Gotta love people using party labels from damn near 150 years ago as if they still stand for the same thing today.
Who by now would have morphed into a Republican as a response to the Civil Rights movement, just like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott.
So.... if two people have similar stances, or have similar stories regarding their careers, etc, then it all becomes null if they didn't label themselves under the same party.. ?
The point is not the political platform of the Republicans in Lincoln's day and today. It's the cultural issues... Lincoln never went to church and once shared a bedroom with another man.
It will be hard to compare anyone to Lincoln simply because of the Times and the Civil War. To Many...he is the Greatest President. People have compared Obama's potential to Lincoln....but that is unfair comparison. The way Obama has run his campaign is BREATHTAKING....to go from 30 points behind to win the Nomination against the CLEAR favorite...is remarkable. To build a grass-roots campaign using all the new techniques of communication has the republicans trying to catch up on mediums they dont fully trust. The Fiscal responsibility shown with the Money raised bolds well for an Obama Presidency. His opponents underestimate him.....they think he is where he is because of his "Story" and racial background. When the case may be, that he is the smartest Politician the US has seen in 50+ years.
But understandably possible when the party of "Women's rights" roadblocks their own female candidate at the most improbable time and disallows the votes of Florida and Michigan when that very momentum would have snuffed out his "comeback."
Even with Florida and Michigan....should would not have won. They gave Florida all of their votes back in August because it would not have mattered. Michigan was complicated because one name being on the ballot. But if you just gave Hillary the 55% she had.....it would have mattered at the end. And the ability to outsmart your opponent.....is the beauty of Obama. He used the rules of Democratic Pary like a brilliant lawyer in a court room or the best Coaches on a sports field. Clinton lost the primaries because she focused on a Knocked-Out Punch or the "big play". Obama "drove down the field" using a ball-control offense by organizing the Caucus States and Smaller Primaries. He effectively "ran out the clock" on Hillary. He is using the same Strategy on McCain. By not taking Financing, he is trying to force McCain to "spread his defense" over all 50 states. Knowing that McCain cannot protect EVERY state he is supposed to win, is hoping to pick off a couple that will make it impossible for McCain to win.
The goal was Not the most votes........it was the MOST Delegates. In the words of the great Herm Edwards - "We play to win the game.....". Hillary lost sight of the delegate game.......just ask Al Gore what the most votes means when the game is the Electoral Votes.......
Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OgNj6nd4i4M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OgNj6nd4i4M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> When he brings up Afghanistan... he indicts himself. BTW- This goes to the thread title, not the derailing side convo...
Rice Dan Q reference. And no, as others have said, it would be impossible to compare. If Obama hits his top potential, maybe historians 120 years from now can make a comparison, but I doubt it. What I wanted to compare was their relative level of experience, at similar points in their lives, and the emotional doubts expressed about each. That's why Lincoln is so relevant to your OP and thread title: ZERO credibility? Was oft said of Abe before he won the presidency, and was oft said for the first couple of years he was in office. Some said Lincoln was "just a good talker," and so forth, and so on. My hope, if Obama wins, is that he'll take a Lincoln type step and assemble a "team of rivals" for his cabinet. That would do America so very much good, just by setting an example. McCain is also capable of such an act, if he leans more toward his RNC speech than the divisive, vacuous drivel of his VP nominee.
You are correct the video is dishonest. Obama has numerous accomplishments in the Senate. Furthermore even as chairman of the committee he doesn't set the policy regarding Afghanistan. It doesn't matter what that committee does they don't set policy. Yet all along he has been an advocate of increased focus on fighting the war in AFghanistan. He is correct, has been correct, and is not in any way contradicting himself.
I know. It's a fair comparison. I hoped you'd like the dig on your age too... btw- Did you mean "Nice?"
