The difference being that you have spoken about what we have now, and what I have hoped for is at the very least an improvement upon that. We need fewer divisive politicians who consider only the “prosperity and fruitfulness” of the people on their side and fewer politicians who continue to drive a stake into the heart of America’s trust in their government. Again, we aren’t likely to see any drastic change in America with a new President, but we can hope for baby steps forwards, at least.
I can’t be bothered to watch every speech by every primary candidate. I know that in the Obama speeches I have seen, I’ve heard very few/no specific policy plans. I’ve never said Obama has no specific policy plans, just that he isn’t being significantly challenged on them. So your following links and quotes were entirely a waste of your time I’ve read them before, if you had fully read my post you would realize I not only had read them, but I was well aware of them. I’m not making the claim Obama has no ideas, I’m making the claim that his ideas are firmly in the back seat and his campaign is being ran on empty platitudes–that is what worries me.
If Obama was actually elected, and he stuck to his platform, I wouldn’t be that worried. His political positions are a bit too left for me, but they will be moderated because every President has to moderate their ideas somewhat once in office, that is what is so great about our system. You have to moderate your views to get things done.
As for his “open, honest, integrity” “bullshit”, all I can do is yawn. Pretty much every President in my lifetime has made promises like that. I’ve never seen a President campaign on, “continuing corruption” a single time in my life. The truth of the matter is this is the kind of stuff politicians can say to score easy points, and then never really have to act on them once in office.
Southern Republicans, I meant. (In case that weren’t obvious.)
One other observation:
All the pundits who were saying the withdrawal of Edwards would accrue to Hillary’s benefit in the South were dead wrong. Edwards supporters (apparently) turned to Obama.
RealClearPolitics shows Hillary with 900 and Obama with 824, but that includes super delegates.
Counting only delegates earned in the primaries, Obama leads, 696 to 689.
Edwards may yet be the kingmaker.
(What’s up with Hillary getting more delegates from Alabama despite Obama’s 14-point victory there? I know the delegate allocation system is quirky, but that’s pretty ridiculous.)
I did read your posts and I’m telling you that you are wrong to assert that Obama isn’t running on issues. I cannot imagine what speeches you have been listening to, if you haven’t heard him talk about what his plans are.
Tell that to the people of Illinois, who now, thanks in large part to Barack Obama, have a law that requires all interrogations in capital crimes to be video or audio taped.
Barack Obama feels, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the work of our public officials and representatives should be transparent to the public they work for, and he has a proven history of working to enact legislation to make that happen. There is no “bullshit” about it.
It’s a virtual tie, yes. Obama will have an overall lead of probably less than 10 delegates. That’s nothing in a contest where more than 2000 are needed. As I said, his lead will be marginal. I think the significance is not that Obama is dominating or runnung away with anything, but that he’s still got a nose ahead of Hillary after Super Tuesday when 6 months ago it was assumed she would have it wrapped up by now. It’s going to be a meatgrinder, no matter who wins and it might even go into overtime. It’s like Obama is the Giants and Hillary is the Patriots and Obama has a one point lead at half time. It’s not that the lead is big which is significant, but that he has a lead at all
Obama has plenty of positions (there is very little daylight between Obama and Clinton). But issues are not going to win this for Obama. Issues is not what is driving record voter turnout, it is message.
It’s a little odd that CNN and MSNBC are each reporting different numbers of regular delegates for each candidate. Does MSNBC have information CNN doesn’t?
That’s one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard. Bush is ALL charm. It’s the fact that he doesn’t know jack about the issues himself and lets a cabal of handlers spoonfeed him info that’s his problem. Every person I’ve heard of who has met him personally says he’s incredibly charming.
How else do you think they pushed through so much of the godawful shite they did?
And as was reported earlier today, she also is starting to self-finance. $5 million loan to her campaign. No wonder she was pimping her website last night. I wonder if Bill regrets saying this in Iowa :
Obama is not arguing on positions precisely because there is so little difference between himself and Clinton. Since they’re so similar, voters can’t help but make a decision based on matters of personal qualifications, personality, etc. Charisma, in other words.