Who do you want to win the American election?

meathstevie

Purely based on political and life experience I'd vote McCain.

Denis Irwin

Obama

If we're heading into another cold war I'd rather some like Obama at the helm rather than a person with a notoriously short temper like McCain.

banquo

[1]
Any examples of this notoriously short temper?

Purely hypothetical non-wars aside, are there any other reasons Obama should win?

I was on the Obama bandwagon since I saw him win Illinois; CNN showed a ten second clip of him kissing his wife and daughter and I remember thinking 'Oh my god, this guy oozes charisma, he'll run for president'. But then I see him go the way of all the rest - cheap shots, disowning friends, etc. But I guess that's to be expected.

[2]
Irwin, I like the sig! No joke, very Muhammed Ali-esque

Hobbes

banquo wrote: »

But then I see him go the way of all the rest - cheap shots, disowning friends, etc. But I guess that's to be expected.

Do you have some examples of that? I have not seen it. I do remember him dumping the preacher after standing up for him.

banquo

I'll do my best off-hand

Changing held positions for votes

In some of the debates he criticised NAFTA, but then at a meeting with a bunch of Canadians he assured them that his comments were his personal feelings towards it and not actual pocily positioning.

Having said in the early debates that he would meet with hostile leaders without preconditions, but in a speech to a pro-Israel group, Obama clarified his position, giving the impression that he would now require certain preparations before meeting with leaders like Ahmadinejad.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obamas-evolving.html

He said in the debates that he does not support telecom surveillance legislation granting immunity to the telecom companies.With the bill moving to the Senate, Obama has pledged to support it.

In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

July 14, 2008: Obama opposes offshore drilling
"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

August 2, 2008: Obama supports offshore drilling
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes. "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Cheap Shots
Saying McCain supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, as if he supports tax breaks just for them. McCain's tax breaks affect all companies above a certain size, some of which happen to 'ship jobs overseas' with the idea that if the companies can keep more of their profit by staying in the USA, maybe some old jobs will we kept and new jobs will be created. It's the old pathetic fallacy line of argument.

Note: I'm not saying McCain isn't as bad. The point I was making is that they're both politicians, and it's likely that even with the most virious candidates we would still see some low-level policiting.

Sand

July 14, 2008: Obama opposes offshore drilling...
August 2, 2008: Obama supports offshore drilling...

Cynics 1
Idealists 0

Its the political thing to do - it makes it look like hes "doing something" to bring down oil prices. As if the price is being dictated by a shortage of supply as opposed to rising demand.

But he still the messiah, hes just...hes just saying these things to fool those redneck hicks. Its them who are getting fooled, not us.

HalloweenJack

I want Obama to win. He's a Demee-crat. That's infinitely better than more Republicans controlling the world.

If my citizenship comes through in time, I'll do my best to vote for Obama.

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

Cynics 1
Idealists 0

I recommend watching the video where Obama is interviewed and asked about this. Basically he did a deal with Republicans to get a bill through that covers what he wants as well.

It is also not as clear cut as you make it out. For example the Republicans just wanted the land opened up for companies to make a profit on. The bill that Obama signed up to controls what can be opened up and when and also any oil found is for domestic use only. Lastly it still confines offshore drilling as 50 miles off shore (original bill wanted it closer).

As he mentioned in the same interview he still remains skeptical that it will help at all, but before you hang him on that remember this is a Republican plan.

But it is easy to take a sound bite and spin it.

Manic Moran

McCain continues to pull forward. Now with a 5% overall lead according to Zogby

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26308429

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

However, WSJ's poll still shows McCain trailing, by 3%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26314990/

NTM

banquo

I'm not trusting any polls until after the conventions, for two reasons:

1. They seem to change daily; a rasmussen reports poll for Virginia - to the best of my recollection - was +8% for Obama one day, then +10% for McCain 2 days later after that. This was the end of july.

2. The polls are based on likely voters i.e. registered voters and people who've voted in previous elections. This Obama guy seems to score very highly amongst people who've never voted before.

So, even though I'll be visiting realclearpolitics daily to feed my addiction, I'm not trusting any polls right now.

And I've exams the time of the dnc! Argh!

dave2pvd

banquo wrote: »

I'm not trusting any polls ...............

2. The polls are based on likely voters i.e. registered voters and people who've voted in previous elections. This Obama guy seems to score very highly amongst people who've never voted before.

Isn't this a bit like when Kennedy was elected? The run-up polls forecast a very close election, yet Kennedy won the electoral college in a landslide.

I don't think the Conventions have much of a lasting impact on the voting populace. The candidates tend to wait until afterward to really ramp up their campaigns however.

Obama has yet to get dirty in his campaign ads. McCain already has. I believe Obama is waiting to throw mud until the DNC has passed.

Speaking of 'dirt': there are rumors that McCain Inc has an armory of Obama-dirt that we've yet to hear about

d0gb0y

OB & McCain are 2 sides of the same corporate/banker coin.

Ron Paul would get my vote since he has something that I have never seen in a politican in my whole life...integrity(I wasn't around for JFK).

Ron Paul also wants to tackle the issue of the Federal Reserve & Income Tax which is almost unheard of from modern US politicians(until they retire), even though the FED & income tax has only been around since 1913.

He may not be good for the world with regard to US foreign spending but damn hes got to be better than their current pre-emptive strike policy. Also I think he could be good for the world as some of his better ideals might catch on in the rest of the world(hopefully here). He is also against war & use of force which would be a breath of fresh wind for US foreign policy.

People in America & in the rest of the world need to inform themselves about important issues and not to rely on the Media(who have an agenda) to spoonfeed them the same old crap.

Scrap that idea as he would be just assissanted like all the rest of America's principled presidents/candidates that could not be swayed to accept the hidden agenda

banquo

++

Ron PAul!

Pocono Joe

Got my vote in (guess who?). Unfortunately Duncan Hunter (my vote in the primary) was not on the list.

Now that the general election will be getting under way, it will be tough for the young senator. No longer will there be debates like in the primary where all the candidates were mostly on the same page, saying the same things in different ways. No more kumbaya!

“CHANGE” will start to wear thin with the American people. We got change when the Democrats took control of congress in both the House and Senate (Lieberman still counts as a Dem in my books). And congress now has the lowest approval rating in history… how’s that for “change.”

Obama delivers wonderful prepared speeches, but falls short when outside his comfort zone. Back in June, Obama backed away from John McCain's challenge for a series of joint Town Hall type appearances, only agreeing to the standard three debates. After seeing Obama’s performance in the Saddleback forum, I can understand why. A gaff by McCain does not define the man, as he has too much history. But a miscue by Obama gets magnified 100 fold because of his short history and lack of a resume.

I think Obama will get bounces from his VP pick and then the Dem convention, but will start a slide after that, with McCain winning the election.

Lookin like the veepstakes will be Romney and Biden. Can't wait till the Dem convention, it sure will be a circus with Bill and Hillary as the ringleaders.

The Black Oil

John Kerry's DNC speech.

Where was that guy four years ago?

Pocono Joe

John Kerry… So he was for McCain, before he was against him?

ratinakeg

Obama, I've €50 on him with a mate and also that McCain is too old.

irish_bob

while i was hoping hillary would get the nomination as i know she would be trouncing mc cain in the polls right now were she the nominee , i hope obama gets it , not that i dislike mc cain especially but i think unless the democrats win this one , they may never get in again , i woudnt bet the change of a tenner for a pizza on obama winning though , i think considering how unpopular this republican presidency has been , its worrying that obama is only neck and neck , it might not have been the right time to send a black canditate forward , obama i believe wasnt the strongest canditate and got the nomination due to sunny idealogy alone

Sand

it might not have been the right time to send a black canditate forward , obama i believe wasnt the strongest canditate and got the nomination due to sunny idealogy alone

If Obama loses, it wont be because he was a black candidate. It will be because hes an agent of vague undefined change - which is to say hes got very little experience and no real track record to judge him on. Hence his average return on the polls against a guy with experience and track record to burn. Change sounds great, but most people vote for "more of the same, but better".

Personally, every time I see comments referring to Obama as a black presidential candidate in anything other than factual terms I think of that pisstake regarding the "Madame President, as the first female african american US president....". Obama is a very clever, very capable politician, not a flagpole.

Manic Moran

that i dislike mc cain especially but i think unless the democrats win this one , they may never get in again

Depends. Maybe if Obama loses this one, they might realise that the White House is not a God-given grant, regardless of how poor the previous occupant was, and they actually put a good candidate forward from the perspective of the nation as a whole, not just the Democratic nominators. The fact that they're not just trouncing the Republicans in the polls indicates just how out of touch the Democratic party is with real-world politics. They should be massively ahead. They must ask 'why not?'

If they do win, then watch for them to draw the wrong conclusions, and then lose the next time around.

NTM

tolosenc

Having said my choice would have been John Edwards back when this all began, I obviously have to "re-ally" myself to one of the actual candidates.

I have serious issues with Obama's fanciful notions. McCain is, in my opinion, the better suited of the two to lead the world's only superpower as we look to be heading into a global recesssion. Unlike Obama, he knows that if you want to spend money one place, you have to take it away from somewhere else.

McCain is also fully committed to global stability and seeing out the coallitions mission in Iraq until it is done. Obama's attitude, which may seem appealing, is just saying "I didn't start the war, so I'm having no part of it", which is just stupid.

Denis Irwin

obl wrote: »

McCain is also fully committed to global stability and seeing out the coallitions mission in Iraq until it is done. Obama's attitude, which may seem appealing, is just saying "I didn't start the war, so I'm having no part of it", which is just stupid.

I don't think so. If McCain get's into office he'll like Bush did with Iraq look for any excuse to attack Iran if that happens the current situation in Iraq will look like a picnic compared to what could potentially happen in Iran. Not to mention the fact that if McCain were to attack Iran due to the fact that the US is still involved in Iraq and Afghaistan and the sheer numbers of personel in the Iranian defence forces McCain would more than likely have to re-introduce the draft to succeed in Iran.

is_that_so

I disagree on Iran. As they stand they are already too stretched. As I've commented in other threads I think McCain understands realpolitik and the need to restore some credibility to the US as a world power.
A very good example was his instant response to Russia Georgia conflict and the vague, muddled Obama response. He's also too smart to invite a Middle-East war with Israel bearing the brunt of it but he will certainly keep the pressure on Iran.
Israel these days cannot guarantee it can protect itself nor can it steamroll its way over its neighbours as it has in the past.
Unlike Bush he is more likely listen to people who matter and I suspect he will seek out solutions and not conflicts.
The latest tracking polls from Rasmussen suggests that the bump was not as good as expected and Obama is ahead by about 6%. It will be interesting to see how the GOP benefit from their own shindig.

Sand

I don't think so. If McCain get's into office he'll like Bush did with Iraq look for any excuse to attack Iran if that happens the current situation in Iraq will look like a picnic compared to what could potentially happen in Iran. Not to mention the fact that if McCain were to attack Iran due to the fact that the US is still involved in Iraq and Afghaistan and the sheer numbers of personel in the Iranian defence forces McCain would more than likely have to re-introduce the draft to succeed in Iran.

People have been predicting an attack on Iran "any day now" for years at this point. The hysteria went into overdrive about a year ago when it was revealed that the Pentagon had put together a plan on how to do it. As if military plans and scenarios are only considered when war is declared

People were insisting Bush would have to introduce the draft years ago to sustain troop numbers in Iraq.

Both predictions were wide of the mark.

McCain will be dealing with a Democratic legislature thats only real bounce comes from hostility to Iraq. They gave Bush the benefit of the doubt for Iraq, theres no chance of them approving an attack on Iran.

The Raven.

Here is an MSNBC interview with Senator John McCain. I have to say I find that this man comes across as a lot more sincere than ‘the other one’. Also he speaks with a soft, down-to-earth, natural voice, and appears much more comfortable in the role of political leader.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26506586#26497975

I will reserve judgement until after the Convention, which is looking good so far: no pretentious ‘Parthenon’, or fireworks. The whole setting is much more tastefully done, with a simple video backdrop mainly of the American flag, punctuated with fascinating scenes depicting American history. I find it very impressive and perfectly fitting for a National Convention.

jank

American flag

Since when did the republican party have ownership of the flag?

dave2pvd

jank wrote: »

Since when did the republican party have ownership of the flag?

Everyone flies the flag.

The car dealership down the road from me here has a HUGE flag.

See, it just ain't 'merican to not fly the flag.

turgon

dave2pvd wrote: »

See, it just ain't 'merican to not fly the flag.

Evidences how shallow American patriotism appears to me.

is_that_so

turgon wrote: »

Evidences how shallow American patriotism appears to me.

In Norway they fly the flag as well. In fact almost every house had its own flagpole and you barely notice it after a while. Does that also make them shallow or is it just the US flag?

dave2pvd

turgon wrote: »

Evidences how shallow American patriotism appears to me.

Don't judge.

My opinion is that American patriotism is very strong.

But, for what it's worth, I'll never get the flag adulation thing either. I can accept it though.