Comments on: Barack Obama meet Jimmy Carter

By: minion_for_hire

minion_for_hire — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:28:53 +0000

I think the fact that he’s asking the Germans for support in Afghanistan is a good thing: it means he’s acknowledging that America needs help, and isn’t the gung-ho go-it-alone superpower that Bush has made it seem at times. It also should, in theory take some pressure off the US by getting the European NATO powers to pull a bit more of the weight.

Just a thought

By: Dixie

Dixie — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:38:42 +0000

Fancy-pants showmanship has been the order of the day for Americans since before any of the Coven bloggers were born. Make no mistake. Aren’t we discussing in another front-page entry the dismal fact that reality shows get fantastic ratings while shows like Firefly struggle for life on American TV?

Yes, Obama is being showy and populist. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have real plans lurking underneath all that. Just means he’s smart enough not to bore America (you really thought those talks in Europe were for Europeans?) with dull details that no one will understand (or like).

By: xaosseed

xaosseed — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:01:02 +0000

From my brief conversations with various Eastern seaboard types just recently, they reckon it’ll be a photo-finish or close to.

I think there were bits in the Berlin speech which showed he’s got a grasp on the things that need to be done – Afghanistan needs the European NATO contributors to pull their weight if they’re saying they’re committed. The willingness to put unpalatable realities in there is a good sign to me.

Of course, he’s a pol, he didn’t get where he is by being nice – and at this stage I will settle for *competent* and to my eyes McCain is just too hung up on the Neocon hook; maybe he has integrity and experience but attacking Iran (which he’s all for) would rank so high in the annals of stupidity that it would make Iraq look like the Marshall plan.

By: Goblin

Goblin — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:02:07 +0000

Unfortunately the more this campaign goes on the weaker Obama is looking. That speech in Berlin sounded like the typical populist politics where there is no policy substance to back things up. Meanwhile Obama has shown no sign of economic policy other then more spending. At this point I am finding it very hard to see Obama being a better option than McCain (someone who I don’t hold in a very high regard). I truly think fancy pants showmanship has hoodwinked the American population.

By: Dixie

Dixie — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:34:23 +0000

I actually preferred Bush at the time. It was 1992. I was 12. I’ve changed a bit since then, but the result is still that I’ve always been on the losing side of the third party problem.

By: uber

uber — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:18:05 +0000

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png That should of course have been ’92.

By: uber

uber — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:10:49 +0000

It’s very hard to imagine him doing a lot better. After all, the popular vote was only just preserved in 2004.

It would be nice to be on the winning side of a Nader effect for once.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png Ross Perot did a nice job in ’96.

By: Dixie

Dixie — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:39:02 +0000

If Obama takes 50-51% of the vote, he will lose.

I say this not because I specifically fear pregnant chad, butterfly ballots, or whatever, but because I have too much faith in the Republican machine’s ability to take a tiny margin of defeat and turn it into a victory via expensive tricks and loopholes.

On the other hand, if Bob Barr (from my hometown, practically — he’s one district over, in one of the areas I spent a lot of time playing in during high school) runs a good campaign, it might be the best thing to happen. It would be nice to be on the winning side of a Nader effect for once.