The Next American President

[Rabble Rouser]

This poll asks who you think will be the next American president, not who you would like to be the next American president.

[which doctor]

I chose Obama. I think his presidency will be very interesting.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't think the Republicans have any chance, unless they get behind an Independant, as many of them don't like McCain. I don't think Clinton will win, so it's probably going to be Obama.

[Pawn Power]

I chose Obama. I think his presidency will be very interesting.

Intresting in the sense of death and distruction in Iraq and Afganistan?

While I am no seer I think it will be Clinton. She is leading the democratic primaries , even after Obama's recent string of victories, and she will probably win Texas.

Will any of this really matter?....maybe to a few people.

[SouthernBelle82]

My personal opinion is that Obama will be the one to work harder to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan than anyone else. Other wise with economics and whatnot I don't think he's that different than Senator Clinton. Clinton's a conservative democrat former republican who supported Barry Goldwater while Obama's barely a moderate democrat.


Intresting in the sense of death and distruction in Iraq and Afganistan?

While I am no seer I think it will be Clinton. She is leading the democratic primaries , even after Obama's recent string of victories, and she will probably win Texas.

Will any of this really matter?....maybe to a few people.

[metalero]

Obama has a slight chance of not letting things go worse; he's defied the hard-line gusano lobby in Florida by proposing to end the travel ban on cuba and restrictions for cuban-americans in sending money and visiting relatives in the island, and he's voiced his opposition to the Iraq war. Yet he's not opposed to the called "war on terror" and follows the line of free market.

[Dimentio]

I would like Huckabee to win, but I think Obama has a momentum.

[BIG BROTHER]

Obama seems the most likely acording to my opinion to win.

[There is No God!]

I would like Huckabee to win, but I think Obama has a momentum.

Why would you want a fundamentalist christian running the most powerful country in the world?

I picked Obama.

[Dimentio]

Why would you want a fundamentalist christian running the most powerful country in the world?

I picked Obama.

Because he will destroy America. And I was joking.

But I prefer a president which will ruin US reputation before one that will be loved by the peoples of the world.

[Morag]

I don't think any of them are particularly good candidates. Obama pisses me off with his rhetoric about the American dream and there being "one America." That suggests one experience of America, which is ridiculous. I'm not a Clinton fan, but I think experience is going to win out. The media can only focus on the primaries until they finish; unless she steps down, the summer leading up to convention is going to be about Iraq, and her foreign affairs experience is going to win out over "hope". So all those unpledged delegates might swing.

It really all depends on events. Something major could happen and McCain could technically win- maybe he finds an awesome running mate, maybe something in Iraq makes him seem the best candidate. Anything could happen.

[Pirate Utopian]

I voted John McCain because the question was who I thought would be president. I dont support any of the candidates.

[MT5678]

I think that Obama will win, even though I hate that uncle tom with a passion.
There is a lot of discontent with American politics, and Obama has fooled people into thinking that he can change things. But he won't really change anything, if what he really says is anything to go by. Look up Paul Street's excellent artiles on the matter.

[Dros]

I think that McCaine represents the largest possible segment of the ruling class and will therefore be the most likely to win.

Hilldawg is second.

Obama is a hot-air machine who will run out of steam / run head long into racism.

Oh, and his name rhymes with Osama.

[Gobythebear]

Obama is the same old bullshit as all the others. He will not be any different then any of the other candidates.

All of the candidates are for the ruling class so it doesn't matter who wins.

[Zurdito]

Obama is the same old bullshit as all the others. He will not be any different then any of the other candidates.

All of the candidates are for the ruling class so it doesn't matter who wins.

if Obama gets elected, it will set up a lot of people to have their hopes raised and then dashed by reformism. this is important and a good thing.

[Cencus]

Don't make any difference, same shit different window dressing.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No matter who wins, the working class loses.

[KC]

My personal opinion is that Obama will be the one to work harder to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan than anyone else.

Uh, one of Obama's "talking points" is that he's going to send more troops and funds into Afghanistan:

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."



Note how he also talks about opening up a new battlefield in Pakistan above, which is reinforced by the following quote:



"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Moreover, his statement that he will "pull out" of Iraq is complete deception:



"The first thing I will do is initiate a phased redeployment. Military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq."

Remember how also he earlier referred to the Afghanistan occupation as a "counterterrorism activity". It's quite obvious that Obama has no intention of "withdrawing" from Iraq to any significant degree.


I think that McCaine represents the largest possible segment of the ruling class and will therefore be the most likely to win.

This is incorrect, as most campaign contributions from large corporate donors and "individuals" are going to both Hillary and Obama. It is quite obvious that this is true from a cursory examination of the data.

Source (http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=PRES&cycle=2008)


if Obama gets elected, it will set up a lot of people to have their hopes raised and then dashed by reformism. this is important and a good thing.

So they can go vote republican in 2012...

[Zurdito]

So they can go vote republican in 2012...

so load of working class youth are going to go vote Republican because Obama turned out to be too right-wing?:confused:

anyway, isn't the task of revolutionaries to prevent that from happening? can't you see how a populist getting into power on promises of "change" and then fialing to deliver is a potentially dynamic period for revolutionaries?

The whole "it makes no difference either way" line is just ridiculous, as if people who are interested in the destiny of humanity can simply ignore the Presidential election of the world's largest empire.

I am reminded of Trotsky's quote about people who "wish history would leave them in peace"

[KC]

so load of working class youth are going to go vote Republican because Obama turned out to be too right-wing?

No; they will do it because the democrats weren't able to "solve their problems".


anyway, isn't the task of revolutionaries to prevent that from happening? can't you see how a populist getting into power on promises of "change" and then fialing to deliver is a potentially dynamic period for revolutionaries?

I see it about as dynamic as having Bush in office.

Remember when everyone voted Democrat in 2006? Guess what happened!


The whole "it makes no difference either way" line is just ridiculous, as if people who are interested in the destiny of humanity can simply ignore the Presidential election of the world's largest empire.

We're not ignoring it; we're just not participating in it, and for good reason. Election time is great for us because this is primarily the time when people are actually interested in engaging in political discussion/action and are the most politically aware. But that's about all that's good that comes out of it.

[Zurdito]

I see it about as dynamic as having Bush in office.

Remember when everyone voted Democrat in 2006? Guess what happened!


But Obama's rhetoric is radical, he promises to change American society. Who cares about his polciies? This is a social phenomenon I am describing. I won't even patronise you with describing what having a young black man as president must mean to US society.


We're not ignoring it; we're just not participating in it, and for good reason.

Well I do not propose supporting Obama or calling for a vote for him - that would be wrong on principle. As for participating yourselves, I don't know enough about your organisation's current standing to comment on that tactic. You may wel be right. However I am more worried by your pessimism about the lack of possibility of radicalisation of US youth through the experience of disillusionment with the Democrats. If radicalisation does not ocme through disllusionment with the existing vassals of working class struggle then where the hell does it come from? I thinkt hat if you're right, and Obamas failures simply lead to everyone going back tot he Repuiblicans - even working class black youth - then we might as well give up now. Luckily I don't even find that scenario plausible.

[al8]

Don't make any difference, same shit different window dressing.

seconded.

[KC]

But Obama's rhetoric is radical, he promises to change American society.

Every politician promises that.


However I am more worried by your pessimism about the lack of possibility of radicalisation of US youth through the experience of disillusionment with the Democrats. If radicalisation does not ocme through disllusionment with the existing vassals of working class struggle then where the hell does it come from?

My point is that they are already as disillusioned as they are going to get.

[Zurdito]

Every politician promises that.

sorry but people vote for Obama because they want something which by US standards is radically different.




My point is that they are already as disillusioned as they are going to get.

Clearly not if they believe that Barack Obama will bring a positive change. My perception is that many people believe that. Am I wrong?

[KC]

Clearly not if they believe that Barack Obama will bring a positive change. My perception is that many people believe that. Am I wrong?You're wrong in assuming that Obama's any different than any other "positive change" candidate that's come along over the years.

[MT5678]

no, he's partially correct. Obama is "Establishment Politics in Rebel Clothing". His clothing being the skin color. People see that, and they automatically think: this guy means real change.

[Zurdito]

You're wrong in assuming that Obama's any different than any other "positive change" candidate that's come along over the years.

Well firstly, "any different" is bad phrasing: voting for the change Bush promises is different for voting for the change Obama promises. Secondly, no, I didn;'t say he was going to make a difference, I said that the social phenomeon which he represents is one which wants change and which falsely believes he can deliver it.

[Comrade Rage]

I think Obama will win. I REALLY hope that shitstain McCain doesn't.

[ComradeR]

It doesn't matter who wins because it will be whoever gets the majority of the bourgeois vote. The US workers will do as they have been taught to do and vote for one that the bourgeois media backs. And in the very rare cases that this fails the bourgeois state will merely override the working class vote.

No matter who wins, the working class loses.
That sums up bourgeois democracy perfectly.

[black magick hustla]

i would vote for obama only because it would piss off racist hicks in the process. other than that, i stand by bordiga's statement of "in what concerns us as marxists, to hell with democracy and the state"

[RNK]

Other: I will vote for Bob Avakian.

[F9]

i think and voted obama but enyone who gets president wont change nothing.

Fuserg9:star:

[Autonome-Antifa]

I voted for Barack Obama but i hope Fidel or Osama bin Laden is gonna be the new president of the US.

[Lector Malibu]

I voted for Obama.

On a side note, What is really sad is that American populous for the most part is buying the myth that Obama is going to bring about change , that he is the new hope so to say. Obama is just another puppet that will do the biding of capitalistic America. Furthermore this is not an advancement in race relations or a victory for equality. If anything this is an illusion that America is really a free society and the people can really change things and have presidents that speak for the people. It's all bullshit, plain and simple.

[Goatse]

I'm guessing Obama

[Awful Reality]

McCain. Because when it comes down to it, the country is ruled by a latent majority of rednecks and the true "religious extremists:" Fundamentalist Christians. He'll only win out over Huckabee in the primaries because of money.

God, I hate parliamentary democracy.

[Led Zeppelin]

The US isn't a parliamentary democracy, and your logic doesn't follow. If it did there would never have been any Democrat presidents.

[Awful Reality]

It's certainly similar.

And my logic follows, it's just that recent events have polarized us: former moderates are drifting over to the republican side.

[lombas]

If I were American, I wouldn't vote at all.

Don't do it now, see no reason to do it 'because he or she MUST win OR ELSE WE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO A NEOLIBERAL DICTATOR!!1!'.

;)

[THKO]

i think they all bad because it doesn't matter who will be president. important thing is what are they want to do . what kind of changes will happen if they chose
and i think their ideas their thinks are same. they show they are triying to show they think all their citizens but they aren't they only want to show that they won't do what are they say . i don't believe them .

[Del]

I would not vote for any of those people either.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm going to write in Kim Jong Il, he has what it takes to send America in a new direction and is about change.

[Cheung Mo]

I don't know why the U.S wants to destroy the Taliban so badly...They created, incited, and funded all those Islamist wacko groups in Afghanistan as a means of preventing the Red Army from steamrolling over the country (which would have been a much better result, materially speaking, for the people of Afghanistan than what actually did end up happening).

[Lector Malibu]

I don't know why the U.S wants to destroy the Taliban so badly...They created, incited, and funded all those Islamist wacko groups in Afghanistan as a means of preventing the Red Army from steamrolling over the country (which would have been a much better result, materially speaking, for the people of Afghanistan than what actually did end up happening).

This is spot on also here's some trivia for you Osama Bin Laden was and remains an operative of the CIA go figure.

[Yazman]

I know he WAS an operative of the CIA, but remains? What the..? Do you have any evidence or sources for this?

[Lector Malibu]

I know he WAS an operative of the CIA, but remains? What the..? Do you have any evidence or sources for this?

As much as I hate this man he is spot on in this video and should answer your question about Bin Laden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2QYoT4LWw

[RNK]

I don't know why the U.S wants to destroy the Taliban so badly...

Considering the fact that the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan encompassing only a few thousand men, and then, on the eve of victory as the last refuges of the Taliban and Al Qaida were surrounded, decided to pull most logistical resources and manpower to go chase oil in Iraq.. I think it's safe to say that they don't place that high a priority on destroying the Taliban or finding bin Laden.

[F9]

Ofcourse i wouldnt voted anyone from those capitalists!As rev lefts we shouldnt support noone because no one is just near from leftist!

Fuserg9:star:

[BrotherNo2]

An Obama presidency would be borderline revolutionary in and of itself, given this country's social history.

[raspute]

I believe Obama will win the Democratic primaries, and then the media will cover his plagiarized speech thing and the rest of his faults (like speaking solely to appeal to American's hopes) until everyone votes for McCain. God damn it.

Ron Paul for 2012.

[darkened day 92]

If McCain wins then the iraqis would suffer more death and he would invade iran too so that's real bad news here. Clinton is a zoinist and obama isn't that great either. But if a republican wins then the middleast is screwed

[BIG BROTHER]

If McCain wins then the iraqis would suffer more death and he would invade iran too so that's real bad news here. Clinton is a zoinist and obama isn't that great either. But if a republican wins then the middleast is screwed

true out-off all the candidates I hope at least McCain doesn't win.

[F9]

Based on your comment, am I correct in saying that you would not vote for anyone, regardless of their stances on other issues and their judgment as leaders, who was not a "leftist"?

they may be "good leaders" in capitalism society but i dont want them rulling me so i do not support them!Why should i vote for a person which is in a different space with me?

Fuserg9:star:

[BIG BROTHER]

Now that times has passed by, I have the feeling that McCain will win. What do you guys think?

[YKTMX]

I both want Obama to win and think he will.

McCain would probably lead us to something like a third global conflagration.

[Unicorn]

McCain will win. I don't think a black man has a chance to become the President in America. Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright and comments about Americans living in small towns give much ammunition to racist GOP PACs.

According to Rasmussen Reports McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s ratings are 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[Vanguard1917]

There is no substantial difference in policy between the candidates. This an election based on style and personality politics - not substance. Barack Obama personifies the apolitical nature of today's electoral competition perhaps the most.

[YKTMX]

McCain will win. I don't think a black man has a chance to become the President in America. Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright and comments about Americans living in small towns give much ammunition to racist GOP PACs.

According to Rasmussen Reports McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s ratings are 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The storm over Wright and "bittergate" will pass. There is almost no chance Americans will vote for a man standing on the "Thousand Year Reich" platform which McCain is.

This is evidenced by the fact that most polls still have McCain lost to a prospective Democratic nominee - despite the fact that national polls always favour the side that has "decided" on their candidate.

[YKTMX]

There is no substantial difference in policy between the candidates.

This seems purely reflexive. The Far Left, mostly for good reasons, says that "there's no difference" between candidates before even assessing the platforms.

To suggest that there is no "substantial difference" between Obama and McCain/Clinton, in my view, is incorrect. I suppose it depends on your definition of substantial.

McCain has been an ardent supporter of Bush's liquidationist foreign policy. Obama opposed the war, even when it was unpopular to do so and has promised withdrawal so strongly that a backtrack seems impossible.

Obama will withdraw the troops. McCain has promised a "hundred years" of occupation. This is substantial, and Obama's election would signify an ideological defeat, if not an actual defeat, for the neocons.

The message on the economy is more questionnable. It seems clear that McCain is solely an avatar for the most avaricious fraction of Big Capital. He would continue the redistributive policies (from poor to rich) of the Bush administration.

Obama would, perhaps, offer some sort of resistance to this. Both Dems have promised to roll back Bush's redistributive tax cuts for the Rich. He's raised 75% of his cash from individual donations, which is something close to a miraculous number for a serious contender.

As socialists, we of course have a duty to say that the problems with American society will not be solved by voting Obama. But to simply dismiss the coming election as "Pepsi vs. Cola" when it clearly and demonstrably is not just strikes me as lazy thinking.

[Unicorn]

The storm over Wright and "bittergate" will pass. There is almost no chance Americans will vote for a man standing on the "Thousand Year Reich" platform which McCain is.
George W. Bush was re-elected. GOP managed to swiftboat John Kerry with much less ammunition. George W. Bush == McCain except that McCain is better able to spin his imperialism because he has not been the President.

The polls show Americans like McCain. McCain has a 4 point lead over Obama according to Rasmussen. He earns the vote of 21% of Democratic men. The "Democrats for McCain" are usually racist whites who unfortunately live in key swing states. It's a shame that the Dems probably won't nominate Hillary who could get these voters and win the general election. She also seems to be a more sympathetic person who has more working-class support. It is really important that the Democrats win in November.

There are no real differences between Obama and Hillary on the issues but McCain's rabid imperialism would make the world a shitty place. Heck, he even might start a nuclear war against Iran. Hillary has promised to pull out the troops from Iraq.

[YKTMX]

George W. Bush was re-elected.

True, but the war was nowhere near as unpopular then as it is now. Plus, Kerry's position on the war was ao convoluted that I doubt even he understood it.

Obama would not have this problem.


The polls show Americans like McCain. McCain has a 4 point lead over Obama according to Rasmussen. He earns the vote of 21% of Democratic men.

This is true. But according to Real Clear Politics then Obama still has an average lead in the national polls and, as I said, Obama is certain to increase his support once confirmed as the nominee.

http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


She lso seems to be a more sympathetic person who has more working-class support.

Strange you use the word "sympathetic" since most polls show her to be profoundly mistrusted by people. She's viewed as a careerist, cynical, a liar etc. by most Americans.

The worst you can say about Obama in this regard is that's he considered "elitist", but given the actual circumstances of his and his wife's life, this seems too preposterous to stand up to scrutiny.

**Also, I should say, RealClearPolitics has Clinton LOSING to McCain on an average of the national polls. The idea that she is more "electable" than him doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Unicorn]

True, but the war was nowhere near as unpopular then as it is now.
Source? I think the popularity of the war is actually improving now because the mainstream media is feeding "the surge is working" propaganda to Americans.



[This is true. But according to Real Clear Politics then Obama still has an average lead in the national polls and, as I said, Obama is certain to increase his support once confirmed as the nominee.
Maybe but the constant infighting is decreasing the popularity of both candidates.

Also, I am certain that the polls are overestimating Obama's support in the general election. Remember the "Bradley Effect". There are some white Democrats who think that Obama is a scary militant black man and find it difficult to pull the lever for someone named Barack Obama.



Strange you use the word "sympathetic" since most polls show her to be profoundly mistrusted by people. She's viewed as a careerist, cynical, a liar etc. by most Americans.
... who swallow the GOP talking points. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign has circulated all sorts of right-wing memes about Hillary which largely explains her current unpopularity. I still think Hillary would be a stronger candidate in the general election. According to a poll only 20% of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama but 30% of Obama's supporters won't vote for Hillary.



The worst you can say about Obama in this regard is that's he considered "elitist", but given the actual circumstances of his and his wife's life, this seems too preposterous to stand up to scrutinee.
Umm... why? Obama is an elitist. He made $4.2 million last year. He studied at Harvard and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Michelle Obama studied at Princeton. How many Americans have such opportunities? Bourgeois democrats also tend to support Obama and I think he is out of touch with working-class voters.

[RHIZOMES]

The polls show Americans like McCain. McCain has a 4 point lead over Obama according to Rasmussen.

That's within what statisticians call the "margin of error". Plus if you've been paying attention to the election from the start, you'll see how easily polls fluctuate. :P


McCain has been an ardent supporter of Bush's liquidationist foreign policy. Obama opposed the war, even when it was unpopular to do so and has promised withdrawal so strongly that a backtrack seems impossible.

Obama will withdraw the troops. McCain has promised a "hundred years" of occupation. This is substantial, and Obama's election would signify an ideological defeat, if not an actual defeat, for the neocons.

I agree there is a difference, but he's against the war as it is not in the interests of the American ruling class and US imperialism. Not because of any concern over bombs being dropped on Arab children.

[Dust Bunnies]

Hillary is going down and is taking Barack with her. Racism will close the deal. John Bush errr McCain will become the next President. *sigh*

[Red Equation]

Hillary isn't realling winning, and the only reason she has so many is mainly because she won all of the bigger states.

If it wasn't because of McCain, she might be even further behind Obama now..

[YKTMX]

Source? I think the popularity of the war is actually improving now because the mainstream media is feeding "the surge is working" propaganda to Americans.


It isn't - no one, apart from gullible pundits and Petraeus, buys it.

You can find all the relevant polling information on the war here http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

You'll see that in 2004 (the date I mentioned) support for the war was running at just above half, roughly (although it fluctuated).

In the latest poll by Gallup, taken this month, 63% think America "made a mistake", as opposed to 36% who think it didn't. This is the higest ever rating.


Maybe but the constant infighting is decreasing the popularity of both candidates.

I don't think this is true. The more they dominate the news, the less relevant McCain seems.



Also, I am certain that the polls are overestimating Obama's support in the general election. Remember the "Bradley Effect". There are some white Democrats who think that Obama is a scary militant black man and find it difficult to pull the lever for someone named Barack Obama.


Possibly.


According to a poll only 20% of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama but 30% of Obama's supporters won't vote for Hillary.


I wouldn't pay too much attention to those numbers in the heat of a nasty primary campaign. Once the nominee is chosen, these voters will rally behind whoever it is, I'm sure.


Umm... why? Obama is an elitist. He made $4.2 million last year. He studied at Harvard and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Michelle Obama studied at Princeton. How many Americans have such opportunities?

Obama was a mixed-race kid, abandoned by his father and raised by single white mother - in America! Michelle Obama grew up on the south side of Chicago and her dad worked in a factory. Before the release of his books, most records show them making about 200k a year, which is upper-middle class, but compared to Clinton, it's peanuts.


Bourgeois democrats also tend to support Obama and I think he is out of touch with working-class voters.

Well, all bourgeois politicians are "out-of-touch" with working-class people. Obama - by refusing to take corporate lobbyists money and opposing the war - has more claim to being "in touch" that Clinton.

[YKTMX]

I agree there is a difference, but he's against the war as it is not in the interests of the American ruling class and US imperialism. Not because of any concern over bombs being dropped on Arab children.

You might be right (although this is a extraordinarily difficult thing to know) but I don't really care either way.

As long as the occupation ends and the bases are dismantled, I couldn't give a toss why Obama does it.

[Andy Bowden]

There are differences between the candidates on a tactical level. A lot of Democrats still would have wanted to invade Iraq, but with NATO involvement.

And I think many in the Democratic leadership do want to "let go" of Iraq to some extent - if nothing else, it prevents them from taking action against Iran which is an actually existing threat to US interests in a way Iraq never was.

PS: Do any of the US Comrades want to speculate as to why Hillary is so hated, as an individual? My personal opinion is that it's a mixture between having a powerful woman (shock horror) standing for President and the fact the Clintons are seen as being part of the "liberal elite".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Amongst Republicans, she's a reminder of the Clinton administration in general. To them, George Bush Sr. should have been re-elected in 1992 (riding on the coat-tails of Ronald Reagan).

[Comrade_Scott]

John McCain, the dems have fucked themselves over withe there *****ing and have left him to just pick and choose from there bullshit mistakes and lies that they have dug up for him. and we should all support him because the old bastard probably wont even make it past 2 years as the prez lol:lol:

[Comrade B]

Republicans have a little bit of a realpolitik thing going for them, they will do what it takes to beat Obama, and they will win. McCain will be the President for a short time, and then die from his numerous health conditions and old age. Sarah Palin will be our next long term president and then we will all be shipped off to Gitmo (last part may be a bit extreme, but you never know!)

[cop an Attitude]

I perdict that it will be the largest voter turnout in history and that it will be the largest trunout for 18-25 yr olds. All beacuse Obama's cool. I went to a party at my school, with those syteroticpial college kids. Halfway through the night a kid yells out "whos voting! you better!". and then they all look at him and he yells "obama's the man" and they all cheer. I was asking people later on in the night why they're voting for him and the only respones were "hes young", "we need a black president", "I dont want some old fuck". It scares me that chrisma can weild such a power. People are voting but they dont know what their voting for.

[Killuminati]

bush screwed it up to much for republicans:thumbdown:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I reckon Obama's gonna take this one, since they've had 8 years of Rethuglican rule. Now it's the Democraps' turn!

[Abluegreen7]

I reckon Obama's gonna take this one, since they've had 8 years of Rethuglican rule. Now it's the Democraps' turn!
Democraps? Good one!

We never know what fun things may come out of this system...

Who knows maybe they'll rig it like last time.

[Sendo]

Probably will be Obama, and I'm glad he'll get in because voter disfranchisement is being fought, but I hope the people hold him to his mandate.

[Revy]

Obama will be President, and the so-called "left" will rejoice in their god's ascent to power. Socialists, however, know this is an imperialist and corporate-minded politician.

But I think it may cause many to jump ship for socialism, seeing how Obama won't be able to deliver the meaningful change that people have been led to believe he represents.

Obama has refused to support complete troop withdrawal from Iraq even in 2013. He also chose Joe Biden, the biggest defender of the Iraq war in the primaries, to be his running mate, in an unsurprising pandering attempt to our imperialist rulers. He wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and has made statements of aggression toward Pakistan.