American 2008 Election

[baystatebill 2]

I like Romney. A lot of people have brought up a lack of a record in Massachusetts. Anyone who knows Massachusetts politics knows what a uphill fight any republican has in the Commonwealth. So far Romney has been the only consistant candidate in the Rebuplican races. Wins in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, 2nd place in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has not received less than 30% of the votes yet. Huckabee and McCain have each had some dismal performances. Romney will likely do poorly in SC. Rudy is banking his whole campaign in Florida. It should be a very interesting race on the Rebuplican side. I believe Romney, McCain and Guilianni will come down to the end. As for the Democrats, I'm not to thrilled with any of the candidates. I have never liked the Clinton's, especially Hillary. I think that Obama is a great speaker and can really get people motivated to vote, but as a one term Senator I don't think he has enough experience to be President.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: El Burro Ah, your quick off the mark, this was only posted about 10 mins ago on the BBC website

I have to say... i'm surprised Clinton is winning as many as she is... quote>

 

2?

and one was unopposed.

 And only won by 6% in  2 small population states.

Super Tuesday will show how disliked she is in more populous states.

quote>

Precisely... I should have rephrased that acctually, since i'm surprised she's won any.

I see too much hate for her...

[baystatebill 2]

I honestly am very surprised that the Democrats can't produce better candidates than Hillary and Barrack. You would think that after all the griping over the last 8 years from stealing elections to the war and everything in between I can't believe the Democrats couldn't of found some better candidates. Clinton, not a good candiate, there's no inbetween. People either love her or hate her. Obama, no experience, and a realistic question would be "Is America ready to elect not only a black President, but a black, Muslim president. John Edwards, a one term Senator, personal injury attorney who's having an affair behind his dying wife's back. Chris Dodd, noted drunk and womanizer. Kucinich, makes some sense, but he should be in a assylum. Joe Biden, talk about changing his mind? One day he's for winning the war, the next he want's an immediate pull out. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking to oust Howard Dean and start to change my message and faces because I think that the message and faces out there now are not working.

[ccecill 52]

Originally posted by: baystatebill I honestly am very surprised that the Democrats can't produce better candidates than Hillary and Barrack. You would think that after all the griping over the last 8 years from stealing elections to the war and everything in between I can't believe the Democrats couldn't of found some better candidates. Clinton, not a good candiate, there's no inbetween. People either love her or hate her. Obama, no experience, and a realistic question would be "Is America ready to elect not only a black President, but a black, Muslim president. John Edwards, a one term Senator, personal injury attorney who's having an affair behind his dying wife's back. Chris Dodd, noted drunk and womanizer. Kucinich, makes some sense, but he should be in a assylum. Joe Biden, talk about changing his mind? One day he's for winning the war, the next he want's an immediate pull out. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking to oust Howard Dean and start to change my message and faces because I think that the message and faces out there now are not working.quote>

Read Slate.

Read Politico.

Watch friggin CNN.

BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!

You will never be happy with anyone until you decide to take what you've got. If Howard Dean were running, you'd probably be saying that he were a raving lunatic. Politicians suck. But don't be surprised and outraged when that's all you've got.

And your "experience" which Obama lacks cannot be quantified.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: ccecill

Originally posted by: baystatebill I honestly am very surprised that the Democrats can't produce better candidates than Hillary and Barrack. You would think that after all the griping over the last 8 years from stealing elections to the war and everything in between I can't believe the Democrats couldn't of found some better candidates. Clinton, not a good candiate, there's no inbetween. People either love her or hate her. Obama, no experience, and a realistic question would be "Is America ready to elect not only a black President, but a black, Muslim president. John Edwards, a one term Senator, personal injury attorney who's having an affair behind his dying wife's back. Chris Dodd, noted drunk and womanizer. Kucinich, makes some sense, but he should be in a assylum. Joe Biden, talk about changing his mind? One day he's for winning the war, the next he want's an immediate pull out. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking to oust Howard Dean and start to change my message and faces because I think that the message and faces out there now are not working.quote>

Read Slate.

Read Politico.

Watch friggin CNN.

BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!quote>

His race or religion, no matter what, should not be a factor in defining his ability to Govern the country...

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Ho hum...McCain is looking better and better. Romney can scratch, I won't waste a vote on him. The thing I'm most interested in is 'who can beat Hillary?'. And by the look of things, that could be accomplished by a well-made ham sandwich.quote>

 

Mmmmm....Ham....

ANyways, I think since her "Racist Comment" Fiasco, she's digging her grave...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

That's the thing that's so funny; someone from the left getting hoisted on a silly PC petard. I thought that only a genuine malcontent would take offense at what was said, and the fury of this particular tempest in a teapot was amusingly intense.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I think since her "Racist Comment" Fiasco, she's digging her grave...quote>

It was not racist in anyway whatsoever........if people actually listened to what she said and didn't focus on the word Black and whatever else. Typical media bull**** and a discreet campaign by the Obama team to make it look racist, playing the race card is not only disgusting but could backfire badly.

His race or religion, no matter what, should not be a factor in defining his ability to Govern the country...quote>

No I should not, but this is America.....would not be an issue in the UK or some European countries but it does in America

I think that Obama is a great speaker and can really get people motivated to vote, but as a one term Senator I don't think he has enough experience to be President.quote>

I agree completely on that issue....

ALSO: Forgot to add, of course MCCAIN won the Republican South Carolina Primary

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I think that Obama is a great speaker and can really get people motivated to vote, but as a one term Senator I don't think he has enough experience to be President.quote>

I agree completely on that issue....

quote>

What experience does Hillary really have? Biden and Dodd were the experienced candidates early on in the Democratic race. Clinton, Edwards and Obama do not have long records in government.

If you look at just the time they've spent as an elected official, Obama actually wins out with eleven years versus seven for Clinton. If you put Obama and Clinton side by side on experience they even out. Hillary was not a direct participant during her husband's years in office.

Clinton can't claim superior experience. She shouldn't want to either. In a McCain vs Clinton scenario, who do you think is actually going to look experienced:

The senator who's been in Washington for 25 years?

Or the senator who's been there for 7, who rode in on her husband's coattails?

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: baystatebill I like Romney. A lot of people have brought up a lack of a record in Massachusetts. Anyone who knows Massachusetts politics knows what a uphill fight any republican has in the Commonwealth. So far Romney has been the only consistant candidate in the Rebuplican races. Wins in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, 2nd place in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has not received less than 30% of the votes yet. Huckabee and McCain have each had some dismal performances. Romney will likely do poorly in SC. Rudy is banking his whole campaign in Florida. It should be a very interesting race on the Rebuplican side. I believe Romney, McCain and Guilianni will come down to the end. As for the Democrats, I'm not to thrilled with any of the candidates. I have never liked the Clinton's, especially Hillary. I think that Obama is a great speaker and can really get people motivated to vote, but as a one term Senator I don't think he has enough experience to be President.quote>

I think Romney is one of the better Republican candidates. So I agree with just about everything you mentioned here.

The thing about Obama is, despite "lack of experience" the only thing he ever seems to say is "change this" or "change that", thats basically the same thing Guiliani is doing with the whole 9/11 this, or 9/11 that type deal..So what change is Obama talking about? I've read his standings on various websites, and they don't seem to be a change at all. Obama also seems unpatriotic...thats a big no-no in my book for a presidential candidate.

[baystatebill 2]

[

.

His race or religion, no matter what, should not be a factor in defining his ability to Govern the country...quote>

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: baystatebill

I agree that race and religion should not matter. I simply made an observation. Whether it's wrong or right, race, sex and religion does matter. It always has, and as far as I can see it will matter in the future. Mitt Romney has had to defend his mormon beliefs since he began his political career. It shouldn't matter, but it does. As for Obama being a muslim, I understand he is a Christian. However, again, it is a wide belief that he is a Muslim. He was born to a Muslim father, he was educated in Indonesia and a public school that does teach the Muslim belief, in fact the Indonesia education system teachs the more radical forms of Isalms.quote>

Here is CNN's report on that.

[baystatebill 2]

[i think Romney is one of the better Republican candidates. So I agree with just about everything you mentioned here.

The thing about Obama is, despite "lack of experience" the only thing he ever seems to say is "change this" or "change that", thats basically the same thing Guiliani is doing with the whole 9/11 this, or 9/11 that type deal..So what change is Obama talking about? I've read his standings on various websites, and they don't seem to be a change at all. Obama also seems unpatriotic...thats a big no-no in my book for a presidential candidate.quote>

 

I can't help but seeing the similarities in Obama's message and campaign and the successfull campaign of Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. He ran his campaign with mostl a message of change and his now famous "We Believe". But so far his first year in office was a bust. He spent his first three months appologizing for everything from spending $12,000 for new drapes in the corner office to still conducting work for Americredit after taking office. He made many promises that anyone would know he could not keep. During the election there were many polls showing that 75 to 80% of the residents of Massachusetts agreed on the issues with his opponent, but somehow everyone bought the believe and change message and now we are paying the consequences.

[Explodingsims 3]

Bellunfastguy- Note the "__" Marks, I was being sarcastic. But I should have said, "The Media's digging her Grave"

Hooray for media embellishments!!

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove  unpatriotic...thats a big no-no in my book for a presidential candidate.quote>

 

Define unpatriotic.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove  unpatriotic...thats a big no-no in my book for a presidential candidate.quote>

 

Define unpatriotic.quote>

 

He wouldn't put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: Micah

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove  unpatriotic...thats a big no-no in my book for a presidential candidate.quote>

 

Define unpatriotic.quote>

 

He wouldn't put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.quote>

 

Bad move...if I had a vote, he lost it right there. 

president of the US has to be able to put his hand over his heart and pledge allegiance to the US. If he can't, he doesnt deserve to be president.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Obama violated the traditions associated with the Pledge of Allegiance National Anthem (excuse me for the factual inaccuracy, as I had likewise heard it was the Pledge of Allegiance), and not surprisingly, ticked some people off for it.  In his particular case, his actions could make him look arrogant, disrespectful, unpatriotic, and suggest that he might be running for nothing but personal gain.  I wonder if he has ever thought that there are individuals who, despite personal injuries and disabilities, will "tough out the pain" or attempt to work around their disabilities to show respect for things like the singing of the National Anthem.  Like the guy in the wheelchair who didn't take being pretty much relegated to a wheelchair as a valid reason for not standing while the school band was playing the National Anthem.  Despite his obvious physical handicap, he worked his way into a standing position, despite the fact that no one would have considered it necessary to do that.  This man showed more respect for American traditions than Obama has shown.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

I guess this is how the politics of untruths are inadvertantly spread, as it was not during the publicly sacrosanct Pledge of Allegiance for which Obama was photographed not placing his hand over his heart, but for the National Anthem instead.

Obama afterward claimed that he was always taught that you were supposed to stand at attention and sing, though apparently it is actually considered correct that attendees are supposed to place their hands over their hearts. I didn't even know such was a civilian requirement, and I grew up on veteran-beloved Hickam, where like every military base all movement comes to a silent standstill during the daily broadcast flag ceremonies. Ignorance may be no excuse, but there was never any statement or indication that it was some deliberately targetted slap in order to somehow protest the ongoing war, which Obama's shadiest enemies would have all veterans and senior citizens believe (similar to the smear attacks darkly labelling Obama "muslim" or adding "bin Laden" to his name). Sounds like more Swift-Boating to me. Some see this issue as a sign of the kind of inexperience Obama has, as politicians more seasoned in the intricacies of such public appearances such as Clinton are mindful to always place their hands over their hearts for any and every moment that may showcase patriotism so as never to be inadvertantly caught off guard as Obama apparently was. If we were to be cynical, we might note the savvy politican is also supposed to be mindful to kiss every baby, shake hands with every veteran, and earnestly reply "So help me God" whenever taking an oath with their hands upon the Bible.  At any rate, Obama keeps his hand to his heart as often as possible now, hehe.

Still, there is always that one moment or blurb that gets people.  For me, Huckabee definitely got locked out when on the various CNN interviews he qibbled on whether his reformed sales tax plan was a 23% or a 30% tax.  I know the simple rationale behind both numbers, and either are correct depending on the thoroughness of how they are stated, but insisting on lowballing "fuzzy math" through browbeating repetition is a misleading no-no with someone who is not mathematically inept.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Micah 16]

belfastuniguy, I was wondering if you could change the title to read something like "American Election Thread:....." and post the headline or news after that. You can do it however you want to, but just keep the first part of whatever you write as your title the same because it's getting very confusing to know whether it's a new thread or simply a new title. I hope I'm making sense.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Yeah I can do

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: JanYpe 

Hillary was not a direct participant during her husband's years in office.

quote>

 

According to her, she was. And who can forget "WE are the President"? The Socialized Medicine Debacle was her creation, in closed door sessions that were only wrong when Dick Cheney did it, apparently. 

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Ok, you guys didn't think you could start a political thread and not get my two cents could you?

I think this "America is not ready for a _____ President" crap is for the birds. Its a nice way of saying "I'm not going to vote for them because they are _____, but I need a reason that doesn't seem so uncouth."  Once again prejudice rears its ugly head once again, and I think this election has brought its (underlying) existence into the limelight.  America has been candy coating its prejudices against these groups for years, but it has transformed from outward and apparent hatred, and has retreated into the office chair.  Housing discrimination, lending discrimination, job discrimination, and all other "discriminations" are just as affective as outward hatred, if not more.  Its still here, kids, you just don't see it as well.

What do you mean by "America isn't ready for a ____ president" ?! Hmm? Its not like we could impeach them for being ______ once they were in office. What could the possible re-precussions be?

Aside from this soapbox, my personal vote will be going towards Hillary. I have listened to several of their speeches and have found that Hillary seems to have it together, as far as her preparedness and rhetoric. She, to me, is much more composed in stressful situations, such as debates. Her answers are well-thought-out, and you can really sense that she truly knows what she's talking about, not being fed a few one-liners from her writers. Do I like Obama? Yes, absolutely, but I feel that Hillary is a much stronger candidate for this country.

If you'll notice, she often gives many more details than the other democratic hopefuls, when asked her position on assorted topics. Her answers are often structured something along the lines of "I support _____. And you can tell this because of my work in ______ when I met with _______ and we accomplished _____.", and I really value that. She gives hard proof on her stance on issues, whilst others often say things like "I have been against/for ______ since _____.", and provide no basis for their alleged support/opposition of the topic.

What really got me rooting for Hillary was a televised debate (I think it was on CNN) when the (biased) reporter asked her this (These aren't exact quotes, but it's very close, and it gets my point across): "Back in ______ of last year, you criticized President Bush for using the terrorist threat as a manipulation tool for getting what he wanted. But now, you are saying things like 'the threat of terrorism is real, and it needs to be dealt with'. What is your response?"

Hillary immediately fired back with: "Yes, I said that, but I feel that there is a difference between using the fear tactics for your own agendas, and realizing that there is indeed a terrorist threat. I wasn't using this idea of a terrorist threat to manipulate the people, I was merely stating the facts, and ignoring this threat would be ignorant beyond comparison."

Do you see what I mean? If she were backsliding on her comment, it would have taken much longer to produce that response. She seems to be an honest, straightforward candidate, and her rhetoric is the perfect example of it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy

What really got me rooting for Hillary was a televised debate (I think it was on CNN) when the (biased) reporter asked her this (These aren't exact quotes, but it's very close, and it gets my point across): "Back in ______ of last year, you criticized President Bush for using the terrorist threat as a manipulation tool for getting what he wanted. But now, you are saying things like 'the threat of terrorism is real, and it needs to be dealt with'. What is your response?"

Hillary immediately fired back with: "Yes, I said that, but I feel that there is a difference between using the fear tactics for your own agendas, and realizing that there is indeed a terrorist threat. I wasn't using this idea of a terrorist threat to manipulate the people, I was merely stating the facts, and ignoring this threat would be ignorant beyond comparison."

Do you see what I mean? If she were backsliding on her comment, it would have taken much longer to produce that response. She seems to be an honest, straightforward candidate, and her rhetoric is the perfect example of it.quote>

 

Wow a candidate who admited they said anything previously.

Rare breed.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Listen, all throughout 2007, Bush has not done one single thing right. I really don't know what he has been doing this entire year, because it seems like he hasn't really tried anything to help the country.

Frankly, we all stopped listening to the little troll a while ago. Anybody is better than what we have right now, but I have my hopes for Clinton. Obama might have the personality and charm, but I don't think he's ready for being president. The rest are obnoxious politicians [imo] who hang around with Chuck Norris and will get nothing done.

[Micah 16]

People don't realize that there are more than two parties in this race.

There are two parties on the Democratic side (that I can think of) and three on the Republican side.

You have the far left crowd who are completely against the Iraq War are for either Obama or Edwards. The other Democratic party are more traditional Democrats who are for Hillary and adored Bill Clinton during his era.

On the Republican side, you have the right-wing group who are everything conservative and you won't make it if you have anything non-conservative in your blood which makes Huckabee the leader of that party (although, Huckabee let some murderers free in his state). The next party are the big-business Republicans which makes Mitt Romney (the big business guy) the leader there. The more moderate conservatives, there alliances are between two Republicans: Rudy and John. So far, John McCain seems to be more of the front runner of that party.

This will be interesting to see which parties come together.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I was leaning Ron Paul, but he's fading fast as the media is once again working actively against a viable candidate. If he doesn't make a strong showing by Super Tuesday, then I'm likely going to go McCain. 

The political winds are working against Huckabee this time around, and Thompson never got enough energy up to go and make a pot of coffee. 

I was prepared to consider Giuliani due to his management ability, something we sorely need. But his strategy of pinning his hopes on FL has never worked in the past for any candidate. He should have known better. 

I will not consider Romney. I don't trust him one bit.

I heard an interview with Democratic women voters in SC on NPR...I was appalled. "Is it more important to vote for a woman or an African-American?" was the question they grappling with. No discussion of issues, platforms, our economy, etc. Just class-warfare politics as usual. And some would call me narrow-minded!

[zane900 1]

Originally posted by: SkiGeekI think electability is an issue with most of them.quote>

I think sanity is an issue with most of them.