No offense, Richard Parker, but your post on Obama’s accomplishments sounds a lot like his bio from his campaign website. (Perhaps that’s exactly what you intended to do.)
It’s an impressive resume no doubt; but I still feel like “where’s the beef?” Is it a POTUS-worthy resume? I don’t think so. It’s a senatorial resume and I think he’s a few years and legislative victories short of what I’d like to see. He’ll be there in 4 or 8 years, and we’ll also be able to see how his rhetoric matches up with his accomplishments.
As for almost losing her temper, I thought I was the only one who saw this but:
As per your second plausible assumption: I think there may indeed be a behind the scenes running-mate deal already in the works, Obama would be foolish not to have one already going.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Hillary is a strong candidate with a proven track record, but I’m unconvinced she’s the candidate W
Don’t get me wrong, I think Hillary is a strong candidate with a proven track record, but I’m unconvinced she’s the candidate whose going to get the nom. Quite the opposite, I think Obama will get the nod, I’m watching very carefully what’s going to happen this Tuesday - judging purly on what I saw in Manchester - my first time seeing Obama speak BTW - I don’t see how he’s not going to win NH.
There were a lot of people in that room who were undecided, and I didn’t see any who had doubts in the end. I stood with my friends from the Obama CT campaign outside the Palace Theater this morning and I’ll tell you one thing, I have never seen a crowd [outside of rock concerts] so wild about one man. I was in awe…Amazing people gave him 2 or 3 standing ovations that barely let him get a word out. These are not 20 somethings either…they were people in all demographics there. It was truly amazing.
Because Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy and editors can fact check Obama’s stated positions and compare them to his voting record. In addition to Obama’s own site, the Wikipedia article cites 88 other sources of information and covers issues whether or not they make Obama look good.
Sen. Obama and “ethics” don’t belong in the same sentence. Why did he make real estate transactions with the likes of the indicted Tony Reszko? And really, what is up with Democrats and shady land deals in the first place? What’s next for Barack? Cattle futures?
And from that, you make this statement …
“Sen. Obama and “ethics” don’t belong in the same sentence.”
Surely you can come up with something a little more substantial then this?
I mean considering the strength of your statement and the hard-edged joke about “Cattle futures”.
Seriously, have you ever thought about the ethics issues surrounding Cheney at all, to lodge a complaint like this?
Of all the Dem candidates of note, Obama is getting the least negativity from the GOP. I truly believe that they will have a field day with him as the Dem nominee on these fronts:
[ul]
[li]Self-admitted drug use, specifically cocaine[/li][li]Record of voting “present” instead of “aye” or “nay” as a state senator in Illinois - specifically, in instances where he was the only one or in a sizable minority doing so[/li][li]Lack of experience, especially internationally and in executive positions[/li][li]His connections to Wall Street interests that somewhat contradict the “outsider/change” mantra[/li][li]The fact that he is named Obama, and his middle name is Hussein[/li][/ul]
Now the last one is ridiculous, racist, and completely underhanded, and will probably be left to the hatchet men Limbaugh and Hannity (and others of their ilk).
I have to admit that the cocaine use, even if it was during his teenage years, bothers me. Yes it was years ago and there’s not a shred of evidence to support the idea that it endured beyond that time, but coke? I have plenty of friends who’ve smoked, and do smoke weed, but I know far fewer who have even tried cocaine or crack.
Obama is 46 years old. I think he will be so much more ready when he’s 50, or 54 for the responsibility of extricating us from Iraq, finishing off al-Qaeda. Were it an election where domestic issues were the most pressing, I’d feel a little different. I don’t buy the fairy dust change mantra; show me where you’ve taken some nicks and come back up swinging. Because the idea that Washington will stop being Washington simply because the new president is charming, bright, and has great ideas just proves to me that a lot of people in this country aren’t seeing reality.
I saw the excellent PBS documentary on Andrew Jackson today. It was interesting to hear how Washington and Congress haven’t changed all that much since the 1820s. How will Obama bring “change,” when his ascent to candidacy has more or less followed the same script that every pol in this race has?
I told you in my last post that he led all of the ones I mentioned specifically (i.e. reforming capital punishment procedure, creating the Early Learning Center, etc.).
And yes, proper consideration of a record requires comparison. My only statement was that it is absolute hyperbole to say he has no accomplishments. Apparently you now recognize this since you’re no longer defending that position. I don’t know what you’re all huffy about.
Meh. I honestly wasn’t here to defend him as a candidate, but merely to show Elvis how his statement was a ridiculous exaggeration. If you agree with me on that front, we can debate his candidacy another time. In short, I think legislative experience is pretty much worthless. And while I’d like for the Dem to have executive experience, only Richardson has it and he’s incompetent.