This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Obama in the race! - Page 3 — Brooklynian

Obama in the race!

13»

Comments

  • quijibo
    quijibo
    no specific picking taken

    the problem lies with how our politicians get elected to office, which is 'the candidate with the biggest coffers wins', plain and simple

    until this is fixed--my personal choice would be to have all media outlets be mandated to cover numerous political debates for each party in primetime{which in turn would give us more choices of political parties}--and do away with our current broken political Rep/Dem mafia

    we've all made emotional choices before, for very good candidates, only to see them burn in flames in the face of deeper pocketed competitors
    --until the process is fixed i'd rather not spend my time with ideological long shots who have no chance of winning down the stretch
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    quijibo wrote:

    the problem lies with how our politicians get elected to office, which is 'the candidate with the biggest coffers wins', plain and simple
    if that were always true, plain and simple, we'd still be talking about president perot.
    quijibo wrote:

    we've all made emotional choices before, for very good candidates, only to see them burn in flames in the face of deeper pocketed competitors
    --until the process is fixed i'd rather not spend my time with ideological long shots who have no chance of winning down the stretch
    this is exactly what i'm talking about -- why not spend your time with "long shots"? this isn't an NCAA office pool. 20 months before the election, we should be talking about what candidates we admire, etc., not guessing who will win.

    (NB, this is not the same, i believe most strongly, as voting for nader in a contested state on election day. that can be a different thread.)
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    i voted for nader, look how well that turned out
    -- i guess you can say i'm still suffering shellshock from that :)
  • escap
    escap
    I can understand the bitterness over voting for Nader, but I agree with Sweet Tea on this one. With 100 million or so voters, your vote is pretty much worthless no matter what, so you might as well be true to yourself and vote your conscience. I regularly vote for no shot candidates, but I comfort myself by saying that if enough people support these other parties then maybe we can finally break the "two party mafia" after all.

    For example: Go Bill Richardson!!!! He's my current preferred Dem and I haven't heard his name in weeks.
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    sweet tea wrote: [quote=quijibo]the problem lies with how our politicians get elected to office, which is 'the candidate with the biggest coffers wins', plain and simple
    if that were always true, plain and simple, we'd still be talking about president perot.
    Perot is neither a republican or democratic mafiosi
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    ok. so let's have this exercise

    What is Obama's vision for addressing the following

    1. US National Health coverage
    2. Social Security program
    3. Nuclear bomb proliferation
    4. No Child Left Behind act
    5. Middle East Conflict

    #2 pencils only please...
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    quijibo wrote: ok. so let's have this exercise

    What is Obama's vision for addressing the following

    1. US National Health coverage
    2. Social Security program
    3. Nuclear bomb proliferation
    4. No Child Left Behind act
    5. Middle East Conflict

    #2 pencils only please...
    okay, if you do the same thing for bloomberg.
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    sweet tea wrote: okay, if you do the same thing for bloomberg.
    Bloomie hasn't declared his candidacy

    Obama has, and that's part of the danger with declaring your candidacy too early
    {and why i say he's peaking too early and won't suffer the constant interrogation/grilling very well}
    --you need to answer these types of questions for your constituency

    now, can be begin to discuss the reasons why anyone should vote for Obama?
  • idlewild
    idlewild
    MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=Idlewild]I think the Evangelical vote is a tad over rated in GOP politics. I dare say that it's media hysteria. For the Evangelical vote to count in the GOP primaries Sen. Brownback would have to win, Then Brownback would have to win the Electoral. The 2000 Election was rigged and the 2004 Election was won out of fear. I remember quite a few people (NYC residents) voting for Bush because they thought he would protect the country better than Kerry, not because Jesus was on his side.. Plus, Kerry just ran a miserable campaign. He came out of the election looking like a jail house bitch. All Rudy has to do is come out looking like a moderate to get back moderate GOP votes for the primaries. He can support abortion and stand by his Iraq support as long as he doesn't waiver like Hillary seems to be doing. Losing the religious right vote may be the best thin that could happen for the GOP. Plus! Do not forget about Joe Lieberman. Here is a man that has been fucked every which way and sideways by the Dems, he's an observant Jew who supports Bush & Israel to the hilt and visa versa. A nod from Lieberman towards the GOP, no matter who the candidate is can heavily influence the election and get the religious right to vote.

    If it comes down to Rudy vs Hillary, Rudy might just win. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Obama, I'm not so sure race would play a factor for Obama to win.
    You're right, Brownback's not going anywhere and yes, Rudy is the quasi-Goldwater candidate, as someone posted earlier. But I don't think he's practically invincible as you sort of imply. Far from it, actually. And anyway, I'd be very surprised if McCain isn't the GOP candidate.

    Lieberman has given as good as he got. He's also a self-centered, vindictive, blackmailing, opportunist who has yet to suffer the political consequences of his transgressions AND delusions about Iraq. (With Bush II having no political future history will take care of him.)
    Idlewild wrote: I agree with you about their personalities, per say, McCain had his chance, remember too he came out looking like a pussy when he lamely attacked Bush & Co. when they questioned his patriotism. It still shows. And I'm not saying Rudy is invincible, not by a long shot. What I am saying is that he is steadfast in his resolve, no matter how silly some of it is and he can be very attractive to moderate GOP'ers and Dems alike. Like I say, Hillary is back pedaling, even Cindy Sheehan doesn't like her for her war vote. I'm not sure alot of NY'ers appreciate Hillary using NYS as a stepping sone especially since she didn't really do anything for us. And as much as I hope I'm wrong I don't believe the DNC will put Barak as a front-runner. The Dems, even though they made a sweep in the last elections need to run the presidential campaign very carefully. They have a bad habit of acting dopey and spineless. As for Lieberman's influence, a lot of people were saying the same things you are saying now before he was elected as an Independent.
    Talk about looking back in retrospect.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories