I can understand this point of view. On the other hand, most of Bush's advisors and his VP (who all had very powerful if not complete influence on GWB) each had decades of experience in federal government. I think these guys were a liability to GWB.I still can't decide who to vote for, but I can't in good conscience vote for Obama. I don't feel he has enough experience to lead the country at this time in history. That's not to say I wouldn't vote for him the future. Not all of our presidents make it their first time out.
I can understand this point of view. On the other hand, most of Bush's advisors and his VP (who all had very powerful if not complete influence on GWB) each had decades of experience in federal government. I think these guys were a liability to GWB.
I can understand this point of view. On the other hand, most of Bush's advisors and his VP (who all had very powerful if not complete influence on GWB) each had decades of experience in federal government. I think these guys were a liability to GWB.
That is very true, they used their experience for their own selfish personal gain. But it does not negate the fact that someone wanting to be President of the United States and defacto leader of the free world needs to have solid credentials and experience. Do you really think that without experience anyone can make any change this world on that level- wether positive or negative?
The problem with this year's race is that neither party is offering candidates with much experience- McCain is the golden standard of experience in this race.
Change is something that the populace wants to hear because it makes them feel good. But realistically speaking change at that drastic levels is not possible. Do these "agents for change" think that they are going to be able to change the composition of congress or other world leaders with their election? They will be forced to work with the same people who have been there for years if not decades and change will be just a pipe dream.
Yes, don't get me wrong. I am not defending GWB. That clueless boob clearly is incapable of tying his own shoes. I was just making a point about how experience is not necessarily a guarantee of competence.I think the biggest liability for GWB was GWB. He presumed to take the office and ride herd on a cabinet full of big egos, intriguers, and prima donnas. He's ultimately responsible (as well as the people who voted for him) for the mess they made.
If GWB was (is) too dim to detect the personal agendas and subterfuge of his advisors leading his administration to ruin, well, he'll get the judgement of history he so richly deserves.
I see him speaking now and just as I looked at the TV screen I thought of Bobby Kennedy. I have a bad feeling and am concerned for his security.
Yes, you make good sense here. McCain is certainly the one with the most experience of all. In fact, managing your ego-laden advisors properly is something that comes from experience.
Yes, don't get me wrong. I am not defending GWB. That clueless boob clearly is incapable of tying his own shoes. I was just making a point about how experience is not necessarily a guarantee of competence.
I see him speaking now and just as I looked at the TV screen I thought of Bobby Kennedy. I have a bad feeling and am concerned for his security.
It's just because he's black. That's it.
And if he dosen't win the primary election and Hillary does win. I'm voting for Hillary, Just because she's a woman.
See, i don't trust politicians. i don't trust my government. i really tried to get into politics, but its all just bullshit.
So i'm just hoping that an old-white-male doesn't become our new president... again
check out ron paul... hes old and white.... but if you go to ronpaul2008.com and listen to his messages, i think anyone would like him..!!
Here's Christopher Hitchens, quoted by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post:
"Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supporters--most especially the white ones--sob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been 'our first black president.'
"Or perhaps not. Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be 'black,' anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a 'breakthrough,' the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought."
I like Obama, but Hitchens, I think, is asking some good questions.
But maybe there are points along the road to 'enlightenment' when people quite rightly congratulate themselves for a salutary step just taken or about to be taken.
Not when you're fully enlightened ... but hey, no one's claiming arrival at that bus stop yet.