U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%
  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%

  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
...the Superdelegates will select someone who can unite the party and reach out to independents and some republicans....somehow that wont be Hillary I think....old style dirty politics needs to end....

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008030601

Maybe, alternatively, in the next 7 weeks before Penn, Hillary will throw so much negative ads at Obama that the superdelegates will see Obama's inexperience become a real problem against McCain.

As I've mentioned a few times, the majority of late deciders on Tuesday went with Hillary, most people believe the red phone ad made a huge difference, we'll see how that pans out...
 
It is scandalous how the Republicans have no consistency with regarding to giving out delegates- the only reason McCain is now the nominee elect is because on Super Tuesday he won 9 of 21 states in play that night, those 9 and those 9 alone give out delegates on a winner-takes-all basis, McCain only one California by six points but took home 149 delegates to Romney's 6 (superdelegates included).

Surely this is something that should be decided federally.

Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? The role the federal government has in an election is to set the date for the General election (which is "the Tuesday after the first Monday in November") and insure that the conduct of ballot collection and tabulation passes constitutional muster. Other than that, the folks in Foggy Bottom should keep their noses out of the political parties and states processes for selection candidates who will appear on the general election ballot.

(Also--the Republicans do have a few seats at the convention for selected party stalwarts, but they do not use the term "superdelegates,' have nothing written into their primary selection process including the concept of "superdelegates," and no "superdelegates" were obtained by any GOP candidate based on what happened during the primary in California.)

Each political party should be permitted to choose its candidates for the general election anyway that party wishes, whether it be winner-take-all primaries, closed door deals, proportionate allocation, or buying the position, for that matter.
Not only is each party entitled to decide how candidates are selected for the general election, but each state is entitled to decide when to hold its primary election and what issues or positions should be on the ballot.
 
...and you dont see that as being unfair? :rolleyes:

Hillary takes more "PAC" money than McCain....the most corrupt candidate in years.....time for the Clinton clan to take their dirty grip off the Democratic party....

...where's tax returns Hillary?

I'm sure she'll release her tax returns if she gets the nomination and the rules state she has to release her tax returns.

Just because Obama did it does not mean everyone else has to follow suit.
 
I used to be on the side of Obama but now I'm with Hilary, though I heard that the Democrats see Obama as much more electable than Hilary....

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm a bit wishy washy about this...:)...

Because let's face it, it's in another country, as long as a Republican doesn't win I'm cool...:cool:...
 
Maybe, alternatively, in the next 7 weeks before Penn, Hillary will throw so much negative ads at Obama that the superdelegates will see Obama's inexperience become a real problem against McCain.

As I've mentioned a few times, the majority of late deciders on Tuesday went with Hillary, most people believe the red phone ad made a huge difference, we'll see how that pans out...

How? I saw the add and it did nothing for me. Are some people that gullible?
 
and we all know how much the popular vote counts for when running against the Repulican Party...

But that rule exists so candidates can't simply campaign in the most populous states. It means each state counts. Bush took lots of the midwestern states that Gore couldn't pull. FFS Gore couldn't win his own home state. That alone should be a TKO.
 
But that rule exists so candidates can't simply campaign in the most populous states. It means each state counts. Bush took lots of the midwestern states that Gore couldn't pull. FFS Gore couldn't win his own home state. That alone should be a TKO.

I still think Florida should have gone to Gore if they had a state-wide recount, but all that doesn't matter now.

Trust Florida to mess up another election for the Dems...
 
Great Article on Obama

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.


He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.

But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of the local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able.

But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama also has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is also able to inspire large crowds?

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail.

In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cult-like atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" - whether the soaring phrases might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.

I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?

Obama speaks of "change", but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his own advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.

Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.

He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama's healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit -- an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work.

But Obama is no a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). "Triangulation" has no appeal for him. Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was unpopular.

He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality, and proposing a reform of the patent system.

His campaign has spoken of moving toward "iPod Government" -- an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that will make things far simpler and more user-friendly.

These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.

Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "We coach Little League [baseball] in the blue [Democratic-voting] states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
 
In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them,"

After he received an email from a pro-life doctor, Obama recalls how he softened his website's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "[T]hat night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his own campaign provides helpful evidence here.

But there is some fragility to the public fervor that envelops him. Crowds and cults can be fickle, and if some of his decisions disappoint, or turn out badly, his support will diminish. Some people think it might even collapse.

My own concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents (above all Lincoln and Roosevelt) benefited from robust dialogue and from advisers who avoided saying, "how wonderful you are," and were willing to say: "Mr President, your thinking about this is all wrong."

Because Obama himself is exceptionally able, and because so many people are treating him as a near-messiah, his advisers might be too deferential, too unwilling to question. There is a real risk here. But I believe that his humility, and his intense desire to seek out dissenting views, will prove crucial safeguards.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider", only to turn out to be the most divisive President in memory. Because of his own certainty, and his lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush polarized the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a result.

As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all for that reason.
 
That's all very well, and I believe Obama will eventually become a great president, just not this time round. Anyway, something about the article:

"This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. "

The writer assumes that other "prominent Democrats" have not had similar conversations with other legal professionals, in fact, he implies that, where as those people who have blasted Bush might have shown every bit as much care as Obama.

"Obama's healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.)"

That's all very well, but an estimated 15 million Americans will not buy the insurance, what happens when they fall ill? Turn them away at hospitals?

"He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba. "

Why is this a good idea before those countries have shown they're willing to change? For all we know, Raul Castro is no different from his brother, why should the embargo be lifted just becasue Fidel retired? :confused:

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I've nothing against Obama, just that I think Hillary is the better choice this time round and Obama's time will come.
 
What's best about this whole thing is still yet to come (for the dems anyway). Regardless of all the he won this state or she won that state talk, they are in a virtual dead heat. Most states have been almost 50/50 with the delegates. The circus will begin come convention time. What to do about Florida and Michigan? They were told their delegates wouldn't be seated if they moved their primaries and Hillary backed that. Then she went out and won those 2 states......oops. Not to mention if the super delegates vote her in they'll be an uproar about backroom deals. This is the best election year I can ever remember. At least the repubs sorted out the old man right away.
 
I'm sure she'll release her tax returns if she gets the nomination and the rules state she has to release her tax returns.

Just because Obama did it does not mean everyone else has to follow suit.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

She doesn't even answer to subpoenas, and you think she's going to answer to Tim Russert?
 


Some polls put it at a dead heat in Texas now apparently.


The old Clinton "it's about the children" crap, which they always pull when things get tough.

Dick Morris taught them that decades ago.

Oh, and intelligent people would have realised a few things:

1) she is more likely to get "guess where your husband is" calls at 3AM
2) why does it take 11 rings before she answers the damned thing?
3) why is the President not asleep at 3AM? Is no one there to answer?
4) when the feck did she start wearing glasses again?
 
But that rule exists so candidates can't simply campaign in the most populous states. It means each state counts. Bush took lots of the midwestern states that Gore couldn't pull. FFS Gore couldn't win his own home state. That alone should be a TKO.

The funny things about Hillary's people shouting "electoral college!" when it is pointed out that she is trailing are:

1) she not only is behind in the overall popular vote (big deal), but also behind in elected delegates. Bush won the majority of electors (all of whom are elected via each state's popular vote) in 2000. She wants to win via a back room deal with these party bosses.

2) suddenly she wants to count the original unsanctioned vote in Michigan in order to not 'disenfranchise' those voters. She signed a pledge that she wouldn't do so. In fact, when Obama and John Airh-Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, she promised to do the same and then blamed it on a 'bureaucratic snafu' (a classic Clinton excuse used for everything from Cattle Futures to Rose Law Firm billing records subpoenaed by Congress). Now she opposes a re-do on the grounds that it was their choice to remove their names and she won fairly (although only narrowly against a write-in for 'uncommitted')

3) she doesn't want a re-do in Florida because she violated the promise to not campaign in Florida and thus 'won' there. In the last 24 hours she had two 'open fundraisers' - meaning anyone who wanted to could come, something local Democratic bosses encouraged - which were basically campaign events. She then held a 'victory celebration' here when she 'won'.

The Clinton campaign does their usual lying and obfuscating when confronted with this by claiming that by Obama violated the rule by advertising on cable news channels on Super Tuesday. Those channels will only accept a 50 state ad buy and not allow cherry picking of 48 states. Presumably he shouldn't have bought any cable advertising because a small number of viewers in those states would see those ads on satellite. He requested the ads be replaced by local opt-outs on cable systems - something you cannot do on DirecTV or Dish Network - but Clinton now claims he should not have advertised at all on CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX, FOX Business, ABC News Now, CNN International US, CNBC World US, Comcast Network and many more. Of course she doesn't mention she also ran 50 state adverts, and failed to request a cable opt-out (another 'bureaucratic snafu' according to her henchmen).

4) she has a hefty lead in Superdelegates, the anti-democratic bosses who are permitted to vote for the nomination. There are basically no Superdelegates in the Republican Party, and this system is not some ages-old relic of eras gone by. It was actually a system created in 1982 specifically to stop a black man (Jesse Jackson) from getting the nomination even if the people wanted him. Without Superdelegates Obama's lead is a lot more than 100.

5) many Superdelegates are scared shitless of the Clinton machine and thus are too afraid to openly support Obama unless he's sure of the nomination. They are notorious for abusing the power of the state to get back at those on their Enemies List. Think IRS records mysteriously getting into the hands of their political operatives and most of their political enemies being audited every single year of the Clinton administration. Think FBI files hidden in the White House basement. Think Arkansas State Troopers sent to physically threaten those women who wanted to take action against him for sexual harassment. Think Travelgate, when Hillary illegally fired federal employees who were not political appointments on false and defamatory grounds. Think her character assassination of untold people both private and public.

She will not hesitate to cut off at the kneecaps anyone who dares to have the temerity to oppose her once-inevitable candidacy. She is a ruthless and power-mad person, much worse than her husband who just gets off on having the power rather than being obsessed with abusing it to destroy enemies.

If she gains control of the Democratic Party via back room deals in spite of both the will of the majority of elected delegates, then the very essence of democracy will be sacrificed to give her power. If she wins the presidency, then we are set for another decade of the most disgusting and corrupt politics in American history. I just hope those who have pounced on every alleged indiscretion of the Bush Administration will do the same for her.
 
exactly...but credit her for her tenacious fight...she cannot accept that an upstart kid from Chicago is actually going to take what she has coveted since her blowjob loving hubby left office....

she will setlle for the VP position though....but Obama better watch his back :)

She'd never take the Veep role. She'll let him take the nomination and then work in the background to do everything she can to destroy his candidacy and give it one last chance in 2012.

Clearly her behaviour in this campaign has shown she will stop at absolutely nothing. They've got a long history of just quietly waiting and regrouping when they have a setback. She will be too old in 2016, so she has to derail him now lest he win the presidency.
 
The funny things about Hillary's people shouting "electoral college!" when it is pointed out that she is trailing are:

1) she not only is behind in the overall popular vote (big deal), but also behind in elected delegates. Bush won the majority of electors (all of whom are elected via each state's popular vote) in 2000. She wants to win via a back room deal with these party bosses.

2) suddenly she wants to count the original unsanctioned vote in Michigan in order to not 'disenfranchise' those voters. She signed a pledge that she wouldn't do so. In fact, when Obama and John Airh-Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, she promised to do the same and then blamed it on a 'bureaucratic snafu' (a classic Clinton excuse used for everything from Cattle Futures to Rose Law Firm billing records subpoenaed by Congress). Now she opposes a re-do on the grounds that it was their choice to remove their names and she won fairly (although only narrowly against a write-in for 'uncommitted')

3) she doesn't want a re-do in Florida because she violated the promise to not campaign in Florida and thus 'won' there. In the last 24 hours she had two 'open fundraisers' - meaning anyone who wanted to could come, something local Democratic bosses encouraged - which were basically campaign events. She then held a 'victory celebration' here when she 'won'.

The Clinton campaign does their usual lying and obfuscating when confronted with this by claiming that by Obama violated the rule by advertising on cable news channels on Super Tuesday. Those channels will only accept a 50 state ad buy and not allow cherry picking of 48 states. Presumably he shouldn't have bought any cable advertising because a small number of viewers in those states would see those ads on satellite. He requested the ads be replaced by local opt-outs on cable systems - something you cannot do on DirecTV or Dish Network - but Clinton now claims he should not have advertised at all on CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX, FOX Business, ABC News Now, CNN International US, CNBC World US, Comcast Network and many more. Of course she doesn't mention she also ran 50 state adverts, and failed to request a cable opt-out (another 'bureaucratic snafu' according to her henchmen).

4) she has a hefty lead in Superdelegates, the anti-democratic bosses who are permitted to vote for the nomination. There are basically no Superdelegates in the Republican Party, and this system is not some ages-old relic of eras gone by. It was actually a system created in 1982 specifically to stop a black man (Jesse Jackson) from getting the nomination even if the people wanted him. Without Superdelegates Obama's lead is a lot more than 100.

5) many Superdelegates are scared shitless of the Clinton machine and thus are too afraid to openly support Obama unless he's sure of the nomination. They are notorious for abusing the power of the state to get back at those on their Enemies List. Think IRS records mysteriously getting into the hands of their political operatives and most of their political enemies being audited every single year of the Clinton administration. Think FBI files hidden in the White House basement. Think Arkansas State Troopers sent to physically threaten those women who wanted to take action against him for sexual harassment. Think Travelgate, when Hillary illegally fired federal employees who were not political appointments on false and defamatory grounds. Think her character assassination of untold people both private and public.

She will not hesitate to cut off at the kneecaps anyone who dares to have the temerity to oppose her once-inevitable candidacy. She is a ruthless and power-mad person, much worse than her husband who just gets off on having the power rather than being obsessed with abusing it to destroy enemies.

If she gains control of the Democratic Party via back room deals in spite of both the will of the majority of elected delegates, then the very essence of democracy will be sacrificed to give her power. If she wins the presidency, then we are set for another decade of the most disgusting and corrupt politics in American history. I just hope those who have pounced on every alleged indiscretion of the Bush Administration will do the same for her.

I agree with all of this. I also doff my hat to you.
 
I think those who have the old grudges may just decide to hand the nomination to Obama as payback....

btw last Tuesday Brokow revealed that Obama had 50 'supers' in his pocket...but Pelosi gave a statement that all supers' movement should stop until the primaries are done.....


one other interesting news...NAFTA gate....MSNBC on Obermann revealed it was the Clinton campaign that contacted the Canadians to reassure them...all the talk in OHIO was only election rehtoric...

watch this space....
 
Reading about Clinton wanting to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates but not wanting another poll... amazing.

Not least the fuss she is kicking up over Obama's aide's comments.
 
Let me get this straight.

1) a senior campaign staffer of hers sends out a campaign fundraising email after Iowa called "Stop Barack HUSSEIN Obama". At first they defend him, but as pressure mounts he is fired. This staffer had worked for her for nearly a decade.

2) a senior campaign strategist (strategists are pretty damned high in the totem pole) claims on national tv that "we never know, Obama may have been dealing cocaine in Chicago". He repeated it over and over again even when the media decried his comments. A couple of days later when there was an effect on her poll numbers, he is fired.

3) she calls Obama 'Ken Starr' (a pejorative amongst Democrats) because after she demands he turn over any information at all about Resco, he asks her to release the tax returns and schedules she has promised to release since 2000. In her first Senate campaign, she refused to turn over the records until Rick Lazio turned over his. She then sent someone dressed up as a camp Uncle Sam to follow him around from event to event asking him to release his records. Obama has released his every year since he started serving in the Illinois State Senate.

4) one of his aides calls her a monster off the record, and he lets her go immediately. No media outcry necessary.

The proof is in the pudding. For all of his traditional liberal crap in terms of policy, he can't be matched on the Democrat's side in terms of class.

His aide was right, she is a monster. Democrats are only now finding out what us Republicans have known for 20 years.
 
Let me get this straight.

1) a senior campaign staffer of hers sends out a campaign fundraising email after Iowa called "Stop Barack HUSSEIN Obama". At first they defend him, but as pressure mounts he is fired. This staffer had worked for her for nearly a decade.

2) a senior campaign strategist (strategists are pretty damned high in the totem pole) claims on national tv that "we never know, Obama may have been dealing cocaine in Chicago". He repeated it over and over again even when the media decried his comments. A couple of days later when there was an effect on her poll numbers, he is fired.

3) she calls Obama 'Ken Starr' (a pejorative amongst Democrats) because after she demands he turn over any information at all about Resco, he asks her to release the tax returns and schedules she has promised to release since 2000. In her first Senate campaign, she refused to turn over the records until Rick Lazio turned over his. She then sent someone dressed up as a camp Uncle Sam to follow him around from event to event asking him to release his records. Obama has released his every year since he started serving in the Illinois State Senate.

4) one of his aides calls her a monster off the record, and he lets her go immediately. No media outcry necessary.

The proof is in the pudding. For all of his traditional liberal crap in terms of policy, he can't be matched on the Democrat's side in terms of class.

His aide was right, she is a monster. Democrats are only now finding out what us Republicans have known for 20 years.

agree jason...

there are only two honest candidates here...Obama and McCain...

btw Whitewater was all Hillary not Bill....that is why they had to go after Bill and his blowjob...

think she will release her 2000 tax returns...doubt it....

if they steal it from Obama in the backroom...McCain for me....we cannot afford a known dishonest person in the whitehouse...

I have heard from others and also talking to friends...they are so disgusted with Clinton, they would actually vote for McCain...more against Clinton of course.....no way I see Obama as a VP to her...which she is desperate for...to retain the black and youth votes...

in fact Obama should run as independent with Bloomberg...now that would be a ticket that may draw votes from both parties....
 
This process has been an amazing insight into the US political process. And its an amazing one. Whoever wins will have had to tour the country twice before coming President and in doing so will have seen all the people and got a real sense of real people and real issues. This is the America I grew up fascinated by, admiring it, maybe even one day wanting to live there.

Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

The damage Bush has done post 9/11 just cannot be emphasised enough. the US people must choose a candidate who can change the huge negative global opinion people like me have. Whoever can change this should win.
 
This process has been an amazing insight into the US political process. And its an amazing one. Whoever wins will have had to tour the country twice before coming President and in doing so will have seen all the people and got a real sense of real people and real issues. This is the America I grew up fascinated by, admiring it, maybe even one day wanting to live there.

Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

The damage Bush has done post 9/11 just cannot be emphasised enough. the US people must choose a candidate who can change the huge negative global opinion people like me have. Whoever can change this should win.



Barack Obama!!!!
 
This process has been an amazing insight into the US political process. And its an amazing one. Whoever wins will have had to tour the country twice before coming President and in doing so will have seen all the people and got a real sense of real people and real issues. This is the America I grew up fascinated by, admiring it, maybe even one day wanting to live there.

Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

The damage Bush has done post 9/11 just cannot be emphasised enough. the US people must choose a candidate who can change the huge negative global opinion people like me have. Whoever can change this should win.

I see what you're saying to some extent but other than a period right after 9/11 the world as a whole has pretty much hated us. And I say so what. I do wish that we would limit some of our activities around the world but I'm not remotely concerned about what others think.
 
Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

I really don't give a rat's ass what people outside this country think of the US and her politics. They certainly love to hold out their collective hands when the US is offering financial aid. And they don't mind our military intervention when it best suits their need/greed. They also love to buy our weapons.
 
This process has been an amazing insight into the US political process. And its an amazing one. Whoever wins will have had to tour the country twice before coming President and in doing so will have seen all the people and got a real sense of real people and real issues. This is the America I grew up fascinated by, admiring it, maybe even one day wanting to live there.

Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

The damage Bush has done post 9/11 just cannot be emphasised enough. the US people must choose a candidate who can change the huge negative global opinion people like me have. Whoever can change this should win.


The USA has been/is always both. The only thing that changes is your interests and your perspective.
 
I really don't give a rat's ass what people outside this country think of the US and her politics.


They certainly love to hold out their collective hands when the US is offering financial aid.


And they don't mind our military intervention when it best suits their need/greed. They also love to buy our weapons.


:lol: A true blue Bush fan here...

1. 'I don't care what other people think...

2. 'We give them Angelina Jollie and George Clooney to sort things out... and that's how they express their appreciation, BAH!

3. --- I can't come up with a smartass remark for that last part - The enormity of how stupid and insensitive you are, Marcello is shown in the latter two sentences.
 
I really don't give a rat's ass what people outside this country think of the US and her politics. They certainly love to hold out their collective hands when the US is offering financial aid. And they don't mind our military intervention when it best suits their need/greed. They also love to buy our weapons.

And that is why so many in the world want to blow you up and the rest of us now smile when it happens. You really are a deluded eejit of the highest order.

God Save You. (BTW, did you actually ask God if if would bless you before you demanded that he bless America?)
 
And that is why so many in the world want to blow you up and the rest of us now smile when it happens. You really are a deluded eejit of the highest order.

God Save You. (BTW, did you actually ask God if if would bless you before you demanded that he bless America?)

So you take joy in watching terrorists murder civilians and insurgents kill soldiers? Perhaps I was a bit insensitive as pointed out by the resident lefty liberal on the board but people outside the US will always find a reason to hate America, some of it through her international actions, but most of it through indoctrination. Even during the Clinton years when our foreign politics were much better people still found a reason or two or three to hate.

If you read some of my posts on religion you'll find that I don't buy into the God stuff. Good sarcasm mind.

Cheerio!
 
But that rule exists so candidates can't simply campaign in the most populous states. It means each state counts. Bush took lots of the midwestern states that Gore couldn't pull. FFS Gore couldn't win his own home state. That alone should be a TKO.

Well, it would be nice if people voted on the basis of policy rather than for the homeboy.

I think that McCain runs some risk of suffering the same as Gore, while Obama technically has 2 home states, so is fairly safe from the same ignominy.
 
And that is why so many in the world want to blow you up and the rest of us now smile when it happens. You really are a deluded eejit of the highest order.

I don't smile when it happens. I don't feel the slightest bit of schadenfreude. I think people who do need to think deeply about where their own moral compasses are pointing.
 
So you take joy in watching terrorists murder civilians and insurgents kill soldiers? Perhaps I was a bit insensitive as pointed out by the resident lefty liberal on the board but people outside the US will always find a reason to hate America, some of it through her international actions, but most of it through indoctrination. Even during the Clinton years when our foreign politics were much better people still found a reason or two or three to hate.

If you read some of my posts on religion you'll find that I don't buy into the God stuff. Good sarcasm mind.

Cheerio!

I take no joy watching USA fundamentalist suicide bombers starting and fighting illegal wars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent rural village folk in the middle-east or Afghanistan in the process. No I take no joy in it whatsoever.
 
I take no joy watching USA fundamentalist suicide bombers starting and fighting illegal wars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent rural village folk in the middle-east or Afghanistan in the process. No I take no joy in it whatsoever.

There are American suicide bombers?
 
I take no joy watching USA fundamentalist suicide bombers starting and fighting illegal wars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent rural village folk in the middle-east or Afghanistan in the process. No I take no joy in it whatsoever.

That's a pretty ridiculous post.
 
This process has been an amazing insight into the US political process. And its an amazing one. Whoever wins will have had to tour the country twice before coming President and in doing so will have seen all the people and got a real sense of real people and real issues. This is the America I grew up fascinated by, admiring it, maybe even one day wanting to live there.

Today I think the US is an nasty, evil, concieted, arrogant country full of corruption and greed. Billions around the world agree with me.

The damage Bush has done post 9/11 just cannot be emphasised enough. the US people must choose a candidate who can change the huge negative global opinion people like me have. Whoever can change this should win.

Oh, the voice of the hate monging, uneduacted masses.
 
So you take joy in watching terrorists murder civilians and insurgents kill soldiers? Perhaps I was a bit insensitive as pointed out by the resident lefty liberal on the board but people outside the US will always find a reason to hate America, some of it through her international actions, but most of it through indoctrination. Even during the Clinton years when our foreign politics were much better people still found a reason or two or three to hate.

If you read some of my posts on religion you'll find that I don't buy into the God stuff. Good sarcasm mind.

Cheerio!

It always makes me cringe how Americans think that "left" and "liberal" are the same things.