Who do you want to win the American election?

roadruner · 10-02-2008 2:17pm

It should be billary, If all world leaders were women then there'd be no wars they just wouldn't talk to each other

Eric fom alabama has it folks

Obama for the blackhouse & WTF NOT

anyone'd be better than monkeyboy GEORGE W BUSH !!

whatawaster · 10-02-2008 3:34pm

roadruner wrote: »

It should be billary, If all world leaders were women then there'd be no wars they just wouldn't talk to each other

Eric fom alabama has it folks

Obama for the blackhouse & WTF NOT

anyone'd be better than monkeyboy GEORGE W BUSH !!

???

Randomness · 18-02-2008 8:44pm

obama = change

america needs change

is_that_so · 21-02-2008 10:40am

Going to post this here as it seems to fit better.

Much as I like the charisma of Obama, I also find his speeches soporific, simplistic and highly repetitive. I also feel that he has had more than an easy ride because he is easy on the eye and the ears and tbh he ain't Clinton. If he's going to president he needs to be exposed to really hard questions.

I remain unconvinced by him for a number of reasons.

1. Overall issues

He doesn't say anything specific at all. His site contains some vague aspirational ideas about what can happen. IMO much of it is purple prose. He has also yet to prove himself to have a grasp on the nitty gritty of policy details -Clinton is far better on this as is McCain. For a man of change I would have thought he'd have some clear idea on how he is going to run the country, apart from "you all deserve better".

2. Foreign policy experience

Aside from the "bomb Pakistan" gaffe late last year he also seems to be pointing at a get them home quick policy on Iraq. Much as I think the war was wrong, it is also clear that pulling troops out too quickly runs the risk of generating more chaos. This is the one area that I think he is disturbingly weak and the one area that can affect all the rest of us.

3. Pop culture

Yes they all do it, but he seems to go for hyperbole. It's all well and good to motivate "his people" with soaring rhetoric, but what about the ones who are not chosen - like the Clinton supporters or anyone else outside? Watching him in action suggests that his campaign is starting to develop a cult of personality around him. Much of the language he uses in speeches is straight out of pop songs. Nice to sing along to but hardly life-changing. If this was Pop Idol or X Factor he'd win hands down.

4. Fan base

I'd be inclined to describe it as this as he has become an idol of sorts. While he is slowly moving outside his base there is still little evidence to show that he is bringing the Latinos with him or even some of the blue collar workers.
And what about the red blooded Republicans? If he is about change can he convince enough of them that he is the man?

5. Experience

IMO he is too young just yet and I would have expected him to run after this election in 2012/2016.
There have been long lists about what he's voted for and all the bills he's sponsored, far more than Clinton. While this is laudable the truth is he hasn't actually run any public body at any time. It's like saying we'll put in the best county councillor in the country as Taoiseach.

5. What's he selling?

Hope is a great thing and charisma is a wonderful motivator but can he actually do all the things he claims? Can he honestly deliver or is he as taken with the dream? I get the impression on occasion that he is trying to sell himself, subconsciously or otherwise, as a cross between Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I am not sure that this is wise. Someone who sells hope but doesn't deliver on that hope is in effect a charlatan. He would risk damaging himself permanently.

The Economist has a piece on him as well which is worth a read.

Lirange · 21-02-2008 10:39pm

The Economist is a conservative (relative to Europe) publication and almost certainly will back McCain.

I agree with some of your reservations but in my opinion the negatives of Hillary and John McCain far outweigh those of Barack Obama.

ghostdancer · 21-02-2008 11:46pm

is that so, from your posts before, and the overall tone of that post, i seriously doubt anything i say is going to change your mind, we have already had this back and forth already in at least 1 other thread after all....

however here's a link for you , might make you re-think a few of your pre-conceived notions:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

just to say i originally wrote all the below in a "why Obama is a better D candidate than Hillary" manner, and from re-reading your post and the thread title, it was obviously intended as a Presidential candidate point of view, so my apologies. a lot of it still holds true however.

my original version of this post had "just a few quick observations, as not really up for a back and forth debate about it", but.....

1. Overall issues - his site has plenty, just as much as Clinton, and to say he hasn't proved himself to have a grasp on the nitty-gritty of policy details is just incorrect. his Illinois State legaislature record, and US senate career show plenty of grasp of details on issues.
Clinton's site has just as much wishy-washy vagueness if that's what you think of his site. he quite clearly does have clear ideas on how to achieve change, just as he did when he achieved change in Illinois, and has that record to prove it.
McCain by his own admission doesn't have a breeze about the economy, and Clinton can't even keep her own campaign out of debt, so they're hardly credible on the economy.
although to be fair, the heads of some of the departments in cabinet are almost as important as the president IMO. the president makes his or her decisions hugely influenced by what their advisers/cabinet members tell them.

2. - Foreign Policy - both him and Clinton are for the "get them out as quick and as safe as possible" approach. Hillary Clinton voted in favour of of Iraq without even reading the NIE report. she's also far more of a hawk compared to Obama, Iran being a prime example. while McCain may be more left-leaning than most of the Republican base would like, from what i've seen, he seems pretty much in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz mould when it comes to his opinions on the ME. i'm not going to go after his "stay in Iraq for 100 years" quote like some, as it's obvious what he meant, but Iraq isn't really like Japan or Germany to be fair. Germany wasn't in the middle of full blown civil war...as i said before, there's advisers/cabinet members who have a big part to play in this though, if the 3 mentioned above, and Colin Powell had told GWB that Iraq wasn't up to anything and it was far too dangerous to bother with, i'm pretty sure America wouldn't be in this mess now...

3 - Pop culture - well, this whole point is laughable. glad to see someone is using the "cult" meme that the Clinton camp have pushed so hard for, though.

4 - Fan base - bit of a condescending term there, really belongs with the above point. actually there's plenty of evidence that he's doing well with these demographics, as displayed by the breakdowns of recent election exit polls. he's clearly taking far more independents and registered Republicans than Clinton is. in every single state i've seen. no point debating this, it's well known at this stage. let's not try and pretend Clinton is going to get much in the way of Republican votes. there's no Republican hate like Republican Clinton-hate, and conversely, i can't see too many Dems going for a Republican in the current climate, no matter how far to the left he is of his colleagues.

5 - experience - you musn't be of the "best qualified candidate" school of thought, then? as Bill Clinton said, "there's the right type of experience and the wrong type of experience". Bill Clinton was 47 when he became President. Barack Obama will be 47 when he becomes President. Bill was also apparently the "inexperienced" candidate, high on charm and charisma, short on answers...i think most will agree that he didn't a fairly decent job.
so really the age thing is a load of nonsense IMO.
agreed, he hasn't run a public body at any time. neither has Hillary Clinton. i know who's been a publically elected representative for the last 11 years (Obama) and who has for 7 years (Clinton).
i assume you also agree that the "35 years of experience" soundbyte is the biggest fairytale since Bill's explanation for his use of that phrase.
i'd rather have a more accomplished and experienced Cllr. than the less qualified wife of a Taoiseach from a few years ago.
but again, that's just because I subscribe to the "best qualified candidate" mentality.

6 - selling - well he has the record of getting things done in the Illinois Senate, and in his time in the US Senate, and it's far more impressive than what Hillary Clinton has accomplished. it's nice to have someone who has their sights set high, that has a proven track record of achieving, versus someone who doesn't have much of one, with a few notable failures in her record of trying to get things done.

as for that Economist article, i'm not going to go through my thoughts on it here in any detail, suffice to say, it's pretty badly written, and has a very simplistic, and at times, blinkered view of the points it discusses, all in a condescending and flippant manner. i didn't notice any author's name on it, so couldn't get an idea if their usual articles are this sloppy. it's the type of article i'd expect to find in the Sunday Independent weekend magazine to be honest...

Manic Moran · 22-02-2008 4:47am

and US senate career show plenty of grasp of details on issues.

MSN has a look at Obama's US Senate record this evening. He may grasp the details on issues, but whether his conclusions necessarily match up with what is required may be questioned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/

Of note (and I'm a little surprised considering his success in these States in the Primaries), he has often gone against the trend in the battleground States, being a solid Party loyalist.

Obama voted “no” anyway, joining 24 other Democrats. No Republicans voted with them. Most of the Democrats from battleground states voted for the motion.

Obama put himself at odds with Democrats from states such as Montana, Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia, all of which could be pivotal states in the 2008 election

I keep saying it, but something the Democratic Party really needs to remember is that the reason they hold Majority in Congress is because of the moderate Democrats in these relatively conservative States. They neglect this trend at their own risk by putting a solid Loyalist up against a moderate Conservative. If it weren't for the taint the Republicans have courtesy of the Bush administration, I'm not sure he'd have a chance.

NTM

Lirange · 22-02-2008 6:12am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of note (and I'm a little surprised considering his success in these States in the Primaries), he has often gone against the trend in the battleground States, being a solid Party loyalist.

Manic, you could make that argument if the Democratic alternative to Obama was Richardson. But the present alternative to Obama is Hillary and she carries many negatives. Perception often trumps voting habits. You also seem to overestimate how informed the voters may be regarding one candidates voting record compared to the others. Those with a special allegiance to a given interest may know but the general public doesn't.

Independents are overwhelmingly flocking more to Obama than Clinton. He is also getting more registered Republican support in open primaries. He is perceived as less divisive. He praised Reagan's ability to communicate and how the message of optimism works in America. He was subsequently attacked repeatedly by Clinton for it. His comments may have hurt in the short term ... certainly many Republicans/independents took note. It wasn't a cynical ploy by him to praise Reagan either. He has made similar comments going back to his Illinois legislature days. It doesn't mean that he agrees with Reagan on most policy fronts but he is objective enough to realise those qualities that resonated and is unafraid to acknowledge them.

Let's take a look at a so-called purple state:

Rasmussen Poll: Colorado

Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39%. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%. National polling, updated daily, currently shows the same general trend with Obama currently performing better than Clinton in match-ups with McCain.

That's a 21 pct point difference looking at how Obama & Hillary look against candidate McCain.

is_that_so · 22-02-2008 11:09am

ghostdancer wrote: »

is that so, from your posts before, and the overall tone of that post, i seriously doubt anything i say is going to change your mind, we have already had this back and forth already in at least 1 other thread after all....

however here's a link for you , might make you re-think a few of your pre-conceived notions:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

just to say i originally wrote all the below in a "why Obama is a better D candidate than Hillary" manner, and from re-reading your post and the thread title, it was obviously intended as a Presidential candidate point of view, so my apologies. a lot of it still holds true however.

my original version of this post had "just a few quick observations, as not really up for a back and forth debate about it", but.....

1. Overall issues - his site has plenty, just as much as Clinton, and to say he hasn't proved himself to have a grasp on the nitty-gritty of policy details is just incorrect. his Illinois State legaislature record, and US senate career show plenty of grasp of details on issues.
Clinton's site has just as much wishy-washy vagueness if that's what you think of his site. he quite clearly does have clear ideas on how to achieve change, just as he did when he achieved change in Illinois, and has that record to prove it.
McCain by his own admission doesn't have a breeze about the economy, and Clinton can't even keep her own campaign out of debt, so they're hardly credible on the economy.
although to be fair, the heads of some of the departments in cabinet are almost as important as the president IMO. the president makes his or her decisions hugely influenced by what their advisers/cabinet members tell them.

2. - Foreign Policy - both him and Clinton are for the "get them out as quick and as safe as possible" approach. Hillary Clinton voted in favour of of Iraq without even reading the NIE report. she's also far more of a hawk compared to Obama, Iran being a prime example. while McCain may be more left-leaning than most of the Republican base would like, from what i've seen, he seems pretty much in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz mould when it comes to his opinions on the ME. i'm not going to go after his "stay in Iraq for 100 years" quote like some, as it's obvious what he meant, but Iraq isn't really like Japan or Germany to be fair. Germany wasn't in the middle of full blown civil war...as i said before, there's advisers/cabinet members who have a big part to play in this though, if the 3 mentioned above, and Colin Powell had told GWB that Iraq wasn't up to anything and it was far too dangerous to bother with, i'm pretty sure America wouldn't be in this mess now...

3 - Pop culture - well, this whole point is laughable. glad to see someone is using the "cult" meme that the Clinton camp have pushed so hard for, though.

4 - Fan base - bit of a condescending term there, really belongs with the above point. actually there's plenty of evidence that he's doing well with these demographics, as displayed by the breakdowns of recent election exit polls. he's clearly taking far more independents and registered Republicans than Clinton is. in every single state i've seen. no point debating this, it's well known at this stage. let's not try and pretend Clinton is going to get much in the way of Republican votes. there's no Republican hate like Republican Clinton-hate, and conversely, i can't see too many Dems going for a Republican in the current climate, no matter how far to the left he is of his colleagues.

5 - experience - you musn't be of the "best qualified candidate" school of thought, then? as Bill Clinton said, "there's the right type of experience and the wrong type of experience". Bill Clinton was 47 when he became President. Barack Obama will be 47 when he becomes President. Bill was also apparently the "inexperienced" candidate, high on charm and charisma, short on answers...i think most will agree that he didn't a fairly decent job.
so really the age thing is a load of nonsense IMO.
agreed, he hasn't run a public body at any time. neither has Hillary Clinton. i know who's been a publically elected representative for the last 11 years (Obama) and who has for 7 years (Clinton).
i assume you also agree that the "35 years of experience" soundbyte is the biggest fairytale since Bill's explanation for his use of that phrase.
i'd rather have a more accomplished and experienced Cllr. than the less qualified wife of a Taoiseach from a few years ago.
but again, that's just because I subscribe to the "best qualified candidate" mentality.

6 - selling - well he has the record of getting things done in the Illinois Senate, and in his time in the US Senate, and it's far more impressive than what Hillary Clinton has accomplished. it's nice to have someone who has their sights set high, that has a proven track record of achieving, versus someone who doesn't have much of one, with a few notable failures in her record of trying to get things done.

I don't have much say other than to repeat that if he is a candidate for President he needs to be grilled on absolutely everything in the harshest manner possible. I'd expect no less of any of the candidates.

The link you posted verifies what an Australian researcher (no link as I can't find it) concluded recently is that we find what we want on the internet because we are only looking for things, me included, that support our point of view.

Yet all it does IMO, is yet again produce a big long list of what he was supposed to be doing anyway. If he gets in and buggers up, people won't care how long that list is. Regrettably the blogger then buys into the hype at the end with the Obama chant thus obviating the need to even write it, which imo just vindicates my choice of "fan club" above.

As for the County Councillor there is a very big difference to showing up to a couple of meetings a month and running a government department or the country.

as for that Economist article, i'm not going to go through my thoughts on it here in any detail, suffice to say, it's pretty badly written, and has a very simplistic, and at times, blinkered view of the points it discusses, all in a condescending and flippant manner. i didn't notice any author's name on it, so couldn't get an idea if their usual articles are this sloppy. it's the type of article i'd expect to find in the Sunday Independent weekend magazine to be honest...

Yeah The Economist is very patchy and more akin to an intellectual version of The Sun at times, but the piece does highlight the need to ask what he is selling and if he can deliver it.

I still remain unconvinced.

banquo · 22-02-2008 5:11pm

I am dying for the next TExas and Ohio polls from Rasmussen. Probably be tomorrow or day after.

/stamps foot, sulks

Manic Moran · 23-02-2008 8:10am

but the piece does highlight the need to ask what he is selling and if he can deliver it.

I still remain unconvinced.

For better or worse, however, I'm not sure most voters will try to dig at this point in the proceedings.

NTM

is_that_so · 02-03-2008 11:34am

I spotted this piece on USA Today of all places and thought it made some interesting reading, especially in relation to how the GE has tended to work out over the last 40 years or so. Once again it serves to point out that Americans, no more than ourselves, are innately conservative at heart. It also suggests to me how wrapped up in their own "rhetoric" some of the media have become on this whole thing. It'll probably be as close as some of those other contests and with the venerable Ralph Nader in the mix, who knows how it will turn out.

Lirange · 03-03-2008 1:08am

Nader is a non factor nowadays. He'll mainly only get votes from people that would not have voted for either the Democrat or McCain even if Nader were not on the ballot. The Green Party candidate will pick up more votes than he will. In most of the bellwether battleground states neither he nor the green party nominee will be a factor.

chat2joe · 12-03-2008 12:47am

He's just too cool....!

Denis Irwin · 12-03-2008 9:10pm

I hope that Obama is the winner come November because if it's a McCain v Clinton election I think we'll see another Republican in the White House.

Das Kitty · 18-03-2008 9:59am

I have to say I'm leaning towards McCain.

I've never wanted that despot Hillary to get in. I was hot for Obama for ages, but the his reaction to the Kenyan costume thing annoyed me. Just ignore it ffs, you're pretty much admitting that the electorate are going to thing you're a terrorist wearing a turban after seeing it. At least pretend to think a bit more of them. That and a lot of people working in his campaign office seem to be wearing pyjamas and UGG boots to work

.

I like McCain, set aside the fact that he's ancient. His policies are good, he actually seems to be a human being and when he got the presedential endorsement from GW a couple of weeks ago he smiled on through, knowing fully what GW had stooped to to torpedo his bid for the nom in 2000. I do worry that he'll be old as hell when he finishes up if he gets the two terms, which is why he needs to pick a like minded VP and not try to calm the right by picking one of theirs.

FatherTed · 19-03-2008 2:49pm

Das Kitty wrote: »

I have to say I'm leaning towards McCain.

I've never wanted that despot Hillary to get in. I was hot for Obama for ages, but the his reaction to the Kenyan costume thing annoyed me. Just ignore it ffs, you're pretty much admitting that the electorate are going to thing you're a terrorist wearing a turban after seeing it. At least pretend to think a bit more of them. That and a lot of people working in his campaign office seem to be wearing pyjamas and UGG boots to work .

I like McCain, set aside the fact that he's ancient. His policies are good, he actually seems to be a human being and when he got the presedential endorsement from GW a couple of weeks ago he smiled on through, knowing fully what GW had stooped to to torpedo his bid for the nom in 2000. I do worry that he'll be old as hell when he finishes up if he gets the two terms, which is why he needs to pick a like minded VP and not try to calm the right by picking one of theirs.

McCain=McBush:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

McCain has real fascist tendencies, in that he glorifies battle for its own sake. He would the chance to send men into war so that they can kill and be killed. Much like his "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" joke a while back, he doesnt care about the details, he doesnt give a ********.

This is a dangerous man. He will get the US into war in Iran, which will really screw up Iraq.

Denis Irwin · 19-03-2008 7:09pm

FatherTed wrote: »

McCain=McBush:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

McCain has real fascist tendencies, in that he glorifies battle for its own sake. He would the chance to send men into war so that they can kill and be killed. Much like his "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" joke a while back, he doesnt care about the details, he doesnt give a ********.

This is a dangerous man. He will get the US into war in Iran, which will really screw up Iraq.

I agree 100% McCain is a Bush MkII waiting to happen and that why I really hope Obama gets the nod because I would be very surprised if Hillary beats him should she get the nomination.

Krsnik87 · 19-03-2008 7:17pm

The way I see it McCain has it in the bag, tortured war hero looking out for the rights of the people and they're army. Its the second coming of the bush administration but its gonna happen. We can just hope he takes an independent look at how the country is run and follow bushs lead...

is_that_so · 23-03-2008 12:30pm

FatherTed wrote: »

McCain=McBush:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

McCain has real fascist tendencies, in that he glorifies battle for its own sake. He would the chance to send men into war so that they can kill and be killed. Much like his "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" joke a while back, he doesn't care about the details, he doesnt give a ********.

This is a dangerous man. He will get the US into war in Iran, which will really screw up Iraq.

There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. In the same way that Dubya rants and waves the flag in front of his home team, McCain can be expected to do the same. He is a Republican pragmatist in my view, and does not kowtow to the conservatives, one of the reasons there are mutterings about him in the GOP. I would see him as more of a Reagan than a Bush. There are some bits of him I am not at all a fan of , but he has enough redeeming features to make him a tolerable president.

Remember the same man was part of the bi-partisan attempts to sort out immigration.

I also think that "Events dear boy, events" (Harold McMillan) are putting extreme pressure on the Dems, most notably Obama. Despite his very fine speech last week , the number of targets the Republicans can hit him with get larger by the day. Aside from the Reverend, I suspect that the spectre of association with corruption , through the Rezko trial and Emil Jones are a greater risk, as they effectively suggest that he is probably no different than any other politician.

dav1b · 24-03-2008 3:58am

A truly bi-partisian president. A practical man, unafraid to make the difficult decisions, those of you who have done you research will remember his co-sponsored immigration reform bill and he unwavering stance on government torture. He is old though..... We sure either him or the black fella, not yer one anyway, too bleedin divisive, and what the world is is a united strong hopeful US, not otherwise...

FatherTed · 24-03-2008 4:22pm

is_that_so wrote: »

There is not a shred of evidence that this is true.

Really?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

Jim_Are_Great · 24-03-2008 5:57pm

dav1b wrote: »

A practical man, unafraid to make the difficult decisions

Yes, and one who has been endorsed by, and is enlisting the support of, Grover Norquist, the nutty, far-right lobbyist who believes that government should be destroyed, gun control should be eliminated and that taxing the wealthy to fund social programmes is tantamount to theft.

McCain is also acting recklessly with the economy, offering tax cuts to large corporations which would obviously be hugely costly. Big tax breaks like this for wealthy entities can't happen without big sacrifices in welfare at the expense of lower income people. He has also moved away from his erstwhile opposition to Bush's tax break for the rich, thus changing his economic policy yet again.

McCain loves a good war. He has admitted it, and a lot of people, bizarrely, support it. I just hope America realises its responsibility and makes a move for peace rather than belligerence.

Either way, it's not good, as far as I'm concerned, where the only options left to America regarding Iraq are immediate withdrawal or infinite occupation.

(for the basis of what I have said, see the following)

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/

is_that_so · 24-03-2008 6:21pm

FatherTed wrote: »

Really?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

It's over a year since that . It's less than six months since Obama suggeted bombing Pakistan. The Iranian situation is now subject to realpolitik on both sides, at least in respect of Iraq. That said Al-Quaida "appears to on the run" which has a lot more to do with the Sunni militia switching sides.

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Yes, and one who has been endorsed by, and is enlisting the support of, Grover Norquist, the nutty, far-right lobbyist who believes that government should be destroyed, gun control should be eliminated and that taxing the wealthy to fund social programmes is tantamount to theft.

McCain is also acting recklessly with the economy, offering tax cuts to large corporations which would obviously be hugely costly. Big tax breaks like this for wealthy entities can't happen without big sacrifices in welfare at the expense of lower income people. He has also moved away from his erstwhile opposition to Bush's tax break for the rich, thus changing his economic policy yet again.

McCain loves a good war. He has admitted it, and a lot of people, bizarrely, support it. I just hope America realises its responsibility and makes a move for peace rather than belligerence.

Either way, it's not good, as far as I'm concerned, where the only options left to America regarding Iraq are immediate withdrawal or infinite occupation.

(for the basis of what I have said, see the following)

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/

There's a lot of populism on both sides and is to be expected. Invariably people pick the bit they think is most "unpalatable". Much as I disagreed with the whole Iraq debacle, immediate withdrawal from Iraq while providing a victory to "the deluded", would have potentially catastrophic consequences.
Even Obama acknowledges that it should be done over a longer period. Iraq has some way to go but it is not unreasonable to say that within 18 months they could start withdrawing. That to me is the pragmatic position. There does seem to be a move afoot to highlight the economic cost of the war, but I suspect that blaming Canadians, Mexicans and anyone else will go down better.

In the end it'll come down to who the American voters go for.
Like or dislike on our part doesn't really come into it.

As myself and others have posted that looks pretty much like McCain at this moment.

I'd also hazard a guess that the GOP/Republicans would probably prefer Obama to Clinton as there is a lot of stuff that he can be hit with.

Jim_Are_Great · 24-03-2008 9:09pm

is_that_so wrote: »

immediate withdrawal from Iraq while providing a victory to "the deluded", would have potentially catastrophic consequences.

Agreed, but rejecting immediate withdrawal doesn't necessitate accepting infinite occupation.

is_that_so wrote: »

As myself and others have posted that looks pretty much like McCain at this moment.

Let's hope not. Pretty damning on the state of democratic politics, though, that they couldn't pounce on the White House after the republican farce that preceded them.

is_that_so wrote: »

In the end it'll come down to who the American voters go for.
Like or dislike on our part doesn't really come into it.

Alas, it is true. Still fun to blather about, though.

FatherTed · 24-03-2008 9:53pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It's over a year since that .

He called Iran Shiites was last week. He sang "Bomb-Iran" on April 19, 2007 which is less than a year ago. First you say there was no evidence of those being true. Then you say they were over a year ago. Just sayin', you need to get your facts straight before you come up with your knee-jerk replies.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2008 12:07am

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

McCain is also acting recklessly with the economy, offering tax cuts to large corporations which would obviously be hugely costly.

My economic history is a little rusty, but isn't that part of the reason that Ireland's economy seriously took off? All those tax cuts for foreign corporations to do business in the country. It seems to me that any time Ireland wants to stimulate growth, they throw out a tax cut: IFSC, Temple Bar, Blanchardstown, and so on.

I'm not so convinced it's necessarily a bad idea on the face of it.

NTM

Jim_Are_Great · 25-03-2008 2:27am

Manic Moran wrote: »

My economic history is a little rusty, but isn't that part of the reason that Ireland's economy seriously took off? All those tax cuts for foreign corporations to do business in the country. It seems to me that any time Ireland wants to stimulate growth, they throw out a tax cut: IFSC, Temple Bar, Blanchardstown, and so on.

I'm not so convinced it's necessarily a bad idea on the face of it.

NTM

That's short-sighted. Systems adopting this modus operandi inevitably feel the repercussions, as our economy is about to.

In addition, it pushes up the burden on those who need the federal taxation system the most, and endows benefits on already comfortable sections of society. If you think that's acceptible, then I suppose that just makes you a republican.

ghostdancer · 25-03-2008 1:34pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It's over a year since that . It's less than six months since Obama suggeted bombing Pakistan.

well you're wrong, it was last week McCain said one of them, but anyway....

and it's less than 6months since Bush and McCain said how ridiculous that Obama comment was.

and even less since the CIA did exactly what Obama was criticised for suggesting, and took out the al-Qaida no.3 in he region.

once again he shows his judgement trumps the incompetent experience of McCain.

McCain doesn't even know the difference between the different waring factions in Iraq, and al-Qaida, and who Iran is allegedly training. he repeated it 3 times for christ's sake.
or maybe it was just a "senior moment", those wacky senile old people, at least they won't be running a powerful country.....

for a president who's supposed to know about war and conflict, he doesn't seem to have a clue....

and he's already admitted that he doesn't really know anything about the economy either.

but those issues don't matter, right?

Manic Moran · 25-03-2008 5:52pm

Systems adopting this modus operandi inevitably feel the repercussions, as our economy is about to.

So you feel that Ireland was wrong to take this approach? Yet the Celtic Tiger economy was well-reknowned as a model to take examples from. Obviously it wasn't just the tax cuts for businesses which were the sole cause, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that they weren't an important factor in stimulating the economy.

I'll say half the reason Ireland's economy is taking a downturn is because the US (And thus world) economy's taking a hit, and half the rest is due to government mismanagement of the funds which are currently available.

NTM

Who do you want to win the American election?

Comments