- Add a Comment
-
- The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Posted by d7767w at 01:56 PM : Jan 11, 2009
What''s to debate?
Of course he''s the most "unqualified" candidate in the past eight years and his record proves it. His election was simply the result of "backlash" for the last eight years. Had Bush not invaded Iraq we would probably have another Bush or Clinton as president-elect.
On the other hand many of the (what you would call) "qualified" presidents have made some really bad decisions. Those who come to mind in my lifetime are Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43.
Ford presided over the worst economy since the 29 crash and it lasted well into Reagan''s first term.
The U.S. is in very bad shape right now, and what is interesting is that republicans have controlled the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. Regardless of who is president, recovery will span several years and not just the next president.
Hey idiot.....keep in mind - until January 21st, Obama cannot legally do anything at all!!
Posted by d7767w at 01:56 PM : Jan 11, 2009
Don''t the last eight years mean anything to you?
Posted by spiritwalk at 06:12 AM : Jan 11, 2009
Actually the subject is "Obama not doing enough."
Ranting about Bush is only totally illogical if you don''t see the trend--a dynastic trend. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton...possibly another Bush.
MAYBE Clinton is/was more qualified than Obama, (was Bush more qualified than Gore? I don''t think so) but Obama won because he promised change, just like Bush promised changed (said he would bring "family value" back to the White House).
Like it or not, we are stuck with Obama because we had eight miserable years with Bush. We had those eight miserable years for a lot of reasons, but mostly because voters are sheep, or, more like lemmings being led to their own political demise.
Yes, I am disappointed the Obama has brought in so many Clintonites. But, on the other hand, we are headed for a recession that could equal the 29 bust and this is no time for an "inexperienced POTUS" to compound the problem by appointing even more inexperienced people to his cabinet.
Those events fall to the person in charge. Barack, A+. Hillary, C-, did better after she more or less canned her political adviser Mark (Huge Loser) Penn.
Posted by boatdocster
.........................
You make good points. Hilary did a very poor job getting out her message as to her qualifications in the filed of foreign policy.
Obama was able to turn that on her and get out the message that Hilary could not handle foreign policy and that she would only furthe alienate foriegn nation against thethe US.
THEN...his first appointment was to name Hilary Secretary of State.
I don''t know how you can escape the conclusion that this act was a literal admission that his attacks on her as a candidate were totally false.
If Obama went after some finacial expert as incompetent and a orrupt tool of Wall Street and the next day appointed him as head of the SEC you would be all over him. What is the differene here?
If you base your campaign against your opponenent on their inability to deal with foreign policy and then put them in charge of foreign policy it is not unfair to be suspect of what you say thereafter.
Posted by spiritwalk at 06:12 AM : Jan 11, 2009
.........
Haven''''t you noticed that the Liberal Obama Backers will never debate his qualifications
Posted by d7767w
...................
Once you inserted the word "liberal" you proved my point. Your intention behind the word is to insult and you have interest in debating either. You just want to vent some repressed anger.
I don''t care about Obama/McCain or Democrat/Republican, those are side issues. The majority of people bloging politics care nothing about candidates or issues, it is just an opportunity to engage in the mob mentality, to act out anger and aggression in safe anonimity. It''s like in the Rodney King riots when people were in the streets yelling "Free Don King!"
Its that simple and that exact a comparison
Posted by Platteman
Not true. Barack ran a well oiled expert first run at the presidency despite being a long shot. Hillary WAS the nominee, and it was hers to lose. That''s exactly what happened. To judge Hillary by Bill''s sordid actions is not fair in anyway to Hillary.
Despite Hillary''s name recognition, deep political pockets, senate and white house time, she lost because her campaign was poorly run and poorly focused. Barack ran a superior campaign, better strategy and ran a tight ship. At least initially that''s good leadership.
Those events fall to the person in charge. Barack, A+. Hillary, C-, did better after she more or less canned her political adviser Mark (Huge Loser) Penn.
I''ll give a Barack a chance. Let''s see where he is a year from now, that would be the absolute minimum eval time for any one taking over the colossal bag of "CrxxxPP" left by George ''Shrub'' Bush.
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------
You are a little slow.
1)Hillary CLinton is an accomplished attorney; she won the Senate, and KEPT the Senate despite Bill Clinton, not BECAUSE Of.
Do you hate women?
2)Yes, I''m a liberal, but I like Sarah Palin, and can plainly see she has as much experience as Obama, but they''re both clearly not qualified YET for the office of the President, or Vice President.
3)BIll and Hillary are both strong policy wonks...so that remains, would you rather have someone who looks good in a bathing suit, coming of age in the dirtiest politics in the country, someone like the Shrub who helped propagandize and polarize American politics more than any other President in the past few decades, or someone who actually UNDERSTANDS why America is the ONLY COUNTRY TO EXPORT WHOLE LOGS? IF you don''t understand the significance of that, maybe you SHOULD be voting for HIllary Clinton.