Barack Obama's Pastor

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What bothers me for instance, are the claims that if BO or HC are nominated, supporters of the other will turn around and throw in their lot for McCain (its also been suggested previously that McCain being the nominee would garner Rep votes for Clinton) even though those candidates might not represent the views or indeed, the self-interest of the swing voters.

it *WILL* happen, I can guarantee it.

Well its all speculation - but I have a bit more faith in people that they'll vote according to who best serves their policy interests, rather than for someone who blatantly doesn't just because their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.

It does seem a little absurd though - considering that BO and HC take a pretty similar line on the key issues. More so than McCain anyway.

[HAL 9000 96]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

Ah, I see...

Lucky us many people are registering to vote to at least see if a change will come into effect. At the minimum something positive should happen in terms of a Dem coming in to fix things. Or try. Voters should have hindsight available to them when it comes time to reelect the man.

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

Maybe that's what you wanted to read.

Communication is not your forte today I see. Purple questiones his approach. You then told Purple to vote for him & see what happens. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say about why to vote Obama.

And comprehension *may* not be yours... and the name calling stops there.

For your clarification, PH questioned his dedication to change, not his approach.

[Peikko 1,575]

What bothers me for instance, are the claims that if BO or HC are nominated, supporters of the other will turn around and throw in their lot for McCain (its also been suggested previously that McCain being the nominee would garner Rep votes for Clinton) even though those candidates might not represent the views or indeed, the self-interest of the swing voters.

it *WILL* happen, I can guarantee it.

Not universally it will not. The ones who would do so are the one's who are not particularly Democratic minded, the one's just like the tone of his rhetoric, not the underlying political stamping ground.

[HAL 9000 96]

This is good logic.

This should make your homework assignment easier to do on a comparison basis:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

Based on that I would vote for McCain.

And that is most definitely your informed decision based upon your preferences as a voter.

What bothers me for instance, are the claims that if BO or HC are nominated, supporters of the other will turn around and throw in their lot for McCain (its also been suggested previously that McCain being the nominee would garner Rep votes for Clinton) even though those candidates might not represent the views or indeed, the self-interest of the swing voters.

it *WILL* happen, I can guarantee it.

Why?

Reasons, logic, beliefs.

I'm sure they will not mention hatred, but VJers can read between the lines. I *WILL* guarantee that.

I can't register to vote, if I could, I would. Enfranchisement is something I view as incredibly important.

At least see if a change will come into effect...

???? As I see it one can like the guy, think he's the best guy for the job that's totally fine but it's a little niave to view him as the symbol of political change. He is not an idealist, he's not a political activist but he plays to that tune. I don't like that much but that's his perogative and guess what? It's working for him.

Because I believe enough people are sick and tired of status quo politicians playing the same old ball game.

You can't hate the voters and most definitely the one that plays a different game, even though he's a player.

[Heracles 417]

As I see it one can like the guy, think he's the best guy for the job that's totally fine but it's a little niave to view him as the symbol of political change. He is not an idealist, he's not a political activist but he plays to that tune. I don't like that much but that's his perogative and guess what? It's working for him.

People seem to look at Obama, especially young people, as some sort of King Author who has come to pull the sword out and save the day.

What I would like to see is someone like Chris Gardner and Warren Buffet run for office. Someone like Chris who has been in the trenches of poverty and pulled him self out. As well as using the knowledge of a financial guru such as Warren. I am a little tired of seeing BS aficionados such as lawyers in office and the people who blindly follow their slogans; without realizing or thinking about why lawyers are so good at being elected.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What I would like to see is someone like Chris Gardner and Warren Buffet run for office. Someone like Chris who has been in the trenches of poverty and pulled him self out. As well as using the knowledge of a financial guru such as Warren. I am a little tired of seeing BS aficionados such as lawyers in office and the people who blindly follow them without realizing why lawyers are so good at being elected.

I guess Mitt Romney was such a candidate

[Heracles 417]

What I would like to see is someone like Chris Gardner and Warren Buffet run for office. Someone like Chris who has been in the trenches of poverty and pulled him self out. As well as using the knowledge of a financial guru such as Warren. I am a little tired of seeing BS aficionados such as lawyers in office and the people who blindly follow them without realizing why lawyers are so good at being elected.

I guess Mitt Romney was such a candidate

Romney and McCain would be a good team for the repubs. I also liked Ron Paul who seems to get it but he also has some controversial views.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

When the election process stops being a beauty pageant that plays to people's emotions, we'll see about having politicians that are not so entrenched in doing things to please interests instead of the population.

[Heracles 417]

When the election process stops being a beauty pageant that plays to people's emotions, we'll see about having politicians that are not so entrenched in doing things to please interests instead of the population.

I think I am going to start calling Obama the black King Author. Or is he more of a Robin Hood..

[HAL 9000 96]

When the election process stops being a beauty pageant that plays to people's emotions, we'll see about having politicians that are not so entrenched in doing things to please interests instead of the population.

I think I am going to start calling Obama the black King Author. Or is he more of a Robin Hood..

Not sure. I was actually thinking of him as a human being called Barack Obama.

[Heracles 417]

Not sure. I was actually thinking of him as a human being called Barack Obama.

He seems to be a smart guy. This could be a good thing or a bad thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think having someone intelligent in office is really a minimum requirement, given what happens when you elect someone who hasn't mastered public speaking, or English grammar and basic literacy.

[no name 1]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

Ah, I see...

Lucky us many people are registering to vote to at least see if a change will come into effect. At the minimum something positive should happen in terms of a Dem coming in to fix things. Or try. Voters should have hindsight available to them when it comes time to reelect the man.

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

Maybe that's what you wanted to read.

Communication is not your forte today I see. Purple questiones his approach. You then told Purple to vote for him & see what happens. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say about why to vote Obama.

And comprehension *may* not be yours... and the name calling stops there.

For your clarification, PH questioned his dedication to change, not his approach.

That wasn't name-calling. But I guess that's a mute point.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

Ah, I see...

Lucky us many people are registering to vote to at least see if a change will come into effect. At the minimum something positive should happen in terms of a Dem coming in to fix things. Or try. Voters should have hindsight available to them when it comes time to reelect the man.

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

Maybe that's what you wanted to read.

Communication is not your forte today I see. Purple questiones his approach. You then told Purple to vote for him & see what happens. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say about why to vote Obama.

And comprehension *may* not be yours... and the name calling stops there.

For your clarification, PH questioned his dedication to change, not his approach.

That wasn't name-calling. But I guess that's a mute point.

if it's mute, it never gets said

[no name 1]

if it's mute, it never gets said

(inside joke Charles)