will Barack Obama be re-elected?

[Ebowed]

Insiders have speculated that the President is willing to risk his re-election in order to push forth his far-left agenda.

See, now that is unlikely.

But it would be a refreshing change of pace.

[pbrower2a]

Insiders have speculated that the President is willing to risk his re-election in order to push forth his far-left agenda.

See, now that is unlikely.

But it would be a refreshing change of pace.

He picks his battles, times, and places. He plays to win. He won't go for a big tax-and-spend program until he sees that he can get away with it.

[??????????]

Insiders have speculated that the President is willing to risk his re-election in order to push forth his far-left agenda.

See, now that is unlikely.

But it would be a refreshing change of pace.

He picks his battles, times, and places. He plays to win. He won't go for a big tax-and-spend program until he sees that he can get away with it.

He's a blame placer who can never point the finger at himself when he screws up.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I am by no mean an expert of the US demographic voting, but to answer the question of this thread, I would just say that the biggest problem to me for Obama would be a case of war.

I consider the guy as being a very good politician but to be a full very good politician you have to have some very good abilities in the handling of the sword. Until now, I consider that Obama has a very good record in term of diplomacy, he's clearly very good in it, at least IMO, but if ever it happens a case in which diplomacy meets some limits, then Obama will have to show what is he able to do in this case. That has always been here that I tended to find it could be a weak point in him. But well, I might have been wrong, let's give a chance to the future...

[pbrower2a]

I am by no mean an expert of the US demographic voting, but to answer the question of this thread, I would just say that the biggest problem to me for Obama would be a case of war.

I consider the guy as being a very good politician but to be a full very good politician you have to have some very good abilities in the handling of the sword. Until now, I consider that Obama has a very good record in term of diplomacy, he's clearly very good in it, at least IMO, but if ever it happens a case in which diplomacy meets some limits, then Obama will have to show what is he able to do in this case. That has always been here that I tended to find it could be a weak point in him. But well, I might have been wrong, let's give a chance to the future...

No President in the last century has ever entered office with an open agenda of starting a war. That is not to say that there isn't a war going on when a President takes office or that special interests don't want war. Americans don't like shooting at people and like being shot at even less. Most of us prefer life and prosperity to glorification that we can't appreciate while living. We recognize a heroic death as much tragedy (look what someone gave up) as glory and necessity. Even if we have shown ourselves good at war we don't like it. We would rather do something else. That's just as well. The most militaristic societies hasten their own downfall by creating hostile minorities as willing fifth columns and exposing their military weaknesses through blunders that their rigid thought creates. Note well that every military order fosters obsessive-compulsive tendencies that preclude innovation, cutting deals with others, or domestic tranquility. The military people who have their heads on straight recognize how different the military culture is from the rest of public life, including politics, education, religion, commerce, and family life.

War is the ultimate high-stakes gamble for a person, a government, and a nation. Anyone who fails to recognize the stakes for a person needs to read or re-read All Quiet on the Western Front . For a ruling class? Gone With the Wind or Doctor Zhivago. I look at Dubya, who thought that Iraq and Afghanistan would be easy pickings -- a usual metaphor is "an over-ripe fruit on the verge of falling into our hands".  Mussolini thought much the same of Ethiopia in 1936 and Greece in 1940; Ethiopia would prove more trouble than it was worth (the over-stretched British found it an easy conquest as a legitimate liberation) and Greece proved far too difficult for Italy to take on alone. (I have compared Dubya to Mussolini frequently for their shared depravities and for their debasement of democracy. Non-Americans don't realize how close America was to becoming a fascistic dictatorship with George W. Bush as a puppet for Karl Rove, a pliant Congress on the whole whose composition could be regulated, and a cat's-paw for the neocon clique).

I can hardly imagine a greater plum for Obama than a graceful exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither is quite the equivalent of Korea in 1953... but no superpowers now in existence have an interest in a prolonged war in either place. Obama is in a far better position for dealing with Russia or China, and he has swiftly improved relations with countries (France, Germany) that had deteriorated without valid excuses. Eisenhower got much political capital from a cease-fire in Korea, and so can Obama for something analogous in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dubya was the wrong person to cut any deal. North Korea? That's up to China and Russia to make their deals with Japan and South Korea more than with us.

Our military system does not depend upon the President as a leader in the field. Such was so with medieval kings, but such is not so with elected leaders either too old (like Churchill) or too crippled (like FDR) to lead troops in the field. Obama of course has lesser military experience than did Dubya (the latter's experience a disgrace) and no more than Bill Clinton, a draft-dodger. Clinton's predecessor (GHWB) was able to draw little from his own wartime experience in organizing a response to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. Good civilian leaders can do little more in wartime than to manage the diplomacy, set economic priorities, and establish rules of military conduct; at the latter, Dubya failed catastrophically. Obama knows his limitations as a military leader, and he knows the need to leave the command of the field to the generals and admirals.  So did Lincoln, and so did FDR. Even with their own military experience, so did Grant (a poor President in almost everything, to be sure), Truman,   Eisenhower, Kennedy, and GHWB. Presidents don't have the expertise with which to micromanage wars. I can't imagine Obama piloting a military aircraft onto a ship or a landing strip with "Mission Accomplished" banners awaiting him. Can you?   

There will be blow-ups. The Iranian political situation is a huge mess, and I wouldn't wish that mess upon my worst enemy.  We really can do nothing in Iran. The leadership rigged an election and did a poor job of it. Maybe the Iranian people are on the brink of transforming its fake democracy into a real one -- and I couldn't imagine a better ally than a democratic Iran in resolving Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea? I think that the easiest solution is for us to give China every cause to turn North Korea into a satellite. Remember: the Soviets were very effective at keeping countries like Poland and East Germany from establishing nuke programs, and that there have been arguments that after Nicolae Ceausescu started feelers with "Agent 235" (a reference to the fissile isotope of uranium) the KGB arranged his demise in 1989 in the form of a proletarian revolution.  The family Cessna wasn't headed for the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, or Hungary.  Don't be surprised if the People's Republic of China does much the same with the current leadership of North Korea.

When the President is perceived as having taken all due care and things go badly because of the caprice of some foreign leader, we fault the foreign leader.  We Americans appreciate caution as a military and diplomatic virtue. We insist on solutions for our vulnerabilities, and we get those solutions. Obama gets a free pass for a while should bad things be clearly not his fault. The sword? He's no soldier. We have a very effective military, and Obama shows no desire to "reform" the military except to ban torture of captives, which is in fact a reversion to a norm that existed before Dubya.

As Hurricane Season approaches, you can be sure that Obama has already been making arrangements to ensure that there will be no fiasco analogous to the bungled response to Katrina.

[© tweed]

Insiders have speculated that the President is willing to risk his re-election in order to push forth his far-left agenda.

See, now that is unlikely.

But it would be a refreshing change of pace.

He picks his battles, times, and places. He plays to win. He won't go for a big tax-and-spend program until he sees that he can get away with it.

He's a blame placer who can never point the finger at himself when he screws up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.daschle/index.html

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Thanks for your complete response pbrower, but well, I maintain my point.

What I meant was simple, and that's why I used the general metaphor of "using the sword":

Obama certainly has very good advisers, there certainly are very competent persons around him in this domain, America may be what you say concerning war, and Obama is, as I acknowledged, maybe the best that America could give today diplomatically speaking, really I'm sincere on this, all of this wasn't my point here.

I just meant that if ever Obama meets a case in which diplomacy meets some limits concerning a significant conflict, then he will have to take some  decisions. No matter all what is mentioned above, in the end, it's him who will have to take the decisions, who will have to make some speeches. We will wait from his words, from his behavior, from the choices he did among all available possibilities. That's the kind of things I was speaking about. In case of a war, his "behavior", if you prefer, rather than "using the sword", will have an huge importance.

In short, a case of significant war could be decisive for his political future, and I personally always thought this part of politics was his weakest point, that's why I raised this point in this thread.

Then, you spoke of conflicts standing today. Mainly North Korea and Iran. North Korea is not a worry for me. But the affair Iran/Israel is, if the youth don't change some things there, far more worrying, and I hope Israelis will be able to keep their nerves cool, giving a chance to some political changes inside the country, which we can see today, could be something credible.

Anyways, as I said, this is just IMO, I may be wrong, and let's give a chance to the future. Until now Obama very well managed the diplomacy, still IMO. Let's hope he is so strong in diplomacy that it is enough to compensate for what I see as a weak point.

As you said, I also think that Iran could be a very strong ally of West, and the resentment toward Israel seems far less strong in Iran than in the Arab world. With some changes from the inside of Iran, we could really have a good result, and that would be one less hot spot for Obama.

[pogo stick]

HUCKABEE WILL NOT LOSE UTAH IN 2012!

Or.. IDAHO OR WYOMING

[Saxwsylvania]

Why is Obama considered a good diplomat?  The only diplomatic policy he has that I've discerned is alienating our allies while making concession after concession to our enemies.  Was Neville Chamberlain a good diplomat?

Remember those DVDs that Obama gave to Gordon Brown?  The DVDs that didn't work?  Or how about the Ipod he sent to the Queen?  The Ipod that she already had?  And remember when Castro gave him that socialist book and Obama was giggling like a dipsh**t, treating him like a long lost brother?  Being chummy is not a policy.

[DS0816]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

Ronnie Reagan didn't mind with predecessor Jimmy Carter. (Smart man. And, hey, facts are facts!)

(The part of your post I like best has been highlighted in bold. My way of saying thank you!)

[Mechaman]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

Ronnie Reagan didn't mind with predecessor Jimmy Carter. (Smart man. And, hey, facts are facts!)

(The part of your post I like best has been highlighted in bold. My way of saying thank you!)

Wow, this post seems so old. I'm actually 50/50 on this issue right now. But yeah, I still think things will have to get batsh**t insane.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Why is Obama considered a good diplomat?

You're right. His attitude toward the society of flies has clearly been undiplomatic.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless the world ends or he's so phucking stupid to do something illegal, yes.

[??????????]

Unless the world ends or he's so phucking stupid to do something illegal, yes.

Wait till people start getting their utility bills under this Crap and Trade bill.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.  I think he'll lose.

[pbrower2a]

HUCKABEE WILL NOT LOSE UTAH IN 2012!

Or.. IDAHO OR WYOMING

Huckabee (or any other GOP nominee) loses Utah if he alienates the LDS Church and fails to make amends. Mormons will gladly show someone who shows disrespect for the locally-powerful LDS Church that their conservative Republican votes are not to be taken for granted. Obama can make a couple of appearances in the few small-to-large cities of Utah and raise Mormons for taking care of their own while showing a resolute expression of respect for religious diversity -- including the LDS Church.

I may be discussing an unlikely scenario, but one that has yet to be proven impossible. Any Republican who throws away Utah's six electoral votes throws away six electoral votes that the GOP can't afford to lose. For the GOP every electoral vote is precious. It may be up to Mike Huckabee to patch relations between his conservatism and LDS conservatism.

[Eraserhead]

Unless the world ends or he's so phucking stupid to do something illegal, yes.

Wait till people start getting their utility bills under this Crap and Trade bill.

Crap and Trade Bill. I see what you did there.

[Rowan]

Pbrower, Huckabee will clearly win Washington DC because he is religious and so are most black people. This scenario has not been proven impossible so I will keep talking about this every day until election day.

[Mechaman]

Pbrower, Huckabee will clearly win Washington DC because he is religious and so are most black people. This scenario has not been proven impossible so I will keep talking about this every day until election day.

And Huckabee will win the Magical Unicorn vote, right.

[Lunar]

he'll probably lose his primary

[minionofmidas]

HUCKABEE WILL NOT LOSE UTAH IN 2012!

Or.. IDAHO OR WYOMING

Huckabee (or any other GOP nominee) loses Utah if he alienates the LDS Church and fails to make amends. Mormons will gladly show someone who shows disrespect for the locally-powerful LDS Church that their conservative Republican votes are not to be taken for granted. Obama can make a couple of appearances in the few small-to-large cities of Utah and raise Mormons for taking care of their own while showing a resolute expression of respect for religious diversity -- including the LDS Church.

I may be discussing an unlikely scenario, but one that has yet to be proven impossible. Any Republican who throws away Utah's six electoral votes throws away six electoral votes that the GOP can't afford to lose. For the GOP every electoral vote is precious. It may be up to Mike Huckabee to patch relations between his conservatism and LDS conservatism.

Mormons are used to not being considered wholly human by their allies. They resent it, but they won't rebel over it.

A Mormon candidate would have massive problems with non-Mormon fundamentalist Christians, but not the other way round.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, I know I worded that too harshly.

[pbrower2a]

[
Mormons are used to not being considered wholly human by their allies. They resent it, but they won't rebel over it.

A Mormon candidate would have massive problems with non-Mormon fundamentalist Christians, but not the other way round.

True -- but no Presidential candidate has ever gone so far as to tell Mormons that their religion is a sham or something to that effect and gotten away with it. In an election that means little to them other than that, they can embarrass a defamer of Mormonism the one way possible.

[minionofmidas]

But it won't mean little. This is the US presidency for god's sake, and it's held by a godless cosmopolitan negro muslim (not that all Utah Mormons think like that - as viz. Obama doing okayish there in 2008).

[jamestroll]

No.  I think he'll lose.

You always say a Republican will win, in any election.