The 2008 Elections

Pages

AuthorTopic: The 2008 Elections
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #25
The main reason behind me disliking Hillary Clinton is she comes across as mean...and that I don't like her husband, but that's a whole other story. Actually, I don't agree with any of the current candidates, but I hope they'd do a better job than Bush.

--------------------
Decca Records - "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out."
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #26
If Bill Clinton could run for more than two terms, he'd be running for his fifth term right now...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #27
Clinton is running solely on the facts that her husband was President, and she wants him back in the White House.

Obama's campaign seems to be driven by support from Oprah Winfrey; and because she's a celebrity, the herd of sheep that follow her believe that what Oprah wants, Oprah should get.

McCain, who's in his seventies, is basically claiming he's a war hero. (Which war? Korea?) My guess is that he was drafted, and didn't fight willingly; either that, or he had a desk job, and won a medal for pushing pencils.

I say forget Democrats and Republicans! Vote Ralph Nader!

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #28
I'm no fan of McCain, but I think you should bother to do some basic fact-checking. He's a Naval Academy grad, so presumably he intended to join the navy. He was definitely no pencil-pusher, and he was shot down and held (and tortured) as a POW for years.

—Alorael, who just isn't quite sure what military record has to do with being a good politician. At least a lawyer with a good record has experience that's somehow relevant.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
Profile #29
quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

McCain
You know how he never seems to raise his arms very much at all? That's because he can't, because he was essentially crippled for life while he was a POW.

It's not proper to make light of those who got maimed for our country, even if they are pushing a political platform you despise.
Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #30
Actually, it's the political parties themselves that I despise, because no matter which one you support, nearly all its members are pathological liars.

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #31
You don't have to support a party to support a candidate.

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #32
McCain for all is his political faults enlisted to fight in Vietnam because he comes from a military family. When he was shot down and captured, he could have been released because his father was an admiral, but chose to stay to support other prisoners. Unlike most politicians supporting the Iraq War, his son is actually serving there.

Otherwise McCain is a jerk.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #33
quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

Clinton is running solely on the facts that her husband was President, and she wants him back in the White House.

Obama's campaign seems to be driven by support from Oprah Winfrey; and because she's a celebrity, the herd of sheep that follow her believe that what Oprah wants, Oprah should get.

McCain, who's in his seventies, is basically claiming he's a war hero. (Which war? Korea?) My guess is that he was drafted, and didn't fight willingly; either that, or he had a desk job, and won a medal for pushing pencils.

I say forget Democrats and Republicans! Vote Ralph Nader!

Three lies, followed by personal opinion. ... I guess politicians aren't the only pathological liars out there.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #34
Apparently I mistook this for an opinion poll. Since nobody wants my opinion, cynical though it may be, I shall bow out before somebody get hurt or banned.

(puts on coat, grabs hat, exits thread)

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #35
quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

Apparently I mistook this for an opinion poll. Since Salmon doesn't want my opinion, cynical though it may be
FYT.

I do wonder, though, why Greens are cynical about major political parties but not cynical at all about Ralph Nader? I come from San Francisco, and in this area, most competitive local elections are between Democrats and Greens, so I've seriously examined both parties, and quite frankly, I thought Ralph Nader was deeply out of touch when I heard him speak here a few years back. Some other Greens (his current running mate, for instance) are pretty cool, but Nader himself hasn't really been all that great in about thirty years, as far as I can tell.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 4638
Profile #36
quote:
But to be frank, while Obama may be 'inexperienced' (and associated with a 'black powah!' church), I find Hillary repugnant. From her voice to her crocodile tears, to her constantly mentioning her gender to win votes. Paraphrased: "We owe it to ourselves to elect a female president in 2008!" ie. Don't elect me because of my policies or competency... elect me because of my gender!
I wanted to pound the hag's face in when I heard that.
A couple of points:

1. I mostly agree with the above post. I can't stand Hillary. I feel like she doesn't have an ounce of honesty and will do whatever it takes to win.
2. That being said, imagine Bill in the Whitehouse again with none of the responsibilities. Imagine the parties. Say goodbye to presidential china and hello to official Whitehouse El Presidente Cigars (hopefully untainted).
3. Unfortunately, I don't see how Obama could possibly make a good president.
A. Lacks Experience
B. Lacks Connections
C. A much overlooked important part of being president is knowing the "right" people to put in the various executive positions (cabinet, heads of various administrative agencies, etc.). I don't feel like Obama has any of these connections. By comparison, W. Bush is a dunce and largely doesn't know what he is doing, but he had good connections through his father that made him a somewhat effective (albeit sometimes for evil (my moral judgment)) president. Delegation is really important, since you really simply don't have the time to address every issue. (On the flip-side it might be nice to break away from the old boys network.)
4. However, at least Obama speaks well, looks presidential, has gravitas, and perhaps could provide some racial healing.
5. Sadly, I wonder whether America would elect him. Even if only 1% of people don't vote for him because he is black, that could easily turn the election.
6. I fear McCain since he is a "maverick." It is nice to have predictability in a president. At least Bush was predictable.
7. I predict McCain will win, whether he faces Obama or Hillary.

Ultimately, I may vote for Obama, since he provides the most hope, which is appealing, however, ultimately I question whether it is practical.

--------------------
Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #37
What my hope is, come 2009, is a President that can well represent this country on the world stage. Bush the Bully was, imho, a poor figure in that role, and much damage was done. I do not see McCain as having the capacities to improve that role, or undo much of the damage. Clinton may be able to undo some damage, but has also pledged to concentrate mostly internally, which I feel is a job better delegated. Obama, again in my opinion, would be the most well received internationally of all the current candidates.

And Mystic, you can hardly expect to make categorical accusations about huge groups of people without being called to task for it. After all you said that
quote:
the political parties ... members are pathological liars.
I object to both the characterization and the statement itself. There are millions of members of the two parties in this country. They are not liars or pathological liars, and I hardly see how you can make that judgment.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #38
For experience, I point you to this editorial. For networking, I think Obama is likely enough to know who the right people are without being beholden to that good old boys network that has done so well for the USA for the last eight years.

—Alorael, who doesn't think Bush has done a particularly good job of demonstrating the competence of cronies. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

What my hope is, come 2009, is a President that can well represent this country on the world stage. ...
The problem is that the job of US President combines duties of both Head of Government and Head of State in the same position, and the two Democratic candidates are compaining for the two different halves of that position.

The job of the Head of State is to meet with foreign leaders, give rousing speeches, and smile for the cameras. The job of the Head of Government is to make sure the government doesn't go bankrupt, emergencies are responded to promptly and competently, and that the grand reforms he promises actually get accomplished.

Obama is quite clearly compaigning for the former position, while Clinton is campaigning for the later. This is why it's so hard for Obama and Clinton supporters to understand each other: Clinton supporters ask "how can you run the country if all you talk about is 'hope' and 'vision'?" Obama supporters ask "how can you represent the country on world stage if all you talk about is your experience and detailed plans for internal policy?"

The best compromise seems to be a Clinton/Obama ticket, where Obama serves as the good will ambassador, representing US to the world, while Clinton makes sure the reform agenda actually gets accomplished. Vice President can visit foreign countries even more easily that president (who is constantly distracted by domestic issues), but President is the one who has to negotiate compromises in Congress and make appointments to government positions.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #40
I disagree, but understand what you are saying. Since Clinton is more of a domestically focused person, wouldn't she better serve as Vice President? After all, there is no strict rule that head of state = VP, and head of government = P. It really is all just semantics, as a ticket with both of those people would be acceptable to the world. I just see a more fruitful and longer lived regime if the ticket was the reverse of what you propose. :P

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #41
I don't understand why you think that just because Obama can enthrall an American audience that therefore he will be well received worldwide. Nobody even knows who he is. Clinton, on the other hand, being a former First Lady, already has those connections. We also know how well Bill was well received, especially in the Middle East, so Hillary seems a logical choice if you are looking for someone to improve out relations there.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #42
Most foreign government's pay close attention to American politics, mostly because we tend to screw-up often and on a global scale. I'm sure most of them aren't unfamiliar with Obama. There is even a village in Japan that's claim to fame is having the same name...

EDIT: I'm sure lying isn't going to help Clinton...

[ Tuesday, March 25, 2008 15:55: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #43
Without even clicking that link, I would like to relate a story to you about what happened to me (or someone else, or not at all) when I visited Bosnia last. This should show how good I am at foreign policy, dodging bullets (need the line out feature there), and being a good person.

"The plane landed in a hail of sniper bullets, and we were told to just keep our heads down and run to the cars. Chuckle. So that's what we did. [subtext of feeling good about our action under fire candidate]"

Cue the tape- We see Mrs Clinton wave at the top of the stairs, then gracefully walk down them, and stop to talk to a Bosnian child for several seconds, and then calmly walk to the waiting motorcade.

"So, I may have misstated some things, but I assure you I didn't stop for some Bosnian child, no more than a second to say Hi, and take whatever it was she had for me."

Rewind the tape - ... ... Hmmm.

"So, I may have spent more time than I remembered talking to the little Bosnian child. I say millions of words a day, and those were just a few of them, so you can't hold me accountable for them all."

Right, so, we have a person citing foreign policy experience by lying. And then they justify the lying by stating that they can't always tell the truth if they speak so many words in a day.

I, for one, recommend to her that she just shuts up then. Clam it. Zip it. No More Talking!

So, was that the link? :P

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #44
And they say Obama doesn't run smear campaigns. :rolleyes:

[Insert the link to sermons by Obama's spiritual father here.]

Let me see... A candidate who makes up a courage under fire story vs. a candidate who plagirizes entire campaign speeches, picks a Farakan quote as a title for his auto-biography, avoids all policy questions by talking about "hope", and has a personality cult so big that he gets an ovation just for blowing his nose. I wonder which would make a better president.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #45
Heh. The story I heard on NPR didn't mention Obama, it just was a report on Clinton. Sorry that you think there is a "they" saying what Obama does or doesn't do. I don't know who "they" are.

I do know I don't want a president that will
1) lie to imply strength where there is none.
2) discount the value others place in the words of the president.
3) marginalize citizens of other countries in so public a manner.

I'm sure that that little Bosnian girl was ecstatic to meet the First Lady, and that it was a really big deal to her, and that she was hand picked to be that little girl. Now she is learning that that same person hardly noticed, doesn't remember, and doesn't care. That is a hella nice message to spread to the world.

And again, this isn't campaigning, this is answering your rationale for picking Clinton over Obama. Obama may only have "hope" but so far he hasn't disappointed like Clinton. And, for the record, I still feel that the people least likely to be effective politicians are those that actively seek that position. Clinton, McCain, and Obama all are cults of personality, but they are all we have. Kinda sucks, don't it?

Edit - I did some research because I hadn't heard about the plagarism charge. Apparently, Clinton's team reported that they found disturbing similarities between a speech by gubernatorial candidate Patrick Deval and and a speech by Obama.
This transpired as a result.
quote:
In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”
Interesting how these two politicians are building points between themselves. Glad to see it.

[ Tuesday, March 25, 2008 19:57: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ]

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #46
Please. The woman was First Lady for eight years, she visited thousands of placed, you know she was under sniper fire at some point during that tenure, likely multiple times. She certainly had nothing to gain by lying, and couldn't possibly have thought she'd get away with it being under the scrutiny that she is. She made a mistake, just like Obama made a mistake when he decided to hire a speechwriter that likes to plagiarize his work.

The way Americans like to blow things out of proportion will never cease to amaze. If we didn't have this habit of making mountains out of molehills, Howard Dean might have been elected president in 2004.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #47
You don't accidentally make up gun shots being fired at you...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #48
You don't purposely lie when you know every single word that comes out of your mouth is being analyzed by hundreds of professionals. And like I said, she probably didn't make it up, rather confused it with one of the many times she undoubtedly was under fire in a foreign nation.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
Profile Homepage #49
Undoubtedly. However, the American military would never allow the First Lady to be exposed to sniper fire like that. It just wouldn't happen. (No matter how much you hate the American military, they're not that incompetent.)

--------------------
Love is the movement.
Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00

Pages