do wanna know why i'm voting for Barack Obama?...

Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Posts
435
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
161
The thing that bothers me about politics is how they find something Americans want and just hammer that word. Obama hammered the word change down people's throats, and uneducated voters thought change just meant someone new and exciting, not policy change. Obama is a master of Clintonianism and crafty with words. He knew he could associate himself with change, just because the name Clinton is a bit stale and disliked by many. It worked so well that Edwards and Clinton had to follow suit, hell even the Republicans stole the word and use it all the time now.

Hillary Clinton has been in the world of politics for over 35 years bettering the country and has a lot of experience. I honestly couldn't tell you something Obama has done for the US outside of Illinois. All of that said, I personally don't care for Hillary Clinton myself, but it does bother me when politicians in general successfully fool voters such as Obama has done. He successfully fooled Iowa, now because of his win there voters in New Hampshire look at him "Oooo well he won so apparently he is the 'agent of change", so he's going to win NH today. And then his momentum will carry him into South Carolina.

I like Edwards the best of the 3, I consider him the lesser of 3 evils, but my political candidates, much like my favorite teams (Mets, Jets and Knicks) have a habit of disappointing me and never winning. I wish Al Gore would fly in on an eco-friendly magic carpet and run for president but its too late for that.

After Gore and Edwards, Clinton is next on my list. I really don't care about the charisma of a president. In 2000 Bush won the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" popularity vote, and look how that turned out. If Hillary were as good with people as her husband is, or how Obama is, her experience plus charisma would eliminate any competition. But personality has once again defeated experience as the important factor for picking a president.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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 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.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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, 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.

Oh, MSNBC just flashed some interesting stats. Of voters who voted for experience, Obama got 5% of the votes, and Hillary got some number in the 70s.


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.
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.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

Jason, just why do you think Edwards refuses to quit the race, even though he is certainly going to be hammered in his own home state? He realizes the increased risk of an assasination and wants to make sure that he is Obama's running mate so he can get to the Presidency that no one seems to want to elect him to.

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.

You hit the nail on the head here. Experience is necessary and counts for something, even if just for the capacity of picking advisors and cabinets that are not after their own agenda. GWB's (who had almost 7 years of executive experience under his belt) downfall came due to his incredible idiocy in picking a VP-candidate. He went with Cheney hoping to get elected not completely realizing what this wolf in sheep's clothing was capable of. It was all downhill from there on.
 

galaxus

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Posts
866
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
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.

Your not alone. Every black person in america thinks he's gonna get shot if he becomes president.
 

B_InDepth

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
103
Location
around
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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..!!


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
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
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.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
what he said

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.