Which Will Hurt Obama The Most

Thomas wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I still have never been told by anyone what, outside of personalities and the fact she voted for the Iraq war, is so wrong with Hillary.

A miracle just occured. Bear and I totally agree. Now I believe in God again.

The Truth About Hillary

Interview with the guy that wrote the book.

0 Replies

LSM wrote:

Glad that you haven't endorsed anyone yet, cause so far, I can't see any president among the horde that's running.

A lot can happen between now and the fall of 2008. I want to see what is happening in the mddle east, and what the geniuses who are running plan to do to keep the terrorists in their own neck of the woods, and out of our backyards.

To me, the security of the US is the most important issue. The economy is next. Again, I will have to see what is doing at that time, before I make a decision.

Personal freedom is very important to me. I would not want to vote for anyone ever again who would attempt to restrict the reproductive rights of women, or divvy up tax money to religious groups. I want to see our scientists free to pursue their art with unfettered hands.

Then again, it is a matter of priorities. I still don't think that there is that rare individual who thinks like me, is also running for the presidency, and has a chance to win. I don't believe in protest votes. IMO, if you vote for a person whom you know does not have a snowball's chance in hell to win, you are wasting your vote.

I have a feeling that, for me, it is going to be the "least worst" all over again!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Given that, I really think you guys ought to reconsider how Hillary might look in this new situation.

No need. The woman is disliked more than her politics by too many people from both sides of the spectrum. On top of that; her stand out point is pretending to be a hawk, which is the least popular position of the opposition right now. She'll get tarred and feathered in the primaries by fellow Democrats for this and if she survives that she'll be destroyed by the Republicans for being a phony and a crook. Her investment history is simply too consistently too good for anyone to have accomplished it without cheating.

You answered your own question, Bear. I'll bold the appropriate spots.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I still have never been told by anyone what, outside of personalities and the fact she voted for the Iraq war, is so wrong with Hillary.

All I ever get in return is personality stuff and how unlikable she is and how she's a liberal if you talk to repubs and a repub in disguise if you talk to democrats.

She's a poser, believed by too few.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Meanwhile she's done a great job as a Senator by all accounts I've read and no one seems to be able to find anything negative to say about her of substance without dredging up old business from her past.

That's not going away. Kenneth Star's incompetence doesn't change perception.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Show me why she's such a **** candidate please and show me something besides being married to Bill, or her appearance or demeanor.

She is married to Bill and she'll always look like a dim bulb in his shadow.

0 Replies

All good reasons for a presidential choice Phoenix, we differ on a couple of things, but that's what's great, we can differ.
I have been guilty of voting for the least of two evils & say that I won't do that everytime I get ready to vote, then I do it again. I am so tired of not having good choices. Of course, it's difficult when all we seem to be offered is a doofus & a know nothing. Since the presidential race in 2008 will be wide open, no VP running, it'll be interesting.

0 Replies

Bill wrote:

She is married to Bill and she'll always look like a dim bulb in his shadow.

I dunno. To my mind, she has always been "the power behind the throne". I have always been interested in the dynamics of that very strange relationship. I think that it is Hillary who is the political genius in that couple.

0 Replies

Is there anyone out there who believes as I do, that America would be better without its tit-for-tat, bi-polar politics?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Is there anyone out there who believes as I do, that America would be better without its tit-for-tat, bi-polar politics?

Sure, but we are so mired in the adversarial kind of politics, that it would take a new generation to take us out of that mindset.

0 Replies

Like, um, a certain guy whose initials are BHO... :-D (And yes, that's specifically a reason I like him a lot.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Like, um, a certain guy whose initials are BHO... :-D (And yes, that's specifically a reason I like him a lot.)

I didn't want to write that Soz, but I thought it. I AM concerned though, that he might be a bit too far to the left of me, on economic issues. Let's wait and see what shakes out!

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Is there anyone out there who believes as I do, that America would be better without its tit-for-tat, bi-polar politics?

If it weren't for the tit for tat, they might actually get something done.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

McTag wrote:
Is there anyone out there who believes as I do, that America would be better without its tit-for-tat, bi-polar politics?

If it weren't for the tit for tat, they might actually get something done.

Now that's a scary thought, "getting something done" is rarely in the best interests of the US of A.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

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.

The biggest problem I have with him is once again his lack of experience in politics. I didn't see a post with his experience in it. He sounds like a great guy has the ability to address groups of people and he speaks well. But it takes more then that to be president.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Bill wrote:
She is married to Bill and she'll always look like a dim bulb in his shadow.

I dunno. To my mind, she has always been "the power behind the throne". I have always been interested in the dynamics of that very strange relationship. I think that it is Hillary who is the political genius in that couple.

I was referring more to perception in that assessment. Look at the last DNC for an example. Hillary sounded okay, while Bill shook the room and made everyone take pause. "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values". I have little doubt that if they had switched speeches, he still would have delivered the better one. You can't teach that kind of charisma. Bill's got it. Hill doesn't.

(Got that on a hot key yet Soz? :wink: )

0 Replies

Bill- I think that you are right about the "charisma" that Bill has. But that is exactly my point. I think that Hillary knows the ins and outs of political manipulating, while Bill is great out in public.

I have always had the perception that this combined "duality" (for want to a better expression) is what keeps those two strange birds together, as a couple. I think that they know that they need each other, politically.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
McTag wrote:
Is there anyone out there who believes as I do, that America would be better without its tit-for-tat, bi-polar politics?

If it weren't for the tit for tat, they might actually get something done.

Now that's a scary thought, "getting something done" is rarely in the best interests of the US of A.

You do have a point, I always feel safer when they're out of session.

0 Replies

Which Will Hurt Obama The Most

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know