omfg obama on cnn

[superdave]

Re: omfg obama on cnn

Neither Obama or Palin has adequate experience. Obama running the country is a risk and having Palin "one heartbeat" away is a risk.

Many times candidates have run on change at all levels and nothing changes. The monster that is the federal, state and local government is too big.

I'd like to think there would be a once in a lifetime candidate to change things for the better. At this point, realistically I'd prefer a candidate who won't fuck things up like Bush did.

[toasty]

Re: omfg obama on cnn

and as far as mccain picking her goes, try reading this too, it's in a different light... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005082292884815.html

As I read it, that article touches on all the political reasons why her selection was a good one, i.e., how she hits X, Y & Z constituencies. The article I posted was devoted to explaining why the pick reflected poorly upon McCain's judgment generally.

So yes, she might check all the right boxes for McCain from a voting standpoint, but the fact that he picked her tells us things about the way he might govern -- shooting from the hip, making reckless decisions without weighing the pros and cons, and allowing his own desires to be trumped by those at the far right of his party. Do you want that?

[toasty]

Re: omfg obama on cnn

especially when he has obviously made some very bad decisions in that campaign (which i enumerated earlier and have said many times that their importance has been diminshed and should be given more consideration)

Why? Because they didn't work the first time? Look, it doesn't matter how many times you try to spin this shit -- if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. It's going to be March and you're still going to be babbling about the boogeyman.

[shosh]

Re: omfg obama on cnn

As I read it, that article touches on all the political reasons why her selection was a good one, i.e., how she hits X, Y & Z constituencies. The article I posted was devoted to explaining why the pick reflected poorly upon McCain's judgment generally.

So yes, she might check all the right boxes for McCain from a voting standpoint, but the fact that he picked her tells us things about the way he might govern -- shooting from the hip, making reckless decisions without weighing the pros and cons, and allowing his own desires to be trumped by those at the far right of his party. Do you want that?

i posted the article to show that maybe mccain had made a correct and sound decision as to why he picked her, not necessarily because she "hits X, Y & Z constituencies," but because of what she has done. because maybe he has weighed the pros and cons in picking her.

Why? Because they didn't work the first time? Look, it doesn't matter how many times you try to spin this shit -- if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. It's going to be March and you're still going to be babbling about the boogeyman.

this kind of ties in to the other post too... is this how you want obama to govern: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ment-targeted/

ill hammer it again and i know youre going to get on my case for it:
- wright - proven he was a loyal follower, friend, and confidant for over 20 years, picked him as his spiritual adviser - when it became inconvenient and embarrassing he denounced him and his church
- he took money from rezko, when he knew exactly who rezko was and his reputation
- his association with ayers. now, when kurtz asked u of i to release their records on the obama ayers relationship he was initially allowed, then due to outside pressures denied, and now allowed again. we'll see if they really let him look. did he really not know who ayers was and what he did? also his emails and cries to his followers to fight against the wgn, block ads against him, etc...
those are 3 facts that cant be disproven: he was associated with wright, rezko, and ayers. were those good executive decisions?