|
Post by Grimmjow of the Funk on Jan 4, 2008 21:41:30 GMT -5
how does obama and huckabee winning effect the rest of the candidates chances and outlook for presidency and anything else y'all want to talk about/
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Jan 4, 2008 22:53:38 GMT -5
I think it's too early to tell. Now, if Huckabee and Obama end up winning the New Hampshire primaries, then they're clear favorites. Of course, stranger things have happened in election cycles.
Now for my thoughts on the winners: Obama. It's hard to not like him. That's his weakness. He is the 21st century Mr. Smith from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Of course, people claim that you don't know where he stands. Well, how many major candidates are like that?
Huckabee. Scary as ****. I, myself, am wary of evangelical preachers to begin with, primarily because they have a very devoted, very passionate flock. When it goes to the political arena, it rings of fascist (or more accurately theocratic) mentality. Not a good thing, IMHO. At this point, I can only hope and pray.
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Jan 5, 2008 0:23:17 GMT -5
^ Yeah, what he said. I was so excited about Obama coming out with a clear lead, but I was surprised to see earlier that no one was discussing it, and I ran out of time to make a thread before I had to leave. Now, with the new ep up... who will want to discuss the election? XD Oh well. In any case, here are some links on Obama: CNN's coverage of his part in the election process so far: www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.htmlAn older but rather good article of the New York Magazine's impressions of him as a person: nymag.com/news/politics/21681/And, if you must, the wiki article on Obama ~ take it with a grain of salt, but you may find it a decent starting place for doing further research and making your own decisions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Jan 5, 2008 4:15:03 GMT -5
I wasn't surprised about Huckabee wining Iowa in the prelims. Strange though. Given his Evangelical views, I saw him on Jay Leno, he seemed extremely laid back and friendly--course he is a politician... As far as his views go, I think the only thing I agree with is his idea on restructuring tax procedures. I think I would support him if he mainly focuses on the strengthening our economy and the closing gap between the lower and upper classes.
Obama, I really do love the guy but I don't think I want him to win. Too many ignorant people in this country just won't accept him being president. Elected on Friday. Assassinated on Saturday. Buried on Sunday.
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Jan 5, 2008 4:30:43 GMT -5
Maybe. Better not. I was hoping it would never come to that.
But then fifty more would rise in his place, just as strong and inspired. Tell me why we can't have a leader that better represents the country? You can only have an oligarchy for so long before the people refuse to support it any more.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Jan 5, 2008 14:53:55 GMT -5
Huckabee won't win in New Hampshire. You have to keep in mind that Iowa has a huge Evangelical population in comparison to NH.
Obama, on the other hand, I'm fairly sure will at least give Clinton a run for her money if he doesn't win outright.
|
|
|
Post by Consonant*** on Jan 6, 2008 0:23:57 GMT -5
I don't really want Obama to win. He seems like a total pushover, and I think Clinton has a better idea of what needs to be done in Iraq.
Anyone who think we should just pull all the troops out at once should never be considered for the presidency
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Jan 6, 2008 4:54:02 GMT -5
Completely not a pushover ~ in fact, quite the opposite. He thought through the ostensible purposes of the proposed war long before it was ever suggested, and he voted against it from the beginning. It's CT ~ do a little research: Transcript of October speech on Iraq: www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/21/obama.trans.iraq/Voting record: votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490He jumps in with both feet and is unafraid to sponsor bills that might otherwise be controversial, and seeks counsel from those with years of advisory experience. And yet despite the fact that he doesn't back down, he's a compassionate guy who hates to see anyone get hurt ~ he doesn't want to have any unnecessary troop deaths in Iraq. I say calling them back is the strong move. More troops have already died than civilians did in the World Trade Centers. I think it's time to work smarter.
|
|
|
Post by Grimmjow of the Funk on Jan 7, 2008 18:02:35 GMT -5
I wasn't surprised about Huckabee wining Iowa in the prelims. Strange though. Given his Evangelical views, I saw him on Jay Leno, he seemed extremely laid back and friendly--course he is a politician... As far as his views go, I think the only thing I agree with is his idea on restructuring tax procedures. I think I would support him if he mainly focuses on the strengthening our economy and the closing gap between the lower and upper classes. Obama, I really do love the guy but I don't think I want him to win. Too many ignorant people in this country just won't accept him being president. Elected on Friday. Assassinated on Saturday. Buried on Sunday. ok wyclef but he did win in a state that is 96% white and a midwest state and with more african American states to come after New Hampshire like South Carolina he may have a good shot. one could also make the same argument for hillary people may not be ready for a woman president either.
|
|
|
Post by aangxchild on Jan 7, 2008 21:14:09 GMT -5
I don't really want Obama to win. He seems like a total pushover, and I think Clinton has a better idea of what needs to be done in Iraq. Anyone who think we should just pull all the troops out at once should never be considered for the presidency Agreed. I really would love Obama to be president, but I think we need to consider the war at the moment, I guess.
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Jan 7, 2008 22:21:04 GMT -5
There have been many strong women leaders who did an excellent job ~ I wouldn't mind if some of that calibre ran, but Hillary I would not vote for. This is an excellent Peggy Noonan article on the issue: www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=393And as far as the war, Obama is considering it. He's considering the fact that we were misled, and we're all paying for it, some more than others. An entire generation of families have been wounded and torn by this war, one which had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with the price of oil. Did you read the speech? excerpts: "But I take a different view. I think the problem isn't just how we've fought the war -- it's that we fought the war in the first place. Because the truth is, the war in Iraq should never have been authorized, and it should never have been waged. The Iraq War had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. It was based on exaggerated fears and unconvincing intelligence. And it has left America less safe, and less respected around the world. Five years ago, my friends warned me not to speak up against the war. Going to war was popular. So was President Bush. You'll be putting your political career on the line, they said. But I just didn't see how Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. I was convinced that a war would distract us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and fan the flames of extremism and terrorism. And I didn't get into politics to stay silent on the tough issues, or to tailor my positions to the polls. I didn't want to look back, after an unnecessary war had been waged, and regret that I didn't speak out against going to war just because going to war was popular. So I spoke out against what I called a "rash war" -- a "war based not on reason but on politics." But the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The President and his advisors told us that the only way to stop Saddam Hussein from getting a nuclear weapon was to go to war, that we couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Leading Democrats -- including Senator Clinton -- echoed the erroneous line that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
"We should not be arguing that our troops have to stay in Iraq to counter Iran. Now is the time to end the war in Iraq. Now is the time to start bringing our troops out of Iraq -- immediately. That's why I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months -- that's as quickly and responsibly as we can do this. The only troops I will keep in Iraq for a limited time will protect our diplomats and carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda -- not sustained combat. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. So let there be no doubt: I will end this war."
"Five years after that vote for war, we should all have learned the lesson that the cowboy diplomacy of not talking to people we don't like doesn't work. We do need tougher diplomacy with Iran. But the way to support tough diplomacy is not to vote for reckless amendments -- the way to support diplomacy is to actually pursue it. That's what I've called for throughout this campaign -- direct diplomacy, without preconditions. And that's what I'll do as President. Not the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of talking to our friends and ignoring our enemies. Real, direct, and sustained diplomacy. A couple of months ago, Senator Clinton called me "naïve and irresponsible" for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn't like. Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."
|
|
|
Post by Consonant*** on Jan 8, 2008 1:25:32 GMT -5
Completely not a pushover ~ in fact, quite the opposite. He thought through the ostensible purposes of the proposed war long before it was ever suggested, and he voted against it from the beginning. It's CT ~ do a little research: Transcript of October speech on Iraq: www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/21/obama.trans.iraq/Voting record: votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490He jumps in with both feet and is unafraid to sponsor bills that might otherwise be controversial, and seeks counsel from those with years of advisory experience. And yet despite the fact that he doesn't back down, he's a compassionate guy who hates to see anyone get hurt ~ he doesn't want to have any unnecessary troop deaths in Iraq. I say calling them back is the strong move. More troops have already died than civilians did in the World Trade Centers. I think it's time to work smarter. Except their deaths are irrelevant. When you join the military, you sacrifice all rights. If we ditch Iraq, we basically leave it like Haiti. Which, I might add, is a lot worse than Iraq was and is.
|
|
Solvabibble
Metalbending Cop
Zutarian Duchess
You gotta deal with it.
Posts: 5,049
|
Post by Solvabibble on Jan 8, 2008 1:38:16 GMT -5
Just thought I'd let you guys know about this website. I used it in a report last semester on the candidates, and I believe that it's very accurate www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
|
|
The Blue Chibi
Cabbage Merchant
you cannot push the river... nor can you hold it back
Posts: 4,130
|
Post by The Blue Chibi on Jan 8, 2008 1:41:43 GMT -5
Irrelevant? I'm sorry ~ I know many people have personal connections to the issue at hand, and I don't want this discussion to lack in sensitivity, but I would not personally want my death to be in vain, over a war that was more about self-aggrandizement than it ever was about securing safety and democracy for any one people. I seriously considered joining several years ago, when we were between wars and another conflict looked likely. I pictured myself in a hospital, under fire, and wondered if my reasons for being there would have been worthy, or whether any actual advancement in the human condition had been made. If democracy etc. were really the issue at hand, there are many more populations suffering and in need of liberation, and yet which we routinely ignore, because their lands are not situated over reserves of natural resources that are currently hotly contested. On a completely different note, it would be interesting to discuss the fact that Obama's campaign has received the overall record amount ever of donations from personal sources, i.e. less than $200 each, but totaling over $16 million in all so far. The people are behind him. * edit: the Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that the results from New Hampshire are already causing people even within Hillary's own campaign to suggest she might drop out, and that endorsements could go to Obama instead: online.wsj.com/article/SB119977040063574407.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone
|
|
attonbitus
Blue Spirit
I'm in ur clouds, steel'n ur thundar
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by attonbitus on Jan 8, 2008 16:43:41 GMT -5
I truly felt when Clinton did her kinda of emotional speech to the NH women's group that it was pretty much over for her. Regardless male or female, people want a strong leader that doesn't appear weak.
|
|