Yeah. It’s an assumption. A guess. You keep making them as if making enough will comprise an actual logical argument.
The topic is judgment, not logic. Do try to keep up.
This is also not an argument worthy of debate. It’s a snide remark. And it further shows that your argument that the actions of an advisor serve to undercut Barrack Obama’s judgement doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
So what? Why should I give a shit about how Obama’s advisers characterize the opposition? Sure, they shouldn’t have it show up in the newspaper, and I think they’re all pretty clear on that now, but the fact that Obama is willing to hire the sort of person who would refer to Hillary Clinton as a monster isn’t enough to make me blink, much less reconsider my support.
I would be shocked if I ever saw a story about any adviser to anyone being fired making a similar comment in private. And I’d be completely flabbergasted if nobody in the Clinton campaign bad-mouthed Obama in conversation. I mean, if they’re willing to go on record comparing him with Ken Starr, I can only imagine what might get mentioned in private. And it makes not the slightest bit of difference to me. I’ll use things that actually have some relevance to being President when I weigh the question of judgment.
So Obama hasn’t been entirely consistent in the details of his response to a difficult, complex, and changing situation. Iraq’s a fucking mess, and I don’t know of anyone who’s got a simple solution to cleaning it up. I figure Obama has the best chance of anyone running to resolve the situation the way I think it ought to be resolved. I haven’t really looked into Clinton’s Iraq policy, but it’s probably not much different, and I suspect better than anything I could come up with. Her initial vote for the AUMF I’m still going to hold against her, though.
And you have been unable to make a logical argument that the Power incident is any reason to question Obama’s judgment.
You didn’t actually read that article, did you? You just saw that he didn’t have an iron clad pull all troops out strategy and your knee jerked.
The reason I say this is because (to adapt the much abused Princess Bride reference) the article doesn’t say what you think it says. It says nothing about politcal expediency, shows how his views on Iraq have changed with the situation on the ground, and says that they probably will change depending on the situation in 2009 should he win the presidency.
Because, as I already said :mad: , if Obama and his supporters are going to claim superior judgment, the facts need to be consistent with that claim. This example is not. Agreed?
And just what are those things you’re assessing? Why would choice of senior staff not be one of them? :dubious:
Yep, if it works against Obama, it doesn’t matter; if it works against Clinton, it is evidence of her perfidy and iniquity. Come up with something substantive, willya, guys? Sheesh.
And your evidence that this reflects negatively is based solely on your own assumptions.
We’ve already covered your own double standard when it comes to Obama. What a weak attempt at turnaround.
All you’ve provided is a cite to an article that doesn’t even state what you think it does and your own claims that Obama just should’ve known that she would call Hillary a monster. You have no logical or even reasonable argument. All you have is your own heavily biased opinion.
Not agreed. As I already said :mad:, I don’t consider it bad judgment to have advisers that bad-mouth the opposition. Power used bad judgment in getting herself quoted in the newspaper doing it, but I’m not about to hold Obama to a standard that apparently involves all his senior staff maintaining perfect discretion when dealing with the press. I can still claim that Obama has better judgment even if you can back me into admitting that perhaps in vetting his senior staff, he did allow through someone who he could perhaps have predicted would get caught insulting Clinton to the press.
No one is claiming that Obama has absolutely, gleamingly flawless judgment on all matters great and small, and that an Obama presidency will contain no whiff of a mistake that might be able to, with only a couple assumptions, be traced to his decisions.
Clinton could have cast the 24th vote in the Senate against the AUMF, but didn’t. That says a lot to me about her judgment.
Obama hired a senior adviser knowing, well maybe suspecting… or at least he should have suspected would make a comment that would embarrass the campaign. Wake me when you got something.
Of course I would like him to exercise good judgment in choosing senior staff. But I expect him to make such choices on more substantive criteria than the chance of them making a single unfortunate remark.
All I have criticized her for is voting for the Iraq War and running a campaign that will help McCain in the general should Obama win the nomination. I consider both of those substantive, and don’t believe Obama has done either.
I did note the Karl Rove comparison, true, but only as a counterpoint to the “monster” comment. I think it’s a ridiculous statement, especially as it seems to be the official line of the campaign, but that’s campaigning for you. If you can find an actual example of me having a double standard, I’d like to see it.
Doesn’t Obama have to actually make some judgments and decisions, maybe state some policies other than “I have no idea what to do about Iraq, I keep changing my mind, but elect me and I’ll make something up?”
It would help, I’m sure. I haven’t really looked into his plans, as I don’t reckon that I’m at all qualified to judge how effective they’d be. I figure both Clinton and Obama want to get out. I support Obama because I like him better overall. McCain wants to stay in Iraq, and will therefore never get my vote.
I’m sure there are people here more familiar with Obama’s Iraq plans who could help you out, but even then, he is going to have to deal with the situation as it is in January '09, so it’s likely to change. Whoever wins is pretty much going to have to wing it to some extent, and Obama’s the guy I most trust to do it.
But that’s one more fact you have to dismiss in making that assessment - which, you go on to say, is based on your “trust” (deliberately uninformed trust, in the case of the Iraq approach you denounce Clinton for having) rather than the “logic” you demand from me. Is there something you wish to convince someone of here?
Did you overlook my observation that one can’t say that without being the kind of person who’d say that, or are you simply ignoring inconvenient things? :dubious:
Actually, I prefer that than President Bush’s staying the course and Hillary’s just pulling them out. I’d honestly rather have somebody telling me that they will decide on a flexible course based on what they find once in office than a rigid assumption. YMMV.
ElvisL1ves, you need to provide proof that Obama should’ve known that his adviser would call Hillary a monster and your assumption that he just should’ve known isn’t it. Do you have evidence of Obama’s mind reading powers? Did his adviser walk around calling people monsters? Been taping their meetings? All you’ve provided is your own personal fantasy of how things worked out and you expect that to be convincing.
I think your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired if you think someone saying “As a rational human being… he’ll have to look carefully at the situation as it is, and make the best policy calls that he can.” means “he has no plan and he might randomly think something up later.”
Obama currently has a thorough plan; if things change drastically, he will reevalute his plan and perhaps make appropriate changes. How is this in any way a bad thing?
Regarding your allegation that Obama has no plan for Iraq - have you actually looked at Obama’s plans for Iraq policies? Obama’s website has a document which outlines his Iraq plan. It is also summarized on his webpage here
So you have never been involved or at least witnessed a situation in a workplace where a person looked great in the job interview, where the applicant has a large stake in making sure their faults don’t get exposed, then suddenly became a problem down the line and had to be fired?