USA - Barack Obama

[Paracelsus]

Who would be better suited to represent blacks in America? This guy?

[nEone]

Maybe you should define what "black" is to you before making that kind of a statement.

His father was a black man from Kenya. His mother was white. He was raised in Hawaii. So it's fair to say that he can claim heritage from any number of groups. But his skin is black. That makes him black. The fact that his father was Kenyan and his mother American makes him, very literally, African-American.

And yes, he is trying to get the black vote. And the white vote, and the Southern vote, and the elderly vote. That's what presidential campaigns are about - getting votes.

GW bought a ranch in Texas to pander to the Southern middle-class - he's about as much a "rancher" as you are a black man. He intentionally mispronounces words like "nuclear" - because it makes him seem more relatable. Being "fake" is apparently part of being a modern savvy politician.

But again, I'm not sure how anyone "fakes" being black. Unless you're implying that he's wearing blackface.

Personally, I'd rather know what part of his politics you disagree with - but you seem to think that's an afterthought to be tacked on to the end of your thought process when choosing a president.

It's easier to make absurd, insulting comments about someone than to make clear and thoughtful arguements about political positions that you think you disagree with.

If your major complaint about Barack Obama is that he's "not black enough", then really, that tells me everything I need to know about what you think "black" means.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Obama would be no friend of tokers, he already told a concerned parents type anti-drug group that he was all for expanding the war on drugs, and he's committed to spending more money, hiring more cops... but it doesn't matter, because Obama is the head of a strange cult of personality (if you don't believe me, look at his website, which tells us it's 'powered by hope and supporters like you' and which features all sorts of heroic pictures of our noble prince).

In any case, Obama hasn't a hope and, given the total mess Bush has made of US finances, Clinton is a dead cert for the presidency IMHO. There is little doubt that Clinton would be a better president than Bush as far as the cannabis community is concerned, but then Satan himself would probably be a better president etc.

On the Republican side, look out for Mike Huckabee, the charming Mormon nutjob who is going to test the theory that the Republican party is now so stuffed full of unthinking self-proclaimed fundamentalist christians that it will present the American people with the choice between a stone-hearted Washington woman and a jibbering Republican neofacist. Good times, good times.

[Nature Boy]

Huckabee isn't Mormon. You must mean Mitt Romney. Neither would loosen drug policy but Huckabee would definitely tighten it up a lot more if he got the chance.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Huckabee isn't Mormon. You must mean Mitt Romney. Neither would loosen drug policy but Huckabee would definitely tighten it up a lot more if he got the chance.

Sorry, you're right. Huckabee's a Baptist (thanks Google!), but he's the crazy one to which I refer. Romney ain't crazy, he's just very very rich and happens to be the chosen shill for corporate America on this occasion. Thus, he's my tip for the Republican nomination. The establishment always wins in the GOP.

Just so it's clear, here's a Quick-look guide:

Romney = Bush drug policy
Huckabee = drug users in concentration camps

[Metomni]

Why do you guys not believe he has a chance?

He won the first caucus and basically tied in the first primary.

Also, all the general election polls have him doing better against the opposing republicans than any other democrat.

At this point he's definitely a very strong front runner.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Metomni

Why do you guys not believe he has a chance?

He won the first caucus and basically tied in the first primary.

Also, all the general election polls have him doing better against the opposing republicans than any other democrat.

At this point he's definitely a very strong front runner.

Your points, in the order in which you raise them:

1. He won the first caucus. This is true, but look closely. What is a caucus? A show of hands in a room of people, many of whom made their minds up based on that night's speech. Who could vote in the caucus? Anyone who wasn't a registered Republican. And it's a small, atypical state. Not such a big deal.

2. He 'basically tied' in New Hampshire. Not so. He lost badly in New Hampshire, a radical Democratic/ Independent stronghold where Howard Dean trumped John Kerry last time and where Obama had the benefit of a national media circus and phenomenal popular momentum, and led by double digits in the polls ON THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY... which brings us onto the next point

3. White people tell pollsters that they will vote for black people, but when they get into the polling booth, more primal urges surface and they opt for 'their' guy. Sad but true, they even have a name for it (couldn't be bothered googling to find out what that name is right now, but basically America is deeply racist on a fairly fundamental level). This means that the polls you mention - just like the New Hampshire polls, are worthless.

4. He never was a frontrunner, not even when the media said he was. Clinton has the big states sown up - has done for years - and when we get down to the races where independents can't vote and it's only registered Democrats, they lean heavily towards Clinton.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Fantastic post. :)

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Giraffe

The establishment always wins in the GOP.

The establishment always wins, full stop, whether through the stupidity of the people or through rigged elections. Guiliani is establishment, Clinton is establishment, Obama is establishment, Romney is establishment. Doesn't matter who you vote for in many of the "democracies" of the West, you lose and corporatism wins.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

The establishment always wins, full stop, whether through the stupidity of the people or through rigged elections. Guiliani is establishment, Clinton is establishment, Obama is establishment, Romney is establishment. Doesn't matter who you vote for in many of the "democracies" of the West, you lose and corporatism wins.

In many ways you are correct, but ask yourself this: why rig an election if John Kerry is basically the same as George W. Bush? Okay, John Kerry is not going to collectivise farms, but he will pose more of a hindrance to corporate America than Bush, through labour reform, environmental reform, etc, no matter how mild, and I do agree that they are mild enough to ALMOST not make it worth the effort to vote.

By the way, if anyone is interested in reading the (rather convincing) case that the 2004 presidential election was rigged, I thoroughly recommend 'Fooled Again' by Mark Crispin Miller.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Giraffe

In many ways you are correct, but ask yourself this: why rig an election if John Kerry is basically the same as George W. Bush? Okay, John Kerry is not going to collectivise farms, but he will pose more of a hindrance to corporate America than Bush, through labour reform, environmental reform, etc, no matter how mild, and I do agree that they are mild enough to ALMOST not make it worth the effort to vote.

You make a fair point. I suppose I'm just a massive cynic at this stage.

[zera]

Rommney could go either way. On the one hand he's a bona-fide estabilishment conservative. He's also a Mormon, and has never even touched caffeine. On the other hand he ran Bain Capital and made his fortune buying and turning around mismanaged companies. He'd be a competent administrator, and while he wouldn't push for anything like decriminilazation he might recognize that spending more money on prosecuting marijuana and research chemicals instead of terrorism probably isn't smart.

In America the hope to ending the drug war isn't on the federal level, its on the state level. I see us passing marijuana legalization in California, Montana, Alaska, Colorado or Nevada in the next 5-10 years. The feds will still try to shut it down, but honestly they're not going to send FBI agents to start arresting kids carrying ounces.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Decent analysis.

[nEone]

^^ And the establishment also LOVES to promote that exact mindset - because it keeps people from voting...and that makes it a LOT easier to win. Democracy is only as futile as you allow it to be.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by nEone

^^ And the establishment also LOVES to promote that exact mindset - because it keeps people from voting...and that makes it a LOT easier to win. Democracy is only as futile as you allow it to be.

Why would they love that mindset? If you vote, they win. If they don't vote, they win. So why does it even matter? I used to agree with you, then I realised that no politician can be trusted.

Democracy is futile when the state introduces corporate totalitarianism and the people are too busy watching Pimp My Ride to give a toss.

[cra$h]

i'd love obama to be president, simply because he's honest. or atleast more honest that hilary. but if he is elected, all hell will break lose and we'll have another race war like the 50-60's

[Salvinorin A]

Originally Posted by cra$h

i'd love obama to be president, simply because he's honest. or atleast more honest that hilary. but if he is elected, all hell will break lose and we'll have another race war like the 50-60's

He comes off as honest, but that doesn't mean he is. Honest people are bad politicians....and I don't trust politicians.

And Obama signed the Salvia bill for illinois........GRRRRRRRR

[cra$h]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

He comes off as honest, but that doesn't mean he is. Honest people are bad politicians....and I don't trust politicians.

And Obama signed the Salvia bill for illinois........GRRRRRRRR

yea nevermind. At first he appeared like an innocent polititian, but now he's just as crooked and in way over his head.

[chemlove]

I slightly differ in the idea that the Americans are ready to elect either Mrs. Clinton, or Obama, but not for the reasons most do. The bottom line is chances are Americans will be forced to vote for one or the other if they don't want to go republican or throw their vote away. I always remind people of the extremely slight odds that Bush won the last 2 elections by and ponder, Could people be intimidated enough to not vote Obama or Clinton that in turn they split that political party up and we get four more years of Republicans. I've had many nightmares not that scary so i hope that people in general rally behind the man or woman they believe most in and hopefully we don't do four more years of that travesty that has been USA over the last 8 years, Personally i like Mrs Clinton just because it gets Bill that much closer to the White House, hell he'd be living there again, but in the end I barely like any of the democrats on the ballot.

If I had to actually pick my fav it would be Dennis Kucinich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

[Metomni]

First of all, Kucinich is cool, and a worthy politician who actually gets shit done with their status. That said, I don't really know how good of a president he would make, though, I do like the guy with his persistance and attitude.

"1. He won the first caucus. This is true, but look closely. What is a caucus? A show of hands in a room of people, many of whom made their minds up based on that night's speech. Who could vote in the caucus? Anyone who wasn't a registered Republican. And it's a small, atypical state. Not such a big deal."

Yeah, the way I've been taught, a caucus is simply a meeting of the seperate candidates' supporters in which they gather in groups according to who they support. Then, any candidate who represents less than 15% of the rooms' support must choose to either leave or re-choose a candidate and reposition themselves. I am pretty sure that some sort of debate/discussion is held, but I've never been old enough to attend one to this point so I don't really know the exact intracacies of the matter.

But anyway, my point was that he actually won and now people are seeing that and even if the state itself is insignificant on a larger scale, the recognition and support he will gain from actually winning something most likely IS significant.

"2. He 'basically tied' in New Hampshire. Not so. He lost badly in New Hampshire, a radical Democratic/ Independent stronghold where Howard Dean trumped John Kerry last time and where Obama had the benefit of a national media circus and phenomenal popular momentum, and led by double digits in the polls ON THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY... which brings us onto the next point"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he receive the same amount of delegates from the state as Hillary? He lost by a couple percentage points, but I believe they received equal delegates, which is basically a tie. What the polls say make no difference, just because the polls were wrong does not mean he did worse than he should have, it just means it was closer than they thought.

"3. White people tell pollsters that they will vote for black people, but when they get into the polling booth, more primal urges surface and they opt for 'their' guy. Sad but true, they even have a name for it (couldn't be bothered googling to find out what that name is right now, but basically America is deeply racist on a fairly fundamental level). This means that the polls you mention - just like the New Hampshire polls, are worthless."

I suppose I can't argue with that, it's just a matter of how many instances where that occurs. It's so impossible to know for sure, so while it's a factor, who knows to what extent it effects the results?

"4. He never was a frontrunner, not even when the media said he was. Clinton has the big states sown up - has done for years - and when we get down to the races where independents can't vote and it's only registered Democrats, they lean heavily towards Clinton."

So you're saying there's pretty much only one Democratic frontrunner? I'm not saying Hillary isn't also as well, but you're acting like Obama stands no chance ever to do anything.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Metomni

the recognition and support he will gain from actually winning something most likely IS significant.

Yeah, but it's a double-edged sword, cos when he loses something, all that momentum comes juddering to a halt.

Originally Posted by Metomni

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he receive the same amount of delegates from the state as Hillary? He lost by a couple percentage points, but I believe they received equal delegates, which is basically a tie. What the polls say make no difference, just because the polls were wrong does not mean he did worse than he should have, it just means it was closer than they thought.

I meant that, in order to have any chance in the larger states, Obama needed to win New Hampshire comfortably, as the polls suggested he would. The main point in all of this is that Obama lost (narrowly, I know) even in a state where independents could vote (and they leaned heavily towards Obama). In states where independents can't vote, the overwhelming liklihood is that Clinton will win.

Originally Posted by Metomni

So you're saying there's pretty much only one Democratic frontrunner? I'm not saying Hillary isn't also as well, but you're acting like Obama stands no chance ever to do anything.

I didn't say that. I think even Obama is surprised at the media kerfuffle caused by Iowa. He knows he hasn't a hope, this is positioning himself for 2016. I have nothing against the man per se, I'm just calling it like I see it, and I can't see anything but Clinton in the White House.

[thrackelsby]

3. White people tell pollsters that they will vote for black people, but when they get into the polling booth, more primal urges surface and they opt for 'their' guy. Sad but true, they even have a name for it (couldn't be bothered googling to find out what that name is right now, but basically America is deeply racist on a fairly fundamental level). This means that the polls you mention - just like the New Hampshire polls, are worthless.

Imagine a white male Democrat. Republicans don't count because they wouldn't be making this choice anyway. If your average white democrat male had to choose between a women and a black man for democratic presidential candidate, I am willing to bet that they would **instinctively** vote for a black man over a women. After all, to a white male, who is more alien, a women who has a "vagina" and who "menstruates", or a male who is exactly alike except he has more of a melatonin concentration than the voter.

I think that america is more deeply sexist than racist, on a fundamental level.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by thrackelsby

Imagine a white male Democrat. Republicans don't count because they wouldn't be making this choice anyway. If your average white democrat male had to choose between a women and a black man for democratic presidential candidate, I am willing to bet that they would **instinctively** vote for a black man over a women. After all, to a white male, who is more alien, a women who has a "vagina" and who "menstruates", or a male who is exactly alike except he has more of a melatonin concentration than the voter.

I think that america is more deeply sexist than racist, on a fundamental level.

I don't think it's so much that, I think it's more of a clash of personalities. Obama has an approachable, likeable presence. Hillary comes across as a callous old witch with that fake laugh of hers. It would be easy to dismiss this opinion as nonsense but the truth of the matter is that presentation is extremely important. It's not always about the issues as we've seen many times in the past.

[FuBai]

I personally think it would be difficult to find a more vacuous candidate for the presidency. He sells himself not on policy, not on political aptitude but on an ephemeral message of "hope". As far as I can make out he looks like the David Cameron of America but probably more so than Cameron himself, seeing as the latter now has actually produced some policies, some of which have been popular enough to be adopted by the Government (raising the level of death duties; not high enough IMO, but it's better than nothing). Obama's particular brand of of bullshit is proving to be popular because it resonates with base desires without actually leaving any solid positions to assail - because he has few well known views, he has very little that's easy to attack. I worry about this sort of manoeuvring because, if he attains office, there is very little to hold him to - what pledges has he made that can be objectively analysed and measured? His manifesto (or platform) is to vague to provide a real idea of what he intends to do, and thus it will be hard to hold him accountable for not following his pledges because his pledges are so diaphanous.

[Nature Boy]

Is it just me or did John Edwards actually seem to make the most sense during that Democratic debate on CNN the other night? Obama and Hillary went at each other like angry kids. That will always benefit the third person in the argument. Edwards is greatly overlooked. Of the surviving Democrats, he would be my choice.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Edwards is, without doubt, the most left-wing, 'people friendly' of the three, as well as the least egotistical. That's why he doesn't stand a chance.

[Nature Boy]

I think Edwards is being overlooked purely on the basis of media influence in that he isn't gonna be the first black president or the first female president. He has more experience than Obama, is sounder than Hillary regarding many policies and has a pretty strong financial base. Under-exposure seems to be his critical flaw, something that can't be said for any other candidate left in the race on either side.