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

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.

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.

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

"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