Is Obama worthy?

[subdjoe]

I agree, spouses should not be an issue. Nor should lapel pins. Nor the hand on the heart during the National Anthem (although this last may be indiciative of a certain lack of respect for etiquite and tradition).

What matters more is the content of the character of the candidates and their political positions. Barry has shown himself to be indifferent to, or actually contemptuous of, the average citizen. His voting 'present' so many times shows him to be either indecisive or unwilling to take a stand on things that may prove unpopular or controveresial. The things he does support show him to be a one world government socialist who is intent of redistributing America to the rest of the world.

[crossride]

Okay that was fun. But really, Mink was right way back when in this forum... what candidate does give specific views in a campaign? You can't really do that without pissing off at least half the voters. (I have a hard time deciding who to vote for because I am an independent thinker with strong beliefs left, right, and center, on different topics. Some of the more liberal and conservative ideas make me shudder.) So it comes down to what the person has done before to give us some idea of what they might do in the future. This is where Obama's "lack of experience" comes in. Whether you believe McCain is worthy or not, you have ample evidence to back up your position. Between now and November, I am going to look hard at the positions the candidates, and their selected running mates, (since its likely they will select someone who will support their ideas), and any other potential members of the proposed administration, to get some idea of what I can expect from them. But if I hear ONE more person tout a candidate based on "that was a great speech" or some other nonsensical reasoning... I think I'm gonna barf.

[subdjoe]

I try to base it on who I think will do, or push for, the least damage to the Constitution. and right now, based on his words and record, Barry has no idea what that document is about, even though he is supposedly a constituional scholar.

[crossride]

That's what it somes down to... vote for who will screw things up the least. We need an option to vote for "None of the Above" and if that choice wins we do it all over again with a whole new group. Force the parties and candidates to appeal to a majority of the people rather than bending over for their special interests. Oh, I can dream, can't I?

[jgaffney]

This article, from Dick Morris shows what a neophyte Sen. Obama is:

On his first day as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama made his first clear, serious mistake: He named Eric Holder as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting.

As deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Now, Obama will be stuck in the Marc Rich mess.


If ever there was a person who did not deserve a presidential pardon, it’s Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire who renounced his US citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, 51 counts of tax fraud, evading $48 million in taxes, and engaging in illegal trades with Iran in violation of the US embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.

It was Holder who had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich’s advisers, although he claims that he did not know the identity of the client.

And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way. According to Quinn’s notes that were produced to Congress, Holder told Quinn to take the pardon application “straight to the White House” because “the timing is good.”

And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.

In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a “willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing” the Rich pardon.

It is one thing to reach back to Obama’s pastor to raise doubts about his values. But it is quite another to scrutinize the record of his first appointee.

It couldn’t be a bigger mistake.

I really think that the senior Dems in the Congress backed Sen. Obama because they think that they can manipulate him if he makes it to the Oval Office. Kinda like JFK was talked into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. At least JFK had more than 3 years of experience in the Senate. Plus, he was a decorated war hero. Obama is......

[Mink]

........what. Obama is what? Gaffney, how many years has Obama been in the Senate?

This is exactly what Obama has warned people of. If you don't hear from his own mouth of his choice of VP, it is not true. Dick really need to get a life!

[The New Guy]

that's the point, mink. obama is ......

what?

[Mink]

That isn't a point. Obama is a man, a Senator and sure is threatening the right wing or there wouldn't be so much mud-slinging.

[harpman1]

Get a grip.

This is a presidential election.

"There will be mud."

[crossride]

Mink, can you explain what you meant when you said: "This is exactly what Obama has warned people of. If you don't hear from his own mouth of his choice of VP, it is not true."

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The first sentence of the quote posted by Gaffney says: "On his first day as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama made his first clear, serious mistake: He named Eric Holder as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting."

I don't see any suggestion that Obama's running mate has been selected, named, or even rumored in that quote or the whole passage. Just that Obama's first appointment after winning the nomination has questionable past actions. And don't give the usual response of "Well what about some of Bush's appointments..." .

[The New Guy]

obama's not threatening the right, he's threatening america. the "right" is only trying to get the lefty goofballs (acting as teenage girls in the presence of the fab 4 at shea stadium) to understand that.

the fact that your answer to the question consisted merely of....he's a man, a senator, and not much else illustrates the point. obama really isn't much of anything. i keep asking you that if you were hiring a CEO for your company (and that's exactly what we will be doing come november) would his resume even qualify him for an initial interview? much less a call back?

of course, not.

[subdjoe]

Very well put, New Guy. And, to carry it a step further along the business anology, if we look that our nation as USA Inc. and the Constitution as our Mission Statement, we need to find the person best able to guide the company in the accomplisment of that mission.

And I just don't see Barry as having the chops to do the job.