US Presidential Race 2008

[Andy Turnbull]

I always watch these races with a curious interest and time round I will again.

Now we've got the running mates in play, we have Obama, going for some experience and wisely avoiding picking Hilary, she'd be eviscerated by the republicans, as there are long memories and even longer knives.

McCain has picked a fairly inexperienced woman to help boost his credibility with the female voter base. A sensible option and one that has me thinking that there is a good chance McCain will be elected President. I hope he isn't but I just have a nagging suspicion he will.

Andy

[dyrl]

I couldn't stand McCain until he picked Palin, thereby exhibiting (in my mind) that he lives on Planet Earth... Not that I'm going to vote for him, but I do hope that Palin or people like her have more of a future in the GOP...

As for Obama, I was let down by him pretty quickly. Somewhere around the time of "send more soldiers to Afghanistan" and "I would consider sending soldiers into Pakistan."

There's already a President doing that, and McCain has been saying he would do that for a long time.

The Democrats annoy me beyond all sense. They won the Congressional election in 2006 on a promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, they think they're being "slick" or clever by pointing out that the "real fighting" has to be done in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, and criticizing tacts rather than strategy.

At least with the Republicans, I know where the candidates stand and what they'll do. I disagree with their foreign policy; but the Democrats seem unable to even have a coherent foreign policy...

I don't accept the "logic" that Afghanistan is somehow the "right" war and Iraq is the "wrong war." Both conflicts are senseless. Both have at their heart a flawed strategy of protecting oil pipeline routes while trampling human rights. Both wars only embolden anti-Americanism and make it harder for moderates in the Arab world to change their governments, and above all - neither of the wars has anything to do with 9/11.

Even if Osama Bin Laden is living in Afghanistan - that's hardly a reason to invade the entire country. If there's anything Afghanistan needs it's peace. The place has been a hive of warfare for the last 50 years with absolutely no potential for development. I find it ludicrous that hudreds of thousands of soldiers and entire airforces and navies have to be employed to "fight" a group of loosely knit radicals. You do not need to bring to bear more firepower than was used against NAZI germany when confronting a group of gurrillas.

Sadly, the Democrats just talked anti-war rhetoric in 06 and then backed down because at heart all they really care about is winning ellections and they will say and do anything and its' opposite six times over without flinching if that's what the polls tell them.

Bush on the other hand - dumb as he is - at least doesn't care whether or not he or his party are popular or not. His Surge was an example of this: it seemed that the Democrats had taken the Congress on an anti-war platform, it seemed as though the whole country was really adamantly against the war - and he disregards the polls and the ellection results and implements the opposite policy. I disagree with it, I think it's bad - but I at least respect the fact that he just does his own thing.

I had hoped Barak Obama would also "do his own thing" - and that he would stand up for bringing the troops home, for ending the wars, for cutting military spending... but instead he - like John Kerry in the last ellection - is babbling on and on about Afghanistan, and Biden is sounding like McCain on Russia...

So, from my point of view - the tickets look like this: BAD-Worse (Obama/Biden) vs. Worse/Better (McCain/Palin).

Hard to say who's going to win. Beyond that, I don't really trust either of the campaigns. Bush campaigned on a "humble foreign policy" - look how that turned out... McCain at least has his voting record...

Obama doesn't really have much of a voting record - he has his life. His life seems to indicate a rebellious caring young man. But it also indicates a Chicago politician. I don't trust the guy. McCain's been around for a while now - people know what they're getting with him.

We'll see. I'm probably not going to vote any way

Pete

[The Doctor]

McCain being elected would be the nightmare scenario. Imagine the Bush years, but even more right-wing.

Obama being elected would do wonders for race relations in the US, with potentially tricking down effects to other countries due to the powerful influences of the US. Unfortunately, taken on his own merits he's a rather weak candidate. Not much of a record and his speeches are rather flat. It's harder to see which way his presidency might go. But I'd much rather have him holding the keys to the Oval Office. He does have some decent ideas.

-Ralph

[karla]

Sarah Palin is a nutter!
But when el John took to stage, there was a couple of women the ran through the crowd with something written on their t-shirts but were soon ripped off by the McCain clan and they all started shouting "USA!"
I thought the whole set up was wierd, but thought that was pretty aggressive lol

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I'm with Karla, I'm afraid on that first point.

John McCain on his own looks a vast improvement on Bush, though I'd much rather Obama got elected since on nearly all points of difference I agree with the Democrat position and disagree with the Republican. (An exception is abortion, where I'm closer to the Republican than the Democrat.)

However, Sarah Palin and the Republican diehards scare the hell out of me, with their religious fundamentalism and general unashamed insistence on Americans' rights (guns, gas-guzzlers, etc.) over their responsibilities. Oh, and she doesn't accept that the weight of evidence supports man-made climate change either. The prospect of Palin as a back-up President has put me more firmly than ever in the Obama camp.

Shame only American citizens get to elect the most powerful man in the world, given that his actions determine the fates of us all. The views of Americans on global issues do not represent the views of the world's population.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Newt Gingrich was on The Daily Show last night and host Jon Stewart, skewered her pretty much in the discussions and he had next to no comeback on any of the points made.

Andy

[Bogatan]

I've always like McCain, though a lot of my exposure to him has been through the Daily Show I always thought he wouldnt be so bad. Certainly if he'd been President for the last 8 years, but I dont think another 4 years of a Republican president is a good thing. The fact so many republicans dont like him particularly the type of Rep has always improved my opinion of him too.

In the 30-60 seconds of video I've seen of Palin I'm already scared of her. Her whole look at me Im a normal Mom spiel is enough to make me sick. Normal Mothers dont become vice presidential nominees, so dont pretend otherwise. The rest of what I saw was her laying into Obama and democrats. I absolutely loath politicians that get into petty name calling. If you can attack someone for a real reason, for something they've done, for hypocrisy or the like fine, but attacking someone on the basis that you dont like them or worse to score cheap points and avoid actual debate makes me very unhappy.

Obama is feeling more and more like a regular politician which is a shame. I found him exciting for a long while, thats fading now but I still think just his presence in the oval office will be a breath of fresh air that no other of the 20 odd original candidates could bring.

Andy

[The Doctor]

Palin scares the crap out of me.

-Ralph

[legios]

Sept 5, 2008 21:05:00 GMT The Doctor said:

Palin scares the crap out of me.

-Ralph

She doesn't do a lot for my peace of mind either to be honest. Her speech to the Republican Convention left me somewhat ill at ease. We went from the "I am a housewife and mother", seeming to endorse and idolise deeply conventional gender roles to the "I met Jesus in College" (spun as if the simple fact that she espouses a specific religion somehow had a bearing on her fitness for office) to "my son is in the armed forces and is going to Iraq" (with a subtext of "I support everything this country has done militarily. Go us!"). I'm not sure what scares me more, the fact that in a few months she could well stand one heart attack from leading the US, or the fact that Cheney stands in that position at the moment.....

The Obama campaign does indeed have some interesting policy proposals. They have, however, apparently taken the slightly odd tactical decision of not making much effort to tell the voters about them. They have got a fair amount of "crunch" up on their web-presence but that is only going to be seen by folk who are already very likely to be voting for them anyway. They seem to be trying to sell the candidate to the rest of the voting populace simply as being "different", without really being specific as to in what way he will change things. I'm not sure how well that will work over the length of a campaign.

Karl

[Deleted]

I'm with Obama on this. The Democrats have always been my choice of candidate in the US elections because all previous Republican presidents have been power hungry war-mongerers. I have a feeling though that Obama won't win though because there are a few states in America where racism rules supreme and because the election is decided by how many number of states each candidate has won and not by how many individual votes they have won I fear these racist states may be Obama's downfall.

[karla]

I just wish everything wasn't so staged, it's like watching one of their films

[Deleted]

Not quite. Their films don't go on for about seven hours throughout the night in which bugger all happens.

[The Doctor]

Films are also slightly more believable.

-Ralph

[Mark_Stevenson]

I hope and pray Obama wins, otherwise I'm going to be in a cornfield every night crying out for the Martians to abduct me.

Mx

[grahamthomson]

If I was an American citizen I think I would vote Obama.

[dyrl]

I've made up my mind to vote McCain - mainly on account of Sarah Palin.

Obama had my vote for the better part of the last three months; all throughout the primary battle with Clinton, and then when things got down to McCain/Obama.

But that was then; when Obama seemed like the brave anti-war candidate. Now he goes on O'Reilly and declares that the Surge is a success.

Well - if Obama now says the Surge is a success -then he should add in the next line that "John McCain was right."

McCain stood up for his beliefs when the war was very unpopular, and called for a troop increase when everyone was screaming to come home.

I am still screaming to come home.

But I don't like politicians who change their position to fit the circumstances.

I get mad listening to McCain talk about fighting more wars.

I get livid red faced when I listen to Obama change his views every five minutes depending on who he's talking to.

I prefer John McCain who seems to have convictions to Obama who has his finger in the wind.

Sarah Palin - for me - was a great great choice. Joe Biden - for me - was the worse most God aweful choice that Obama could have made. Biden is the typical Washington Wash out politician and he is just as pro-war as McCain.

My hope is that McCain will not be in office for long; or perhaps in his old age and having suffered in war, he will come to his senses and limit American intervention overseas.

Barring that though - maybe Sarah Palin will be able to put America on a different course in the future; a better one without wars and omnipotent government at home.

In any case - out of the four of them, she is my favorite; and even though technically the VP has no power (beyond being a tie breaker in the Senate), she is the only one of the four that I would like to see close to the levers of power.

So, unless Obama gets radical about being against the war and definitely stops talking about going into Afghanistan and how the Surge was good but McCain (who was the primary advocate of the Surge) is bad... he's lost my vote.

I think Obama was so focused on beating Hillary that he forgot about running for President - as if getting the nomination was the be all and end all. I was willing to tolerate his empty and shallow "change" and "yes we can" rhetoric so long as there were statements to the extent of "stop the war" and "bring the troops home" - but now there's just fluff.

It reminds me of John Kerry actually - I liked what I saw of John Kerry on the tapes of his congressional testimony after the Vietnam war - I thought - cool! a veteran who has seen the horrors of war and is now going to keep us out of them...

Then the convention rolled around and Kerry saluted and reported for duty and went blubbering on about how he's going to fight a better war than Bush.

Suddenly I found myself compelled to vote the Idiot back into office because I couldn't stand Kerry since Kerry didn't stand for anything anymore; while Bush at least didn't want to take my proverbial guns away

I fear Obama is following in the same tradition of Democratic frontrunners who excite people and then implode (Howard Dean was another of these)...

Republicans are bloody annoying; but at least they're consistent. And at least they have Sarah Palin, who seems to actually hold views and opinions about life that are similar to my own (rare thing for a VP candidate).

So - maybe Obama will still surprise me and sway me - but then the next day Sarah Palin will probably mop the floor with Joe Biden (actually, if the Obama camp is smart, it will try to avoid a Palin-Biden debate...then again - if they were really smart - they would have avoided Joe Biden).

Ironically - Obama could really use Hillary just about now. She and Bill were the type of people who, even if they secretly wanted to take away my proverbial guns at least recognized that I wanted to keep them, and that this didn't make me Satan incarnate - aka - they were able to talk to folks like me without sounding condascending or, worse still, assuming that their views were "intelligent" and "educated" while mine were born of social and economic factors as well as a deranged psychology.

The silly thing is - McCain had nothing to do with my wanting to vote for him - it was really Obama and his terrible interview on Foxnews. McCain is like Oscar the Grouch - every time he pops out of that garbage can, you know what to expect, and at some point you just stop listening; but you never doubt that he'll be himself the next time he pops out of that can.

Obama is like...well...I can't find a Sesame Street character comparrison.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Hm, if I read this thread right, 9 out of 10 Hubbers prefer Obama, but the one who gets to vote supports Mccain.

Not in a swing state by any chance, are you, Pete?

Martin

PS Maybe he's just messing with us...

[Bogatan]

Just got around to watching this clip from the Daily Show. Reminds me why I hate well a host of things really and why The Daily Show is always worth watching during elections.

I cant work out how to pot the clip in my post so just go to the below link.

www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card


Andy

[dyrl]

I'm voting on an absentee ballot; and since my last address was NY, I was planning on voting from NY...

But now that you mention it, I technically did also live in Michigan, which might be a swing state - or at least has more chances of being a swing state than NY... hmm... perhaps registering in Michigan would therefore be more logical.

Thanks for the tip!

Pete

[Fortmax2020]

I don't think it is changing his opinion for Obama to regard the 'Surge' itself as being successful in its own objectives while still maintaining an overall disapproval of the war in Iraq.

My vote (if I had one) would still be with him. McCain I am not too keen on but he does represent an improvement on Bush. Choosing Palin however I think was a big mistake as someone with her views on a number of issues is dangerous and foolhardy to have only one heart beat away from the Presidency.

[dyrl]

Quote: I don't think it is changing his opinion for Obama to regard the 'Surge' itself as being successful in its own objectives while still maintaining an overall disapproval of the war in Iraq.

Me:

Well - here's the way I see it: The "objectives" for the Iraq war have changed every month just about since 2003. Remember Ahmed Chalabi, and the idea that western troops were going to be greated by a jubilant populace just yearning for democracy?

Turned out Chalabi was an Iranian spy, and the populace was divided into sects, tribes and ethnic groups that wanted to go at each other but couldn't because Sadaam kept an iron hand over them (similar to Tito in Yugoslavia).

Then - instead of the democracy that was promised, we had the Coalition Provision Authority and the liquidation of civil services, police, and armed forces under the guise of "de-Baathification" - this effectively put thousands of Iraqis into the insurgency by making them all unemployed persons living in a country whose infrastructure and industry was devastated and which had sustained embargos and bombing for 10 years prior to the war.

But then we had the promise that elections were going to set everything straight and we had all those purple fingers Iraqis who got a chance to vote.

Then they went back to killing eachother and us.

I neglected to mention "Mission Accomplished."

Now the missions seems to be something else.

What?

Who knows?

What were the objectives of the surge? Has the surge established a civil society in Iraq? Has it helped stabilize Democracy? Is anybody outside of the green zone really safe?

All the surge did was offer lots of money to tribal fighters who then turned their guns on Al Queda.

This is hardly a victory for democracy. It just means the Americans got smart to how Iraq "functions" and bribed their enemies, deciding to turn them against eachother.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi "government" has absolutely no power, and the whole country is still devastated by war.

This is not the outcome that was promised; this is not what western soldiers were asked to sacrifice and die for.

Whether out of a strategic blunder on the part of the coalition, bad weather or the impossibility of planting a democracy in a society with little to no such traditions - the war is a failure.

Who cares if the Surge "reduced violence?" There are STILL Americans and Brits and others dying in roadside bomb attacks and there are thousands of people maimed daily by these attacks. Iraq as a country is down the tubes.

Under Saadam - I hate to say it - but Iraq was better off: peace and dictatorship are preferable to a situation of all out anarchic war - where there is peace, there is hope that dictatorship will whither away under the weight of its' own incompetence - where there is war and destruction - there is only war and destruction.

Candidate Obama should have been forceful with O'Reilly, should have noted that to say that the "Surge succeeded" is to forget that the bar for success has been lowered to the level where "victory" means "fewer Americans died this month." Yippee. That is not success.

Sure; "conditions on the ground" might be "better" now - whatever that means - but Iraq is still a humanitarian disaster.

Obama chickened out of his good positions.

McCain - as much as I totally disagree with him -at least is honest and forthright.

I prefer a President who is honest and forthright rather than one who - when they aren't speaking to mindless cheering crowds - suddenly finds himself unable to make his position clear and actually admits that the other side is right just to avoid Bill O'Reilly screaming at him or in some silly attempt at "moving to the center" or triangulating.

Maybe I'm putting too much weight into one interview - we'll see how the debates go - but Obama better make the anti-war case or he has absolutely nothing appealing about his candidacy.

Pete

[Bogatan]

Well Im reading the interview on Fox's website and all he seems to be saying is that by sending more troops in the number of dead has fallen. He'd look like an idiot if he tried to deny that. And it states he still stands by his previous opposition to the war etc and the video I've watched of other parts of the interview he seems to be standing by his views so I've either not caught the relevant bit or am interpreting it differently.

Andy

[Fortmax2020]

Well Im reading the interview on Fox's website and all he seems to be saying is that by sending more troops in the number of dead has fallen.

Exactly.

I watched and read both Obama's and McCain's candidate acceptance speeches and even *if* McCain is indeed more straightforward and honest than Obama I would still be supporting Obama and his vision as opposed to the vision that McCain has put forward.

It's not enough on its own to simply be honest, especially not with the agenda McCain is wanting for America and his choice of running partner.

[chrisl]

Obama all the way.

McCain should stick to making oven chips and Palin can continue serving them up to her backwards, fundamentalist, inbred clan.

[Deleted]

I want Obama to win also as, like Martin Luther King, he will be a strong figurehead for black people in America.

[karla]

"PALIN CRUSH ALL LIFE FORMS!!"

Palin facts (& cookies ^^)==> www.palinfacts.com/?paged=4

[championofjustice]

Sept 10, 2008 8:05:16 GMT chrisl said:

Obama all the way.

McCain should stick to making oven chips and Palin can continue serving them up to her backwards, fundamentalist, inbred clan.

Aye.

[dyrl]

McCain should stick to making oven chips and Palin can continue serving them up to her backwards, fundamentalist, inbred clan.

You mean backwards, fundamentalist inbreds like the ones who attended Obama's church along with Pastor Wright?

Seriously - it's comments like that which only make it ever harder for policy concerns to take center stage.

If a backwards, fundamentalist inbred midgit with DOW syndrome, AIDS and a penchant for bisexuality became President, stopped the war in Iraq, significantly lowered or abolished taxes, repealled the Patriot Act, secured civil liberties and did a host of other good things - I would cheer the person on.

Pete

[championofjustice]

Palin's another fundamentalist war-monger.

www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5783816

[chrisl]

Sept 12, 2008 8:39:22 GMT dyrl said:

McCain should stick to making oven chips and Palin can continue serving them up to her backwards, fundamentalist, inbred clan.

You mean backwards, fundamentalist inbreds like the ones who attended Obama's church along with Pastor Wright?

Seriously - it's comments like that which only make it ever harder for policy concerns to take center stage.

If a backwards, fundamentalist inbred midgit with DOW syndrome, AIDS and a penchant for bisexuality became President, stopped the war in Iraq, significantly lowered or abolished taxes, repealled the Patriot Act, secured civil liberties and did a host of other good things - I would cheer the person on.

Pete

That's a complete contradiction because a backwards fundamentalist would never do those things. A person's height, sexuality, HIV/AIDS status and/or genetic disorders do not make them any better or worse a presidential candidate or human being for that matter. Whereas being an inbred religious fundamentalist, un-educated hick does.

Obama = socialised health care for all.