Barack Hussein Obama - Senator for 4 years, ran for presidency for half of that.
Not that I have anything against Obama, if at all, but I just feel that John McCain would make for a MUCH better president. Even if his choice of vice president is questionable.
I just feel that the current America is not ready for a black President yet. I worry that there will still be people unhappy with a 'Black' President, thus making the racism problem worse, and God's Teeth, I hope he doesn't get assassinated or whatever. Which brings me to the question - Is KKK still active?
Also, with the typical African American's behaviour in social environment, how would they behave now with one of them has become the President, albeit a mulato one? My questions may sound a little extreme and tinged with racism in light of the intense sufferings that the African-Americans have went through since slavery in Africa thousands of years ago, but they would not be entirely groundless, right?
And no, I'm NOT racist; I'm not even American!
(Trust me, I was seeing a black guy for the past couple of months, which proves I'm so NOT racist. Also, what's with the indirect message that you are deemed as a racist, just because you do not vote for Obama?)
Anywayyyys, setting aside the potential disasters, Obama just seems... Too soft. And too slick. You don't influence the world just because maybe, when you were a kid, you've once acclaimed, "I'm going to be the president of the United States of America when I grow up, Ma!" (No, he did not say that; I was just making a point) or something; You've got to have it.
Yes, I know with Obama being a Democrat, who are famous for spending lots of money, will provide the boost that the US economy needs right now and hey, yay for Asian markets! But I hardly think he's the right man in the long run. I mean, look at his 'tactics' for Iraq! Obama is fanciful with words, and he might have good advisors, I'll give him that, but one can only keep his fingers crossed as to how he would fare as President of U.S.A.
I'm not saying McCain is the god-send from Heaven and he was made for Presidency, but I just don't think Obama's it. McCain's only downfall is that he did not shake off the Bush's shadow in time, and also his old age - Everyone's apparently afraid that Palin will be President in the case he dies.
Current projected results on my company's TV:
Obama - 200
McCain - 090
I can't watch on anymore. With a bit of artistic license...
God Save the Free!
I fear for the state of the world.
6 comments:
Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income than opposition leaders. After allowing for a one year time lag between assuming office and the effects of policies, and accounting for several economic events that could have caused such a development, such as oil prices and labor force participation, the correlation with a Democratic presidency and higher income growth remains significant. He concludes that correlation between higher and more equally distributed income growth and the incumbency of Democratic presidents is likely not a mere repeated coincidence.
I was about applaud the mouthful that you've written before I realised you were quoting Larry Bartels.
Anyway, I'm a simple girl - I've very briefly mentioned about a Democrat president's boost to the economy but I guess my main point was that Obama gives me a vague sense of discomfort. *Shrugs* I'm vapid that way sometimes, lmao.
Thanks for sharing that though. Kudos! :)
Well, it sums up what I wanted to put across.
Anyway, let's do sum up a comparison between the last tow Democrat and Republican Presidents.
How good was the Clinton Presidency? Let us contrast Bill Clinton's success
against two failed Bush presidencies. Bush I and Bush II - gloomy bookends
before and after the eight great Clinton years.
Look at the Clinton record. The best economy ever. Real wages up,
unemployment down. Housing up, poverty down. Stock market up, crime rates down. Progress toward peace in strife-torn areas like Ireland, the Balkans,
and the Middle East which knew bitter conflict dating back decades, even
centuries. Facts, folks.
Bush's economy? Flaccid and flailing as his father's
before him - replaced Clinton's eight years of record expansion. Two wars and the worst recession since the great depression.
We look at the endless litany of Bush failures versus our stellar economic and international performance under Clinton's leadership and realize success
is no accident. America floundered both before and after the Clinton
Presidency. History will give due credit - and blame - to the men who set the domestic and foreign policies.
Ah, yes yes, and then the column you quoted went on to talk about Clinton's speech given after the Oklahoma City bombing.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjcoklahomabombingspeech.htm
Right inspiring, that one. I can't deny I prefer Clinton over Bush. Everyone does. Still, keep in mind that Clinton had 'reigned' in a time of relative peace and blooming of global economy. Markets have its ups and downs and the economy is not wholly dependent on how the President runs the country, though I do admit, one wrong step and it might trigger a financial tsunami.
Bush is an unlucky SOB to have so many world-changing events happening during his presidency. I feel that some of his decisions (albeit good ones far lesser than the bad) might be conducive to the US in a few years' time.
What I wished to say is, McCain is no Bush and Obama is certainly no Clinton. We can't compare entirely based on their party. I prefer to look at their own personal experience and history.
But then again, I'm no political scientist.
Oh well. Let's just hope the Obama victory can lead a breakthrough for Iran talk, for now.
Well, enough of the U ASS of A, what do you think about the current political affairs here?
Nothing much I can say about our local political affairs.
Communism hiding behind the farce of Democracy. One of the world's most highest paid President who seemingly does nothing but attend dinners, conferences, NDPs and charity shows. Why do you think a 80+ year old man can still be Singapore's President when the Americans find McCain too old? Lol.
North Korea has Kim Jong-il, but we have the 'Lee Jong-il' family in Singapore, ruling a bunch of well-educated automatons who have been thrusted into this false state of normalcy since young.
I'm just too lazy to give a shit.
Post a Comment