Good. If it hit an uncomfortable nerve, the New York succeeded in a way. It may have not clearly spoofed the race criticism of Obama, but it sure shows how people would jump to take a bullet just because Obama is of a certain race.

The outcome of the US election has more effect on the rest of the world than any other election. In the UK it's pretty much irrelevant who wins our elections because all candidates are pretty much the same. The responsibility of any opposition party isn't to have policies, it's merely to oppose everything the governing party says.

So I think we have every right to have strong opinions on the US elections considering how much it's going to affect the international scene for the next 4 years.

So get off your high horse and realise that even though Americans are the only ones who get to vote, they're not the only ones affected by the result.

Here's a good article for those who think Obama is becoming "arrogant and presumptuous": http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/07/the_real_audacity/

Only insomuch as our new president is a douchenozzle who invades other countries for no reason. If the dollar goes to hell all you have to do is join the EU.

Don't worry, you also have to understand that Wookie is incredibly stupid (and also quite unfunny, so attempts at humour make him look even more stupid) and should be awarded a medal for holding his beliefs so stubbornly in the face of... well, all known rationality. I think/hope that he secretly knows his beliefs are ridiculous, and is being forced at gunpoint to repeat his generic rhettoric.

...the EU isn't like 'America Lite!' or something. It's not like we have to choose either US or EU, we've already joined the EU. Only Norway and Switzerland haven't, I think.

I'm not voting. I'd rather not have a hand in screwing up our country for better or worse.

This is my post for the year.

Alan, you should post more, I miss you.

Which ones?



This is another dodge. It's not about hiding, it's about not letting opponents use his name to associate him with the enemies of America. People have chosen to use a form of his name that he does not use himself. Doesn't seem fair to criticize Obama for objecting to this use of his name if you're not going to question why it's being used in the first place.



I agree that he didn't handle the New Yorker cover as well as he should have, but it's hard to blame him for being defensive after all the false claims in this vein. The trouble with the cover cartoon is that for many of the people who see it but don't actually read the New Yorker, it'll reinforce the same misconception it was intended to mock.

I think Obama would have been better off publicly applauding the New Yorker for skewering the scare tactics, but I'm not surprised that he didn't.



Danes. The cartoon controversy was in Denmark.

ragna, what exactly was that article supposed to show? "Yeah, Obama is arrogant, but look at these people!" Dur? He doesn't even address any of the charges against Obama but instead deflects them and leads us down a completely different road.

btw, going out to the people, shaking hands, and asking for votes is called humility(since you're not demanding or assuming votes and trying to identify more with your constituents) and the fundraiser dinners don't cost so much because people are in the presence of the candidate. The dinner is ridiculously overpriced because it's seen a cute little way to donate money.

That op ed was a poor attempt to deflect the issue and is completely transparent.

We have only Americans to blame for that.



It struck a nerve, I think, but not the nerve it was intended to strike. The New Yorker either gave their audience too much credit, or didn't realize how much bigger their audience would get once they printed something like that. Either way, we ended up discussing whether the cartoon was offensive when we were supposed to be discussing the idiots who are doing their best to associate Obama with terrorism and Islam.

McCain....WTF ARE YOU DOING!? You've already got the moderate vote, it's the pissed off conservatives that are going to make or break you!

*goes to a corner and sobs*

The clinton clip seems like a bit of a low blow.

well, heres why im NOT going to vote for obama.

number one reason, well i will let barack tell you in his own words...


i dont believe helth care is a "right" and i certainly dont believe you have the "right" to helth care that i am having to help pay for!

obama has a almost complete tendency toward expansion of big government, in nearly every sector.

in education, with issues ranging from dropout rates to teacher retention and student performance he seems to think that everything can be solved by throwing more money at the problems. i have yet to hear his ideas about how to deal with the fact that many dropouts simply dont want to be in school. many teachers quit because you cannot pay them enough to want to deal with out of control and sometimes dangerous students. many of the problems in schools stem from problems at home, not from underfunded classrooms. (thats not to say funding is not an issue)

i also do not agree with his attitude of aggressively expanding hate crime legislation. the pendulum on what is considered and prosecuted as hate crimes has thus far not swung both ways.

thats just to name a few of the reasons.

1. Way to be an awful human being!
2. It's not like the other 300 million people in your country wouldn't be paying for you too. Infact if you think about it you're only paying for yourself since theres no exceptions.

Wookie, you explained why the right doesn't want him in office. I'm asking why he SCARES you. Also, thanks for insulting my political senses because I'm young. The only thing that I could possibly see being scary about Barrack HAMAS Obama is higher taxes for the wealthy, and that isn't very scary at all. The only other thing is possibly the Iran conflict, but that just depends on who's side of the coin you're on.

If you segment a politician's political stances and view each by itself without the context of the other stances, then it definitely seems like all he wants to do is increase taxes and throw money at the situation. However, if you looked at his other proposals for programs to help lower-income families and urban families (and the families that fall within both groupings), combined with his ideas of education, there is some legitimacy to his proposals.

Obama's not one to make a "this one thing will fix problem A by itself" argument. His approach is typically multi-piece, which is a realistic approach to a situation such as American education.

Do you have health insurance? If so, you're already either helping pay for other people's health care or getting your health care paid for by other people.

1. I'm a supporter of national health care....but that's just stupid. Believing in self-reliance more than the government doesn't make someone an awful human being. May make them incredibly naive in some situations, but not an awful person.
2. No he won't. The wealthy will pick up the majority of the bill.

While Obama doesn't scare me, McCain's disagreeing with the supreme court for giving people in Guantanamo Bay civilian trials definitely does.

im not saying im against poor people being helped, or even me giving money to help them. and im certainly not against reforming our schools and to a lesser extent, our health care.
what i am against is this desire for the aggressive expansion of the federal government that obama seems to be in love with. especially in regards to how all this will be paid for, because i have a sneaking suspicion that it will NOT be paid for with money saved from cutting government spending in other areas.
i am not saying "no new taxes ever!" but he has a lot of very ambitious very large and probably very costly programs.

as for self reliance vs. reliance on the government:
obviously i rely on the government for things such as freeway construction and the military and national security. but as far as things like health care, what track record are you looking at that even suggests that the government would not totally bungle things up even worse than they already are? perhaps public schooling? oh wait, nope they are not doing to great on that... welfare? hmm.... nope... wait i have it! oil! despite kind of high prices (although only moderate when compared to the rest of the world) oil industry is a shining example of a well run government program... oh wait thats right thats still in the private sector... (and yes i am being sarcastic so you can save the snide remarks)

.

Ofcourse the thing is with publicly funded healthcare is there is no such thing as health insurance.

Or at least thats how it works here.

My Tricare health insurance from the military, which allows me to go to any military doctor, pre-approved civilian doctor, or any non pre-approved civilian doctor that accepts Tricare as long as I fill out a form before I go. It is basic health insurance, but a national insurance system shouldn't go beyond basic healthcare.

Government can't run crap effectively, but they do have a huge wallet. They provide the money, the private sector professionals provide the service.


When you say publicly funded healthcare, are you talking about socialized medicine or national health insurance?

"Socialised Medicine."

Only it's actually called publicly funded healthcare, "socialised medicine" is a term that only tends to be used by americans who don't like the idea.

You could have a system where there is health insurance AND a national health care service. In a way, France has this. You rely on health insurance for checkup, continued care and small medical issues. For significantly bigger issues such as medical emergencies, threatening illnesses and so forth, the government can provide the funding. Additionally, the doctors are also more protected from malpractice suits due to the government so the cost of care doesn't jump up for everyone (although the doctors are paid much, much less than the US). Also, the people get to choose which doctor they want to visit (to a certain extent). In theory, such a system should prevent massive strain on itself from hypochondriacs who check in everytime they get a scratch while providing a safety net to those who have serious medical problems (thus, the more serious, the less you have to pay).

Too bad the system in France is hemorrhaging money. But if they figure out an effective mean to combine the advantages of our healthcare system without the rampant flaws of a national healthcare system, that would be something to really look forward to. The "safety net" for big medical concerns aspect of national healthcare is what is the most appealing to me, not so much trying to patch every wound on every person out there or try to get pills for everyone.

I believe the safety net 70% of France uses for big concerns is secondary, privately funded health insurance.

Oh. Yeah I have it backwards. But still, insurers do play an important role, and vast majority of French citizens pay for private insurance. It's more for smaller costs rather than based on how serious the disease/illness/condition is.

yes.

Not in response to Kieran, but I felt it was worthwhile that, after I read his book, my impression of Obama's plan for healthcare was merely to provide insurance coverage of basic needs - diabetic medical supplies, medications, vitamins, etc. - along with coverage for a small chat with a psychiatrist. The involvement of the government with the actual healthcare will be limited - the most he wants to do is get a federal mandate that all hospitals convert to an electronic health record, and that the government subsidize conversion programs where necessary. Healthcare itself will remain a privatized service. Potentially, it's a misnomer to call Obama's plan "nationalized healthcare", but it's effectively the same thing.

Of course it's only one variable, but you claimed that "socialized [health care systems] certainly seem to perform at much lower levels than ours." Where is your evidence for this? In fact, a recent Reuters article reads




Actually, a more accurate explanation is the disparity in access to health care.
Furthermore, isn't this a kind of self-defeating argument? You were just arguing that the healthcare system is but one variable as far as life expectancy, yet here you seem to be claiming that the U.S.'s abysmal infant mortality rates can be explained away by breastfeeding alone.
At any rate, Japan, for example, breastfeeds at a much lower rate than the United States, so clearly it's not the only variable at work here!

The specific problems I have with Obama:

- He likes No Child Left Behind, a steaming pile of legislation championed by W. He states in his proposal that the only problem with it is that it is underfunded. /mindboggle

- He wants to start several huge online databases that basically record and keep track of everything that goes on in government, and I mean basically everything. The idea is so that anyone can look up this stuff and the theory is the government is held accountable. All I see is a multi-billion dollar way to piss people off without giving them power to hold the government accountable. And no mention of how he'd fund it, of course.

One thing that I really applaud him for is he wants to double funding for scientific research and give tax credits for R&D.

But the basic problem comes down to this, with both candidates: they only want to add stuff, never take it away. If you want education to be better, there comes a point where you have to NUKE the entire steaming thing and fund it about a quarter as much with a different approach.

I mean, we really need to just put the government agencies in a hat, draw any three, and nuke the ones that get drawn on the spot, no questions asked.