Word, Jackie. Folks like texxx will use every divisive, race-baiting tactic they can (too black, not black enough, too Middle Eastern LOL, secretly Muslim) to win the race for their party. What they don't get is that the only matter of race that matters is what you expressed here: an Obama presidency ends for all time the question of whether America is "ready" to elect a president who isn't a white male.
Bats, I will argue that race doesn't matter. That said, if you're voting just to answer the question of whether we're ready for a half-black president, then I feel that your priorities are out of whack. I vote based on issues. Who will lower my taxes? Who will protect our nation from terrorists? Who will stimulate the economy? I don't feel that Barack is the best candidate for any of my hot-button issues. You can call me a race-baiter all you want, but I don't even see race as an issue here. I want more than a good speaker as president.
I think highly of bigtexxx and Trader_Jorge...I just happen to have a different perspective on this issue. Debating techniques being used to advance the cause of the own party does not bother me, I don't think that one should resort to negative generalizations such as "folks like ...." because of this. I also do not think that bigtexxx and Trader_Jorge are racist at all, and I consider constantly accusing them of this as improper. I guess I shouldn't even really be talking much about this as I do not live in the US and do not have a vote, but, as I said, the US president is the most important politician for the rest of the world as well, so we are all watching as well.
You don't seem to get that Bush's legacy extends far beyond his name. When he leaves, we'll be in a war that he initiated. When he leaves, tax cuts that he initiated will still be in effect. When he leaves, we'll still have the economy that tanked under his administration. When he leaves, we'll still have the ramifications of his environmental policy. It's not as though that come November or January 2009, everything Bush ever did will disappear and the new candidate will have a clean slate on which to be judged, rather than the Bush backdrop. His legacy and the problems that it will undoubtedly leave the next president are certainly on the ballot. My mother, who voted Republican in every election, federal and state, since 1980 has become an ardent Democrat since 2003. Her change in opinion was due entirely to the policies of George W. Bush and his actions don't weigh on her mind alone. Bush's name may certainly not be on the ballot in 2008 - you can lament that when Republicans are voted out and history comes to judge Bush's tenure as one of the most divisive in history - but he looms over it.
If you aren't capable of seeing the differences between McCain and Bush, you (or your mother, in this case) simply aren't trying. Do some research and get back to me, young man.
Very nice post. I have several friends and relatives who think just like your mother. The most important thing I see as a plus if Obama gets elected, besides breaking the color barrier to our highest office (just as Ms. Clinton would break the "glass ceiling" between women and our highest office) and appointing progressive justices to the lifetime Federal bench, is the positive impact his election would have on US foreign policy and the world's perception of the United States. Bush has done grevious damage to our image abroad and to our relations with our closest allies. I'm not sure the next President, whoever he/she is, will be able to repair all the damage. It's unlikely, and could take many years, but Obama's face on the United States would be seen as a positive revolution in the US government overseas. It would be marvelous, as would Ms. Clinton as the face of America overseas... just less so, in my opinion. Impeach Bush.
This post just proves that you don't pay attention to the words that come out of Hussein Ubama's mouth. You sit on your couch, caught up in his deep voice and hearing him say change change change change change (no substance behind it, though) and fall for his schtick. Hussein Ubama is SCARY for foreign policy. He's not only incredibly inexperienced, but he is not careful about the words that come out of his mouth. Did you not hear him talk about invading Pakistan (a nuclear country) and banning all toys imported from China? The guy is a ticking foreign relations time bomb. Pay attention, Deckard. Actually, I don't care if you do or not since your vote won't matter since Texas is going Republican.
It's not that we don't see the differences. It's obvious that McCain will not walk entirely in step with the Bush policies. However, he has to soften his stance against some of them in order to court the Republican base. His position on the Iraq war (which last I checked, was not exactly supported by a majority of Americans anymore) however, is in toe with Bush to a "T." While there may be some differences between McCain and Bush, to many they're negligible. Obama represents the cleanest break not only from Bush, but also from Clinton. The partisan bickering that has infected our politics did not initiate under Bush, but under Bill. People are simply tired of the way that we're so divided. And while you may be a lost cause, Obama has the mass appeal to bring in people from the other side of the aisle that Hillary can not. But in regards to your insistence that since Bush is not on the ballot thus we should disregard his influence in the 2008 election, what say you to his appearance in front of the Conservative Political Action Committee urging support for the Republican nominee? He certainly was not talking about Huckabee. Many of the issues in this campaign - Iraq, healthcare, energy - are all focal points because of what Bush has done to each in the past 8 years. Like it or not, Bush holds more sway over this than you admit.
Awesome give Hillary your e-mail address and receive Spam!!! Clintons' InfoUSA Ties Scrutinized (E-mail List sold to Advertiser) All Things Considered, February 13, 2008 · Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists. Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225. It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry. "As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently." There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year. Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price. According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing. But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A. Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN. Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons. When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library. The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors. Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists. Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules. After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock. When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company. Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company. "If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said. The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors. There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds. "It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said. Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week. The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January. That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.
By far, the main thing that's turned people against Bush is the Iraq War. McCain has been in lockstep with Bush on that issue from the very beginning, so the differences Bush and McCain have on other issues don't really solve the problem.
One of my best friends used to be a Bush-lover extraordinaire. It was sickening to me how he used to make excuses for the guy. But now he won't even call himself a Republican. The same way Jimmy Carter's utter incompetence helped usher in the Reagan landslide in 1980, Bush's catastrophic failures have dealt a lethal blow to right-wing utopian notions.
Obama doesn't frighten me regarding foreign policy. The man is intelligent enough to get good advice, which is a heck of a lot more than George W. Bush is willing to do. Bush surrounded himself with friends and yes men, people who told him what he wanted to hear. Obama has more brains in his little finger than Bush has rattling around in his skull (and crossbones). Ms. Clinton has more brains in her big toe than Bush has between his ears. Bush is a blithering idiot. He's done more damage to our image overseas, our alliances, and our foreign policy than I thought possible for one man to do. And you are worried about Obama, texxx? You should be having sleepless nights knowing you helped vote Bush into office. Oh, and every vote counts. Texas is starting to trend away from the GOP. Impeach Bush.
worthless reply. Bush isn't running, brah. You provided nothing of substance in your post. Open your eyes to the fact that Hussein Ubama is a foreign relations nightmare.
Obama is the best thing that can happen to US foreign relations. The Bush administration has damaged America's impression and standing around the world like none other. Obama is just what we need. He can broker an alliance with the Muslim world and he will get rid of the European disdain against the US that George W Bush created.
Kinda like he did with Pakistan when he said he would invade them? That's not an alliance - it's a war. I'm convinced most of you liberals who support Hussein Ubama are simply duped by the fact that he has a deep voice and can speak well. You clearly don't pay attention to the actual words coming from his mouth, that's for sure. Think, people, think. Deckard and macfan aren't - that much is clear
1 war is an improvement from the Bush era of 2 wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, Pakistan could be an actual threat. Afghanistan and Iraq never were a threat to the United States. I am not a liberal. I don't believe in government except for some essential tasks like defense and law system.
Wow. You've got to be kidding me. You prefer invading Pakistan over Iraq and Afghanistan. mmmmmmmmmkay
