.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, January 07, 2008

Who to vote for?

From the No Geek is an Island blog comes a quiz that helps you pinpoint which presidential candidate is best matched to your views. My top pick should be Dennis Kucinich but of those with a realistic chance then it seems Barack Obama is my man. Just a bit of fun, my results are below:

83% Dennis Kucinich
82% Mike Gravel
79% Joe Biden
79% Barack Obama
77% Chris Dodd
75% John Edwards
74% Hillary Clinton
71% Bill Richardson
41% Rudy Giuliani
34% John McCain
32% Ron Paul
27% Mitt Romney
26% Mike Huckabee
15% Tom Tancredo
15% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
Interesting link Peter- I did it myself (I'm a Labour Party member if you can forgive me!) and I ended up 83% for Obama and then 80% for Clinton / Edwards / Richardson- which is convenient as I've supported Obama from the start anyway!
I'm puzzled why Joe Biden is so high in the list - I guess many people have not seen his 'performances' - on first glance he looks cool and collected, but after hearing him speak a few times it becomes evident that he works hard to hide the fact that he is not very bright so I don't see how he could ever be a good President. Putin et al. would run rings around him.
Largely because the quiz does not measure their effectiveness as a candidate, rather it compares their policy platforms with one's own priorities. In other word Biden looks better on paper than in real life.
I just took the quiz and got 86% Obama to 85% Clinton. Not shocked at the 86% for Obama since I have agreed with him from the beginning. What concerns me is that my score for Clinton is so unexpectedly high.

I think Obama really does have a movement going on over there and after listening to several of his speeches I believe that Obama is the right man, in the right place at the right time. If I were American, he'd have my vote without a shadow of a doubt.

- Richie Northcote
Personally, I would like to see Colin Powell run on either the Democratic or Republican ticket. Colin Powell is a great guy, has demonstrated great courage, great background (came from a poor working class background and had such strength of character that despite not doing well in school he made it up the chain of command and served as head of the State Department. Powell has turned down overtures to run for office, I hope he changes his mind.

Obama is a great guy, but has very little experience - just voting for him because he is good at making speeches does not maketh a good forceful strong President. The next President of the USA has to stand up to a resurgent Russia, an emerging military super power in the form of China, and an Iran that clearly covets nuke warheads and delivery systems.

Unfortunately it is clear that many on this forum know very little about Obama; yes Obama is a great speaker, brilliant at one liners/rhetoric, but he has not stood up well to pressure in his own life. He admits he gave in and took drugs in his youth, and as an adult of some financial wealth he bought land from a known mob linked guy. Obama has already admitted that he was foolish in buying the property, this coveting of property and wealth is a sure sign of weakness and even Obama admits he was very foolish to make that property deal. As reported in the Washington Post, Obama admits, "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him." As reported in the Chicago Suntimes, "Just because Obama got Oprah and her money doesn't mean he'll be a good president."

If Obama does win the Democratic Nomination over Hillary Clinton (who also hails from Illinois), who at least has a lot of experience, I can see the GOP tearing into Obama in the run up to voting for the next President of the United States. I thought my fellow Brits were a bit more analytical and not taken in by manufactured hype. Obama is a manufactured politician, right now he is not fit to be President, come next election cycle for the U.S. Presidency he might have more experience, but he needs to show that he can stand up to pressure, his weakness in regard to drugs and making a quick buck of a mob connection (the mob loves to do such deals with politicians like City Mayors and State governors, but these people once clinched by the mob are totally unfit for office because they are vulnerable to bribery and coercion from the mob).

I can see Obama winning the Democratic nomination, but I think he will have to overcome doubts in his own Democratic Party, and if Obama does become the next US President, I can certainly see him doing a Carter, winning only one term as President of the USA. All it takes is a run in with the Iranians and someone like McCain will win the Presidency. Only McCain has the credentials to be a very strong leader in foreign policy, his domestic policies are not far removed from Clinton’s. In fact McCain and Clinton have previously teamed up, across the party divide, to campaign on policy changes.

Wouldn’t it be fun if McCain asked Hillary to for Vice President with him? As they say, anything is possible in the USofA, “only in America”.
I have to say Dr Wood that you are way off the mark with this one and, with repect, a little behind the times. I also detect Republican undertones in your post.

Just for the record, if you really want to know what Obama is campaigning for then follow the link below and read "The Blueprint for Change."

Anonymous> ru saying that Obama does not have a history of taking illegal drugs or acted really stupidly on mob issues? These facts are not in dispute – Obama has publicly admitted he endorsed a senior banker in Chicago/Illinois with reputed mob links (something his fellow Illinois Democrats refused to do).

“Rhetoric doesn’t make a reality”, that is a theme which I think Clinton’s team is gong to focus on – that Obama is about rhetoric, but rhetoric doesn’t make for a good US President.
Well, the other Senator hailing from Illinois (Senator Clinton for NY, but from IL) just won NH, and as Hillary exclaimed, "Over the last week I listened to you and in the process find my own voice." Hillary Clinton is a remarkable politician, I hope Hillary Clinton wins the nomination for the Democrats.
HRC may well have won the NH Primary BUT the results may well turn out to be dubious.

See the following:


There may yet turn out to be an inquiry. There is growing discontent in NH regarding the result. What really strikes as bizarre is the fact that the same opinion polls that were declaring that Obama had a double digit lead over HRC were 100% correct in ALL poll results for ALL other candidates - except the Obama V HRC contest. I have never witnessed such disparity - ever!

There is something fishy going down in the State of NH and only a full hand count will tell the whole truth. See the following link for an illustration of the Technology that granted HRC the win in NH.

Anonymous : 8:06 PM> So this is old news? Obama surfaces in Rekzo's Federal corruption case

This article printed 20th January, 2008 in the Chicago Sun-Times; so Anonymous 8:06: how is it that this is ‘old news”. Obama is the "political candidate" referred to in the Federal document which outlines the case against Rezko. Incidently, Obama bought land off Rezko’s family even thought it was widely known at the time of the purchase that Rezko was under investigation. Also, Hillary Clinton’s camp has yet to home in on Obama’s endorsement of an Illinois banker with reputed ties to the mob for Lt. Gov. of Illinois – a very senior political position in Illinois state government. Obama now claims there were red flags that he should have seen (other Democratic politicians in Illinois refused to endorse the banker).

If Obama buys land from Rezko, takes political donations organized by Rezko (Rezko is so attached to Obama he bought (through his wife) the house next door to Obama) – how can Obama, who admits he made very foolish decisions, be the next President of the United States of America – Obama added land to his luxurious Chicago house from Rezko’s wife – btw, Rezko is reputed to be well versed in hiding money by funneling money through friends and relatives (the true source of the money Rezko was funneling to Obama remains “a mystery”, but this is how the mob/outfit in Chicago works so it doesn’t take rocket science to work out the true source of these political donations.

In the Federal proceedings now in motion against Rezko, Rezko is alleged to have funneled money to the "political candidate" via transfers through others and Rezko is alleged to have paid back the transferred money to those “others” to hide the real source of the donations, namely Rezko – but the real source goes deeper, Rezko is not “an island” if you get my drift. Btw, the Federal Prosecutor in Chicago is the same guy who prosecuted Libby in Washington, DC; whose team recently prosecuted the previous governor of Illinois for various corrupt acts, the same prosecutor who is putting Mayor Daley’s guys behind bars for corruption and at some point, so the legal fraternity thinks, might eventually target Mayor Daley himself. Footnote: “the Feds” investigate, inter alia, corruption involving state officials and state police.

Obama, to his credit, has now given all the “Rezko donations” (but again, one has to wonder about the true source of these donations) to charity, or more accurately, since this money co-mingled with his political funds, Obama donated the monetary equivalent to charity … but one should observe that Obama could afford to do this given the amount of money his political campaign has subsequently raised – and quite legitimately so.

Obama has serious questions to answer, he readily admits he did soft and hard drugs, so the outstanding question that eventually must be asked is: Did you, Mr. Obama, ever supply an illicit drug to another person?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?