Barack Obama!

Re: Barack 2008!

2020hindsight said:

Wayne
that's your opinion - ok?
just one man's opinion

Click to expand...

It's not just one man's opinion, believe you me. We get the same rubbish here and it is vociferously whinged about by all and sundry. We want to hear about the Northern cRock shenanigans, Gordon McBean's embarrassments, the true level of inflation, etc... real BRITISH news. Then maybe a brief update of around the world if there is something significant. But not some crap about Ohio primaries (whatever the hell they are) and the 4 out of 5 yankee tosspots who will never be president for half of the whole news broadcast.

It's nine out of ten people's opinion buddy!

Re: Barack 2008!

Obama Is destined to be the next president. I have no problem with it. I think he'll be good for nternational relations...something we haven't had since Clinton.

Re: Barack 2008!

That's kind of my point, but not quite. Who's doing the shoving though? Certainly you cant' blame the yanks for the local presses here covering it so much. You say you don't like it being shoved down your throat yet you (not picking on you specifically) add your two cents to this thread.

I don't care that there is a thread on american politics. The earlier post was not a complaint about american politics or this thread. Certainly one needs to talk about more than just the stock market.

It just amazes me though that people can be so anti american yet they still cannot help themselves to talk so much about america.

wayneL said:

gordon2007,

I agree. I resent having US politics shoved down my throat ad nauseum. If there are agendas out there, is there an agenda in that? I'd much prefer to hear how the Tories have Gordon McBean on a skewer.

Click to expand...

Re: Barack 2008!

gordon2007 said:

That's kind of my point, but not quite. Who's doing the shoving though? Certainly you cant' blame the yanks for the local presses here covering it so much. You say you don't like it being shoved down your throat yet you (not picking on you specifically) add your two cents to this thread.

I don't care that there is a thread on american politics. The earlier post was not a complaint about american politics or this thread. Certainly one needs to talk about more than just the stock market.

It just amazes me though that people can be so anti american yet they still cannot help themselves to talk so much about america.

Click to expand...

Soooooo... the anti-Islamists never talk about Islam?

Re: Barack 2008!

Would the Twin Towers or the Bali bombings have occurred if not for an American president that 'no-one elected' who is so arrogant and self-righteous?

Would a new president who has an attitude of respect for all religions and all races and an ability to listen to others, be able to heal the rifts and the hatred the world has for his country?

Jobs in Ohio have been decimated due to sending jobs offshore... mainly to India... just as Australian jobs have been given away.

"As Ohio's pivotal March 4 primary approaches, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have each called for significant infrastructure investment, development of alternative energy and other "green-collar" jobs, while promising to toughen environmental and labor standards that accompany free trade deals.

"Those ideas are welcome here in heavily unionized and heavily Democratic northwest Ohio, but at the same time, no one seems to believe they go far enough to reverse the powerful tide of globalization that many blame for the constant manufacturing job losses.

"They identify with the situation, but they don't do anything about it," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, (D-Ohio), whose district includes Toledo. "They are descriptive, not prescriptive. We want more detail and we want it now."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302164.html?hpid=topnews

Re: Barack 2008!

Obama's Ohio Mailings Infuriate Clinton
By BETH FOUHY
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 24, 2008; 5:46 AM (3pm Sunday our time)

CINCINNATI -- Hillary Rodham Clinton angrily accused her Democratic rival Saturday of deliberately misrepresenting her positions on NAFTA and health care in mass mailings to voters, adding, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Clutching two of Obama campaign mailings in her hand for emphasis, the former first lady said, "enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook."

(THE ABOVE IS THE ONLY PART SHOWN ON CHANNEL 7 NEWS TONIGHT. DRAMA & ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY!
I had to wait until I got home from the Gold Coast to find information)


Obama defended the mailings as accurate and rejected Clinton's complaint as a political ploy. He said that despite her current criticism of NAFTA, she supported the trade agreement when it passed during her husband's administration.

"You can't be for something and take credit for an administration ... and then when you run for president say that you didn't really mean what you said way back then. It doesn't work like that," he said to cheers at a rally in Akron.

Clinton's frustration was evident as she criticized Obama in unusually strong terms _ a few days after ending a nationally televised debate by saying she was "honored to be here with" him in a historic race between a black man and a woman.

She said by his actions, Obama was giving "aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America."

"Meet me in Ohio," she said. "Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." The two are scheduled to debate Tuesday in Cleveland.

In her criticism of Obama, she asked, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"

Obama had a ready reply to that. "Well, when she started to say I was against universal health care ... which she does every single day," he said.

Since late last year, Clinton has consistently attacked Obama's health care plan, saying it would leave 15 million Americans uninsured.

One mailing says her plan for universal coverage would "force" everyone to purchase insurance even if they can't afford it. Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.

Obama's plan does not include the so-called "individual mandate" for adults, and he has argued that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. He has said his first priority is bringing down costs.

The Illinois senator's plan does include a mandate requiring parents to buy health insurance to cover children.

The second mailing, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, quotes a 2006 Newsday article suggesting Clinton believed the agreement had been a "boon" to the economy. NAFTA and other trade agreements are extremely unpopular in Ohio, which has suffered an exodus of blue-collar jobs to other countries in part due to such agreements.

It's a particularly sensitive matter for Clinton, whose husband championed and pushed for passage of the agreement as president. She is counting on the support of white, working class voters in the state.

"I am fighting to change NAFTA," she insisted. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

As evidence of their concern about the issue, the Clinton campaign released two new ads in Ohio, including one featuring John Glenn _ a former astronaut and U.S. senator from Ohio for 24 years _ saying Clinton would fix trade agreements like NAFTA.

Clinton said she felt good about her prospects in Ohio and Texas but refused to say whether she needed to win both states to stay in the race. "Let's let the people of Ohio vote. Let's actually have an election and then we can look at the results," she said.

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris
Barack certainly seems the "cooler under stress" (recent accusations about health policies - and responses thereto etc)

Re: Barack 2008!

Once again,

Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.

Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.

Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?

A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything

Re: Barack 2008!

prawn_86 said:

Once again,

Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.

Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.

Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?

A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything

Click to expand...

Ah Prawn, such unwarranted cynicism! What is wrong with you?
This is pretty much like the Second Coming. Where's your sense of messianic zeal?

Re: Barack 2008!

Julia said:

Ah Prawn, such unwarranted cynicism! What is wrong with you?
This is pretty much like the Second Coming. Where's your sense of messianic zeal?

Click to expand...

Well I guess every messiah cops a bit of a shellacking.

I wonder if Obama has done his 40 days and 40 nights in the desert yet.

Re: Barack 2008!

prawn_86 said:

Once again,

Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.

Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.

Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?

A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything

Click to expand...

prawn,
(just taking up that last point)
President of USA is an important dude though surely.
He has power to veto etc - that's pretty significant surely (albeit subject to 2/3 majority of congress disagreeing) - not that I fully understand their system - and going on this article they don't seem to understand it too well either.

He seems to be able to declare war with minimal support from Congress (unless I misread something there. )

Yet by the late twentieth century, U.S. presidents had successfully asserted that this title empowered them to order American forces into battle even if Congress had not used its undoubted constitutional right to decide whether or not to declare war

Click to expand...

They don't have separated powers (judicial, political etc that we have it would seem)

http://www.answers.com/topic/president-of-the-united-states-2

US History Encyclopedia: U.S President
The president of the United States is by far the best known politician both within the United States and around the world. Americans who struggle to recall the name of their representative, senator, or governor almost certainly know the name of the president. Citizens of other countries from Iraq to China, Australia to Russia, are generally familiar with the president's name and photograph and have an opinion on his performance in office. The fame that U.S. presidents enjoy today is appropriate, for the person who holds that office is at the center of both American politics and world affairs. Yet the president is not all-powerful at home or abroad. U.S. presidents are of ten frustrated overseas (for example, in their attempts to bring peace to the Middle East or Northern Ireland), and domestically it is well to remember that, as the political scientist Charles O. Jones has emphasized, the United States does not have a presidential system of government in the sense that presidents are free to make and implement policy.

Powers of the Office

The Constitution, as is well known, created a system of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical government. The political scientist Richard Neustadt correctly noted that the Constitution did not create a system of separated powers favored by theorists such as Montesquieu, in which legislative, judicial, and executive powers were kept separate from one another. Rather, the Constitution gave pieces of all these powers to all branches of government. The power to oversee the departments and agencies of the federal government is given to Congress and the courts as well as to the president; Congress as well as the president is involved in foreign policy through Congress's powers to block the appointment of ambassadors and decide whether to accept or reject treaties, and through its general power of the purse through which it decides how much, if at all, to fund policies proposed by the president and his officers.

The Constitution is also particularly brief and ambiguous in describing the powers of the president. The president is given the rights to nominate ambassadors and other officers of the United States and to require their opinions in writing, to veto legislation (subject to override by a two-thirds majority), to report on the state of the union, to negotiate treaties, and to be commander in chief. The Constitution therefore provides a mixture of both precise and ambiguous powers to the president. There was no doubt from the earliest years of the republic that the power to veto legislation provided presidents with an enormously valuable bargaining chip in the legislative process.

Click to expand...

In the case of other Constitutional grants of power, it has taken many years of practice and interpretation to define what they mean. At the time the Constitution was written, the role of the British king as commander in chief had become merely ceremonial and honorific. Yet by the late twentieth century, U.S. presidents had successfully asserted that this title empowered them to order American forces into battle even if Congress had not used its undoubted constitutional right to decide whether or not to declare war. In the Cold War nuclear era, the implications were sobering.

On a less dramatic level, the question of which officers and officials of the United States the president can not only appoint but dismiss is similarly ambiguous in the Constitution. The matter was not fully settled by the Supreme Court until the twentieth century; for example, the president can fire the Attorney General or the Secretary of State, but cannot fire members of independent regulatory commissions or independent counsels. In important respects, therefore, the powers of the president have accumulated over the centuries rather than invariably originating unambiguously from the Constitution.

The Constitution gave the president one enormous advantage compared with the other two branches of government, namely the singularity of the office. Power in Congress is widely fragmented between two chambers and among numerous committees, subcommittees, and part leaders. Individual legislators are hesitant to grant much of their own power to anyone. The president in contrast enjoys a solitary splendor. As Alexander Hamilton recognized in the Federalist Papers, the president is much better placed to act with speed and dispatch in making decisions than the fragmented Congress. The president's bargaining position with Congress is also enhanced by its divisions and his singularity.

Presidents enjoy one important advantage because of a constitutional practice rather than the Constitution as such. The president is uniquely positioned to claim to be the person who can speak for the United States and the national interest, particularly during crises and emergencies.

Click to expand...

as for the electoral system ... (which I concede is on first impression weird) ... even this apparently "plays into the president's hand" as well , in that he can claim to be the only one elected by all.

This reflects the fact that, contrary to the plan for electing the president set out in the Constitution, the president is in practice elected directly by the people voting state by state. Thus the president can claim with some plausibility to be the only politician to have been elected by all the people, in contrast to legislators elected by a single state or district. Yet all these Constitutional advantages must be set against the constraints the Constitution provides and that we have discussed above. The most obvious are worth reiterating. Presidents cannot legislate without Congress.

Presidents cannot even implement established policies unless Congress, which has the power of the purse, provides the funding. The contrast with a prime minister who can rely on a disciplined parliamentary majority (as is generally the case in Great Britain) is striking. etc

Click to expand...

Re: Barack 2008!

With the influence they have in times of crisis (eg the Cuban missile crisis) - You'd have to lean towards someone who wasn't trigger happy you'd think

JFK did a good job there. avoiding WWIII (Cuba) , and also doing his best not to ramp up Vietnam
not that it did him any good in the long run

Fortunately for presidents, they enjoy a number of advantages not enumerated in the Constitution to help them in their attempts to persuade. Particularly in times of acute crisis, such as the beginning of a war, the president's dual role as head of state as well as head of government causes a "rally effect" in which the public and other politicians unite in support of the nation's leader. Presidents can reward support with government contracts for the legislator's constituency, appointments for friends, or support for the legislator's own favorite proposal. Most importantly, presidents have the ability to "go public" in the words of Samuel Kernell, appealing to the public for support over the heads of other politicians. The rise of the electronic media, first radio and then television, has enabled presidents to establish a direct, almost personal relationship with voters that skilled presidents such as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton have used to good effect. It is probably advisable for presidents to use this tactic on a limited number of important issues lest it lose its impact. If used wisely, it can be decisive.

Click to expand...

" As Richard Neustadt argued, the power of the president is the power to persuade."
Question then is I guess, who would you prefer to be persuaded by?
Obama or Hillary - or McCaine.

And over what duration of observing them (intensity of spotlight etc ) would you prefer to make that call.

Re: Barack 2008!

"Let's tone down Iraq" boomed the voice of Barack
"think big on destruction reduction".
What will Hillary say? while her eyelashes play?
perhaps .... "try my weapons of mass seduction?"

Re: Barack 2008!

prawn_86 said:

Once again,

Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.

Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.

Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?

A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything

Click to expand...

A High Distinction to you 2020 for outlining the powers of The Commander in Chief!

With just a week to go until Ohio, Rhodes Island, Texas and Vermont, according to the most recent polls, they're down in Texas and Ohio.

Today's update is clear about how Obama is different, even if the Democrat policies are similar, the attitude is representing the people rather than getting the job via divisive ploys and with the finances of special interest groups and lobbyists.

They are NOT controlled by big business with vested interests:

________________________________________
From: David Plouffe, BarackObama.com [mailto:info@barackobama.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2008 6:30 AM
To: Doris *******
Subject: Here comes the kitchen sink

Doris --

This morning, the New York Times reported that Senator Clinton is launching what even her aides admit is a "kitchen sink" bombardment of negative attacks against Barack.

This is the same stale, Washington playbook that has driven so many Americans away from the political process.

Yesterday, in a speech on foreign policy, Senator Clinton misrepresented Barack's positions and compared him to George W. Bush.

She questioned his "wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," despite her support for Bush's war in Iraq -- a war that Barack showed the judgment to oppose before it ever began.

These negative tactics are exactly what voters have been rejecting this election season.

While others focus on trying to tear us down, we will continue to highlight what is most inspiring and most important about this campaign.

And while others may try to score cheap political points, millions of ordinary Americans are talking to their neighbors, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and turning out to primaries and caucuses in record numbers to support this movement for change.

Barack has organized and inspired what yesterday's Time magazine called a "new breed of grassroots campaign -- viral, internet-based, built from the ground up."

Today, we are within reach of a goal that is unprecedented at this point in a presidential primary -- one million people giving to this campaign.

Thank you for your support,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America


Paid for by Obama for America
This email was sent to: doris.*******@bigpond.com

Re: Barack 2008!

2020hindsight said:

Doris
Barack certainly seems the "cooler under stress" (recent accusations about health policies - and responses thereto etc)

Click to expand...

You are spot on 2020! Is this a male thing?
I find myself embarrassed at times when the 'feminine' emotional ploys are applied as mean and nasty.

Today was tough for me with a feral, testosterone-infested adolescent surreptitiously stealing a small bird's eye chilli from my cookery demo bench and eating it to show off to his mates... then rubbing his eyes when they watered!

I took a leaf out of Obama's book and calmly led him to a sink, wet his hands, sprinkled salt over them for him to rub it in, then held his head forward as I scooped water to wash out his eyes. Entertaining for the class and a lesson for him.

Yes... 'cooler under stress' is a good trait to have... in many areas of life!

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris said:

You are spot on 2020! Is this a male thing?
I find myself embarrassed at times when the 'feminine' emotional ploys are applied as mean and nasty.

Today was tough for me with a feral, testosterone-infested adolescent surreptitiously stealing a small bird's eye chilli from my cookery demo bench and eating it to show off to his mates... then rubbing his eyes when they watered!

I took a leaf out of Obama's book and calmly led him to a sink, wet his hands, sprinkled salt over them for him to rub it in, then held his head forward as I scooped water to wash out his eyes. Entertaining for the class and a lesson for him.

Yes... 'cooler under stress' is a good trait to have... in many areas of life!

Click to expand...

:topic
doris, sounds like you could have poured a bucket of water over his head - then He'd have been a bit cooler under stress as well
PS thanks for the updates.
PS My guess is that only a few are reading this thread though lol - or caring who wins.
One theory about the apparent lack of interest could be that we're all so happy to see the end of GWB, that any which way, the world will win
I think I'm agreeing with you though - Hillary is showing her claws a little too often.
She could take a leaf out of Penny Wong's book to advantage. - downright freezing under stress

Re: Barack 2008!

2020hindsight said:

:topic
doris, sounds like you could have poured a bucket of water over his head - then He'd have been a bit cooler under stress as well
PS thanks for the updates.
PS My guess is that only a few are reading this thread though lol - or caring who wins.
One theory about the apparent lack of interest could be that we're all so happy to see the end of GWB, that any which way, the world will win
I think I'm agreeing with you though - Hillary is showing her claws a little too often.
She could take a leaf out of Penny Wong's book to advantage. - downright freezing under stress

Click to expand...

I would have been happy if either won but her female dog traits have lost my respect although I give it to her that she's still fighting to the end. She has stamina and has endured a lot over the years to win her white house dream.

Hillary sure showed her claws tonight in the Cleveland debate amid boos from the audience. Obama continues to gain respect whilst her campaign carries on with its desperate attacks. He promotes and (successfully) defends his game whilst
"national polls suggested Clinton's support was dwindling fast and as newspapers reported infighting among her campaign staff."

She suggested that Obama should "reject" rather than "denounce" the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish tirades of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has endorsed the Illinois senator's presidential run.

Obama, insisting that Farrakhan's backing was unwelcome and stressing his strong ties to the Jewish community, said Clinton was playing word-games.

Next Wednesday our time is the cruncher.

Yesterday a poll showed Obama leading in Texas for the first time.

A Rasmussen Reports survey showed Obama had cut her lead among Ohio Democrats to just five points, as she led 48 to 43 percent.

Next Wednesday will incite interest again...

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris said:

Next Wednesday will incite interest again...

Click to expand...

Or not, as the case may be.

Chillies are much more interesting.

The hottest chillies in the world are grown just down the road a bit.

Scoville Heat Units

Pure capsaicin: 15m to 16m

US Police-grade pepper spray: 5m

Dorset Naga: 923,000

Red Savina habanero: 577,000

Scotch bonnet: 100,000-325,000

Jamaican hot pepper: 100,000-200,000

Cayenne pepper: 30,000-50,000

Jalapeno pepper: 2,500-8,000

Tabasco sauce: 2,500

Pimento: 100 to 500

Bell pepper: 0

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article700700.ece

Re: Barack 2008!

and I'm wondering what kind of chilli are we gonna end up with when we finally become a republic in year ???? ( 2360?)

I personally wouldn't recommend the US type.

PS we're probably waiting to announce our becoming a republic (still with ties to the Commonwealth etc) - in the reign of King Charles XVIII - or XIX maybe

Re: Barack 2008!

2020hindsight said:

I personally wouldn't recommend the US type.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Everything else is American.