Given the abjectly corrupt nature of our federal government, lack of experience is a plus.

Unlike most attacks on Obama, this one is both fair and quite devastating.

hitchking: Unlike most attacks on Obama, this one is both fair and quite devastating.

fair, maybe, devastating? no.
The experience charge has been made against him in the past, his response was to point out the experience of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in DC to demonstrate that experience doesn't equal good judgment.

hitchking: Unlike most attacks on Obama, this one is both fair and quite devastating.

Umm...what?

yeah the experience thing is bs... you can have experience and still be an incompetent dick or have not as much experience and do well.

i guess all they have on obama is the lack of experience thing, but looking at the 3 dem frontrunners, it's pretty much a newcomer's ball... hillary has lots of first lady experience, john edwards was senator for 2 years before he became a career democratic presidential candidate and obama had one year in us congress.

but his counter-point is perfectly valid that this administration probably has a longer resume than any in recent memory and yet they're all a bunch of corrupt douchebags.

cranberryzero: john edwards was senator for 2 years before he became a career democratic presidential candidate

lol

I'm registering as a Democrat, just to vote for Obama. At least he's someone I can respect, even if I don't agree with him.

Wraithbane: At least he's someone I can respect, even if I don't agree with him.

Awesome. I don't think you're alone in that. I've heard other people say generally the same thing. Some people say he is honest. Others say they don't feel like he is trying to swindle them. Genuine is another term I've heard. I would vote for him, but he's not on the ballot here last I knew (Michigan). I will probably end up voting for him if he makes it to the general election, which I think he probably will do.

Wraithbane: I'm registering as a Democrat, just to vote for Obama. At least he's someone I can respect, even if I don't agree with him.

Looking at your profile, please tell me you're not seriously voting for Obama.

JohnnyC: I've heard other people say generally the same thing. Some people say he is honest. Others say they don't feel like he is trying to swindle them. Genuine is another term I've heard.


In other words, it has more to do with his carefully crafted public persona than what he actually wants to do as President.

Churchill2004
Looking at your profile, please tell me you're not seriously voting for Obama.

Sorry, but right now, he's the only one running that I could vote for and still look at myself in a mirror. Like I said, I disagree with him on just about everything, but at least when the guy says something I don't have the instant knowledge that I'm being lied to. There's still 11 months left to see how things develop, but as of now, it's either him, or no one.

Oh, and my profile doesn't begin to give enough information to accurately judge my political positions. Just to narrow it down, despite the accusations of some, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Christian, and I am a lot more open minded than to think that one of the parties, much less the other, is the one with all the 'right' answers.

The Clintons are running scared.

Churchill2004: Looking at your profile, please tell me you're not seriously voting for Obama.

I'd rather vote for an honest man who disagrees with me than a political liar who agrees.

DamnYankees: Churchill2004: Looking at your profile, please tell me you're not seriously voting for Obama.

I'd rather vote for an honest man who disagrees with me than a political liar who agrees.

Oh, and if you look at my profile, it explains why I would vote for Obama, even though I disagree with him alot. He has his head screwed on straight, and his weltanshung is one I can assent to. Well as much as I can for any religious person.

Wraithbane: Like I said, I disagree with him on just about everything, but at least when the guy says something I don't have the instant knowledge that I'm being lied to

Well, there is a candidate who would presumably be a lot closer to your political opinions who's similarly honest. I understand appreciating honesty, but using the (mere perception) of honesty as the only thing guiding your choice strikes me as a bit odd.

Wraithbane: Oh, and my profile doesn't begin to give enough information to accurately judge my political positions. Just to narrow it down, despite the accusations of some, I'm not a Republican

I understand that. Your profile just gives the impression that you're a rather libertarian/Constitutionalist leaning guy- which is pretty close to the opposite of Obama.

DamnYankees: Churchill2004: Looking at your profile, please tell me you're not seriously voting for Obama.

I'd rather vote for an honest man who disagrees with me than a political liar who agrees.

What makes you think Obama's the only honest candidate? What even makes you think Obama is honest?

Churchill2004: Well, there is a candidate who would presumably be a lot closer to your political opinions who's similarly honest. I understand appreciating honesty, but using the (mere perception) of honesty as the only thing guiding your choice strikes me as a bit odd.

I sincerely hope you are not referring to Ron Paul. He's a living example of the failure to learn from history.

Your profile just gives the impression that you're a rather libertarian/Constitutionalist leaning guy- which is pretty close to the opposite of Obama.

This is relatively true, but the first thing we need, the way our system is designed, are people that will be up front about what they are doing, and willing to actually discuss differing points of view. I see almost exactly the same attitude from all the candidates except Obama, "Elect me and I'll do "whatever" despite what damn the other HALF of the country wants!". I get the impression that Obama understands that if elected, he has to represent ALL the people, not just the ones that share his opinion. I can guarantee you that Hillary, Rudy, Edwards, and Romney don't really care about compromise.

I know it's a bit much to ask, but I'd really like to be able to vote for someone who understands what it means to be President of the United States, not merely the candidate of their party.

Son of God: Churchill2004 is just amazed when he finds out that someone is not voting for Ron Paul.

then let me amaze him some more.

/not voting for Ron Paul
//stuck between Obama and Kucinich.

Wraithbane: Churchill2004: Well, there is a candidate who would presumably be a lot closer to your political opinions who's similarly honest. I understand appreciating honesty, but using the (mere perception) of honesty as the only thing guiding your choice strikes me as a bit odd.

I sincerely hope you are not referring to Ron Paul. He's a living example of the failure to learn from history.

He is referring to Ron Paul. Churchill2004 is a big Ron Paul guy (though not "big Ron Paul guy" like you would suspect, with the wackaloon status and all that).

Hillary likes to go on the offensive to keep the attention on Obama rather than her past of taking corporate donations, flip flopping like a fish out of water, refusing to answer tough questions and generally being exactly the opposite of what Democrats are looking for.

Wraithbane: I sincerely hope you are not referring to Ron Paul. He's a living example of the failure to learn from history.

I am.

Wraithbane: This is relatively true, but the first thing we need, the way our system is designed, are people that will be up front about what they are doing, and willing to actually discuss differing points of view. I see almost exactly the same attitude from all the candidates except Obama, "Elect me and I'll do "whatever" despite what damn the other HALF of the country wants!". I get the impression that Obama understands that if elected, he has to represent ALL the people, not just the ones that share his opinion. I can guarantee you that Hillary, Rudy, Edwards, and Romney don't really care about compromise.

I know it's a bit much to ask, but I'd really like to be able to vote for someone who understands what it means to be President of the United States, not merely the candidate of their party.

That's all fine and dandy, but I think you're setting yourself up to being perpetually suckered by whoever can present the most "bipartisan" and "honest" public persona- which is exactly what Obama has been doing.



Son of God: Churchill2004 is just amazed when he finds out that someone is not voting for Ron Paul.

No, I'm just a bit dismayed that a person would disagree with a candidate on everything but be willing to support them because of their media-darling personality.

Churchill2004: That's all fine and dandy, but I think you're setting yourself up to being perpetually suckered by whoever can present the most "bipartisan" and "honest" public persona- which is exactly what Obama has been doing.


As opposed to being suckered by other personas. I would argue that "anti-government government" has worked pretty well in the past. Guess who is leading that trend?

Recall all Repuglikkkans: It worked so well for the McCain fans in 2000

Not a perfect analogy, but pretty close. At least McCain had some legitimate issues in his record he could point to to justify his (still much-overhyped) status as an "independent" or "maverick". Obama doesn't even have that- his actual platform isn't notably different from the other Democratic frontrunners.

Damnhippyfreak: As opposed to being suckered by other personas. I would argue that "anti-government government" has worked pretty well in the past. Guess who is leading that trend?

Yup. I'm sure the first thing Paul will do is push for universal healthcare and raise income taxes by 10%.

Recall all Repuglikkkans
He's definitely outside of the mainstream.

There's a reason for that...and that is the very reason he is NOT the person to lead this country. He's kinda like that one chocolate in the box of mixed chocolates, looks good, gets your hopes up, and at first blush exactly what you wanted, then you bite in, and realize ... it's nuts.

That's Ron Paul. I am very surprised that he's not the LP candidate.

Wraithbane: There's a reason for that...and that is the very reason he is NOT the person to lead this country.

Because the "mainstream" has been doing such a good job of that lately?

Wraithbane: He's kinda like that one chocolate in the box of mixed chocolates, looks good, gets your hopes up, and at first blush exactly what you wanted, then you bite in, and realize ... it's nuts.

That's Ron Paul. I am very surprised that he's not the LP candidate.

Am I missing something here?

Wraithbane's profile:
On http://3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html I scored:

1) Libertarian Party 77%
2) Constitution Party 77%
3) Reform Party 55%
4) Republican Party 45%
5) Green Party 36%
6) Democratic Party 27%
7) Natural Law Party 27%

Son of God: The LP's stated platform on the big issues diverges widely with A.) their candidates

There's some deviation, of course, but not nearly as much as the two major parties.

Son of God: B.) some of the more nuanced parts of the platform.

Not if you understand the thinking behind "This is where we'd like to go, and these are some intermediate measures we'd like to take on the way there."

Churchill2004
Am I missing something here?

Yep, your missing the fact that what a party say it is, and what it actually is, are two different things, and that quantifying a relationship to a party in no way accurately reflects the importance of the issues that you DISAGREE with the party on. Until they grasp that they have to find a position that represents ALL the people in the country, they will remain a lunatic fringe, deservedly so.

Wraithbane: Yep, your missing the fact that what a party say it is, and what it actually is, are two different things

Fair enough. You could say the same thing about a candidate, though.


Wraithbane: Until they grasp that they have to find a position that represents ALL the people in the country, they will remain a lunatic fringe, deservedly so

It's best to vote for a Presidential candidate who's a uniter, not a divider?

Really, that's a particularly absurd statement. Yes, you have to be willing to comprimise in politics, but that's a completely different thing from mandating that all politicians have a platform everyone can agree on.

Churchill2004: Really, that's a particularly absurd statement. Yes, you have to be willing to comprimise in politics, but that's a completely different thing from mandating that all politicians have a platform everyone can agree on.

Actually, a platform that everyone can agree on is the ideal candidate.

Recall all Repuglikkkans
Ahh, so we have the quintessential libertarian who thinks that the Libertarian Party is not libertarian enough. At least that's clear.

I am NOT a libertarian, nor do I think the problem is that the LP is not libertarian enough, which, if you bothered to read what I've said rather than play your same tired game, you would have realized. You really need to reign in your rhetoric, if an act, it's childish, if not an act, it's naive.

Wraithbane: Actually, a platform that everyone can agree on is the ideal candidate.

An impossible ideal that leads to elections where personality is more important than issues. You end up with candidates who take bland platforms that mainly consist of meaningless platitudes and the status quo, and who focus on, instead of issues, cultivating their own public persona and "likability". Which is pretty much exactly what Obama's done.

Churchill2004: An impossible ideal that leads to elections where personality is more important than issues. You end up with candidates who take bland platforms that mainly consist of meaningless platitudes and the status quo, and who focus on, instead of issues, cultivating their own public persona and "likability". Which is pretty much exactly what Obama's done.

Doesn't that sound awfully like Bush in 2000?

lolmao666: Obama is not corrupt, his wife is, and he is by extension. Fark him.

What is corrupt about her?

So what exactly are Hillary's big accomplishments that make her experienced and ready to be president?

As far as I know you can't use the accomplishments of your spouse on your own resume when applying for a job.

Churchill2004 2007-12-16 01:10:45 AM

That's all fine and dandy, but I think you're setting yourself up to being perpetually suckered by whoever can present the most "bipartisan" and "honest" public persona- which is exactly what Obama has been doing.

The difference being that Barack Obama can show where he's made actual efforts towards bipartisanship. In fact, some of these efforts towards bipartisanship are things that his critics often bash him for because "OMG, Barack Obama voted yes in exchange for a few important compromises, rather than voting no and watching an uncompromised bill go through anyway!"

Wraithbane's profile:
On http://3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html I scored:

In all fairness, that quiz looks pretty worthless anyway. The first question and a few others are too broad to be boiled down to a simple "increase, decrease, maintain" answer. Others, like the gay sex one is too narrow (try making it an issue of gay marriage, and you might get somewhere.). And all of the questions on increasing taxes need to specify who would be taxed, and where those taxes would go.

FuriousGeorge9452007-12-16 04:37:17 AM
So what exactly are Hillary's big accomplishments that make her experienced and ready to be president?

As far as I know you can't use the accomplishments of your spouse on your own resume when applying for a job.

Govtrack.us:

Hillary Clinton has sponsored 339 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 293 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1675 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

Barack Obama has sponsored 126 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 502 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Paul has co-sponsored 1879 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

In terms of getting bills out of committee and getting bills successfully enacted, Clinton and Obama have managed to do more in the minority party than a certain someone has managed to accomplish in the majority party. And they've managed to do it over the course of fewer years.

schrodinger: The difference being that Barack Obama can show where he's made actual efforts towards bipartisanship. In fact, some of these efforts towards bipartisanship are things that his critics often bash him for because "OMG, Barack Obama voted yes in exchange for a few important compromises, rather than voting no and watching an uncompromised bill go through anyway!"

That's supposed to be the big selling point for Obama? That he was able to cut deals in Congress?

Yes. Here in the real world, we admire people who can lead even in the event of a difficult situation, and who can do their best with what they've been given.

As opposed to, say, acting like a five year old and threatening to take your ball and go home, even though everyone else already has a ball and absolutely no one would miss you if you followed through on it.

Leadership is a quality that we admire in a president. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

"Oh no! Barack Obama won't make promises that he can't keep! He won't singlehandedly return our country to a gilded age, and correct every single prolem in our country overnight! That bastard!"

Recall all Repuglikkkans


Not a perfect analogy, but pretty close. At least McCain had some legitimate issues in his record he could point to to justify his (still much-overhyped) status as an "independent" or "maverick". Obama doesn't even have that- his actual platform isn't notably different from the other Democratic frontrunners.


He has more credibility than any other candidate currently running when it comes to openness in terms of government, as is evidenced by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which he co-sponsored, which has led to usaspending.gov, a website where we can easily track where our money is being allocated, and by whom. And not only is the data available, there's an open API to make the data easier to extract. This, coupled with his frankness concerning matters of his past which many other politicians would dodge, has given him a track record which allows the average voter to put stock in his message of openness. In light of how much the secrecy that has occurred under the current administration has grated on some people, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at things like this bill and welcome the openness in government that Obama is proposing.

I rather imagine there are a couple of experiences that Barack doesn't plan to have in common with Bill after his possible term in the Oval Office.

I'm sad to hear Bill Clinton speaking out against Obama. Mind you his criticism was pretty mild.

lolmao666: Ron Paul is the only one not in those groups.

Nah, he's too busy fighting back against the 'War on Christmas' and the evil securalist abortionists to bother with the important things facing our country. Funny how his 'constitutionalist' principles break down any time there's a Christian matter involved. Hmmmm...

lolmao6662007-12-16 05:49:53 AM
Michelle Obama is in the CFR, the same group, ``think tank`` Cheney was once president, with war criminals members such as Kissinger, the architects of the iraq war... ect... anyone linked with the CFR must be denied the position of president or you'll end up doing wars and working for the same people Bush work for.

Ron Paul is a congressman of Texas, the same "state" that George Bush was once governor. Anyone linked to Texas must be denied the position of president or you'll end up doing wars and working for the same people Bush work for.

Also, you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul's wife, because I guess it's transferrable to spouses.

robsul82: He is referring to Ron Paul. Churchill2004 is a big Ron Paul guy (though not "big Ron Paul guy" like you would suspect, with the wackaloon status and all that).

Although it wasn't long before one of them showed up:

lolmao666: Michelle Obama is in the CFR, the same group, ``think tank`` Cheney was once president, with war criminals members such as Kissinger, the architects of the iraq war... ect... anyone linked with the CFR must be denied the position of president or you'll end up doing wars and working for the same people Bush work for.

Ron Paul is the only one not in those groups.

Anyway, Obama supports the Thought Crime prevention bill, don't talk about the North american union, he's supporting the whole shiatty war on terror aka war on freedom, don't talk about withdrawing the patriot act, closing guantanamo, ect... bring back the freedoms.

FARK HIM, he's not pro-liberty, he didn't talk either about giving back the powers Bush granted himself.

cranberryzero: yeah the experience thing is bs... you can have experience and still be an incompetent dick or have not as much experience and do well.

Lack of experience rarely leads to good judgement.

lolmao666: FARK HIM, he's not pro-liberty, he didn't talk either about giving back the powers Bush granted himself.

Except in the last Democratic debate, where he promised that the AG he hires will comb over the laws and privileges granted under the Bush administration, and work to repeal them if they are deemed unconstitutional.

Churchill2004: What makes you think Obama's the only honest candidate? What even makes you think Obama is honest?

Because I give people the benefit of the doubt. Of all the candidates so far, Obama seems to me to be the one who has lied least, is least a patchwork quilt of party talking points, and as someone who actually has a worldview, rather than a political roadmap. I can't quantify this into an equation.

Also, he's not the only honest candidate. The other honest guys are just scary, though - Paul and Huckabee, I mean you.

Barack the magic Negro - as featured on the Rush Limbaugh show.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50979/ (pops)

Wraithbane: I know it's a bit much to ask, but I'd really like to be able to vote for someone who understands what it means to be President of the United States, not merely the candidate of their party.

Hear, hear.

Churchill2004: It's best to vote for a Presidential candidate who's a uniter, not a divider?

Well ... yes. Wait, let me phrase that different way: hell, yes.

As long as that candidate is being honest about it, and not just lying for votes like Bush did.

hitchking: Unlike Like most attacks on Obama, this one is both fair self-interested and quite devastating pathetic.



FTFY