Previous Entry | Next Entry

The 2008 Presidential Election

  • Feb. 6th, 2008 at 10:17 AM
naanima: ([Misc] Lying in the street)
I have been keeping an eye on the American presidential election this year, and I must admit I’m favouring Obama to win. [livejournal.com profile] birdseyeview have a very comprehensive list of reasons as to why she will be voting for Obama. While I admire the policies and the changes Clinton attempted and wish to implement in the future I find her lack of international policies worrying.

At this point I think anyone will be better than Bush.

ETA: As reminded by [livejournal.com profile] archangelbeth - except for Huckabee.
ETA 2: As reminded by [livejournal.com profile] i_smile - all the Republican candidates seem like nut-jobs (my own phrasing).

Tags:

Comments

archangelbeth: An egyptian-inspired eye, centered between feathered wings. (Default)
[personal profile] archangelbeth wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 02:06 am (UTC)
anyone will be better than Bush

Except Huckabee. The man scares me. >_>


[identity profile] naanima.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 02:08 am (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me. I completely forgot about him; I think I keep on hoping for the best when it comes to humanity, thus, making the assumption that he won't be voted in *crosses fingers*.
archangelbeth: An egyptian-inspired eye, centered between feathered wings. (Default)
[personal profile] archangelbeth wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:24 am (UTC)
I'm hoping to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he's politically thrashed. Because. Wants to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with his religion. Doubleyou. Tee. Eff.

About all I can say in his favor is that he is at least open about it. *shudder*
[identity profile] naanima.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:59 am (UTC)
From the little I know of the other candidates it seems that all the Republican candidates are, um, quite explicit and open about their hates.
archangelbeth: An egyptian-inspired eye, centered between feathered wings. (Default)
[personal profile] archangelbeth wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 12:51 pm (UTC)
Oh, probably -- but Huckabee is the only one I know of who 1) said he was going to try to change the Constitution, and 2) got Chuck Norris to endorse him. (Search YouTube.)

If I wanted a president who reminds me of Barrens Chat, I'd vote for Thrall/Sylvannas in 2008.
[identity profile] -leareth.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 9th, 2008 01:19 pm (UTC)
Huckabee gets major thumbs down if for nothing else than being one of the Republican candidates who not only admits that he doesn't believe in evolution and thinks creationism should be taught in schools, but is PROUD of it. On the upside, it also means he's extremely unlikely to have any appeal to any demographic beyond the hard-core conservatives who just want a stereotypical anti-abortion/anti-gay rights/religious conservative (and their credibility has been seriously lost over the past few years of Bush administration) and won't win over the moderate Republicans who are horrified at what's happened to their party --> Huckabee doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell THANK HEAVEN.

(Admittedly, though, I do give Huckabee props for having a good enough sense of humour to make fun of himself and play along with the jokes from The Colbert Report :P)

(and oh man, I read waaaaaaaaaay too much politics T_T)
[identity profile] i-smile.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 02:32 am (UTC)
It's not a Bush problem for me--every current Republican possibility is actively courting a demographic with the defining feature of hate. It does feel like something that Bush ushered in, but it's going to stick around well after he's gone. I can't help but think that we're going to read about this period in fifteen years the way we now read about southern governors screaming about black-white integration. What are they thinking? Surely power isn't worth bathing in that much filth & poison.

Even four years ago, if the Republicans had put up someone less reactionary than Bush, I would have considered that person at least as seriously as the Dem candidate. Bush was a deal-breaker on my voting Republican, but I leant towards McCain. This time, every Republican candidate is--crazy. It really frustrates me when Republican voters (especially women) go on and on about the "small government" principles they favour, while the party they're backing is taking active steps to interfere in women's medical privacy & everyone's privacy in general, and talking about erecting physical barriers & increasing infrastructure against illegal immigrants. The logic escapes me, all very strong moral opinions aside.

Having totally spilled out all over your journal--I'm not voting today. I prefer Obama slightly, but I will happily vote for Clinton if she's nominated. I have my reservations about both of them, but I think that they're both fundamentally positive choices at this point. I'm usually a "lesser of two evils" kind of person, but we've actually sunk so far under this last government that there's room even for a grasping politician with way more power than I think s/he should have to do some concrete good. :D I absolutely see where you're coming from on the international front--that's one of the ways I worry about Clinton--but on balance, I can't say that Obama would definitely be better. I'm leaving it to people who feel strongly, this time around.

But thanks for the link. :D
[identity profile] naanima.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:57 am (UTC)
every current Republican possibility is actively courting a demographic with the defining feature of hate.

You are right, it is absolutely insane that a political figure can be so explicit about their hate for one group or another, and the general public seem to be fine about it. Generally speaking the Republicab candidates scares me (some more so than others), and I think one of the reasons I'm pro-Obama is because he has been relatively scandal free, and I hope he would do the right thing and not the easy thing.

Spill away ;). I admit that the American voting system still confuses me quite a bit, and it is still my personally held belief that voting should be compulsory. I would be happy with Clinton or Obama as the next President of USA. The area of international policy is a tricky one - economics, political alliances and war are all heavily dependent on the next President, and this can cause major repercussions on how globalisation will evolve. It is hard to articulate so I'm going to point you to this article - Waving Goodbye to Hegemony (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin).

No probs. :)

[identity profile] -leareth.livejournal.com wrote:
Feb. 9th, 2008 07:04 am (UTC)
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, all three front runners -- Obama, Clinton, McCain -- are an improvement on Bush. (Huckabee doesn't have a feasible chance so he's a toss off) As far America is concerned, if they want to get past the friggin' 1960's thinking and the whole red/blue divide ... Obama's probably the best chance they've got. The number of times I've seen people on US newsblogs post that they've never before been interested or passionate about politics or their government but have now been motivated to donate or volunteer for the first time in their lives, all because of Obama, is just AMAZING.

/waves an Obama flag

Profile

naanima: (Default)
[personal profile] naanima
witty, somehow

Latest Month

October 2009
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Designed by [personal profile] chasethestars