Obama Will Win!

[gradin123 0]

Because the big money and media is behind him. McCain's policies are too similiar to Bush's, Hillary in the long run will prove to have been the bigger obstacle.I would bet any money that Obama will beat McCain. Hillary simply can't beat him now. The unpledged superdelegates will by majority back Obama and that is all he needs.The media and big money was behind the Iraq war. It happened.The media was split over Bush vs Gore and Bush vs Kerry. Big money was behind Bush both times.Obama will be the next president and nothing will change for the better. He doesn't believe military spending should be cut. He really doesn't have any plans on foreign policy. He will increase government spending and will not increase revenues. I guarantee he will never come close to balancing the federal budget like Bill Clinton did. Why? Because that would require tough decisions and choices and Obama doesn't have that in him.He really doesn't have any plans on foreign policy. Heck he didn't even know the new Russian's presidents name(Dmitry Medvedev) and mark my words that is important too. The biggest threat to the West going forward is Putin and Russia. Not China. Not Al Qaeda. Not Iran. Not North Korea. It's Russia. Well The US is wasting time and money in the middle east. Russia is sitting in the background and making big money of Oil(which they have a lot of) and increasingly becoming more and more like it was in the old Soviet Union days.The Us's days as the undispusted superpower of the world are numbered. Obama has no chance to stop that because he is completely inexperienced in foreign policy.It's easy to say you are against a war when you are in State Politics but the naive idea that the US will be more loved world wide if Obama is president is completely off base. The Obama presidency will be marked by large budget deficits caused by increased government spending. It will result in higher taxes to all Americans and it will do nothing to regain the reputation of the US around the world.

[gradin123 0]

By the way here is a good read about the future of Russia and how the west is ignoring it.BOOKSRussia’s New NormalThe Cold War may be over, but that doesn't mean the threat from the Kremlin has entirely disappeared.By Andrew Nagorski | NEWSWEEKMar 17, 2008 Issue Edward Lucas is much too smart an observer, with more than enough experience in both the old Soviet bloc and the new Russia, not to concede the obvious. Russia is no longer a closed society, he points out, and "most Russians have never had it so good," which accounts for President Vladimir Putin's consistently high approval ratings. A veteran correspondent for The Economist, Lucas also is willing to admit that Russia isn't a global adversary since it works with the West, even if testily, on any number of diplomatic issues, including Iran and North Korea. "The old Cold War is indeed over," he concludes.So why is his new book titled "The New Cold War: The Future of Russia and the Threat to the West" (272 pages. Palgrave Macmillan)? Partly because it's a meticulously constructed indictment of Putin's strong-arm tactics at home and his increasingly aggressive tone in dealing with any country that tries to question his actions. And partly because Lucas is appalled by what he sees as the West's deliberate blindness when it comes to Russia. The biggest mistake the West keeps making, he argues, is to assume that Russia is in the process of becoming a "normal" country. While it may be too weak militarily now to threaten others the way it once did, he believes the Kremlin is fighting a new cold war with "cash, natural resources, diplomacy, and propaganda."Lucas demonstrates how the historical revisionism of the Putin era has set the stage for this new struggle. First of all, Soviet-era myths have been revived. Stalin is once again hailed as "one of the most successful leaders of the USSR." His "mistakes"—which include the mass murder of his own people—are less important than his role in industrializing the country and leading it to victory in World War II. This conveniently sanitizes such events as the annexation of the Baltic states, which helps the Kremlin justify its current belligerence toward Estonia. At home, the same revisionism allows ex-KGB agents to rule, since that organization's role in the mass killings has been swept under the rug. The Stalinist past, Lucas notes, "is the source of both the Kremlin's xenophobia and its authoritarianism."The other key bit of revisionism concerns the recent past. To justify his crackdown on the media and any political opposition, Putin has portrayed the 1990s under Boris Yeltsin as a period of unmitigated disasters and humiliation. There's no doubt that corruption and lawlessness were rampant then, but it's also true that Russia opened up to the world, its media were largely uncensored and there was hope that the country could evolve into a more functional democracy. Although Yeltsin anointed Putin as his successor, the new man has tried to discredit Yeltsin's legacy to justify his moves to amass a new monopoly on both political and economic power.The latter is particularly important at a time when rising oil and gas prices have made Russia flush with cash. The country's GDP is more than six times higher than it was in 1999, but this wealth remains tightly controlled by the ruling elite. The result is an economy with growing instead of diminishing state control, and appalling public services like health care. Corruption, murders and demographic decline still characterize this new Russia. But Western notions of democracy based on individual rights are ridiculed, while a new doctrine of Russia's "sovereign democracy"—its unique path of building a strong state—is offered as the solution.As Lucas points out, the West has almost no leverage to reverse these trends. Earlier, Russia needed the West's financial aid, but no more. This allows Putin to flex his muscles, applying pressure on his neighbors by wielding the energy weapon, backing separatist movements in places like Georgia and Moldova, and offering new arms sales to Iran. While insisting he wants cooperation with the West, he angrily dismisses all criticism. As with the Duma elections in December, Putin made it impossible for the OSCE to carry out its normal election-monitoring duties on March 2, when Dmitry Medvedev was proclaimed the new president in a sham contest."The New Cold War" occasionally gets bogged down in the intricacies of Russia's relations with each of the ex-Soviet republics, or the pipeline politics that define today's energy battles. But his main message comes through loud and clear: Russia has changed course, and the West should face up to the implications. What justification is there, he asks, for maintaining Russia's membership in the G8, the club for the world's leading industrial democracies? Lucas has built a very strong case for the prosecution. And, on all too many of the counts in his indictment, the defendant looks smugly guilty.Nagorski is the author of “The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II. ”

[killacam 0]

time to become a Russian citizen

[AmScray 355]

Because the big money and media is behind him. McCain's policies are too similiar to Bush's, Hillary in the long run will prove to have been the bigger obstacle.I would bet any money that Obama will beat McCain. Hillary simply can't beat him now. The unpledged superdelegates will by majority back Obama and that is all he needs.The media and big money was behind the Iraq war. It happened.The media was split over Bush vs Gore and Bush vs Kerry. Big money was behind Bush both times.Obama will be the next president and nothing will change for the better. He doesn't believe military spending should be cut. He really doesn't have any plans on foreign policy. He will increase government spending and will not increase revenues. I guarantee he will never come close to balancing the federal budget like Bill Clinton did. Why? Because that would require tough decisions and choices and Obama doesn't have that in him.He really doesn't have any plans on foreign policy. Heck he didn't even know the new Russian's presidents name(Dmitry Medvedev) and mark my words that is important too. The biggest threat to the West going forward is Putin and Russia. Not China. Not Al Qaeda. Not Iran. Not North Korea. It's Russia. Well The US is wasting time and money in the middle east. Russia is sitting in the background and making big money of Oil(which they have a lot of) and increasingly becoming more and more like it was in the old Soviet Union days.The Us's days as the undispusted superpower of the world are numbered. Obama has no chance to stop that because he is completely inexperienced in foreign policy.It's easy to say you are against a war when you are in State Politics but the naive idea that the US will be more loved world wide if Obama is president is completely off base. The Obama presidency will be marked by large budget deficits caused by increased government spending. It will result in higher taxes to all Americans and it will do nothing to regain the reputation of the US around the world.

LOL

[donk4life 34]

LOL

Coming from such an opinionated person as yourself, this post just doesn't cut it.

[Balloon guy 158]

I never understand how come people have bought into this notion that our reputation in the world community matters.Even a little.I mean it doesn't matter at all.At all.I could understand if we were trying to date India, or Maybe Venezuela, but last I checked, they aren't breaking down the doors to get out of America, only in.I would also understand if we needed to be cool so we would get invited to parties, like at the UN. But since they are currently living here, I guess we get to go to any party they have.I might even understand if the world could survive without us, economically.They can't; so love us or hate us, they will still deal with us the same.Last I checked the price of oil didn't have anything to do with popularity. Or the price of anything for that matter.And what is of equal madness is this silly notion that because Obama is black, he will be instantly MORE liked.When if there is one thing most of the world is, it's comfortable with it's racism. Rhawanda wasn't ignored by only us, it was ignored by everyone. It's just the french and the Germans don't feel any guilt about it. At all.It's like you guys needed some reason to hate Bush and you bought a piece of the brooklyn bridge and now won't let go.The world doesn't have a popularity meter, only the press does and it says what they want it to say.

[grimtaash 0]

This might be a bit off topic, but I read an article on cnn.com tonight that said maybe we should ivade myn....oh, burma, cuz they leaders didn't care about the people. I can imagine the response if Bush had just went ahead and sent aid in. Pretty sure Sadaam never gave a damn about his people either........

[Nimue1995 1]

Bombing with food and blankets might have worked just as well as using bombs. Maybe it's time we tried it with Myamar?

[Balloon guy 158]

Bombing with food and blankets might have worked just as well as using bombs. Maybe it's time we tried it with Myamar?

Fly military planes into a sovereign countries airspace without their permission?Invade a country because we don't approve of the way their government is conducted?Use a seperate event to justify invasion?You voting for McCain now too?

[All_In 0]

I never understand how come people have bought into this notion that our reputation in the world community matters.Even a little.I mean it doesn't matter at all.At all.I could understand if we were trying to date India, or Maybe Venezuela, but last I checked, they aren't breaking down the doors to get out of America, only in.I would also understand if we needed to be cool so we would get invited to parties, like at the UN. But since they are currently living here, I guess we get to go to any party they have.I might even understand if the world could survive without us, economically.They can't; so love us or hate us, they will still deal with us the same.Last I checked the price of oil didn't have anything to do with popularity. Or the price of anything for that matter.And what is of equal madness is this silly notion that because Obama is black, he will be instantly MORE liked.When if there is one thing most of the world is, it's comfortable with it's racism. Rhawanda wasn't ignored by only us, it was ignored by everyone. It's just the french and the Germans don't feel any guilt about it. At all.It's like you guys needed some reason to hate Bush and you bought a piece of the brooklyn bridge and now won't let go.The world doesn't have a popularity meter, only the press does and it says what they want it to say.

i guess all the hate towards america doesn't count for anything? 9/11?

[Balloon guy 158]

i guess all the hate towards america doesn't count for anything? 9/11?

Wait..are you admitting that America was hated long before Bush???Well then what's the big deal if they hate us more?They can't hate us more then to want our destruction can they?

[gradin123 0]

So Obama is about change, right?He is going to change to way Washington works. That's what he says.Well apparently all the big industries that run the US aren't scared of him. The securities, pharmaceutical and energy industries are giving more or the same to Obama as they are to McCain.Like I said in my original post. BIG MONEY and BIG BUSINESS is behind Obama and they don't want change!http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwidePharmaceutical industry employees and PACs contributed $516,839 to Bush in 2004, compared with $280,688 for Kerry, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. This time around, they gave $339,729 to Obama, $262,870 to Clinton and only $74,850 to McCain through March.Energy companies are focused on bigger issues than earmarks. For the 2004 election, energy employees gave $4.9 million to Bush and $757,502 to Kerry. So far this year, they have given about the same amount -- $1 million -- to the three candidates.Bankers and BrokersOne cash cow for Bush's campaign has become a large source of funds for the Democrats. Employees working in the securities and investment industry contributed $9.2 million to Bush's 2004 campaign, almost twice Kerry's $4.8 million. This time, Obama's $7.5 million and Clinton's $7 million from the industry are almost double the $3.8 million that McCain has brought in through March, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think you didn't listen to the rest of Obama's speech.When he sid he wanted to give you change, he meant:

[akoff 0]

Wait..are you admitting that America was hated long before Bush???Well then what's the big deal if they hate us more?They can't hate us more then to want our destruction can they?

nice hand BG, well played!!

[hblask 1]

Here's why Obama will be the next president:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...esidential-bid/

[Don Giovanni 0]

Wait..are you admitting that America was hated long before Bush???Well then what's the big deal if they hate us more?They can't hate us more then to want our destruction can they?

have you ever been out of the country?

[Balloon guy 158]

have you ever been out of the country?

Does Canada count?Kidding, in the last 3 years I have been to:EnglandSwedenDenmarkPolandEstoniaRussiaFinlandNorwayFranceSpainTurkeyCreteGreeceItalyCaribbean ( doesn't really count )MexicoCanadaNetherlands doesn't count cause I just had a lay over there.This year I will be adding:ScotlandIrelandCzech RepublicHungaryAustriaand maybe Switzerland and GermanySo I would say the answer to that question is: Only in the press is the USA hated.Last elections the French and Germans voted in pro-USA candidates. Not only for being pro-USA, but you wouldn't catch us voting in a pro Hamas candidate. ( unless Obama wins then change that to some other group we hate )

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh and going to Wales this year to look up some ancestors, see if any of them are really wealthy so I can make a claim.

[Balloon guy 158]

Here's why Obama will be the next president:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...esidential-bid/

Part of me wouldn't mind if McCain didn't get the prize. Make the case for true conseratives being the base of the Republican party.Otherwise the centertist losers will think they are the base and we'll get more Rudys and McCain for the next 12 years.Maybe I'll move to....MauiYou thought I was going to say Canada, but Canada is cold..forget that

[Sal Paradise 57]

You thought I was going to say Canada, but Canada is cold..forget that

no, I saw the "M." you should have made the ellipsis longer. for suspense.

[Balloon guy 158]

no, I saw the "M." you should have made the ellipsis longer.................................................................. for suspense.

Fyp

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Sorry, Gradin, you lost me when you used not knowing the name of the new Russian president as some kind of demerit against Obama. Knowing the name of someone newly elected is a totally meaningless "gotcha" game that lazy journalists play with candidates. Bush didn't know the names of anyone he was asked about, and Reagan called an official in his own cabinet "Mr. Mayor" by mistake.Obama won't balance the budget? Neither did Republicans. Are you saying Hillary would have?Obama will raise spending without increasing revenue. That's exactly what Bush has done. Are you saying Hillary wouldn't?Obama has no foreign policy experience. Neither did Bush. I guess Hillary does, kind of, from the White House days, but only indirectly.In short, you say McCain is too like Bush, but all your criticisms of Obama are pretty much the same things Bush has already done, so you seem to be saying that it's Obama who's too much like Bush. So, assuming we want someone who is as UNlike Bush as humanly possible (and all the deities in the sky know we do), then who exactly are you arguing FOR? Hillary? I'm confused.

[gradin123 0]

Sorry, Gradin, you lost me when you used not knowing the name of the new Russian president as some kind of demerit against Obama. Knowing the name of someone newly elected is a totally meaningless "gotcha" game that lazy journalists play with candidates. Bush didn't know the names of anyone he was asked about, and Reagan called an official in his own cabinet "Mr. Mayor" by mistake.

LOL! I don't know if you noticed but Russia still has a few nukes. They still are the world's number 2 military superpower. In fact, that can't even be disputed. I don't think it is too much for a presidential candidate to keep abreast of the politics of one of the most significant countries in the world. Just because Russia is currently under the media radar now doesn't mean a candidate for president should ignore them.Bush is a moron and Reagan probably was suffering with Alzheimer's while still in office.

[gradin123 0]

Sorry, Gradin, you lost me when Obama won't balance the budget? Neither did Republicans. Are you saying Hillary would have?Obama will raise spending without increasing revenue. That's exactly what Bush has done. Are you saying Hillary wouldn't?

Well Bill ran surpluses. Maybe you need a reminder of the fiscal situation that Bill Clinton left the US in.http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...linton.surplus/I am a fiscal conservative and that is main reason I would support Hillary. The national debt and deficits of the US mean that the people that the money is owed to (China mostly) have too much power over the US.Obama talks a lot about Iraq and jobs but he doesn't talk a lot about the deficits. He says its a problem but the fact it isn't high on his agenda and the fact he is socialist leading and thinks government can solve your problems indicates he isn't that serious about it.Would Hillary have balanced the budget? I think so. At least if her husband's advisers had any influence.Bill Clinton was the most fiscally conservative president of recent history.On an inflation adjusted basis non-military spending rose only 1.6% annually in the Clinton years. That is lowest of any president since World War 2.The biggest threat facing the US in the near future is its economic stability. Continually running huge budget and trade deficits is unsustainable in the longterm. Tough choices are going to have to be made in the next 15 years.

[gradin123 0]

BTW, Obama barely pretends he'll go after the budget deficits.Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig outQ: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?A: "Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues."Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007 Basically Obama wants to take any money saved on Iraq and spend it elsewhere. Then if the economy recovers perhaps he'll look at the deficits. Unless of course it is another election year