New U.S. President

[David John Hill Jr]

In South Africa , amongst the Xhosas, the single word for 'nation,whole group,
people of, etc.' is the prefix AMA.
Hence , the amaxhosa refers to the Xhosa nation, in Xhosa.
Having grown up there,as an American (and for your reference only ,of european descent only), I am NOT of the Xhosa nation, ie. AmaXhosa,by their definition.(Period)
(or 'full stop' in South African)
In Latin, ob is 'near',primarily.
Having a president , the commander in chief, (once elected ,essentially the
dictator, with checks and balances),utilizing AMA, as head of nation,automates in me , a somewhat outcast status.

Judge for yourself,for yourself.
Same old stuff for me. So much for 'change'.I left,and returned home,about 1962.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

it doesn't matter too much which Democrat challenges for the presidency...I'd like to hear more about this.

My quick opinion:

The two candidates have roughly identical positions on the major issues.

Hillary is extremely bright and tough. No doubt she would be a formidable President. However, the Clintons come with lots of baggage. Bill was hated by Republicans and many independents for far more than Monica. Just off the top of my head: They sold presidential pardons, sold Lincoln bedroom visits, stained Gore's reputation raising millions from impoverished Buddhist monks, raised tons of money from several shady Far Eastern characters with unknown agendas, shady dealings in Arkansas, Rose Law firm records that mysteriously appear the day after statue of limitations runs out, perjury. Not to mention the ruthless character assassination of the numerous bimbos in Bill's past. Even if the Clinton's have sworn off future sleazy dealings, if Hillary is elected the odds are you'll get 4 or 8 years of bitter partisanship from those that are in no mood to forgive the Clintons for all their past sins.

Obama promises a more easy-going approach - less partisanship. He might also help heal the U.S. slavery wound. I for one think a Harvard-educated President makes for a better role model than a basketball player. The downside? He is unproven. He might be a Jimmy Carter-like flop (ineffective).

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by Prime95

My quick opinion:

The two candidates have roughly identical positions on the major issues.

I think I'd gouge my eyes out if I had to listen to her voice for four (let alone eight) years... which is probably precisely how most Democrats have felt about GWB.

I listened to a radio clip of her screeching about Obama's so-called plagiarism (perhaps a fair word on her part to use). It was painful to listen too... literally, excruciatingly hard on the ears.

Then along comes Obama's rebuttal... and he sounds like Barry White:


Pure honey.... I'll take him over her... nevermind the policies.

He is unproven. He might be a Jimmy Carter-like flop (ineffective).

Possible, but not probable. I'd place my money on him being more like JFK any day. JFK, lest we forget, was no pushover on foreign relations himself -- Democrats of today would never vote for the man if they simply looked at his record and policies without having his name attached. My $.02 worth.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Prime95

My quick opinion:

The two candidates have roughly identical positions on the major issues.

Hillary is extremely bright and tough. No doubt she would be a formidable President. However, the Clintons come with lots of baggage. Bill was hated by Republicans and many independents for far more than Monica. Just off the top of my head: They sold presidential pardons, sold Lincoln bedroom visits, stained Gore's reputation raising millions from impoverished Buddhist monks, raised tons of money from several shady Far Eastern characters with unknown agendas, shady dealings in Arkansas, Rose Law firm records that mysteriously appear the day after statue of limitations runs out, perjury. Not to mention the ruthless character assassination of the numerous bimbos in Bill's past. Even if the Clinton's have sworn off future sleazy dealings, if Hillary is elected the odds are you'll get 4 or 8 years of bitter partisanship from those that are in no mood to forgive the Clintons for all their past sins.

Obama promises a more easy-going approach - less partisanship. He might also help heal the U.S. slavery wound. I for one think a Harvard-educated President makes for a better role model than a basketball player. The downside? He is unproven. He might be a Jimmy Carter-like flop (ineffective).

My sentiments exactly (regarding the Clintons). They are master manipulators of people and the media.

I like Obama, but I fear him. His lack of experience could be dangerous, but I would be willing to give me a chance. He is not a Washington insider and I think that the establishment (both Republican and Democrat) will stonewall him at every opportunity.

I read an article today about a teacher who took their students to our state's capital so that they could see government in action. The teacher was so disillusioned when they left because all they saw was legislators who pander to lobbyists and special interests and had no backbone to stand up for what they believed in.

[David John Hill Jr]

From my personal experience.
When a person from xx country is given a visa to enter yy country
it is the responsibility xx country to monitor the movement of their citizens.
It is also the responsibility of yy country to make sure that is happenning
and guarantee forthwith their stay in yy country.

With the collapse of this process, internationalism breaks down.
This has nothing to do with popularity , elections etc.

It has a lot to do with what needs to be resolved.


So far as slavery, I understand Caesars slaves laughed openly at him,and perhaps were the only people in Rome to get away with that. Why?

Its really a dead issue, unless allowed to continue.

[Brian-E]

The "shady deals" side of the Clintons' reputation is unfortunate. It is clear that the leadership of any country - and certainly the USA - *always* goes hand in hand with dealings to which the hostile media can add their own slant. The bare facts of the cases will generally be true but the mitigating circumstances and the altruistic reasons behind the decisions will be conveniently omitted in the reporting, other factors will be exaggerated, and so on. Can someone name *any* USA president who got through a term of office without a significant amount of bad publicity?

That said, I am sure that Prime95 is correct in this being a serious disadvantage to Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It's a function of being associated with a previous president.

Hillary Clinton's voice may well also be a serious issue for some voters as it is for tallguy. Well, let's face it: she is a woman, women's voices are on average higher pitched than men's, and perhaps especially some male voters have mysoginistic tendencies which react against listening to a female voice. This of course can be explained at great length by psychologists but it is not a good measuring factor of someone's ability to be president of the USA. I think the issue was originally raised light-heartedly earlier in this thread, but frankly I'm surprised that someone is now so unashamedly giving that as an important voting consideration for themselves. Or have I missed the tongue-in-cheek factor this time?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

The "shady deals" side of the Clintons' reputation is unfortunate... Can someone name *any* USA president who got through a term of office without a significant amount of bad publicity?

All Presidents get bad publicity (for policy decisions). Only a minority of them are caught in scandals (illegal activities or ethical lapses). Scandal-wise, Clinton was the worst President since Nixon.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

All Presidents get bad publicity (for policy decisions). Only a minority of them are caught in scandals (illegal activities or ethical lapses). Scandal-wise, Clinton was the worst President since Nixon.

Oh? Can you say "Iran Contra"? "Oliver North"?? Clinton's
indiscretions were minor in comparison.

[garo]

I would beg to submit that initiating a war on false premises and lying to the nation are ethical lapses too. Of course GW (unfortunate acronym that ) came after Clinton so you probably did not include him because of that.

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Hillary Clinton's voice may well also be a serious issue for some voters as it is for tallguy.

It's not really... see below.

Well, let's face it: she is a woman, women's voices are on average higher pitched than men's, and perhaps especially some male voters have mysoginistic tendencies which react against listening to a female voice.

Not so in my case. I'd not have any qualms with a female voice in principle. Madeline Albright has a fantastic voice -- Condi Rice as well -- but it was little to do with pitch per se...

This of course can be explained at great length by psychologists but it is not a good measuring factor of someone's ability to be president of the USA.

The issue at hand is the screeching. If she were a man, it would be called "bellowing". Either would be objectionable, and here is why -- the person in question is basically yelling, berating his/her audience. Can you imagine this tone when speaking about another world leader in a speech, or worse yet, to that leader in person?

I think the issue was originally raised light-heartedly earlier in this thread, but frankly I'm surprised that someone is now so unashamedly giving that as an important voting consideration for themselves. Or have I missed the tongue-in-cheek factor this time?

You've missed a certain degree of "tongue-in-cheek factor", and I appreciate you not jumping all over me for it. Nevertheless, there is a kernel of genuine concern for the degree to which someone's manner of speech is a reflection of their approach to dealing with people:

Hillary -- nagging housewife
Obama -- "let's talk this over"

I don't think such distinctions are either imaginary or unimportant, but I agree that they should not be the issue.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Prime95

The two candidates have roughly identical positions on the major issues.

Except for one that's turning out to be a real biggie: Hillary unashamedly proposed a sure-to-be-disastrous bailout plan for people with underwater mortgages.

Re. the voice, I view it as not so different from the kind of subjective judgment one might make when evaluating someone as a potential spouse. And while we can't do much about the voice we're born with, as others have pointed out, the way we *use* it can be quite telling. And let's face it, there is *no* area of social dynamics in which the effect one's voice has on others is more important than in politics, especially presidential politics. [Religion and radio DJing being the other 2 I can think of offhand in which the voice is similalrly crucial]. When I was younger I consistently underestimated the importance of "inspiring the masses" - but have come to see that believing is at least half of doing, moreso when facing major adversity. Obama has proven he can get people form all walks of life and from both major parties to believe, and that is a quality Hillary simply lacks.

Regarding the race issue: I unashamedly am on the side of those who believe that electing the nation's first African-American president - even one whose ancestors were not slaves - would go a long way toward healing the lingering racial divide in this country. And if I felt that Hillary were as well-qualified to guide the country through these difficult times, I would be happy to say similar words about the "first female president." In the latter regard, one plus from Hillary's candidacy is the way it is sure to inspire many more women to try their hand in coming years - especially now that they've seen her being taken very seriously and [for the most part] treated with respect, us "please, not the naggy voice" vocal chauvinists notwithstanding.