Author
|
Topic: is Obama unstoppable ?
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 27 October 2006 03:22 AM
watch out, Hillary, conventional wisdom changes very quickly: http://www.slate.com/id/2152252/nav/tap1/In the brief time he's been on book tour, Obama has overthrown much of the reigning conventional wisdom about what's likely to happen in the 2008 campaign, how shrewd politicians ought to behave, and what the informal rules of the American system really are. Consider the following statements thought true by the political class in early October but called into question by month's end. 1. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. There was a basis for thinking this until Oct. 18, the day Obama appeared on Oprah. Hillary has raised a formidable amount of money, lined up extensive backing, and has the Democrats' best political thinker for a spouse. Obama's bigger advantage is that the party is actually excited about him and thinks he could win. Based on an unscientific reading of Democratic enthusiasm, Obama, not Hillary, will be the de facto Democratic front-runner the day he declares himself a candidate. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 27 October 2006 08:53 AM
This Obama character would be a Harpocon if he were a Canadian. The fact that he's classified as a liberal in the USA is merely a sad testament to the state of mainstream political discourse in that country. quote: Senator Joe Lieberman faced a decidedly cool audience at a big Democratic dinner at the end of March and got bailed out by his brother senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who told the crowd to haul out their check books and make sure Lieberman gets returned for another term.What kind of a signal is this? Here is Obama, endlessly hailed as the brightest rising star in the Democratic firmament, delivering (at a closely watched political dinner, with Lieberman's primary opponent, Ned Lamont, sitting in the crowd) a ringing endorsement to his "mentor", Lieberman, Bush's closest Democratic ally on the war in Iraq, and overall pretty much a symbol of everything that's been wrong with the Democratic Party for the past twenty years. What a slimy fellow Obama is, as befits a man symbolizing everything that will continue to be wrong with the Democratic Party for the next twenty years. Every time I look up he's doing something disgusting, like distancing himself from his fellow senator Dick Durbin for denouncing the torture center at Guantanamo, or cheerleading the nuke-Iran crowd.
Source
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 October 2006 01:50 PM
WTF?Condescend much?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 27 October 2006 03:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: This Obama character would be a Harpocon if he were a Canadian. The fact that he's classified as a liberal in the USA is merely a sad testament to the state of mainstream political discourse in that country. Source
Not really, if you look at his actual voting record at the state and national levels. The nature of US politics means a person has to navigate the narrow line between principle and funding. He does it better than most, as far as I can tell. His support for Lieberman is unfortunate, but most of his other policies are pretty strong. And his support for Lieberman hardly makes him less desirable than Ms. Clinton, who has done far more.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: Don't forget the opra factor....mindless zombie moms that will vote for him because "Opra told me so!"
That's a tad sexist, don't you think? First of all, while her audience is probably a lot more female than male, lots of men watch it too, I'm sure. Secondly, how is it that moms become "mindless zombies" if they happen to watch Oprah? Is this a comment on unemployed or stay-at-home moms? Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but that hit me the wrong way.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman: The nature of US politics means a person has to navigate the narrow line between principle and funding. He does it better than most, as far as I can tell.
Translation: be prepared to sell out what few principles you may have in exchange for money. quote: His support for Lieberman is unfortunate, but most of his other policies are pretty strong. And his support for Lieberman hardly makes him less desirable than Ms. Clinton, who has done far more.
Mushy generalities. Let's talk specifics.Obama voted for "tort reform", thus making it far harder for people to get redress or compensation. Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. In March Obama voted for the U.S.A PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (unlike ten of his Democratic colleagues). Obama favours the doctrine of pre-emptive war - he supports "surgical strikes" against Iran if it fails to bow to Washington's demand that it cease its alleged nuclear weapons program. Obama has said that in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal. Obama supports the war in Iraq; he just thinks Bush should have gone in there harder to make sure the US got the job done. Obama supports the death penalty for "punishing the most heinous crimes." Obama, Clinton, and 24 other so-called Democrats voted in favour of a Republican bill calling for construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Obama courts the Christian evangelical vote, and frequently injects his own strong religious beliefs into his speeches. He loves to talk about his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Obama voted to close filibuster proceedings that would have attempted to block the appointment of the reactionary, misogynist Judge Alito. Obama is regarded as a "centrist" in the Democratic Party. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ignatieff. Obama favours US military intervention in Sudan. Keynote Reflections
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 27 October 2006 07:10 PM
Written by M. Spector: quote: Obama voted for "tort reform", thus making it far harder for people to get redress or compensation.Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. In March Obama voted for the U.S.A PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (unlike ten of his Democratic colleagues). Obama favours the doctrine of pre-emptive war - he supports "surgical strikes" against Iran if it fails to bow to Washington's demand that it cease its alleged nuclear weapons program. Obama has said that in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal. Obama supports the war in Iraq; he just thinks Bush should have gone in there harder to make sure the US got the job done. Obama supports the death penalty for "punishing the most heinous crimes." Obama, Clinton, and 24 other so-called Democrats voted in favour of a Republican bill calling for construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Obama courts the Christian evangelical vote, and frequently injects his own strong religious beliefs into his speeches. He loves to talk about his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Obama voted to close filibuster proceedings that would have attempted to block the appointment of the reactionary, misogynist Judge Alito. Obama is regarded as a "centrist" in the Democratic Party. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ignatieff. Obama favours US military intervention in Sudan.
Ah yes, the frustrations of an ideological purist. The United States is a different country from Canada. It is as such completely inane to take a left-wing political binary that is very much specific to Canada and apply it to other countries which are distinct economically, sociologically, demographically, militarily and racially. Currently the United States is more right-wing than Canada, since about 1968; whereas it may arguably have been the reverse previously. Personally, I believe context is very important. And in this case the context is that Obama would represent a paradigm shift in the american politial structures. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 28 October 2006 12:28 PM
quote: Personally, I believe context is very important. And in this case the context is that Obama would represent a paradigm shift in the american politial structures.
Hardly. Changing the hue of the package will hardly root out the corruption, cronyism, and bought-and-paid-for "democracy" that is the current state of American affairs. Obama will be (is being) sold as the Next Coming, however. (Note: the phrase "paradigm shift" has been polled amongst a cross-section of registered voters and has shown a steady decline in cultural currency and impact value. Please avoid the phrase and instead use the higher polled "fundamental change" or "dawning of a new era" as we believe this will sell better amongst median voters.) [ 28 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 28 October 2006 12:52 PM
Wanting Bush to win has nothing to do with being "Conservative". In fact, Republican presidents have increased government expenditure in virtually EVERY term of office. This current President has overseen the creation of one of the most expansive and encompassing bureaucracies (The Dept. of Homeland Security) on the planet, has fought for law after law after law which abrogate the basic rights and freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights and has recently been arrogated the right to toss it aside altogether, effectively destroying not only the so-called "checks and balances" written into the Constitution but many of the principles of individual rights derived as far back as the Magna Carta. On top of THAT, this Presidency has overseen one of the most expansive and expensive foreign policy nightmares on record culminating in an act of aggression against another state half-way around the world based on flimsy and flat-out phoney evidence. That's not "conservative" by ANY stretch of the imagination... Growing government, growing spending (along with "low taxes" which means growing debt) and having forgotten one of the great "conservative" warnings from America's past: "do not go abroad in search of monsters to slay lest ye become one" "Conservative". Edmund Burke would puke. It's an effing sales job... Rant over... [ 28 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toby Fourre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13409
|
posted 28 October 2006 01:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD: That's not "conservative" by ANY stretch of the imagination... Growing government, growing spending (along with "low taxes" which means growing debt) and having forgotten one of the great "conservative" warnings from America's past: "do not go abroad in search of monsters to slay lest ye become one""Conservative". Edmund Burke would puke. It's an effing sales job... Rant over...
B.L. Zeebub LLD, your rant is right on target. It is a sales job. The Bushcons and their Harpercon clones are anything but conservative.
From: Death Valley, BC | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 28 October 2006 02:44 PM
B.L. Zeebub LLD wrote: quote: Wanting Bush to win has nothing to do with being "Conservative". In fact, Republican presidents have increased government expenditure in virtually EVERY term of office. This current President has overseen the creation of one of the most expansive and encompassing bureaucracies (The Dept. of Homeland Security) on the planet, has fought for law after law after law which abrogate the basic rights and freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights and has recently been arrogated the right to toss it aside altogether, effectively destroying not only the so-called "checks and balances" written into the Constitution but many of the principles of individual rights derived as far back as the Magna Carta.On top of THAT, this Presidency has overseen one of the most expansive and expensive foreign policy nightmares on record culminating in an act of aggression against another state half-way around the world based on flimsy and flat-out phoney evidence. That's not "conservative" by ANY stretch of the imagination... Growing government, growing spending (along with "low taxes" which means growing debt) and having forgotten one of the great "conservative" warnings from America's past: "do not go abroad in search of monsters to slay lest ye become one" "Conservative". Edmund Burke would puke. It's an effing sales job...
Your rant is correct I think. My apologies for the use of imprecise language. The words "conservative" and "liberal" have lost most of their meaning in North America, and are now simply synonyms for right-wing and left-wing, and in Canada they are synonyms for the party names for a large swath of the population. I'm not sure, but I suspect thirty years ago you might have had conservatives on the left and liberals on the right, you don't really see that much anymore in North America.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 29 October 2006 08:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
That's a tad sexist, don't you think? First of all, while her audience is probably a lot more female than male, lots of men watch it too, I'm sure. Secondly, how is it that moms become "mindless zombies" if they happen to watch Oprah? Is this a comment on unemployed or stay-at-home moms? Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but that hit me the wrong way.
Simple michelle, look at the "Opra book club" even she had to do a climb down because of that A hole that lied about his "experience". It is a hype machine. The cars that Opra gave away was a marketing sceme from GM cost them very little made Opra look like a philanthropist. the whole show is a big ad for any number of companies. It has nothing to do with sexism, I could amend it tomindless zombie parents if you like. But you do realize the term deadbeat dad applies to woman parents too even if they are not the majority. But I suppose that is OK...sheesh don't take everything so personally, so you watch Opra I would imagine you are smart enough not to be one of the sheep. The time that it shows is 4:00 and with time shift many people watch later in the evening, this isn't a crack about stay at home moms, I know a lot of career woman who think Opra and Martha know all and are the best example for females to aspire to. I think there are better role models out there. [ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pinko525
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10361
|
posted 29 October 2006 06:18 PM
What's wrong with the Oprah Book Club? At least she's encouraging reading. To be sure if all the books she recommended sucked her book club wouldn't last too long. The fact that it is still around says a lot.To remove all confusion on the car deal, Oprah did not buy the cars from GM and then give them away. She got GM to give the cars away at their expense. In that sense she is not the philanthropist nor did she try to make herself to appear to be so by saying she bought the cars. She was very clear about who paid for the cars. Oprah is a very accomplished tv personality and an extremely good business women, who gives back alot, cares deeply about humanity and makes no bones about it. She once commented on how often people come to her with suggestions about how she could make more money to which she points out, without being rude, that she's actually been quite good at making money and really does not need much help with that. I guess those people do not read Forbes. Much of the criticism of Oprah is based on the envy and jealousy that rises in certain others because of her fame and financial success.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pinko525
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10361
|
posted 29 October 2006 06:29 PM
quote: Obama voted for "tort reform", thus making it far harder for people to get redress or compensation.Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. In March Obama voted for the U.S.A PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (unlike ten of his Democratic colleagues). Obama favours the doctrine of pre-emptive war - he supports "surgical strikes" against Iran if it fails to bow to Washington's demand that it cease its alleged nuclear weapons program. Obama has said that in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal. Obama supports the war in Iraq; he just thinks Bush should have gone in there harder to make sure the US got the job done. Obama supports the death penalty for "punishing the most heinous crimes." Obama, Clinton, and 24 other so-called Democrats voted in favour of a Republican bill calling for construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Obama courts the Christian evangelical vote, and frequently injects his own strong religious beliefs into his speeches. He loves to talk about his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Obama voted to close filibuster proceedings that would have attempted to block the appointment of the reactionary, misogynist Judge Alito. Obama is regarded as a "centrist" in the Democratic Party. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ignatieff. Obama favours US military intervention in Sudan.
If his policies on taxes and debt are right as well, I could vote for him. Right now the US is in dire need of a President with a very strong Reform agenda and it is not clear Obama has the stuff to be that guy. It's not even clear that he is ready now and wants to be that guy, despite Oprah's cheerleading efforts on that front.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423
|
posted 29 October 2006 07:35 PM
Obama is amazingly articulate, sensible, and appealing. He appears in all ways to be someone who would make a great American president.Which is highly undesireable. Battleship America will export misery, death, and war, regardless of who is at the helm. We need a few more presidents like Bush, who will overextend, overspend, and isolate the US - to the extent it's ability to project war is severely compromised. [ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]
From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 30 October 2006 04:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Pinko525: What's wrong with the Oprah Book Club? At least she's encouraging reading. To be sure if all the books she recommended sucked her book club wouldn't last too long. The fact that it is still around says a lot.To remove all confusion on the car deal, Oprah did not buy the cars from GM and then give them away. She got GM to give the cars away at their expense. In that sense she is not the philanthropist nor did she try to make herself to appear to be so by saying she bought the cars. She was very clear about who paid for the cars. Oprah is a very accomplished tv personality and an extremely good business women, who gives back alot, cares deeply about humanity and makes no bones about it. She once commented on how often people come to her with suggestions about how she could make more money to which she points out, without being rude, that she's actually been quite good at making money and really does not need much help with that. I guess those people do not read Forbes. Much of the criticism of Oprah is based on the envy and jealousy that rises in certain others because of her fame and financial success.
Oh contrare, if you remember the media reports..OPRA gave away cars and there are the constant gift packages with the OPRA seal of approval. For good or ill she is a marketing tool this is a fact. The only person that might be able to have the same sell factor is Tiger Woods. She toured new orleans you might remember, but many other celebs actually got into boats and went to get people off roofs. I am not saying she is evil incarnate, but she knows when to make it look like she is doing good, even if it is superficial. I think this is enough thread drift though.
Obama is still a better fit for the dems than Ms Clinton I am thinking they would make an interesting ticket for voters. People like Dean and Kucinich will again be locked out being "commies" by american standards. Too bad really. Nader would be great but the US is a long way from being able to vote for him without thinking it will ruin their country or throwing away their vote.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 30 October 2006 05:51 AM
M Spector wrote: quote: Obama voted for "tort reform", thus making it far harder for people to get redress or compensation.Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. In March Obama voted for the U.S.A PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (unlike ten of his Democratic colleagues). Obama favours the doctrine of pre-emptive war - he supports "surgical strikes" against Iran if it fails to bow to Washington's demand that it cease its alleged nuclear weapons program. Obama has said that in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation's nuclear arsenal. Obama supports the war in Iraq; he just thinks Bush should have gone in there harder to make sure the US got the job done. Obama supports the death penalty for "punishing the most heinous crimes." Obama, Clinton, and 24 other so-called Democrats voted in favour of a Republican bill calling for construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Obama courts the Christian evangelical vote, and frequently injects his own strong religious beliefs into his speeches. He loves to talk about his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Obama voted to close filibuster proceedings that would have attempted to block the appointment of the reactionary, misogynist Judge Alito. Obama is regarded as a "centrist" in the Democratic Party. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ignatieff. Obama favours US military intervention in Sudan. Keynote Reflections
I don't mind repeating this because I want this excellent compendium of facts on Obama to survive to remind everyone that the Democratic party is just as controlled and dominated by the national security state as the GOP. All major candidates that are given the imprimatur as "serious" are vetted for their views prior to being taken seriously in the national media (unlike say, Dennis Kucinich). They have to pledge to protect the capitalist status quo, continue the national security state growth, profess some love of Jesus Christ even if its a thin veneer of bullshit, and promise to make war on darker-skinned people around the world for whatever material gain his/her masters tell them is at stake. If one won't sign off to this, they won't be taken seriously in the media or get the big bucks from corporations necessary to run a national campaign, because, of course, Americans won't vote for someone that doesn't have the veneer of a respectability that an overwhelming TV ad campaign can lend. Cynical? You bet. Its the best democracy money can buy.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 30 October 2006 05:52 AM
Catchfire: have we got to the point in Identity Politics where a COMPLIMENT is taken as an insult?? sheesh the fact is, Tiger Woods is THE single best/biggest sports-industry pitchman in the U.S. today, while Oprah is near the top of the heap for celebrities generally. so what? that recalls the large marketing polls in the mid-1990s in the U.S., when the "most admired" national celebrities/personalities list was consistently dominated by some 1-2-3 combination of Colin Powell, Oprah and Michael Jordan let Obama win or lose on the merits, and if he loses, judge him by his performance, which to date shows some big holes (ex. experience) [ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 30 October 2006 07:32 AM
thanks for pointing it out Geneva, I think there are people who read a little too much into what people write. Somehow I knew somebody would make that mistake. So from know on I will say Generic Superstar A and Generic Superstar B Or is that going to be me being a Nazi with SS in the word SuperStar. Get a grip people. Again I would like to point out why we as the left can't get it together. In the last 24 hours I have been called sexist 3 times and a racist and if you asked anyone I know they would say I am some looney lefty with an underdog syndrome for defending people like blacks, arabs homos, woman, latinos, first nations, indians(and pakistani) and muslims. Go ahead and check the facts before you call me a racist or a sexist!Catchfire would you care to comment on the actual substance of my post or just insult me for no reason. Maybe you would like to know a little bit about Kucinich see AE post above. [ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 30 October 2006 08:00 AM
Well, you might start by spelling Oprah's name right. And you might start by not referring to her largely African-American fanbase as "zombie moms." Although admittedly, with just that isolated comment, you are simply sexist, rather than sexist and racist. However, quiet alarm bells did go off at the fact that the only person you chose to mention was an African-American woman (whom you portrayed in a negative light) in a thread about an African-American candidate for the Democratic presidential candidacy.Then, you might want to consider why, à propos of nothing, you brought a third African-American celebrity into the conversation in order to deflect criticism from your sexist comments. Oprah is just like Tiger Woods? Or is Barack Obama just like Tiger Woods? Why? Because they're all great sports celebretoes or because they're all black? If you begin to question why you felt the need to introduce a personality into this conversation whose presence is otherwise utterly inexplicable, you might begin to understand why I find your motiviations racist and disturbing. And yes, Geneva, we are still at the point in "Identity Politics" where if someone cravenly trumps up a black celebrity to prove they're not offensive, we can consdier that an inherently racist maneuver. I say this because I think that Denzel Washington is a fantastic actor. Don't you?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 30 October 2006 08:19 AM
the above is why many people thing identity politics is intrinsically divisive -- impossible to not offend someone -- and emphasize instead people's similarities, ie common identity and goals, something which, btw, Obama is big onyeah, Denzell is OK, but I prefer Jeanne Moreau .
[ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 30 October 2006 08:43 PM
Alright, ok, the pessimism parade continues:That Gottschalk is such a downer Well, look, is it TOO much to ask that a Democratic candidate for president NOT blithely talk about bombing other countries as a solution? Is it too much to ask for said candidate to address the very real fears of middle and lower middle income people in the USA and maybe, just maybe, even talk about poverty in America? Is it too much to ask for a Democratic candidate for president to adress issues of corporate regulation, our trade and budger deficits as a prosperity killer, global climate change and our responsibility to solving the problem for the sake of future generations, and the very real disaster looming because of peak oil? Is is REALLY too much to ask that as things are rapidly approaching being on a knife's edge, that a Democratic candidate for President at least sound like a progressive and tell the American people that hard truth? Because if it is too much to ask, the USA is finished and it will take the rest of the world down with us.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391
|
posted 30 October 2006 09:52 PM
1a) Obama is considered of the left in the USA, because he is to the left of the ultra-right-wing neo-con nuevo-fascists.That is the strict relativist standard of evaluation.According to the political paradigms of Canada and Europe, he is center-right.1b) Most USA "leftists", have to embrace some element of right-wing wackiness to be considered sane down there, so we see many Democrats embracing religion, hunting & gun-posing, canned militarism, pro DEA drug war, pro pharmaceuticalism, etc.Do you think Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and co. would even be allowed in the debate if they were atheists or agnostics ? Heck, no.But because they are church-goers, they MUST be intrinsically American, right ??? 1c) To avoid the oh-so harrowing experience of being labelled "a socialist", they avoid democratic socialism like the plague, and employ blatantly unprincipled pragmatism and snakey corporate slimeballism.They end up being diluted Republicans when you scratch the deceptive surface and evaluate their policies, measured against 15-20 western democracies and a more populous international standard of political evaluation (not merely a relativistic American standard).
Instead, they should gladly accept the label of semi-socialists, while labelling the Repulicans FASCISTS.It worked for the Canadian guy in Italy not too long ago. After applying favorable labels, Obama & the Dems should state that the countries which have attained the highest measurable standard of living are the Euro-Scanda-Nordic ones which have embraced democratic socialism to a significant extent.Show verified social indicator statistics on infant mortality, life expectancy, poverty rates, incarceration & crime rates to prove it... then show the economic competitiveness & prosperity, as well as low national debts, low gov't corruption and high press freedom that supposedly can't occur under significant degrees of socialism."A strong welfare state fueled by a capitalist engine can work" would be a great ice-breaker. ********************************************** Now what alternative political paradigm would serve America and the world better from a humanitarian/pacifist/compassionate perspective ? 1) Eradicate the waffling center-right Democrats and replace them with the true Social Democracy of Ralph Nader.A constitutionalist (very VERY pro-civil liberties), populist, consumerist, pacifist.A rational man who believes in the COMPLETE seperation of church and state, a non-aggressive PURELY defensive military, the end of the drugwar, a strong welfare state, corporate restrictionism.
2) Eradicate the Republicans and replace them with Michael Badnarik and his Libertarians. Not my fave, but far better than the Repubs, because the Libertarians are staunch constitutionalists (EXTREMELY pro-civil liberties), anti-USA-drugwar, for a non-preemptive defensive military, etc.They have alot of faith in the unrestricted capitalist engine, but don't believe in entrenched corporate welfare like the Repubs do.They, like Nader, believe in the COMPLETE seperation of church and state (not coincidentally, because they are both constitutional pacifists). With Nader on the TRUE LIBERTARIAN left , and Badnarik on the TRUE LIBERTARIAN right, there might actually be some world peace, and peace of mind for 300,000,000 Americans who deserve to be saved from the ultimate political fraud being perpetuated by the ultimate false alternative... "Democrats or Republicans". With Nader & Badnarik as the left/right choice, we'd see an end to chrch-state fusion, insanely puritanical morality law squads, and less of the aggressive militarism based on the monstrous military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical complex, which would be greatly curtailed and eventually destroyed. It's such a fraud : the secretive, manipulative, non-transparent, corporate, militaristic fraud we are all witnessing.IMO, both the DEMS AND REPUBS are absolutely repugnant, and represent the brutally corrupt and not-too-ideologically-diverse American political paradigm/spectrum in 2006-2007. Nader & Badnarik would constitute a far superior political CHOICE, and would save the world to a very large extent. *********************************************** Btw, if Obama were to run, how long would it be before the Neo-Con crowd of perpetual insanity starts calling him Osama ?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 01 November 2006 08:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: Well, you might start by spelling Oprah's name right. And you might start by not referring to her largely African-American fanbase as "zombie moms." Although admittedly, with just that isolated comment, you are simply sexist, rather than sexist and racist. However, quiet alarm bells did go off at the fact that the only person you chose to mention was an African-American woman (whom you portrayed in a negative light) in a thread about an African-American candidate for the Democratic presidential candidacy.Then, you might want to consider why, à propos of nothing, you brought a third African-American celebrity into the conversation in order to deflect criticism from your sexist comments. Oprah is just like Tiger Woods? Or is Barack Obama just like Tiger Woods? Why? Because they're all great sports celebretoes or because they're all black? If you begin to question why you felt the need to introduce a personality into this conversation whose presence is otherwise utterly inexplicable, you might begin to understand why I find your motiviations racist and disturbing. And yes, Geneva, we are still at the point in "Identity Politics" where if someone cravenly trumps up a black celebrity to prove they're not offensive, we can consdier that an inherently racist maneuver. I say this because I think that Denzel Washington is a fantastic actor. Don't you?
OK you must have missed the newsflash here it is
quote: You could tote up the numbers and rankings. Celebrity marketing experts say he�s the world�s top athlete for endorsements, three years running, surpassing even Michael Jordan. Forbes pegs his outside earnings at roughly five times the value of his $9 million in golf winnings. Some say he could be the first billion-dollar athlete in history. Others, such as ESPN The Magazine, have predicted he�ll hit $6 billion before his career ends.
Just for you Now maybe you can layoff. If you see every comment as racist that is up to you. I guess being the greatest selling athlete of all time is racist as well? Must be because he is African-American no wait he ISN'T. He is bi-racial...must have slipped your mind. Can you name me someone who out sells Tiger for endorsing products? OpraH does well, as seen from her book club/gm cars/whatever happens to be on that week. It's a well known fact they sell well. Hell after Chavez mentioned Chomsky his sales went up... Celebrity endorsements are what sells things in this day and age. It just so happens that I heard on the radio OpraH was endorsing Obama. So I made comment on her sell factor with those that watch the show(estimates are 50 million big audiance eh!)I would imagine this would help his prospects. Regardless of race. quote: “You know what I would say to him,’’ suggests Winfrey, quickly changing the subject. “I would say, ‘Take your energy and put it in Barack Obama.’ That's what I would say.’’“Is that your favorite?’’ King asks. “That would be my favorite guy,’’ Winfrey explains..
Some more ground work done for you. I see you are very open minded and progressive. Just so you know my ex grilffiend was also bi-racial(1/2 black 1/4 jewish 1/4 german) Does this still qualify me as a racist...do tell. So either stop the thread drift and SLANDER or just plain FUCK OFF! [ 01 November 2006: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 November 2006 09:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: So either stop the thread drift and SLANDER or just plain FUCK OFF!
Hey, chill out. You wrote a sexist comment and got called on it. No need for this kind of abusive post. Catchfire, maybe clarify what someone means before calling them racist, okay? (Or, maybe talk about why what someone wrote might be racist instead of saying that the person him or herself is racist.) There's a difference between calling someone on something they said which you feel is (probably unintentionally) racist, and stating categorically that someone IS racist. [ 01 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 02 November 2006 03:15 PM
Well, in my defence, I simply said I found thorin's racism troubling, I didn't accuse him of being a racist. Clearly, since thorin has eagerly pointed out that he once had a mixed-race partner, he couldn't possibly be racist. I mean that settles it. Like, some of his best friends are black!Whatever. I found it disturbing that in a story that has a lot to do with race, seeing as how Obama has a chance of becoming the first president of colour in a country defined by race relations, thorin_bane found it necessary to cart out two celebrities of colour and no one else, the second, in response to accusations of insensitive behaviour. I don't care how much money Tiger Woods makes, but the fact Oprah's endorsement is the only one he mentioned, and that Tiger Woods was the only individual he could compare to Oprah is telling. Oprah is just like Tiger? What? In fact, he repeated this feat when after being accused of racism by me, he carted out his alleged ex-girlfriend of colour to "prove" he wasn't racist. I found that behaviour crass both times he did it. [ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391
|
posted 03 November 2006 02:39 AM
quote: Originally posted by Wolf:
I agree. That's why I think he'd make a good President.
Does the positive light shine on Obama so radiantly because of his policy contrasts with the semi-socialist European/Scandinavian/Nordic Region political paradigm (which is at most center-left) ? Or does he become immensely radiant due to illuminating policy contrasts with Ultra-Right-Wing Bush-Wacko ?
Euro-Social-Democrat policy is 1 notch left of center, Obama/Dems policy is 1 notch right of center, Bush-Wacko policy is 4 notches right of center RE : Social, Economic AND Foreign policy. Guess who Obama is more capable of compromise and reasoned debate with... those at and around the center, or those out in the Neo-Fascist fringicle... *Yes, I agree, Obama would make a VERY good President, given the current Bushian (Authoritarian-Republican) catastrophe/crisis.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 03 November 2006 03:54 AM
quote: Well, look, is it TOO much to ask that a Democratic candidate for president NOT blithely talk about bombing other countries as a solution? Is it too much to ask for said candidate to address the very real fears of middle and lower middle income people in the USA and maybe, just maybe, even talk about poverty in America? Is it too much to ask for a Democratic candidate for president to address issues of corporate regulation, our trade and budger deficits as a prosperity killer, global climate change and our responsibility to solving the problem for the sake of future generations, and the very real disaster looming because of peak oil?Is is REALLY too much to ask that as things are rapidly approaching being on a knife's edge, that a Democratic candidate for President at least sound like a progressive and tell the American people that hard truth? Because if it is too much to ask, the USA is finished and it will take the rest of the world down with us.
Worth repeating. I agree 100 percent AE. Too bad so many others seem to see the Democrats under Hilary or Obama,a as some sort of saviour party. Folks, it isn't going to turn out that way. The US has shifted so far to the right, almost into fascism, and this is the best you can do? Kucinich is the man. Unfortunately it appears the American public can't quite stomach a non pro-war, left president. Sad state of affairs when you are voting for the same old same old and thinking change will actually occur. It will take decades to undo the mess that is the Excited State of America. The American people pay, and international citizens pay - and will continue to pay. Two Democrats that have more in common with Bush's policies than the grass roots left and the people who support progress are the front liners? Scary thought.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391
|
posted 03 November 2006 04:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer:
Worth repeating. I agree 100 percent AE. Too bad so many others seem to see the Democrats under Hilary or Obama,a as some sort of saviour party. Folks, it isn't going to turn out that way. The US has shifted so far to the right, almost into fascism, and this is the best you can do? Kucinich is the man. Unfortunately it appears the American public can't quite stomach a non pro-war, left president. Sad state of affairs when you are voting for the same old same old and thinking change will actually occur. It will take decades to undo the mess that is the Excited State of America. The American people pay, and international citizens pay - and will continue to pay. Two Democrats that have more in common with Bush's policies than the grass roots left and the people who support progress are the front liners? Scary thought.
I used to think "Nader or bust !" for an American political antidote to Bush.
Then, I downgraded a notch to "Kucinich or bust !" Now, I'm thinking "one step (left) at a time...all praise Obama" as a way out of the Bush-Abyss.
Apparently, the American social/economic scene is so devastated by right-wing extremism, the electorate is gonna have to bicycle out of the mess with a compass, training wheels, rope and a mop.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 03 November 2006 04:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: Kucinich is the man. Unfortunately it appears the American public can't quite stomach a non pro-war, left president.
You know, I'm not so sure about this. The right in the US has gone a long way by being as extreme as possible and catering to their right-wing fringe. They have mastered the art of the soundbite and have the reputation for "standing for their convictions". Democrats, meanwhile, now have the reputation of being weasels who will do and say anything to get elected, and don't have any principle whatsoever that they won't bend. They stand for nothing. I'll bet if the Democrats actually stood strong for certain principles and defended them vigorously instead of collapsing into wimpiness and grovelling and fear of alienating swing voters the moment they're challenged on anything by the media, they'd do a lot better. Most Americans agree with left-wing principles if you ask them individually about them one-by-one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 January 2007 12:26 PM
Look Who's Backing Bush's Next War, Jan. 20, 2005 quote: Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran. As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?" He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over." Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not "been tough on the [Iran] issue which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target." Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, "The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism." In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' Face The Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that "[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians." .... So are we really supposed to believe the Democrats will ever offer up any significant opposition to Bush's military dabbling in Iran? Not unless by "opposition to" you mean "support for."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 January 2007 12:50 PM
Obama and the Middle East, January 18, 2007 quote: What are the problems the Senator plans on tackling? Certainly not the big one: U.S. policy in the Middle East. While assuring us that he supports the troops in Iraq, he’s made it quite clear he won’t bring them home, and instead has pressured the White House to come up with a plan on the matter of their own. How Obama, or anyone, can possibly believe that the Bushites could come up with a worthwhile strategy for Iraq is beyond me. On Iran Obama also serves the status-quo with the kind of hawkish zeal we are used to seeing in most Republicans. He’s admitted he may favor surgical missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan if that’s what it takes to fight the war on terror. And Obama even boasts that Bush hasn’t taken a hard enough line on the foreign menaces. How about Israel? Obama even embraced Israel’s brutal bombings of Lebanon last summer -- the type of complicity we’re sure to see continue if he’s successful in his political evolution. Beyond that, Obama voted in favor of the Pentagon budget last year, with its beefy handouts to Halliburton and the rest tax and waste crooks. So I’ll stop right there and ask, just what in the heck is the big deal about Barack Obama? Aside from not being Hillary Clinton, Obama has little to offer the antiwar movement or proponents of an alternative U.S. strategy for the Middle East.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 21 January 2007 07:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
You know, I'm not so sure about this. The right in the US has gone a long way by being as extreme as possible and catering to their right-wing fringe. They have mastered the art of the soundbite and have the reputation for "standing for their convictions".
But it took the hard-line conservatives a nearly generation to first take over the Republican Party and then to recast the debate. Beginning with the massive defeat of Goldwater in 1964, the Republican right spent the next the next 16 years changing the nature, tone and language of political debate in the United States - setting the stage for the election of Ronald Reagan. Unlike Bill Clinton's "triangulation," which moved the Democratic Party - partly in language and partly in fact - towards the critical mass of US political opinion, the conservative stealth campaign from Goldwater to Reagan to GWB has moved the critical mass of US political opinion towards their agenda.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 21 January 2007 07:27 PM
No Senator has been elected President since 1960.In that time, the election winners have been: - a President who succeeded to office in a tragedy (Johnson) - an ex-VP returned from political exile, the quintessential outsider (Nixon x2) - a governor (Carter) - an ex-Governor (Reagan x2) - a sitting VP (Bush Sr.) - a governor (Clinton x2) - a governor (Bush Jr. x2) On that basis, the parties would be smart to nominate Mitt Romney (R) and Bill Richardson (D).
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576
|
posted 21 January 2007 09:11 PM
Furthermore, the governors turned presidents have all been of southern states (Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, California). Even Nixon once ran to be governor of a southern state (California). And Bush Sr. was elected on (former governor) Reagan's coattails rather than on his own (dubyaious) merits. Romney governed a state (Mass) that is so far north and so far liberal, it might as well be in Canada. Since the sitting Vice-P. has ruled out running, the Repubs must nominate a governor of a southern state: Huckabee. Yes, Huckabee, that's the name. That name again: it's Huckabee. Altogether now: Huck-a-bee! [ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]
From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335
|
posted 21 January 2007 09:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed: ...the American people on many issues, two thirds of whom want Out of Iraq ASAP -no ifs, ands or buts.
This is not what is suggested by the most recent poll.(link) The Newsweek poll that has been in the news lately says that 68% oppose Bush's "surge" strategy of increasing the number of troops in Iraq. 50% favour a reduction of troop levels in Iraq. Favoring a reduction is quite different from wanting "Out of Iraq ASAP." Is there some other poll that suggests two thirds of Americans want out of Iraq ASAP?
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 21 January 2007 09:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Paul Gross:
Romney governed a state (Mass) that is so far north and so far liberal, it might as well be in Canada.
And Huckabee it may be - but Romney is from a solid "red state" (Utah) and has crossover appeal to Democrats and Independents.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 21 January 2007 10:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Paul Gross: Furthermore, the governors turned presidents have all been of southern states (Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, California). Even Nixon once ran to be governor of a southern state (California).
FYI, California is NOT and by no stretch of the imagination could ever be considered a SOUTHERN state. If I may cite a source as authoritative as wikipedia: Southern United States
quote: As defined by the United States Census Bureau, the Southern region of the United States includes 16 states and is split into three smaller units, or divisions:The South Atlantic States: Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia (plus the District of Columbia) The East South Central States: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee The West South Central States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas The region as defined by the Census Bureau currently contains eight of the twenty-five largest metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as portions of two others. Other definitions include: The Old South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia Southern Appalachia: Kentucky and West Virginia The Deep South: various definitions The Gulf South: various definitions, usually including the panhandle of Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama The Heart of Dixie: is a common name for the State of Alabama
That being said, if you were to suggest that the best background for a President was Governor of a Southern State OR California, I would agree with you. Indeed, if it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, I think we all agree the front-runner would probably be AHH-NOLD, the current governor of California.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335
|
posted 21 January 2007 10:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR: No Senator has been elected President since 1960. ...(Examples snipped)... On that basis, the parties would be smart to nominate Mitt Romney (R) and Bill Richardson (D).
No woman or black person has been elected President since 1789. In that time, the election winners have been - a white man (1789, 1792) - a white man (1796) - a white man (1800, 1804) - a white man (1808,1812) - a white man (1816, 1820) - a white man (1824) - a white man (1828, 1832) - a white man (1840) - a white man (1844) - a white man (1848) - a white man (1852) - a white man (1856) - a white man (1860) - a white man (1864) - a white man (1868, 1872) - a white man (1876) - a white man (1880) - a white man (1884) - a white man (1888) - a white man (1892) - a white man (1896) - a white man (1900, 1904) - a white man (1908) - a white man (1912, 1916) - a white man (1920) - a white man (1924) - a white man (1928) - a white man (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944) - a white man (1948) - a white man (1952, 1958) - a white man (1960) - a white man (1964) - a white man (1968, 1972) - a white man (1976) - a white man (1980, 1984) - a white man (1988) - a white man (1992, 1996) - a white man (2000, 2004) On that basis, the parties would be smart to nominate a white man (R) and a white man (D).
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423
|
posted 21 January 2007 11:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
No woman or black person has been elected President since 1789. In that time, the election winners have been - a white man (1789, 1792) - a white man (1796) - a white man (1800, 1804) - a white man (1808,1812) - a white man (1816, 1820) - a white man (1824) - a white man (1828, 1832) - a white man (1840) - a white man (1844) - a white man (1848) - a white man (1852) - a white man (1856) - a white man (1860) - a white man (1864) - a white man (1868, 1872) - a white man (1876) - a white man (1880) - a white man (1884) - a white man (1888) - a white man (1892) - a white man (1896) - a white man (1900, 1904) - a white man (1908) - a white man (1912, 1916) - a white man (1920) - a white man (1924) - a white man (1928) - a white man (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944) - a white man (1948) - a white man (1952, 1958) - a white man (1960) - a white man (1964) - a white man (1968, 1972) - a white man (1976) - a white man (1980, 1984) - a white man (1988) - a white man (1992, 1996) - a white man (2000, 2004) On that basis, the parties would be smart to nominate a white man (R) and a white man (D).
Why is this?
From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 22 January 2007 02:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart): Is there some other poll that suggests two thirds of Americans want out of Iraq ASAP?
Pardon me, no 'if ands or buts' was probably too strong as it may also imply Immediate withdrawal, but two thirds are consistently 'unhappy' with Bushes performance now, and the war is issue number one still. Most polls I've seen before are a bit harder to get accurate reading, and may tend to be skewed by the samples and how they are framed. Needless to say the conservative leaning media is no friend, especially in tacitly supporting the fiction that Saddam may have been a direct threat to the US. Here is another poll, however, which indicates flagging support for it:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-18-voa38.cfm '"It is a very tricky thing," he said. "I think the American people want us out, 75 percent in one of the latest polls want us out [within one to two years]. Seventeen percent of the American public support the so-called surge policy. So, they [the Democrats] have got the American public behind them, but they are worried. They do not want to go home to a small town in Ohio where someone has lost a soldier and say, even though we are supporting you, we are cutting off money for the troops."' Take your pick. As the situation keeps getting worse (and I'm pretty sure it will) these numbers will only get worse for whoever inherits the whole mess. My prediction is that the US will Eventually find an excuse to pull out, only after more mass bloodshed and dithering but Before the whole house of cards completely collapses. They'll need the illusion they've accomplished something. The latest spin pinning blame on the Iraqi governments could be seen as laying that groundwork. If the Demos nominate someone winnable the Repubs will then try to blame Them for 'losing' the war. Repubs are more predictable if nothing else.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 22 January 2007 02:08 AM
quote: Originally posted by Legless-Marine: MS: On that basis, the parties would be smart to nominate a white man (R) and a white man (D). Why is this?
Well, for the first century blacks were slaves and a long time thereafter bonded servants, while women couldn't even vote till 1920 something... Most would still admit that a non-white man still couldn't win it all, not with the 'moderate' swing states. Why she's saying this I'm not sure. [ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 22 January 2007 07:59 AM
Recent Polls quote: Indeed, the latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that Bush’s call for a “surge” in troops is opposed by two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans and supported by only a quarter (26 percent). Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out “as soon as possible.” Story continues below ↓ advertisementBush’s Iraq plan isn’t doing anything for his personal approval rating either; it’s again stuck at its lowest point in the history of the poll (31 percent). Meanwhile, the new Democratic-controlled Congress is getting relatively high marks. And 55 percent actually trust Congressional Dems on U.S. policy in Iraq, far more than the 32 percent who trust their commander in chief.
Looks like Obama is not listening either. [ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335
|
posted 22 January 2007 09:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Well, for the first century blacks were slaves and a long time thereafter bonded servants, while women couldn't even vote till 1920 something... Most would still admit that a non-white man still couldn't win it all, not with the 'moderate' swing states. Why she's saying this I'm not sure. [ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Of course I do not really think that the parties should only nominate white men! The point of my post was this. A previous poster suggested that the parties would be better off nominating non-senators, because "no senator has been elected President since 1960." My point was that this kind of reasoning leads naturally to a false conclusion: that the parties would be better off nominating white men. The general point was to indicate the faultiness of the reasoning of the original "no senators" argument.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 23 January 2007 07:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart): The point of my post was this. A previous poster suggested that the parties would be better off nominating non-senators, because "no senator has been elected President since 1960." My point was that this kind of reasoning leads naturally to a false conclusion: that the parties would be better off nominating white men. The general point was to indicate the faultiness of the reasoning of the original "no senators" argument.
Yahoo: Campaign could smash social barriers in 2008 quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American voters have a chance to shatter social barriers in 2008, when either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton could snap the unbroken string of white men in the White House. Obama, vying to be the first black president, and Clinton, expected to launch a bid to be the first woman president, bring diversity to a pack of presidential contenders that could test attitudes and tolerance among U.S. voters. Despite huge political strides in recent years, no black or woman candidate has seriously challenged for the White House. The campaigns of Obama and Clinton, early Democratic favorites, could help answer questions about whether America is ready to put a black or a woman in the Oval Office. "I think the country is at a point where voters will seriously look at a black or a woman candidate and support them if they like what they see," said David Bositis, a political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which researches issues affecting blacks. "The change in public attitudes is massive and real and it can be seen in the number of women and blacks being elected to office around the country," said Tom Smith, director of social surveys at the National Opinion Research Center. *** OTHER BIDS FOR HISTORY Other candidates also could make bids for history. Democrat Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, is expected to attempt to be the first Hispanic president, while Republican candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would become the first Mormon.
And of course, there is also the longshot possibility Condoleeza Rice (video file). [ 23 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Is this it?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13083
|
posted 23 January 2007 09:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: Written by M. Spector:Ah yes, the frustrations of an ideological purist. The United States is a different country from Canada. It is as such completely inane to take a left-wing political binary that is very much specific to Canada and apply it to other countries...
Right. Because the unilateral and illegal invasion of Iraq was only wrong in Canada. Launching a nuclear strike on Iran is only wrong in Canada. The death penalty is only wrong in Canada. Jesus Christ on a crutch.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 23 January 2007 07:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Don't you love it when you're forced to explain the obvious?It's like explaining elephant jokes to a six-year-old.
You always have act like such a smart ass Spector? It wasn't so clear to everyone else. Try showing more smarts instead.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 23 January 2007 10:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
The point of my post was this. A previous poster suggested that the parties would be better off nominating non-senators, because "no senator has been elected President since 1960." My point was that this kind of reasoning leads naturally to a false conclusion: that the parties would be better off nominating white men. The general point was to indicate the faultiness of the reasoning of the original "no senators" argument.
Fault my reasoning all you want, there is a very strong case to be made that Beltway insiders are at a significant disadvantage in a national election.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335
|
posted 23 January 2007 10:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR: Fault my reasoning all you want, there is a very strong case to be made that Beltway insiders are at a significant disadvantage in a national election.
There is also a strong case to be made that women and non-whites are at a significant disadvantage in a national election. Despite that, I would not conclude on those grounds alone that the smartest move for the Democrats would be to avoid nominating either Clinton or Obama. I suppose my view is this: granted, a woman, or a mixed race person, or a senator has a certain disadvantage when it comes assessing to electability (relative to their rivals); but that disadvantage can be outweighed by other factors when it comes to assessing relative electability: charisma, name recognition, intelligence, ability to generate excitement, money, organization, etc. Yes, Obama and Clinton are both senators (and thus "Beltway insiders"). But that alone is insufficient for the claim that Richardson is more electable, or that the Democrats would be smarter to nominate him, than either Clinton or Obama. On a related note, though George H.W. Bush was not a senator, he was a consummate Beltway insider. Here's his CV: congressman, twice a candidate for the senate, chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China, Director of the CIA, three years as a private citizen, Vice-President. Bush Sr. never held any office, either elected or appointed, at the state level. Yet this Beltway insider was elected president in 1988.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 25 January 2007 11:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Clinto called for that 15 years ago, within 4.
True, but that was before the largest (California) sixth largest (Pennsylvania) and thirteenth largest (Massachussetts) states decided to launch their own "universal" plans: AP: Talk of Universal Health Care Grows. It's not necessarily single payer, but its better than "no payer" which is what we have now. Forbes: States Push 'Universal' Health Care. Obama (or Clinton or Gore or Edwards) would offer a significant improvement in U.S. domestic policy. On foreign policy: I challenge you to find any legitimate U.S. presidential contender you would agree with, Cueball. For that matter, can you even name a Canadian party leader or party that you agree with on that front? [ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 25 January 2007 11:47 AM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Ah yes, that dastardly Clinton and his dastardly "supervision" of all the bad things which happened to Milosevic! But wasn't this thread about the Obama, and medical care and suchlike?
It is a thread about words and deeds, and the "democratic" party.
[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 25 January 2007 12:04 PM
Imagine if failure to obtain something once meant that no other attempt could possibly succeed.So, if Democrat "A" doesn't achieve healthcare reform, then no other Democrat should ever even try! I mean, why bother! Instead, let's retain purity by advocating for Fidel Castro or Mr. Milosevic! Theye'll soon be able to help Americans without health insurance!
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 25 January 2007 08:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
There is also a strong case to be made that women and non-whites are at a significant disadvantage in a national election. Despite that, I would not conclude on those grounds alone that the smartest move for the Democrats would be to avoid nominating either Clinton or Obama.
And they probably still are at a disadvantage.
But we can see their disadvantage in the context of longstanding systemic prejudice against women and non-whites. And we can also note that both women and non-whites have made significant (though certainly not complete) progress in overcoming that systemic prejudice. I am not aware that Senators and Congressmen were ever victims of systemic prejudice (at least, not any moreso than politicians generally).
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309
|
posted 12 February 2007 10:57 AM
Obama has already pledged to withdraw the troops from Iraq by next March 31. His response to Howard's epithet doesn't change that, although I do admit it plays into the hands of the most jingoistic in America. The full Barack Obama quote was: quote: “So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq,”
For some reason the media has generally left out the "ginned up" and replaced with dot-dot-dot.
From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 February 2007 11:08 AM
Here is an short but interesting article about Obama's and Howard's remarks, and apparently there is support of Obama's words even from Republicans. quote: Mr Obama said he was flattered that one of Mr Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack and challenged Mr Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict. "I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Mr Obama said in Iowa. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." US senators from both major parties have criticised Mr Howard for his comments.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 12 February 2007 05:44 PM
The point of his challenging Howard to send more troops was to respond to Howard's ridiculous implication that Middle Eastern terrorists would cheer an Obama victory.It was in the spirit of "if YOU think this crazy war's such a good idea, put your money where your mouth is, pal". Nonetheless, I'm still supporting Kucinich.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309
|
posted 12 February 2007 06:33 PM
Yeah I dont think it means he's not sincere about withdrawing.And I agree, apples. "Bush is an idiot" tirades are best left to internet forums and private dinner tables and out of the legislature. [ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: quart o' homomilk ]
From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 12 February 2007 07:59 PM
M. Spector: have you ever heard of a hypothetical construct? Here's an example: "...if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that... ".Here's a similar one (say, an Iraq war opponent writing to an armchair hawk on babble): If you think that this war is such a great idea, why don't you yourself go over there to kill and die for what you say you support?. The anti-war poster is not actually suggesting that the person really go there to kill and die (although the dying part can be tempting in the case of some posters). No, it is quite the opposite, but the hypothetical construct is being employed as a rhetorical device to make a point. It's more or less the same idea. Personally, I'm not convinced that Obama is "enough" anti-war for me, but then, if he were (look! another hypothetical!) then he wouldn't have a hope in hell of being elected president. As it stands, he probably doesn't have a hope anyway, because he uses 2-phrase sentences where one phrase can be taken out of context to make him look bad. A seasoned politician just spews bromides. But I would cut him some slack on this one. [ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 12 February 2007 08:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by Albireo: Here's a similar one (say, an Iraq war opponent writing to an armchair hawk on babble): If you think that this war is such a great idea, why don't you yourself go over there to kill and die for what you say you support?. The anti-war poster is not actually suggesting that the person really go there to kill and die (although the dying part can be tempting in the case of some posters).
That has got to be one of the dumbest arguments/rhetorical devices ever. It's an ad hominem attack, suggesting that the opponent is a coward and/or a hypocrite - for not being willing to do something that the speaker/writer doesn't even think he should be doing anyway.According to your interpretation, Obama was ridiculing Howard for not being enough of a hawk to "put his money where his mouth is" - i.e. send more troops to Iraq. Instead of defending his supposed anti-war position against Howard's attacks, Obama resorted to an ad hom attack of his own - one that the average US voter is going to take as a kind of sneer at the sheep-eating surrender-monkeys of down-underland who can only manage to send 1,400 soldiers to fight in the war on Terra™. Why would you cut this idiot any "slack"?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 12 February 2007 11:00 PM
This all reminds me of the old joke:Q: How many leftists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: (Icy stare) That's. Not. Funny. Or the old adage that disecting a joke kills the patient. I agree that Obama's joke is a bit of a dick measuring contest. I think it falls below the Gandhian standard of not subjecting your opponent to ridicule. But... I liked it. I think it pointed out the hypocricy of a man who calls for another nation to spill it's blood for his cause. A similar exchange is often played as an outro by Randi Rhodes on her radio show. A young neocon is blathering on about supporting the troops and the cowardice of liberals. Randi asks "How old are you 22? When I was 22 I was in the military. If yuu believe in this why aren't you in Iraq?" He weakly replies "Actually I'm 24." to which she says "Then go!" It's kinda mean. But it doesn't mean she supports the war. Obama, to his credit, did say he thought the war was dumb from the start, but, If he had been on the Senate floor at the time I wonder if he would have been as weak as Hilary and Kerry et al. [ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 12 February 2007 11:07 PM
I got one. How many Conservatives does it take to change a light bulb? None. Conservatives don't change a damn THing. Ok, feeble, but Someone had to be say it. Night.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|