U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Xiahou]

Obama "winning" his Illinois seat was pretty underhanded and old style politics you could say.

You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that.

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

[FactionHeir]

You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that.

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

Yup, exactly that. And then him calling Clinton unethical and what not when she said he shouldn't get any Michigan delegates because according to Party Rules, uncommitted delegates cannot/must not be assgined to a candidate (besides he getting some Clinton delegates stacked upon him in addition.)

IMO he could have been more graceful and asked his supporters (those uncommitted RBC mainly were behind him, just didn't want to declare openly) to just give Clinton those delegates as he would still have been way ahead.

A bit of a double standard there.

[Lemur]

Just for clarity's sake, you are talking about his run for the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate, correct?

In far more damaging news, the video of Michelle Obama talking about "whitey" has finally surfaced. Behold.

Background here.

-edit-

Yet another version of the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape.

[discovery1]

Very insightful Lemur, my thanks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gah.

Anyways, a more light-hearted video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BtJG0BonMQ

CR

[Lemur]

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

[FactionHeir]

While it certainly is not nice, you could understand in this particular circumstance that having just survived so many horrors or war and being caged and tortured for years, living and having to care for her for the rest of your life is a rather bleak prospect.
I mean he would be reminded of what he went through over there forever this way and he probably needed to divorce for the sake of keeping sanity, and him fantasizing about her and then when seeing her again but as the complete opposite of what was in his memory must be heartbreaking.

He agreed to and is still paying her medical bills for the rest of her life though, so that does say something about his character and morals.

That certainly is only one outlook and you can definitely make a sound counterargument to what I wrote that is equally valid.

[Kralizec]

If this is the first time you've ever heard of it, I wouldn't take the Daily Mail's word on it.

If it's true (and doesn't omit any, ahh..., details) then it's disgusting.

[discovery1]

DevDave posted that a while ago Lemur, although I guess posting repeats is your thing.

I will probably ignore that bit of info about him though. Helps that Obama wants to cut the funding that would eventually feed me.

He pays for her medical bills? Kind gesture.

[Lemur]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Military spending, perhaps.

Anyways, I don't think the daily mail is a good source. It's slightly better than the link DevDave posted, which was to some inane blog.

I know the dems have their greedy eyes set on the industry that's paid for my childhood and education.

CR

[discovery1]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

CR is close. Obama has said he will cut the funding of NASA's Constellation program, which basically means gut NASA. Was awhile ago though.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/oba...s_little_p.php

Edit: Ha, and the Lockheed Martin lobbyist worked the Clinton campaign so hard.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Of course. The one place where a Democrat actually wants to cut spending is the one place where I want it to stay.

[Lemur]

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:

It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.

[KukriKhan]

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

This Orgah thinks that divorce in america is ugly. Always. Been there, done that, got the bloddy t-shirt, as have more than half the US population.

Ugly because it ignores the good things about the dissolved relationship in favor of the not-so-hot things, by definition.

In this Orgah's opinion, it's irrelevant (and more impotantly: unknowable) personal data. We can not (and should not, IMO) know what factors played a role in this couple's alienation. Her loyalty, his suffering, her accident, his subsequent loyalty...

Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

It does, if he 'walked away' and she 'loved him deeply'.

We can't know either, because it's personal. Can Ron Paul, or Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama stand the same scrutiny?

[discovery1]

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:

It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that that delaying it five years means that no one will care enough to reinstate funding when the time comes, hence killing the program. And I know about funds coming from the canceled space shuttle, that's why flights for it are being ended. As far as I know Obama's cuts include that.

You are right of course, no one cares about space.

And low, Obama's space policy:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Comments coming, maybe. I'll read it anyway.

Edit:

So he wants to built half of it, Ares I and Orion. They are supposed to be the replacements for carrying people into space. I find this rather disappointing since I view providing proper heavy lift vehicle as more important.

Talks about earth monitoring for civil and military reasons. Funding Ares I and Orion is probably not the best idea if you want to do this since a heavily lifter would support it better.

Increased R&D which is good.

Keep weapons out of space. Probably already failed on that one, if the rumors of hunter killer satellites are true.

And improve education, although I view that as not directly space policy.

In any case I can look forward to the outrage in the not unlikely event that China gets to the moon before we return.

Edit two: And he wants to keep sending unmanned missions. Again supporting the Ares V would be the better choice.

[Lemur]

Good piece in The Economist that echoes many of the Lemur's thoughts.

America at its best

Jun 5th 2008

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

IT IS hard to believe after all the thrills and spills, but the real presidential race is only now beginning. In any other country, the incredible circus that has marked the past year could not have occurred. The business of choosing the main contenders for the top job would have been done behind closed doors, or with a limited franchise and a few weeks of campaigning. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have spent well over a year in the most testing and public circumstances imaginable—and that was just to get to the final five months.

The Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anyone else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see that he offers the party its only realistic hope in November.

he Democratic race has been longer and nastier; but on June 3rd it too produced probably the right result (see article). Over the past 16 months, the organisational skills and the characters of the two contenders have been revealed. Mrs Clinton, surprisingly in the light of all her claimed experience, was shown up for running a less professional and nimble campaign than her untested rival. She has also displayed what some voters have perceived as a mean streak and others (not enough, though) saw as gritty determination. And she could never allay confusion about the future role of her husband.

Mr Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page.

But will he play in Pennsylvania?

But that does not make Mr Obama the new messiah. The former law teacher has had obvious problems convincing America's middle-class voters that he understands their concerns. He has also displayed a worrying, somewhat Clintonian slipperiness on difficult issues, both trivial (whether he would wear a flag-pin) and significant (whether he would talk to rogue states). His victory, it must be noted, has been wafer-thin: in terms of delegates, a couple of hundred out of 4,500; in votes, only a few tens of thousands out of 35m. In the end, the Democrats have, very narrowly, opted for the candidate who has put together a novel coalition of blacks, young people and liberal professional sorts, rather than the candidate of their more traditional blue-collar base. How this coalition fares against the Bushless Republicans remains to be seen.

For what America's voters, and the world's fascinated spectators, have not had so far is much of a policy debate. Yes, there were bone-aching arguments between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton as to whose plan for health care would work best. And yes, Mr Obama refused to endorse Mrs Clinton's bad plan for a gas-tax holiday. But on the whole, it has been a policy-light contest for the simple reason that there was very little to choose between the two Democrats either on domestic or on foreign policy. Small wonder, then, that the Democratic race focused on character more than content.

All that has now changed. With his victory speech in Minneapolis on June 3rd, Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain. Though there are a fair number of things on which Mr Obama and Mr McCain, admirably, agree (a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, the immediate closure of Guantánamo and a more multilateral approach to diplomacy, to name just three), there is a lot more that they disagree over.

Blood, treasure and votes

The choice will be starkest over Iraq. Mr McCain backed the war in the first place, and he proposes to stay the course there no matter how long it takes. Mr Obama opposed the “dumb” war from the start and has pledged to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, though he has lately wriggled a little on this commitment. Although most Americans now think the war was a mistake, polls suggest that Mr McCain's determination to see it through may stand him in better stead with voters than Mr Obama's determination to pull out whatever the consequences, especially since the tide of war seems at last to have shifted firmly in America's favour. In general, Mr McCain will offer a much more robust approach to security issues than Mr Obama—and that may help him.

That said, the war is clearly receding as a political issue, just as concerns about recession are growing. America no longer has a Hummer economy (General Motors is considering selling off the gas guzzler). And there are clear choices about how to fix it. Mr McCain offers orthodox supply-side solutions, stressing deregulation, free trade, competitiveness and the use of market mechanisms to cure the problems in everything from health care to education to pensions. The trouble for him is that America is already a pretty deregulated place, and many voters feel that globalisation has brought them much less than was promised (and bankers a lot more). Mr Obama offers a very different vision: more spending on education and training, an expensive expansion of health care to (almost) all Americans and better benefits for the unemployed. His problem will be convincing sceptics that his sums add up, though it may well be that voters, battered by falling house prices and rising oil prices prefer not to worry too much about that.

Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.

[drone]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol....veto.beer.cnn
Ok, that settles it, Obama gets my vote! Freudian slip or not, we can't take that chance!

[Lemur]

When a man threatens to veto every beer, you gotta watch your step. However, don't go jumping into Obama's arms too quickly. Are you aware that he's ravishing virgins? It's true, I read it at Townhall.com:

An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama’s advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans’, presidents’ and department heads’ offices.

I'll say this for the state of the campaign in June: the far-right's attacks on Obama have a much more hysterical sound to them than the far-left's attacks on McCain. Really, how can you compare "McSame" with "ravishing virgins"? Just for comedy value, the latter is far, far superior.

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab." No, really.

[drone]

That's a load of bull. There are no virgins on college campuses.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab." No, really.

That's really hilarious. How can they honestly have no clue what a dap is? Although Lemur, I wouldn't say it's a "slightly more enthusiastic gesture than a handshake".

[Devastatin Dave]

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

i brought this up in an earlier thread as to why I will NOT be voting for McCain. Again , how far has our country slipped when our nominees consist of a Marxist Black racist, and an oppertunistic ego maniac who is more of a victim of war (thanks Adrian for the perfect description) than a war "hero". He left his wife who waited for him. My wife waited for me when I was gone and I honor her for that and grown in deeper love and appreciation of her. McCain got him a hot rich girl and dumped the old cripple. He's a "maverick" of course, meaning he's about as conservative as Obama at an ACLU convention performing partial birth abortions before cocktails. The DevDave is sitting this election out. The Republicrats can go themselves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

DD:

I suspect that Obama is less of a Marxist/Black Power type than he is a "give me the power" type -- hardly rare among our public "servants."

Obama was (is?) an unknown on the national scene that he took the opportunity to turn that very enigmatic character into his selling point. He stood for "hope" and "change" and against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration. Effective content = nil. Profile in political courage factor = nil. Rhetorical Genius move = full marks.

Who doesn't like to be hopeful, or wouldn't like change to happen wherever we viewed something as substandard? And among the Dem primary voters/caucoids just how hard is it to sell the viewpoint that Bush43 is a flaming rectal sphincter? Obama let everyone picture him exactly as they wanted him and -- for the longest time -- didn't have to let content interfere with that exercise in projection. Over the last 6 weeks he's had to get into more nuts and bolts (following Wright and during the final duels with Clinton) and he's come off, more and more, sounding like a standard Dem politico. He's caused some Dems to become disaffected.

His biggest advantage is that US voters are traditionally reluctant to give three terms consecutively to the same party. It's happened, but only rarely and a 4th in a row is even rarer. Some degree of fatigue sets in and the voters look for a way to shake things up.


Don't stay away from the polls, Dev, even if you leave the top slot blank as you work on the rest of the balloting.

[Lemur]

I'll just add to Seamus' words of wisdom, Devastated Dave, to not forget the third-party candidates who could use the love. Also, a lot of the ballot is gonna be local and state stuff, where you might not feel so dirty and used.

... against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration.

Why the quotes? Does anyone defend Bush 43 as anything but a disaster these days? As longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins wrote in my local paper:

"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

"I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that'll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it," said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

[Redleg]

The question I have is how will Obama stand up to the political attack machine of the 527's and other's?

He doesn't strike me as an individual that will handle that concept very well given his statement concerning the political attacks on his wife, after some of her speechs were made public. Her statements will be used by the Republicians somewhat and the 527's will definitely use them in attempts to discredit Obama or incite moderates and others to vote against the radicialism that will be spun from her statements.

Unfortunately for the United States this will be another negative campaign process for president with little discussion on actual policies of the Presential candidates being carried by the media and the pundits who analysis the campains - all will focus on the negatives.

So it will take careful listening by concerned voters to sort out what the candidates actual say - and ignoring the pundits spin that information.

One of the things I will personally be listening for is plans for Iraq, economic recovery, and the upcoming issues of health care and social security/medicare. (the third rail of politics in the United States.)

Still haven't heard much concrete plans on any of the subjects except for Iraq, and some of that even changes.

[PanzerJaeger]

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black...

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

[PanzerJaeger]

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

I'm trying to be fair to him..

[Strike For The South]

I dont like Obama he is to good at mobilizing the ignorant masses like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. He holds the same poloitical belifies as Clinton yet he is exalted and she is hated. The man is a liar of the highest degree and people just seem to give him a free pass. The man is the emboidment of what I hate about polotics. A slimey used car salesman who flashes a two dollar smile amd dumb people fall in love with the man. UGH

[CountArach]

The man is a liar of the highest degree

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...