Obama not ready to lead and protect us from day 1.

[deleted213967]

People listen to slogans and talking points, Domisoldo. This goes both ways. Barack's positions and opinions are clearly laid out online and elsewhere for people who wish to research and find them. He's also discussed them in detail during various debates and interviews. Most people aren't motivated to look up the details themselves, and lack the attention span to absorb the information when it's spoken on TV and not repeated 200 times a day. The information is THERE if you want to go looking for it.

However, that's irrelevant to many Obama supporters who cling to the simple message of hope and change.

It's also irrelevant to people like you who cling to the simple message of Obama's detractors that say he has no experience or no plan.

Both of these are oversimplifications, and you're as guilty of accepting the soundbyte you wish to cling to as the people you are criticizing are of accepting the soundbyte they wish to cling to.

I am really touched by your patronizing. Who is "oversimplifying" here?

I have read Obama's "plan" who, as he very publicly stressed in nationally televised debates, hardly differs from Hillary Clinton's. There is absolutely nothing novel in his plan for Health Care, Education, Business, etc.

His plan, as Hillary's, is all about orthodox, liberal policy of the past.

My point was that his claim to the presidency, as he again stressed in televised debates, hinges on his purported ability to unite.

So my question is fair: what has he done in his 3 years in the US Senate to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats.

GOP (who are the other side he claims to build bridges to) have already cried fool.

But you're on that KookAid too so my posts are not directed at you.

 

[pdxman]

The [hypothetical] media coverage of what, exactly [and hypothetically]? Shapton and Jackson demanding preferential treatment and Obama giving them reasonable and even-handed answers?

No,,its going to happen. Some sort of meeting with the likes of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will occur after and if he is nominated. He will give them even handed answers? LOL There are going to be demands that his naivety will soon will not be able to handle. And they may not get preferential treatment, but the mere fact that he is seen meeting or negotiating with them will seem that they are getting preferential treatment and the baggage of the radical/liberal baggage of past black candidates will surface, and white middle of the road support he has now will erode.

 

[swordfishME]

One thing that I am most interested in seeing is what the media will do once he is the democratic nominee? It is obvious to anyone who can see that they have treated him with kid gloves while trying to make Hillary into a demon. This cannot last in a general campaign so that is when things will get really interesting really fast

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I am really touched by your patronizing. Who is "oversimplifying" here?

I have read Obama's "plan" who, as he very publicly stressed in nationally televised debates, hardly differs from Hillary Clinton's. There is absolutely nothing novel in his plan for Health Care, Education, Business, etc.

His plan, as Hillary's, is all about orthodox, liberal policy of the past.

My point was that his claim to the presidency, as he again stressed in televised debates, hinges on his purported ability to unite.

So my question is fair: what has he done in his 3 years in the US Senate to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats.

GOP (who are the other side he claims to build bridges to) have already cried fool.

But you're on that KookAid too so my posts are not directed at you.

Having little difference from someone else's plan is not the same as having no plan at all. YOU said that he had no plan. YOU are oversimplifying. You're also now changing your question to be something else. Like GWB after we found no WMDs in Iraq saying "it's not about the WMDs!" Asshole.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

People listen to slogans and talking points, Domisoldo. This goes both ways. Barack's positions and opinions are clearly laid out online and elsewhere for people who wish to research and find them. He's also discussed them in detail during various debates and interviews. Most people aren't motivated to look up the details themselves, and lack the attention span to absorb the information when it's spoken on TV and not repeated 200 times a day. The information is THERE if you want to go looking for it.

However, that's irrelevant to many Obama supporters who cling to the simple message of hope and change.

It's also irrelevant to people like you who cling to the simple message of Obama's detractors that say he has no experience or no plan.

Both of these are oversimplifications, and you're as guilty of accepting the soundbyte you wish to cling to as the people you are criticizing are of accepting the soundbyte they wish to cling to.

A clear post ... did you get a tutor?
Sumpin's workin'.

 

[deleted213967]

Having little difference from someone else's plan is not the same as having no plan at all. YOU said that he had no plan. YOU are oversimplifying. You're also now changing your question to be something else. Like GWB after we found no WMDs in Iraq saying "it's not about the WMDs!" Asshole.

Sorry, not a bottom.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

No,,its going to happen. Some sort of meeting with the likes of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will occur after and if he is nominated. He will give them even handed answers? LOL There are going to be demands that his naivety will soon will not be able to handle. And they may not get preferential treatment, but the mere fact that he is seen meeting or negotiating with them will seem that they are getting preferential treatment and the baggage of the radical/liberal baggage of past black candidates will surface, and white middle of the road support he has now will erode.

So he's not even allowed to meet with other black leaders?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Sorry, not a bottom.

Dick.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

And to compare Clinton to George Bush is ridiculous.

I disagree with this, because they claim to have different philosophical differences...her position on REFUSING to talk to IRAN, N. Korea is the same position she criticized George W. Bush for. She came out and insisted that GW Bush follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - to include a recommendation to talk to Iran and Syria about negotiating what would be needed to maintain peace in Iraq. Hillary criticized GW Bush for not following the Iraq study group's particular recommendation, but she is taking the same position, she doesn't want to be used as a propaganda tool.

Which her aversion to talk to, is further stipulated by the damage that she fears that being photographed with Iran or N. Korean leader...would later be used for propaganda purposes...ironic when a picture of Obama wearing Kenyan garment is released to to question his loyalties.

 

[Quite Irate]

This entire race is pathetic. Change is made by the politically savvy inside men, not outsiders. The Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon types. Clinton isn't one. Obama isn't one. McCain is a fool. Pick your poison, really.

Also, since it was mentioned in this thread - every political candidate always wants to liken themselves to JFK - does anyone even remember that JFK hardly did anything at all? He:
1) almost started world war III
2) started the vietnam war
2) didn't know jack about how to get anything done
3) was never qualified for the job
4) ran around with women half the time he was in office

Yes, a true American hero.
Sure, his "message" may have sounded great, but I'm guessing you didn't grow up to be an astronaut.

 

[deleted213967]

Dick.

Much better...

Incidently, I never stated that Obama had no plan, rather that his plan had nothing new and exciting in it that set it apart from other boilerplate liberal plans, including Hillary's.

The question of his being able to unite the nation, the red and blue groups principally, remains, and it is the most relevant question since Obama himself runs on that very premise.

Again, if he were a uniter he would have shown more collaboration with the GOP during his US Senate tenure. He simply hasn't, not any more than Hillary.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

Okay if Obama gets the nomination, just wait for the radical/liberal black wing of the democratic party to step up and demand some recognition from him. So far Obama has played the "middle road" and avoided the likes of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for fear of alienating the white support he gets. Once the media coverage of this breaks watch his support slide.

Really??? Where have you been, Obama already lobbed that ball back when Louis Farrakhan openly praised him. Obama denounced Farrakhan's support, but equally said, he denounce those positions but cannot point a finger at someone who says he's a good guy and is dealing with the criticism of the black community that think it right or wrong to do just that.

So I don't think they are waiting for Obama to get a lock on the nomination...some argue he risks alienating himself already b/c many feel Farrakhan has been misunderstood. Yet if that were true, don't you find it odd that though Jesse Jackson endorsed Obama last year, Obama hasn't asked Obama to join him on the campaign trail or advise him in any way?

More specifically - why are YOU making comparisons about Obama to Jesse and Al?

Don't you find it odd, that he has managed to build a career as a successful public servant, raised campaign money from public donations and not from local P.A.C organizations and has been able raise more money than Hillary in the first campaign fund raising quarter in 2007? That he raised more than Hillary's 35 million last month? I bring that up because the first 1/2 assed observation about Obama was that no one would vote for a black president, the next 1/2 assed observation was that he wouldn't be able to raise enough money.

So again - other than ANCIENT cliches and speculation, how is Obama NOT ready to lead versus the other candidates?

 

[Quite Irate]

Much better...

Incidently, I never stated that Obama had no plan, rather that his plan had nothing new and exciting in it that set it apart from other boilerplate liberal plans, including Hillary's.

The question of his being able to unite the nation, the red and blue groups principally, remains, and it is the most relevant question since Obama himself runs on that very premise.

Again, if he were a uniter he would have shown more collaboration with the GOP during his US Senate tenure. He simply hasn't, not any more than Hillary.

Moderates are easily swayed. "Uniting" them is easy. The people who matter in parties on opposite sides of the political spectrum aren't so easily manipulated. "Uniters" may exist, but they only ever operate effectively with heavy external influences on their side (e.g. war). Obama isn't going to unite anyone.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

this is what you said that I was responding to.

..and once again Barack "Teflon" Obama eludes the real question: what he would DO to make the US of A better.

Your question "what would he do to make the USA better" is a common one used by those who claim he has no plan. If you have read his plan, and understand it's very similar to Hillary's, then you should already know the answer to this question and should have phrased it differently. i.e. you don't believe that what he will do to make America better is going to work, or you want to know specifically how he is going to deliver on the slogans and message of his campaign since it's not really outlined in his plans for the country other than vague announcements that he's interested in reaching across the aisle and promoting unity. I think that's what you're saying, right?

To that, I'd agree that he hasn't done much to unite parties during his time in the Senate... but he is just one Senator. How much could he do? I think McCain has done a lot more to try to work with the other side during his time in the Senate, but look at how much that's hurt his campaign among his base. Which I think is deplorable... and I admire McCain for persisting.

I believe Obama has the right philosophy, but that is based only on what he says. It could be all rhetoric, but I prefer his rhetoric to the other candidate's rhetoric.

 

[deleted213967]

This entire race is pathetic. Change is made by the politically savvy inside men, not outsiders. The Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon types. Clinton isn't one. Obama isn't one. McCain is a fool. Pick your poison, really.

Also, since it was mentioned in this thread - every political candidate always wants to liken themselves to JFK - does anyone even remember that JFK hardly did anything at all? He:

4) ran around with women half the time he was in office

Yes, a true American hero.
Sure, his "message" may have sounded great, but I'm guessing you didn't grow up to be an astronaut.

You must admit he had good taste in women...and I am saying that being gay and all. That Judith Campbell was something else...

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Moderates are easily swayed. "Uniting" them is easy. The people who matter in parties on opposite sides of the political spectrum aren't so easily manipulated. "Uniters" may exist, but they only ever operate effectively with heavy external influences on their side (e.g. war). Obama isn't going to unite anyone.

I disagree. Those on the political extremes are far more easily manipulated by ad hominem arguments. That's why it's so easy to keep them lined up and easier to get them to vote, as well.

 

[deleted213967]

I disagree. Those on the political extremes are far more easily manipulated by ad hominem arguments. That's why it's so easy to keep them lined up and easier to get them to vote, as well.

Leaving the insults between the two of us aside for a while, wouldn't you agree that one of the President's most awesome power is to nominate (and for life) Supreme Court justices whose opinions and judgement may change the face of the nation on matters about which we all care deeply?

W had the added prerogative of picking the CHIEF Justice.

Given the GOP's dominance at the time, I think that judge Roberts was the "least worst" candidate W could have offered. Of course he wasn't the liberal choice (neither for Obama nor for Hillary). But c'mon, Roberts is a fairly well-adjusted, widely respected jurist, and not a bigot.

However, Obama was one of the very few Democratic senators to fillibuster the Roberts nomination.

I fail to see how that action matched his electoral promise of ending partisan bickering.

 

[Quite Irate]

I disagree. Those on the political extremes are far more easily manipulated by ad hominem arguments. That's why it's so easy to keep them lined up and easier to get them to vote, as well.

Not just radicals. Powerful political radicals. Nobody really cares about nigger-hating hicks. I was referring to men in power.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

This entire race is pathetic. Change is made by the politically savvy inside men, not outsiders. The Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon types. Clinton isn't one. Obama isn't one. McCain is a fool. Pick your poison, really.

Really? Johnson made change? The same kind of Change that Hillary credits Johnson with - Civil rights? Cause Johnson signed the bill right? Like Dr. King wasn't an activist and the Kennedys didn't support and introduce that bill before Dr. King was assissinated.

Johnson was the reason for civil rights?

Johnson signed medicare and the oversight of it, after Nixon expanded it, has swung wildly out of control, because of the loopholes in it - don't get me started on the retarded idea that the population ratio would sustain a 12:1 ratio of (working adults: retiree) to keep the contribution rates in to it viable. When providers can bill mental health for children to medicare - it needed to reign in spending, not expansion.

Johnson was for change?
Nixon? (his paranoia - and recorded tapes...a subject for another thread)

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Not just radicals. Powerful political radicals. Nobody really cares about nigger-hating hicks. I was referring to men in power.

oh okay. I misunderstood. In that case, yes, I agree, Obama has his work cut out for him trying to get the dug-in politicians to cooperate.

Leaving the insults between the two of us aside for a while, wouldn't you agree that one of the President's most awesome power is to nominate (and for life) Supreme Court justices whose opinions and judgement may change the face of the nation on matters about which we all care deeply?

W had the added prerogative of picking the CHIEF Justice.

Given the GOP's dominance at the time, I think that judge Roberts was the "least worst" candidate W could have offered. Of course he wasn't the liberal choice (neither for Obama nor for Hillary). But c'mon, Roberts is a fairly well-adjusted, widely respected jurist, and not a bigot.

However, Obama was one of the very few Democratic senators to fillibuster the Roberts nomination.

I fail to see how that action matched his electoral promise of ending partisan bickering.

I meant to say this before and forgot. Obama's time in the Senate has been a presidential campaign from day 1. I think he understands the unfortunate situation in this country that is the fact that politics are dominated by two parties. In order to become president you have to be nominated by one of those two parties and in order to do that you have to make it through one of those two parties' primary system. In order to make it through that primary you have to appear to be as liberal or as conservative as possible. A difficult thing to pull off while still trying to sell yourself as a uniter or centrist. If Obama had supported ANYTHING that Bush did during Obama's time in the Senate, he would be called upon to defend it now and it could possibly cost him the election. It killed McCain in 2000. It almost killed him in 2008. I'm hoping that once in office both McCain and Obama will do more to emerge as true centrists rather than the party loyalists they have to appear to be during the primary season.

That said, he IS a Democrat. There's a chance he may have liberal sympathies.