Obama - Useless

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Isn't one of the main drawbacks in an American election or standing for Governor, Congress, Nomination for Presidency, etc. that you need alot of money to even consider it?

That does rather push the established 'dynasties' to the fore and preclude the 'average joe' of aspiring to any kind of meaningful political career.

I'm not that well-up on the intricacies of American (USA) politics and selection processes, but it does seem to be that unless there is some kind of radical overhaul, you will always end up with a rather limited choice of established rich and/or powerful/popular families or the extensions thereof running what is soon to become the second most powerful country in the world.

Is there a (realistic) way for some 30 year old who manages the local convenience store to one day become President?

That's not a leading question, I genuinely don't know and would be interested to find out.

Well, theoretically yes. There have been many Presidents that were average 'joes' that aspired to become more, but the last one like that that comes to mind is Truman (though he wasn't really voted into office)... and this is really before television and marketing expensive ads. I'm not really sure if it really is attainable for an average person today...

But I do agree with Comrade, not big on family struggles for the presidency. However, that doesn't mean being related to other Presidents will make a poor president. Theodore Roosevelt (one of the best presidents we have ever had in my opinion) was related to (I think) 5 Presidents.

but I do agree that a bush/clinton/bush/clinton.... office would not be good.... hell neither would Obama... vote McCain

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Isn't one of the main drawbacks in an American election or standing for Governor, Congress, Nomination for Presidency, etc. that you need alot of money to even consider it?

That does rather push the established 'dynasties' to the fore and preclude the 'average joe' from aspiring to any kind of meaningful political career.

I'm not that well-up on the intricacies of American (USA) politics and selection processes, but it does seem to be tend to that unless there is some kind of radical overhaul, you will always end up with a rather limited choice of established rich and/or powerful/popular families or the extensions thereof running what is soon to become the second most powerful country in the world.

Is there a (realistic) way for some 30 year old who manages the local convenience store to one day become President?

That's not a leading question, I genuinely don't know and would be interested to find out.

It's theoretically possible-- the only qualification is that you must be a native-born citizen who has attained the age of 35. Practically speaking, however, it's not going to happen. In his book Who Rules America, William Domhoff observes that although there is some degree of social mobility, and the wealthy don't always rule (some prefer to be playboys), the likelihood is that the children of a guy who pumps gas will tend to grow up to become gas station attendants, and the children of politically powerful families will tend to grow up to become politically powerful.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Despite the fact that she's the only one with a serious political bone in her body?

Whilst I doubt you should select your Prez from the relatives of previous WH residents, in this case you certainly shouldn't reject them.

Keep the faith

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Despite the fact that she's the only one with a serious political bone in her body?

Whilst I doubt you should select your Prez from the relatives of previous WH residents, in this case you certainly shouldn't reject them.

Keep the faith

What are the serious issues in this election? Domestically, the economy and access to health care. On foreign policy, the war in Iraq.

When it came time to show leadership on Iraq, Hillary voted in support of the war. Why? Because she wanted to run for President, and she thought opposing the war would harm her campaign. Only now that the war has gone south has she suggested that she wouldn't have voted for the war if she had known that it would become so...unpopular.

On health care, Hillary did attempt to get universal health care when she was First Lady. I'll give her props for that. But after that effort went down in flames, and she packed her carpet bags to go represent the great State of New York in the Senate, something funny happened. She became the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the health insurance industry, right behind that other great champion of universal health care, George W. Bush. If the health insurance industry is backing her, shouldn't we be asking "why"?

She's a shameless opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to get into the White House, and that is not, in my opinion, the kind of person who will be a champion of change. Will she be better than Bush? No question, but with the bar set that low, there aren't many who wouldn't be better than Bush.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: ...change...

He's been brainwashed!

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's theoretically possible-- the only qualification is that you must be a native-born citizen who has attained the age of 35. Practically speaking, however, it's not going to happen. In his book Who Rules America, William Domhoff observes that although there is some degree of social mobility, and the wealthy don't always rule (some prefer to be playboys), the likelihood is that the children of a guy who pumps gas will tend to grow up to become gas station attendants, and the children of politically powerful families will tend to grow up to become politically powerful.

Thanks for that.

I thought I'd seen/heard somewhere that you don't have to be native-born to hold political office any more - one of the things that was discussed when 'Arnie' became governor of California.

So basically, you're saying that America is likely to be stuck with the same few rich families in power until the whole process becomes truly democratic, rather than paying lip-service to the notion. :(

You only have to be native-born to hold the Presidency-- it's a Constitutional requirement. As you noticed, there was some discussion about removing that requirement so Ah-nuld could make a bid for the White House.

My guess is that powerful, wealthy families have ruled in every society since the dawn of time. One thing that we can say about the U.S. is that there is at least the opportunity for upward mobility-- the ruling class does reward merit. But yes, there is an oligarchy in the U.S. that generally sets the agenda.

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: ...change...

He's been brainwashed!

You know, there are two main themes in every election. If you're in power, your theme is "stay the course." If you're out of power, your theme is "time for change."

This election will be interesting, because not even McCain will be campaigning on a theme of "stay the course"-- except on the issue of Iraq.

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

But doesn't Clinton actually state what changes she intends to make and how, thereby exposing herself to being held to account if elected? Obama seems to just repeat the word CHANGE over and over again in front of a load of clapping monkeys. (Apart from the one time he did say what he actually thought and looks like he's blown it as a result.)

But Nash is right. It's not going to make one jot of difference what they say now, or which one you pick. They'll do what they want when they get in, it will have no impact because the Senate rule the country anyway and there's fuck all you'll be able to do about it for four years. And even then you won't get the change you so desperately want and need.

And you are right too, at least it will be better than the prick you've got now.

Have you read 'Better than Sex' by Hunter S Thompson? Or, for that matter, Hobson's Choice?

Chris Nash wrote: So from what I've gathered so far: Clinton is an opportunist who switches allegiances, depending on money/votes

Obama seems to be as politically astute as Boris Johnson and is so bad at saying the right/wrong thing that he could start a major diplomatic incident simply through incompetence if he was President (a bit like our Prince Philip)

McCain is a nasty piece of right wing crap and may turn out to be even worse than Bush Dumb and Bush Dummer.

I've heard people say that Clinton will win because she's a woman. Obama will win because he's black. McCain erm... is the Republican nomination.

Is there any way at all that the American people can say, 'Hang on, we don't trust any of you, we want someone else'?

I mean, a vote of 'No confidence' or a mass abstension?

From what I've seen, it's going to be a Presidential 'race' between McCain and one of the two Democrat nominees.

I'm still trying to get my head round the whole thing

No, we haven't got a "no confidence" option. A third candidate could always run, but I don't think there's been a successful run like that since the 1800's, if ever.

Chris Nash wrote: EDIT: Or am I missing the point entirely and it's actually true that the President holds no real power and is controlled as a 'puppet' by the same people, no matter which party 'appears' to win?

Noam Chomssky argues that the United States has one political party-- the Business Party-- with two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.

0_o wrote: He should have bashed bowlers also. Who the fuck still bowls in 2008 except rednecks, except as a drunken joke.

Hey, I used to go bowling occasionally! I don't _think_ I'm a 'redneck'. Though I am from 'the South' (of London).

Obama I worry is unelectable. His appeal seems to be mainly young college liberal types and African Americans. His remarks did sound a bit snobbish to me.

Hilary seems to have honesty problems and a slightly scary desperation for power (though she seems to have more 'blue collar' support, along with that of an annoying older, posh white feminists for whom gender is more important than race and for whom class doesn't even exist).

McCain is a warmonger, and in any case the Republicans really deserve some punishment for the disasters of the Bush years. If the Democrats can't win now, can they ever do so?

I'm quite glad I don't have to pick any of them.

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

But doesn't Clinton actually state what changes she intends to make and how, thereby exposing herself to being held to account if elected? Obama seems to just repeat the word CHANGE over and over again in front of a load of clapping monkeys. (Apart from the one time he did say what he actually thought and looks like he's blown it as a result.)

But Nash is right. It's not going to make one jot of difference what they say now, or which one you pick. They'll do what they want when they get in, it will have no impact because the Senate rule the country anyway and there's fuck all you'll be able to do about it for four years. And even then you won't get the change you so desperately want and need.

When Bill Clinton was President, his major accomplishments (going by memory) were to push the Republican agenda through. NAFTA? That was George H.W. Bush's baby, but it was Clinton who performed the delivery. Welfare reform? Again, the Republican agenda, and pushed through by Clinton. He was spectacularly unsuccessful at pushing through a Democratic agenda, beginning with Hillary's own failed attempt to establish a system of universal health care in this country.

I suspect that Hillary's naked ambition for power will overshadow the importance of any particular agenda item. They're all disposable-- her ascent to power being the one thing she cares most about.

Obama may be hobbled if the Republicans can control the legislative agenda, but he doesn't have a record of caving in (and to be fair, he doesn't have much of a record in his brief career), and he doesn't appear to have the same naked ambition for power. And yes, he does talk about change quite a bit, but he also speaks to the American people about the issues as if they are adults, which is more than we are used to hearing. While Hillary does have detailed proposals, and has thoroughly mastered the issues, the fact is they both have very similar positions on how they will address specific issues.

McCain will be more of the same, although he is at least more honest than the current President. He's the best of the current Republican crop, but he's still yesterday's hero.

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Have you read 'Better than Sex' by Hunter S Thompson? Or, for that matter, Hobson's Choice?

Nope, haven't read either.

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Chris Nash wrote: EDIT: Or am I missing the point entirely and it's actually true that the President holds no real power and is controlled as a 'puppet' by the same people, no matter which party 'appears' to win?

Noam Chomssky argues that the United States has one political party-- the Business Party-- with two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.

Thanks for that.

I sort of have the feeling that Chomsky argued the same about any elections in a 'capitalist' state - the USA or otherwise.

Probably. I took a course on Chomsky as an undergrad, and had my fill of him then. While I think he's an important voice in public discourse, he's just too pessimistic and dismissive of the possibility for fulfilmment of the American potential for good for my liking.

Chris Nash wrote: So, basically you're stuck in both nominations and in a Presidential election with 'The Lesser Of Two Evils'?

Yes...

Chris Nash wrote: So abstensionism is the only third option?

A large percentage of the voting population "abstains" every election. Some cunt still always wins.

I suppose if there was an embarrassingly large "abstention," the winning candidate might be less emboldened to push through a particular agenda. On the other hand, Bush called his razor thin margin of victory a "mandate."

There is always the possibility of a third candidate. New York Mayor Bloomberg has toyed with the idea of running as an independent for this election, but has apparently abandoned the idea. And Ralph Nader is running again, despite there being no chance he will win.

Chris Nash wrote: Do your candidates or their representatives have to see all 'spoiled' ballot papers as they do in the UK?

Dunno.

I agree with the ideas on Obama and Clinton that have been talked about. But there seems to be a closed mindness to McCain. He has his issues, but 'more of the same ' is far from it.

McCain is really not liked in the Republican circle. He is consideed too 'left-leaning'. The only reason he's been given considerable thought is because of the nations leaning against Bush (i.e. the Republican Party). He's the closest it comes to an indepedent that could possibly win the election.

I think his main two problems are his age, which has shown to keep him less then astute and he isn't the best politician (persuading people to feel all warm and fuzzy inside).

So basically:

Obama - scares me if he became President. Really bad policies, and don't trust his ability to lead a nation.

Clinton - Hate her policies, but trust she could lead the country

McCain - Like his policies, but hesitant on his ability to lead the populace.

EdelBrock wrote: Obama - scares me if he became President. Really bad policies, and don't trust his ability to lead a nation.

Clinton - Hate her policies, but trust she could lead the country

McCain - Like his policies, but hesitant on his ability to lead the populace.

I have a somewhat different take (of course ;) ):

Obama- Good policies, and he's the only candidate on the Democratic side who is promising to end the divisive politics of the past-- i.e., to be a President for all the American people.

Clinton- Good policies, but she's promising to continue the divisive politics of the past. i.e., she can't be a President for all the American people.

McCain- I don't think his age is an issue at all, but his policies are too little, too late for the problems confronting America today. Most troubling is his promise to further tilt the Supreme Court to the right. He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Or Obama for that matter... he is deeply entrenched in the Democratic party, not ever 'going across the aisle'. Clinton has gone across the aisle much more than Obama has.

The one thing that scares me is how people blindly follow him. He talks about 'change', but it goes as far as that. What "change" is he going to exactly do? Its rhetoric that people are clinging to, because everyone wants things to change in Washington... but what change will he bring? He never clarifies this, because it is a false hope. Washington is a slow moving animal, and always will be. He is not a great unifier, look at his voting record. He's a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He's a great orator, nothing more.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Don't forget, McCain is also not quick to play the religion card...he keeps his faith to himself...oh...and he also pisses off the evangelicals because he supports stem cell research...

what a fucking loon...

the only thing that genuinely concerns me about McCain is his age...so an acceptable alternative for everyone in the States is to hope for a McCain-Rice Republican ticket...that way, when McCain kicks the bucket, Condoleezza will be sworn in, and the States will get it's first black and it's first female president in one nicely gift wrapped package...

Of course, I'm probably just an ignorant, racist whitey who is afraid of Obama...

Right wing is still right wing, regardless of the person's race and gender. Of course, people are free to vote for right wing agendas if they choose, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that the agenda is somehow different if the person pushing the agenda isn't a white male.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Or Obama for that matter... he is deeply entrenched in the Democratic party, not ever 'going across the aisle'. Clinton has gone across the aisle much more than Obama has.

Which candidate has made, as a centerpiece of his campaign, a promise to work with both sides of the aisle in order to address the issues facing America today?

EdelBrock wrote: The one thing that scares me is how people blindly follow him. He talks about 'change', but it goes as far as that. What "change" is he going to exactly do?

He's told you, you've just got to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

(1) He's going to end the divisive politics of the past. That's change. Don't think he can do it? Which Democratic candidate is talking about the issues, and which candidate is going negative on the non-issues? He's already demonstrated his commitment to a change from the divisive politics of the past in this primary, and there's no reason to believe he won't keep that commitment once he's in the White House.

(2) His policy proposals are a distinct break from the Bush administration policies. That's change too.

EdelBrock wrote: Its rhetoric that people are clinging to, because everyone wants things to change in Washington... but what change will he bring? He never clarifies this, because it is a false hope.

See above.

Comrade,

I had more respect for you than this. The post above this goes off about right-wing agenda... as if there isn't a left-wing agenda. Both sides have agendas... such is politics

(1) ooooohhh, he said he would reach across the aisle... never heard a politician use that phrase before... 'cause all those dirty, old politicians talk about how they refuse to work with the other party. check his record, he doesn't and hasn't... can't teach an old dog new tricks... its called rhetoric

(2) What issues has he REALLY discussed? Have you watched any of the debates? He rides on the coattails of Clinton's ideas, then only adds he would induce 'change'.

You didn't answer the question though. EXACTLY what will he change in Washington? How does he plan on going about doing it? He hasn't said anything of any real substance to answer these two questions. You answered as vaguely as he speaks, because that's all there is.

(3) Of course his policies are a distinct break from Bush's.... he'a Democrat and not Republican (surprise, surprise, the two parties have different policies! )

Come on Comrade, you're better than to be seduced by a smooth talker like Obama... or did he get you in bed and now yer madly in love with him?

EdelBrock wrote: Comrade,

I had more respect for you than this. The post above this goes off about right-wing agenda... as if there isn't a left-wing agenda. Both sides have agendas... such is politics

Of course there's a left-wing agenda; who said there wasn't?

(Although in the interest of accuracy, the Democrats usually present a center-right agenda, and at most, present a centrist agenda. And in fact, every Republican candidate and every Democratic candidate (with the exception of Kucinich) is to the right of center.)

The point of my comment, however, is not that the Republicans have an agenda; it's that if one disagrees with the right-wing policies of Bush, Cheney, et al, then one will not be getting a different set of policies, centrist or left-wing, simply because the candidate is an African-American woman. Condoleeza Rice is every bit as right-wing as Bush and Cheney, although she is boatloads smarter than her boss...but then, who isn't?

Therefore, if one is inclined to vote for Condoleeza Rice, one may as well also be inclined to vote for Dick Cheney or any of the other right-wing demagogues in the Bush Administration; the policies will be virtually the same, regardless of the race or gender of the candidate.

EdelBrock wrote: (1) ooooohhh, he said he would reach across the aisle... never heard a politician use that phrase before... 'cause all those dirty, old politicians talk about how they refuse to work with the other party. check his record, he doesn't and hasn't... can't teach an old dog new tricks... its called rhetoric

I think you must have confused him with your blue-blood good ol' boy W, who has gone back on virtually every promise he ever made about working with the other side of the aisle. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't gone back on his promise...yet. Now if you want to call him a liar on that score, fine, but you could at least wait until he's broken his promise.

There’s another aspect to his talk of “change” that relates to this, but which hasn’t been raised here—Obama has made a commitment to avoid the politics of the past, in which personal attacks and political game-playing substitute for discussion of the issues. Avoiding the petty politics and focusing on the issues will allow Obama to work with the other side of the aisle in addressing the issues facing this country.

EdelBrock wrote: 2) What issues has he REALLY discussed? Have you watched any of the debates? He rides on the coattails of Clinton's ideas, then only adds he would induce 'change'.

What issues? The economy, Iraq, global warming, health care... What issues hasn't he discussed? Or for that matter, what issues did Clinton discuss in the Pennsylvania debate? Aside from Obama's comments about blue-collar voters…(and incidentally, the Wellesley graduate and Yale-educated lawyer who’s throwing around charges of “elitism” has some explaining of her own to do, regarding her “screw ‘em” comments—something that Obama has not made an issue in this campaign, despite Hillary’s now-backfiring efforts to slam Obama for his comment).

Did you even read what he had to say the day after Pennsylvania?

EdelBrock wrote: You didn't answer the question though. EXACTLY what will he change in Washington? How does he plan on going about doing it? He hasn't said anything of any real substance to answer these two questions. You answered as vaguely as he speaks, because that's all there is.

Jesus.

He’s been pretty clear about what his policies are. You can go to his website if you don’t know what he’s proposing, or you can google any particular issue and Obama to see what his policies are. What do you want him to do? Write you a personal letter explaining what he proposes to do?

As far as changing the political environment in Washington, he’s been crystal clear about that as well—focus on the issues facing the country, work on those issues with both sides of the aisle, avoid the petty politics that focus on non-issues in order to divert attention from the real issues.

What more do you want from him?

Now let me ask you a question: EXACTLY how will John McCain "talk straight"?

Don't bust an artery trying to figure out why that's not vague on substance...

EdelBrock wrote: (3) Of course his policies are a distinct break from Bush's.... he'a Democrat and not Republican (surprise, surprise, the two parties have different policies! )

So you do agree then that he will bring change? Despite your professing that you don’t know what he means?

EdelBrock wrote: Come on Comrade, you're better than to be seduced by a smooth talker like Obama... or did he get you in bed and now yer madly in love with him?

Well, he is kinda hot….

From abroad, it seems that the next president will be Obama or Clinton... Just like if it was already the regular conservative/liberal final duel...

Who's MacCain? Seems that the conservatives had elected this man in order to lose.

You can say what you want upon Obama and Clinton. What I predict is that they will be in troubles as soon as they will be at the White House. It is nice to have a program... Problem is to manage W legacy... It will be very difficult for them to apply their programs in such conditions... And it will be easier for the conservatives to come back four years later...

Yep.

The bill for W's mismanagement comes due after he leaves office. Maybe he's not the complete and utter fucktard everybody thinks he is, after all.