ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/18/2018 06:58 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.025 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/04/2008 06:57 AM ID: 67462 Permalink   

Senator Barack Obama, is He the Future President?

 

Obama has triumphed so far, being in the lead with 38% in Iowa. Will America see him with all the answers to lead the way forward? It was thought Hillary Clinton was in with a chance according to media in the past few months.

Edwards came in second getting 30%, Clinton holding now hanging in there at 29%. On hearing these results a number of Barrack Obama supporters jumped out of their seats with sheer joy, shouting "we did it”.

"On this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do," Obama told his jubilant supporters Thursday night. "We are choosing hope over fear, we are choosing unity over division”.

 
  Source: edition.cnn.com  
    WebReporter: captainJane Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  55 Comments
  
  Admin can you look over this for mistakes?  
 
God I am so excited and I can't sleep and I live in the UK, I just had to do this summary. :)
 
  by: captainJane     01/04/2008 07:00 AM     
  i hope not  
 
I frankly can't stand CEO (Clinton, Edwards, Obama), but Barrack is the lesser of evils if you're one of those people who believes in compromising your values. Lets also remember that the corporate media makes everything into a soap opera. The "inevitability" of Hillary was a story, and so is the idea that Iowa matters.

On the plus side, Dodd and Biden dropped out, which will hopefully give more support to Kucinich, Richardson, and Gravel. In a truly democratic nation, these are the three candidates who would be leading.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 07:07 AM     
  @ManilaRyce  
 
I know it was just a speech, but he really gave it to America I also am very well aware that I am not inside America so can only judge from what I pick up on the News and add up all you guys have to say.

Roll on the change for the better!
 
  by: captainJane     01/04/2008 07:13 AM     
  Here  
 
is hoping America gets the right guy this time.

 
  by: philigs     01/04/2008 08:56 AM     
  So who else is for  
 
Dennis Kucinich? and why?

Just picking up what I can over here in UK.
 
  by: captainJane     01/04/2008 09:06 AM     
  @  
 
50 bucks says they pick a good president this time but he gets a bl**job / assassinated within a year and George Bush III takes the throne.
 
  by: silentrage   01/04/2008 09:25 AM     
  sorry  
 
but Hillary is for the machine.. Obama has ideals.. but RON PAUL has the answers.. Ron Paul 2008!!!!
 
  by: RAD     01/04/2008 09:26 AM     
  Will America (USA)  
 
ever go for a black President? Based on the history of the USA, it looks like a very narrow margin. On the other hand, we all could be suprised.
 
  by: ukpunk1   01/04/2008 09:28 AM     
  captainJane  
 
When Dennis Kucinich directed his supporters to go with Obama I kind of smelt a deal. I wonder if Dennis is negotiating a vice presidency.It would be a deal I could live with.
 
  by: ichi     01/04/2008 09:55 AM     
  @captainJane  
 
I'm for DK, and this is a big reason why:
http://www.shortnews.com/...

Plus, he's the only one promising a not-for-profit single-payer health care plan, free education, and troops out of Iraq in 3 months. In short, he's an actual liberal.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 09:56 AM     
  @ichi  
 
As much as I loathe Obama's politics, I think I could live with that too. From what I hear from inside the campaign, if Obama gets the nomination Kucinich wants to be in his cabinet as head of a newly formed Department of Peace. Kucinich doesn't endorse Obama and will undoubtedly run until the end, but will work within the system if he has to. It's a good strategy, and I'd rather see him as part of the next administration (in any form) than dismissed again by the media as a perpetual loser. Maybe Obama is young enough to be influenced.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 10:03 AM     
  I'll feel sorry for the Secret Service  
 
if Obama gets elected. They will have to double his protection detail.
 
  by: walter3ca   01/04/2008 11:14 AM     
  @walter3ca  
 
like dave chappell said, the first black president should have a mexican as his vice president for insurance.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 11:25 AM     
  CaptainJane  
 
I think you get excited too easily, thank God it wasn't Bill Clinton.
Anyway, does it really matter, as long as Bush is gone, everything's good.
 
  by: BlackWidow   01/04/2008 11:53 AM     
  @blackwidow  
 
"as long as Bush is gone, everything's good."

i only wish it were that simple. the problem is with the system and its backers, not the figurehead.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 12:10 PM     
  Id go as far as to say  
 
Theres a lot of problem with this figure heads backers.

Hedge fund multi billionairres are paying for this dudes campaign, and your worried about the execs of Haliburton wanting pay back from Bush...
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     01/04/2008 12:30 PM     
  @BlackWidow  
 
It's rotten to the core
 
  by: jamesmc   01/04/2008 01:02 PM     
  Okay  
 
But look, if Hilary gets in, make sure Bill keeps away from that White House.
 
  by: BlackWidow   01/04/2008 01:33 PM     
  @blackwidow  
 
bill is no progressive, but hillary is much worse than him. take a note from the people of iraq. the devil you don't know is worse than the devil you do know.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     01/04/2008 01:55 PM     
  Take it to the bank  
 
To me all this means is that a Democrat will not win the white house this time around. The American people will not elect a black man or a woman yet.

I argued the year of the election of either Bush or Kerry. I predicted Bush and someone else insisted Kerry.
 
  by: allbets     01/04/2008 02:23 PM     
  .  
 
I'd ideally like to see Kucinich in office but I don't think he has much of a chance. I'd LOVE to see him run with Obama though. If they team up then there's no question as to where my vote would go
 
  by: jeniq     01/04/2008 02:48 PM     
  Right Answers  
 
So far none of them offered good answers for the external politics of the US, Particularly Clinton, Obama and Ron Paul offered dismal solutions.

The best solutions so far i heard was from fred thompson and edwards. If I was to compare Ron, Fred and Obama and Edwards. I would say of all of them, Obama is the best speaker but Fred is the best president and edwards (the weasel) has the best personality for a VP.
 
  by: kmazzawi     01/04/2008 02:53 PM     
  ..  
 
Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa caucuses in 1980 before going on to victory. And this year, Ron Paul got more than 10% of a bunch dominated by older party hacks, neocons, Bush lovers, and religious rightists. It was NOT a group equivalent to the people of Iowa, let alone the people of New Hampshire or the rest of the country. Indeed, considering the media hate and suppression campaign waged almost unanimously against him, this was a credible finish.

I find the constitution will be dead if Obama wins because he scored 0% on following the constitution.

You would think the "right answers" would be following the constitution and vote for the only people who follow it (Ron Paul), yet people think Ron Paul doesn't have the answers of going back to the gold standard, more freedom, and no war. Ignorant people are giving up our freedoms over here in the US.
 
  by: Vhan     01/04/2008 05:31 PM     
  The real story  
 
The real story from all of this is about twice as many Democrats turned out this time than in 2004, and they greatly outnumbered the Republican voters. The Democratic party is fired up like it never has been before, and a big change is on the horizon.

Any Democratic nominee would make a better president than any of the Republicans, with the possible exception of John McCain, who is actually a decent, ethical and principled man. But most of the Republican leadership is corrupt down to its rotten core right now, and needs to be booted swiftly and completely out of power.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/04/2008 06:32 PM     
  ABC Just Removed  
 
Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter from its prime-time presidential debates Saturday night.
 
  by: ichi     01/04/2008 07:02 PM     
  OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
 
OBAMA STANDS FOR CHANGE,HILLIARY STANDS FOR FAILURE AND THE SAME OLD WASHINGTON NEVER GET IT DONE CROWD! THE TIME FOR PROMISES IS OVER VOTE FOR OBAMA VOTE FOR CHANGE !
 
  by: hulk   01/04/2008 10:00 PM     
  There's no way...  
 
There are way too many Americans that still have the prejudiced core, that will not allow a black president to be in the white house for long.

I really wish it weren't so, but it's one of the reasons that I moved to Canada.

Some day, all peoples of all nations will have peace, but not in this system of things.
 
  by: Backin1775     01/04/2008 10:35 PM     
  ...  
 
I still don't see a difference between Obama and Clinton. In my opinion, if Obama wasn't a young, black man, he wouldn't have a chance.

I'd vote for Kucinich or Gravel over anyone but Ron Paul. Honestly, even though I disagree with liberal policy, I'd much rather have an honest liberal in office than the corrupt-before-they-put-their-foot-in-the-door alternatives.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2008 02:08 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
You forget about Ron Paul. He has been in politics for over 25 years and he has not been corrupted. Considered Dr. No for being a Doctor and voting no on anything that is unconstitutional or raise in taxes.

Being a liberal republican he believes in everyones individual freedom. Gays, minorities, women, everyone should have the same freedoms, and they are listed in the constitution.
check it http://www.pbs.org/...
 
  by: Vhan     01/05/2008 05:13 AM     
  @vhan  
 
that's funny, 'casue he voted yes on the partial birth abortion bill, wich woul go clearly against he federal non-interference beliefs.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/05/2008 06:22 AM     
  Paul does seem ethical  
 
... I just don't like his radical platform. I really don't want to see what would happen to the U.S. under his policies, as well-intentioned as they may be. Simply put, I think he's a pretty decent guy, just wrong on a number of issues.

I still have immense respect for the fact that he was the first politician in the national spotlight to tell the truth about the war on terrorism. That was pure guts.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/05/2008 06:29 AM     
  @Dedolito  
 
He voted yes on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Bill. Can you link your source?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

Clearly you don't understand him. His federal non-interference beliefs are to be left to the states. You know, like it says in the constitution. Based on your spelling and how you sounded I got your panties in a twist.

Though I wouldn't want to go deep into it, Ron is pro-life, though a liberal he believes we have our personal freedoms to choose, thus its left up to the state.

A snowballs chance in hell has been brainwashed into so many peoples minds, nothing intellectual with redundancy. Its sad some of you people don't care your freedoms are taken away. Plus the war, but who cares about those people dieing for our "freedoms" pfft. Freedom of speech? Ya only in a free speech zone if its something the government fears.

Oh on Obama, I don't understand how he acts like a republican yet speaks like a democrat. http://www.politicalcompass.org/...
 
  by: Vhan     01/05/2008 07:49 AM     
  NO!  
 
And I won't be voting for him. It has nothing to do with race for me but lack of experience and Oprah. When an entertainment figure is hooting that he is going to be president because of her I want to yack.

I would vote for Kucinich and Paul. They both have certain ideas I really like. One is the poster for conservative and the other the poster for liberal so go figure.

If I am forced to vote for one of the CEO as Manila calls them it would be Edwards, other than him Richardson. If I had to the other side it would be Mc Cain or Thompson. Of course I have been known to "throw" my vote away before and may do so again.

*All the above is off the cuff opinion of myself and not a debate of why why why..why is because it is my right (still so far)as an American to have an opinion different than others*
 
  by: TaraB     01/05/2008 07:55 AM     
  @vhan  
 
actually I was (and still am) healing on a Kara run. That's World of Warcraft speak, so Im tyoing wiht one hand currently and not splelchecking.

The article you cite says he voted for it, does it not? So he spent a page and half rationalizing his choice to break covenant with his core belief that states have the ultimate right to decide on abortion.

In otherwords he's a constitutionalist until it's a issue that HE believes strongly in. so that makes it ok to be a hypocrit.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/05/2008 08:18 AM     
  oh and...  
 
that entire earmark things shows his true colors -- a typical two-faced politiician that smiles to you whilst telling you the lies you want to hear.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/05/2008 08:20 AM     
  Vote Kucinich!  
 
It seems a lot of non-Americans like the guy huh...
 
  by: p_g_chris   01/05/2008 09:51 AM     
  This is all  
 
actually pretty funny, when you sit back and look at all the politicking.

At this point, I no longer care about the candidates personal values. What I care about is how they act in office now, and how they might in the white house. I'm also looking at who can turn the country around the quickest, get the dollar's value back up, shrink the deficit, fix our status with the world (Bush pised too many people off), and not let the country be overrun with illegal immigrants who think its ok to move in, steal jobs, and mooch off the system while conributing nothing in return (we already have that problem with welfare abuse).

That being said, I'm sitting back this year, and watching the fun, and not saying a damn word about who i'm voting for from this moment on :)

Also on a note, I think we *probably* would have a black president before a female president, so it looks like Obama might be in the lead with Clinton right behind him (according to the Iowa caucus's), and then Edwards in the third position. I don't see Kucinich too much on the radar, but I did like some stuff I read about Gravel, but again I'm not saying who I'm for or against here (other than Mitt Romney can suck donkey dick and I pray he DOESNT get in).

NH will be the deciding factor for it all though, it always is :)
 
  by: jediman3     01/05/2008 06:30 PM     
  @Vhan  
 
If you don't stop calling Ron Paul liberal, I'm going to have an aneurysm.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2008 08:10 PM     
  Fingers crossed.  
 
“Anyway, does it really matter, as long as Bush is gone, everything's good." BlackWidow

I don't think so, what America does effects the world and yes it matters a lot, we do not need anymore war mongering money grabbers for leaders.
We all need someone that will want the good for their country and it’s people but be able in inter-act as well as being able to communicate with other countries, with good will and not as it has been since George Bush, everything that MAN has done has been for his own advantage; I hope you all get a better guy this time, not to mention if America stabilizes a lot of other countries will too.
 
  by: captainJane     01/05/2008 09:04 PM     
  @Dedolito  
 
he voted for a ban, not for partial birth abortion. read it. You just skimed it I'm sure, otherwise you would see your wrong.

ron paul is a republican liberal. truth of the constitution and equal rights for all.
 
  by: vhan     01/05/2008 09:07 PM     
  @ Manila  
 
Thats the second reason why i'd like to see DK up in office. 1st being a fellow ohioian ;)

Any figure that places himself at risk for actually standing up to the gov't earns an 'A-ok' in my book.

DK ALL THE WAY..

for the rest of you that may get a glimpse in hell, let me know when the snow falls ;)
 
  by: coldcrush   01/05/2008 09:26 PM     
  @vhan  
 
Please.... stop....

Ron Paul is far from liberal. If I remember correctly, you reasoning for that fallacy was that he is at odds with the rest of the current republican candidates. Ron Paul is a conservative republican. Everyone else in the republican side of the race is simply a big-government, yay-God, fascist.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2008 09:30 PM     
  @erasedgod  
 
ok, but thats what he calls himself. I don't see how he would be a total conservative since he wants to stop the war on drugs, and is ok with gays and what not.
 
  by: vhan     01/05/2008 09:44 PM     
  @Vhan  
 
I'm pretty sure the man has never called himself a liberal. Secondly, the War on Drugs is an insanely costly, and unconstitutional, attack on personal freedoms. A conservative (a real one, not a neo-con) puts individual freedom above almost everything else.

Being "ok with gays" is completely irrelevant.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2008 10:01 PM     
  ...  
 
liberal republican. There is more to things than black and white, right/left. Look into it and you will see what I mean. I'm not the only one saying these things. Also I said "and what not" I'm working and didn't want to get too detailed.

Yes the war on drugs is stupid and costing way too much. Yet the conservatives are the ones keeping it in tack.
 
  by: vhan     01/05/2008 10:41 PM     
  @vhan  
 
Rudy Giuliani is a liberal republican. Ron Paul is certainly not.

"There is more to things than black and white, right/left. Look into it and you will see what I mean."

That's what I'm saying. He's not liberal because he's just not. People in favor of the Drug War are not, by default, conservative. Nor is it the other way around.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/05/2008 10:49 PM     
  @Vhan  
 
what the hell are you on about?

He voted yes on the partial birth abortion bill, HR 760.

He voted yes to ban a type of abortion. At the Federal Level. Because HE believes it to be wrong.

That flies in the face of his so-called strict Constitutional stance in leaving all abortion matters up to the individual states.

Or can you not see this hypocrisy for your blind faith in him?

I also note that you can't defend his two-faced earmarking stratigies.

 
  by: dedolito     01/06/2008 12:11 AM     
  oh and while we are on the topic..  
 
HR 760 is deeply flawed --

it contained no mention of *fetal* health or viability. There are fatal diseases that are routinely only detectable in late term pregnancy in which doctors discover that the fetus is unviable - that removing it from the womb will kill it.

In these cases there are a variety of abortion techniques, "partial birth" or more appropriately, "intact dilation and extraction", being one of the choices.

It's not as if doctors would pick this method to be sadists, if they do pick it it is because it poses the least amount of risk to the mother. Removing that choice from doctors unduly puts the health and life of the mother at risk.

 
  by: dedolito     01/06/2008 12:36 AM     
  well..  
 
As long as a Democrat is elected I don't care who wins the primaries.. I personally would like to see Edwards win the primaries but since he's going against a women and a black man both going for their initial genre presidency it simply will not happen.
 
  by: GREGO85   01/06/2008 07:00 AM     
  ooh  
 
My bad. I honestly misunderstood the phrasing of the bill. I see that he didn't like the bill yet he voted for it because of his personal ethics. I don't see a problem with earmarks and never did. They don't increase spending, its more of their note to how the money laid out is to be spent. 2% I've seen it come out to.

Yeah, Rudy belongs to both parties. Ron Paul ran as one in 88, though now a republican he still has liberal views for personal liberties. http://www.politicalcompass.org/...
But overall he has made some bad decisions, but whats the point we're all human.
 
  by: Vhan     01/06/2008 07:03 AM     
  @Vhan  
 
"I don't see a problem with earmarks and never did. They don't increase spending,"

Um no. Earmarks directly increase spending because they are capital appropriation requests! If the earmark wasn't there, that money would not have been spent and next years budget would be that much smaller.

Earmarks are line items inserted into Bills that give funding to completely unrelated topics. This year Ron Paul has inserted $400 million worth of earmarks into 65 bills for pork projects in his own district.

He's been caught flat footed on national television as the hypocrite he is.

Not just on the earmarks either but on term limits too (a big talking point of his when he was running for election originally). And I find it particularly scummy for him to be using a picture of him supporting Reagan to bring in that Reagan-loyalist vote even though he publicly disavowed the man.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

In the end, just another scummy politician who is looking out for Numero Uno and can backward rationalize anything to suit his needs.
 
  by: dedolito     01/06/2008 12:37 PM     
  Ichi  
 
They can do a deal as long as it gets the best results.

I know I am not there but don't like Clinton at all, she is another Bush in my eyes I may be wrong only time will tell.

But all she is is money and brag as far as I can work out.
 
  by: captainJane     01/06/2008 10:55 PM     
  you don't understand earmarks  
 
Its a process used by all congressmen. Getting rid of earmarks saves taxpayers no money. “Earmarks” are congressional directives that federal agencies spend some of their allotted money in a specified way. If the money isn’t earmarked, the agency is free to spend it as it sees fit. Federal spending stays at exactly the same level. http://nrd.nationalreview.com/...

See http://www.youtube.com/... at 4:25 and you will see he is even asked why he makes earmarks.

"Good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Ron just pointed out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending Some argue that earmarks can indirectly increase spending by encouraging corruption. Though the only corruption is for trading favors for earmarks. Taking bribes so you would write an earmark that would benefit towards someone specifically.

If you read that artical I posted you will also see that earmarks make up less than two percent of the federal budget and that fiscal conservatives should be spending more time and energy on more important spending programs.
 
  by: Vhan     01/07/2008 01:15 AM     
  @Vhan  
 
No, you don't understand budgets and are just parroting their party tagline.

The Federal Agencies are alloted monies based on predicted spending for the next year. If that money is not spent it is not included in the next years budget. So yes, your sources are technically correct in that if one were not to include no earmarks for a given year, *that* year's spending wouldn't change.

But *next* years budget would be correspondingly decreased due to the lack of spending, and therefore *next* year there would be less spent.

As for the 2% figure, when talking about the federal budget that's still ~$10 BILLION dollars.

Yes, I would like to reduce federal spending by 10 billion dollars, how about you?

Even if you want to believe his rationalization of the budget situation, that still doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is openly and publicly against earmarks in all forms. And yet he still puts them in to please his base.

If he were as principled as he claims he is on the earmark matter he'd not put put his constituent's federal dollar needs into the budget as earmarks, riders on bills that need to be passed. He would submit bills that were appropriation requests for his projects alone. After all, that's what he said the system needs. But he's not willing to set the example. In other words, he's just saying what his constituents want to hear, like any other politician under the sun (or rock).


 
  by: dedolito     01/07/2008 01:37 AM     
  good point  
 
Ah politics, where no one is right, but the whole. Other than these two things which show how human he is I can't find anything else that is bad. If all politicians are "bad" why nitpick? Which is the least worst choice? Kucinich? Sure, but the only one who is talking about what really matters (war, money, irs, ect) is Ron Paul. I don't know what to say other then at least he has the balls to attck big government and warmongers. That and he would restore the constitution to its beautiful self. Yay freedom.
 
  by: vhan     01/07/2008 08:15 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com