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

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.

"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

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

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.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

wrote in news:ib9br358n7q8touvtjhlfp51ekn97bacrg@
4ax.com:

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...


Carter was the first elected president after Nixon.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in news:ib9br358n7q8touvtjhlfp51ekn97bacrg@
4ax.com:


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...

Now that you mention it thought, wouldn't it be cool if the next pres had
to pardon Bush/Cheney!! We'd be in the twilight zone.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

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?