Obama '08?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No worse then Hillary. She can't bring herself to say Illegal Immigrant no matter how silly the sentences sound.

The drivers' license question and the moral aspect of the issue won it for Obama - amongst latinos, I guarantee.

Cycloptichorn

Clinton does have trouble keeping euphemisms for Illegal Immigrants on the tip of her tongue but she doesn't have too woo latinos the way Obama does.

How you and CJ could have seen things like integrity and morals in this debate is beyond me. I tend to think you're reflecting on your bias for Obama.

Um, on the drivers' license/illegal immigrant question Obama said 'to me, it's a moral issue.'

So, yeah. I'm only judging what he said, not that I think he's some sort of saint and came off that way in the debate.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt latinos were swayed by Obama saying, with look of sincerity on his face, that the licence issue is a moral matter for him, but you've guaranteed it, so I won't argue it further.

Finn - C'mon - Obama won the issue. During the debate.

Relax a little. And get used to the idea of seeing one of these two as president. It won't be all bad; just think of the opportunities it will afford you to use the sharp side of your tounge!

0 Replies

Look, Wolf is a f*cking dick who is constantly trying for Gotchas and bylines so that he has some relevancy tomorrow. Both candidates were right to confront him from time to time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I was struck by one particular comment Obama made relative to the issue of experience.

Predictably, having already defined himself as inspirational, he sought to define the role of president as chief inspirer. Fair enough. He does have the ability to inspire and that is an important role of the president, but in the same comment he seemed dismissive about the "nuts & bolts" requirements of the job.

Obviously he can't concede to Hillary Clinton that the executive role of the presidency is what is most important. That would be playing into her hands, but I would find him a more credible candidate if, rather than dismissing the obviously essential "nuts & bolts" aspect of the job, he tried to make a better case for himself and this role.

I just find it hard to believe he's going to be able to ride a idealistic High all the way to the White House.

It is somewhat amazing that a candidate with truly limited experience is able to make him assume, with seemingly little resistance, the role of the rookie phenom.

0 Replies

McCain said essentially the same thing - 'you don't have to be a great business manager to be president. I can hire as many managers as I need.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McCain insults us when he says that. What made this country great was not bureaucrats or politicians, it was businessmen and people that work in the private sector.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

McCain insults us when he says that. What made this country great was not bureaucrats or politicians, it was businessmen and people that work in the private sector.

Yeah f*cking right!

Name any of the businessmen and private sector folks from the period 1770-1820, the time period in which our national tenor and tone, the laws and traditions which make our country great, were developed.

You really kill me sometimes, Oke

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What matters how a president performs is his/her ability to pick the right folks to help him run the country; and have the intelligence to know how to make the right decisions.

0 Replies

You don't hire a Brown to run FEMA.

0 Replies

Who won the debate? Obama 68% Hillary 32%

www.Firedoglake.com

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
McCain insults us when he says that. What made this country great was not bureaucrats or politicians, it was businessmen and people that work in the private sector.

Yeah f*cking right!

Name any of the businessmen and private sector folks from the period 1770-1820, the time period in which our national tenor and tone, the laws and traditions which make our country great, were developed.

You really kill me sometimes, Oke

Cycloptichorn

Your above statement explains why you have the liberal politics you do. I happen to believe it is the people out here everyday working and taking care of their families that make this country what it is, not some mindless bureaucrat sitting in Washington.

Such ideas that I come up with, that mirror what the founders said, what Abraham Lincoln alluded to, what Eisenhower, Reagan, and others said, must be very foreign to your mind, cyclops. The government is nothing if we didn't make it something by our hard work. No big overbearing government using central planning ever succeeded in modern times, that I know of, cyclops. For the life of me, I am mystified at the utter stupidity and ignorance of liberal thinking, that you cannot grasp such simple concepts, that are actually central to the entire foundation of this country.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
McCain insults us when he says that. What made this country great was not bureaucrats or politicians, it was businessmen and people that work in the private sector.

Yeah f*cking right!

Name any of the businessmen and private sector folks from the period 1770-1820, the time period in which our national tenor and tone, the laws and traditions which make our country great, were developed.

You really kill me sometimes, Oke

Cycloptichorn

Your above statement explains why you have the liberal politics you do. I happen to believe it is the people out here everyday working and taking care of their families that make this country what it is, not some mindless bureaucrat sitting in Washington.

Such ideas that I come up with, that mirror what the founders said, what Abraham Lincoln alluded to, what Eisenhower, Reagan, and others said, must be very foreign to your mind, cyclops. The government is nothing if we didn't make it something by our hard work. No big overbearing government using central planning ever succeeded in modern times, that I know of, cyclops. For the life of me, I am mystified at the utter stupidity and ignorance of liberal thinking, that you cannot grasp such simple concepts, that are actually central to the entire foundation of this country.

The only thing that gave those business leaders the ability to do what they do was the vision and hard work of our founding fathers and early American heroes. You didn't answer my question, Okie, b/c you couldn't answer the question.

That you would call those who created the framework for success 'mindless bureaucrats is insulting and demeaning. You seem to put Rockefeller above Lincoln, Henry Ford above FDR, Bill Gates above JFK. My guess is that the vast majority of Americans disagree with your position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And McCain keeps making statements that tend to make me realize he really is made out of different cloth than a conservative that he claims to be. To see the debates is rather revealing. It is difficult to cloak your true identity during all of these debates. If McCain wins the nomination, I may hold my nose and vote for him, hoping we don't have something worse, and also hope the conservative support he will have to make concessions to win, will be able to control some of his most unwise inclinations. He has some issues right, but to be blunt, I don't think he is actually that smart and he wants power awfully bad, and he is arrogant to an extent, and he has a temper. I don't trust his judgement, and his temperament is not the kind that I prefer. But I think he loves this country, so that is at least something to vote for.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McCain said essentially the same thing - 'you don't have to be a great business manager to be president. I can hire as many managers as I need.'

Cycloptichorn

Not really.

McCain doesn't have the executive experience of Mitt Romney, and that's a weakness in his campaign, but Obama was not simply dismissive of the management aspect of the job, he included political/policy leadership. McCain has certainly proved he can formulate policy positions and drive them through Congress. If Clinton is seen as having an obvious edge in experience over Obama, McCain will dwarf him.

In any case, this isn't about whether or not he matchs up with McCain, He's not going to have to worry about that unless he outmatches Hillary Clinton.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only thing that gave those business leaders the ability to do what they do was the vision and hard work of our founding fathers and early American heroes. You didn't answer my question, Okie, b/c you couldn't answer the question.

That you would call those who created the framework for success 'mindless bureaucrats is insulting and demeaning. You seem to put Rockefeller above Lincoln, Henry Ford above FDR, Bill Gates above JFK. My guess is that the vast majority of Americans disagree with your position.

Cycloptichorn

I understand your point, the framework is needed to breed success, but the success is due to the hard work. Parents provide an atmosphere for children to either fail or succeed, and then it is up to the children to work for success. Parents is a poor parallel for government, but perhaps you get the picture. This country is built upon individual freedom to either succeed or fail, it is up to us. And for Mr. Washington insider, McCain to sit there and imply that somehow there is something wrong with private enterprise, is in fact an insult. Without it, his tax supported job in Washington would be zilche.

0 Replies

That's true - but as an Obama supporter, I couldn't be too much happier about how things are going for him these days.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I happen to hope Obama trounces Clinton, and we can hope the Clintons would leave us all alone for a change. I know that if Obama wins, you all are very confident, even confident with Clinton, against any Republican, but there is another ballgame to play. Obama has alot of upside, but he has alot of downside. Clinton is a known quantity. The Republicans are not going to sit here and take it sitting down. Well maybe many will if it is McCain.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only thing that gave those business leaders the ability to do what they do was the vision and hard work of our founding fathers and early American heroes. You didn't answer my question, Okie, b/c you couldn't answer the question.

That you would call those who created the framework for success 'mindless bureaucrats is insulting and demeaning. You seem to put Rockefeller above Lincoln, Henry Ford above FDR, Bill Gates above JFK. My guess is that the vast majority of Americans disagree with your position.

Cycloptichorn

Parents is a poor parallel for government, but perhaps you get the picture.

Especially when they don't learn their kidz good.

0 Replies

OK, so looks like things got better after I left!

I noticed the body language stuff too. General observation -- Hillary does much better in sit-down debates. She seems so much more comfortable and at ease. Obama does better in stand-ups. He's tall, he's got good posture, he can use his body and his arms more. When he sits he seems like he has to work harder to not just put his elbows on the table and look too casual. When he's standing he looks like he's already where he wants to be.

But his eyes are amazing. He looks to moderator, audience, moderator, and then down for effect, especially to convey deep thought. He holds the moderator's gaze for long stretches. All of this is very natural and comes across as very sincere. Hillary does this shifty-eyed thing that was much worse at the beginning but she still does, especially when it's a topic she's less comfortable with. Down-right, down-left, down-right UP down-left, down-right, UP. Comes across as very insincere.

It goes without saying that this is nothing to base support upon, but I agree that it's nonetheless an important aspect of communication, especially when the race is this close.

I'm glad Obama didn't lose, and that by at least one measure he won (I'd imagine the 68/32 thing is an outlier...)

0 Replies

One more general debate observation:

I think Obama has felt the need to be very, very careful with Hillary, because it's proven so politically dangerous to be "mean" to her in any way. I think that if it becomes one-on-one debates with McCain, for example, he'd be much more relaxed and much more dangerous. (That goes for any Republican candidate though really, not just McCain. I can imagine him being really scathing with Romney, too.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I noticed the body language stuff too. General observation -- Hillary does much better in sit-down debates. She seems so much more comfortable and at ease. Obama does better in stand-ups. He's tall, he's got good posture, he can use his body and his arms more. When he sits he seems like he has to work harder to not just put his elbows on the table and look too casual. When he's standing he looks like he's already where he wants to be.

One of the things that I have noticed is that many people are comparing Obama with John F. Kennedy. You are too young to remember this, but the word that was bandied about (ad nauseum) when Kennedy was in office was "charisma". He looked presidential, whatever that means. He had a presence that would have done him well at Central Casting.

I think that Obama has that same quality, and that may very well be a part to which people are responding.

After Hillary won the primary in Florida, there was a sound bite that the network ran over and over again. At the end of what she said, the timbre of her voice was raised to the point of screechiness. Personally, I think that although she was attempting to show enthusiasm for her win, IMO she came off as strident, and actually, very annoying.

As you know, I am not interested in either of those two candidates. But I do find it fascinating to watch as to how they capture and energize their audiences.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know