So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

....apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

Well, he's started fewer wars than your dreamboat.

Seriously.

Wolfgang
and the odds are he can actually read a recipe.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up hisleg," and...
 

On Feb 14, 2:33*pm, wrote:
I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

I'm a somewhat late arrival to the Obama bandwagon, and my enthusiasm
is tempered by the fact he's actually my second choice; but he is my
choice at this point, so I'll foolishly assume for the moment your
question is genuine and give you a genuine answer.

Thanks in large part to the success of GWB in the job, I've come to
believe that virtually no experience or ability is necessary to do the
job well. As snarky as that may sound, I mean it. Bush is likely the
worst president in the history of the country, and despite the
******** he's driven this country into, he's managed to make it
through two terms with continuing support from at least his party's
base.

What that makes clear is that the president doesn't really need to do
anything except set the tone of the administration. The next
president, if he's at all competent, will be surrounded by staffers
and functionaries willing to take his wishes and priorities and make
them happen. Bush didn't need to know how, and likely doesn't. Obama
has that beat by a mile.

So getting back to Obama, I see a man who expresses a vision for this
country that I believe would be a vast improvement for nearly every
aspect of the nation, from foreign policy, health care, poverty,
preparedness, national secruity, and domestic security. I believe
that if he is in the Oval Office trying to effect that vision, the US
will be significantly better off than we are now, and surely better
than if John McCain is imposing his.

In Obama, I see a man in whose integrity I see few flaws, but many
highlights. I see a man who will honestly try to bring this country
together, not divide us by fear or dogma. His oft repeated "no red
states, no blue states, only United States" is something I believe is
more to him than a platitude.

There has already been criticism of his rhetoric for being long on
ideals but short on specifics. To that, I say bull****. No candidate
can be specific at this point of their campaign; promises are all they
have to offer. With Obama, more so than any other politician I
remember, I actually believe he intends to do his best to keep those
promises. He gives that impression, maybe correctly, maybe not; but
even if not, he's peddling the snake oil I want.

I want someone in that office who promises change from the
fearmongering, war mongering, war profiteering, Constitution
destroying, corruption and incompetence at all levels that are the
hallmarks of this administration. I believe he's the guy who can
deliver that change.

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 2:33 pm, wrote:
I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

I'm a somewhat late arrival to the Obama bandwagon, and my enthusiasm
is tempered by the fact he's actually my second choice; but he is my
choice at this point, so I'll foolishly assume for the moment your
question is genuine and give you a genuine answer.

Thanks in large part to the success of GWB in the job, I've come to
believe that virtually no experience or ability is necessary to do the
job well. As snarky as that may sound, I mean it. Bush is likely the
worst president in the history of the country, and despite the
******** he's driven this country into, he's managed to make it
through two terms with continuing support from at least his party's
base.

What that makes clear is that the president doesn't really need to do
anything except set the tone of the administration. The next
president, if he's at all competent, will be surrounded by staffers
and functionaries willing to take his wishes and priorities and make
them happen. Bush didn't need to know how, and likely doesn't. Obama
has that beat by a mile.

So getting back to Obama, I see a man who expresses a vision for this
country that I believe would be a vast improvement for nearly every
aspect of the nation, from foreign policy, health care, poverty,
preparedness, national secruity, and domestic security. I believe
that if he is in the Oval Office trying to effect that vision, the US
will be significantly better off than we are now, and surely better
than if John McCain is imposing his.

In Obama, I see a man in whose integrity I see few flaws, but many
highlights. I see a man who will honestly try to bring this country
together, not divide us by fear or dogma. His oft repeated "no red
states, no blue states, only United States" is something I believe is
more to him than a platitude.

There has already been criticism of his rhetoric for being long on
ideals but short on specifics. To that, I say bull****. No candidate
can be specific at this point of their campaign; promises are all they
have to offer. With Obama, more so than any other politician I
remember, I actually believe he intends to do his best to keep those
promises. He gives that impression, maybe correctly, maybe not; but
even if not, he's peddling the snake oil I want.

I want someone in that office who promises change from the
fearmongering, war mongering, war profiteering, Constitution
destroying, corruption and incompetence at all levels that are the
hallmarks of this administration. I believe he's the guy who can
deliver that change.

Well said. I'm not as sanguine about Obama as you and some of the others
here (personally, I believe even rank cynicism falls far short of the level
of skepticism to be expected from any rational person with regard to
candidates for national office in this country), but I can hardly deny that
he is the most attractive choice currently available.

That said, this hoary old bugbear of qualifications comes up in every
election that doesn't have an incumbent in office.....or has for a long
time, anyway. The same question was asked of Lincoln supporters. I believe
Abraham Lincoln's experience in national political office prior to his
election to the presidency was a single term in the House of
Representatives, where his service was deemed less than stellar.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

...this hoary old bugbear of qualifications comes up in every election
that doesn't have an incumbent in office.....

Um.....one should hardly need to add that it should come up a great deal
MORE often in elections in which there IS an incumbent......but then, this
IS usenet.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

When all else fails (as is has for so many years), just smack that cue ball
as hard as you can.

john

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"asadi" wrote in message
When all else fails (as is has for so many years), just smack that cue
ball as hard as you can.

I have to say that I admire your ability to view things from a completely
different yet simultaneously valid perspective.

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"asadi" wrote in message
When all else fails (as is has for so many years), just smack that cue
ball as hard as you can.

john
Joe the elder offers----and hope you don"t scratch---with the choice of
canadates we were offered I think Obama turned out to be the best ball in
the rack!

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:54:59 GMT, "asadi"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

When all else fails (as is has for so many years), just smack that cue ball
as hard as you can.

john

Well, I suppose...the main problem, at least as I see it, is the last
time there was some wild ball-smacking going on, the US got 4 years of
Jimmy Carter...who, IMO, is a decent, honorable man but also who, if he
had just a little more experience, might have made one fine POTUS...as
such, I'm not going to be surprised if Obama has a female running
mate...Geraldine Ferraro...

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:45:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

Unless you know him a whole lot better than you have let on, only two
(possibly three) of the above (the "not(whomever)" obvious items
excluded) items are seemingly within your range of knowledge: his being
persuasive and inspiring (and possibly "hope," depending on who you
intend to mean is doing the hoping). Fine qualities, I suppose, if
properly directed, but IAC, they are qualities that speak more to you,
the persuaded and inspired, than he, the persuasive and inspiring. IOW,
from reports contemporaneous, Hitler and Gandhi were called both...at
least by those they persuaded and inspired...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?

IAC, I still think he would do well as McCain's veep, and if nothing
else, it'd keep his dream alive. Given the overall situation _today_,
McCain's the next POTUS, and really, McCain doesn't have a clear running
mate. If Obama REALLY didn't want red or blue states, only united
states, one might think he'd be all over such an arrangement...

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:20:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Feb 14, 2:33*pm, wrote:
I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

I'm a somewhat late arrival to the Obama bandwagon, and my enthusiasm
is tempered by the fact he's actually my second choice; but he is my
choice at this point, so I'll foolishly assume for the moment your
question is genuine and give you a genuine answer.

Thanks in large part to the success of GWB in the job, I've come to
believe that virtually no experience or ability is necessary to do the
job well. As snarky as that may sound, I mean it. Bush is likely the
worst president in the history of the country, and despite the
******** he's driven this country into, he's managed to make it
through two terms with continuing support from at least his party's
base.

What that makes clear is that the president doesn't really need to do
anything except set the tone of the administration. The next
president, if he's at all competent, will be surrounded by staffers
and functionaries willing to take his wishes and priorities and make
them happen. Bush didn't need to know how, and likely doesn't. Obama
has that beat by a mile.

So getting back to Obama,

Um, "back to Obama?" You haven't gotten to him yet...but I'm guessing
his not being Bush is a big thing for you...

I see a man who expresses a vision for this
country that I believe would be a vast improvement for nearly every
aspect of the nation, from foreign policy, health care, poverty,
preparedness, national secruity, and domestic security. I believe
that if he is in the Oval Office trying to effect that vision, the US
will be significantly better off than we are now, and surely better
than if John McCain is imposing his.

So McCain would be imposing his vision (bad, very, very ba-a-a-d...),
whereas Obama will be bettering the US simply by trying to effect his
(understandably) non-specific vision (good, oh, wonderful,
sunshine-and-bluebirds kinda day...)...er, OK...

In Obama, I see a man in whose integrity I see few flaws, but many
highlights.

Uh-oh...he has "few flaws," huh? That doesn't speak very well to his
ability to be an effective politician...

I see a man who will honestly try to bring this country
together, not divide us by fear or dogma. His oft repeated "no red
states, no blue states, only United States" is something I believe is
more to him than a platitude.

There has already been criticism of his rhetoric for being long on
ideals but short on specifics. To that, I say bull****. No candidate
can be specific at this point of their campaign; promises are all they
have to offer.

Um...what? Hell, I'm not even running for or desirous of ANY office,
and I could be quite specific as what I'd do as POTUS, PM of an
assortment of countries, or benevolent dictator of others...granted,
those specifics wouldn't likely get me in, but hey, I could still be
specific. IOW, if he hadn't thought about it enough to get pretty
****ing specific BEFORE he announced he was running, he has no business
running. Plus, the vast right-wing conspiracy might hint around that he
should try to get a little specific about a couple of things, at
least...

With Obama, more so than any other politician I
remember, I actually believe he intends to do his best to keep those
promises. He gives that impression, maybe correctly, maybe not; but
even if not, he's peddling the snake oil I want.

I want someone in that office who promises change from the
fearmongering, war mongering, war profiteering, Constitution
destroying, corruption and incompetence at all levels that are the
hallmarks of this administration. I believe he's the guy who can
deliver that change.

So IOW, you can't be specific and certainly wouldn't be so intrusive as
to ask him to be, but by golly, he gives you a feeling up your leg?

Well, all I can say is that you're a very lucky man - no matter who or
what wins, you'll be getting exactly - no more and no less - the leader
you deserve.

And why do I suspect this won't help,
R

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:45:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

Unless you know him a whole lot better than you have let on, only two
(possibly three) of the above (the "not(whomever)" obvious items
excluded) items are seemingly within your range of knowledge: his being
persuasive and inspiring (and possibly "hope," depending on who you
intend to mean is doing the hoping). Fine qualities, I suppose, if
properly directed, but IAC, they are qualities that speak more to you,
the persuaded and inspired, than he, the persuasive and inspiring. IOW,
from reports contemporaneous, Hitler and Gandhi were called both...at
least by those they persuaded and inspired...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?

IAC, I still think he would do well as McCain's veep, and if nothing
else, it'd keep his dream alive. Given the overall situation _today_,
McCain's the next POTUS, and really, McCain doesn't have a clear running
mate. If Obama REALLY didn't want red or blue states, only united
states, one might think he'd be all over such an arrangement...

TC,
R

And the last time that happened was around 1825-1829, I believe. And that
was a Democratic President with a Republican VP-- John Quincy Adams and John
Calhoun.

This came about, if memory serves me correctly--which it may not, when the
VP was chosen as the runner-up in votes tallied for President. That being
changed with the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the Constitutions.

So, you might want to think in terms of what is likely to happen. Not likely
that either a Dem. or a Repub. would chose a VP from the eopposition party;
however, if such an event were to come to fruition, it is more likely that
Obama would chose McCain as his running mate--historically that is.

op

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:40:35 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:45:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

Unless you know him a whole lot better than you have let on, only two
(possibly three) of the above (the "not(whomever)" obvious items
excluded) items are seemingly within your range of knowledge: his being
persuasive and inspiring (and possibly "hope," depending on who you
intend to mean is doing the hoping). Fine qualities, I suppose, if
properly directed, but IAC, they are qualities that speak more to you,
the persuaded and inspired, than he, the persuasive and inspiring. IOW,
from reports contemporaneous, Hitler and Gandhi were called both...at
least by those they persuaded and inspired...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?

IAC, I still think he would do well as McCain's veep, and if nothing
else, it'd keep his dream alive. Given the overall situation _today_,
McCain's the next POTUS, and really, McCain doesn't have a clear running
mate. If Obama REALLY didn't want red or blue states, only united
states, one might think he'd be all over such an arrangement...

TC,
R

And the last time that happened was around 1825-1829, I believe. And that
was a Democratic President with a Republican VP-- John Quincy Adams and John
Calhoun.

This came about, if memory serves me correctly--which it may not, when the
VP was chosen as the runner-up in votes tallied for President. That being
changed with the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the Constitutions.

So, you might want to think in terms of what is likely to happen. Not likely
that either a Dem. or a Repub. would chose a VP from the eopposition party;
however, if such an event were to come to fruition, it is more likely that
Obama would chose McCain as his running mate--historically that is.

Er, no. Taking your memory as having served you correctly, at least for
the purposes of your own premise, no candidate has ever _chosen_ a
cross-aisle running mate, and so, neither McCain or Obama could be "more
likely" to do so based on historic precedent.

But your exercise does bring up another facet of Obama's "dilemma" - who
is he gonna get to be his running mate? Hillary? I'd guess that he
isn't THAT naive, but I'd guess she might accept if asked. Was the
choice of running mate what got him Teddy's support? I have no doubt
whatsoever that Teddy extracted _something_, even a list of somethings,
and if it was that, Obama's screwed.

And whomever Obama gets, what are McCain's options? While he is a bit
more well-placed to pick who _he_ wants, who would he want? Romney?
Naw. Huckabee? Hardly. Rudy? Maybe, but do either of them want him
attempting to play second-string? But Obama, at least in general terms
(which is all anyone has to go on at this point), seems to be close (or
at least close enough) in politics and temperament. I think most would
agree that such a pairing, given the field as it appears today, would
sweep into the WH with a mandate-level vote and they would be the only
possible pairing that could do so. And mandate-level votes are about
the only way things get changed - 50.01% versus 49.99% don't get it
done...

OTOH, do I think it's gonna happen? No, not really, at least not enough
to bet big on it, but maybe they'll see the light...

TC,
R

op

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:20:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Feb 14, 2:33 pm, wrote:
I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

I'm a somewhat late arrival to the Obama bandwagon, and my enthusiasm
is tempered by the fact he's actually my second choice; but he is my
choice at this point, so I'll foolishly assume for the moment your
question is genuine and give you a genuine answer.

Thanks in large part to the success of GWB in the job, I've come to
believe that virtually no experience or ability is necessary to do the
job well. As snarky as that may sound, I mean it. Bush is likely the
worst president in the history of the country, and despite the
******** he's driven this country into, he's managed to make it
through two terms with continuing support from at least his party's
base.

What that makes clear is that the president doesn't really need to do
anything except set the tone of the administration. The next
president, if he's at all competent, will be surrounded by staffers
and functionaries willing to take his wishes and priorities and make
them happen. Bush didn't need to know how, and likely doesn't. Obama
has that beat by a mile.

So getting back to Obama,

Um, "back to Obama?" You haven't gotten to him yet...but I'm guessing
his not being Bush is a big thing for you...

I see a man who expresses a vision for this
country that I believe would be a vast improvement for nearly every
aspect of the nation, from foreign policy, health care, poverty,
preparedness, national secruity, and domestic security. I believe
that if he is in the Oval Office trying to effect that vision, the US
will be significantly better off than we are now, and surely better
than if John McCain is imposing his.

So McCain would be imposing his vision (bad, very, very ba-a-a-d...),
whereas Obama will be bettering the US simply by trying to effect his
(understandably) non-specific vision (good, oh, wonderful,
sunshine-and-bluebirds kinda day...)...er, OK...

In Obama, I see a man in whose integrity I see few flaws, but many
highlights.

Uh-oh...he has "few flaws," huh? That doesn't speak very well to his
ability to be an effective politician...

I see a man who will honestly try to bring this country
together, not divide us by fear or dogma. His oft repeated "no red
states, no blue states, only United States" is something I believe is
more to him than a platitude.

There has already been criticism of his rhetoric for being long on
ideals but short on specifics. To that, I say bull****. No candidate
can be specific at this point of their campaign; promises are all they
have to offer.

Um...what? Hell, I'm not even running for or desirous of ANY office,
and I could be quite specific as what I'd do as POTUS, PM of an
assortment of countries, or benevolent dictator of others...granted,
those specifics wouldn't likely get me in, but hey, I could still be
specific. IOW, if he hadn't thought about it enough to get pretty
****ing specific BEFORE he announced he was running, he has no business
running. Plus, the vast right-wing conspiracy might hint around that he
should try to get a little specific about a couple of things, at
least...

With Obama, more so than any other politician I
remember, I actually believe he intends to do his best to keep those
promises. He gives that impression, maybe correctly, maybe not; but
even if not, he's peddling the snake oil I want.

I want someone in that office who promises change from the
fearmongering, war mongering, war profiteering, Constitution
destroying, corruption and incompetence at all levels that are the
hallmarks of this administration. I believe he's the guy who can
deliver that change.

So IOW, you can't be specific and certainly wouldn't be so intrusive as
to ask him to be, but by golly, he gives you a feeling up your leg?

Well, all I can say is that you're a very lucky man - no matter who or
what wins, you'll be getting exactly - no more and no less - the leader
you deserve.

See what happens when you foolishly assume for the moment the dicklet's
question is genuine, Joe? :)

And why do I suspect this won't help,

Pathos amuses but otherwise, no, it doesn't help.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:45:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

Unless you know him a whole lot better than you have let on, only two
(possibly three) of the above (the "not(whomever)" obvious items
excluded) items are seemingly within your range of knowledge: his being
persuasive and inspiring (and possibly "hope," depending on who you
intend to mean is doing the hoping). Fine qualities, I suppose, if
properly directed, but IAC, they are qualities that speak more to you,
the persuaded and inspired, than he, the persuasive and inspiring. IOW,
from reports contemporaneous, Hitler and Gandhi were called both...at
least by those they persuaded and inspired...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?

IAC, I still think he would do well as McCain's veep, and if nothing
else, it'd keep his dream alive. Given the overall situation _today_,
McCain's the next POTUS, and really, McCain doesn't have a clear running
mate. If Obama REALLY didn't want red or blue states, only united
states, one might think he'd be all over such an arrangement...

So, what real (or imagined) credentials/abilities do you feel, think, or
believe McCain
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS?

Seriously.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:13:09 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

and old! g

And just *what* is the matter with old?

d;o)

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...

...mandate-level votes are about
the only way things get changed - 50.01% versus 49.99% don't get it
done...

And what is it that you want to get changed?

Seriously.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up hisleg," and...
 

On Feb 15, 8:26*am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
See what happens when you foolishly assume for the moment the dicklet's
question is genuine, Joe? * * * :)

He never fails to live down to my expectations. At worst, it was an
open invitation to proselytize, so I took a shot. Inexplicably, there
are a couple of folks here I respect who have vouched for the man's
integrity and character; but I don't see it.

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:13:09 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:45:37 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:


wrote:


...apparently, he gets middle-aged white folks - yep, the guy-crush
types, too - all jungle-feverish, but why should anyone vote for him? I
mean this seriously and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't vote for
him (or should), but I'm asking for opinions as to what real (or
imagined) credentials/abilities folks feel, think, or believe Obama
possesses that makes him suited for POTUS.

TC,
R

...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff


Unless you know him a whole lot better than you have let on, only two
(possibly three) of the above (the "not(whomever)" obvious items
excluded) items are seemingly within your range of knowledge: his being
persuasive and inspiring (and possibly "hope," depending on who you
intend to mean is doing the hoping). Fine qualities, I suppose, if
properly directed, but IAC, they are qualities that speak more to you,
the persuaded and inspired, than he, the persuasive and inspiring. IOW,
from reports contemporaneous, Hitler and Gandhi were called both...at
least by those they persuaded and inspired...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?

IAC, I still think he would do well as McCain's veep, and if nothing
else, it'd keep his dream alive. Given the overall situation _today_,
McCain's the next POTUS, and really, McCain doesn't have a clear running
mate. If Obama REALLY didn't want red or blue states, only united
states, one might think he'd be all over such an arrangement...

TC,
R

odd response...not fully what i expected, though close...especially, the
hitlerghandi thing. but, all is well, we have you and krauthammer to
keep us ardent, doe-eyed, admiring cultists in control. g

Folks who call others "inspiring" or "persuasive" have always both
saddened and amused me when they do so. I can fully appreciate the
_specifically_ _inspired_ or _persuaded_, such as a young black man
saying that Obama's life thus far inspired him to run for Congress, etc.
or someone saying that Obama's argument in favor of premise "x"
persuaded them that he was right on that issue, but to call someone
generally "inspiring" and/or "persuasive" is the first step in, to touch
upon your words, the formation of a cult of personality...at least...

i confess i have never known a single candidate for president
personally, that all of my "range of knowledge" of such candidates is
based on my individual perception...which i hope has a rational
foundation in personal experience and principle. ultimately, most of us
want to make an informed choice. frankly, i think the only hope of
delivering us from another republican president is obama and the rabid
conservative republicans. mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g

Um, well, as to "true colors," I'd offer that there have been little
more than hints, even assuming they are not red herrings, in "revealing"
Obama, but those few hints indicate that he ain't exactly married to
this color or that (and while a pun isn't exactly _intended_, it ain't
not intended, either...). And if Obama is "the real deal," and
literally means what he says, I'd offer that he doesn't want your
support, at least until you can get past being so rabidly anti-GOP...
after all, they were, IIRC, the party of ideas not so long ago...

TC,
R

jeff

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:34:45 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Feb 15, 8:26*am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
See what happens when you foolishly assume for the moment the dicklet's
question is genuine, Joe? * * * :)

He never fails to live down to my expectations. At worst, it was an
open invitation to proselytize, so I took a shot. Inexplicably, there
are a couple of folks here I respect who have vouched for the man's
integrity and character; but I don't see it.

Maybe it's because you don't attempt to look past your own narrow
premisconceptions...

What led to my post was a hunting camp discussion involving several guys
of various political leanings (not extremely varied, just various - from
about "conservative" Dem to moderately "conservative" GOP, and from age
19 to 78). The two youngest were a mid-30s rabid Dem and Hillary
supporter with a side order of Obama-will-do and the 19 YO, a
self-described political novice who was leaning toward Obama mainly
because it seemed to be the thing to do. He was looking for "rational"
reasons to support his leanings. The rabid anti-GOP "Dem" couldn't
offer much _factual_ reason to help the kid on his journey beyond, much
like you, that he offered change and wasn't a Republican. The kid, to
his credit, didn't seem either comfortable or convinced with such a
position.

HTH,
R

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 8:26 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
See what happens when you foolishly assume for the moment the dicklet's
question is genuine, Joe? :)

He never fails to live down to my expectations.

Some trends are more reliable than others. You won't go broke betting on
this one. :)

At worst, it was an open invitation to proselytize, so I took a shot.

Of course. And your opening disclaimer was noted.

Inexplicably, there are a couple of folks here I respect who have
vouched for the man's integrity and character; but I don't see it.

Not as perplexing as it might seem. People whose judgment you
trust.....however justifiably.....can be wrong. Being wrong occasionally
doesn't mean that you should doubt their otherwise good judgment.......it
only means that they are sometimes wrong.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:34:45 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Feb 15, 8:26 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
See what happens when you foolishly assume for the moment the dicklet's
question is genuine, Joe? :)

He never fails to live down to my expectations. At worst, it was an
open invitation to proselytize, so I took a shot. Inexplicably, there
are a couple of folks here I respect who have vouched for the man's
integrity and character; but I don't see it.

Maybe it's because you don't attempt to look past your own narrow
premisconceptions...

What led to my post was a hunting camp discussion involving several guys
of various political leanings (not extremely varied, just various - from
about "conservative" Dem to moderately "conservative" GOP, and from age
19 to 78). The two youngest were a mid-30s rabid Dem and Hillary
supporter with a side order of Obama-will-do and the 19 YO, a
self-described political novice who was leaning toward Obama mainly
because it seemed to be the thing to do. He was looking for "rational"
reasons to support his leanings. The rabid anti-GOP "Dem" couldn't
offer much _factual_ reason to help the kid on his journey beyond, much
like you, that he offered change and wasn't a Republican. The kid, to
his credit, didn't seem either comfortable or convinced with such a
position.

And how, exactly, did you reveal the truth and thus alleviate the suffering
of the poor lad?

Seriously.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On 15 Feb 2008 14:43:30 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:uauar31ukl8mr8kn8oqt1kn6e6pe5vpvjh@
4ax.com:

Well, I suppose...the main problem, at least as I see it, is the last
time there was some wild ball-smacking going on, the US got 4 years of
Jimmy Carter...who, IMO, is a decent, honorable man but also who, if he
had just a little more experience, might have made one fine POTUS...as
such, I'm not going to be surprised if Obama has a female running
mate...Geraldine Ferraro...


Fine point. Every time a Republicans put a scumbag who abuses his powers
in office, it seems like the Dems put a less than optimal president up
next. You think those Dems would learn.

Actually, you'd think those who say "he/she stands for 'change' plus
he/she isn't a insert whatever party" would learn. And speaking of
power-abusing scumbags and their less-than-optimal replacements, hell,
the GOP _and_ the Dems did the same thing after Clinton...well, so the
Dems didn't win, but only because they went with
a-WHOLE-LOT-less-than-optimal rather than merely less-than-optimal...

IAC, you may wish to recall that Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon, and
Ford was probably the best overall candidate between the two (Carter and
Ford)...heck, he wasn't even a scumbag or an abuser of his powers...

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
On 15 Feb 2008 14:43:30 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:uauar31ukl8mr8kn8oqt1kn6e6pe5vpvjh@
4ax.com:

Well, I suppose...the main problem, at least as I see it, is the last
time there was some wild ball-smacking going on, the US got 4 years of
Jimmy Carter...who, IMO, is a decent, honorable man but also who, if he
had just a little more experience, might have made one fine POTUS...as
such, I'm not going to be surprised if Obama has a female running
mate...Geraldine Ferraro...


Fine point. Every time a Republicans put a scumbag who abuses his powers
in office, it seems like the Dems put a less than optimal president up
next. You think those Dems would learn.

Actually, you'd think those who say "he/she stands for 'change' plus
he/she isn't a insert whatever party" would learn. And speaking of
power-abusing scumbags and their less-than-optimal replacements, hell,
the GOP _and_ the Dems did the same thing after Clinton...well, so the
Dems didn't win, but only because they went with
a-WHOLE-LOT-less-than-optimal rather than merely less-than-optimal...

IAC, you may wish to recall that Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon, and
Ford was probably the best overall candidate between the two (Carter and
Ford)...heck, he wasn't even a scumbag or an abuser of his powers...

You are SO sad. That's what makes you funny. That's why we love having you
around. :)

Seriously.

Wolfgang

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g

jeff


Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very
personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they can't
do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's gonna
be holding Obama's hand?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g

jeff


Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very
personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they
can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's
gonna be holding Obama's hand?


Obama is 45 years old.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

Hello rw,


Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net

Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g
jeff

Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are
very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but
they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile
- who's gonna be holding Obama's hand?

Obama is 45 years old.


that's a good point - he is young for the job he's applying for, isn't he?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:13:09 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:


and old! g


And just *what* is the matter with old?

d;o)



in terms of living...nothing, and it certainly is much preferred to the
alternatives. however, in terms of mccain and the presidency, "old" was
intended to have several meanings..."stale", "dated", "used", "not new",
and, of course, just too friggin OLD! g

jeff (old, and lookin forward to gettin older...)

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Jim Edmondson wrote:
Hello rw,


Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net

Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g
jeff

Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are
very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but
they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile
- who's gonna be holding Obama's hand?

Obama is 45 years old.


that's a good point - he is young for the job he's applying for, isn't he?



My favorite president, Theodore Roosevelt, was 42 years old when
inaugurated.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:56:13 +0000 (UTC), Jim Edmondson
wrote:


mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g

jeff


Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very
personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they can't
do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's gonna
be holding Obama's hand?

Um...Louie, the FAT OLD rioperbate prirate...?

Seriously, though, I'm beginning to think that Teddy Kennedy plans on a
fair amount of hand time with the boy...Obama, not Louie...

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

Hello rw,

Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net
Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g
jeff
Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are
very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but
they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for
awhile - who's gonna be holding Obama's hand?

Obama is 45 years old.

that's a good point - he is young for the job he's applying for, isn't
he?


sorry for replying to my own post, but ...

in his 45 years and as a state and national legislator what exactly has Obama
done that matters?

and I don't mean what has he said or how does he make you feel!

is there any legislation with his name on it?

has even been pesent to vote at a reasonable level of attendance?

what about earmarks - has he answered that question?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

Jeff wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:13:09 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:


and old! g



And just *what* is the matter with old?

d;o)



in terms of living...nothing, and it certainly is much preferred to the
alternatives. however, in terms of mccain and the presidency, "old" was
intended to have several meanings..."stale", "dated", "used", "not new",
and, of course, just too friggin OLD! g

jeff (old, and lookin forward to gettin older...)

McCain will probably pick an extreme right-wing candidate for VP to suck
up to the Republican base, which detests him. If he dies or becomes
incapacitated in office, which given his age is not unlikely, we'll be
stuck with another fool.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:23:35 -0700, rw
wrote:

My favorite president, Theodore Roosevelt, was 42 years old when
inaugurated.

But he had years in training, years in leadership roles, years of
worldly experience. And, there were no nuclear weapons in the hands
of terrorists. Hell, the U.S. didn't even *know* what a terrorist
was. The world is a helluva lot different that it was 100 years ago.
I think Teddy would be ok today, but I have my doubts about Obama.
ABC: Anyone But Clinton

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:22:44 -0500, Jeff wrote:

in terms of living...nothing, and it certainly is much preferred to the
alternatives. however, in terms of mccain and the presidency, "old" was
intended to have several meanings..."stale", "dated", "used", "not new",
and, of course, just too friggin OLD! g

jeff (old, and lookin forward to gettin older...)

Ahhh, but you left out "experience", "knowledge", "wisdom", "insight".
Ain't nothin' wrong with being old as long as your mind remains
strong. I'll take old in many things before I'll take young.

Otoh, although I will vote for McCain, I can probably live with Obama,
as long as he keeps me and mine safe. That is all I ask. What does
scare me is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. What is *that* about and
what is it going to cost me. There is no "change" with Teddy being in
the picture. "Change" is but a word.

ABC Anyone But Clinton.

Dave



Dave