John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[Liquid Blue]

biggest thing that could keep obama from winning would be the bradley effect

other than that he would have to throw a baby out a window to lose

[Money]

true story

[Money]

it basically comes down to who votes more this election, the old people or the young people.

more hispanic and black voters have registered this year than any other..why?

TO VOTE FOR OBAMA


even the smart white ppl are at his rallies, while the rednecks are at the mccain rally

[Zerzera]

John Kerry (2004) and Al Gore (2000) led in every single gallop poll conducted by the liberal media leading to the elections.

I wonder how they did??

The media made the mistake of using polls. The polls represented a democratic lead, but the United States are not a democracy. A mayority of support in the entire country doesn't help you.

It's funny that you gloat over their loss, when it freed the way to the worst president in history of America. Once the only great country in the world, now fighting against bankruptcy. I don't care if McCain or Obama wins, they don't really have much room to govern because they have to clean up 8 years of terrible failure.

[Daldur]

Obama? Obama? Aint that the guy we looking for?

[Leaf]

Haven't read through but I've been watching all of the presidential debates, all of the presidential candidates appearances on TV such as Letterman, Degeneres etc.

For me who live in a fairly socialistic country, it's hard not to hope for Obama.

If I look at the bigger picture. I mean. Let's assume I'm Joe the plummer. Boy, oh boy do I want that tax cut or what? What will that benefit Joe? Will it benefit you? Yeah maybe, but sure as hell, it wont benefit ANYTHING else.
I mean this selfish way of thinking sometimes sickens me and I mean this is how people vote. What is in it for me? I have never voted in an election and thought "Wow, what could I gain of this?". I never use the free health care nor do I have children who can benefit from everything that's free in Sweden, NOR do I use any kind of governemental allowance (I don't know what It's called in English). I have my job and I have my apartment. I shop for food and I live my life.
If I were to vote for myself I would EASILY vote super right wing, almost fascism-right, just because I want to have super mega tax cut breaks that would make me make so much money, haha I'm rich bitch! Dave Chappelle sure said it.

When I voted for the left winged party in Swedens election I voted for what they would do for our society as a whole, and also for the world.
Me and my girlfriend was watching the Pianist yesterday, the holocaust movie which completely rocks. She was horrified and got all political. "How could we have let this happen!? Why did England or the US or everyone act so late?"
I'm not going to talk about the holocaust now but my point there and as I also said to her: Horrible things like the holocaust is for many people, even today.
Look at Rwanda, Balkan and ESPECIALLY the war in Iraq. I cannot BELIEVE how Americans has any freaking justification for that war. It is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY INSANE!

I really liked Ron Pauls view on the Iraq war, he actually had the guts to speak up.

About Obama. It feels like he's more socialistic than he is allowed to show. It feels like he has to tone down himself so much for the American people. The word "socialist" is a bad word in America.

I mean look at McCains views. MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! Use it, nuclear is the future. I mean, anyone who believes this statement has to be as old as McCain himself. Alternative fuel? Sure I'll say yes to it to some extent in Tv to have these left winged activists vote for me aswell.

Now think of the really big picture..
What would happen if McCain became president elect? What would happen with international connections?
What would happen if Obama became president elect?

Anyone who is remotely interested in politics can answer this for him-/herself.
Did you see Berlin when Obama was there? I mean. The world would feel salvated if Obama took the seat as commander in chief.

And what about his politics? I could go a little more leftwing Barack, but hey, I understand you buddy, It's hard!
The main thing is that Obama has a plan for the future. McCain's plan is conservative, old and out to date, unlike his very fine suits.

Sorry for the really long post.

[Liquid Blue]

Obama? Obama? Aint that the guy we looking for?

[Rhino_haha]

Isn't Obama the one who wants to "change" everything yet lets Kerry, the loser of the last election speak at his rallies.. lol. Besides, President Bush isn't even that bad of a president, after Bill Clinton cut federal spending on national defense, and after his terrible foreign policy 9/11 happened. But since there, there hasn't been another terrorist attack on the US since then.

I dont know if anybody has replied to this yet because there's like 18 pages of this thread and im not going through them.
Also you've successfully rage'd me
Watch plz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqKZlH88qz8

and if you dont want to, i've taken the liberty to find the transcript for you.

And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton's interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President's "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation's "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit. Nonetheless.

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration... did... not... try.---

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs -- some of them, 17 years old -- before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for -- if not the Great Depression itself -- then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War -- though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this President.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the Executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except... for this:

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts -- that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is -- not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired -- but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth un-told... about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I -- in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist -- and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11."

Of that company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it -- who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews -- have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense -- why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri -- the future Attorney General -- echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt -- who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them... in order to strangle us with the trivia that was... "All Monica All The Time"?

Who... distracted whom?

This is, of course, where -- as is inevitable -- Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton... but by the same people who got you... elected President.

Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it... we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since -- a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush -- you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles... wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

[Rhino_haha]

Continued:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be the textbook definition... Sir, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair -- writing as George Orwell -- gave us in the novel "1984."

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence. He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves -- and then... we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date... to save... our... country.

---

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush...

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us -- then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture -- which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.And there it is, sir:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

I'm K.O., good night, and good luck.

[Liquid Blue]

that link is broken and that transcript is a huge wall of text

[Rhino_haha]

link fixed, mb

[Liquid Blue]

The Clinton flipping out on Fox news youtube links are actually pretty funny to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L251...eature=related

[Cops]

Sarah Palin spent an estimated $150,000 on clothes, makeup, and a new haircut. How do you think this is going to resonate with average Americans?

I really don't think this will be the straw that broke the camels back. It's not going to help the Republican party convince low-income and middle class families to vote Republican. There's almost a 10 point lead in the polls. I think something has to happen for the Republican party to turn this election around, and fast.

[Epinephrine]

Wouldn't it be funny if Joe the Plumber got his question mixed up in the first place? Like he wasn't going to make $280,000/year profit, just revenue, so his question was moot in the first place?

[Izor]

Sarah Palin spent an estimated $150,000 on clothes, makeup, and a new haircut. How do you think this is going to resonate with average Americans?

I really don't think this will be the straw that broke the camels back. It's not going to help the Republican party convince low-income and middle class families to vote Republican. There's almost a 10 point lead in the polls. I think something has to happen for the Republican party to turn this election around, and fast.

stop going by these terrible polls

http://news.aol.com/elections/articl...051x1200742164

the poll here tells me mccain has a 14 point lead. Do I believe it? Of course I dont Thats because you cant base the election off < 1% of the people who will actually be voting on it. That and all you need is a screen name which means kids/foreigners can vote on it (which means even more people should be voting obama)