USA Presidential Politics - 2008 - Page 555

roni · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

Do you support that stopping press questions just cause Barack didn't like the questions he was a-getting?

**ryberg** · 03-03-2008

**sctx** · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by roni

Those Scouts are anti-gay. I am sure neither of them support that.

but they balance that by being anti-chick

Just Lucky · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by roni

I don't know that his competition was ever in the Scouts. I don't know that Obama was either.

Those Scouts are anti-gay. I am sure neither of them support that.

The current Governor of Texas has been gay bashing in order to promote his new book about the Boy Scouts. Just wait till the powers to be decide he should be President!

I am unhappy with the lack of critical reporting being done by the media on the candidates. They should be digging up and exposing all the dirt now, before the general election. I sense a certain bias in favor of both Obama and McCain in the media. I think it is quite unhealthy.

Presidential and candidate news conferences and questions should be, in my opinion, grueling.

roni · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

Answer the question, Senator!

melliedee · 03-03-2008

**ryberg** · 03-03-2008

That line didn't work on you, nor have you heeded your own warning re bashing, so... well...

Steve

**sctx** · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by melliedee

no thanks, just had 3 bowls of seafood gumbo

roni · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

That line didn't work on you, nor have you heeded your own warning re bashing, so... well...

Steve

Bashing. I am unaware of it. I have merely posted questions that have been raised and my mine muse's musings about today.

I take great umbrage, dear sir, at your statement!

jtm1631 · 03-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by roni

Bashing. I am unaware of it. I have merely posted questions that have been raised and my mine muse's musings about today.

I take great umbrage, dear sir, at your statement!

That is laughable.

**ryberg** · 03-03-2008

Well here's what I believe. And I know I don't have to soften this much because Roni won't read anything nearly this long from me, but nevertheless, I'll try to be positive and fair, here.

I believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate of either party left in this race, in large part because he's the only one who truly offers a different opportunity to this country. I agree with jtm that he may not be able to accomplish half of what he and his campaign may discuss or may think he can accomplish, but that's still much better than the old way. (His health care plan passing, just to show this this also applies to specific examples, would be a whole lot better than Clinton's failing to pass.) So as I said to Jacko, Obama's civil, open and unifying approach to government is to our constantly bickering and partisan current model like Pascal's Wager to a dead man: why wouldn't you take it?

The first suggestion that has been made in an attempt to answer that question is that he is too inexperienced. Well, first of all, experience is not the point, unless it's the negative point. If experience is that sort of bickering partisanship, we can do without it, thank you. And experience is also not the point according to history, which presents us terrific, inexperienced and awful, experienced presidents. Furthermore, Obama's experience is not limited to a speech in 2002, as the Clinton campaign now tries to misinform people. It is better than people think, and none of the candidates in the race (except for Huckabee, who mathematically cannot be counted here) has the kind of executive experience usually called for in these situations, anyway. In particular, Clinton's experience is way overblown -- Obama has more years as an elected official than she does, she did not even have high-level security clearance during her husband's administrations and so was not in any meetings of that sort, she certainly never had to answer the red phone at 3 am, and the biggest thing she handled, their health care program, was a miserable failure, a fact which many attribute to her poor management of it. Her campaign is widely seen as a remarkable failure of management, as well, and McCain's doesn't look much better, both of them making Obama's executive/management ability look all the better.

That not having gotten much traction, the second response was then made that he is all pretty words -- sometimes stolen from others, no less -- and no action. This is naturally the suggestion made by those who cannot conceive of more than perfunctory roles to play in the system, who are not inspired themselves, and who don't have much ability to inspire, something he obviously does have (look at just the hordes of young people getting active in his campaign, the huge crowds he draws and the tremendous success at fund-raising directly from the people, for 3 objective indications of that). Words do matter, as does inspiration, more than in any other case in the choosing a leader. That other candidates in a leadership campaign don't understand this only betrays their woeful lack of connection with the people and what real leadership requires. If they had the same ability, they'd hardly be criticizing him for his. As Lewis said, something's happening in this country, and Obama (unlike they) has tapped into it and is helping focus it and bring it together. They just don't have that ability, so they try to make it look bad or unimportant in him (even despite Bill Clinton (the Man from Hope)'s same approach in '92).

These first two responses having largely failed, the third suggestion is now made that he'll be found to be dirty in some respect or other. While there are undoubtedly going to be negatives found in his past and brought to light that we haven't seen yet, he's got nothing on Clinton in this regard, and even McCain already looks bad next to him, especially given his own self-contradictions (the lobbyist/anti-lobbyist thing, campaign financing issues, Hagee, even things like calling Chelsea ugly). You will have to work hard to sell to the public that this latest attempt to knock down and sully him is more based in reality than in the desperate hope that slinging enough of this at him will finally result in some improvement for the slingers.

And none of these responses explain away the simplest questions about his opponents, for example, the support of both of them for the misguided invasion of Iraq, arguably the worst foreign policy blunder on the part of the United States since Vietnam. One now says she'd like to go back in time and change her vote for that disaster, while the other says that's all in the past and we shouldn't focus on it.

Or for example, how is Clinton's health care plan going to enforce the mandate for those who don't pay? (Answer the question, Senator!

)

My feeling is -- and this reflects my hope that it will continue, as well -- significant swaths of the public are seeing these attempts for the same old politics and usual crap that they are and are focusing instead on whether we can get this country to a better place, a less divided, more promising place, in the future. And that that is what is behind Obama's very improbable candidacy reaching this stage. Far from a failure for him to sweep tomorrow indicating some sort of questioning on the part of the public about his candidacy, the other candidates should be recognizing that his position already is precisely a profoundly clear statement in favor of the unified and dignified approach he espouses and a condemnation of these old politics and of those who practice them.

And with that, I thank you for your time and the opportunity and I will see you on the other side.

Steve

Jacko · 03-04-2008

That certainly all makes a lot of sense to me!

(granted that I am already with Obama and not for Hillary, for those exact reasons..and a few more..!

) Having said that, I will most happily and enhusiastically support Hillary in opposition to McCain should she win the Democratic nomination.

I would be most interested in reading a comparable and similarly well thought-out summary of the issues and answers from a Hillary supporter.

And I am glad you got that out there under the wire before the start of voting today as I know we have significant contingents on the forum that come from these states...

**sctx** · 03-04-2008

Hillary is gaining the pity vote from many Republicans in texas.... including Lil G

Jacko · 03-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

Hillary is gaining the pity vote from many Republicans in texas.... including Lil G

Has she been listening to Rush?

..He wants to try to upset the Democratic applecart by asking his minions to drag out the Democratic nomination by asking them to vote for Hillary. He figures why waste their vote without doing some mishchief as he absolutely hates McCain.....I just cannot figure out why all those Republicans listen to Limbaugh....he seems a rather nasty fellow to me.

roni · 03-04-2008

My position has been that Obama is a politician.

Last time I checked he was.

People should not be surprised when he acts like one and has many of the same strengths and failings that befall that professional class.

He may be the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Like the overwhelming majority of Democrats, I will be delighted with the nomination of either of the remaining candidates. I do not believe that one is morally or politically superior to the other.

I am profoundly suspicious of things that smack of movements. There is quite a bit of Obama's stuff that smacks of a movement.

03-03-2008	#8321 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: wandering between the Village Vanguard, NYC, 1961 and the Plugged Nickel, Chicago, 1965 Posts: 10,488	Well here's what I believe. And I know I don't have to soften this much because Roni won't read anything nearly this long from me, but nevertheless, I'll try to be positive and fair, here. I believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate of either party left in this race, in large part because he's the only one who truly offers a different opportunity to this country. I agree with jtm that he may not be able to accomplish half of what he and his campaign may discuss or may think he can accomplish, but that's still much better than the old way. (His health care plan passing, just to show this this also applies to specific examples, would be a whole lot better than Clinton's failing to pass.) So as I said to Jacko, Obama's civil, open and unifying approach to government is to our constantly bickering and partisan current model like Pascal's Wager to a dead man: why wouldn't you take it? The first suggestion that has been made in an attempt to answer that question is that he is too inexperienced. Well, first of all, experience is not the point, unless it's the negative point. If experience is that sort of bickering partisanship, we can do without it, thank you. And experience is also not the point according to history, which presents us terrific, inexperienced and awful, experienced presidents. Furthermore, Obama's experience is not limited to a speech in 2002, as the Clinton campaign now tries to misinform people. It is better than people think, and none of the candidates in the race (except for Huckabee, who mathematically cannot be counted here) has the kind of executive experience usually called for in these situations, anyway. In particular, Clinton's experience is way overblown -- Obama has more years as an elected official than she does, she did not even have high-level security clearance during her husband's administrations and so was not in any meetings of that sort, she certainly never had to answer the red phone at 3 am, and the biggest thing she handled, their health care program, was a miserable failure, a fact which many attribute to her poor management of it. Her campaign is widely seen as a remarkable failure of management, as well, and McCain's doesn't look much better, both of them making Obama's executive/management ability look all the better. That not having gotten much traction, the second response was then made that he is all pretty words -- sometimes stolen from others, no less -- and no action. This is naturally the suggestion made by those who cannot conceive of more than perfunctory roles to play in the system, who are not inspired themselves, and who don't have much ability to inspire, something he obviously does have (look at just the hordes of young people getting active in his campaign, the huge crowds he draws and the tremendous success at fund-raising directly from the people, for 3 objective indications of that). Words do matter, as does inspiration, more than in any other case in the choosing a leader. That other candidates in a leadership campaign don't understand this only betrays their woeful lack of connection with the people and what real leadership requires. If they had the same ability, they'd hardly be criticizing him for his. As Lewis said, something's happening in this country, and Obama (unlike they) has tapped into it and is helping focus it and bring it together. They just don't have that ability, so they try to make it look bad or unimportant in him (even despite Bill Clinton (the Man from Hope)'s same approach in '92). These first two responses having largely failed, the third suggestion is now made that he'll be found to be dirty in some respect or other. While there are undoubtedly going to be negatives found in his past and brought to light that we haven't seen yet, he's got nothing on Clinton in this regard, and even McCain already looks bad next to him, especially given his own self-contradictions (the lobbyist/anti-lobbyist thing, campaign financing issues, Hagee, even things like calling Chelsea ugly). You will have to work hard to sell to the public that this latest attempt to knock down and sully him is more based in reality than in the desperate hope that slinging enough of this at him will finally result in some improvement for the slingers. And none of these responses explain away the simplest questions about his opponents, for example, the support of both of them for the misguided invasion of Iraq, arguably the worst foreign policy blunder on the part of the United States since Vietnam. One now says she'd like to go back in time and change her vote for that disaster, while the other says that's all in the past and we shouldn't focus on it. Or for example, how is Clinton's health care plan going to enforce the mandate for those who don't pay? (Answer the question, Senator! ) My feeling is -- and this reflects my hope that it will continue, as well -- significant swaths of the public are seeing these attempts for the same old politics and usual crap that they are and are focusing instead on whether we can get this country to a better place, a less divided, more promising place, in the future. And that that is what is behind Obama's very improbable candidacy reaching this stage. Far from a failure for him to sweep tomorrow indicating some sort of questioning on the part of the public about his candidacy, the other candidates should be recognizing that his position already is precisely a profoundly clear statement in favor of the unified and dignified approach he espouses and a condemnation of these old politics and of those who practice them. And with that, I thank you for your time and the opportunity and I will see you on the other side. Steve __________________ Stephen Ryberg *Playa Maya: Your beachfront home* Of late focused on and of course Last edited by ryberg : 03-03-2008 at 09:30 PM.

03-04-2008	#8322 (permalink)
Jacko añejo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 17,980	That certainly all makes a lot of sense to me! (granted that I am already with Obama and not for Hillary, for those exact reasons..and a few more..!) Having said that, I will most happily and enhusiastically support Hillary in opposition to McCain should she win the Democratic nomination. I would be most interested in reading a comparable and similarly well thought-out summary of the issues and answers from a Hillary supporter. And I am glad you got that out there under the wire before the start of voting today as I know we have significant contingents on the forum that come from these states... Last edited by Jacko : 03-04-2008 at 06:07 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

03-03-2008	#8312 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: wandering between the Village Vanguard, NYC, 1961 and the Plugged Nickel, Chicago, 1965 Posts: 10,488

03-03-2008	#8316 (permalink)
melliedee añejo Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toledo, OH Posts: 3,624

03-03-2008	#8317 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: wandering between the Village Vanguard, NYC, 1961 and the Plugged Nickel, Chicago, 1965 Posts: 10,488	That line didn't work on you, nor have you heeded your own warning re bashing, so... well... Steve

03-04-2008	#8323 (permalink)
sctx political anarchist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Body in San Marcos Tx....Tankah in my mind Posts: 27,161	Hillary is gaining the pity vote from many Republicans in texas.... including Lil G

03-04-2008	#8325 (permalink)
roni Happy Curmudgeon Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 25,496	My position has been that Obama is a politician. Last time I checked he was. People should not be surprised when he acts like one and has many of the same strengths and failings that befall that professional class. He may be the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Like the overwhelming majority of Democrats, I will be delighted with the nomination of either of the remaining candidates. I do not believe that one is morally or politically superior to the other. I am profoundly suspicious of things that smack of movements. There is quite a bit of Obama's stuff that smacks of a movement.

register to remove these adverts