Explain the likely US presidential candidates

[RGBVideo]

Looks like I hit the soft spot of a True Believer. "His plan starts withdrawal in a few months"... right. We'll see that, won't we? No facts will work on you.

Look dude, your tone is absurd. Please 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.

You have lectured me about things I already know, willingly twisted what I said and then smacked -smiley behind everything. Talking with you (let alone arguing with you) about this is counter-productive so I won't do it. That's not what this thread is for.

[Kuciwalker]

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

No, because it's not possible to construct one. At best you can sort them into tiers.

[Ramo]

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 could have something to do with the fact that he's got more charisma in his pinky than the rest of the field combined. Look at it this way: on Friday, when he visited Austin, he drew a crowd of 20,000 people. I don't think we've seen numbers like this since RFK's primary run, and he did that in the middle of the primary season (rather than a year before). You're right in that his popularity isn't due to issues, but it isn't due to color either (though both are involved). It's about something a lot more visceral.

[Ramo]

Looks like I hit the soft spot of a True Believer. "His plan starts withdrawal in a few months"... right. We'll see that, won't we? No facts will work on you.

We'll see what? You asserted that he didn't introduce a plan regarding Iraq. That is factually incorrect. Google "Iraq De-escalation Act." Of course, it's not going to get through a filibuster or a veto, but that wasn't the issue.

BTW, sorry about the eye-rolls. I thought I put fewer than 4 in the post. It's just that you kept on saying ridiculous thing after ridiculous thing...

[Elok]

Speaking of judging based on image, VJ, what do you call it when you trot out your pet theory about how the complex history of race relations in a foreign country are responsible for a candidate's success in a political party you have never been a part of?

[RGBVideo]

Care to explain what exactly was the reason for both Time and Newsweek putting Obama for their cover at the same month?

It is not my pet theory. It also has nothing to do with "race relations", press is just trying to drum up support for a candidate because their editors-in-chief are trying to prove how anti-racist they are -- just like how both of the magazines made J. Jackson cover stories over a year before the elections in 1984.

PS: Read the post again. The very point was that the non-issue was an irrelevant image question which should be forgotten. I'd presume you already realized this since you're an English major, but the alternative explanation for your sarcastic question is that you're just trying to troll me for no reason even though you understood what I said, and we have enough troll/counter-troll/counter-counter-troll -filled threads already in the OTF.

[Elok]

And how are you coming up with these theories on what motivates the editors of Time and Newsweek? Did they recently announce a "boost the negro" policy to you, or are you just promoting a theory which fits the facts? Oh, wait, they also boosted Jesse Jackson over twenty years ago. A clear pattern. Well, in a sense it is, since JJ was the last black candidate who people took even remotely seriously (followed by duds like Mosely-Braun, Sharpton and whatshisface, Keyes), but it seems you've decided race is irrelevant and relevant simultaneously or something.

Race relations in America are extremely complicated and filled with emotional landmines due to slavery and segregation. I grew up in Prince George's County, MD--the wealthiest per-capita majority-black county in the USA. I no longer live there; my family moved once it became a snakepit of corruption and the criminals moved into our formerly-safe part. They elected a nepotistic black phlegmwad over more trustworthy white candidates with years of experience. Next door in D.C., they repeatedly put Marion Barry into power (first as mayor, then on city council) despite the fact that he is an incorrigible crackhead. It's a long story why, and it doesn't involve magazine coverage.

Race is still a very significant, EXPLOSIVE issue. Every black candidate is judged first as a black man/woman, then as a candidate--note the babble about whether Obama was "not black enough," as though he could have his melanin revoked or something. One of the many reasons I like him is that he does not try to sell himself that way--but he's still going to be judged that way. Now get a clue, and pull the rod out of your ass while you're at it.

[RGBVideo]

And how are you coming up with these theories on what motivates the editors of Time and Newsweek? Did they recently announce a "boost the negro"

What the ****?

What I said was that neither J. Jackson or B. Obama were serious nationwide candidates before Time and Newsweek made them their cover stories for no reason. Now I was prepared to be wrong as you arrogantly told me, since I asked you to explain what exactly was the reason for these out of blue cover stories for state-level politicians with roughly zero experience nationwide instead of the dozen candidates on both republicans and democrats with already established support, public interest and plenty of experience. I also repeated what I have now said three times in this thread, that race should be a non-issue when selecting a President (I said once that it probably plays a positive part in Democratic primary before mrmitchell said that he believes I'm wrong, this is what you originally got worked up on with your sarcastic and mean one-liner post #65 -- but now you're angrily sharing your experiences where it does play a positive part?).

You answer with a three-paragraph rant full of insults yelling how race is a very significant, "EXPLOSIVE" issue and implying how suddenly I'm the one "judging" Obama because he's black.

You're being very prejudiced and passive-aggressive, imagining things which aren't said and constructing carefully phrased '**** you'-content sentences within every paragraph you write to me. Are you sure it's not you who has the rod in his ass?

edit: also, why did you write that post at all? it clearly isn't an answer to my question in my last post (or indeed, any question asked in any post in this thread) and it is a pretty major threadjack in a thread originally dedicated to writing impressions of POTUS-candidates 10 months before the first primaries.

edit2: Looking back this trainwreck of a dialogue, I'm kinda hoping I would've stopped posting in this thread after my first reply. Laz must be quietly giggling with himself when he's reading these exchanges of insults.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by VJ

What the ****?

What I said was that neither J. Jackson or B. Obama were serious nationwide candidates before Time and Newsweek made them their cover stories for no reason.

That might be true of Obama. But -- and I speak now as a political junkie who was living in Iowa in 1988, and thus was able to follow the campaign up close at the very beginning -- it certainly wasn't true of Jackson. The Jackson campaign -- the Rainbow Coalition -- was a grassroots effort of considerable scope and depth that the mainstream media nevertheless didn't treat seriously until it became impossible not to; Jackson had deeper and more passionate support than any other candidate in '88, including the eventual nominee, Dukakis.

[Elok]

I'm arguing against your positively asinine remarks on race, you tool. Specifically, I'm addressing the bizarre conspiracy theory you seem to be alleging that black candidates are succeeding because the media or their party is helping them along out of white guilt--a theory which you're parading as established fact with no basis. Runners-up include your insinuation that Obama can't fail just because of his race and that any attempt to suggest such a thing is hysterical.

If I'm irritated, it's because you've blathered these pious homilies on how Americans eat what the media feeds them, then chased said homilies with loonball assertions that you not only can't support, but have absolutely no experience with the subject of.

My remarks on Barry and Jack Johnson, the crooked executive of PGC, were meant to illustrate the complexity of the situation; even when black people "win" in politics it's often by picking a loser (such as a crackhead or a crook) due to the dysfunctionality of their subculture and the years of distrust on either side. And that's just one example. I should have made it more clear, but the confusion hammers home my point: you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just spitting out half-baked generalizations. My guess is that they're popular "everybody-knows" facts in whatever country you're from?

[Barnabas]

Giuliani was famous before 9/11 because it is said he turned New York from a criminal hell like in the Movie Taxi Driver, into a very safe city.
He even went to Mexico City to "teach" them his techniques for making cities safe.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Richardson

Richardson is smart and competant but I don't think that that cameras like him enough/is charismatic enough to be a serious contender, which is a shame. He's probably angling for a veep slot, which he has a very very good shot at.

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

Right, but I'd support Obama over Edwards because:
1. He seems to be smarter.
2. He opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Not anywhere near enough for me to be enthusiastic over Obama, but enough for me to take him over Hillary or Edwards. An Obama/Richardson could work fairly well...

[SlowwHand]

Well, I saw the first one today. A neighbor's bumper sticker. He's gay, and that's cool. Hell of a nice guy. The only reason I bring it up is I'm wondering if it's going to be unique to his concerns, or is it a sign of the democratic ticket?

"I Hillary"

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=VJ]But still, it "seems" to you that Obama is more intelligent. Why?[/q]

'Cause Obama didn't spectacularly screw up on what the Defense of Marriage Act was about on national television (during the Dem primary). If you recall, Edwards said he was against the DOMA because he wanted the states to be able to decide for themselves (the problem is that that is what DOMA says!). Basically Edwards heard that Dems don't like DOMA and never educated himself as to what it actually stood for, even though he was a US Senator. Quaylish in its idocy.

[Drake Tungsten]

He's probably angling for a veep slot, which he has a very very good shot at.

Hillary/Richardson '08