Obama '08?

snood wrote:

I just can't get past how incredulous Foxfyre seems about how far Obama gets on charm.

After all, Bush's biggest selling point, as I remember it, was his "likability".
Was she as diligent in cautioning about buying a pig in a poke, back then?

No. I think you're thinking of John Kerry's "unlikability". As in most categories; Bush is mediocre. Kerry lowered the bar. :wink:

I just can't get past how incredulous Foxfyre seems about how far Obama gets on charm.

After all, Bush's biggest selling point, as I remember it, was his "likability".
Was she as diligent in cautioning about buying a pig in a poke, back then?

snood wrote:

I just can't get past how incredulous Foxfyre seems about how far Obama gets on charm.

After all, Bush's biggest selling point, as I remember it, was his "likability".
Was she as diligent in cautioning about buying a pig in a poke, back then?

Now come on Snood. I thought we had sort of agreed on an unofficial truce. You could not possibly have read what I said in my last two posts and then say this. Show me where I have said anything about 'buying a pig in a poke' with caution or otherwise.

Foxfyre wrote:

snood wrote:

I just can't get past how incredulous Foxfyre seems about how far Obama gets on charm.

After all, Bush's biggest selling point, as I remember it, was his "likability".
Was she as diligent in cautioning about buying a pig in a poke, back then?

Now come on Snood. I thought we had sort of agreed on an unofficial truce. You could not possibly have read what I said in my last two posts and then say this. Show me where I have said anything about 'buying a pig in a poke' with caution or otherwise.

It shouldn't affect our truce - I said nothing offensive. The euphemism about a "pig in a poke" is used to refer to someone buying or accepting something without knowing about what it's really made of first. And isn't that what you're cautioning against, with Obama?

All I have said is that sooner or later most candidates have to begin focusing on HOW they will address the problems they see and/or WHAT they will actually do to implement the vision they offer to us. Their opponents will demand it. Obama is most likely going to have to do that. It is THEN that the skeptics will decide if they are voting for actual substance or just another pretty face and dynamic personality.

I don't think that is an unreasonable observation.

Foxfyre wrote:

All I have said is that sooner or later most candidates have to begin focusing on HOW they will address the problems they see and/or WHAT they will actually do to implement the vision they offer to us. Their opponents will demand it. Obama is most likely going to have to do that. It is THEN that the skeptics will decide if they are voting for actual substance or just another pretty face and dynamic personality.

... because, as the figure of speech goes, the skeptics aren't going to buy a pig in a poke.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think that is an unreasonable observation.

It isn't, and I don't think anyone disagrees with it.

If you could just steer yourself from the hyperbole (it's either bashing or oohs and aahhs), common ground is there. I don't think, nor have I said that you're bashing the guy. Only that you seem to be trying to stir doubt, whereas a conservative candidate with similar resume might not get the same scrutiny from you.

snood wrote:

If you could just steer yourself from the hyperbole (it's either bashing or oohs and aahhs), common ground is there. I don't think, nor have I said that you're bashing the guy. Only that you seem to be trying to stir doubt, whereas a conservative candidate with similar resume might not get the same scrutiny from you.

If you read all my posts, you would know better. Nor am I "trying to stir doubt". I am participating in a discussion that can either just be a cheer leading activity or actually discuss all aspects that will likely enter into a potential candidacy no matter who it is. The latter interests me. A cheerleading session doesn't. But that's just me.

Foxfyre wrote:

snood wrote:

If you could just steer yourself from the hyperbole (it's either bashing or oohs and aahhs), common ground is there. I don't think, nor have I said that you're bashing the guy. Only that you seem to be trying to stir doubt, whereas a conservative candidate with similar resume might not get the same scrutiny from you.

If you read all my posts, you would know better. Nor am I "trying to stir doubt". I am participating in a discussion that can either just be a cheer leading activity or actually discuss all aspects that will likely enter into a potential candidacy no matter who it is. The latter interests me. A cheerleading session doesn't. But that's just me.

I'm sure your intentions are unassailably objective in nature, but I hope you can understand that a thread entitled "Obama '08?", started by someone who intends to be active in his campaign should he run might tend to be favorable toward Obama, and thus you maybe will excuse any resemblance to "cheerleading".

So then we can count on your cessation of whining about the content of posts on the "Bush supporter's" thread?

So full of ultimatums, Foxfyre.

It doesn't have to be just cheerleading or bashing, and no one is saying it does.

My only quarrel is the assumption that anything other than cheerleading such as discussing any potential problems or concerns or negatives is portrayed as 'bashing' or 'creating doubt' or 'casting aspersions' or some other misplaced assumption.

Foxfyre wrote:

My only quarrel is the assumption that anything other than cheerleading such as discussing any potential problems or concerns or negatives is portrayed as 'bashing' or 'creating doubt' or 'casting aspersions' or some other misplaced assumption.

It would be a legitimate quarrel if that's what the Obama supporters in this thread did -- but it isn't. For what it's worth, Phoenix and I have both expressed a good deal of skepticism about Obama's program. None of the others reacted to this by accusing us of creating doubt or casting aspirations.