What REAL evidence is there that Obama has the bona fides to handle the complex job of President?

[BigBearJohn]

I fully realize that I am taking my life into my own hands by daring
to post this, but I am curious to see if anyone will take the time to
intelligently answer me (even if they think I am a moron for posting).

Please answer me ONE question:

What has Obama done in the past that PROVES he is capable of
fulfilling all the promises he is now making to the American public?
WHAT ARE HIS ACTUAL DOCUMENTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

Sure, I can see that Obama's a nice guy. I like him. A lot.
I concede that he is a FANTASTIC speaker.

BUT! Anthony Robbins is a fantastic speaker too. I like him a lot too.
Would that make him a great President too? He's motivated and inspired
millions of people.

There are a LOT Of people I like, but I don't elect them the next
president of the United States. Our colleges are loaded with nice,
educated guys and gals, but I wouldn't vote for them.

Have you really considered what UNIQUELY qualifies Obama to be a President?
Have you ever sat back and really considered what exact qualities and qualifications make
a great president? Simply put, I think Obama is too darned young and inexperienced. What
has he done to earn and deserve the most prestigeous job in the world?
HOW HAS HE PROVEN HIMSELF? What trials by fire has he endured that tested his mettle?
What are his bona fides? If your only and best argument is "He's better tnan
that #!@#$$ named Hillary," that says nothing -- then we have a real problem.

We don't put a young man in charge of the whole hospital after one
successful year as an interne. Americans are so starved for something
new, they'll take the first person that comes along that looks smart,
shiny and new. Who cares about qualifications like experience and wisdom?

We need an accomplished, seasoned professional in the White House.
Obama is simply too GREEN.

If your only goal is to get Obama elected, that's one thing.
If your real goal is to elect someone who is truly best for the
country RIGHT NOW, that's an entirely different matter.

[BeyondGeography]

1. The experience argument died a long time ago

Just tuning in?

[Mezzo]

145. no it didn't. Just because YOU'VE dismissed it. The inexperience argument hasn't been made yet.

but they'll make it, don't worry.

[ORDem]

149. Presumably you think Hillary can handle complexity? Just look at the miserable way

she's run her own campaign. There's some bona fides for ya!

[tbyg52]

155. You betcha - and then compare it with *his*

I'll give a small example. I wrote to the webmaster of his site complaining that it was quite dialup-unfriendly, and I actually got a *reply*. A small thing, but, put together with others of its ilk, telling, I think. It's a very well-organized campaign.

[polpilot]

164. #1- Obama crushes Pro-War, Pro-NAFTA, Pro-McCain Hillary & the Clinton machine

McCain will just be a gnat.

[DesEtoiles]

2. if you are not smart enough to use google I can't help you

[BigBearJohn]

16. By your response, I can tell you're not a helpful person anyway.

but you are great at insults. Well done.

[populistdriven]

22. By your question, I can tell you are not interested in hearing anyone's answer- your mind is made up

nice try tho

[DesEtoiles]

27. typical Clinton supporter - oozing mendacious bullshit

[BigBearJohn]

58. 100% untrue. I was hoping someone might be able to provide me with insight into

why so many people are voting for Obama.

I just don't get it.

I don't hate you because you vote for Obama.

I'm just trying to understand it.

I really don't care if you cast all kinds of nasty
aspersions against me.

[krkaufman]

176. No, you really weren't. Because no "proof" is available ...

... for ANY of the three remaining candidates that they will be up to the challenge of the Presidency. We are all left to make our own judgment call on whom we *believe* to be best suited for the job. And "best suited" takes on different meaning as our available choices are wittled-down.

Among some of my reasons why I'm for Obama are (1) my preferences are not available to me; (2) if we say that BushCo et al should be held accountable for the Iraq war and other crimes, then there should also be some accountability for Democrats who supported the war; (3) the DLC and Clinton centrism have been killing the Democratic Party for the last 15 years, and it's time for change; (4) Clinton campaign tactics starting after Iowa began turning me off, and I eventually shifted to Obama after Edwards left the race; (5) Obama is doing one helluva a job of fundraising and bringing in new voters, and I feel the Democratic Party needs to do what it can to lock them in for the near-term; ...

[Mezzo]

146. He couldn't help you anyway. Those accomplishments aren't there. I SAW the south side of Chicago.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

150. Why didn't Super Hillary do anything about it?

Why are there any blighted areas in this country, what with all she's done for us with her 35 Years Of Experience(tm)?

[cliffordu]

3. Yeah, we went over this in class last week

FAIL

[BigBearJohn]

18. Smarmy remarks. That's the best you can offer?

[cliffordu]

21. SO: Do you think you'll leave here after she steps down??

Or will you hang out until the general election??

[BigBearJohn]

30. If she steps down, I will support Obama.

[cliffordu]

32. Excellent!!!

:patriot:


good on ya!!

[melody]

106. Good for you -- anyone who will vote for the Democrat whomever it is, is my ally n/t

[anonymous171]

4. How has Hillary proven herself?

Remember the dismal failure that was her first attempt to get HC legislation passed during her years as First Lady?

[PBS Poll-435]

80. She was a lawyer..

And now has Federal legislative experience.

Hillary will fix this mess.

[cali]

110. he is a lawyer with more germane legal experience than her

he has both state and Federal legislative experience. Obama may fix this mess, with the help of a dem Congress. Unlike you, I haven't swilled koolaid. I know it's absurd to believe any one person can fix the mess we're int.

[roseBudd]

125. "Hillary will fix this mess" says who? POTUS is but 1 coequal branch, not dictator

If HRC is POTUS expect more congressional deadlocks.

[Lucky 13]

161. Obama was a lawyer with Federal legislative experience...

how is she MORE qualified than him?

[Tellurian]

175. Obama has never Tried a case in his life..

He's been a researcher and editor of a school newspaper..

Let his constituents freeze without heat for a few weeks in their Rezko apts during a Chicago winter when he was a community organizer representing Rezko, though.. nice list of accomplishments as a sterling resume qualifying him for the presidency.

Obama has NEVER done a THING for anyone!

[xchrom]

5. he hopes he can obamboozle you

into being audacious enough to vote for a guy who wasn't even that good at community organizing -- to afraid to take a stand in the illinois senate so voted 'present' over and over again -- can't manage to call hearings of teh one committee he's chair of now in the senate.

phew -- hard work being a phony.

[GoldieAZ49]

12. if he was anymore artificial he would need a warning label on his forehead

not FDA approved

[xchrom]

20. ...

:spray:

[ecdab]

6. At this point there are 3 choices - Obama towers over the other 2

[Blondiegrrl]

15. Literally. *giggles at 5'7" McCain* eom

[PBS Poll-435]

82. Nah. We have 6 weeks to come to a conclusion on that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. You spent all that time crafting that post

Yet you are incapable of googling "Obama's legislative accomplishments" to find out for yourself. Or you could simply log onto barackobama.com to learn of the many impressive things he's done. Instead you choose to come on here and demand that his supporters do your work for you.

But hey, you got that tiresome meme out there again, which was your intention all along.

Fail.

[BigBearJohn]

19. Anybody can Google. I wanted HUMAN responses, but I forgot who I was talking to. Sorry 'bout that.

[cliffordu]

23. Sheeit

lazy is the word good buddy


:rofl:

[BigBearJohn]

25. You would know.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Okay, I'll bite. Here's my HUMAN response.

He went up against a candidate who was touted as "inevitable" and had every financial and party machine advantage. And he out-campaigned her. He is inspiring masses of young people, and others who had long ago detached themselves from politics. He has raised more money than any Presidential candidate in history, much of it from people donating in small amounts. This is why the MSM and both the Dem and Republican elite are scared shitless of him. They know they won't be able to control him.

Plus, the man is named is Barack HUSSEIN Obama!! How many people with that onerous monicker would be able to arise to the level of serious Presidential contender?

[grasswire]

34. I hate to point this out, but masses of young people are GREEN

...and untested by definition. So inspiring masses of untested young people is not necessarily an accomplishment that transfers to the job of POTUS or CiC.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Dick Cheney is 67. McCain is 71.

Both of them are really "tested". What's your point?

Seriously, the snotty dismissal of young voters by Hillary supporters is just appalling. I thought we were the party who wanted more people to vote and be involved. And where, pray tell, do you think the Democratic base of tomorrow will be coming from?

[grasswire]

64. well, I'm not a Hillary supporter.

I don't have a candidate. Mine was driven out by snotty Obama supporters.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

66. Your candidate, whoever that was, got driven out by not getting enough votes. nt

[grasswire]

68. we will never know, will we?

Because calls for John Edwards to drop out happened before most voters voted.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

70. John Edwards dropped out because he was broke and way behind in the polls.

That tends to lead to calls to drop out. It's not Obama's, or his supporters', fault that Edwards couldn't raise money or connect with enough voters.

[grasswire]

72. machts nichts

Obama supporters were rude and meanspirited to those who supported candidates, from the beginning.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burythehatchet]

130. there is no limit to the stupidity of the comments I read here. A new low is

reached daily.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

147. Sorry, I calls it like I sees it.

Edwards supporters were absolutely insufferable, on the internet and IRL. I got so tired of the more-progressive-than-thou attitude and the "Edwards is the only grownup in the race!" crap. Of course he was. How hard is it to be the "adult" when the MSM is pitting the other 2 candidates against each other? Oh, and then we had to suffer through months of whining about his lack of media coverage. He was supposed to get equal time with the frontrunners, even when he was polling single digits.

[dionysus]

120. ah yes, a bitter edwards supporter, of course...

:rofl:

[roseBudd]

127. YES!! Because bring new voters into the D party is so STUPID!! its HUGH!!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

148. Get off mah lawn you young voters!!

[PM7nj]

8. Anti-proliferation, Ethics Reform, Government transparency... just to name a few

He has a background in community organizing, is a constitutional law expert, and has been against the war since the begining as well.

[Blondiegrrl]

13. *stamps foot* BUT IT'S NOT HIS TURN!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Erin Elizabeth]

49. How DARE anyone run against QUEEN HILLARY?

Indeed. I hate that attitude.

[grasswire]

41. I also hate to mention this, but Ann Coulter is a Constitutional law expert, too.

Yes, she is.

FWIW.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary.

Yes, she did.

FWIW.

[grasswire]

57. no skin off my nose

I have no candidate. Like many others whose candidates were driven out early, I might have supported Obama, but his supporters drove me away.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

69. proved my point, you did. (eom)

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

73. didn't Skinner post a memo against name-calling?

Hmm?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1monster]

152. If he didn't, I did. On both of your name-calling posts.

Clean it up folks!

[donheld]

109. You got what you were asking for

You base your support for a candidate on the fools of DU. I'm quite sorry, but that's idiotic.

[Chulanowa]

114. "Driven out?"

'scuse me... Look, I like Kucinich as much as the next guy... Gravel was cool, so are Dodd and Biden. But let's be fair. Thefirst two never really had a shot, and the next two didn't really try that hard. Edwards was not "forced out" by anyone, he dropped out because of bad polling and lack of funds.

You have no candidate, yet you seem to have shut one out completely and I don't think you'll go Republican, so you'll do what? Stay home? If not, yes, you already have a candidate.

[GoldieAZ49]

9. Leader of the free world

he is 'cool'

what else is there?

[Arrowhead2k1]

10. I'd rather take my chances with Obama

then this two-faced lying sack named Hillary.

[Blondiegrrl]

11. Try judgment, leadership ability, organizational skills, grace under pressure ...

And wisdom? He has that to spare.

[Stephanie]

14. Clinton has proven herself incapable of managing her own CAMPAIGN

They're in debt, she had to float a loan just to keep it going, creditors are suing her, consultants were screaming at each other in meetings before they got fired for conflicts of interest and watching soap operas instead of taking calls. Not to mention the many ridiculous personas she willingly adopted on advice of her lunatic handlers. She is INCOMPETENT to even run a decent CAMPAIGN. HOW could she run the WH?

[EFerrari]

17. Oh, come on! Junior managed it for 8 years.

You don't think Obama, with his much greater skill, experience, empathy and intelligence, can manage?

:)

[Erin Elizabeth]

52. No shit.

A man dumber than a bag of hammers who had never held a real job in his life and was legacied into or given everything he ever had has been president the last eight years. Granted, he's made a royal fucking mess of things, but THAT (Bush) is what you call a lack of experience. Not Obama.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. "What has he done to earn and deserve the most prestigeous job in the world?"

He's run a more successful campaign with superior organisation, raised more money, gotten more votes, and convinced more people that he'll be a btter President than will Hillary. What has Hillary done to deserve it? Run a horrendous campaign based on inevitability? Wasted an advantage in name recognition and early fundraising by ignoring most of the primary electorate? How does any of that qualify her for the presidency? For that matter, how do eight years as First Lady qualify her?

[lligrd]

26. The Evidence Is Clear

The people are voting for him. That is all that is required.

[kwenu]

29. The more "experienced" Hillary has lost. Experienced candidates don't make the mistakes she has made

[BigBearJohn]

31. Oh? Then explain why Kerry and Gore lost.

[Mooney]

33. Election theft.

[k8conant]

35. Gore WON!

[BeyondGeography]

36. Show some respect, they won something that will always elude Hillary

They were the nominee of the Democratic Party.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. a) Gore didn't lose; b) Kerry probably didn't lose either

(have you totally forgotten what happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?)

[stillcool]

42. Ask Hillary..

John Kerry drank green tea and went wind-surfing. Al Gore was an elitist. Of course, some of us remember the Supreme Court, and Ohio.

[Prophet 451]

79. Gore provably won and Kerry probably did n/t

[burythehatchet]

132. could you possibly be any more uninformed? I need to know.

[stillcool]

38. Yes I have.

The internet is a wonderful thing for finding information. The man is just as qualified as any candidate running. Unless of course you want a candidate who has spent more time at the trough.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. He has shown good judgment

yet you imply he lacks wisdom. He is head and shoulders above the remaining candidates in terms of making the right decision when it counts. That qualifies him, and disqualifies the others.

[cornermouse]

166. That's a subjective statement, not objective.

[Qutzupalotl]

171. He spoke out against the war

when it was not politically expedient.

[cornermouse]

172. Still subjective.

It's still an opinion.

[Qutzupalotl]

173. I can send you a link to that subjective opinion

but I think you can see my point.

[k8conant]

40. "Show me your bona fides" means: Prove to me that you act in the best interests of the group.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. 'Bona fide' literally means 'good faith'.

I've seen more evidence of Obama's acting in good faith than I have of Hillary doing so.

[BigBearJohn]

97. In contemporary English, "bona fides" is sometimes used as a synonym for credentials, background

[Erin Elizabeth]

43. Good Lord, you make him sound like he's 12

and riding his bike around in the street talking about being a figher pilot next week.

He's in his late 40s. Is that really a "young man?" LOL. Do you know anything about the political ins and outs of Chicago? What it's like to make it in that city and get things done?

I guess being a U.S. Senator counts for nothing? Too bad, since that's the only real experience your gal Hillary's got, too.

Sorry, but this argument just doesn't fly with me, never has. He'll be fantastic.

[Erin Elizabeth]

51. Oh and btw, two things about Clinton:

she's been mistaking proximity to power with experience. They are not the same and I'm not stupid enough to believe they are the same.

Secondly, for all her supposed experience (I love how she was saying she had 35 years of experience--which means it goes all the way back to when she was in law school, ROFL!!), she has ROYALLY fucked up her campaign just to be the nominee! As her own husband said, she's old and sometimes completely makes stuff up out of thin air, especially if it's past her bedtime.

That is NOT someone I want in the White House.

[malletgirl02]

63. Good Point

To add to your point. I find it funny that so many people on this board is trying to make Obama out as some kid, he is 46 year old, he is clearly an adult. My dad was a battalion commander in Iraq two years ago when he was 47, making life and death decisions. Hell, there hare 2LT's and 1Lt's who are half my dad's age leading platoons in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just military people who have to make life and death decisions at young ages, but doctors, EMT's, nurses, police officers,people who work in consulates throughout the world,etc. I could go on and on listing jobs that people have to make life and death decisions at young ages. 46 is not young, it is right in the middle of adulthood.

[uberblonde]

88. I do love this two-faced argument.

"He knows how to get things done because he was part of the Chicago machine"

VS.

"He was never really a part of the corrupt Chicago machine, he had absolutely nothing to do with it."

Do we see any contradictions here?

Admit it - this guy got very little done in the state house until his mentor handed him a bunch of legislation other people worked on first. Everything he says is inflated.

He was in the Senate a whole year before he decided to run for president, and he's been running ever since.

Oh, and the "He proves his executive skill by the way he runs his campaign" argument?

Tom Daschle helped put his campaign staff together and has been working behind the scenes. He and Obama are so close, the former Senate majority leader is rumored to be a potential choice for VP. (Gee, a super lobbyist for VP! Lots of "change" there!)

http://argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/COLUMNISTS0102/802080318/1161/CUSTOMER06

http://www.newsweek.com/id/35544?tid=relatedcl

You guys are so naive, it makes my head hurt.

[roseBudd]

128. Why is it that HRC supporters often have disabled profiles?

[Erin Elizabeth]

174. Thanks for outing yourself.

[cornermouse]

167. 3 years of experience in the Senate, 1 of which he was

campaigning for president. Not a good argument.

[mckara]

44. What Bona Fides Do You Have to Ask This Question?

Read and study leadership and you will understand why Obama has qualifications for becoming president.

[Snarkoleptic]

45. It's over...get the net...live in the now...are you for Obama or McSame?

[2rth2pwr]

50. Wait, I'm thinking.

[Umbram]

55. Did hell freeze over? (nt)

[jillan]

56. Unbelievable - isn't it,,,,,,

I would expect this from someone that is running to be Student Body President in High School, not from someone who wants to be President of the USA.

[BeyondGeography]

60. Give it up

[jillan]

61. You're not seriously trying to tell me what to think, are you?

[jillan]

62. dupe

[Ashy Larry]

53. If he is so "green"

why is he able to run circles around the "experienced" Clintons? If I had the same view of Obama that you have, I would be wondering why Hillary kept losing to him.

[Triana]

54. The question has now become - why is there so much evidence that Hillary..

...can't handle it? (rather than looking for evidence that Obama can)

Her campaign is a shambles. Her finances a mess, and she's shot herself (and the party and the race) in the foot with her poison politics that very closely resemble that of the Republicans, she's stooped lower than low and stopped at nothing to prop herself up, she's got her husband's former employees and other media minions to politically lynch Obama in a ruse that they tried to call a "debate", tried to manufacture mountainous issues out of mere pieces of dust from Obama's past and his speeches, and she's climbed in political bed with Republicans to smear her Democratic opponent when it's convenient for her to do so, using all the same tactics they typically do re: the aforementioned.

I'll stick with Obama. Because I don't want someone who 'manages' her campaign like that, managing the White House or the Presidency the same way. No Thanks. We've already had 8+++ years of that with the Republicans. I don't want anymore of it. Not this time. It's time for change. It's time to declare Independence from the old politics of the past. Hillary - the former Republican that she is - is the epitome of old smelly, musty politics from the past - they are her modus operandi, obviously - and people are sick of it - thus the groaning when she dragged out the old tired "bitter" chestnut during one of her speeches recently.

If there is anyone who can't handle being President, or doesn't "deserve" to be (and I question that choice of term but the OP used it so I'll include it), it's Mrs. Clinton. She's DOWN to the job. But she's not up to it. And that's the problem.

[jackson_dem]

59. None. His Illinois record is a fraud (see Emil Jones) and he has done nothing in DC

He is running on two speeches, one for which we have no audio or video for...

[Telly Savalas]

121. Which means Clinton is ridiculously inept since she isn't easily beating him.

How can you possibly trust her to run against McCain if she's doing such a pathetic job against a guy that's supposedly such a lightweight?

Shouldn't it take just the minimal amount of organizational prowess to defeat him by 20 points?

With all of her supposed experience, she's totally incompetent to not be able to beat a guy with only 2 speeches on his resume.

[BigBearJohn]

65. Thanks for answering to the best of your ability. That is all.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. I think you go about trying to make your point the wrong way.

And, I think that's the thing that's poisoned this debate from day one; Speaking ill of/doubting the qualifications of/denigrating for past alliances and leaving it at that rather than making a one for one comparison.

To Wit: "My Candidate would do X about the Iraq war, Y about health care for the masses, and Z about the economic welfare of this country. What will YOUR candidate do?"

Give us something to SWING AT. Something to debate, rather than trying to throw fastballs past us then strike us out by throwing a curveball low and outside.

Your argument seems to favor McSame over all others. Go back and re-read your post. "Trials by fire"? "Tested his mettle"?

By what means does Hillary Clinton rise to those lofty metaphors? I'll stipulate that my candidate, BO, doesn't. But I'm a Democrat dammit, and I'll have to make do with one or the other, no matter which one I support at the moment.

What I'd like to see us do is draw comparisons in order to distinguish differences and then debate those differences. It seems to me that by doing that, we can once again elevate the level of discourse to the adult world, pick a candidate, and proceed to kick John McSame's ass in November. Gosh, it all seems so easy when I type it...

And by the way, no person, man OR woman, who crosses their eyes before downing (or sipping twice then gulping, as it were) a shot of whisky should ever be elected President of the United States.

Just Sayin'...

[eridani]

77. If experience mattered to voters, Biden, Dodd and Richardson would be going down to the wire

I think that the judgment not to endorse the Iraq war speaks well for Obama. Also, presidents don't really do everything themselves; they have to surround themselves with qualified experts. If Obama picks them the way he's picked his campaign organizers, that would be really good news. There is nobody equivalent to Mark Penn that has anything to do with his campaign, thank heavens.

[goletian]

78. hes the man the people want. thats the qualification.

none of the three have ever been president. theyre all in the same boat. only difference is obama is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy more successful than either of them. probably more successful than both combined within the scope of the race.

[PBS Poll-435]

81. Successful at what?

Free Parking?

Illinois Avenue?

[goletian]

96. gettin support, because he is what the people want.

[PBS Poll-435]

108. Gettin support

is not "gettin" the job done.

Ask Deval Patrick.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PBS Poll-435]

158. That was really rude.

[goletian]

159. im a rude dude - nt

[RichardRay]

83. NO ONE is qualfied to be President of the United States

I hear and understand your concerns and arguments - I just completely discount them as having any applicability to the question at hand. If we were hiring a CEO for a widget company we could look at who's done a good job running other widget companies. President is a different deal.

There is no certification one can take in advance, no entries on a resume' that add up to a nod. There's just 'on the job training' and trying to keep up. I believe that Senator Obama will do a better job at that than would Senator Clinton. A large amount of that ability, I believe, is driven by the fact that he hasn't dug himself into any holes over years of applying the same old ideas to each set of new problems that comes along.

[PBS Poll-435]

84. BBJ -

Thank you for your conscience. Thank you for your honesty. Thank you for your courage.

[BigBearJohn]

89. Thanks! Your words are heartwarming and mean a lot to me.

:pals:

[PBS Poll-435]

93. Your courage and strength means a lot to me.

:hug:

[melody]

85. Your other choice is McCain who has lots of experience and is a crazed sociopath. Like that option?

Hillary is no longer a viable candidate -- it's gone, history, over with. All continuing to fall for her snake oil does is strengthen the enemy. If you're comfortable with the current GOP in the White House, were you anesthetized for the last eight years?

The Clinton people have to wake up, as all the followers of all the other candidates have done, and group behind our nominee. Sitting in a corner and sulking because "your girl" is not going to be allowed to bully everyone into letting her be princess isn't going to do anything but put McCain in the White House.

If that's your aim, then go to it.

[PBS Poll-435]

92. Look. I went to http://www.democrats.org

I didn't see a nominee.

I looked really hard.

I saw two potential nominees...

But no nominee...

So...please take a damp sock off of your right foot, and stick it in your mouth.

Thanks!

[melody]

99. Only because Clinton refuses to stop acting like a whining brat and accept reality

Either that or she's trying to get McCain into office.

My money's on the latter. ;)

[PBS Poll-435]

You money is in Monopoly Bux

And again...I went to http://www.democrats.org, and they seem to be promoting both history-making candidates.

Why aren't you?

[melody]

104. As I've said (and this is becoming as childish as your candidate), only because Hillary is a bully

Just like her husband.

Welcome to my ignore list.

BTW, http://gop.com -- your candidate's real party -- is waiting for your registration.

[PBS Poll-435]

105. Her Husband?

The only Democratic President to be re-elected in the 20th century that wasn't in a FUCKING World War?

A bully?

Only for the Republicans...

[GoesTo11]

86. What qualities and qualifications make a great president - excellent question

Just thinking about it,

Washington - Came in with great reputation. Put it on line. Always put country first. Turned over power peacefully at end of term.
Jefferson - Brilliant intellect across the board - knowledge of history / philosophy/science / law, vision, writing skill, courage.
Lincoln - Moral vision and guts to follow through during crisis. Great speechwriter.
F. Roosevelt - Intelligence, great speech-giver, great advisers, self-confidence, empathy, willingness to experiment. Served during crises.

Washington certainly had experience and accomplishments, which gave him his reputation. His case is special, as he didn't really have to win over anyone.

Jefferson - experience helped.
Lincoln - not much experience.
F. Roosevelt - had been Gov. of NY.


What qualities make a bad president?

- too much secrecy, putting self above law, greed, tolerance of greed / corruption of others, lack of judgment, lack of knowledge, lack of ability to pick advisors, tendency toward micromanagement -- or laissez-faire, indecision - or impulsivity.



Anyone want to add to either list? (trying not to tie to current candidates perceived strengths and weaknesses)

[BigBearJohn]

90. Thanks for that!

[casus belli]

87. A better question.

What specific qualifications are required of a presidential candidate that he is missing? And what specific qualifications are you suggesting your candidate has that he doesn't?

My guess is you haven't held a lot of interviews. If qualifications were the be-all end-all of the interviewing process, there would be no need for face-to-face interviews - we'd assign points to the resumes and hire the winner.

There is no entry level job to the presidency. As much as Hillary would like you to believe there is. And if there were, there would be no one electable. The presidency is, by its very nature, a learn as you go job. It boils down to - who do you think has the tools to learn the job most rapidly, and who do you believe will do the job successfully once elected. If you think that's Hillary, good for you. But don't dare try to play her up as obviously more qualified. She is not.

[BigBearJohn]

94. Well, thanks for giving an intelligent, well-thought out response.

:toast: I have been just trying to find out why people are so fond of electing Obama.
I see people jumping up and down and excited and I just don't get it.

I'm not saying I'm jumping up and down and excited about Hillary.
However, in my heart, I do feel she is more "worldly" than Obama.
I think she has a broader perspective than Obama does.

So shoot me.

[casus belli]

101. I won't be shooting you. :)

I'm a lover not a fighter, and in any case - I respect any opinion put forth in an intelligent and respectful manner. I don't dislike Hillary. I am just appalled at the turn this primary has taken, and some of the arguments from both sides are starting to appeal more to people's sense of emotion, than their intellect. I do see this from both sides, but the only "official" endorsements I see of this method are coming from Hillary's side. That has made it very difficult for me to stay positive about her as a candidate, even though there was a time when I was head over heels about the prospect of either being our next president.

Have a great weekend. :)

[GoesTo11]

102. Obama's perspective - what some people sense about him

Here is what I think some people sense and some people don't about Obama.

He is able to view issues at both a micro-level (although HRC beats him on the mastery of facts) - so he's not just a dreamer. But the important thing is how he understands at a macro-level, in two ways. He puts things into historical context, often into an abstract context about the nature of politics, and into the context of America's constitution. He is able to articulate how and why people of good faith may disagree on an issue -- this is a far cry from just stating the bromide that they may disagree, but actually trying to know what people's points of view are (though not with 100% accuracy) and that they're not crazy they're just coming from a different place.

This is what I pick up on in his speeches. Not the poetry or beautiful words or the cadence or whatever. I understand that the speeches are words, but they're not just that. They say good writing requires good thinking, and actually, if you can't write something well you probably don't truly understand it yet. So, I hear in his "great speeches" a true understanding.

This understanding is
1) Not the same as a list of policies, however well thought-out (because you can't have a policy for how every possible uncertain future)
2) Hard to fake (for example, he does apply it to answering debate and interview questions, through his ums and ahs)
3) Critical to solving the domestic and global problems this country faces, more now than ever

Different people hear different things - maybe you find his understanding of different viewpoints to be superficial or ordinary - but since you ask, I think those who hear this are jumping up and down with excitement about his potential as a president.

[casus belli]

107. You make some great points.

While some have been pouncing on some of his less eloquent moments, or gaffes, they forget the underlying appeal that goes along with that. He actually TRIES to understand where people are coming from, even when he doesn't agree with their analysis. That is a very rare quality in politics, and one I think has long been missing from our elected leaders.

It is one thing to speak to people, and to express concern with their predicament. But what most politicians are devoid of, is any real desire to put themselves in someone else's shoes. They want to understand the problem in a way that avoids the far more complex act of reaching into where it is they are coming from. That's not something you can teach someone. All of the great leaders of the world have had the ability. I think that is where I connected with Obama. As a progressive, I really strive to understand situations and thoughts that are not my own and it's a quality I look for in others. I think people who truly make this their mantra can see when someone has similar ideas, and has an ability to truly understand and empathize with how others came to their perspectives. In Obama I see it, and I believe it's the real deal.

[BigBearJohn]

116. Wow. GoesTo11 -- Who says the two Democratic sides can't talk to each other?

If there were more conversations like this across the table,
just imagine the discussions we could have on DU.

I toast your well thought out discussion of your understanding
of Obama's appeal. I can honestly say you made me sit back
and ponder your thoughts.

So, thanks for that.

I may still be for Hillary, but at least you've honestly given
me a new perspective on Obama.

Cheers!

[LTR]

91. Well, JFK himself once said...

...there isn't a school to learn how to be president.

In all actuality, it's about having the inner stuff to deal with what the office throws at you. Considering how Obama has handled the 'gotcha' issues thrown at him and running the gauntlet of the biggest, sleaziest political machine still running (i.e. the Clintons), I'd say he's got the stuff.

[pettypace]

95. I liked your post when I first read in before Iowa

[grantcart]

98. I believe that this answers that question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5575573

[FunkyLeprechaun]

100. You really should read the first week of March issue of Time

They covered this Experience issue with a fascinating article. There's a group of people who do research on "experience" and they use a mock up hospital room with a dummy connected to the computers. The dummy has a certain drip attached to him but apparently it's making the dummy uncomfortable.

They sent an a brand-new nurse (maybe just 3-5 years on the job) in the room to see what he could do. He took a long time to make his decision but he had noticed the drip. Then the dummy went into cardiovascular arrest and the nurse started to panic and tried to think of what to do. He eventually settled on an injection but it was the wrong type of injection since it reacted with the drip. It did kill the "patient."

They bring in a nurse with 25-plus years of experience. You would think she would know what to do by now? She made EXACTLY the same mistake as the novice nurse but she killed the patient much faster than the nurse as she came to the decision right after the patient had the heart attack.

The difference is people with little or no experience take their time to think about what to do. The people with tons of experience just automatically do what they've done for years.

That said, our two most experienced presidents were the worst presidents this country has had. They are James Buchanan (let the country spiral into a civil war) and Herbert Hoover (had no clue what to do when the country sank into a Great Depression). There's the "experienced paradox" when a less experienced president is sandwiched between two presidents with LOTS of experience. Lincoln is one, having much less experience than Buchanan and Johnson and we view him as one of the greatest presidents we've had.

Eisenhower only had his years of military and he had no elected experience before he became President. He ran against Stevenson (who was the governor of Illnois for a short time before the election).

I think a really good indicator of a good president is his leadership qualities. Take Obama, he was a community organiser and the first black president of the Harvard Review. He has leadership experience, while she doesn't.

Plus, you should look at the way they run their campaigns. Hillary has run a ramshackle, roughshod campaign. She's in debt and she's already lost a few key players (Solis Doyle, and Penn, even if he was demoted). She didn't call on her 35 years of experience when her campaign went to the shit. It sounds like she has, or had, no clue about running a campaign (Yes, I'm saying that while she went with her husband in 1992 and 1996). Obama, it seems to me, has run a nearly flawless campaign. There were a few stumble blocks along the way but he knew how to handle them. He's embraced new kinds of campaigning material and combined them with old materials (Email and grassroots and on the campaign road). Hillary seems to be stuck in old campaign mode and we're sick of it.

Here's the article I was talking about, concerning presidents: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926-1,00.html

In my magazine, the article about the nurse and doctor was right after that article. The above article also had a good graph measuring the presidents' experiences.

And here's the article concerning the two nurses: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717927,00.html

Enjoy. It really destroys Clinton's arguments that she could be the better president due to her experience.

[McCamy Taylor]

103. He has more money? Everyone says his campaign is what shows he is better,

[digidigido]

111. Let me explain it simply

There are basically 2 kinds of people in the world, those who get it, and those who don't. Those who "get it" are the people at work
everyone goes to to solve the problems. They are the ones who understand how things get done, not just the instructions, but the
realities. John Kennedy was someone who got it, and Barack Obama is someone who gets it.
Someone who gets it is someone you want to work with, or have on your team, or even lead your team, because they have an innate
understanding of how to get the job done. There is no such thing as "bonafides" for the presidency, nothing can compare with that.
Hillary Clinton had a healthcare plan when her husband was elected, that sure went nowhere, then they got blindsided by the
republicans and came up with with that "don't ask don't tell nonsense about gays in themilitary.
Obama comes from Chicago, they play hardball there. He has handled the nonsense thrown at him with class and dignity.
You don't become President of Harvard Law Review by being a guy who doesn't get it. He is smart, he attracts smart people
to work with him, and he LISTENS. He works to form consensus and leads by getting people involved and on board.
My goal is to heal this country which has been divided since Nixon. To that end, I think Obama is the one that can not only
get elected, help us to find and embrace our shared values and highest selves, but restore America's standing in the world, and make
us great again.

[Bensthename]

126. .

[TragedyandHope]

113. Is this a real question?

For starters, take a look at how he has run his campaign (and how he happens to be winning). His management and leadership skills on a national level have been clearly demonstrated. He has run against great odds, as the underdog against the presumptive and favored nominee with a message and conduct that defies conventional political wisdom. Despite going against the grain, he has connected with an overwhelming number of voters and has inspired one of the most positive and active grassroots movements in recent memory.

Look at his endorsements from Superdelegates and other prominent Democratic party members. Since I am not a Washington insider, I put serious stock in the fact that so many of our Democratic elected officials consider him ready for the job. Both of his opponents have acknowledged that he is up to the job. Obama has served more years in elected office than his Democratic opponent. He will be older than President Clinton was when he first took office, if that's a factor that concerns you.

There have been a number of long lists of Bills and career highlights posted on this forum many times. I will let you do your own searches for those. You can also start reading at the following links.

Obama's Blueprint for America
Barack Obama Issues

Obama has a record of working across party lines to get things done. He has a reputation for seeking out and earnestly considering a wide rage of opinions to come up with solutions, rather than stubbornly following dogmatic but flawed policies.

He's not going to be running the country alone. The President's job is too assemble the best people around him to facilitate his executive leadership of the country. Obama has shown that he more than meets the requirements for the job and has a record of exceeding expectations. Obama has the potential to be one of our great, pivotal leaders, not only bringing the country forward in a positive direction, but he also has a chance to set a whole new tone for the future political landscape.

While I do think Hillary is also qualified for the position, I feel that Obama is really head and shoulders above her. The way Hillary has conducted this campaign has shown consistent tactical and leadership misjudgments, to put it kindly. For me, her campaign has raised more doubts about the type of approach she would take and the motivations that guide her decision-making process. 3am ads and smear attacks, which seem to be her only strong suit lately, will not be any use when she is trying to rebuild the economy or negotiate an international crisis.

The difference is between someone who will simply get the job done and someone who will do the job as well as push the boundaries of what we thought possible, setting the stage for the rest of this century.

That's why I support Barack Obama.

[intaglio]

115. The same evidence that Hillary has

The same evidence Dubya had, the same evidence Bill had.

[BigBearJohn]

117. Thanks to all of you (from both sides) who spoke from your hearts.

I believe we had some honest thinkers on this thread
and a lot of food for thought was presented.

Though we may not agree on everything, there is no
reason we can't have intelligent discourse. Thanks
to those of you who helped prove it.

:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

[LaurenG]

118. Well there are plenty of places to research his hands on experience

but I'll post a link or two.
Obama’s state senate votes on some key issues:

BUDGET & TAXES=

# Voted to raise the minimum wage in Illinois from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour over two years. (2003)
# Helped pass a 5 percent earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in 2000; made the credit permanent in 2003.
# Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)
# Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)

HEALTH CARE=

# Voted for having Illinois endorse embryonic stem cell research. (2004)
# Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)
# Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)
# Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)

CRIME & GUN CONTROL

# Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)
# Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004)
# Successfully sponsored requirement that law enforcement videotape interrogations of suspects in some serious crimes. (2003)
# Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)
# Helped pass an overhaul of the state's troubled death penalty system. (2003)
# Unsuccessfully sponsored measure to expunge some criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals. (2002)
# Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)
# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)

MISCELLANEOUS

# Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)
# Successfully sponsored move to shield Illinois workers from federal rules that threatened overtime pay for some employees.
# Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
# Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/

What would qualify a person to be a good leader.

Experience of course is essential, but good decision making skills, an open mind and a compassionate heart are key to any good leader.

My reasons for backing him are basically my interpretation of what I "see" in him that sets him apart from the others, starting with his diverse life due to his cultural background.

He started out in life having to merge differing and sometimes opposite sets of cultural mores. Being born in the 60's was better then the 40's but still right in the middle of the largest civil rights movement in the history of the US. He was born submerged in a society unenlightened to the dangers of prejudice. He grew up seeing both sides of the coin. What he also brings is his ability to manage others. Management is the name of the game; whether it's a company or a country, if you can manage others successfully the battle is 3/4 won.

The other and I think more important factor is the fully vetted ability to bounce back without negativity overwhelming him. He thinks before he speaks, he measures the cost of his angry responses and his loyalty to the America of his dreams. He looks forward and doesn't wallow in the past, he sets his sights on the goals and manifests them one step at a time and he hasn't stepped on the crushed remains of others to get where he is.

He is a bridge to the new and I have every reason to believe that he can integrate our past and future. The time has come to leave the old world behind, to look to the future through new and fresh eyes.

He is the person for the job and it is my firm belief that should he win the presidency we will all be given a chance to see where we were and how very dark it has been and be very pleased that the old paradigm has washed away.

I can only hope that America is ready to take that step, I know that I am.

[bklyncowgirl]

119. Not a whole hell of alot, John, however the same holds for Clinton

Let's face it. If resume was the deciding factor in presidential elections, we'd all be rallying around our future nominee Bill Richardson.

That didn't happen. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire took care of that. A few states down the line John Edwards dropped out (not that he was any more experienced than Clinton or Obama)

So we have to look at other things. Fortunately, we have an example of how the candidate runs a large complex structure, adapts to changes and attains goals. It is the candidate's own campaigns.

Watching the Obama campaign, I am increasingly seeing an organization that takes care of the details and has a blueprint that work. Clinton's people didn't even see the possibility that they might have an active campaign still going on after Super Tuesday. They've succeeded in pissing off former friends like Bill Richardson and Robert Reich.

I'm feeling much better about Obama's management ability now than I did at the beginning of this campaign.

[Armstead]

122. He has both leadership and managerial skills

If nothing else (and there is a lot else) the fact that he has run such a successful campaign proves that he has the stuff. he started basically from scratch against an opponent who everyone assumed would be the nominee and steamrolled into the lead over time.

And he has held onto it, and has proven that he can brilliantly deal with setbacks and attacks.

His ability to inspire and harnass huge masses of people -- at a time when bitterness and apathy are the predominant mood of the land -- is also a qualification.

That feat, IMO, in itself is fulfilling a major qualification.

[saltpoint]

123. Checking the Constitution -- if that's not too old-fashioned -- we see

that the qualifications are specified.

Now let's see... yep -- he meets all criteria.

Thanks for your concern, though.

[burythehatchet]

133. But as you know, the constitution is just a piece of paper.

Sad, sad, sad.

[saltpoint]

135. LOL! That's right -- just a piece of paper. Just words.

Hiya, burythehatchet. Good to see ya.

:hi:

[burythehatchet]

136. Hi back

I really should avoid these types of threads first thing in the morning. Pile-o'-crap dressed up like an "honest" question. I really loook forward to this being over, but from what I can see she has nothing left to lose and that makes her even more dangerous to Democratic interests. Hill's Gone Wild.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

137. She's committed through Pennsylvania, but if the numbers there turn

more toward a narrow win instead of a crushing landslide, Indiana is likely lost and she's going to be slaughtered in NC already.

The road ahead, even with a sturdy PA win is bleak for her and if Obama makes it close, the persuade-the-super-delegate strategy evaporates.

She's out of there.

[KansDem]

124. Here's evidence...

Any questions?

[Bensthename]

129. He has more experience then Clinton and beat out all others in this campaign.

And it usually comes down to who the president has in his cabinet and uses for support and advise. He has shown he hangs with the best in that dept too.

[madrchsod]

131. vote for hillary in one of the upcoming primaries

other than that he`s ahead in the popular vote and delegate vote.

maybe you can convince your states super delegates to vote for hillary.

[DevonRex]

134. Hey BigBear. I'm not gonna flame you or anything...

And frankly I feel like hell this morning so I'm not gonna make a list of what proves he's up to the job.

Just wanted to say thanks for not being sarcastic or rude with your post. I'm an Obama supporter, obviously. But I appreciate it when a Clinton supporter is nice and respectful. There is so much posted around here that sometimes we forget how many good guys are here, too.

[paulk]

138. I have asked that question again and again

and have yet to find an answer that satisfies me.

There is something arrogant about the man - when he stands up there and gives his boilerplate about the crisis the nation is in with the wars, the economy, etc. - a unique moment in the history of the nation! And that's why he decided to run at this time - because he's the one to lead us out of the desert and into the promised land. He's the one!

Ok, I say - you're the one - now show me why you are uniquely qualified to be the man of the hour - and I look and I look and I find very little there. Obama's resume is thin thin thin and there's no way around it. His is an appeal to faith. Faith in him and that he is the guy that's going to dig us out of this hole we're in. Just hand him the shovel.

[OzarkDem]

139. The half-term candidate

Looks like you didn't get much in the way of answers.

No, he doesn't have enough real skills or experience. Its a leap of faith to assume he will know how to do the job or that he will choose the right people to help him.

[rucky]

140. McCain it is, then.

If that's our metric.

[BlooInBloo]

141. Ah - the experience "argument". Your concern is noted.

[NashVegas]

142. Let Me Put It This Way

I made a post in the education forum the other day about the rise of the "Entrepreneurship" degrees at some colleges and unis.

Our intern at work is about to graduate from one. Basically, he and his family have paid money and time to be taught write a 100 page business proposal. I've met others in similar programs.

The point is to come up with a business proposal, draw investors, then sell it when it starts to take off. None of them plan on actually running those companies for the longer term.

Is it any wonder Obama's greatest support is among young college grads?

[Terran]

143. No human being can "PROVE" what you're asking for here.

Voting for someone for office *always* involves, to some extent, a leap of faith; it's because one *feels* that person will do a good job because one perceives integrity and some kind of inner strength and conviction. I personally don't see all those qualities in Clinton, and I never have since she's been a public figure. You can look at experience all you want, but if you do, Clinton has little more experience in true governing than Obama does.

Consider this--except for Bush 1, most of the presidents we've had the last 40 years have been state Governors, with NO foreign policy experience, just domestic. At least Obama has held offices where he's had both of those things (I figure if you're a US Senator, you must have some).

[Vinca]

144. Time and time again it has been said you can judge the way a person

would lead by how they run their campaign. Case closed.

[Orangepeel]

151. eh. What makes someone "qualified" to be president? 30 years in Washington?

If that were the most important criteria to me, I'd be voting for McCain.

I want a president who agrees with me on most issues, is very smart, and is a good leader. I believe that Obama will pick a good cabinet and appoint good judges. I believe that his philosophy of government is generally consistent with mine. I believe that he's good with people and knows who to tap and work with the get legislation passed. I believe that he is very smart. I believe that he is cool under pressure.

I was supporting John Edwards for the same reasons. Now I'm supporting Obama and I'm very happy with him, because the ability to get elected is also very important.

[livetohike]

153. First of all, he has run/managed a fantastic campaign

compared to the polished, experienced Senator Clinton who is fighting for her political life due to the errors in judgement she has made. Her attempt to appear blue collar are pathetic.

Secondly, he has eight years in the Illinois State Senate prior to the U.S. Senate and Ms. Clinton has ......?

Thirdly, I believe him when he says he wants to reform Washington, DC and he has tried to do so as a new Senator. Compare this to "politics as usual".

Fourthly, his ideas of talking to world leaders rather than rattling the sword at them is refreshing and smart. Compared to Senator Clinton who supports Bush's way of international leadership.

[IsItJustMe]

154. What bona fide experiences to handle complex problems do any of them have. Instead of trying to

pick out our nominee, something faux news would do, why could you not be more broad minded?

I'll tell you why, you have an agenda here, and it's not one I support.

Peddle your poison (doubt) somewhere else please. Republicans love this shit, you will do real well there.


On edit: And it is sad as hell that you have 13 recs for this pos post of yours. Some bitter people up in the house, for whatever reason.

[brindis_desala]

156. Riiight.

Maybe you should write to Sam Nunn and Joe Stiglitz and tell them they're idiots...

[izzybeans]

157. He's over 35 and native born.

Everything else is your and my opinion (and everyone else's).

IMO, he is an expert in constitutional law, a community organizer, his record as a legislature here in Illinois was extremely progressive (despite the misinformation about Illinois political procedure), he respects the voting public enough to speak sometimes nasty truths (e.g., the long standing sociological hypothesis that economic dysfunction leads a certain proportion of the population to retreat to comfort foods like religion), he is not a member of the ruling class.

I will vote for Clinton however I do believe strongly that we should oppose family lineage power transfers in a democracy. For that reason alone Senator Clinton was my last choice this primary season. She will be my only choice should she win the nomination. However, I am skeptical that she is capable of pulling of needed progressive reforms. I don't think she has the political will for it.

Again those are my opinions. I'm sure yours are different.

[Lucky 13]

160. Documented Accomplishment: The best run Democratic grassroots campaign possibly in history.

Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign is mis-managed, financially in the shitter, is FLAILING, is alienating voters, and only 30% of the populace find her trustworthy.

Obama may be green. We aren't 100% sure of what he will do. But he has shown a good grasp of the issues, the ability to do what NO ONE thought he could do, and has the backing of many many strong leaders of the Democratic Party.

But Hillary has demonstrated some MAJOR flaws, trouble with lying, distortion, manipulation, slimy campaign tactics, stiffing small vendors, and a SCARY policy when it comes to the Middle East and Iran... essentially, SHE IS ACTING LIKE A REPUBLICAN.

Between a guy who is a little green but who is saying and doing all the things the Democratic party represents vs. the "experienced" washington insider who reminds me more of a Rethug than a Democrat... I'll take the green guy.

[Gore1FL]

162. Same place as Hillary.

[stevenleser]

163. Official "This has been addressed a million times and is now a red herring" *PLONK*

[quakerboy]

165. What do any of the candidates have

to show that? None of the three have been the executive before.

[RiverStone]

168. You miss the BIG point that folks don't want more of the same...

EXPERIENCE.

What has all that "experience" done for the Dems on The Hill since the 06 elections.

Not a fucking thing to end the war, impeach the Bush crime family, lower gas taxes, CEO incomes, or fix health care.

What experience exactly do you think matters to be a good president?

Hillary has adapted Rove-like rethug tactics to win; is that the experience your looking for?

Obama wins because he offers to change business as usual and his brand of experience is exactly what we need to get real business done for the people!!!

[superkia]

169. Seems pretty simple and obvious to me, he is waking up Americans...

and has got people involved. If we continue to slepp at the wheel and allow our bought and paid for corrupt government to run things for their benefit, we lose. Without the American peoples involvement in their government, we are all fucked. Obama has been able to wake people up and get them out of their houses and actually doing something. Just imagine what a president like that could do for our country if he is having this kind of impact from just a presidential campaign run against one of the powerful connected career politicians in the country.

Even if you take nothing else into account, his ability to get people involved and working together could do wonders for our children's future.

The government has been using the divide and conquer strategy to beat us all down and we all know the saying:

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Thats what this election is about to me, we as a people NEED to come together and get involved to try and take our country back for our childrens sake. The way things are looking, this empire could be on its way to collapsing so we better be prepared to organize together as a people to rebuild our society.


We also need to be prepared for other things coming our way, as the empire crashes, the elite will not just give up and go away, they will need new plans to run THEIR country.


http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6276
“Operation Sudden Impact”

Federal law enforcement agencies co-opted sheriffs offices as well state and local police forces in three states last weekend for a vast round up operation that one sheriff's deputy has described as "martial law training".SNIP

It also highlights how the distinction between crime and terrorism is becoming irrelevant.SNIP

Forget innocent until proven guilty, you are now a terrorist suspect until you are told otherwise.It is now the norm to consider everybody equally likely to be guilty of something than innocent. This is proactive policing, not preventative or reactive policing, and is widely indicative of a society that is NOT free.This form of proactive policing is a phenomena indicative of a once free state rapidly declining into a authoritarian police state.

[HuffleClaw]

170. well put

though i'd add that hillary lacks experience as well. the media SELECTED the two candidates with the least experience. mccain is gonna have to eat a raw kitten on live tv to lose the election.

[JoFerret]

177. NONE. there is no evidence

He was plucked from relative obscurity and is being presented as the new prototype. this is all about erasing the Clintons. hence all those older while male mentors hovering over him - being flattered and flattering in return. They want nothing less than to erase the Clinton years and the Clintons with it.

I wish they had spent their time trying to erase Bush. But they didn't have the guts for that.

Obama is as presented - an empty suit. Well pressed, well dressed, well versed. A puppet.

His Illinois record is then and his senate record thinner.