I am the voice of God and I command you to vote for Obama.
The presidential campaign in the United States is a popular subject around the world these days. Understandably so. History has already been made as the democratic nomination will either go to a African-American or to a woman. But what kind of history do you want to make? The kind where the democrats fail again, and continue to fail by losing the parliament and the senate. Or do you want to see the kind of history where hope is created for other democracies around the world, where the youth is inspired to to vote again - to take part in the political process - and where as a race have learned to set aside questions about the color of our skin?
Because I can tell you Hillary will not win the election if she is set against McCain. Obama however could. Perhaps that is a little harsh, but I do believe in that statement. The republicans are talented little buggers when it comes to elections. They look at electability. They choose the candidate they see as most likely to win. This year it is McCain. Romney dropped out and R. Paul "tightened" his campaign - claiming he wouldn't campaign in too many states, but to focus on his back yard, as it were. Huckabee is still in. He seems like a maverick, and it will be interesting to see how he does in the coming weeks. But Romney and Paul's decisions look tailored. And not by them, but by seniors in the Republican party.
The bastards know that in order to win they will need to fight hard. The way it currently looks it seems nearly impossible for the democrats to loose - but that is a nave outlook. It was the right time for Romney to drop out. He didn't do well in Super Tuesday. So he dropped out. If he had done well then the Republican nomination would have still been up. But the current situation is perfect for the rep.'s. So now there is no more real division in the party. Sure many conservatives hate McCain (and many conservative media personalities) but they don't hate him that much that they'd let the Democrats have the white house. So the only possibilities for the Republicans is to vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I doubt that Huckabee could win against a democrat, and the republican party leaders know this.
So why didn't Ron Paul drop out? He hasn't had any success at all. Well the republicans still need media attention. If McCain was given the nomination now there would be no further republican debates, thus much less media hype and attention. And the republicans need the attention. So in order not to split votes too much Ron Paul won't campaign much.
See? Doesn't this strike you as at least potentially engineered situation? Electability is the key. Even though Romney dislikes McCain he made a backhanded endorsement of him when he stepped down, as he agreed with McCain about the war in Iraq.
But enough about those hateful swine! Lets talk about why Obama has better chances than Clinton. If we look back 4 years to the past campaign where Senator Kerry lost against Bush Jr. and it was all thanks to the media.
You see the majority of the media is in republican hands. NOT because they are conservative or anti-gay or evangelical or any other horse-shit reasons, but because of tax cuts (OK I simplify, but whatever). And Kerry lost because of the amount of attack-ads launched by the Bush campaign on him. And a number of other reasons. The media is very skilled in the United States to bring forth ALL the little quirks and mistakes the democratic candidates have made but they turn a blind eye to the republican candidate. Kerry is a decorated war veteran who opposed the Vietnam war when he returned. Bush Jr. is a coke-head, who "snorted away" the treasury and made it into the largest deficit ever.
So this is the situation that the democratic nominee has to fight against. He or she will be barraged with accusations (eg. The Lewinsky scandal and family values in Clinton's case and youth Drug use in the case of Obama) and she won't be able to defend him-/herself. Oh one would try, but no one would hear. Now consider why Bill Clinton was such a popular president. Go further back: Why was Kennedy such a popular president? Because they had oratory skills. They could talk and debate and win the people over. Yes, YOU, the people. Remember that you exist? Democracy is about what you want, not what the media wants or what the party wants. Remember that!
So anyway: Bill Clinton, even when lying, was such a great speaker that he won the people over, even though the press hounded him. And he did it so well. I think he wanted us to know that he lied, but he spoke so well that he got his message across. "Why are you harassing me? Look at your own sexuality and judge for yourself and remember we are all humans". And neither Gore or Kerry or Hillary have this skill. But Obama does. Have you listened to his speeches? He is good. He is fucking divine.
And even if Clinton is leading in delegates or at least in so called "super-delegates" I hope I can see her failing and the momentum for Obama rising. For example after "Super Tuesday" Clinton has raised over $6.5 millions. Of which $5 million are from her own pocket. Obama however has raised over, or close to, $7,5 millions from independent sources. And if you hesitate on Obama then let me address these two common attacks made on him. First consistency and then experience. Obama voted against the war but later for funding the war. Seems weird, but look at this way: Obama was against the war, but once it started he didn't want to leave the troops without equipment, food etc. These two votes need not be seen as contradictory. Secondly experience: Obama gives a great answer on The Daily show with Jon Stewart (check below for link) were he points out that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a lot of experience going into the White House but it didn't do much good for America. And furthermore that people look at experience because it supposedly builds judgement. And that is something that he seems to have. At least Senator E. Kennedy seems to think so (and he has been a senator for a loooong time) and Susan Eisenhower (daughter of Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower) a long time republican, who sees in Obama the power to unite the people.
Vote for him you fuckers, if not for any other reason then for the reason of giving us new legendary speeches. You know the type that Lincoln made at Gettysburg or the type Churchill made during WW2? The ones that get written down in History, quoted over and over again, and which brings tears to eyes.
Peace&Love,
-zS (now a brainwashed member of the Obama movement)
Sources & Inspirations for this entry:
-FearTheReaper, Dems Prepare to Pick Loser (A great read)
-Susan Eisenhower, Why I'm Backing Obama (A good read)
-MSNBC, Interview with Susan Eisenhower
-Obama on The Daily Show with John Stewart,On Experience
The Episodes of The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report aired the 5th through 7th of February
The following NY Times Articles:
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?pagewanted=1
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html?ref=politics
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/07dems.html?ref=politics
-http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/paul-concedes-race-sort-of/
The presidential campaign in the United States is a popular subject around the world these days. Understandably so. History has already been made as the democratic nomination will either go to a African-American or to a woman. But what kind of history do you want to make? The kind where the democrats fail again, and continue to fail by losing the parliament and the senate. Or do you want to see the kind of history where hope is created for other democracies around the world, where the youth is inspired to to vote again - to take part in the political process - and where as a race have learned to set aside questions about the color of our skin?
Because I can tell you Hillary will not win the election if she is set against McCain. Obama however could. Perhaps that is a little harsh, but I do believe in that statement. The republicans are talented little buggers when it comes to elections. They look at electability. They choose the candidate they see as most likely to win. This year it is McCain. Romney dropped out and R. Paul "tightened" his campaign - claiming he wouldn't campaign in too many states, but to focus on his back yard, as it were. Huckabee is still in. He seems like a maverick, and it will be interesting to see how he does in the coming weeks. But Romney and Paul's decisions look tailored. And not by them, but by seniors in the Republican party.
The bastards know that in order to win they will need to fight hard. The way it currently looks it seems nearly impossible for the democrats to loose - but that is a nave outlook. It was the right time for Romney to drop out. He didn't do well in Super Tuesday. So he dropped out. If he had done well then the Republican nomination would have still been up. But the current situation is perfect for the rep.'s. So now there is no more real division in the party. Sure many conservatives hate McCain (and many conservative media personalities) but they don't hate him that much that they'd let the Democrats have the white house. So the only possibilities for the Republicans is to vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I doubt that Huckabee could win against a democrat, and the republican party leaders know this.
So why didn't Ron Paul drop out? He hasn't had any success at all. Well the republicans still need media attention. If McCain was given the nomination now there would be no further republican debates, thus much less media hype and attention. And the republicans need the attention. So in order not to split votes too much Ron Paul won't campaign much.
See? Doesn't this strike you as at least potentially engineered situation? Electability is the key. Even though Romney dislikes McCain he made a backhanded endorsement of him when he stepped down, as he agreed with McCain about the war in Iraq.
But enough about those hateful swine! Lets talk about why Obama has better chances than Clinton. If we look back 4 years to the past campaign where Senator Kerry lost against Bush Jr. and it was all thanks to the media.
You see the majority of the media is in republican hands. NOT because they are conservative or anti-gay or evangelical or any other horse-shit reasons, but because of tax cuts (OK I simplify, but whatever). And Kerry lost because of the amount of attack-ads launched by the Bush campaign on him. And a number of other reasons. The media is very skilled in the United States to bring forth ALL the little quirks and mistakes the democratic candidates have made but they turn a blind eye to the republican candidate. Kerry is a decorated war veteran who opposed the Vietnam war when he returned. Bush Jr. is a coke-head, who "snorted away" the treasury and made it into the largest deficit ever.
So this is the situation that the democratic nominee has to fight against. He or she will be barraged with accusations (eg. The Lewinsky scandal and family values in Clinton's case and youth Drug use in the case of Obama) and she won't be able to defend him-/herself. Oh one would try, but no one would hear. Now consider why Bill Clinton was such a popular president. Go further back: Why was Kennedy such a popular president? Because they had oratory skills. They could talk and debate and win the people over. Yes, YOU, the people. Remember that you exist? Democracy is about what you want, not what the media wants or what the party wants. Remember that!
So anyway: Bill Clinton, even when lying, was such a great speaker that he won the people over, even though the press hounded him. And he did it so well. I think he wanted us to know that he lied, but he spoke so well that he got his message across. "Why are you harassing me? Look at your own sexuality and judge for yourself and remember we are all humans". And neither Gore or Kerry or Hillary have this skill. But Obama does. Have you listened to his speeches? He is good. He is fucking divine.
And even if Clinton is leading in delegates or at least in so called "super-delegates" I hope I can see her failing and the momentum for Obama rising. For example after "Super Tuesday" Clinton has raised over $6.5 millions. Of which $5 million are from her own pocket. Obama however has raised over, or close to, $7,5 millions from independent sources. And if you hesitate on Obama then let me address these two common attacks made on him. First consistency and then experience. Obama voted against the war but later for funding the war. Seems weird, but look at this way: Obama was against the war, but once it started he didn't want to leave the troops without equipment, food etc. These two votes need not be seen as contradictory. Secondly experience: Obama gives a great answer on The Daily show with Jon Stewart (check below for link) were he points out that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a lot of experience going into the White House but it didn't do much good for America. And furthermore that people look at experience because it supposedly builds judgement. And that is something that he seems to have. At least Senator E. Kennedy seems to think so (and he has been a senator for a loooong time) and Susan Eisenhower (daughter of Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower) a long time republican, who sees in Obama the power to unite the people.
Vote for him you fuckers, if not for any other reason then for the reason of giving us new legendary speeches. You know the type that Lincoln made at Gettysburg or the type Churchill made during WW2? The ones that get written down in History, quoted over and over again, and which brings tears to eyes.
Peace&Love,
-zS (now a brainwashed member of the Obama movement)
Sources & Inspirations for this entry:
-FearTheReaper, Dems Prepare to Pick Loser (A great read)
-Susan Eisenhower, Why I'm Backing Obama (A good read)
-MSNBC, Interview with Susan Eisenhower
-Obama on The Daily Show with John Stewart,On Experience
The Episodes of The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report aired the 5th through 7th of February
The following NY Times Articles:
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?pagewanted=1
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/us/politics/08clinton.html?ref=politics
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/07dems.html?ref=politics
-http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/paul-concedes-race-sort-of/