Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Barack Obama for President, but what then?
10 Answers
On Tuesday we should know who the next President of America will be.
What I have noticed during this long drawn out campaign is the fact that practically the whole of the British media seems to be backing Barack Obama, whilst at the same time lampooning his opponent John McCain and McCain's possible Vice President Sarah Palin.
Why all this support for Obama, is it because if he won he would be America's first Black President? He is still an unknown number, yes he has promised a complete turn around in America's foreign policy, but then politicians will promise almost anything to get into power.
If he does win, the fact is the whole world will then have to see if he can deliver what he promises. There will be many red faces if he isn't the 'best thing since sliced bread' person they are all making him out to be. What will be the excuse then, ah! but he is only half Black?
What I have noticed during this long drawn out campaign is the fact that practically the whole of the British media seems to be backing Barack Obama, whilst at the same time lampooning his opponent John McCain and McCain's possible Vice President Sarah Palin.
Why all this support for Obama, is it because if he won he would be America's first Black President? He is still an unknown number, yes he has promised a complete turn around in America's foreign policy, but then politicians will promise almost anything to get into power.
If he does win, the fact is the whole world will then have to see if he can deliver what he promises. There will be many red faces if he isn't the 'best thing since sliced bread' person they are all making him out to be. What will be the excuse then, ah! but he is only half Black?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's a current theory called the "Bradley Effect"... seems, a few years ago (I don't recall which State) a black running for office in a local election was well ahead of his rival but lost by a significant margin. His name was Bradley, of course and the theory proceeds along the lines of people expressing their intention to vote for the Black person, but when actually in the privacy of the voting booth can't bring themselves to do so. Most pollsters equate that possibility to as much as 8 to 10% of the lead Obama may have. No one knows for sure, of course.
The problem is, Obama's real claim to fame (actually, the only one in my opinion) is that he delivers a really good speech. But, even then, he goes absolutely nowhere without his telepromter.
A ridiculous sight demonstrated that recently here in the western U.S., where he chose to appear, Gucci's and all, at a rodeo... you know the kind, cowboys, horses, manure... In the middle of the arena he gave a pretty good speech... using his teleprompter. He has been filmed trying to speak "off-the-cuff" and it doesn't work very well.
He's only been a U.S. Senator for about 4 years and even that was achieved through questionable circumstances. It's just, again, in my opinion, comes down to two things. This country has a guilt complex over the question of slavery, although that ended in 1865 at the cost of 500,000 American lives. The other is that the Left has done a thorough job of demonizing George W. Bush. So much so, that it's even succeeded in Europe and the U.K. The old saw about telling a lie so many times it becomes the truth has been substantiated.
It's possible Obama or someone like him could make a good President. It's just that his total lack of experience and his highly publicized associations with radical leftists is truly disconcerting...
The problem is, Obama's real claim to fame (actually, the only one in my opinion) is that he delivers a really good speech. But, even then, he goes absolutely nowhere without his telepromter.
A ridiculous sight demonstrated that recently here in the western U.S., where he chose to appear, Gucci's and all, at a rodeo... you know the kind, cowboys, horses, manure... In the middle of the arena he gave a pretty good speech... using his teleprompter. He has been filmed trying to speak "off-the-cuff" and it doesn't work very well.
He's only been a U.S. Senator for about 4 years and even that was achieved through questionable circumstances. It's just, again, in my opinion, comes down to two things. This country has a guilt complex over the question of slavery, although that ended in 1865 at the cost of 500,000 American lives. The other is that the Left has done a thorough job of demonizing George W. Bush. So much so, that it's even succeeded in Europe and the U.K. The old saw about telling a lie so many times it becomes the truth has been substantiated.
It's possible Obama or someone like him could make a good President. It's just that his total lack of experience and his highly publicized associations with radical leftists is truly disconcerting...
the Bradley effect related to the California governorship, and doesn't reflect terribly well on voters - refusing to vote for a black man while professing the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Clanad, the demonising of Bush hasn't just worked outside the USA - McCain seems to be running 'against Bush' every bit as much as Obama is. But it seems to me Bush is being judged by his actions, as any politician should be. To me, the man on whose watch torture became acceptable policy has brought shame on the name of America, and I say this as a lover of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Clanad, the demonising of Bush hasn't just worked outside the USA - McCain seems to be running 'against Bush' every bit as much as Obama is. But it seems to me Bush is being judged by his actions, as any politician should be. To me, the man on whose watch torture became acceptable policy has brought shame on the name of America, and I say this as a lover of the USA.
From what I have observed , Obama's popularity is bourne out of the fact that he is an acomplished performer - unlike Mc Cain , who always strike , me as being dull and awkward in front of the camera - you could call it lack of charisma .
Added to the above is the fall out from the Bush stewardship .
I dont think that the amount of experience Obama has, is all that important - afterall he will have experience people behind him , advising him - which is no different from any other country in the developed world .
Sadly , and it is very sad , the ' Bradley effect ' might be the
thing that keeps him out of the oval office .
Incidentally AOG
'' Politicians will promise almost anything to get into power ''
Very true in respect of one who aspires to be PM this side of the pond - isn't it ?
Added to the above is the fall out from the Bush stewardship .
I dont think that the amount of experience Obama has, is all that important - afterall he will have experience people behind him , advising him - which is no different from any other country in the developed world .
Sadly , and it is very sad , the ' Bradley effect ' might be the
thing that keeps him out of the oval office .
Incidentally AOG
'' Politicians will promise almost anything to get into power ''
Very true in respect of one who aspires to be PM this side of the pond - isn't it ?
Around the time of the primaries, McCain looked like a decent candidate (obviously with flaws - but no candidate is perfect). Over the past couple months he's rather nonsensically been making noises to placate the Republican right against his better judgement.
Obama has always seemed like a bit of a showman to me but he does have some solid policies (his ideas for healthcare reform are decent, though whether Congress would pass them is another matter entirely).
As for if he wins (which he probably will) - there's a phenomenon in American politics called mid-term blues - people always think that American Presidents can do anything they like when in fact they're much more effectively and harshly limited in terms of domestic policy than, say, British PMs are. When they can't do what people say they can do, peopel invariably start slagging them off. Clinton in the mid-90s is a good example of this.
Thus, people are expecting Obama to lead us to the promised land but he won't. His presidency should be judged relative to what he can actually do.
AOG, Obama has marketed himself as a candidate who happens to be black (or half-black, if you want to be pedantic). His race has really been a background thing throughout his campaing. If it's come across more strongly in the British media, then that's an obsession on our part.
Obama has always seemed like a bit of a showman to me but he does have some solid policies (his ideas for healthcare reform are decent, though whether Congress would pass them is another matter entirely).
As for if he wins (which he probably will) - there's a phenomenon in American politics called mid-term blues - people always think that American Presidents can do anything they like when in fact they're much more effectively and harshly limited in terms of domestic policy than, say, British PMs are. When they can't do what people say they can do, peopel invariably start slagging them off. Clinton in the mid-90s is a good example of this.
Thus, people are expecting Obama to lead us to the promised land but he won't. His presidency should be judged relative to what he can actually do.
AOG, Obama has marketed himself as a candidate who happens to be black (or half-black, if you want to be pedantic). His race has really been a background thing throughout his campaing. If it's come across more strongly in the British media, then that's an obsession on our part.
A very good summary Kromo, but I must disagree with your last paragraph:
His race has really been a background thing throughout his campaing. If it's come across more strongly in the British media, then that's an obsession on our part.
I believe the American people have more hangups regarding his colour (I'll use this rather than race seeing that his race is American) than we do in the UK.
His race has really been a background thing throughout his campaing. If it's come across more strongly in the British media, then that's an obsession on our part.
I believe the American people have more hangups regarding his colour (I'll use this rather than race seeing that his race is American) than we do in the UK.
his nationality is American. His race is, I think, African-American. His colour appears to be darkish brown.
Kromovaracun, midterm blues affect all politicians, not just Americans; but what US presidents can do is partly dependent on who holds Congress. Whatever disappointments people felt about Clinton, he was strongly re-elected for a second term. (So was Bush, of course, which I've never entirely understood.) I thought McCain would have made a good president eight years ago, a better one than Bush; now I think he's missed his moment. American voters have a lot more respect for age than British ones do, but Obama looks to me like a man of the future; McCain looks like the past.
Kromovaracun, midterm blues affect all politicians, not just Americans; but what US presidents can do is partly dependent on who holds Congress. Whatever disappointments people felt about Clinton, he was strongly re-elected for a second term. (So was Bush, of course, which I've never entirely understood.) I thought McCain would have made a good president eight years ago, a better one than Bush; now I think he's missed his moment. American voters have a lot more respect for age than British ones do, but Obama looks to me like a man of the future; McCain looks like the past.
midterm blues affect all politicians, not just Americans</i?
True. But the term was thought up in reference to US presidents. Plus they're a particularly good example because expectations of them are so high. Still, you're right, I probably shouldn't have described it as a 'phenomenon'.
Even with Congressional support, they can do more, but they're still very strongly limited. Plus bills in the U.S. often get incredibly heavily modified as they go through Congress, which the prez can't control.
True. But the term was thought up in reference to US presidents. Plus they're a particularly good example because expectations of them are so high. Still, you're right, I probably shouldn't have described it as a 'phenomenon'.
Even with Congressional support, they can do more, but they're still very strongly limited. Plus bills in the U.S. often get incredibly heavily modified as they go through Congress, which the prez can't control.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.