Quote:
You could actually look up his positions and voting record instead of making generalizing comments on 1-sentence soundbytes. Are any candidates offering specifics in such soundbytes? How could they?
This is not about 30 second to 1 minute time frame in a debate. I'm talking about ENTIRE SPEECHES where a candidate has the podium and can say whatever they want. I listen to an Obama speech, and I come away with basically 'it's good to have hope in hope' and 'let's work for the future'. You can sum it all up right there. If he actually worked pieces of his record into his speech instead of leaving the heavy-lifting to his supporters, then he wouldn't have the support he has (though, there's still the Oprah Factor to think about). You know why? Because as far as public speaking goes - which is practically the end-all and be-all for most of his supporters (probably second only to the anti-Clinton brigade) - he's pretty much a blank page with regards to actual ideas and policy to implement them.
Barack Obama is a blank canvas upon which anybody can project their fantasies, or their desires. You look at Democrats in the audience, and they're swooning. He's saying nothing. He's saying nothing better than anyone else I've ever heard. The reason he says nothing so well is because everybody thinks that he's saying what they want. So they're able to project onto Obama their fantasies. If they believe in allowing somebody to marry a dog, they think Obama will support it. Therefore, I would like today to announce a tentative decision, I'm stilling thinking about it, to vote for Barack Obama (because Clinton and McCain can go take a hike), and here's why.
Barack Obama is pro-life.
Barack Obama is a Constitutionalist.
Barack Obama believes in limited government.
Barack Obama is in favor of health care savings plans.
Barack Obama loves free markets and wants to protect them.
Barack Obama is strong on national defense.
Barack Obama is a tax cutter extraordinaire.
Barack Obama makes my leg tingle when I hear him speak.
Barack Obama will end the designated hitter rule.
Barack Obama will establish a college football playoff once and for all so we will genuinely have a champion.
Barack Obama will get to the bottom of Spygate.
Barack Obama will offer free wing Fridays.
If he spoke more about his record and decisions in speeches where he has the time alotted, then he wouldn't be a blank canvas.
And that's my two cents on Obamamania.
i am a moron
Deckman92, I think Ultra was trying to make a point about Obama being a blank canvas by projecting his ideal positions onto him.
Or he's a very confused child.
Dammit, shush guys, maybe he'll vote for him.
~Tobe
Ultra, you forgot
Barack Obama DOES NOT PLAY POLITICAL GAMES.
Well I actually agree with more than 50% of his positions, so if other people are projecting on him, all the more power to him.
lol...why is Nader running again for president?
I think the candidate I'd support is Mr Obama. After watching the last two debates he's had with Mrs Clinton, a few key things stood out to me. One, Hillary balks a lot at the universal health care idea for someone who was paid considerable sums to keep quiet about it when she was First Lady. Two, Mr Obama said he would be willing to open talks of a kind with nations considered inimical to the US. At a time like this, I'd think the States would do well to elect someone who isn't proverbially going to stick his/her fingers in his/her ears and pretend that unfriendly nations can be flippantly ignored. I like both Democrats on their domestic plans, which are largely the same between the two anyway. Perhaps it is the fact that I'm an outsider looking in at all this firsthand, but considering the foreign policy plans are very important to me since the election of the President has significant effects across the rest of the world, more than any other chief executive.
I've heard much good and much ill spoken of Mr McCain, and while his bipartisan efforts have sounded nice, the whole staying in Iraq for a century bit is cringe-inducing. The Turks have gone into Iraq now and Secretary Gates is telling them to get out of America's newest sandbox...that kind of policy hardly bodes well for the rest of the world.
I know this is a major bump, but I would like to know what y'all think of the election now with everything that has happened i.e., Obama and Rev. Wright, Hillary lying about her 96 Bosnia trip, McCain being the Rep nominee, the Democratic in-fighting, etc. Also, what do you think the outcome of the Democratic nomination will be and who will ultimately win the general election; also, has your decision changed or are you still going with the same candidate.
Myself, I think Obama will win the Democratic nomination, but unless a miracle for Obama happens, I see McCain becoming president by a very large margin. Even though I'm not crazy about McCain, I'm voting for him, and ya know, I'm sorta happy for him that he finally got the nomination as he wanted. Just goes to prove, if a first you don't succeed try, try again.^_^
Dems infighting is pointless...DNC is going to be in August and they still haven't come to a decision. The longer this keeps going on, I think the more it hurts their chances of winning the White House. Hillary is just too proud to quit now.
I'm going to be voting for McCain. Even if I were a strict Democrat, I wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Obama. Though, the current infighting of the Democrats makes for great entertainment.
I'm voting for McCain as well... Seems to be the lesser of the 3 evils, unfortunately... H-Dawg is at the bottom of my list.
No matter who takes the Dem nomination, I refuse to vote for the whipped dog that John McCain has become. He went from hard-nosed maverick to pandering slackjaw in the 8 years since he last ran, and I can't reconcile rewarding such frailty and abject weakness with the position of the leader of the free world.
If it was 1999's John McCain, I'd lean towards him, but since he's just going to continue the super-failure that is the Bush doctrine he's not getting my vote.
Pretty much, yeah. It honestly seems like he's trying to further every single motion the Bush administration is going for these days - and since I want Bush OUT, I can't vote for the guy.
That being said, I'd far prefer Obama to Clinton. I mean, aside from the fact that I tend to agree with Obama's views more than Clinton's, let's also note that the past 20 years have been nothing but Bushes and Clintons - do we really need to bring that up to 24?
I honestly don't see how you can see McCain as a second (or I guess third) Bush. Sure, he wants to continue the war, but other than that he still has so many liberal ideas, I'm gonna have to hold my nose to vote for him. As a matter of fact, to me, it's still a vote against Barack or Clinton as opposed to an actual vote for McCain.
For most conservative Republicans, McCain is whipped...by liberals. Too buddy-buddy with Democrats (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman are the most notable bills that stuck conservatives in the eye) to make most Republicans excited to vote.
As it is, Hillary and Obama's spat is more eye-catching. And even as they continue to show more and more why I can't vote for them, McCain says something (advocating a "cap-and-trade" approach to fighting global warming, even though the actual facts and science behind anthropogenic global warming are collapsing by the day) that makes me nigh-incapable of voting for him.
At least there's Bob Barr or Ron Paul. Foreign policy aside, I agree with them on practically every domestic issue.
McCain's whipped by EVERY standard. Even the liberals know that McCain's a whipped flip-flopper who makes John Kerry look resolute.
The 'gas tax holiday' is what made me put McCain (and Hillary) in the Retard Box. It's such shameless blatant pandering that it blows my mind. It's stuff like the gas tax holiday nonsense that leads me to vote for Obama this election, because he has yet to blatantly lie to my face and promise me the moon and stars just to get my vote.
What boggles my mind is the idiocy of the average voter. The idiocy of someone who falls for things like 'gas tax holiday' and 'elitist' and wants a president they can 'share a beer with'. When did we decide as a country that we didn't want someone who's better than the vast majority of the public running things?
Senator McCain, winning by a large margin? I have sincere reservations about such a likelihood. Senator Obama is increasingly augmenting, bit by bit, the scope and depth of his base. McCain certainly is not going to get an overwhelming youth vote, and Obama would certainly tear into the independent voting group, a territory that McCain would have claimed only but eight years ago. It is unfortunate, as McCain was once a legitimate maverick. After falling in line with the rest of the Republicans, however, he does not come across as quite the forceful candidate of yesteryears.
I'd like to think that the quip about staying in Iraq for a century was a quotation out of context by the toxic media on McCain's part; I truly would. Unfortunately, McCain generally wants to perpetuate American occupation of Iraq, just like Mr Bush. He is willing to reject a bill to benefit American GIs, just like Mr Bush. He is not willing to have any kind of international relations with Iran or North Korea (unless you count open hostilities) and calls such notions naive, just like Mr Bush. He does not seem to have much reservation about Americans conducting torture to extract information, just like Mr Bush. He isn't likely to strike anybody as a relieving change, regardless of which Democrat contests him. If Mr McCain is so very whipped, the culpa lies with his party and base; they are the ones who treat (and have treated) him like a leper for conversing with the loyal opposition. McCain will not casually stroll into the White House without a fight, unless Clinton runs as an independent to undercut Obama's base. The Republican party may have defanged McCain to make him more palatable, but it may also have destroyed its hopes in November by so doing.
obama has won the democratic nomination. big surprise, right? apparently clinton is "open" to the idea of being a running mate. i don't know about anybody else, but i think it would be wise for obama to consider taking her up on that offer.
Yet Clinton has yet to concede. And I don't she think she will...because, AFAIK, the superdelegates can change their minds all the way up to the convention. And given that she has won an overwhelming majority of the primaries since the string of post-Super Tuesday Obama victories - complete with a majority of the popular vote - I doubt she'll toss in the towel (she's already projected to win South Dakota tonight...don't know about Montana).
These superdelegates won't cast their vote until the Democratic Convention, 'committed' or no. How can one clinch the nomination using votes from those who might change their minds? Obama's pledged delegate total leaves him shy of the majority necessary for gaining the nomination. He will have to rely on superdelegates to get him over the top in Denver.
Obama is entirely capable of committing a gaffe or series of gaffes that would make his nomination a disaster in the eyes of many superdelegates (and he hasn't been too shy about committing those gaffes either). She still has a 5-10% chance of seeing such a reversal before Denver. Many others, with far less support, stayed in their races all the way to the convention, plus it will guarantee her a prime time speech in Denver. And let's not forget the whole debacle with Florida and Michigan, which - however it's ultimately resolved - is going to tick of a number of Democrats.
Besides, given my lack of enthusiasm for McCain, the Obama/Clinton showdown has been the most entertaining thing so far about this year's election.
While that might placate some psychotic Clintonistas, Obama's campaign has been about being an outsider and not pandering to political stupidity. Clinton is not compatible with that, especially since making a fool of herself, and continuing to do so, AGAINST Obama. Some may consider it "weak" or "selling out," and while the intelligent would vote for Obama anyway, we aren't talking about the intelligent are we?
That and who would want to be the person whose living is between Clinton and presidency? A lot of rich and powerful people want her, not Obama.
Obama take Hillary on as a running mate?
Senator Clinton has not even conceded; why would he choose her now? Senator Obama would probably be injured by touting her as vice president, for many of his supporters are disgusted by her primary campaign and would pause if he brought her along. Obama can easily find a running mate who can A) appeal to his weaker constituent bases and B) not detract from his ticket. Senator Clinton is far from his best choice, especially if he wants to continue to be the poster child for change from typical Washington politics.
complete with a majority of the popular vote
Clinton's claim of such is questionable at best. She only has the popular vote if you A. include Florida and Michigan where there was no campaign and the voters were told it would not count, B. count Puerto Rico, and C. don't count the caucus states.
So yeah she is leading in the fictional nation of Clintonland.
Clinton deserves to lose after a career of disgusting pandering, including voting for Iraq and the patriot act, and engaging in a "conservative populism" campaign built on appealing to idiots by claiming the other is "elite."
and the voters were told it would not count
something about this irks me
Obama's campaign has been about being an outsider and not pandering to political stupidity.
LOL
More of a case of making grand speeches and then backtracking. Followed by disavowing those he formerly supported when it became politically expedient (casting aside Jeremiah Wright, and, most recently, his church of 20 years where he got married and had his two daughters baptized). All wrapped up in a number of gaffes without a teleprompter/written script on hand with a dose of progressivism/socialism, and a side of well-knit long-standing associations with people such as William Ayers/Michael Plfeger/Louis Farrakhan/Tony Rezko.
Add a well-shaken beverage of endorsements by the Socialist Party USA, the New Black Panther Party, NARAL, and MoveOn.org, and you really have 'change you can believe in'! 
She only has the popular vote if you A. include Florida and Michigan where there was no campaign and the voters were told it would not count
Indeed, but it says a lot about Howard Dean and the DNC that they allowed Hillary Clinton to get away with the whole 'disenfranchisement' angle. What a debacle of a primary season...does make for good entertainment though.
"Backtracking"? If backtracking is defined as clarifying statements for small-minded political pundits, then yes, Obama has backtracked a mile. "Disavowal", you say? Did not John McCain reject the endorsements of Reverends Hagee and Parsley after chasing those very endorsements down? And as far as endorsements are concerned, I'm fairly certain that Senator Obama did not run around canvassing for the endorsements of the groups you've mentioned, Ultra.
Zounds, those endorsements mean he is a commie-racist-secret Muslim!
"Backtracking"? If backtracking is defined as clarifying statements for small-minded political pundits, then yes, Obama has backtracked a mile.
"I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community."
Then he did disown him.
Disavowal", you say? Did not John McCain reject the endorsements of Reverends Hagee and Parsley after chasing those very endorsements down?
Hagee and Parsley were not McCain's pastors of 20 years. Wright was for Obama. Just a little caveat you might want to be aware of.
And as far as endorsements are concerned, I'm fairly certain that Senator Obama did not run around canvassing for the endorsements of the groups you've mentioned, Ultra.
The very essence of endorsing someone means you agree with their agenda/plan of action or think they will pursue your goals the most out of the others. Just as anyone who gets an endorsement from left-wing Senators/organizations would arouse some concern from me, people who get endorsements from organizations like the NRA or Priests for Life would make me more likely to vote for them. Exceptions are cases where endorsements are for political expedience and not because your message is in line with the candidate (Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani? Really now.).
But given Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate (which, among other things, shows him opposing the state version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act multiple times. The act extended legal protection to children that survive induced abortions), I'm more than inclined to think such left-wing organizations have valid reasons for supporting him.
Heaven forbid that people with left-wing idealogies support a left-wing politician.
I'm a bit confused about the whole clinton and obama thing. the newspaper are saying he won, so he's now president of the USA? but he appears not to be. oo;
or was this entire thing just voting for the leader of just one political party to go forward for the elections? or.. something? the entire voting system has me baffled (the way the newspapers report it doesn't make it too clear either).
i know this makes me sound totally thick, but it's better to ask than not know. >>;
Obama is the Democrat nomination. Admittedly the UK media have been treating it as if whoever wins the Democrat nomination will be the next President.
So yeah, its now Obama (Democrat) Vs McCain (Republican) for the Presidency of the USA. In a Ladder Match.
Dubya is still in charge at the moment.
ah, it's as simple as that? ^^;
"I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community."
Then he did disown him.
Two points: Mr Obama distanced himself from Reverend Wright because Wright quite consciously changed the situation. I believed your allusions to backtracking were along the lines of modifying his positions on international negotiations--ah, but constancy is the watchword of the conservatives, isn't it? So Mr Obama must stick with someone who is now dragging him around the walls of Troy to be seen as consistent in the same way Senator McCain is consistent by perpetuating Mr Bush's foreign policy, yes? Second point: if Mr Obama had not repudiated Wright and/or quit Trinity, you know as well as I do that the right-wing media would continue to harp on it like ants swirling around a picnic.
Hagee and Parsley were not McCain's pastors of 20 years. Wright was for Obama. Just a little caveat you might want to be aware of.
Ah, the classic retort. Yes, I am aware of the difference between Wright versus Hagee/Parsley; thank you for the enlightenment. However, it is also folly to now say Obama nodded his head to everything Wright said, whereas McCain chose to surround himself with those two reverends for political expediency. Then, Senator McCain backtracked a la Obama. What terrific judgement!
Two points: Mr Obama distanced himself from Reverend Wright because Wright quite consciously changed the situation. I believed your allusions to backtracking were along the lines of modifying his positions on international negotiations--ah, but constancy is the watchword of the conservatives, isn't it? So Mr Obama must stick with someone who is now dragging him around the walls of Troy to be seen as consistent in the same way Senator McCain is consistent by perpetuating Mr Bush's foreign policy, yes? Second point: if Mr Obama had not repudiated Wright and/or quit Trinity, you know as well as I do that the right-wing media would continue to harp on it like ants swirling around a picnic.
It was practically too late for Obama at that point anyway, given how it developed. How Wright behaved and talked has changed little. Given that Obama suddenly had objections to him, why didn't he do so earlier, if he truly felt morally obligated to do so?
Ah, the classic retort. Yes, I am aware of the difference between Wright versus Hagee/Parsley; thank you for the enlightenment. However, it is also folly to now say Obama nodded his head to everything Wright said, whereas McCain chose to surround himself with those two reverends for political expediency. Then, Senator McCain backtracked a la Obama. What terrific judgement!
20 years. He chose to go to that church. If he suddenly found Wright to be so morally objectionable, why not earlier?
FWIW, I don't like McCain. The alternative of Obama or Hillary is the only thing that makes him an option. And even then I might go for someone else depending on his VP choice.
I've heard ron paul is running as a third party, is this true?
So yeah, its now Obama (Democrat) Vs McCain (Republican) for the Presidency of the USA. In a Ladder Match.
Well I beleive I shall vote for a third party.
Go ahead, throw your vote away! Ha ha ha!
Either way, this whole thing amuses me how it's been overhyped everywhere despite not even being the real election. The amount of show it gets in UKLand is disproportionate to it's relevency. As far as I'm concerned, decision 08 is less important than deciding between Weetabix and Shredded Wheat (both, natch) and considering that if I have breakfast these days, it's cooked, that's saying something ;P
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin So, I suppose this, if it proves true, ends the carnage.
Obama is the Democrat nomination. Admittedly the UK media have been treating it as if whoever wins the Democrat nomination will be the next President.
That seems more or less accurate. Americans are more or less trained to cringe at "Republican."
That's cause Bush had to go and ruin it for everyone
Obama is not an outsider by any means. He's a political celebrity, a great speaker, and an amazing deliverer of meaningless rhetoric. Oh and does ANYONE seem to care about the fact that Tony Rezko was CONVICTED this last week of bribery? I GUESS THATS ANOTHER PERSON OBAMA IZ ONLY SORTOF FRIENDS WITH.
I guess I won't be voting this year.
Obama is not an outsider by any means. He's a political celebrity, a great speaker, and an amazing deliverer of meaningless rhetoric. Oh and does ANYONE seem to care about the fact that Tony Rezko was CONVICTED this last week of bribery? I GUESS THATS ANOTHER PERSON OBAMA IZ ONLY SORTOF FRIENDS WITH.
"This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew."
For what it's worth though, his victory speech was a hoot.
"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
Such a humble fellow, that he can command the very oceans! HE MUST BE CAPTAIN PLANET.
Obama must transform from a hard-core Chicago racial leftwing activist, into a liberal idealist who transcends politics. He's got his work cut out for him.
That last line is so stolen from Babylon 5
but I never watched Babylon 5
No clue. I've not been keeping up with the candidates' stands on anything. Although, I suppose now that the actual nominees are decided, i've got my choice to two. I'm hoping to catch up this summer on the issues and whatnot. But really Decision '08 for me...is a PS3 or 360? Pretty pathetic, huh?
That seems more or less accurate. Americans are more or less trained to cringe at "Republican."
Eight years of Bush and Co. and their mindless neocon ilk wiping their rears with the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights will do that to a nation. Eight straight years of borderline treason should've produced a much more potent reaction IMO. I'm thinking something along the lines of 'gallows at dusk'.
I can only hope that the group of youngsters Ron Paul rallied together grow up and keep their fortitude so they can repair the damage done to the GOP by the neocon horde.
And I'm for Obama because, well, I haven't let my cynicism crush me quite yet. Because I believe that America needs to show some signs of change, even if the change winds up being only cosmetic. Because I believe that world leaders need to talk to each other first before having their citizens shoot at each other. Because I believe that John McCain is about as toothless and resolve-free as a tranny methhead.
That and it's been years since I've heard a presidential speech that didn't sound like something that earned a C in high school Public Speaking 101.
This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
Such a humble fellow, that he can command the very oceans! HE MUST BE CAPTAIN PLANET.
I know it's politics as usual to pick apart line after line and try to misconstrue their meanings to work to your advantage, but I think you're over exerting yourself.
but I never watched Babylon 5
You should.
I know it's politics as usual to pick apart line after line and try to misconstrue their meanings to work to your advantage, but I think you're over exerting yourself.
So Captain Planet jokes are verboten?
In all seriousness though, it just reeks of hubris. That's all I'm saying.
Ultra Sonic 007
wrote:but I never watched Babylon 5
You should.
make me
did you really have to add a captain planet tooltip, though? repeating the joke doesn't make it funnier. also, you will not look cool just by talking like this
did you really have to add a captain planet tooltip, though? repeating the joke doesn't make it funnier. also, you will not look cool just by talking like this
I'm not trying to be cool.
'Make me.' looked so much ruder than 'make me' though.
I'd like to comment on a few things here even though I'm not American and even though I haven't really been following this election. For whatever reason I haven't been paying as much attention to politics as I used to; I haven't been watching the news much for more than a year now and now I'm wondering just how to catch up on it. It just feels like such a role reversal that most of the people here seem to be following politics more than me. Anyway...
AND when I read the listing of statements I agreed with EVERY Obama quote. His statement on marriage is spectacular.
Hmm? What listing of statements are you talking about? I'm curious to see what this "spectacular" statement you're talking about is...
Anyway, Barack Obama came out on top for me in Sakaki's link, though there were some issues there that I didn't understand the details of, and one I didn't know about at all, so it might not be accurate...
As for Ron Paul, from what I've seen (which granted isn't much) his approach seems to me to be a bit constitution-centric. IIRC his stance on abortion is that the separate states should make their own abortion laws, and that when asked if his libertarianism would suggest that he should be in favour of a right to abortion, he claimed that a fetus is alive and that if you kill it you're committing an act of aggression... but if that's the case, what difference does it make whether they commit that "act of aggression" on a fetus in Texas or a fetus in Massachusetts? And he's against ESCR funding not based on the "ESCR" part but on the "funding" part... since the latter goes against the constitution. The whole "it's not about ESCR but about how it's funded" approach seems to be so often used against ESCR funding, but here's an example of someone taking the same approach and running the other way with it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUT5IgMc0TQ
In any case, I think it'd be better to look at the legal principles advocated in the constitution on their own merits than just accepting what was written in it for being written in it and opposing all that goes against anything in it even to the extent of valuing it over finding cures for diseases.
