2137 of 62457 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
South Carolina goes to Obama.

I didn't really have much against Clinton in particular but seeing some of her speeches in the past few weeks (and reading some of Bill's quotes) she just sounds so annoying. How cutting is her voice? Imagine being Bill and having her scream at you?.. I almost feel sorry for him.

Politics aside of course. Laughing

R
[quote]
Obama is an idiot.
[quote]
vadinho said:
Obama is an idiot.


They've had seven years of idiot. Maybe they've perfected it now. Laughing

I prefer him to screechy voice proxy Bill.

R
[quote]
Obama has no experience, no policies, no depth.

McCain is the only worthy candidate. Or John Edwards.
[quote]
vadinho said:
Obama has no experience, no policies, no depth.


He might have been a senator for a couple of years but he was a member of the Illinois State Senate for eight years prior.

He also hired "a 30-year veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff, and economist Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director."

It's the people around the people who matter too. Or not?

McCain surely cannot be a good choice. His main plus is he is an ex-prisoner of war. Other than that I'd say he's too associated with all of the major screw-ups and non-attentiveness in important areas during the Bush admin. He can't really say he wasn't at fault or involved in these things because that would mark him as being useless.

R
[quote]
cant say i have much confidence in obama but i guess he cant be worse than the current.

I think i would prefer hillary as she will have a fairly decent ex president as her main advisor.

American politic has had other outsiders come in saying they would be effective because they werent part of the old boys network and didnt owe other people favours. Thing is, that in american politics in particular you need to be able to get people to do things for you and that takes relationships.

Will be interesting to see what happens anyway, i dont think any of the candidates are going to make much difference to American politics unless obama gets assassinated.
[quote]
bob said:
..in american politics in particular you need to be able to get people to do things for you and that takes relationships.


You get that no matter what your history once you're the president.

R
[quote]
You've got to be kidding me.

How many southern state senators are going to be seen helping obama?

He might have the power to buy/trade some favours as the president but it takes a lot more than that. Look at presidents with hostile senates - it gets to impasse and the president looks lame, not the senate.
[quote]
RobW said:

It's the people around the people who matter too. Or not?


I thin that is why Obama would be a great President - guy seems to have a smart, reasoned head on him; utilises highly experienced and skilled advisors; and can then talk/inspire/spin the policy platform that comes from them.
Great conbination to me.
[quote]
I'm bored shitless with the "woman' this and "black' that over this campaign

WTF america what fucking century are you in?
[quote]
bob said:
You've got to be kidding me.

How many southern state senators are going to be seen helping obama?


All of the democrats actually should he win the candidacy. That's how they work - either you support the leader or he'll make you insignificant.

R
[quote]
You have a very hierarchical view of politics.

Informal power structures etc, some of those senators were there before he was in politics and many will be there once hes gone.
[quote]
On this note: Obama wins the coveted support of Senator Edward Kennedy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7213846.stm

R
[quote]
bob said:

Thing is, that in american politics in particular you need to be able to get people to do things for you and that takes relationships.


$$
[quote]
garethw said:
RobW said:

It's the people around the people who matter too. Or not?


I thin that is why Obama would be a great President - guy seems to have a smart, reasoned head on him; utilises highly experienced and skilled advisors; and can then talk/inspire/spin the policy platform that comes from them.
Great conbination to me.


Hillary is smarter, more experienced, and actually knows how the system works.
John Edwards is my choice... he actually WORKS for workers, doesn't swan around spouting mindless platitudes. As I've said before Giuliani: 9/11! 9/11 and Obama: change! change!

They ALL have highly experienced and skilled advisors. Hillary's chief advisor has 8 years presidential experience Wink
[quote]
which is maybe why people are leaning towards Obama

because he ain't perceived as being a Washington insider
[quote]
I think it is that naivety which will be his downside. Im not sure he has the balls to make any changes that an outsider could bring and he there will be a lot of people who want him to fail.

Iwonder who would have a better chance against the republicans hillary or obama or someone else?
[quote]
I don't think any of them (democrats) have any real intention to change bugger all - its merely a nice catch phrase

I reckon it'd take a very special republican to turn the tide on the US publics dismay over this administration and they'll suffer at the polls for it - unless the democrats shoot themselves in the foot, which has potential

one thing I am enjoying in the US primaries is the enthusiasm, shallow and all that... but looking at our election build up we're very drab and negative in comparision - a cultural thing maybe, but some excitment and positivity (even if simply hollow smiling) wouldn't go amiss
[quote]
Edwards has dropped out of the race. Will be interesting to see if he endorses Clinton or Obama, if he does at all.
[quote]
Night Rider said:
which is maybe why people are leaning towards Obama

because he ain't perceived as being a Washington insider


I agree... the harsh reality in the states is actually that a majority of people don't follow this all that closely and chose their candidate on a whim.

That is people with familiar names have such an advantage in US politics. The name Kennedy would guarantee you a couple of million votes no matter what your policies. Clinton/Bush would also plusses (well maybe not Bush nowdays... )

Having a name which sounds terroristy like OBAMA definitely would take a lot of overcoming in the southern central/states.

Shihad anyone?

R
[quote]
Obana is the pacifier Confused

southern states - there be black people there Shocked

Those whom aren't disenfranchised will possibly vote black
[quote]
quote:
"John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply ... that two Americans can become one," Obama said. "So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures."


Euch. Neutral Hope that was misquoted Mr Obama
[quote]
bob daktari said:
Obana is the pacifier Confused

southern states - there be black people there Shocked

Those whom aren't disenfranchised will possibly vote black


It was a point about names meaning a lot more in US politics.. And the southern and central states are usually republican states - voting for any democrat is usually a tall order, but one whose name is a bit weird = even more difficult - white/yellow/black/red or otherwise.

R
[quote]
sorry Rob my tongue was firmly in cheek

the name thang in elections I believe is quite universal
[quote]
MCCAIN ROLLIN' LIKE AN EIGHTEEN WHEELER

OBAMA OR CLINTON... IT DOESN'T MATTER.
[quote]
McCain will be 80 if he serves two terms.
[quote]
garethw said:
McCain will be 80 if he serves two terms.


He wont get in..

During the Dems vs Reps the Dems only need to bring up:
-"Iraq"
- "the economy"
- "Hurricane Katrina handling"..

..and the Republican chances will be dusted. People don't forget which administration you were part of that quick - and McCain has been Bush's right-hand man in all of these things no matter how he'll try to paint it.

R
[quote]
If McCain debates Obama, all he needs to win is this:
"So, Barak Hussein, when did you serve? By the way I have won a Silver Star and I spent six years as a prisoner of war, fighting for my country."

SFO!

Obama's reply: "Change! Change!"

McCain's reply: "People like me changed the world by winning the cold war. What have you done except clog up Myspace and Facebook with your bullshit viral campaigns?"
[quote]
um.. he wasn't exactly "fighting for his country" when he was a POW.

He was sitting on his ass (possibly in a small cage)
[quote]
vietnam? iraq?

hmmmm

obama ftw easily
[quote]
Night Rider said:
vietnam? iraq?

hmmmm

obama ftw easily


EVERYBODY knows McCain was RIGHT about Iraq from the get go. Google it.

Vietnam? You were sipping from your momma's tit, JOHN MCCAIN was flying an A-6 and dodging SAMs. Winning medals.
[quote]
he was more right about how one occupies a country post invasion

Now didn't Obama vote against the war? Making him more right
[quote]
I'm actually happy with either of those two. But on the whole I trust the Democratic administration so much more than that of the Republican.
And therefore like Obama. Actually, in some ways I'd love McCain fronting a Democratic ticket - ol hard ass with a left-leaning policy platform would be pretty cool.
[quote]
bob daktari said:
he was more right about how one occupies a country post invasion

Now didn't Obama vote against the war? Making him more right


Obama voted FOR the war :>

SFO!
[quote]
vadinho said:
.. JOHN MCCAIN was flying an A-6 and dodging SAMs. Winning medals.


Is there aspect of US politics which doesn't end up becoming the 'hero' story for you?

McCain learned nothing of practical value in prison to help him run the country - he only won the ability to win tons of votes from patriotic people and people who respect his hardship (it wasn't sacrifice since it was forced on him in-case that was part of the argument for him).

R
[quote]
coonsidering the Americans penchant for locking people up, I'm sure Mccain learnt plenty that will come in handy

Obama didn't vote for the war as he wasn't in the Senate then... he didn't vote against it either I guess (please note I don't like Obama)

garethw, define level of trust - the democrats have shown they have little interest in ceasing the US's war adventures, if anything in the case of war the republicans are more conisistant - wrong IMHO but consistantly wrong, the democrats flip flop playing both sides of the coin
[quote]
vadinho said:
bob daktari said:
he was more right about how one occupies a country post invasion

Now didn't Obama vote against the war? Making him more right


Obama voted FOR the war :>

SFO!


quote:
Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but opposed the war from the start. He has proposed a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to be completed by the end of March 2008, and he told reporters he was uncertain how Clinton intended to end the conflict.


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0923153320070212

quote:
On the day after he formally launched his 2008 White House bid, Obama said on a campaign swing through Iowa that even before the war began it was possible to see the dangerous consequences of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well," the Illinois senator told reporters, indirectly contrasting his stance with presidential rivals Clinton and John Edwards, who both voted to authorize the war in 2002.
[quote]
RobW said:
vadinho said:
.. JOHN MCCAIN was flying an A-6 and dodging SAMs. Winning medals.


Is there aspect of US politics which doesn't end up becoming the 'hero' story for you?

McCain learned nothing of practical value in prison to help him run the country - he only won the ability to win tons of votes from patriotic people and people who respect his hardship (it wasn't sacrifice since it was forced on him in-case that was part of the argument for him).

R


Obama refused to serve his country.

For a country as powerful as America, that counts.

And it wasn't forced on him - he voluntarily joined up and flew missions he knew were dangerous. So it was sacrifice.
[quote]
Night Rider said:
vadinho said:
bob daktari said:
he was more right about how one occupies a country post invasion

Now didn't Obama vote against the war? Making him more right


Obama voted FOR the war :>

SFO!


quote:
Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but opposed the war from the start. He has proposed a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to be completed by the end of March 2008, and he told reporters he was uncertain how Clinton intended to end the conflict.


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0923153320070212

quote:
On the day after he formally launched his 2008 White House bid, Obama said on a campaign swing through Iowa that even before the war began it was possible to see the dangerous consequences of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well," the Illinois senator told reporters, indirectly contrasting his stance with presidential rivals Clinton and John Edwards, who both voted to authorize the war in 2002.


Odd that the Clintons have pointed out the above is a falsehood.
[quote]
yeah the Clintons.... bastions of truth them two
[quote]
they sure are and they're still at it

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6850_clinton_smears.html

it's the only hope she's got to repeat the lies often enough and people will believe you - an old tactic that
[quote]
bob daktari said:
garethw, define level of trust - the democrats have shown they have little interest in ceasing the US's war adventures, if anything in the case of war the republicans are more conisistant - wrong IMHO but consistantly wrong, the democrats flip flop playing both sides of the coin


True, it does feel like they have tended to trade off personal belief for following public sentiment. You like to think that if they are elected in on their belief platform they might feel free to follow it, but possibly not.
[quote]
Obama gets what might be one of the most important steps in the current candidacy race: the support of the US's largest Spanish language newspaper, La Opinion.

Latino people are expected to make up about 18% of the vote. Clinton has generally easily held the majority of their support but even a moderate swing in favour of Obama in latino voters would be a massive gain for him in the overall standings.

R
[quote]
And in the style of Public Enemy/standard house track sampling of MLK, here comes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ
[quote]
thats a horrible video/song/whatever

can we not wait for the guy to do something of consequence before immortalising him?

get off public address garethw Smile
[quote]
heh. the fact that his dad is african is enough for me to be a total fan boy.
[quote]
bob daktari said:
get off public address garethw Smile


But work is so BORING... Razz
[quote]
neil_armstrong said:
heh. the fact that his dad is african is enough for me to be a total fan boy.


Well, if you look at countries run by Africans, they share a common theme: they're all shitholes.
[quote]
This morning I see on TV that Clinton is now labelling Obama as the establishment and herself as the underdog. Laughing

Holy Toledo how quickly things change.

R
[quote]
Hmm...Obama vs McCain. On one hand you got a young, good-looking, intelligent guy, who can inspire with his idealist rhetoric (obvious parallels to JFK). On the other, you got McCain, aging at 71, associated heavily with Bush, truthful but far less inspiring.

Now I like McCain, but damn, this has to be a dream scenario for the Democrat's image consultants and advisors.

Clinton, on the other hand... polarising, far less independent voter appeal, less inspiring rhetorically. I think McCain has a much better chance against her TBH.
[quote]
just read this from a music mailing list I am on

quote:
I believe John McCain is a formidable candidate. That it's not a slam dunk for the Democrats. So even though I was about to leave Felice's house, when Steve Kroft announced he was going to interview Barack Obama on "60 Minutes", I decided to hang out, see what the candidate had to say.

And although poised, Obama was so young, and so thin! Could this guy really be an effective President? Steve Kroft asked him about his experience.

Barack Obama responded that there are many old, established companies in America, but only one Google, young, rich and successful. And that sealed the deal. I'm an Obama man. I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, I'll be unhappy if David Geffen gets the last laugh, but I want someone who lives in the now, who knows what's happening today, not someone lost in the past.


I've omitted the bulk of the mail, which is how the dude had decided to stop supporting Hilary and go Obama

still don't like Obama, but maybe there is something in having a ray of hope in a nation so devoid of it

*pushes submit before bob's cynisim kicks in*
[quote]
sebastian said:
Hmm...Obama vs McCain. On one hand you got a young, good-looking, intelligent guy, who can inspire with his idealist rhetoric (obvious parallels to JFK). On the other, you got McCain, aging at 71, associated heavily with Bush, truthful but far less inspiring.
.


JOHN MCCAIN FLEW JETS FOR HIS COUNTRY. HE SPENT FIVE YEARS IN A TIGER CAGE. HE WON MEDALS.

OBAMA MAY SPOUT BULLSHIT ABOUT 'FREEDOM' AND 'CHANGE', BUT MCCAIN SUFFERED FOR THOSE IDEALS.

McCain != Bush.
[quote]
we all know what he did Vads, but right now some positive hollow words sure beat Mcgains drumbeat for more war
[quote]
vadinho said:
JOHN MCCAIN FLEW JETS FOR HIS COUNTRY. HE SPENT FIVE YEARS IN A TIGER CAGE. HE WON MEDALS.


Presidential skills learned while flying jets or being in a muddy cage eating cold rice: None.

Sad thing is it'll get him in, but those things don't make you better at running a country.

R
[quote]
RobW said:
vadinho said:
JOHN MCCAIN FLEW JETS FOR HIS COUNTRY. HE SPENT FIVE YEARS IN A TIGER CAGE. HE WON MEDALS.


Presidential skills learned while flying jets or being in a muddy cage eating cold rice: None.


Presidential skills learned as a rich boy lawyer? None.
[quote]
vadinho said:
sebastian said:
Hmm...Obama vs McCain. On one hand you got a young, good-looking, intelligent guy, who can inspire with his idealist rhetoric (obvious parallels to JFK). On the other, you got McCain, aging at 71, associated heavily with Bush, truthful but far less inspiring.
.


JOHN MCCAIN FLEW JETS FOR HIS COUNTRY. HE SPENT FIVE YEARS IN A TIGER CAGE. HE WON MEDALS.

OBAMA MAY SPOUT BULLSHIT ABOUT 'FREEDOM' AND 'CHANGE', BUT MCCAIN SUFFERED FOR THOSE IDEALS.

McCain != Bush.

All true. But when McCain and Obama are standing up on the podium debating, I think Americans will be seeing two contrasting images.

McCain - War
Obama - Hope

Doesn't matter what the reality is, that's what the perception will be. Americans are an emotional, idealistic lot, so inspiring rhetoric counts for a lot Smile And its so long since 9/11 that I don't think the terror terror terror message is going to work like it did in 2004.
[quote]
vadinho said:
Presidential skills learned as a rich boy lawyer? None.


Are you saying Winston Peters learned nothing in his law career which helped him become the politician he is today? Razz

R
[quote]
RobW said:
vadinho said:
Presidential skills learned as a rich boy lawyer? None.


Are you saying Winston Peters learned nothing in his law career which helped him become the politician he is today? Razz

R


Geoffrey Palmer?
[quote]
the potomac comes to obama