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

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=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.
[/quote]

  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?

Yes, quite predictable indeed.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

Some interesting reading for that minority who may not reject it out of hand as simple heresy.
[/QUOTE]
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.

42

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.

43

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

44

A short summary of the “Fork Hillary” etc. threads here. 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?

45

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

46

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

A short summary of the “Fork Hillary” etc. threads here. The poster needs to learn spelling, but has the arguments nailed.
[/quote]
He may have the arguments nailed, but he’s got his facts completely fucked up.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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
[/quote]
Nonsense. Nobody believes that Hillary doesn’t want to make America a better place. Quit making shit up and ascribing it to your opponents.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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?
[/quote]
Sure. They’ve both been working on doing it. Except he’s actually been more successful than she has in the effort.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

He’s had the opportunity, as this uniting leader etc., to ask that shit to stop, but has he?
[/quote]
Yes.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]

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?
[/QUOTE]
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.

47

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
To answer your question Elvis - it’s quite simple: He surpassed the mighty Hillary Clinton in almost every way.
[/quote]
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?

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.

48

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?

49

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?

50

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.

51

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?

52

[QUOTE=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, <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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

53

what happened to my post?

54

here:

[QUOTE=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, <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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

55

Wtf!@%#% :mad:

56

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

57

[QUOTE=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, <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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

58

Hopefully this will work for you…

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
here:

[QUOTE=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, <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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
[/QUOTE]

59

Good Chrst What The Fck Happened There!!???

Anyway There It Is! Gah!

60

Let’s see if I can help (you mistyped a close quote tag). . .
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]

[QUOTE=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, <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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
[/QUOTE]