Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

The Obama Presidency and US politics in general

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> The Obama Presidency and US politics in general Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Obama Presidency and US politics in general - 21/1/2007 11:41:21 PM   
Barefoot Doctor


Posts: 1535
Joined: 30/9/2005
I thought it was time for an all-encompassing thread about the U.S election to cover all the news.
 
Here's the announced candidates so far.
 
The following Democrats have either announced their candidacy or have formed Presidential Exploratory Committee's:
 
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Tom Vilsack
Joe Biden
Dennis Kucinich
Chris Dodd
 
Al Gore, Wesley Clark and John Kerry are all high-profile Democrats who could also seek the nomination.
 
The following Republicans have either announced their candidacy or have formed Presidential Exploratory Committee's:
 
John McCain
Rudolph Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Sam Brownback
Jim Gilmore
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
 
Other names who haven't made their intentions clear: Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki. Both Condoleeza Rice and Jeb Bush have said they won't seek the nomination but are popular within the party.
 
And then you have the possibility of Michael Bloomberg (current New York mayor) running as an Independent candidate.
 
We're a huge 51 weeks away from the first primary (Iowa, Democratic) but the campaign has already begun.

Who will win the primaries? Who will win the general? Who do you want to win?
 
Personally I'm interested in Gore and Edwards. Obama may be the big hit just now but it feels like he has too little experience. Bill Richardson could be a solid choice and his experience is outstanding - Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the U.N and Secretary of Energy.

< Message edited by Barefoot Doctor -- 24/7/2009 6:11:07 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 12:03:04 AM   
LB Jeffries


Posts: 3465
Joined: 2/10/2005
Great thread, Barefoot. We did have one about 6 months ago but it wasn't too informed - I think Jack Bauer ended up being our choice!
I've already stated elsewhere that John Edwards is my chosen candidate given that I don't feel Gore will run. I'm off now to watch the Colts v the Pats in the AFC Championship game so I can't really be bothered to spell out my reasons again right now so I'll just paste my previous in from the West Wing thread.

quote:

John Edwards has an amazing chance thanks to the way the Democrat Primaries have been arranged this time out.
The Iowa Caucus is first and in early polling Edwards is ahead of Obama (27-17) and Clinton (27-16) despite their higher profiles, although the outside challenge will come from Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack who may sneak a second in his home state. Edwards has done a huge amount of groundwork in the state over the past couple of years and he will be there or thereabouts.
Then they head to Nevada for it's Caucus where Clinton really suffers at the hands of not just Edwards and Obama but from another contender - New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Then it's up to New Hampshire where Clinton will do well but Obama's star-status in the north-east will mean he takes victory there with Edwards pushing Clinton for second place.
The last of the opening four elections takes place in South Carolina. Again, Clinton should suffer there at the hands of Edwards and Obama. South Carolina being the state Edwards was born in (he still has a strong southern lilt to his voice) and North Carolina the state he was elected Senator to. It's hard to say who will win there out of Edwards and Obama, a lot may depend on the black vote, but I would plump for Edwards. My gut feeling about the results of the opening Primaries are:

Iowa: 1.Edwards 2.Obama 3.Clinton/Vilsack
Nevada: 1.Edwards 2.Richardson 3.Obama/Clinton
New Hampshire: 1.Obama 2.Clinton 3.Edwards
South Carolina: 1.Edwards 2.Obama 3.Clinton

I can't see Clinton winning any of the opening four which will seriously dent her bid and hand momentum (and money) to the Edwards and Obama campaigns. My personal choice would be Gore/Edwards but I can't see Al running. Edwards would be my second choice but I think Obama will get the nomination and will name Edwards as his VP. If Edwards wins it I think he will pick Obama. Either way I can't see any of the Republican candidates beating them. Hopefully.

One final thought - I can't help but fall in love with the Edwards campaign when you hear his campaign slogan: John Edwards 08 - Tomorrow begins today.

http://johnedwards.com/


_____________________________

“When he shall die, take him and cut him out in little stars and he will make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

(in reply to Barefoot Doctor)
Post #: 2
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 12:17:11 AM   
matthewforan


Posts: 21051
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My Hometown
Well so far it's all the members of the West Wing staff. I've read a lot of rumours that Obama will be asked to be VP by most of the other candidates, which really puts him in front for the next election.

_____________________________

"The Irish have always been victims of negative stereotyping. I mean people think we're all drunks and brawlers. And sometimes that gets you so mad all you wanna do is get drunk and punch somebody"

Clear Eyes Full Hearts Can't Lose

Punchdrunk RIP


(in reply to LB Jeffries)
Post #: 3
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:15:31 AM   
Barefoot Doctor


Posts: 1535
Joined: 30/9/2005
I feel like I don't know what any of these candidates stand for. Sure they all have general platforms but do they have any substantive policies?
 
LB, do you live in America? I'd be pretty excited if I did due to the grassroots aspect surrounding the election, it'd be great to get involved. Not a lot we can do from over here though!

(in reply to matthewforan)
Post #: 4
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:33:59 AM   
LB Jeffries


Posts: 3465
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barefoot Doctor

I feel like I don't know what any of these candidates stand for. Sure they all have general platforms but do they have any substantive policies?
 
LB, do you live in America? I'd be pretty excited if I did due to the grassroots aspect surrounding the election, it'd be great to get involved. Not a lot we can do from over here though!


Ha ha, that made me laugh. No, I'm up in snowy Sunderland!
Although, did you know that Washington (a district in Sunderland) is the ancestral home of George Washington! How's that for a tie in to this thread!!

You're right about feeling like you don't know the candidates very well - we are about 450 days away from knowing who the nominees will be never mind who the next President will be so there's plenty of time to learn more about them. The grassroots aspect is what swept the Dems back into control in November and will hold them in good stead over the coming 18 months. Edwards is probably the best positioned candidate to take advantage of that. Being out of Washington for the last 2 years has really helped him re-connect to the people at ground level in the party - one of the reasons he is beating both Clinton and Obama in early Iowa polling.

_____________________________

“When he shall die, take him and cut him out in little stars and he will make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

(in reply to Barefoot Doctor)
Post #: 5
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 12:35:22 PM   
Up With People


Posts: 163
Joined: 3/10/2005
Edwards links to Big 'Law', (He was a personnal injury lawyer himself, and most of his major backers made his money the same way) will hurt him.
It's really to early to say but Obama and Clinton both look very strong. Clinton carries a lot of weight with fundraisers and within the Party. Plus her warchest is already massive. Money counts.
Obama has the rock star thing going on. If he's smart he can make his lack of experience an advantage. Approval ratings for the last congress was in the teens, he paints himself as washington stranger he could be on to a winner.

For the Pubbies, Romney is self destructing, he wanted the support of the religous right but his previous softness on homosexuality and mormonism will leave hime nowhere. Brownback will probably end up being their voice. McCain I think will be hampered by Iraq and his age. Guillani would be very tough to beat in the national, but may not make it through the primaires because of his Pro-gay, Pro-choice positions. Also he is a little unstable.

As I say it's wide open and at this point we're really just pissing in the wind.

I'd like Obama to get it though.

(in reply to LB Jeffries)
Post #: 6
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 12:53:22 PM   
Woger


Posts: 3814
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People

Edwards links to Big 'Law', (He was a personnal injury lawyer himself, and most of his major backers made his money the same way) will hurt him.
It's really to early to say but Obama and Clinton both look very strong. Clinton carries a lot of weight with fundraisers and within the Party. Plus her warchest is already massive. Money counts.
Obama has the rock star thing going on. If he's smart he can make his lack of experience an advantage. Approval ratings for the last congress was in the teens, he paints himself as washington stranger he could be on to a winner.

For the Pubbies, Romney is self destructing, he wanted the support of the religous right but his previous softness on homosexuality and mormonism will leave hime nowhere. Brownback will probably end up being their voice. McCain I think will be hampered by Iraq and his age. Guillani would be very tough to beat in the national, but may not make it through the primaires because of his Pro-gay, Pro-choice positions. Also he is a little unstable.

As I say it's wide open and at this point we're really just pissing in the wind.

I'd like Obama to get it though.


Thats the saddest thing about the whole thing. Wait until the media latches on to Hillary, there will be some shit slung at her. As some have said Obama is bit too experienced. personall I like Howard Dean but he's seen as a loony.
McCain done a bit of pandering to the evangelicals a while back which put me of him a bit. Also isn't there a resolution coming up for the extra troops in which there is expected to be some Republican opposition to, alot could change in terms of anti war sentiment within the Republican party in the next year.
If anyone has NTL there a show called the McLaughlin group on CNBC (I think) which can be intersting at time to see some issues we might not hear about over here.

< Message edited by Woger -- 22/1/2007 1:26:22 PM >


_____________________________

Eddie: "Weve been burgaled"
Richie: You may have been, but I have never in my life. As a christian I am so tightly clenched, oh you mean burgaled
- - -
There were originally five horsemen of the apocalypse. Jack Bauer said he would travel by foot

(in reply to Up With People)
Post #: 7
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 12:55:57 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Up With People)
Post #: 8
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:28:35 PM   
Woger


Posts: 3814
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!


Obama wasn't around to vote I think, so I suppsoe he can say he didn't support the war, unlike the other spinless tools.

_____________________________

Eddie: "Weve been burgaled"
Richie: You may have been, but I have never in my life. As a christian I am so tightly clenched, oh you mean burgaled
- - -
There were originally five horsemen of the apocalypse. Jack Bauer said he would travel by foot

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 9
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:49:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Yes, sorry i wasnt clear on that. You are correct.  He wasnt there to vote against the war but he has stated since then that he doesn't support it and will not support any escalation - which you still don't see folk like Clinton saying.



_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Woger)
Post #: 10
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:50:30 PM   
LB Jeffries


Posts: 3465
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!


Obama wasn't around to vote I think, so I suppsoe he can say he didn't support the war, unlike the other spinless tools.


Your right he wasn't around to vote as he didn't become a Senator until 2004. But he was a State Senator in Illinois when the war started and he spoke out against it on the record:

quote:

Obama Speaks Out Against War - Oct. 2002
I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.



Could you honestly see Hillary Clinton giving a speech like that?

_____________________________

“When he shall die, take him and cut him out in little stars and he will make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

(in reply to Woger)
Post #: 11
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 1:59:19 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Damn -  that speech was five years ago, that same speech could be made now and still be spot on. He could turn out to be a total failure but so far he has convinced me that he is the guy Amercia needs.

Funny as well that all the media seems to be able to dig up on him is that he smokes, has a middle name of Hussian and has a second name that kinda sounds like Osama.



_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to LB Jeffries)
Post #: 12
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 2:03:22 PM   
Woger


Posts: 3814
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: LB Jeffries

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!


Obama wasn't around to vote I think, so I suppsoe he can say he didn't support the war, unlike the other spinless tools.


Your right he wasn't around to vote as he didn't become a Senator until 2004. But he was a State Senator in Illinois when the war started and he spoke out against it on the record:

quote:

Obama Speaks Out Against War - Oct. 2002
I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.



Could you honestly see Hillary Clinton giving a speech like that?


Good speech, she wouldn't even come up with that now.

_____________________________

Eddie: "Weve been burgaled"
Richie: You may have been, but I have never in my life. As a christian I am so tightly clenched, oh you mean burgaled
- - -
There were originally five horsemen of the apocalypse. Jack Bauer said he would travel by foot

(in reply to LB Jeffries)
Post #: 13
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 2:46:30 PM   
Vertigo...Woo.Yay.


Posts: 1111
Joined: 30/9/2005
There's a weird sense that Hilary is putting herself ut there almost to draw fire for another candidate. To announce at this stage leaves her wide open to what I'm assuming will be a barrage of horrifically scurrilous stories that will make John Kerry's Swiftboating look like a walk in the park.

Kerry will never get the nom again - his refusal to rebutt the lies hurled at him showed an inherent weakness. He should have called them out on it but instead somehow the decorated 'Nam serving officer became painted as the coward, while the draft dodging incumbent stayed the patriot.

Wesley Clark? Nah. I was rooting for him last time, but he's not got the charisma needed for the task. He's solid but in no way inspirational to grab back the democratic floaters.

John Edwards maybe. There's just something a bit bland about him which makes me go 'meh...'

Barack Obama would be great, and has charisma by the bucket, and I think it could well be him with Hilary as Veep, if she is drawing fire for him at the moment.

Best case scenario for a campaign based on issues and not mudslinging I reckon would be Obama/Clinton vs Guilliani/McCain. Don't know how that breaks down in the North/South ticket, but it's be a race worth watching. The republicans are beginning to tire of the neo-con agenda now, and I think the next Republican candidate will be someone who moves towards the centre.

(in reply to Woger)
Post #: 14
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:09:04 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10881
Joined: 30/9/2005
Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Vertigo...Woo.Yay.)
Post #: 15
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:18:03 PM   
Up With People


Posts: 163
Joined: 3/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 16
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:19:02 PM   
Vertigo...Woo.Yay.


Posts: 1111
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...

_____________________________

"Things are going to get pretty interesting..."
"Define 'interesting'"
"Oh God, Oh God, we're all gonna die?"

If only we could harness Otis Ferry for good...
All hail Hypnotoad

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 17
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:32:42 PM   
lbiu


Posts: 2779
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...


Fox News are hilarious.....they have done it sooo many times it's become a joke.
Personally I need to hear a little more about each candidate before I start a rooting team.

_____________________________

My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to Vertigo...Woo.Yay.)
Post #: 18
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:36:18 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10881
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People


quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?


Please don't turn the meaning of my post, especially to something as serious as racism. This is simply the state of affairs in America. There is nothing racist or stupid with wanting to vote in Mr. Joe America. A lot of people want to keep tradition and do not handle change easily. I doubt we're going to see a similar name being voted as Prime Minister or Taoiseach any time soon either.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Up With People)
Post #: 19
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:36:31 PM   
Barefoot Doctor


Posts: 1535
Joined: 30/9/2005
Perhaps worse than the Fox News gaffe is CNN, who had 'accidentally' titled a story 'Where's Obama' when discussing Bin Laden.

(in reply to lbiu)
Post #: 20
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 3:44:20 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...


No serious journalist would ever make that mistake - but then again when have FOX ever been accused of serious journalism

(in reply to Vertigo...Woo.Yay.)
Post #: 21
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 5:38:12 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18136
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: lbiu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...


Fox News are hilarious.....they have done it sooo many times it's become a joke.
Personally I need to hear a little more about each candidate before I start a rooting team.


Fucks News did that?  Not very professional of them is it.

Obama may be hindered by his promise of a independent office of public integrity which would hinder the nice little lobbying "gifts" etc in the US legislature.  This may lose him some support.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to lbiu)
Post #: 22
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 6:49:06 PM   
mfj fratelli


Posts: 2436
Joined: 14/6/2006
From: The International Brotherhood of Stevedores
It's interesting that you guys show more enthusiasm about US elections than most Americans do. I wish I had that much passion for UK elections. Unfortunately, I'm an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

Just out of curiosity, did most of you show this much enthusiasm before Bush was elected? Or have you always had an interest in the Geo-Political affairs of the US of A!  

_____________________________

The Wire is surely the best TV show ever broadcast in America. This claim isn't based on my having seen all the possible rivals for the title, but on the premise that no other program has ever done anything remotely like what this one does, namely to portray the social, political, and economic life of an American city with the scope, observational precision, and moral vision of great literature.

The Wire has never won an emmy? [It] deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature!

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 23
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 6:55:42 PM   
LB Jeffries


Posts: 3465
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: mfj fratelli

It's interesting that you guys show more enthusiasm about US elections than most Americans do. I wish I had that much passion for UK elections. Unfortunately, I'm an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

Just out of curiosity, did most of you show this much enthusiasm before Bush was elected? Or have you always had an interest in the Geo-Political affairs of the US of A!  


I definately became interested in US politics because of the 2000 election. My infatuation with The West Wing started at around the same time which also influenced me.

_____________________________

“When he shall die, take him and cut him out in little stars and he will make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

(in reply to mfj fratelli)
Post #: 24
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 9:44:27 PM   
Mycroft


Posts: 2586
Joined: 30/9/2005
It's just one massive crazy power game to play along with, sheer madness trying to influence people throughout such a huge and varied country, one giant soap opera of non-issues and mudslinging.

And don't worry, no-one has passion for UK elections 

(in reply to mfj fratelli)
Post #: 25
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 10:12:00 PM   
lbiu


Posts: 2779
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mycroft

It's just one massive crazy power game to play along with, sheer madness trying to influence people throughout such a huge and varied country, one giant soap opera of non-issues and mudslinging.

And don't worry, no-one has passion for UK elections 


Yeah no one has passion for the UK elections because choosing between Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is like choosing whether you want to be infected with HIV, Inoperable Cancer or Alzheimer's

_____________________________

My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to Mycroft)
Post #: 26
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 22/1/2007 11:26:56 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5997
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin
The smart money for the Dem nomination would be Hilary with Obama on the ticket as VP. It should ensure a strong turn out in both the Black & Female vote. Also Obama's involvement would lead Clinton away from the centre a little which should also lessen the effect that her inevitable drift away from the left has hurt her with grassroots Dem's. The fact that Obama has little experience wont (I believe) have too great an impact as I think the fact that due to circumstance he has always held a consistent position on Iraq (namely he wasn't in congress at the time !) and also many voters believe-wrongly- that the VP job is not to important.

As for the Republicans, if anyone was to get the nomination I would like to see it being McCain. He is about the only candidate that I have any respect for. Many people talk about Rudy but ask most New Yorkers--they hated him !....He had the image of trying to Mico-manage NYC and seemed to subsequently (and correctly) get a large bump for his handling of 9/11 in terms of being in the public eye.

The saddest part is that the difference between Rep's and Dem's is smaller than ever--They cant fix medicare, they cant fix Social Security and neither party will have an acceptable exit stragey for Iraq namely because going there was ill-conceived and badly planned in the first place.

_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to lbiu)
Post #: 27
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 24/1/2007 1:59:02 PM   
Ti


Posts: 465
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The Home of the Land
quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People


quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.


Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?


Please don't turn the meaning of my post, especially to something as serious as racism. This is simply the state of affairs in America. There is nothing racist or stupid with wanting to vote in Mr. Joe America. A lot of people want to keep tradition and do not handle change easily. I doubt we're going to see a similar name being voted as Prime Minister or Taoiseach any time soon either.


Don't forget that his middle name is ... Hussein!!!  That's right, Barack Hussein Obama, as Rush Limbaugh likes to remind his listeners. And the latest crap they came up with is that Obama went to a muslim school...

Republicans are full of crap, lies and poison!

_____________________________

It's true, I'm a rageoholic! I just can't get enough RAGEOHOL!

My books

My Blu-ray collection

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 28
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 24/1/2007 4:26:04 PM   
Base


Posts: 4372
Joined: 30/3/2006
From: Surrey, UK
The last UK election that seemed to generate any real enthusiasm was when Blair was first elected.  But he's only turned out to be Bush's spineless bitch, and his competition has been rather pitiful so no one really gives a shit.

Bush on the other hand got everyone's attention with his first election "win" and then did enough to go down in history as one of the biggest fuck ups ever, so everyone watched to see him fall.  Still watching and hoping...

So yeah, the US elections are more interesting, but clearly fucked up

_____________________________

I am making a mental list of those who are snickering, and even as I speak I'm preparing appropriate retribution...!

(in reply to Ti)
Post #: 29
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 24/1/2007 8:30:21 PM   
Barefoot Doctor


Posts: 1535
Joined: 30/9/2005
Well, that's one down! John Kerry has said he won't seek the nomination in 2008. That really just leaves Gore and Clark as the two big guns who haven't announced.

(in reply to Base)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> The Obama Presidency and US politics in general Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188