2008 Presidential Campaign

[Inculta_Bellum]

This november we as a nation are going to choose a new president of these United States. Until then, we'll have a good bit of mud-slinging between all concerned parties!:animesmil

In case you already didn't know, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus last week. I haven't seen figures yet, but it looks like Hillary Rodham Clinton is pulling ahead from her 3rd place loss from Iowa. Regardless as to how well he does in the primaries, the Democrats are probably going to stick with Clinton as a safe bet instead of Obama. Huckabee will probably get the Republican nomination.

What I want to know is, which candidate are OtakuBoards citizens going to vote for? Or are you going to vote party? Or NOT vote as a protest against the corrupt nature of the government?

Who do you think should be allowed to run for president that isn't *COUGHCOUGH*ahnold*COUGHCOUGH* Could you be a better "Leader of the Free World"? The answer to that last one is probably. Bush has done pretty much crap his whole time in office.


Here's the race I want to see happen this 08 election:
Republican: Mike Huckabee
Democrat: Barack Obama
Independent: Stephen Colbert

Stephen should be back in the race. He would have carried at least three states, and he was only running in one. Who should win?

[Sandy]

It's [I]Barack Obama[/I]. It's not [I]that[/I] exotic for a name... ;D

Well, it's not an election in which I could vote, but to say it wouldn't have any effect on my country would be an understatement. I of course want a Democrat president, because quite frankly speaking all the Republicans seem ignorant, prejudiced and hypocritical. I know it's a huge generalization, but the things the party represents - moral conservatism but economic liberalism - it just doesn't get into my head how people can think that way about the society. It's taking from the poor and giving to the rich. :/

I find the Democratic top candidates very intriguing, as well. A black man with a muslim background against a former first lady... If either one of them is ultimately elected as a president, the USA has shown the rest of the world that we as a humankind really can get past our prejudices.

And for what it's worth, even if both of them were white males, I'd still think they'd be great candidates for the things they campaign for. ;D

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Inculta_Bellum']
In case you already didn't know, Barrak O' Bamma and Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus last week. I haven't seen figures yet, but it looks like Hillary Rodham Clinton is pulling ahead from her 3rd place loss from Iowa. Regardless as to how well he does in the primaries, the Democrats are probably going to stick with Clinton as a safe bet instead of O' Bamma. Huckabee will probably get the Republican nomination.
[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I don’t really know how true that statement is. While Hillary definitely has the more famous name I think many Democrats are hoping for the Obamanator to pull out an upset. The problem with Hillary is that there are a lot of Democrats and “on the fence” Republicans that will not vote for her regardless of who she is running against.

I am still on the fence. The idea of another Republican president, especially a Huckabee or a Romney, kind of scares me. There is also something intangible about Hillary that bothers me. So I guess I’ll be one of those undecideds that each side vies so hard for…who knows, maybe the libertarians have a few interesting candidates that are worth looking at.[/color]


Edit: And Sandy, Barack is not Muslim, he is some type of protestant. Not that it really matters one way or another.

[James]

[quote]I know it's a huge generalization, but the things the party represents - moral conservatism but economic liberalism - it just doesn't get into my head how people can think that way about the society. It's taking from the poor and giving to the rich. :/
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If you carry through with that logic, then all Democrats are Communists, lol.

To use an analogy, there's one basic difference between the left and right wing of politics when it comes to welfare and commerce: leftists generally want to give people fish, while conservatives generally want to teach people [i]how[/i] to fish.

In reality it never quite works that way - the real world is made up of shades of grey. It would be a mistake to think that every Republican is automatically like Bush, you know?

I personally tend to be financially conservative (I believe in low taxes, performance benchmarks for public institutions, budget surpluses and saving rather than borrowing), while I'm also more socially liberal (equal rights, reasonable welfare system - without it becoming crazily expensive - and so on).

I haven't followed this campaign much, at least, not like I used to follow American politics.

I just wonder if an Obama/Clinton president/vice president ticket is the way to go. That is, if the pair can get along. :catgirl:[/font]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]...I thought Democrats were Communists... Hah!

Well seeing as how I'm declined to state, and can't vote in the primaries anyway... I am going to sit pretty and wait for them to be over. Party functions bore me anyway. Then I'll start caring. But if you want to know my opinion, and I KNOW you do, let me put it this way.

Guiliani is sunk mostly because he's lived his life as a New Yorker and thus will most likely fail miserably in the sense that there is so much dirt on him just waiting to smeared. Huckabee might look good now but I don't see him winning the election in general. He's like a leader for the Democratic Christian left, and basically doesn't stand for a single conservative principle I believe in. Romney perhaps is the one candidate that I'm not totally down on. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance and don't I know it.

Hillary won't make it now that the media's finally found a different candidate they can advance their agenda through. Obama's their man now, and he won't make them swallow crap sandwich after crap sandwich. On the other hand, Hillary has sold her soul to the devil, so she might be able to play the 'Comeback Kid' card. God forbid.

Then again while I don't live and die with any particular party and to quote Hilary out of context: "My hopes and dreams are not invested in the office of the American president." In fact, I don't even live or die with one party or the other. My hopes and dreams are invested in Wells Fargo. But in response to James, the pair can not, and WILL not get along. Obama's up 41% and that's 13 points over Hillary.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]When it comes to choosing a running mate, you'd be surprised how people's alliances can quickly change. lol

I'm not saying it will happen, but I would not rule it out either.[/font]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] At this point, I think Hilary's momemtum has simply lost steam. I was already suspicious of it last year, because something that good can't keep on rolling for that long. It was no surprise to me that Obama won Iowa, and it is not a surprise to me now that Obama is beating Hilary by a wide margin (about 10%) in New Hampshire as well (but I was surprised when I heard Hilary came in 3rd for Iowa; I really hope Edwards does not win anything). Then again, New Hampshire is filled with more indepdendent voters, and polls are only so reliable.

And while I also predicted Huckabee to win Iowa, because the state is filled with evangelist Christians [spoiler]and really how would Romney, a Mormon, win that? (jk...sort of)[/spoiler], I don't know about New Hampshire. McCain might be a prominent figure, but so could Huckabee. Huckabee's pretty much a democrat when it comes to economics, but his social stances are conservative, and that could have a broad range of appeal.

The whole "a democrat will win because no one wants to vote for a Republican" thing still holds some power, I think, but not to the same extent it did a year ago. As time goes by more people will realize that it wasn't having a republican in office that created all the mayhem, but W. Bush and Cheney. Granted, I personally want to see a Democrat in office now... Republicans have held the power for too long now.

Of course, you cannot forget Giuliani, even though I dislike him. I have no idea if his plan of ignoring the early caucuses/primaries will work, but his constant campaigning in Florida and other big states could work. I think people are just forgetting about him now because of his lack of presence in Iowa and New Hampshire, and probably South Carolina, which is in some ways justified. Ignoring those key states could in the end just turn out to be the biggest mistake he's made. [/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]

I just wonder if an Obama/Clinton president/vice president ticket is the way to go. That is, if the pair can get along. :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"]Don't think so, IMO. The people who support Obama are, for the majority, probably not in favor of Clinton, and the choice for VP has never made a huge impact on voting trends (to my knowledge). As for being VP...it isn't worth "a warm bucket of spit," as John Garner once said. Unless you're Dick Cheney, who really just scares me. [/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Sandy']I find the Democratic top candidates very intriguing, as well. A black muslim against a former first lady... If either one of them is ultimately elected as a president, the USA has shown the rest of the world that we really can get past our prejudices.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]The right has been circulating the lie that Obama is a Muslim to feed upon America's rampant xenophobia. While there's nothing wrong with Islam, it is false to call him a Muslim... he's a Christian (Protestant, attending United Church of Christ, if you care).

There is no way either will choose the other to be their running mate. Their ideologies are diametrically opposed, and their platforms are too different to be compatible. If Obama became the Democratic candidate, I'd expect Edwards or Richardson to be his VP running mate. They don't represent the Washington establishment as much as Clinton does, and they're both less polarizing figures.

As for me, I'm holding out hope for Obama in New Hampshire tomorrow. With any luck, Hillary's campaign will crumble under his momentum, especially if he can score another win.[/font]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I don't think Edwards would be willing to run as VP again under Obama, although it could maybe help... But not expected. [/font]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh yeah, I haven't really followed the detail of this campaign, so I really have no idea who would be well suited as running mates.

I just remember that Edwards attacked Kerry quite a bit in the last election and then turned around and became his buddy later on. It's just part of political life.

Hillary has modified her position slightly in order to run, which is fine - it's probably something she needed to do.

But because I haven't closely followed the campaign I really don't have a preferred candidate this time. [/font]

[Raiha]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Oh yeah, I haven't really followed the detail of this campaign, so I really have no idea who would be well suited as running mates.

I just remember that Edwards attacked Kerry quite a bit in the last election and then turned around and became his buddy later on. It's just part of political life.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I don't think you really know though, the extent of how vengeful and vindictive Hillary Clinton is. She holds grudges like no other candidate I've ever seen. I think you're underestimating the extent of her pride. But even so, I don't think that she'd ever deign to serve 'under' Obama as a Vice President. Richards would definitely be the one though.

And as for Obama being a Muslim. I listen to conservative radio and I've never heard the host call Obama a Muslim. He might talk about Obama's ties to Muslim activists, or complain about his stance on the issues, but I've never heard 'Obama says he's a Christian, but he's really a MUSLIM!" floated as a theory.

Then again, it's libertarian radio, and they cover the full spectrum of candidates. An interesting point, would be that Hillary's gone through about 10 different political slogans for her floundering campaign. Here's some of the best. Or worst.

?Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President.?

"EXPERIENCE CHANGE WITH HILLARY ... THE EXPERIENCE TO CHANGE YOUR EXPERIENCE!"

?...renew[ing] the promise of America.?

?In to Win.?

?Working for Change, Working for You.?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Republicans:

Giuliani - His strategy of focusing on the Super Tuesday states seems sound on paper. The way that the American political structure and media works is contrary to that. The winners and close losers of Iowa are getting a superb amount of publicity. The scrutinies of the general election upon his private life could really bleed him dry.

Thompson - What happened to him, anyway? Wasn't he the second coming of Conservative christ a few months ago?

Huckabee - Has the same kind of down to earth charm that Bush had in 2000. Also, being a supremely moral person of good standing with the G-man up above, he can attract the attention of the many cross-wearing apes that live across America. I wonder what will happen if he is elected and the flat tax plan he proponents goes through.

Paul - Will not win much of anything, unfortunately.

McCain - Is not as dead as his campaign seemed during the Summer. His hawkish stance on foreign policy is a retread of what Americans have been through for the past few years with little to show for it but the loss of soldiers, money, and material.

Romney - I actually don't know much about him except for his titanic efforts to take Iowa.

Democrats:

Clinton - Had momentum for such a long time that, inevitably, it petered out at the wrong moment. The misfires in the last two months slowed her down to what appears, now, to be a reversal as Obama's performance in pre-Primary polling for NH outdoes her by a significant margin. She is too polarizing. Too cold, too political. I do not even want to know how many favors she owes to people and how many people owe favors to her.

Obama - Has charisma. He is inexperienced no matter what his campaign preaches, but that is not necessarily an entirely terrible thing. Maybe America wants some fresh blood instead of rotten meat.

Edwards - Also has charisma and more experience than Obama. His populist message and "Two America" statements make him seem almost borderline socialist at times. I always wonder why he doesn't catch fire with more of America.

I would personally vote for, in order, Obama > Edwards > Paul > Clinton > Giuliani > Romney/Huckabee.

Romney is Mormon. Huckabee is too in tune with Christ to lead effectively. Giuliani is scummy, like Clinton. Paul, Edwards, and Obama are the best out of the pack to me.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]I would personally vote for, in order, Obama > Edwards > Paul > Clinton > Giuliani > Romney/Huckabee.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I agree, with the sole exception of Paul.

While he and I agree on foreign policy to a fair extent, I cannot support a candidate so conservative in terms of social liberty. I mean, [url=http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm][color=red]read it for yourself[/color][/url]. And I find this funny, considering he's a libertarian.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Sandy']It's [I]Barack Obama[/I]. It's not [I]that[/I] exotic for a name... ;D[/QUOTE]

Aw, come on, Sandy. Never heard of "Black Irish?" :p

Anyway, form where I stand, we really don't have very good options this year (then again, I haven't been totally impressed with our options since the other Bush.)

Lessee... we have:
2 multi-devorcees
1 rookie
1 woman who changes her mind about the issues more than a forest fire changes directions.
and Mike Huckabee, who I should do more research on.

Anyway, just for Lulz I'm ging to post a video that basically says exactly what I just did, but in a funnier manner.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpTgC28W--c"]click.[/URL]

In closing, Chuck Norris for President.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aceburner']Mike Huckabee, who I should do more research on.

[...]

In closing, Chuck Norris for President.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Chuck endorses Huckabee.

[url][B]http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8[/B][/url]

To his credit, it's a great commercial.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

^Link's broken, by the way.

Anyway, found my candidate.:)

[Sandy]

I'm sorry for making the mistake of not doing research on the muslim-thing, but assuming based on what I've heard. So Obama has a muslim father. It's still something the opposite sides might want to use as a weapon against him.

And James, I knew it was a generalization, that's why I said it was. XP Besides, in my country communism isn't considered such a bad thing - we live next to Russia, after all. The Communist Party is very small and not even in our parliament, but there are other parties that have evolved from communist activists of the '70s, like the Socialdemocrats.

But enough about Finland again, all in all I'm excited to see how this election turns out. The best side of it is, and sorry if this offends anyone, that it's nigh impossible for the Americans to make a poorer choice than at the last few times. XP

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's okay, I think I'm just so used to seeing so many generalizations about politics that eventually people start to take them for granted (i.e. all Republicans are like this or all Democrats are like that).

In general I find that a lot of people who speak really venomously about political issues are the people who understand them the least - the truth, as they say, usually sits somewhere in the middle.

I mean Bush gets vilified frequently and he's become a total joke. It's easy to see why, but on the other hand, so many people actually know very little about his presidency. Educated criticism is hard to find.

It was the same with Clinton too.

But I suppose it is the nature of political discourse among the majority of people, especially when many people do not follow political issues in any detail.

Then again, I suppose it's easy to be a critic. It's like being an average person who declares that a particular music band sucks...quite often there is no objective analysis, just a personal impression. It's easy to say negative things, but it's much harder to deconstruct the detail.[/font]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Sandy'] The best side of it is, and sorry if this offends anyone, that it's nigh impossible for the Americans to make a poorer choice than at the last few times. XP[/QUOTE]You might be surprised by how many of us agree with this, however, I do have the pleasure of saying I did not vote for the jackass who is currently serving as president. So you can't really say I made a poor choice. Remember, elected into office doesn't mean everyone actually voted for Bush. Only that enough did for him to get the job. I remind you of this since a good 59 million Americans voted for the other guy and not Bush, so that's quite a few who didn't make that [I]poor[/I] choice as it were. :p[/COLOR]

[Sandy]

I know that, Crystia, but I was speaking in a general sense of [I]who[/I] was chosen. So like it or not, Bush was the Americans' choice. :/

James, I'd [I]like[/I] to think I give intellectual criticism towards other political parties - after all, I'm something of a political activist myself - but I know that more often than not I'm just lashing my tongue. I know the left-right axis doesn't equal good-evil axis, but nevertheless I like to stay in the middle, just like the Green Party I belong to.

Or rather, as our saying goes, "not left or right, but ahead". ;D

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Sandy']I know that, Crystia, but I was speaking in a general sense of [I]who[/I] was chosen. So like it or not, Bush was the Americans' choice. :/[/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.

In 2004 it was a choice between an idiot and a dumbass. Lose-lose.[/color]

[Lia]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]
I just wonder if an Obama/Clinton president/vice president ticket is the way to go. That is, if the pair can get along. :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE]

Obama made it quite clear that that is not going to happen, regardless of the outcome. He stated very sternly that he is running for president, and not vice president. I don't think he'd settle for that position to be honest with you. My best friend moved to Chicago and works for him at his base, and she pretty much confirmed this.

As for the other way around, and her being his vice president - I also don't think that is going to happen.

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]In 2004 it was a choice between an idiot and a dumbass. Lose-lose.[/color][/QUOTE]

Quoted for truth.

The kind of truth that sets the concrete foundation of pie being delicious.

[James]

[quote name='Lia']Obama made it quite clear that that is not going to happen, regardless of the outcome. He stated very sternly that he is running for president, and not vice president. I don't think he'd settle for that position to be honest with you. My best friend moved to Chicago and works for him at his base, and she pretty much confirmed this.
[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]They all say that though, lol. They all say "when I'm president...[blank]". It is considered a sign of weakness to be open to a vice presidential post when the candidates are still only in the primary season.

I'm not saying he would take a vice presidential position, but one person is going to win the nomination and [i]someone[/i] will have to be the running mate. I guarantee you, while nobody is leaving that option open right now, several of the runners up will be scrambling for it when the time comes. [/font]

[TheShinje]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]
The whole "a democrat will win because no one wants to vote for a Republican" thing still holds some power, I think, but not to the same extent it did a year ago. As time goes by more people will realize that it wasn't having a republican in office that created all the mayhem, but W. Bush and Cheney. Granted, I personally want to see a Democrat in office now... Republicans have held the power for too long now.
[/font][/QUOTE]

I don't think it does. An America disillusioned with the war in Iraq still re-elected president Bush in 2004. I predict that the actions of Bush will not necessarily dent the republican hopeful as much as you might think.


I'm predicting that the presidential campaign will be a Giuliani/Obama race, and Obama will win. He's mad popular right now. :D