Thread: US Presidential Campaign 2008

^Yes, I agree.

Hillary vs. McCain. McCain wins.
O'bama vs. McCain. Obama wins.

^^ Said the same in 2004 if I remember that GWB couldn't win.

Don't discount the comeback kid's power to unite and WIN.

Originally Posted by durianfan

If it's McCain and Hillary, it might be close, but A LOT more people hate Hillary than they do McCain.

Yep, Hillary is a corrupt, power-hungry beast who is certainly more detestable. But McCain, a slightly demented old man with a perpetual hard-on for war is definitely scarier. Obama is an affable, sensible human being with moderate ideas who is far preferable to the other two by default.

McCain could inherit the voting machine of GW Bush and got in with another election fraud,

i think it's important to recognize that the obama campaign is a movement...it's bigger than the man itself.

he's filling arenas just to hear him speak. has that ever happened before?

no matter what the republican hate machine throws at him in the next 8 months, i don't think it will stop americans for voting for a better future that leaves divisive wedge issues in the past.

obama is post partisan and people recognize and admire it.

Originally Posted by raycarey

obama is post partisan and people recognize and admire it.

Indeed, please take notes.

^ The best person only wins sometimes, NJ. I think McCain has continued to distance himself from Bush Jr, altho Sr has endorsed him.

I found what I think is a worthy opinion article on Obama. A few snippets:

Besides his charisma, what has so attracted Democratic Party activists to Obama is his pledge to end the War in Iraq. A war he believes never should have been fought in the first place.

Having read Obama’s policy concerning Iraq, I find myself troubled both by its premise and its prescription. It is titled, “Turning the Page in Iraq.” It would be more aptly named, “Turning our Back on Iraq.”

Obama’s prescription of withdrawal is predicated on the premise that the surge is not working and that the sole purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. This is simply wrong.

The surge is actually rooted in six fundamental elements as spelled out by the Bush Administration. First, let the Iraqis lead. Second, help the Iraqis protect the population. Third, isolate extremists. Fourth, create space for political progress. Fifth, diversify political and economic efforts. Finally, situate the strategy in a regional approach.
Have all these elements been achieved in the space of one year? No. Have some of these elements been achieved and is Iraq a better place now for it? Yes.

The surge has helped to isolate extremists. There is no question the surge was a significant factor in the Mahdi Army declaring a six month ceasefire last August (although one wonders what happens once the ceasefire expires on February 29th.)

The surge has helped to create space for political progress. To be sure, watching the Iraqi Parliament work has been about as exasperating as eating Jello with chopsticks...Let’s be clear. The Iraqi Parliament has a long, long way to go. It still must, amongst other things, pass an oil revenue sharing law as well as a measure to disarm the various Shiite and Sunni militias still operating throughout Iraq. This will not be easy. But the Iraqis are trying to resolve matters in a civil and democratic manner. Yet this is not good enough for Obama who wants to throw the baby out with the Baath water so to speak.

If elected, Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009. Only a residual force would remain. Obama argues that withdrawal is the best means to ensure the Iraqi government acts...

So who fills the void in Iraq once U.S. troops are withdrawn? The UN, Iran and Syria would.

But let’s get this straight. Obama has unlimited patience with the UN but less than a year into the surge his patience with U.S. troops is exhausted?

...Obama also pledges he will be “a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.” I am sure that Ahmadinejad and Asaad are thinking, “Obama’s going to stop us from meddling in Iraq. Oh yeah, you and what army? Oh, that’s right. There is no army because Obama withdrew it.” Obama might as well send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be his envoy for all the good it would do.
Jettie:
But like many liberal Democrats, Obama takes the “blame America” view of the world. “America’s standing has suffered,” said Obama, “Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don’t like.”

...How much faith does Obama place in Ahmadinejad who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map? How much confidence does Obama have in Iran as it sent its Minister, Mohammed Mottaki, to attend the funeral of Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyah? This is the same Mughniyah who was one of the masterminds of the October 1983 bombings of the U.S. military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. How much confidence does Obama have in Asaad not meddling in Iraqi affairs when Syria won’t stop meddling in the affairs of Lebanon?

During a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, the night of his Potomac triumph, Obama declared, “John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning.” For that matter, John McCain won’t be able to say that Barack Obama wants to win the war in Iraq either.

Full text: CFP: Obama Has More Faith in the UN, Iran & Syria Than U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

CFP: Obama Has More Faith in the UN, Iran & Syria Than U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

let's just take a moment to consider that headline from the canada free press.






putting aside for moment that she's taken the time to post someone else's opinion (why?), does it seem even remotely balanced?




as it is being cited with increasing frequency, i'd like to recommend that everyone posting in issues take a closer look at the 'canada free press'.

Canada Free Press is a Canadian website, which publishes conservative news stories, features, and editorials.

Canada Free Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if he comes clean and promises US insecurity and through it global instability will be the penalty for putting him in office, he will get some 90% of the black vote, guess what, because he's black.

Still, a long way to go before November and I think he'll be pinned down on these and other points nearing the big day...much better than pressing him now and giving the fickle voters time to forget. Right now they're marking time as the DEMs hang themselves by demonstrating how disjointed they are.

Strategic blunder was for the Dem movers to paint the voters into a corner with no choice but to break with the traditional white male...9 months to payback and counting.

i hope that this story has legs and doesn't get pushed aside....

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/ny...ss&oref=slogin

Originally Posted by raycarey

i hope that this story has legs

'Bout as many as most of your threads...

And, if art imitates life, it's interesting to note Hollywood's choice of actors to play President. IMO, Michael Douglas and Gene Hackman played the best Presidents.

Does our idealized image of a President involve mostly good looking, younger, virile and strong looking types?

President Andrew Shepherd
Played by Michael Douglas
In the movie The American President
A widower and a single father, President Shepherd finds love with an outspoken environmentalist. Inspired by his lady, Shepherd chooses his newfound convictions over political expediency. Obviously, this is a work of fiction.

(Movie) Presidents Day on Yahoo! Movies

^ only fools would match Hollywood with reality

And, now for something a little less fictional:

USA Today/Gallup poll

A USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken December 8-10, 2006, asked 1009 adults nationwide, "How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?"


USA Today/Gallup poll 2006 Result



You can see that Reagan and Clinton got the most votes in the above average category, with Reagan scoring the most votes in the "Oustanding" category.

^^ Interesting how people think. Carter shows much better than I would have placed him!

Interesting table indeed. Can't help but wonder if sentimentality doesn't play a role in things like this though? I'm fairly certain that whoever the contemporary President were their figures would be different.

Originally Posted by Norton

^^ Interesting how people think. Carter shows much better than I would have placed him!

Agree - many Americans (including myself) believe that Carter was our worst President, although these past 2 years have replaced that title with our current one.

^^ I missed that part. Yep, you'd have trouble finding 4% "Outstandings" outside of institutions providing specialist mental health care.

Originally Posted by durianfan

Agree - many Americans (including myself) believe that Carter was our worst President, although these past 2 years have replaced that title with our current one.

I was always under the impression that with Carter it wasn't so much that he was bad per se but rather he was a bit 'meh'. A bit of a non-personality/entity sort of thing?

^Carter always meant well, he had a big heart. He just wasn't very effective. As a result, I think he still garners lots of good will and fond memories from people.