JerseyMike Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Ok, so the Democratic primaries will soon be over and it looks as though the guy I was leaning towards, John Edwards, will soon be heading back to North Carolina. Unfortunately, he is the only canidate among the big 3 that has even muttered an idea that I would consider "different" by todays narrow political standards. I have noticed that there are quite a few Obabma supporters here, so I ask you: Why should Obama get my vote? Why are you voting for him? Why not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Because he's not Hillary? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Ok, so the Democratic primaries will soon be over and it looks as though the guy I was leaning towards, John Edwards, will soon be heading back to North Carolina. Unfortunately, he is the only canidate among the big 3 that has even muttered an idea that I would consider "different" by todays narrow political standards. I have noticed that there are quite a few Obabma supporters here, so I ask you: Why should Obama get my vote? Why are you voting for him? Why not? I'm afraid that Obama is a bit inexpierenced. He seems like a good guy and is very personable but I don't think he has the expierence to lead the country. No thoughts on the others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 This is an intriguing read: Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Obama in Atlantic Monthly Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chuck Turner Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'll probably vote Obama since my first choice Dennis Kucinich dropped out. I'm a wee bit perturbed about excluding canidates from the debates. Corporate America still sucks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Obama can out-rhetoric Clinton and Edwards COMBINED! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 to be honest, I've been behind Obama, but he's really starting to piss me off. he is turning into the kind of candidate that makes my stomach turn and his answers and plans in general are much less specific than I would like to see. I really wish that Edwards had more support because he has clearly defined goals, etc, etc. I hate politics. sigh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 That just blew my mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 My growing feeling is that when faced with the choice of choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils, the only reasonable choice is to pick up and move to Canada, or, if that is not an option, forgo choosing altogether. At least while, as Jarvis Cocker once sang, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm worried about all of them. By all rights, the Democrats should have no problem securing a landslide victory in the presidential election, but the candidates they put forward are all flawed in some major way (whether those flaws are real or not, they affect their ability to get elected, so they're real enough). The right-wing attack machine, which is well funded and has considerable influence, will chew up any of the three major Democratic candidates. The Dems just have to hope they can survive the onslaught. Hillary: probably the single most hated/polarizing political figure in the country. She won't get a lot of independent/crossover votes, and even many Democrats aren't thrilled at the prospect of voting for her. She's a pretty poor speaker, and she's going to have trouble sounding sincere when asked to justify some of her votes in the senate. Obama: inexperienced, which is a fair criticism, but he also has that foreign-sounding name problem, which has led to the widespread insinuation that he's some kind of secret radical Muslim who's out to destroy America. It's a ridiculous charge, of course, but it works among the ... shall we say, less intelligent members of the electorate. His inexperience doesn't bother me too much (W. has proven that an administration can be more about the team of advisors at the White House than the person who actually sits in the Oval Office), but the turn that his rhetoric has taken in the last few weeks concerns me. I'm not sure he'll be able to maintain his cool all the way through November. Edwards: honestly, the guy's probably well qualified to be president, but he sounds like a used car salesman and he's a former trial lawyer, and his expensive haircut reputation, irrelevant as it is, will actually lose him votes (see "secret radical Muslim" above). I like Edwards, but I've never thought he had the kind of charisma to build a lead and win the nomination, so I've been lukewarm about supporting him. Anyone else left on the Democrat side? No one who has a chance, so, no. So that's it. Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. This is the best the Democrats could do? If the Republicans had a single competent, charismatic candidate of their own I'd be extremely worried. Fortunately, they're a bunch of useless buffoons, so the Dems still have a chance -- though "still have a chance" is a far cry from "will crush the GOP in November," which is the phrase people should be using right now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobfrombob Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 This is an intriguing read: Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Obama in Atlantic Monthly Very interesting take. This bit is like a stake through Clinton's heart to me:Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Obama was on Letterman last night to deliver his top ten campaign promises.Maybe there is something in here that will help to make a choice. Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Promises presented by Senator Barack Obama "To keep the budget balanced, I'll rent the Situation Room for sweet sixteens" "I will double your tax money at the craps table" "Appoint Mitt Romney Secretary of Lookin' Good" "If you bring a gator to the White House, I'll wrassle it" "I'll put Regis on the nickel" "I'll rename the tenth month of the year 'Barack-tober'" "I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model" "I'll find money in the budget to buy Letterman a decent hairpiece" "Pronounce the word nuclear, nuclear" "Three words: Vice President Oprah" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Great post crypt. I have a sneaking suspicion McCain will be our next president. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm voting for Stanley Hauerwas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Hillary has a couple of pluses in that she Bill and she has the experience ot negotiate the agencies that Bush & co F'd up. It is going to take a major amount of knowledgeable people to fix the mess the next president is going to innherit. Her Major minus is that she will probably mobilze as many republican voters as an of their canndidates will be able to. Republicans hate her and Bill passionately. Republicans do not fear her running, she is the candidate they want to get the nomination. For Obama, he is an excellent speaker. He is not afraid to go against the grain, though to campaign he has to follow it somewhat. He is not as inexperienced as you might be led to believe. And in the long run the president is only going to be as good as the people around him. If he chooses good people he will be good. Obama is the candidate the republicans fear in a general campaign. The minus for Obama is his race. I have no problem with this, but a lot of people in our country do and in a presidential campaign I would fear for his life. Either way no matter who gets the nomination they need to run on a paltform of fixing all the mess made in the last eight years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 W. has proven that an administration can be more about the team of advisors at the White House than the person who actually sits in the Oval OfficeYou touched on something here. There is such a disconnect between the fact that we've become culturally obsessed with candidates as individuals (ie, likability, background, character, and "electability") and the fact that (as W has proven) the individual sitting in the chair is far less important than what a candidate's positions are and who their allies (and likely cabinet-members) are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 that was totally ripped off of this tv show which was about actors made to look like how current celebrities would look when they got older, looking back on the past (but in fact it was now). If that makes sense. this was the best clip or when tony blair began to see ghosts is good too. what is interesting is how both countries politians talk the exact same bollocks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
markosis Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 DON'T VOTE! I have a wild idea: if no one votes, what happens? Let's find out. There ain't shit worth voting for anyway. Yes, I am a jaded youngster (24). The fact is that among the douche bags we have to choose from in the major parties, they have nothing new to say or offer. If they say anything radical or progressive, they either are lying or pandering for votes. Sure, Obama may say some high-falluting shit now, wait until he's under the gun in the Oval Office, and it will all spiral into the usual crap we've been dealing with for so long. So don't vote. Please join me in my quest to expose the fraud that our political system is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 DON'T VOTE! I have a wild idea: if no one votes, what happens? Let's find out. There ain't shit worth voting for anyway. Yes, I am a jaded youngster (24). The fact is that among the douche bags we have to choose from in the major parties, they have nothing new to say or offer. If they say anything radical or progressive, they either are lying or pandering for votes. Sure, Obama may say some high-falluting shit now, wait until he's under the gun in the Oval Office, and it will all spiral into the usual crap we've been dealing with for so long. So don't vote. Please join me in my quest to expose the fraud that our political system is. I am entirely sympathetic to that cause. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 DON'T VOTE! I have a wild idea: if no one votes, what happens? Let's find out. There ain't shit worth voting for anyway. Yes, I am a jaded youngster (24). The fact is that among the douche bags we have to choose from in the major parties, they have nothing new to say or offer. If they say anything radical or progressive, they either are lying or pandering for votes. Sure, Obama may say some high-falluting shit now, wait until he's under the gun in the Oval Office, and it will all spiral into the usual crap we've been dealing with for so long. So don't vote. Please join me in my quest to expose the fraud that our political system is. What was wrong with Bill Clintons presidency?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 What was wrong with Bill Clintons presidency?? Not only did you drink the Kool Aid, you bought the fucking company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
markosis Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I have a better question: what was so great about Bill Clinton's presidency? Better yet, don't answer. It'll probably have something to do with the economy, which is bullshit, because a better economy means jack shit for Flint, MI and countless other places that industry has left to rot, while people like the Clintons stay rich, and for absolutely nothing other than being politicians. Bill Clinton=another rich man's son. Nothing more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 that was totally ripped off of this tv show which was about actors made to look like how current celebrities would look when they got older, looking back on the past (but in fact it was now). If that makes sense. this was the best clip or when tony blair began to see ghosts is good too. what is interesting is how both countries politians talk the exact same bollocks. Lor' luv a duck! So yew are sayin' what is a rip-off? Know what I mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 What was wrong with Bill Clintons presidency?? There seems to be only one thing brought up about his presidency that republicans don't like and it has nothing to do with his policies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.