USA - Election 2008

[Eli]

As far as I'm concerned almost anyone will be an improvement over Bush.

That's what I used to think as well. And along came Sarah Palin to prove me wrong... The sad reality is that if McCain is elected president there's a good chance Palin one day will be the president. Even if she wouldn't have to step in if something happened to McCain, it would be a great boost for her if she wanted to run for president herself at the next election.

I agree about Hilary Clinton. I didn't understand why Obama didn't draft her as a running mate. They would have been unbeatable. Actually I was a fan of Bill Clinton when he was president. He did a good job ( while he had his trousers on )

Like gmgirl said, Obama is trying to separate himself from the Clintons. He definitely have lost some votes because he didn't pick her for VP (why feminists who supported Clinton would choose McCain above Obama is still beyone me though...) but at the same time I think that's a risk he was willing to take, considering he had more support than her in the first place. By electing Clinton VP he would risk his own political independence from the VP because he and Hillary disagrees on many issues, and in addition to bringing a strong personality like her into the White House with him, he'd be bringing Bill Clinton as well, which again would leave him a risk of getting in the shadow of the Clintons.

It's pretty common understanding of the issue that one of the reasons McCain picked Palin was because there's a lot of die-hard Hillary fans there who were on the fence because Obama's opinions on war are too far left for them, and as much as I think Palin is a ridiculous candidate, she was a good pick for McCain in order to win over some of the on-the-fence former Clinton supporters.

[Slade]

I would say I’m a moderate so I adopt left and right wing policies. In regards to this election and US internal matters it doesn’t make any odds as far as I’m concerned. The only thing would be the current financial crisis as any events occurring over there would have a knock-on effect and ultimately affect people over here and I’m not really sure who would be best placed to deal with that to be honest.

The issue that most people outside the US look at is the American foreign policy. I personally feel that since World War II and during/post Cold War this has generally been the same regardless of whether it has been a Republican or Democrat administration. The worrying thing now is that this particular administration (since 9/11) seems to have adopted more of a hard-line (Neo-Con) approach. So for that reason it would have to be Obama as if they continue with this it would set a very dangerous precedence. Also, wouldn’t it be nice to see America’s first black president?

I’ve noticed quite a few people mention that anyone other than Bush will be an improvement. I don’t entirely agree with this because I don’t think Bush is independent when making decisions. He is simply a front-end to deal with and liase with people and also there to take advice from those behind the scenes. The real people that are behind this arguably fall under the Neo-Con guise…

[Eli]

I can see where you're coming from with this, but I wouldn't say I agree. There's a whole administration to blame for this, yes, but Bush chose the people for those tasks, and as he is the president, there's very little administration really can do without his personal permission, especially when it comes to military decisions since the President isn't only the head of the executive branch, but also the commander in chief of the armed forces. On 9/11 when he was told the country was under attack, Bush didn't even interrupt his program (reading to children I think it was.); instead he sat for seven minutes before he even started working on getting to the bottom of what was going on. Several planes were hijacked, and he wasted precious time. Only the President can give the military permission to shoot down aircrafts that might be hijacked, and by the time he got around to give them that permission the situation had gotten so far that the military units circling NYC weren't given the message because their executives knew the level of panic was high enough for it to mean a great risk of further damage by giving a permission to shoot down aircrafts.

Also, this is a man who publicly said on TV that he was going to keep up the Iraq war even if the only one backing him up was his dog. This might have been intended as a joke, but you just don't say things like that when you're the President of a Democracy.

Oh, and lets not forget the numerous occasions of Bush giving the media the finger or talking trash about colleagues like a high school girl. I watched the clip, and I seriously had a hard time believing it could be real. Seeing that made me seriously wonder if the man is retarded.

As for who would be most able to deal with the financial crisis I would have to say Obama again. He has a lot of experience with economy compared to McCain, and this is something McCain himself has admitted. That being said, I think McCain is the most sensible Republican I've seen in a long time. But I still think Obama would do a better job.

Personally I think what it all comes down to is elitism. Republicans are always the first to point their fingers at others and call them elitists, before they then move on to their incredible patrionism, dragging it to a point that can not be described as anything but... Well, elitism. I don't think it's just the politics and the government that needs to change in the US before there's going to be any hope; what needs to change is the way a lot of people think, because we're living in a world where it's absolutely necessary to have a leader that dares to tell the truth rather than say "the truth makes me sick. I wish it could be like this and that instead..."

You're not going to create world peace by invading countries before you've done your research; extreme islamists aren't gonna fade away and become Christian American fundamentalists; gay people aren't going to disappear if the constitution denies them to marry, and denying women the right to choose an abortion is not going to create a bunch of happy families where children grow up in loving homes and mothers who got pregnant in high school without a support system go to Ivy League Universities. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The issues and the people and the stories are there whether you choose to ignore them or not, and that's why what's needed is a leader who isn't afraid to admit that they're there, and deal with them.

[Cal]

As far as I'm concerned almost anyone will be an improvement over Bush.

That's what I used to think as well. And along came Sarah Palin to prove me wrong... The sad reality is that if McCain is elected president there's a good chance Palin one day will be the president. Even if she wouldn't have to step in if something happened to McCain, it would be a great boost for her if she wanted to run for president herself at the next election.

Well, ya'know, she's an outsider. She's not afraid to get all Maverick-y in the White House and ruffle some feathers. And also, a fellow Maverick, Ronald Reagan.

To anyone who is like "wtf is Cal on about?!" - The above was a Tina Fey SNL sketch.

[Eli]

Hahaha, Tina Fey is hilarious as Sarah Palin! The best part is that she isn't even using much of a script; a lot of the time she's just quoting Palin!

I love the SNL VP debate, and the SNL parody of Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin. Not to mention the latest addition to the collection; president Bush publicly endorsing McCain and Palin

[Slade]

Personally I think what it all comes down to is elitism. Republicans are always the first to point their fingers at others and call them elitists, before they then move on to their incredible patrionism, dragging it to a point that can not be described as anything but... Well, elitism. I don't think it's just the politics and the government that needs to change in the US before there's going to be any hope; what needs to change is the way a lot of people think, because we're living in a world where it's absolutely necessary to have a leader that dares to tell the truth rather than say "the truth makes me sick. I wish it could be like this and that instead..."

You're not going to create world peace by invading countries before you've done your research; extreme islamists aren't gonna fade away and become Christian American fundamentalists; gay people aren't going to disappear if the constitution denies them to marry, and denying women the right to choose an abortion is not going to create a bunch of happy families where children grow up in loving homes and mothers who got pregnant in high school without a support system go to Ivy League Universities. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The issues and the people and the stories are there whether you choose to ignore them or not, and that's why what's needed is a leader who isn't afraid to admit that they're there, and deal with them.

Patriotism? Try jingoism.

Objectively speaking what would they stand to gain by telling the whole truth? When I say this I don’t think this is limited to Americans but a lot of governments and that it the main reason how they stay in power - through fear. They basically exaggerate and bend the truth to try and influence voters.

I’m not sure I even agree that the US government is really worried about Islamic extremists. They were perfectly fine with them during the cold war. You could argue that Islamic fundamentalism evolved from oppression from the US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East but this was seen as necessary evil as the alternative (communism) was far worse. With communism all but gone they need a new enemy to try and keep control hence the war on terror.

Without try to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, I feel this war on terror is an attempt by the US to promote and drive the one thing that has been the whole motivation for their foreign policy for the last 60 years – Capitalism.

Anyway I digress…

[Eli]

Actually I kinda agree with you on a lot of that. And I think that's part of the problem, the US always trying to be the great power nation. Just too bad a lot of the time they try to "fix" other problems that aren't really there, instead of looking at their own domestic problems in a realistic way.

[John]

You're not going to create world peace by invading countries before you've done your research; extreme islamists aren't gonna fade away and become Christian American fundamentalists; gay people aren't going to disappear if the constitution denies them to marry, and denying women the right to choose an abortion is not going to create a bunch of happy families where children grow up in loving homes and mothers who got pregnant in high school without a support system go to Ivy League Universities. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The issues and the people and the stories are there whether you choose to ignore them or not, and that's why what's needed is a leader who isn't afraid to admit that they're there, and deal with them.

I think you're right on this Eli. I think also that the American free enterprise, capitalist system really only works for the strong. The weak gain very little from it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Minorities find it impossible to be heard. Eventually the weak get sick of having no voice and being exploited and you get extreme reactions like terrorism and revolutions etc.

It was interesting this morning to hear on our news here in Oz that the Asian and European Union leaders had met without the Americans to plan a response to the economic crisis. Perhaps we are seeing the start of a changing of the guard in world power and influence with the "American Empire" starting to have less influence over world affairs.

[Eli]

That's the problem exactly. It's just the foundation of many people's thinking. America is superior, and the American dream is very important.

America might be superior in some ways, but that's an extremely black-and-white way of seeing things, because it's just not that simple. There's so much more to it.

As for the American dream... It's a great ideal to live after, - for those who succeed. But there's one big problem, and that's the fact that there is no safety net for those who doesn't succeed. If you're going to have a plan without a safety net, then the first priority has be to to make sure that every American citizen has equal opportunities, and fact is that they don't. I'm not saying it's this black and white, because it isn't, but chances are you'll have a better chance of succeeding if you're a white, straight male than if you are e.g. a black, lesbian female. Until there's absolute equality for all people the plan needs a safety net, and that's not included in the American dream.

Back to the numbers for a second: Florida is now Dem. 48%-46% GOP, And Georgia is now "Barely GOP" (!!!) with Dem. 47%-49% GOP. Strongest GOP state (per cent, not EV) is Utah (5 EVs) with GOP 64%-28% Dem., while the strongest election district for Dem. is Washington D.C. (3 EVs) with Dem. 82%-13% GOP. The total EV count is now at Dem. 375 - 157 GOP (270 needed to win), with 6 ties (ND and MT).

(Source: electoral-vote.com)

[Slade]

I think you're right on this Eli. I think also that the American free enterprise, capitalist system really only works for the strong. The weak gain very little from it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Minorities find it impossible to be heard. Eventually the weak get sick of having no voice and being exploited and you get extreme reactions like terrorism and revolutions etc.

It was interesting this morning to hear on our news here in Oz that the Asian and European Union leaders had met without the Americans to plan a response to the economic crisis. Perhaps we are seeing the start of a changing of the guard in world power and influence with the "American Empire" starting to have less influence over world affairs.

What’s the alternative, socialism…communism?

History proves that neither of these two systems actually work as when things are managed and distributed centrally they are done so extremely inefficiently. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free healthcare and I do believe in the welfare state to an extent. But I don’t think it’s fair that a doctor for instance would earn the same salary as somebody who collects refuse (I’m not one to degrade any job BTW). If everybody earned the same salary then would be no incentive for people to actually do work or push themselves. That was one of the failures of socialism/communism. I don’t think capitalism is perfect by any means but it’s the best one out of the three as far as I’m concerned.