[karajorma]

To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the defections are from people who always were Republicans all along. Since John McCain won so long ago I'd be very suspicious if these defectors turned out to be newly registered voters rather than long term Democrats.

[BengalTiger]

My thoughts:
1. Obama is a charismatic character. That charisma is what scares me s***less, because he has nothing more than just that (I'll include a video which explains more/less why).
2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.
3. McCain is old, he's been a POW in Vietnam, and when he talks about war, he knows what he's saying, because he's been there personally. As a former soldier, he'll have leadership skills, but he's too old to show everyone what he can do.
4. Having a warrior in office during a violent peace keeping mission means that it'll be done when Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies, no matter how long it takes or how much it'll cost.

I'd personally vote for McCain, but I'll be across the ocean when the elections take place, and I'm posting from across the ocean right now, so I'll leave the voting to those who know the candidates better.


And now:
1 for Obama:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036
and 1 for McCain (2 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

(I think the vids show the dark side of both candidates, watch them if you want to, and if you do watch both. Also, if you have a dilemma of either beginning a flame war or keeping the comment to yourself, don't post)

[Flipside]

Hmm.. Whilst the video raises a lot of points, it should be remembered that Bush Jr was bought up in an elitist, fundamental Christian society with the likes of Cheney around him for most of it, Clinton spent a lot of her life with Bill and others around her in a privileged life etc.

I don't think there is any politician that hasn't been bought up in an environment that has taught them that their own 'class' comes before anyone else.

[karajorma]

2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.

Seriously? You're having a go at him cause of his name?

Let me give you the opposite side of the argument then. Voting in a man called Barack Hussein at a time when the Middle East are hostile with you because they think you hate Arabs and want them all dead might actually give them a slight reason to trust you. Same as the Russians might have trusted Sergiey Ivanovich a bit more during the cold war.

[Flipside]

I must admit, of all the reasons in the world not to vote for a politician, I think 'they've got a weird name' has got to be up there near the top.

Although, in all fairness, hair played a role in my mayoral vote... I hate Boris' hair,  it's like someone hit him over the head with a mop in school and no-one bothered to remove it...

[NGTM-1R]

Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain

Which is stupid, considering Clinton has now given up and officially endorsed Obama/requested her supporters help him out. (Finally. I suspect Ted Kennedy and the other party fathers had to yell at her for a few days.)

[Mars]

60% of Clinton supporters supported Clinton just because she was a woman, I'd stake my life on it.

[Flipside]

Whereas McCain looked like a constipated Cheshire Cat at his last speech...

I know oratory skills aren't everything, but damn, you don't need that, not after Bush...

[Mars]

So what have we learned:

Obama cons:

• Funny name
• Speaks too well

Mccain cons:

• Continuation of Bush
• Continuation of war

[achtung]

So what have we learned:

Obama cons:

• Funny name

• Speaks too well

Mccain cons:

• Continuation of Bush
• Continuation of war

How is speaking too well a con?

[Flipside]

I think speaking is the key here. Like Bill Clinton who, for all his personal flaws, was a very good diplomat, I think that is what the US needs.

There is a grain of knowledge that Clinton had and Bush did not. Never, ever, turn something into a battle of wills. A Good diplomat understands that the other guys view is just as important to him as yours is to you, I always felt that was something Bush never understood. You cannot out-will another country, it'll never happen, the harder you try to force people to act as you wish, the more they will refuse to, hence the number of deadlocks around the world at this time.

America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.

McCain, is probably the worst bet, in my opinion, because, after 8 years of Bush, voting in McCain would give a terrible message to the rest of the world, that America is happy with Presidents who are expansionist, centralist and confrontational, and, certainly in the more removed areas of the world, this will send a very loud message to the people there. They don't always understand how the voting system works, and will judge purely by the outcome, not the procedure.

On a side note, expect this election to be utterly rife with accusations of vote rigging...

[NGTM-1R]

There is a grain of knowledge that Clinton had and Bush did not. Never, ever, turn something into a battle of wills. A Good diplomat understands that the other guys view is just as important to him as yours is to you, I always felt that was something Bush never understood. You cannot out-will another country, it'll never happen, the harder you try to force people to act as you wish, the more they will refuse to, hence the number of deadlocks around the world at this time.

Considering Kosovo and Clinton's willingness to order Tomahawk strikes on several countries in lieu of negotations, I have to differ. Bill Clinton's actions spawned the phrase "cruise missile diplomacy" you know.

Now, frankly, Clinton had a vastly better concept of how to use American military technology, but don't tell me he was a great peacemaker, because an honest reading of his presidency shows he wasn't.

[Flipside]

It's not so much a question of peacemaking, it's dealing with the results of your own actions. Clinton managed to execute his form of diplomacy without starting the problems that Bush got America into, because he knew how to do it, Bush doesn't. That's where the problem lay.

I'm not saying Clinton was great by a long shot, but he understood that invading  another country would be nothing more than a long-term drain on the economy and the trust of the American people. Clinton wasn't nice, but he was smart. I'm under no illusions about Obama, I don't think he's a nice person, but then, I don't think there's ever been a stage in the history of mankind where rulers have been 'nice', as such. Nor would his alleviation to President suddenly end all the worlds problems.

But he does know how to communicate with people, and that, right now, is what is needed.

[WMCoolmon]

My thoughts:
1. Obama is a charismatic character. That charisma is what scares me s***less, because he has nothing more than just that (I'll include a video which explains more/less why).
2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.
3. McCain is old, he's been a POW in Vietnam, and when he talks about war, he knows what he's saying, because he's been there personally. As a former soldier, he'll have leadership skills, but he's too old to show everyone what he can do.
4. Having a warrior in office during a violent peace keeping mission means that it'll be done when Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies, no matter how long it takes or how much it'll cost.

I'd personally vote for McCain, but I'll be across the ocean when the elections take place, and I'm posting from across the ocean right now, so I'll leave the voting to those who know the candidates better.


And now:
1 for Obama:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036
and 1 for McCain (2 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

(I think the vids show the dark side of both candidates, watch them if you want to, and if you do watch both. Also, if you have a dilemma of either beginning a flame war or keeping the comment to yourself, don't post)

I'm skeptical of both videos. The first video seems to make the core of its case based on the views of Obama's pastor. At some point Obama would have to make a judgment call of whether he ought to distance himself from his pastor - thereby hurting his previous statements that Wright was a mentor - or stick with it and take whatever fringe damage he gets. Since Wright has become such a controversial icon, I wouldn't consider what he says to be reliable. What he said in church, what he said to Obama, may have been a far scaled-back version of what he's saying on the tube now. It wouldn't be the first time that somebody has made intentionally controversial statements because they had the attention of the media.

The video on McCain relies a lot on contradiction, and I'm willing to give McCain some leeway in terms of not knowing the context of his statements. I think if you took a microphone to anybody and started following them around all the time, you'd be able to piece together a video of them making contradictory statements by cutting around what was asked, the flow of the conversation at that point, etc. Given how often and how intensively politicians' comments are scrutinized, I'm not surprised at all that there are inconsistencies found in their statements. I can see the Confederate flag being a symbol of heritage and a symbol of racism. Not a history major, but the civil war era South does have its own identity apart from the North. Not all of that is tied up in racism, even if the institution was heavily dependent on it.

Still, it's good to see somebody grilling both candidates.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm staying out of a detailed discussion for a moment but I'd like to debunk a popular myth:  that experience as a grunt soldier in war makes a candidate a better potential leader of the military.

This view is popularized by war films that take the (as my military analyst of a modern warfare history teacher put it) "worm's eye view."  Films like Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, the miniseries Band of Brothers (just to name three recent ones) along with literally hundreds of others focus on the individual units, never larger than battalion-sized, from their perspective.  The numbers of war movies that actually look at grand wartime strategy number in the single digits, and every single one of them is a documentary or non-fiction.

The problem is that strategy in conflict operates on an entirely different intellectual level than strategy at the theatre, operational, or even diplomatic levels.  Someone who was experience as a military general can legitimately use that as a qualification for foreign relations and military knowledge.  Anyone ranking lower than that does not have a grasp of the big picture.

This is largely the problem with political leadership and military operations.  Presidents and Prime Ministers have wonderful knowledge of what individual units can do and what military materiel they have available.  They are atrocious at actual strategic thinking at the operational level (nevermind that most of them constantly get strategic, operational, and theatre levels confused, much like the Americans in Iraq who have named several strategies as operations and vice versa.  Military history should be a mandatory course for any candidate for office).  This is one of the most enormous deficits in the waging of modern war - political leaders, even those with military background, just don't have a clue.  Bush Jr has exemplified this better than I could ever describe.

The only qualification that military service in the lower ranks does provide is a knowledge of what individuals go through during wartime - and while that can be an important factor in a decision to not conduct a campaign, it can also hinder otherwise sound strategic judgement through emotional consideration.  Ultimately, if a war needs to be fought on strategic and diplomatic grounds, you don't want your leader waffling about because of concern over individual soldiers' welfare.

To summarize:  military service doesn't matter a damn to how well a political candidate will perform in office.  The best example of this is one of the finest civilian political leaders of a military campaign in the past century:  an American, Franklin Roosevelt.  While Churchill (who did have military experience as an officer) held out with Britain, Roosevelt had to convince and prepare an entire nation previously committed to isolationism for the largest conversion and maintenance of a wartime economy ever undertaken in history.  And he did it in less than two years.

So yeah, McCain's military service is quite possibly the least important factor in his bid for President.

[Kosh]

America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.

Yeah, but America also needs a reformer just as badly.

I'm staying out of a detailed discussion for a moment but I'd like to debunk a popular myth:  that experience as a grunt soldier in war makes a candidate a better potential leader of the military.

Hitler was a grunt soldier in WW1, and made a terrible military leader, making several major strategic mistakes that effectively cost Germany the war.

Considering Kosovo and Clinton's willingness to order Tomahawk strikes on several countries in lieu of negotations, I have to differ. Bill Clinton's actions spawned the phrase "cruise missile diplomacy" you know.

Now, frankly, Clinton had a vastly better concept of how to use American military technology, but don't tell me he was a great peacemaker, because an honest reading of his presidency shows he wasn't.

And yet he was often criticized for it, even though it was vastly more effective (both in terms of cost and effect) than actual invasions were.

[Flipside]

America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.

Yeah, but America also needs a reformer just as badly.

Agreed, but in order to reform, it needs to drop the walls it has built between itself and other nations, Obamas idea of actually meeting with what they describe as 'Terrorist Leaders', such as Gadaffi and talking to them is, in itself, a pretty radical standpoint for a lot of voters, I wonder about the state of any political situation where a film is made criticising a politician for wanting to actually talk to someone, rather than send off members of the military to fight them.

Basically, the Political ethos of wanting to lead the world whilst remaining somewhat aloof from it is not going to work, and it's in that respect that Obama is a better bet. Time will tell whether he's up to the job, but I'm pretty certain that he is a better bet than McCain for the idea of stabilising America both internally and externally.

[BengalTiger]

If you demand an experienced candidate- McCain was in the Navy for 22 years, an Arizona Senator 1982-1987 and is a US Senator since Jan 1987.
Obama's career starts much later.

Also- Hitler was a good speaker with tons of charisma, but not much else, so we could use him against Obama just as well as against McCain.

[WMCoolmon]

[Mefustae]

Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain

Which goes to show how ****ed not only the American political landscape is, but how ****ed her people are. I love how these people aren't at all loyal to ideals or their beliefs, but to a ****ing person. This is a major event that will affect the entire world, and these people seem to be content to think of it as a ****ing popularity contest!?

Those people make me sick.