US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Ok, Bob Scheiffer's comment sounds to me like it was talking about general political items. In that respect, McCain's POW status is a powerful item. He's a tried and true American hero. Clark then either completely misses the point or bats it away as nothing. It may not be a strict credential for President, but it is a big thing in a lot of Americans' minds.

As for Gore, I thought Gore lost because he was a robot.

 

Well, it can be important, sure. I think Clark's remark had a very important context - he was prompted about the "nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. " part - which most comments miss, though. And I can definitely agree that being shot down, in itself does not show McCain's leadership ability. His latter PoW years, sure, to the point where resisting pressure is important to a leader (how well he resisted it and how well he could do it now are another topic entirely).

 

That's hilarious, BTA, but no worse than a lot of peoples' reasons for choosing their politicians. Scott Adams asserts that statistics show that over the last 100 years, in the presidential race, the people have most often chosen the candidate who was taller and had 'better' hair than his opponent. I don't know if that so-called fact is true or was just Adams being a goofball, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

Well, a few years' back a poll among women in FYROM (or just Macedonia, for short) showed that the key characteristics of a presidential candidate were to be tall, handsome and with mustache I still can't take it seriously, but maybe they had a point. After all, one of the most important functions of a head of state is to represent his (or her) country internationally, and the government domestically.

 

Well, we can mark john edwards off the VP list http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080808/pl_nm/usa_edwards_affair_dc_2

Apparently he had an affair & then hired her to keep her quiet

 

I don't get it, why can't politicians keep their dicks in their pants? Or as they obviously can't why sneak around with it and try to cover it up? To me it seems like the cover ups do more damage than screwing around.

I don't know what is worse, that politicans cant stand for being human or that they feel the need to cover things up as getting caught with any sexual indiscretion would be so detrimental to their careers.

 

I take it that this is tongue in cheek. American politics are far more personalised than politics in Europe. Edwards did a human thing. The reason why this is a scandal is that it happened in America. It's just a variant of US gutter politics. In America politicos are held to a saintly standards by the media and their political opponents, to then be attacked for not meeting that mainly mythical mark. And the MSM play along and make a killing with it being very upset about all this explosive, scandalous revelations about he 'Edwards Affair'.

​

For that story to hit in Britain and make for a scandal, the partner probably would at least have to be a man and it would need to involve drugs and exotic practices (~Ted Haggard). I take it that in France, Italy or Spain people probably would be pretty understanding. Mitterrand is know to have had a mistress for years throughout his presidency, without anybody scandalising it. In Germany there wouldn't be a peep. Everyone knows that there are politicos who have mistresses and girlfriends - but that's seen as a private and personal thing and the nobody makes a fuss about it because there's a consensus not to do it. There is no such consensus in the US.

 

well the fact that she was paid $100k, made a further $100K over the next 3 years & apparently was kept-up in higher end hotels(her & her child) until now AND that john edwards had vehemently denied it up until just a few weeks ago. The worst part is it was reported by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER first!!!
Maybe he's an alien?

 

It's a tawdry affair, sure. It's not exactly a world-ending crime imo - God knows he's not the first politician to get a mistress or try to keep the scandal from the media - but it will certainly hurt his short-term prospects. Just how bad it will be for him depends on how deeply the media decides to dig into it. I personally am rather neutral about it: given his wife's condition, I wouldn't be surprised if his sexual life is rather lacking, and while this does not quite excuse him it at least makes his behavior somewhat understandable. I'm not sure where you got the figures from, though - they weren't in the article you linked to.

And I don't see what is so bad about the NE getting this first. They are a tabloid, right? It's what they do for a living

 

The figures were on cnn.
Yeah the National Enquirer is the kind of paper where you get to read about the mutant bat-people that live in mexico & their conspiracy with the undersea space aliens to take over kansas.
Who knew that they actually HAD reporters?!?!?

 

To be really honest I could care less regarding who's banging whom, but Edwards showed a complete lack of good judgment, especially if he thought he could get away with it during an election season. I can't see inside Edward's relationship with his wife, since there is most always two sides to marriage "issues." And it's really none of anybody's business, IMO. However, Edwards could have wreaked the entire election if he had been Obama's VP and this story broke in October.

But I could care less about the affair itself and its particulars. I'll let the AM radio talking heads rant about someone else's affairs while they are enjoying their own (or begging to have one, like O'Reilly). But sexual affairs like this don't keep people out of office. Examples:
Rudy - who did run for prez this last time, and no one cared that he left his wife for his mistress. And let's not forget Newt:

 

Well, since he's NOT Obama's VP, I don't see how this will have much, if any, impact on the election. Remember, Edwards is not currently holding any elected office, nor is he running for any elected office this fall. He has no short term (or even long term) political prospects. Given that he has failed in his bid to become president (twice) and VP (once), it's pretty safe to say that short of some type of cabinet position in some furture Democrat administration, his political career is most likely over - whether this affair had surfaced or not.

 

I have a question off the topic of Edwards. What exactly is Obama's energy policy? I know he wants to tax the oil companies more (windfall taxation) and use the money to give Americans a $1,000 gas tax stippend or something (won't the oil companies just raise prices or something?), and I know he wants to invest some money (how much and from where?) to develop renewable energy (which ones and on what schedule?), but that's it. Can anyone fill me in?

 

The short answer is this: The funding for renewable energy (basically wind and solar power) would come from what would effectively be an energy tax on the "dirty" power plants (which I'm assuming are defined as the fossil fuel burning ones. Power plants would only be allowed to emit a certain amount of pollution per year, and anything over that would be fined, with the amount going to fund renewable energy.

For the complete answer though, you should really go to the source - and read Obama's Energy Plan. Get it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of lucky guess. I mean, when you are printing stuff at random, there is a minor chance that it might turn out to be true, right

 

Obama might win, and/because McCain dresses (and thus looks) like a loser. That is my brief summary of Alan Au's astute anylsis:

McCain really should not heed Alan Au's fashion advice. If a poor choice in fashion will help defeat McCain and his neo-con cohorts - all the better.

 

Interesting... McCain wasn't a neo-con all that long ago....

Ragusa, are you sure you're not just bending the term to mean "anyone Ragusa is against at the moment"?

 

Yes I am quite sure T2.

Recently I have been looking more closely at McCain's circle of foreign policy advisors (= his neo-con cohorts), which is quite homogenic in this regard, and I have especially read this article. Whether McCain himself is a neo-con is beside the point; he has an affinity for their views if his choice in advisors is any indication.

 

Yeah, and not that long ago he thought Pat Robertson was an agent of intolerance.