312 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Hillary would only make a good president if we had a republican congress who she didn't get along with.

Then everything would be great because the government would accomplish nothing. Just like what happened under Bill. And it was fantastic. (of course he balanced the budget, he and congress couldn't agree on anything to spend money on).

As far as character goes Hillary is a slime ball. But that's not exactly unique in politics so you can't hold it that much against her.

Really? I saw her some years back at City Hall and slime ball was not the impression I got.
She was an incredibly lovely lady. In fact she positively glowed. And who is your candidate of choice? Just curious.

I'm not judging her based on some personal impression. I'm sure she's great at making personal impressions. I'm judging her based on her politics and tactics, which are deceptive and disingenuous.

If I could pick anyone on the playing field it would be Ron Paul. Of course I've known from the beginning that he never had the slightest chance so if I had to pick between present contenders it would probably be Obama even though I disagree with 99% of his politics simply because he is the candidate that could best clean up our image with the world which has completely gone to hell under Bush.

I would certainly pick MacCain over Hillary. He spent most of his career standing up against his own party on issues of corruption, pork barrel spending, and domestic spying. He also would close Guantanamo Immediately. The primary issues I have with him is that he spent the last 7 years sucking up to the republican party so he could secure this nomination. If I could be assured he would go back to being the MacCain that ran against Bush in the primary in 2000 once he was in office I would be much more in favor of him.

[eternaltraveler]

Also this whole notion of political experience is blown out of all proportion. The country was not intended for people to spend their entire lives in politics. It was intended for people who had been successful in life and gained some wisdom to then bring that into politics in their later years.

Really? Where is that intention stated and by who? Not that it's a bad idea, but I never
heard of it as being intended. Of course, this intention totally knocks Obama out of the race and competely
supports Hillary.

Umm?

Obama has been in the Senate for 4 years. Before that he was in state legislature for 6, which is a part time job, and actually did work as a lecturer of constitutional law at the university of Chicago at the same time so I imagine unlike most candidates he actually knows what it says.

If anything my above stipulation would apply to MacCain. And have no impact on either hillary or obama.

[missminni]

I'm responding in red...

I'm not judging her based on some personal impression. I'm sure she's great at making personal impressions. I'm judging her based on her politics and tactics, which are deceptive and disingenuous.

Also a personal impression.

If I could pick anyone on the playing field it would be Ron Paul. Of course I've known from the beginning that he never had the slightest chance so if I had to pick between present contenders it would probably be Obama even though I disagree with 99% of his politics simply because he is the candidate that could best clean up our image with the world which has completely gone to hell under Bush.

On this I agree, but I think Hillary could do it just as well. In fact Europe prefers Hillary to Obama.

I would certainly pick MacCain over Hillary. He spent most of his career standing up against his own party on issues of corruption, pork barrel spending, and domestic spying. He also would close Guantanamo Immediately.
That's true. I used to like McCain for that very reason.
The primary issues I have with him is that he spent the last 7 years sucking up to the republican party so he could secure this nomination.
I know, it was disgusting.
If I could be assured he would go back to being the MacCain that ran against Bush in the primary in 2000 once he was in office I would be much more in favor of him.
I actually agree with you on the old McCain, but I think something fizzled out in his brain, because this "I will stay in Iraq 100 years" nonsense, and his trigger happy attitude towards Iran is very Armageddonish. His lack of understanding economics is also pretty damn scary. I hate to say it, but I think he's getting a little feeble. And his wife. My god. What a scary old Barbie doll. Sorry for being catty but if they can beat up on Hillary for having fat ankles, I can notice Mrs McCain looks like Barbie mummified.

[missminni]

Also this whole notion of political experience is blown out of all proportion. The country was not intended for people to spend their entire lives in politics. It was intended for people who had been successful in life and gained some wisdom to then bring that into politics in their later years.

Really? Where is that intention stated and by who? Not that it's a bad idea, but I never
heard of it as being intended. Of course, this intention totally knocks Obama out of the race and competely
supports Hillary.

Umm?

Obama has been in the Senate for 4 years. Before that he was in state legislature for 6, which is a part time job, and actually did work as a lecturer of constitutional law at the university of Chicago so I imagine unlike most candidates he actually knows what it says.

If anything my above stipulation would apply to MacCain. And have no impact on either hillary or obama.

I believe he has been in the senate since Jan. 2005. Obama worked as a community organizer, University of Chicago lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. After an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2003.
So his career in elected politics is 4 years longer than Hillary's.
As for McCain fulfilling that criteria, he entered as an elected politician in 1981. So that has McCain entering politics at 46 years of age. Barak entered at 36 and Hillary at 55. What was that intention? Success and wisdom and entering later in life? I think Hillary qualifies. But
you know, I am prejudiced.

[Lazarus Long]

On the issue of electability you have to look at tonight's results as telling, as well as the results from last Tuesday. Not only has Obama trounced Hillary across the middle of the country but he is getting larger total votes already than the Republicans combined.

If you do not think he has a great deal of negatives then it comes down to who has the best chance of beating the Republicans securely and carrying much of the Legislature with him. Obama can do this and Hillary can't.

Watch the numbers over the next few days but Clinton's campaign is in trouble.

If he becomes the clear favorite his next challenge will be to fence with his opponents across the isle and maintain his momentum all the way to November. This is no easy task with the short attention span most people have.

[missminni]

On the issue of electability you have to look at tonight's results as telling, as well as the results from last Tuesday. Not only has Obama trounced Hillary across the middle of the country but he is getting larger total votes already than the Republicans combined.

If you do not think he has a great deal of negatives then it comes down to who has the best chance of beating the Republicans securely and carrying much of the Legislature with him. Obama can do this and Hillary can't.

Watch the numbers over the next few days but Clinton's campaign is in trouble.

If he becomes the clear favorite his next challenge will be to fence with his opponents across the isle and maintain his momentum all the way to November. This is no easy task with the short attention span most people have.

I'm watching. What pisses me off is this is all because of Oprah Winfrey and the celebrity factor and
has absolutely nothing to do with who he is or his abilities. It's hype. Pure hype. He's also spending more
money on advertising than Hillary. She had to write herself a check. He has endless funds. I have to believe that Oprah has helped him quite a bit in that regard as well. I am so disgusted.

Edited by missminni, 10 February 2008 - 05:20 AM.

[mike250]

Its funny, the connection between Bill and Barack are eerily similar. At the beginning of the '92 campaign no one really thought Clinton had a shot, but he slowly built himself up and he became viable in a very similar way to Obama. while there are so many faults with all the candidates out there, his youth and "desire"-- so to speak-- for change make him more attractive then others.

[missminni]

Its funny, the connection between Bill and Barack are eerily similar. At the beginning of the '92 campaign no one really thought Clinton had a shot, but he slowly built himself up and he became viable in a very similar way to Obama. while there are so many faults with all the candidates out there, his youth and "desire"-- so to speak-- for change make him more attractive then others.

What makes him attractive are the celebrities who are backing him. Oprah especially. She is
the one that made blew him up big. With her mouth and her bucks.

[Lazarus Long]

Also I have another question for you Missimmi, what is wrong with wealthy interests financially supporting their preferences openly?

Did you cry foul when George Soros gave a fortune to Bill's campaign?

I have a problem with the whole way these campaigns are funded but now that there exists a black wealthy class do you really object that Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and Oprah (not to mention some of the Kennedy's) are putting their money where their mouths AND interests are?

Do you think we *owe* Hillary the office?

Glamor shots, celebrity funding, hell that is just the nature of the beast. At least Obama began his campaign on the principle of installments. He said give me a little and I will show you what I am really worth. Now people can give him more. The reason Hillary is loaning her campaign money is because she tapped her supporters to the max early on. Where you screaming this loud about the money when she was the front runner with more cash on hand that early practically in the history of the Democratic party?

[niner]

On the issue of electability you have to look at tonight's results as telling, as well as the results from last Tuesday. Not only has Obama trounced Hillary across the middle of the country but he is getting larger total votes already than the Republicans combined.

If you do not think he has a great deal of negatives then it comes down to who has the best chance of beating the Republicans securely and carrying much of the Legislature with him. Obama can do this and Hillary can't.

Watch the numbers over the next few days but Clinton's campaign is in trouble.

If he becomes the clear favorite his next challenge will be to fence with his opponents across the isle and maintain his momentum all the way to November. This is no easy task with the short attention span most people have.

I'm watching. What pisses me off is this is all because of Oprah Winfrey and the celebrity factor and
has absolutely nothing to do with who he is or his abilities. It's hype. Pure hype. He's also spending more
money on advertising than Hillary. She had to write herself a check. He has endless funds. I have to believe that Oprah has helped him quite a bit in that regard as well. I am so disgusted.

Was it really Oprah? I thought it was Obama's success in Iowa that got a lot of people to suddenly sit up and take notice. I think there was a lingering concern about whether or not White people could actually bring themselves to pull the lever for a Black man, and lo and behold, they seem to be able to do it in such bastions of Whiteness as Iowa, one or the other of the Dakotas and some other lily-white state in the middle of nowhere up there... So I guess that question's settled. And Obama is rolling in dough because hundreds of thousands of people are giving him small contributions on the net, not because the usual fat cats are bankrolling him. Of course, with him looking more like the next president each day, the fat cats are starting to aim the money firehoses in his direction now too. The miracle of momentum; it's like compound interest.

Sorry missminni, I wish you didn't feel so disgusted. I hope that eventually you'll be able to enjoy the history-making turn of events that we're all living through.

[biknut]

I think policy wise there's not that much difference between them. Obama's appeal is that he comes across as a above board squeaky clean play by the rules fighter, while Hildebeasty comes across as a, gotta win at all costs, hit below the belt, say any thing, disingenuous fake that's afraid to utter a word without checking the polls.

[Lazarus Long]

Clinton and McCain are both the last century's candidate and Obama not only breaks the stereotype and comes off as trustworthy as a *cross over* candidate, his being young makes him sympathetic and inspirational to young people. He is getting them out to the polls for the first time in these numbers since Carter's first run.

He has mastered web campaigning and is not somebody that frightens our allies. He doesn't come off as an easy read to our enemies either and that is a good thing.

He is not only the 21st Century candidate he is a candidate defining hope for the future. A profound symbol of change for many but also someone that has more substance than you are giving him credit for Missimmi.

The next big test after the next few primaries coming up will be if Edwards breaks his silence and comes out in favor of Obama. The party insiders do not want this to drag on till the Convention and have been pushing for a decision before July. She has a good chance in Wisconsin, the New England states, and Pennsylvania but she is likely to be trounced in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Kentucky, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Ohio. If the big delegate states go with the momentum her campaign is finished.

Obama is now technically the front runner for at least the next few days but Clinton's machine is gearing up for a big fight in Texas (which I really doubt she can win).

Here is an interesting site with up to date info.

http://news.yahoo.co.../2008/dashboard

and this is the big board that has all the primaries laid out nicely.
http://politics.nyti...ults/index.html

[Cyberbrain]

I just show Obama's speech on CNN about winning Virginia ... and I have to say ... Obama is my man!

[missminni]

I just show Obama's speech on CNN about winning Virginia ... and I have to say ... Obama is my man!

I saw the speech. It was full of generalities and absolutely nothing new,
It sounded like a synthesis of King and Kennedy from the 60's. I'm sure he's studied both carefully.
His ideas are old, nothing new about them.
It's only in contrast to the nightmarish last 8 years that they sound new.
I think the term "my Man" speaks volumes.

[missminni]

On the issue of electability you have to look at tonight's results as telling, as well as the results from last Tuesday. Not only has Obama trounced Hillary across the middle of the country but he is getting larger total votes already than the Republicans combined.

If you do not think he has a great deal of negatives then it comes down to who has the best chance of beating the Republicans securely and carrying much of the Legislature with him. Obama can do this and Hillary can't.

Watch the numbers over the next few days but Clinton's campaign is in trouble.

If he becomes the clear favorite his next challenge will be to fence with his opponents across the isle and maintain his momentum all the way to November. This is no easy task with the short attention span most people have.

I'm watching. What pisses me off is this is all because of Oprah Winfrey and the celebrity factor and
has absolutely nothing to do with who he is or his abilities. It's hype. Pure hype. He's also spending more
money on advertising than Hillary. She had to write herself a check. He has endless funds. I have to believe that Oprah has helped him quite a bit in that regard as well. I am so disgusted.

Was it really Oprah? I thought it was Obama's success in Iowa that got a lot of people to suddenly sit up and take notice. I think there was a lingering concern about whether or not White people could actually bring themselves to pull the lever for a Black man, and lo and behold, they seem to be able to do it in such bastions of Whiteness as Iowa, one or the other of the Dakotas and some other lily-white state in the middle of nowhere up there... So I guess that question's settled. And Obama is rolling in dough because hundreds of thousands of people are giving him small contributions on the net, not because the usual fat cats are bankrolling him. Of course, with him looking more like the next president each day, the fat cats are starting to aim the money firehoses in his direction now too. The miracle of momentum; it's like compound interest.

Sorry missminni, I wish you didn't feel so disgusted. I hope that eventually you'll be able to enjoy the history-making turn of events that we're all living through.

His success in Iowa happened after her endorsement.

[missminni]

I think policy wise there's not that much difference between them. Obama's appeal is that he comes across as a above board squeaky clean play by the rules fighter, while Hildebeasty comes across as a, gotta win at all costs, hit below the belt, say any thing, disingenuous fake that's afraid to utter a word without checking the polls.

"comes across" as squeaky clean. I'm sure there will be some real dirty laundry
aired as soon as he gets the nomination. Lots of it. I just hope he can overcome it.

Edited by missminni, 10 February 2008 - 07:41 AM.

[missminni]

Clinton and McCain are both the last century's candidate and Obama not only breaks the stereotype and comes off as trustworthy as a *cross over* candidate, his being young makes him sympathetic and inspirational to young people. He is getting them out to the polls for the first time in these numbers since Carter's first run.

He has mastered web campaigning and is not somebody that frightens our allies. He doesn't come off as an easy read to our enemies either and that is a good thing.

He is not only the 21st Century candidate he is a candidate defining hope for the future. A profound symbol of change for many but also someone that has more substance than you are giving him credit for Missimmi.

The next big test after the next few primaries coming up will be if Edwards breaks his silence and comes out in favor of Obama. The party insiders do not want this to drag on till the Convention and have been pushing for a decision before July. She has a good chance in Wisconsin, the New England states, and Pennsylvania but she is likely to be trounced in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Kentucky, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Ohio. If the big delegate states go with the momentum her campaign is finished.

Obama is now technically the front runner for at least the next few days but Clinton's machine is gearing up for a big fight in Texas (which I really doubt she can win).

Here is an interesting site with up to date info.

http://news.yahoo.co.../2008/dashboard

and this is the big board that has all the primaries laid out nicely.
http://politics.nyti...ults/index.html

As far as having more substance than I give him credit for, I hope so because I do not
find him with much substance at all. He appears very contrived to me. I hope he proves me wrong, but as of
this last speech, I wasn't convinced. My biggest concern is that cloud you are all riding is going to turn into a storm
as soon as he gets the nomination and the Republican swat team tear him a new a$$h*le.

[missminni]

Also I have another question for you Missimmi, what is wrong with wealthy interests financially supporting their preferences openly?

Did you cry foul when George Soros gave a fortune to Bill's campaign?

I have a problem with the whole way these campaigns are funded but now that there exists a black wealthy class do you really object that Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and Oprah (not to mention some of the Kennedy's) are putting their money where their mouths AND interests are?

Do you think we *owe* Hillary the office?

Glamor shots, celebrity funding, hell that is just the nature of the beast. At least Obama began his campaign on the principle of installments. He said give me a little and I will show you what I am really worth. Now people can give him more. The reason Hillary is loaning her campaign money is because she tapped her supporters to the max early on. Where you screaming this loud about the money when she was the front runner with more cash on hand that early practically in the history of the Democratic party?

My problem with Obama has nothing to do with being black or funded by black money. In fact that's the
thing I like about him, although I can't and never could stand Oprah Winfrey, but that's just my personal opinion. I think there are
many black man and woman more qualified to be president than Obama, but since Americans are so superficial, I understand why a new
fresh young face represents hope and change to them, although there is really nothing new about him since AFAIC he takes all his rhetoric and style from the 60's, which is not necessarily
a bad thing. I love nostalgia and it was a great exciting time in our history, although knowing the truth about Kennedy now, takes the magic away. The dirty politics behind his election was nothing to be proud of, but that's the nature of the beast. I doubt Obama's is squeaky clean in that regard as well. That is not my issue.
My issue is with his ability to withstand the already well planned attack the Republicans have.
Never underestimate them.
They wouldn't be so favorably inclined towards him, which they are, if they didn't have a very good plan
in the works. Forget the obvious admitted cocaine use and the Muslim background that they have been very carefully overlooking for the time being. That's a given to be exploited. It's what we don't know that worries me.
I hope I am wrong. I really do.

Edited by missminni, 10 February 2008 - 10:04 AM.

[missminni]

Interesting NY Times article about Obama

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.

[Lazarus Long]

I am familiar with his Exelon connection but I do not think that is necessarily a negative when the next President is going to have to negotiate with the nuclear power industry anyway.

The issue is who is more likely to be elected and unite both their own party and be able to bring together a bipartisan working coalition going into the next term. Obama can, McCain actually might be able to but Hillary is asking for trouble as she is still carrying way too much baggage across the middle of this country.

The religious right doesn't just dislike Clinton, they hate her. It makes them crazy and they will unite behind their candidate even if it is McCain passionately but more importantly they will bring gridlock to government and her administration, further polarizing this nation. Ironically they will give Obama enough rope to hang himself and that means at least the usual honeymoon after taking office.

This is not about Hillary, it is about winning.

It looks like Obama just beat Clinton in Maine. That is significant because it means he is beating her on her own turf though Maine is only her turf by extension as they thought before Tuesday that she had the New England states all sown up. He took Connecticut on Tuesday and now Maine. We will see some big delegate states coming up soon to.

[biknut]

"comes across" as squeaky clean. I'm sure there will be some real dirty laundry aired as soon as he gets the nomination. Lots of it. I just hope he can overcome it.

Yeah, that's probably true if they can dig any up that he hasn't already told everybody about, but when it comes to the Clinton's there's enough dirty laundry to write a dozen books about. What I mean is a dozen more books.

I think the Republicans would much rather face Clinton than O.

[mike250]

Another advantage of Obama is he will move to the middle to appease independents and moderates while Mccain has to move to the right to appeal to conservatives. Appease the base during primaries, move to the middle during the general election to win indy's and moderates. McCain can't do that.

[missminni]

"comes across" as squeaky clean. I'm sure there will be some real dirty laundry aired as soon as he gets the nomination. Lots of it. I just hope he can overcome it.

Yeah, that's probably true if they can dig any up that he hasn't already told everybody about, but when it comes to the Clinton's there's enough dirty laundry to write a dozen books about. What I mean is a dozen more books.

I think the Republicans would much rather face Clinton than O.

what they can't dig up they will make up

[Lazarus Long]

While I must agree that there is no rock big enough that the swiftboat crowd won't crawl out from under to do their dirty work, what I really think is to be feared is what I said about her dividing her own base of support. What is more and more apparent is that she is just mimicking not leading.

Clearly many are seeing it even those who have supported her in the past. Try reading this Frank Rich Op-Ed, the Republicans must love reading this.
http://www.nytimes.c.../10rich.html?hp

Op-Ed Columnist
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

By FRANK RICH
Published: February 10, 2008

WHAT if a presidential candidate held what she billed as “the largest, most interactive town hall in political history” on national television, and no one noticed?

[biknut]

I think the Hildebeast is cooked.

"Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton."

http://www.cbsnews.c...in3813759.shtml

[biknut]

Try reading this Frank Rich Op-Ed, the Republicans must love reading this.
http://www.nytimes.c.../10rich.html?hp

I just read it, and think it's accurate, but I don't think THE REPUBLICANS like reading it. Obama has the Big Mo, and I really don't think McCain will do any better against O than Dole did against Clinton. McCain would probably have more appeal than Hellary, but not Obama. If a right leaning independent like myself, that's never voted for a Democrat in my life is considering Obama, McCain doesn't have a chance IMHO.

[missminni]

Try reading this Frank Rich Op-Ed, the Republicans must love reading this.
http://www.nytimes.c.../10rich.html?hp

I just read it, and think it's accurate, but I don't think THE REPUBLICANS like reading it. Obama has the Big Mo, and I really don't think McCain will do any better against O than Dole did against Clinton. McCain would probably have more appeal than Hellary, but not Obama. If a right leaning independent like myself, that's never voted for a Democrat in my life is considering Obama, McCain doesn't have a chance IMHO.

I wouldn't be surprised if we suddenly had a terrorist threat. Didn't they do that around the time of the
last election? That would certainly give them the edge. That or some really nasty stuff about Obama that, true or not,
they will make sure gets enough exposure that it seems true.

[Ghostrider]

All this talk is mostly pointless. Democracy only works (well) given an educated voting body. Not to divert the topic, but who elected Bush anyway? There's where the problem is. I don't know how to fix the problem, but I think a better system would be to first, ban all television and radio advertising for candidates. No candidate should be allowed to pay for votes / influence, which is exactly what happens under the current system. This would also break up the political biopoly and encourage new thought. Then have a formal process for debate which does not involve any television appearances, but instead a dialog of written correspondence on a topic. There could be a website where the candidates go and each have to give a written response on several topics. Then the candidates would have an opportunity to cite and contradict each other's responses. I think citation is very critical here. There could be moderators to critique or deny claims, but the whole process is organized. Furthermore, everything is on record so that everyone clearly see how a politician is living up to promises after being elected. I think this would encourage people to follow logic over other misleading factors when voting.

Edited by Ghostrider, 11 February 2008 - 07:49 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I have actually proposed this multiple times to my local town government ghostrider.

Then have a formal process for debate which does not involve any television appearances, but instead a dialog of written correspondence on a topic. There could be a website where the candidates go and each have to give a written response on several topics. Then the candidates would have an opportunity to cite and contradict each other's responses. I think citation is very critical here. There could be moderators to critique or deny claims, but the whole process is organized. Furthermore, everything is on record so that everyone clearly see how a politician is living up to promises after being elected. I think this would encourage people to follow logic over other misleading factors when voting.

We have an already antiquated and poorly used town website along with a locked down PhP forum yet neither party is interested in hearing this and the larger body of the electorate do not understand the importance. I will continue to refine and include this recommendation as I have the ear now of a few of the local officials because I have been nominated to a local political council for developing a local plan to cope with developing sustainable energy options and prepare for the impacts of peak oil while retaining our environmental standards.

I will wait a little bit but I also agree this is a separate issue but it is one that merits its own thread. I will spin this off soon but let readers digest the connection for a little while.

[missminni]

All this talk is mostly pointless. Democracy only works (well) given an educated voting body. Not to divert the topic, but who elected Bush anyway? There's where the problem is. I don't know how to fix the problem, but I think a better system would be to first, ban all television and radio advertising for candidates. No candidate should be allowed to pay for votes / influence, which is exactly what happens under the current system. This would also break up the political biopoly and encourage new thought. Then have a formal process for debate which does not involve any television appearances, but instead a dialog of written correspondence on a topic. There could be a website where the candidates go and each have to give a written response on several topics. Then the candidates would have an opportunity to cite and contradict each other's responses. I think citation is very critical here. There could be moderators to critique or deny claims, but the whole process is organized. Furthermore, everything is on record so that everyone clearly see how a politician is living up to promises after being elected. I think this would encourage people to follow logic over other misleading factors when voting.

That would be ideal. Unfortunately we've been having TV and publicity/celebrity driven elections for almost
50 years. With that first Nixon-Kennedy TV debate the map of politcal campaigning was forever changed.

Edited by missminni, 11 February 2008 - 07:32 PM.