I've got to go watch some more episodes of 24 (I'm trying to get my friend to watch all of them before the new season starts... we're on season 5 now), but I'll touch quickly on some points.

McCain's military experience is something admirable about his character... I wouldn't see it as proving him fit to lead... it just shows what kind of person he is. Some people (myself included) respect someone with military experience more than the same person without.

One thing is for sure, the media is going spastic over the rumors of Obama's running mate. At least we can scratch Wes off the list (after the rude note Team Obama sent to Wes's staff about the DNC).

In my humble opinion, Obama is most likely going to win the general election in November. McCain promises continuing the endless fighting in Iraq, offshore drilling(which he had strongly opposed until recently), and basically 4 more years of Bush. On the other hand, Obama is offering what seems to be a new kind of politics.

Personally, I would like to see Obama win the presidency. His administration would remove troops from Iraq and instead place them in Pakistan so that we can legitimately search for Bin Laden, be more environmentally sound, and would provide US citizens with a realistic Universal Health Care plan. I think change is long overdue, and Obama is the best candidate for it. His natural charisma is also a major plus, something that McCain clearly lacks.

For everyone who cites Obama's lack of experience, I would just like to point out that Abraham Lincoln, always rated within the top 5 American Presidents by official polls, had almost no experience before his presidency. In fact, aside from being a successful lawyer, he had a short career in the House of Representatives that was widely criticized. However, because he was a great orater, he won the presidency in 1860. Lincoln's presidency went down in fame despite his lack of experience, and I expect that it is possible for Obama to achieve similar results. In fact, his lack of experience could be considered a good thing, since he isn't going to be using the same old politics that put America in the position it's in right now.

Basically, we're going to need new ideas and a new kind of leader if we want to fight terrorism, improve the value of our dollar, and solve the energy crisis. While I respect McCain and especially his service to our country as both a soldier and senator, my support goes to Obama.

I don't see America electing Barack. I know I'm probably going to be proven wrong but I just don't think the country is ready to elect a non-white leader (yes I said it). I remember seeing a poll that said that 89% of voters didn't have a problem voting for an African-American president but knew someone who would. Most likely they were just trying to save face and didn't want to say they'd have a problem voting for someone who is black.

Besides, what's the point of voting for some 3rd party Joker? That's basically like not voting.

This post was last modified: 08-21-2008 01:20 AM by Rooster.

Another polling site that is showing a slide towards McCain

Bush administration has been drafting plans to remove US forces from Iraq cities this year, along with complete withdrawal within 1-3 years after that.

Obama did the same thing. He also called for the end of the space program, until he realized that those rockets take off from Florida.

See, this is the part that makes no sense. I've explain it already, so go back and re-read.

He was, until he flipped on almost every issue, and broken virtually every pledge so far (including campaign contributions from lobbyists and such, as of last week to meet the budget for the DNC). In fact, even though his acceptance speech is sold out, if you find a secret page on his website, you can purchase tickets for $1000. There was a report on that a few days ago.

Yeah, people assume he'll keep us out of wars... he's already pledged to get into Pakistan and support Israel (which will certainly drag us into something).

Considering I'm currently uninsured, this would certainly help me... but it's such a bad idea. Just one more [big] step towards a socialistic nanny society. So much for our top rate health care... UHC kills innovation by removing the incentive to do better.

Yes, a leader with charisma and empty promises. That's what we need! He can say "change" all he wants, but he's looking more and more like generic democrat version 2.008.

So we find a flaw, and try to convince people that it's a feature? You should get a job in marketing. Or stop listening to the Obama camp spew that garbage. Either way.

FYI, Lincoln is remembered well NOW, but was hated THEN. Guess what other president was hated during his term? Lincoln stamped all over state's rights and then went to WAR with a sovereign nation that was created when state's exercised their legal right to cede from the "union" of the United States. Imagine if we tried to remove ourselves from the UN, and the rest of the UN invaded us and occupied us until we could be assimilated into the UN. Would you consider their leader "great"?

Don't put too much faith in the Democratic backbone.

It's been improving for months... and a higher valued dollar isn't always a good thing, just so you know.

Oh? Are people abandoning their cars on the sides of the road? Turning off their A/C and heat? With the dollar getting stronger, energy prices (investors hedge against a weak dollar) are dropping. Everyone is investing in alternative fuels already (corn prices have skyrocketed because of it), we've got wind fields that people are already complaining about, etc. I guess it would only be right for a democrat to sweep in now and take credit for the gains that are already in progress.

Correct, and the "saving face" you describe is called the Bradley effect. Where people pledge to vote for an African American when polled, yet the do not do so when they enter the polls. (Somehow, people like my grandfather, despite his pro-Obama talk, I feel are going to do this).

I can see him winning. If he gets the jolt back into his campaign, I can see him winning, for if nothing else, the fact that he's a democrat. Republican approval is at an all time low.

If Hillary won the nomination, I think she'd be a sho-in at this point, having it much easier than Barack.

That it is. God, how I hope it's not Joe Biden. Wesley Clark I presume you're talking about? I'm glad it's not him. We need a splash. Perhaps either Clinton or Gore...

This.

Lincoln's first "win" of any election was his presidential bid. Constantly rated in the top 5, say no more. Obama, just as Lincoln, was a lawyer as well.

By that reasoning, so is voting for a democrat in Mississippi. Just because they won't get elected doesn't mean that the segment won't make a point and show that there are people out there that feel that strongly about it to vote for a third party.

FYI Perot had a real shot to win, until he dropped and then rejoined the race.

i realy dont think either should get office but if i had to pick its obama

This...

And This...

Two good points.

Obama wants to go to Pakistan? The fighting just won't stop... No vote from Ricky this election.

because a dem congress wont let him *uck $hit up anymore

mccain should have won the nom in 2000 he may have made a decent prez and our country wouldnt be screwed up like is

his time has passed however so...lets go Obama...it's time for a Dem, any Dem...experience is overated

and the fox news talking points are sooo off-putting and total BS

next you'll be saying obama is a muslim that wont salute the troops or some other such email forwarded crap...

This post was last modified: 08-21-2008 01:36 PM by drew102e.

Get proof before you make decisions, please.

True. I hate the uninformed people who think he's muslim.

Faux news is a joke and a half.

More good, brutally honest points from drew. Hopefully if Obama is elected, the undoubtedly house and senate democratic majorities will help him further.

So far I've seen the Bush administration promise a time "horizon" for the removal of troops. A horizon will basically let the administration act without having too many time constraints. This is done as an alternative to the Democrats' push for a timetable. Honestly, I think we'd be better off with a timetable. While a horizon seemingly allows for flexibility, I believe it is counterintuitive. Without a timetable, the administration will be less inclined to remove combat troops as quickly as possible and will instead wait until the last possible moment. McCain said he will stay in Iraq "as long as it takes." This could take another year, it could take 8, and I think that 6 years after the war started, it's time to turn the country back over to the Iraqis so that our armed forces can be used where they are truly needed.

I don't recall reading anything about Obama wanting to end the space program. I've read stuff about him wanting to delay various projects planned by NASA, but nothing as drastic as completely ruling out further space exploration. As for the offshore drilling, while I'm upset that Obama would even consider it, he's clearly aware that it has no real short term benefits. There are still 15 billion barrels of oil under US soil, but he realizes that we won't be able to drill our way out of depending on OPEC, and that more fuel efficiency and alternative energies will be necessary. McCain on the other hand, has criticized Obama for encouraging practices that experts agree save gas. I don't trust McCain to bring us closer to becoming energy independent, and while Obama might not be able to, I say he has a much better shot.

I think the fact that he declined contributions from lobbyists while legislating in Congress is a far more notable thing than him accepting contributions to fund his massive campaign. In my opinion, he has proven that he won't give in to the whims of corporate juggernauts. He has come extremely far without accepting massive contributions from lobbyists, and I believe him to be of honest character. Of course, this is a matter of opinion and there is no real way to prove that my take on it is the right one. As for the issues, he has flip flopped just as much as any other presidential hopeful. The main thing is that he doesn't completely betray the promises he made once in office.

Agreed. Assuming any President will keep us out of wars is unrealistic. Even as a Democrat, I realize that the US is a superpower, and the use of our Armed Forces is unfortunate, but necessary. That being said, I do believe going into Pakistan is the best course of action if we intend on fighting terrorism.

For the longest time I was on the fence about UHC. After seeing it fail so spectacularly in Britain and Canada, I was skeptical of its benefits. However, there are too many uninsured Americans, and with insurance costs not going down any time in the future, I think that we need to accept UHC so that everyone gets the treatment they deserve.

I think it's a stretch to call the CSA a sovereign nation. The Southern states cession from the Union was illegal, nothing in the Constitution says a state may leave the Union at a whim. No nation every recognized the Confederate States of America, so calling it a sovereign nation that was separate from the USA would be incorrect. They were simply rebels would refused to let go of their slaves, and this exploded into a war about state's rights, the true meaning of a free society, and whether or not democracy was destined to survive. The Civil War was a conflict just waiting to happen, something everyone saw coming. Lincoln's election was just the straw that broke the camel's back. He was popular in the North, and his great leadership and ability to inspire managed to preserve the Union. Discrediting that would be discrediting all the men that died to preserve this nation all those years ago, and ignoring an important part of our history.

Also, your comparison to the UN isn't accurate. The UN is a diplomatic organization while the United States is a government. Plenty of nations have boycotted the UN at one time or another(The USSR in particular), and there has never been a forceful occupation because of this. The UN's function is not to act as a government, it's to act as a tool for diplomatic relations. There's a key difference, I just wanted to point that out.

I'm aware of the benefits of a lower valued dollar, but the fact is, the dollar shouldn't be lagging behind the Canadian dollar and Euro by this degree. It may be improving now, but we still have a housing problem, and this temporary increase will lead us back into a recession. If we continue with the same economics, this rapid cycle of boom and bust will continue and the US will lose influence on the world market.

To be satisfied with our current progress isn't enough in my opinion. I understand that we are better off now than we were even a few years ago, but to say that there isn't room for improvement is just as bad as ignoring the problem completely.
[/quote]

While on the topic of UHC, I must say I wholeheartedly agree with the concept. Case in point. My friend from Australia had a rare disease known as cap. He died recently at age 18. Despite the fact that he died at a very young age, without the UHC plan in Australia, his family would never have been able to afford the bills to keep him living for as long as he did. I'm all for UHC for this very reason. I ask you all to say a silent prayer for him if possible.

Rest In Peace Ashley Dustin Miller: September 5, 1989-May 12, 2008.

Woah, woah, stop right here. I don't know how I missed this.

Whether or not you agree with the fundamentals UHC is a seperate issue.

But calling US healthcare "top-rate", is just not true. The World Health Organization studied the healthcare of all nations that could be considered "nationalized", on several aspects. These included life expectancy, quality of care, quality of facilities, shortest time to see a doctor, and patient satisfaction.

The "top-quality" United States of America ranked 37th on this list. Nearly all the 360 nations above, including France, the #1 ranked, have universal healthcare.

If done right, it's not "free" healthcare. Obama doesn't support free universal healthcare. Obama's plan opens up the congressional plan to everyone. The government plan cannot turn you down for any procedure a doctor wants (so long as it's neccesary to your health), and they cannot turn it down even though it's "experimental", and leave you to die, like HMOs can. You still have to pay for healthcare, and all immigrants in the country are not entitled to free healthcare on your tab, either.

Cuba is ranked only one spot below the US, Cuba, really?

There's nothing top quality about waiting hours in a waiting room during a heart attack, and skyrocketing prescription prices, when the same generic drugs are regulated for only $5 a bottle in another country.

It won't hurt "competition". Most of the innovation comes from out of the United States in the Rx world anyway, such as nations like Sweeden.

To say our healthcare is top notch is wrong. Canada's "failed" system, in reality, does not have long lines like Faux News portrays. They're ranked, IIRC, 17th.