Letters to the Editor
-
too boring to watch for 3 minutes
I couldn't force myself to wath a three-minute clip to the end - too dull.
this is say-nothing politics at its worst.
As far as I am aware, his posiitons are toxicaly reactionary:
no to a single payer health plan.
yes to more dependence on coal.
yes to Israel's invasion of Lenbanon.
Let's nominate Edwards
He's real, hes smart, & he's not right wing, which is what Obama / Hillary are.
Only in Crazy Land (i.e., the us) would we even be having this discussion
- living happily and sanely abroad
-
Please don't go all Ned Lamont
Saloniks, please don't go all Ned Lamont. You folks have a bad track record of supporting candidates who can win
-
fools
he's never done anything to merit the attention he's getting. he doesn't stand a chance. when will america wake up and realize that the presidency is serious business not a popularity contest.
-
I'm sure he's as qualified as anyone else.
Like JFK one term Senator
Like G Bush one term gov of a state that doesn't put any power in the office
Like Nixon, former VP and Congressman way back when
Like Truman one? term Senator and VP
-
The problem
Exactly, like them.
-
I have some sympathy with chronic900
"when will america wake up and realize that the presidency is serious business not a popularity contest."
That's half the problem with US politics IMHO.
As viewed from across the pond (yes I know I have a damn cheek) it does look rather superficial. Well...at least more superficial than we are used to over here.
We actually have a few successful politicians who are ugly, but revered for their intellect and principles. Having said that we getting worse too. The new crop of party leaders in the UK are heavier on clean shaven good looks and sound bites, but lighter on substance than politicians of old.
Maybe they should some kind of minimum score on the GMAT or something before you are allowed to enter the presidential race. I;'v eno doubt that Obama and most of the others would pass, but I have legitimate suspicions that Bush wouldn't.
I just pray Obama has something substantial to say once he confirms that he's going to run.
-
Obama Brings Hope to America and the World
What a delightful time for Democrats. So many qualified
and respected candidates have or will soon enter the Presidential Race for 2008 but let's consider one, Barack Obama.
I see a young patriotic, intelligent, careful politican and a loving family man. He is respectful of your religion no matter which faith you have or don't have. He is a good listener and wants to know what your hopes and dreams are and what nightmares plague your daily living. He sees the America as a partner with the rest of the world and does not see America as the RULER OF THE UNIVERSE. He can and does acknowledge America's strengths and weaknesses. Does he express where America has gone wrong and been hurtful to others? Yes!
And maybe that is one of the reasons, I am thinking more and more about the possiblity of a President Barack Obama.
He would bring Hope. He would be intelligence to the White House. He would bring a 21st Century leadership of strength and understanding and be able to restore America's standing in the World Community.
-
We don't need another JFK.
Whether Mr. Obama stands or falls, he will do so on his own merits. I wish him well. I don't know enough about his policies so far to form a decent opinion...time will solve that issue for me. (I know enough about Ms. Clinton to know she could never earn my vote. I know enough about the Republican Party to know none of them could ever eran my vote.) Here's hoping he finds his heart and soul and sticks with it and doesn't allow the process to trip him up.
I, too, lived through the 60s and was at the time enamored of the "Kennedy mistique." Thankfully, history has demonstrated what tremendous flaws JFK had. Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam...all his good deeds do not outweigh his penchant for secret wars, and for that he is no better than Nixon or Bush.
We need a president with a greater moral compass as well as a vision which includes all Americans.
-
SR-Truman
Truman had two terms in the Senate. He was elected in 1934 and re-elected in 1940. He came to prominence as chairman of a committee overseeing defense department contractor abuse and fraud in the early years of WWII. When he became Roosevelt's 3rd vice-president after Garner and Wallace, he was 60 years old, a veteran of WWI having served in France captaining an artillery battery, a failed drygoods merchant and a successful county administrator, or judge, as they were known then. His reputation for honesty and fairness were widely admired. He was the last true farmer president and a only a high school graduate. His life experiences thus were far greater than any of the current crop of Democrats and far more varied. He kept a roll of 3 cent stamps in his desk as President to write letters home to his mother and sister. He read voraciously and made the statement that the only thing in human experience you dont know about is in the history you havent read. He resisted post-war Britain in its desire to overthrow Mohammed Mosadegh, the democratically elected Iranian president, who was intent on nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company, now known as BP.
When Ike and Tricky came in, voila, Kermit Roosevelt and a coup. 25 years later, that wonderful foreign policy stroke resulted in the mullahs and a 400 day hostage crisis. Truman was not always right, and he was all so human. But he was reflective, sober, and his judgment was superb. He had an understanding of poor and oppressed peoples and integrated the armed forces with one executive order. In short, he came into the presidency fully formed. Obama injects humanity and eloquent prose into his speech, and he has other attributes, but as Sam Rayburn said during the New Frontier, "I'd be happier if one of them had been a county sheriff."
-
Shapiro's last statement
Shapiro's last statement almost defines itself when he marvels that the first "serious" (that's the key word) African American's major potential problem is lack of experience, not his race. He wouldn't BE a serious candidate in the first place if people were so fixated on his race that they couldn't see past it to other issues. To some extent, the same is true of Hillary Clinton and gender--her perceived merits and demerits don't have much to do with her being a woman. Obama is part of a rare few African American political and/or public figures (like Colin Powell) for whom race is a nonissue, or at least not a negative issue. So it's not as if the country has moved to a blanket change in its perception of African Americans--but I suppose the achievement (a baby step of sorts) is that the country *is* able to do so in the case of a few unique individuals whereas in the past, perhaps it was unable to do so at all.