Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Ah, thanks for the geography lesson. It sounds like it may be in the same metropolitan area, but I'm not sure. Around here, you can drive for about 2 hours in good traffic and still be in the urban/suburban sprawl, but I'm not sure about NYC.

 

Well, it appears that Hillary will be the Secretary of State afterall. I'm actually surprised by this, unless Hillary has no future aspirations of becoming president. While we have seen that it is possible to be a senator or a vice president and run for the presidency, one cannot really run a presidential campaign while being Secretary of State, or any other Cabinet position for that matter. Then again, perhaps Hillary is just looking at this as a job through 2012. She can do what Colin Powell did and resign at the conclusion of Obama's first term (irrespective of whether he wins a second term or not). That would enable her to be able to run in 2016, which is really the earliest she could consider running anyway, as the Democrats will not have a competitive primary in 2012.

 

Obama makes Shinseki Veterans Affairs Secretary.

 

Barak Obama should sue this guy, and Philip Berg, for harrassment. Both these morons have been confronted with the evidence, but nevertheless continue to attempt to undermine the democratic process with their deceitfulness and crass grandstanding. Both these guys are good examples of the case for tort reform in our courts.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28111773

And the same goes for this guy too...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n28060353

 

Well, on the one hand, this is ridiculous because Obama's mother was a US Citizen who had lived in the US within the past 5 years, so regardless of where he's born or who his father is, he can claim natural-born status. At the same time, the claim of Indonesian citizenship is logically valid, if quite thin on evidence. That one I'd like to see go to court.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder why this has been thrown out. The last one I heard was that a US Citizen didn't have standing to challenge a US Presidential Candidate's candidacy. If we don't have standing, who does? And why the hell don't we? Also, if the logic behind at least the first part is flat out wrong, why don't they take the case, rule it unfounded or whatever, and find in Obama's favor? Any lawyers want to fill me in?

 

Some cases are too frivolous and ridiculous to go to trial. Since a grade schooler with 5 minutes to spare and access to google can easily disprove the assertions, there is clearly no ground for a court hearing.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Obama was required to provide proof of citizenship to be put on the ballots. The burden of proof had already been met -- there is no basis for a challenge.

The Supreme Court turned down a formal hearing -- that means they agree with the lower court's ruling and that ruling stands. In not hearing the case they have made a decision.

These nutcases also claimed McCain was not a valid candidate because he was not born in the US (his father was a Naval Officer and stationed overseas). People try to get their 15 minutes of fame in whatever way they can -- I'm all in favor of the court saying (basically) 'you've wasted enough people's time.'

 

I concur wholeheartedly with T2Bruno and Drew -- frivolous cases are a horrendous waste of time and also jam up the courts, making legitimate cases wait in an overly long queue.

I wonder if the whole 2000 recount thing gave some reactionary Republicans the idea that once an election is counted, it is still open for debate and challenge, regardless of how stupid the the debater's ostensible points are. I mean, really. Obama won, by a substantial number. Get the hell over it already, you reactionaries! Focus on taking back the Senate and House of Reps in 2010. Focus on State politics. Or, here's a good one, focus on your own behaviour and well being. I mean, God knows I disagree with a lot of policies of the left, but once they are law I accept the fact that for now they are law and move on with my own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There comes a point where a person is just spinning his wheels and making himself miserable, not to mention everyone else in the local vicinity. There's a time and place for litigation and fighting, and there's a time and place for regrouping to fight another day.

 

Yes, that was the second link I posted. The suit was brought by the arch-conservative party, the American Independents. These guys remind me of a small group of fools we have in Texas with a similar outlook.

We are sometimes an overly litigious society.

 

Sometimes?

 

...When you consider that America was founded by a bunch of lawyers (no offence to Dmc).

 

It appears that Democrats had no need to support Hillary. I know Obama campaigned against a "GWB third term," but we didn't know that we would be getting a "Clinton third term." I'm not saying that these are bad choices in themselves, but:

"Change has come to America."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28207447/

 

OK now he has pissed off all the gays that voted for him
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867664,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
I love this line

Does he just have a weak spot for preachers or what?
Dang why couldn't he have done this before the election.

 

It's a bad sign for the political left when martaug starts liking Obama...
I said this about Obama before, he's just another member of the political elite, and isn't hung up about lying, scheming and manipulating, to further his political agenda. People can call me misinformed or underinformed, but I don't think Obama will honour his 'far-left-political-roots', and that's being optimistic: What if he's another GWB in disguise?
I fear that he's more like Tony Blair (y'know: "Hey Tony, what are you doing? Labour party is left wing, remember?")

 

Coin - Liberalism is SUPPOSED to be about inclusiveness; that does not mean shutting out people with whom you disagree. We have had 8 years of that. The thing I was hoping for was some fresh people with some new ideas. Instead, there are all these retreads, and not only from Clinton, but from Bush as well.

But the thing to keep in mind, Coin, is that while GWB is out on some big tour promoting himself as not having been a complete failure, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Obama is on everyday, working hard, and trying to manage some solutions to keep this from getting any worse. The contrast cannot be plainer.

 

I don't think Obama has much of a far-left political roots to honor. While an urban metropolis with no lack of manufacturing is more likely than, say, Texas to have notable left-wing presence, afaik Obama has long been a centrist.

BTW, I saw on another site that Obama picked an Evangelical called Warren for the prayer at the inaugural ceremony. Is that important? I though Obama's own religious views lied more with the Methodists, or Baptists or something like that... Never got the hang of all those Protestant sects. Anyway, as far as I understand Warren is apparently not really liked on the left, and there are bound to be quite a few preachers in Obama's own denomination that would probably be perfectly acceptable to everyone. Is this a gesture of respect to the so-called religious right, or something else?

 

Obama was never far left here in Illinois. He's a moderate -- he tends to find middle ground where both sides can agree.

 

Can I just ask why you said this? Because I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what inclusiveness had to do with my statement...
Is it about Obama getting involved with the current politicians, who have more conservative views?

 

Coin: You said:

I took that to mean that much like GWB, Obama did not respect any other poltical view outside of his own particular ideology. Yes? No? Maybe?

But unlike GWB, Obama is willing to include people in his process (even symbolically) with whom he disagrees, like Warren. And he does disagree with him on some major social issues. Does that mean that Warren will shape policy? Unlikely. The important thing is that there is a dialogue between the more reasonable factions within the evangelical movement and the progressive movement. If Obama is will to include those with whom he disagrees (hence the term inclusiveness) in the dialogue about where we should go from here (in the post GWB age), those who are unwilling to engage will marginalize themselves from the process and can only blame themselves for their political isolation.

 

But What can Obama do for Gays? If he comes out in favour of Gay Marriage, how many of the 30 states that have consititutional ammendments against gay marriage might flip back from Democrat to Republican in 2012? California comes to mind, with their 54 seats in the Electoral College...

The only hope for Obama to salvage this PR concern is to find a new way to look at the issues, and satisfy the demands of Gay Rights without pissing off the Religious people--especially the ones that vote!