The Presidency has just jumped the shark.

Didn't I? wrote:The Presidency has just jumped the shark.

Seriously. What the %$$@#@.


For what it's worth (nothing), I liked McCain's the best. Barak could have used better lighting.

What's the agenda of the anti-abortion demonstrators at the top of Eakin's Oval with the Hillary's Holocaust signs? Is there any difference in Clinton's and Obama's views on the issue? Are they on orders from high up that Obama would be an easier opponent in the general campaign?

Abortion Protesters = The worst America has to offer.

The more I see Barack Obama engage in these stupid things -- the WWE, pulling out the "On Notice" board on The Colbert Report, attempting to bowl -- the more I believe he's exactly what he's fighting against. Everyone heralds him as a unique politician who isn't owned by lobbyists, who is a superagent for change, etc. but he's playing the same pointless political games as everyone else. He is no different than Clinton or McCain, or Bush and Kerry.

I am not at all confident that he will turn down lobbyists one after another if he is elected to the Presidency, or that he will refuse to use political distractions to avoid answering direct questions.

[making my argument credible]And to qualify my rant, I don't support any of these candidates and find the whole American democratic process to be a sham. Just my observations about Obama. If you pressed me and told me to pick a candidate, I'd still reluctantly pick Obama.[/making my argument credible]

How is doing TV appearances "playing pointless political games". When you're a new name going against two already established brands, you kinda have to campaign a little.

I'd call that good marketing and, quite honestly, just having fun more than I'd call it pointless political games.

I guess he's just supposed to put out a couple press releases about his views and then wipe his hands clean and state 'well i did my job for the year'.

meatball wrote:How is doing TV appearances "playing pointless political games". When you're a new name going against two already established brands, you kinda have to campaign a little.

I guess I can't blame him too much because the system is so bad that he is almost forced to do it, but I find all three campaigns to have been run extremely immaturely.

Compared to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is a new name but I don't think there were too many people who didn't know who he was a year ago. I think if he just ran a campaign where he wasn't desperately trying to be hip and funny, he would have been in a much more comfortable position ahead of Clinton.

If I felt voting mattered, maturity would be one of my key criteria. Maybe I'm in the minority with that, I don't know.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

meatball wrote:How is doing TV appearances "playing pointless political games". When you're a new name going against two already established brands, you kinda have to campaign a little.

I guess I can't blame him too much because the system is so bad that he is almost forced to do it, but I find all three campaigns to have been run extremely immaturely.

Compared to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is a new name but I don't think there were too many people who didn't know who he was a year ago. I think if he just ran a campaign where he wasn't desperately trying to be hip and funny, he would have been in a much more comfortable position ahead of Clinton.

If I felt voting mattered, maturity would be one of my key criteria. Maybe I'm in the minority with that, I don't know.

Yeah, THAT'S why he's not comfortably ahead. You do realize his personality is one of the main reasons he's even known, right? He's naturally "hip", which is why so many young voters flock to him.

pacino wrote:I guess he's just supposed to put out a couple press releases about his views and then wipe his hands clean and state 'well i did my job for the year'.

A dry 12 page policy paper on why one should not stand for the national anthem.

One of Obama's biggest strengths is his support among young voters. He's been widely praised for his ability to motivate a seemingly apathetic generation of citizen's. He's not trying to seem young and hip, he's just running a good campaign. Naturally he's going to do things that are more inline with a younger demographic. You may not like it, but that's what it takes to get elected President. But he does it all with a good and genuine sense of humor. I think you're way off base on this.

i'm waiting for this hillary/obama thing on the wrestling and hillary's animated character just got booed


and i don't see why obama can't go on colbert. i'd rather he go there than meet the press

Hmm... good points but I disagree that Obama is naturally "hip." Maybe I'm just perceiving all this differently from everyone else but he appears to really be forcing it.

I am wrong for expecting Obama to run an on-point campaign because the system naturally forces the candidates to go out of their way to appeal to different caches of voters. I'm just fed up with our election system. As George Carlin put it, it's "garbage in, garbage out."

George Carlin is a comedian

Crash, I hear what you're saying and it sounds a lot like my inner doubt: that Obama will, ironically enough, turn out like the last fresh young smart guy to come along on the national political scene... Bill Clinton.

But I suggest you consider Obama in historical context. Lincoln and FDR--the "best-case comps," if you will, for his prospective presidency--did their share of goofy campaigning, rhetorical hair-splitting and what have you. They were bitterly criticized by further-left opponents for opportunism, political cowardice, selling out, etc. But what they got, which their opponents did not, was that the country could not be moved beyond a certain pace. They understood where we as a people were, had a vision for where they wanted to take us with their leadership, and came up (albeit after some trial and error) with an implementable vision to get us from point A to point B.

As for distaste with the tactics of campaigning, I'm convinced this is why Mike Bloomberg didn't ultimately run. Can you imagine Bloomberg milking a cow the way Obama did, or throwing down a shot like Hillary? No chance. For some reason, our democracy seems to put a greater premium on the ability to kiss the collective ass of "mainstream culture" than to be a great manager or focused decision-maker.

Woody wrote:George Carlin is a comedian

True, but it doesn't make his points any less valid.

Dajafi, I haven't really followed Bloomberg too much, so I can't comment on that.

Personally, considering my doubts on Obama being immune to lobbyists, there's little difference between McCain, Clinton, and Obama because the President really has little effect on the way things are run; things are actually run by big businesses, as we have seen prominently displayed by the Bush administration. This country is owned by the oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries, and the biggest industry in this country is debt.

My unquantifiable, anecdotal observation about tomorrow:

Obama will win.

The dems I have spoken to about this are pretty much 50/50. But the Obama supporters are excited about voting. Those in Hillary's corner will vote if they get around to it.

Yeah, that is really the big thing. It is one thing to support a candidate but it makes no difference if you don't vote. I think I heard somewhere today where the Dems added 350,000 new voters in the last month and that 70% of them were supporting Barack. You know those people will be in the booth.

My wife and I are registered independents, and we've received about 10 Obama calls/messages and maybe 3-4 from Hilz