[Shadowfax]

duplicate removed

[Shadowfax]

duplicate removed

[Shadowfax]

duplicate removed

[Shadowfax]

duplicate removed

[Shadowfax]

I do see the parallels, thus the reference. I lived through the Carter years, but had very little understanding of events as I was, I admit, in elementary school. So it is kind of like studying history for me. I was struck then–and now–by Carter’s humanitarianism. He really cared about people. However he was, I now admit after years of denial, not a good leader for those times. Too wishy-washy on making a decision. Not hard-nosed enough. I think he wanted to save (in the Christian sense) the souls of the captors in Iran and not kick their asses. I hated Reagan because my publicly funded school lunch was nasty after he cut funding for food programs for low income familes, of which we were one.

Before I state my thoughts on Obama–I have to qualify those statements with the fact that there is a certain amount of “gut” involved in evaluating the candidates. They are all politicians and, to a varying degree, they will each say what they think will get them elected. Some are whores in this regard and some do manage to keep some semblance of integrity–at least to the casual electorate like me. Anyone who thinks they really KNOW what a candidate stands for or will do once elected is sadly deceived. It’s not just the whore factor–situations change. Intelligence is obtained that you didn’t have before. So that’s a big grain of salt.

As for Obama, my gut says he is sincere and he has proven that he is of a different calibre by not taking the typical fund raising path (at least through the fight with Hillary). I note his stance has changed, but he will need every advantage against the elephants. So that is an example of how he is crafty enough to change with the terrain (not a flip-flopper, just strategically smart). I think he is hard-nosed enough to make tough decisions. (The 3 am phone call ad was such a joke.) Unlike Carter–who had a great message but delivered it poorly–I see in Obama more qualities like Kennedy. He is getting up there telling people there are going to be some tough choices ahead, but if we make them, we will be better for it. The issues re black fathers taking more accountability and responsibility. He seems to be consistent re education–not subsidies–as a strong answer to poverty and even racism.

His foreign policy is still under construction, I think. I suspect his recent world tour was, in part, designed to be a fact finding/intelligence mission. To answer the question, where do we stand in credibility with those who were once our allies? Will they stand with us or will we have to go back to “Freedom Fries?” I like his basic stance: 1) get out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can (don’t know when that is but it’s got to be less than 100 years) and 2) vigorously pursue the bastards who really attacked us.

It’s late and I am rambling. To sum up, I see some strong leadership qualities in him that are well designed for our coming trial by fire (or by oil). He appears smart–which can sometimes, but not always, compensate for inexperience. He may just boil down to being a good orator–but that is something that will serve the country well as he is delivering bad news but asking people to sacrifice a little now to have a better future. (to the tune of Kennedy’s “Ask not…” speech). He has a resolve (and this is the gut talking) that shows through–he ran his campaign against Hillary in a ruthlessly clean and morally superior way (which I think takes a lot of discipline not to spit back). Using this as an example, he seems to have an appreciation for strategy–he is willing to sacrifice some perceived short-term advantage for the long term victory.

I know from your posts that your support will likely go to a non-affiliated candidate (not D or R). I appreciate that and think the 2 party system is a little unwieldy and doesn’t well provide for disparate views. But I also think–being realistic–any vote not cast for a D is, practically speaking, cast for a R. (Thank you, Ralph Nader. A-hole. Not because of what he stands for but because he didn’t have the good sense to bow the fuck out in the best interests of the country.)

Another point: in this race, more than any other, the VP spot will be crucial. Both McCain and Obaman face risks while in office. Wish it weren’t so. Interested to see who they each offer for that spot.

[Shadowfax]

I do see the parallels, thus the reference. I lived through the Carter years, but had very little understanding of events as I was, I admit, in elementary school. So it is kind of like studying history for me. I was struck then–and now–by Carter’s humanitarianism. He really cared about people. However he was, I now admit after years of denial, not a good leader for those times. Too wishy-washy on making a decision. Not hard-nosed enough. I think he wanted to save (in the Christian sense) the souls of the captors in Iran and not kick their asses. I hated Reagan because my publicly funded school lunch was nasty after he cut funding for food programs for low income familes, of which we were one.

Before I state my thoughts on Obama–I have to qualify those statements with the fact that there is a certain amount of “gut” involved in evaluating the candidates. They are all politicians and, to a varying degree, they will each say what they think will get them elected. Some are whores in this regard and some do manage to keep some semblance of integrity–at least to the casual electorate like me. Anyone who thinks they really KNOW what a candidate stands for or will do once elected is sadly deceived. It’s not just the whore factor–situations change. Intelligence is obtained that you didn’t have before. So that’s a big grain of salt.

As for Obama, my gut says he is sincere and he has proven that he is of a different calibre by not taking the typical fund raising path (at least through the fight with Hillary). I note his stance has changed, but he will need every advantage against the elephants. So that is an example of how he is crafty enough to change with the terrain (not a flip-flopper, just strategically smart). I think he is hard-nosed enough to make tough decisions. (The 3 am phone call ad was such a joke.) Unlike Carter–who had a great message but delivered it poorly–I see in Obama more qualities like Kennedy. He is getting up there telling people there are going to be some tough choices ahead, but if we make them, we will be better for it. The issues re black fathers taking more accountability and responsibility. He seems to be consistent re education–not subsidies–as a strong answer to poverty and even racism.

His foreign policy is still under construction, I think. I suspect his recent world tour was, in part, designed to be a fact finding/intelligence mission. To answer the question, where do we stand in credibility with those who were once our allies? Will they stand with us or will we have to go back to “Freedom Fries?” I like his basic stance: 1) get out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can (don’t know when that is but it’s got to be less than 100 years) and 2) vigorously pursue the bastards who really attacked us.

It’s late and I am rambling. To sum up, I see some strong leadership qualities in him that are well designed for our coming trial by fire (or by oil). He appears smart–which can sometimes, but not always, compensate for inexperience. He may just boil down to being a good orator–but that is something that will serve the country well as he is delivering bad news but asking people to sacrifice a little now to have a better future. (to the tune of Kennedy’s “Ask not…” speech). He has a resolve (and this is the gut talking) that shows through–he ran his campaign against Hillary in a ruthlessly clean and morally superior way (which I think takes a lot of discipline not to spit back). Using this as an example, he seems to have an appreciation for strategy–he is willing to sacrifice some perceived short-term advantage for the long term victory.

I know from your posts that your support will likely go to a non-affiliated candidate (not D or R). I appreciate that and think the 2 party system is a little unwieldy and doesn’t well provide for disparate views. But I also think–being realistic–any vote not cast for a D is, practically speaking, cast for a R. (Thank you, Ralph Nader. A-hole. Not because of what he stands for but because he didn’t have the good sense to bow the fuck out in the best interests of the country.)

Another point: in this race, more than any other, the VP spot will be crucial. Both McCain and Obaman face risks while in office. Wish it weren’t so. Interested to see who they each offer for that spot.

[Shadowfax]

I do see the parallels, thus the reference. I lived through the Carter years, but had very little understanding of events as I was, I admit, in elementary school. So it is kind of like studying history for me. I was struck then–and now–by Carter’s humanitarianism. He really cared about people. However he was, I now admit after years of denial, not a good leader for those times. Too wishy-washy on making a decision. Not hard-nosed enough. I think he wanted to save (in the Christian sense) the souls of the captors in Iran and not kick their asses. I hated Reagan because my publicly funded school lunch was nasty after he cut funding for food programs for low income familes, of which we were one.

Before I state my thoughts on Obama–I have to qualify those statements with the fact that there is a certain amount of “gut” involved in evaluating the candidates. They are all politicians and, to a varying degree, they will each say what they think will get them elected. Some are whores in this regard and some do manage to keep some semblance of integrity–at least to the casual electorate like me. Anyone who thinks they really KNOW what a candidate stands for or will do once elected is sadly deceived. It’s not just the whore factor–situations change. Intelligence is obtained that you didn’t have before. So that’s a big grain of salt.

As for Obama, my gut says he is sincere and he has proven that he is of a different calibre by not taking the typical fund raising path (at least through the fight with Hillary). I note his stance has changed, but he will need every advantage against the elephants. So that is an example of how he is crafty enough to change with the terrain (not a flip-flopper, just strategically smart). I think he is hard-nosed enough to make tough decisions. (The 3 am phone call ad was such a joke.) Unlike Carter–who had a great message but delivered it poorly–I see in Obama more qualities like Kennedy. He is getting up there telling people there are going to be some tough choices ahead, but if we make them, we will be better for it. The issues re black fathers taking more accountability and responsibility. He seems to be consistent re education–not subsidies–as a strong answer to poverty and even racism.

His foreign policy is still under construction, I think. I suspect his recent world tour was, in part, designed to be a fact finding/intelligence mission. To answer the question, where do we stand in credibility with those who were once our allies? Will they stand with us or will we have to go back to “Freedom Fries?” I like his basic stance: 1) get out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can (don’t know when that is but it’s got to be less than 100 years) and 2) vigorously pursue the bastards who really attacked us.

It’s late and I am rambling. To sum up, I see some strong leadership qualities in him that are well designed for our coming trial by fire (or by oil). He appears smart–which can sometimes, but not always, compensate for inexperience. He may just boil down to being a good orator–but that is something that will serve the country well as he is delivering bad news but asking people to sacrifice a little now to have a better future. (to the tune of Kennedy’s “Ask not…” speech). He has a resolve (and this is the gut talking) that shows through–he ran his campaign against Hillary in a ruthlessly clean and morally superior way (which I think takes a lot of discipline not to spit back). Using this as an example, he seems to have an appreciation for strategy–he is willing to sacrifice some perceived short-term advantage for the long term victory.

I know from your posts that your support will likely go to a non-affiliated candidate (not D or R). I appreciate that and think the 2 party system is a little unwieldy and doesn’t well provide for disparate views. But I also think–being realistic–any vote not cast for a D is, practically speaking, cast for a R. (Thank you, Ralph Nader. A-hole. Not because of what he stands for but because he didn’t have the good sense to bow the fuck out in the best interests of the country.)

Another point: in this race, more than any other, the VP spot will be crucial. Both McCain and Obaman face risks while in office. Wish it weren’t so. Interested to see who they each offer for that spot.

[Shadowfax]

I do see the parallels, thus the reference. I lived through the Carter years, but had very little understanding of events as I was, I admit, in elementary school. So it is kind of like studying history for me. I was struck then–and now–by Carter’s humanitarianism. He really cared about people. However he was, I now admit after years of denial, not a good leader for those times. Too wishy-washy on making a decision. Not hard-nosed enough. I think he wanted to save (in the Christian sense) the souls of the captors in Iran and not kick their asses. I hated Reagan because my publicly funded school lunch was nasty after he cut funding for food programs for low income familes, of which we were one.

Before I state my thoughts on Obama–I have to qualify those statements with the fact that there is a certain amount of “gut” involved in evaluating the candidates. They are all politicians and, to a varying degree, they will each say what they think will get them elected. Some are whores in this regard and some do manage to keep some semblance of integrity–at least to the casual electorate like me. Anyone who thinks they really KNOW what a candidate stands for or will do once elected is sadly deceived. It’s not just the whore factor–situations change. Intelligence is obtained that you didn’t have before. So that’s a big grain of salt.

As for Obama, my gut says he is sincere and he has proven that he is of a different calibre by not taking the typical fund raising path (at least through the fight with Hillary). I note his stance has changed, but he will need every advantage against the elephants. So that is an example of how he is crafty enough to change with the terrain (not a flip-flopper, just strategically smart). I think he is hard-nosed enough to make tough decisions. (The 3 am phone call ad was such a joke.) Unlike Carter–who had a great message but delivered it poorly–I see in Obama more qualities like Kennedy. He is getting up there telling people there are going to be some tough choices ahead, but if we make them, we will be better for it. The issues re black fathers taking more accountability and responsibility. He seems to be consistent re education–not subsidies–as a strong answer to poverty and even racism.

His foreign policy is still under construction, I think. I suspect his recent world tour was, in part, designed to be a fact finding/intelligence mission. To answer the question, where do we stand in credibility with those who were once our allies? Will they stand with us or will we have to go back to “Freedom Fries?” I like his basic stance: 1) get out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can (don’t know when that is but it’s got to be less than 100 years) and 2) vigorously pursue the bastards who really attacked us.

It’s late and I am rambling. To sum up, I see some strong leadership qualities in him that are well designed for our coming trial by fire (or by oil). He appears smart–which can sometimes, but not always, compensate for inexperience. He may just boil down to being a good orator–but that is something that will serve the country well as he is delivering bad news but asking people to sacrifice a little now to have a better future. (to the tune of Kennedy’s “Ask not…” speech). He has a resolve (and this is the gut talking) that shows through–he ran his campaign against Hillary in a ruthlessly clean and morally superior way (which I think takes a lot of discipline not to spit back). Using this as an example, he seems to have an appreciation for strategy–he is willing to sacrifice some perceived short-term advantage for the long term victory.

I know from your posts that your support will likely go to a non-affiliated candidate (not D or R). I appreciate that and think the 2 party system is a little unwieldy and doesn’t well provide for disparate views. But I also think–being realistic–any vote not cast for a D is, practically speaking, cast for a R. (Thank you, Ralph Nader. A-hole. Not because of what he stands for but because he didn’t have the good sense to bow the fuck out in the best interests of the country.)

Another point: in this race, more than any other, the VP spot will be crucial. Both McCain and Obaman face risks while in office. Wish it weren’t so. Interested to see who they each offer for that spot.

[Shadowfax]

I do see the parallels, thus the reference. I lived through the Carter years, but had very little understanding of events as I was, I admit, in elementary school. So it is kind of like studying history for me. I was struck then–and now–by Carter’s humanitarianism. He really cared about people. However he was, I now admit after years of denial, not a good leader for those times. Too wishy-washy on making a decision. Not hard-nosed enough. I think he wanted to save (in the Christian sense) the souls of the captors in Iran and not kick their asses. I hated Reagan because my publicly funded school lunch was nasty after he cut funding for food programs for low income familes, of which we were one.

Before I state my thoughts on Obama–I have to qualify those statements with the fact that there is a certain amount of “gut” involved in evaluating the candidates. They are all politicians and, to a varying degree, they will each say what they think will get them elected. Some are whores in this regard and some do manage to keep some semblance of integrity–at least to the casual electorate like me. Anyone who thinks they really KNOW what a candidate stands for or will do once elected is sadly deceived. It’s not just the whore factor–situations change. Intelligence is obtained that you didn’t have before. So that’s a big grain of salt.

As for Obama, my gut says he is sincere and he has proven that he is of a different calibre by not taking the typical fund raising path (at least through the fight with Hillary). I note his stance has changed, but he will need every advantage against the elephants. So that is an example of how he is crafty enough to change with the terrain (not a flip-flopper, just strategically smart). I think he is hard-nosed enough to make tough decisions. (The 3 am phone call ad was such a joke.) Unlike Carter–who had a great message but delivered it poorly–I see in Obama more qualities like Kennedy. He is getting up there telling people there are going to be some tough choices ahead, but if we make them, we will be better for it. The issues re black fathers taking more accountability and responsibility. He seems to be consistent re education–not subsidies–as a strong answer to poverty and even racism.

His foreign policy is still under construction, I think. I suspect his recent world tour was, in part, designed to be a fact finding/intelligence mission. To answer the question, where do we stand in credibility with those who were once our allies? Will they stand with us or will we have to go back to “Freedom Fries?” I like his basic stance: 1) get out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can (don’t know when that is but it’s got to be less than 100 years) and 2) vigorously pursue the bastards who really attacked us.

It’s late and I am rambling. To sum up, I see some strong leadership qualities in him that are well designed for our coming trial by fire (or by oil). He appears smart–which can sometimes, but not always, compensate for inexperience. He may just boil down to being a good orator–but that is something that will serve the country well as he is delivering bad news but asking people to sacrifice a little now to have a better future. (to the tune of Kennedy’s “Ask not…” speech). He has a resolve (and this is the gut talking) that shows through–he ran his campaign against Hillary in a ruthlessly clean and morally superior way (which I think takes a lot of discipline not to spit back). Using this as an example, he seems to have an appreciation for strategy–he is willing to sacrifice some perceived short-term advantage for the long term victory.

I know from your posts that your support will likely go to a non-affiliated candidate (not D or R). I appreciate that and think the 2 party system is a little unwieldy and doesn’t well provide for disparate views. But I also think–being realistic–any vote not cast for a D is, practically speaking, cast for a R. (Thank you, Ralph Nader. A-hole. Not because of what he stands for but because he didn’t have the good sense to bow the fuck out in the best interests of the country.)

Another point: in this race, more than any other, the VP spot will be crucial. Both McCain and Obaman face risks while in office. Wish it weren’t so. Interested to see who they each offer for that spot.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.[/quote]

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every “negro” in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.[/quote]

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every “negro” in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.[/quote]

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every “negro” in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.[/quote]

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every “negro” in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Casca]Perhaps not to your stylish tastes, but the premise is sound. There are breathtaking gaps in the education of the man who has never had a job yet wishes to be President. He reminds one of that other son of destiny, Prince Albert the Goreon. One looks forward to the liberal bile due to flow after election day.

He and his braintrust have laid down an electoral strategy that writes off Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while registering every negro in America to vote. Methinks his electoral strategy is as inchoate as his position on, oh, go ahead, you pick the issue.[/quote]

Not to be the second coming of Marion, but is there something wrong with registering every “negro” in America? They are historically underrepresented in most elections, after all.

[Shadowfax]

ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!

Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.

Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)

[Author]

Posts