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 ask you again, HAVE YOU READ HIS BOOKS?



deep what really bugs me is that your over the top, histrionic reactions to just about every single thing about Obama makes me really just want to skip over your posts. Because they read like a hell of a lot of outrage for the sake of being outraged and little substance to boot. I've articulated a number of times what things I disagreed with him on. This tax thing is one. I also said multiple times (and was one of the only people here to do so, I might add) that Hillary's healthcare plan was better than his was. I have no problem criticizing Obama, I'm not some moron groupie. But I really always respected and appreciated your posts. It's just that lately, they've lapsed into a hysteria that I honestly don't comprehend at all. It could be that there is something thought-provoking in them, but frankly, I don't have enough hours in a day to bother and cut through your "the sky is falling because of Obama" routine.

alright,

I am sorry I said

"FFS"

It sounds better when you say it.



It seems like most people in here see this election as a clear choice.

Right now, I am only at about 55% leaning to vote for McCain.

A few couple of weeks back, I was leaning to voting for Obama.

My biggest hesitation on Obama, is that there is not any real track record.

His lack of executive experience. When people bring up "race" with me they are so off base. I support affirmative action. I know that people of color, and women are not given equal opportunities.

I also know for these things to get better, we need to have role models from those groups.

I have not read his books. I have not read McCain's books, or Clinton's books.

I have read quite a bit about all of these people and parts from their books.

Honestly, I don't put a lot of credit in these books. W could have had a wonderful book put together in 2000. I still knew I did not want to vote for him.

He had no track record or experience that impressed me at all. His Governorship of Texas was unremarkable.

W has always been in favor of faith based programs, and I know he was pandering for their support.

So, it is in Obama's book. It still can fit the definition of pandering, or smart campaigning.
 
This is tricky for Obama. I'm not sure what to make of this "move to the center." I've said before that I think he's actually more centrist than a lot on the left think he is. But at the same time a lot of his recent statements sound a lot like pandering to me. So it's hard to say.

One thing Obama has always been about--that I felt made him different--is about listening to both sides of an issue, talking with the "enemy" and seeing the valid points they may have. Especially in our sound-bite culture this can easily be misinterpreted as being wishy-washy, or pandering. Worse, there is a very real temptation to use that ability to genuinely listen to and identify with different points of view to manipulate people or curry favor. I think that, more than mere, pandering, is the trap Obama may be falling in to.
 
So I guess Geena Davis helped Sen Clinton too

RENO, Nevada (AP) -- Dennis Haysbert likes to believe his portrayal as the first African-American U.S. president on Fox's "24" may have helped pave the way for Barack Obama.

"If anything, my portrayal of David Palmer, I think, may have helped open the eyes of the American people," said the actor, who has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign.

"And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first," he said Tuesday.

Haysbert, who now stars on "The Unit" on CBS, made his comments to reporters during a teleconference call promoting the upcoming American Century Celebrity Golf Championship at Lake Tahoe.

Haysbert, who also played Nelson Mandela in the 2007 film "Goodbye Bafana," said his role as President Palmer seemed to "confuse people" who would approach him on the street "every day, almost every hour, and ask me to run."

"I still, even after three seasons into `The Unit' playing Sgt. Maj. Jonas Blaine, I'm still asked by people on the street to run," he said.

Haysbert, 54, said he recently stopped for dinner south of Los Angeles with his daughter in Dana Point, Calif., a town he described as "very wealthy, very white and very Republican."

"I go into this little restaurant with that demographic and a lady comes up to me and says, `You know, I want to vote for you,"' he said. "I don't know if it is a joke or that people just like to say those things. But to me, for them to say it out loud means they are thinking about it."
 
In other news. 100 percent of respondents wouldn't even invite GWB over to clean their toilets after the barbecue..

Obama would get more barbecue invitations than McCain

WASHINGTON (AP) — People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack than munch meats with McCain.

While many are still deciding which should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Barack Obama than John McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll released Wednesday.

Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest.

Having Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting McCain "would be more like a retirement party than something fun," said Wesley Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C.

Party label means a lot, with three-quarters of Democrats picking the Democrat Obama and the same number of Republicans picking McCain, a Republican. Independents are about evenly split.

"John and I would probably have a lot to talk about," said Republican Michael Mullen, 53, of Merrimac, Mass., like McCain a Navy veteran.

One in six people saying they'd vote for McCain prefer Obama as their barbecue guest; just one in 20 Obama backers would invite McCain.

The AP-Yahoo! News survey of 1,759 adults was conducted online by Knowledge Networks from June 13-23 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The margin of sampling error for subgroups was larger.
 
It doesn't matter if he sincerely believes in faith-based initiatives, it doesn't even matter if they work better than other programs, all that matters is that funneling public funds to religious groups goes against what I consider the intent of a secularism. Religious charity should be funded from private donation not taxpayers money and I don't care if it is from the bigoted right-wing the feel good centre-left: it's wrong in principle.


Obama: Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.



Are people so forgiving of George W. Bush's infusion of religiousity into politics? Or is his public faith somehow more insincere than someone that comes into a religious community as an adult and benefits from those connections (until of course that Church becomes a liability).


i think this is a situation where the messenger does matter. i'm wary of faith-based programs, but considering Obama's left-of-center track record, i don't think it's likely that he's going to use faith-based programs as a cover to, 1) slash government programs, 2) toss $$$ back to the Christianists who got Bush elected, 3) recruit more evangelicals who tend to be GOP voters.

so long as the secularism is absolutely maintained -- and this includes forbidding, say, Catholic adoption services from discriminating against gay couples -- i suppose this is something i can live with because the messenger -- a liberal Christian -- is fundamentally less scary than Bush's brand of Christianism where Dobson and Haggard got weekly phone calls with the president and input into potential SCOTUS nominees.

in principle, yes, this is an extention of Bush (and Clinton, for that matter). but the real world effects of this will be vastly different.

this is no Trojan Horse to dismantle social safety nets.

and this is smart politics. Obama has made huge, huge inroads with under-30 evangelicals who are disgusted by their parent's focus on abortion and hating gays at all costs. they are far, far more interested in the environment and reducing poverty than their parents. and Obama can talk to them in a way that Gore, Kerry, and McCain can't. and in a way that i couldn't. this culture is alien to me. but i suppose it doesn't have to be necessarily invidious.
 
and as the polls go, as Obama tacks to the Right and goes after GOP groups like Evanglicals, his lead in the polls has solidified, his lead in the swing states has grown, Latinos have flocked to him in enormous numbers, and McCain can't seem to find a line of attack, and all the while the charge that he's "McSame as Bush" is starting to stick.

as it stands, here, in July, it's no wonder that this man beat the Clintons.

and deep, if you want to live in a world where abortion is legal, there is no option.

and to add, if i were voting on a resume, i'd have voted for Richardson. but for some of us, politics and especially the presidency, are more multi-dimensional than that.
 
It doesn't matter if he sincerely believes in faith-based initiatives

No, Wanderer, it matters here because YOU posited that he is pandering. That was the crux and point of your post. The fact that he may sincerely believe in the initiatives clearly goes against your very argument.

So if you want to disagree with his position, then you should have done that rather than makign the argument that you made.
 
image001.jpg
 
I just don't know what to do in November. Honestly, and this is gonna sound horrible, but I don't feel like voting for either candidate.

I really don't think McCain will be a Bush-lite, and Obama doesn't impress me either. Hell of a speaker though. He's still a politician and I really doubt his "change" will be much.

Both candidates provide change in that Bush will no longer be in charge. That alone should make this country better.
 
I just don't know what to do in November. Honestly, and this is gonna sound horrible, but I don't feel like voting for either candidate.

I really don't think McCain will be a Bush-lite, and Obama doesn't impress me either. Hell of a speaker though. He's still a politician and I really doubt his "change" will be much.

Both candidates provide change in that Bush will no longer be in charge. That alone should make this country better.

I know how you feel. Right now I'm still planning to vote against the Republicans and that's the best I can do. I'm not convinced Obama can win, and if he does, I have low expectations of what he can accomplish. I wasn't exactly wild about Sen. Clinton but at least she was transparently what she is--a politician--and never pretended to be anything else. Obama pretends to be "different" and I think it's bullshit. Voting against the Republicans is better than staying home.
 
LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS

I blame Obama for this.

Without two likely Obama terms, Limbaugh would have been worth only a fraction of that amount.
 
and as the polls go, as Obama tacks to the Right and goes after GOP groups like Evanglicals, his lead in the polls has solidified, his lead in the swing states has grown, Latinos have flocked to him in enormous numbers, and McCain can't seem to find a line of attack, and all the while the charge that he's "McSame as Bush" is starting to stick.

as it stands, here, in July, it's no wonder that this man beat the Clintons.

Uh, think again.

Gallup Daily: McCain-Obama Race Tightens

Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 44%

Statistical tie resumes following brief Obama lead


PRINCETON, NJ -- If the presidential election were held today, 46% of registered voters say they would vote for Barack Obama and 44% for John McCain, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking results.

The June 29-July 1 data show a tightening of the race with the candidates falling back into a statistical tie. Obama led by five percentage points in Monday and Tuesday reports -- based largely on polling conducted over the weekend -- perhaps enjoying a slight bounce following his "Unity" rally with former rival Hillary Clinton last Friday.

In the last two individual nights of polling, voter preferences have been closely divided. The race has generally been close in recent weeks, with Obama usually holding a slight edge.

Obama has been able to attain brief leads following his clinching of the nomination in early June and the Obama-Clinton joint campaign appearance.

These slight Obama bumps have proven to be short-lived, and from a larger perspective there has not been a dramatic restructuring of the race in recent weeks.
 
"LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS "

I'm surprised Rush hasn't exploded with joy. Think of all the little blue pills and under-age prostitutes he can buy with that amount of dough!:hyper::|
 
Uh, think again.



uh, if you're going to go by daily polls, and only poll on the days that are most favorable, and only look at one poll, and ignore the polling in swing states and among critical groups, then you need to think again.

Obama's 5% lead has been consistent since he won the nomination, and that's in the right-leaning Rasmussen.

if you're interested in actually understanding what's going on and learning more rather than reconfirming your prejudices, i recommend you go to a real poll sight, one that's comprehensive, takes a deep, long look at all the polls, as well as the polling in each state. and when you do, you'll see that, as hard as it might be for you to understand, the picture looks better and better for Obama.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

but continue only to look at what's favorable to you and ignore everything else. because that's what you do.
 
I know how you feel. Right now I'm still planning to vote against the Republicans and that's the best I can do. I'm not convinced Obama can win, and if he does, I have low expectations of what he can accomplish. I wasn't exactly wild about Sen. Clinton but at least she was transparently what she is--a politician--and never pretended to be anything else. Obama pretends to be "different" and I think it's bullshit. Voting against the Republicans is better than staying home.

While I agree with you in regards to the Republicans, I just don't see anything being done. Maybe I just have political blues or something.

We seriously need a revamp of entire political process. It's such a joke to call ourselves a democracy when we only have 2 candidates to chose from.

Obama is full of shit, and he'll be no different than anyone else. I've read his website, and it's no different than what any one else would come up with.

It's false hope. If it wasn't for Bush being himself, there's no way BO would be the nominee.

I hope I'm wrong and if he wins he does bring respect back to our country, and is able to work with congress on getting real issues taken care of (healthcare, debt, etc).
 
uh, if you're going to go by daily polls, and only poll on the days that are most favorable, and only look at one poll, and ignore the polling in swing states and among critical groups, then you need to think again.

Obama's 5% lead has been consistent since he won the nomination, and that's in the right-leaning Rasmussen.

if you're interested in actually understanding what's going on and learning more rather than reconfirming your prejudices, i recommend you go to a real poll sight, one that's comprehensive, takes a deep, long look at all the polls, as well as the polling in each state. and when you do, you'll see that, as hard as it might be for you to understand, the picture looks better and better for Obama.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

but continue only to look at what's favorable to you and ignore everything else. because that's what you do.


Can you name another polling company that has been around as long as Gallup or is as accurate as Gallup? Guess which polling company was the closest at predicting the 2004 popular vote?

In the swing states, it does appear that Obama's position has greatly improved in the Blue states where he was vulnerable while red states like Virginia and Indiana have come into play. Still, things are very close in Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana and are more likely to go McCain's way as we get closer to election time and away from Obama's little victory at winning the nomination. Missouri and Nevada have so far resisted Obama's attempts to move into a more favorable position. Iowa, and Colorodo look like their in Obama's corner. The election may be decided in New Mexico or Ohio. Still this is all a very close race even when you look at it from the swing states. Historically, the Presidential race tightens as you get closer to election time. John Kerry had roughly the same lead over George Bush that Obama currently has over McCain in June 2004.

Here is an excellent site for polls: RealClearPolitics - RealClearPolitics Poll Averages
 
if you're only going to rely on one polling company to get your info, then you're going to be woefully misinformed.

in mid-September 2004, Gallup showed a 13 point lead for GWB over Kerry. the Gallup poll was wrong in 1948 as well as in 1976. the point is not that Gallup is bad, but that Gallup isn't alone.

to claim that only one poll is always trustworthy, and that others are not, is foolish.

but if we want to look at Gallup, they support one of my main contentions: Obama is winning, big, in the Latino community.
 
[q]McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: July 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign has gone through its second shake-up in a year as Mr. McCain, responding to Republican concerns that his candidacy was faltering, put Steve Schmidt in charge of day-to-day operations and abandoned an effort to have the campaign run by 11 regional managers, the senator’s aides said Wednesday.

Mr. Schmidt is a veteran of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and he worked closely with Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush’s political adviser. His installation at Mr. McCain’s headquarters sharply diminished the responsibilities of Rick Davis, who has been Mr. McCain’s campaign manager since the last shake-up nearly a year ago.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said that Mr. Davis would continue to hold the position of campaign manager, but that Mr. Schmidt had taken over every major operation where Mr. McCain has shown signs of struggling: communications, scheduling and basic political strategy.

The shift was approved by Mr. McCain after several aides, including Mr. Schmidt, warned him about 10 days ago that he was in danger of losing the presidential election unless he revamped his campaign operation, according to two officials close to the campaign.

Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Davis declined requests for comment.

In the first public reflection of Mr. Schmidt’s new role, the campaign is planning what will amount to a relaunch of Mr. McCain’s candidacy after July 4, with the senator touring the country to promote a jobs program and visiting battleground states like Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan to illustrate the economic problems he will be talking about.

By contrast, in moves that drew widespread derision by Republicans and delighted Democrats, Mr. McCain recently delivered a speech on energy policy before an audience of oil executives in Houston and came out in favor of offshore drilling in a speech in Santa Barbara, Calif. In both cases, Mr. McCain’s aides said, he ended up delivering those speeches in those locations because he was there fund-raising.

As part of the shake-up, the McCain campaign is abandoning from what had been a big innovation by Mr. Davis, in which the campaign would largely be directed by 11 regional campaign managers who have been given power over everything from where Mr. McCain would go to what advertisements he would run. Mr. Schmidt has told associates that he feared that system was unworkable and would lead to gridlock in the campaign; instead, he is likely to install a political director in Mr. McCain’s campaign headquarters.

Mr. Schmidt’s elevation is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove’s campaign efforts in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in the 2004 campaign and in his White House, has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with Mr. McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Mr. Rove’s operation, has joined the McCain communications operation.

Mr. Jenkins is a former Fox News producer and a director of Mr. Bush’s presidential advance team that set up political events.

Many Republicans, including some of Mr. McCain’s own aides, were greatly concerned about a speech that Mr. McCain gave the night that Senator Barack Obama claimed the Democratic presidential nomination. During that speech, Mr. McCain stood in front of a green background facing a low-energy crowd of supporters, providing a startling contrast with Mr. Obama’s supporters.

Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers and an ally of Mr. Davis, described the change in the campaign operation as a retooling in advance of the general election. He said Mr. Schmidt would be the chief operating officer of the campaign, serving under Mr. Davis, in charge mostly of helping Mr. McCain settle on a message and get it out with speeches, advertisements, and surrogate events.

“He is going to be the chief choreographer,” Mr. Black said of Mr. Schmidt.

Still, other Republicans said that Mr. Schmidt was, for all intents and purposes, now in charge of the campaign and that Mr. Davis would work on more longer-term projects. They said they had been trying to make this change quietly to avoid another round of news reports about a campaign in chaos.

The shift comes after what even Mr. McCain’s aides acknowledged has been a squandered period of campaigning since he became the presumptive Republican nominee in February, a time when Mr. Obama was engaged in a tough struggle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. On Wednesday, Mr. McCain visited Colombia, his second overseas trip in a month, and one that he took despite the urging of Republicans who said he needed to convey to voters his concerns about domestic problems and the economy.

“Somebody asked, ‘what’s the strategy behind this?’ ” Mr. Black said of the foreign travel. “It’s simple. McCain says he wants to go to these places, and we say of course.”

But, Mr. Black added, the trip to Colombia should help to underline what the McCain campaign wanted to make “one of the big contrasts in this race: Obama wants to become the first protectionist president in our history since Herbert Hoover.”[/q]
 
While I agree with you in regards to the Republicans, I just don't see anything being done. Maybe I just have political blues or something.

We seriously need a revamp of entire political process. It's such a joke to call ourselves a democracy when we only have 2 candidates to chose from.

Obama is full of shit, and he'll be no different than anyone else. I've read his website, and it's no different than what any one else would come up with.

It's false hope. If it wasn't for Bush being himself, there's no way BO would be the nominee.

I hope I'm wrong and if he wins he does bring respect back to our country, and is able to work with congress on getting real issues taken care of (healthcare, debt, etc).

I agree with you 100%. The reason I say it's better to vote against the Republicans than stay home is because of the Supreme Court appointees that might come up during the next term. I do think/hope Obama would get that right--but who knows. The Democrats are embarrassing, they have done nothing. I would see an Obama win as generally good international PR and a good symbolic breakthrough, but in fairness to Obama, I think things are so fucked up I don't think anyone could make a big difference at this point. It's going to take a long time to undo Bush's damage and it's bigger than any one administration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom