Thanks guys! Damn sausage hands today!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Etc. I asked you previously if you really thought leadership was no more than winning. Sure looks that way, unfortunately.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
“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.
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.
Well, he never answered Harborwolf’s question either. I have a difficult time taking anything Elvis posts seriously.