Latest on MJJC

US Presidential Election ... [All recent threads merged here]

Re: US Presidential Election

I think both Obama and Hilary has had equal praise and hits from the media. Honestly.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

J5master said:
I think both Obama and Hilary has had equal praise and hits from the media. Honestly.
Click to expand...
Well early on when the tide starting turning towards Obama one of the journalists for a mainline news source (forget which one now) said they had a hard time being objective when reporting on Obama because they just got caught up in him. I believe that Obama is sincere but we have to be careful to not be so captivated that we do not question.

To Arxter:
Yeah. Drudge is not to be taken seriously and I suppose he posts the nastiest things he can find but he is finding them and from mainstream sources too.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

eternitys_child said:
I believe that Obama is sincere but we have to be careful to not be so captivated that we do not question.
Click to expand...
the problem is, when the common mass media does question, they focus on the wrong issue. we had the Spitzer and Wright blowout in the same week.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

arXter said:
the problem is, when the common mass media does question, they focus on the wrong issue. we had the Spitzer and Wright blowout in the same week.
Click to expand...
True. And all it does is distract from the real issues. Kudos for Obama's abilty to turn it around and use the Wright hoopla to bring attention to something important. He has my respect for that.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

On what Marianne Williamson said about Hillary: the problem with all of this, is that wether she is attacked for being a woman, or because she is not "feminine enough", its two sides of the same coin. The main problem is that she can never just be a candidate- she also has to be judged as a representative for "women", for her gender.

I would be happy if either of the democratic candidates were elected, but as a foreigner its interesting to see how differently they are treated in the media.
Sometimes I wonder though, if race is too mutch of a challenge to be "used" as a tool openly against Obama, but gender is more accepted to use in attacking a candidate?

i also wonder what will happen if ( and right now this seems the most likely outcome) that he becomes the dem candidate. How will that affect the medias treatment?
It would be interesting to hear what people in the US think about this- will race be "openly" used as a way of attacking him, or is that too sensitive a thing, and his opponents would rather use it as a "hidden" tool?
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

I think race always has been used to attack him...either race or religious background. I mean of course people arent gonna come out directly and say hateful things, but i think a lot of it has been subtly implied (just like racism generally is in america). On the surface people has said that, as obama has said himself, that he is not black enough or too white, or which ever. Or now that he's "only" a "black candidate" and nothing more.

I do think that gender has been used against hillary too. and it has been more direct because, as u have said, it is less sensitive of a topic. Honestly (although i am biased for Obama lol)...i think Hillary's experience push has made up for that. She has pushed her campaign and herself to be more "competent" as president...more so than Obama as a male, since she has more experience.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

If Obama gets the nomination, which seems likely, what I fear is that it is then racism will rear it's ugly head. Racism in inherent in the United States, whether people want to admit it or not. What's worse about it today is that, it still exsists just as strongly, but it is not as overt, yet still has and takes an affect on the outcome of things. I'm worried that right now, those voting for Obama won't be so sure of that vote when it comes down to putting him in the White House. I liken it to American Idol, when people vote for the contestent they most relate to, not because they're the best, but because they find something of themselves in that person. But when it comes down to buying their album, they drop the ball and aren't willing to put their money on the counter for them. I don't know if that will happen with Obama, but it might. Behind that curtain, even if it is subconcious, people may not be willing to make the big vote when it comes to a black candidate.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

^ ur right. Hopefully that's not the case. I have hope that a big majority of the country would have learned their lesson after the last 8 years, and rather some real change over another Bush clone lol
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Maybe. I didn't think people would want to vote a Rebublican in to office again, but it's hard to say, and McCain isn't a very radical republican. He falls more towards the liberal side of things and is likeable due to his war time expereiences and over all experience.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

From Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic comes the reporting that Obama wrote his speech on race and America himself. Reports Ambinder:

"This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers."

---
To be honest, I don't know what to make of this controversy surrounding his pastor. It won't affect the Democratic election much, but come GOP time, it will most likely used by the Republicans. It's good to see Obama has turned something so threatening to his campaign into something positive.

Now tell me how presidential this looks!
0011eeha.jpg
 
Re: US Presidential Election

movingcoolcat said:
On what Marianne Williamson said about Hillary: the problem with all of this, is that wether she is attacked for being a woman, or because she is not "feminine enough", its two sides of the same coin. The main problem is that she can never just be a candidate- she also has to be judged as a representative for "women", for her gender.

I would be happy if either of the democratic candidates were elected, but as a foreigner its interesting to see how differently they are treated in the media.
Sometimes I wonder though, if race is too mutch of a challenge to be "used" as a tool openly against Obama, but gender is more accepted to use in attacking a candidate?

i also wonder what will happen if ( and right now this seems the most likely outcome) that he becomes the dem candidate. How will that affect the medias treatment?
It would be interesting to hear what people in the US think about this- will race be "openly" used as a way of attacking him, or is that too sensitive a thing, and his opponents would rather use it as a "hidden" tool?
Click to expand...
Yes. Hillary is in a damned if she does and damned if she doesn't position. That is why I say I believe people not being ready for a woman in power is a major factor here.

As to Obama, while there will always be hardcore haters I think the majority of predjudice is against a stereotype that Obama shatters or at least doesn't fit so you will not see any majority turn against him because of his race or heritage. That is my opinion but then I have never understood predjudice so I have a hard time predicting it.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Bob George said:
That was the only thing I didn't like about his speech. The flags. It was such a cheap tactic.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a cheap tactic. Many are accusing Obama of "not respecting the flag" which I don't even know how that started. Obama was trying to make a statement without saying a word... political stagecraft.

I could give you a list of all of Hillary's cheap tactics, but that's another debate for another day.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Bob George said:
That was the only thing I didn't like about his speech. The flags. It was such a cheap tactic.
Click to expand...
I only read his speech. I didn't listen to it. I'm kind of glad now that I see the flags. They are a distraction.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Well when u watch the speech u only see partially two of them on his left and right sides LOL. I don't think it was THAT big of a deal. I was paying to much attention to what he SAID lol
 
Re: US Presidential Election

browneyedgirl said:
It wasn't a cheap tactic. Many are accusing Obama of "not respecting the flag" which I don't even know how that started. Obama was trying to make a statement without saying a word... political stagecraft.

I could give you a list of all of Hillary's cheap tactics, but that's another debate for another day.
Click to expand...
I think it was a cheap tactic. Because Americans are very sentimental when it comes to their flag. So Obama just stuck some flags behind to emote that sentimentality in the American people. He knew what he was doing. It wasn't anything more than a cheap tactic. You can disguise it as political stagecraft, but that's just a fancy term for a cheap tactic, lol. I don't like it when any politician gives a speech in front of flags because it's not necessary and is only done because it's a foolproof way to capture the hearts of the people. In any country, the only person that should give a speech in front of the flag of that country, is the president/prime minister/whatever.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

I don't like it when any politician gives a speech in front of flags because it's not necessary and is only done because it's a foolproof way to capture the hearts of the people.
Click to expand...

Really now?

[youtube]q6Ry9nZu_dM[/youtube]

EVERYONE does it lol.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right. It's always done for a reason, regardless of who does it (besides the president).
 
Re: US Presidential Election

therefore u can allot the same critique to ur own favorite candidate then right?
 
Re: US Presidential Election

newly released 11,000+ paged Clinton White House schedules are showing some interesting stuff... i can see why they didn't want them released. this thing needs a series of its own

episode 1:


Hillary's schedule proves she worked on NAFTA

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/16710/5636/924/480135


scamming Ohio voters.


naftasked.jpg
She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.

Her schedule for Nov. 10, 1993, shows her speaking at a NAFTA briefing closed to the media, with 120 people expected to attend.
​
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Bob George said:
Politicians are such hypocrits. lol. Including Obama. He's not exactly been straight and honest about NAFTA either.
Click to expand...
he's been very straight. he did not contradict himself in any way and has been consistent on the issue. the story with the Canadian politicians was a Hillary media attack that misinterpreted and exaggerated a memo ahead of Ohio votes.

The Overlooked Fact in the Canadian NAFTA Memo.

Mark Jay Flanders - 3/5/08

The narrative of the attack on Obama over a supposed "back-channel" reassurance of Canada about NAFTA goes something like this: After Tim Russert, in the Ohio debates, pushed both the Candidates into saying they would use the threat of dropping out of NAFTA to renegotiate for improved environment and Labor standards, Obama presumably sent his leading economic advisor quietly to Canada to reassure them that it was merely political positioning. When asked about it, Obama said "It didn"t happen". The media pounced, producing a memo describing a talk between a Canadian Embassy official and Obama"s economic advisor. GOTCHA!

For the moment, put aside Obamas position on trade, which has been consistent and available for anyone to see. The damage of this attack is the implication of duplicity about the meeting itself. Obama prides himself on being an honest agent of change, and this episode paints this to be false. However, there is a simple fact that blows this narrative out of the water.

The meeting the memo discusses was on Friday, February 8th.

In terms of election cycles, this was a century ago. It was the day before the Washington State and Nebraska Caucuses and the Louisiana Primary. It was before the Maine vote, before the Potomac Primaries and before Wisconsin. The Ohio vote was light years away, nobody was talking about NAFTA and the Ohio debate had not even been scheduled.

Given this detail, Obama"s NAFTA debate comments were in no way "soft-pedaled" via a back channel, and more importantly, Obama told the truth. An independent, introductory meeting in Chicago on February 8th, which Obama may or may not have known about, can in no way be described by this media narrative.

It seems an unlikely coincidence that this story broke two days before the Ohio primary.

---
Source: AP- "Obama denies assuring Canada on NAFTA." Nedra Pickler​
 
Re: US Presidential Election

the Embassy contacted his campaign (and surely contacted Hillary's too). this is different than working for NAFTA and meeting up with 200 NAFTA'rians telling them what a good job they're doing.

and remember, Obama never wanted to eliminate NAFTA completely but to amend it.

this is why it's being blown out of proportion.
 
Re: US Presidential Election

Oh OK. I just wasn't sure. The article was confusing, didn't get to the point. Thanks for explaining it.

But I do have one question; how is that you can tell by looking at the excerpt from Hillary's schedule that the meeting for NAFTA was a positive one where she told the NAFTA people what a good job they're doing? Isn't that just an assumption. Couldn't she of just as well been speaking out against NAFTA and telling 120 people that NAFTA isn't working and needs to be amended?
 
Last edited:
Re: US Presidential Election

But I do have one question; how is that you can tell by looking at the excerpt from Hillary's schedule that the meeting for NAFTA was a positive one where she told the NAFTA people what a good job they're doing? Isn't that just an assumption. Couldn't she of just as well been speaking out against NAFTA and telling 120 people that NAFTA is working and needs to be amended?
Click to expand...
yes after appproving the deal with her husband, i'm sure she told everyone at that meeting just how skeptical she was, how it would shaft workers in Ohio and all that jazz.... sheaahhh...




First Lady schedules episode 2:


NYT article DEBUNKS Hillary's claims of experience
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19cnd-archives.html?ref=politics

remember, this is from the paper that endorsed Clinton.


On supporting her claims on experience:
The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton’s desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day’s calendar that she attended.
​

On her 80 country passport-filling visits where she dealt with snipers, major foreign policy issues etc:
They show Mrs. Clinton representing the nation at ceremonial functions in dozens of foreign visits, attending formal White House functions and sitting to be photographed for magazines.
​

On some of her claims regarding the most important"speech" of her life:
In her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton writes that she received intelligence briefings prior to going to China in September 1995 to deliver her landmark women’s rights speech. But no such meetings appear on the calendars released on Wednesday.
​
 
Re: US Presidential Election

The China 1995 speech on women's rights. Now that was a great speech!

Say what you want about Hillary. When it comes to women's rights, children's rights and healthcare, she is so passionate. I hope if there's another debate schedules between Obama and Clinton, they ask something about women's rights. Or something to do with children. That'll shut everyone up who says she's a heartless drone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top