i dont want a democrat who is sitting on his hands trying to be quiet and calculated. that is basically why you are critical of HIllary, right? the truth is that while she throws the republicans a bone once in a while, at least she is right in the mix, taking positions and making decisions.
I'm critical of Senator Clinton because she is a political chameleon, changing her scales to match the surroundings to provide her with the greatest advantage. The most disgraceful position she has ever taken, in my view, was coming out against flag burning a couple years ago. Flag burning? Really? Who is burning the damn flag? And if they were, isn't there clear Supreme Court precedent on the subject that says it is protected conduct under the First Amendment? So what are you trying to do EXCEPT curry favor with people whom I disagree with, and vociferously!
And what's worse is that Senator Clinton is unelectable. People hate her. My mom, the quintessential swing voter, hates her.
Obama, by contrast, generates favor with people who hate Senator Clinton not because he says "I'm against flag burning" but because he says, "you may disagree with me, but we need to have a dialogue. Here's my position:"
If you want to see his legislative record, look at the legislation he sponsored and passed through the Illinois statehouse.
Yeah I don't know where people are coming from on this "where is his voting record"?
Well, if you can't run on your record, people will be using it for you. And not with the intention of getting you elected.
People didn't ask where Ross Perot's voting record was.
And even all the money in the world couldn't get his ass elected.
The issue is not that he has a record to hide, it's that he doesn't have much of a record - in the US Senate, that is - at all.
And Ross Perot got pretty damn close, which is my point. I never thought Perot was electable, but he certainly gave some folks a scare... precisely because he was an "outsider" and Americans LIKE that. Americans are currently MOST dissatisfied with Washington politics, and Obama has an appeal based on that.
if anything, everyone saying 'i kind of wish he had more experience' is a good sign i think; it means people don't yet identify him w/ washington, and still see him as a 'mr. smith goes to washington'-type character
Traditionally, seniority brings with it greater clout. As a result of this, it is fairly difficult for the more junior members of both houses of Congress to have a significant impact on policy.
Traditionally, seniority brings with it greater clout. As a result of this, it is fairly difficult for the more junior members of both houses of Congress to have a significant impact on policy.
I am merely pointing out what is already painfully obvious, that this is the third or fourth thread full of white dudes barking about how they're not sure they can get behind Obama because they are unsure of his positions. I don't see anyone wringing hands over other (white) candidates out there. If the cap fits...
As my man JRoot posted earlier, Obama has a record in the state legislature. He has a career leading up to his tenure in the Senate, and surely has a record of work in the Academy that would also point to political, moral, social ideas. And as someone else pointed out, his political ideas are outlined in his recent books which are widely available. I would say that anyone not aware of those things is the one that sounds ignorant. If you are interested in the Senator, why not familiarize yourself with his ideas yourself, instead of relying on soulstrut to do it for you?
I'm not sure why it's so important that he has a record of introducing or sponsoring legislation. To make a show of it? That seems to me far more calculated. I think he's doing his job well and I'm not sure why he would introduce a rash of doomed legislation just so he could show a record of doing that, unless he were actually calculating for its need in some future presidential run.
Traditionally, seniority brings with it greater clout. As a result of this, it is fairly difficult for the more junior members of both houses of Congress to have a significant impact on policy.
-wikipedia
Obama is running for president and he hasn't introduced any legislation in the senate. i'm not saying that precludes him from being a good candidate, it was just a response to your misconceived notion that Obama is a progressive candidate. if he was aggressively for change, you would think he wouuld have introduced several important bills.
aside from that, what are the changes he is even discussing? inform us.
Obama is an extraordinarily smart man, and I think he's going to have to be a little careful about that.
There is a subgroup within the American electorate that finds that extremely threatening. I think this group has been crucial to W's being twice elected (well, once elected and once installed)--people who look at him and think "He seems nervous. Public speaking makes me nervous, too. He is like me."
Clinton was forced to hide his light beneath a bushel; Hillary is not so good at doing so, and it's inspired a tremendous amount of hostility.
1. What evidence is there that he is even a smart man, let alone extraordinarily so.
2. The reason liberals typically get thumped come election time is not, as flattering as it is for you to believe, because of anti-intellectual sentiment. It is because most americans are not host to the various pathologies which cause them to support statist policies in spite of their long track record of failure. Clinton wasnt succesful because he concealed his intellect(what little the rapist has), he was succesful because he took the democrats to the right.
Points deducted for failure to invoke "our lord and savior Jesus Christ".
Beyond that, I will note only that I said nothing about liberals as a whole suffering as a result of anti-intellectual sentiment. I identified three individuals as being very smart, two of whom--Bill and Hillary--I would not call liberals.
Barack Obama introduced legislation on Tuesday to wind down the war in Iraq. Here's his description:
The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008....The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
Barack Obama introduced legislation on Tuesday to wind down the war in Iraq. Here's his description:
The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008....The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
there he is...your progressive democrat introducing legislation to get our troops out in over a year's time. again, i'm not suggesting Obama isn't the best candidate, however, the people on this board who support him are implying that he is THE candidate for change, while Hillary will try to stick close to the status quo.
imo, neither of them will bring the aggressiveness that i want to the whitehouse. if Gore were running, he would be my first choice. as it stands, i think i'll wait until the debates, or later, to make that decision.
I'm critical of Senator Clinton because she is a political chameleon, changing her scales to match the surroundings to provide her with the greatest advantage.
And what's worse is that Senator Clinton is unelectable. People hate her. My mom, the quintessential swing voter, hates her.
Obama, by contrast, generates favor with people who hate Senator Clinton not because he says "I'm against flag burning" but because he says, "you may disagree with me, but we need to have a dialogue. Here's my position:"
I am merely pointing out what is already painfully obvious, that this is the third or fourth thread full of white dudes barking about how they're not sure they can get behind Obama because they are unsure of his positions. I don't see anyone wringing hands over other (white) candidates out there. If the cap fits...
There are more threads than this one? White dudes? Isn't Obama half white?
Like I mentioned before. Being an inexperienced career politician & unknown in most of the country are just part of what he is going to have to go up against. Let alone others trying to dig into his personal life.
And his real battle will be trying to balance the fact that he is a half black/half white male who is christian with a muslim name and from a muslim background. How do you make one side feel like your supporting their views, without alienating the other? Do I think he could do it? Probably. But I once again question if he's ready due to the factors I first expressed.
I truly and honestly hope he does it. But the reality that we live in is that politics is a very dirty game. And as history has shown. The best person doesn't always win.
Obama taught constitutional law at the Unversity of Chicago. That could be a career pinacle for most mortals, and is pretty good experience for a lawmaker.
Obama taught constitutional law at the Unversity of Chicago. That could be a career pinacle for most mortals, and is pretty good experience for a lawmaker.
It has nothing to do with how smart a person is. Hence who is your President today.
I am merely pointing out what is already painfully obvious, that this is the third or fourth thread full of white dudes barking about how they're not sure they can get behind Obama because they are unsure of his positions. I don't see anyone wringing hands over other (white) candidates out there. If the cap fits...
There are more threads than this one? White dudes? Isn't Obama half white?
Like I mentioned before. Being an inexperienced career politician & unknown in most of the country are just part of what he is going to have to go up against. Let alone others trying to dig into his personal life.
And his real battle will be trying to balance the fact that he is a half black/half white male who is christian with a muslim name and from a muslim background. How do you make one side feel like your supporting their views, without alienating the other? Do I think he could do it? Probably. But I once again question if he's ready due to the factors I first expressed.
I truly and honestly hope he does it. But the reality that we live in is that politics is a very dirty game. And as history has shown. The best person doesn't always win.
I see this dude as the perfect candidate for these times. I don't think his platform or Clinton's really matter. Politically, the white man is running out of milage; he's just played out & a power shift is in the works. Couple that with White liberal guilt and volia, you have a female/black president.
Obama taught constitutional law at the Unversity of Chicago. That could be a career pinacle for most mortals, and is pretty good experience for a lawmaker.
It has nothing to do with how smart a person is. Hence who is your President today.
Actually it is a pretty good indicator that a person possesses substantial intelligence.
And how does the current president demonstrate otherwise? He has certainly never taught at the University of Chicago Law School.
It has nothing to do with how smart a person is. Hence who is your President today.
"...the larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, the first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide...the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre... The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people... On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a moron.[/b]"
--H.L. Mencken, writing in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920[/b]
Please stop saying this. He is relatively inexperienced as a U.S. senator--he is not lacking in political experience, having served in Illinois' state senate since 1996.
"I'm feelin' like a Black Republican nah, I can't call it more like a Black Democrat runnin' 'em outta office young Barack(a) Obama I'm all for it the Rock of Gibraltar has now fallen"
if he was aggressively for change, you would think he wouuld have introduced several important bills.
"Introduced several important bills" as a junior senator in two years time?
That's not a very realistic standard.
the fact that he hasn't introduced legislation goes to a much larger point: he is not the progressive candidate most liberal democrats (such as myself) are looking for. we have a president who should be impeached and put on trial. perhaps we dont have a democratic candidate willing to go that far, but i can't get excited about Obama because he plays it way too safe.
all the obama cheerleaders on this board love to talk about how great of an orator he is...okay, what has he said that inspired you and/or made you anxious for him to go in and make a change? someone just posted that he is sponsoring a bill (perhaps his first bill) that will call for troop removal by march of '08. that's who you guys are riding for soo hard, and this early on?
give me a break. i'm not pointing fingers, but i will make an educated guess that most of the people on this board do not follow politics enough to make broad statements about the qualifications of candidates. vote for who you want to, but if you think Obama has proven himself to be a progressive candidate...well, i think the evidence shows otherwise. i think it would be great (for society) to have a black president...more so than a woman. but foremost, i want someone who is aggressively challenging the current administration and/or bringing new ideas to the table.
Comments
you dont know what you are talking about.
Is that right?
Please illuminate the areas I am not knowing about.
I'm critical of Senator Clinton because she is a political chameleon, changing her scales to match the surroundings to provide her with the greatest advantage. The most disgraceful position she has ever taken, in my view, was coming out against flag burning a couple years ago. Flag burning? Really? Who is burning the damn flag? And if they were, isn't there clear Supreme Court precedent on the subject that says it is protected conduct under the First Amendment? So what are you trying to do EXCEPT curry favor with people whom I disagree with, and vociferously!
And what's worse is that Senator Clinton is unelectable. People hate her. My mom, the quintessential swing voter, hates her.
Obama, by contrast, generates favor with people who hate Senator Clinton not because he says "I'm against flag burning" but because he says, "you may disagree with me, but we need to have a dialogue. Here's my position:"
If you want to see his legislative record, look at the legislation he sponsored and passed through the Illinois statehouse.
Best,
JRoot
Well, if you can't run on your record, people will be using it for you. And not with the intention of getting you elected.
And even all the money in the world couldn't get his ass elected.
Black gay homosexuals in the NBA.
The issue is not that he has a record to hide, it's that he doesn't have much of a record - in the US Senate, that is - at all.
And Ross Perot got pretty damn close, which is my point. I never thought Perot was electable, but he certainly gave some folks a scare... precisely because he was an "outsider" and Americans LIKE that. Americans are currently MOST dissatisfied with Washington politics, and Obama has an appeal based on that.
there is a difference between voting on other senator's bills and introducing your own.
also, you sound ignorant for trying to accuse people of being racist simply because they are actually discussing Obama's credentials.
As my man JRoot posted earlier, Obama has a record in the state legislature. He has a career leading up to his tenure in the Senate, and surely has a record of work in the Academy that would also point to political, moral, social ideas. And as someone else pointed out, his political ideas are outlined in his recent books which are widely available. I would say that anyone not aware of those things is the one that sounds ignorant. If you are interested in the Senator, why not familiarize yourself with his ideas yourself, instead of relying on soulstrut to do it for you?
I'm not sure why it's so important that he has a record of introducing or sponsoring legislation. To make a show of it? That seems to me far more calculated. I think he's doing his job well and I'm not sure why he would introduce a rash of doomed legislation just so he could show a record of doing that, unless he were actually calculating for its need in some future presidential run.
Obama is running for president and he hasn't introduced any legislation in the senate. i'm not saying that precludes him from being a good candidate, it was just a response to your misconceived notion that Obama is a progressive candidate. if he was aggressively for change, you would think he wouuld have introduced several important bills.
aside from that, what are the changes he is even discussing? inform us.
"Introduced several important bills" as a junior senator in two years time?
That's not a very realistic standard.
Points deducted for failure to invoke "our lord and savior Jesus Christ".
Beyond that, I will note only that I said nothing about liberals as a whole suffering as a result of anti-intellectual sentiment. I identified three individuals as being very smart, two of whom--Bill and Hillary--I would not call liberals.
there he is...your progressive democrat introducing legislation to get our troops out in over a year's time. again, i'm not suggesting Obama isn't the best candidate, however, the people on this board who support him are implying that he is THE candidate for change, while Hillary will try to stick close to the status quo.
imo, neither of them will bring the aggressiveness that i want to the whitehouse. if Gore were running, he would be my first choice. as it stands, i think i'll wait until the debates, or later, to make that decision.
HA!
Ah, yes, that aggressiveness that was so winningly displayed during the '00 campaign.
This is the most cogent post in this thread.
There are more threads than this one? White dudes? Isn't Obama half white?
Like I mentioned before. Being an inexperienced career politician & unknown in most of the country are just part of what he is going to have to go up against. Let alone others trying to dig into his personal life.
And his real battle will be trying to balance the fact that he is a half black/half white male who is christian with a muslim name and from a muslim background. How do you make one side feel like your supporting their views, without alienating the other? Do I think he could do it? Probably. But I once again question if he's ready due to the factors I first expressed.
I truly and honestly hope he does it. But the reality that we live in is that politics is a very dirty game. And as history has shown. The best person doesn't always win.
It has nothing to do with how smart a person is. Hence who is your President today.
I see this dude as the perfect candidate for these times. I don't think his platform or Clinton's really matter. Politically, the white man is running out of milage; he's just played out & a power shift is in the works. Couple that with White liberal guilt and volia, you have a female/black president.
Actually it is a pretty good indicator that a person possesses substantial intelligence.
And how does the current president demonstrate otherwise? He has certainly never taught at the University of Chicago Law School.
"...the larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, the first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide...the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre... The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people... On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a moron.[/b]"
--H.L. Mencken, writing in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920[/b]
Please stop saying this. He is relatively inexperienced as a U.S. senator--he is not lacking in political experience, having served in Illinois' state senate since 1996.
and what would George II's Constitutional Law syllabi look like? I wonder....
+
+
=
"I'm feelin' like a
Black Republican
nah, I can't call it
more like a Black Democrat
runnin' 'em outta office
young Barack(a) Obama
I'm all for it
the Rock of Gibraltar
has now fallen"
AYE!
the fact that he hasn't introduced legislation goes to a much larger point: he is not the progressive candidate most liberal democrats (such as myself) are looking for. we have a president who should be impeached and put on trial. perhaps we dont have a democratic candidate willing to go that far, but i can't get excited about Obama because he plays it way too safe.
all the obama cheerleaders on this board love to talk about how great of an orator he is...okay, what has he said that inspired you and/or made you anxious for him to go in and make a change? someone just posted that he is sponsoring a bill (perhaps his first bill) that will call for troop removal by march of '08. that's who you guys are riding for soo hard, and this early on?
give me a break. i'm not pointing fingers, but i will make an educated guess that most of the people on this board do not follow politics enough to make broad statements about the qualifications of candidates. vote for who you want to, but if you think Obama has proven himself to be a progressive candidate...well, i think the evidence shows otherwise. i think it would be great (for society) to have a black president...more so than a woman. but foremost, i want someone who is aggressively challenging the current administration and/or bringing new ideas to the table.