Rage:

What a pathetic attempt to weasel out of answering my questions.  I never made any claims about “how Shillary has positively impacted the Nation policy-wise as a change agent” over the past 35 years.  And even if I had, one answer does not depend on the other.

You are simply avoiding the issue.  Whether or not I answer your question - even if I had made such claims about Hillary as you and others are making about Obama - is irrelevant: either you can answer my queries about Obama or you can’t.  My guess is, you can’t because, as I suspect, neither you nor any other Obama supporter here - nor Obama himself - can clearly articulate what is meant by all his pretty rhetoric.

Nice try.

Peace.

CY:

“I will be able to say “minority status” is no longer a bar to the highest office in a country based on the premise that all people are created equal.”

The same could be said for a woman president; that gender is “no longer a bar to the highest office in a country based on the premise that all people are created equal.”

Or are you simply sexist but not racist?

Peace.

Felicity:

“We” is a wonderful word.  It sounds nice and comfy and inclusive and makes you feel “special.”  But it is a completely empty word where politics is concerned - particularly for a president.

Yes, this country is “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  But that simply means we get to choose our representatives - municipal, state, federal.  And we hope, based on the things we hear them say, that they will live up to those things. If we don’t like what they do after we elect them 0 if they do NOT live up to the things they have said - we vote them out.  THAT is the extent of ANY INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT in politics at ANY level.

Once again, Obama’s simple use of a word - one which has ZERO application to reality - obscures the fact that everyone else’s use of “I” (both Democrats and Republicans) is simply the practical reality of the situation.

Felicity - What do YOU think YOU will be able to DO in an Obama presidency that you will NOT be able to DO in a Clinton presidency?  Can you name me a single thing?  A single, practical, real, tangible thing?  The question is rhetorical: of course you can’t, because there isn’t one.

It is sweet that Obama’s WORDS are “inclusive” in a way that Hillary’s may not be.  But that means ZERO vis-a-vis what actually occurs once a president is elected and sworn in.  Obama is NOT going to call you on the phone and say, “Felicity, remember I said “we” were going to do things?  Well, here’s your chance.”

Please.  Wake up.

Peace.

Has anyone noticed that Hillary’s campaign rhetoric is I will do this, I will do that, whereas Obama’s rhetoric is We can do this, We can do that? 

Frankly, we’ve had seven years of I and we don’t want to perpetuate them with another I in the Oval Office.  If the Constitution still matters at all, we have three branches of government and the president merely heads one branch.

Gomerspile:

“But she still is a pol to the bone, they really only have their own interest at heart.”  What makes you think Obama is any different?  He, too, is a “pol.”  He chose a political life, which means he, too, is “ambitious” and “aggressive.”  So what is the actual difference?

Rage:

Your hopelessly emotional and fact-challenged rant barely deserves a response.  Most of it is flat-out incorrect, all of it comes from visceral hatred rather than knowledge or understanding, and you simply come across as an unapologetic right-wing fanatic.

kamenwati:

“The Obama smears on this thread are no different than what you find coming from the Republicans.”

Myopia and willful ignorance seem rampant on this thread.  Stating facts about the two candidates is not “smearing.”  I have state nothing but FACTS - indisputable, researchable, supportable FACTS - about Obama and Hillary.  To call this “smear” is to simply admit that you are saying “I have made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Blackspeare:

“It seemed strange to me that Hillary, professing “new age” ideals, had Madeline Albright standing in back of her during her remarks after the Iowa caucuses.”

Perhaps.  But we don’t even know if Albright is actually serving in any capacity in Hillary’s inner group.  However, Obama is stressing even NEWER age ideals - and he has Zbigniew Brzezinski as HIS foreign policy advisor.  Talk about fossils - to say nothing of “politics as usual.”

All:

Given the level of myopia, willful ignorance and intellectual cowardice in this group, it does not surprise me that NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS has been willing to answer the questions I put forth.  For the record: “EXACTLY (specifics, please) what IDEAS has Obama articulated - clearly - with regard to “change,” “turning the page,” and “hope?”  What does he mean by those?  How is he, ultimately, THAT much different from Hillary?, given the FACTS that I have provided re their positions on issues and their voting records, among other things.”

Until I get some responses to those questions, I will assume that none of you even understands WHY you are supporting him.

Peace.

It seemed strange to me that Hillary, professing “new age” ideals, had Madeline Albright standing in back of her during her remarks after the Iowa caucuses.  It is obvious that the fossilized Albright is helping in her campaign, but to make it so blatant was a huge mistake.  I’m afraid Hillary is just showing a proclivity towards DC politics as usual.

Obama may wind up with the same old politics, as the realities of the Oval Office set in, should he be the next POTUS——or is he the Manchurian candidate???

Weather:

Since it seems that no one here but me does any real hard research for themselves, here are some names; the first five are senior advisors, the remainder are other major advisors (“C” indicates former Clintonites, “D” former Daschle-ites, “G” former Gephardites - ALL entrenched in party politics):

Julianne Smoot (D), Cassandra Butts (G), David Ploufee (G), David Cutler (C), Steve Richetti (C), Steve Hildebrandt (D), Bill Burton (G), Dan Pfeiffer (D), Susan Rice (C), David Tarullo (C), Joseph Paolino (C - and a “bundler” to boot).

As well, Zbigniew Brzezinski is his top foreign affairs advisor - nothing “new” there, huh?...LOL.

Right now, I am supporting Hillary, for all the reasons I have given here and on numerous other threads (as cyrena can attest…LOL).

First, she has more experience in Congress, a full term more.  As well, even the Republicans UNgrudgingly admit that she has been among the most bipartisan senators, reaching across the aisle in a way completely unexpected of her when she arrived. This also answers cyrena’s concern here: it is not about “rolling over” (I regret using that term, which I meant loosely), but about experience.  Obama was either absent or refused to vote more times than almost any other senator.  He has co-sponsored very few bills, and sat on few committees, particularly important ones.  In this regard, Hillary actually has a GREAT DEAL of respect in Congress - FAR more than Obama.

As well, Hillary has an almost laughable amount more knowledge, experience and relationships re foreign affairs.  Obama has comparatively little, and would have to start from scratch creating relationships with world leaders - some of whom will see this neophyte-ness as a weakness, and exploit it. Hillary, on the other hand, really CAN “hit the ground running” with world leaders who know how knowledgeable she is.  As noted, this is no small thing in the current global geopolitic.

Also, some of Hillary’s positions are better than Obama’s; e.g., Obama’s health care proposal would allow Big Pharma to continue to dictate terms, and leave 15 million people uninsured.  Hillary’s would take decision-making away from Big Pharma, and cover everyone.  As well, Obama has been spreading false fears re social security, and would attempt to partially privatize it, something Paul Krugman in the NYT correctly called “a page from the GOP playbook.”  Hillary has fought diligently to keep anyone from messing with social security.

Re other major issues - Iraq, climate change, taxes, etc. - their positions are virtually identical, so it (almost) wouldn’t matter which one you voted for.

Finally, neither you nor cyrena has answered my queries: EXACTLY what IDEAS has Obama articulated - clearly - with regard to “change,” “turning the page,” and “hope?” What does he mean by those?  How is he, ultimately, THAT much different from Hillary?

I’ve answered your questions.  Now answer mine.

Peace.

Maani,

Just a partial answer here, and I’ll get to more later. On this:

•  Does he expect Congress to simply roll over because of his charm and good looks?  Does he expect world leaders to do so?

I’m going to just speak for myself on this answer, though I suspect that others may feel the same way. I personally don’t WANT Congress to ‘simply roll over’ because of his charm, good looks, or anything else.

Matter of fact, isn’t that what we’ve had over 7 years of now, that has us so thoroughly jacked-up? This “roll over” Congress, without even the excuse of an executive with charm or good looks?

Nope, I don’t think that’s what we’re looking for. I don’t think we expect other ‘world leaders’ to ‘roll over either’, nor do I think that Barak Obama is expecting them to do so. And, if we didn’t have such an Imperialistic mentality, you wouldn’t have even asked the question!! World leaders don’t ‘roll’ over, and they haven’t ‘rolled over’ for the current regime. Rather, they have been beaten, bombed, harassed, or intimidated. That’s not exactly ‘rolling over’.

So, I suspect what we need on THAT front, is a Congress, (and world leaders) who will RESPECT our own executive branch/administration, based on the SAME ‘RESPECT’ that our leaders will extend to them. On THAT front, Barack Obama has ALREADY proven that he would ‘govern’ differently, by suggesting that we have to TALK to other members of the world community, whether we like ‘em or not.

Is THAT any different from what our current regime has to offer, or what Hillary or any of the repugs might offer?

Maani,

While I’m working on an answer to your questions, can you give us some actual NAMES of the Obama advisors that you say are ALL either ex-Clintonites or ex-Daschelites?

And, my other question is…Is it your purpose to actually SUPPORT a particular candidate over another, or just to attack Obama?

I ask because there is a difference, even though it would seem that the American political system has somehow become far from that.

But, there actually was a time in our history, when political candidates for office ‘sold’ themselves based on their own merits, rather than simply attacking their opponents.

So, the website you’ve posted, is nothing more than another attack on Obama. Do you have anything that would make your own preferred candidate, (whomever that might be) look better, or best…just on their own merit?

I think some people actually do still pay attention to that stuff.

So in short, nevermind how ‘hollow’ you want Obama to be, (under his good looks) but do you have anything that would convince us that Hillary, or anybody else really has ‘the beef’?

Weather:

As I have noted on other threads, Obama’s advisors and handlers are one-half ex-Clintonites and one-half ex-Daschle-ites - and all JUST as entrenched in party politics as Hillary’s advisors and handlers.

I sometimes wonder if Obama-ites even have the ability any more to see through the smoke and mirrors of his charm and good looks and really SEE him and his candidacy.  Consider:

His positions on ALL major issues are virtually identical to Hillary’s (and those that are different have been called “a page from the GOP playbook” and “wrong-headed” among other things); his voting record in the Senate is virtually identical to Hillary’s (and he has more NVs (no votes) than almost anyone in the Senate, which means he was either absent or refused to take a stand - not exactly “principled,” despite his claims to the contrary); he is as “bought and paid for” by corporate America as is Hillary (have you seen his donor’s list?); a president CANNOT “change everything,” no matter how noble the idea; his tenure in the Senate is a full term shorter than Hillary’s; and he does not have NEARLY the foreign policy knowledge, experience and relationships that Hillary does.

In these regards, I ask the Obama-ites here to answer this: EXACTLY what IDEAS has Obama articulated - clearly - with regard to phrases such as “change,” “turning the page,” and “hope?”  What does he mean by that?  How is he, ultimately, THAT much different from Hillary?  How will he GOVERN any differently?  Does he expect Congress to simply roll over because of his charm and good looks?  Does he expect world leaders to do so?

The following is offered for your consideration and comment:

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/05/ obama-mr-opportunity-return-of-the-hollow-man/

Peace.