US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

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.
MrsSpringsteen said:
Ooh, Socialism.. Communism-everybody get under your desks, duck and cover!

By Abdon Pallasch
Sun-Times Political Writer

GLEN ELLYN, Ill. -At a suburban Chicago community college, Republican Rudy Giuliani campaigned Thursday as if the primary elections were over and his only opponent for president was Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Giuliani, speaking at the College of DuPage, repeatedly slammed "HillaryCare" as "socialized medicine" and accused the Democratic frontrunner of supporting "socialism" for her proposal to give every American $5,000 when they are born as a college account.

"If the shoe fits ... You want to give 5 grand to everyone born in the United States. Tell me that isn't socialism," Giuliani said.

Former New York Mayor Giuliani and Clinton, a Senator from New York, have fund-raisers a few block apart in Chicago Thursday.

What the hell is he smoking?:huh: Yes, how dare we provide health care and education for future generations when we can spend billions on our freedom-fighting mission in the Middle East: It's all about priorities people, and the welfare of human beings isn't one of them!:happy: It's good to know where rich, white assholes stand on helping out the "little people"!:|

On a side note, how could anyone be ignorant enough to talk about opposing funding for college, while speaking at a...*wait for it*.....college?
 
Last edited:
so aside from labeling the plan, did he actually address the issues of higher education and health care costs?

this guy is a nut. MANY countries elsewhere have free healthcare and tuition-free higher education. they are far from socialist. i wish more people would realize how common AND beneficial it is, rather than labeling it something that it is not.

and telling college students he doesn't want to reduce their tuition isn't going to win any hearts.
 
unico said:
so aside from labeling the plan, did he actually address the issues of higher education and health care costs?

this guy is a nut. MANY countries elsewhere have free healthcare and tuition-free higher education. they are far from socialist. i wish more people would realize how common AND beneficial it is, rather than labeling it something that it is not.

and telling college students he doesn't want to reduce their tuition isn't going to win any hearts.

I absolutely agree. It would take a lot of careful planning on the government's part, because without caution it could become socialism. Yet, our current system is simply not working either. We either have to go to a system similar to that prescribed by Hillary Clinton and others who agree with her, or find some middle ground that would make everyone happy. (Good luck on option 2.) If the next president, doesn't make these 2 issues his/her top priority than this country will just continue on the regressive path its been on for the past 7 years. I don't think we can take any more of that.
 
Last edited:
U2isthebest said:


I absolutely agree. It would take a lot of careful planning on the government's part, because without caution it could become socialism. Yet, our current system is simply not working either. We either have to go to a system similar to that prescribed by Hillary Clinton and others who agree with her, or find some middle ground that would make everyone happy. (Good luck on option 2.) If the next president, doesn't make these 2 issues his/her top priority than this country will just continue on the regressive path it's been on for the past 7 years. I don't think we can take any more of that.

well, the problem right now is that institutions of higher education are state mandated. thus why in-state tuition can vary from state to state. i've had loads of friends in the northeast who went to college with me in va simply because the in-state tuition was comparable to my schools out-of-state tuition.

so, leaving one state to go to another to go to college is one thing. if tuition costs continue to skyrocket, soon the prices may be comparable to pursuing a degree abroad. then the system is REALLY screwed.
 
unico said:


well, the problem right now is that institutions of higher education are state mandated. thus why in-state tuition can vary from state to state. i've had loads of friends in the northeast who went to college with me in va simply because the in-state tuition was comparable to my schools out-of-state tuition.

so, leaving one state to go to another to go to college is one thing. if tuition costs continue to skyrocket, soon the prices may be comparable to pursuing a degree abroad. then the system is REALLY screwed.

That is one of the the things that has bothered me most about higher education. What exactly is the difference in having a student from Michigan, for example, (since that's where I'm from and go to school) attend a college here or to have a student come here from, say, Minnesota? The price to educate is the same, so I don't see why a student coming from another state has to be charged thousands of dollars more per year than me. I'm already paying too much! The bottom line is, I really feel that there needs to be a fixed, affordable tuition rate both for 2 year colleges and 4 year universities that is established at the federal level. I don't know how that would go about being established or how financial aid would be qualified for those who need it, but something has to be addressed in this area. The costs to attend school are getting ridiculous. I've been blessed quite a bit in the scholarship area, so I haven't had to worry about student loans as of yet. Some of my friends, though are paying for the majority of their college with loans and will be paying them off for God knows how long. The next president really needs to get a handle on the education system, at all levels, because we're failing in every area imaginable.
 
U2isthebest said:


That is one of the the things that has bothered me most about higher education. What exactly is the difference in having a student from Michigan, for example, (since that's where I'm from and go to school) attend a college here or to have a student come here from, say, Minnesota? The price to educate is the same, so I don't see why a student coming from another state has to be charged thousands of dollars more per year than me. I'm already paying too much! The bottom line is, I really feel that there needs to be a fixed, affordable tuition rate both for 2 year colleges and 4 year universities that is established at the federal level. I don't know how that would go about being established or how financial aid would be qualified for those who need it, but something has to be addressed in this area. The costs to attend school are getting ridiculous. I've been blessed quite a bit in the scholarship area, so I haven't had to worry about student loans as of yet. Some of my friends, though are paying for the majority of their college with loans and will be paying them off for God knows how long. The next president really needs to get a handle on the education system, at all levels, because we're failing in every area imaginable.

States taxes pay for state colleges. The thinking is that if you've lived in a state for x number of years, your taxes have paid for the college.

Be careful aboiut too much federal involvement in education. It's a double-edged sword.
 
martha said:


States taxes pay for state colleges. The thinking is that if you've lived in a state for x number of years, your taxes have paid for the college.

At least that makes sense.

In Canada, if I go to law school in any province, the cost is the same as that to students in that province. If I go to Quebec, I'm charged twice as much. So in summary: Quebec students get to benefit from our provincial taxes; we get no benefit from theirs.
 
martha said:


States taxes pay for state colleges. The thinking is that if you've lived in a state for x number of years, your taxes have paid for the college.

Be careful aboiut too much federal involvement in education. It's a double-edged sword.

I understand where they're coming from on the taxes front. I do think the enormous jump in price (at least in Michigan) for out of state students is ludicrous. For those coming here from other states, there are students leaving here to go to another state. I would think that a lot of extra cost would be offset by the flow of students leaving to attend college in another state and those coming in to attend school here, that would allow for a slightly fairer rate overall. I don't know the economics or logistics, but I'd like to see state and federal lawmakers working towards a solution moreso than they seem to be doing. As for the federal involvement in education; I agree. I think because I've become biased being a college student now and seeing myself and friends struggle with costs. I'd like to see more federal aid, but not an increase in federal involvement. I realized that that is next to impossible. The government at every level though, has done a poor job of making education avaliable to everyone, and I'd like to see some kind of solution in the coming years. I don't think I'm educated enough myself at this point to really have a handle on the enormity of the problem or to offer up any real solutions that wouldn't be based on my "poor college student" view.:lol:
 
anitram said:


At least that makes sense.

In Canada, if I go to law school in any province, the cost is the same as that to students in that province. If I go to Quebec, I'm charged twice as much. So in summary: Quebec students get to benefit from our provincial taxes; we get no benefit from theirs.

That's awful! Quebec is a province too, so why would the cost be so much more?
 
Obama vows to boost veterans care

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer

Democrat Barack Obama on Friday pledged better care for America's veterans if elected president.

Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, promised improved medical care and an end to delays of disability claims. He proposed hiring more workers to handle claims, and making veterans' medical records electronic so they can be easily reached.

"As president, I won't stand for hundreds of thousands of veterans waiting for benefits," he told a crowd of about 300 people at a community college in northern Iowa.

On Friday, Obama also began running a new TV ad in Iowa, focusing on his early opposition to the war in Iraq. The ad features an endorsement from former Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, the former chief of staff of the Air Force. McPeak, who supported Bob Dole's Republican presidential bid in 1996 and George Bush's in 2000, has been a longtime critic of the Iraq War.

"Judgment is what we need from our next commander in chief," McPeak says in the 30-second ad. "Barack Obama opposed this war in Iraq from the start, showing insight and courage others did not. And he's our best hope to restore our security and standing in today's world. The old Washington hands have let us down. We need a new leader to lift America."

The ad comes a day after Obama caused a stir by remarking that he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Campaign manager David Plouffe said the McPeak ad had been scheduled to begin Friday and was not timed to defuse any fallout from Obama's flag pin remarks.

McPeak, speaking to reporters on a teleconference call, dismissed the flag pin issue as "the old gotcha politics."

"The American people are wise enough to understand the difference between petty symbolism and real substance, real courage, real judgment, which is what Barack brings to this ball game," McPeak said.

The Illinois senator outlined his plan for veterans after recent reports showed that the Department of Veterans Affairs has lagged in making improvements to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The government is investigating the hospital due to disclosures of roach-infested conditions and shoddy outpatient care.

Obama said it's not enough to make a speech on Veteran's Day or lay a wreath on Memorial Day.

"When a veteran is denied health care, we're all dishonored," he said. "When 400,000 veterans are stuck on a waiting list for claims, we need a new sense of urgency in this country."

He said too many veterans slip through the cracks, and he would institute a zero tolerance policy for veteran homelessness.

"There should be no homeless veterans," he said. "We'll stand with veterans in their hour of need just as they have stood up for us."

Chris Taylor, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said President Bush has increased the VA's budget 83 percent since 2005 and understands the need for care.

"It's hard to listen to the rookie senator talk about funding when he continues to vote against funding our troops in Iraq," Taylor said in a statement.

During an earlier campaign stop at a YMCA gym in Charles City, Obama was asked if he would end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality. He answered that the policy is a mistake.

"Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield for us and our patriots, that's the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military," Obama said. "England doesn't have this policy. Israel doesn't have this policy. It's an outdated policy."
 
There they go again, slamming health care insurance programs as "socialized medicine". Giuliani should be ashamed of himself. We need to do something about all of the millions of people who don't have health insurance. This pisses me off big time. :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
During an earlier campaign stop at a YMCA gym in Charles City, Obama was asked if he would end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality. He answered that the policy is a mistake.

"Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield for us and our patriots, that's the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military," Obama said. "England doesn't have this policy. Israel doesn't have this policy. It's an outdated policy."

Yes, indeed.
 
GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) — After speaking to an evangelical church on Sunday in this traditionally conservative South Carolina city, Sen. Barack Obama said that Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse.

"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.

"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the nineties, when at least in politics the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that often times seemed intolerant or pushed people away," he said.

Obama noted that he was pleased leaders in the evangelical community like T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.

"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.

During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church's pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Asked by CNN if he talks about faith more in churchgoing South Carolina than he does in the other early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama said: "I don't talk about it all the time, but when I'm in church I talk about it."
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) — After speaking to an evangelical church on Sunday in this traditionally conservative South Carolina city, Sen. Barack Obama said that Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse.

"I think its important particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.

"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the nineties, when at least in politics the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that often times seemed intolerant or pushed people away," he said.

Obama noted that he was pleased leaders in the evangelical community like T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.

"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.

During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church's pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Asked by CNN if he talks about faith more in churchgoing South Carolina than he does in the other early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama said: "I don't talk about it all the time, but when I'm in church I talk about it."

I agree with him. His chapter on Faith in his book "The Audacity of Hope" really gives even more detail on how faith can really be vital to politics while still maintaining the separation between church and state. It really opened up a new perspective for me.
 
I think he's just talking about making real change in the world instead of just talking about the utopia that is whatever religious kingdom one may or may not believe in and sitting around waiting for that. It's about putting faith into action and not just words. That's just my take on it.
 
martha said:


I have to say that this kind of talk from any presidential candidtae makes me a little jumpy.

I would agree in the sense that some people could easily misinterpret in that statement. His wording could make it seem like he's talking about creating some weird, religious kingdom that tries to take over and enforce it's law (you know, Religious Right style). I would guess, though, based on what I read in his book that he's talking more about the Kingdom of God as its described in The Bible, in terms of God's perfect will for earth, with equality, justice, mercy, care for the planet and everything that lives on it, etc. Those qualities are something everyone can get behind, regardless of their personal, religious beliefs. Obviously, a non-Believer would not credit his or her convictions to God which is perfectly fine and right. However, those of us who are people of faith can't ignore their message throughout The Bible, and if we ignore it, we're doing the exact opposite of what Jesus spoke to us do, and the "Kingdom" is a far-off dream. I do think, that in this society, we need a less off-putting metaphor than kingdom though. I feel like that carries a bad connotation for many people in our time. I have no idea how we would go about this, but I think it's something those of us who are Christians need to seriously look at.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I think he's just talking about making real change in the world instead of just talking about the utopia that is whatever religious kingdom one may or may not believe in and sitting around waiting for that. It's about putting faith into action and not just words. That's just my take on it.

I would agree with you. That's the gist of what I was trying to say. I think you just put it more clearly and succinctly.:up:
 
Last edited:
martha said:


I have to say that this kind of talk from any presidential candidtae makes me a little jumpy.

If he were a conservative he would have been harrassed for those comments 24/7.

dbs
 
Newsweek
Updated: 10:39 a.m. ET Oct 8, 2007

Oct. 8, 2007 - Al Gore is not running for president. But might the publicity and sheen of a Nobel Peace Prize change his mind? Some Democratic activists sure hope so.

Grass-roots Gore loyalists have been buzzing for weeks about the Nobel Prize announcement scheduled for Oct. 12 in Oslo, Norway. Gore was nominated for his work on global warming, and several longtime Nobel observers believe this could be the year that a champion of climate change gets the prize. “We feel that if [Gore] wins the Nobel Prize … then he can’t not run for president,” says Roy Gayhart, a San Diego-based organizer of a California draft Gore group.

For Gore supporters like Gayhart, the real inconvenient truth is that the former veep is not a candidate—and may never become one, no matter what happens in Oslo on Friday. Gore, who won an Emmy last month for his Current TV channel and whose film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar last February, has said nothing to indicate that he would run, and his Nashville office didn’t return several phone calls and e-mails seeking comment for this story. But unlike 2004, when his Shermanesque statement stopped supporters dead in their tracks, Gore has not completely closed the door on the idea.

Encouraged, "Draft Gore" organizations from Washington to Michigan to Massachusetts are working to put Gore’s name on 2008 primary ballots. The number of volunteers in the California 4 Gore group has more than doubled to 1,100 since early August, enough to circulate petitions in all 53 congressional districts. The national DraftGore.com group, which has gathered about 127,000 signatures this year—10,000 of them on Sept. 28 alone thanks in part to a segment on Randi Rhodes’s Air America radio show—plans to place a full-page ad in The New York Times in the coming days as an open letter to Gore urging him to run, says the group’s Eva Ritchey. Meanwhile another new coalition called America For Gore initiated a “Two Cents Worth” campaign to encourage supporters nationwide to mail two pennies in an envelope to Gore’s office to encourage a run.

Gore supporters figure a Nobel win would burnish his reputation and remind Democrats that he’s been a leader fighting what voters consider the world’s premier environmental battle. “It makes him look like the knight in shining armor,” says Stephen Cohen, president of the New York Draft Al Gore PAC. No one but the Nobel committee knows how Gore might fare. He’s one of 181 candidates, a list including Bolivian President Evo Morales, Finnish peace broker Martti Ahtisaari and Chinese dissident Rebiya Kadeer. Some Gore backers think he's already decided to run, but speculate that he doesn't want politics to interfere with his Nobel chances.

Even most diehard Gore supporters agree the next few weeks are do-or-die for a Gore candidacy. The New York state petition drive must gather 5,000 signatures during a short legal window between Halloween and early December. Gore supporters in Michigan launched a petition drive last week that must secure 12,396 valid signatures by Oct. 23—and a signed candidate affidavit from Gore himself—to place his name on next year’s primary ballot. (Gore backers there draw hope from an Aug. 14 Detroit News/WXYZ-TV statewide poll of 400 likely Democratic voters in which Gore had 36 percent, beating Hillary Clinton, who had 32 percent, and the rest of the field.)

But even the optimists are philosophical about their chances of talking Gore into the race. “I know it’s still a real long shot that he’ll run,” acknowledges Fred Koed of the Massachusetts Draft Gore group. “If I were in his shoes, after the devastating and painful loss in 2000, I’d really have to search inside myself to see if it was all worth doing again. He’ll just have to determine if this is right for him.” In the meantime, Koed and his cohorts hope the Gore faithful—and the Nobel committee—can help him make up his mind.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I think he's just talking about making real change in the world instead of just talking about the utopia that is whatever religious kingdom one may or may not believe in and sitting around waiting for that. It's about putting faith into action and not just words. That's just my take on it.

I think you're right in your interpretation.

But at the same time it really goes to show how Christianity has changed and morphed since its early days, when individuals were preoccupied with preparing their hearts for the arrival of the Kingdom. Of course they thought it would be any day...not 2000+ years later. But at some point it became something other than a personal, individual struggle (albeit within a community of believers) and that goes a long way to explaining the sort of "code" language we hear these days.
 
anitram said:


I think you're right in your interpretation.

But at the same time it really goes to show how Christianity has changed and morphed since its early days, when individuals were preoccupied with preparing their hearts for the arrival of the Kingdom. Of course they thought it would be any day...not 2000+ years later. But at some point it became something other than a personal, individual struggle (albeit within a community of believers) and that goes a long way to explaining the sort of "code" language we hear these days.

You're right. Every time I read the Gospels I'm struck by how similar the Jews of Jesus' time are in some ways to the fundamentalist Christians of ours. They expected Jesus to come and create a literal kingdom where all the bad, nasty heathens would be overthrown, and they would rule and make all their ways law. It's exactly what the religious right is trying to do in this country. Yet, that's not what Jesus asked and wanted for earth. He wanted a place where everyone would be equal, where the poor would be treated as diginifed human beings, not oppressed. He wanted a place where justice and mercy would reign for all people. He wanted a non-violent world, He wanted those of us who claim to be His followers to have a hand in making this happen. I just don't get how anyone can read the Gospels and not want to be a part of this, but unfortunately this isn't the case with most Christians. We're too busy trying to "put-Pharisee" each other and create the kind of kingdom Jesus came to destroy.
 
Irvine511 said:
she does look unstoppable.

but we can't totally toss aside Obama's doners and fundraising ability. her support may be wide, but at this stage in the game when most people haven't yet taken a hard look at the candidates, it might also be shallow.

and if she were to get the nomination, i think she'd be foolish to pass up a VP Obama. he might not bring any swing electoral votes (like Richardson might) but he can bring the cash.

No one is unstoppable at this point and no candidate can be tossed aside. Just look at where things were at this point in 2003. Dean and Gephardt were the ones battling it out for 1st place in Iowa, Dean and Lieberman were at the top of all the national polls, and Dean was in the lead with the fundraising race. But, it was Kerry and Edwards, who were expected to finish 3rd and 4th in Iowa, who wound up as the last two candidates standing.

And Hillary would be absolutely completely foolish to tap Obama (or Richardson) to be her VP. No one in their right mind would put two minorities on the ticket. And no one votes for the VP, they vote for the top of the ticket - so no VP is going to bring in swing electoral votes.
 
BlueStar said:



And Hillary would be absolutely completely foolish to tap Obama (or Richardson) to be her VP. No one in their right mind would put two minorities on the ticket. And no one votes for the VP, they vote for the top of the ticket - so no VP is going to bring in swing electoral votes.
If she gets the nomination

she should delegate the search and interviewing to Bill Clinton


and after the interviews
he can announce who he believes is best suited to the job
 
I'm not particularly impressed by Obama's comments on the importance of faith. It sounds like naked pandering for votes to me. I don't really trust politicians who talk about religion too much. It just seems manipulative to me.

Doesn't the Bible talk about not taking pains to "show off" your religiosity?

And this is from an Obama admirer.
 
BlueStar said:

And Hillary would be absolutely completely foolish to tap Obama (or Richardson) to be her VP. No one in their right mind would put two minorities on the ticket.

Since when is being a woman a minority?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom