|
|
| Subject: Richard, Wannabe |
|
|
|
the stress must be killing you. I only have a round of beer riding on the outcome and I am stressed! in the background I am hearing the words ´voting irregularities´ OMG. it is going to be a long night.
for what it´s worth... my guy regularly tells me about his president that has been in power forever, and how their elections are so well run (cough) that he wins the people support (cough, cough) every time with 99%. He is afraid to talk about his government in any negative way - not even on his cell phone.
so as much as we dislike the games and some of the players, we are witnessing and participating in something that not everyone has the chance to do.
In my mind any one of these fine folks will be better than the current situation but I obviously have some personal preferences on tonights outcome.
the nailbiting continues.
[04-03-2008,22:55]
[**.155.160.37]
Sharon |
|
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
I´m afraid despite our best efforts, Ohio may fail Obama. But, it´s looking good in Texas, so I guess we´ll take that. Kudos to Vermont, too, and I assume Rhode Island.
I´ve been nervous all day today, and voted as soon as the polls opened. My 5 year old is getting quite an education in politics, and proudly wore his "I Voted" sticker all day.
I don´t guess we´ll know anything definitive until tomorrow, which isn´t unexpected. You make an excellent point about how fortunate we are to be part of this crazy spectacle, and it serves as a good reminder to not take any of it for granted.
[04-03-2008,23:17]
[**.24.116.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
OK I spoke too soon on Rhode Island and now it looks awfully close in Texas. Trying to distract myself with the hockey game, but failing.
[05-03-2008,00:26]
[**.24.116.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
Hi Guys, glad to see your still up.
As the night wears on, not looking so good for our senator from Illinois in either OH or TX. Now HC is giving victory speech with all the confetti falling all over the place. Switching to some old movie on the old movie channel to distract my sorrow. Ahem, will try not place any blame anywhere, wannabe (just kidding). I know you guys in your area tried.
Maybe I´ll drown myself in some Molsons with Sharon and Roy up there. (Altho he´s an HC supporter.)
Good point Sharon about how things are in other countries. It definitely could have been a whole lot different, where instead we could have been arrested for being on the wrong side of things.
[05-03-2008,01:35]
[**.53.224.249]
Richard |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
WELL DID I CALL IT OR DID I CALL IT, LOL LOL LOL
Drugs make people feel good just like Obama speeches that say little detail but offers great hope for the future.
When you want a future you put the drugs down and look for a way to make a future for yourself and that is why Hillary won!
Money makes the world go around. If you can´t feed your family and keep a roof over your head what good is it to close your eyes and float off into your happy place.
GO HILLARY, GO
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[05-03-2008,09:48]
[**.52.219.241]
Roy |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
Roy: No offense, but your arguments here aren´t making any sense. Obama and Clinton actually differ very little in policy; the major difference between them is in the way they´ll get things done (or not).
There are two primary things Obama supporters don´t like about Clinton: 1. She supported an illegal and immoral war, and 2. she represents a continuation of the same problems we´ve had in this country for more than a decade (her husband, you might remember, was far from squeaky clean). She isn´t merely a politician, she is part of a machine that the Clintons have had years to fine tune. This machine is a master of spin, which many people buy into (you included, judging from your postings). She talks about her experience when she doesn´t have her own. While it is true that she has had a unique view of how the White House runs, she has no right to use her husband´s experience as her own. She´s a state senator, same as Obama, yet talks as if she is running for a second term as president. Already there has been talk of lawsuits and opening up dead issues if she didn´t get her way last night: to the American people that says: Same old same old. We are sick of lawsuits determining politics, of lawyers and corrupt judges running the country. The way she runs her campaign is a good indicator of how she´d run the country, and it´s clear that nothing will change if she is nominated. She can talk about health care, about Nafta (and her story there changes according to which state she´s in), about jobs, but the truth is, we´re a country deeply divided, a country trillions of dollars in debt, a country in a war she can´t get us out of, and she´d be "working with" (aka bullying) Republicans who can´t stand her. Perhaps you have no idea how much she is loathed by the Republicans, more so I dare say than how much the Democrats dislike Bush.
Part of the spin already is that Clinton is the "comeback kid". After losing a great deal of her base to Obama in the past few weeks, her camp came up with the brilliant picture of her "coming from behind". They set their public expectations low to increase the significance of any victories. The truth, of course, is that she´s far behind where she thought she would be by now, and that it is Obama who is gaining ground. His rise is the true story, and it´s one she needs to keep down.
I for one am sick of spin, sick of lies, sick of politics in this country. If Clinton does become the nominee (which is still unlikely), you´ll see interest in the run for the White House diminish; we will have lost a great opportunity to move forward and get ourselves of the mess we´re currently in as a country.
[05-03-2008,13:15]
[**.24.116.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
What about a Clinton/Obama ticket which she implied this morning?
That would make things really interesting because the only real issue is economy and experience. The war in Iraq has to end one way or the other but is how quick the two of them bring the troops out.
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[05-03-2008,14:28]
[**.158.53.207]
Roy |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
Roy, I think we need to be more sensitive to our American friends on this one. The closest we had to a dynasty was Chretien. (no comment).
I am hearing dream team on several news wires this morning. Hopefully they will put the country ahead of personality. I am sure a lot would depend on who gets to driving the bus on this one.
Help me understand something... in US politics how much legislation and policy is directly determined by the president?
[05-03-2008,14:35]
[**.155.160.37]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
The idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket is ridiculous. She is trying to get votes away from Obama, that´s all the jabber is about. Obama is for changing (or at least chipping away at) the system; she is the same old rhetoric, the same way of doing things. She isn´t interested in doing the right things for the country; she´s for doing things her way--the Clinton Way--, much like our current president. Her general message may be fine, but I don´t trust the messenger one bit.
Again with the experience, Roy! Honestly! Does that mean I can start looking for work in my husband´s business? Can I claim his experience and argue for his salary? Hey, I hear about his job at the dinner table, don´t I? So I guess I´m an expert now, too. Honestly!
Sorry to say, too, but there´s a lot more at stake here than just the economy. Yes, it is important, as it is increasingly important in Canada too. Nafta, and particularly our relationship with Canada, isn´t the big deal she makes it out to be--believe me, we´re hearing a lot more campaign rhetoric out of her mouth than out of Obama´s. We are in an ILLEGAL WAR that we simply must get out of. This is a BIG BIG issue, at least for some of us who thinks it actually matters. Personally, I put it top of the list. Obvious reasons aside (loss of lives), the trillions of dollars it´s costing us is trillions of dollars not getting spent where it needs to be--here at home. This is not protectionist, it´s obvious. Too, the world hates us right now, a dangerous and quite frankly, sad position to be in. They have every right to despise our current regime, and if we want to change our image, we need to change the way we play with others. I don´t trust Clinton to play nice.
Sharon: I´m gathering that the provinces have much more control over themselves than our states do. One of our big problems is how much influence (dollars) our government has over legal issues. It simply has to be cleaned up.
[05-03-2008,17:28]
[**.24.116.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
Richard, Wannabe I admire your passion.
I really do believe that the US has to rethink how it relates to the rest of the world. The days of assuming that the US is the last and best hope for the world is a little presumptuous. The US does a lot of things right but there are some aspects of US domestic and foreign policy that leave my head shaking.
I am far more aware of how the west is perceived since having the priviledge of spending endless hours talking about the world with someone half way down the UN economic index and on the 3rd world side of things. Education and financial security will go much farther to world peace than any amount of military force. It is a little hypcritical to condemn others when you have your own people from the 9th Ward living in 3rd world conditions.
Power is a tough thing to let go of and I am sure the Clintons or the Bushes genuinely believe they are the only ones that care enough to govern the country. To be honest, I would prefer to have a leader with a little humility and the desire to listen and learn than someone that knows all the answers.
I think the climate is right for collaborative foreign policy and perhaps that is where I see Obama shining. Face it, the old way is not working so well. How much worse could it get trying it a different way?
[05-03-2008,19:30]
[**.155.160.37]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Richard, Wannabe)
Many of us who support the Obama philosphy do not agree with the presumptiveness of American foreign policy. That´s a major difference between our side and McCain/Clinton. Neither of those two even want to talk to foreign leaders they don´t like, and when they do they grant it like a concession or gift. We believe this why the U.S. has such negative perceptions around the world these last 8 years.
While I respect his opinions, our friend in Toronto apparently believes we should continue this approach, as otherwise it´s a sign of weakness. "Obama sees everything as if it is life in heaven. American enemies are going to sit down with him and drink tea. All it will take is a few cookies and every country will stop attacking America." Yet Canada is known for it´s openness in talking and resolving disputes. I´d like to redirect your comments towards him rather than us.
Not sure if by 9th ward you´re referring to a typical American city. But completely agree that social programs are lacking down here. Health care is always is big issue we talk about here. There´s nothing hypocritical about the Democratic Party position on this, as it´s been on the agenda for quite a while. When you have no working majority in Congress and a hostile administration beholden to the insurance lobby, it´s awfully hard to make such things happen and implement these kinds of changes.
Agree, we need a fresh approach, and who best can provide that. Glad to hear input from both of you up there on events down hear.
[05-03-2008,20:02]
[**.53.224.249]
Richard |
|
