that actually might work in his favor- if he's courting republicans, it'll be a lot easier for republican voters to vote for him.

At this very moment, he is digging up the grave of Jesse Helms.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee

I would vote for this. Twice.

whiskeyinthejar: I would vote for this. Twice.

Hagel and Obama or Hagel and McCain?

Barack Obama is pretty much the Bill Brasky of politics at this point.

/To Bill Brasky Barack Obama!

SilentStrider: Hagel and Obama or Hagel and McCain?

Hagel and the guy who's not

FTA: Obama got a taste of McCain's withering scorn last week when he was ridiculed for appearing to suggest in a televised debate with Clinton that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. "I have news for you," McCain chided him. The terrorist group was already there and was called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Round one, by general consent, went to McCain.

Wait, what? "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" really don't have anything to do with Al-Qaeda.

The name they gave themselves is Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn; "Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers". Only reason anyone calls them "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is because their leader said he supports OBL.

whiskeyinthejar: Hagel and the guy who's not

gotcha.

and I've been on the record as saying in the past, that Hagel would have been one of the few republicans i could have stomached voting for.

I like the exclamation point after the "Yo" in "Yo' Mama."

I really really want him to be the genuine article..

If I could be certain he really were as good as he (and everyone else) says he is, he'd have my vote and perhaps a free night with me and my bujina. But I don't think he is. I'd rather have Hillary, since I have a decent expectation of how she'd be in office.

(the bujina offer doesn't extend to you, Hilly. Sorry.)

Obama is so confident of his impending victory, he is already planning out his cabinet, a cabinet which will include Republicans.

Considering his lack of experience or any idea on how to achieve his lofty goals, he will need all the help he can get.

Crosshair: Considering his lack of experience or any idea on how to achieve his lofty goals, he will need all the help he can get.

So, does willful ignorance feel good or something? Is there a pleasure/reward system built into it or something?

Chariset: I'd rather have Hillary, since I have a decent expectation of how she'd be in office.

Crappy? Since you can expect the same crap and, hell, you're used to that crap...so let's just vote for the same crap we're used to.

That sounds brilliant.

please don't vote this fall if that is the reasoning you are using

Chariset: I'd rather have Hillary, since I have a decent expectation of how she'd be in office.

After watching her campaign, I think I've got a pretty decent expectation of how she'd be in office too. And frankly the only thing that'll get me out to vote for her ass in the general election is the supreme court justices who're due to retire.

Crosshair: Considering his lack of experience or any idea on how to achieve his lofty goals, he will need all the help he can get.

Is it easier to repeat what you hear from talking heads after you write it down twice or do you just type as fast as possible without care hoping to get the gist of it?

This article feels like Brits talking about American politics which they do not understand. And, the reporter used "you're" when he/she meant "your." This is annoying. Why can't the English teach their children how to speak write?

bulldg4life: Is it easier to repeat what you hear from talking heads after you write it down twice or do you just type as fast as possible without care hoping to get the gist of it?

No, I read his speech transcripts, read his campaign website, and watch his speeches. Please don't insult me buy suggesting that I watch CNN and Faux.

Back on topic, while he is a great public speaker and does a wonderful job at getting and holding a crowds attention, his message isn't anything that hasn't been promised before. Taking Obama out of the equation and reading the transcripts of his speeches you quickly find that they are rather dry, bland, and generic. Quite frankly, minus Obama, his speeches are uninspiring. His words don't stand on their own like the words of Martian Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, etc. Those speakers words have the same power whether they are spoken or read.

His speeches are becoming little more than "whipped cream", lots of fluff and very tasty, but no real substance. While it will work in the short term, it won't sustain him in the long run.

Crosshair: Back on topic, while he is a great public speaker and does a wonderful job at getting and holding a crowds attention, his message isn't anything that hasn't been promised before. Taking Obama out of the equation and reading the transcripts of his speeches you quickly find that they are rather dry, bland, and generic. Quite frankly, minus Obama, his speeches are uninspiring. His words don't stand on their own like the words of Martian Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, etc. Those speakers words have the same power whether they are spoken or read.

His speeches are becoming little more than "whipped cream", lots of fluff and very tasty, but no real substance. While it will work in the short term, it won't sustain him in the long run.

I know after the SC speech, a farker posted a transcript for those who missed it and there wasn't a video up yet, and a lot of people thought it was incredible.

The rest of your claims are useless to respond to because that pathetic, unsubstantiated argument has been killed a thousand times. Anyone who thinks Obama has no substance is just misinformed or ignorant.

Disagree with his positions if you want to. Saying he has no substance just shows that you're lazy.

Crosshair: His words don't stand on their own like the words of Martian Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, etc.

I think you may have unintentionally uncovered a new conspiracy theory. The men in black will be at your door right about...now.

As for the topic at hand, I disagree. From what I've seen, he seems to outline what he intends to do and how he intends to do it fairly well. Whether he can (or will) follow up on it is a whole different story.

Well, having two Republicans in vital cabinet posts giving advice would certainly be a huge step towards a bipartisan administration.

Chariset: I'd rather have Hillary, since I have a decent expectation of how she'd be in office.

She can't even manage her campaign budget. Just imagine what she'd do to an entire economy.

/don't really think that
//G08AMA

Crosshair:

Couldn't agree more. His speeches are just words folks. Not magic and ponies like McCains speeches. Unlike Hillary, who does "clap clap point point", Obama just speaks during his speeches.

I'm frightened for the future of my country when we are about to elect a man who just vocalizes thoughts during his speeches.

Crosshair: Taking Obama out of the equation and reading the transcripts of his speeches you quickly find that they are rather dry, bland, and generic. Quite frankly, minus Obama, his speeches are uninspiring.

And, what? You expect him to pass laws and make world peace in his speeches? What the hell else is a campaign speech supposed to do?

His words don't stand on their own like the words of Martian Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, etc. Those speakers words have the same power whether they are spoken or read.

Now, unless you're referring to Lincoln's campaign speeches (which you're clearly not, as the other two never campaigned for office), your comparison is not fair.

Instead of falling for the hype, try researching stuff outside the campaign. Look at what each has gotten done in the past. Take a look at Obama's Senate record, for example; as I'm sure you'd point out, it's pretty short, so it shouldn't be very difficult to look at.

Republicans in his cabinet? shiat, I guess he really does need to watch out for Dallas motorcades.

Doesn't this send the message that Republicans really do have the monopoly on national security issues?

monty666: At this very moment, he is digging up the grave of Jesse Helms.

Jesse Helms isn't actually dead, so...

You know who else had members of cabinet with opposite ideologies?

Lincoln, that's who.

elliottp: Doesn't this send the message that Republicans really do have the monopoly on national security issues?

With any kind of decent experience and ability they do, unless he wants people from the Clinton administration, which somehow I think would be a bad idea.

Or maybe Wesley Clark. He wouldn't make a good President, but SecDef? Possibly. Maybe even Veep, since barring really horrendous circumstances Obama has 4, likely 8 years of continuous administration if he's elected, being as he's young with no major health issues predicted.

I don't think its about confidence, necessarily. I mean, surely every nominee has plans for what they will do when they get in.

You'd look pretty stupid, otherwise.

"Congratulations, now what are you going to do first, Mr President?"

"Ah, you know, I havn't really given it much thought."

Putting an sane republican on his cabinet would be a stroke of genius. It'd utterly decimate the Republican party. The sane people would all move to the D side, and the only people left on the R side would be the theocons.

I'm not sure that Hagel is the right one, but we'll see how this goes.

The only person who can cost Obama the election at this point, in a fair and equitable set of votes, is Obama himself. Hillary winning the Democratic nomination will destroy her party, and McCain just doesn't have the ability to move his own supporters to back him. Even the various conservative media moguls have been sniping at his lack of an "acceptably conservative" nature.

Given a presupposed lack of underhanded interference, it's purely up to Obama to take the ball into the endzone. If he can start pushing more policy in his rhetoric to undercut the people who think he doesn't have stated plans (new window) for how he will guide his administration, and avoid giving into the sort of ideological bullying by the extremist faithfuls that ruined the Ron Paul campaign, he should be good as gold.

"I think America deserves the best person for every job and so we are going to be canvassing far and wide if I am fortunate enough to be elected," he said.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement needs to have their head examined.


Oh, and anyone catch this gem from the article?

Mayhem_2006: "Congratulations, now what are you going to do first, Mr President?"

"I'm going to Disney World!"

Major differences between the candidates in how the media portrays them in cartoons:
Obama looks like a Simpsons character
Hillary looks like a Peanuts character

Crosshair: Considering his lack of experience or any idea on how to achieve his lofty goals, he will need all the help he can get.

Yep. I considered myself still undecided until last week. Then I read Obama's Blueprint for Change.

Now I'm solidly voting for McCain. Specifically, I didn't like the following:

* EVERY time there's a problem, he wants to create a new law, spend more money, and create a new government entity to fix the problem once and for all.
* He dreams and dreams and dreams, but his only solution to his dreams is always big government plans.
* Some of his policies are contradictory. (He wants to make Mexico's economy better to reduce illegal immigration, but then he also wants to change NAFTA because Mexico benefits too much. Or he speaks of budget deficits, but only speaks of creating and introducing new programs.)
* Some of his policies are dishonestly named. His section on fair trade was nothing but heavy protectionism.
* There's far, far too many government entities, committees, laws, and plans he wants to introduce and spend. Perhaps if his plan for change was 1/10th of what it was, I'd consider him. But all I'm seeing is a naive dreamer who is heading dangerously close to socialism to solve the dreams.

I'm much happier with McCain, who has a track record of not introducing a gazillion programs to try and solve every eternal social problems in the country.

MorrisBird: This article feels like Brits talking about American politics which they do not understand. And, the reporter used "you're" when he/she meant "your." This is annoying. Why can't the English teach their children how to speak write?

Look again. Either it's been edited or you misread it.

helix400: * Some of his policies are dishonestly named. His section on fair trade was nothing but heavy protectionism.

Fair trade isn't the same thing as free trade, bro.

I think putting "opponents" in your Cabinet is a great idea. If they're right for the job, it shows every single day that you can cross the aisle, especially if they're the right people for the job. Plus, they can't be arrogant pricks like the current Cabinet because when your boss is from the other side, there's a good chance he'll fire you for being an ass instead of rewarding you.

Secretary Hagel: "I'm sorry Senator, I can't recall." x67
President Obama: "Recall being fired, dumbass."

Crosshair: Back on topic, while he is a great public speaker and does a wonderful job at getting and holding a crowds attention, his message isn't anything that hasn't been promised before. Taking Obama out of the equation and reading the transcripts of his speeches you quickly find that they are rather dry, bland, and generic. Quite frankly, minus Obama, his speeches are uninspiring. His words don't stand on their own like the words of Martian Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, etc. Those speakers words have the same power whether they are spoken or read.

His speeches are becoming little more than "whipped cream", lots of fluff and very tasty, but no real substance. While it will work in the short term, it won't sustain him in the long run.

I'm sure there is some legitimacy to that, though these aren't the same kinds of speeches you're comparing. That said, I'm inclined to disagree.

But as I was thinking about the words to share with this class, about what's next, about what's possible, and what opportunities lay ahead, I actually think it's not a bad question for you, the class of 2005, to ask yourselves:

"What will be your place in history?"

In other eras, across distant lands, this question could be answered with relative ease and certainty. As a servant in Rome, you knew you'd spend your life forced to build somebody else's Empire. As a peasant in 11th Century China, you knew that no matter how hard you worked, the local warlord might come and take everything you had-and you also knew that famine might come knocking at the door. As a subject of King George, you knew that your freedom of worship and your freedom to speak and to build your own life would be ultimately limited by the throne.

And then America happened.

A place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped and remade by people who had the gall, the temerity to believe that, against all odds, they could form "a more perfect union" on this new frontier.
And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of an idea, they started to come. Across oceans and the ages, they settled in Boston and Charleston, Chicago and St. Louis, Kalamazoo and Galesburg, to try and build their own American Dream. This collective dream moved forward imperfectly-it was scarred by our treatment of native peoples, betrayed by slavery, clouded by the subjugation of women, shaken by war and depression. And yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people kept dreaming, and building, and working, and marching, and petitioning their government, until they made America a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us. It's answered by us.

I thought that was pretty good.

Drakkenmaw: Given a presupposed lack of underhanded interference

That's a pretty big 'given'.

You know what scares me? Obama is doing a fantastic job of emulating two great presidents from the past - Lincoln and Kennedy.

Now, exactly how many of your presidents have been assassinated, and who were they??

/Makes me very sad.
//Hope he's smart enough to know just how fast he can, and can't, get away with change.
///and who still needs to be paid off

Gunther
Wait, what? "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" really don't have anything to do with Al-Qaeda.
The name they gave themselves is Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn; "Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers". Only reason anyone calls them "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is because their leader said he supports OBL.

To be fair, "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a helluva lot easier to remember. By the time you've managed to say their actual title, 5 of their second-in-commands will have been taken out by airstrikes.

/mmmm, use of the future perfect tense...

Obama is a farking idiot if he plans to try to work all nice with the Republicans. Bill Clinton tried that in the beginning and look what it got him (and the partisan crap has only gotten worse since then). The Republican party can only see one thing to do in power which is to fark up the works. They can't be trusted, especially if you have them in your inner circle as there are no more moderate Republicans. The moderates have been exorcised from that party long ago.

Both Obama and H. Clinton are nothing but more Republican-lite. The real progressives were cut down before they could get going in the primary. I fear the next four years will be nothing but ineffectual suck leading to the Republicans rebounding into total power.

Relatively Obscure: I thought that was pretty good.

I think that the American dream is all about "putting food on your family".

This Obama guy seems like one of them book openers who I always beat up in school. I'd like to see him clear some brush before I give him my vote.

Befuddled: Obama is a farking idiot if he plans to try to work all nice with the Republicans. Bill Clinton tried that in the beginning and look what it got him (and the partisan crap has only gotten worse since then).

Bush came in promising bipartisan unity as well. Unfortunately, politics as usual seem to put an end to those ideas pretty quickly. Did Clinton or Bush ever attempt to put people from the other side of the aisle into cabinet posts?

helix400: Comparatively, McCain's "On the Issues" (new window) page is certainly no better. He wants to cut taxes further without meaningfully reducing expenditures, only promising a vague cut to "pork spending" which accounts for a minute percentage of total yearly federal expenses. Meanwhile he intends to continue a war that spends comparable amounts of money in a week. Not to mention throwing together all sorts of new programs for subsidizing private (and presumably parochial) schools and further subsidizing the ridiculously bloated and non-functional health industry through tax credits without attempting reform of the broken system.

You cannot cut taxes while continuing to spend like you've just stolen daddy's credit card, and Obama's at least not promising to spend as much or more while taking in less. The Republicans of late have wholly stolen the "big government" banner, leaving me at least without a reason to vote for them. Both parties are spending like crazy, but at least the Democrats are socially-liberal. When neither party is fiscally-conservative, that's all I can look at. I'll probably be voting Libertarian again this year (before you freak out, fellow Obama followers, I'm from Alabama and this state would go Republican in the general election if Bush nuked Mobile), but I wholly support Obama as the least-offensive mainstream candidate from my point of view. His most ludicrous positions, such as the universal health care mandate, almost certainly won't survive Congress without severe neutering - and for that I am glad. Comparatively, however, he has very laudable and effective policy ideas for increasing the openness of government and business interactions with it. After the shadow-administration we've had for the last eight years, that is a huge thing to work towards from any perspective.

Just my thoughts.

thisman: Now, exactly how many of your presidents have been assassinated, and who were they??

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy.
And nearly Reagan.

I'd say being Irish is more dangerous than anything.

Shaggy_C: Did Clinton or Bush ever attempt to put people from the other side of the aisle into cabinet posts?

Clinton's SecDef was Republican.
William Cohen.

0Icky0: Relatively Obscure: I thought that was pretty good.

I think that the American dream is all about "putting food on your family".

This Obama guy seems like one of them book openers who I always beat up in school. I'd like to see him clear some brush before I give him my vote.


It's that kind of old, business-as-usual talk that still vulcanizes society. Really--I think we can all agree, the past is over. Sure, this is still a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses, but if our wings take dream, we can make the pie higher.


That's kind of amusing to do, actually.

0Icky0: Clinton's SecDef was Republican.
William Cohen.

That was 2nd term though, right? More of a show appointment based on the results of the 1994 and 1996 elections iirc...I wasn't very involved back then.