Mr. ORAC says
Barack Obama, apparently, has been the symbol of hope. But that could be quite distressing, because his entire campaign has revolved around the slogan "Yes we can." I'm all for keeping political ideas simple, but he's reduced them to Bob the bloody Builder. Maybe he's planning to steal other catchphrases from children's TV characters, so his next campaign adverts will go "Barack Obama – flobalob lob obalob weed."
The expression "Yes we can" is a slightly morphed variant of the United Farm Workers slogan "Si, se Puede, which is the catch-phrase of political organisers for the movement to legalise the population of Mexican illegal immigrants thought to be present in the US. Democrats think, with considerable justification, that 5 or 10 million new democrat voters can be manufactured from this population, if a legalisation plan allows them a short track to citizenship. For the interim, supporting that direction is seen as a kind of lock on some portion of the Hispanic voter bloc.
As such, the concept and the catch-phrase are golden in the secret jargon of the liberal cohort. 'Tis anything but silly for Mr. Obama to be using this catch phrase.
If you have not caught on to this nuance, or you do not take it seriously, perhaps you should reconsider your self-cast role as political commentator?
yeez, arcniz, not had any coffee yet? The quote above is from the humorous article linked in the same post. Or did you think his comments about the balloons was serious rather than tongue in cheek?.....
Just for you, I'll link the article again. You'll note he has a knock at Hillary and John mcCain as well, just to be even handed.
Have you guys and gals from the other side of the pond heard about the "Super Delegates" of the Democratic Party?
Apparently if at the time of the Democratic Convention if the Clintons (yes, you get one, you get the other) and Obama are tied or close to a tie on the number of delegates to be nominated, which is looking more and more possible, the 700 some odd super delegates will decide who will be nominated as the Presidential candidate, no matter who has the most popular primary votes or caucus votes.
Odds on favorite winner in this scenario would be Hillary, which would place the Democratic Party of being guilty of the same tactics of what the Republicans were accused of in the last Presidential election.
Bill Clinton is one of the 'Super Delegates'. Guess which way he is going to vote?
Oh, the Super Delegates are consisted of Senators, Governors, Congressmen, past or present and of course ex-Presidents. The Republicans have no such thing as a "Super Delegate"
I like Brick's scenario where Billary finally exist our lves, even at a cost of WH, this time around. But never underestimate Der Schlickmeister when it comes to dirty tricks. So we may get McCain in the WH and the evil duo back in 4. Life is unfair....
Bill Clinton is one of the 'Super Delegates'. Guess which way he is going to vote?
I would give anything to be a fly on the wall in the room of "supers", when Sly Willy starts to make promises and deals to get their vote. Those overnights in Lincoln Bedroom in the 90s are going to look legitimate.
I would give anything to be a fly on the wall in the room of "supers", when Sly Willy starts to make promises and deals to get their vote. Those overnights in Lincoln Bedroom in the 90s are going to look legitimate.
I hadn't heard about the Super delegates before so thanks for that.
I was just looking at the bios of the three main candidates that are left (2 dem + 1 rep) and see that none of them has ever really run anything before.
I kinda got the impression that most of the Presidents in recent times have had prior experience as Governors and have therefore experienced being a mini-President. Is there any concern in the USA that the winning candidate will be too inexperienced in doing the job and managing budgets etc.? Or does the fact that none of them have run anything count as a bonus?
I haven't read all of this thread so if it has been covered before then just flame me out!
Me, I'm almost hoping for an Obama win in both nomination and general election. Then it's four and out like Carter (and about as effective....)
Must say I do agree with you on that 100%. But I think that it will be backroom cigar smoking politics on the Democratic side will have Hillary getting the nomination and then McClain winning. There is no doubt what so ever that if Hillary should happen to win it will definitely be a one term administration.
Reason being that Hillary does not want to govern the country she wants to rule the country.
Sadly the Hispanic population will do their best to keep Obama from being nominated. Just because of his race. Now will the fact that Obama is black keep the Hispanic voters from voting for him if he does in fact get the nomination? Only time will tell.
Oh Lord, just when I thought I'd caught up with events via the boxed set CJ stuffed up, she said something about the President being "relieved" about something going on in Haiti - if I had a vote should I vote Bartlett or not?.......
I'm on your same side of the political spectrum, but I'm willing to take a chance on an inexperienced guy with character. Our past 16 years don't instill me with confidence that an "experienced manager" is all that useful.
You could well be right: a Carter redux. Somehow, I don't think so. Carter was, and remains, a nasty partisan.
That's why we have these things, elections, isn't it? Bit of a rarity in the signifiicant world to have such a clear choice, don't you think?
The New Republic: Forever Young Of Course There's Such A Thing As False Hope More reasons to be skeptical of Barack Obama and his legions of the blissful.
I am not prejudiced. Far from it. What I am—or, I should say, who I am—is a man who loves his country so deeply that he is unwilling to stand idly by while our nation allows itself to be completely annihilated by another incoming comet.
Have we learned nothing from the tragic events of 1998, when, under the watch of President Morgan Freeman, this nation was plunged into chaos, and hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of the deadly Wolf-Beiderman space rock? The mere fact that this country is even considering putting another black man, Barack Obama, in the Oval Office proves that we have not.
We can't deny the facts, people. All we will get by electing an African-American is Texas-size space particles crashing into the Earth's surface, mega-tsunamis that barrel into the Appalachian Mountains, and 6.6 billion dead people.
I'm not suggesting that President Freeman was directly responsible for the creation of the Wolf-Beiderman comet or its Earth-bound path. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that under the watch of a black man that comet destroyed the entire Eastern seaboard. So, if history is any indicator, a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is essentially a vote for the complete and total obliteration of the human race.
Don't we owe it to our children, and our children's children, to use this upcoming election to guarantee the Earth's existence rather than dooming it for eternity?
To even risk putting Mr. Obama in a position where he would insist, as past black presidents have, that our nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to divert the incoming comet would be foolish, to say the least. Any decision like that would only break the fast-approaching space rock into two very powerful asteroids, both of which would end up heading straight for Earth, leaving all of us who aren't on the small list of people picked to live in the government-sponsored protective caves to burn, drown, or die while in the arms of our estranged fathers. The only difference is, this time around, the late astronaut Robert Duvall will not be alive to save millions of lives by conducting a suicide space mission to destroy the larger of the two asteroids before it enters the Earth's atmosphere.
In my book, any possible repeat of this extinction-level event is reason enough not to elect another African-American president. Consider that later that same summer, just two months after the first deep impact, this very country once again faced Armageddon in the form of another comet hurtling toward Earth. In this instance, under the watch of a white president who sort of looked like an older Dennis Quaid, that catastrophe was avoided entirely.
As if that is not enough, history shows us that, besides carrying the baggage of a guaranteed asteroid strike, black heads of state also give terrorists extra motivation to destroy the United States. During the presidency of 24's David Palmer, there were no fewer than four nuclear bombs smuggled into this country. That's four more than under any white president. Though we should have known better than to elect President Palmer in the first place (he was elected three years after President Freeman left office), the U.S. populace made him the commander in chief because it was swayed by then-Senator Palmer's commitment to change, his no-nonsense approach, and his ability to inspire. Sound familiar?†
Asteroids and nuclear bombs—that's what this nation can expect from an Obama White House.
Need I even mention that former President Chris Rock and his administration's slogan was "The only thing white is the house"? Though this attitude broke down the stuffiness typically associated with proper White House decorum, President Rock's laissez-faire approach not only made a mockery of the office at home, but made the United States look like a joke abroad.
I concede that the United States has had a competent African-American president in the huge black guy from the The Fifth Element, who did great things for this country by keeping the evil Mr. Zorg at bay. But that is years from now. There is no denying that by 2236, when we have flying taxicabs, this country will be ready for a black president. But until then, if we want life in this great land to continue as we know it, we owe it to ourselves to make the right choice and reelect Kevin Kline.
kinda got the impression that most of the Presidents in recent times have had prior experience as Governors and have therefore experienced being a mini-President. Is there any concern in the USA that the winning candidate will be too inexperienced in doing the job and managing budgets etc.? Or does the fact that none of them have run anything count as a bonus?
While that might make sense, look at the last 16 years and tell me governor's experience means anything. Slick Willy earned that handle in Arkansas, lived up to it in spades and didn't stop anyone from voting for him. GWB was a governor in a state with a weak governor (TX constitution makes it so) and spent money like a drunken sailor.
There just isn't any proper training ground for president, sadly. Eisenhower's wartime experience might have been best. Reagan's years as GE spokesman and California governor certainly prepared him, in the sense, the experience honed his principles and ability to communicate them. Acting, as communication, has a great deal to do with leadership, no matter what some people think of Reagan.
GF
I'm on your same side of the political spectrum, but I'm willing to take a chance on an inexperienced guy with character.
ob, I understand your point and actually hope you are right, however:
Admittedly, I know nothing about Obama. He could be a stand-up guy, but I'm cynical enough to be skeptical. The press hasn't done much to cover his past, so who knows? I also wonder why they haven't?
I also am too cynical to believe that anyone who goes on the national stage is pure and ethical. By the nature of the game, he's got to have made deals that will make my stomach turn.
And if he hasn't, then should he win the White House, I believe that the Congress and government will shackle him so badly that he will be as ineffective as Carter.
Whom I agree was a nasty, vindictive piece of work.
Linear Mode
