Jump to content

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)


Trae

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
John McCain won the night.

That depends entirely on how you define "win the night". If you mean that McCain sucked up to the fundies better than Obama, I have no problem with that whatsoever, as that means that Obama promised to create fewer morality crimes than McCain did.

I did not watch it. I can think of nothing more nauseating than a theocracy debate in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which ones? The only kind of ads or commentary I've seen at all about it has been against the author and commenting that most of the sales were bulk purchases.

I totally agree, I also have seen nothing in the news media but biased commentary about how the "Obama Nation" is a terrible book and it is full of lies. It must have some truth to it or there wouldn't be so much jabbering about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some say McCain already heard the questions before going out there. He wasn't in that "cone of silence". This would explain why he was so ready on some of them. Also must explain McCain's response "I hope we get back to that question on supreme court judges" when the question hadn't been asked.

I totally agree, I also have seen nothing in the news media but biased commentary about how the "Obama Nation" is a terrible book and it is full of lies. It must have some truth to it or there wouldn't be so much jabbering about it.

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we haven't gotten our daily Gallup poll update, I thought I would point out that McCain and Obama are now tied...and no, I don't place a lot of confidence in these daily polls, but it would be pretty interesting if McCain were to actually take a slight edge at some point

Gallup is out with Obama up by 3 again, which is close to the average of the major polls tracked at Real Clear Politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree, I also have seen nothing in the news media but biased commentary about how the "Obama Nation" is a terrible book and it is full of lies. It must have some truth to it or there wouldn't be so much jabbering about it.

As long as people buy into spectacle and b.s. then the media will jabber about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sebelius maybe?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/19/04...1941/343/570196

We have a credible lead that Barack Obama will be announcing Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President / VP.

Our sources work within an ad agency that is hired by the Obama campaign, and have noted that the vast majority of the discussions there are regarding material logistics in terms of Kathleen on the vice president ticket. Now until this is verified please file it as rumor, however our sources on this are not bad.. and have yet to be proven wrong.

Our source noted "It will get a women on the ticket that shares the same views as Obama" a reference to many of the Hillary supporters..

Then of course we had to do some research.

Just rumors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. I just don't see how adding a Gov. from Kansas would help nationally. Kansas is a RED state. Very red. Utah-red. They wouldn't vote for Obama even if he chose the Jayhawk as his running mate.

The events of this week tell me that Obama needs someone with some foreign diplomacy skills and a deep resume. That spells out Biden of Delaware. I'd be very happy with a Obama/Biden ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. I just don't see how adding a Gov. from Kansas would help nationally. Kansas is a RED state. Very red. Utah-red. They wouldn't vote for Obama even if he chose the Jayhawk as his running mate.

The events of this week tell me that Obama needs someone with some foreign diplomacy skills and a deep resume. That spells out Biden of Delaware. I'd be very happy with a Obama/Biden ticket.

If so tremendously Red of a state as Kansas voted a female Democrat into office, wouldn't that seem to indicate that she would be appealing to other Red states and swing states? It doesn't seem like Obama is having any difficulty, after all, in traditionally Blue states.

I don't know this woman, but of the prospective Democrat VP candidates that I am familiar with, Biden strikes me as at least the most capable and intelligent person. I don't really agree with him on almost anything at all, but he is at least competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. I just don't see how adding a Gov. from Kansas would help nationally. Kansas is a RED state. Very red. Utah-red. They wouldn't vote for Obama even if he chose the Jayhawk as his running mate.

The events of this week tell me that Obama needs someone with some foreign diplomacy skills and a deep resume. That spells out Biden of Delaware. I'd be very happy with a Obama/Biden ticket.

You don't know Kansas. If the Jayhawk was on the ticket, Obama would EASILY win Kansas. Of course, he would then lose Missouri badly, though. ;)

Through the last 5 years, I have found Biden to be the most knowledgable and sensible on foreign policy. He is not a dove by any means, but he recognizes the value of diplomacy. And he actually knows the difference between the Shia and the Sunnis...which makes him far more knowledgable about the Middle East than McCain. I've always wanted him somewhere near the White House. However, his penchant for telling it like it is apparently gets him in trouble from time to time, which some politicians fear is a liability in a nation that chooses its leaders by soundbites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Biden though...

Biden: 'I'm not the guy'

As Delaware Sen. Joe Biden left his home a few minutes ago, golf clubs in tow, he was asked where he was going to be on Saturday.

Biden replied, "Here" and pointed down to his driveway.

As he pulled out of the driveway in the driver's seat of his car he then said to the press gathered near his gate, "You guys have better things to do. I'm not the guy."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...19/1276323.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know Kansas. If the Jayhawk was on the ticket, Obama would EASILY win Kansas. Of course, he would then lose Missouri badly, though. ;)

Through the last 5 years, I have found Biden to be the most knowledgable and sensible on foreign policy. He is not a dove by any means, but he recognizes the value of diplomacy. And he actually knows the difference between the Shia and the Sunnis...which makes him far more knowledgable about the Middle East than McCain. I've always wanted him somewhere near the White House. However, his penchant for telling it like it is apparently gets him in trouble from time to time, which some politicians fear is a liability in a nation that chooses its leaders by soundbites.

Biden is good, as you mention; however... he is a senator. From the Northeast. Not good. There are already too many senators in this race.

What everybody is missing, even on the news... is Wesley Clark. From the South, Clinton ties, military experience, can handle himself well on the national stage, and he's not another senator... The military experience that Obama needs on the team, just like McCain needs Meg Whitman for economic experience on his team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still feel it is gonna be Kaine. Obama locks in the Hispanic vote by putting Kaine on the ticket. Hispanics that actually vote in this country respect Anglos that take the time to actually learn their native tongue, and if Obama can show that he can actually communicate with Hispanics the way they would prefer, he can get a big chunk of the voting crowd in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What everybody is missing, even on the news... is Wesley Clark. From the South, Clinton ties, military experience, can handle himself well on the national stage, and he's not another senator... The military experience that Obama needs on the team, just like McCain needs Meg Whitman for economic experience on his team.

No! Vice Presidents are supposed to be able to be Presidents. To my knowledge, Meg Whitman has never held public office. She lacks the experience. She is what cabinet positions are made for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do yall think about this opinion piece from the wsj? I didn't see the debate, so I don't know.

The Rick Warren debate mattered. Why? It took place at exactly the moment America was starting to pay attention. This is what it looked like by the end of the night: Mr. McCain, normal. Mr. Obama, not normal. You've seen this discussed elsewhere. Mr. McCain was direct and clear, Mr. Obama both more careful and more scattered. But on abortion in particular, Mr. McCain seemed old-time conservative, which is something we all understand, whether we like such a stance or not, and Mr. Obama seemed either radical or dodgy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219354810...us_inside_today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, as the token hispanic on this system, I can say that somebody that speak spanish doesn't automatically get my vote. There has to be more behind that voice than a dialect.

There is also the fact that "certain" candidates go out of the way to "please" the brown vote instead of doing what's right gets on my nerves.

signed,

The Brown dude.

And another thing, they should make it mandatory that once they throw their hat in the ring, that they should announce who the running mate will be. All this dancing and selecting a VP gets on my nerves.

Pick a VP that you believe in from the start, just not who you believe is "useful" when you get the nomination. If I knew who the VP's WOULD be, that would allow for a more informed vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, as the token hispanic on this system,

And another thing, they should make it mandatory that once they throw their hat in the ring, that they should announce who the running mate will be. All this dancing and selecting a VP gets on my nerves.

Pick a VP that you believe in from the start, just not who you believe is "useful" when you get the nomination. If I knew who the VP's WOULD be, that would allow for a more informed vote.

There is the practical problem that the best VP may be someone else that is running against you in the primaries.

Then there is the strategic problem that somebody that has made it at least to the late stages of the primaries is already inundated with press coverage, but that if that candidate survives, there is a long stretch of time between the end of the primaries and election season during which an overdramatic runup to a VP pick can win over press attention and cause people to focus on you. While it is not a very crucial season to be campaigning, the summer VP pick is inexpensive easy-to-do PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do yall think about this opinion piece from the wsj? I didn't see the debate, so I don't know.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219354810...us_inside_today

I agree that Obama's performance was dismal...and if that kind of presentation is characteristic of future debates, then he's got a big, big, big problem. Motivational speaking may not get him very far when he goes up against a salty old politician.

Having said that, much of the article you linked to seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt by a radical right commentator to motivate her jackass constituency to vote for someone she doesn't really like on account of that he isn't really all that much of a die-hard of a 'conservative' (whatever that word means to her), while at the same time wishfully planting the seed of hope among them that he might officially designate himself as a four-year placeholder until a more pro-theocracy candidate can be lined up.

And her tangential remarks about what a baby is disgust me. Based on my observations of infants, I'm not sure that they really qualify as humans (i.e. self-aware) until they get to a certain developmental stage. They're more like open-air fetuses up until that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the practical problem that the best VP may be someone else that is running against you in the primaries.

Then there is the strategic problem that somebody that has made it at least to the late stages of the primaries is already inundated with press coverage, but that if that candidate survives, there is a long stretch of time between the end of the primaries and election season during which an overdramatic runup to a VP pick can win over press attention and cause people to focus on you. While it is not a very crucial season to be campaigning, the summer VP pick is inexpensive easy-to-do PR.

But if the "BEST" VP for them is already chosen, why worry about the candidate that is already running? Once a VP is picked, the PR chase is practically over as far as the theatrics go. Part of the election process shouldn't contain reporters running around speculating on who they're going to pick, it should be on the various issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the "BEST" VP for them is already chosen, why worry about the candidate that is already running? Once a VP is picked, the PR chase is practically over as far as the theatrics go.

Exactly. And picking a VP in summer makes for a nice little oasis of publicity. Picked at any other time, nobody would really notice and fewer still would care.

Part of the election process shouldn't contain reporters running around speculating on who they're going to pick, it should be on the various issues.

That's just not the way it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And picking a VP in summer makes for a nice little oasis of publicity. Picked at any other time, nobody would really notice and fewer still would care.

But if they pick the VP at the start, it would help to see who they think is the best at the time. If clinton ran with Obama as a candidate, I'd more likely to vote for him.

Then again, I'm still bitter about not having Mitt Romey (Romney is a type of sheep I found out) or Mike (I Heart) Huckabee.

That's just not the way it works.

Why accept something that isn't right? That's like accepting astronomically overpriced coffee....

oh...wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why accept something that isn't right? That's like accepting astronomically overpriced coffee....

oh...wait...

Because humans are the constituents and a significant number of them are emotional, irrational, fundamentally flawed, pathetic, small-minded little creatures.

You can't even allude to that with the general public as an audience, though. Most of the those types know who they are and would rightly assign blame to themselves and then angrily project their self-loathing against the honest brute of a politican that knows them best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...