Barack Obama

The right wing press are trying their best to destroy him before he gets started. Fox News presented a ludicrous story about him going to a terrorist training school as a kid, which was proven to be total nonsense. Meanwhile every political journalist is digging for evidence that he had a thoroughly sinful past just so they can be the first to use the headline: Obama Sin Laden

Harper's just printed an interesting article on him: http://www.harpers.org/BarackObamaInc.html He's running for president but I think his chances would be better if he waited till the next election, 2012. But he's such a sensation right now, I'm sure he was advised to run while he's hot. He's got a good message and a smooth delivery, but as of right now, I'm voting for Hillary. It's true, his past is being scrutinized for any morsel of taint, but I think the guy's fairly clean, but who know's what they might find, other than an unfortunate first name that rhymes with the most wanted man in the world.

I would never vote for him in any election. He is to liberal for my taste. At the moment I am for Ron Paul. A Republican Congress from Texas and was the Libertarian Candidate for President in 1988.

He has become a media sensation and does well in the polls, but it is still early. He can't wait until 2012 because he may never have another chance. He's riding high now because he is a highly articulate speaker, has no significant record to weigh him down with facts, and comes across as non-threatening to whites. In fact, I would say most whites do not see him as black because he does not exhibit the anger, self-pity, and propensity to violence associated with many American blacks. In that sense, he is a bit like Collin Powell, whose parents were from, I think, Jamaica. At the same time, it is extremely early in the campaign and much can happen. Hilary's problem is that she tries too hard to bend with the wind in order not to appear to be too rigid. She might be able to bulldoze her way to the nomination, but I seriously doubt she would win the general election, unless the GOP candidate is exceptionally weak and non-mainstream. That could happen, as the great hope of moderate Republicans, McCain, just gets weirder and farther out in the wrong pasture every day. He's very amusing on the Tonight Show, but I have always thought there was something wrong with the guy. Now he is showing the whole world what he really stands for and it's not so pretty. Being a prisoner of war is not a qualification for being president. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

Obama has just announced his candidacy this morning, I gather. He won't win it. The moon was VOC and in fall when he announced. I'll get pilloried for this, but mark my words. Candidates who announce on VOC moons never win. Dukakis did. Goldwater did.

Dukakis was a whinging little twit. Goldwater was way out of step with his time. Obama is neither of those things, but he does have an uphill battle, mostly because of inexperience, but it is a LONG way to the convention. Anything can happen. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

He certainly lacks the gravitas at this point to make much of a mark. If he had continued to be the Golden Boy of the Senate for a couple more terms and continued along the path he's currently on, I'd say he'd stand a very high chance indeed. As it is, he's blown it this time round, moon or not! (I realised how mad my post sounded, after the fact. I'd had the mother-in-law round for dinner, which always strains my faculties slightly...)

I reckon he could be America's Iain Duncan Smith - untested in government while loved by his constituency (mostly white liberals), excites a vocal minority but unable to make any headway with the rest of the population.

I think it's going to be Clinton vs. McCain.

Sadly, Clinton and McCain are two of the worst candidates in the field. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

And what is VOC? I just ignored all that. It made no sense at any level. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

I always said McCain could be the only republican I'd ever vote for - not so sure anymore. Hillary's smart enough, and knows how to surround herself with smart people. She knows her every move would be looked at under the conserrvative's microscope, so I don't think she'd make any blatent missteps. People will be watching Pelosi, I think. Some won't want two women in such high positions, and Pelosi being Speaker could hurt Hillary. I think the men have junked up this country long enough - give the women a chance.

And then the women will junk it up just as bad. I'd much rather just have a chance to vote for a competent candidate, regardless of their personal plumbing. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

I agree. It just so happens that, at the moment, I think Hillary is the most competent candidate, but nov 08 is some ways away - your guess is as good as mine as to who the dem nominee will be...

"I reckon he could be America's Iain Duncan Smith - untested in government while loved by his constituency (mostly white liberals), excites a vocal minority but unable to make any headway with the rest of the population." I think Obama's a much more talented political performer than IDS but that's not saying anything much. I'd agree, though, it's wrong to assume - as many British commentators seem to be - that Obama will automatically attract Black voters because he is black. For various reasons, the Clintons are very popular with Black voters in the US and opinion polls currently put Hilary miles ahead of Obama amongst that group.

Ah well, no time like the present for a brief astrology lesson. From http://www.astrologyweekly.com: "The term VOID OF COURSE refers to the condition of the Moon between the moment it performed the last major aspect with another planet in its current [zodiacal] sign and the moment of stepping into the next sign. The abbreviation of "void of course" is VOC. The void of course Moon periods are most unfavorable to do anything that require a specific desired outcome, with a very wide range of actions that include sending emails or faxes, applying for a job or contest, asking for favors, getting married or going out to date someone for the first time, starting a lawsuit or a business, announcing anything, buying important items such as a car, a property, etc. The basic rule is: when you want something to happen, if you want to be successful, avoid the void of course Moon periods, at all costs." Get an almanac and try it. It really does work. Things go wrong or skewed when the moon is VOC. Astrology notwithstanding, I would vote for neither McCain nor Clinton. I used to LOVE Hillary, back in the day when she still had her (and her husband's) own vision of how the country should work, and used to say prickly, true things like the whole "baking cookies" uproar. I lost respect for her when she carpetbagged her way to Noo Yawk and then voted for the war. I'd rather she had stuck to her principles instead of bending with the political wind. As JT says, I'll vote for whoever will make the best leader. It sure as hell wouldn't be her, not now.

There is a good reason Obama can't take the black vote for granted. His mother was white and his father immigrated from Kenya. Other than his physical appearance, he has nothing in common with the experienced heritage of 98% of african americans. They will only support him if he is willing to do something for them. Edwards and Hillary probably have far more support among blacks than Obama does. Besides, it is way too early to predict anything. Last time around it looked like HOward Dean would be the candidate, and look what happened to him. Truck loads of candidates on both sides will self-destruct along the way. Biden, who was my personal favorite of the Dems, may have already done so. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

"I lost respect for her when she carpetbagged her way to Noo Yawk and then voted for the war. I'd rather she had stuck to her principles instead of bending with the political wind. As JT says, I'll vote for whoever will make the best leader. It sure as hell wouldn't be her, not now." Well, I think the main principle for both Clintons has always been that they really, really like power and they'll do most things that are necessary to get it - including remaining married to each other. "They will only support him if he is willing to do something for them." Well, yeah but Ralph Nader would've been willing to do some things for African Americans. Al Sharpton would too. There was just no prospect that either of them would ever be in position to do things in practice. I think one reason why African-Americans are more likely than white liberals to vote for a Democrat who might win is because, in a general sense, African-Americans are worse off if a more liberal Democrat wins the nomination and then loses the election. I wouldn't discount the religious right yet, though. They don't seem to have candidate the moment but I reckon one will emerge.

"Well, I think the main principle for both Clintons has always been that they really, really like power and they'll do most things that are necessary to get it - including remaining married to each other." Sorry, Bukh, I would have to disagree with you on a number of points. There WAS a time when Bill was first elected that much of the country felt absolutely elated with the change from a Republican government; they wanted universal healthcare; they wanted legal abortion; they wanted equal rights for everyone. The problem was, Bill had to fight for much of his presidency against the 'right-wing conspiracy', and there was one, too. It wasn't about the Clintons loving power; it was about them not having enough power to make the changes they wanted to make. Then it became about Bill's personal life, and the whole thing went to hell in a handbasket. I don't see the Clintons as being any greedier for power or status than anyone else in their position, and I think the record will show that they as a couple and separately are far less ruthless than some, especially the ones currently in the big chair at the White House. Bill was a good president and despite his many mistakes I still believe he had his heart and mind in the right place. Hillary I'm less sure about as she has changed her stripes several times since then. As to their marriage, I don't think it's so easy to make judgments as to why couples stay together, especially if you haven't been married and had children. Married couples stay together for all kinds of reasons: the kids, finances, and also sometimes because they love one another despite themselves. Not that it has anything to do with Hillary's suitability as a president. I'd rather elect Bill again, if I could. I'll probably go for Edwards, as I should have done last time.

If most people in the US want universal healthcare, for example, they should try doing what the citizens of every other functional democracy in the Western world have done and vote for a party that proposes. Clinton couldn't put forward much liberal stuff after 1994 because he faced not a right-wing conspiracy but a very right-wing legislature that the American electorate voted for. Whether he would have been a more liberal president if the Democrats had retained a majority in Congress is a purely hypothetical question. I don't think he would. You might think he would. Neither of us will ever know. But I don't think Clinton was an especially bad president when you consider some of the possible alternatives. The marriage is relevant to her suitability to be president, though, because her marriage is the reason why she's a famous politician. I'm not necessarily saying she couldn't have been a famous politician in her own right but she is big political player now as part of a partnership with him.

People were not universally jumping for joy when Clinton was elected in 1992, nor were his early proposals particularly popular. That's why the GOP took over both houses of Congress in 1994. There was a massive revulsion against the arrogance of the Democrats, who had largely controled Congress and many state legislatures for many decades. The early 90s were also the high water point of that tsunami of puke known as political correctness / multiculturalism / whatever, which had reached such a point of mass hysteria and that it led directly to Timothy McViegh's bombing escapade. As for Hillary's healthcare plan, it was so complicated no one could understand it, very much a case of the proverbial camel as a horse built by committee. Besides, that was a long time ago. Universal health care would have an easier time of it now. Clinton was almost on his own back then. It was simply not a popular idea. The healthcare cabal has spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of many decades to brainwash Americans into believing that their way is the only way. What most Americans can't understand is that they already have all the worst aspects of socialized medicine, and at a fantastic cost, without any of the benefits. This will not be an easy sell. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

"People were not universally jumping for joy when Clinton was elected in 1992, nor were his early proposals particularly popular." No, they weren't: but I was elated when he got elected. I really felt the world might change then, and for the better. No matter how complicated or flawed their proposals were, they were light-years ahead of what any of the other stiffs were proposing at the time - a healthcare devolution that has left us with HMOs, PPOs, etc. and 43-plus million people with no insurance at all. I thought it was the Waco fuck-up, amongst other things, that led to Mr. McVeigh's thoughtful decision to blow up children and govt employees, not PC-ness. Although tsunami of puke would be a good description of it...

"Universal health care would have an easier time of it now." Well, yes, given that it's being pushed forward by Republican govenors in some states. Obviously, universal health care doesn't necessarily mean socialized health care. Arnie's version of universal heath care, while better than nothing, is much more like our universal car insurance than our NHS. "People were not universally jumping for joy when Clinton was elected in 1992, nor were his early proposals particularly popular." No and he got a lot less votes than either Al Gore or John Kerry got. Ross Perot got nearly 20% in 1992.

McVeigh chose, as I recall, the anniversary of Waco for his bombing, just as all thoughtful terrorists try to pick a significant date, or at least place, if they can. The reason behind it, however, was a much large issue, as I described earlier. Clinton's first two years were like watching a train wreck in slow motion. He ignored his own Congress and tried to make his case directly to "the people" through those televised town meetings. That was another huge flop. After the Republicans took over Congress, though, he behaved much more sensibly and got a lot more done. Together with Gingricht, they put the budget into surplus and set up a mechanism which would have secured the financial future of the country--had Bush Baby not dismantled the whole thing and plunged the country into war and financial chaos. Bush Baby, by the way, is not a conservative by anyone's definition. He is essentially a drunk with a credit card that seems to have no limit. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

Justyn How on earth did political correctness and multiculturalism "lead directly" to Timothy McVeigh's "bombing escapade"? Please explain.

"Bush Baby, by the way, is not a conservative by anyone's definition. He is essentially a drunk with a credit card that seems to have no limit." Well, he's the biggest spender since LBJ but that doesn't mean he's not a conservative. He's not a fiscal conservative but he supports economic policies - albeit, fiscally reckless ones - that help the very rich at the expense of people on medium and low incomes, and he supports reactionary positions on social policy (which have helped him sell the wacky economics to some poorer sections of the population). He is a conservative in that he's attempted to use radical policies to reinforce the existing power structures. On economics, though, Clinton was a much more successful conservative than Bush.