Barack Obama

The real problem in Florida wasn't with the chads, it had more to do with minority voting issues. In some areas certain minorities (registered voters) had problems like being turned away from the polls. That's why so many of the black speakers at the convention are making such a big deal of the Florida voting issue. They're pretty steamed up about it.

Heck, if you want to see problems, just wait til' there's a close race somewhere where the administrators won't be able to pull up the individual votes for, for instance, recount. Florida has already had problems with going back and pulling voting information from these new machines.

 

Many thanks for the link, Danny. Obama looks good. I'd vote for him if he was in my state.

That said, I thought that, as political speeches go, Clinton's was miles above Obama's. Obama gave the usual I-love-America speech that, as pkjohna pointed out, with very few changes could have been given by a politician of either party. Clinton pointed out far more clearly and strikingly the differences between the parties.

Which is not to say that that I'd vote for Clinton. Just that I thought he gave a better speech.

 

Speaking as a non-American, Obama's speech seemed an pretty cheesy cliche-ridden number. But maybe that's a good way to reach some sections of the voting public.

It did manage to illuminate in quite a subtle, elegant fashion what's wrong with the current Republicans. I think Obama might have a better chance of getting through to some more hard-headed "Republican supporters" than Clinton.

 

Hard-headed supporters of either party will not be swayed by any speeches. This whole circus is directed toward the undecided voters, and towards motivating party supporters to work to get their friends to vote.

To that end, Obama's was a feel-good speech, which makes him look good but will not have much effect on the election, while Clinton's was a hard-hitting, emotional, get-your-friends-to-vote speech. And for Bush-haters, Clinton's speech was much more fun to listen to.

 

Daniel,
I heard Barack Obama being interviewed after his speech. The interviewer suggested that he stole the show, and Obama said that he was no match for Clinton. Something about how Clinton was in his element. Mr. Obama appears to be humble.

 

It's a legitimate criticism about the snafu in
Florida. Trust me, when your name is thrown
off the voter rolls simply because of the color
of your skin, it's not some "crack."
Greg Palast's, The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy, is a pretty illuminating read from
what I've been told.
From the Senate's web site, if Obama is
elected, he'll be the only person of African
descent serving. Carol Moseley-Braun's
term ended in 1999. This fact makes me
rather nauseated. Don't even get me started
on the dearth of other minorities currently
in the Senate.

Esther

 

In ancient Grece, "Democracy" meant that all free, wealthy, adult males got together in a big room to make political decisions.

The founders of our country wanted, and built, a system in which all white male landowners would vote to elect representatives, who would make the decisions.

It is notable that in the intervening two and a quarter centuries, they have managed to extend the vote to women, minorities, and the poor, without allowing any actual political power to go to those groups.

 

Ouch.

 

My mom and I saw his speech and agreed that he will eventually be on the ticket, either for President or Vice President. Hmmmm.....I'd love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket!!!

 

Yeah, how many speckled people do you see in congress? We are the true minority, and all of the other races of people in the world are trying to wipe us out by killing the ozone. Then we get skin cancer and die off.....it's genicide!!!! At least most of the people here are trying to do right and buy a hybrid. :mrgreen:

An interesting side note of the Florida elections are the number of convicted fellons that voted. I wonder if the Democrats are worried about that part, but I guess not as it only helps them.

Atoyot

 

I don't think you are ever going to see a two-term president running for vice-president. It would indeed be nice if a man like Barak Obama could run for president. But I don't think either the dems or the repubs are ever going to shed enough of their racism to put a person of color on the national ballot. I hope I'm wrong. I thought he gave a saccarine speech, but I think he'd be a better president than we've had in my lifetime. (I don't necessarily vote for the best speaker. One of the most entertaining political speeches I've heard was given by the Lyndon Larouche representative at a local debate of the representatives of the presidential candidates. The guy was seriously demented, but he gave a great speech.)

 

Hmmmm....are you a white, male landowner??? (relax, just teasing!!) I was actually thinking of Hillary!

I can't remember who said it, but someone opined that Obama was of the "new generation" of black politicians, who aren't centered on affirmative action and talk constantly about racial equality--they try to represent (and solve the problems of) ALL their constituents.

What I would like to see is not affirmative action for select ethnic groups, but for economic standing. IOW I support preferences for college admission if you're in the top whatever percentage of the school you went to rather than your ethnic background. I also support distributing funding for schools more "equitably." Poorer/inner city schools should actually get a much greater percentage because of the many social problems that lead to poor performance. Rich kids don't need subsidized afterschool programs, they can afford tutors if they have a hard time in class, their schools can afford brand new textbooks, they don't have the emotional problems that contribute to poor performance like poverty, neglect, exposure to drugs, single-parent families, undiagnosed learning disorders (or lack of money to treat them), etc. I think a big problem with those in lower socio-economic circumstances is a crying need for better parenting skills and parental involvement with their child's education. Schools in poorer areas need to be given more money to make up for that lack. I think that if every poor child, regardless of race, had the opportunity to participate in Head Start and Early Head Start (or whatever they call it), and went through a GOOD school system, there would be no need for any kind of preferences whatsoever.

JMHO

 

Tony, it's a sad commentary on our country that your last two paragraphs are much closer to reality than the scenario I laid out. It's quite natural for the "haves" to want to hold on to what they DO have instead of allowing some to go to the "have nots." That's probably why you hear that the gap between rich and poor just keeps getting wider all the time. Yes, my idea probably smacks of Socialism, but perhaps someday we as a society will realize that lifting up those who cannot help themselves might diminish the helper to a small extent, but the improvement is exponential for the person being helped. That is why I favor having wealthy people pay more than their "fair share" of taxes--I think any government that doesn't try to improve society for ALL its citizens is not doing its job. It can't be done without money, and I think those people who who have a great abundance and complain about the way they're taxed are just plain selfish and shortsighted. So there!

Again, JMHO

 

progressive taxes

Well, it may not be socialism but progressive taxes are very close. The idea of those who make more should pay more is basically a progressive tax system. Unfortunately, even if those who make $250K/yr or more were taxed 100%, yes at a 100% tax rate, the resulting tax receipts would not be enough to eliminate the deficit let alone start paying off the national debt. The answer, which no one has the guts to point out, is to do both; raise taxes and reduce spending; but thats not how one gets elected. Sure do wish there was a real choice this November; as usual, both party's candidates are "kissing cousins".

Please remember to vote!

 

What I want to know is, can I get the Obama/Keyes debates on PPV?

 

:lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup:

 

Socialism is an economic model operating under a free market, but where the means of production are owned by the workers.

OK, since I do have a masters in Economics; here we go:

Socialism is defined by the following macroeconomic dynamics:
1) Public ownership and management of all goods (the govt owns it all)
2) Large scale production in all economic sectors (the govt makes it all)
3) Equality of income (the govt decides who makes what)
4) Elimination of business cycles (no supply or demand fluctuations)
5) Partial reliance on market dynamics (things the govt cant control)
6) Economic planning (govt planning; need I say more?)
7) Social democracy (pluralism not individualism)
8) Meaningful freedoms (bill of rights)

In general think Sweden not the US.