is quite nice.
-
You can go by the Readers Digest version, I perfer some facts.
Both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by 1.5% but Clinton gets more votes than Obama. (That's matched by a slight corresponding increase in votes for McCain).
So the famous divisiveness that the Obama camp claims to be her defining charactersitc gives her more votes than him. Seems she just motivates people a bit more.
Now Obama's supporters can continue to talk up the idea that their candidate is the only one to beat McCain and that Clinton is destroying things for the Dems but this doesn't correspond to any facts.
-
It was this that I thought wildly extravagant -
His election would also - far, far more than the election of another war-mongering white man, and yes, even considerably more than the election of a woman - send an unimaginably powerful message to the rest of the world, where most of the people are darker than most Americans are by this shade or that.
If he has stopped at war-mongering white man, i.e. McCain, I'd have no problem. The rest is what he wants to be true but provides no evidence.
I'm surprised that Obama supporters need to go that far. I can understand why on issues such as health and education one might prefer one or other of the candidates. I prefer HRC but there's not a lot in it. But rather than that sort of talk on issues there's a Obama Will Save The World.
I was wrong to imply that Tomasky has made such an attack here - I was thinking of the netroots.
But to put a bit of nuance into things, I thought it was wrong for Clinton to want Samantha Powers sacked (if Obama gets in she'll be a big plus for his team) and I think Obama should have nothing to worry about regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He's dealt with that issue well as far as I'm concerned.
-
So either having a better perception at the country level is going to help...
But you and Tomasky offer no evidence that this would be true.
Obama could very well have an edge over Hillary in offering something positive to some conflicts in Africa. But it's not like there haven't been other male black leaders that have been active in this area, such as Mandela, and they don't exactly face an easy task. It doesn't guarantee anything when dealing with Mugabe, Darfur etc.
And I can't see any other region where Obama would have any obvious advantage. The Muslin world is heterogeneous, he might appeal to some and not to others. And why shouldn't Clinton be able to reach out to Muslim woman?
I just don't think that there is a case to be made that Obama being black or Clinton being female will make much of a difference. Personal character may. Obama appears more personable. Maybe he can woo the US's opponents better. But maybe Clinton would be better. I suspect that they would each have their strengths and overall it would not make much difference.
I find the mix of wildly extravagent claims of Obama's future success combined with quite vicious attacks on Clinton such as by Michael Tomasky to be unnerving.
-
"If the netroots mean anything.."
Do you mean dailykos? There's always been a strong anti-Clinton faction out there but there are pro-Clinton sites (or at least not so partisan) too such as TalkLeft.
she'd have destroyed all the goodwill and motivation in the base.
Do you mean Obama supporters? Of course if their candidate doesn't win they won't be pleased. But how come it's Hillary the destroyer?
the message would be in the perception, the reality is another issue completely.
but Toamsky is also making the claim that there would be that perception. I'd just like som evidence.
Gender does transcend national boundaries. But countries don't. And it is countries that are the major players in the world stage.
But you could agrue that someone that could transcend national boundaries might do more good than some one who reinforces them.
-
In politics, analysis is opinion.
Yes but it's not a fact therefore I can disagree. Do you have any evidence that a Pres Obama being black would be better for the world than a Pres Clinton being female? I'd certainly scoff if Clinton supporters made such a claim for her.
Race can mean things to specific countries as part of their identity in a way that gender can't.
But then might not gender transcend those national boundaries?
-
vYou're criticising Tomasky for accurate analysis.
But it's just his opinion, it's not analysis. Why wouldn't the election of a woman send as strong a signal? I keep on thinking that the biggest signal is electing a Democrat of whatever gender or race. It will be the policies of the next POTUS that will have an impact on the rest of the world, not their race or gender and their foreign polices are pretty much the same.
But since some Obama supporters are putting forward the argment that his race is more signifcant than her gender then I'd like to see some evidence. And maybe they could stop claiming that it's the Clinton camp who are enjected race into the process.