|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 16, 2007 23:14:14 GMT -5
It is sad that the attack machine is already after this man. Of course, the "Hussein" mention in his name plays right into the Republican playbook as if we're to associate Obama with Saddam. Then again, Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11 too [sic].
The "experience" card is a good one to play. George Bush's "experience," Rummy's "experience," and Cheney's "experience" brought us the Iraq War "experience." If that's the experience we need in this country, count me out. It comes as no surprise that some Republicans, even on this message board, are pounding their chests when the policies they supported have caused greater instability in the Middle East, with NO end in sight. How about we value experience when it involves good policy as opposed to experience for its own sake?
I've read Obama's book and was mildly impressed. It is too short on details, especially in policy areas, but the general themes resonate, and that's what one needs in presidential campaigns these days. Bush was elected on the "ownership society," "compassionate conservative" and"uniter not a divider" mantles, nevermind it took him 3 years to own up to the reality of his mistakes in Iraq and the demographic facts that Americans are more divided now than they have been in years. If Americans like the messenger and the message passes a cursory sniff test, they'll buy in.
So, bring on the fringe, right wing attacks. Hopefully, for your sake, it will go some way toward covering up the "experience" that some of the more "experienced" Republican contenders bring to the table.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 16, 2007 23:17:25 GMT -5
Obama has no less experience than John Edwards had when he ran last time, and Edwards was considered a viable candidate to some. Edwards served in the senate longer but Obama has state senate experience. Prior to the Senate, Edwards had no management experience whatsoever, since his previous job was bilking doctors via the legal system using pseudo-science plaintiff's attorney.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 16, 2007 23:23:53 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, some Republicans are against junk science when it comes to attacking Edwards but for it when attacking global warming. Nuance or flip flop?
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 16, 2007 23:38:14 GMT -5
Not sure which "Republicans" you are referring to, but I am sure there are some who fit that category.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 16, 2007 23:45:30 GMT -5
That's why I said "some."
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 17, 2007 0:32:26 GMT -5
It is sad that the attack machine is already after this man. Of course, the "Hussein" mention in his name plays right into the Republican playbook as if we're to associate Obama with Saddam. Then again, Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11 too [sic]. The "experience" card is a good one to play. George Bush's "experience," Rummy's "experience," and Cheney's "experience" brought us the Iraq War "experience." If that's the experience we need in this country, count me out. It comes as no surprise that some Republicans, even on this message board, are pounding their chests when the policies they supported have caused greater instability in the Middle East, with NO end in sight. How about we value experience when it involves good policy as opposed to experience for its own sake? I've read Obama's book and was mildly impressed. It is too short on details, especially in policy areas, but the general themes resonate, and that's what one needs in presidential campaigns these days. Bush was elected on the "ownership society," "compassionate conservative" and"uniter not a divider" mantles, nevermind it took him 3 years to own up to the reality of his mistakes in Iraq and the demographic facts that Americans are more divided now than they have been in years. If Americans like the messenger and the message passes a cursory sniff test, they'll buy in. So, bring on the fringe, right wing attacks. Hopefully, for your sake, it will go some way toward covering up the "experience" that some of the more "experienced" Republican contenders bring to the table. Jersey, I'm not sure one anonymous e-mail traveling through the World Wide Web leads to the conclusion that the attack machine is operating at full throttle. Also, you concede Obama hasn't put forward many policy ideas, or worked on many policy ideas on a national level. Yet you still like Obama. What's more important to hard-core Dems: policy ideas or getting elected? If it's the latter, the Republicans will probably maintain the presidency as they did in '04, in the manner they did it in '04, and probably with a similar candidate as in '04. I vote for both parties, and I am not likely to be happy about a vote for Obama unless his campaign is able to do what no candidate has done in the past two presidential elections: articulate clear and innovative policies to better the nation.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 17, 2007 9:24:04 GMT -5
I totally accept that Obama needs to put forth concrete policy proposals. And I have no doubt that he will--that is, after all, not exactly the hardest part of running for president. The experience card may resonate a bit but it really shouldn't. Look at the experience of the other two front-runners for the Democratic nomination. Hillary will have been in the senate for 8 years by 2008. Edwards will have served 6 years as Senator. That is the extent of their experience in public office. Obama will have spent 4 years as U.S. senator and 8 years as state senator -- 12 years in elected office. The notion that Hillary or John have more meaningful experience than Obama is splitting hairs, at best. And, at the end of the day, it is entirely unclear that being a legislator is good training for the presidency. The last real legislator who held the office was LBJ.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2007 11:10:46 GMT -5
And yet each of them will have absolutely zero executive experience as they seek to become chief executive of the United States of America. Hillary of course was at least consigliere to the mob that ran Arkansas...
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 803
|
Post by tgo on Jan 17, 2007 11:34:05 GMT -5
What's more important to hard-core Dems: policy ideas or getting elected? If it's the latter, the Republicans will probably maintain the presidency as they did in '04, in the manner they did it in '04, and probably with a similar candidate as in '04. I vote for both parties, and I am not likely to be happy about a vote for Obama unless his campaign is able to do what no candidate has done in the past two presidential elections: articulate clear and innovative policies to better the nation. If the dems go with someone electable over someone with ideas they would be doing the same thing the gop did in 2000. at that point conservatives still liked mccain and he had some ideas. Bush didnt have ideas or a philosphy, just sound bites and catch phrases but he was more electable. another note is that, unfortunately, i dont think there are many people out there who vote for policies or ideas. Arnold in California is the perfection of the candidate who wont tell you what they stand for during a campaign. if you never give any specifics of what your plans are you cant be picked apart. of course it is very hard to run without specifics or plans, you need some help from the media and your opponent but Arnold has been able to do it and the closer others get to his model the better chance they have to win.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2007 11:37:50 GMT -5
Well you can rerst assured that the mainstream media will give Obama the freest of free passes in their desire to cover his "historic", "landmark", "groundbreaking", "pick your own over-used and irrelevant adjective" campaign.
His lack of substance, qualifications or experience will mean nothing to the fourth estate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2007 11:48:09 GMT -5
And yet each of them will have absolutely zero executive experience as they seek to become chief executive of the United States of America. Hillary of course was at least consigliere to the mob that ran Arkansas... So, are you saying that one needs to have been a CEO, a Governor or a Mayor to pass muster with you? Or does that only matter if they're Democrats? Because if you're harping on the lack of executive experience, the presumed Republican frontrunner (McCain) is lacking as well. Two terms in the House and four terms in the Senate = Zero executive experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2007 11:56:53 GMT -5
another note is that, unfortunately, i dont think there are many people out there who vote for policies or ideas. Agreed - and that's what's sad about politics in general. We don't get the best or brightest (on either side of the aisle) running for office, because we - the electorate - apparently prefer charisma and a nice smile to actual ideas and policies.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 17, 2007 12:12:21 GMT -5
Look, it is totally unclear what makes good training to be POTUS. There is a very small sample size and the job is so unique that it is likely that character traits are far more important than past experience. We've had a host of governors in the last half century with decidedly mixed results. Reagan and Clinton proved capable; Bush II and Carter were disasters. What does that tell us? Probably nothing. At the end of the day, you vote for people you can believe in; individuals who can articulate a vision for America and give you confidencen that they can carry it out. Obama seems to have the ability to connect with people in a way that I haven't seen since Clinton--and he's probably better than Clinton at it. That counts for a lot. At this point, he may be an emply vessel carrying whatever hope or aspiration you put into it. But if he is able to articulate a way forward out of the morass of the last 6 years, I will follow.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 17, 2007 12:30:28 GMT -5
If what I am currently seeing in most of the media is the "attack machine" when it comes to Obama, I'd hate to see what they'd be like if they were being NICE to him. I think Edited might be involved. Most of the conservative articles that I've read have not been about personal attacks, but trying to point out his liberal voting record that is in stark contrast to the moderate image (with the exception of his Iraq stance) that he is presenting. I don't have a problem with that, nor should anyone. Yes, Internet message boards, blogs, etc. will contain some meanspirited character assaults. Wow, what a surprise. I'm sure glad no one on the Internet is behaving so badly when it comes to our current President. For the record, I am reading Obama's book and will listen to his policy positions whenever they are clarified. No, I don't expect that I'll agree with the majority of them, but I'm interested in learning something more substantive than the fact that, apparently, he's a rock star/Abraham Lincoln/the most exciting thing to hit Washington since...well, ever.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 17, 2007 12:49:05 GMT -5
Boz, you know better than to try to inject reason and objectivity into any HoyaTalk board discussion, let alone one about politics!!
Abortions for all! Boooo!
Abortions for none? Booo!
Abortions for some, tiny plastic American flags for others! Yaaaay!
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Jan 17, 2007 12:57:26 GMT -5
The only appealing piece of this theater of the absurd will be to watch Madame Hillary have to attack Obama as unqualified. And as for that comment about Ontario, you are out of your mind if you believe this nation (and especially the South) is going to elect Barck Hussein Obama as President. It is a sad but true fact that he will be excluded based upon the sound of his name. It is a not sad, but still true, fact that he should be excluded by his dearth of qualifications. Here are his qualifications: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2007 13:00:36 GMT -5
I never questioned his eligibility. There is a difference. For God's sake, Esh is eligible. Qualified? Another story.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 17, 2007 13:02:11 GMT -5
Boz, you know better than to try to inject reason and objectivity into any HoyaTalk board discussion, let alone one about politics!! Abortions for all! Boooo! Abortions for none? Booo! Abortions for some, tiny plastic American flags for others! Yaaaay! My mistake. This is what I meant to say: "Chat away, I'll just amuse myself with these pornographic playing cards." "Very well then, instead of fleeing this town, I'll stay here and grow fat off kickbacks and slush funds." "Our city will not negotiate with terrorists. Is there a city nearby that will?" "You can't seriously want to ban alcohol. It tastes great, makes woman appear more attractive, and makes a person virtually invulnerable to criticism." "Can't this town go one day without a riot?!"
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Jan 17, 2007 13:04:21 GMT -5
I never questioned his eligibility. There is a difference. For God's sake, Esh is eligible. Qualified? Another story. Wouldn't head coach count as executive experience?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2007 13:05:48 GMT -5
Yes. Making Esh the exception proving the rule. Captain of the Exxon Valdez is also executive experience.
|
|