The only place you can really attack Obama is his lack of Federal leadership experience.[/quote]
Incorrect. His record at the state level is disappointing and a cause for concern, as well as what he has done (or not done) at the federal level in his tenure (not just a function of not having federal “experience”, as in years being there).
Obama uses high-minded rhetoric - that is great. I don’t think Obama is a bad guy - I just don’t think he is Presidential timber.
Such rhetoric means little in the world of “getting things done” - and the reality of “bridging the gap” between the parties and moving us into an era of post-partisanship is ludicrous.
Witness his lack of post-partisanship in refusing to vote for Chief Justice John Roberts - when voting for a qualified USSC candidate has always been, traditionally, a post-partisan event (till the Democrats decided it wasn’t).
Obama tells his naive followers what they want to hear - but he is no more post-partisan than anyone else. If we was more of a centrist, I would be willing to cut him some slack - but there is no “meet-in-the-middle” post-partisanship in Obama’s game plan.
EDIT: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Obama’s comments on foreign policy, which are stunningly uninformed.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
[…] but too weak to make a descent president.
Weak in what sense?
Given the current geopolitical climate, the next U.S. President will very likely have to stick his (or God forbid, her) neck out and make a risky, heavily criticized decision that will undoubtedly piss off a huge number of people. [/quote]
I see. So you probably meant to write “decent”. I thought you were acknowledging the inevitable free-fall and crash lying ahead.
Anyway, the “current geopolitical climate” is one where the USA claims the known Universe as sphere of influence. Both its reign (on said Universe) and sovereignty are unabated and unchallenged. Do we agree on that? If so, what possible decision could the next president be faced with, in the next 4 years, and where he has to go against the will of the majority in the best interest of his/her country? That’s not a rhetorical question.
Anyway, the “current geopolitical climate” is one where the USA claims the known Universe as sphere of influence. Both its reign (on said Universe) and sovereignty are unabated and unchallenged. Do we agree on that? [/quote]
Nope - and you keep trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you keep claiming the US is a raging hegemon imperlialist, a “bully” that will naturally be resisted by the poor oppressed “others” in the world…
…while on the other, you try and suggest that the world has no interest in “challenging” the US and will passively accept its fate since the US is so dominating.
Well, which is it? Is a anti-US revolution brewing among the tired and frustrated oppressed peoples you romanticize? Or are they content to toil under the yoke of the hegemon, offering no resistance?
You can’t have it both ways.
And you wonder why you are accused of arguing in bad faith.
Anyway, the “current geopolitical climate” is one where the USA claims the known Universe as sphere of influence. Both its reign (on said Universe) and sovereignty are unabated and unchallenged. Do we agree on that?
Nope - and you keep trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you keep claiming the US is a raging hegemon imperlialist, a “bully” that will naturally be resisted by the poor oppressed “others” in the world…
…while on the other, you try and suggest that the world has no interest in “challenging” the US and will passively accept its fate since the US is so dominating.
Well, which is it? Is a anti-US revolution brewing among the tired and frustrated oppressed peoples you romanticize? Or are they content to toil under the yoke of the hegemon, offering no resistance?
You can’t have it both ways.
And you wonder why you are accused of arguing in bad faith.[/quote]
The candidate who states the LEAST wrt his or her positions will be the one who wins. Stating one’s position clearly and succinctly is sure to piss off someone.
Therefore, the winner will be the one who closest approximates…a vacuum.
[quote]
Rocky101 wrote:
Obama really doesn’t present any answers or solutions in his speeches. I mean what exactly is he going to change. I heard one of his speeches about being for medical marijuana, then I heard he was against it. I’d really like to know where the guy stands on issues.
Beowolf wrote:
…Once again, please give me a list on where the other candidates stand on issues.
Try going to all of the candidates web sites. They’re all freakin’ identical in the sense that they have NO DETAIL.[/quote]
EDIT: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Obama’s comments on foreign policy, which are stunningly uninformed.
This is exactly it. Once Obama gets done with his speech at the podium discussing “change” and “vision”, hard questions will come raining down.
His foreign policy resume has two huge problems: (1) it is thin, and (2) the substance of it is not impressive
(1) is especially bad because it’s not just that Obama hasn’t done anything of note in foreign policy - which could be the case with candidates who have a state government background - but that he had opportunities and accomplished nothing.
(2) is bad because he has been confusing and inconsistent on very tough questions - and the “I’ll meet with the rogue state leaders without precondition” nonsense, demonstrating he takes some of our worst enemies at good faith, is reason enough to keep him away from the Oval Office.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You seem to put a lot of faith in these people based on how they act in public. I am not saying I know better, but I am saying I would never write that I “know” what decisions McCain or Hillary could make once in office.
Call it a gut feeling.
[/quote]
When ever I get a gut feeling, it’s often diarrhea.
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s he got to offer on the policy front?
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
He proposes to CHANGE stuff with bigger and better government programs.
I thought it was just bigger and better capital letters…[/quote]
Hey, if you think it’s broke, throw the government into the mix, then it will really be fucked up. Fuck it, let’s cut to the chase and succumb to the inevitable, cameras in every home and microchips in every person, complete with zappers. If you want more government in your life, you can’t get more than that.
Heh. Nothing like some good infighting on the left to make the next few months interesting. I encourage both the Hillary and Obama camps to keep this going as long as possible.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Paul Krugman on Obama:
Heh. Nothing like some good infighting on the left to make the next few months interesting. I encourage both the Hillary and Obama camps to keep this going as long as possible.[/quote]
This is the thing that can get McCain in the side door to the White House. Being as his competition has thrown in the towel, he can pretty much just sit back, get some popcorn ready, and watch the Hillary-Obama battle royal. Hillary is evidently about broke already, and Obama will have to spend a crap load to keep his face in front of the camera.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I see. So you probably meant to write “decent”. I thought you were acknowledging the inevitable free-fall and crash lying ahead.[/quote]
No.
[quote]Anyway, the “current geopolitical climate” is one where the USA claims the known Universe as sphere of influence. Both its reign (on said Universe) and sovereignty are unabated and unchallenged. Do we agree on that?
…[/quote]
Regardless, a McCain v Obama race will be one based on ideals, instead of pragmatism. They’re both “fresh” seeming candidates, whom voters can place trust in.
We’re not gonna have much “I’m voting for this guy cause the other guy is a scumbag” like we did during 96, 00, and 04.
All I know is, I’ll be doing as much research as I can before I step into the voting booth for the first time next November. Despite this being a race of idealisms, from what I’ve seen so far, neither candidate has a particularly great load of substance.
Hopefully, the actual campaign past the primaries will start to reveal the kind of leaders they will be. Leadership, especially in the foreign scene, is more important in a President than policy anyway. Especially since whoever wins will probably be dealing with a very divided Congress.