ChezGiven

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight. He just had to not lose after Hilary. How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity? Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to. Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid. Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

Oh no you havent.

Obama missed an opportunity? He turned the most socially conservative democracy on the planet from voting republican (again) by the skin of his white teeth and he missed an opportunity? Nonsense, he had to fight tooth (white) and nail (pink) just to get his ass (black) in the door. Hilary would have likely won. Anyone but Bush would have likely won. His biggest fight of the Presidential campaign was versus Hilary, after than he just didn't have to make any massive mistakes. But all that's fairly irrelevant to missing his opportunity. Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%! Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's. What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

Is Renton's arse in that gif image?

Obama missed an opportunity? He turned the most socially conservative democracy on the planet from voting republican (again) by the skin of his white teeth and he missed an opportunity? Nonsense, he had to fight tooth (white) and nail (pink) just to get his ass (black) in the door.

" ..we had a little drink about an hour ago and the wallpaper sticks to the wall"

Them lot were fucking nutters. Did we ever find out where the song came from? I think it's a Celtic song or something. Just what one of them said. No idea really. Someone on NO mentioned the film 'Time Bandits' when it came up on there. Should ask Wacky.

Aye you are right. Not like Owen and Viduka keep them they've been great. Shola (as said) has played with an injury (owen n Viduka just need to fart to be out a month) He costs a fraction and he has had loads of arseholes who boo him or get on his back at the drop of a hat. He's not that good but he's better value for money than the ward 14 twins. Is Owen not a leech (do you want to wait until Jan. to answer that) How many injuries has Shola had in the last two or three years? Not defending the injury records of the other two but at least they have the advantage on not being shit. Fuck me, 2 or 3 half-decent games and you rather hang onto Shola than Owen? Laughable imo. So fuck if he's 'better value'. It's not a fucking Tesco's. We could re-sign Chopra and he'd be 'better value' than the lot of them if he stayed fit. He'd still be gash though. And so is Shola. If you photoshopped Shola's face onto a tin of Tesco's own brand baked beans he'd still air-kick at least one chance per game.

And cumcatchers. "Meenzer in a cumcatcher" to the tune of Vicar in a Tutu.

Them lot were fucking nutters. Did we ever find out where the song came from?

Indeed. Historic stuff.

Obama entered US politics through the mainstream, not like Jesse Jackson who was part of the civil rights movement. He is just an American politician. A very good one too.

I like Grolsch. My local only serves 4 beers though, so i'm not spoilt for choice.

Tbf, it race was the issue some would have you believe, he wouldn't have gotten elected anyway. Although it obviously was an issue all the same. I can't help thinking Palin has set women back a few years in US political terms though. Obama-girl has been doing some good work.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/05/...alestinians.php Whilst the world wasnt looking.

I dont know where this obsession with discussing race comes from. Colin Powell has just said that Obama is not an African-American President but an American President (elect). He won the election as an American and not as anything else.

Fop swimming in the sheening clarity of codswallop.

I'm not saying he's not black enough, or too black. Others are; which is my point. The main reason it is a defining moment in American history is because he is a black man. You can even see this in Obama's victory speech quotes earlier in this thread. Obama is well aware and arguably imprinted by his awareness and self-reflexivity of the fact that he is black. Not sure how else on the surface of political things the 'identity politics' clearly played out over the last year we are meant to touch first base with him. Understand? I don't want to go all Nietzsche on yer arse. Ok, lets put it a different way. What is a "black man"? Why is he not a "white man"? And can you define or answer one without being unwittingly racist (in some form or other)? Not being a black man in America it would be impossible for me to define 'that moment'. That moment before my blackness is colonised. Being black is wholly about the moment your 'otherness' is colonised. These are the basics of race identity. qv the Bangladeshi community in North London, qv the Arab community in Sweden. I think behind all this bluster you have a valid point if it is only about erasure, I'm guessing your tallking about that. Racism isn't just about how others define you ("positively" or "negatively" - both are the same in the end), but it's also about how you define yourself to others. If he was the man that could bring sweeping change he had a massive opportunity to do so (even if it cost him the election - which I don't think it necessarily would), but he took a different tack. Not necessarily and evil tack, just the most pragmatic one. Which is why I don't think he will change the world, he'll probably just rule it. Of course that is the process that defines your blackness if you like. Obama is well aware of that. He is also aware that he needed to be inclusive to win. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him. This was obvious pages ago.

Well, anyway, he is meant to announce a transition team later today, he needs to get on with things and take on an issue that is 'winnable' in the first 6 months for him to get on the right foot. The challenges he faces are ridiculously big. Whether some geek on a newcastle united forum considers him black or not is irrelevant, its the perception of the US public that decides that matter.

What does this victory mean for US foreign policy? Lets not forget this is the reason why the world wanted to see Obama win. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...08-barackobama6 Anyone reminded of Bill Hicks? The rest of the article is worth a read.

I hope fop's filibustering isnt a sign of things to come.

My personal highlights from the speech. He nailed it.

Colin Powell admits to weeping on hearing the confirmation of Obama's victory. The Economy is going to be the trickiest factor in his Presidency.

I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though.

Not really - I'm saying Keegan would have "inspired" the similar teams that did play in the 3 or 4 games I mentioned to better results. That doesn't blind me to the difference between that and 38 games for which I think the squad is weak. But then surely with the better players coming back in, we would have consolidated the better position we would have been in. Yes - until more injuries/form loss would have taken their toll. So, with a bit of luck on injuries we would have been 5th. Shame. Do you think Hull will claim a Champions League place this season? And even if they do ( ) do you think they will next season? I saw Andrew's reply but didnt think the question warranted an answer because its the wrong question. The question is, if we were in Hull's position now, would people be talking of 5th place being a possibility? Yes, yes they would. They are not for Hull because Hull are this other club who play in Gold and Black from down the coast and aren't Newcastle United. Us being in 5th with our pedigree is a very different proposition to Hull being there. Fwiw there's nothing to say they wont be there at the end of the season other than it would be 'unusual'. Basically fop, repeating his question just made you look equally stupid. If Spurs, Blackburn etc are in 5th now does that mean they are contenders? Are you saying we have the same potential as Hull? Idiots. To come back to the interesting question and continue with NJS's brilliant point though, we'd be in 5th now, having endured a serious injury problem. Now we have the better players back, in this scenario we'd be kicking on. The problem with this point of view is that its inconsistent with other points of view about how shit the squad is. No the question is why if we were 5th now (and yet we wouldn't end up 5th for the stated reasons, yet you think we would) would Hull not finish in the top 4 too? It's not my fault you tried to build your argument on quicksand. The point is 'the quality of the squad' actually