Explain the likely US presidential candidates

[Kuciwalker]

"no worse than Bush" is a recommendation, now?

[Kuciwalker]

Plus, he actually meant that.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"no worse than Bush" is a recommendation, now?

Mackenzie King spoke with his dead mother in spiritism sessions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Mackenzie King spoke with his dead mother in spiritism sessions.

Who?

[Ramo]

There is no policy difference based on what they've said in public and done in the US Senate.

Not true. Edwards has a record significantly to the right of Obama in the Senate. Although they haven't served contemporaneously, Edwards was part of the center-right of the Democratic Senate caucus, while Obama has been in the center-left. I'd also add that in terms of writing and passing legislation, Obama has been a lot more effective than Edwards was (see his work with Coburn on transparency, with Lugar on arms profliferation, with Schumer on lobbying reform, etc.).

Of course now that he's out of the Senate, he's become a born again liberal, but people forget that he co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution (while Obama is the only real candidate in either party to have opposed the war before it started - and no, Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul don't count as real candidates). In terms of rhetoric, the biggest difference seems to be that Edwards hews more towards protectionism.

But in terms of issues, the Dem field is remarkably homogenous. So more importantly, Obama seems a hell of a lot smarter and more charismatic than Edwards...

[RGBVideo]

Yes true. I asked for actual voting record differences. Come up with such or stfu.

Not true. Edwards has a record significantly to the right of Obama in the Senate. Although they haven't served contemporaneously, Edwards was part of the center-right of the Democratic Senate caucus, while Obama has been in the center-left.

That's nice, arbitary labels, themselves based on image (they aren't image-based if you can come up with an universal definition for both). Actual voting record differences between the two?

In terms of rhetoric, the biggest difference seems to be that Edwards hews more towards protectionism.

This is a widely repeated claim among those who have an access to US TV networks. I suspect the image originates from the label "populist", which is presumed to mean "protectionist". In rhetoric, I have never seen John Edwards praising protectionism or high tariffs. His record certainly isn't protectionist: for NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN on China, ending US steel tariffs, normalising trade relations with Vietnam. All these were Senate floor votes where the liberal establishment politicians of the Democratic party (think Edward Kennedy) were against what Edwards was for. So what is the "protectionist" image based on? When you say "rhetoric", do you mean the rhetoric of the candidate himself or the rhetoric of TV pundits "analyzing" his candidacy?

Obama seems a hell of a lot smarter and more charismatic

Edwards (received his education from State Uni of NC) leeched off millions of dollars from corporations as a trial lawyer before being elected as a Democratic US Senator from a state leaning Republican in 1998. Obama (received his education from Columbia, Harvard and other universities with the help of affirmative action programs) worked as a bureaucrat for NGOs and as a law teacher before being elected as a Democratic state senator from a solidly Democratic district, thus becoming a mediocre establishment liberal parroting state party line (Chicago Democrat being a liberal and against the Iraq war, how rebellous of him!) in 1996, something he has been ever since. Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs). But still, it "seems" to you that Obama is more intelligent. Why? Exactly my point: based on pure image, not facts. This is what's wrong with US politics, citizens trusting in image instead of facts.


Also, when talking about the actual issues, I don't think it's important whether one considers Obama be "for" or "against" starting a war which started long before he became a Senator -- he hasn't introduced any sort of actual plan what to do in the Iraq war. He's just "against" it. Kucinich has at least said he'd "bring all the troops home" ASAP, he has something concrete. Obama has nothing but a wide-spread image of a progressive rebel altough his actions in public service are that of a completely normal (read: mediocre) liberal Democrat.

[RGBVideo]

I'd also add that in terms of writing and passing legislation, Obama has been a lot more effective than Edwards was (see his work with Coburn on transparency, with Lugar on arms profliferation, with Schumer on lobbying reform, etc.).

Well this is true, Obama has actually got a lot of stuff done in US Senate: he tries to push legislation in order to actually pass it instead of trying to get campaign material for his next elections. If he's not corrupt, he's going to make a solid US Senator. Then again, IL has a history of electing good Senators.

But why he's considered for President is beyond me. Oh wait, no it isn't. A black guy made a succesful big-government praising speech in 2004 DNC, so he became the man to support for Democrats trying to prove themselves that they aren't racists.

[Kuciwalker]

Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs).

There's virtually no correlation with raw intelligence there. Socioeconomic background and personal interests dominate at that level.

[Ramo]

The GOP field:

John McCain: He once was a maverick who supported Roe, opposed Bush's tax cuts to the rich, called Falwell an agent of intolerance, etc., but realized that those positions aren't conducive to winning the GOP nomination. So since the '04 rapprochement with Bush, he has been incessantly sucking up to the GOP establishment and the religious right 's been constantly courting the establishment. He also became the biggest hawk in politics, supporting escalation to distance himself from Bush. Unfortunately for him, Bush co-opted his position, and now his maverick sheen is starting to lose its luster. Once seen as unbeatable, he's tied or worse with the leading Dem contenders (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards). Compounding the war problem, he's (so far) still a moderate on immigration, and the GOP base sees the legislation that he co-sponsored with Kennedy as tantamount to ceding California to Mexico. If the Dems are able to pass immigration legislation that he supports (as seems likely), his nomination could be sunk. The only thing saving his ass there is that the leading contenders on the right (Brownback and Huckabee) also happen to be immigration moderates.

Mitt Romney - He's the only person in the field to have a more unfortunate name than Obama's (Willard Mitt Romney). He's also a Mormon. Who was the Governor of Massachussetts. Where he supported gay rights, stem cell research, and legal abortion. Needless to say, he sprinting away from these positions, and not all that effectively. After George Allen dropped out (since Macaca kicked him out of the Senate), he tried to become the establishment conservative. But this recently been hitting some snags. His best bet is probably to gain some traction over immigration.

Rudy Giulliani - He's the poll leader in the Republican field right now, because fundamentally what the right wants is a Leader to tell 'em what to do. He fits the bill, but what they don't seem to realize quite yet is that Mussolini isn't too friendly with his three ex-wives, supports gay rights, and is pro-choice. And has been in drag. He has been promising the religious right the star and moon in terms of judicial nominations (Scalia and Alito), but it's unlikely that they'll buy it by the time the campaign season is over. But what the Dems haven't realized yet is that he's an authoritarian (for example, he tried to stay on as Mayor of NY after Bloomberg was voted in - because the people need their Leader) who has corruption issues (see Bernie Kerik). Amazingly popular right now (comfortably beating the big three Dems in most polls, and up nearly 2-1 over McCain), but he's the very definition of a paper tiger.

Sam Brownback (Senator from Kansas) - a charismaless candidate of the religious right. He's a convert to Catholic fundamentalism. As mentioned earlier, his apostasy is being an immigration moderate. I can't see him winning.

Mike Huckabee (Governor of Arkansas) - The charismatic version of Brownback. He has an added apostasy of raising taxes. His model seems to be the compassionate conservatism of Dubya 2000. For some reason, Brownback has been getting more traction than Huckabee, but this may be changing. In the end, he might be a more formidable opponent than any of the GOP big three since he probably wouldn't lose any significant constituency within the party.

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) - The only significant potential GOP candidate who can unite all the major constituencies of the party. He's also been billing himself as the "idea man" of the GOP field - ideas like suppressing free speech. Yay! His problem, of course, is that he's reviled by everyone who isn't a Republican due to his term as Speaker. And apparently, he's too lazy to run a campaign. If he got off his ass, he might be formidable; but he's waiting for a coronation.

Tom Tancredo (Congressman from Colorado) - His job is to be McCain's immigration foil. He's the favorite of the deport the Mexicans crowd. Fortunately, that constituency isn't enough to win him the nomination.

Ron Paul (Congressman form Texas) - A genuine Libertarian (except for being pro-life) who votes against nearly everything Congress passes. While that does mean he voted against the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, that also means he voted against, say, helping Katrina refugees. His constituency in today's GOP is far too small to win him the nomination.

Duncan Hunter (Congressman from California) - He's a very conservative guy, who has corruption issues. I don't know why he's running, but he is. I guess he sees the field, and notes that there are no viable party-line conservatives. And that wasn't changed when he joined it.

[RGBVideo]

Not sure what you mean with "raw intelligence" or even "at that level", but...

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Objectively looking at the situation, it becomes obvious that the way Edwards used his very limited education indicates a much higher natural intelligence than how Obama used his very broad and large education (he was in Ivy Leagues for >10 years, ffs).

There's virtually no correlation with raw intelligence there. Socioeconomic background and personal interests dominate at that level.

Yes. Edwards' "socioeconomic background" in form of his education was very bad. Obama's was extraordinarily good. Yet, Edwards actually made a lot of $$$. Obama made himself a career bureaucrat.

[mrmitchell]

Contrary to what you presume, that is an asset in Democratic primary, not a problem.

I like your analysis in this thread, VJ, but I would say Obama's race will not really matter in the Democratic primary, neither positively nor negatively. In the general election, it would probably be only a slight liability, but I suspect Hillary will get the 2008 nomination anyways. Obama is just too fresh on the scene; give him some years of experience and try again in 2016.

[Kuciwalker]

There's nothing particularly bad about NC State. They could easily both be just as intelligent but Obama's interests lay elsewhere.

[RGBVideo]

Rudy Giulliani - He's the poll leader in the Republican field right now, because fundamentally what the right wants is a Leader to tell 'em what to do. He fits the bill, but what they don't seem to realize quite yet is that Mussolini isn't too friendly with his three ex-wives, supports gay rights, and is pro-choice. And has been in drag. He has been promising the religious right the star and moon in terms of judicial nominations (Scalia and Alito), but it's unlikely that they'll buy it by the time the campaign season is over. But what the Dems haven't realized yet is that he's an authoritarian (for example, he tried to stay on as Mayor of NY after Bloomberg was voted in - because the people need their Leader) who has corruption issues (see Bernie Kerik). Amazingly popular right now (comfortably beating the big three Dems in most polls, and up nearly 2-1 over McCain), but he's the very definition of a paper tiger.

All he needs to do is to announce he had a revelation from Jesus and is now a True Believer who regrets his past sins, mentioning of which have now become unpatriotic and hateful to children.

It worked for Bush. If he manages to spin his image into a religious nutjob among liberals at the grassroots level, the religious right (think Ben Kenobi) at the grassroots level will automatically regard him as their godful candidate, nevermind what he actually does. Add in a bunch of out of place "Jesus" -phrases in campaign speeches, and it's a done deal.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I like your analysis in this thread, VJ, but I would say Obama's race will not really matter in the Democratic primary

You know what kind of people democratic primary voters are so you're probably correct.

It's just hilarious to see how his supporters are presuming already that if he loses, it's because he's black. Does one really think the journalists in NYC would've pushed Obama for the cover of both Time and Newsweek as a presidential candidate before he himself announced his candidacy (and over 2 years before the actual elections are going to be held) if he would be an old white guy? If he would be an old white guy, we wouldn't be talking about him right now.

It's too bad the current urban media elite considers such non-issues as the color of the skin when deciding cover images instead of real qualifications or opinions of the candidates. Or, pray tell, the actual problems citizens are currently facing wrt. their government.

There's nothing particularly bad about NC State. They could easily both be just as intelligent but Obama's interests lay elsewhere.

Is there some-sort of remotely objective listing about the level of US colleges somewhere in the net?

[Ramo]

That's nice, arbitary labels, themselves based on image (they aren't image-based if you can come up with an universal definition for both). Actual voting record differences between the two?

Of course, there's no universal definition for left and right.

As I said, they were never in the Senate together. So you can't directly compare votes. But various groups have compiled their voting records, and I repeat: Edwards was in the center-right of the caucus, while Obama was in the center-left. Check out the National Journal ratings, for instance. Some examples of right-wing things that Edwards voted for (that Obama probably wouldn't have): the Bush tax cuts (through his budget), the 2001 Bankruptcy Act, and the Iraq War Resolution.

This is a widely repeated claim among those who have an access to US TV networks. I suspect the image originates from the label "populist", which is presumed to mean "protectionist". In rhetoric, I have never seen John Edwards praising protectionism or high tariffs. His record certainly isn't protectionist: for NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN on China, ending US steel tariffs, normalising trade relations with Vietnam.

He wasn't in the Senate for either NAFTA or CAFTA. And the opposed the latter (and said that he would've opposed the former were in in the Senate in '93).

Note that I said rhetoric. One example that I can recall is that he said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA (something Obama doesn't want to do).

Obama (received his education from Columbia, Harvard and other universities with the help of affirmative action programs) worked as a bureaucrat for NGOs and as a law teacher

He was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. This isn't an education achieved only due to affirmative action. Yes he was a teacher; he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Something everyone can do.

I'd add to his personal accomplishments that he wrote one of the most well-written memoirs around.

Democratic state senator from a solidly Democratic district, thus becoming a mediocre establishment liberal parroting state party line (Chicago Democrat being a liberal and against the Iraq war, how rebellous of him!)

Yes, he was able to push an Earned Income Tax Credit, taped police interrogations, and ethics legislation through Springfield. Totally medicore.

I don't think it's important whether one considers Obama be "for" or "against" starting a war which started long before he became a Senator -- he hasn't introduced any sort of actual plan what to do in the Iraq war.

Wrong. See the Iraq De-Escalation Act that he recently introduced. His plan starts withdrawal in a few months, with most combat troops gone by March of next year (and if certain benchmarks are met, with Congress' consent, the President can reverse the de-escalation).

Look dude, your tone is absurd. Please stop making assumptions about my knowledge when it's clear that there's a hell of a lot that you don't know about American politics.