Obama - Useless

Comrade,

You still have bounced around the questions. Obama has a website and has his policies in it, sure. However, at any debate he does not discuss his policies, even if asked point blank about them. He talks around each question. He isn't getting reputation for this in the news out of thin air, there is substance to it.

Clinton might be doing 'attack' politics, but Obama has his own way of attacking Clinton in a very passive and sneaky way. In 8 debates I have watched, he allowed Clinton to answer questions first, to which he agreed to her well developed answers to the questions. He would then say that his ideas were a little bit different (but would not explain how) and talk how he will bring about change (in every question). He is allowing for Clinton to take the fall if the public doesn't like any of the policy, so he can change his and come out clean. Not really good sportsman-like conduct.

The funny thing is that every candidate talks how they will reach across the aisle and change politics... which politician hasn't? He can't do that if he has always voted die-hard left-wing... unless he thinks he can convert all the right-wingers to vote opposite of thier entire careers (which isn't going to happen). He won't change anything in Washington, its all lip service. He has yet to describe, in detail, a plan to which he is refering to. And changing policy because he's Democrat isn't the change he is talking about... if so, Clinton would be just as good for the change.

Here's a question. Just how long would Obama live if he became endorsed or even the president?

This is not having a go at the man, far from. I'm interested in how accepting the USA is with the idea of a black man at the helm.

Yes I know there are large areas of enlightenment in in America, but there's that bit in the middle and especially in the South that has me worried.

Then there's the main reality of politics of putting up a candidate for whom people actually want to vote for. For much the same reason.

What are the general opinion polls saying about him? It is not good enough just to win San Francisco, New York and Chicago voters. What do the votes of Louisiana, Texas and Florida think of having a man of colour as the CiC?

Again let me state clearly I am not a racist and colour should not matter in this day and age, well should it ever have, but it clearly is an issue still for many people.

EdelBrock wrote: Comrade,

You still have bounced around the questions.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...

Or was it rope-a-dope?

EdelBrock wrote: Obama has a website and has his policies in it, sure. However, at any debate he does not discuss his policies, even if asked point blank about them. He talks around each question. He isn't getting reputation for this in the news out of thin air, there is substance to it.

I haven't watched the debates, but I have read the news here and there, and there's no mystery at all about what he's proposing to do if elected. In fact, Robert Reich, Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, just endorsed Obama, noting that “Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama’s strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.”

If Robert Reich, a longtime Clinton associate, can compare the Clinton and Obama policy proposals, and decide that Obama's policy proposals are better, then there must be something more to Obama's campaign than the vague and unsubstantive "rhetoric" you've accused him of.

Which brings us to McCain. You complain that Obama talks about change, and yet you haven't answered my question: EXACTLY how will McCain "talk straight"? That is, after all, the theme of his campaign-- the "Straight Talk Express." Is McCain, then, spouting nothing more than vague and unsubstantive fluff? Or is there more to his campaign than "the straight-talk express"?

NOOLigan wrote: Here's a question. Just how long would Obama live if he became endorsed or even the president?

This is not having a go at the man, far from. I'm interested in how accepting the USA is with the idea of a black man at the helm.

Yes I know there are large areas of enlightenment in in America, but there's that bit in the middle and especially in the South that has me worried.

Then there's the main reality of politics of putting up a candidate for whom people actually want to vote for. For much the same reason.

What are the general opinion polls saying about him? It is not good enough just to win San Francisco, New York and Chicago voters. What do the votes of Louisiana, Texas and Florida think of having a man of colour as the CiC?

Again let me state clearly I am not a racist and colour should not matter in this day and age, well should it ever have, but it clearly is an issue still for many people.

I think there are some barely whispered concerns for his safety. On the other hand, he does have Secret Service protection. You never know, though...all it takes is one nut with a gun.

The states aren't really divided neatly into red and blue states. Often, they're shades of purple:

And while geographically they seem to be overwhelmingly red, when they are weighted for population, there are large blue areas, even in red states like Texas and Florida:

In "red states" like Texas and Florida, those large blue areas are often largely populated by people of color, so I think they'd be just fine with one of their own in high office. ;)

And don't forget, the Democrats won Florida in 2000. ;)

Of course, the real question you're asking is whether white conservative voters will accept an African-American Commander in Chief. I think that's a possibility, although for EdelBrock, he'd obviously rather it be Colin Powell or Condi Rice than Barack Obama. And maybe that's how it will happen: If Obama fails, it may take a Colin Powell or Condi Rice to win the acceptance of white conservatives. There is that saying "Only Nixon could go to China," meaning it took a cold warrior to normalize relations with Communist China, just as it took a Democrat to put an end to welfare. So maybe it will take a conservative Republican to break the color and/or gender barrier.

But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: [But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Maybe some day like this?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: [But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Maybe some day like this?

Exactly!

Obama, McClain, Clinton... all three are better than Bush, Kerry, and Gore

As I have stated earlier, this is the Dems best chance in years and they seem to be doing their best to stuff it up. You would never see attack ads between two candidates of the same party here. They'd get expelled.

To win elections you need candidates with a broad appeal. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter that the Dems think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, well going by the evidence even they don't think that (ok same goes for Hilldog), What matters is what Joe Sixpack and Brandine think of him.

Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of these Primaries. Just get it over with already.

I shan't say anymore on this, at least for a while. Now it's back to my floors and then the bathroom. :dead:

NOOLigan wrote: Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Anything can happen between now and November. Clinton has been relentless in tearing down his candidacy, even though her chance of winning the nomination is virtually nil. Her attacks have wounded him to some degree, and if he does win the nomination, the Republican smear machine will kick into full gear to capitalize on what Hillary has begun.

On the other hand, by the time the general election campaign begins, she may well have inoculated him against the worst of the Republican smear machine-- after all, how many times do people want to hear about Obama's former pastor between now and November? How many times do they want to hear about his lack of a flag lapel pin? How many times do they want to hear about his low bowling score? It may be that by getting all of that garbage out of the way now, we can have a campaign that focuses on, oh, I don't know, the issues?

So, yes, it's possible he can be defeated, but I do think he has more of a chance to win over conservative Democrats and independent voters than Hillary does. She's just too polarizing. Obama isn't.

There is so much time between now and November, though, that it's anybody's guess what will happen. How long will Hillary continue her unwinnable campaign? And what is her goal-- to win the nomination this year, or to destroy Obama now so she can run in 2012? What does the Republican smear machine have waiting in the wings? And how will the attempts to create doubts about Obama work with the voters? Will the voters vote the issues, or will they be swayed by negative campaigning-- or worse, by whatever prejudices they may secretly harbor? Right now, it's anybody's guess.

Who will get this guy's vote...?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Anything can happen between now and November. Clinton has been relentless in tearing down his candidacy, even though her chance of winning the nomination is virtually nil. Her attacks have wounded him to some degree, and if he does win the nomination, the Republican smear machine will kick into full gear to capitalize on what Hillary has begun.

On the other hand, by the time the general election campaign begins, she may well have inoculated him against the worst of the Republican smear machine-- after all, how many times do people want to hear about Obama's former pastor between now and November? How many times do they want to hear about his lack of a flag lapel pin? How many times do they want to hear about his low bowling score? It may be that by getting all of that garbage out of the way now, we can have a campaign that focuses on, oh, I don't know, the issues?

So, yes, it's possible he can be defeated, but I do think he has more of a chance to win over conservative Democrats and independent voters than Hillary does. She's just too polarizing. Obama isn't.

There is so much time between now and November, though, that it's anybody's guess what will happen. How long will Hillary continue her unwinnable campaign? And what is her goal-- to win the nomination this year, or to destroy Obama now so she can run in 2012? What does the Republican smear machine have waiting in the wings? And how will the attempts to create doubts about Obama work with the voters? Will the voters vote the issues, or will they be swayed by negative campaigning-- or worse, by whatever prejudices they may secretly harbor? Right now, it's anybody's guess.

While I agree with much said here... the dems have thier smear campaigns as well... both sides have a tendency to fight dirty. McCain, I think won't fight dirty, but he also does have a tendency to shoot from the hip, which at his age might be his downfall. Obama isn't a helpless, truthful guy at the mercy of a political machine... his presentation is different, doesn't mean he is different. He's 100% politician, don't be fooled by his speeches.

Are you seriously going to claim that the Democrats have used anything resembling the Swiftboating smear machine?

Bush even rolled out the smear machine against a fellow Republican-- McCain-- in 2000. The closest analogy to that on the Democratic side is Hillary's "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign, and perhaps her ridiculous"Obama is an elitist" charges.

So maybe, just maybe, McCain won't resort to smear tactics. I think it would be beneath what we know of him-- it's more the modus operandi of Bush, Turd Blossom, and the rest of the chickenhawks in his administration. But even if he doesn't order it, there are plenty of Republicans experienced at running smear campaigns who would be only to glad to do it from the cover of anonymity.

Clinton has already shown her willingness to smear her opponent, so we can assume that if she's the candidate, mudslinging, dirty tricks, and smears will continue to be the order of the day.

On the other hand, if Obama is the candidate, there's no indication whatsoever that Obama would roll out a smear machine, and no indication that other Democrats would do it from the cover of anonymity.

Comrade, when will you realize that both sides do about the same... each does it slightly different... and the first to do this was the great Federalist, Alexander Hamilton; trying to smear Thomas Jefferson anytime he could with his newspapers. Since then, pretty much every politician and party has done smear campaigns.

That doesn't make them right, and I want them to stop, but at the same time I don't think its going to end. Thinking that it is only in one party's camp and not the other is only keeping yer eyes squinted in rose-tinted glasses. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. had Malcolm Little.

What about Clinton today then?

She threatened to obliterate Iran if it launched a nuclear strike against Israel.

That, as the saying goes, is fighting talk :nod;

What the fuck is that all about?

Of COURSE the US, along with the rest of the International community, would react in the strongest manner towards anyone launching a nuclear strike against any other nation.

But going on Good Morning America and BOASTING about it in exchange for a few half-wit votes? I bet they took that really well in Iran. I bet they're working 24 hour shifts down that nuclear weapon factory after that little outburst. Stupid bastard.

Oh goodness me, you're fucked whatever happens, aren't you?

Go with Clinton and start buying canned goods. That's my advice. The fats in the fire folks. We'll be at war again by Christmas.

Cheevers, I thought I posted a lot.

Have we actually taken Comrade on full time now?

i'm completely gobsmacked when people say that in the US any one can become president. name ONE president who wasn't a white male christian!

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

AgentWood wrote: i'm completely gobsmacked when people say that in the US any one can become president. name ONE president who wasn't a white male christian!

erm...Jefferson wasn't a christian...

ummm... yes and no. Jefferson believed (as did many of the Founding Fathers) that God existed and in Jesus' teachings, but did not believe in the divine intervention, miracles, or any of what Cambo descibes as 'hocus pocus'.
So although this is not Christian in thought (which relies heavily on the Bible), they did not denounce God or Jesus' teachings.

The only one without any religious affiliation (Woodsie) is Abraham Lincoln. He was an atheist... not self-proclaimed, but he had no religious beliefs which would make him an atheist.

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

EdelBrock wrote:

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

Jefferson was a Deist.

They've all put the odd rhetorical foot wrong, and at times into the mouth quite badly. BBC World just goes on about who is most popular, I see close to zero on what their policies actually are...

My gut feeling is that McCain will (sadly) win because the democrats will be unable to unify around whatever the final candidate is. They've really stuffed themselves up!

I wouldn't go for Clinton; she can't admit when she's wrong and she is very reactionary.

Still, looks unlikely that McCain will survive 8 years of presidential pressure!

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

Jefferson was a Deist.

yer right, completely forgot about JFK.

And what is yer point about Jefferson? Yes he was a Deist... a person that believes in God and the teaching of Jesus, but not all the miracles and divine interventions...

completely forgot about JFK. oops

i'm telling the pope on you two.

(i tell you what, that's another job that only ever seems to go to white male christians...)

(click for more chinatown fun)

I went to vote in the OMG BIGGGG Primary yesterday. I went at 7 am and there was still a 20 minute wait.

I went back to the polls around 630 bored as fuck to take some pictures and wound up seeing a friend of mine. I waited in line with him for 45 minutes before I was getting bored of that and he was still a good 15 20 a way from voting.

Amazing for a primary day.

geez... the assurtion that he wasn't Christian is only half right. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ, which Jefferson did... just not all the miracles, Trinity and such... so he detached himself from the Protestant churches, but not entirely away from the religon (many books assert that he was Unitarian by belief, which is Christian)... he did write his own version of the New Testament.

In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one "peculiar people", such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any special grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one "peculiar people", such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any special grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

Which is the reason I say 'half-right'. I'm confused on what the disagreement is here

You can't throw all deists in one pool, as it differs heavily on the individual... Jefferson was closer to Unitairism, which is Christian, but did have slightly different ideas...

To say he was NOT Christian at all is a misnomer...

So, seems to me AgentWood's point still stand, with the partial exception of Lincoln (who was rather a long time ago).

Jefferson seems to me was as near to Christian as makes no difference for anyone who isn't themselves sufficiently Christian as to worry about all the subtle doctrinal stuff.

(Unitarians regard Christ as a human being, exemplar and a prophet, but not in any way the Son of God and don't think he 'died for us', right? So Jefferson was slightly less orthodox Christian than even the Unitarians, then?)

Incidentally some survey just showed that 54% of Brits belong to a religion, but only 38% believe in God. So presumably there are Christian atheists out there.