US Presidential Elections '08 [Archive] - SponGen

Lene

22nd July, 2008, 09:25 PM

Now, I'm not 100% clear...has Obama picked a running mate?

Nope. Personally I don't think he'll pick one until after his mini-world tour. It's McCain who I'm expecting to pick pretty soon. And I think he'll pick Romney.

I'm republican, but I think a lot of people are going the 'black guy as pres' vote, and simply voting for him because of his skin color, which could work very well in the democrats advantage...

Sketch, I'm not going to lie and say that identity politics is non-existent, but I do want to say that Obama being black is net-negative for him. There are more people who would vote against him because of his race than people who would vote for him.

I also like to make an extra point, even if you didn't mention it. The idea that black people are playing identity politics is crazy when you consider the fact that the democratic party has won the black vote in ridiculous margins (GOP has rarely if ever won double digits) since the 1960s.

I think the only black Republican that might have had a chance at getting some of the identity politics stalwarts in the Democratic party to vote for him would be Colin Powell. And hell, he's viable not only because of his race, but because of his politics. He basically had the Republican nomination in his hands in 1992 but because he thought he was going to get assasinated he go for it (so much for being black as a political asset).

hell, even I'd think about voting for him, as he seems a very conservative liberal.

I think he doesn't play the left-right, liberal-conservative game. It's just common sense to me. Is having affordable healthcare a liberal policy? Is regulating predatory lenders a liberal policy? Are veteran benefits a liberal policy? Building up a crumbling infrastructure and investing in public transit?

I think he's a cut-the-bullshit, lets just do something useful type. If something is a distraction (like the dumb flagpin controversy), he's going to get rid of it because it doesn't do anything to help anyone. Even if some allies in the left will proclaim that makes him weak.

But I heard a rumor Hilary was going to be his running mate. Truth?

It's a rumor. We don't know. If I were Obama Hell fucking no. Not only would it just invite a rehash of the Clinton drama of the 90s, but Hillary killed her chances when she declared that McCain and herself had crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold while Obama only had a speech.

Obama has better choices than Hillary imo.

EDIT: And I'll say the pics are a bit misleading :P...Obama could be simply sitting there for a photo op, and McCain could be at a fundraiser for all we know! *laughs*

McCain was at a fundraiser. But Obama was flying in plane w/ Gen. Petraus. Hey, thems the breaks. XD

Barbatos

22nd July, 2008, 09:34 PM

I'm voting for Obama because he's black. Otherwise, either one wouldn't make a difference in my standard of living since i'm not poor nor am I rich.

HawkZombie

22nd July, 2008, 09:45 PM

Actually, Lene, while you make some excellent points, I should have been clearer: REPUBLICANS will be voting for him simply because of the color of his skin. Democrats, yes, have always gotten the colored votes for decades, I doubt Obama will change that (even if slightly)...I was simply guessing that most who vote for -other- parties will simply change their vote to see some radical change in the US aside from political powers, but skin color.

I totall agree with how you describe him, politically. A cut the bullshit type. While he probably will get albeled as a conservative liberal simply for the views that the majority on either side hold are the same he does, etc, I think that's a perfect description of him.

I'm republican, but what I know of him, and what we've seen so far from the GOP, I'm more inclined to vote for him than McCain (if I even voted :P...I'm in Canada, and don't even want to bother with voting abroad) because of his political views, and yes, I'll be the first to admit partially for the color of his skin. Because radical change is what the US needs right now.

Volrath

23rd July, 2008, 05:57 PM

Oh, you have no idea what you've unleashed, Lene...

If anyone's heard me talk politics, they know I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy, so I'll be voting for Obama. He rose to fame as a "cut the bullshit" type, but unfortunately, he has been giving off a slight amount of bullshit since winning the primary. He's doing what every Dem presidential candidate does, reaching out to that mythical "center" with triangulated moves like "Hey, I like health care for poor kids...BUT I ALSO LIKE GUNS!"

I understand that you can't win an election by channeling the DailyKos mentality 24/7, but some of these moves by him are pretty egregious in my view, particularly his vote on the FISA bill which gave immunity to telecom companies who helped Bush's guys tap our phones. It was the liberal Dems who helped him beat Hillary, so now part of me wants to shout "Dance with the one that brought you, jerk!"

But here's the thing...and this can be very frustrating about US politics. There's not much of a choice. There is no way I'm going to vote Republican after 8 years of Bush, not a fucking chance. Obama would have to eat a puppy dog alive before I'd consider not voting for him, and even in that situation, I probably would just opt not to vote at all.

I think John Edwards would be an oustanding VP choice. Still, he did the running-mate thing in '04, and doesn't seem to be eager to do it again...hard to blame him. Definitely not Hillary. Please no. The Clintons need a time-out almost as much as the Bushes.

Kojo

23rd July, 2008, 11:29 PM

Lene

24th July, 2008, 12:23 AM

Volrath- I know, but hopefully this thread can keep the discussion civil.

If anyone's heard me talk politics, they know I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy, so I'll be voting for Obama. He rose to fame as a "cut the bullshit" type, but unfortunately, he has been giving off a slight amount of bullshit since winning the primary. He's doing what every Dem presidential candidate does, reaching out to that mythical "center" with triangulated moves like "Hey, I like health care for poor kids...BUT I ALSO LIKE GUNS!"

The gun issue is something that imo is not a national issue. Obviously people hunting in Montana will have a different view towards guns than people living in South Side Chicago.

If you listen to Tom Hartmann he has a good point. Lets focus on giving people reasons not to commit crime instead of banning guns as if that will solve the problem. Taking the guns away doesn't mean people aren't going to find other ways to kill each other.

I understand that you can't win an election by channeling the DailyKos mentality 24/7, but some of these moves by him are pretty egregious in my view, particularly his vote on the FISA bill which gave immunity to telecom companies who helped Bush's guys tap our phones. It was the liberal Dems who helped him beat Hillary, so now part of me wants to shout "Dance with the one that brought you, jerk!"

I agree with you on FISA. I did think some at Dailykos were going overboard with demanding that Obama take a stand and risk political capital on an issue that everyone knew was a losing issue before the house even got to vote for it. But he said he wasn't going to vote for a FISA bill w/ immunity and he did, which was a reversal of his position. I'm not going to pretend that wasn't a bad thing.

However, the idea that it was only the progressive vote that got him into office is ignoring reality. Hillary Clinton had the traditional democratic vote for quite a few primaries(except for the black vote). Obama pulled in independents and disaffected republicans.

I know some of that may have to do with the vitrol that appears whenever someone mentions the name Clinton, but not all of it. Obama has a tendency to frame progressive issues w/ centrist and conservative frames and not get into idealouging. I'm not going to get pissed from semantics as long as the underlying policies are still there.

I think the some Dailykos members need to chill with the purity crusades. Obama is a progressive candidate. Pretty much no elected official has been perfect.

Feingold wasn't our perfect progressive warrior in the senate, in fact, Obama got a lot of flack over there for trying to defend Feingold's vote for Justice Roberts.

Kucinich wasn't even pefect in the issue of women's choice until just before he started running.

If people want someone they agree w/ 100% of the time, then they're just going to have to suck it up and run for office themselves.

And if you haven't Volrath, Al Giordano from the Field (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield) is a good read. That's my refuge when Dailykos goes batshit. Those people can criticise Obama without being self-destructive and counterproductive.

I think John Edwards would be an oustanding VP choice. Still, he did the running-mate thing in '04, and doesn't seem to be eager to do it again...hard to blame him.

I like Edwards. I want to see how that National Enquirer nonsense plays out before I can feel comfortable. Otherwise his policies are A+, we don't lose a senate seat and on the shallow side Obama/Edwards would be the most pretty ticket we've had in a long time.

I think he's going to pick someone like Kaine though. My fantasy pick would be Richardson but I heard he had some women's issues and we don't need that drama.

Kojo- Bob Barr and Ron Paul the two candidates who are in the libertarian spectrum are...I guess I'm bemused. I've never really understood the Libertarian world view. I agree w/ the anti-war platforms but the idea that the government shouldn't do anything but protect from invasion is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Considering the times we're in, I don't necessarily trust the free market to make sure we don't have a permanent poverty class.

Barbatos

24th July, 2008, 02:09 AM

To tell you the truth, I don't trust either candidate as far as I can throw them. I don't like Obama's health and economic policies: They aren't what would be good for our economy. I don't like McCain, because he is too much of the old, his stances on gun control, media, and video games.

I wish the libertarian candidate was taken more seriously. He would absolutely flatten both main party candidates in a debate. He actually makes sense.

Wow Kojo, you're a pretty smart guy. Libertarian is definately the way to go.

One thing that I'm really sick of is how both democrat and republican parties continue to keep victimless crimes around. The Libertarian party is the ONLY party that wants to do away with victimless crimes (if you don't know what those are, google it).

A+ Kojo.

However, you should still vote for Obama since he's basically the lesser of two evils, and he's black.

Volrath

24th July, 2008, 03:59 AM

The gun issue is something that imo is not a national issue. Obviously people hunting in Montana will have a different view towards guns than people living in South Side Chicago.

Yeah, I agree. The gun issue is more complicated than anyone makes it out to be. I'm not even a passionate anti-gun person myself. I don't think people should be able to buy AK-47s just for shits and giggles, but hunters should be allowed to hunt.

I pointed it out less as a criticism of what he's said on the issue and more of an example of Democratic politicians taking random centrist positions just because they're in a general election. Hillary was even worse about this, and she hadn't even won the primary yet.

If people want someone they agree w/ 100% of the time, then they're just going to have to suck it up and run for office themselves.

I'm aware of this, and I know I'll be pissed off by Obama again. But to me, the FISA thing was unforgivable. I don't care if it wasn't going to pass, if you want to be president, you should not be willing to let companies do shit that would put a regular person in jail and face absolutely no reprecussions. That's nothing less than absolute bullshit and he should have shown real leadership. Like I said, I'll vote for him, but I won't forget that. The public financing flip got my nerves too, but I can forgive him that one. FISA, though, very uncool.

However, the idea that it was only the progressive vote that got him into office is ignoring reality. Hillary Clinton had the traditional democratic vote for quite a few primaries(except for the black vote). Obama pulled in independents and disaffected republicans.

What I said was the people who "helped him defeat Hillary," not the people who voted. This borders on splitting hairs, but I am aware that his appeal crossed over to independents and Republicans tired of being led by morons. It explains why he's ahead in polls in states like Montana and Colorado which aren't known for voting for Democrats.

However, I have a pretty strong feeling about the political persuasions of his most ardent supporters...the people who worked hardest on the ground, and the people who gave the most money. It's one thing to be an independent and say "Hey, this guy's a good speaker. I'll go ahead and vote Dem this time." It's another to be "Wow, I really believe in this man and I'm going to work my heart out for him because he can really bring about the change I've waited for for so long." And Obama kicked those people in the teeth with the FISA vote. Most of them won't say anything about it either, because they're so frightened of losing yet another election that any criticism of Obama is seen as some sort of victory for McCain.

I'm not really a DailyKos guy...in fact, I find them tiresome. I don't even look at the site anymore because I don't have to...I know what they will say about any particular issue, and that bores me. What I have are my own convictions, and letting companies off the hook even though they sold out the American public...while poor young folks are sitting in jail for stupidly long sentences cause they got caught with pot or something...goes against those convictions.

Also, Edwards and Obama would be charm overload. The power of their combined smiles could cause blindness...but yeah, I agree that the VP will probably be someone fairly dull. Still better than Hillary, though.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f2/Hillarycat.jpg

shadowseer

25th July, 2008, 04:13 AM

I'm planning to assassinate all of the running candidates and hands the control of the USA to the british. Expect to see GBP as your main currency :3

Atnas

27th July, 2008, 04:03 PM

We need moar Ron Paul :<

I mean, he's probably the closest thing to a person with a brain out of all of them running. He's so conservative that he's to the point of being more liberal than any other candidate, if that makes any sense.

Pity the media ignores him and acts like there's only two candidates. It's not very supportive of democracy if you ask me. People will only vote for the men they see more of than their own children. :sad:

Anyway, I can't vote yet, but if I could I'd be casting my vote for the man with the plan. :razz:

*continues to rant about media controlling populace and enters discussion of conspiracy theories and mind control rah rah rah.*

Lene

30th July, 2008, 01:22 AM

Atnas- McCain is an uncurious bozo. But Obama is extremely intelligent. I'm pretty sure that he would be able to debate Ron Paul and coming out looking like the "sane" choice. He used to be a Prof. at the Univ. of Chicago. You can't be a liberal at that college (whih is way conservative) and not know how to argue your (unpopular) point. IMO.

Plus Ron Paul has the racist thing against him. Personally I'm suspicious of it. And I think the internet popularity of his ideas say something about how self-centered and out of touch with the "real world" (of having a job, raising a family, paying for health insurance, etc.) a lot of people on the internet can be. I still have major issues with Libertarianism...even though I may agree with some of its platforms.

Volrath- The Netroots basically roasted Obama on a pyre over FISA. Hell, I even heard the MSM pundits talking about it, the screaming was so loud. It was ridiculous. Progressives aren't the type to fall into locksteps like the Republicans are and that's a good thing. I just think that the purity trolling needs to stop. Unless FISA was your #1 issue, then I'm not seeing a reason to feel utterly dejected about Obama. Unless you haven't been paying attention to anything he's been saying for the past four years now.

What made me decide to be an active Obama supporter was how he challenged the rhetoric surrounding Immigration. Personally, I think Immigration as it's being discussed these days is fundamentally xenophobic if not crossing the line to racism. Obama was the only dem. candidate by the time I was paying attention to the debates in January that actually managed to point out what I've felt was blatantly obvious. "The Illegals" are a big scapegoat, much like "The Gays" were in 2004. Politicians need to cut that shit out.

Also it didn't help that not only did the Clinton Campaign float that BULLSHIT about Brown vs. Black divide and that Latinos would NEVER vote for a black guy. (I was raging about this for a week, it was so preposterous, but as we can see it was all bullshit. Obama is basically on his way to winning Latinos by a margin of 40 percent), Clinton basically endorsed the idea herself in a bullshit debate question that put black construction workers against immigrant latinos (Obama to his credit rejected the premise of the question).

It may seem like a trivial thing to others, but for me it spoke volumes as to what an Obama presidency might look like. No more games of trying to place the blame for a situation (job loss) on a convenient target ("them mexicans"), while letting the real problem (corporation shipping jobs overseas and getting tax incentives while doing) grow worse.

Volrath

30th July, 2008, 04:52 PM

The Netroots basically roasted Obama on a pyre over FISA. Hell, I even heard the MSM pundits talking about it, the screaming was so loud. It was ridiculous. Progressives aren't the type to fall into locksteps like the Republicans are and that's a good thing. I just think that the purity trolling needs to stop. Unless FISA was your #1 issue, then I'm not seeing a reason to feel utterly dejected about Obama. Unless you haven't been paying attention to anything he's been saying for the past four years now.

Well, he deserved it. And I am not "purity trolling" by any means. Like I said, I've reconciled my differences with him on public financing and a few other issues, but that FISA thing was uncool. It's not my #1 issue. That would probably be a tie between health care and energy issues, both of which he is pretty good with. Not perfect, but good enough, certainly better than anything I've seen in quite a while. However, this trend of people getting anyway with things that are flagrantly illegal and morally unconscionable just because they happen to be rich and powerful must end.

I still like the guy, but that whole thing really brought me back down to Earth. The magic is gone. He would have to do a lot to bring it back, at least in my mind, but he's got more important things to worry about. I will vote for him, and I expect he'll do good things once he's in there.

And yes, all the Clinton racebaiting was disgusting. She ran a campaign that resembled the worst of Karl Rove's tactics. I am very relieved that Obama seems above that crap.

Lene

30th July, 2008, 10:57 PM

I've never felt the "magic" so I guess that's why I didn't empathize with the emotional heights of FISA rage. For me the Obama appeal was "this shit is common sense," or "damn straight, I agree w/ that shit right there!" while watching tv and reading articles about him.

Also after working in government for a while now, I'm kinda of ready to stop fighting wars in abstract ideology and focus on how people are going to travel to work and feed themselves. The reason why there wasn't enough political will to force the Dems from passing FISA is because the public is too tired to care or to learn. We need to change this.

There's stuff I disagree w/ (I think his position on gay marriage is bullshit pandering just to keep the issue off the table for the election), but I knew about that way before I became enthusiastic about him.

I think that Obama making people genuinely excited enough to get active politically is extremely important. Before the immigration thing (which sealed the deal) his ground game is what pushed Obama over Edwards (who on a purely policy level I agreed w/ the most) for me. Obama's strategy is the best, period and it has long-term benefits.

I doubt I'll go back from idly watching CNN and accepting that as fact. I'll be paying more attention to the downticket, and actively volunteering for campaigns or pollworking.

Kojo

31st July, 2008, 02:24 AM

I think that I previously made it clear that I dislike Obama's policies (That WILL require more taxes, I don't care what kinda pie in the sky ideas he has. More programs need more money. Especially a huge spending program like Health care.) I don't think that our economy can handle more money being taken out of our paychecks.

Also, I have to say something about the "abstract ideology" of the war we're fighting in right now. Ok, so Bush sent in troops, under the guise of national security to protect American interests. However, it is undeniable that Sadam was a murdering, oppressive wack-job.

Now everyone says there is no connection between 9/11 and the current war in Iraq. I agree, up to a point. We did not invade Iraq because of 9/11, but we stay there because of 9/11. Muslem extremists saw what happened to the US, and decided that initiated their jihad. Now, they threaten to topple the heavily American-influenced Iraq with their holy warriors. I call them suicide bombers. They're the reason we stay. Obama knows this: until there is a stable government in Iraq, if we pull out, there will be bloodshed, and everything our soldiers died for will mean nothing. He also knows that if we pull out, then there will be a terrorist-held state. No bueno.

However, if Obama can do what he says he can, everything will be fine. The economy will start going up, we'll all have affordable healthcare, and the war will end soon. Things I dearly hope for. The reason enough to vote for him: If he can do what he says he can, things will be great. If things don't, then I can at least say, "I told ya so."

Atnas

31st July, 2008, 03:13 AM

That's why I want Ron Paul so much, his fiscal policies are quite extraordinary. Bye bye income tax and hello smaller government. He's against the war in Iraq, as ANY sane person should be, that is, against war. (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10708)

Also, Lene, what racist thing? All I've heard was that he received money from white supremacists. When asked about it, he said he didn't monitor who donated him money, because the idea is ridiculous. When asked if he'd give it back like Hillary did when she received some sticky cash, he said "certainly not", stating that giving it back to the white supremacists would further their cause, one which he did not support. Go Paul.

Obama is nothing special. People say his speeches are eloquent. A monkey throwing poo is eloquent compared to Bush, who we've had for nearly a decade, who has professed his neglect of literature, and most commonly seen stumbling over conjunctions because the man behind the curtain pulling the strings wasn't talking slow or dumb enough.

A president can be frail, young, black, fat, Hispanic, a war hero, a woman, it doesn't matter. It does not matter how you feel about a candidate, nor does it matter how many commercials that candidate puts out, or how hard they bash another candidate. All that should matter is their stances, and what they will do.

On the topic of Iraq, I think it would have been in everyone's interests for America to have left everyone the hell alone in the first place. We would not be attacked if we didn't go over there and fuck with them first.

But I um think that 9/11 was an inside job so I'll be quiet for now and leave you guys alone.

Volrath

31st July, 2008, 03:24 PM

All I've heard was that he received money from white supremacists. When asked about it, he said he didn't monitor who donated him money, because the idea is ridiculous. When asked if he'd give it back like Hillary did when she received some sticky cash, he said "certainly not", stating that giving it back to the white supremacists would further their cause, one which he did not support. Go Paul.

That's pretty funny, actually. Still, it makes you wonder why they felt giving him money would be a good idea in the first place...

I once heard a hilarious story about a Ron Paul rally...I can't remember which journalist wrote it. But he went to a big Ron Paul rally and met a guy dressed in a shark costume. He asked this guy what appealed to him about Paul. The guy said "I'm not a Paul supporter. Those guys are crazy! I'm just here in a shark suit."

But I um think that 9/11 was an inside job so I'll be quiet for now and leave you guys alone.

I find most 9/11 conspiracy theories flawed because they assume the Bush administration is competent. We've seen ample evidence in 8 years that they aren't. However, there is another school of thought that claims Bush and the others knew there would be a major terrorist attack and decided not to try and stop it because it would help them further their goals. That I can buy.

Lene

31st July, 2008, 05:45 PM

Kojo- The sovereign government of Iraq basically endorsed Obama's plan to get out of Iraq, forcing McCain to drop the "OMG we can't surrender!" rhetoric.

I basically agree with Volrath here: I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I do believe that the Bush Administration planned to go into Iraq from day one and they used their immense political capital right after those attacks to go into Iraq.

There are a lot of candidates now that voted for AUMF who allowed Bush to do that. There was no muslim run nation in Iraq. It was a secular nation before the US dismantled it and allowed a civil war to erupt between the Sunni and the Shiites over who gets control.

All that should matter is their stances, and what they will do.

Obama has done what Ron Paul and Howard Dean (of 2004) couldn't do. And that is to transfer internet popularity and fundraising power into the real world. My local office just opened last week. 100 volunteers showed up. That's change I can believe in. :lol:

There was this man who called in on a progressive radio talk show complaining how nothing will change, we can't rely on any politician, they'll never do anything for us. The host basically flipped the script on him and asked:

What are YOU doing to change things?

The man sputtered, stumbled and mentioned that he posts at various internet communities. No mentions of donating to candidates, no mentions of going to local campaign office to volunteer. No mentions of running for public office. No mentions of calling up his local office.

And this guy thinks that anything will change?

Biggest change that Obama brings is new blood to the realm of politics. People who didn't really think that they could do anything are doing something, getting informed and finding that they can use the skills they learned to fight for other causes.

For example a couple of democratic candidates running for state office in stained red Kansas didn't even imagine themselves doing it, not until they caucused for Obama (http://tevis.s3.amazonaws.com/images/uploads/kcstar-notice-062108.jpg)

This is only a good thing.

Buster

24th August, 2008, 04:40 AM

In case anyone's not heard yet, Joe Biden is going to be Obama's running mate. ;)

2-D

25th August, 2008, 12:43 AM

Obama, your country needs change... before you kill us all :D

ccoa

25th August, 2008, 04:04 PM

My husband is a McCain supporter, which makes no sense to me because he doesn't like Bush at all, and McCain has voted in agreement with Bush on every issue that comes his way. Frankly, the idea of Bush Mk 2 in the dictator seat scares me witless.

I was going to vote Nader again, but Obama has impressed me on all but a few occasions. It may only be counteracting my husband's vote, but I may vote for him after all. Never thought I'd see a Democrat I could feel remotely comfortable voting for.

Lene

25th August, 2008, 05:46 PM

Ccoa, you live in Montana right? That's a tossup state this year (it's barely leaning McCain) so as long as you don't vote McCain it helps Obama.

EDIT: Wait, no. Vote Obama...cause it's leaning McCain by a couple of percentage points. :D

Atnas

25th August, 2008, 06:35 PM

I have a feeling that come next election when I'm able, I'll be voting for William Shatner. >.>

Lyricmaniac

27th August, 2008, 02:55 PM

HawkZombie

27th August, 2008, 04:42 PM

Damn it. I lost my reply. To sum up, I've been entirely unimpressed with both candidates. Obama is inexperienced and fluffy. Just the other day he was asked about abortion and responded with, "I don't know." Doesn't leave me feeling confident. McCain, on the other hand, isn't in touch with the issues the majority of Americans face today because he's old and rich. I know where he stands, which is a saving grace, but I don't agree with quite a bit of it. Why couldn't Hillary have pulled out on top?

Because there really IS a God? Trust me...Hilary is the worst choice imaginable...

Still, in the end, it dosen't really matter -who- wins in the end...things will never really change, and the status quo won't be affected too greatly. Either republicans or Democrats. Both parties promise the world and both fail to deliver each and every time.

Atnas

27th August, 2008, 11:30 PM

Mcbama will win simply because most people I've talked to think they have to vote for one of him.

And yeah, I started to like, make a little jesus shrine after hillary lost the primary.

Lene

27th August, 2008, 11:48 PM

Just the other day he was asked about abortion and responded with, "I don't know."

He was asked...When does life begin? For someone who is pro-choice that usually is a hard question, because if you say something like "conception", then the question becomes "then why do you support women choosing to murder babies? HOMGZ!!!"

It's a trap and he was in a very precarious situation for Democrats--an Evangelical Church.

Hillary would not have answered that question and she's just as pro-choice as a Obama than Obama iirc. And watch Hillary's speech yesterday. She's supporting Obama, so if you think highly of her opinion, maybe you should give Obama a chance.

EDIT: And Obama is officially the Democratic Nominee. Hillary pushed him over the top. Finally!

Reives

28th August, 2008, 05:39 PM

It seems to me that the relative inexperience of Obama can be overshadowed by his extensive ring of advisers.

Sure, only the president is the president; but the president is one who makes choices based on the information that he is given. No matter how experienced, a candidate cannot possibly have extensive knowledge in every single branch that comes into play. In the end, you will always end up taking in a large chunk of information from the advisers and base your decision on that with judgement, no matter who you are.

And if one then argues that the experience is meant as the experience to decision-making, then I don't think anyone is ever "experienced" at making decisions as a president unless they have acted in the very role of presidency. Decision making is a matter of thoughts based on information reaching an end through a personal perspective, and I do not think that you can gain too much cumulative "experience" from it as it is more or less the personal belief in the end. For example, Dick Cheney certainly has the experience, and the approval rating of his decisions isn't exactly bright.

Hence, I believe that a mutually exclusive matter of "judgment" is the biggest card here, which Obama does not seem to be lacking, relatively.

On a similar note, I thought Biden was a good choice, as he aided furthermore in rounding Obama up in the areas that he was relatively weak at.

[But then again, I'm just a little Canadian youngster here; what do I know. D: ]

Atnas

28th August, 2008, 07:34 PM

My head is going to explode if I hear obama's name on tv again. From now on I'm adopting the "who's that?" line whenever someone says his name to me.

HawkZombie

28th August, 2008, 08:56 PM

My head is going to explode if I hear obama's name on tv again. From now on I'm adopting the "who's that?" line whenever someone says his name to me.

ROFL.

You win. Pure and simple.

Lene

28th August, 2008, 09:23 PM

I would say wait till next week when we have the RNC convention, but it'll be no use. McCain barely talks about himself these days...it's all about Obama.

Atnas

28th August, 2008, 11:34 PM

It's not how much attention the candidate draws towards himself, it's how much attention media draws towards the candidate.

Lene

30th August, 2008, 12:37 PM

I don't know if McCain thinks so little of Obama's accomplishments or if he thinks so little of the majority of women, or if he is just that desperate because he knows Obama is going to win if he can't find some way to peel off some voters and make up in enthusiasm.

But Sarah Palin? The hell? The woman is just as intellectually curious as McCain is, which is to say not at all. Obama's been running for as long as she's been governor. And yes, she has a really young child (months old). Even the most active career moms would at least wait a few more months before trying to jump back into their job, and their job is nowhere near the rigor of being the person who's supposed to be president if the president kicks the bucket.

It's insulting. As a woman it's absolutely insulting, because it shows that John McCain and Karl Rove (who I'm sure must have approved this pick) thinks that women will be that stupid to vote for this backwards (anti-choice, anti-gay rights, wants Christian Creationism in all schools, etc) woman.

Think about what the Palin pick really says about how McCain views this campaign and how he views his potential responsibilities in national security.

Think about what it says about the sincerity of McCain's own central criticism of Obama these past two months in foreign affairs.

Think about how he picked a woman to be a heartbeat away from a war presidency who hadn't even thought much, by her own admission, about the Iraq war as late as 2007.

Think about how he made this decision barely knowing the woman.

Think about the fact that the most McCain could say about his potential war-time vice-president in foreign affairs and national security when selecting her is that she commanded Alaska's National Guard as governor and has a son in the military.

Think about the men and women serving this country who have every right to trust that their potential commander-in-chief, whatever their party, would have some record of even interest in foreign policy before assuming office.

Think about how the key factor in this decision was not who could defend this country were something dreadful happen to McCain in office but how to tread as much on Obama's convention bounce and use women's equality as a wedge issue among Democrats because it might secure a few points here or there. Oh, and everyone would be surprised. And even Rove would be annoyed.

This is his sense of honor and judgment. This is his sense of responsibility and service.

Here's the real slogan the McCain campaign should now adopt:

Putting. Country. Last.

Also in the light of Obama's kickass speech where he basically destroyed republican politics for the past 20 years, this sucks. But really I think McCain wants the publicity. 38 million Americans watch one of Obama's best speeches (It's right behind the Yes We Can speech and behind the More Perfect Union speech). More than the Olympics, more than American Idol. So McCain must be freaking out.

Volrath

30th August, 2008, 02:25 PM

Obama's speech was good, but damn, wasn't John Kerry amazing? Where was that guy 4 years ago? Must have been therapeutic.

But yeah, Sarah Palin. That reeks of trying to steal media spotlight without the slightest thought of how she'd be as a VP. At least with Biden, Obama took the risk of having him say something idiotic because Biden would be very good for the job.

At least Palin's got a hilarious ethics scandal to work against her...for those who haven't heard - This Alaska state trooper divorced her sister, so she went to the Director of Public Safety or whoever and tried to get this cop fired. The director wouldn't do it, so she fired him! Now she's under investigation by the Republican controlled Alaska legislature. Lolz.

Buster

30th August, 2008, 04:47 PM

Palin also doesn't know what the VP even does: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12969.html

Ironic, I think.

Reives

30th August, 2008, 05:37 PM

I just find it ironic that the republicans who used relative inexperience as a main argument now somewhat contradicted themselves with this. Some of the defenses I've heard were dragging Obama into the ring to compare experiences again, but that's misleading the point. Obama's campaign never stated the issue of inexperience (for obvious reasons), but McCain's did (for obvious reasons) as an anchor point; but now the same McCain campaign does this, which is perhaps more of an issue of contradiction in one's own standing than the actual matter of inexperience to some.

Kojo

30th August, 2008, 06:58 PM

My design teacher is calling the elections shot for shot.

Wednesday he said that unless McCain gets a good looking running mate, he will have no chance. He looks like "death warmed over."

He also said that the better looking of the two will win. Wonder who that it? Let's see if he's right.

Lyricmaniac

30th August, 2008, 10:53 PM

I agree witih Lene. I'm a bit pissed off with McCain's choice. He had Romney as a candidate and he picks this woman? It was clear to me, a woman, that he chose her because she's a woman. He wants to attract the women who voted for Clinton simply because she is a woman. He also chose her so that he too can be called a revolutionary. No matter which side wins now, history will be made. He wanted to attract some voters who were in it simply to be part of history. How stupid does he think some of us voters are to fall for something so incredibly shallow? What a joke. My vote has now shifted toward Obama. I was going to vote McCain, but I don't trust his VP pick, and he looks like he could kick the bucket any day now. Way to go, McCain. :-/

Atnas

31st August, 2008, 12:31 AM

Lyric, you don't have to vote McBama if you don't want to. You can still vote for Hillary.

Edit: but I'd love you to death if you voted Ron Paul~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAa77cNKc4

Buster

31st August, 2008, 04:57 AM

God, I love Ron Paul. This is why I really despise the party system. Too many people think they absolutely HAVE to vote between the two parties' official candidates. It's really sad to see candidates like Ron Paul get overshadowed because they're not an "official" candidate of a party.

George Washington is probably rolling in his grave right now. :(

Lyricmaniac

1st September, 2008, 03:01 AM

I don't have to vote for either, but my vote goes nowhere if I don't. You do realize the chances are slim to none that anyone other than Obama or McCain will win, right?

Buster

1st September, 2008, 03:33 AM

Yeah. Hence the reason I hate the party system. :/

If I were able to, though (I turn 18 in February), I'd still vote for Ron Paul. I mean, what kind of message do you think it would send to the American public if he got, say, 5% or so of the vote (Yeah, I know, not happening, but just imagine)? That kind of thing might get people out of the mindset that they have to vote between the two parties' primary candidates (the mindset that is the entire reason that the other candidates don't have a chance right now).
Imagine if everyone got out of the mindset that there are only two candidates who even have a chance of winning? The only thing stopping candidates like Ron Paul is how common that mindset is. I don't know about you, but I want to change that, in any way possible.

Also, do you really consider it freedom to have to choose between the lesser of two evils, in a manner of speaking? We shouldn't have to settle for what's left, we have the right to choose whoever we think is best for the job.

Cup o' Wisps

1st September, 2008, 03:40 AM

say, 5% or so of the vote (Yeah, I know, not happening, but just imagine)? That kind of thing might get people out of the mindset that they have to vote between the two parties' primary candidates (the mindset that is the entire reason that the other candidates don't have a chance right now).

Didn't Ross Perot get 18.9%? Isn't that 13.9% more than a measly 5%? And did that change anything at all?

HawkZombie

1st September, 2008, 03:53 AM

It's not the party system...it's the mentality of a TWO party system. Canada has multiple parties, but each one has about the same chance of winning (Although, I think 3 or 4 are front runners usually)

Buster

1st September, 2008, 04:04 AM

Didn't Ross Perot get 18.9%? Isn't that 13.9% more than a measly 5%? And did that change anything at all?

Yeah, I was one year old at the time, so I've never heard of that until now. Ruin my dreams then. :(

But seriously, though, the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't just settle for either of the two big candidates even though you'd prefer another candidate. Our forefathers risked their lives so that we could have a nation in which the people rule the government, yet now we're being told that we can only have two choices on how our government is run? Nothing personal, but it bugs me that people are so willing to say "Well, I don't like either, but since I have to choose between the two..." when in reality, they don't. Too many people think that, and it's really impeding the democratic process. Vote for who you want to win, not who you'd rather win out of who might possibly win.

Reives

1st September, 2008, 05:15 AM

But sometimes the reality of it is that it is not merely a matter of exercising freedom, but actual stakes are involved that would affect the ones who vote.

Say, if one is merely "okay" with one candidate but strongly disagrees with another's policy and the like, it is a natural thing to do to do their part to avoid having the ones they hate to be elected. I suppose voting now is not just about which candidate to elect, but also which candidate to not elect.

An infinite loop, perhaps. But then again, it might screw things up in a risky way if broken out of. I certainly see what you mean though, and agree with it in theory. But in reality, probably not.

Lene

1st September, 2008, 02:48 PM

Vote for who you want to win, not who you'd rather win out of who might possibly win.

I think it's an absolutely dumb idea right now. Until one of these other parties manage to build an infrastructure on a national level that will actually bring results, it's stupid to vote for a third party in the presidential election (key word is presidential). Until then, the best way to achieve results is to join one of the two parties and vote for the person who has your ideals or run for office yourself.

Some people seem to forget that Ron Paul was actually running to be the Republican nominee for president. So if he's supporters aren't getting it what needs to be done, he did.

Notice I said presidential election. Third parties can definitely have an influence on local and state politics. We've had independent governors and senators before. It's a lot easier to build a campaign that will bring results at those level. But frankly people need to know you before they can vote for you.

Perot had money to do that on a national level. Nader doesn't and really never did. And I don't think he's serious about it. What is he doing for party infrastructure while the election season is off? It reeks of publicity and purity trolling for me.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/Obamachalk.jpg

What pushed Obama over Edwards (who on a purely policy level I agreed w/ more) is that ability to organize people. Ron Paul was able to tap into the same fundraising/internet fervor that Obama had...but he wasn't able to translate that into votes. Obama's community organizing experience was partly in registering voters and getting them to vote their interests!

But of one thing I'm certain: The technological explanation offered by some colleagues does not even begin to sufficiently explain why the Obama campaign succeeded while, for example, the Howard Dean campaign of 2004 did not. If what happened in 2008 were merely a matter of Internet politics we'd be blogging President Dean's reelection campaign right now, and Ron Paul's pending Republican nomination to challenge him.

Vote of Confidence (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/)

The headline is: A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago's electoral landscape-and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.

None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. "It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama.

...

The success of the voter-registration drive has marked him as the political star the Mayor should perhaps be watching for. "The sky's the limit for Barack," says Burrell.

Some of Daley's closest advisers are similarly impressed. "In its technical demands, a voter-registration drive is not unlike a mini-political campaign," says John Schmidt, chairman of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority and a fundraiser for Project Vote! "Barack ran this superbly. I have no doubt he could run an equally good political campaign if that's what he decided to do next."

This article was written fifteen years ago. So how did Obama build a campaign that basically knocked out the democratic party machinery? It's not the "historic nature of his candidacy". It's not his talent in oratory. It's in the organizing ability that was written about in that article.

Saul Alinsky believed that power flowed up from the streets and was there for the taking, if only people believed they could do so.

Yes We Can? Respect. Empower. Include? We're the Ones We've Been Waiting For anyone?

Atnas

1st September, 2008, 03:36 PM

Until one of these other parties manage to build an infrastructure on a national level that will actually bring results, it's stupid to vote for a third party in the presidential election (key word is presidential). Until then, the best way to achieve results is to join one of the two parties and vote for the person who has your ideals or run for office yourself.
*votes for ron paul*

HawkZombie

1st September, 2008, 05:12 PM

Lene said something of interest to me:

But frankly people need to know you before they can vote for you.

That's the slight problem with Obama. He's still green Has he even served a FULL term in the US senate? Not saying that experience is generally necessary, but it generally will be what either wins or loses an election for you on a presidential level.

People want someone to run the country that at least has an understanding of how it goes...if he lacks that, it doesn't matter how well he organizes.

And Lene, it's slightly insulting to say people are dumb for voting a third party :P That would like me saying it's dumb to vote Obama because he's black, or McCain because he has a woman running mate. People are going to do it...and honestly, that's what BOTH parties are counting on. So, If you're going to vote your convictions, and not simply because you don't like 'the big two' that's not stupid...it's using your voice as you see fit.

Anyway, I don't even know why I keep getting involved :P...I'm not even going to vote XD

Buster

1st September, 2008, 05:48 PM

Basically all that I got out of what Lene said was this: if the odds are against you, don't even try. It would be stupid to give an honest effort to a seemingly lost cause.
I hate to sound like an overly-enthusiastic history teacher, but... in the American Revolution, the odds were against the colonists. The British had a bigger fighting force and a more well-trained, well organized fighting force. The colonists only had two small advantages: they knew the land they were fighting on, and they wanted things to change.
I don't know about you, but I desperately want things to change right now. I know a lot of Americans do. But that change will never happen if people just accept defeat as soon as it starts to rear its head. It'll only happen if people use their freedom to choose who they really want, not who a party they affiliate with says they should choose. I know you actually want Obama to be president, so it's perfectly fine to vote for him, but I've just heard too many people say they don't like either of them, but will have to choose between the two anyways. That's the entire reason why the two major candidates are the only ones capable of winning. And saying it's stupid to vote for anyone else just promotes that mindset even further. I want to get out of that mindset so we can have the freedom to choose whomever we desire.
I can't vote, so it really doesn't apply to me anyways, but...

Lene

1st September, 2008, 05:56 PM

I'm not a cynical person. I'm just trying to be real and work the rules to my advantage. And I respect people who walk the walk and run for office more than someone who votes for something that will not lead to what they want.

Notice that I say it's a waste of time at this point of time. And it's a waste of time for this presidential election in the year 2008. Honestly, tell me what minor party has set up enough infrastructure to get themselves onto as many ballots that it would require to reach 270 electoral votes? As far as I know not one, and please correct me if I'm wrong there.

So basically you're voting for someone who has no way of reaching the presidency today. And while it's a hard thing to do for a minor party, it's not impossible. Perot was able to do it.

If there was a party that spent time building a national organization, then obviously I wouldn't think it would be a waste of time voting their candidate for the presidency.

But there isn't one like that now. And if you're not willing to do more than vote, then really I think it's a stupid decision. And it only serves to be a spoiler that'll help one of the candidates from the two parties in the end.

I've seen third parties work locally and I've seen third parties even work state wide. But I'm skeptical about nationally.

Guardian

1st September, 2008, 11:50 PM

I would probably sound incredibly uneducated if I delved into the McCain/Obama argument, or even the argument of a single candidate. The truth is that I can't vote, so I don't spend the time to get familiar with the candidates. My main source of information is CNN, which is probably unreliable. However, I can comment on the party system briefly.

The party system, as it stands, is incredibly flawed. It only supports people who are democrat/republican because they have financial support or someone who is incredibly rich by themselves and has enough money, time, and personality to become well-known. As Lene said, it's foolish to vote for someone that you don't know. And there really isn't any way to fix that.

What could help is equal representation in the media. I haven't heard any detailed mention of anyone except McCain, Obama, and Clinton anywhere in the mainstream media. We really should focus on everyone, not just democrats and republicans. The media's interested in money, and only money, and most people don't feel like reading about all 8 (imaginary number) candidates when they could read about only 2 and be on their way, which is a part of the problem.

The other main problem is the fact that these people that are in office get paid horribly. Their wages don't even come close to what they need for living expenses, and most candidates spend more on campaigning than they'll make if they get the job. As it exists, it's impossible for anyone who isn't incredibly wealthy to actually be able to take the job. This is why everyone cries about change but they don't do anything about it. They, simply, can't afford it. This is something that can't be changed without an amendment, however (I think the wages of national offices are included in the constitution?), and it's doubtful that such an amendment would ever get passed. It's not so much that it wouldn't have support as that the democrats and republicans would bribe the hell out of people to make sure it doesn't get passed so they can remain in power.

I hope I managed to at least sound semi-educated. Politics aren't my specialty, and I'll probably be able to contribute more accurately after this year of History.

Atnas

2nd September, 2008, 02:40 AM

uh lene, ron paul is a republican

it seems buster is talking about him and not an independent.

ccoa

2nd September, 2008, 06:02 AM

He may be a Republican, but he's not running on the Republican ticket. He's running as an Independent.

Nader is on the ballet for all but 7 states, and it looks like he's going to get most if not all of those 7 before the elections.

But that's exactly part of the problem. The Democrats and Republicans have deliberately set up barriers to prevent any other party or independent from having a chance. Debates are closed to anyone not from those parties, getting on the ballets is inconsistent from state to state and ridiculously prohibitive in some, privately funded political campaigns mean that only those with big money behind them stand a chance, media is biased and only covers the main two parties, and the current "democratic" system has disenfranchised many voters.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who is a Democrat or Republican will dismantle those restrictions because they'd be dismantling the system that keeps their parties in shared power. Our democracy is desperately in need of change, but as long as people keep this mentality that if they vote for a third party or independent that they're "wasting" their vote, nothing will change.

Lene

2nd September, 2008, 02:21 PM

I think that if you solve the money situation then the climate becomes easier for third parties to be successful on the national level. Had Obama not tapped into a fundraising goldmine, he probably would not have been the nominee. Had Clinton not wasted her huge money advantage on incompetence, she may have been able to pull it out.

Federal funding is the answer, but you still have the 527s that don't need to follow the rules. Get rid of the the federal funding loopholes and then maybe it'll actually work.

Also, as long as the news serves as a for-profit organization and not a service, you're not going to see fair coverage. I remembering wanting to destroy my TV watching CNN basically deem Kuchinich's effort to impeach Bush and Cheney into some crazy sideshow circus (they literally called it Sideshow Politics and played circus music). The media's motive was absolutely blatant. You'd think wanting to impeach a president and vice president would be a serious thing and they're belittling it!

If we brought back equal time and laws that required the media to prove they were acting in the public interest, things would be a lot better. I do think the democratic party is heading in this direction, but they need to get elected first. It's hard trying to speak truth to power when the other side will easily lie to you and come up w/ catch little soundbites to spread it around (Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less? What a crock of shit!)

I've been hearing a quote along the lines of "don't get into a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel". A national candidate running on the dismantle the media campaign is going to be in for the beating of a life time. That's why McCain has become the media's best friend, and that's why he's successful because the media created this maverick narrative and they spend so much time making sure that sticks to him.

I'm registered as a non-partisan, but I'm sticking w/ the democratic party because they have the power and the political capital to achieve more than half of what I want. I will be voting a mixture of dem and non-partisan candidates down ticket for the general election. However, I will be voting dem for the presidential election because I genuinely want to and because the alternatives are either worse (GOP, Libertarians) or ineffective (Green party).

Volrath

2nd September, 2008, 06:54 PM

I think it would take a pretty specific set of circumstances to break down the two-party barrier. But I also think it would only need to happen once to really start a chain reaction.

You would need someone to run with fame on the level of Obama, McCain or the Clintons. Perhaps someone from one of the major parties decides he/she is tired of the party-line BS and starts anew? The drama would probably motivate the media to follow it more. This person would also need to be very wealthy and able to finance the bulk of the campaign costs themselves, since most big donors would be skeptical and probably slow to give anything up. Public Financing would fix this...but I don't count on that happening in the near future.

This person would also need to be one hell of a campaigner, able to give great speeches and have a good resume to fall back on. I have no idea who this person could be, but it is possible. It would just take a brilliant candidate. If this person could actually win the presidency, you would see the whole system begin to change rapidly.

And honestly, that person is not Ron Paul. Yeah, it was fun to watch him piss off all the other Republicans by actually thinking for himself, but he strikes me as a fad that's played out.

Atnas

2nd September, 2008, 10:18 PM

The media has stopped covering him, but he has more supporters than ever. People love his ideas of sound money, small government, and the revolution against corporatism.

His goal isn't to win the presidency though. It isn't realistic. His goal is to open more people's eyes to what's going on and how much America has changed for the worse, and just who's doing it to us. As long as people think with their heads, the "fad" won't die.

Lene

2nd September, 2008, 11:24 PM

Anyone just watching Palin and the McCain campaign self-destructing before our eyes? I'm seriously enjoying this. They tried to make the election a referendum on Obama...well lets see how they like it.

Atnas

3rd September, 2008, 12:35 AM

I've never seen real competition between Obama and McCain. In my eyes McCain is just there because the republicans needed a candidate. :/

Comparing the two, any sane person would pick Obama as the lesser evil. But I do have a feeling McCain will somehow get into office but die shortly after. :razz:

HawkZombie

3rd September, 2008, 04:45 PM

http://www.filesavr.com/i/party.php

Lene

3rd September, 2008, 07:38 PM

The McCain campaign will have no further comment about our long and thorough process [in vetting Sarah Palin]," Schmidt said, lashing out at "the old boys' network" that he says runs media organizations.

You ARE the "old boys' network" dumbass hypocrites!

Sketch- That picture is everywhere now! But it's so hilarious.

HawkZombie

3rd September, 2008, 07:43 PM

I JUST saw it like...2 min before I posted it XD

Also, I think both sides are guilty of the 'good ol boys' dogma...I just take politics with a grain of salt.

Lene

3rd September, 2008, 08:04 PM

I JUST saw it like...2 min before I posted it XD

Also, I think both sides are guilty of the 'good ol boys' dogma...I just take politics with a grain of salt.

Oh of course, but I think the right has very little to stand on considering that they can't even support things like equal pay for all genders...it's hilarious how they're trying to be the anti-sexist party.

EDIT: Btw guys, I'm a registered Non-partisan voter...

Lene

24th September, 2008, 08:09 PM

This just in

McCain wants to postpone Friday debate (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

He's asking Obama do to the same, so they can help out during the economy and all the bailout talk. What.the.fuck? Neither senator is in any position to do much...they can't even get in the meetings, and to do so would be oh so "presumptuous". (And it's not like McCain has any original ideas to offer...)

I wonder what's up with this...

Lyricmaniac

24th September, 2008, 09:53 PM

What is Obama's response?

Y.M.

24th September, 2008, 10:33 PM

Why does it look like Obama's doing all the dirty work while Obama's just.....stalling?

Cup o' Wisps

24th September, 2008, 11:21 PM

Why does it look like Obama's doing all the dirty work while Obama's just.....stalling?Was that a clever joke, or did I miss something :razz:

Actually what Lene posted is kind of curious, and I'm not really trusting either candidate. This seems off.

Lene

24th September, 2008, 11:50 PM

Okay here's the story:

McCain suddenly decided he wants to suspend his campaign (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122228304121472135.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) and call off Friday's debate because of the bailout discussion. He invited Obama to join in as well, suspending all events and ads.

The Obama campaign's first response is this:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details. ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

Not too long after that the Obama campaign says the debate is on (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/mccain-not-comm.html).

The media is skeptical about McCain's motives:

Politico's Ben Smith (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCains_gambit.html?showall)
In terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.thealtlantic.com)
Does he really believe that postponing the debate and suspending his campaign will calm the markets? Or is his entire campaign collapsing?

Dailykos's Hunter (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/16146/9377/154/609039)
Some fun facts about John McCain: Of all Senators, John McCain has been the most absent. There have been 643 votes taken in the current Senate session: McCain has missed 412 of them.

McCain has not voted in the Senate since April 8th. Since March, he has missed 109 of the last 110 votes.

He missed votes on the GI Bill, energy policy, and in 2007 he missed "all 15 critical environmental votes in the Senate" -- giving him a 2007 rating of 0% from the League of Conservation Voters. Zero percent? I don't think that's fair. I think they should have given him an "incomplete", and told him that he had to stay for summer session if he wants to graduate from the Senate.

Obama then holds a press conference where he reasserts his conditions for any bailout, and then regarding the debate he is asked:

Question: Is McCain playing politics canceling the debate?

Answer: This is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the people who will be dealing with this mess. ... It's more important than ever...My general view is that the American people need to know what we'll do to move the economy forward ... I plan to debate.

There are going to be a whole host of structural issues that will have to be dealt with by the next administration .... jobs, college tuition, ... Let's solve the immediate problem and then make sure we continue to present long-term solutions.

The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells McCain that Congress doesn't wantneed his help. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Reid_McCain_return_would_not_be_helpful.html)

...it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.

Survey USA does a quick snap poll of the American opinion and for the most part Americans aren't buying what John McCain is selling. (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02)

Politico basically finds out that McCain was basically lying about the urgency of the crises and suspending all campaign activities (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/A_nonemergency_meeting.html?showall).

The McCain campaign's new urgency about the financial crisis didn't entirely clear his schedule this morning.

My colleague Amie Parnes reports that he made it to his scheduled morning meeting with Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a Clinton backer who recently came out in support of him.

All while Obama was waiting by the phone for a returned call.

And not only that, he had time for Katie Couric to interview him, instead of going on Letterman (who had advertised McCain's appearance on his show for about a week) which pissed David Letterman off and he had a lot to say about that:

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?"

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

BTW Keith Olbermann is replacing John McCain's spot.

Basically, as Barney Frank said: "this was the longest Hail Mary in the history of football or Marys" and it looks like it is backfiring in Senator McCain's face BIG TIME.

EDIT: And oh, to top it all off, my first post I was wondering why the heck would McCain do this? Well it turns out that CNN just reported that McCain was planning on rescheduling the presidential debate for next Thursday (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/mccain-camp-to-propose-postponing-vp-debate/), displacing the VP debate which would be held on another date to be determined.

Oh...I see.

Could it be that Palin's VP cram session isn't exactly bearing results? I don't know, but it sounds really suspicious to me.

All I can say is you can't make this shit up. McCain is proving that he does not have the temperament to be president. First with the Sarah Palin choice and now with this, it seems that he likes to take wild risks for political points and not because he has any concern for the country.

EDIT #2: Ole Miss's reaction's (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/greene-come-and-talk-to-us)
BATESVILLE, Mississippi (CNN)– As word of John McCain’s proposal to postpone Friday’s debate reaches Mississippi, there is an initial sense of confusion and disappointment among the people here who have been planning this weekend for months.

“I feel like sending a text message to Barack Obama,” said Schiele-Moore, the manager of a 50-unit hotel in Batesville, half an hour from Oxford, where the debate will be held.

Her hotel is booked solid for the weekend, as are most hotels and motels in the area. She said she would like to send Obama a text message that reads:

“Come on down here. You just may win Mississippi.”

Ronove

25th September, 2008, 12:35 AM

Really, they can stop campaigning and just stick with debates and I'd be happy. You can stop your ads and stuff to go back to work to help the economy any way you can, but your debates with your prez rival shouldn't be stopped. They wouldn't distract TOO much, really. For some reason, I think Mccain's a little worried about the debates rather than about the economy... :lol: but I'm mean.

Volrath

25th September, 2008, 03:01 AM

Yeah, I think if the McCain campaign had their way, Palin would debate at all...or even be asked any questions. Just keep smiling and looking pretty to distract people from the fact that she's a vehicle for the same neo-con philosophy that has been profoundly rejected by the American people at this point, at least if Bush/Cheney's current approval ratings are any indicator.

But this whole thing is pretty dumb. I understand that we should look at the financial crisis in a bi-partisan way if possible...especially cause the Bush admins have effectively pissed off EVERYONE in Congress at this point, not just Democrats. However, I don't really get what rescheduling the debate does to help the crisis. Honestly, is anyone even in the Senate on a Friday night? I frickin' doubt it. Just be a man and face your fears, McCain.

Kojo

25th September, 2008, 07:27 AM

It's no secret I don't like either candidate.

The debates won't really change anything though, the candidates all know the questions before hand. It just becomes a really long political ad.

McCain and Obama are both awful debaters as well. I'll read about it in the paper.

PS: I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win.

Guardian

25th September, 2008, 11:46 AM

It's always funny how they manage to completely avoid a question during a debate and sound very inspiring at the end.

Q: What will you do about the economy?
A: The economy is a very complicated business which can't be described in a few sentences. [Insert a lot of filler here.] So, I plan to bring peace, joy, and happiness to everyone in the world!

Lene

10th October, 2008, 10:44 PM

I just have to say that this is the best Political Advertisment I've ever seen in my life.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2hztu91.jpg

2.91 a gallon?! Dang!

EDIT: The Obama campaign got a camera and put the guy who owns the place on their youtube site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7boiBsAt4

Thunderclam

21st October, 2008, 01:04 AM

Up here in Canada, it's very difficult to see why anyone would vote for McCain at this point. He was soundly trounced during the debates, coming off as a sentimental old badger. I appreciate that the man isn't running around hoorahing the war effort like Bush did, so there's a decidedly less ominous note in this election than in the last one, although a lot of people would disagree with me about that.

Voting for Obama would be a symbolic gesture even if you're unsure about his efficacy as the possible head of state, which I find is a notion usually based on terrible and stupid arguments raised as talking points by people who are trying to put their finger on why they don't want to elect a black dude as president, while still not wanting to see 4 more years of Neo-con insanity.

Why symbolic? Because, among other things, it would be a symbol of America collectively pulling its head out of its ass and rejoining the rest of the civilized world in terms of everything from civil rights to social responsibility.

Alisa_Tana

29th October, 2008, 07:09 AM

I'm sure you guys already heard about the two geniuses in Tennessee who were plotting to assassinate Obama. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e680715c-a474-11dd-8104-000077b07658.html if you didn't...

My question is, where's Jack Bauer?

J.D. Slasha

29th October, 2008, 07:24 AM

I honestly think that it's sad that our country doesn't really realize how white supremist we really are. At the core of it all, this country is led by the powers that be that are really just white supremists, or atleast those who sympathize with the ideas.

I am definitely voting for Barack Obama because I honestly believe that he'll bring about change in our nation, some of which we've been needing real bad now for YEARS. This is essentially the first time I've really gotten political, so I'm really hoping for the best, but I wouldn't be suprised with anything that happens really.

My opinion is that either way, and as negative and dismal as it sounds, either candidate has a relatively probably chance of dying early. Either McCain with old age (and OH GOD PALIN) or assassination attempts on Obama.

I really hope not, but I really wouldn't be suprised.

:/

Oh, hi again everyone btw.

Barbatos

29th October, 2008, 03:37 PM

I wish my vote mattered. Unfortunately I live in texas, which is pretty much guarenteed for McCain (despite what some tv show tells you), so a vote for Obama wouldn't do anything. Which is making it tempting for me to vote for Bob Barr, but I don't know if I want to waste half a day waiting in line to do so.

However I would definately be one of the first to vote for our first black president if I lived in a swing state.

(for those of you who do not understand why a vote wouldn't matter, look up electoral college)

Interestingly enough, half of my family (as in the parents/uncles/aunts) are backing McCain and the other half (the kids) are backing Obama. Is that a generational thing (old people backing old McCain and young people backing black Obama) or are my parents just racist. Actually I think they're just racist.

Lyricmaniac

29th October, 2008, 03:39 PM

At some point I'll find the Al Jazeera (you heard me right) report full of all this anti-black sentiment. It's really pathetic an discouraging. I thought we collectively moved beyond that in the 60s.

Reives

29th October, 2008, 04:41 PM

Saw this on another forum:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/shishkabob50/barack.gif

Anyhow, I think one point that hasn't been brought up often is the fact that McCain's support around the world's like 5%-20% from world-wide polls, where as Obama's is 60-80%. U.S.'s reputation has been suffering through the last decade, and this speaks of a potential to turn that around with one choice, or making it worse with the other. And in this day and age, national reputation matters immensely, and I would imagine that it has an effect on the root of terrorism to begin with.

Thunderclam

30th October, 2008, 02:14 AM

The generation gap is a huge issue because of the nature of our culture, by which I mean at least North American and at most "Western Civilization".

There's always a struggle between the older people and the younger people, between a desperate and really quite stupid clinging to "tradition" and a naive, reckless embrace of change.

A measured approach is necessary, but so often lacking. Extremes are the common currency, which is why you see politicians drum up what they can offer for their particular people.

Add other issues like religion, economics, etc and the whole soup gets even messier. I feel like, at the heart of it, it's a generational thing.

Most old people can't begin to understand the secular movement, being long used to a world where Christianity as a way of life was taken for granted. Who starts all these movements for a revival of Christianity in our civilization but old people like Billy Graham and his many compatriots?

Traditionalism is dangerous and is especially ugly and nonsensical to young people, who haven't had time to get used to any sort of status quo. Some young people have other reasons to get caught up in traditionalism and this is mostly due to indoctrination by the Old Guard, either through religious teaching or even economic teaching.

The current generation of commerce graduates are scary motherfuckers because they have learned to believe in the very system which is crashing and burning as they do their internships. If the world keeps it together, believe that these guys will finish what their predecessors started. Or they'll be a new generation of overeducated people in jobs they're overqualified for. In some sectors, this has already begun.

It's a helluva time.