Presidential race, 2008
Member since 2008 · 26 posts · 0 votes
Any thoughts?
I am for Ron Paul...
He strikes me as the only honest guy up there, on either side.
Any other thoughts?
what a load of rubbish tiredout no offense. Typical stereotypical right wing propaganda. I cant help but feel a twinge of hatred when I think about what bush and his conservative co. have done to this beautiful country of mine
Can someone make a compelling argument why we should vote for someone with less than 1 term in national politics?
Can someone make a compelling argument why we should vote for someone who openly disenfranchises over 2.3 million voters?
Can someone tell me how Obama is not a hypocrite in his support/non-support/support/complete distancing from his religious guide and mentor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright?
I'm just so confused by the blind support of him. I ask people why they support him and they say change. Great! Every candidate for president is for change. He brilliantly attached his name to the word change, and has coasted forward from there. Every policy he has decided to stand behind is a duplicate of those of Hillary Clinton (barring a few changes and of course his rejection of the gas tax holiday)
Obama has his name attached to lots of bills in his short time in the Senate, however, that's because he was running for president since the last Democratic convention. How many of those bills actually went into law? How many of those bills were destined to die from the beginning?
It is very convenient that he is one of the most prolific Senators for his 2 terms in office (when he decided to show up to vote), yet what has he actually accomplished?
I don't trust him. I think he is one of the most sneaky politicians we've ever seen (and yes, he is a politician, not a preacher or anything else he pretends to be). I think he has run a brilliant campaign. I fear having such an opportunist in the white house.
Hillary Clinton has destroyed him in EVERY debate, and he has chosen to avoid at all costs, any future debates with her. If he can't handle Hillary, can he handle Chavez? Can he handle Putin (pulling the strings in Russia)? I think he'll be another Kennedy (not the Democratic hero, but the guy whose weakness got us into the Cuban Missle Crisis). I fear his inexperience will lead us to a place worse off then we are today with Bush and Co.
Here's a few reads that may change the way some of you look at this guy.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GuyBenson/2008/02/17/the_opportunistic_rise_of_barack_obama
http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/barack-obama-profile-in_b_75466.html
I don't think Clinton has a chance at this point, since the Media is in Obama's pocket. I don't think she has a chance since the leaders of the party won't seat Florida or Michigan. I don't think she'll become the nominee.
I do think Obama will become the Nominee, and if so, we'll certainly see McCain in the White House. I'm not sure which is worse, Old or Inexperienced?
What a choice - McCain or Obama? I'll write in NONE OF THE ABOVE!
Im not blind but it is very visible that Hillary would be just a mere puppet to his wife Bill. It is hard to be president with contradicting decisions and agenda. Should Hillary win the democratic race, she is not going to win against McCain either.
Obama 08! That's right I said it!
:roll:
I have an honest question...For those people that are for Obama please tell me why that is? I'm kind of looking for something concrete. Not the standard "He is for Change" answer.
I'm not for Obama simply because he wants to triple the minimum wage and punish companies for making too much money........but the reasons people like him are...
a) He is eloquent and articulate. This is something the US is not used to when looking at the past 8 years and they like the idea of it.
b) He didn't have anything handed to him unlike Dubya did (and Al Gore did for that matter).....he worked his *** off for it. That's very respectable. Then again, the same could be said for McCain....worked his way to where he is at without "daddy" doing stuff for him.
Well said...And he's for change :lol: haha
I'm for Obama....... And not for the obvious reason either :D
I think it's time for someone in the White House that does not have the last name CLINTON or BUSH ....... New does not automatically mean jacked up.
His message to me has a different feel to it than just the same ole smack me and i'll smack you back negative B.S. rhetoric, i've heard for so many years. BUSH SUCKS...PERIOD ..... His foriegn policies have created havoc alllll over the world. Our economy is in the toilet.
Hillary AINT Bill........ And I honestly DONT believe a WOMAN will be RESPECTED at a negiotiating table ANYWHERE in the middle east.
Personally OBAMA sound different than the rest...... How bad can he do......... Certainly not WORSE than BUSH :crying:
I'm a VET and it sadden me to see where this country gotten too.... no respect , and our military won't save us for ever. Vets get forgetten and sent home....... citizens get stranded in natural disasters.... our military is totally over extended fighting a useless war that was started based on lies and deception.
Now explain this: The Republican Party went on to impeach a president for getting his DICK SUCKED in the White House...... Yet openly IGNORES the fact that the Sitting President Lied and STARTED A WAR based on those lies..... NOW.. Why vote for a party like that.
Now out of Hillary or Obama....... I think Obama has not been in washinton long enough to be JADED as much as Hillary...... Hence... To me the better Choice.....
Not because he speaks so welll or he's Black or because i'm fooled.....
JUST ...TO ME.... A better choice.....
Wow! Now, Buffet is backing Obama...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709;_ylt=AoMZ0By0QIhdx_88YO8En7Fh24cA
What am I missing here?
If Dumbya...sorry....Dubya....would have never been elected, Obama wouldn't have a chance. It's the reaction to having 8 years of ineffective leadership that is driving his popularity.
As an independent conservative, I'll buy that one. He has done both parties a disservice.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709;_ylt=AoMZ0By0QIhdx_88YO8En7Fh24cA
What am I missing here?
You're missing REALITY.......... Hillary aint the ONE !!!!
This was an email sent to me today which, in my opinion, offers an intersting twist to this topic. PLEASE !!!! this is nothing racial,and as a matter of fact was wriiten by a columnist for the L.A. Times. I'd be interested to here your thoughts on it.
[size=18]SEE BELOW[/size]
This is some interesting subject matter. I would be interested in any and all feedback.
The fear of white decline
Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. She has the broader and whiter political coalition, so she should, by all rights, be the Democratic presidential nominee.
After all, in other realms of the political process, we routinely refer to "black districts" or "Latino districts" and speak of the necessity of those jurisdictions to be represented by black or Latino elected officials. Well, then, because the American population is 66% white, maybe the United States is a de facto white district that should be represented accordingly.
Don't scoff at the idea. Ethnic and racial self-determination have been underlying factors in the formation of modern nations. Israel is one example, along with anti-colonial revolutions and states in the Third World. The principle of ethnic self-determination made its way into the United Nations Charter, and it lurks in contemporary domestic discussions about the political and cultural rights of every kind of minority.
The Clinton campaign's assertion of her electability based on "hardworking white American" voters reveals deep divisions in the Democratic coalition. But it isn't a sign of the resurgence of white supremacy in America. Rather, it is a formal re-articulation of whiteness as a social category and a racial interest group.
For decades now, scholars have been writing about the invisibility of whiteness. To be white in America meant that you were a member of the default category that just isn't discussed. In 2000, journalists didn't incessantly mention that George W. Bush was seeking to become the 43rd white male president of the United States. No one even thinks in those terms. It's implied. It's one of the perks of dominance. We generally mention race when we speak of nonwhites.
Since the civil rights movement, though, it's also been taboo to speak of the collective interests of white people in polite company. To mention whites as an interest group -- in the way we do minority groups -- hearkens back to segregation and worse.
Sure, we've discussed the importance of subgroups of whites -- soccer moms and NASCAR dads. But analysts didn't treat their whiteness as the primary thing that determined their political behavior, in the way that, say, Latino voters are almost always presumed to vote based on ethnic considerations.
But the Obama-Clinton rivalry seems to have changed all that, and we're now openly discussing white working-class voters in ways that make clear that their racial interests play a role in their political preferences. Last week, exit polls in West Virginia showed that Barack Obama might be facing some fierce racial resistance if he becomes the Democratic nominee. More than half of West Virginia Democratic voters -- 95% of whom are white -- said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won the nomination.
Is this white supremacy? No, in fact it might be its opposite, an acknowledgment that white privilege has its limits. With immigration and globalization reformulating who we are as a nation, it isn't the white elites that are threatened by the changes; rather, it's the nearly 70% of whites who are not college educated who figure among the most insecure of Americans. Many feel that their jobs are being outsourced or taken by immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- and that their culture is being subsumed. When Clinton promises to make their voices heard, she's appealing not to Anglo-Saxon racial triumphalism but to the fear of white decline.
Granted, not everyone who fits under the rubrics of "white, working class, not college educated" is going to vote against Obama. But by rallying to Clinton's faltering candidacy, some sectors of white society might be trying to solidify the old racial boundaries of American nationhood. It's not so much that they are hoping to reclaim their place, but that they are seeking to carve out a niche and demanding that, at the very least, the presidency remains "theirs."
Like black or Latino activists who insist that a particular congressional district should be represented by one of their own, the disgruntled white working-class, non-college-educated voters might be demanding that their majority status still translate into something at least symbolically meaningful to them.
But that doesn't make it right. No matter who wins the presidency, there is one thing we ought to learn from this campaign. In our rapidly diversifying nation, where we are all becoming minorities, the idea that any given group has an inalienable claim on a particular political seat, appointment or office based on demographics has officially outlived its usefulness.
Romantic notions of ethnic self-determination and multiculturalism may have once served to dismantle empires and garner attention for forgotten minorities. But today they are more likely to nurture the kind of white nationalism on which Clinton has placed her last political hopes.