US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say I agree with BVS that it's probably not going to be high on a list of concerns for a lot of voters.

And to be honest, I'm never shocked when a politician says one thing and does another. Isn't that what they do? If he changed his mind on something I really cared about, I might have a different response, but at least in this election, it's very unlikely that it would make me not vote for him.

I guess I spoke to soon

so let's just sweep it under the carpet

and say, we got no mess here (fist bump)
 
:huh:

Oh, come off it, deep. Because campaign finances aren't at the top of my list of concerns and I'm cynical about politicians, I'm sweeping stuff under the rug?

Or are you just painting me as some (ohnoes!) dreaded Obamatron? Horrors.
 
deep, how concerned are you about McCain's illegal financing move in the primaries? Breaking his very own bill, that's gotta be heart-warming for those very concerned about this issue.

The public has never given a shit about this and doesn't now. You can think that it doesn't matter how high a priority voters put on it, but in the end, that's the only thing that matters, practically speaking. I care about FISA too, but the average voter has no idea what it's about and probably cares even less. That's the breaks.
 
:huh:

Oh, come off it, deep. Because campaign finances aren't at the top of my list of concerns and I'm cynical about politicians, I'm sweeping stuff under the rug?

Or are you just painting me as some (ohnoes!) dreaded Obamatron? Horrors.

so young to be cynical :wink:


it is my birthday this week
painting you would be a nice present.
 
back on topic

I am not surprised Obama passed on the public financing.

If he had agreed to it, most if not all of his advisers would be up in arms.

They will have at least a 3 to 1 advantage with funding his campaign.

I guess the one thing I will fault him on is the reason given for opting out.
 
deep, how concerned are you about McCain's illegal financing move in the primaries?

I do have some very significant concerns with McCain

McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase.

I support an inheritance tax.

I believe he opposes one
and also uses that bogus term "death tax".
 
and yes, the inadequate troop numbers in Afghanistan--especially for reconstruction and training (McNeill said 400,000 is "what you'd really need," acknowledging in the same breath that to even hope for that would be "absurd")....



thank you for bringing this up. i had thought about this precise point, but couldn't have summarized it as succinctly as you have.

it also reinforces several central questions that neither candidate has offered an answer to: what, precisely, is the US plan for Afghanistan (or Iraq)? what would "success" in Afghanistan (or Iraq) even look like? and how to we get there?

in regards to Afghanistan, one can point to whatever troop levels one wants, but the shift in focus of the top minds at the Pentagon, DoD, and the military itself from Afghanistan to Iraq no doubt have obfuscated these central questions that are as pressing today as they were when they lost OBL in Tora Bora in December of 2001.

considering the stated goals for both countries change on a month-by-month basis, and have changed as such since 2001/3, what kind of mission are we on when our own commander says that we need 400,000 troops to accomplish whatever nebulous goal? obviously, whatever outcome he has in mind is inappropriate to the situation at hand. he's not getting 400,000 troops -- so what's he going to do about that?

perhaps it's not so much that what we're doing in both countries isn't working -- i mean, it isn't, but perhaps that's not the problem -- but that we don't have reasonable policy objectives. is it really important to make Iraq safe for 50+ (?!?!?!) military bases and a country safe for no-bid oil contracts? is it really important to maintain some sort of Empire-lite occupation for this increasingly vague notion of "victory" that some of us seem to crave (like those who can't admit that, yes, we lost in Vietnam)?

ultimately, the candidate who's able to offer not outright withdrawal, but clearer, more limited, more specific objectives will be the candidate who's best capable of salvaging something out of these two adventures in Empire. who's going to do that? will anyone ever do that?
 
back on topic

I am not surprised Obama passed on the public financing.

If he had agreed to it, most if not all of his advisers would be up in arms.

They will have at least a 3 to 1 advantage with funding his campaign.

I guess the one thing I will fault him on is the reason given for opting out.



i think it's very simple.

Obama will not allow himself to be Swift Boated. it takes money to do that.
 
Republicans have hammered Michelle Obama for her remarks in February that she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult life." Tonight, however, Dan Abrams showed footage he uncovered of a Fox News interview with John McCain on March 13, 2008, in which McCain said, "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Abrams thinks McCain's comments could undermine the "right wing's steady attacks against Michelle Obama."

McCain: I 'Didn't Love America' Until Held Prisoner (VIDEO) - Politics on The Huffington Post

How any of this will fix gas prices and the economy, I don't know..
 
Obama has taken a short term hit for big-time long term gain. is it really so awful to refuse public money when you may well pull in over $500m from small doners? yes, there's certainly a reversal here, but, to me, this shows that Obama is, yes, a politician, and one who's capable of throwing elbows as sharply as anyone, only with better accuracy.

so this makes me, the political observer who has myriad convictions, and yet a clear preference in one side vs the other, in a difficult place. but then not all that difficult. i kind of like the fact that Obama is assumed to be intelligent, so he's therefore misunderestimated, in a weird reversal of the Bush syndrome. no one knew that Bush had rather astute, killer political instincts because he was so proudly incurious, anti-intellectual, insular, and monosyllabic. likewise, no one yet knows that Obama has astute, killer political instincts because he's so outwardly thoughtful, intellectual, worldly, and articulate.
 
^Amen brother.

This was on MSNBC's First Read blog:

As one very smart political observer told us yesterday, if Obama had stayed in the system -- bypassing the opportunity to raise about three times amount what the system offers -- then he’d question Obama’s judgment and ability to be president. Simply put, it would have been a dumb move.
 
we also shouldn't ignore what John McCain has been doing, which is blatantly breaking the law. he is continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season -- and we are in the primary season until the convention. McCain opted into public financing, accepted whatever limits were imposed, and then profited from that by securing a campaign saving loan.

what a Maverick! successfully gaming the system with the panache of a long-time DC insider, in fact breaking a law that has his very own name on it! McCain-Feingold! now that's some chutzpah.

and this also adds a nuance to what Obama originally said. he said he'd take public financing if his opponent were to do the same. clearly, McCain is not doing so. nor is he asking his supporters to reign in the 527s.

but McCain's a straight-talker who calls 'em as he sees 'em. so expect nothing from the press ...
 
An aide to Gov. Chet Culver said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.

"As a courtesy — and as we did for Senator Obama — we privately made an effort to make sure that Senator McCain knew that state and local resources were still being deployed to support the flood fight and that now may not be the best time for a campaign trip," Dillon said in a statement.

Obama respected the request. McCain couldn't pass up the photo opportunity.
 
Photo ops? Maybe. But didn't GW Bush draw flak for flying over the Katrina disaster initially before touching down days later for an up-close visit?
 
I would not write McCain off. I certainly do not want him to win, but it would be rather foolish to write him off. At this point, speaking as a betting man, I wouldn't put money on either candidate. Both, frankly, have significant weaknesses.

Strongbow can be forgiven a moment of quiet vindication - it was not that long ago when many in the media and on this forum wrote off McCain's chances of even being chosen as the Republican candidate, let alone be elected President.
 
McCain did go to Canada today. :up:

(You may want to reconsider your vote)

We don't want him, much like we didn't want Bush up here. :flirt:

Besides, I will be in your fair land shortly.
 
Dukakis was quite far ahead in the polls at this stage in '88, I believe.

Another election where both candidates were rather weak, but the older, more experienced candidate ultimately won the day - food for thought, perhaps.
 
But didn't GW Bush draw flak for flying over the Katrina disaster initially before touching down days later for an up-close visit?

Exactly. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. McCain wasn't going for a "campaign stop". He was going to check out the damage, like anyone who wants to be a responsible, caring leader should.
 
Exactly. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. McCain wasn't going for a "campaign stop". He was going to check out the damage, like anyone who wants to be a responsible, caring leader should.

He was ASKED NOT TO COME by the Governor of the state in question, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
 
Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left

By Paul Kane

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the legislation, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 200


Is there any thing that Obama can do?
that his supporters will not just bend over


and bury their heads in the sand?
 
The Two Obamas

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.



I think he needs to be a (typical) political animal to get elected, so IMO this is good. I guess the question is, for all of those 'Yes We Can'- 'change the dynamics' Obamians, would it disappoint you if he just became another political flip floppian, muddying warrior like all the rest in order to win?

Is it more important to win or uphold these ideals of change?

Do you accept the notion of 'win at all costs' (within certain reason of course)
as long as you can retain the power? This is (IMO) where the Dems need to go, they need to take the playbook from the Reps and flip it right back at them. What is the only reason McCain is as close as he is? Typical political posturing, clever and typical tactics. Obama and the Dems need to play hardball and mix it up or else it's 4 more years of garbage.
 
well, here is another Obama

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

"We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us," he said.



I never really was afraid of him before

but lately, he has been acting unstable

and we don't need that in the whitehouse again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom