[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

I disagree dude. He beat the most powerful team in Democratic politics over the last two years. Bill and Hillary Clinton are juggernauts. Their fundraising power is legendary, as is the way they can steamroll over anyone who stands up to them within the party. You cant do that without broad support. There are population groups, like working class white men, where Hillary outperformed him. But this is Hillary we're talking about. She was supposed to walk her way to the nomination and into the white house. The fact that she only managed to beat Obama (by slim margins) in a few demographics, while he crushed her in others, speaks to broad appeal. Hillary leveled the charge against him that he was unelectable in blue collar White America, but the fact is that she and John McCain are both unelectable against him in Minority America, Urban America, and even among the soccer moms in most of the country. These are not insignificant demographics and he has them pretty much locked.

Yeah, but that's within the Democratic primary, not the general election. That doesn't necessarily indicate "broad support." Remember that Obama's supporters tend to be more educated & wealthy, and thus more likely to take part in primaries.

Remember how George McGovern beat out front-runner Ed Muskie in 1972? Remember how the Vietnam war was blowing up? Very similar to what's happening now. Nixon destroyed McGovern in 1972. I think Obama stands a much better chance of winning than McGovern did for a variety of reasons (the fact that he's not running against an incumbent is a big one), but it must be noted that popularity within the Democratic party doesn't necessarily = broad base of support.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

True but if there's any time for a liberal democrat to take office, now is it. We're following the Bush administration which is one of the most unpopular of the 20th century and also one of the most conservative.

Agreed, though I'd say Bush's administration is neo-conservative vs conservative

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Getting Hillary's strong endorsement and having her on his ticket will give him the white blue collar voters and the other demographics where she dominated him. She might be disruptive to him and she supposedly hates his guts on a personal level, so it might not be the most positive team-up, but i'm sure it would help rocket him into the white house if he took her (just my opinion tho)

The vast majority of white blue collar voters will not vote for Obama OR Hillary, they'll vote for McCain. I think Jim Webb would gain him much more ground amongst the general populace of white blue collar voters, assuming his name can get out there (Hillary's name is obviously more well known). It should be added that if Hillary was VP, he'd also have to deal with her & Bill making power plays against him.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

It could be, but I dont know how big of an issue race will be. Most of the states where it could really hurt him are committed red states anyway. In the key "purple states" in the west, Barack Obama did extremely well and pretty much took them all from Hillary.

Yeah, that's true.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

True, but he's not above playing dirty himself, so i'm sure there will be all kinds of smearing going on from the two of them.

True, but I think Obama stands to catch the worst of it. He's a lot more vulnerable in terms of skeletons and such. McCain's biggest liabilities are his mom and a couple of endorsements which drew a small fraction of the attention the whole Reverend Wright debacle did.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

This is an issue for fundraising and washington politics, maybe florida, and for some of the christian fanatics who are going to vote for McCain either way. The rest of America doesnt give a damn about Israel OR Palestine. Have you ever met a non-evangelical, non-muslim, non-jewish American (basically the vast majority of our country) who really cared about this issue beyond some vague notion that terrorism is bad and that the two sides have been fighting for 10 billion years and will probably continue to do so forever... there are some, but really not that many, from my experience. Its a niche issue

The issue isn't important to most Americans. But it's important to a lot of very wealthy and politically powerful individuals and organizations in America. So in terms of media coverage and dollars both, it can and does make a huge difference.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

you're probably right. I definitely think Obama is in a much stronger position right now though. Its not necessarily good or bad, but whatever

Agreed. But it remains to be seen whether that momentum can be sustained.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, but that's within the Democratic primary, not the general election. That doesn't necessarily indicate "broad support." Remember that Obama's supporters tend to be more educated & wealthy, and thus more likely to take part in primaries.

They are also more likely to vote in the general election. But I definitely do think that the absolute number of votes that he got, combined with the diversity of demographics that he won, as well as his performance in national and local opinion polls do show that he has broad support. He doesnt have to win votes from republicans to win this election.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The vast majority of white blue collar voters will not vote for Obama OR Hillary, they'll vote for McCain. I think Jim Webb would gain him much more ground amongst the general populace of white blue collar voters, assuming his name can get out there (Hillary's name is obviously more well known). It should be added that if Hillary was VP, he'd also have to deal with her & Bill making power plays against him.

I agree, Hillary might be very difficult to deal with, because in the end she doesnt respect Obama. But at the same time, her performance in the Senate argues against that. She was all about paying dues, deference to senior members, waiting her turn, respecting the hierarchies within her party, etc. Actually, she was an exemplary senator in that regard. Obama was the upstart. The question is whether she would do the same as a VP to a president whom she regards as her junior, whom she treated as an understudy for a couple of years

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

True, but I think Obama stands to catch the worst of it. He's a lot more vulnerable in terms of skeletons and such. McCain's biggest liabilities are his mom and a couple of endorsements which drew a small fraction of the attention the whole Reverend Wright debacle did.

Thats definitely not true, bro. McCain was in the middle of one of the biggest corruption scandals in the history of the US senate, in which he was in real risk of censure, impeachment, or even indictment. When the skeletons start coming out, Obama has a trump card that can beat whatever smear McCain could possibly dig up.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The issue isn't important to most Americans. But it's important to a lot of very wealthy and politically powerful individuals and organizations in America. So in terms of media coverage and dollars both, it can and does make a huge difference.

Yeah, thats what i said. Fund-raising and so on on. But not votes. People couldnt care less

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Agreed. But it remains to be seen whether that momentum can be sustained.

next couple of months should be crucial

ws

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

They are also more likely to vote in the general election. But I definitely do think that the absolute number of votes that he got, combined with the diversity of demographics that he won, as well as his performance in national and local opinion polls do show that he has broad support. He doesnt have to win votes from republicans to win this election.

No, he doesn't have to win votes from Republicans. But he has to win a lot of votes from Democrats (which he probably can do), and more importantly, he has to win votes from ambivalent Americans. The left-of-center thing works against him here, but McCain's association with Bush works in his favor.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

I agree, Hillary might be very difficult to deal with, because in the end she doesnt respect Obama. But at the same time, her performance in the Senate argues against that. She was all about paying dues, deference to senior members, waiting her turn, respecting the hierarchies within her party, etc. Actually, she was an exemplary senator in that regard. Obama was the upstart. The question is whether she would do the same as a VP to a president whom she regards as her junior, whom she treated as an understudy for a couple of years

Yeah, but this is a somewhat different situation. Hillary considers herself the more senior person here, and she looks upon Obama as an upstart herself. She really could wind up being a pain. Who knows, though.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Thats definitely not true, bro. McCain was in the middle of one of the biggest corruption scandals in the history of the US senate, in which he was in real risk of censure, impeachment, or even indictment. When the skeletons start coming out, Obama has a trump card that can beat whatever smear McCain could possibly dig up.

Yeah, but that was what, 20 years ago? I'm sure it'll be brought up, but a musty old S&L scandal just isn't as sexy and isn't going to garner as much attention in the eyes of the media as stuff about Obama that nobody's heard before. Consider that two decades after the Chappaquiddick incident, a lot of people thought Ted Kennedy would make a fine president. (Obviously, McCain isn't a Kennedy, so he isn't bulletproof, but still).

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Yeah, thats what i said. Fund-raising and so on on. But not votes. People couldnt care less

Yeah, but those things tend to have a direct impact on votes.

[RestlessSoul]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

"If Iraq came across the Jordan River... I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die [defending Israel]."

-- Bill Clinton, Hadassah-Wizo Organization fundraiser, Toronto, July 30, 2002

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

to be honest, i get the feeling obama is doing a lot of prevaricating and paying a lot of lip service. neither he nor his base are really "staunchly pro-israel." i guess we'll find out if he wins the general election (he probably won't.. but if he selects the right veep, he's got a chance).

interesting quote, but I'm not sure what you meant by it in the context of my post. I was speaking of bill clinton being an example of using sanctions instead of bombs (though yes, he wasn't completely averse to non-violent means). the gut feeling I was referring to about obama earlier is pretty much expressed in your second quote.

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Well, I remember way back when a lot of people had that gut feeling about George Bush, and how all the American Muslim orgs were all cheering for Bush and advising everyone to participate in block voting.

what a fat lotta good that did us, eh.

the muslim bloc vote organizers were shortsighted and lulled by his tales of repealing secret evidence and other carrots that bush promised; part of it may have also been due to leiberman being on the gore ticket. it was a foolish choice. this time around however, there is less of a gray area, as john mccain will be bad for the muslim world, so the choice is clear if we are to pick one candidate. and I recognize you aren't endorsing mccain, but just reminding muslims to lower their expectations.

regardless, I don't think obama will blow mccain out of the water. there are a lot of racists in this country. only the outspoken ones live in w. virginia obama can win if he continues to draw out record numbers of voters, most of who are young and likely to support him. it'd be interesting to see if the republican voters start to come out in record numbers in a reactionary manner to keep a black guy out of the office.

[zeyneddine]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

You can enclose yourself within a bubble and think whatever you want to believe. The scholarly consensus on the other hand, states that every person is born a Muslim, and in this context as stated in the ahaadith mentioned above, the term Fitrah is used interchangeably with the word Islam because both mean the same thing.



No he did not because by the age of puberty, he was a Christian being raised as one by his guardians and caretakers. The question of apostasy is just completely ... irrelevant.

dude, i really admire the way you hound my posts and attempt one-upmanship. Have a cookie. I concede, you're brilliant, incredibly smart, king of disses, super duper rich, etc, etc, etc.

Next time, read a post and answer the question appropriately. Even reading the hadith as you describe it: saying every person is born a Muslim in relation to a question about apostasy, there is no relevance. Now please revert back to your admiration for sixpak.

[zeyneddine]

Originally Posted by RestlessSoul

the muslim bloc vote organizers were shortsighted and lulled by his tales of repealing secret evidence and other carrots that bush promised; part of it may have also been due to leiberman being on the gore ticket. it was a foolish choice. this time around however, there is less of a gray area, as john mccain will be bad for the muslim world, so the choice is clear if we are to pick one candidate. and I recognize you aren't endorsing mccain, but just reminding muslims to lower their expectations.
.

Why will John McCain be bad for the Muslim world?

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, but that was what, 20 years ago? I'm sure it'll be brought up, but a musty old S&L scandal just isn't as sexy and isn't going to garner as much attention in the eyes of the media as stuff about Obama that nobody's heard before. Consider that two decades after the Chappaquiddick incident, a lot of people thought Ted Kennedy would make a fine president. (Obviously, McCain isn't a Kennedy, so he isn't bulletproof, but still).

Kennedys arent bulletproof

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by RestlessSoul

interesting quote, but I'm not sure what you meant by it in the context of my post. I was speaking of bill clinton being an example of using sanctions instead of bombs (though yes, he wasn't completely averse to non-violent means). the gut feeling I was referring to about obama earlier is pretty much expressed in your second quote.

i misread your initial statement.. my bad. my quote wasn't that relevant.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Kennedys arent bulletproof

zing

[Good_ol_JR]

Speaking of Kennedy's, rumor has it Obama's number 1 pick for VP is Caroline Kennedy (JFK's daughter) and he is itching to get her to sign up. An Obama-Kennedy ticket would easily put this election in the bag for him. Kennedy will attract Irish, Catholic, and female voters from the white working class. It wouldn't even matter who McCain chooses.

The vast majority of white blue collar voters will not vote for Obama OR Hillary, they'll vote for McCain. I think Jim Webb would gain him much more ground amongst the general populace of white blue collar voters, assuming his name can get out there (Hillary's name is obviously more well known). It should be added that if Hillary was VP, he'd also have to deal with her & Bill making power plays against him.

Strongly disagree with this, I understand White-collar immigrants don't have the highest opinion of us blue-collar folk, but trust me they're not that stupid. Few income demographics have suffered more under the Bush admins than white working class, so the days of Republicans dominating this group are long gone. With the exception of farmers in the Midwest who get subsidies and Christian conservatives, White blue collar voters will NOT be voting for McCain.

But what do I care, I'm just commenting on this because it amuses me and I have absolutely no intention of lifting a finger in support of any existing candidate. Obama vs McCain= Aipac slave vs Corporate slave

[RestlessSoul]

Independent.co.uk
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008


A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.


The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President **** Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control - Middle East, World - The Independent

bush is trying to make this his lasting legacy and possibly undermine any efforts at complete withdrawal. what I don't understand is how countries who agree to similar terms can look themselves in the mirror and still claim they are sovereign. hate to be them when they are asked by Allah (swt) why they sold out muslim land

Originally Posted by zeyneddine

Why will John McCain be bad for the Muslim world?

he's itching to bomb iran and who knows what else as bush lite. the war on terror as envisoned by the neo conservatives is truly a war on the lands of islam

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

Strongly disagree with this, I understand White-collar immigrants don't have the highest opinion of us blue-collar folk, but trust me they're not that stupid. Few income demographics have suffered more under the Bush admins than white working class, so the days of Republicans dominating this group are long gone. With the exception of farmers in the Midwest who get subsidies and Christian conservatives, White blue collar voters will NOT be voting for McCain.

I didn't think you were white.. aren't you Latino/Paki or something?

[thejellymill]

Like a lot of Muslims I have talked to, I am more supportive of Obama because he is the "lesser evil." Who knows, he could get into office and immediately throw out everything positive he ever said. After all he is a politician. However my uncle (mom's brother) actually knows him and says he is a good guy (although the uncle is a staunch Republican and will be voting for McCain). Obama worked in my hometown of Springfield, IL for a long time as a state senator and he has an excellent reputation (my sister confirmed this when she worked as a page at the state capitol...after Obama was already gone of course). He has expressed some policies that are not so good (Pakistan, Israel-Palestine issues) but would he really have gotten this far if he had said anything else? He would not have a chance for the Jewish vote if he said anything but what he is saying about Israel. How do we know he does not have some smooth move up his sleeve? Even if he doesn't, who else is there to vote for besides Nader (who doesnt have a chance anyway). This is why I am for Obama and don't side with the "same turd, different pile" opinion.

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

I have to say, it's really funny how everyone calls Obama a "black man." Especially when they call Hillary Clinton a "white woman" or McCain a "white man."

Well see, unfortunately to many white or even black Americans if you are mixed with anything you automatically become 100% of one of your halves, depends on the situation. For example to an American I am a "Pakistani" but on the other hand a lot of desis like to highlight my white/American side (if they want to be negative) or they ignore that side and emphasize the Pakistani side (if they want to be positive). Another example is a girl I know who is half black American/half Egyptian. Ameri