Talk:Barack Obama/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, (new)(back)

Do you think he will win?[edit]

Let me ask you this question because, oh, you're very rational (No joke - I don't think I will find more reasonable people than you). Anyway, the other day I read an article where Noam Chomsky says that racism and the conservatives'/republicans' defamatory machina will keep Obama from winning the presidency.

I'm not american, but if I could vote, I'd vote for Obama, if only for a much-needed change. And because he's far better than McCain. After all, the whole world is affected in a way or another by U.S. politics. --JayJay4ever??? 23:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Explain to me how voting for one of the two parties that have shared a virtual monopoly on executive and legislative power at the state and federal for more than a century is change.PFoster 23:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Good point, but I don't think Ralph Nader is a plausible option. But do you think Obama will win? --JayJay4ever??? 23:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Probably. Maybe. PFoster 23:49, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not about parties, it's about ISSUES. Lyra § talk 23:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
I hope, and trust, that Obama has the naked political instincts to survive the GOP onslaught, and overcome it. Much as he did Ms. Clinton, who is no lightweight in those regards. How much "change" will result? Depends on the strength of his coattails (down-ticket candidates) and how much of a "mandate" he seems to get (Reagan got one, Bush "claimed" one, and no one argued). There's a lot of change going on in who says what and how much it matters in politics. The Sunday TV jibberfests are archaic and boring. The blogosphere, the netroots, and the on-line fundraising might just have some effect. I can only hope, for us and the ROW. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I find The Situation Room, Late Edition, Hannity & Colmes, The Daily Show, etc, fascinating, but that's coming from someone who watches C-SPAN for longer than 5 minutes... :)
I disagree about the grassroots movement-- I think it has totally redefined the way campaigns are run, at least for the Democrats. Barack's rewritten the rulebook on how an election works-- he's energized records of people, had record amounts of donors, etc. Lyra § talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and what's your point? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
That his message and grassroots support will help him, a lot, not "just might" as you said. Lyra § talk 01:45, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
No offense intended, but can you sometimes just "say what you mean"? It's so much simpler when it comes to communication. I still hope that they just might mean a lot. I also admire your conviction that they will, and I completely hope you are completely right! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:06, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't forget the question - "Will he win"? Liking a candidate isn't enough, you have to ask "are they electable?" When the evangelical machine is inevitably persuaded to get behind McCain (he's not so unlikable to them that they'd rather not vote, and he's making the right noises about judges, etc to get them on board), that will counter out the Obama Machine. And then, as usual, it'll come down to the various little factions they can both attract.
I predict victory for Obama, but no landslide (barring the political meltdowns that can often happens). His personal story, though interesting and certainly making for great political meat, is well matched by "I had bamboo slices shoved under my nails for my country". He's a far better orator than the thin squeaky wheel that is McCain, and the silver-tongued have a natural advantage, one might think. But barely being able to order grits and chicken-fried steak off a menu with coloured-in pictures didn't exactly hurt the jibbering halfwit we've had for the last eight years. It'll be close, but I think the long, long, ohmigod how long was it Democratic Primary season has got the political juices flowing in the Dem camp and the Dems are just a more awake field right now, and my money is on that catching him the win in the end (my bet is that despite initial protestations, 99% of HIllary voters will come out very happily for Obama - I think that particular fuss is just journalists thinking out loud).
The Republicans also were hampered by an absolutely dreadful panel of bozos from which to pick - honestly, despite our RW protestations, not enough Americans are evangelicals to make Creationists electable, and nor were most Americans remotely interested in gel-slick Mormons or dodgy self-aggrandizing New Yorkers. So they got the guy they're going with because he was the best of a bad lot, and McCain has not yet been properly shoulder-charged on the real issues as a result. Hopefully the Senator from Illinois can do that.
Personally, I very much doubt any sweeping, juddering change will be initiated upon Barack's ascension to the Crownless Throne - though sheep may believe it to be so. However, hopefully we can live in a world with just a tiny bit more humanity for our fellow man than we've had to put up with under Dubya, and for that reason, I do hope Obama wins, given the choice with which we are presented. DogP 03:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Sadly, and ROTFLMAOingly, "barely being able to order grits and chicken-fried steak off a menu with coloured-in pictures didn't exactly hurt the jibbering halfwit" pretty much confounds every pundit or pundit-wanna-be. Anyone ever notice that the people who get paid to gab about this stuff are wrong 98 Schlaflies of the time, and yet, keep their (high paying) jobs? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
"just a tiny bit more humanity for our fellow man than we've had to put up with under Dubya" I have have killed insects, just today, that could pull that trick off without breaking a sweat. Anyway, nice piece you said, DP. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:28, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Er... what about racism? Do you think the american empire will be lead by a black man? (ugh... that sounds schlaflyst)--JayJay4ever??? 09:43, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not. The single most important job in American international politics has been filled by African Americans since 20001. While racism is deeply ingrained in all aspects of American (and Western) society, I think that when it comes to the election, that enough people are disillusioned over how badly the Republicans messed it all up that it will pretty easily offset the number of Americans who would vote against Obama because of his race. Besides which, seeing as only about half of y'all even bother to vote in the first place, I tend to believe that the real hardcore racists - the ones to whom everything is reducible to racial conflict - are the type of people who tend to stay home on election day, since they figure the system could never represent their interests.PFoster 12:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I hope so. I'd like to see Obama win. --JayJay4ever??? 13:09, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

First edit button[edit]

Knowing the tenacity of the Clintons, I'm not so sure they're going to go out there fighting tooth and nail for Barry...with their eyes on 2012, if, God forbid, Barack Obama becomes the Walter Mondale of 2008 and is elected the "President of Illinois." Walter Mondale won only his home state in 1984, Minnesota. And under "you heard it here first", I'm announcing that McCain's VP will be....Dick Cheney. CЯacke® 13:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Word of caution[edit]

When Maggie Thatcher was elected in 1979, everyone (yes, everyone!) thought that we might get a more caring type of Tory government. [We didn't, by the way]. Hope Barack won't disappoint in a like manner. Don't forget - he's still a politician! SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:20, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Er, not me Susan. Women in power tend to be just as bad as the men (but that is probably a result of the system - otherwise they wouldn't have made it). I remember having heated discussions with (left-leaning) feminist friends over whether they should vote for her just because she was a woman (I was very much against it). However, check out Dan Ariely's comments about Obama in the video on this page. It's at the very end of a 49 minute piece if you don't want to watch all of it. There is a lot of interesting stuff before the Obama bit about honesty, self-deception and human nature which I recommend. Jollyfish.gifGenghisevolving 06:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I think Obama is a great orator and someone, particulary after the hellish Bush years, I can see changing USA's standing in the world (as a non-US citizen) and really bringing some kind of uneasy peace for a change. He has that JFK "winds of change" youth about him. However, as a student of the political sciences and someone that has worked closely in politics for many years, I agree with you Susan. His recent activity I think has done him more damage than good and I start to rethink my initial assessment. I prefer him over any however I still have my "Humming and Harring". Ace McWickedInteresting 06:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I share Susan's cynicism. Politicians always fail to live up their promises. In a way it's built in, they have to promise Utopia to get elected and, once in power, have to work in the real world. Having said that, If I were able to vote in the US elections, it's a no-brainer. The current US policies have had a seriously detrimental effect on international relationships. It's time to try talking for a change. Silver Sloth 06:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

@Silver Sloth - I remember having a debate with someone here in NZ about the current US presidential elections. Their response was a typical, far-removed one "What does it matter to us?". US policy, as the US is still the big cheese, affects us all. Ace McWickedInteresting 06:52, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Genghis, I wrote "caring type of Tory government", not "caring type of government". I never had any intention of voting Tory, although I knew quite a few who did, turned from don't know to Tory by her gender. My real point is that politicians are run by the political environment and in the US that means (I believe) the Washington Mafia. SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:15, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Obamas main selling point though has been his removal from, and disdain of, the Washington Mafia. However, in saying that, he is linked to those halfbaked bio-fuel freaks. Ace McWickedInteresting 07:24, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

He's subject to the same party politics and associated lobbying as any other president (sorry for anticipating but ...). SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

That he is Susan, that he is. In saying that though, He is still the lesser of two evils and to be in politics one has to be political. Between a rock and a hard place I would choose the hard place (which means fuck all, I just wanted to be poignant) Ace McWickedInteresting 07:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Ace, Doesn't that reference to the idea of a Thatcher govt being a more caring type of tory govt have an eery resemblance to National's platform in 1990? And the consequences of that govt?--Damo2353 07:41, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

You make a good point however, National was beset by internal fighting and shady deals. Which eventuated in the leader being routed out and replaced by a bovine. The caring side of it was a side effect of Labour dissatisfaction and an introduction of the MMP system (which gave the newly formed NZ First party a hand to play). Very differant circumstances than that of the Thatcher affair. Ace McWickedInteresting 07:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Susan, I meant that I never expected the Tories to make any change down the road of caring just because they had a woman at the helm. As for Obama, I agree that it is difficult to change the political ethos of a country. It is much easier for small countries, but as the economic and social fabric is built up it has a momentum of its own that is almost impossible to change. Jollyfish.gifGenghisevolving 07:46, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

"Osama"/Fox News...[edit]

Did they REALLY do that? Does anyone have a link, if so? PFoster 20:51, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Check teh utubes. The Daily Show has shown the clip (many times?). ħumanUser talk:Human 22:04, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Does it really matter who wins?[edit]

Presidential politics in America doesn't hinge on the intelligence or wisdom of the man seeking the office. There's a Republican brand and there's a Democratic brand. After nearly eight years of Bush, the Republican brand has become indistinguishable from the Democratic brand. Bush has grown the federal government far larger and faster than Clinton ever dared. He has engaged in the same sort of nation-building he derided in the Clinton administration when he ran in 2000. Both Obama and McCain refuse to consider drilling in ANWR. McCain even says raising social security withholding is not "off the table". Obama wants a Surge in Afghanistan and says he opposes gay marriage. The two brands are all jumbled up, so we're down to silly comments about McCain being too old or Obama having an Middle-Eastern middle name. And all it really boils down to is a kind of contentless team rivalry like you have in professional sports. Hooray for the Seattle Seahawks, boo for the Miami Dolphins. Francine 22:42, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Francine: "the man seeking office" is sexist ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
You are equivocating on the word "man". I'm using it in the same universal sense that Tolkien used "Elves, dwarfs, and men". He didn't say "Elves and Elvennes, Dwarfs and Dwarfettes, Men and Women" and I didn't get uptight when he failed to do so. Francine 11:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree. If you support universal health care, than Obama is better. If you prefer diplomacy to bombing, than Obama is better. If you oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell, than Obama is better. If you are anti-torture, than Obama is better. These are just a few places where they've disagreed. Researcher 23:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
If you prefer diplomacy to bombing, than Obama is better. Respectfully, Bullshit. Obama has made it clear that he will continue to pursue a policy of aggressive war in Afghanistan. PFoster 23:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
He's also said that he has a willingness to sit down and talk to Iran, something McCain won't do. Hell, McCain has said he won't even speak to the President of Spain, though I do think he was a little mixed up when he said it. While, yes, Obama will continue the war in Afghanistan, at least he's not as gung-ho about spreading it any further. Which does mean a difference. Researcher 23:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was of course brought to us by Bill Clinton, after making promises during his campaign to outright rescind the ban on gays in the military. Secret Squirrel 23:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
"At least he's not as gung-ho about spreading it any further." THIS is the worst legacy of the Bush administration--the way in which normally progressive-thinking people are willing to sacrifice core values in the name of "less bad" or even "not worse." When it comes to the leadership of your country and what you believe is right, second-best is not good enough. And yet I've met dozens and dozens of people who consider themselves pacifists or who are at least fundamentally opposed to the primacy of the use of force in guiding American foreign policy, and most of them have committed themselves to a candidate who has made it clear that if elected, he will intensify and augment America's commitment to the war in Afghanistan--and this after civilian deaths from airstrikes alone TRIPLED last year. PFoster 23:39, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
AS for universal healthcare; you're dreaming. In Technicolour. Countries with crippling amounts of debt from misguided wars and collapsing stock markets and looming recessions can't afford major social overhauls. The money ain't there, and won't be in Obama's first 4 years.PFoster 23:41, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
In a democracy, second best is the most you can hope for. New3.pngPink(</Cynical>) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Not true. There are countries with more than two political parties vying for essentially the same centre-right powerbase--and with finance laws and traditions of equality of opportunity that do more to foster better outcomes. PFoster 23:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
"Better" isn't best, now is it? New3.pngPink(010) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Some of you speak as if the candidates' promises and threats will be kept. They are both likely to disappoint, if you are expecting adherence to views that you hold in common with them. I'm not saying this to be cynical, it's just that problems have a way of popping up that aren't as simple as anticipated, plus the world looks different when you have the power to make choices that greatly affect the lives of possibly billions of people.
It also seems to me that folks choose a candidate, somehow, then hear what they want to hear from him, regardless of what he actually said.
So yeah, it may matter who wins, but for the most part we won't know if it mattered. SCOTUS appointees may be the exception.
-- RemBeau 00:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
(Undenting because I can't follow everything) PFoster--actually, by putting more troops in Afghanistan, past history suggests that civilian deaths will decrease. Many of the civilian deaths are from UAVs being sent to bomb things without there being any troops nearby to direct them. Overall, though, I supported the war in Afghanistan when it started, and I feel we have a certain amount of responsibility there. (Moreover, I'm alternately hopeful and terrified that the Taliban are set to start negotiations with Karzai's government--I want Afghanistan to have stability w/o AQ, but at the same time the Taliban were horrible for the country.) Overall, though, I find myself in agreement with quite a lot that Barack Obama stands for. Researcher 08:34, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

This reminds me of a discussion I had years back with someone in which he challenged me to name one significant difference between Bill Clinton and George H W Bush. While tougher than I at first thought, I think I won that with two words: Clarence Thomas. DickTurpis 11:29, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Didn't see last night's debate, but i heard McCain got clobbered, or maybe clobbered himself. You have to wonder what he espected to gain from debating Obama, especially if Tom Brokaw gets to choose the questions.
Given Obama's eloquence, intelligence, charisma, comparative youth and health, physical height, superior posture, enthusiastic support, friendly news media, donations advantage, and NOW national financial disaster with a Pub in the WH one month before the election, what chance could McCain have? And four days (i think) before election day, jobless numbers come out.
Perhaps only Bin Ladin could conjure up an October surprise to tilt the odds in McCain's favor.
James Carville didn't do Obama any favors by suggesting that only racism could win it for McCain, and if that were to happen, there would be riots. Those leaning toward McCain have a right to resent that.
-- RemBeau 21:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations[edit]

I should like to add my personal congratulations to Mr Obama here.--Hillary Rodham Clinton 03:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Hear here! And I would like to add that Hillary was a truly gallant performer at the convention. Hillary for Secretary of Health and Human Housing, or whatever it's called. If it even still exists. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
At last! An American president who is capable of stringing together a basic sentence. Crundy 07:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)
It has been a long, long eight years. Hail to the Chief! Hillary for Supreme Court! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Let's not empty out the Senate in an effort to fill cabinet posts (unless we're appointing Republicans from states with Democratic governors (McCain for Secretary of Veteran's Affairs?)). We're already losing 2 Senators, who luckily will be replaced with other Dems, but we don't want a complete drain of talent. Though after watching Mark Pryor's appearance in Religiulous maybe we can get him out of the Senate and into some position like Sec of Agriculture. DickTurpis 14:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think NY state would, one way or another, replace Hillary with another Dem. Anyway, what I think matters here is that Barack has Hils over for a sumptuous lunch and asks her what she wants, short and long term - and then does whatever he can to help her get there. She earned it with her primary performance, and her awesome convention appearance. Whatever, wherever she wants to go, he should grease the rails. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I'm in agreement with Human on this. And may I just add, "HELL YES." This is the American President *this* American has been waiting for. Researcher 23:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)