USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Seakony]

Originally Posted by Banzoomba

I always do but....but I don't have a good record of picking winners in State elections latley

A true honest voter! It takes guts to admit that...most won't.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Seakony

Voters vote with their pocketbooks and wallet.

I vote with my beliefs and my conscience
Some of those are related to my wallets
Some are related to keeping children from going hungry
no matter how screwed up their parents are
Some are related to taking care of other folks.

[Just Lucky]

Steve, Other than his penchant for compromise there must be something else to recommend Obama would you like to explain any that he seems strong to you on?

Whoever the nominee, how can the Democratic Party candidate differentiate themself from the opposition?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve, Other than his penchant for compromise there must be something else to recommend Obama would you like to explain any that he seems strong to you on?

Whoever the nominee, how can the Democratic Party candidate differentiate themself from the opposition?

Well first off, how about doing away with that rancor and focusing on healing the division? I think that would be an excellent place to start.

As for comments on what I like about Obama, well I've sorta already made many, at least by implication and mostly in discussing his (second) book (haven't read the first), in other posts. I'll find some here and link to them, if you like, but I have also concurred with others here (including some who don't seem to be typical Democrat/liberal types) in that he, at least so far, seems to be very decent and sincere, something that cannot easily be said about many politicians anywhere and something I don't find it easy to say about many other candidates in this race, including others whose policies I might otherwise be in agreement with, generally speaking. But certainly there are other aspects of his character and background that I find very appealing, such as his international experiences and perspective, and also particular issues on which I think he can help a lot, such as (not surprisingly) race (and notably, by his own veryt logical extension in that book, immigration).

Gets at some things indirectly, but this thread might be of interest... Same goes for this one... On this same thread, posts here, here and maybe also here might be of interest to you. But probably more than those would be what he's written. I thought his second book was slow, especially in getting started, but picked up quite nicely in the middle chapters, which is where I think I started to get this idea of not just a candidate with views more preferable to me personally going in to do battle in the same ways we've been seeing (in keeping with the division), but a candidate who might be able to do more and work towards more unity and less rancor, as well. You'll see that from the get-go in his second book, at least, he discusses a fair amount the loss of older, more bipartisan sentiment in the Senate, for example. And that's just the start.

Try it if you're interested.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well first off, how about doing away with that rancor and focusing on healing the division? I think that would be an excellent place to start.

As for comments on what I like about Obama, well I've sorta already made many, at least by implication and mostly in discussing his (second) book (haven't read the first), in other posts. I'll find some here and link to them, if you like, but I have also concurred with others here (including some who don't seem to be typical Democrat/liberal types) in that he, at least so far, seems to be very decent and sincere, something that cannot easily be said about many politicians anywhere and something I don't find it easy to say about many other candidates in this race, including others whose policies I might otherwise be in agreement with, generally speaking. But certainly there are other aspects of his character and background that I find very appealing, such as his international experiences and perspective, and also particular issues on which I think he can help a lot, such as (not surprisingly) race (and notably, by his own veryt logical extension in that book, immigration).

Gets at some things indirectly, but this thread might be of interest... Same goes for this one... On this same thread, posts here, here and maybe also here might be of interest to you. But probably more than those would be what he's written. I thought his second book was slow, especially in getting started, but picked up quite nicely in the middle chapters, which is where I think I started to get this idea of not just a candidate with views more preferable to me personally going in to do battle in the same ways we've been seeing (in keeping with the division), but a candidate who might be able to do more and work towards more unity and less rancor, as well. You'll see that from the get-go in his second book, at least, he discusses a fair amount the loss of older, more bipartisan sentiment in the Senate, for example. And that's just the start.

Try it if you're interested.

Steve

Steve, I should have explained myself better. It is not that I am biased against Obamas candidacy. What I'd like to see is perhaps 3 or 4 strong bullet points that would make the average voter (we'll call him Bubba) vote for Obama. Simple stuff that appeals to someone who takes a fleeting glance.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well first off, how about doing away with that rancor and focusing on healing the division? I think that would be an excellent place to start.

Healing what division? Please, a short answer.

[roni]

According to polls done last week

None of the above leads the Republican race

Hillary has strong lead in Democratic race.

Read the whole article if you want to.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Healing what division? Please, a short answer.

Are you a denialist on this point?

Seriously, I have not even lived in the U.S. since mid-1995 and I see it. If you do not see it despite having lived in the country presumably all that time, well then I will not be able to explain it to you, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve, I should have explained myself better. It is not that I am biased against Obamas candidacy. What I'd like to see is perhaps 3 or 4 strong bullet points that would make the average voter (we'll call him Bubba) vote for Obama. Simple stuff that appeals to someone who takes a fleeting glance.

I didn't think you were biased against Obama at all, just assumed you were asking for more input on/about him.

I'm not sure there is anything like you say, though one point that pops to mind is some of the stuff he discusses in the chapter on race (and again also immigration) in his second book. Check it out!

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Are you a denialist on this point?

Seriously, I have not even lived in the U.S. since mid-1995 and I see it. If you do not see it despite having lived in the country presumably all that time, well then I will not be able to explain it to you, I'm afraid.

Some divisions should not be healed. Like cancerous tissue, some should probably be excised, looked at under a microscope and then disposed of with the rest of the bio-harzards.

I was just wondering which specific division you were thinking about.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Some divisions should not be healed. Like cancerous tissue, some should probably be excised, looked at under a microscope and then disposed of with the rest of the bio-harzards.

I was just wondering which specific division you were thinking about.

The division in which neither side trusts, gives a damn about, tries to cooperate with, or even wants to listen to, the other.

Prolly more you could add, but that's the one I'm referring to.

It's most certainly not some sort of issue-specific division.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

According to polls done last week

None of the above leads the Republican race

Hillary has strong lead in Democratic race.

Read the whole article if you want to.

My problem with these polls is that they implicitly accept what I think is the myopic focus only on each party, within that party. How are any of these candidates doing when the survey focuses on the whole of the populus, not just members of their respective parties? It's not the be all and end all point, but I think it's well worth considering.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The division in which neither side trusts, gives a damn about, tries to cooperate with, or even wants to listen to, the other.

Prolly more you could add, but that's the one I'm referring to.

It's most certainly not some sort of issue-specific division.

Steve

There are a whole lot more than two sides, my friend, A whole lot more.

For example, Olympia Snowe is not on the same side with Dick Cheney, even though they belong to the same party.

We have had presidents, most recently Bill Clinton, who got considerable legislation passed with the votes of moderates from both parties. I think either Obama or Hillary are likely to do the same. Whoever it is, they need to provide firm guidance to Pelosi and Reid .

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

There are a whole lot more than two sides, my friend, A whole lot more.

For example, Olympia Snowe is not on the same side with Dick Cheney, even though they belong to the same party.

We have had presidents, most recently Bill Clinton, who got considerable legislation passed with the votes of moderates from both parties. I think either Obama or Hillary are likely to do the same. Whoever it is, they need to provide firm guidance to Pelosi and Reid .

You might get some legislation passed with this President, if you would ever get around to sending him some.

Number 1 bullet point for Obama: ° He ain't a Clinton.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You might get some legislation passed with this President, if you would ever get around to sending him some.

He didn't do too well when his party controlled both houses of Congress.

And the latest Intel estimate is that Al-Queda has re-strengthened where we knew it was, and thanks to our uncalled for war, it is strong now in places where it was non-existent before we pre-emptively invaded.

This President will not be leaving behind a legacy of leadership, accomplishment, or even basic competence.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

He didn't do too well when his party controlled both houses of Congress.

And the latest Intel estimate is that Al-Queda has re-strengthened where we knew it was, and thanks to our uncalled for war, it is strong now in places where it was non-existent before we pre-emptively invaded.

This President will not be leaving behind a legacy of leadership, accomplishment, or even basic competence.

Nice attempt at deflection. Where are the bills to be signed? There are none, because the 16% approval rating Congress prefers to play investigative politics rather than to legislate. This President has only used his power of veto, twice. Hardly stopping anything from becoming law, is it?

al Qaeda may be as strong as it was, and that would be for a variety of reasons. One would be the insistence of the NY Times to publish top secret efforts underway to defeat them. Another would be the mixed signals they receive from the US Congress regarding America's determination to defeat them. If I heard my enemy talking about already having been defeated, I might emboldened, as well.