Barack Obama

Manic Moran

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

For once I'd like to believe that Obama isn't just another politician, that he really can change things. Then again the Americans arent the most receptive people to change, look at what happened to carter.

Political pundit on the local all-news station made exactly the same comment. Both Bush and Clinton were elected on a campaign slogan of 'Change' (Bush for Social Security, Clinton for Healthcare), but when they actually tried to push for the changes when in power, the populace suddenly decided they were rather happy with the status quo, thank you very much.

The other thing that's getting to me is that all the soundbites of Obama recently are "Iowa voted for Change!" or "I will bring 'Change'"... leading the question... Change to what? Damnit, tell me what you want to change to! No matter who wins, there's going to be change in the White House!

NTM

moe_sizlak

Akrasia wrote: »

Obama is a very charismatic guy, but don't be fooled that he is any different from the other leading democrat candidates. He will do nothing to improve the lives of the millions of (mostly black) desperately poor people living in america today. He won't do anything to improve how America conducts their foreign policy abroad, he won't do much to help the environment or to reduce global inequality.

He's just another rich privileged candidate who will represent his class above the people who vote for him.

no one with your obvious views or prioritys like wealth distribution would be electable in america , american people dont think like that

moe_sizlak

starn wrote: »

Obama's to young, inexsperianced, and as much as I hate to say it the wrong colour. Cant see him grtting much support outside the east and west coasts.

He might of been better off running as Hillarys VP. But not a hope of that happening now.

If the Democrats run Edwards as Prez and Clinton as VP. I reckon there a shoe in.

I really thought Guiliani would be able to generate support from both the left and right. But it dosent look lie he's even going to get the nod from the republicans


I reckon Edwards and Clinton, with Clinton making the whitehouse her own in eight years.

what on earth would make you think ruddi guiliani would draw support from the left , ruddi is the neo con of the bunch and the bush administrations perfered choice to win

the only republican would could take votes from the left is john mc cain

ruddi is the last person i would want to win , hes a hawk of the highest order

Manic Moran

Rudy would have a fair belt of support from Blue New York alone. That city of 10 million people hasn't forgotten his generally positive two-term-tenure as Mayor or 9/11 (or Hillary: you will recall she got booed offstage at the 'thank you' show). He may be a war hawk, but the rest of his policies tend to appeal to the left: He's pro-choice, anti-gun, supports same-sex-unions, healthcare and so on and so forth. Indeed, he used to be a Democrat until he felt the Party lost its way.

I don't like him, but he's far from being as conservative as, say, Thompson, and even then at least Thompson's a straight-shooter.

NTM

FatherTed

Momentum is a big deal in this process in the US and right now Obama has it. Although there are still some big states where Hillary will probably win (NY & FL ), she is slipping badly in the polls. I think Edwards is more of a threat to Obama now if he manages to win NH or SC. If Obama wins NH this week and especially SC next week that would be a BIG plus for him and it would be tough to bet against him at that point.

DublinWriter

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I personally really like the guy and hope he goes all the way. I'm hoping America is smart enough to get him there.

Nope. I believe he's currently enjoying a honeymoon period with the pre-election Democratic public.

The issues of his cocaine use and general lack of Senatorial experience will be the trump cards that get played late in the game by the Clinton camp and will eventually unravel his campaign.

There's something about Obama's campaign that smacks of Kinnock in 1992.

I'd call it for Hilary Clinton. She's not as dumb as her husband looks.

starn

Manic Moran wrote: »

He's pro-choice, anti-gun, supports same-sex-unions, healthcare and so on and so forth.

For exactly those reasons. I dont think Obama will get the nod. For all the hype and talk of the Iowa cacus. I dont buy it. It's just hype

1992 - Bill Clinton polls forth
1988 - George Bush Snr polls third
1980 - Ronnie Reagan polls second
1976 - The cacus went like this Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%)


My money at the moment is on Hilary as the democratic candidate. But I still think Edwards is a more electible candidate

Fuascailt

Obama's the man. Hilary is more of the same, she's like a celeb trying to revive her career.

is_that_so

Fuascailt wrote: »

Obama's the man. Hilary is more of the same, she's like a celeb trying to revive her career.

So what does he he actually stand for apart from not being one of the old school? I do like his talk but cannot really see a lot of substance to him. Change just for the sake of it, like using a single court case being used to create a new law - is not always a good idea.
Even if he does get in, he's likely to need to pull in a lot of "old school" experienced types to help him run the country.

starn

is_that_so wrote: »

Even if he does get in, he's likely to need to pull in a lot of "old school" experienced types to help him run the country.

I have this feeling whoever’s elected President like Clinton was, no matter what your promises you promised on the campaign trail bla bla bla when you win you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum who got you in there and you’re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down and a big guy with a cigar, “Roll the film.”

Hicks

ghostdancer

DublinWriter wrote: »

Nope. I believe he's currently enjoying a honeymoon period with the pre-election Democratic public.

The issues of his cocaine use and general lack of Senatorial experience will be the trump cards that get played late in the game by the Clinton camp and will eventually unravel his campaign.

:rolleyes:
you clearly haven't been following the race too closely if you haven't seen her playing these before.

AngryHippie

Don't think it matters which of them get in. The lobby groups have far too much control over white house affairs. Outcome is not gonna change that much

ghostdancer

well the Iowa bump certainly seems to be having an effect:


New Hampshire:




South Carolina:

SurveyUSA (1/4-6)
Obama 50
Clinton 30
Edwards 16

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=066ea20c-d300-48cd-a585-cc9c356df4eb

Rasmussen (1/6)
Obama 42
Clinton 30
Edwards 12

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary




USA Today/Gallup National Poll:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/103615/Huckabee-Obama-Gain-National-Level.aspx





Rasmussen national tracking poll (4-day rolling average):

Clinton: 33%
Obama: 29%
Edwards: 20%

lostexpectation

oh oh hillary got out the waterworks... I as wondering who the party wants most, hillary?

I cna't believe dean really got dumped just cos of his awkard scream, it wasn't really just about that.

Hobbes

There is a program called "Penn and Teller BullSh!t". They do one episode on polling and how it is faked to give a particular answer.

TBH I wouldn't trust those polls at all. Obama + Clinton = same thing. Actually they are all pretty much the same.

Lirange

Hobbes wrote: »

Obama + Clinton = same thing. Actually they are all pretty much the same.

They may all have negative attributes. But they are not all the same.

Some disenchanted people put forward the same talk about GWB vs. Gore and again re: GWB vs. Kerry.

I can be as cynical as anyone sometimes but that attitude does not reflect reality.

Hobbes

Lirange wrote: »

They may all have negative attributes. But they are not all the same.

They are all the same in that they will do nothing to change the status quo of the mess the USA is in.

DublinWriter

starn wrote: »

when you win you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum who got you in there and you’re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down and a big guy with a cigar, “Roll the film.”

...and they show you footage of the Kennedy assasination from an angle you've never seen before...an angle that looks suspiciously like it was shot from the Grassy Knoll.

The film stops and they turn around and ask you "Any questions Mr.President?", and you reply, "Yes...what's my agenda?".

starn

Didnt realise I hadnt included the last part of that quote till now. Cheers Dublinwriter

Jack Sheehan

To be honest what American politician stands for anything anymore? Beyond the old issues of Abortion, Same sex marriage, Gun control etc. No one has a conherent plan. Bush sr. stood for, er, No more taxes? Clinton for being a charming guy? Bush jr for war and anti terrorism?

What likely candidate for this election has any discernable strategy? I like Obama because I think that he is an intelligent man who would lead well not because I have heard a peep of policy out of him.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DublinWriter

What baffles me is how many Americans don't know that Obama's middle name is Hussein!

purple'n'gold

DublinWriter wrote: »

What baffles me is how many Americans don't know that Obama's middle name is Hussein!

He's related to the guy who plays cricket for England? I say, good show!

Jack Sheehan

DublinWriter wrote: »

What baffles me is how many Americans don't know that Obama's middle name is Hussein!

Whats wrong with that?

Morlar

DublinWriter wrote: »

What baffles me is how many Americans don't know that Obama's middle name is Hussein!

If he is designated democrat candidate then they will by the end of the election. 'Negative campaign backlash' be-damned.

Morlar

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Whats wrong with that?

Pretty sure that most people would know that its because many americans wont want a president called *Obama hussein - it feeds into their islamo-fear.
*hussein Obama not obama hussein !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FatherTed

I think Hillary lost it when she said during the debate the other night that the country needs change and she is change because she would be the first woman president(paraphrasing here...).

moe_sizlak

if obama gets the nomination , i believe the only way he can win the white house is if mike huckabee gets the gop nomination

if john mc cain wins the gop nomination ( i really like mc cain ) i think he can beat anyone of the democrats

mc cain is a man america would like to see lead while fighting 2 wars , not someone like obama

mc cain,s main problem is he has no money , unlike waxwork himself rommney , that guy makes al gore seem exciting

Manic Moran

The issues you've listed are pretty much non-issues in this election, if they were issues then Guliani wouldn't be in the running for the GOP nomination

Disagree. Abortion and same-sex marriage are not the big-ticket items, but if you've been following the US news routinely, you'll notice that they keep coming up repeatedly. They are going to be a factor. Gun control is always a big one. The reason Giuliani was doing well in the national match-offs was because he has support in the cities with their large population bases who, as a rule, don't like guns anyway. The topic is never a big issue with city-dwellers who generally would like gun control, but won't lose too much sleep if it doesn't happen. However, they can't seem to understand that it's a huge issue for ruralites, who will lose sleep over potential further restrictions. Gore lost his home state over it, in an election in which it wasn't supposed to be an issue either.

NTM