Oh, I agree with you Von Tonner! I would bet my next paycheck that Obama will be the next president. As I stated, I do not discredit the man at all. He is well educated and well spoken. The experience end of it has me concerned. Personally, I wish Colin Powell would run. I would vote for Powell in a heartbeat. At least I understand were he stands on issues. He has the experience. Powell did not run because his wife feared for his life. I do not blame her for that. It is a very real issue. At any rate, not monitoring news casts and following what is going would be a serioius lack of responsibility on my part. I do not wish to be lead blindly. All Americans should question, look, study and ask the question concerning who will Commander. It is unfortnate however that the media directs and puts in the limelight who they feel should win. This is why I look at a broad spectrum of new broadcasts and magazines as well. Hell, two weeks ago Time magazine should have been called Obama magazine. The entire magazine was nothing but Obama. The following week, Time plastered the cover with Obama's mother. Who and what she is contained in the articles. Ah, who cares about his mother at this stage? His grandparents took care of him into his adulthood. People always say the CNN is the Clinton New Network. Fox is always for the conservative. I look at all the news media that I can to get a well rounded perspective and answer. No doubt the media is very influential and can direct which way things such as campaigns can go. I'm willing to bet if 10 people on the street were asked who is running for president the answer would be Obama and Clinton. There would be no mention of McCain. He is barely if ever in the news. The media has him as beaten already by either Obama and or Clinton (whoever takes the nomination in June) so why bother showing anything about McCain?

At any rate, it is not wise to advise people to "get over it" and let it go because so and so is going to win. This is the reason there are campaigns. This the the reason for democratic process(all be it a bit screwy). Again, being lead blindly is not good form or advisable. As far as Hillary stating that many blue collar American do not want a black man in the White House is pure rubbish and you know that as much as I. Furthermore, she needs to substantiate that claim. But this is typical campaign tactic for the Clintons and we see were tactics such as this has gotten her.....still a senator and now broke after campaigning. Now the media is pushing for a Obama/Clinton ticket. Forget that, neither will take a back seat to each other. She never took a back seat to Bill and certainly will not with Obama.

Now that we agree Obama will make the White House(I need to hide my checkbook as taxes will go through the roof) who will be his running mate? I suspect his choice could make him or break him. I'm totally clueless on who would be running mates for all three of them. My choice for VP at this point would be Condolesa Rice. She is bright, well spoken and has a clue(although many do not think so) In retrospect, if Rice were running for President. She would get my vote. I think she has a large set of kahunas for taking on the position she has now in a world that is full of turmoil.

Von Tonner:
Most American vote with their heart and not their head (just my personal opinion). Others vote for a certain person because their friend, sibling, husband or wife are voting for that individual. Agreed, change does scare people. My thoughts here on that is this change will take up the entire 4 years for Obama and might go further than that. Do we bite the bullet and let him have at it? Stay stagnant for the next 4 years? Hard to say. Then again, we need to start somewhere because the "old order" or "good old boy" network is not working anymore. That is self evident at the moment. I just see a lot of brick walls for Obama. This is how I envision Obama's first few years. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Tiger Woods. One hell of a golf player by every right. When Tiger Woods came on the scene and literally kicked everyones butts on the golf course, sweeping the Masters and all the other tournements he was basically shunned. The other "good old boys" who have been playing for years did not recognize his skills. Just his color. It was a sad state of affairs really. But, Tiger kept at it, shrugged it off and kept going. One hell of a guy, father and golf player. Now the others look beyond his color and see a serious competitor. I envision Obama will experience the same deal. I would not be suprised if Hillary would be a thorn in his side. I do not put it past Hillary to be vindictive after losing. I can see here rallying the others in Congress to effectively undermine any idea or proposal Obama might have. The "good old boy" network is going to be a very large hurtle for Obama. I believe he has the stamina to do so but it will be tough.

Precisely Tchocky. It is really sad how some people take a clip or sound bite or even falsehood (Obama is a muslim) without engaging their brains.

Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American". Before any white American takes umbrage at her remark they should honestly ask themselves this simple question. What are the possibilities that Michelle has experienced discrimination either against herself, her family or her friends while growing up in the USA. Proudness of one's country is not a given, nor is it a measure of patriotism - hell, Wright for all his weird ideas is an ex Marine.

When I was living in the States and someone asked me where I was from I was too ashamed to be truthful and tell them I was from South Africa. Today, 10 odd years beyond apartheid I am proud to be South African.

Take a hypothetical example. A white American goes on a tour through Europe at the hight of anti-American sentiment over the Iraq war. He himself is also of the opinion the war is uncalled for. When he gets back state side, in the bar with friends, he recounts how ashamed he was to be an American. But hey, next day there just happens to be a change in government thinking and the troops are withdrawn and his country does right by its mistakes. Now he is proud of his country.

Being proud, embarassed, saddened, annoyed, disgusted, etc are emotional states ALL citizens go through in relation to their country at various stages of their lives. It matters not whether you are black, white or pink - what matters is how YOU personaly feel about a situation at a particular point in your life viz-a-viz your country. It is totally illogical to infer an individuals patriotism to his or her country by how they feel about their country at a given point in time. I served in the South African Defence Force during apartheid and though ashamed at what my country was doing to my fellow South Africans who were not white, I would defend her till death if called on.

Of course, not only is there no attempt at understanding by those who condem her remarks, but these bigots fail to appreciate the qualification she makes in her statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
That something is true does not mean that is honest.
The things in the newsclips certainly happened. That isn't in doubt.
What's missing is explication and proper framing.


In due time these are discredited or confirmed. That is what investigative reporting is all about.
I believe Michelle had a good thought here and not malicious when she said this. I believe the statement did not come out as she intended. This statement she made I but out of my mind as a result. Michelle is an accomplished women. You do not get into lead role of the health community in Chicago by being an idiot. Michelle is far from that. Michelle is bright women and strong. I do see her doing a hell of a lot more as a First Lady then the current one did over the last 8 years...which was basically nothing.

That is a good thing to proud of your country. South Africa went through it's trials and tribulation. Now it is American turn.

What does this mean? My folks traveled Europe the past 7 years. In fact, they were in Spain when 9/11 happened. There was no ill will against my parents from any country they visited. They went to ALL of them. Sure, they are of the opinion that the war is useless. Never once did my parents say they were ashamed to be an American. This statement is pure conjecture on your part and has no valid standing.


For someone who lives in South Africa, why such a concern about the next president in the US? In what context does this align with South Africa? Why such an interest? Does the US have South Africa in it's sights or is this just a clever way of drumming up some conversation? Could you clarify your interests on the next election for the US? Personally, I have about as much interest in South Africa as I do the temperture on Pluto. Hence my pointed question. I'm starting to see a recurring theme in your posts but can not put my finger on it at the moment.


I see the recurring theme in this post of yours as well:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136593

But this video ignores that. It asks the question - "Is it a good idea for America to elect a man with three Muslim names?"
It's obvious what's going on here.
Again, that something has happened does not meant it is, in itself, illustrative.

Interest in this election is not confined to the US. I consider myself rather well-informed on this race, and I'm not voting in it. Not living in America either.
Out of the candidates remaining, I've been to see Obama & McCain give speeches since declaring their candidacy, and I've seen Bill a couple of times in the past. It's a really interesting election that will have large repercussions across the world. There most likeyl isn't a South African angle for Von Tonner, or an Irish angle for me. We're interested. It's fascinating.
There's your reason for our interest, really.

EDIT - Looking at Obama's VP choices, I'm not sure he should go with someone who is seen as "strong on foreign policy". Some people are touting the benefits of a "unity ticket" on CLinton's foreign policy experience. I guess being wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue of the decade qualifies as experience. That's a bit snide, but it's how I feel about this talk of experience. Dems, and the attendant media on both sides, tend to see "experience" being synonynous with "hawkish". Look at Gore's VP, Lieberman. Look at Clinton's comments about obliterating Iran. (The next time a US pol mentions that mistranslation about wiping Israel off the map, you can bet what Iran will have to say, and who they will quote. Well, a mix up between "obliterate" and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" anyway.)
I guess that Clinton looks strong on foreign policy because voters can empathise with her story on it. Like most everyone else she supported the war, and now she doesn't. Voters can relate to that, they want to vote for someone who feels as they do.
Willingness to go to war doesn't do much for me.
Looking at Colin Powell, I wonder if he'd have the domestic ideas necessary to run the country. By all accounts he seems to be a stand-up guy. Wrong on Iraq, yes, but he now considers his briefing at the UN to be the low point of his life. Reading Bush At War, I see Powell saying exactly what would happen in Iraq, the Pottery Barn Rule, and not being listened to.

ANOTHER EDIT - While I'm thinking about VP choices, what of the VP role?
Will an Obama presidency, or a McCain presidency, continue the vastly expanded and powerful Vice Presidency that Dick Cheney has created?
Or will the role be shrunk to what it was pre-2000?

You ask why the interest. Maybe it is because politics was my profession, having degrees in it, taught it, born into it, G/father deported from SAfor his political views, family member a parlimatarian, lived and studied in the USAetc, etc

But really, to ask or wonder why anyone outside of the States should have an interest in its politics is breath taking in its naivety. I am sure you must have heard the expression. 'When the USA sneezes the world catches a cold'. To give you an economic example. In SA tourism has overtaken gold in foreign revenus for our country. Americans fall in at number 3 slot in foreign tourists. If you suffer economically, down the road we do too. So does the UK, Europe etc. Which then impacts on our number one and two spot. And that all comes together and effects how much the bread I put on my table costs.

That is why, apart from purely my interest in WORLD politics, is why I and the rest of the world are keenly interested in what happens. Nothing sinister in it at all.

Yes, I understand the world watchs because if the US breaks wind, it blows in everyone direction. There is naivety in both directions being that as a person outside the US, sitting idly by looking in, does not have the same flavor as those sitting in the middle of it. Yet, we have a world that seemingly has shut it doors to the US. The "Bad Guy" as it were. There is more to it here in the US other than how South Africa might be affected and your world. More importantly it is how those that generate the dollars for the government to run. In short, the concerns in the US go far and beyond just world diplomacy that you are looking at and disecting. Do you really care about the local level of government for the US citizens? Do you care how the US citizen will be taxed so the US can be a world leader in diplomacy? After all, it is my tax dollars that world diplomcy is accomplished. There giant never ending cash machine in the US are it's people. Would you just throw your money into the government and hope it all just works out? I'm guessing not. You would look at each candidate with a fine tooth comb.

Concerning your posts, you seem to support Obama. I'm I correct? If so, what in Obama two years as a Jr Senator would lead you to believe that he can handle world diplomacy? What in the past two years can you find that Obama has done that would make him a good candidate to handle local diplomacy? Two years as a Jr Senator would in no way shape or form prepare me for world diplomacy nor local diplomacy. For that matter, what has he done for the state of Illinois? What in your mind would make Obama a worldly diplomatic force? I see none.

Even today no one in the national limelight is allowed to say his middle name because of the reference to Hussein in Iraq. Why is that? Just before Kennedy gave Obama his support, his middle name was uttered in the national limelight and the Obama camp went nuts. Why is that? Because, for the most part, image is everything in America. Of course it is obvious what is going on. Is he not proud of his middle name? Normally names of family members are past down from generation to generation for one reason or another. Why not come out and let America know how he got his name and put it to rest? Is there something to hide or is it just a name that is negatively viewed and that is all their is? More than likely. Personally, I do not care what his middle name is. It is all about what he stands for and how he plans on doing it. After getting over the middle name issue that took about three days, America is still at a loss as to what he stands for and how he plans on doing it.

But, you know, the stupidity comes from both camps. Just ask the folks in PA who "hang on to their guns and religion during trying times." Were did that spurn from? Got me, most of my family live in PA. They do not own guns and attend church when they can. In hindsight, we saw were comments such as this got Obama in PA.

The stuff about the middle name is the same as Wright and the flag pins. McCain has his dodgy religious associations, and no candidate is currently wearing a pin. Yet Obama gets the exit poll questions.
McCain and Clintn have middle names, too. But they're almost never mentioned, apart from NYT leaders and the odd campaign letter. Obama's middle name is rather different, and given the previous mess of Muslim rumours and "domestic insurgent" BS, is best left out. People are allowed say it, it just carries a lot of weight due to the previous attacks on his character.
There's plenty of bio information out there. Seriously, last year you couldn'tmove for talk about The Audacity of Hope.

Rasmussen tells me about 47% of Americans have a fair idea. I think you're quite wrong here. To find an answer check candidate websites, pay attention to speeches. CSPAN is good for this, they show full speeches rather than NBC/CNN snippets.

That question comes up quite a lot with Obama, what's he going to do?
Mostly, I think, because most of the coverage has been about a successful campaign, excellent speaker, or his associates. There aren't enough substantive policy differences between the two Democratic candidates to make it worth covering, and it doesn't make for great TV anyway. People get slightly suspicious of a smooth talker, concluding that that's all there is.

Clinton avoids this question because people think about Bill's presidency, and what happened there. She is also an uncomfortable public speaker, which gives the impression of formidable policy strengths.
McCain avoids this question because no-one is paying him any attention until the Dem nomination is wrapped up.

Seriously, it's just as easy to answer that question for Obama as it is for McCain, and just as difficult.

Fair enough. More will come to light on McCain and Obama after Hillary stops throwing money at a losing campaign. McCain said he will not run a dirty campaign. I hope he sticks to his word. In my minds eye, I would like to see Obama take the presidency to see what he can do with it. Again, he is bright and thinks deeply on the subject at hand. I believe his wife will be a better first lady then the beer distributor! Both you and Von Tonner said this election is very interesting and it is. So, the three of us can keep up this discussion for months to come. All, the same, very interesting to hear and discuss from those looking in. A different perspective is always good for the decision in the end.

I will check out CSPAN.

I'm not sure that Obama will beat McCain, because the Democratic primary exit polls have shown time after time that it's one thing saying you support Obama, and another actually pulling the trigger in the voting booth.

What I do believe has come out of the Obama v Clinton race is the fact that to some degree the American people are ready to trade the experience that comes with a traditional, established politician in favor of approaching some things differently.

Our foreign policy sees the USA more and more isolated in the world. The so called "experienced" politicians have got us to the point where we have little of no diplomatic relations with a Country like North Korea, where the weapons development program poses a real threat, or a Country like Venezuala, very rich in oil...none of which comes to the US because of poor diplomatic relations.

A McCain presiency would change nothing in those examples, but an Obama presidency....could be interesting in potentially breaking down those barriers.

If Obama won the presidency, and he was then smart enough to do what Bill Clinton did and surround himself with all the right people, his inexperience would not then be a big issue, and his charisma and charm might just win a few friends.

That's when we'd see if we got a JFK or a mirage. :D

Believe me AVG I have never ever looked upon the US as the "Bad Guy" . In fact to take SA as an example. You might or might not know that SA was a prize to both the USSR and the US in the 70's during the cold war. Not only because of its mineral wealth, its strategic position i.e. sea route around the Cape of Good Hope, but its militarily strength in Southern Africa. In those days its army could march right through Africa to Cario without a problem. And the reason it felt secure in its environment was not only due to its own military strength but because the USA backed it (google Chester Crocker). I, at the time, argued that any SA should get down on their hands and knees when they prayed at night and thank the hard working American whose tax dollar went into securing our own safty against Marxism and Communism. [/quote]

Yes, I do. But that does not make me a glass eyed fan. I have my concerns believe me. If I lived in the States I would be a registered Republican. But having said that, and to get back to much of your own arguments, the world has moved on, the US as the leader of this new world needs to lead and take the world with it. This is why I will give Obama the benifit of the doubt. In my humble opinion, regardless of his past experience, and what he has or not achieved in the Senate, he has a 'world view' given his upbringining and his mixed parentage. My belief in him might well be unfounded, but I will give him the chance to unite the US behind a common universal goal of justice, heal the racial wounds in your own country, and claim its legitimate role as leader of the free world without blemish.

Just to clear up a common error. This was NOT what she said. She has been misquoted so many times that people forget what she really said.

Her statement was "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud to be an American."

That adverb "really" changes the whole meaning. Her statement never implied that she was never proud to be an American. Just the opposite. It implied that she was always proud to be an American but, in referencing the activity being discussed, now she was really proud to be an American.

You can't be really proud of being an American without first being proud to be an American or the use of the adverb "really" does not make grammatical sense.

When she is misquoted by taking out the adverb, it changes the meaning of the sentence. This is the purpose of adverbs, they further define the sentence.

Since the agenda was to ridicule Michelle. the quote was altered as to put her in the worst light. Repeat this lie enough times and people will believe the lie.

Von Tonner:
I like your thoughts here. Glassed eyed fan is what I'm affraid of concerning those that pull the voting arm in the booth. I to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as well but his inexperience is a concern. I would hope he surrounds himself with knowledgable people. I too had thought about his upbringing and parentage as being a possible advantage in the world view. I do not believe your beliefs in Obama are not unfounded. After all, he attended the finest schools, has demonstrated his mastery of the written and spoken word...and quite well. Some say he is arrogant when he speaks. I see confidence when he speaks. This is a excellent quality needed for negotiation. I too, would very interested if he could close some of the racial issues here. Will his winning the White House actually change the tune of many in this country or possible separate the country some more? This country still holds some nuts who just refuse to let it go...on both side of the race issue. It should be interesting and I suspect quite a few books on the subject are forthcoming. At this stage of the game, if there was anyone who could pull this off and have the confidence to get it done, it is Obama.

Nice talking with you Von Tonner! I will drop by here daily to see what you have and leave anything of importance for you to digest and respond.

Nope she never said really in that statement.

Minute 4 and 10 seconds on the film AVG put up shows what she said.

"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country."

So based on your words then since the word "really" was not really there implies she was never proud of her country before. And that falls in with Wright's influence on her and her husband.

It is ok for Obama to call white american blue collar workers bitter but it is not ok to call Obama and his wife bitter?