It's early yet, but I'm starting to wonder if another option should have been on this poll:
A net positive; an opportunity for Obama to refocus his campaign and demonstrate his mettle.
It's definitely to his credit that he handles these things so well.
It shouldnt have any affect on his campaign.
That isnt saying it wont, but it shouldnt.
IMHO, the whole thing is a non-issue,being seized upon by those looking for reasons to dislike him.
While I dont think that Obama is ready to be President YET, I do think that holding him accountable for what his pastor said or didnt say is silly.
We all have friends that say or do things we dont like, but that doesnt mean we dont keep them as friends.
IMHO its much ado about nothing.
I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
FreeDuck wrote:I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
I think he needs to stay a full term in the Senate, and maybe get some more foreign policy experience first.
FreeDuck wrote:I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
I have never been more convinced of that than I am now after hearing that speech. If he is not ready, no one is.
mysteryman wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
I think he needs to stay a full term in the Senate, and maybe get some more foreign policy experience first.
Uh, you don't get much foreign policy experience in the Senate. I mean, maybe a crumb here or there. But you don't make decisions.
Cycloptichorn
mysteryman wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
I think he needs to stay a full term in the Senate, and maybe get some more foreign policy experience first.
It's just a hunch, of course, but I have a feeling that staying in the senate too long can make you think and talk too much like a lawyer. I'm afraid that too much senatorial experience would yield another John Kerry, and nobody wants that. But I see where you're coming from.
Cycloptichorn wrote:mysteryman wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I agree with you, MM (except for that part about him not being ready YET -- I think he is).
I think he needs to stay a full term in the Senate, and maybe get some more foreign policy experience first.
Uh, you don't get much foreign policy experience in the Senate. I mean, maybe a crumb here or there. But you don't make decisions.
Cycloptichorn
I realize that, I guess I wasnt clear.
IMHO, he needs to get some more foreign policy experience, because I think some of his ideas along that line are a little dangerous.
I also think he needs to serve a full term (at least 1) so that he can have a better idea of how things are done.
I realize he wants to change how things are done, but that isnt going to happen overnight.
He needs to learn what it takes to get things done, because otherwise he might not get anything accomplished that he wants to.
blatham wrote:
I think that the 'change' theme can be understood in several ways. First, it's simply a necessary element in any campaign theme (other than in very good times which these aren't). Second, it seems pretty damned necessary, when things are this rocky in so many ways, to actually MEAN it, rather than just use it as a campaign tool,... Today's speech should have filled in a number of large blanks for you as regards what he has in mind. For details, you could turn to his web site.
But again, I'm pleased with your response. Even Rove acknowledges that Obama is a historic candidate and he didn't describe Jesse Jackson that way
I'm a bit weary of the repeated suggestions by Obama supporters that one refer to his web site for the details of the "change" he so earnestly seeks. This IS a serious defect in his political rhetoric and campaign. It leaves me with doubts about what he might realy be.
Interesting isn't it that now that he can routinely appear in the public media as a political analyst, Rove surprises us all by appearing to be more Dr Jekyl than Mr. Hyde.
blatham wrote:
Best wishes and may your stock portfolio be heavily invested elsewhere than the US.
Well it is down about 10% since Oct. but, given the 37% growth I experienced in the preceeding 12 months, I won't complain.
About 1/3rd in International stocks - which, given the declining dollar, has indeed softened the ride lately.
FreeDuck wrote:It's just a hunch, of course, but I have a feeling that staying in the senate too long can make you think and talk too much like a lawyer.
And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?
Obama talks about policy specifics in his speeches and appearances all the time, George. You just don't bother to listen to what he actually says. I would suggest giving it a try.
Cycloptichorn
Ticomaya wrote:FreeDuck wrote:It's just a hunch, of course, but I have a feeling that staying in the senate too long can make you think and talk too much like a lawyer.
And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means you weren't a lawyer before you were lawyer. :wink:
I'm not sure if george is asking about policy specifics.
My take on the change he spoke about in today's speech is more a widespread cultural change, maybe. Something along the lines of changing how we look at things and not letting the same old polarizations dictate what we can and can't do. A popular change, if you will. I don't think he's saying he'll change it but that we'll change it. I'm sure it all sounds rather kumbaya to you, but it needed to be said. He's appealing to our better natures and asking us to not let ourselves be spun up by politicians and pundits using our biases and fears to divide us. And that would be a change from every election that I can remember.
The change theme applies to many things, so perhaps I'm not understanding george at all, but that's my opinion.
george said:
Quote:I'm a bit weary of the repeated suggestions by Obama supporters that one refer to his web site for the details of the "change" he so earnestly seeks. This IS a serious defect in his political rhetoric and campaign. It leaves me with doubts about what he might realy be. It is doubly frustrating in view of the serious nature of his candidacy & campaign.
I'm perplexed as to why this might upset you. The modern political realities (if not eternal realities) are that you say only as much as you have to to avoid problems up the road. So there's nothing unique about this candidate herein. And there is much information available (at the site and elsewhere, likewise with the other candidates) if one wants to persue it. Perhaps you are ill at ease with others placing their hope or trust in this candidate while remaining insufficiently educated on policies, but again, that's very obviously the norm.
Quote:Interesting isn't it that now that he can routinely appear in the public media as a political analyst, Rove surprises us all by appearing to be more Dr Jekyl than Mr. Hyde.
The sun still lingers above the chimney pots. Very briefly, the night will be rent with screams and the gutters o'erflowing with the best blood the world has to offer.
Bernie, I'll concede that, because his political record on National issues is so scanty, I probably want/demand more information from Obama that I do the other candidates. I'm probably also applying a higher standard to Obama than to some of the others -- for example Hillary's ever evolving answer to the Iraq question is merely an ever updated, classically constructed Clintonian triangulation -- not very satisfying, but I have long since stopped expecting more from her on it.
My eyes glaze over with the details of the competing Health Care plans, knowing as I do that the vested interests have not yet done their work (which the surely will do) through the Congress.
On international relations - an area in which, just in the natural play of the cards, we know the least about Obama's strategic thinking, he has, sadly in my view, remained particularly silent. There are a number of "third rails" out there that the other candidates, gifted with longer experience, have spent years avoiding in any meaningful way, despite numerous oportunities to be specific. These tend to be the areas where the greatest natural contradictions in our strategic interests lie; Israel & the Middle East; the distemper that infects a resurgent Islamic World; the growing divide between the natural strategic interests of this country and Europe. I can understand what may be his reluctance to just jump in these troubled waters. However, perhaps you can understand my frustration that he has not chosen to do so.
However, even on other less dangerous issues, such as Free Trade, Energy Policy, he has either chosen to remain silent on the serious, controversial issues, limiting himself to a mere recital of the whole list of green energy platitudes; or in the case of NAFTA to what appears to have been a very cynical pandering to retrogate and truly destructive views.
When will people learn: CONSERVATIVES AREN'T FUNNY!
joefromchicago wrote:
When will people learn: CONSERVATIVES AREN'T FUNNY!
No ****! You know nappyslut is done when this "person" resorts to posting that crap.
