Donkeys (D)

What? What? What?. It might actually happen! Cool. So Rudy Giuliani who is Bushier than Bush seems ready to quit the race? Phew!

My ideal candidate would be the best of a McCain-Obama combination but too bad that imaginary candidate doesn’t exist. If Obama wasn’t supportive of withdrawing from Iraq, I think I would have picked him immediately. But he wants immediate withdrawal and I believe such a haste move will bring along grave consequences for Iraq, the region and even America.

Foreign policy towards Sudan is another aspect that concerns me of course. Donkey Bill Clinton bombed al-Shifa factory (supposedly a chemical weapons manufacturing facility) and applied harsh sanctions. Long story short, he did us no favors. Bush (regardless of how much you hate him for badly screwing up the Iraq war) took a different approach and the result was the peace agreement signed between the SPLM and Khartoum. It’s the best damn thing that ever happened to Sudan in a long time. These are reasons that make me lean towards an Elephant candidate who will continue that approach.

If only that ideal centrist candidate existed. It would have been more fun if Collin Powell was in this race.

For now, it’s increasingly looking like this: Hillary or Obama Vs McCain or Romney.

Admit it. He makes the best and most uplifting speeches. Crap, I’m almost in tears.

When it comes to the Elephants I’ve been saying for a year now that I support John McCain. As for the Donkeys, it’s either Hillary or Obama. I’m sort of undecided but I gotta say I’m leaning more towards Mr. Hope. And yeah I pretty much agree with Sandmonkey.

As for now… Go Obama!

This cracked me up so badly!

… it occurred to me that Democrats really don’t need to do anything. All liberals need to do is sit back and watch while the whole Republican government resigns after it’s discovered that they’re all actually gay.

That makes at least three this year. Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Richard Curtis. Am I missing someone?

Am I the only one finding this hilarious?

I present to you the Elephants!

And the Donkeys!

And finally a list of all the presidential candidates with some background information on each one of them.

I’m not sure since it’s too early to tell but from how things are looking right now, I think it’s going to boil down to the 2 of them facing each other. Both of them are unique in the sense that they have the potential of appealing to voters from the opposing side. Furthermore they already have significant support from their voting bases.

Hillary is a unique Donkey due to her un-Donkey support of the Iraq war. Hence she has potential to capture some votes from the Right. Giuliani is a unique Elephant due to his un-Elephant stance on social issues like abortion. He’s pro-choice. Hence he has potential to capture some votes from the Left.

Personally, I’d like to see John McCain from the Elephant side. I like the guy but I don’t think he stands a chance to get elected anymore since he pissed off too many people in his voting base with regards to the illegal immigration issue. So yes, I’m guessing he’s pretty much “bye bye”.
Also, as much as I like Donkey Obama’s eloquent speeches, I think his inexperience is starting to show when he proposes dumb ideas such as withdrawing from Iraq and sending troops to Pakistan instead (hat tip: DB Shobrawy). Ya, sure thing, that would work. Still though, Obama has a good chance of beating Hillary.

I found this quiz at the Atheist Jew’s blog and spent a few minutes answering it. The following are my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Mitt Romney (60%)
3. Tommy Thompson (54%)
4. John McCain (50%)
5. Al Gore (48%)
6. Ron Paul (47%)
7. Tom Tancredo (47%)
8. Christopher Dodd (47%)
9. Mike Huckabee (47%)
10. Sam Brownback (47%)
11. Jim Gilmore (45%)
12. Wesley Clark (45%)
13. Barack Obama (45%)
14. John Edwards (45%)
15. Chuck Hagel (43%)
16. Duncan Hunter (43%)
17. Dennis Kucinich (41%)
18. Michael Bloomberg (41%)
19. Fred Thompson (40%)
20. Hillary Clinton (39%)
21. Joseph Biden (39%)
22. Bill Richardson (37%)
23. Rudolph Giuliani (37%)
24. Alan Augustson (36%)
25. Newt Gingrich (33%)
26. Kent McManigal (32%)
27. Mike Gravel (22%)
28. Elaine Brown (21%)

Interesting huh? I’ve never liked the idea of putting myself in a Right or Left box. It’s too confining. Center-Left to Center-Right is my opinion spectrum. But hey maybe I really am a right-leaning centrist after all (if there is such a thing). As for Romney, from what little I read about him, it seems like he’s a spineless chameleon who changes his stances every 2 seconds. At least McCain came in at 4.

Here, why don’t you give the quiz a try!

Me liked this article on Business Week. Maybe you will too. Bloomberg for President? New Yorkers what do you think? I don’t like Giuliani. I’d prefer to see John McCain win from the Elephant side since he’s someone I actually have respect for. Even though I don’t agree with all his views, I think he’s the best the Elephants have to offer. The rest, either I don’t know much about or I just don’t like. As for Bloomberg, I don’t much about him except for what I just read in this pro-Bloomberg article. And in case you’re wondering, from the Donkey side, I’d prefer to see Hillary. Not so sure about Obama anymore (even though he’s such a good and passionate speaker compared to boring robotic Hillary. Seriously, I’m not American and even I was moved by this, [forward to 3:20]).

Bleh, I have a headache. If only Colin Powell was running for President. Making a choice could have been a lot easier. Americans, enjoy your ‘08 elections! They’re going to be of paramount importance for the future of your country and the Middle East.

Lately I’ve been reading Opinion Journal more frequently and yesterday I stumbled upon this excellent piece. Not Your Mama, this is for you as promised :

There is a serious and widening disconnect between the timetables that commanders are using to guide their actions in Iraq and those being demanded by politicians in Washington.

…Inevitably, since suicide attacks will still be occurring in Iraq in September, many commentators and politicians will write off the surge as a failure. Many are already doing so, even though the Baghdad Security Plan is barely three months old and the fourth extra U.S. brigade has only recently arrived.

…An article in USA Today reported on a Pentagon-funded study which confirms what military historians already know–an average insurgency can run for a decade, but most fail in the end. Translation: If we’re going to be successful in Iraq, we’re going to have to make a long-term commitment.

…Most Americans seem resigned to that fate. In fact many think that the civil war has already begun, and we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it. We hear all the time that “we have no business getting into the middle of someone else’s civil war”–often from the very same people who in the 1990s were (rightly) urging that we get involved in the civil wars of the former Yugoslavia or who today (rightly) urge us to get involved in the civil war in Sudan.

I don’t know about that “(rightly)” part refering to Sudan but anyways…

…If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that Iraqis would “get their act together” and take care of their problems themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war. Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would be seen as the winner.

That ought to be “lovely”. The problem is that the majority of the American people aren’t listening to the Elephants anymore and they don’t care about what they have to say. It’s unfortunate that the Elephants screwed up many times in the last few years. Meanwhile Donkeys will keep proposing their symbolic bills, BAM they’ll get rejected and as we approach 2008, the possibility of a Donkey president will get higher and higher.

The inevitable happened. Me support.

First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Why don’t the Donkeys get that? There could be dire consquences for both the region and America.

I guess Sudan accepting UN troops is old news by now. Don’t get too excited though. I am still skeptical but not as much as I used to be when similar news were announced in the past. I’m only slightly skeptical this time. Maybe this slight skepticism exists in me due to fear… the fear of making an emotional investment only to end up feeling bitter disappointment later on. Even with this slight skepticism, this time I don’t think the Sudanese government (or Omar al-Bashir’s NCP to be more specific) is trying the same old trick of buying more time by saying “yes, no problemo” only to later change their minds and say “whops, sorry but…”

Lately we’ve been witnessing a real push to pressure Sudan and also things that indicate the high possibility of a real push occuring behind the scenes. Firstly, the US of A (whom I thank for playing a vital role in ending the bloody 20 year old Sudanese North-South civil war) indicated that it will seriously consider building up the capacity of the SPLM’s army (aka SPLA) as part of Plan B, something which will present a real threat to the northern NCP. Secondly, the “Genocide Olympics” movement seems to be gaining momentum, something which has the potential to cause a real headache for China. Thirdly, during the recent Arab League Summit, Saudi Arabia announced that it was working on convincing Sudan to accept the UN force in Darfur. It looks like they weren’t lying and that they actually have something to do with the recent Sudanese acceptance/”acceptance”. Fourthly the Sudan divestment campaign is also gaining momentum in America. Moreover new sanctions is something Sudan defintely doesn’t want. Believe me when I say this, the NCP doesn’t want bad relations with America. On the contrary, what they want (and what I myself and many Sudanese want too) is for Sudan to be removed from the terrorism sponsoring states list, lifting of sanctions and normalization of relations. This is just a simple example of what I mean and what peope hoped the North-South peace agreement would achieve. Fifthly, when Negroponte himself and not some small time lousy diplomat goes all the way to Khartoum to discuss Darfur, something is defintely cooking. Sixthly, the new alliances forming in Darfur against the government might be a factor. I’m not so sure about this one as I haven’t really read much about it.

The above mentioned points are just some of the developments I’ve been reading about. The rhetoric in various cases isn’t as vague as before. Now, even if this acceptance is 100% genuine, I strongly believe it’s only an acceptance of phase 2 which would only require allowing 3000 UN troops into Darfur. Accepting phase 3 will be the killer that the NCP would hate as it would mean allowing 20,000 UN troops into Darfur. 3000 troops with consent from Khartoum is a good start.

On another note though, I’ve got to say that Bush has been really patient with Omer al-Bashir all along. Hell, the man even offered to meet al-Bashir personally. What would have Bill Clinton done if he was still president? Bomb more pharmaceutical factories, ops I mean highly crazy super dangerous chemical weapons production facilities? In regards to Sudan, the Elephant response has been better than the Donkey response during Clinton’s time. No? *Stones, tomatoes and eggs flying towards Drima*.

UPDATE: An article by the CMS states points similar to mine:

International pressure from the United Nations, Arab leaders, and the United States played a role in Sudan’s concession this week to allow 3,000 UN peacekeepers into the country’s troubled Darfur region.

So, apparently, did the image concerns of China – both one of Sudan’s biggest commercial partners and an increasingly outgoing international power – as it prepares to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

…For some observers, Sudan’s decision reflects China’s growing pressure on Khartoum to respond to growing pressures from the international community.

“It shows that one thing is more important to the Chinese than their access to Sudan’s oil, and that’s the success of their Olympic Games,” said actress and Darfur activist Mia Farrow in comments to the Associated Press.

And as usual, Alex De Waal states the obvious.

De Waal says the janjaweed, the pro-government Arab militia terrorizing the Darfur population, will never be disarmed by peacekeepers – that will take an internal Sudanese political solution.

De Waal says the danger of Sudan’s latest agreement is that what he calls the “more-has-to-be-done crowd” will be enthralled by it, instead of looking for more viable solutions.

“It’s not ‘we need to do more,’ ” he says, “but at this point we need to rethink and say ‘maybe we need to do things differently.’ “

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Alex De Waal is one of the few people being quoted in the Western main stream media who actually knows the real facts and understands the situation well enough.

The movie is da shyte! It’s been a really long time since I’ve watched a movie that I enjoyed THIS much. It’s sort of a combination of LOTR and Gladiator except 300 has a lot more blood. And I mean A LOT more blood! Yummy! In terms of special effects I think the movie has set a new standard the same way The Matrix did about a decade ago. The casting is superb and the graphic effects are much and I mean MUCH cooler than anything I’ve seen in any movie before. 300 is absolutely ENTERTAINING!

The story and the hidden political message were pretty interesting too. Okay, fine so maybe there was no such thing as a hidden political message but who cares, let’s pretend there is one just for the fun of it. Here’s what I thought:

Leonidas = Bush

Xerxes = Ahmadinejad

The Spartans who opposed Leonidas going to war = Donkeys ie. “unpatriotic traitors”.

Leonidas supporters = Elephants

Watch the movie and you’ll know what I mean. It’s pretty obvious in my opinion. On a serious note though, Persians were portrayed in a negative way which made them look like a bunch of smelly barbarians. That wasn’t a nice thing to do, but then again, the movie is not based on accurate historical facts. Instead it can be considered mostly fiction. Most of my Iranian friends who watched it, enjoyed it. A few told me they vehemently reject the “filthy American propaganda” and are not going to watch the movie.

But I know I will… AGAIN!

Looooooooovely!!!

According to this poll, 6 in 10 Americans want US troops to withdraw out of Iraq either immediately or within a year. I’m watching the situation and the whole Donkey/Elephant debate quite closely nowadays. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.

UPDATE: Go Hillary… or Elephants! Maybe this post can help you.