Is it not a coincidence that Ray "MABUS" is Barack Hussein Obama's advisor?

[Koolblue13]

That's an awfully misleading question.

If you're Obama and you want ANYONE in your cabinet who has been involved with the White House at any time during the past 20 years, you don't exactly have much of a choice there. Your choices are Bush people, Clinton people, or comparatively inexperienced people (who still may be the right choice, by the way).

Although that may be true, don't tell me you are against the NAU and the ideals of Nation building and then keep Brezinski as a chief advisor. Why not have Krystol write his speaches.

All the more reason to avoid perpetuating this string of presidential ascensions via family relations.

Fair enough, but I can put McCain into the Bush camp fairly easily, despite his leftward leanings.

It's true -- the cabinet and full administration are important. But the leader is important, too.

So are you making the arguement that Bush has more influence than Dick?

Claiming that Obama wouldn't be much different from Hillary is completely unsupportable, and I think both Democratic camps would agree to that. (McCain backers may claim not to, but even they would positively rue any possibility of another Clinton presidency.)

How is it "unsupportable" when they have almost an identical voting record, which they both admit to and a nearly identical platform for their respective presidency. They only differ in minute semantics.

[mjah]

So are you making the arguement that Bush has more influence than Dick?

In my personal experience, yes. But then I got married.

How is it "unsupportable" when they have almost an identical voting record, which they both admit to and a nearly identical platform for their respective presidency. They only differ in minute semantics.

Oh, come on. You're judging the future theoretical presidencies of two Democratic candidates by their respective positions on issues during the primaries.

Did you judge Bush's presidency based on his primary platform, too? How did that work out for you?

Now, you might ask, "If not on their respective platforms, then how should I judge these two?" To that I would say, you use something other than their currently stated positions. Both of these candidates chose many aspects of their primary platforms based on what they believed Democratic voters want. They're keeping their positions artificially close because domestic issues other than the economy aren't going to decide this election. No sense in getting caught up in issues that won't decide the election, so they're sensibly focusing on things like judgment (advantage: Obama), character (advantage: Obama) and experience (advantage: neither). Their current positions are a bad metric for judging the way they will serve as president, because the positions aren't stable.

Once one of them emerges victorious, that strategy will change to evaluating what all voters want. Obama's platform will subtly but significantly change. McCain's will too. They'll both have to.

Let's be honest here. Very few presidents manage to stick to what they say during the nomination chase. For this election cycle, we have (in my opinion) the following inevitabilities. Universal health care isn't going to happen in the next four years, no matter who gets elected. It's a political suicide mission (ha). Nobody is going to bring all of the troops home within a year, or 18 months. This is the stuff of Democrat voter fantasy. It's what they have to say to earn those primary delegates.

So judge between Hillary and Obama using something other than what they're currently using to earn Democratic votes. Judge them on the way they represent themselves, the way they handle difficult situations, and the judgment they demonstrate under stress. They're wildly different when you look at them this way, and that's why I'm voting for Obama in PA this month.

[The Sisko]

Havent A LOT of Nostradamus "scholars" said that GW Bush already fits Nostradamus' vision of the antichrist?

Well then they must not have taken into account that he's a procrastinating antichrist then. His time to implement "Antichrist World Dominion Plan 1.0" is rapidly running out. He'd better get crackin' !

Characteristics of the antichrist:

Will hate the Bible....check

Will kill Christians...check

All wonder after him...Well, with W. we more wonder about him but, OK...check

Will embrace Babylon...check

Will put official antichrist business off until last days of administration....check

Yup, it's him alright.

[Koolblue13]

In my personal experience, yes. But then I got married.

Oh, come on. You're judging the future theoretical presidencies of two Democratic candidates by their respective positions on issues during the primaries.

I am basing my opinion on what they say, what they have done and the company they keep.

Did you judge Bush's presidency based on his primary platform, too? How did that work out for you?

Not very well, horrific, you might say.

Now, you might ask, "If not on their respective platforms, then how should I judge these two?" To that I would say, you use something other than their currently stated positions. Both of these candidates chose many aspects of their primary platforms based on what they believed Democratic voters want.

That is as bad as criticizing me for say "although I support Paul, I know he won't be able to do everything he plans on.

They're keeping their positions artificially close because domestic issues other than the economy aren't going to decide this election. No sense in getting caught up in issues that won't decide the election,

Well for a Hope, Change and transparency campaign, I'd like to know how he is planning on delivering that, especially when he is hand picking some of the people who have us in our current position.

so they're sensibly focusing on things like judgment (advantage: Obama),

I'm assuming you are regarding the war here. The only advantage Obama has is he didn't have a chance to vote for it, he still voted to fund it which was part of the mighty Dems collapse against it.

character (advantage: Obama)

If you say so. He did write a book that talked about distrusting people simply for being white and doing drugs, but damn if he doesn't have a great speach writer.

and experience (advantage: neither).

How can you dismiss Clintons 8 years in the WH as non experience. Just because she only takes credit for the good and not the bad(which I think was a serious campaign faliure). She definitely has the edge on this one.

Their current positions are a bad metric for judging the way they will serve as president, because the positions aren't stable.

Correct, so you look at their voting record, the company they have kept and so forth.

Once one of them emerges victorious, that strategy will change to evaluating what all voters want. Obama's platform will subtly but significantly change. McCain's will too. They'll both have to.

At what point does his immense tax increase to fund the doubling of federal programs fit in to his platform? Or will that just wait until he is in the office?

Let's be honest here. Very few presidents manage to stick to what they say during the nomination chase. For this election cycle, we have (in my opinion) the following inevitabilities. Universal health care isn't going to happen in the next four years, no matter who gets elected. It's a political suicide mission (ha).

Agreed, Clintons old plan made sense and Richardsons plan makes the most to me, but he has shown himself to be not what I had hoped for.

Nobody is going to bring all of the troops home within a year, or 18 months. This is the stuff of Democrat voter fantasy. It's what they have to say to earn those primary delegates.

Agreed. Clinton wants them home in 60 days and we know that's bull. I have to go with McCains plan on this topic. Obama wanting to make Iraq safer, while withdrawing troops and leaving some there perminitly doesn't sound like a solid plan and is a little naive or obvious rhetoric.

So judge between Hillary and Obama using something other than what they're currently using to earn Democratic votes. Judge them on the way they represent themselves, the way they handle difficult situations, and the judgment they demonstrate under stress. They're wildly different when you look at them this way, and that's why I'm voting for Obama in PA this month.

The last debate I saw, Clinton looked much better. Obama only impresses when he is addressing a teleprompter. IMO.

BTW, where in PA are you?

[ECU-ALUM]

Well then they must not have taken into account that he's a procrastinating antichrist then. His time to implement "Antichrist World Dominion Plan 1.0" is rapidly running out. He'd better get crackin' !

Characteristics of the antichrist:

Will hate the Bible....check

Will kill Christians...check

All wonder after him...Well, with W. we more wonder about him but, OK...check

Will embrace Babylon...check

Will put official antichrist business off until last days of administration....check

Yup, it's him alright.

In that case John Hagee and the other "end of days" preachers should be endorsing him and not McCain.

I am really get tierd of all this crap...what do people think is going to happen...midway through his inaugration speech Obama is suddenly going to declare a Jihad against America?

[mjah]

That is as bad as criticizing me for say "although I support Paul, I know he won't be able to do everything he plans on."

Well, certainly nobody's criticizing you for that. It's a political reality. People say they'll do things, and then they don't. Especially during primary season. :whoknows:

Well for a Hope, Change and transparency campaign, I'd like to know how he is planning on delivering that, especially when he is hand picking some of the people who have us in our current position.

Political reality. Unless he goes with a White House staff with zero experience, or a bunch of fossils from the Ford or Carter administrations, he has to pick at least some of the people who have made some bad recent decisions. If he didn't make the hand-picked choices you see today, he'd have some other hand-picked choices instead, and you could find major faults with those selections too. Realistically speaking, he's stuck with some real stinkers unless he wants a White House full of neophytes.

I'm assuming you are regarding the war here. The only advantage Obama has is he didn't have a chance to vote for it, he still voted to fund it which was part of the mighty Dems collapse against it.

I wasn't talking about the war actually, although it's interesting to think about whether or not he would have voted for the Bush Resolution had he been a Senator at the time. I'm willing to guess that he wouldn't have -- which would be a major, major point of difference between him and Hillary. But that's just conjecture.

By the way, there's a big difference between voting for/against a war resolution, and voting to fund a war that has already begun.

How can you dismiss Clintons 8 years in the WH as non experience. Just because she only takes credit for the good and not the bad(which I think was a serious campaign faliure). She definitely has the edge on this one.

I don't call it non-experience. I just don't think it was useful experience. She doesn't seem to have had any security clearance; she doesn't seem to have made any really major decisions. Her major initiative was health care reform, which failed spectacularly, and they basically gave her a back seat from that point forward.

And Hillary can't even articulate any real experience she gained in the White House. All she has really provided is a pack of lies about making peace in Northern Ireland, peacekeeping in Bosnia, and some magic concrete wall between her and NAFTA (which may actually be the case, if she wasn't involved with it at all). With all of her experience, it really boggles the mind that she can't find a way to get some of her abundant actual experience into the news cycles. It's just not a credible claim.

I mean, we aren't talking about Eleanor Roosevelt here. I wouldn't call Laura Bush experienced, and I don't think Hillary's level of experience gives her any significant edge.

And by the way -- if Hillary does have a bunch of experience, then her lack of judgment in telling unnecessary, easily debunked lies about it completely disqualifies her from being a legitimate candidate, IMO. It's an error of massive dimensions. And she's going to run the country, huh?

At what point does his immense tax increase to fund the doubling of federal programs fit in to his platform? Or will that just wait until he is in the office?

I understand your question, and judging by your stance on Paul I understand why you're asking it. I imagine taxes would increase modestly, late in an Obama administration or early in a second Obama administration -- as they should, by the way, given the crushing debt the country is now under. No matter who the president is, that's the choice: mortgage the future, reduction of services, or increased taxes. But, again: most of what he and Hillary are talking about just won't happen. It's the primaries.

BTW, where in PA are you?

Philly suburbs.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Now with the numbers in, I find it maliciously misleading to claim people with college degree or above support Obama.

Look at the numbers, are there any sane people who believe IL or NY should count? Let's take out NJ as well. Actually Hillary leads Obama in more states among white with college degree. Where is this propaganda of more educated people preferring Obama coming from?

By the way, Asians and Black are not counted. I guess those Asian kids working hard to get to college deserve less credit than their AA counterparts such as Obama.

Link?

Here's a nice article worth reading:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1726864,00.html

BTW, not quite sure what your point is there. Obama has won twice as many contests, more pledged delegates, and more of the popular vote than Hillary. Those numbers include all colors, races, sexes, ages, etc. But if you think that Hillary's strength isn't blue collar and older, then you're in the minority.

[mrhetzler]

I think Michael 33 just wanted to say "Hussein".

[Koolblue13]

Well, certainly nobody's criticizing you for that. It's a political reality. People say they'll do things, and then they don't. Especially during primary season.

Fair enough.

Political reality. Unless he goes with a White House staff with zero experience, or a bunch of fossils from the Ford or Carter administrations, he has to pick at least some of the people who have made some bad recent decisions. If he didn't make the hand-picked choices you see today, he'd have some other hand-picked choices instead, and you could find major faults with those selections too. Realistically speaking, he's stuck with some real stinkers unless he wants a White House full of neophytes.

While I will certainly agree and I do like some of his choices, some of them just seem to worrisome. Having a NeoCon for an adviser is a curious choice. Hagel, not so bad. I think McCain will employ a similar strategy(like he isn't left enough)

I wasn't talking about the war actually, although it's interesting to think about whether or not he would have voted for the Bush Resolution had he been a Senator at the time. I'm willing to guess that he wouldn't have -- which would be a major, major point of difference between him and Hillary. But that's just conjecture.

He was vocal about not supporting the war initially, which I'll give plenty of credit for. I won't assume he would have voted different if in the position to do so.

By the way, there's a big difference between voting for/against a war resolution, and voting to fund a war that has already begun.

Yes and no. It was made to appear that the Dems would make a stand on further funding it, until we had a better plan and then folded like lawn chair and admitted to allowing Bush total control and they would just wait until the election. Very disappointing.

I don't call it non-experience. I just don't think it was useful experience. She doesn't seem to have had any security clearance; she doesn't seem to have made any really major decisions. Her major initiative was health care reform, which failed spectacularly, and they basically gave her a back seat from that point forward.

Yeah, she definitely blew her thing with HC.

And Hillary can't even articulate any real experience she gained in the White House. All she has really provided is a pack of lies about making peace in Northern Ireland, peacekeeping in Bosnia, and some magic concrete wall between her and NAFTA (which may actually be the case, if she wasn't involved with it at all). With all of her experience, it really boggles the mind that she can't find a way to get some of her abundant actual experience into the news cycles. It's just not a credible claim.

Clinton is full of **** on a lot of topics. There is no way she could be that opposed to NAFTA, while she sat there in the WH watching it get passed.

I mean, we aren't talking about Eleanor Roosevelt here. I wouldn't call Laura Bush experienced, and I don't think Hillary's level of experience gives her any significant edge.

I think it must have given her something, even if not being star struck, so to speak, from just being there and meeting world leaders. She has to have some kind of level of familiarity's.

And by the way -- if Hillary does have a bunch of experience, then her lack of judgment in telling unnecessary, easily debunked lies about it completely disqualifies her from being a legitimate candidate, IMO. It's an error of massive dimensions. And she's going to run the country, huh?

She is an ass, surrounded by corruption. I'm not arguing for Clinton, just can't buy Obama as much as I'd like to.

I understand your question, and judging by your stance on Paul I understand why you're asking it. I imagine taxes would increase modestly, late in an Obama administration or early in a second Obama administration -- as they should, by the way, given the crushing debt the country is now under. No matter who the president is, that's the choice: mortgage the future, reduction of services, or increased taxes. But, again: most of what he and Hillary are talking about just won't happen. It's the primaries.

Together they are already pushing the largest tax increase through. I am certainly more of a spend less type, so Obamas constant talk of doubling federal agencies and increasing roles of Fed and more hand outs doesn't seem feasible, without a drastic increase from my pocket. Bush tax cuts(which all three back letting expire) aren't enough and cutting the war budget, while leaving perminit forces in place and putting more troops on the ground in Afghanistan isn't going to be free.

Philly suburbs.

I grew up in Bucks (Newtown/Langhorne) and still live fairly close over in Jersey. I also lived in Philly quite a bit. If you have any questions, let me know.

[mjah]

It was made to appear that the Dems would make a stand on further funding it, until we had a better plan and then folded like lawn chair and admitted to allowing Bush total control and they would just wait until the election. Very disappointing.

Agreed. I was amazed that they couldn't push for a change of course in the war. I guess they rationalized it by saying they'd give Bush enough rope to hang himself (metaphorically), but it was undoubtedly a failure. I don't know who to blame for this one, except to just say everyone.

I think it must have given her something, even if not being star struck, so to speak, from just being there and meeting world leaders. She has to have some kind of level of familiarity's.

I guess so. But I don't think that familiarity is even a drop in the bucket, compared with being the person who has to actually make the decisions, handle the foreign leaders, etc.

If being president is characterized as an exercise in making incredibly hard decisions under pressure, then I'd say Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush have roughly equivalent (and very low) experience with what it means to be the president.

I grew up in Bucks (Newtown/Langhorne) and still live fairly close over in Jersey. I also lived in Philly quite a bit. If you have any questions, let me know.

Thanks. I got married in Bucks Co., and I'm in Delaware Co. now. Nice suburbs here.

[Koolblue13]

Agreed. I was amazed that they couldn't push for a change of course in the war. I guess they rationalized it by saying they'd give Bush enough rope to hang himself (metaphorically), but it was undoubtedly a failure. I don't know who to blame for this one, except to just say everyone.

I guess so. But I don't think that familiarity is even a drop in the bucket, compared with being the person who has to actually make the decisions, handle the foreign leaders, etc.

If being president is characterized as an exercise in making incredibly hard decisions under pressure, then I'd say Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush have roughly equivalent (and very low) experience with what it means to be the president.

Thanks. I got married in Bucks Co., and I'm in Delaware Co. now. Nice suburbs here.

I would tend to agree with everything you've said here.

[mjah]

I would tend to agree with everything you've said here.

Aw, crap. That means I'll have to vote for Ron Paul and you'll have to vote for Obama.

[Koolblue13]

Aw, crap. That means I'll have to vote for Ron Paul and you'll have to vote for Obama.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: