Obama Wins in Iowa: A Historic Day for America

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
Well, not that we know of!In summary, Obama wins the Iowa caucus. He has a good chance of winning the nomination and becoming the next President of the United States.f
  • #36
believe that he would do a better job than Clinton, and I believe that he is more electable than she, especially if vote-rigging can be suppressed this year (unlike the past couple of elections).
It would be nice if this kind of side comment can be suppressed this year.

Seriously; you're asserting as fact one side of a contested issue, that's entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and even to the points you were making. Why?
 
  • #37
I don't know what the latest in Kenya is. Is there going to be a recount, or even a repeat election? I doubt either will happen. The EU observers stated that there were several irregularities and the counting process was deeply flawed. The US State Dept. has still not (until a couple days ago) officially recognized Kibaki's victory. Meanwhile, there is a Rwanda-esque slaughter going on. If Obama has any money to spare, he should openly assemble a crack team of negotiators to talk down the situation in Kenya. I think that Kibaki and Odinga, both, will want to gain the favor of a possible future US President with strong ties to Kenya.
 
  • #38
Seriously; you're asserting as fact one side of a contested issue, that's entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and even to the points you were making.
How is the possibility of a suppression of the black vote irrelevant to Obama's prospects?
 
  • #39
It would be nice if this kind of side comment can be suppressed this year.

Seriously; you're asserting as fact one side of a contested issue, that's entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and even to the points you were making. Why?
It is not controversial that caging lists were used to knock black voters off the rolls in the last two elections. In the 2000 election, the names of registered voters were compared to the names of felons, and if the names were the same, the (usually innocent) voter's name was dropped off the rolls. In 2004 the Republicans went after blacks again (even targeting black service-members who often have to change addresses) and mailed them notices "signature required". If the person was not available to sign for the notice and the mail was returned, they notified the registrar that the voter's address was incorrect and got them dropped from the rolls. The voters generally didn't know that they had been disenfranchised until they got to the polls or tried to submit an absentee ballot. The Republican party (under Rove et al) has worked very hard to suppress turnout among minorities and cause them no end of wasted time and trouble as they tried to get re-registered so they could vote. This has been thoroughly documented by investigative reporter Greg Palast among others and it IS relevant to Obama's chances in the general election should he get the nomination.

It should also be noted that the 2004 election results differed from the exit polls by margins that were not only impossible, but that overwhelmingly favored Bush. Here is an article by Robert Kennedy Jr. with citations.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Not black enough for you? :rofl:

Deny deny deny!

A black man won in what is often called the whitest state in the union.

he's half black. I was making the observation that if he can be called black, he can equally be called white.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I would like to say that massacres, even though they happen to "mere" Africans, far away from the US, SHOULD concern those politicians who:

1. May come in a position of power where they can influence the events
and
2. Who already have good political ties with members of the elite where these tragedies and crimes happen.
 
  • #42
I would like to say that massacres, even though they happen to "mere" Africans, far away from the US, SHOULD concern those politicians who:

1. May come in a position of power where they can influence the events
and
2. Who already have good political ties with members of the elite where these tragedies and crimes happen.

Calling this a "disturbing connection to Kenya" would be like saying that Joe Lieberman has a "disturbing connection to Israel" because he hasn't denounced every shady Israeli politician. When in fact that would just be anti-Semitism.
 
  • #43
An old and former friend just sent me a bunch of garbage that tries to make a terrorist out of Obama. :rofl: This guy's mind has been warped by too much Rush and hate radio. .

Considering that according to him, Hillary is the bride of Satan [I'm not kidding here: The religious extremists promote the idea that Hillary is pure evil], I wonder how it is that Hillary has missed this huge opportunity to discredit Obama.

If there was a real problem here, given her resources, you can be sure that Hillary would have found it.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
An old and former friend just sent me a bunch of garbage that tries to make a terrorist out of Obama. :rofl: This guy's mind has been warped by too much Rush and hate radio. .

Considering that according to him, Hillary is the bride of Satan [I'm not kidding here: The religious extremists promote the idea that Hillary is pure evil], I wonder how it is that Hillary has missed this huge opportunity to discredit Obama.
Fox News seems to be going very easy on Obama during these primaries which suggests they see him as an easier target than Clinton come the presidential election. I suspect a lot of this crap about Obama will go mainstream once he secures the nomination.
 
  • #45
Fox News seems to be going very easy on Obama during these primaries which suggests they see him as an easier target than Clinton come the presidential election. I suspect a lot of this crap about Obama will go mainstream once he secures the nomination.

This is precisely what will happen. Will the voters be turned off enough by it to vote against the hate? It's hard to say.
 
  • #46
This is precisely what will happen. Will the voters be turned off enough by it to vote against the hate? It's hard to say.

It may be noteworthy that the negative campaigning tactics failed in Iowa. I tend to think [hope] that only the extremists will buy into this nonsense. We have been Roved to death for eight years now! People must be wising up by now, one would think.
 
  • #47
Fox News seems to be going very easy on Obama during these primaries which suggests they see him as an easier target than Clinton come the presidential election. I suspect a lot of this crap about Obama will go mainstream once he secures the nomination.
My take is that the extreme right viewed Hillary as their chief opponent. They had no reason to focus attention Obama because (a) that would have meant diverting energy from attacking Hillary, and (b) the Clinton machine was going to devour Obama, so why bother? Now that Hillary appears to be falling apart the extreme right is focusing more attention on Obama.
 
  • #48
Fox News seems to be going very easy on Obama during these primaries which suggests they see him as an easier target than Clinton come the presidential election. I suspect a lot of this crap about Obama will go mainstream once he secures the nomination.
Obama doesn't have a philandering spouse, billing irregularities at a former law firm, a highly-placed former associate who committed suicide, nor a past association with the Whitewater development. Hillary would be a LOT easier to smear than Obama. The Republicans have been painting Hillary as the presumptive nominee because of her high negatives among voters, and the many opportunities they will have to drag her through the mud. Rove et al would LOVE to see Hillary nominated.
 
  • #49
In the end, what Obama has going for him here is the ablity to answer questions in a satisfactory manner. He is clear, direct, and seemingly honest. This is why I was impressed the first time that I saw Obama. What fails for me is when they won't answer the damned questions! For me, many times this counts negatively more than the answer; no matter what the answer might be.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Fox News seems to be going very easy on Obama during these primaries which suggests they see him as an easier target than Clinton come the presidential election. I suspect a lot of this crap about Obama will go mainstream once he secures the nomination.
I don't consider Fox to be quite that clever even if they are actually trying to influence the election (which I don't accept). Hillary is what people in the military call a "sh-- screen". She's someone who distinguishes herself at attracting the wrath of her adversaries, allowing everyone else to fly low under the radar. It's a common occurrence in basic training.

And as Turbo-1 points out, I wouldn't even accept that she could be considered more electable than Obama. At best, she's more understandable and predictable than Obama, which may make Obama tough for Democratic and Republican opponents alike to know how to deal with and easy to attack.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
On the other hand, does the conservative right need to actually do anything to discredit a black candidate?
 
  • #52
On the other hand, does the conservative right need to actually do anything to discredit a black candidate?

That sentiment may actually come from the Hillary camp in the coming weeks. I think we can expect a veiled reference to his race in the form of the question from the Hillary campaign, "Is now the time that America will elect the first black president? Do you want to risk losing the Presidency on such a gamble?" At least, Dick Morris thinks so.
 
  • #53
CNN was just running a story about right-wing commentators who are impressed with Obama and who speak favorably of him. He also got some kudos from Colin Powell who is seen to be flirting with backing Obama. I have never seen anything like this!

It seems that the message of unification is faring well. I know that I for one am sick of being intolerably angry.
 
  • #54
On the other hand, does the conservative right need to actually do anything to discredit a black candidate?

...named Hussein Obama.

That was the gist of the email that I received - mindless racism and fear mongering.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
I think we can expect a veiled reference to his race in the form of the question from the Hillary campaign, "Is now the time that America will elect the first black president?
Unlikely since you only need to change one word to bounce it back on her.

You could of course save a great deal of time/effort/money by just permanently alternating a Clinton/Bush in the White House while leaving the lobbyists to get on with running the country.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Something else that is amazing here: Everyone, dem and reps alike, are forced to defer to Obama. The reps have even adopted his message of change!
 
  • #57
Something else that is amazing here: Everyone, dem and reps alike, are forced to defer to Obama.
First Sony win a format war and now this - it will be burning skies and four horseman I tell you ...
 
  • #58
Yes, in fact the sun seems to have disappeared.

Oh yeah, I live in Oregon; the sun is never out. Whew, that was a close one.
 
  • #59
Looks like Obama is going to lose in NH whilst McCain is winning by a mile. Seems the pollsters were way off the mark.
 
  • #60
Hillary "the devil" bush seems to have won the entire nomination.. One can pretty much forget about obama now.
And all because of a tear in her eye.. Completely bogus.. Where will the world end?
 
  • #61
One can pretty much forget about obama now.

He got the same number of NH delegates that she did. I think it's premature to call his cause lost, that's what they were doing with her recently. The only reason to say that either one of them has lost the race is if you work for a television network and you need to manufacture some news. :cool:
 
  • #62
Hillary "the devil" bush seems to have won the entire nomination.. One can pretty much forget about obama now.
And all because of a tear in her eye.. Completely bogus.. Where will the world end?
It's not the end, Obama & Clinton were just a couple of points off and there are several more primaries, with the momentum Obama has he could very easily wind up being the Democratic choice.
 
  • #63
In the end, what Obama has going for him here is the ablity to answer questions in a satisfactory manner. He is clear, direct, and seemingly honest. This is why I was impressed the first time that I saw Obama. What fails for me is when they won't answer the damned questions! For me, many times this counts negatively more than the answer; no matter what the answer might be.

Thank god somebody else feels this way. Somebody will ask a question, and the answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question most of the time. What's the point of even having these "debates" if they're just taking turns giving a speech they wrote 20 minutes earlier?
 
  • #64
felt bleak a moment there.. There is something off with clinton.. It seems she loves the position more than the politics. We've got the same thing here in Norway, getting elected is more important than actually accomplishing something.. Thats why obama seems better.. Better for US, and that means, better for the world.. Really hope he is able to stay in the fight.. Maybe even kick hillarys ass in some discussions..
 
  • #65
It's not the end, Obama & Clinton were just a couple of points off and there are several more primaries, with the momentum Obama has he could very easily wind up being the Democratic choice.

I agree; it's not even close to being over. If Obama had won, then Hillary would certainly be in big trouble. At this point she still has a chance, but Obama made a tremendous come-back in NH. He may have just peaked a little late.

I think Gokul is correct in saying that McCain probably took independent votes that Obama needed.
 
  • #66
Has anyone thought about how the impact of a black president might have on foreign/international affairs?

Has anyone thought about the above with a white female as president?

I brought this up in front of a group of people and most seem to think it can have a negative impact on foreign affairs especially since some countries don't believe in women having any kind of power and sometimes white men don't like black men and so on.

What are your thoughts? Let's be real here and NOT politically correct because we're afraid to hurt someone. (Keep in mind PF rules, but saying you don't want a black president doing foreign affairs DOES NOT imply you're racist. Some colored agreed that they wouldn't want one themselves!)
 
  • #67
I think Obama would be a very positive force for restoring US credibility in the world. He would be seen as the anti-Bush, and I think the entire world would see this as a very good thing. How valuable would it be in the ME to have a president of color named Obama? I think it would be incredibly valuable. Also, I don't see how having a black president would present any more problems internationally than having a white president does.

As for Hillary, gender may be an issue in some countries, but we have had powerful women in international politics, such as Albright, and Rice, so this is nothing new. Also, Great Britain and other countries have had very successful female leaders. Next, Hillary also has the Clinton name. Internationally, Bill was one of the most popular presidents in history, so that would be a real plus for her. Also, Bill could perform a critical role here and perhaps could help to restore order in the world. So in addition to what Hillary can bring to the table, Bill would certainly be a uniquely valuable resource. There may even be cases where, if a country has strong views that denigrate women, we could send Bill.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
This doesn't matter much I believe jasonrox. Black, white, woman or man.. Probably the smallest factor at all..

In norway we have had female prime minister as have many many other countries. There are also numerous women who have been presidents. In the international arena it isn't the sex or the colour which is important.. its the politics ;)
 
  • #69
I think Obama would be a very positive force for restoring US credibility in the world. He would be seen as the anti-Bush, and I think the entire world would see this as a very good thing. Also, I don't see how having a black president would present any more problems internationally than having a white president does.
I concur with Ivan's assessment.

As for Hillary, gender may be an issue in some countries, but we have had powerful women in international politics, such as Albright, and Rice, so this is nothing new. Also, Great Britain and other countries have had very successful female leaders. Next, Hillary also has the Clinton name. Internationally, Bill was one of the most popular presidents in history so that would be a real plus for her. Also, Bill could perform a critical role here and perhaps could help to restore order in the world. So in addition to what Hillary can bring to the table, Bill would certainly be a uniquely valuable resource.
It worked for Margaret Thatcher, and it's worked for Angela Merkel of Germany, and Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese of Ireland. It's not big deal.
 
  • #70
A president who's black would have the foreign affairs advantage that, if he's accused of completely ignoring the sitation in Darfur, no one is going to say that aspect of his policy has to do with him being white.
 

Suggested for: Obama Wins in Iowa: A Historic Day for America

Back
Top