How often does he actually take about his proposals, and what makes you think he can get the job done. His track record very very light compare to other candidates, and on issues he has little difference with Hillary. Keep pretending that his not running his campaign mostly on his message of change. He is the exact carbon copy of Deval Patrick. "Together we can !!!!"
LOL ... too bad, just a day later Senator Obama's own campaign had to retract the populist rhetoric **** coming from their leader's mouth: Your candidate OOPS'ed again. Thanks for the good laugh, dumb ass.
Again it isn't his proposals or stances on issues that will bring the change, but his leadership style, and he has explained many times how that style works. Yes he is running his campaign mostly on the issue of change, and that's not a bad thing. Though he does have a healthy list of achievements in both Illinois and in the Senate, his records and his ideas on policies aren't the most important part of what he's trying to do.
Like I said, he is exactly like Deval, light on experience, but ran on charisma and the message of change. And as in Deval's case, don't think it was best choice we made, I am still hoping he can at least do something right though.
You really don't have any sense of humor at all, do you, wnes. No, you may not have used the acronym, CIA. You certainly implied it. I suggest that you ignore Sam, and myself, if you think our posts are going to give you a mental fit. Your health is foremost in my thoughts, I can assure you. Impeach Bush.
And you only care because China was the subject. If he oops'd about anything else, you would not even notice. You are obsessed and overly sensitive when it comes to China.
Is that right? Wasn't there an entire thread dedicated to Obama's OOPS started by me a few days back? Man, you Obama supporters sure have short and selective memory. Putting pressure on China to increase its product safety is a good thing. I fully support that. But Senator Obama's populist rhetorics are over-reacting and counter-productive. Worse yet, his subsequent weaseling out of his initial "tough guy stance" reflects very poorly on his leadership skills.
What a come back. Your weak-assed attempt at backtracking your own BS -- typical behavior of the candidate you are inclining to support -- is in full display. But you are wrong again. I implied that his posts where he boasted his experiences in China suggested he was associated with some non-government organizations (NGOs) that clearly have anti-China agendas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that. Given the clownish and trollish antics of SamFisher, KingCheetah, and you, to some extent, don't you think your suggestion to put somebody you don't like on ignore suits you guys much better? What a better time use some sense of humor, no? And you should be mindful that there are abundant opportunities for me to remind yourself to apply your sense of humor, but I have been kind enough to let it go. Oh, don't forget to Keep D&D Civil
^now that Inspector C. Lu Zhou is on the case, I may have to retreat to a safehouse to protect my NOC! No way i'm taking chances in court.
It sounds like you are admitting Obama is mostly style over substance. Certainly the tone of one's rhetoric has a lot to do with winning someone over but only to a point but almost all presidents and legislators have to get down to horse trading and if that is the case then it would help to know how much of Obama's platform would he be willing to compromise. Many people have cited Obama's Il Senate experience but the IL Senate isn't the US Senate. The personalities, issues and interests are much greater. The argument for Obama seems to be he will sway the the likes the of Trent Lott or Robert Byrd with his personality when those guys have their own sense of senatorial power and entitlement.
but out of hillary and obama, obama certainly has the better chance. hillary will be a lightning rod for republicans. I don't mean to go into a lessor of two evils argument, but if the question is who has a better chance of reaching across the isle, I just don't think hillary even comes close.
Actually Hillary has reached across the aisle quite abit as Senator and has earned the respect of many Republicans in the Senate. Contrary to being a pariah that many predicted she would be in 2000 she's done fairly well. The people she's probably bothered the most while in Congress aren't Republicans but liberal stalwarts.
No, I'm not saying he's style over substance at least not exactly. I'm saying that more important than his substance is his style, because his style will eventually yield more substance, that will be acceptable to more Americans. As Obama says when you talk about getting people to come to his issues vs. somebody elses issues like a Trent Lott, that's the old kind of divisive politics that he's moving away from. It isn't about getting Trent Lott, or anyone like that to see his side of it. It's about finding the areas where they are both in agreement, and moving forward in those areas to actually accomplish something. I also believe his U.S. Senate record in just the short time that he's been there is pretty impressive. But back to the main point. Talking about where he stands on an issue vs. where someone else stands is old divisive politics, and he has a new way, and the leadership to move forward in that direction.
Just saw this. Didn't know that Illinois NOW was against Obama's "Present" strategy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html?hpid=topnews
