Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Is he for real? Is he the best candidate for us? Why or why not?

I think he's an amazing speaker, and as such he may have the power to move people to action.  We, as a country, have been wallowing in apathy for so long, that this may be exactly what we need.  My biggest concern about him is that he may not have the seniority or the clout to get things done.  Whatever the case, though, he's got to be better than "More of the Same" McCain.

I hope he is the candidate the world needs right now, but years of politics and disappointment have left me a rather cynical lass. I suppose the only way to really see is to vote for him and see if he "walks the walk". It's not like there's really an alternative - we all KNOW what McCain would be like...

~Simone.

I think he may be a positive and even able president, Nero. *Caveat-1* All politicians can be trusted to try and be elected and will say or portray whatever they think it will take to win their next office.* *Caveat-2* Once a politician is elected to the next office they will do whatever they think will be best for them to be re-elected to that office. If that means causing the deaths of a few thousand or hundred thousands or even miilions of people, it will be done.*

That said. I think he has an ability to actually talk and listen to people. I would imagine that could well hold him in good stead when it comes to face-to-face discussions with someone like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the final decision-maker in the Islamic Republic.

I think he has a natural flair for attempting to win people over to him and for being able to meet them as they move.

He does seem to have a charisma that has captured hearts here: although there will no doubt be a price to pay over the next few months as the suicide-squads of the fast-sinking right-wing do whatever they can to smear, cast-doubt and generally try everything to de-rail him. That cost might well temper things he might, as president, be able to push and propose and get legislated.

But, other ideas and means in this country seem to be drastically limited by either popularity or prejudice and even a truly nice person is going to have great difficulty in negotiating what's already here.

I cannot imagine that he would embrace whole-heartedly the "homo-secshyul agenda" (any of them.) Although I don't believe he will totally dismiss and out-of-hand crush our hopes as McBush would. McBush, should he be elected, is gonna owe more to the australopithecine-brained irreligious-right than he would ever be able to repay. Thus, Obama seems like the only choice for those of us who are not considered mainstream in any meaningful way.

Unlike Clinton, he will probably receive a majority of votes to be president and could actually crush the opposition candidate. That would definitely give him some breathing-room until the afore-mentioned small brains find something big and new to bash him with.

He seems smart in a way that perhaps no one since Jimmy Carter has been and also seems to have an interest, like Carter, in trying to do some straight and meaningful chatting with the citizenry. Like Carter as well, will the know-nothings and those who would rather perpetuate lies and idiocies in order to fill their meaningless wallets with assets undermine and eventually beat him? Who knows?

Americans have this bad tendency to dismiss those who would talk with others, look at things with some rationality, and pin-point flaws in what we as a country historically gravitate toward as 'policy' in favor of those who advocate using nukes, encouraging us to live in movie-pipedreams of empire and 'morning in America,' and generally appealing to the worst chauvinistic natures of our souls: see what was done to Jimmy Carter and how we colluded in that due to our collective inability to accept 'reality.'

A youngish man with the charisma of JFK and the compassion and good-sense of Jimmy Carter who has also lived on the 'outside' of the American hierarchy of skin-color and privilege, Obama could make some truly breathtaking changes. Or he could become the victim of our incessant longing as a people for the world to be the way we'd like it to be.

He's gonna get my vote. And tekla apparently feels he's good enough and able enough for tekla to vote for McBush to get him elected.

Your choice, luv.

Nichole   

I never did trust anyone who smiled all the time.  He just comes across as too slick, too polished.  It just feels like he has something up his sleeve other than his arm.


Sarah L.

His campaign is financed and advised by those involved with the banking institutions and big business.  He is no different than anyone else.  He just happens to have the charisma and intelligence to get away with more than out current president.

Obama is a conceited jerk and I really get a bad impression of him as a person. I wouldn't trust him as a president.

I think his airhead wife and he are on more or less about the same page politically, only he is smart enough to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Her: "this is the first time in my life I've been proud of this country." And the pair of them spent 20 years in Rev. Wright's pulpit listening to vitriolic black nationalist B.S. That should tell you something about their worldview.

What are his qualifications in terms of foreign policy? None. He's done nothing.

He makes lots of grandiose statements and claims he has a plan, but if you read any of his "strategy," it's all idealistic bull->-bleeped-<-.

He will "press Iraq's leaders to reconcile," and "the United Nations will play a central role"--ugh, any idiot can tell you that if Iraq's leaders haven't reconciled by now, they won't ever--they have no desire too. Bush has said he will do the same thing many times, and that should tell you something.
And please--the United Nations is a complete failure at getting anything done, and thoroughly corrupt--just think of how many third-world totalitarian craphole regimes have a vote in that organization.

And he will "secure Iraq's borders" by making concessions to the Syrians and Iranians. Those countries will take advantage of his naivete to our detriment.

"If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation"--I'll bet the Iranians are really shaking in their boots at that threat. He basically takes the military option off the table. He loves to sound high-minded but to our enemies he will come off as a weakling.

Just thought I'd put in my two cents if we're getting political in your thread.

I tend to go with intuition, and I have a good feeling about Mr Obama. I like the guy. But not living in the US and thus, not hearing a lot of what he says, that's as far as it goes.

He does seem very charismatic. But that can go either way. Talking to people and listening to what they have to say could make him a president that will accomplish a lot of very good things... but it could equally give him the tools to put a whole lot of spin on very bad things.

Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was a lot like Mr Obama is now before he won his first election. He could sell ice to eskimoes, and tell everyone what they wanted to hear. But you can give the impression of listening without actually hearing a thing.

All I will say is that I hope he will make a good president. :)

He is a political lightweight that will probably lose the election to McCain. I read an article that listed the positions of both candidates on a lot of different issues. McCain had solid answers (never mind that I disagreed with most of them) whereas Obama had solid answers for two and the rest were political double speak.

Oh and he will not do much for us. The good thing is that at least we will be left alone and be able to fight on our own for our rights. McCain will more than likely work against us. The only exception is where Obama is Bush Lite in regards to same gender marriage.

Is he for real?
I think that what you see is what you get.  He is motivated, young, a great speaker.  Beyond that, he is a Chicago (big city ward structure) political type of the very old school.  I don't think he will ignore the attacks the way that Gore did, or cave in like Kerry.  That's not the Chicago way, and its not the way big city types get elected.

I think he's an amazing speaker, and as such he may have the power to move people to action.
I think he is an OK speaker.  Its just that he looks so good after having a guy who really can't speak the language at all, that in comparison he is fantastic.  Trouble is, to a degree, as Plato taught us in Gorgias -  great words do not equal truth or plans.  But I don't think that people win national elections based on policy anyway. 

That said. I think he has an ability to actually talk and listen to people. I would imagine that could well hold him in good stead when it comes to face-to-face discussions with someone like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the final decision-maker in the Islamic Republic.
The willingness to talk is pretty key in itself.  In that sense I see some of the better parts of Churchill in him at least to the degree that, "To jaw jaw is always better than to war war." And the deeper understanding that "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."  We have had neither of that for a long while now.

He does seem to have a charisma that has captured hearts here: although there will no doubt be a price to pay over the next few months as the suicide-squads of the fast-sinking right-wing do whatever they can to smear, cast-doubt and generally try everything to de-rail him.
Its going to be almost fun to watch them, as they have been, do every kind of contortion to avoid saying the ONE THING, you know they want to say.  That there is very little to attack him on is pretty evident.  There is the 'experience deal' but GW didn't have any foreign policy experience, nor did Clinton, or RayGun, or Kennedy, or Johnson.  Nixon had a ton and we all know how that worked out.  Experience and all that I think is often over-rated as few, if any decisions are made by the President and the President alone anyway.

As for the swift-boat deal, we've already seen he will fight back, that's a good start.

He seems smart in a way that perhaps no one since Jimmy Carter has been and also seems to have an interest, like Carter, in trying to do some straight and meaningful chatting with the citizenry.
Of course we all know how well that worked out for Jimmy.  But Carter was a very smart, very plain spoken person, Obama is a top-of-his-class Harvard lawyer, so there will be little of that down home plain speaking stuff going on.  That might serve him well.

He just comes across as too slick, too polished.
Well, I don't know were polished is a bad thing, and you don't get to be the first African-American editor the Harvard Law Review without a bit of polish.  As for slick, they are all slick, some just hide it better.

His campaign is financed and advised by those involved with the banking institutions and big business.
In fact his campaign has been funded with far more grass roots money than the 'Pubs.  McCain's chief financial policy guy, Phil Graham, is a paid flack for one of the worlds largest banks, not even an American one, and his involvement with the Keating Five gave him lots of ties to the banking industry.  And, the large money people give to both sides, that's why then never lose.

I wouldn't trust him as a president.
In fact, and until recently, we had a system designed the way it was, with checks and balances, because we didn't trust anyone 100%. 

I think his airhead wife
After high school Michelle Robinson majored in sociology at Princeton University, graduating with cum laude honors in 1985. From there she attended Harvard where she earned her law degree in 1988.   Michelle's  resume includes: Former associate dean at the University of Chicago; a member of six boards of directors including the prestigious Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and Tree House Foods; and Vice President, Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

A unique bio for an airhead raised in a ghetto one bedroom apartment.

What are his qualifications in terms of foreign policy? None. He's done nothing.
And McCain's qualifications are that he lost three planes as a Navy flyer, and then got captured.  That not all that impressive really.  Nor was finishing at the bottom of his class as a legacy at Annapolis where he graduated 894 out of a class of 899.

He is a political lightweight that will probably lose the election to McCain.
Doubtful at this point.  As soon as they stand side by side the old, short and kind of ugly McCain loses.  TV is a very powerful deal.  And running on the Bush record is not a winning idea at all.  Obama might well change the political map by who he gets out to vote and where.  McCain is going to have to run in states that are place that the 'Pubs always carried up to now (thus spending a lot of money he does not have), all Obama has to do is get out the vote.  And political lightweights don't win in cities like Chicago or New York, you got to be a player, you got to bring game.  I'm sure Nichole can tell you that in Philly city politics is a full contact sport, not for the weak or the weak at heart.  I think he has already proven he has an idea about how to win, which is better than Kerry ever had.

Moreover I don't think that McCain can afford to move to the center the way Obama can.  For all the talk about the Dems being not united I think just the opposite.  In having the primary they did, they had to campaign in place where primaries almost never mattered.  It brought a lot of people into the election process and fired them up.  And, in beating Hillary no one can say that its some sort of affirmative action deal, he beat about the best political politician anyone has seen in this country for a long, long time.  Remember that old 'tough as nail' Rudy Giuliani would not even run against her for the Senate seat, that's how afraid of her he was.

On the other hand, the 'Pub base hates McCain.  The Christian Right does not like him, the old money does not like him.  They are going to be hard pressed to get those people out to the polls this time around.  They are already having trouble raising money - and a Republican who has trouble raising money is in bad, bad shape.

One more thing.  Where Obama is slick, polished and all that, McCain has never learned when to keep his mouth shut, and somewhere - if not in several places - he is going to say the wrong thing.  Big Time.  The "We'll be in Iraq for 100 years" is just a hint of what's to come.  He is flip-flopping all over the place these days too.

Then... we are going to put them on a stage together, on TV and that's going to be the end of the line.  Ask Nixon how much that makes a difference.


Oops, sorry, seems like McCain crashed five planes.  Or maybe three.  Like the POW stuff, the record is murky to say the least.

Quote from: charlotteNH on June 25, 2008, 08:28:57 AM
His campaign is financed and advised by those involved with the banking institutions and big business.  He is no different than anyone else.  He just happens to have the charisma and intelligence to get away with more than out current president.

IMO its not possible today to become president without having big business in your pocket, it costs a lot of money to win an election.  You have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Posted on: June 26, 2008, 09:03:04 PM

---

Quote from: Annwyn on June 25, 2008, 09:00:54 AM
Obama is a conceited jerk and I really get a bad impression of him as a person. I wouldn't trust him as a president.

I think his airhead wife and he are on more or less about the same page politically, only he is smart enough to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Her: "this is the first time in my life I've been proud of this country." And the pair of them spent 20 years in Rev. Wright's pulpit listening to vitriolic black nationalist B.S. That should tell you something about their worldview.

What are his qualifications in terms of foreign policy? None. He's done nothing.

He makes lots of grandiose statements and claims he has a plan, but if you read any of his "strategy," it's all idealistic bull->-bleeped-<-.

He will "press Iraq's leaders to reconcile," and "the United Nations will play a central role"--ugh, any idiot can tell you that if Iraq's leaders haven't reconciled by now, they won't ever--they have no desire too. Bush has said he will do the same thing many times, and that should tell you something.
And please--the United Nations is a complete failure at getting anything done, and thoroughly corrupt--just think of how many third-world totalitarian craphole regimes have a vote in that organization.

And he will "secure Iraq's borders" by making concessions to the Syrians and Iranians. Those countries will take advantage of his naivete to our detriment.

"If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation"--I'll bet the Iranians are really shaking in their boots at that threat. He basically takes the military option off the table. He loves to sound high-minded but to our enemies he will come off as a weakling.

Just thought I'd put in my two cents if we're getting political in your thread.

Bush was no better when he first become President and I don't see McCain being any better than Bush is now.

Posted on: June 26, 2008, 09:04:02 PM

---

Quote from: Mnemosyne on June 25, 2008, 09:37:15 AM
He is a political lightweight that will probably lose the election to McCain. I read an article that listed the positions of both candidates on a lot of different issues. McCain had solid answers (never mind that I disagreed with most of them) whereas Obama had solid answers for two and the rest were political double speak.

Oh and he will not do much for us. The good thing is that at least we will be left alone and be able to fight on our own for our rights. McCain will more than likely work against us. The only exception is where Obama is Bush Lite in regards to same gender marriage.

From what he said in several interviews I have read and listened to, he does not support a "Federal" bill supporting or denying same sex marriage.  He feels and rightly so that each state should be able to decide for themselves and that this is not a federal government matter.

Quote from: Gabrielle on June 26, 2008, 09:06:03 PM


Bush was no better when he first become President and I don't see McCain being any better than Bush is now.

Excuse me?  Atleast Bush had the common sense to choose to hate a minority, not suscribe to a borderline terrorist white-hating black supremist take on the world.
Bush actually had clear and outlined campaign objectives, not a bunch of idealistic bull->-bleeped-<- speech.  All I've ever heard Obama say is, "CHANGE CHANGE WE'RE GONNA CHANGE."
Also the mainstream media is supporting Obama.   This is the same media that's lied and damaged our country for the past two decades unchecked.  That's good enough for me to NOT support Obama.

Lesser of two evils?  Vote for Mccain.

Bush actually had clear and outlined campaign objectives

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Grover Norquist (Check out his bio here:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

So, as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for us?"

*Debt at record high levels
*Two wars, both of which we don't seem to have 'won' despite the fact they've gone on longer than WWII where we defeated Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in less time.
*Gas, when Bush took office about a buck fifty, down the street from me today, $4.65
*Home ownership down
*Defaults at historical record levels, not even the Great Depression were so many people (as a percentage) losing their homes
*Personal debt at historical record highs, perhaps its the $100 tank of gas
*North Korea added to the list of nuclear weapons holders
*Constitution pretty much shreaded
* the worst terrorist attack in the history of the nation ON THEIR WATCH, the guy who planned it, still at large in a country we call 'our friend."

.... and the beat goes on.

McCain promises more of the same, sort of, of late he has been taking flip-flop lessons from Kerry and the list of things he was for, before he was against them, or against, before he was for them is growing like a snowball down a mountainside.

Is Obama all that much better?  I doubt it.  In my diminished expectations all I can hope for is that he is not worse.  I think McCain is.

What I do know about McCain is that:
* his temper is legendary, and he is not always prone to think in a rational manner
* his record of corruption could have got him a job with Warren G. Harding
* his record of personal conduct is not exactly the stuff dreams are made of
* graduated #894 out of 899 persons.  Not exactly smarts.


On the plus side,
His base hates him and he is having trouble raising money.


Old GW might have actually been telling the truth when he said:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we.

Remarks at the signing of H.R. 4613, the defense appropriations act for fiscal year 2005 on 2004 Aug 5

QuoteThey never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we.

Well, Bush does tell the truth, inadvertently though it may have been. One cannot fault him for his honesty, at least his honesty in that respect.
 

Ok so WHY do people feel the ned to vote for the lesser of the two evils?  I really don't understand that at all.  By voting for either your supporting the system and the way it is now.  Your saying to me "Well I guess we will just allow it."   I hear it all the time:

Friend:  Who are you voting for?
Me:  I am not going to vote for anyone as I feel as though they are all bad for this country.
Friend:  Well I mean you have to vote for somebody.

Does anyone else see how shortsighted and brainwashed that sounds?  Your vote doesn't even COUNT because of the existence of the electoral college so your symbolically throwing your support between 1 of 2 evil people?  Am I crazy here?  It's been a LONG time since this country was Democracy.

Obama turned away $80 million in grassroots donations and then in the same week loosened his position on NAFTA.  He now wants to "make it work for everybody" instead of opposing it.  You cannot make a trade agreement work for everyone. 

People REALLY need to stop voting on catchphrases and "feelings" and research the candidates.  Frankly though our system is so ruined that I doubt it will matter.  It's like trying to patch a ship while its sinking.  It doesn't work.

Also while I am not a isolationist, I don't think that people fully understand the implications politically of the effects of globalization.  I am not willing to give up my liberties and sovereignty to became a nation state.  Maybe people should look up Codex Alimentarius if you think that globalization and one worldness is a great idea.  It's a the UN food code that has been revised and overrides anything passed on the national level.  It becomes active as of December 31 2009.   

Quote from: Gabrielle on June 26, 2008, 09:06:03 PMIMO its not possible today to become president without having big business in your pocket, it costs a lot of money to win an election.  You have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

That attitude not the cost of campaigning is why we're so screwed. That is a false choice the Republicans and Democrats offer us to protect the status quo. If the American people would take democracy seriously and vote and contribute a little bit of time and money to what they want instead of what will win big business would not be able to dictate our choices for president or any other elected office. We are so focused on electability and lesser of two evils mentality we quit caring about whether what's "electable" is what we want to elect. We the American people are to blame not big businesses or lobbyists or any other blame shifting excuse. WE don't care enough about our democracy. WE don't vote for what we want. You get what you pay for and if all we are willing to pay is a trip to the polls once every 4 years to help our team win we shouldn't be surprised we get a poor government in the pockets of businesses who are willing to pay for it.

The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL.

i'm not picking an argument with you Nikki, but i really don't think that my vote matters.

i've never seen a single election or even one local issue decided by my vote.

most presidential elections are decided before they even reach the west coast.

but i do think if you are gonna vote, you have to choose the lesser of two evils because, well, if you don't, things can just get ugly. to think that the next president might be another right-wing republican nut is just too scary to imagine.

Quote from: ell on June 28, 2008, 09:23:11 PM
i'm not picking an argument with you Nikki, but i really don't think that my vote matters.

i've never seen a single election or even one local issue decided by my vote.

most presidential elections are decided before they even reach the west coast.

but i do think if you are gonna vote, you have to choose the lesser of two evils because, well, if you don't, things can just get ugly. to think that the next president might be another right-wing republican nut is just too scary to imagine.

Party affiliation and the illusion of choice matters not.  The Electoral College decided who the president is not OUR vote.  The fact of the matter is that their are 2 real groups at work here.  The wealthy elite who run our government and everyone else.  While the Dems and Repubs may seem different tell me when was the last time they paid attention to the will of the American Citizens?  Therefore your vote is symbolic at best and meaningless at worst.  Why then take time out of your day to support the lesser of 2 evils as if it is necessary?  Obama and McCain are one in the same...garbage.

Quote from: charlotteNH on June 28, 2008, 09:46:23 PM

Quote from: ell on June 28, 2008, 09:23:11 PM
i'm not picking an argument with you Nikki, but i really don't think that my vote matters.

i've never seen a single election or even one local issue decided by my vote.

most presidential elections are decided before they even reach the west coast.

but i do think if you are gonna vote, you have to choose the lesser of two evils because, well, if you don't, things can just get ugly. to think that the next president might be another right-wing republican nut is just too scary to imagine.

Party affiliation and the illusion of choice matters not.  The Electoral College decided who the president is not OUR vote.  The fact of the matter is that their are 2 real groups at work here.  The wealthy elite who run our government and everyone else.  While the Dems and Repubs may seem different tell me when was the last time they paid attention to the will of the American Citizens?  Therefore your vote is symbolic at best and meaningless at worst.  Why then take time out of your day to support the lesser of 2 evils as if it is necessary?  Obama and McCain are one in the same...garbage.

uh, i wasn't trying start an argument with you either, you.

i think democratic presidents have a far better record on the environment and with the economy.

however, i do not research these things, i try to avoid mainstream media, and generally do not care about politics, as a matter of personal beliefs.

the civil rights movement showed that if people of all races come together, changes can be made in certain areas of public policy. of course, those changes came at the cost of black and white people putting their lives on the line, against the man, and occurred during a democratic presidency.

all hail democrats for president!

(sorry).

-Ell

Umm, Ellie, they actually started, Little Rock schools and Montgomery buses, during the administration of a republican president, Eisenhower. Of course he might have been just a tad different than most republican presidents since. Too damned bad he didn't dump Nixon in 1952 when he could have done. O, well. Game of checkers? ;)

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on June 28, 2008, 11:30:22 PM
Umm, Ellie, they actually started, Little Rock schools and Montgomery buses, during the administration of a republican president, Eisenhower. Of course he might have been just a tad different than most republican presidents since. Too damned bad he didn't dump Nixon in 1952 when he could have done. O, well. Game of checkers? ;)

Nichole

oh. well, then, nevermind!  (i still hold doggedly to the belief that democratic presidents are notably better on matters such as the environment, human rights, jobs, economy, world affairs, etc, etc. and seem to be much less hate-mongering than their bible-toting right-wing nut counterparts).

but, i'm not really s'posed to discuss politics. it's not in my contract.   ;D   *deranged squirrel grin*

-Ell