PostBadge tag to show // FeedBurner FeedFlare. // ------------------------- // FeedBurner account and feed required. // Sign up at http://feedburner.com //================================================ class module_feedflare { function init(){ global $gregarious; $gregarious->add_settings ( array ( 'feedburner_url' => '' ) ); $gregarious->add_page ( 'FeedFlare', 'modules/feed-flare/icn_Flare.png', 'page_feedflare();', 'feedFlare' ); } function postbadge_tags(){ return array ( array ( 'tag' => '%FLARE%', 'replacewith' => 'feed_flare("",false)' ), ); } function update_info(){ return 100; } } //------------------------------------------ // TEMPlATE TAGS //------------------------------------------ function feed_flare($settings = '', $echo = true){ global $wp_query; $post = $wp_query->post; $sets = array('postID' => $post->ID, 'before' => '', 'after' => 'Gregarious FeedFlare', 'force' => 0 ); grab_sets($settings, $sets); if ( !$sets['force'] && hideOnID($sets['postID']) ){ return ''; } if( !$path = _get_feedburner_url() ) return ''; if( substr( $path, -1 ) == '/' ){ $path = substr( $path, 0, strlen( $path ) -1 ); } $path = str_replace ( 'feedburner.com/', 'feedburner.com/~s/', $path ); $path .= '?i='.get_permalink($sets['postID']); $result = $sets['before'] . "" . $sets['after']; if($echo) echo $result; else return $result; } function _get_feedburner_url(){ $feedurl = greg_get_option( 'feedburner_url' ); if ( $feedurl ){ return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { $feedburner_settings = get_option('feedburner_settings'); if( is_array($feedburner_settings) && ($feedurl = $feedburner_settings['feedburner_url']) ) { return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { return false; } } } //------------------------------------------ // OPTIONS PAGE //------------------------------------------ function page_feedflare(){ $feedurl = _get_feedburner_url(); ?> Tag Archive for ‘Clinton’ at spencerb.net

Tag Archive for 'Clinton'

Will Obama’s Administration Deliver on its Promise of Change?

Published on December 5, 2008 in Politics. 0 Comments

This is a tough question that a lot of people are asking themselves in light of the recent Obama appointments. How can a leader who campaigned on a message of change deliver his promises if he is appointing Washington ‘insiders’ from the Clinton era and his primary opponents? A lot of people would say he can’t. To take one extreme example, Defense Secretary Gates will stay on to administer the war in Iraq. In my opinion, this is a good decision, but it does not bring to mind images of the immediate withdrawal from Iraq that Obama campaigned on. Furthermore, the Clintons will be back in the White House (as Cabinet officials and spouse) and so will some of former-President Bill Clinton’s administration. Again, this does not sound like a radical departure from the past.

Frankly, to me this was all fine and dandy. It is good to see that the President-elect is not being extreme in his choices, especially in foreign policy.

The Financial Times (FT) had a very interesting editorial today that argued against concerns about Obama’s team. I find this article to be both convincing and likely. The article puts the concerns this way:

Familiar faces, Washington observers yawn, promise familiar policies.

These concerns aren’t just coming from the right-wing trying to nay-say Obama, but from his supporters as well. The articles response:

Seen in this light, Mr Obama’s choice of foreign policy heavyweights is significant for its ambition rather than its caution. If he really does want to recast America’s relationship with the world, surrounding himself with seasoned players will make the task easier rather than harder. Why would a president who wanted to change things put the task in the hands of inexperienced acolytes?

This makes perfect sense, if you want to institute change, you do not do it by appoint political lightweights. You need people who can throw their weight around and know the system.

In one final point, the FT piece says this:

In Truman’s adage, the buck stops with the president.

I found this even more interesting, relative to a post I wrote a while back about taking responsibility. I think Bush has done a decent job of doing that, unlike any of the presidential candidates during the campaign. I hope things change once Obama takes office.

The Saturation of the Political Idea Market

Published on October 19, 2008 in Politics and Uncategorized. 1 Comment

This morning, I was watching Meet the Press and received a distinct feeling about the Election. A lot of talk has been focused on the Democrats rallying around their disgust with Bush 43. I think there is something larger at play. I see it as an impatience on the part of the American people. What else could

Click to continue reading “The Saturation of the Political Idea Market”

Florida’s Last Stand

Published on March 17, 2008 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

The New York Times reports:

“Thousands of people responded,” Ms. Thurman said. “We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t.”

I have been thinking about this issue a lot as it has appeared in the news, especially on Meet the Press. It seems the DNC has dug a whole for itself on this issue. When talk of getting the votes counted first began, people seemed convinced that you could just alot the delegates from the first primary. To me that seemed glaringly unfair. First of all, Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Second, you cannot change the rules of the game after the fact. The DNC set this up in a way that disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida, but the state parties knew the consequences. It would be unfair to count the results of an election that people participted in as if it did not count.

The new solution is to redo the whole thing. Now the DNC is really questioning their initial decision. Early in this thought process people decide that the a mail in ballot is a no go. Now Florida decides $10 million is too much to redo something that was already done once. Moreover, it seems people just do not want it to happen. Michigan, on the other hand, is pushing through legislation to try to do just the opposite – put on a new primary.

Whether or not Florida or Michigan have new primaries or Obama or Clinton is the nominee, I think this exposes a problem for the future of party primaries. Is it fair that New Hampshire and Iowa always come first? Two small states that do not accurately represent the U.S. as a whole. I think that you either have to have a consistent beginning or something completely random. Even if it is randomized some states will continue to be put at the end by chance. The optimal solution to me is to organize it regionally. Each region chooses a state to have a primary early in the season. This would encourage more accurate representation of the country and states that do not get much face time from candidates would start getting more attention. Or maybe this primary process is too long and a Super-Duper-Duper Tuesday is in order. That is a little extreme, but shortening the process might give each state a more fair representation.

But who says this process needs to be fair? Well, I think a fair process would result in a more healthy election cycle.

Plan B (Not the Pill)

Published on November 1, 2007 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

Sorry, but all of the sudden I have gotten hung up on this Iran thing. From the previous post you can tell I need to do more research (and think the politicians do too), but while watching the 10/30/2007 Democratic Debate I could not help, but wonder why would we not make a Plan B?

The Transcript

Obama:

Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options, but we shouldn’t talk about those options now when we haven’t tried what would be a much more effective approach.

I grant you that I would not like to see our policymakers spending most of their time talking about military action, but should we not consider it? Bush has gotten lambasted for not having a contingency plan in Iraq. That is fair how can we be paying all of these advisers and filling the coffers of government departments and not have a Plan B? How could we go to war and have NO ONE advising the President think that this could happen and draw a plan up for it? It is beyond me how we pay for these people to perform like this.

By the same token it seems to me that we should be prepared to take evasive military action against Iran. This is dangerous because just preparing can be interpreted as an act of war, but this is not a peaceful utopia we live in. We have a ridiculous number of nuclear arms, so if that is not something one can interpret as a potential act of war, I do not know what is. I think just the prospect of organizing a Plan B, the thing that Bush is criticized for not doing in Iraq is essential here. It would be foolish not to even consider it until all other options are exhausted. Lets actually consider every option and proceed with the least risky first, but have the extreme in the back of our minds just in case.

At least in this case Hillary was more reasonable:

I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks.

Lesson of the day: If you wake up in the morning and realize you have made a mistake, have a backup plan!

Hillary and the Debate

Published on November 1, 2007 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

Well, for those of you following the political mess that is the campaigns that feel like they have been running forever, you may have saw or certainly heard about Tuesday’s Democratic debate.

Since she has been the front runner for some time, her rivals are starting to go on the offensive.

The campaigns of both Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, running in second and third place in most surveys, hinted that their candidates would come out swinging. The two candidates didn’t disappoint: Both hammered Mrs. Clinton for her stances on Iraq and Iran, Social Security and other issues.

I am not certain I fully follow this logic though

Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible.

Thank you, New York Times for that gem. At least the article saves face by acknowledging how poorly this appears in a debate

Clinton needs to ration her obfuscations. Otherwise, she risks looking as silly as she did at the end of the debate…

and:

But you would have to be a very, very committed Hillaryite to be comfortable listening to two solid hours of dodging and weaving on everything from her vote on the Iran resolution to her husband’s attempt to keep records of their White House communications secret until after 2012.

Will this even have an impact though? I tend to agree with NYT article, if you read it, that Obama and Edwards do not stand to capitalize on this much. I think if they did they would have done so by now. What is fueling Hillary forward? Why is she the front runner now? I think these are interesting questions to answer and while on face may seem simple, I think the underlying answers would be fascinating. Perhaps, the political atmosphere is just in her favor. Perhaps, her political machine is the most well oiled. Perhaps, Bill is giving her a few pointers?

n the 1990s, “Clintonesque” became a by-word for political double-speak. We even became, briefly, a nation of deconstructionists when President Bill Clinton mused on the meaning of “is.”

Such existential questions seemed to be in the past. But with another Clinton running as if she’s all but a sure thing for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically relevant adjective. In Tuesday night’s Democratic Presidential debate, the moderators and Hillary Clinton’s fellow panelists took pains to pin her down on one question after another, without notable success. The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly to have adopted her husband’s political methods, minus the savoir-faire. The result is that it’s impossible to know what she believes about anything.

Regardless, this election will be interesting (when it finally comes). This early campaigning albeit ridiculous, probably is not going anywhere anytime soon. In the mean time, let us ask ourselves what are the Republicans doing?

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
Close
E-mail It