The next US President will be...
 

http://www.popmatters.com/images/new...arackobama.jpg


I just heard this morning that Senator Barrack Obama (Illinois) is considering a run at the Oval Office in '08. Oh please, let this happen!!!!! He is 1 of the 2 politicians in Washington that does not yet seem corrupted by our system! If you've ever heard him speak, you probably noticed a well grounded, well spoken, intelligent young (for a politician) man that really seems to know where HE stands, and not just where his party thinks he should. If the democrats are serious about wanting the White House, this is the man they need to run. Not Hillary, not John Kerry and certainly not any of the lesser known people who's names are floating around... Hillary, Kerry, etc... are too polarized already. They are too far left to pull in the "gray area" voters (That's just a term I use to refer to those of us who vote every election, but hold no political affiliation to any certain party.) Obama is a moderate liberal and a middle of the road democrat and I honestly think that if he runs, he will win. Granted most of America probably hasn't even heard of him yet, let alone hear him speak, but once they do... Well, let me just introduce our next president.

Now, the real icing on this cake will be if the Republicans get their act together too and give us the other middle of the road candidate that hasn't been corrupted by Washington yet.... Norm Coleman (Senator, Minnesota) He used to be a middle of the road Democrat and then switched to middle of the road Republican and that alone should tell you he has no problem standing up to the parties. If we get Coleman vs. Obama in 2008, I might just find myself having some restored faith in our political system because those 2 both actually seem like real people when you hear them. They don't seem like puppets and certainly not like deceitful politicians. They both seem to genuinely want what is best for their constituants and the people of the country and I'd be happy to vote for either...

I'm torn on this one. Yes I love Obama, but...


Horror thrives under Republican rule. It's part of thier public policy to push fear- and thus, protection. Just look at history...


Eisenhower (R) in the 50s - horror explodes

Kennedy and Johnson (D) in the 60's - horror fades away (or comes from England)

Nixon and Ford (R) in late 60's early 70's - American Indie horror breaks new ground and big budget horror emerges

Carter's (D) term in ther late 70's seems the exception - horror is still present

Reagan & Bush Sr (R) in the 80s - the slasher film explodes

Clinton (D) in the early 90s - the horror film goes out of fashion

Bush Jr (R) late 90s to present - The Biggest push horror has ever seen



My livelyhood my just depend on a Republican regime:mad:

I cant see a black president being elected in our lifetime.

too many crackers in the US - and people who dont think they are crackers - but are.

the vast majority will always vote in the old rich white guy.

being honest and 'unbuyable' is a strike against anyone too.



very sad but true.

Maybe this is the time where a democrat will usher in a brand new era orf Horror movies. Maybe he is a closet horror fan and will get th enational endowment for the arts to start funding horror projects!


A man can dream, cant he?

closet horror fan !

i'm suprised you guys just dont vote catholic priests into office !

Funny how much Canadians know about our elections, but how little we know about theres....


What do you have? A leprechaun? Maybe a moose-beaver who drinks maple syrup out of a mounty's hat?


One of these days, the canadians of horror.com are going to launch an attack on me....

hardly any canadians know about the canadian elections :)

there hasnt been anyone flamboyant in 'power' here since pierre elliot trudeau,

although we did have this other gnarly french canadian guy who ran over a sleeping drunk with his car.

we've done a pretty good job at seperating church and state so far - but we're seeing a threat of it on the horizon..

re leprechauns ... its too fucking cold for them up here ...

I thought they were pickled and immune to the cold. You learn something new every day.

just because they're green - it doesnt mean they are pickled ..

crazy yank wanker !

i also really like obama - saw him on Charlie Rose the other day and he reminded me of clinton without all the slick-ness but with the charisma and confidence.

that said, i fear its too early for obama who won't even see out his first senate term.

i also fear that the likely republican is a prohibitive favorite - McCain. personally i think mccain is much more right-wing than the general public realizes. . . but lots of democrats i know say they would vote for mccain because he is a 'straight shooter' - whatever that means

We were actually discussing this here yesterday...What we decided was:

We will never have a completely honest politician...Why?

Because people don't REALLY want to know the truth...Argue if you like, BUT...We discussed it at length, considered MANY things...So, think about it indepth...No one is perfect and not everyone agrees with everyone else...If ANY politician was simply himself, he would not be accepted by the general majority...An honest person would be ousted pretty damned quick...

Personality aside...What about the issues?...How far do you think a politician would get if he expressed his TRUE feelings on welfare recipients?...Homeless people?...Abortion?...Gay marriage?...and SOOO many other issues?

They are puppets because they HAVE to be...in order to be elected and to stay in office...They HAVE to tell people what they want to hear, or the people won't listen...Think about it...

Hell, people have a problem with ME at times because I'm honest...

i tink it has to do a lot more with the people who put people into power.
and why.

the lobbyists .. the people who have something to gain (power/financially) by putting a certain person into power.

only a small percentage of people actually understand what is going on politically .. entheusiasts and conspiracy theorists mostly ..

everyone else is uneducated and uninformed other than what they pick up on the news. (scratching the surface at best)
(i'm in this category myself)

this majority of the people vote for who looks like they know what they are doing .. based on what they are told. or they vote based on what the person looks like - the image.

the lobbyists exert a lot of influence. they dont need someone in power they cant buy. they wont financially back them - or back the people who can also provide influence to their cause.

the people who own the oil run the planet. I know this sounds simple and childish .. but there is a a lot of truth there.

Oil definately is power. i think we are a long way off from the fusion powered world we would all like. And even then, what does the middle east have to fear? Even if we discoverted a viable, inexpensive inexhaustable power supply tomorrow, theose types of things require a very important product to work:

Plastic. And corn based polymers arent exactly catching on like wildfire yet. And even if those two things came to pass TOMORROW, i garuntee you they would STILL have something of value:

Sand. We are still using silicon chips, and EVEN IF we stopped using them, everything will be (most likely) running on fiver optics and stored in holographic drives or somethign similar, still requiring sand. Which they have a lot of (unfortunately for them, so does everyone else. but everyone seems to have oil too.)

At this point in time, if the Dems put up a half decayed bluegill in a cowboy hat I think I'd vote for it.

I like Obama as well. I was really hoping he'd run. Unfortunately, I think it might still be too early for the first African American president. I hope to hell I'm wrong, but living in the midwest for the last 3 years hasn't done a lot to console me.

Death of a President
 

Has anyone seen this

Death of a president

Channel 4 in the UK have been showing this recently.
It's a fictional account of what would happen if good ol' bush was shot.

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.
Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.
The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.

In Death Of A President, which will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival later this month (SEPT)before being shown on Channel 4's satellite channel More4 in October, the assassination is a starting point for a retrospective fictional documentary about what happened next.

This scene, which was created by putting the President's face onto an actor with digital wizardry, shows him being gunned down just hours after driving past an anti-war demonstration while doing a talk in Chicago.
The two hour drama, in which events are 're-created' by the use of footage and interviews, shows the media storm around the War on Terror as Muslims are fingered as the culprits before there is any evidence.
In the wake of the assassination, authorities focus on a Syrian-born man in the search for the culprit.

'In the hunt for the killer, this will show how America has been affected by the War on Terror,' said a spokesman. 'It is about the polarisation of America in all the events post 9/11.'

But the drama, which will be shown on Channel 4 after being screened on More4, has angered some Americans who have seen four presidents assassinated while in office.

Eric Staal of Republicans Abroad in London said last night: 'I wonder if they are celebrating the idea that the president could be assassinated. * no I think we all wished * :rolleyes:
'We've seen from early in his presidency the extremes that the political Left are willing to go to vilify him. This takes this vilification to a new and disturbing level.

'It is an appalling way to treat the head of state of another country.'
While a White House spokesman said: 'This does not dignify a comment (sic).'
:D

And what do you suppose would happen if we DID elect a president who wasn't white and/or male?...Would people believe that he/she was only a token, elected in order to show how progressively diverse we have become?...If so, Would they be correct?

Would he/she feel the unbelievable pressure of being constantly aware that every move they make and every word they speak would be held up to the strongest scrutiny EVER in history, and that they would set an example for every other minority who might ever consider running for President?..Always waiting for the masses to avow "See?...We KNEW that wouldn't work"...And fear that their failure would mean the death of any chance that any minority might ever have thereafter?...Americans (in general) DO have a tendency to attribute the actions of a few, to an entire race, group, gender, etcetera...

Would they be assassinated?...Unfortunately...We (the country as a whole) aren't as 'progressive' as we would like to believe or have the rest of the world think...


Even if someone of another race and/or gender WAS actually given a chance...They would never REALLY be given a chance...

Obama would be nice. Really nice. I'd like to see a woman in office, but if and only if she had the country's best intrest in mind. It's like when Elizabeth Dole ran for Senate here in NC. A bunch of feminist supported her even though she is so anti women's rights (on most women's rights- to chose, day care, working, etc) that's it's not funny. I don't want some radical right wing female (essentially, what I would consider to be a "tool") in office.

Go ahead and beat me, but Hillary doesn't scare me they way she scares other people. I think she's got a huge set of ovarian power. However, as a human, she has the great potential to fuck up.

How history making would that be? the first female president is the wife of a former president...


"Bill, this is my house now, bitch. Go make me some waffles."

I think Colin Powell stated he believed that the first black president would be assassinated. I'm not sure if that's why he declined to run or not.

My problem with Hillary is that if she were elected Pres, we'd have 2 families running the US for 24-28 years.

'89-'93 George Bush
'93-'01 Bill Clinton
'01-'09 Geoerge Bush Jr.
'09-'13 or even '17 Hillary Clinton?

Seems too much like battling royal families to me. The system was set up to eliminate the Aristocracy, but it seems that's what we're stuck with:mad:

[QUOTE=urgeok;494230] although we did have this other gnarly french canadian guy who ran over a sleeping drunk with his car. [QUOTE]

That would be René-Levesque, prime minister of Québec from 1976 to 1985. He was a very simple man, did not want to waste money on a driver and used to drive his car by himself. But that incident with the drunk sure put an end to that :p

Nice replies! A few things I want to touch on though...

1- Obama is not black, he's mulatto (Sp?). His dad is from Africa, his mom is from Kansas.

2- It may be too early for him to run. Initially I had been hoping he'd run in 2012, but recent developments within the democratic party are now pointing to the strong possibility of an '08 run. They are looking for a middle-ground democrat to pull in some of the middle-America vote.

3- McCain is a straight shooter. I would agree with that. He's not afraid to stand up to his party and tell them what he thinks. The problem I have with him is that I don't neccesarily agree with what he thinks.

4- Rod mentioned the mounting Clinton/Bush monarchy we could be looking at if Hillary were to win. Let me take that a step further and propse the issue of Jeb Bush running some time in the future too! We could be looking at up to 36 straight years of having a Clinton or Bush in power. FUCK THAT!



In closing, I really DO think Obama will run in '08, but I am not sure if he will be able to win the democratic primary and get himself in to the race. IF he does get in the race, I could see him winning. America is tired of being at war and I have a feeling whichever democrat gets nominated, will end up winning. On top of the core democrat support he would receive, I think he'd also be able to pull in a large portion of the minority votes (Usually Democratic anyways) as well as a very large portion of the under 35 voters. The under 35 voters could be his key to winning this one. Obama believes that the baby boomers have had their chance in power and now it's time for the next generation to take over (and I, like many of my peers in the under 35 age group) feel exactly the same way. They had their chance, they fucked it up. Step aside and let someone else try.

That's an excellent point and taken, especially if Chelsea sticks her nose into politics. In twenty years, she'll be running for office, and climbing that ladder too.

Don't forget about Jeb Bush. He'll get his turn before Chelsi ever does.

I'm happy to say it is looking more & more like I am gonna be spot on with this prediction of Obama taking the White House. He's garnering a TON of support online from the 18-35 crowd since officially throwing his name into the hat.


Too bad it's looking like Norm Coleman isn't gonna get the Republican support he'd need. I'm guessing it'll be Obama vs. McCain or Giuliani in 08. I gotta say, in general, that'd be a big step in the right direction. Instead of getting stuck choosing between a flag burning doof & a complete fuckin' idiot, we'll get to choose between the hero of 9/11 (Giuliani) or a well-decorated veteran that has no problem at all speaking up against his own party (McCain) and the guy that embodies the change this country is looking for (Obama).

That's a much better choice to be faced with than 04.

Do you honestly think that's what those red states near the bottom of the map are thinking? Not speaking of all of 'em, but sadly, for the most part.

Obama won't win many states in the south or middle, but I think he can take the north & both coasts.

Lets hope so, as of now, he's got my vote. Being in Louisiana, I don't know how much it'll help. I'm still baffled over that ridiculous electoral college, the loser can actually have more votes than the winner...as smart as they're supposed to be up there on capital hill you'd think they'd have figured out by now that that's pretty damn stupid.

I think part of the reason that Kerry failed was that he counted too much on the "youth vote" (the under 35 age group mentioned previously). I live in the South, and Obama has my vote (an under 35 one at that), but he shouldn't count too heavily on a bunch of slackers getting off the couch and "rocking the vote" (anyone remember that pitiful attempt to get gen-X'ers to vote?).

I was watching the news one morning, (Fort Wayne, IN) and they were asking people what they thought about Obama or Hillary. The amazing thing was, the comments went exactly the opposite that I thought they would. People were loving Obama but hating Clinton. NOT because they were against what Hillary was about, but because she's female. They were seriously writing in with comments, trying to state reasons from the bible why she shouldn't be President. It was amazing.

Hillary Clinton is too polarizing. It'd be a gigantic mistake for the Dems to put her up in my opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with a woman, in general, holding office, but I'd have a real big problem with THAT woman holding it.

And yeah, the electoral college is fuckin' retarded. I live in a state that's notoriously a blue state (When Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his landslide win, Minnesota was the only one he lost.) but my parents are staunch conservatives. They hit the polls & vote every election but their guy never wins & all of our states votes end up going to someone they oppose. (Which I typically find pretty funny.) People say it's important to vote, but honestly, I can see a lot of cases where it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Right around the 04 elections, it was rumored that Colordao was gonna change how their electoral votes worked. Let's say, for the sake of simplifying this, that Colorado has 10 electoral votes. If 60% of their states voters voted Democrat, 30% republican & 10% for 3rd party candidate, they would give 6 electoral votes to the dems, 3 to the repubs, and 1 to the 3rd party. To me, that's fair. It represents the popular vote & then, even if you know your candidate doesn't stand a chance of winning your state, you don't neccesarily feel like your wasting your time going to vote because you know it will count for something. It never happened though and until it does, we're stuck with the utterly retarded all or nothing system.

We desperately need to do that. It would be a great start to getting into a multi-party system (something I'm in favor of.) If people saw a third party candidate winning some electoral votes, they might actually start to believe that voting for those people ISN'T a complete waste of time.

I couldn't agree more! I'd like to see up to 10-12 candidates each election, all on a level playing field (Same amount of money for campaign, same amount of tv airtime, etc...) and all with a viable chance of winning.




My wife sent an email around about a month ago with a bunch of little things to ponder, one of which was... Why are there over 50 candidates for Miss USA, but only 2 for president? It's a good fuckin' question.

We have government parties over here and its fucken ridiculous..
Labour or National are the only 2 that always win

the next president will be thinking he/she made a mistake for running.
we should force g. bush to stay president till he dies, let him handle his war.

Sorry, but, full republican all the way. (I even supported Bush)

Anyone who thinks Hilary Clinton could be president in 2008 lives in fantasy land.

I don't even know who's thinking about running, but I bet some southern good ol boy with a doofy smile wins.

Oh no, miss Dolly.

We all know it will be you. :)

A lot of the names getting thrown around are people I either don't like or don't care about. Given the people thought to be shoe-ins for running in '08, I don't think there'd be anybody I'd vote for that I'd be voting for because I like them. Maybe McCain or Obama. But, there's one politician that I really want to run for president. And that man is:


http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/..._300x450,0.jpg
Kinky Friedman

As long as it isn't bush. Oh yeah, IT CANT BE! Here in Britain a head of party can lead the two houses for as long as they want (or they're elected/ the party keep them as the big one.) Look at magie thatcher! She was a nutcase (But still she would be fun to have back) and she was incharge for three terms!