Hillary/McCain supporters: What do you think of Obama's performance so far?

[Gozu]

Disclaimer: I am pro-Obama but I'll admit that Either Clinton or McCain might do a better job if they are elected. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Some might think of his performance as a prez candidate started when he started raising funds, Others may argue that it really started 4 years ago after his DNC speech or even years before that, when he first became involved in politics or when he took public office.

Any starting date is fine with me. Since everyone has different criteria for performance and different conclusions, I'll let ya'll decide how to best go about it.

Of course, I'm particularly interested on how it compares to those of Hillary and McCain, but I'd also like it contrasted with Reagan's and Bill Clinton's (I didn't live in the U.S back then).

Your thoughts?

[Gozu]

Ok, the lack of answers doesn't tell me much. Are there any Hillary/McCain supporters left on this board???

[Onomatopoeia]

There are. They're just sleeping in. It takes a lot of energy to fight the good fight when your champion keeps whittling away at the reasons to do so. :)

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Either that or they're all in church praying for divine intervention to save their candidate.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just another bashfest ...

[jayjay]

Just another bashfest ...

My GOD, do you even realize how much you sound like a circa 2004 Bush supporter on here? "Just another bashfest boo hoo hoo"...I'm trying like HELL to remember that we're going to need you and your fellow Clinton supporters in the fall, but you all make it REALLY difficult.

[ElvisL1ves]

You might think a bit harder before making posts like the ones above, then.

Do you seriously see any good-faith interest in discussing the quality of Obama's campaign performance here? The OP himself went straight to the hate in Post #2, and you've built on it yourself.

If you should ever decide you want to discuss this topic responsibly, I'll be happy to join you. But that obviously isn't going to happen any time soon.

[jayjay]

You might think a bit harder before making posts like the ones above, then.

Agreed. It was made in haste and frustration and isn't constructive. I apologize.

Do you seriously see any good-faith interest in discussing the quality of Obama's campaign performance here? The OP himself went straight to the hate in Post #2, and you've built on it yourself.

If you should ever decide you want to discuss this topic responsibly, I'll be happy to join you. But that obviously isn't going to happen any time soon.

The second post was made almost 10 hours after the OP was posted, to no replies at all. It's not like he posted the OP and then immediately posted Post #2. There was a time gap of 9 hours and 40 minutes in which no one answered him. The question he asked in #2 is understandable.

Can you define "responsibly"?

[ElvisL1ves]

The question he asked in #2, only 10 hours later, confirms his true intentions. The follow-on posts, none of which existed until those intentions were confirmed, demonstrate the lack of interest among the Obama supporters / Hillary haters (synonymous almost without exception here) in anything but bashing. The #2 post effectively gave you all "permission" to do what you love best, not address the topic at its stated meaning.


"Responsibly" ? If you have to ask ...

[jayjay]

The question he asked in #2, only 10 hours later, confirms his true intentions. The follow-on posts, none of which existed until those intentions were confirmed, demonstrate the lack of interest among the Obama supporters / Hillary haters (synonymous almost without exception here) in anything but bashing. The #2 post effectively gave you all "permission" to do what you love best, not address the topic at its stated meaning.


"Responsibly" ? If you have to ask ...

Well, lesson learned. Trying to be reasonable to some Clinton supporters is futile. The OP was not addressed to Obama supporters, and we honored that stated intention for a phenomenally long time for a current political thread on this message board. Ten hours is more than enough time for an actual Clinton (or McCain, for that matter) supporter to step up and give their opinion. That none of you did spotlights either your own paranoia about how your candidate is being treated, or a general malaise as the inevitability of her defeat draws nearer.

Did it ever occur to you that "Hillary Haters" have good reason to dislike her, above and beyond her utter lack of electability given how much she's HATED by the Republican rank and file? Is it possible that her dirty campaigning, her condescension, her touting of the Republican candidate, the retention of union-buster and lobbying whore Mark Penn as her chief strategist, the Rovian techniques that her campaign has used against Obama and the distaste for a strengthening of the propriety of a dynastic presidency (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...) all have more to do with our dislike of the idea of her as the Democratic candidate than anything personal or sexist?

On the other hand, I've never really heard anything substantive from a Clinton supporter against Obama. Experience? He has more actual elective experience than she does. Electability? It is to laugh...any voter who wouldn't vote for a black man also wouldn't vote for a woman. What else do you have? From my perspective, opposition to Obama has all the substance of the fever-dreams rising from Hillaryis44.com.

Oh, add in the progressives' understandable disgust with the Democratic Leadership Council's Republican-lite philosophy of government and the general belief that this election is going to be a fight to rid the party of the influence of those who are whoring to business with all the restraint and propriety of a bordello drawing room. Progressives are tired of the DLC philosophy that, between 1992 and 2006, lost our party majorities left and right. The Clintons have never had coattails, and the party is about more than the president. If Obama is the nominee, we will see substantial and necessary increases in our margins in the House and Senate. If Clinton is the nominee, historically we will not.

[Mosier]

I'm actually curious what Hillary supporters think of my candidate, too. Would you mind playing as if the thread was started in good faith, and help us get a real discussion started?

[The Controvert]

I check SDMB fairly often and I didn't see this thread until now. Ten hours is not a large amount of time in GD, especially when most of that is in the dead of night.

I support Hillary and would've posted my views, but it'd be rather foolish on this board. SDMB skews heavily Obama, just look at the thread titles. "Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking"? I am doubtful there is any sincere interest in hearing about Hillary. I think most people on this board would like to look past the large number of voters who have given Hillary about the same number of delegates as Obama.

Please stay in your corner and keep repeating your rationale (she has no experience other than being "only" the wife of a President, haha!). You'll be much happier that way.

[The Controvert]

Ok, I've had time to calm down, and Mosier's post does help. If we start over, here's a few thoughts on Obama, from a Hillary fan.

First, I was disappointed a few months ago when I went to Obama's web site. Nothing too substantial there. This has changed and he has good info as of late. Would've pulled for him more if he had his act together from the start, as that is a sign of good planning and organization.

Second, I see Obama as a talker. He is positioned well, since he is half-black / half-white. In politics, you want to share as many things in common with as many voters as possible. That's why centrists work out so great, they grab as much of the pie as possible. Unfortunately, we see a lot of false centrists. Bush and Clinton made plays for the center, but Bush is clearly nowhere near the center in actuality and in action.

As such, it is difficult for me to trust Obama's talk. If he turns out to be "all talk", then he has mad skills at making you believe he is right for the office. That could be illusory, just like the previous President.

If he isn't all talk and has the chops to back up what he says, then he will make a great President and I sincerely hope that happens. More likely, he will make a few mistakes along the way. I do think he is more likely to make critical mistakes that show inexperience, especially in the first few years, so that's why I like Hillary a little more.

I can look past Hillary's supposed "warts" because I really do not care one whit if she is robotic, bitchy, uncharismatic, says the wrong thing to the press, "mishears or misspeaks" a word, or isn't as physically attractive as a young black (and white) man. I do like that she was part of something extremely rare and quite impressive if you take the time to think about it: an administration that took a monstrous deficit and turned it into a surplus. Especially when you look at how quickly that surplus evaporated under another person's care.

[ElvisL1ves]

Well, lesson learned. Trying to be reasonable to some Clinton supporters is futile.Another point is proven. Not the one you think, though.

The OP was not addressed to Obama supportersRead in combination with Post #2, yes, it was.

That none of you did spotlights either your own paranoia about how your candidate is being treated, or a general malaise as the inevitability of her defeat draws nearer.More proof.

Did it ever occur to you that "Hillary Haters" have good reason to dislike her, above and beyond her utter lack of electability given how much she's HATED by the Republican rank and file?Pity for that assertion that the polls do not support it. As in, actual data, you might have heard of the concept.

Is it possible that her dirty campaigning, her condescension, her touting of the Republican candidate, the retention of union-buster and lobbying whore Mark Penn as her chief strategist, the Rovian techniques that her campaign has used against Obama and the distaste for a strengthening of the propriety of a dynastic presidency (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...) all have more to do with our dislike of the idea of her as the Democratic candidate than anything personal or sexist?Bashfest, as I said. Yawwwnnn ....

On the other hand, I've never really heard anything substantive from a Clinton supporter against Obama.I know you've been reading this forum for quite a while, so it can't be that you haven't come across any. Rather, it would appear to be this instead: No criticism of him can possibly be substantive, by definition.

[jayjay]

Well, I guess I should have listened to that thing about talking to walls...I give up. Be delusional all the way to Denver if you want, though I don't think this is going to go all the way there.

[rikc]

ElvisL1ves, I almost wish Hillary was winning the nomination just so you could stop playing victim for, I don't know, a second. The woman's not totally indefensible, but your constant attempt to dodge and any all debate beyond "Hillary bashing YAWNING OVER HERE GUYS" ironically seems to be stating the contrary.

[ElvisL1ves]

I had a nice long post written in response to Mosier, but after previewing the most recent posts, I think I'll send it privately to him and The Controvert. There is no other good faith in sight.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

There's an old saying in legal circles: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

You're pounding the table, ElvisL1ves

[ElvisL1ves]

There's an old saying in politics: Don't mud-wrestle.


Nope, no good faith on your part either, is there?

[DigitalC]

I actually think Elvisl1ves is right, at least concerning this thread. Obama suporter here, also Hillary hater.

[Onomatopoeia]

Ok, I've had time to calm down, and Mosier's post does help. If we start over, here's a few thoughts on Obama, from a Hillary fan.

First, I was disappointed a few months ago when I went to Obama's web site. Nothing too substantial there. This has changed and he has good info as of late. Would've pulled for him more if he had his act together from the start, as that is a sign of good planning and organization.

Second, I see Obama as a talker. He is positioned well, since he is half-black / half-white. In politics, you want to share as many things in common with as many voters as possible. That's why centrists work out so great, they grab as much of the pie as possible. Unfortunately, we see a lot of false centrists. Bush and Clinton made plays for the center, but Bush is clearly nowhere near the center in actuality and in action.

As such, it is difficult for me to trust Obama's talk. If he turns out to be "all talk", then he has mad skills at making you believe he is right for the office. That could be illusory, just like the previous President.

If he isn't all talk and has the chops to back up what he says, then he will make a great President and I sincerely hope that happens. More likely, he will make a few mistakes along the way. I do think he is more likely to make critical mistakes that show inexperience, especially in the first few years, so that's why I like Hillary a little more.

I can look past Hillary's supposed "warts" because I really do not care one whit if she is robotic, bitchy, uncharismatic, says the wrong thing to the press, "mishears or misspeaks" a word, or isn't as physically attractive as a young black (and white) man. I do like that she was part of something extremely rare and quite impressive if you take the time to think about it: an administration that took a monstrous deficit and turned it into a surplus. Especially when you look at how quickly that surplus evaporated under another person's care.Thank you, The Controvert. Your response was well thought out and reasonable, and although I dispute your contention that Obama will probably make critical mistakes...it's the "critical" that I have a problem with...this Obama supporter appreciates that you actually answered the OP's question.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, were I American, I'd still be pro-Clinton. I'd've voted for her in my state's primary.

I suggest you step out of this thread for a bit, Elvis. You're not helping.

[Phlosphr]

This really sucks. I wish I could hear or read some good news about Hillary so I wouldn't have to have all these adverse feelings towards her. I look on the web, her website, blogs, gushy Clinton blogs, and the like and I see only the same things I see on the Obama circuit just with Hillary's name instead of Obama's in there. All of those sites gush over Hillary, but non of them say she is winning anything. They say she is experienced, they say she is more dependable, but they don't back anything up with endorsements, wins, popular appeal or anything that says she is actually going tobe president. At least I dont think I'm closing my eyes to what I read.

I'm lucky, as are a lot of us here on the SDMB, to be supporting a man who is winning on many fronts.

If the tables were turned, and Obama was in Hillary's shoes would we have a Fork the Obama thread? Or would we still see the vitriol for Hillary and hope for Obama? Personally I think we'd still have the vitriol.

To the Hillary supporters: Is there anything wrong with a likable candidate? The Controvert says: If he isn't all talk and has the chops to back up what he says, then he will make a great President and I sincerely hope that happens.This is something I fully allow myself to believe, and have for over a year.

Personally, I was excited to see someone stand up to Clinton, as I don't think she should be where she is on legacy alone.

If Obama wins the presidency, he will have fought, and fought hard. I like that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Thanks, DigitalC. Bryan, what do you see as unhelpful? All the vitriol you see here? What's the scoreboard show? Yes, it is important to get rid of that shit (starting with pointing it out) in a campaign, especially an intraparty one, and most especially when it's in support of a candidate whose campaign is based on claiming to be above it.


Phl, it's a little disconcerting to see you describe your support of Obama as based essentially on his leading at the moment, and on the hope that he'll turn out to be substantive if he gets elected.

As for anything being "wrong" with likeability, no, not as such, but it's well down the list of job qualifications for a chief executive, isn't it? We're not picking a preacher or a drinking buddy here; we're hiring somebody to run the government. Dubya is as likeable a person as they come, but would you call that evidence of his ability to be President?

Bottom line: Talkers don't impress me; doers do. Candidates who claim or just suggest that their clean hands constitutes evidence that they're a more highly-evolved life form, not just people who disdain to get their hands dirty, don't impress me; candidates with battle scars do. Candidates who inspire their staffers and supporters to hatred of their opponents and their opponent's supporters don't impress me; those who show by their actions that they recognize that party and country and humanity are still more important do. Candidates who merely claim to be uniting leaders don't impress me; candidates who try to get the voices of all the people to count in elections do. Candidates who promise to be out of an evil war in a certain time period but whose advisers admit they won't be bound by it after the inauguration don't impress me; those whose plans are more nuanced do. Candidates who talk about drastically changing NAFTA but admit in private it's just for show don't impress me; those who claim a more realistic view do. Candidates who talk about the importance of UHC but whose plans don't include the U don't impress me; those whose do include it do. Candidates who claim to be about being past race but whose supporters claim that someone who isn't one might be racist don't impress me; those who are running as themselves do.


Good-faith replies are, of course, welcome. Replies using words like "paranoid" and "delusional" are not, though they are expected nonetheless. And maybe the OP can drop in and explain his actual intentions, whaddaya say?

[Bryan Ekers]

Thanks, DigitalC. Bryan, what do you see as unhelpful? All the vitriol you see here?

None of that was here until you jumped in with your oh-so-witty "just another bashfest...." comment.

[Phlosphr]

Phl, it's a little disconcerting to see you describe your support of Obama as based essentially on his leading at the moment, and on the hope that he'll turn out to be substantive if he gets elected. I think everyone supporting their candidate of choice hopes they will turn out to be a good president. Unless, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt Hillary Clinton will be a substantive president, I bet we hold the same view of our respective candidates.

As for anything being "wrong" with likeability, no, not as such, but it's well down the list of job qualifications for a chief executive, isn't it? We're not picking a preacher or a drinking buddy here; we're hiring somebody to run the government. Dubya is as likeable a person as they come, but would you call that evidence of his ability to be President? Sure, Dubya is likeable enough, but I put Obama oratory skills eons above his and that counts for ability points in my book, doesn't mean he'll be a great president because he can deliver a speech. What will make him a great president is his judgement in choosing the right people to help him run the country and the judgement when things go wrong dealing with them correctly, and maybe a little differently than the last 2 decades.

=Elvis]Bottom line: Talkers don't impress me; doers do. Candidates who claim or just suggest that their clean hands constitutes evidence that they're a more highly-evolved life form, not just people who disdain to get their hands dirty, don't impress me; candidates with battle scars do.Candidates who inspire their staffers and supporters to hatred of their opponents and their opponent's supporters don't impress me; those who show by their actions that they recognize that party and country and humanity are still more important do. <snip>

Highly evolved life form? Come on now, just because Obama is younger, has less battle scars makes him someone who can't run a country? You believe that?
To my knowledge Obama doesn't inspire his supporters to hatred of his opponants.

I've stated before and I'll state it again, I don't hate Hillary Clinton or her supporters. Those who have clouded the waters with their vapid denounciations of the opponant and their supporters live on both sides of the ticket Elvis. Not just Obama's folks. No?

[ElvisL1ves]

None of that was here until you jumped in with your oh-so-witty "just another bashfest...." comment.Scroll up to posts 2, 3, and 4.

[ElvisL1ves]

I think everyone supporting their candidate of choice hopes they will turn out to be a good president.I was addressing your implication that your support of Obama is based on his lead, not on his policies or personal qualities.

What will make him a great president is his judgement in choosing the right people to help him run the country and the judgement when things go wrong dealing with them correctly, and maybe a little differently than the last 2 decades. We heard all that stuff about Dubya in 2000, too. Yes, maybe this will be a little different. Maybe. Can we afford to believe it, though?

Highly evolved life form? Come on now, just because Obama is younger, has less battle scars makes him someone who can't run a country? You believe that? No, but it does mean that one has to depend more on hope than experience to support him anyway than it would for someone with them. As I said, he's not the first to try that approach, not by far, and the record of above-it-all "clean hands" candidates once in office is not confidence-inspiring.

To my knowledge Obama doesn't inspire his supporters to hatred of his opponants. Then where does it come from? :dubious:

Those who have clouded the waters with their vapid denounciations of the opponant and their supporters live on both sides of the ticket Elvis. Not just Obama's folks. No?So this campaign isn't really fundamentally any different after all. Glad we can agree on that.

[Phlosphr]

We heard all that stuff about Dubya in 2000, too. Yes, maybe this will be a little different. Maybe. Can we afford to believe it, though?I can, and a little more than half the democratic contingent do as well.

]No, but it does mean that one has to depend more on hope than experience to support him anyway than it would for someone with them. As I said, he's not the first to try that approach, not by far, and the record of above-it-all "clean hands" candidates once in office is not confidence-inspiring. It isn't confidence inspiring, I understand that. That is why I read and make inferences on what I read. I like researching candidates, because I don't want anyone to come along and tell me I haven't done my homework.

Then where does it come from? :dubious: I think it comes from a multifaceted view of the opponant. These views are unfortunately inspired by the media. It's sad but true. Obama's branding is top knotch, and Clinton's is decidedly old school. Marketing 101 - appeal to your audience. get them to learn more.

To me the more I learn about Hillary, the more I understand my reasoning to vote Barack. I won't speak for others, I know either one of us do not like that.

So this campaign isn't really fundamentally any different after all. Glad we can agree on that. No it's not fundamentally different. But it is different, in that we have two contenders that are Historical candidates if either one get into the WH. So in that sense, it's quite different.

[Bryan Ekers]

Scroll up to posts 2, 3, and 4.
Trivial jokery. The vitriol is in your imagination.

[ElvisL1ves]

In the context of this forum, Bryan? :dubious: Now really.

[Bryan Ekers]

In the context of this forum, Bryan? :dubious: Now really.

In the context of this message board, somebody grossly over-reacted with hostility while accusing others of the same? SHOCKING!!!


:rolleyes:

[Harborwolf]

None of that was here until you jumped in with your oh-so-witty "just another bashfest...." comment.It's called poisoning the well. It's his stock in trade. He drops a little bomb like that and accuses everyone else of not wanting to debate fairly. He also manages to hijack the thread and make it about himself. Best to simply ignore any posts he makes that are not on topic.

[Yookeroo]

How is post #2 bashing? I'm tired of all the bashing too (and I'm an Obama guy), but I don't see it in post #2.

[ElvisL1ves]

Obviously we're not going to get any substantive engagement here from the Obama supporters, other than phl, after all, are we? Not even from the OP.

Looks like I had it pegged from the beginning, huh? A pity. Predictable, of course, but a pity nonetheless.

[ElvisL1ves]

Some interesting reading (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html) for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy.

[Jophiel]

Then where does it come from? :dubious: Presumably the same place as "Obamabots", "Obama kool-aid", "Obamaniacs", et al.

[Phlosphr]

Some interesting reading (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html) for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy.
Why did I click the link Elvis :D ??? I should have stayed away...but I was interested. Cannonfire. A hotspot for frothing Obama hate. To be fair, from the blog on that page:Only Obama bashing will be allowed, don't try to switch the subject to comparing both candidate !!! I couldn't in good conscious read things like that on a daily basis. But, like I've said before, I want to read the vitriol, I want to understand who is voting against Obama and why. So I can fully understand this democratic primary season I have devoted so much time to. I probably won't be returning to that blog though. I did like the Daffy Duck - Don't Duck Don't Dodge - bit about sticking to bashing Obama and not comparing the candidates... It's good to keep people on task.

[Mehitabel]

Well, this Hillary supporter has a life and was out from about 9 this morning to 8:30, but I'm here now.

I too have been disappointed somewhat by my candidate lately, but The Controvert said it well; the rhetoric is all well and good, but there is a certain coolness and calculation in Obama's delivery that makes me wonder how deeply he holds some of his beliefs. Of course, I am impressed deeply by how far this young man has come in such a short time, and I like how he rallies people and all, but frankly I'm tired of being appealed to with vague, grand-sounding principles that are impossible to disagree with.

But since the OP asked about campaigns, it's a pretty masterful one, although partly fed by a hatred of the incumbent I haven't seen since Carter (which was milder). However, he was just another ambitious young speaker to me back in 2004 and I didn't think of him as any different from the pack of candidates until mid-2007.

Not Obama now doesn't mean to me Not Obama Ever. Given a few more years and more real-life time in the trenches, I'll vote for him, as indeed I will if he ends up being the nominee this year. However, right now I think we need a policy wonk with connections who'll inspire people by getting down in the trenches and policy wonking her way back to prosperity and a recovery of our image in the world. We need Hillary.

[pantom]

I carry no water for Obama. At this point, I think all three of the candidates left standing are undeserving of support.
However, it's undeniable that Obama has run circles around Hillary's campaign; for evidence, one need only look at a map of the US that counts delegates won in each state instead of the primary/caucus wins that the media covers and trumpets. I constructed one for myself, and was stunned at the result. The number of states that Hillary has won in delegate terms can be counted on the fingers of both hands, pretty much, which is pathetic, pretty much, given her early lead in name recognition and the idea that she was easily the most electable of all the candidates.
Now, far as that Cannonfire site, two points:

1 - The site says "In fact, he took pains to destroy all record of his 2002 speech by removing it from his website -- the only easily-accessible source for his words on that occasion. On his official website, he now calls his war position "consistent." If so, why the scrub?"
This is a strange claim. I found that speech months ago by simply typing into Google "obama's iraq war speech". It's on Wikisource. I tried that again after reading the above, and there it was.

2 - Which segues into our next point of contention. On a site linked to by Cannonfire, the blogger (blog is titled Stop Obama Now (http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=391)) says


...no one should need reminding that at the time of the vote in 2002, war as such, was not being clearly proposed. The term military action was the official (i.e. the one Hillary dealt with) position. Days prior to the actual invasion in 2003, Bush still made Saddam and his family an offer to surrender and said Iraq would go unharmed. In short, Obama and his campaign painfully distort the history and dynamics of both the Senate vote, and the run up to the actual invasion.

Apparently, Ron Paul needed reminding, since he said this at the exact same time as Obama was making his antiwar speech (also available on Wikisource), during the House debate on the resolution in question:

I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."
Some - even some in this body - have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.


That is the speech Obama should have been making, rather than just calling it a dumb war, but that's a point for another debate. For this one, let's just set the record straight, and make it clear that there was no question at the time just what was being voted for.
As for the rest of the claims on the Cannonfire site or its friends, well, they could be right, or they could be wrong. Someone who wants to carry the water for Obama can dispute the rest of it.

[Shayna]

Obviously we're not going to get any substantive engagement here from the Obama supporters, other than phl, after all, are we? Not even from the OP. 1. This thread isn't for Obama supporters, it's for Clinton and McCain supporters.
2. Many of us are sick of trying to engage you in honest debate, so why bother anymore?

Looks like I had it pegged from the beginning, huh? A pity. Predictable, of course, but a pity nonetheless. Yes, quite predictable indeed.

Some interesting reading (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html) for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy. That wasn't interesting reading, that was pablum for the Haters, and it, itself, as well as its linked "sources" were filled with outright lies. And I have no interest in debuking that crap, because you're determined to buy into it regardless. Good luck with that.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

So apparently the Obama/Clinton divide when not based on some kind of identity politics is based on the fact that Clinton is an experienced "doer" rather than something else?

The idea that Hillary is into solutions is kind of a stretch when considering her legislative history in the US Senate. It's not going to leave her with a leg to stand on against McCain.

But I can understand the desire for a "fighter" in the Whitehouse. I understand why people consider this the most important and likeability a secondary issue. I do disagree with it though.

To me it boils down to this. I'm not quite ready to be so cynical yet. If I were, then HRC would be the way to go, no doubt. A small part of me, and probably all Obama supporters, wants to believe in the American dream. I realize that it might really be a joke, but I feel like Obama is the last hope to keep the American dream alive.


But this is only if you go by the preconstructed meme that Obama is a lightweight and that Hillary is the one with experience. From a resume padder himself, I recognize all of the tricks that Hillary is pulling to shore up her weak experience. Regardless of what their qualifications were before the campaign, the proof is in the pudding. Hillary has proven to be anything but ready on day one for her campaign. Her candidacy will go down as the biggest example of "dropping the ball" through her inability to run a campaign. It's the biggest thing she's ever run. Same for Obama. The fact that she can't keep her campaign in the red for her lavish spending in the early days doesn't speak well for her ability to do anything. She has simply made so many stupid mistakes this season that I can't begin to see how people separate them from her potential performance as President. It's pointless to list them all, but it begins with her trying to smear Obama with a kindergarden essay.

[Elendil's Heir]

I had a nice long post written in response to Mosier, but after previewing the most recent posts, I think I'll send it privately to him and The Controvert. There is no other good faith in sight.

I'm an Obama supporter who shares the OP's curiosity. Please consider posting more fully here. Thanks!

[ElvisL1ves]

A short summary of the "Fork Hillary" etc. threads here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5413066). The poster needs to learn spelling, but has the arguments nailed.

I'm touched by all the comments that he should be the candidate because believes in making America a better place, really I am. But the obvious implication is that Clinton does not. That is not a fact-based claim. We all want America to be a better place - but wouldn't actually doing it, instead of just talking about it, be even more inspiring? Clinton talked about the civil rights movement needing LBJ as well as MLK, and she was quite right - but she got derided for racism because of it. That is not making America better.

We've heard Obama speak at length about being a uniting, healing, leader etc. for quite some time now, and that is essentially the heart of his campaign. But he's had quite a few opportunities to demonstrate that leadership in this campaign already, and what have we seen? We've seen aux-helpless handwringing over the FL and MI disenfranchisements, while Clinton was working with the DNC to fix it. We've seen a large portion of his supporters, allegedly inspired by that vision, devote much of their energy instead to gleeful bashing of the other candidate, who despite all her mistakes is still inexplicably right there with him (just imagine her learning from those mistakes, as the PA polls already suggest she has, if you want to get into who is the fundamentally stronger candidate), and to her similarly-inexplicable supporters. We've seen much of that bashing based on, apparently, indulging sexism in the name of overcoming racism. He's had the opportunity, as this uniting leader etc., to ask that shit to stop, but has he?

So who can tell us in what way that magical power of his has actually been revealed in this campaign? In what way has he been demonstrated, in the real world, to be more than Mario Cuomo without the management experience?

[Phlosphr]

So who can tell us in what way that magical power of his has actually been revealed in this campaign? In what way has he been demonstrated, in the real world, to be more than Mario Cuomo without the management experience?
To answer your question Elvis - it's quite simple: He surpassed the mighty Hillary Clinton in almost every way. From a relative unknown, to the democratic front-runner. He has run a better campaign on nearly every front. I'm not sure how more clear I can be on what I've just said. If he brings half that energy to his presidency he will make a great POTUS.

Party upper echelon has said the same things, people I respect in the party have said the same things. Why should I question his abilities, when he has clearly demonstrated them in front of my eyes.

[Shayna]

A short summary of the "Fork Hillary" etc. threads here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5413066). The poster needs to learn spelling, but has the arguments nailed. He may have the arguments nailed, but he's got his facts completely fucked up.

I'm touched by all the comments that he should be the candidate because believes in making America a better place, really I am. But the obvious implication is that Clinton does not. p Nonsense. Nobody believes that Hillary doesn't want to make America a better place. Quit making shit up and ascribing it to your opponents.

That is not a fact-based claim. We all want America to be a better place - but wouldn't actually doing it, instead of just talking about it, be even more inspiring? Sure. They've both been working on doing it. Except he's actually been more successful than she has in the effort.

We've heard Obama speak at length about being a uniting, healing, leader etc. for quite some time now, and that is essentially the heart of his campaign. But he's had quite a few opportunities to demonstrate that leadership in this campaign already, and what have we seen? We've seen aux-helpless handwringing over the FL and MI disenfranchisements, while Clinton was working with the DNC to fix it. OBAMA HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE DNC TO FIX IT, TOO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THEIR MESSES! STOP MAKING UNTRUE ALLEGATIONS.

He's had the opportunity, as this uniting leader etc., to ask that shit to stop, but has he? Yes.

So who can tell us in what way that magical power of his has actually been revealed in this campaign? In what way has he been demonstrated, in the real world, to be more than Mario Cuomo without the management experience? You, more than any other person on these boards, devotes post after post after post after post to "bashing" Senator Obama, moreso than all the Obama supporters "bashing" Hillary Clinton combined. You have not engaged in one, single, solitary debate on honest terms with the intent to either educate or learn. You continue to make claims that you have been told repeatedly are false. Why on earth would anyone want to answer your ridiculous question about Barack Obama's "magical power", as if it were a legitimate question seeking an honest answer? Besides which, you've been shown over and over and over and over, list after list after list after list of legislative and community accomplishments of Barack Obama. Another list isn't going to impress you any more than any of the zillions of previous ones.

[ElvisL1ves]

To answer your question Elvis - it's quite simple: He surpassed the mighty Hillary Clinton in almost every way.Then he should have wrapped this thing up long ago, huh? Or at least be more than a hairsbreadth in front by now. So why d'ya think he hasn't?

Why should I question his abilities, when he has clearly demonstrated them in front of my eyes.Consider that the abilities needed to be a good chief executive are not the same as those needed to run a winning political campaign.



Shayna, thanks for continuing to demonstrate my observation about too many of Obama's supporters.

[DSeid]

While I've been staying out of this thread as much as possible, as its stated purpose is to elicit honest assessments from those who do not support Obama regarding his performance so far, I do think that a response is called for here. Elvis it is hard to call an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote that can only be made up with victories of 20 - 40% margins in seven out of the nine remaining contests (and keeping his victories to two and by under 10% margins) as "a hairsbreadth." Impossible to overcome, maybe, maybe not, but not a "hairsbreadth."

That said you have been answering the op so debating your POVs seems inappropriate. Your view is that his performance has failed to demonstrate that which you would see as leadership. You seem to acknowledge a skill set in running a winning campaign but posit that such has little to do with the skill sets needed to be a good chief executive. You may have been more positive inclined to credit him with said leadership (albeit not as much as you believe Hillary has) if he managed to get the Florida and Michigan votes for Hillary counted (thus avoiding "disenfranchising" those states) and if he kept all of his supporters from saying anything negative about Hillary.

Your answer of the op is appreciated. My disagreements with them are immaterial to the op. Thank you. Are there other McCain or Hillary fans who would like to weigh in on Obama's performance so far?

[ElvisL1ves]

You don't get to define your own terms, DSeid. Not if you're actually trying to convince anyone else, that is. But you're trying to nonetheless. It's called "rationalization". Your refusal to address any of the actual points being made is as glaring as the dismissal you use instead.

If the real definition of "leadership" you're using is simply synonymous with "winning", well, then, what makes him different after all?

[DSeid]

Well Elvis the only term I was trying to define was "hairsbreadth" and that as an aside. Honestly I had no intent in that post to convince anyone of anything nor to address any points. Such would be inconsistent with the op. And besides we've done that in many other threads. The op expressed a desire to hear what those who do not support Obama think of his performance. I was merely expressing appreciation that you did address the op and tried to the best of my ability to accurately reflect what your assessment was. Did I misrepresent your POV in some way? If so I apologize and request your clarification. I understand you to disapprove of his performance as you do not believe that he has shown leadership nor demonstrated a skill set consistent with being a good chief executive. He could have earned your positive assessment in those regards (although not as positive as your assessment of Hillary) by getting votes in Florida and Michigan counted and by preventing the negative talk of Hillary by his supporters. Running a campaign that is, to date anyway, winning, is, in your assessment, no indication of leadership or of capacity to be a chief executive.

Is that not what you believe?

As an aside, I think a McCain supporter could fairly ask me what I think of his performance so far and I could give a critical assessment with some positives despite the fact that I do not currently think that he deserves my support.

[ElvisL1ves]

I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, much less the nation, or that he's even willing to get his hands dirty and make the effort. There has been one hell of a lot of personal vitriol aimed at anyone who dares express such doubts, though, as you know by having done so yourself.

So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?

[Phlosphr]

I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, <snip>So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?
The problem is Elvis we have such a segmented plethora of ideas being thrown at us all at once here. Not here in the thread, but here on the SDMB and to some extent out there in the breathable air.
If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote, delegates, more states won and this seeming wave of superdelegates jumping on his ship and not on Clintons? In fact, in some cases, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting him? If it's not his ability to unite, what is it? His ability to manage a campaign maybe? His ability to pick good folks to run his campaign?
You see to me that says a little [mind you I said a little] about how he will run his administration, how could I not think that? It's right there in front of me when I analyze his campaign.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win? I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit.

He has his chance now, and he has to take it. He's got the momentum and I believe he's going to use it to leverage himself into the white house. For some of us that's a good thing. Further, I think when he is the nominee, you will see a huge change in the national polling, is he is poling even with McCain now, mark my words when he is the nominee he will surge ahead. Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.

[Phlosphr]

what happened to my post?

[Phlosphr]

here:
I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, <snip>So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?
The problem is Elvis we have such a segmented plethora of ideas being thrown at us all at once here. Not here in the thread, but here on the SDMB and to some extent out there in the breathable air.
If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote, delegates, more states won and this seeming wave of superdelegates jumping on his ship and not on Clintons? In fact, in some cases, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting him? If it's not his ability to unite, what is it? His ability to manage a campaign maybe? His ability to pick good folks to run his campaign?
You see to me that says a little [mind you I said a little] about how he will run his administration, how could I not think that? It's right there in front of me when I analyze his campaign.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win? I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit.

He has his chance now, and he has to take it. He's got the momentum and I believe he's going to use it to leverage himself into the white house. For some of us that's a good thing. Further, I think when he is the nominee, you will see a huge change in the national polling, is he is poling even with McCain now, mark my words when he is the nominee he will surge ahead. Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.

thank Og I saved it.

[Phlosphr]

Wtf!@$%#$% :mad:

[Harborwolf]

Typical Phlosphr. Content free posts. When you want to post actual words like a grown up, we'll all be waiting.


;)

[Phlosphr]

I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, <snip>So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?
The problem is Elvis we have such a segmented plethora of ideas being thrown at us all at once here. Not here in the thread, but here on the SDMB and to some extent out there in the breathable air.
If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote, delegates, more states won and this seeming wave of superdelegates jumping on his ship and not on Clintons? In fact, in some cases, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting him? If it's not his ability to unite, what is it? His ability to manage a campaign maybe? His ability to pick good folks to run his campaign?
You see to me that says a little [mind you I said a little] about how he will run his administration, how could I not think that? It's right there in front of me when I analyze his campaign.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win? I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit.

He has his chance now, and he has to take it. He's got the momentum and I believe he's going to use it to leverage himself into the white house. For some of us that's a good thing. Further, I think when he is the nominee, you will see a huge change in the national polling, is he is poling even with McCain now, mark my words when he is the nominee he will surge ahead. Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.

[Captain Amazing]

Hopefully this will work for you...

here:
I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, <snip>So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. [U]We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?
The problem is Elvis we have such a segmented plethora of ideas being thrown at us all at once here. Not here in the thread, but here on the SDMB and to some extent out there in the breathable air.
If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote, delegates, more states won and this seeming wave of superdelegates jumping on his ship and not on Clintons? In fact, in some cases, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting him? If it's not his ability to unite, what is it? His ability to manage a campaign maybe? His ability to pick good folks to run his campaign?
You see to me that says a little [mind you I said a little] about how he will run his administration, how could I not think that? It's right there in front of me when I analyze his campaign.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win? I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit.

He has his chance now, and he has to take it. He's got the momentum and I believe he's going to use it to leverage himself into the white house. For some of us that's a good thing. Further, I think when he is the nominee, you will see a huge change in the national polling, is he is poling even with McCain now, mark my words when he is the nominee he will surge ahead. Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.

thank Og I saved it.

[Phlosphr]

Good Chr*st What The F*ck Happened There!!???



Anyway There It Is! Gah!

[Shayna]

Let's see if I can help (you mistyped a close quote tag). . .

I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, <snip>So what are those of still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community" to think of his performance as a candidate? The comment above that "his moment is now, not any other time" or words to that effect suggests something pretty strongly - that his candidacy is not based on inherent management and leadership abilities that would be just as strong at any other time in the future, but is essentially a creature of the political moment unrelated to such mundanities, and that that supporter actually knows it. We've seen fad candidacies before. What reason is there to believe that this is more than just a strong one?
The problem is Elvis we have such a segmented plethora of ideas being thrown at us all at once here. Not here in the thread, but here on the SDMB and to some extent out there in the breathable air.
If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote, delegates, more states won and this seeming wave of superdelegates jumping on his ship and not on Clintons? In fact, in some cases, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting him? If it's not his ability to unite, what is it? His ability to manage a campaign maybe? His ability to pick good folks to run his campaign?
You see to me that says a little [mind you I said a little] about how he will run his administration, how could I not think that? It's right there in front of me when I analyze his campaign.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win? I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit.

He has his chance now, and he has to take it. He's got the momentum and I believe he's going to use it to leverage himself into the white house. For some of us that's a good thing. Further, I think when he is the nominee, you will see a huge change in the national polling, is he is poling even with McCain now, mark my words when he is the nominee he will surge ahead. Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.

[Phlosphr]

Thanks guys! Damn sausage hands today!

[Shayna]

I've only asked for some actual demonstration of his central claim to be the most fit for the office, his ability to unite. I haven't seen it, you still haven't provided any, nor has anyone else. Utter crap. It's been provide by me and a host of others, and you IGNORE IT. I'm not posting it again. Go look it up!

We haven't seen evidence that he can unite his own damn party, much less the nation, or that he's even willing to get his hands dirty and make the effort. There has been one hell of a lot of personal vitriol aimed at anyone who dares express such doubts, though, as you know by having done so yourself. Ludicrous. Vitriol is aimed at those who don't debate honestly. People who post sincere criticisms based on facts are responded to in kind. You aren't one of them.

And Bill Clinton loves to tout the fact that he didn't have the primaries wrapped up in his favor until June. Now go tell him that he sucked as a President because he couldn't "unite" his party until then. :rolleyes:

So what are those of [us] still hopelessly stuck in the "reality-based community". . . STOP INSULTING US IN GREAT DEBATES. THIS is why you tend to get treated with disdain -- you simply cannot avoid insulting your opponents.

[RedFury]

Some interesting reading (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html) for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy.

Holy chorizo! The most vocal and ardent of Hillary fans on Board manages to link us to a racist smear-site and calls it "interesting reading." Seriously, if a site like that manages to influence someone towards Hillary, well, she can keep them.

I wouldn't want people with hate levels that high on my side anyway.

Color me not simply unimpressed but embarrassed. And clearly not for myself.

[RedFury]

Dislike aside, were I to try and show her positive side and make her appealing to others, I'd go looking for stuff like this:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, fighting to save her campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, contends that continuing fighting in Iraq suggests that the “surge’’ of U.S. forces isn’t working. (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/hillary_clinton_marking_time_i.html)

Clinton, responding to CBS News’ Harry Smith’s notation that attacks within Baghdad have doubled within the last two months and that a dozen U.S. servicemen have died in the last several days, said: “Well, Harry, think you just made a summary argument against the position that it's working."

“You know, a year ago we were told that the purpose of it was to give the Iraqi government the time to make the decisions that only they can make for themselves on how they're going to allocate oil and the, you know, political disputes and the sectarian violence and all of the other decisions that are on their plate,’’ Clinton said on CBS’s The Early Show. “That hasn't happened, and even Gen. Petraeus a few weeks ago admitted that the political progress has not been what he would have wanted...

Obviously, criteria here differs widely as to what constitutes "interesting reading."

Yes, sure, we would then have to deal with her own prior inconsistencies...which I suppose is a legitimately debatable issue. As is the very headline of the article "fighting to save her campaign." But hey, it's true.

IOW, less noise and more content. Which I am sure will surprise many a Clinton devotee, coming as it does, from someone who evidently, isn't.

[DSeid]

Elvis what you are asking for, apparently, is the complete hijack of a thread to instead make it the same as a host of other threads devoted to discussing the pros and cons of these nominees. And that after you had belatedly actually engaged in answering the op ... albeit only after first whining about some nonexistent bashing.

But what the Hell, I'll bite. I see someone who has shared my view that invading Iraq was a poor choice from the start. Unlike you I see the organizational skills to run a successful campaign from nothing as very telling of Chief Executive skills. I see the ability to attract a diversity of skillful advisors and managers and to actually utilize them well as telling, and as a key skill needed for the job. I do not see pandering to what I see as the bratty behavior of Floridian and Michigan politicians as leadership. Politely telling them to go suck an egg would be more to my liking. I see the combination of a vision to express and the the ability to express that vision well as a potent force, especially at a time when America is ready for a different vision than that which it has been led by for the past eight years. I see the tactic of of playing to all states, rather than just the traditional blue one, as an important one for creating a truly transformational presidency.

I think that he has performed well. A flawless person? Of course not. I have plenty of complaints too. But what I perceive as strengths outweigh that which I perceive as flaws and in a larger balance than how I perceive the other options.

I know that your perceptions are quite different. That's okay. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. We both have reasons that are cogent to our own selves.

Did I at least get your POV right in my previous posts in this thread? I would like to avoid misrepresenting you.

[ElvisL1ves]

If you have not seen Obama's ability to unite, then I wonder what you think he has exactly done to beat out Clinton in the popular vote,Etc. I asked you previously if you really thought leadership was no more than winning. Sure looks that way, unfortunately.

Now to your point about fad candidacies - in recent memory how many fad candidacies have you seen actually win?Carter was an example, nationally. Patrick in MA is a more recent and relevant case. Ventura and Schwarzenegger could count in that as well. Once in office, though? Meh.

I thought Clinton [the male] was fad until he won. He was young, good looking, had a cool sense of humor, played the sax and was quite charismatic. Well - we know how that ended. He went on to win two terms and make millions after his presidency on the lecture circuit. Clinton did not, and did not claim to, represent anything higher and more ethereal than most other candidates do, just that he was going to be a good, diligent, policy-grasping, effective, people-oriented, President, and he was. He does have great charisma, and that is hardly disqualifying, but it was never the true core of his candidacy.

I see Obama doing much the same thing, when his presidency is over, making millions on the lecture circuit. (1) He's been doing it for some time already, hasn't he? and (2) Why do you think that's important in discussing leadership, anyway? Is there any ex-President who hasn't been able to cash in that way to his heart's content? Or is your concept of leadership something that includes personal income as well as winning?

Because like it or not, some of Clinton's supporters will jump on his bandwagon, and a lot more would rather jump on his team than see another republican in the white house again.Different subject, and why would I not like it? We've discussed before, tangentially, the problem of how Obama and his supporters, if he is indeed the nominee, would try to convince Clinton's supporters (who, I remind you, are approximately equal in numbers) to work for him as hard as they worked for her. There is a very vocal faction in The Movement that is poisoning that well already.


RedFury, right, any criticism of Obama's weaseling on Iraq can be dismissed by calling it racism. Got it. :rolleyes:

That was far beneath sad. What's happened to you, amigo?


DSeid, this thread is about the Obama campaign - at least putatively; note that the OP hasn't returned since his early follow-up baiting. Get that straight before you decide who's doing the "hijacking", m'kay, bro?

I do wish, though, you'd just for once recognize that the voters of FL and MI have interests that exist and are distinct from the "bratty" people you wish to punish, in the name of Uniting Leadership. Democracy is important. And we could go on, but why?

No, I can't convince you, as you acknowledge, nor can anyone else, if you won't even make an honest effort to understand what's being said to you.

[DSeid]

"m'kay bro"? :rolleyes:

The op was about non-Obama's supporters assessment of his performance. Is that so hard to understand?

Rating campaign performance can be very different than rating a candidate. For example I know people who love, absolutely love, Hillary, who are very disappointed overall with the performance of her campaign. They want her to win, and feel that but for a mishandled campaign she would be far in the lead. They do not blame her but do blame her handlers and it in no way diminishes their respect for her.

There have been aspects of Obama's campaign that have disappointed me. Not his handling of MI and FL (and I think that we have covered that ground ad nauseum already) but I think he's missed a few wonderful opportunities along the way. His name, for example. He is buying into the mindset that his middle name is a debit. I would've preferred to see him embrace it as part of his message - that America is made of funny names - that he with that name embodies the American story. As do Poles and Asians and people from all around the world who have come together to make America great.

But he's done okay by me.

[Gozu]

The question he asked in #2, only 10 hours later, confirms his true intentions.

The #2 post effectively gave you all "permission" to do what you love best, not address the topic at its stated meaning.

It was actually almost 4 days later. Look at the dates as well as the time :smack:

I promise you It wasn't meant as a jab and I was genuinely incredulous ( Trust me, if I wanted to make a jab, I'd have come up with something :)). I'll forgive your mistaken accusations if you forgive my impatient tone.

I was not, and am not, interested in a bashfest. It gets repetitive after a few months. Thank you Mosier, for helping. It is appreciated.

[Jolly Roger]

Utter crap. It's been provide by me and a host of others, and you IGNORE IT. I'm not posting it again. Go look it up! Ludicrous. Vitriol is aimed at those who don't debate honestly. People who post sincere criticisms based on facts are responded to in kind. You aren't one of them.

And Bill Clinton loves to tout the fact that he didn't have the primaries wrapped up in his favor until June. Now go tell him that he sucked as a President because he couldn't "unite" his party until then. :rolleyes: STOP INSULTING US IN GREAT DEBATES. THIS is why you tend to get treated with disdain -- you simply cannot avoid insulting your opponents.

Well, he never answered Harborwolf's question either. I have a difficult time taking anything Elvis posts seriously.