As a Brit experiencing his first US election process over here I have to say I'm amazed at the hype and total lack of substance surrounding the candidates... (I've never been much impressed by 99.99% of politicians of any country (that leaves Ghandi), generally of the opinion that anyone who actively seeks office should automatically be barred from holding it on either psychological grounds or the suspicion that they want to enrich themselves at our expense.)
I'm listening daily to both the candidates and their supporters and the one very obvious missing content is policy. The word 'Change' is bandied about constantly but no one is giving any details on what or how... People interviewed are telling us they'll vote for Obama because it's time for a black President... Others will vote for Clinton because it's time for a woman President.. Neither being black or being a woman is a qualification for the job though of course it shouldn't dismiss them, so I'm mistified at the 'thinking' behind those sentiments.
The whole circus is risable... Obama (The Obamarama campaign as I now think of it) has been repeatedly criticised for his speaches lacking substance and being only words... so a couple of days back he retaliates by making a speach on how important 'words' are.. only to be caught out when it was discovered that the speach had been given word for word by another politician 2 years ago..
To date I've not heard one statement saying specifically what will be done to prevent the dollar from becoming a third world currency... what will be done regarding the failing health of the population... how they might improve the failing education system...
It astounds me that with 300 million people of which maybe two thirds are of votable age they can once again come up with such a paucity of electable candidates... A lady with a shady past ... A guy whose apprentiship in the Senate has barely got underway and of whom we know nothing and an ageing republican who will probably infest the White House with dynamic inertia...
Presidents, unlike popular thinking are not alone in the oval office dictating policy... they have a trail of hangers-on made up mostly of those who helped them get elected, those are the influences that will create policy after the election.. With the Clintons it will be the same as before.. all talk of Democratic policies but Big Business ruled (especially the mighty Pharmaceuticals ) under their previous reign... McCain.. well, we can guess who will be sitting around the oval office with him in charge... As for Obama, that's the big unknown.. Who is going to be whispering in his ear ?
Heavens, Mungo, the whole rigamarole goes on for almost 2 years! Who wants to hear about policy now - there'll be plenty of time for that after the election.
As someone who has followed every American presidential election since Eisenhower (1952), and unlikely as it may sound, has got every one of them right, may I add my five cents worth.
If Obama gets the nomination then McCain will win. Never mind what the present polls say! If Clinton gets the nomination then she will win.
The Democratic Party has the uncanny knack of seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. Think of 2000 and 2004. They pick the wrong candidate, and may be in the process of doing it again.
The far right and conspiracy theorists will use every tactic against Obama, he will be labelled "The Manchurian Candidate" (read the book, see the movies), amongst other things.
McCain would be a good president, Clinton would however be able to do more under the present circumstances.
I could be wrong, but it would be the first time in 56 years.
The American political system, shortcomings and all, is still the best in this imperfect world. My opinion anyway!
Interesting thoughts, very old flyer, I suspect you may be wrong but there are many weeks till November and for betting purposes I'm not declaring anything.
But my take on it is different from yours. Clearly McCain is now a shoo-in for the Republican candidate, though a week is a long time in politics. It's my belief that Hilary is so polarising as to be unelectable, and I frame my market on that fact. I also think that even if I'm wrong, it will be an extremely narrow victory and the polarising effect will be accentuated. She will never be able to achieve any sort of consensus.
For obvious reasons Obama will fare extremely poorly in certain areas and so could be described as polarising as well. How polarising? I suppose we will see as time goes by. As he continues to score state primaries, he counteracts the "big" states which Hilary can claim as her own.
So where does the race finish? I confess I am in the process of changing my mind. (Err, I'm quick to disclaim any idea that my opinion means diddly squat here, just to spare the usual suspects telling me so).
It is a fascinating election campaign, not because of the issues involved: nobody is ever going to have the guts to actually confront them, or lay out what they are actually going to do except talk. Politics is the same most places elections are held.
No, it's fascinating because of its uncertainty. There are still several ways it could go, not just two. Will it make any difference to the shape of world dynamics? I now find myself saying probably not. For the last few years I honestly believed it would, and clearly many others did too, which is why we complained so bitterly about Dubya.
I will watch with fascination, as I always do with US Presidential elections. But I now console myself that having seen all the possible winners, nothing much will change.
Obamamania - Precious Moments Conversation with a Texas Obama supporter from last night:
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"
State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."
Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now."
Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."
Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"
State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."
Yes I agree it will be a close race, but still stick to my predictions. We will see in November.
It has not always been my preferred candidate who wins, for example I preferred Ford in 1976, but knew that Carter would win, similarly, marginally, with Bush/Gore in 2000.
My take in that it is Obama who is ultimately the unelectable candidate, not Clinton.
My vote in the primary will be for Ron Paul, a matter of principle, because it's obvious McCain will win the R anyway.
In the Nov. election, I'll hold my nose and vote McCain - UNLESS it's a runaway either R or D. In that case I'll write in Paul, hoping to get someone's attention.
Have to agree with vof, if Obama is the democrat's choice, MaCain will win the presidential election. At the end of the day, experience still counts.
However, methinks the democrats will pull this off through the super delegates where a deal will be brokered whereby Clinton gets the nod and nominates Obama as running mate.
This provides the necessary experience levels to combat MaCain as well as allows for Obama to be groomed to take over in 4 to 8 years time, thus ensuring a democratic era of upto 16 years!
However, methinks the democrats will pull this off through the super delegates where a deal will be brokered whereby Clinton gets the nod and nominates Obama as running mate.
I don't know, the way I look at it is if Hillary does become President, Bill Clinton will become the de-facto Vice President and I don't Obama will accept that as Obama is well aware of that fact.
(The official quiz that you, the reader, should take right now to determine if you need this book)
How many vice presidents went on to become president
How many sitting presidents died or were forced from office?
How many vice presidents shot men while in office?
Who was the better shot?
Who was the first vice president to assume power when a president died?
Why did he return official letters without reading them?
What vice president was almost torn limb form limb in Venezuela?
Which former VP was tried for treason for trying to start his own empire in the Southwest?
How many vice presidents were assassinated?
In the next presidential election, should you worry about the candidates for vice president?
(Bonus challenge: For extra points, name the men that the vice presidents shot!)
See answers below. No cheating!
The vice presidency isn't worth "a bucket of warm spit"
That's the prudish version of what John Nance Garner had to say about the office--several years after serving as VP under FDR. Was he right?
The vice presidency is one of America's most historically complicated, intriguing, and underappreciated public offices. And Jeremy Lott's sweeping, hilarious, and insightful history introduces readers to the unusual and sometimes shadowy cast of characters that have occupied it:
Aaron Burr, the only VP tried for treason
John Tyler, president without a party
Andrew Johnson, defiant drunkard
Thomas Marshall, who should have been president
Richard Nixon, underdog and daredevil
Gerald Ford, icon of the 1970s
Al Gore, the most frustrated man in America
And, of course, the real Dick Cheney
With crisp prose, Lott focuses on their bitter rivalries and rank ambitions, their glorious victories and tragic setbacks. At the end of hundreds of historical vignettes, interviews, and pilgrimages to obscure places, Lott concludes that the vice presidency is an invaluable political institution that tends to frustrate the ambitions of America's most ambitious politicans--an ungainly launch pad for future political success and a drunk tank for those who would imbibe too deeply of power.
Answers to Quiz!
Fourteen of the forty-three presidents were vice president
It's happened eight times so far
Aaron Burr and Dick Cheney
Aaron Burr
John Tyler
Because he insisted on being called "president," not "vice president" or "acting president"
Richard Nixon
Aaron Burr (him again!)
None, though an assassin was hired to kill Andrew Johnson
See answers one and two and then ask yourself, "Does America feel lucky?"
Answers to bonus challenge: Alexander Hamilton and Harry Whittington
If you were running a candidate’s local campaign office, what would you put on the wall? Old Glory? The Texas flag? Or maybe the banner of a hostile Communist police state?
Fox has the video http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=1.1.1
if Obama is the democrat's choice, MaCain will win the presidential election
My prediction, to be verified or reputed in November and torn apart in February is that if Obama is the nominee, he will be President. If its Hillary, then McCain will be President.
Linear Mode
