sozobe wrote:When I have more time, it can be diverting, but I'm busy enough that it's in the "so not worth it" bin.
Someday I'll do my bulldog impersonation and pursue an LSM unargument/ exercise in silliness 'til the bitter end...
Someday, when you are a lonely old woman who desperately seeks the only attention she can get by posting bile on the internet... Somehow, I think that someday wil be never in your case.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:What a surprise, I go away for the weekend and LSM is back to her old abusive self.
you were gone? I didn't notice.
You sure noticed I was back though, you posted one minute after I posted.
Roxxxanne wrote:sozobe wrote:When I have more time, it can be diverting, but I'm busy enough that it's in the "so not worth it" bin.
Someday I'll do my bulldog impersonation and pursue an LSM unargument/ exercise in silliness 'til the bitter end...
Someday, when you are a lonely old woman who desperately seeks the only attention she can get by posting bile on the internet... Somehow, I think that someday wil be never in your case.
When you become a lady then you will know what an old lady feels like. You sure don't act very lady like now do you.
Baldimo wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:sozobe wrote:When I have more time, it can be diverting, but I'm busy enough that it's in the "so not worth it" bin.
Someday I'll do my bulldog impersonation and pursue an LSM unargument/ exercise in silliness 'til the bitter end...
Someday, when you are a lonely old woman who desperately seeks the only attention she can get by posting bile on the internet... Somehow, I think that someday wil be never in your case.
When you become a lady then you will know what an old lady feels like. You sure don't act very lady like now do you.
Birds of a feather flock together. Your lame ad hominems have no effect on me and only demonstrate that you are not a gentleman.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
At away, Roxxxanne. I'm wid-u.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Who is Barack Obama?
Freshman Senator Barack Obama, whose youthful optimism, charisma and oratorical skills have thrust him into the Democratic presidential arena, has been in the Senate for less than two years. But he is already coming under fierce criticism ?- not from Republicans but from Democrats ?- for not having done anything to earn his fame.
The criticism come from Democratic strategists and analysts who like him and think he has great talent, but who nevertheless question his risk-adverse posture, his tendency to bob and weave to avoid controversy, to stick to
platitudes that endear him to his audiences but who is unwilling to lead on big issues and wage contentious battles.
"The national media is swooning over Obama, begging him to run for president. Yet, at the same time, they are implicitly acknowledging that he has actually not ?'developed significant legislative initiatives,'" writes David Sirota, a Democratic campaign strategist who helped anti-war liberal Ned Lamont defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary (only to lose to Lieberman who ran as an independent in the general election). "In other words, we are to simply accept that the Obama for President wave has absolutely nothing to do with anything that the man HAS DONE," Sirota recently wrote in his political Web site.
Obama "doesn't actually seem to aspire to anything outside of the Washington power structure (other than maybe running for another higher office), and doesn't seem to be interested in challenging the status quo in any
fundamental way. Using his Senate career as a guide, it suggests that any presidential run by him is about him, his speaking ability and his fawned over talent for ?'connecting' (whatever the hell that means)," he writes.
Earlier this month, Ezra Klein, a writer for the liberal American Prospect magazine, went even further in an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times.
Acknowledging that "Obama is easily more intelligent, sophisticated and charismatic than 99 percent of the politicians I've come across," he urges Democrats to "take a deep breath. Despite Obama's undeniable magnetism and star power, he's not your guy. Not yet."
"Given his national profile and formidable political talents, he could have been a potent spokesman for Democratic causes in the Senate. Instead, he has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue
" Klein writes.
"Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt."
But the Democrats, to judge from the impressive crowds Obama draws to his appearances, are praising him to the hilt and many are ready to lift him to the presidency and the leader of the free world in 2008 ?- as a fresh face
with an inspiring, uplifting message that speaks to "the audacity of hope," to quote from the title of his bestselling book.
The news media are part and parcel of the Obama hype-job. It reminds me of the uncritical, fawning (a term that a top Democratic official used) articles written about North Carolina Sen. John Edwards who aspired to the presidency in 2004, despite less than a single term in office without any serious legislative accomplishments to speak of. Democrats weren't ready to elect him president, but they did make him the vice presidential nominee who would have been a heartbeat from the presidency.
Obama says he will be run through the long presidential primary cycle and people can make up their own minds if, that is, he decides to run. But that begs the question about how someone with no real experience in the business of lawmaking, in national security issues, or someone with not a bit of executive experience as, say, a governor, is even thinking about a presidential candidacy.
?- Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent, The Washington Times
How often has political pundits been right on anything? Having said that, it's good to hear all areas of concern about Obama now rather than later. How many presidents turned out good to great after having no "experience" of the sort being detailed by these pundits? Does anybody know? I'm really curious.
Also, how did George W Bush's experience help him?
Bush had no foreign policy experience but more importantly, no foreign policy expertise. Obama has foreign policy expertise, tons of it , as well as the good judgement to surround himself with expert advisors and the willingness to seek out a consensus.
Re: Which Will Hurt Obama The Most
woiyo wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:His chain smoking, his race, or his name, Barak Hussein Obama?
Each of those are a negative in some circles.
Since I'm a smoker, I understand that habit, my family looks like the UN, so his race isn't a problem, now that name, oooh, I might have a peoblem with that.
An objective observer would place his political beliefs ahead of anything you listed.
Thanks for that Woiyo. Its not the first time you've been the one to showcase that one can be a strident conservative and a decent, level-headed person too. No-nonsense, I like that.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Zippo wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:LSM- Just look at the title of your thread. Just the way you have couched the question, shows your bias, loud and clear.
It's obvious that she (LSM) doesn't want Obama to succeed as President and some people (like me) don't want Bush as President. Whats the problem ?
Shhhh, I'm having fun, let them hiss & spit to their hearts content, it's easier for them than saying anything worthwhile.
"For them"? See below..
LoneStarMadam wrote:Baldimo wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:
Possible. But this is the first time that I have heard so much psychologizing about a possible candidate. Whew, I am sure that PLENTY could have been inferred about some of the former occupants of the White House. But why now? Is it because deep down inside, some of you think that Obama might have a good chance at the presidency, and are scared shitless about that possibility?
I have the perception that some of you are reflecting more about your OWN feelings, than anything that is a reality with Obama.
You must not have been around during the 2000 and 2004 elections. Bush seemed to be on the couch both times and it wasn't anything nice being said. Funny how you see these things when it effects someone you like.
Remember the "all hat & no cattle"? Then he was elected & re-elected, good or bad, more people than not voted for him in his re-election & had Bush done re-counts in the states that were close, he would probably have gotten the popular vote in the first election as well. Bill Clinton was pilloried a lot, he gave the republicans the ammunition to pillory him & the dems went nuts, now that Bush is being pilloried, well, everyone is just supposed to agree with every dastardly thing said against him, if you don't then it's because you're stupid, uneducated, or just not fit to breathe the same air as the holier than thou liberals....some at least.
"Holier than thou liberals"?
Note to LSM - Phoenix voted Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
Roxxxanne wrote:Bush had no foreign policy experience but more importantly, no foreign policy expertise. Obama has foreign policy expertise, tons of it , as well as the good judgement to surround himself with expert advisors and the willingness to seek out a consensus.
What foriegn policy experience would that be?
In LSM's, urr, defence -- there is, incredibly, much,
much worse and implausible out there ...
... and it's on CNN. (What was that about liberal media again?)
Quote:AND HAVE WE MENTIONED HIS MIDDLE NAME?:
Good lord. Via Josh Marshall,
here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield "analyzing" Obama's decision to go without a tie:
The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what's getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie. ...
But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable. ...
Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads?
That's cute. They might've also noted that Obama likes movies... just like Kim Jong Il! I'd declare this a low point in CNN's political coverage, but I'm worried someone will find a counterexample. What this does suggest, though, is this. Democrats often fret about finding a presidential candidate who won't get mocked, skewered, and otherwise unfairly tarred by the media the way
Al Gore was in 2000. But I can't think of a single Democratic candidate who won't receive this sort of treatment on some level. Obama was supposed to be the media darling. But if the kids want to throw spitballs from the back of class, there's not much stopping them.
Haven't you heard, Nimh? I'm a liberal too!
Zippo wrote:There is nothing wrong with criticizing people names/religions. Especially if they have a chance of becoming America's future president. LoneStarMadam is completely faultless. However, what i would really like to know is, why people don't do the same with Jewish names in powerful government positions ?
Double Standards ?
Dennis Miller commented that Joe Lieberman's campaign wasn't gaining much steam because people kept mispronouncing his name "Jew Jewberman". Why would you want to see more ridicule of Jewish names in powerful government postions anyway?
sozobe wrote:
Gosh, this is shading into the surreal.
Your topic title is which one will hurt him MOST. Inherent in that -- they'll all hurt him, to varying degrees. Inherent in
that -- as factors that will hurt him to varying degrees, they're all negative.
Gotta disagree with you there, Soz. Too many threads like this, and superficial crap like this in general may very well force me to throw my vote Obama's way... just out of a sense of fair play (Outside of Giuliani or McCain, at this juncture, he's probably going to get it anyway.).
nimh wrote:In LSM's, urr, defence -- there is, incredibly, much,
much worse and implausible out there ...
... and it's on CNN. (What was that about liberal media again?)
Quote:AND HAVE WE MENTIONED HIS MIDDLE NAME?:
Good lord. Via Josh Marshall,
here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield "analyzing" Obama's decision to go without a tie:
The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what's getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie. ...
But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable. ...
Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads?
That's cute. They might've also noted that Obama likes movies... just like Kim Jong Il! I'd declare this a low point in CNN's political coverage, but I'm worried someone will find a counterexample. What this does suggest, though, is this. Democrats often fret about finding a presidential candidate who won't get mocked, skewered, and otherwise unfairly tarred by the media the way
Al Gore was in 2000. But I can't think of a single Democratic candidate who won't receive this sort of treatment on some level. Obama was supposed to be the media darling. But if the kids want to throw spitballs from the back of class, there's not much stopping them.
oh dear god
if i was an american, i'd find the no tie a plus, the ties haven't really done much to make the country that great, maybe an open collar is worth a shot
nimh I said at least some liberals, you decide which camp you're in, I just read & watch & decide who I think is holier than thou.
McGentrix wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Bush had no foreign policy experience but more importantly, no foreign policy expertise. Obama has foreign policy expertise, tons of it , as well as the good judgement to surround himself with expert advisors and the willingness to seek out a consensus.
What foriegn policy experience would that be?
I suggest you re-read the post.
LoneStarMadam wrote:nimh I said at least some liberals, you decide which camp you're in, I just read & watch & decide who I think is holier than thou.
Oh, I'm more than a liberal - I'm a leftist.
But in those two posts, you sure seemed to automatically classify Phoenix as a liberal - which was rather silly, considering her political views and voting record.
The issue in the background here, of course, is that your definition of liberal appears to be, "anyone who criticizes me". O'Bill, Phoenix - all you need is a sign or two that someone doesnt go along with your talk radio-style political bashing games and - presto - they must be liberals.
Typical, really. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you dont support the Bush line on Iraq, you're supporting the terrorists. "Which
camp are you in?", indeed - in your world, there's just "ours" and "theirs".
This mindset, of course, is exactly what had you guys lose the elections; it ended up the perfect way to repell independent voters who'd still gone Bush in 00 or 04 - like Phoenix and O'Bill, for example.
As a leftwinger I'd say, keep up the good work. Get your Brownback, Hunter, Rice or Romney nominated in '08, and end up a bitter minority.
Or Gingrich, that would be a laugh...
