[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20080129" target="_blank">Finding the heir</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> January 29, 2008

The striking disunity of the Democratic Party continues to strike. <br> <br>Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy, along with daughter Caroline, formally came out in favor of Obama, snubbing Hillary. In doing so, he joins such other establishment notables as John Kerry and Tom Daschle, marking a trend that does not seem to be boding well for the former First Lady. <br> <br>A lot of Democrats seem genuinely swept up in Sen. Obama\'s calls for \"change\" and his outsider status. The Clinton family, once the ultimate outsiders themselves, are now ironically seen as being too \"old Washington\" to inspire a new generation of progressive voters.

[sasquatch2]

I never did subscribe much to this black-white thing. The sad reality is that race is a very real thing in the US.

Obama is treading on thin ice, even Oprah's endorsement smacks of playing the race card. Obama's opponents will avoid playing the race card like the grim death, which it is.

While the perception of most Canadians that Afro-americans are about 45% of the american population, the reality of the 14% they really are, indicates the danger of pandering to a minority and offending the majority.

[Kjorteo]

Hehe, I like the little cloud of Kennedys (Kennedies?) on the right.

[Calbeck]

I think the Democrat Party is more concerned with race than the rest of the country combined.

I recently bought an Obama bumper sticker because he currently strikes me as the best of all current candidates...his bodily pigmentation having not a bit to do with that.

[Vinid]

I think whats important to understand with Obama is that he's a candidate that happens to be African American (OK half African American but still) not the Black Candidate that the Clinton's want him to be shown as. What I mean by that is they want him to be dismissed as another Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, just sill Bubba Clinton's remarks about Obama's campaign on multiple occasions.

For full disclosure, I wouldn't vote for either of these candidates since they both have no understanding of how the world works in foreign policy or how to run an economy, but the way the Clinton's are attacking Barrack Obama on many issues really ticks me off. Also the next time some twit woman says they are voting for Hillary cause she's a woman, I'm gonna go screaming out of the room. How about "I'm voting for Hillary cause I like her position on X topic"

Voting for someone because they are African American, a White man, a Woman (or man) of any race, and anything else you can think about to distinguish someone threw appearance is just silly. President, like any government office needs to be about issues and not because of race, religion, or gender.
OK anyway, I'm done now. I'll go back to sitting in the corner.

[HKSPSF]

I still have a hard time supporting Obama, he speaks of change constantly yet I have no idea what these changes are, I just hear more about why Hillary's changes are bad, but at least I know what hers are.

[fire_i]

Good post, Vinid.

I do not follow the race very closely, and the candidate I would support if I was American is an absolute outsider (Mike Gravel. Lol?), but really at this point I'm kind of distressed by the splitting of democrats in two nearly equivalent groups. Such a division is likely to come back to bite them in the ass come real election time, probably moreso than for a multi-candidate race like the one the Republicans have. It just seems to me that it will be harder to fill the rifts created by the Obama VS Clinton race in time for the elections than it will be to fill the rifts created in the Republicans' race, for things tend to get more visceral when there are only two candidates involved.

[CanadianJeff]

Call me crazy but I don't see much difference in Obama and Hillary's platforms. This whole war on the democrats side seems to be about who they can put forward to get the most votes rather then any real issues becuase both condidates seem so close in policy.

personally the only candidate on both sides I've seen use thier brain is Mitt Romney. He may not necessarily agree on many of the issues I do but many of his posistions are in moderation to either extreme.

Like stem cell research. Instead of simply writing it off as moral or immoral he did some research and came to the conclusion then he supports altered nuclear transfer cells becuase it does not destroy embryos. He may not support federal funding but at least he presents clear cut alternatives and shows he knows the issue.

Frankly were it up to me at this point I would be seriously pressed to chose between Obama and Romney. Which is why I'm glad I'm not American. it's a hard choice. Still the democrats likely have the best shot simply becuase everyone is sick of Bush and the republicans. It would take a real candidate to turn things around on the republican side.

[Psudo]

The current generation gap in the Democratic Party reminds me of the worrisome stories the media used to be doing about the corporate/moralist division in the Republican party. In both cases, it doesn't suprise me at all to know that the political parties in the USA are divided into factions and constantly debating. I think it's the best possible praise one could make of the US political system: our political parties are seeking unity among wildly diverse views, and the party that is most successful at this wins the Presidency. It's great.

[Rususeruru]

The most surprising "change" I've read on O'Bama is his plan to address technological issues including continued network neutrality, pressing for more development in IT infrastructure, and making government documentation easier to find online as well as broadcasting more events on the internet. How much of this policy he would actually implement I cannot say, but as a student of computer science this could grease the wheels of what has become an alarmingly stagnant portion of America's economy not to mention any increased transparency in the system would be a nice change over the last 8 years.

[CanadianJeff]

I sure hope so. I wrote to my MP a few times asking him to take a look at the issue of network neutrality. No can do. It's really a huge issue.

If the freedom of equal and open treatment on the internet ends then it will be a huge blow to freedom of the individual in the new press world.

[EmperorLiam]

Anyone that believes a word these politicians say, is certainly stupid.

Obama claimed in 10 years he will get America of oil dependence....

Bang, all his credibility gone in one statement. But... Chretien was elected on his plan to kill the GST... and then re-elected again... so obviously politicians have learned LIE LIE LIE, people are stupid and believe us and will re-elect us anyhow.


Ron Paul is the only exception, but people can't handle the truth, mainly because they are stupid.

[Calbeck]

When Ron Paul starts yelling "TRUTH?! You can't HANDLE the truth!" the universe will have come full circle and implode. -:)

[WBenson]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Ron Paul is the only exception, but people can't handle the truth, mainly because they are stupid.

I'm glad he tells the truth, that way I know how much I truly dislike him. I hope he runs as a Libertarian in November once he realizes that he has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. He would siphon off enough tinfoilers who think he's one of them, rich people who hate all taxes and anything publicly funded, and college kids who haven't actually read his platform to guarantee a Democratic win.

[fire_i]

And John Edwards retires from the race, which is likely to made the division between the Obama clan and Clinton clan that much more evident.

I stand by my opinion that this could end up hurting the Democrats much in the long run. Though on the bright side, it's not impossible that Edwards' supporters may rally to either candidate and help clear things out somewhat.