| Author | Message | ||
     Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.74.96.200 |
My money, alas, is on McCain. He's the most liberal of Republicans and has just thrown a sucker punch Obama's way by having a female running mate. That'll really crank Hillary's fans, and I'd guess more Americans are scared of Obama's Change message than embracing it. McCain -- if he pulls in the traditional religious votes -- only needs another ten per cent, which is how W did so well second time around. (That and he was running against John Kerry, a man whose looks were better suited to the role of scary butler in a haunted house movie than President.) | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.200.175 |
It it would be good for America & the world if the US voted in Obama...But deep down I know it's going to be McCain. America is a conservative country and an African American President is a step too far for the country as a whole I reckon. Depressing isn't it? Also, am I completely cynical for thinking that if Obama was a 'blacker' black man rather than light skinned he wouldn't have even got this far? I hope I'm wrong. gcw | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.154.242.64 |
The way the BBC have reported things up to now you'd be forgiven for thinking the election race was between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, rather than the Democrats and Republicans. Much as it would be nice and liberal of the US to have a black and/or female president, I feel that's soooooo unlikely that the Democrats almost mightn't have bothered putting up a candidate at all. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
I'm with GCW - Omaba won't win because he's black. It's a bleak situation, but not unexpected. He seems to me like a good man for the job. Certainly better than the current muppet (but my anus would make a better president than him). | ||
| Michael_kelly (Michael_kelly) Username: Michael_kelly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 207.188.66.206 |
Obama will win. History in the making. McCain's running mate is nothing like Hillary Clinton, and won't sway that many women. The only thing they have in common is, um, that they're women. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Does it really make any difference who wins? It's like choosing between 6 or half-a-dozen eggs, all at several billion dollars. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Obama's a fully signed up adherent of the Chicago School of Economics, so it'll be business as usual... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Beware the U-turn: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/barackobama.uselections2008 | ||
| John (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.4.67 |
The most annoying thing is that each candidate will spend millions of dollars on their campaigns, their TV spots, their tours. They'll each spend months knocking spots out of their rivals, outlining their policies, trying to distance themselves from the current administration. They'll assault the media from this, that, and the other angle... ...and McCain will still win simply because there's a big chunk of middle America who'll vote for him simply because he's the one 'they'd rather sit down for a drink and a jaw with.' Sigh... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
And if it's close, they can always call on Jeb! | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.212.23 |
I think Obama has a good chance of winning, but as Gary says: so what? He's the American Tony Blair. Grins and dimples. Actually, as the tickertape of history chatters on, Bill Clinton, for all his faults, is looking to be a better and better President. He not only balanced the budget, he left a surplus. Increasing the national debt seems to be a long-term Republican plan to cripple government itself. Private companies will have to run essential services because there's a good chance now that in one generation the US government will be essentially broke. China's buying up all of the US debt. Britain:USA (late 20th century) as USA:China (21st century) The "policeman of the world" will be in the back pocket of a regime that harvests organs from peaceful dissenters in its own population. Obama may win, but he'll be a Chinese shadow puppet. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.212.23 |
By the way, everyone who competed in the Olympics should be ashamed of themselves. You can rationalise it any way you want, but it was turning a blind eye to torture to advance someone's athletic career. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Indeed. The Electronic Herd run the show. Presidents are merely governors. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.151.24 |
 I like Obama. I'm reading his book and it's well-written, makes him seem intelligent and imaginative, and genuinely inspiring. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.129.151.24 |
And my feeling was that the eyes of the world being on China might make them change, enjoy being appreciated for good things for once. As Dr Who once said, 'out of this great evil some great good must come'. Maybe this is what he meant. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.212.23 |
It was manifestly a PR exercise that left the injustices untouched. While we watched the forced smiles of the opening ceremony, innocent people were being dragged from their beds at night by the police. They didn't change, Tony. If we don't change them now, we certainly won't be able to influence them later when they have economic power over us. They'll change us. As for Obama, I'm sure he's a lovely fellow. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.232.172 |
Gary, you're obviously right that it's a race between two conservatives – but those limited, incremental differences in domestic policy can affect many thousands of people's chances of a decent life, and those limited, incremental differences in foreign policy will probably make the difference between having an unprecedented global war and not having one. Not to mention the millions of lives that hang on the limited, incremental differences in environmental policy. Small differences play out large on a global scale. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.8.13 |
I'm with GCW, Mark, Mick ,Zed and John - it'll be McCain - you just know it will be. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.181.67 |
I'm with Joel. I wouldn't write off Obama, by the way. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.181.67 |
And China is changing. Not necessarily as fast or in all the ways that people would like, but it is changing. It's not the same country it was twenty years ago, or even ten. Another thing to keep in mind is that human rights violations are not restricted to countries with a reputation for being less free. We can find glaring examples of this much closer to home (well, not my home, but the homes of the vast majority of this board). | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.8.13 |
I see McCain has named Sarah Palin for his vice president if elected - no doubt to try to sway the women who would have voted for Clinton. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.210.229 |
Another thing to keep in mind is that human rights violations are not restricted to countries with a reputation for being less free. We can find glaring examples of this much closer to home (well, not my home, but the homes of the vast majority of this board). This is a specious argument. You can't seriously compare UK terror suspect laws (if that's the country to which you're referring) to China's (and I'll keep saying it until it sinks in) torture and organ-harvesting of innocent people and involvement in African genocide. And even if the UK or the USA where police states from a John Carpenter film, I don't see how it alters the morality of another country's activities one jot. We should call the capital Peking until they stop. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
"By the way, everyone who competed in the Olympics should be ashamed of themselves. You can rationalise it any way you want, but it was turning a blind eye to torture to advance someone's athletic career." Isn't that being a bit reductionist? Assuming athletes should react in a way the governing bodies don't? Sorry, Proto, but I disagree. The athletes who took part in the Olympic Games should be proud of themselves: they put politics and bullshit to one side and worked their arses off to achieve some incredible physical feats. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.210.229 |
I see McCain has named Sarah Palin for his vice president if elected - no doubt to try to sway the women who would have voted for Clinton. But Clinton and Palin are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Do American voters completely ignore the candidates' policies? Is it all identity politics now? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.210.229 |
Sorry Zed, but I don't think there can be a grey area when it comes to repression and torture. As Lincoln said of slavery: if this is right, what is left to be wrong? China shouldn't have been given the Olympics in the first place. I do feel sorry for the athletes. I know they've worked hard, which makes it all the sadder that their efforts have been exploited for a PR campaign. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.229.9 |
The bases run to their candidates - the scant-few "swing" voters really do determine all elections. Naming Sarah Palin - politically? - is a brilliant move. Among other things, it underscores to the women of American the sore-thumb question: Just why didn't you nominate Hilary as VP, Obama?... Because just yet one more corrupt MALE political-lifer/plagiarist was a better choice?... Whatever you think of Mrs. Palin, she has a compelling life story. Now she's a heartbeat away from the Presidency (if McCain's elected President)... and in McCain's case, that's not just a euphemism.... "Change you can bereave in" | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
I do feel sorry for the athletes. I know they've worked hard, which makes it all the sadder that their efforts have been exploited for a PR campaign. That's not what you said above - but if it's the case, then fine, I'm with you on that. You can't condem the athletes for not boycotting the event. I agree the whole thing has been turned into a PR stunt, but let's not forget what these people have achieved. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Gary, you're obviously right that it's a race between two conservatives – but those limited, incremental differences in domestic policy can affect many thousands of people's chances of a decent life, and those limited, incremental differences in foreign policy will probably make the difference between having an unprecedented global war and not having one. Not to mention the millions of lives that hang on the limited, incremental differences in environmental policy. Small differences play out large on a global scale. Sir, your execution has been delayed till tomorrow... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.201.163 |
Let me clarify: I feel sorry for them because the athletes were put in such moral dilemma when all they wanted to do was run or throw stuff really far for their country. They were faced with a tough moral choice. In my opinion those who attended failed that moral test. They chose to ignore atrocities of their hosts in order to further their own careers (I don't know if I'd pass that moral test in their place either, but that's irrelevant. It's not a moral test if doing the right thing doesn't involve a sacrifice of some sort.) | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.108.36.76 |
Proto, I'm not sure which human rights violations Huw has in mind, but I assume it's not limited to the domestic arena. Invading and occupying a country in order to steal its oil reserves is a serious crime. And as the USA's allies, we are complicit in the crimes committed at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay – which are not negligible, their main purpose being to terrify opponents: 'Just look what we can do to you, your families and your communities if you don't knuckle under.' In Iraq, trade unionists who oppose the privatisation of the nation's oil industry are being imprisoned while our Government says nothing. And the US/UK allied forces destroyed the city of Ramallah and killed thousands of its occupants. These are not inconsiderable crimes. We will still be paying for them long after you, I and this board have passed on. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.201.163 |
Sure, that's bad stuff, and I don't attempt to defend the wrongs of any country. As I said, the fact that one country's actions are wrong doesn't change the morality of another's. Should you or your fellow Britain be denied an opinion because of the actions of your government? The logical extension of that position is that nobody criticises any other country's behaviour -- a tyrant's dream scenario. I'm not a UK citizen. My country hasn't invaded anyone. Do I get to criticise China? The parallels to the 1936 Olympic games are striking, most notably in Berlin cleaning up its act for foreign visitors -- temporarily hiding, rather than eliminating, its most heinous behaviour. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.201.163 |
I mean "Britons..." | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.199.173 |
I certainly agree that we are at liberty to criticise and protest and generally make trouble about whatever shit is going on worldwide, regardless of how close we are to it geographically. The alternative would be to buy into the 'local truth' mythology that, in its extreme form, doesn't allow people to express a view about events unless they are directly involved. An example in my experience being when some Unite Against Fascism activists from Selly Oak set up a street stall in Weoley Castle, less than a mile from their own homes, and were told by a few self-appointed local representatives that we had no right to be there because we weren't local people: we didn't live in that street. This was following a series of violent racial crimes in the area. Sometimes people really don't understand what is going on in another country, region, town or street, or even next door – but it should not be taken for granted that they cannot understand. We all need to make it our business to understand a lot of stuff worldwide. Otherwise there really is no future. (N.B. I'm agreeing with Huw on one point and Proto on the other. Can we build a united front? Thought not, never mind.) | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.74.96.200 |
>>Whatever you think of Mrs. Palin, she has a compelling life story. Now she's a heartbeat away from the Presidency (if McCain's elected President)... and in McCain's case, that's not just a euphemism.... This is it. America's first female President. Commentators are suggesting though that her inclusion might be a msitake as she's younger than Obama, which backfires on mcCain's policy of shooting Obama (not literally, we hope) for being inexperienced. I would have thought an older female would have been a better choice. Of course, it couldn't have been Rice because of her close association with W, but someone older may have been wiser. Anyway, with the Ruskies kicking up trouble, this may all not be a factor. W's still got time to crank up the gas for another cold war! If the Ruskies don't turn the tap off first . . . And Justin's right: China should never have got the Games. It was a politcial move to try get them involved and inclusive with our "civilised" society. (I watched the Jerry Springer WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? episode the other night, by the way. Holocaust stuff. Jesus. All of that in living memory in Western Europe.) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.6.220 |
Let's see, a woman in the White House... Oval Office... a female President with her finger on the button... hmm... I know there's a crude sexist joke in there somewhere... can you help me out here, Weber?... |