Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Forostar said:
I honestly fear that conservative America dislikes Obama (for a number of wrong or unimportant and vague reasons - I haven't seen the best arguments on this forum either), and there's a serious chance he won't make it. Now coming back to change.
People who dislike Obama because he is "vague", as Deano said? That's fine. But he hasn't had a need to get into policy yet - 99% of the things he wanted to do were obvious to primary voters. Sometimes you need strong rhetoric to win a primary, but he will need to address the issues as time goes on. It'll happen.
And anybody can be racist. Smart or stupid, poor or rich, North or South - this is going to be a factor in
all 50 states of the Union. I don't for a second believe that one person on this forum, however, would vote against Obama because of the colour of his skin, nor do I believe that one person on this forum would have voted against Senator Clinton because of what's in her pants (nor am I accusing you of saying that, Foro. I'm just putting it out there so it can't be misinterpreted). Senator Obama has broken the presidential colour barrier for the first time in history, and racism is going to be a factor. The extensive exit polls to be taken in November will tell us, I am sure, what percentage of people are voting with race as a major factor.
Forostar said:
I believe that the person Obama stands for change (NOT only in foreign policy, but in many other fields as well). McCain does not.
If McCain wins (indeed Nat: God help America), the majority of the voters do not want change. So I'll see how sincere that (airballoon?)wish will be.
I believe John McCain would make an alright president, and that he would certainly be the best possible choice for the Republican Party to lead. I prefer him to any of the other candidates that sought the nomination. However, I fear his time has passed - the John McCain of 2000 would have been a far better president, even if he did have an illegitimate black child (thanks Karl Rove). Obama may not have much executive or Senatorial experience, but he certainly has natural charm, and he seems very competent. His ideas are progressive, whereas McCain's ideas are indeed more conservative.
So it will come down to the classic question: left vs. right; liberal vs. conservative; progressive vs. the same. People will choose McCain because they like where the USA is now, or because they feel the change Obama offers differs from the view of America they wish. John McCain does offer some change, but I would certainly argue it's not nearly as radical as the change proposed by Obama.
Having said that, Senator Obama would only be a teeeeny little bit left of centre in Canada. On average, a US Democrat fits in nicely in the Canadian Conservative Party.
Forostar said:
If someone thinks McCain is change (apart from his more radical foreign policy plans), go ahead and explain. Or just go vote for him. But don't complain that nothing has changed, a few years later, at least not on this forum.
Who died and made you Mod?
( <------- provided so you can see this response is tongue-in-cheek)
Forostar said:
Wasn't that this trustworthy man who informed the world so well? But you're right. It's gonna be hard to clean the mess.
General Powell is an honourable man. He argued with Bush for hours that invading Iraq was a bad course of action, and that the course of invasion chosen was the worst possible one. Since he has left he has quietly opposed the war. However, in the end, he is a soldier, and soldiers do as they're told by their commanders-in-chief. Why do you think he left office as quickly as he could after the '04 elections?
Deano said:
Remember the almighty dollar is what really rules here. My issue with Obama is not his desire for "change", that is admirable; it is my complete lack of faith that he will actually be able to enact the amount of change he is waxing poetic about because of external pressures on his presidency and his lack of experience (before we go into the experience thing again LC, what I am really talking about here in that regard is the "who you know" and "who will work with you" factor..... I don't think he has enough of it).
What impresses me about Obama's campaign are the steps he has taken to keep himself separate, so far, from lobbyists. Which could mean that if he makes it to the Oval Office he may not feel very beholden to those people. Unlike Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Edwards, Govenors Romney and Huckabee and Mayor Giuliani, Obama's money was not raised in the traditional manner of $2,300 a plate dinners for those who can afford it, large scale fundraisers. Instead, he shares a fundraising method with Congressman Paul - the Internet. Obama tapped the Internet successfully. He got his money from the average, the people who can't afford a big payment but could afford $20 a month. That's why he is a money-making machine. Even now, they are talking about using his extra money to settle Clinton's campaign debt - and he may walk away with $20 or $30 million above and beyond that. By the way, it takes John McCain over 2 months to raise $30 million.
While I do agree with you that the external pressures on the presidency are huge, he can avoid it by being careful in his picks, and by removing those picks when their ties are found out. Hell, he forced his VP Picker Dude to resign because he had a preferential LOAN from one of the largest lenders in the country. I think that's an interesting precedent. Given the way Washington is, it will be difficult to bring in a cabinet that doesn't have ties to lobbyists. I can guarantee you that John Edwards will be in his cabinet, and he is a solid and amazing choice for any position. Beyond that, it is going to be difficult.
I would expect State governors will be tapped for the job, as well as professionals in the civil service who have never served in a political position. I honestly hope it's bipartisan - for instance, as I said previously, imagine if he asked John McCain to be the National Security Advisor. That'd be a brilliant move. It'd be a brilliant move for John McCain to bring John Edwards into the cabinet as well (probably as Secretary of Health and Human Services, not the Attorney-Generalship he is likely to get in an Obama administration). Bipartisanship from either side would be wonderful to see.
And I would like to put this thought out there, too, Deano. Yes, Obama doesn't have as much experience navigating Washington and the external pressures therein as McCain. But he also doesn't have as much pressure *caving* to those pressures. McCain has a massive black mark on his resumé:
the Keating Five. Sometimes the Straight Talk Express lost its way. Obama may not have the same experience, but he also doesn't have the same major errors.
STOP POSTING SHIT GUYS, I AM TRYING TO GET THIS FUCKING POST DONE. FIRST WASTED, THEN DEANO, NOW FORO! BASTARDS! BOLLOCKS!
