Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

boygabriel

Fair enough.

Aside from partisan hacks (of which you are clearly not one), it baffles me how the Wright controversy is significant when compared to what I think Obama will do about Iraq, or the next terrorist attack, or the real threat (Afghanistan/Pakistan), or the environment, or taxes, or jobs, or who he'll appoint to the supreme court.

Obama has a long career of public work, advocacy, and community organizing, as well as serving in the state and national governments. I just don't see how obfuscation on Wright, which came with a 40 minute national speech on race and Black Churches in America, is anything other than a bump in the road of a very strong candidate who has clearly outlined his policy positions and, with the selection of his advisers, has made bold statements about how he plans to do things differently in Washington.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: Fair enough.

Aside from partisan hacks (of which you are clearly not one), it baffles me how the Wright controversy is significant when compared to what I think Obama will do about Iraq, or the next terrorist attack, or the real threat (Afghanistan/Pakistan), or the environment, or taxes, or jobs, or who he'll appoint to the supreme court.

Obama has a long career of public work, advocacy, and community organizing, as well as serving in the state and national governments. I just don't see how obfuscation on Wright, which came with a 40 minute national speech on race and Black Churches in America, is anything other than a bump in the road of a very strong candidate who has clearly outlined his policy positions and, with the selection of his advisers, has made bold statements about how he plans to do things differently in Washington.

Because I think Hillary can do those things too. Obama clearly knew that the Rev. Wright thing was a problem from day one when he announced his candidacy. At it was spinning spinning spinning, these are just sound bites taken out of context, I can't denounce him any more than I could my own grandmother, to where we are now. And yet Rev. Wright has been saying the same thing all along. The things he said in the sound bites are no different from the things he said the other day. And I suspect that they are no different from the tapes that Obama listened to at college and in sermons over the last twenty years. I don't believe for a second that he didn't hear the things over the weekend, if not by his own ear then from SOMEONE in his campaign. They took a day or two to figure out how to react. I don't have a problem with that. But I find this whole mess steeped in dishonesty from the beginning, and it causes me great concern for the content of his character.

In the end, does it matter? "Read my lips, no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Our politicians have a long history of lying to us. But your contention that he is going to do things differently? Ha. Haha. More of the same. I'm afraid that when the going gets tough (which it usually does) that he will board up with his waffles. I'm afraid that he doesn't have the experience he needs to play at this level (although he is getting it quickly.) I don't have that fear with Hillary. And despite my loathing for McCain, I don't have that fear with him either. I don't think Obama realized what he was getting himself into here. I think the whole Rev. Wright mess is indicative of that. I'd like to see him do a term as a US Senator, and then maybe go from there. Obviously, that isn't happening at this point. Oh well.

queencallipygos

Hamilton wrote: Obama has finally denounced Rev Wright, is Grandma next

...Wait, are you saying that you would have respected him more if he'd SUPPORTED Wright?

Something tells me you wouldn't.

If you don't like the guy, fine, just be honest about why.

queencallipygos

Boygabriel wrote: McCain, on the other hand, has changed positions on a slew of major issues over the past 8 years, from taxes, to campaign finance, to lobbyists, to economic policies and a host of other things.

Oh, he also cheated on his wife of 35 years, who raised his kids while he was a POW, and then left her for a woman 18 years younger than him, who happened to be heir to an incredible fortune which was then used to launch his political career in Arizona. Talk about opportunism and trustworthiness.

Not to mention that he has his own "Reverend Wright," whose endorsement he sought out deliberately.

daver

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]McCain, on the other hand, has changed positions on a slew of major issues over the past 8 years, from taxes, to campaign finance, to lobbyists, to economic policies and a host of other things.

Oh, he also cheated on his wife of 35 years, who raised his kids while he was a POW, and then left her for a woman 18 years younger than him, who happened to be heir to an incredible fortune which was then used to launch his political career in Arizona. Talk about opportunism and trustworthiness.

Not to mention that he has his own "Reverend Wright," whose endorsement he sought out deliberately.
Which just goes to the point I was making, which Boygabriel was refuting. You know where McCain stands. He is a politician. He collects endorsements. He really doesn't give a flying fuck what Hagee says, he just wants Hagee to get his followers to vote McCain. Therefore he has had no trouble denouncing anything that Hagee is reported to have said, which he does with the caveat of "if he said that" because McCain has no fucking clue what Hagee said, nor does he care.

queencallipygos

daver wrote: [quote=queencallipygos][quote=Boygabriel]McCain, on the other hand, has changed positions on a slew of major issues over the past 8 years, from taxes, to campaign finance, to lobbyists, to economic policies and a host of other things.

Oh, he also cheated on his wife of 35 years, who raised his kids while he was a POW, and then left her for a woman 18 years younger than him, who happened to be heir to an incredible fortune which was then used to launch his political career in Arizona. Talk about opportunism and trustworthiness.

Not to mention that he has his own "Reverend Wright," whose endorsement he sought out deliberately.
Which just goes to the point I was making, which Boygabriel was refuting. You know where McCain stands. He is a politician. He collects endorsements. He really doesn't give a flying fuck what Hagee says, he just wants Hagee to get his followers to vote McCain. Therefore he has had no trouble denouncing anything that Hagee is reported to have said, which he does with the caveat of "if he said that" because McCain has no fucking clue what Hagee said, nor does he care.

But if that's the case, then what that says of McCain is that he is SUCH the politician that he cares more about endorsements than he does about actual policy, which is a problem, in my book -- and, I think that that's the point Boygabriel was making. It's one thing to play the political game to get more votes, it's another thing to make the game your SOLE MOTIVATION and not be worrying about where those endorsements are coming from.

Thefact that he doesn't have a clue what Hagee said, or cares, tells me that he is more concerned with popularity than with policy -- that he doesn't care about researching someone's opinions before getting into bed with them. If he thinks that way about people, if he's that mercenary about getting votes, might he also be that way about policy? Is he going to decide policy based on "what would get me the most votes later" as opposed to "what actually is sane"?

This, to me, is a worse thing than having known someone for a while and then finally having to separate yourself from them after they've started making unpopular statements. Plus, McCain isn't separating himself from Hagee anyway either. It's come to light that Hagee's said these things, and McCain is still embracing his endorsement.

daver

queencallipygos wrote: But if that's the case, then what that says of McCain is that he is SUCH the politician that he cares more about endorsements than he does about actual policy, which is a problem, in my book -- and, I think that that's the point Boygabriel was making. It's one thing to play the political game to get more votes, it's another thing to make the game your SOLE MOTIVATION and not be worrying about where those endorsements are coming from.

Thefact that he doesn't have a clue what Hagee said, or cares, tells me that he is more concerned with popularity than with policy -- that he doesn't care about researching someone's opinions before getting into bed with them. If he thinks that way about people, if he's that mercenary about getting votes, might he also be that way about policy? Is he going to decide policy based on "what would get me the most votes later" as opposed to "what actually is sane"?

This, to me, is a worse thing than having known someone for a while and then finally having to separate yourself from them after they've started making unpopular statements. Plus, McCain isn't separating himself from Hagee anyway either. It's come to light that Hagee's said these things, and McCain is still embracing his endorsement.

Hmm. I'm not sure how this turned into an Obama vs. McCain debate, so I'm just going to say that I don't disagree with your thoughts about that.

As far as this statement, "This, to me, is a worse thing than having known someone for a while and then finally having to separate yourself from them after they've started making unpopular statements." It isn't true in the sense that Rev. Wright _started_ making unpopular statements. He was making them all along. And Obama knew it, which is why he started distancing in Feb '07 when he announced the presidential run. Which is what has made his defenses and "I didn't knows" so patently untrue and pandering in the last year. And is part of one of several things that gives me serious pause and makes me question his readiness to be President.

queencallipygos

daver wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]But if that's the case, then what that says of McCain is that he is SUCH the politician that he cares more about endorsements than he does about actual policy, which is a problem, in my book -- and, I think that that's the point Boygabriel was making. It's one thing to play the political game to get more votes, it's another thing to make the game your SOLE MOTIVATION and not be worrying about where those endorsements are coming from.

Thefact that he doesn't have a clue what Hagee said, or cares, tells me that he is more concerned with popularity than with policy -- that he doesn't care about researching someone's opinions before getting into bed with them. If he thinks that way about people, if he's that mercenary about getting votes, might he also be that way about policy? Is he going to decide policy based on "what would get me the most votes later" as opposed to "what actually is sane"?

This, to me, is a worse thing than having known someone for a while and then finally having to separate yourself from them after they've started making unpopular statements. Plus, McCain isn't separating himself from Hagee anyway either. It's come to light that Hagee's said these things, and McCain is still embracing his endorsement.

Hmm. I'm not sure how this turned into an Obama vs. McCain debate, so I'm just going to say that I don't disagree with your thoughts about that.

As far as this statement, "This, to me, is a worse thing than having known someone for a while and then finally having to separate yourself from them after they've started making unpopular statements." It isn't true in the sense that Rev. Wright _started_ making unpopular statements. He was making them all along. And Obama knew it, which is why he started distancing in Feb '07 when he announced the presidential run. Which is what has made his defenses and "I didn't knows" so patently untrue and pandering in the last year. And is part of one of several things that gives me serious pause and makes me question his readiness to be President.

Mmm, I think the "McCain vs. Obama" element is more my reaction to "why are we giving Obama a hard time about this and we're letting McCain get a pass on the same thing?"

As for when Rev. Wright said what -- yeah, see, I'm still more bothered by someone who would change his allegience for cavalier and mercenary reasons. With Obama and Wright, I think context could clarify a lot -- there are things that people we know say that, when taken out of context, make them sound like fiends.

Or, it's possible that the reason Obama has been separating himself from Rev. Wright only now could be that he USED to believe in those same points, but does no longer -- but still agreed with Wright on some less-controversial issues, so he didn't cut the man loose entirely. In other words, we could be seeing the end-point of what actually is a long and difficult change of heart on Obama's part, rather than a simple case of "okay, you're no longer politically expedient, so see ya."

About the best light I can cast the McCain-Hagee thing in, by way of contrast, is -- okay, maybe he didn't know the kind of things Hagee said. But that would only mean that no one thought to take the time to look into, "hey, let's see what kind of things this Hagee fellow says before we get into bed with him." It just strikes me that NOT looking into the positions of someone before you court their endorsement is just plain bad political sense; so even if he IS just playing a political game, he made a serious blunder in doing so. And if you can't even play the political game right, how badly would you screw up a REAL crisis?...

sprite

daver wrote: Which is what has made his defenses and "I didn't knows" so patently untrue and pandering in the last year. And is part of one of several things that gives me serious pause and makes me question his readiness to be President.

While I see how his reaction could affect your opinion of his fitness for the office, I don't see what it has to do with his readiness. Another term or two in the Senate would not eliminate the Wright problem or make Obama's reaction less pandering.

I'm not doubting the validity of your impression - just wondering what other factors contribute to it.

sweet tea

i think many of us aren't interested in discussing this in re: mccain because we already have upty-zillion reasons not to support mccain.

at least, that's true for me.

as long as i'm posting, i'd also like to question the assertion that hillary clinton hasn't also been held accountable for those she associates with, starting, with, oh, i don't know, her husband. raking the clintons over the coals for the actions and words of their friends, business partners, etc. has been done plenty. if it seems like obama's getting the brunt of it, perhaps that's because there's not much dirt dig on the clintons that hasn't already been dug.

all that said, none of this makes me particularly dislike obama. although...it's been such a successful way to reclaim the media spotlight from clinton that i almost wonder if it isn't partly being done on purpose.

alafairnadia

Boygabriel wrote: Fair enough.

Aside from partisan hacks (of which you are clearly not one), it baffles me how the Wright controversy is significant when compared to what I think Obama will do about Iraq, or the next terrorist attack, or the real threat (Afghanistan/Pakistan), or the environment, or taxes, or jobs, or who he'll appoint to the supreme court.

Obama has a long career of public work, advocacy, and community organizing, as well as serving in the state and national governments. I just don't see how obfuscation on Wright, which came with a 40 minute national speech on race and Black Churches in America, is anything other than a bump in the road of a very strong candidate who has clearly outlined his policy positions and, with the selection of his advisers, has made bold statements about how he plans to do things differently in Washington.

and, while not anti-Obama, I question how this is so much more revelatory or trustworthy than Clinton's dedication to children and her years of service to children's rights in her legal career. I think a lot of folks just think of her as "Bill's wife" and "that senator".

as I've said before - I think the candidates for the dem party are basically equal in terms of policy. I prefer Clinton's health care initiatives, so yeah, policy-wise, I'm in her camp. I'm also a "scary" feminist and would love to see a female president, so ... that also puts me in her camp. but I'm not going to turn away from Obama for having this "scary uncle". I do think he fucked up, which I've said before, by not nipping this in the bud at the outset. he really does, frankly, need to grow a pair if he's going to go head to head with McCain. McCain is NOT going to cut him any slack and is going to attack every 15 seconds. once we're at a repub/dem divide, the bets are off. Obama needs to step up and do what he hasn't been able to do with his primary race with Clinton - be ultimately convincing.

hamilton

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=Hamilton]Obama has finally denounced Rev Wright, is Grandma next

...Wait, are you saying that you would have respected him more if he'd SUPPORTED Wright?

Something tells me you wouldn't.

If you don't like the guy, fine, just be honest about why.

****************************

that was A Parody on his statement he would not renounce Rev Wright any more then he would renounce his grandmother for her so called racial comments.

As far as liking Obama ,I do and feel he is to intelligent to be a politician.

sorry to burst your bubble..

livetotravel

What hope does BO have a growing a pair since Hillary has been bestowed with "testicular fortitude," and makes "Rocky look like a pansy."

This isn't a cheap scary feminist emasculation script is it?

And who are those" Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle," the Clinton people refer to?

sweet tea

^huh? whatchu talkin' bout willis?

livetotravel

oh, excuse my ramblings, I was just trying to respond to alafair's comment about BO..."he really does, frankly, need to grow a pair if he's going to go head to head with McCain." :oops:

alafairnadia

Livetotravel wrote: oh, excuse my ramblings, I was just trying to respond to alafair's comment about BO..."he really does, frankly, need to grow a pair if he's going to go head to head with McCain." :oops:

did you read maureen dowd's op ed piece on this subject after pennsylvania? she basically said that obama has been emasculated by clinton (I don't agree) but that obama has been incapable of turning up his charm enough to knock her out of the park (I do agree) and that standing next to her at debate made him so angry he fucked it up. so yeah, grow a pair. or, if you watch step it up and dance, butch it up. his latest response to rev. wright is the tone he needs to take with all of these attacks. a firm "NO, I do not agree with that." plus whatever else he wants to say. this isn't feminist rhetoric, I'm just couching it in gender terms since that's been part of the undercurrent of the op ed pieces and stuff I've said. I can say it differently, though:

obama needs to become much more assertive about his political stance, his views of certain behaviors and speech, and his responses to direct attacks from his opposition. the assertiveness needs to be at the level that it can be felt not through his preacher-style speaking but through his confidence in his correctness.

in other words, he needs to grow a pair.

boygabriel

daver wrote: But your contention that he is going to do things differently? Ha. Haha. More of the same.

That's like, your opinion, man. © The Dude

Obama has brought in a lot advisers from outside the Washington establishment, especially when it comes to foreign policy, which is the paramount issue I'm voting on, personally.

His policy speeches and papers state pretty stark breaks with American foreign policy of the past 20+ years, from lifting sanctions on Cuba, to direct talks with Iran, to the use of military and humanitarian forces.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver] But your contention that he is going to do things differently? Ha. Haha. More of the same.

That's like, your opinion, man. © The Dude

Obama has brought in a lot advisers from outside the Washington establishment, especially when it comes to foreign policy, which is the paramount issue I'm voting on, personally.

His policy speeches and papers state pretty stark breaks with American foreign policy of the past 20+ years, from lifting sanctions on Cuba, to direct talks with Iran, to the use of military and humanitarian forces.
Well, you lost my context.

daver wrote: In the end, does it matter? "Read my lips, no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Our politicians have a long history of lying to us. But your contention that he is going to do things differently? Ha. Haha. More of the same.

I was specifically referring more to bullshitting the American people at will.

As far as doing things differently policy wise, maybe he will, if elected. That would be good! Unfortunately, I suspect this is where inexperience will come in. I simply don't believe that he has the knowledge and ability at this time to be able to work the machinations of Washington in order to achieve his goals. I envision foot stomping and a lot more lamentations about why can't they just do it his way so that he can eat his waffles in peace. I'm skeptical of his ability to bridge the gap between what he wants, and what will be possible in terms of working with Congress. I'm going to read through his website though, perhaps it will give me a better sense of where he is coming from and going to, and hopefully a bit more confidence.

livetotravel

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Livetotravel]oh, excuse my ramblings, I was just trying to respond to alafair's comment about BO..."he really does, frankly, need to grow a pair if he's going to go head to head with McCain." :oops:

did you read maureen dowd's op ed piece on this subject after pennsylvania? she basically said that obama has been emasculated by clinton (I don't agree) but that obama has been incapable of turning up his charm enough to knock her out of the park (I do agree) and that standing next to her at debate made him so angry he fucked it up. so yeah, grow a pair. or, if you watch step it up and dance, butch it up. his latest response to rev. wright is the tone he needs to take with all of these attacks. a firm "NO, I do not agree with that." plus whatever else he wants to say. this isn't feminist rhetoric, I'm just couching it in gender terms since that's been part of the undercurrent of the op ed pieces and stuff I've said. I can say it differently, though:

obama needs to become much more assertive about his political stance, his views of certain behaviors and speech, and his responses to direct attacks from his opposition. the assertiveness needs to be at the level that it can be felt not through his preacher-style speaking but through his confidence in his correctness.

in other words, he needs to grow a pair.

Damn - I love that second last 'graph! Call me old-fashioned but a well-written, well-articulated argument gets me every time

No one has to stoop to conquer

daver

Obviously, Obama doesn’t share Wright’s racial paranoia. But the saga does play into Hillary Clinton’s most powerful argument: that he is not seasoned enough to be elected president.

By seasoned, she actually means hardened by the soul-searing fires of humiliation and defeat. When Hillary was around Barack’s age and still in Arkansas, it’s perfectly possible that if her longtime pastor suddenly became a political embarrassment, she’d have loyally tried to distance herself without disowning him entirely.

Since then, she’s had a long string of painful lessons learned. One is that when beloved associates become political embarrassments, they tend to be much more concerned about their own reputation than yours. Many bodies under the bus later, when she tells you that she’d have dumped Rev. Wright at the first mention of chickens coming home to roost, you’d better believe it.

This sales pitch — I know how the cruel world works — is powerful in a political party that keeps losing elections that it thinks it deserves to win. On the other hand, young voters who have yet to have their hearts broken by a politician find it wicked depressing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/opinion/01collins.html

boygabriel

daver wrote: I was specifically referring more to bullshitting the American people at will.

Ah yes, I didn't catch that. As for an end to political bullshit, we agree. Obama isn't bringing an end to that. Nobody should be expecting that or claiming that either. Politicians have to lie and bullshit. What they don't have to do is be so Rove-ian about it, and the way they get their agendas instituted.

daver wrote: As far as doing things differently policy wise, maybe he will, if elected. That would be good! Unfortunately, I suspect this is where inexperience will come in. I simply don't believe that he has the knowledge and ability at this time to be able to work the machinations of Washington in order to achieve his goals. I envision foot stomping and a lot more lamentations about why can't they just do it his way so that he can eat his waffles in peace. I'm skeptical of his ability to bridge the gap between what he wants, and what will be possible in terms of working with Congress. I'm going to read through his website though, perhaps it will give me a better sense of where he is coming from and going to, and hopefully a bit more confidence.

This really hits at the core question every Democrat faces in this election. Their answer to the question usually dictates who they support of the two main candidates.

I look at Obama and see his freshness as a positive attribute. H.Clinton supporters look at it and see it in a negative light of simple inexperience.

daver

Boygabriel wrote: I look at Obama and see his freshness as a positive attribute. H.Clinton supporters look at it and see it in a negative light of simple inexperience.

Eh, I like the freshness. That was a large part of the initial shine on him for me that has since rubbed off quite a bit. I don't see it as a negative thing, but I have no fucking clue what is going to happen when the reality of How Shit Works sets in for him. And that is a bit scary. Is he going to be able to compromise and do what needs to be done in order to get the job done in some fashion, even if it isn't how he envisioned? Or is he going to batten down the hatches and have Michelle express disappointment with America for not carrying out his plans? That isn't a really fair thing to say, but hey, WTF. It seriously is only going to get harder from here, and he is already wondering aloud why he can't just eat his waffles. I'm afraid that he doesn't have the backbone to see everything through, that he will fold under the pressure. I'm not saying that he WILL, but I really don't have any evidence that he WON'T. He hasn't been tested. I know that Hillary won't give in. For that matter, I know that despite his assyness McCain won't either. Which isn't necessarily a good thing. Obama? Who the fuck knows what is going to happen when his ideals and solutions come crashing down around him. When Congress returns them to him rejected. Is he going to be able to reach across and get something done? Is he capable of abandoning his dreams if they turn out to be too idealistic and making _something_ work in reality? I certainly hope so, if he is elected. I'd feel a hell of a lot more confident if he had some time and experience under his belt in the US Congress, especially in taking more of a leadership role there than he has thus far.

alafairnadia

daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]I look at Obama and see his freshness as a positive attribute. H.Clinton supporters look at it and see it in a negative light of simple inexperience.

Eh, I like the freshness. That was a large part of the initial shine on him for me that has since rubbed off quite a bit. I don't see it as a negative thing, but I have no fucking clue what is going to happen when the reality of How Shit Works sets in for him. And that is a bit scary. Is he going to be able to compromise and do what needs to be done in order to get the job done in some fashion, even if it isn't how he envisioned? Or is he going to batten down the hatches and have Michelle express disappointment with America for not carrying out his plans? That isn't a really fair thing to say, but hey, WTF. It seriously is only going to get harder from here, and he is already wondering aloud why he can't just eat his waffles. I'm afraid that he doesn't have the backbone to see everything through, that he will fold under the pressure. I'm not saying that he WILL, but I really don't have any evidence that he WON'T. He hasn't been tested. I know that Hillary won't give in. For that matter, I know that despite his assyness McCain won't either. Which isn't necessarily a good thing. Obama? Who the fuck knows what is going to happen when his ideals and solutions come crashing down around him. When Congress returns them to him rejected. Is he going to be able to reach across and get something done? Is he capable of abandoning his dreams if they turn out to be too idealistic and making _something_ work in reality? I certainly hope so, if he is elected. I'd feel a hell of a lot more confident if he had some time and experience under his belt in the US Congress, especially in taking more of a leadership role there than he has thus far.

I totally agree. I gave way too much money to his initial run for congress because his voice was so exciting and new and different. but I don't believe that he can follow through. and it's not necessarily his fault that he can't, I just think he's young and naive. clinton is used to taking a beating from everyone around her - she can handle it. but ... obama? not sure. I'd like to believe he can, and I'll vote as if he can, but I'm definitely concerned. I need to see some gumption.

livetotravel

Isn't it curious that *"most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied." (*NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01poll.html

boygabriel

Barak’s waffle comments and Michelle being disappointed in America? Come on man. These are the 2008 versions of Al Gore’s sighing during the 2000 debate. I know we’re above soundbite arguments.

There are plenty of examples of Obama reaching across the aisle to get things done in the Illinois and the national Senate. Futhermore, plenty of great presidents have been elected without a long resume of serving national office.

I just don’t agree that Clinton and Obama’s resumes show this significant difference in ‘lessons learned that project to what it takes to be president’. When I look at it, the only significant thing that jumps out at me is that both of them pale in experience when compared to candidates like McCain, Gore, or Kerry. And I don’t find this to be a terribly important indicator of fitfulness for office anyway.

As far as I’m concerned, Obama has enough in his resume that based on what he’s presented in his campaign so far I believe he is more than fit for office.

Do I know exactly how he’s going to deal with adversity? No. But do I think there’s a greater guarantee that Hillary can overcome opposition and unite factions? Not in the least.

So Hillary faced 8 years of persecution for Bill's shortcomings? I hardly see any major implications that pacify concerns about fitfulness for office. I simply think the claims of "experience" and "dealing with adversity" are over-stated.

alafairnadia

Livetotravel wrote: Isn't it curious that *"most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied." (*NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01poll.html

I definitely don't buy that. these surveys are f'd. I know tons of folks on either side who won't vote for the other. I know a bunch of others who, while not happy about it, will vote for their not candidate if they must just to get a dem in office. the divide is, as far as I can tell, as follows:

people who hate clinton but love obama will not vote at all (or will vote some b.s. like green party) in november should clinton win the nomination.

people who are republicans but like the idea of a middle ground female president will vote clinton if she gets the nod, mccain if not. period.

on the obama supporting side, it's a cutting off the nose argument ... as it is on the mccain if no clinton side, since mccain doesn't share many values with clinton and never will given his fervor.

in any case, I've tried to sway the people I know with little to no success. kinda sucks.

livetotravel

This will be the first time a Senator has become president directly from the Senate since Kennedy. There's a reason for that. Senators have always been considered unsuitable for the presidency. After all, they have never really run anything except campaigns. Too bad there isn't a viable Governor candidate - maybe if this Dem thingy actually goes to the convention, one will emerge.

IMHO, the "experience" argument is simply a red herring.

daver

Livetotravel wrote: This will be the first time a Senator has become president directly from the Senate since Kennedy. There's a reason for that. Senators have always been considered unsuitable for the presidency. After all, they have never really run anything except campaigns. Too bad there isn't a viable Governor candidate - maybe if this Dem thingy actually goes to the convention, one will emerge.

I saw a quote the other day that said, "100 Senators and 50 Governors and this is the best they could come up with?"



Every time I read your sig I hear, "Me, fail English? That's unpossible!"

boygabriel

Livetotravel wrote: This will be the first time a Senator has become president directly from the Senate since Kennedy. There's a reason for that. Senators have always been considered unsuitable for the presidency. After all, they have never really run anything except campaigns. Too bad there isn't a viable Governor candidate - maybe if this Dem thingy actually goes to the convention, one will emerge.

IMHO, the "experience" argument is simply a red herring.

I agree, and I don't see the inherent logic in a governor being more fit for presidency than a senator. Senators have experience in national office that governors couldn't dream of.

There are advantages and drawbacks to both, IMO.

Barring a 35 year old reality tv star getting elected, the 'experience' thing definitely seems like a red herring. Especially with this group of candidates, who are all clearly fit for office, IMO

boygabriel

alafairnadia wrote: I definitely don't buy that. these surveys are f'd. I know tons of folks on either side who won't vote for the other.

I agree that the surveys are messed up, but I disagree with your second claim.

I'm dubious in general of people who say that 'if my democrat doesn't win the nomination, I'm not going to vote'. But even more than that, the hypothetical polls (IF it's X vs Y, who would you vote for?) have been pretty unreliable in this campaign.

If Democrat X loses, how many Democrats are really going to look at Dem Y next to John 'George Bush III' McCain and not vote for Dem Y? Give me a break.

Appointing two more Supreme Court Justices alone compels all Democrats and social liberals to vote along the party line. The balance of the Supreme court has at least as much importance (if not more) than a president who serves 4 or 8 years.