Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You should reread the letter titled "X's and O's vs. Inspiration" and give it a star and send a copy to Clinton headquarters. Clinton may know policy but she fails to understand that Presidents aren't elected based on knowledge, intellect or competence but how they make people feel. If that were not true, then we would never have heard of George Bush. The ability to inspire is a huge part of the job and Clinton seems only to inspire her adversaries.
After last night's debate, I shifted my support from Edwards to Hillary. I like Edwards, but he's a lightweight on foreign policy and it shows. I just don't see him as somebody who can build international coalitions or negotiate with world leaders.
As for Obama, he's too unqualified for me, and I don't like that he voted to renew the Patriot Act. And when Hillary brought it up in the debate last night, he didn't bother to explain his vote. The Patriot Act nullifies large parts of our constitution. Obama has missed most of his votes in the Senate, but he seemed to find time to vote for that.
I like Richardson, and the fact that he understands diplomacy. I thought he did very well last night, and if he breaks out, I would consider voting for him.
I'm voting for a President, not a motivational speaker, not a preacher, not a messiah. I want somebody who knows how our government works, and who will repair the damage that Dubya has done. Obama will need a few years to figure out how things work, and we don't have time. Read "Losing America," by Robert Byrd, if you want to know how much damage Dubya has done.
Because America needs a President who's not shy to say they're a moron.
Show thyself, or at least cite thy sources. Otherwise you lack credibility.
Here are articles and information in plain text about Obama's voting record and the way certain reporters have interpreted it. Notice that even in negative articles he is praised for consensus building.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16640635/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1199639336-6FxyZyglFpga4Cridxxd2A
his voting record in its entirety from the U.S. Senate:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
I hope that some liberal thinkers don't "lose the plot" about Obama. For all of Clinton's attitude of entitlement and bragging about her record, she did have eight years in the white house already, and she was not able to build consensus toward the kind of broad changes I think she does want to make in the country.
No one should forget that African Americans were the people robbed in 2000 of their vote in Florida, many of them, adding insult to injury, falsely accused of being criminals. That was a crime against their rights as citizens, and who in the Democratic Party is really taking that on and addressing what happened? I don't see it. In fact I worry that it may happen again.
If a vote for a woman is all it takes to evoke change, then voting for a black person should also be enough to evoke change. But I don't propose voting for Obama for that reason.
Leadership skills are crucial, and when dismissing Obama's lack of experience, why don't people consider what he has accomplished in relatively short time in the US Senate. Namely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006
an important step toward undoing the secrecy of the cheney era. This signals to me (and to independent voters) the kind of government he is in favor of. Also, ethically, do Edwards supporter realize that Edwards even pointed out in the debate that Obama has already taken lobbyists on with the ethic's committee ban on lobbyists purchasing politician lunches:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117003732585090802-C38Dsj5PWRwaKB7j74dTOxaXNRY_20070205.
Accomplishments that Obama's condescending detractors keep forgetting to mention.
Those who say that Obama is all pretty words and no action have refused to look closely at his career. Considering his relatively short time in Washington, he has showed political courage, and the ability to pull people together to get things done. I also thought it was funny that the Republicans all felt the need to slap him down at their debate saying that he has "no experience" etc...maybe this cozying up with him for them is also pretend because they're frightened of him and what he can do. (And unlike Clinton or even Edwards, I think Obama is not really afraid of the GOP--he's willing to build on a platform of popular consent like Senator Wellstone, and I think that gives him confidence to stand up to them). I wish democrats would remember that African Americans, if they had not been cheated of their citizen's right to vote in 2000 would have carried Gore to the white house, and all of this Bush bitternesss wouldn't even need to exist.
Obama's ability to pull independent voters to the polls in Iowa is an extremely significant marker, and if he is able to do the same nationally that really does signal a change (a'la Kennedy or Reagon popularity), not merely a change for the color of his skin. I hope that the people supporting other candidates (who are trying to accomplish the same or similar goals) recognize this. Or maybe they do, and thus, the vitriol.
In the shank of the morning, I think Mr. Shapiro left out the most effective Clinton on Obama moment: her zinger about the 2005 oil company giveaway bill. That she opposed it and he voted for it.
Obama has had a lot to say about her judgment voting for the recent Iran Guard bill, but her position on that can at least be intellectually supported.
But voting for the energy bill? Big change? Good judgment? Environmentally responsible? Not to my way of thinking.
Gibson's question (or rather an assertion masked as a question)that we stand a thirty percent chance of a terrorist nuclear attack was pure fear mongering of the kind associated with Cheney, Bush, Rice, et al. It is the typical journalistic crap of building false assumptions into the questions and hoping the respondent will take the bait and be trapped into accepting the false assumption. Gibson is a disgusting runt in general.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
