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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

ABC: Anyone But Clinton

It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember to
thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary Executive
with no common sense.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:



...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

....and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?


see above "there's more". it was a hurried response to provide fodder...
he certainly seems to be rationally objective based on his writings
(audacity...). ****, I even heard Jimmy Breslin say good things about
him today on Public Radio.



Folks who call others "inspiring" or "persuasive" have always both
saddened and amused me when they do so.

so what do you call someone you believe to be inspirational or persuasive?

who is a public figure you thought inspirational; ...persuasive? not on
an isolated basis, but overall. (i mean, nobody is suggesting elysian
fields or perfection here)

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 think those would be charles krauthammer's words...but i understand
the motivation behind them. Did you happen to see the N. Kristof piece
about the poor guy at GITMO? I am inspired and persuaded to believe
Obama will not allow such things to continue. i'm definitely a member
of that cult.


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...


not in my lifetime IIRC, but they have generally been the better party
for soundbites and political propaganda... hell, it was a bunch of NC
republicans (carter wrenn, jesse helms, etc) that near-bout perfected
the fine art of negative, smear campaigns.

though i know he was attempting to make a point about them being the
party of wrong ideas, i've never said Obama was perfect. however, he's
the best of what we have and what we need at this time, imo.

i lost all respect for mccain when he did his waterboarding whirl and
started the loud slurping and suckling at the teat of the fundamental
religious and conservative right. i only hope he will remain consistent
in his dogmatic iraq plan...

i am not rabidly anti-GOP - just the particular brand we have endured
the last 7+ years... i know Obama is more moderate than me - look again
at the characteristics i listed.

TC,
R


will do...

jeff (pass the kool-aid g)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:25:21 -0600, wrote:

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

You forgot "fat thighs". He must not have peeked, 'cause I don't have
fat thighs.

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

Oh, ya scared me there for a minute. As much as I love cars and all,
the one thing cars do not mix with is a Kennedy, especially the fat,
old one, with fat thighs, and gin blosoms on his fat face, who, like
his nephews, son, and Fred, uses dope.

Fat Louie the Reprioate Pirate

On 15 Feb 2008 23:01:39 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember to
thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary Executive
with no common sense.

You mean to tell me that Hillary is running because Bush is POTUS?
She'd be running and complaining if Jesus Christ Himself was POTUS.
The Dems control the House, yet I see no impeachment proceedings.
Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott.

Dave

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:29:32 -0700, rw
wrote:

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.

You are such a cheerless person. Do you get up that way, or is your
life so miserable that it continues to come on the more you are awake.

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?


not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus, I
always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by
republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 15 Feb 2008 23:01:39 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember
to thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary
Executive with no common sense.

You mean to tell me that Hillary is running because Bush is POTUS?
She'd be running and complaining if Jesus Christ Himself was POTUS.
The Dems control the House, yet I see no impeachment proceedings.
Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott.

Dave




No, I mean to say that if Hillary is the nominee, she will win because Bush
is POTUS. You don't need impeachment proceedings to rope the guy in-- and
he has been pretty well impotent since the Dems got the majority.

In fairness, I would like to see the Dems do more. If the Dems demand a
timetable, they would get it. It's Bush who is over the barrel. You don't
need the 60 votes for cloture-- its the 51 votes you need for passage that
hold the most power. I think the Dems are foolishly trying to avoid an
even worse "do-nothing" label.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott.

I'm not complaining, Dave. I'm pointing out that the GOP did not need to
let this guy kill your party. Bush said "Trust me, guys", and he really
meant "Bend over, guys". When it became clear that the man could barely
manage flushing a toilet bowl, let alone a war, it should have been the
Republicans in the lead demanding simple competence. It should have
started right after the last election. If a high profile conservative took
the lead, that man would have been a strong contender in this race.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 15 Feb 2008 23:19:00 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

I think the Dems are foolishly trying to avoid an
even worse "do-nothing" label

VBG They *already* have a "do-nothing" label. Their rating is
*below* that of Bush. If Bush is the worse president ever (and I
think Jimmy Carter holds that record what with double digit inflation,
unemployment, AND interest rates causi nga new term, "stagflation",
to describe the mess he made), this Congress *has* to be the worse
ever. Very poor leadership in both Houses.

If Bush did wrong, he should have been impeached. Congress is to
blame for that, and no one else.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

If Bush did wrong, he should have been impeached.

I think there's plenty that Bush did wrong. The question is whether it
reached the "high crimes" level. There's a difference between being a
****up and committing a crime.

That said, I think he knowingly trumped up the case for war, and I do think
he should be impeached.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply