Obama is a charming, personable, likable and very articulate individual. Every time I see him on TV I think, what a neat guy.

But, I wonder, what does he truly stand for. He won't let his supporters offer any clues. He just wants them to talk about dreams and hope. Don't bring up anything of substance.

So, I ask, what does he really stand for on a practical basis? What are we likely in for? What will he do, or try to do if he's in the White House 8 years.

Does anyone really know? Don't give me this "I went to his rally and I was really impressed". Hell, Brad Pitt or George Clooney could do that for you.

...I read the title of the thread and the first thought was a 1930s style stereotypical response..

AND that is what he has to overcome. while I always look for the joke first, too many people think the stereotypes as fact.

I too had those same questions as you and did not vote for him for that reason
... But others in the house were caught up in the image projected and did.....

From his speeches, Obama does seem to stand for an America that is respected around the world again, with a strong military that that may have to attack terrorists in foreign countries and fight wars just not "dumb wars." So - I'd say he stands for a strong but respected national defense.

Obama says he wants to make education more affordable for more Americans. At the same time, he has chided parents for letting their kids watch too much TV and not spending enough time with them. So, I'd say Obama stands for a strong for firm education of our kids.

But what does any politician truly stand for? Did we know with Bush, Bill Clinton, or Bush? (Many would claim they knew what Reagan stood for, but you wouldn't really know it looking back given his record of amnesty for immigrants, negotiating with terrorists, and a huge new national debt.)

Politicians like Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all ambitious figures who mostly want to be president, to have control and do things their way, put their own stamp on America. Who knows what they really "stand" for? I can guess from any of their speeches. From their actions? John McCain used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now he's for them - according to his speeches. Do we believe him now when he speaks or believe him a few years ago when he did the opposite? What does he stand for?

Andrew

His only real advantage is that so little is known about him that it would be harder for McCain to attack him. Hillary has enough baggage to fill a rail car.

Well, his speeches are about selling Obama. That's good because people need to "fall in love" so to speak.

Here's some substance:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HowardConvocationFactSheet.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/DisabilityPlanFactSheet.pdf

On economic issues, he's got a fair amount published so far:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/Obama_Keeping_Americas_Promise.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/EconomicPolicyFullPlan.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/MortgageFactSheet.pdf

Healthcare:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Lots more on his campaign web site.

I like the approach. He's doing a nice job keeping the high ground, communicating his differentiators, not selling against others, and working on selling with his strengths.

This is becoming very clear right now, and I believe it's reaching ordinary people. It's been mentioned in casual, "So, what do you think of the Presidential Choices this year?" conversations.

Joe six pack gets disinterested with higher levels of detail. That's really where traditional media plays these days. Adding to that, there is a very large NOISE factor.

Who is wearing pins, was the ad darkened, will they run out of money, who loves who, etc...

All good stuff, but also all consuming the space required for the meat.

He's chosen to engage the popular media with a strong change and empowerment message. Again, I like this a lot. It's a huge contrast to the usual fare and it gets people interested.

Maybe that's the limit of their interest. Younger people might see that and know enough. Was watching U-Tube political videos the other day with the kids. Interesting stuff.

The Obama video was set to music they can relate to and told the "Yes We Can" story nicely.

The McCain video was also set to music they like, and it's theme was "No You Can't".

The Clinton video was some girl having a girl crush on her. Funny stuff.

The Obama / McCain messages told a younger person all they needed to know. A lot of adults are not too much farther along.

Been talking to people, young and old to try and grok this a little. The number of people, interested at our level here, is not all that large! Most of then see it in very coarse terms. Can I like the guy, will he change things for the better, can I TRUST him, does he divide people, is he like the other ones?

On all of that stuff, Obama is just getting it done nicely, and that's the point of it.

For those of us wanting a lot more information, it's there, on the right venue; namely, the Internet and mail.

Doing things this way has one other major advantage and that's him being able to keep the high ground (not go negative), and differentiate on that.

IMHO, the only thing he's not working hard enough at is dealing with the crap. This last negative barrage had an impact.

I've now heard ordinary people --younger people, say, "he won't salute the flag", "is a Muslim, isn't that bad for us?", etc...

Not a deal breaker, but something that needs to be checked now, before it gets ugly.

I don't like all of his published plans. Nothing horrible, just think we could get better on some things. Maybe we will too. That's to be decided after he's in office.

I do really like him being able to appeal to Americans period. The divisive crap really has done us harm. Obama does not appear to want to go there, and that's got my vote period. The rest can easily be sorted out over time.

Obama stands for smart leadership. I truly believe he is a bright individual, and he will surround himself with like minded bright individuals. He stands for a woman's right to choose. He stands for the middle class. Overall, he stands for an America that we can be proud of once again.

Deane, that is a very good question. I would say that generally he brings more experience to the table. This is why Obama supporters are so infuriated when Clinton yammers away with her lies. Unlike Hillary, who is much older, he has actually accomplished something with virtually every opportunity he has been presented.

After earning his B.A. from Columbia, he worked for years as a community organizer in Chicago before going to law school. He was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, and completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991. He has written two bestselling books. One is a honest and frank autobiography, Dreams from My Father and the other is a great assessment of what America could be with some hard work, The Audacity of Hope.

Compared to his current rival, he has far more grassroots community building experience. Instead of meddling in the affairs of Arkansas, he built a very solid record as a civil rights attorney. Instead of putting out fires for a shortsighted spouse, he spent a decade teaching Constitutional law. He also has twice as much legislative experience as Hillary. Most important, he has a solid grasp of what coalition building actually entails with the record to back it up.

For starters, here is his Wikipedia entry. It gives you a basic overview of his life, his experience and some of his legislative record. Even with just a cursory glance, one can see his effectiveness as a Senator. He has worked on major bills with Coburn, Lugar and McCain, and has instilled a sense of cooperation in his colleagues even when things have been ugly.

Let me get another cup of joe, and I will put some more information on the table.

Maybe Hillary can cut a deal with him. She drops out and Obama appoints her or Bill to the Supreme Court.

I don't carry water for Mr. Obama, but one thing I've admired about him is that he hasn't trotted out the tired old race card, nor has he 'gone negative.'

I'm certain that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world would love for Mr. Obama to go racial. But to his credit, he hasn't. This tells me that he's likely sincere about being the candidate who hopes to represent everyone, not just a segment of the populace.

On the other hand, the Clinton attack machine is what has turned many voters from all parties off of politics.

Herb

Maybe she is told the truth about mathematics by the DNC leadership, putters around for a week all mopey and then gets off her ass and scrambles to save her Senate seat. Can she do that for under $200 million? :0)

"On the other hand, the Clinton attack machine is what has turned many voters from all parties away from politics."

I dunno, the Bush attack machine has been successful over the last two presidential election cycles. Perhaps Hillary is going with the tried and true method of getting elected president in the 21st century.

If the left wishes to imitate Mr. Bush, be my guest.

Herb

"Perhaps Hillary is going with the tried and true method of getting elected president in the 21st century."

That thoroughly explains all the funny voting machines in New Hampshire, and her sudden phantom surge. That thoroughly explains why minorities are just tools and not people to her. That thoroughly explains her moving the goal posts every few weeks. That thoroughly explains her being so hush hush about her tax returns. That thoroughly explains why the Clinton camp already has eight years of dead bodies in their wake.

Okay, I promise, I will grab some more information.

I'm glad I got some well thought out responses. I find the guy fascinating, but I fear his extreme liberalism, just as I fear the harm that extreme conservatism can bring.

There is a good chance Obama will be the next President, though this is an election with such unusual dynamics, nothing will be for sure until the election actually gets here.

The latest bomb is Hillary suggesting him as her Vice Presidential running mate. She's assuming, of course, that she would get the nomination. I wonder what that partnership would do to the election. Would the negatives that both carry outweigh the positves both might carry.

If Obama is the nominee, it's going to be interesting to watch how he handles himself through a tough campaign. So far, he's done very well.

Uh, yeah, running mate. How quaint, he can drive Miss Daisy all over Washington. How unbelievably generous of her to offer that Veep slot when she is behind. I wonder if she is gonna pledge to put some cotton out in the South Lawn too.

Either Democrat can win over McCain simply because the majority of voters are tired of the war in Iraq, while McCain still support it.

Here are few articles to explore that might give you a clearer picture of Barack Obama:

• The Candidate
• Dreaming of Obama
• The Legend of Barack Obama
• The Conciliator

LS, you are being unusually...uh, agitated by primary politics recently. It just sounds strange coming from you.

Well, to be quite frank, I have major doubts about the future of our nation with Hillary in office. I also have very real reservations about her character and integrity. I once had small doubts, but then I made the mistake of doing research, and vainly trying to find a shred of solid support for her assertions, positions and work history.

I dug and dug, and all the while the facts kept leaping at me. I had to relive some of the worst moments in modern America, and acknowlege that most of their time in office has been coated with a decade of turd polish. A good number of our current problems are rooted in the sordid and slack Clinton era, including Iraq. My low opinion has merely been made lower by the behavior of her campaign -- both above and below the radar -- so by this point, well, I am out of reasons to hold back my feelings. So, yes, I may have acted a bit like waters blowing through an earthen dam.

As a United States citizen, I see no place for race and religious baiting, backhand slurs, and self-appointed dictators. I see past her persona of a nice tidy baby-boomer bumper sticker flaunting inactivist wealthy liberal, to the corporate shill, divisive leader and power consolidating despot she could become. Naturally, I do not trust the shrubette, so I push back. :0)

Okay, enough speaking truth to power and vitriol. :o)

Here is some more meat:

As Andrew astutely pointed out a while back, Samantha Power is the sort of visionary person we could look forward to serving in a Barack Obama administration. So, to help clear up any foreign policy doubts one may have, here is some Samantha powered discourse:

• Interview with Charlie Rose
• Interview with Salon

Its so difficult to resist saying, "Chitlins and grits".

Go ahead and say it Nwokie,

"Chitlins and grits" is enjoyed by white honkies in the south. (I love the grits, hate the chitlins)

I love grits, hate chitlins, but my dad and mom loved them.

"Its so difficult to resist saying, "Chitlins and grits"."

And this kind of thinking is why I'm never suprised by how low Americans can stoop.

While we're bashing Hillary, lets not forget that Hillary won a few big states yesterday, something that many people wrote her off on being able to accomplish.

Keep in mind, the dirty tricks machinery wing of the GOP (that's you, you lying swiftboaters) are going to unload on whoever the Democrat nominee is, and Hillary has show she CAN win, no matter what is thrown in her way. Can Obama? Has he EVER had a difficult campaign?

Anyway, bashing Hillary isn't exactly turning me on to Obama.

The bottom line: After 8 years of being hosed by the Republicans, I am willing to do nearly anything to get them out of office, including the same tricks they used against us. If it calls for Hillary, so be it. I'm just not sure that Obama is up to the vomit session that is gonna be unleashed on him by the Republicans.

He could just hire the Clintons to be his mud slingers!

I don't think McCain will do it directly or even authorize it, but the neocons in the Republican party will attack Obama with lies and half truths. His Kenyan grandfather converted from being Catholic to Muslim, hence the Hussein middle name. Obama is a life-long Christian, but the neocons will do everything to convince he is a Muslim.

His Chicago house deal will be played up to the extreme, as will his wife's college thesis and her statement that she was not proud of this country until Obama got its support.

Hell, they'll probably say he fathered a white baby in South Carolina.

Lying swiftboaters? Those were decorated military veterans, who served at least a full tour in Vietnam, whereas kerry served under 90 days. And most of what they said was verifibly true, such as Kerry Lying about being in Cambodia on Christmas day, when he was never in cambodia. All of Kerrys medals were based on the after action reports , written by Kerry.
Kerry shot at least one unarmed, wounded enemy soldier. Kerry should have been courts martialed for beaching his boat, in an enemy area, shows total lack of common sense.

And lastly, why has Kerry never made his original DD 214 public?

The swiftboaters were not eyewitnesses, they were liars with a political agenda.

Touche', Nwokie.

Herb

Herb, how dare you attack an true American war hero!

HYPOCRITE!!!!!

Nwokie, you made my point, a new version of "swiftboaters" will go after Obama with lies and half-truths.

Kerry has 3 purple hearts, and never spent one hour in a military hospital or aid station for any of them. Now I know several guys with 1 purple heart or even 2 that did that. One of Kerrys was self inflicted, not intentionaly, but because he did something stupid. Dropping a grenade into a sampan right next to himself.

And again, why won't he release his original dd 214?

Probably because he doesn't want to give dip-shit numb nuts the time of day.

I wouldn't.

Say it's an error, which it very likely is. Who really cares?

http://one-holy-catholic-apostolic.org/journal/2004/08/31/dd214.htm

None of it was material to him being able to serve as an effective president. Now that question is off the table, why even address the asses that made such a mess of it in the first place?

People of character do not debate liars and cheats. Liars and cheats have no boundaries, and with no boundaries comes no rational conversation, thus no debate.

The only mistake Kerry made was not getting up front and out there to counter the crap before it really started to smell.

When they pull this crap on Obama (and they will), if he fixes that mistake, it's highly likely to be a non-issue.

What I find interesting is the alternative. Ok, so let's say Obama gets the nod. The numb-nuts-wind-bag swiftboaters go to town, publishing their shit daily.

What's the end game?

Are we then supposed to go with McCain? Support the GOP and their gang of liars, fags, cheats and crooks?

Hardly.

Remember, the lying swiftboaters went after kerry without any "authorization" from the Bush people. While I suspect that McCain is more decent than the Bush people, he isn't going to stop the lying swiftboaters. Hopefully Obama is ready to handle it. The Kerry high road route that Obama is likely to take won't work. Hillary on the other hand will be able to handle the lying swiftboaters.

He brings to the table a promise to not do whatever the fuck he wants for whatever reason he wants.

I'm SO sick of this shit I could, well, shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/senate_fbi

Yeah well, if they [bush people] were stand up people, they would have made it known they thought it was dirty pool.

They didn't do that, so they "authorized it"

fair enough?

Hillary and Bill on the Supreme Court?
Sounds good!
At least it would piss Herb and his MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY GANG.

Obama raised $50 million in February and does not need public funding. Kerry did not counter the "swiftboat" attacks in large part because his campaign was dark for weeks. This was due to public funding rules. He could answer the charges in the media, but he could not spend money and counter the advertisements. By the time he could do it, the lie had stuck. It is a position that McCain could find himself in a hurry. His campaign could go dark and not be able to do anything for months and months. Yeah, that could get ugly. Now, now, stop that drooling you crazy Democrats. :0)

What Barack Obama brings to the table is exactly what this country needs, and in spite of the spin these past few days, he still has the national momentum to pull it off. The crisis we face is of Roosevelt proportions, and we need a level-headed uniter to see us through the years ahead. We need an individual who can cross boundaries, stay focused, see the big picture, and not be caught up in micromanaged pettiness or partisan bickering.

I do appreciate the high spirits of the Democratic Party at this moment in time, but I think that it is dangerous to assume that either candidate would be a toss-up and a net positive based on party affiliation. Many McCain backers in 2000 voted for the shrub and are still filled with deep regret and remorse for towing the party line. Winning is not everything.

Furthermore, it is a political myth that a "status quo candidate" winning big Democratic states by small margins is a mandate. Folks have known Hillary for over 15 years. This election shows that barely half of the Democrats in those states like her more than a fellow who went national just four short years ago. When there is massive and growing support for a candidate that the electorate is still learning about, it is important to embrace it and foster it. I think that he has "The Big Mo" in a far broader and larger sense than anyone of any party in this race.

To return to the "towing the line" angle, narrow victories mean very little when you expect blue states to stay blue in the fall. We all agree that New York would vote for either Obama or Clinton, California would vote for either Obama or Clinton, etc. The rub is that her base cannot get much bigger. If she cannot reach outside of the party safety net for primary voters, that is not good news for her, or the Democrats in November.

What is exciting, and a huge difference between the candidates, is that the Obama campaign is registering millions of Democrats, and drawing millions of voters of every kind to the polls in the red states. He could turn them purple, and perhaps even blue come fall. Rather than focusing on a temporary shift in the executive branch, he is building a strong future for the party in every level of government.

This kind of fifty state electorate building approach is precisely what the Democratic Party needs, and exactly what it has asked of the candidates. It will be crucial to win this election by more than a handful of votes in just one state. Red states must have a Presidential candidate with bi-partisan appeal for their Governors, Senators and Representatives who are running on the same ballot to be successful. With a polarizing choice, the Democrats could lose more than the Presidential election.

Obamamania is far more than simply charisma, or a populist attitude, it is an excitement based on his record, his abilities and his dedication. There is concrete reasoning behind his broad appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, not some kool-aid based sentimentality. It is his nature to seek out knowledge, build consensus, find solutions and motivate folks to get the work done once there is agreement. The reason his support is solid is because Obama is a solid American leader.

One of America's most brilliant minds, Dr. Cornel West, said that he would celebrate an Obama win, but when he woke up the next morning, he would be "his biggest critic." I agree with him. I am not blind to the failings of any leader, and I will concede that nobody is perfect. Still, I have every reason to believe that Obama is the best candidate.

I know how defensive folks get when things that are uncomfortable keep coming to light on either side. So, rather than try to force Hillary supporters into seeing her big picture, I will trust that after my volleys, folks will do their homework and draw their own conclusions. I reserve the right to give all the candidates in this race a good strafing with the facts, but for now, I will try to concentrate on the positive. :0)

Larry Elder: Obama Speaks!

Biggest critic:

Yeah, that's me too. One of the very good things about the left and independant camps is exactly this.

We don't elect kings, we elect leaders. We know our government is for the people, by the people and of the people.

Obama will be working for us, and needs to be serving our best intersts, not just those of the major corporations and substantial people.

We need to pressure him, question him, judge him. That's how it all works. Totally up for that, eager actually.

Well Larry doesn't get it.

We need to pressure him, question him, judge him. That's how it all works. Totally up for that, eager actually.

I would highly recommend C-Span coverage when Obama is in the Senate, conducting town hall meetings, round table discussions and even questions after campaign events. It really fleshes things out.

I have seen him field tough questions from his colleagues, civic groups, medical professionals, Veterans and college kids. He has never hedged, just stated clearly where he stood and asked for input.

When the MSM purees his message into tiny custard cups, it is eloquent and inspiring, but incomplete. He consistently gives very thorough answers to folks in a one on one setting. It is so refreshing and American!

(No, Larry does not get it at all.)

"never spent one hour in a military hospital or aid station "

Nwokie, get your facts straight.

The Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay reported removing shrapnel from Kerry's arm. It was not a major would, but it was combat related.

My son called me last night (Saturday for him) from Obama Japan.

I can't wait to get the T-shirt he bought me!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/19/asia/19japan.php

I know I'm jumping in the game late, but I have to add my $.02.

Obama to me really stands for unity. Togetherness. He really strikes me as someone who isn't just paying lip service to getting past all this partisan crap and creating a better America WITH the help of the Republicans. His work with the likes of Lugar and McCain points that home to me.

Obama is also about respect, the respect that the office of President of the United States SHOULD carry. About respect not only to our allies around the world, but our adversaries. He's a brilliant guy, and one that would actually try diplomacy, not the current "Cowboy Diplomacy" that Dubya pushes.

Is Obama too liberal for my liking? Yes. Am I willing to look past that? Absolutely. The man is a difference maker, and he has proven at every step of the way for him that he will indeed be that leader, to SHOW us how it's done.

Right now this country needs true leadership. McCain is qualified. Hillary, IMHO is not. Neither will command and earn the respect of the world in the manner that Obama will, for sure.

Brainl, you're not paying attention to what's really been going on with Obama. His support for 20 years of a radical anti-American pastor, his involvement with the Weather Underground, with Louis Farrakan.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Deane-
How will his association with these people affect his ability to be President?

"How will his association with these people affect his ability to be President?"

Do we really want the Presdient of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to individuals who hate America, who are involved in terrorism, who hate Jews, etc? Is this really what America stands for in your mind? I'm hopeful you can answer your own question.

What does Obama bring to the table?

If it's potluck, I hope he brings a nice dessert, but Since he is running for president, I expect a "chicken in every pot" ala Hoobert Heever same type of economy brewing............

Do we really want the President of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to an individual like John Hagee who wants to nuke Iran a means to fulill prophecy and trigger the Rature?

If all of these politicians would stay away from preachers they'd be a lot better off. They hang around them in hopes it will make them look good with the religious set, who are easily duped, but many of the nosiest of preachers are going to say something stupid at some point.

No, I'm not anti religion, just the opposite, but I just don't care for loud mouth preachers.

Do we really want the Presdient of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to individuals who hate America, who are involved in terrorism?

DUHbya was/IS in bed with Saudi Arabia!

Deane,

Well said!
But from your previous post you seem to be saying that guilt by association is OK to hang on Obama.

"But from your previous post you seem to be saying that guilt by association is OK to hang on Obama."

Guilty by association if there is a long history of gravitating towards these types individuals and providing them with financial support. His support of his pastor goes back 20 years and amounted to as much as $22,000 per year. The preacher has a long history of anti-white and anti-American rhetoric. Obama's saying "Gee, I didn't know that" is a bit of a stretch.

The Weather Underground was not a religious organization.

"Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a violent U.S. Radical Left group consisting of splintered-off members and leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society which formed on the campus on the University of Michigan in the 1960s. The group referred to itself as a revolutionary organization of men and women whose purpose was to carry out a series of attacks that would achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States. Their attacks were mostly bombings of government buildings."

Obama's candidacy will soon be coming to an end.

People have a right to strong affirmation of their beliefs. Sometimes others are going to find that offensive.

The real key is the ability to be a statesman. We are gonna have religious people for leaders. The very simple reason lies in the fact that about 90 percent of us are religious!

Numbers alone mean that's a factor.

From what I see, Obama can be an adult and differentiate his role as statesman from Obama the religious person.

More importantly, I don't see him trying to further the idea of the all powerful executive. That's big where these matters are concerned because then Congress will do what it is supposed to do and that robust working body tends to filter out the dogma more often than not.

One very big differentiator is Obama was quick to set these things aside with short and to the point statements. Those statements align well with his overall message and that's about as good as it gets.

McCain has not done the same, and that's a concern to me by itself. It's a greater concern given he also really hasn't differentiated his idea of a presidency from the Bush administrations ideas.

I think anybody who is not willing to do that, presents as somebody who is likely to try to fix their own personal struggles with legislation.

And that's just bad on a lot of levels.

"DUHbya was/IS in bed with Saudi Arabia!"

You want to ride a bicycle to work, or what? Help me here.

Well, if Obama is coming to an end, so is McCain, leaving Clinton.

I don't think so.

Missing, the reason you're not catching on to what what he's all about is that you don't want to.

I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue…

That was Obama.

From what I can see, that's a coupla sermons. And from what I can see, that's not Obama saying those things --in fact, I can find nothing that says he supports those things.

Finally, where is the evidence that this pastor has been hammering on those things for the last 20 years.

Pretty tough to not call this a hit job, focusing on a sermon or two.

And hey, the only reason both Clinton and McCain don't look like complete asses right now is the Obama campaign has been running a largely clean operation, not going negative.

The nut bags that have endorsed McCain, and who he has not repudiated by the way, make this guy look like an angel. Clinton has similar baggage too.

Remember the end game people.

After this plays out and we see how Obama handles it, then some value judgments can be made.

If Obama isn't the guy, then either Clinton or McCain is.

For me, that means either Clinton or Obama. There will be no McCain vote. This crap doesn't merit support for Clinton, so it's a non issue, next.

For those of you, who won't deliver a Clinton vote, then it's McCain right?

Then ask yourself how come he's not come out and repudiated the nut bags who have endorsed him?

Missing, this association with questionable elements has been going on with Obama for decades. Only now, while running for President does he denounce the Rev Wright's radical anti-American, anti-white ramblings. Only now, while it's necessary for his candidacy for President.

His wife recently let slip their anti-American views which are apparently pretty deep seated.

I'm telling you, where there's smoke, there's fire.

"Then ask yourself how come he's (McCain) not come out and repudiated the nut bags who have endorsed him?"

We aren't taking about endorsements. Anyone can endorse anyone they want to. We're talking about a long history of association and involvement. That's different.

Help yourself DJ...
You said: Do we really want the Presdient of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to individuals who hate America, who are involved in terrorism?

Your behind DUHbya and he is HAND IN HAND with the biggest TERRORIST NATION in the world.
There is your help. Thought you were smart enough to see that but the kool-aid runs THICK in your veins.

Trixter, do you think that's because he believes in them and their causes, or do you think it's because we need them?

Different how?

So, we've got Obama perfectly willing to talk about whatever it is that people want to talk about.

His message is essentially, we need to trancend this crap, and his actions affirm that perfectly.

Now, there is McCain who will take whatever he can get, just not talk about it and hope the net gain in votes is in his favor.

And Clinton, who really has been very secret these last 8 years.

You are right, anyone can endorse anyone they want to. However, those being endorsed can also make it very clear they do not favor those endorsements. Not doing that means it's all ok.

That's what McCain is doing.

Obama is not doing any such thing. He's clearly articulating his message and his plans and his actions run along those lines as well.

What a person does and what they say is very important.

What I see McCain doing and what he is saying isn't pretty. What Obama is doing and what he is saying is!

Every one of us has some crap like this in our lives. Everybody. What we do and what we say matters.

The pastor isn't gonna be President. Never is. Looking back at past Presidents, they've all had their religious figures in their lives. Looking closer at that and a lot of it isn't pretty.

They got elected too.

As President, the role is clear. What we are looking for is people who can play that role and serve us well.

So far, Obama has done a very good job of that and the others haven't.

Again, gonna go for McCain? Ok, so that means more of what we are getting now. At any one time 70 percent of us don't approve of that.

Then there is Clinton. That's not good for you is it?

So then it comes down to more war, death, poor economic policy, etc... or this bit. Is that your entire value judgement Deane?

Have you seen or heard anything from Obama that even suggests he's gonna be this kind of person as President? I haven't.

Don't you think you should before committing to what McCain has to offer us?

I haven't heard anything from Obama other than things about all the money he's going to spend.

If he were to do all that he's proposed, the Iraq war costs would look like petty cash.

But then, let's dream for a little while, shall we. That part won't cost anything.

That's not true at all. Go and review our percent of tax dollars spent and on what. Military spending is over 40 percent.

Social programs combined are maybe 20. So let's say we go for the full boat and double that!

It might come close to half of what Iraq is costing and the returns are here at home! Sorry, that's a non starter.

Look at that war cost doubled, and it's ugly too. That is what McCain is gonna do. Those dollars are going to leave the nation and never come back, and they are easily more than double what could happen with everything Obama would like to do.

(Remember a real President is checked by Congress, so not all that Obama stuff is going to happen.)

So, are we back to we've got to do what we are currently doing because there are no alternatives, and if so, McCain is the better choice because he's gonna go continue to get it done for us?

Besides we are gonna have to spend some money and put people to work to dig ourselves out of this economic mess. There is absolutely no way around that one.

We do not produce a net gain in the world right now and the debt is growing. Because we left the gold standard, our dollars are directly linked to both the trust we have in them and the amount of production they are backing.

We seriously lack in both!

The fed is printing money hand over fist, taxing all of us huge. That's what currency devaluation does to people and there are no exemptions, deductions, etc...

What's the net result of that?

Having to work harder for less Deane.

Additionally, all of the value packaged up in weapons and exploded outside the country is never coming back --ever. So, we bleed economically for that effort with what return exactly?

With gas hitting $5 / gallon soon, even $4 / gallon, our day to day costs are gonna just about double. Couple that with the dollar being at parity with, or even below the Canadian dollar and that's a 30 percent war tax across the board, combined with the higher costs of things on top of that.

With strong downward wage pressure being the GOP norm, it's ugly for just about everybody.

So, spend on the war, continuing this cycle, or spend on ourselves to get out of this mess?

Easy cheezy decision on my part. The war spending is a dead end. Other spending that will empower people is not a known dead end, so that's how I'll make the call.

Obama is about empowerment, McCain isn't.

That's all I really need to know.

Past that we've got silly issues like this. I can live with some moral and religious position differences in a President. As long as that person is actually being a President and not a king, that ends up being just a debate.

Those things are only a significant worry when we've got leaders who think they are kings.

Obama isn't one of those. It's highly likely McCain will roll with the current expectations and I'm not so sure Clinton won't do the same.

If even a hint of that crap comes up during term one, he's out right? So, why worry about it now, particularly when he's made it very clear that whole scene is not what he is about?

Personally, I think a lot of people will try and use this for a crutch to just vote to keep the status quo.

Are you enjoying your retirement being devauled every day Deane? ...or maybe you are holding gold. Maybe you should do just that as the dollar is in serious trouble.

Like the idea of your retirement dollars being taxed? That's what currency devaluation is doing to you Deane. Right now, that's about a thirty percent devaluation and rising.

Pretty ugly to see that amount taken from your stash isn't it?

That's what McCain brings to the table man. To be totally fair, I also think Clinton is gonna carry that torch too. She's owned by too many large corporate doners to really do otherwise.

"We're talking about a long history of association and involvement."

I have a long history of association and involvement with several members of my family.
Some of them are conservative Limbaugh listeners, and an religious zealots.

I still love them, and associate with them.

Does my association with them mean that their views represent what I stand for?

So, I guess somewhere Obama has a workable plan for:

Stopping the rampant inflow of illegals over the border.
Getting our troops out of Iraq without creating chaos in the Mid-East.
Keeping us safe from terrorists.
Getting the cost of gasoline down.
Cutting Taxes.
Reducing the debt.
Getting health care to those who need it.
Ending the government search for terrorists among us.

Come to think of it, I guess he hasn't offered to do any of that. I believe the message he delivers is that we should have "hope" that he might.

Dream on.

Well, I guess if you are stuck on the "President as King" ideal, then those things are significant worries.

Probably the biggest contributor to why we don't have more progress on those matters is divisive crap. Look at the recent FISA clusterfuck!

The Dems have posted up solid legislation that deals with the government searching through us problem. Why isn't it law?

The need for the current administration to cover it's ass, that's why.

So, with an administration that does not have to do that, because it's going to play the role it's supposed to play, instead of that of king, we will see that remedied fairly quickly.

The cost of gas is a very interesting one. If you do the math in terms of dollars and factor back, the VALUE of GAS has not changed all that much. At times, we get a really great deal, at other times we don't, but overall the VALUE of a gallon of gas has not changed all that much.

What has changed then?

Our freaking dollar! That's what.

We can go down your list and see that NOBODY is going to PUBLISH the TRUE ANSWERS because all of THOSE answers are going to require some WORK.

And this is exactly why I support Obama over the others --even Edwards, who I would really love to see, but now realize would probably not be the right kind of person, because he would be fighting not empowering and unifying.

Stopping the flow of illegals means dealing with the reasons they come here in the first place. A big part of that is Mexico itself. Ever wonder why the Canadians don't just flow over here in the same numbers? They are not being exploited to the limit like the Mexicans are! It's that simple.

So, we need to do some stuff to limit the problem, and we need to apply some strong pressure to Mexico to do the same. Why? Because not doing that hurts us! Now, that's gonna change the labor equation over there, but then we won't have so much of a border problem will we?

Well, we can work on making it a dubious proposition to work here. Lots of good ideas to work through. Any combination of them would probably get it done, so we need to see that WORK actually get done, and that's what Obama wants to do.

Getting out of Iraq without creating chaos over there. Well, there is CHAOS right now! The question is will it get worse or not?

Keeping us safe from terrorists can be directly linked to not being such global asses, end of story. That is perhaps the biggest legacy Bush brings us --he's not liked globally and chooses military strength over diplomacy for EVERYTHING.

If we've got somebody as President, who can work with people, cut deals, and manage expectations, we are very highly likely to be safe from terror. It's a social problem as much as it is a military / police action one.

The more friends we have working together on the problem, the safer we all are --and the less value the tactic has. With that diminished value comes a very strong dis-incentive to actually do it.

A strong President, who knows how to manage expectations and remain level headed about things will also prove to be that same force for protection.

Think about it. We got attacked, then just hammered Saddam! It's stupid, and shows our current President to be nothing more than a tool. This is like getting your car stolen, then beating the crap out of that annoying neighbor to feel better about it! If it wasn't so ugly, it would be just hilarious.

Already talked about gas. Fix the dollar, by putting people to work and making things, and combined that with energy alternatives and the gas problem will go away.

Remember, the VALUE of a gallon of gas hasn't changed all that much. It's the VALUE of the damn dollar that has.

Cutting taxes isn't gonna happen right away. Also, the devaluation of our DOLLAR is a very potent and inescapable regressive tax that's hurting people causing all sorts of trouble that will cost us.

If we can improve the value of the dollar, we all get a tax cut, the national debt can be paid down and managed better, and then we can start looking at cutting taxes and such, after we have paid for all the shit Bush put on us.

Remember that when talking about tax cuts. If you are bitching about your buying power being too low, bitch about the whole picture, not just the tax percentage rate.

An example of that work can be seen in the border issue.

There are liberal and conservative approaches to this. Additionally, there are corporate ones and legislative / government ones.

That all plays out into a 2D grid of potential options, with various upsides and downsides.

So, what do we do?

This is where not engaging in divisive crap is gonna pay us huge dividends. The right thing to do is hash it out, tell the lobbyiests to go suck it, and make some rational choices on these things.

I strongly suspect a cross-section of these ideas is the right way to go. I also strongly suspect we will find that needs to be adjusted some after we see what happens after the first pass.

So, there is no RIGHT answer. We don't need somebody to tell us, "it will be done this way". What we do need is somebody to put that on the agenda and apply pressure until solid solutions are found, then keep the peace while they are legislated.

Again, President as King or not.

Chances are, if we elect another goddammed king, that king will just do some stuff and feel good about it. That's proven to be pretty ineffective across the board. No need to continue that crap is there?

"Do we really want the Presdient of the United States to be someone who has been attracted to individuals who hate America, who are involved in terrorism, who hate Jews, etc?"

Who knows maybe Obama can actually build a bridge between our differences.

"Who knows maybe Obama can actually build a bridge between our differences."

I assume you guys are all smoking the same Oregon Gold.

"For those of you, who won't deliver a Clinton vote, then it's McCain right?"

Nope, I have to vote my convictions and support someone closest to my ideals. None of those three fill the bill, so I will look closely at a third party candidate, but more than likely cast a write in vote. You can say I'm wasting it, but to me voting for someone I can't agree with, is the lesser of two evils, or vote for one to keep the other from winning, IS WASTING A VOTE......

My right, my vote.

DJ said>>>>>
Trixter, do you think that's because he believes in them and their causes, or do you think it's because we need them?

WHO THE FUCK CARES! They promote TERROR IN THE WORLD! They are BOTTOM LINE the worse offenders WORLDWIDE! You stick behind DUHbya and Co.??? DO YOU promote TERROR?
DUHbya does......

Ok, so really then it comes down to the President as king bit.

Rather than actually work through the stuff and get it done with democracy, it's better then to just pick the person that's gonna just do it?

And that's McCain then?

...and I find that very interesting as I think Clinton will pull that too, which is exactly why I really don't prefer she take the Presidency.

Take any of those things on the list. Is there an absolute, as in we can point to the solution and say, "here it is", for any of them?

I don't think there is. Does anybody?

If the answer to that is yes, well then where is it and who is promising to do just that.

If the answer is no, then we need to have somebody who is going to keep the divisive crap to a minimum so that our combined leadership can figure it out, right?

eg: We are going to the moon.

Now, it takes a President to say we are going to the moon. No question. That's leadership.

What the President didn't say was how to get there and how to fund it. That's for Congress and the scientists to work out.

How is this stuff any different?

Seems to me, asking for "the plan" is a red herring then, UNLESS SUCH A PLAN IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO PUBLISH RIGHT NOW.

And if it were possible to publish, then we would elect a king to do it exactly their way right?

Come on Deane, which is it?

I repeat:

"I assume you guys are all smoking the same Oregon Gold."

Deane, do you have anything of actual value to add to this thread, or was the purpose yet again to create strawmen and act self-satisfied when you prove yourself right yet again?

We know you don't like Obama and are going to look at the negative side of things no matter what - so why should we take you seriously?

Andrew

So a preacher goes off and says something outlandish. Lets see, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell have never ever said anything remotely outlandish???

To quote another conservative on this board-get a grip.

Andrew, when I started this thread way back when, I knew very little about Obama and really wondered what everyone thought. It was since that time I began to realize he has a history of gravitating towards anti-American and anti-white individuals. Since I started this thread, his wife has made her anti-American position known. Tie it all together and I guess it's time to ask what he brings to the table. What we're beginning to learn isn't good.

Missing has elevated him to the position of a Messiah in his mind. That's a bit scary also, but not untypical of other far left wingers.

Chris: You're refusing to see the difference between the associations Obama has made and the Pat Robertson and the Jerry Falwells, two people I can't stand. They aren't anti-American, nor anti-black (reversing the situation).

You guys have decided that Obama is the Messiah and until he tries to walk on water and you see him sink, you probably aren't going to breath any objective air.

Deane maybe this article will help you see the "facts" a little clearer from a person who has known Obama personally for 10 years.

Defending the Facts on Obama's Faith
By the Rev. Jim Wallis

I don't endorse political candidates, but I will defend them when it becomes necessary. On this, I agree with my friend Richard Land, the conservative Southern Baptist leader who is often identified with the Religious Right. Richard and I agree that faith has a place in politics and, when we agree on fundamental moral questions, have worked together. Richard says, "I have defended various candidates from time to time when I've felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate's chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates."

So I am going to defend my friend, Barack Obama, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks on the Internet and in the media. The latest incident occurred when a loud-mouth radio talk show host in Cincinnati let loose with a barrage of disparaging remarks against Senator Obama and kept using his middle name—Barack HUSSEIN Obama—over and over, seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim "madrassa" school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism, etc. As a Chicago Tribune blog piece commented, "Anyone who uses Obama's middle name repeatedly, like Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham the other day, knows what he or she is doing and what feelings they are trying to evoke. There's simply nothing innocent about it."

The occasion for the shock jock's diatribe was his introduction of Senator John McCain at a rally. To his great credit, McCain denounced the remarks when he heard about them, disassociated himself from this kind of attack, and reaffirmed that his campaign would be conducted on higher ground. Good for you, John McCain. So of course, the local loud-mouth, Bill Cunningham, quickly withdrew his support from McCain and now is denouncing him too; which, of course, was quickly picked up by his mentor, the national radio loud-mouth Rush Limbaugh (whom the local Cunningham seems to desperately "wannabe"). And, of course, Rush is now denouncing both Obama and McCain.

I watched last night as other cable news shows told this story and subtly tried to add more fuel to the fire. Lou Dobbs downplayed the Cincinnati outburst as unimportant and suggested it was no different that telling the world that John McCain's middle name is "Sydney." Sure Lou; and it was interesting that Dobbs followed with more innuendos and rolled eyes over the moment in the Tuesday Democratic debate when Obama was asked about Louis Farrakhan, about suspicions that Barack's home Trinity Church on the south side of Chicago was "black nationalist," and about why Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, wouldn't come on Lou's show to discuss his alleged sympathies for Farrakhan, etc. It is certainly no mystery why Pastor Wright didn't cancel his retirement celebrations and drop everything to come on Lou's show. Would anyone?

An Associated Press story entitled, " Obama Fights False Links to Islam," commented on the new flare-up, "For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo, and association."

During the Democratic debate, Obama again "denounced and rejected" the ugly anti-Semitic comments that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has often made, as he had done many times before. Farrakhan hadn't actually endorsed Obama, but recently said, "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked on Tuesday night about whether he would accept Farrakhan's support, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."

So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa, and does not attend a black "separatist" church. Rather, he has told me the story of his coming from an agnostic household, becoming a community organizer on Chicago's South Side who worked with the churches, and how he began attending one of them. Trinity Church is one of the most prominent and respected churches in Chicago and the nation, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is one of the leading revival preachers in the black church. Ebony magazine once named him one of the U.S.'s 15 best Black preachers. The church says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," like any good black church would, but is decidedly not "separatist," as its white members and friends would attest.

And one Sunday, as Obama has related to me and written in his book, The Audacity of Hope, the young community organizer walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ in a very personal and very real Christian conversion experience. We have talked about our faith and its relationship to politics many times since. And after he gave his speech at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference in June of 2006, E.J. Dionne said that it may have been "the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican."

Like his politics or not, support his candidacy or not - but don't disparage Barack Obama's faith, his church, his minister, or his credibility as an articulate Christian layman who feels a vocation in politics. Those falsehoods are simply vicious lies and should be denounced by people of faith from across the political spectrum.

Thank you, Chris.

We should not take this sort of willful ignorance seriously, but we should note it. The answers to your questions are readily available and you refuse the information. If you did not demand answers from your past Presidents, who of us should take you seriously now?

"Missing has elevated him to the position of a Messiah in his mind."

No. Just looking for solid exceptions. And pointing out the value judgments presented.

I'm very interested in those exceptions that balance things out in favor of the others. Haven't seen those yet.

Highlighting some crap, then presenting it as an excuse to dismiss Obama, doesn't cut it.

That's different than messiah status Deane.

Bring something real to the table, and it won't go this way.

Chris, I read the Jim Wallis article in it's entirety. Many things he states in it are accurate. His comments on Bill Cunningham are right on. Cunningham acted like an amateur jerk.

Wallis' defense of Rev. Wright is undefensible. A guy who repeatedly says "God damn America" and talks repeatedly about how bad white people are cannot be defended. Obama's support of him has been long lasting and deep. Same for Farrakhan. Obama has not distanced himself 1 inch from these people until it came up in the campaign.

Back to Rev Wright. If I said the things about blacks that he says about whites, I'd go to jail. Lot's different than saying those things and then getting the support of a leading candidate for President of the United States.

No matter how much you guys try to paint Obama as the savior, you'll never be able to sell it. The campaign is over. The fat lady is clearing her throat.

"Bring something real to the table, and it won't go this way."

Missing, it's getting pretty real already. Wait and see.

Whatever.

Do we have any statements from Obama that we can link to these ideas?

Now, that very same question has been asked of other elected Presidents, and when the answer was "no", it passed. This will be no different.

10-4

Ok, so that's how it's going to go. Guess we write you off for the remainder of the election debate huh?

That's ok. There are lots of other things to talk about.

Edit: Maybe! I'll watch this one. Maybe you are right and we will find out Obama is some kind of anti-white bad ass.

Since the "Goddamn America" bit was in a sermon about Hiroshima and nuclear proliferation, perhaps context is what you were missing:

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
-- Brigadier General Carter Clarke

"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
-- Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
-- Paul Nitze, Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Many experts agreed that it was the worst thing our country did in World War Two, even the folks who were there when it happened. So, knowing that any pastor is fired up about injustice and genocide bothers you, Deane?

I guess we are on different sides of the fence.

I agree with Missing, there are other things to talk about.

"I assume your smoking the same Midwestern skunk weed." Because everything your saying stinks.

Hey, it's better than crayons!

Seriously, either this will prove out, as in we can say, "Yeah, Obama is all about that.", or it won't prove out and we can go from there.

I'm totally up for proving that out. It's a valid concern. For perspective, I have similar worries about dominionists! Believe me, I look pretty damn hard when that stuff comes up.

No worries there.

But it's gotta be real. I don't see Obama as some kind of "black power" sleeper, just waiting to get in before pulling the trigger.

Show me that, and I'll listen closely.

But it's gotta be solid --the same kind of solid we apply to other religious nut-jobs.

But it's gotta be solid --the same kind of solid we apply to other religious nut-jobs.

Pat Robertson
DUHbya

"You guys have decided that Obama is the Messiah and until he tries to walk on water and you see him sink, you probably aren't going to breath any objective air."

Would it make any difference for me to tell you that you are wrong? Or is it just something you feel so strongly about that nobody could ever change your mind on that?

" Come to think of it, I guess he hasn't offered to do any of that. I believe the message he delivers is that we should have "hope" that he might."

You know, it's odd that so many people that say something like that are the very ones who are always fervently against someone saying anything bad about America ( " Blame America first " or " Negativity! Come on, people! Just quit saying so many negative things about America and maybe you'll snap out of it! " ) . Even when America IS doing something bad. So along comes someone ( Obama ) who is doing EXACTLY what Republicans have been screaming that they wanted in Americans since about 5 years ago and they ( Obama ) are marginalized and dismissed as pot smoking dreamers who are unrealistic.

Yeah. Uh, no thanks. I think I'm just going to try and prove you wrong on all your rhetoric no matter how hypocritical you are.

So and Deane, let's say that Obama is elected and tries to do the very things that keep us positive, move us forward and try and unite us; Are you going to be a little baby about it just because it's a Democrat who had the audacity to actually try and possibly succeed? Or are you going to support the effort that maters, supposedly, to those that speak like I referenced above?

Heck, I'll totally vote for McCain if you can show me that he is the better person for these important-to-me campaign platforms. Or do you even think McCain IS the better person for those things? I don't. But I could be wrong.

Deane reminds me of my college roommate, who was such a biased Denver Broncos fan (and John Elway fan) that watching a game with him was almost intolerable. No matter what call a ref made, if it went against the Broncos, it was a bad call. "You blew it, ref!" my friend would scream, even if was an accurate call. Any call the ref made that favored the opposing team...that ref was blind! Typical sports fan.

Deane is the same way about Obama - his answers are entirely predictable. Anyone who has anything good to say about him thinks "Obama is the Messiah." Any bit of information about Obama is always interpreted in the most negative way about Obama. Absolutely no objectivity. So why even argue with him? It's pointless. It's like trying to tell my college roommate that Elway made a bad pass.

Andrew

Gotta love these bullet points from Deane.

>Stopping the rampant inflow of illegals over the border. <
Show me where our current president is being successful.

>Getting our troops out of Iraq without creating chaos in the Mid-East.<
If you haven't noticed the Mid-East IS in crisis and has been for some time. Bush just escalated it.

>Keeping us safe from terrorists.<
9-11. Bush is President. Need I say more?

>Getting the cost of gasoline down.<
Drive fuel-efficient cars or start walking. This is a wild card.

>Cutting Taxes. <
Well we can see how the GOP's plan has worked so far. Anything at this time would be an improvement.

>Reducing the debt. <
Ahem-It was rather reduced when Bush took office. Where are those fiscal conservatives now? Try putting yourself in debt by over spending and asking your neighbors to bail you out? Again anything will be an improvement.

>Getting health care to those who need it. <
How about to those who've needed it until the war budget took away lots of that money.


It will be a tall order no matter who is in the White House. But with Obama, and I agree with Missing, I'd rather give him a shot.

I believe Moses wondered in the wilderness for 40 years, so you guys have many more years to go before setting a new record.

“It’s no mystery,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). “You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He’s just killed the Republican brand.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502047. html

Guess what - EVERYONE hangs out with people of questionable character. God knows Bill Clinton did ... and to be honest, did it REALLY adversely affect his Presidency? Don't think as a conservative who wanted to bring Clinton down, think about it logically. He still did a good job overall, despite the constant haranguing from the GOP over a lot of petty personal issues.

Obama distanced himself from the Pastor's comments. He denounced them and said that he considers the man a man of great faith and a personal friend from which he has sought spiritual guidance in the past. You can still be good friends with someone and disagree or disapprove of something they said.

I'm sorry Deane, but this just doesn't hold much water for me. Every action I have seen of Obama tells me that he's one to UNITE, not DIVIDE. After eight years of the most divisive Presidency in at least the last century, if not history, don't you think that it's time we moved forward TOGETHER?

"don't you think that it's time we moved forward TOGETHER?"

It's not possible to move forward TOGETHER with the member of the Senate who has the most liberal voting record of any Senator, and who throughout his life has gravitated toward friendship with those who are anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American.

There's not objectivity whatsoever in your analysis of Obama.

If you want to move forward together, pick someone closer to the middle of the spectrum, not a radical who early in his life got involved with the Weather Underground who stood for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

You young liberals are easily fooled by anyone who says I'm anti-war. You don't bother looking beyond his carefully structured exterior message. It's called being an easy lay.

Wasn't it Ho Chi Minh who said early in the Vietnam War that the North would never win the war militarily, that they would allow the left wing in America to win it for them. That's exactly what happened.

"Wasn't it Ho Chi Minh who said early in the Vietnam War that the North would never win the war militarily, that they would allow the left wing in America to win it for them. That's exactly what happened."

What's funny is, it was the left wing in America that got us so involved in Vietnam in the first place. It was the right wing (Nixon) that eventually got us out.

Nice try.

Deane, I hereby nominate you for PDXRadio's Curmudgeon of the Year. Congratulations.

Andrew

"Deane, I hereby nominate you for PDXRadio's Curmudgeon of the Year. Congratulations."

I always consider it an honor to be nominated for something. Thank you.

I believe Moses wondered in the wilderness for 40 years, so you guys have many more years to go before setting a new record.

YOU GUYS? WTF?

So what do YOU and the rest of EXTREME RIGHT wingnuts have?

So Deane, you are saying it's a mistake to vote for Obama? That anyone who has either voted for him or is considering it will OBVIOUSLY regret it?

"What's funny is, it was the left wing in America that got us so involved in Vietnam in the first place. It was the right wing (Nixon) that eventually got us out."

Actually, Eisenhower authorized the first advisers sent to Vietnam.

Something I want to know.....

In 2000 when Rove and Co. VICIOUSLY attacked Johnny Mc and drug him though mud, threw him under the bus for everything they could think of including the FACT that he has a BLACK daughter. Why are they backing him now? Why are they NOW on his side? Were those attacks unwarranted? FALSE? Half-truths? LIES?
Billary has done a little of that towards Obama and the EXTREME RIGHT jumps down her throat.
As Herb always says.....
NOT SO FAST.....
Are the things that Rove and Co. said about Johnny Mc true to this day?

It doesn't look good for my guy....

Yes the US had advisors from the mid 50's. And they were just that advisors, they were forbidden from participating in combat operations, and could only use weapons in self defense. The Viet Minh pretty much left them alone. It wasn't until the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, that their roles switched from advisor to actual combatants.

Anyone who believes that Obama or his wife are "anti-American" are fucking idiots. Simple minded fucking idiots.

That's just it though - to me, at least. They DON'T really believe that. Most of the people who say things like that are actually trying to convince others to believe it - because they think it's an effective tool to create doubt, but then clam up when anyone asks just ONE follow up question about why they say that or if they even really believe it.

But yes, Vitalogy, there are those who do believe it because someone said it and it's got truthiness. Sorry to be a prick about it - but Nwokie, you are a good example of someone who says something because you heard it once. Not because you have ever weighed it's validity or listened to any answers given to the very few questions you have.

"Anyone who believes that Obama or his wife are "anti-American" are fucking idiots. Simple minded fucking idiots."

Wow, the verbal eloquence of Winston Churchill.

http://time-blog.com/tuned_in/2006/07/president_bushs_swearing_cerem.html
(Seriously, I'm more grossed out by the video showing WPE eating and talking at the same time with his pie-hole showing food to Blair than the swearing.)

http://www.drinkalot.com/Animations/1780/Bush_and_Blair_Swearing.htm

http://origin.www.spike.com/video/960813?cmpnid=800&lkdes=VID_960813

Does Vitalogy's statement sting a little? Good, maybe it's not true then. Let's find out!

Is is plausable that somebody, who is so Anti-American, would sit in hiding for years, lying about their true passions, work their way through politics, make a great run for the Presidency, actually win it, only to then turn around and tear the place down?

Well, we do have this current President to point to. There are also members of his administration to consider. Frankly, I think the key administration members are the drivers, with Bush just being the guy that buys into it, but not the guy that drove it for so many years.

They've done it folks! A whole lot of core American things have either been legislated away, distorted, or flat out ignored, with fear being the primary enabler for most of it.

That took a whole movement, not just one person, starting with neo-con economics and political power education way back in the 50's. It's possible to go back and see where it all took root, who studied who, who admired who, what they did, when they did it, etc...

The plan for it is even on the Internet, right there for people to read! (and he got selected anyway)

These people didn't like the New Deal, thought that the elite deserved to be the ruling class, promote and act on the idea of President as king.

That's going on right now, today, in our White House.

Most people are pretty upset about those things too.

So, show me the movement behind Obama. Where are the roots of it, who will ascend with him into power to pull it all off? Where are the position papers that detail what the plans are?

All of that could be found before the current President was elected, and still he was elected anyway and look at what happened! It was totally possible to dig up the crap --people did dig up the crap, and still he got elected anyway.

About 70 percent of us, at any one time, think he really sucks! Not a good call, bad for the country, a threat to what it means to be American.

About 23 percent of us, think this guy is the best thing that ever happened to the nation as well!

If you want to make this whole thing real, go and do the work. It shouldn't be all that hard, or it just isn't real. Tell us what's going to happen, or what's likely to happen if this Obama baddie gets elected.


Now, I've laid it out here, nice and simple. It's pretty easy to tag this stuff and create some real doubt, so put up or shut up about it. No bitching about eloquence either.

We shouldn't vote for Obama because that vote is highly likely to cause:

[put those things here please]

"Does Vitalogy's statement sting a little?"

Doesn't even wiggle the needle on my "give-a-shit" meter. It means the poster has no more ammunition, so has to resort to gutter language to get some attention.

I like that! "give-a-shit meter! Hope you don't mind, if I add that to the playbook!

Well, that's not true really. The posting record speaks for itself. Typically, what brings a post like that to the discussion, is exactly the behavior it identifies.

Well it's not like you give a shit about any of the other things that people say when they do have ammunition. You ignore those ideas, but are engaged enough to tell someone else they are out of ammunition. It's not like you give others any respect when they sincerely talk to you or ask questions of you. What's the point of even being here for you?

You just want to announce.

And so you have. Neat.

Got it.

Hey man, it's totally your right to do it. But stop pretending you know some obvious truth when you won't even say what it is. Talk about " out of ammunition."? What could be a better example of that than you feigning being indignant and petulant right in the middle of a conversation as soon as the questions or answers make you show your hand ( 2,9 off-suit ) and make us guess at why you stonewall.

"when they do have ammunition"

That would be a matter of opinion.

That's true. And what's your opinion of my questions? Do they show that I am out of ammunition?

They show you're not out of something or other.

EDIT: to correct spelling error.

" They how you're not out of something or other."

?

Yep. It is what you think it is.

But guess what matters?

What people think when they see the interactions, that's what matters.

Alone in a room, where nobody can see or hear, pulling those cheap stunts gets some results. It's a solid play, really good for a business deal or something. Kudos given where deserved.

However, out and about, in the world where people are talking about this stuff, that comes off as somebody with a vested interest in making sure they get theirs first, and that you really don't get yours, unless it's got nothing to do with theirs.

I can tell you right now Deane, you've lost this one. Maybe you can try harder and pull it out. I'll listen because this stuff matters. Honestly, I hope you do, because doing so means we would have made a bad choice, and I don't want bad choices this time.

We've all seen enough to know this isn't about being right or wrong, or advancing this agenda or that. It's about having some quality of life and a future to look forward to.

Balancing it all out, you lose big. Would be nice to see you either step up and roll with that, so we have a good shot at some solid change that will do us all good, or really pull out the stops and show us now, right now, that Obama is the wrong guy, so we can get to work electing the right guy.

So what would an example be of a question that I could ask you Deane that would be worthy of your anwsering it for me? Phrase it any way you need to. Otherwise, you are just defining being " out of ammunition."

"About 23 percent of us, think this guy is the best thing that ever happened to the nation as well!"

Yeah, about the same percentage who think Congress is doing an acceptable job.

And your point is?

Bash Bush.
Bash Bush.
Bash Bush.

Isn't there anything else in your bag of tricks?
We didn't think so.
Yawn.

Herb

Hey, my point is that this whole thing does not disqualify Obama in any way. Look at what we elected in 2004!

Sorry if that stings, but hey, it's real.

What really stings is that McCain isn't much different, and people are working hard to get him elected right now too.

I know you really want Clinton, not to be President, but so that McCain can be. Not gonna happen man. Absolutely not gonna happen.

You GOP guys are gonna have to step up and run with the crap and know the whole damn time, it's just not a winning proposition.

If McCain were really different from Bush, there would be a lot more credence surrounding these lame attempts to devalue Obama. There would be something in the mix that says, "hey, this other choice is good too, so let's talk about that!"

But there just isn't!

So, it's all about working with what you have, which is shit 2.0, and hoping to bring the good choices down, ignore them, so that maybe the agenda can press on, and we can ignore how horrible things really are.

From there, the "hope" is that it will shake out ok in the end, and with that comes some ends justify means vindication, the great "I told you so, see?"

That kind of hope sucks ass Herb. Big time.

The stuff Obama is talking about is not even in the same league and most people know that, which makes this whole thing just all that much more cheap ass.

Missing, at least you've pulled this back to some objective posting on the subject at hand.

I will say one thing. Obama is the most eloquent speaker and public figure that's come along in a long time. He may end up topping JFK or Reagen.

In order to be an effective President, he will not only need the vision, but he'll need to have no divisiveness, no hidden agenda, no axes to grind.

So far, it appears he isn't beholding to anyone except perhaps that Chicago gangster that he's been more involved with than has come out yet. If he can get that behind him, and get past the Rev. Wright, he's got clear sailing ahead.

The big question is, as President, can he do the job. Actually, all he needs is enough brain power to surround himself with knowledgeable people. Vision and a team is what will make a great President.

If he could check his radical liberal views at the door and do what's best for America, I could support him. If he gets sucked into the George Soros net, I couldn't.

"Not gonna happen man."

Whistle through the graveyard all you want. The democrats are doing Mr. McCain's job for him right now, without his having to spend a dime.

Herb

A most refreshing post Deane.

Well Deane, there is this!

If he really does play the role of President as President, and not President as King, then we've got Congress and the Courts to check things.

I really don't see a liberal legislation love fest happening with this guy. It can't happen and align with this no divisive, work together message.

That's very powerful to me. I don't have a liberal only desire. For the problems we face, there are lots of solutions. They are all over the map, and all views are gonna contribute stuff that could work.

Deliberating over that is what will lead us to that which is highly likely to work, and we need that big.

Divisive is bad --really bad. Seen enough, lesson learned. Next.

And when the EXTREME RIGHT was running Congress America thought they were doing a bad enough job that they voted most of them OUT!

The reason that Bush is the point is the same that Slick Willy was the point for you all the way up until he left. AND STILL is your point but now you have Hillary to pick on. YOUR STILL STUCK on getting Bill! WHEN WILL IT END???? When will your SICK obsession with Bill stop?
IT HAS TO END!!!!!

Huh!

" Isn't there anything else in your bag of tricks? "

Geeze Herb. There have been thousands of words to answer that question. Do you just click the " highlight " button on your screen to look for " 23% " and ignore all the other stuff that is being asked? I know why you do that; To try and shift the conversation AWAY from those very things that you claim you'd read or answer or consider.

It hasn't worked in the past - why do you keep doing it?

And Deane, it's obvious you'd rather not answer my questions. Oh sure, you love it when you can cherry pick Missing's statements and annoint them as worthy and objective ( as if that's the criteria you use consistently - it makes you LOOK good, eh? ).

I just wanted you to know that I noticed. But I won't hammer you any longer about it. You forfeit. It took me a while. But I got it now.

Oh well, I didn't even want a victory. I wanted to talk to you about it. I've had my mind changed around here - in significant ways. This just isn't an exapmle of one that counts enough for you.

So here; You win. It's all yours. Enjoy.

I'll still vote for Obama.

Actually Herb, the Clintons are doing that right now, and they've lost me for it.

Lots of good stuff happened with them. That does not change.

What did change is that it is now clear Hilary Clinton will do anything to be President and that's not the kind of President we need. I honestly think she is trying to play the spoiler, so that Obama misses his shot. We then get McCain, nothing changes, and she can try it again the next cycle.

The brutal bit is that she has demonstrated, by doing that, she isn't going to matter the next cycle, so done, next --it's over!

In my own life I do conservative things and liberal things all the time. Depends on what the risks are, and it depends on scope and control issues too. It's not a zero sum game, binary only one way, one size fits all kind of thing.

This is true for most everybody, so why would it not be true in our politics as well?

"And Deane, it's obvious you'd rather not answer my questions."

OK, CJ, restate one question and I'll try to answer it.

No. I don't trust you now.

Huh!

Figured....

"No. I don't trust you now."

Good, that gets me out of that commitment.

"No. I don't trust you now."

CJ..
You've done the best thing possible!

"I will say one thing. Obama is the most eloquent speaker and public figure that's come along in a long time. He may end up topping JFK or Reagen. "

Yeah, he's a gem in that way.

Truth is, that's kind of scary to me. When I see that, I look really hard to see if it's real. Always have, always will.

The source of that inner skeptic is my childhood religious experiences. Swallowed a lot of dogma whole, and enjoyed watching it go down. When that all caused heartburn, it was not pretty dealing with it.

Smooth talkers bother me for that reason. I like them, appreciate them, but watch them closely.

"Actually Herb, the Clintons are doing that right now, and they've lost me for it."

At least you're able to distance yourself from a rapscallion when it becomes uber-obvious...although the whole 'wagging his finger whilst calling others a liar' thing did it for most long ago.

Herbert

"When that all caused heartburn, it was not pretty dealing with it."

Many confuse dogma with conscience. Both can indeed cause discomfort.

We can allow our conscience to guide us whilst keeping us out of harm's way, or attempt to silence it, akin to tearing out an auto's temperature gauge...like the amateur mechanic who knows not what he does.

Hippocrates said it: First do no harm.

Herb

although the whole 'wagging his finger whilst calling others a liar' thing did it for most long ago.

Just like Nixon and DUHbya....

The people that are out of "ammunition" are the ones making claims that Obama and his wife are "anti-American" and "anti-white". If the best you can come up with to defeat someone is a race based smear, then you're a pathetic person (and a fucking idiot to boot).

"Just like Nixon and DUHbya...."

Classic leftist move, Trixter. The jig is up.
You never pass up a chance to bash a republican.

Herb

Herb, with me there is a clear difference between what is going on now and that whole affair.

Really that whole affair was between Bill and Hilary. The fact that it ended up where it did was a very strong motivator for the lie. Lots of things wrapped into that.

Now a lie is not ok, totally there.

It's also not, in and of itself, cause to just totally bail on somebody, as in remove them from office, etc...

Bill knew the impact of his actions and he knew what could happen politically, thus the lie. Not good, but also not the kind of thing that gets people killed, by way of comparison.

Hate that he did it, but can live with the why's and hows surrounding it. Had he pulled an Obama back then, maybe things would have ended up quite different! Maybe Al would have been President, Hilary being a shoe-in now, that kind of thing.

IMHO, that's one motivator for the Clinton very strong efforts right now --and it's largely futile as it's fighting fire with gas really. It's not possible to lie out of lies and manupulations. At some point, the only real out is to come clean, then build from there.

Same thing we all tell our kids, right? Well, it's true as it ever was.

A really great comparison is this bit with Obama and the pastor. It's being magnified for political gain in a similar way to what was done with Bill Clinton. I don't think anybody really seriously thinks he's some anti-white, anti-American bad ass. However, pressing that hard might get him to step down and play dirty ball.

Interestingly, Obama appears to have the character to just confront it and talk through it. Better than a lie or a dodge, so that's cool. Damn cool actually. Hope it lasts.

In the end, there will be something solid there to carry things forward. Otherwise, if it continues forward, then it's just a play to game people and I'll have nothing to do with it, beyond the initial flurry of discussion to check it all out.

There is a case for saying, if a person would lie and manipulate then, they would lie and manipulate now. That case is largely based on the dynamics I've put here in this post.

Guess what?

I buy that, and it's proving itself out right now too where the actions of both McCain and Clinton are concerned.

Neither one of them has any particular high ground over the other, leaving it as one of those "they all are dirty" kind of choices where we vote with that assumption, hoping the games will fall on our side, right?

To play totally fair, that whole mess is proving itself out with this administration too. Their silly games are very likely gonna cause a lot of GOP harm, in a fashion not unlike that suffered by the Dems.

It's been cycling back and forth for a while and all of it really sucks.

Edit: I think I've just sorted this all out, for me at least. Both Clinton and McCain are the next iterations of ugly cycles. The difference is in who lands on the happy side of the divide this next time out!

So there it is, easy cheezy.

Hate to bring it back to Obama this way, but his actions so far, regarding these kinds of things have leaned toward just facing stuff, talking through it, working hard not to dodge things and game the system.

He's playing pretty fair ball right now, and that's a big draw for a lot of people, tired of the endless tit-for-tat cycles.

Now, that's not to say he's a messiah, or perfect, or anything. Even the best sportsmen will push and jab a little. It's their record of play and character overall that make the difference.

From where I stand, Obama's record is pretty clean and McCain and Clinton really don't measure up in the same way, despite both of them having done good things otherwise.

Maybe that helps put that whole thing in to perspective...

I like Mr. Obama.

He reminds me a tad of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

You know why?

Because he can speak about race with authority and without trying to 'race-bait' or divide over it. He's the Tiger Woods of politics.

Mr. Obama's largely ok in my book, if not the Good Book. Now if he can just get that 'pro-life' thing down, he'll have it covered. Besides, black babies are being aborted at far higher rates than the national average. It's win-win if we let the little kids live. Here are more reasons why:

"Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions."

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html

Well, on that note, somebody who is not divisive, is very likely to encourage progress in general, meaning fewer abortions, more options, and such.

Not a bad way to go forward. Wouldn't it be nice to see solid progress on that, without having to take all the crap that comes from a divisive proponent?

I like that comparison to Dr. MLK too. My family is of mixed race. We adopted mixed because that's just how it came out. Picked my youngest son, along with my youngest daughter. My son ended up being a package deal, and here I am driving used cars!

The crap we've had to take over silly race stuff is just astounding! I had no idea...

You never pass up a chance to bash a republican.

As YOU never pass the chance to bash ANYONE that doesn't think YOUR way.....
I bash Hillary and Bill plus I've gone after Carter on many occasions!
You get so worked up thinking your EXTREME RIGHT is so much better than anyone else. Try being a REAL Republican with a little less EXTREME. It might help you in the end.... There is GREY in the world Herb.... You just have to use ALL of your brain to see it.

Again I say, Obama is going to win for one reason only.

Clinton and McCain have way too much baggage, much more than the recent controversy about Obama's stupid pastor can even approach.

McCain blew his chances by saying he supports Bush's 100 percent on the war. He is out of touch with the majority of the rest of America that truly wants a change.

A conservative could beat Obama, but only if he did not support the war.

A REAL Republican could beat Obama. But it's looking more and more like Johnny Mc is a DUHbya clone and that's NOT good for America.

It's not looking good for my guy...

Actually, not. A REAL Republican would not have the support needed to overcome the backlash of the current administration.
Fiscal irresponsibility, sending an improper amount of underequipped soldiers to war, scorching the earth ... these are actions by the Bush team that have pretty much screwed the Republican name for at least the next 8 years.

Fiscal irresponsibility, sending an improper amount of under-equipped soldiers to war, scorching the earth ...

The things a TRUE Republican President would not have done.
Bush I did the right thing when he went into Iraq because Iraq was trying to INVADE Kuwait. Bush II INVADED when there was NO evidence of an invasion by Iraq and NO WMD's.
Daddy Bush in my opinion was a REAL Republican and tried to do the right thing and got NO back up from the EXTREME RIGHT or Republicans in general and lost the election.
That's the way I see it.

I wonder if anyone can come up with abortion numbers under the Bill Clinton "Safe, Legal and Rare" philosophy compared to Dubya's abstinence message.

I'd be interested in seeing that!

Here is an article by Ken Blackwell from the NY Sun about Obama for your reading enjoyment;

http://politicalview.ireporter.tv/2008/March/KenBlackwellBlackNYSunColumnistWarn sabouttheShortcomingsofObama.htm

Well, Blackwell worked hard to get Bush elected.

Be that as it may...

I like Obama. I like Liberal. I like the idea of change and there is absolutely no way I'm ever gonna vote for McCain to carry out Bushes third term.

Good article.

I'm still voting for Obama.

Ken Blackwell is an Uncle Tom.

Ken Blackwell is also the one who said he had helped “deliver the great Buckeye state for George W. Bush”. So for him to criticize Obama on his positions on either national security or economic policy is ridiculous considering the Bush Administration's record of results on both topics. Like anyone else could do worse! I would suppose this is why his candidacy for governor of Ohio was soundly rejected by Ohio voters in 2006.

And finally, to prove the utter hypocrisy of his positions, he accuses Obama of "His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmonger." Gee, now isn't that the platform the GOP has been running on for the last 7 years? Just substitute "anti-American" for "hijackers or warmonger" and that's been the mantra for the GOP.

Thank god people like Ken Blackwell are now finding themselves to be properly marginalized by mainstream society for the nutjobs they truly are.

I'm not too much into reading these bloggers and columnists regardless of which side they are on. Why is their opinion better than mine?

It's not. Me either.

I like them, not because their opinion is better --it just isn't on most things.

Agreed there.

What I like is to balance the various factors. These people are good for that. Read a few, think on it, maybe end up with a great internal question or two, then discuss it. No harm there.

Been watching Obama speak on KGW.com feed.

He has the youth of Kennedy and the charisma of
Reagan.