On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:53:16 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:39:03 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:10:13 GMT, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
wrote:

"In a fierce counterattack, Ms. Clinton has tried to prick the
ballooning support for Mr. Obama, conceding he is "a truly
inspirational speaker" but adding he has "not done the kind of spade
work" to back up the promises."

Spade work?
I still say the "N" word will be out there soon if Obama keeps beating
her.

Nah - but if I were Obama, I'd make a wooden stake and buy a truckload
of garlic. Also if I were Obama, I'd check the bus brakes every time I
got on, not eat anything from sources I couldn't vouch for, avoid
balconies and buy a bomb sniffing dog.

I would also watch the movie "The Omen" for other ways that I might
come to grief.

That's what I would do if I were Obama. :)

I find it truly unfortunate and a sad commentary on our society that
he'd have to be concerned with that scenario. Not that I don't agree
with you to a degree, but haven't we evolved any?

I think *we* have evolved, but all it takes is one.

I had noticed and then thought during his very first election speech,
"hey, this guy is different than the rest". The color of his skin means
nothing to his qualifications, but I'm thinking the majority of the USA
is not quite ready for him. I am more concerned with what I had been
reading relating to his Muslim background than the color of his skin.

I wonder if the biggest threat to Obama might not be a fanatical Muslim.
--
John H

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Both of them have squandered their opportunities.

I also think the American electorate is sick and tired of politics and
they are going to be even more sick and tired by the time November
comes around - it's just going to be noise in the background.

Which does not make me hopeful that we're going to make a wise choice
for President if this is the best we can do on either side.

If you watch the Daily Show even Jon Stewart, a staunch liberal, is
making fun of the Democratic rhetoric and new buzz word "Change".

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Obama may look new, but he has nothing to back it up. Oddly, neither
does Hillary - you would have thought that she would have spent more
time developing cogent and complete arguments for her proposals and
policies, but she spent the time contemplating how she was going to
run and the sense that she was the inevitable choice.

Both of them have squandered their opportunities.

I also think the American electorate is sick and tired of politics and
they are going to be even more sick and tired by the time November
comes around - it's just going to be noise in the background.

Which does not make me hopeful that we're going to make a wise choice
for President if this is the best we can do on either side.


Unfortunately, some of the better choices on both sides have already caved
in and withdrawn.

Eisboch

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:53:16 -0500, DownTime
wrote:
I'm concerned about the whole Democratic field actually. The only one
who had what I would consider "experience" was Bill Richardson and now
that he's out, there really isn't anybody I could vote for. I'm very
afraid of a class warfare scenario if either Hillary or Obama is
selected for the national campaign.

On the other hand, there's only one Republican that I consider
Presidential and he doens't have a prayer unfortunetely - well maybe a
prayer, but it doesn't seem likely.

The saddest part of this entire political process is I suspect most
voters tend to look at the candidates from the angle of "Who do I
despise the least?" When it comes down to the choices, it's more about
the lesser of two evils. I've thought many times that the most qualified
people for the position want NOTHING to do with the job.

I do not fully believe either side in its entirety, but each has some
valid points and action plans.

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Obama may look new, but he has nothing to back it up. Oddly, neither
does Hillary - you would have thought that she would have spent more
time developing cogent and complete arguments for her proposals and
policies, but she spent the time contemplating how she was going to
run and the sense that she was the inevitable choice.

Both of them have squandered their opportunities.

I also think the American electorate is sick and tired of politics and
they are going to be even more sick and tired by the time November
comes around - it's just going to be noise in the background.

Which does not make me hopeful that we're going to make a wise choice
for President if this is the best we can do on either side.


Unfortunately, some of the better choices on both sides have already caved
in and withdrawn.

Eisboch




All political candidates are just people and therefore they all have
flaws. I don't care whether Hillary or Obama wins. Either will do a much
better job than has been done the last seven years. Bush is a disaster.

I can see why Republicans are so unhappy with their choices. There's
just nothing there. It's hard to imagine GOP voters being so
enthusiastic about any of them that they'll show up in great numbers and
attract the number of Indys it will take to win.

On the Democratic side, I think the tide is flowing in Obama's
direction, and I think the national tide is flowing that way, too.

DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:53:16 -0500, DownTime
wrote:
I'm concerned about the whole Democratic field actually. The only one
who had what I would consider "experience" was Bill Richardson and now
that he's out, there really isn't anybody I could vote for. I'm very
afraid of a class warfare scenario if either Hillary or Obama is
selected for the national campaign.

On the other hand, there's only one Republican that I consider
Presidential and he doens't have a prayer unfortunetely - well maybe a
prayer, but it doesn't seem likely.

The saddest part of this entire political process is I suspect most
voters tend to look at the candidates from the angle of "Who do I
despise the least?" When it comes down to the choices, it's more about
the lesser of two evils. I've thought many times that the most qualified
people for the position want NOTHING to do with the job.

I do not fully believe either side in its entirety, but each has some
valid points and action plans.


I'm not touting him, but I haven't run across any rational adults who
despise Barack Obama. I don't associate with black-hating whites, so I
don't know what their thoughts are and don't care, either.

"John H." wrote in message
...

I wonder if the biggest threat to Obama might not be a fanatical Muslim.
--
John H


You've been watching too many '24' reruns.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:47:35 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

I've thought many times that the most qualified
people for the position want NOTHING to do with the job.

Heh - that's probably the truest statement this morning. :)

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:56:11 -0500, HK wrote:

I'm not touting him, but I haven't run across any rational adults who
despise Barack Obama. I don't associate with black-hating whites, so I
don't know what their thoughts are and don't care, either.

You haven't been talking to rank and file Democrats either I suspect.

It has nothing to do with race - it has everything to do substance and
a lot of the Union types along with the average Democrats that I know
don't see anything from either of the two front runners that will
cause them to not look elsewhere.

This could be the year for a solid third party candidate with money to
make a real splash nationally.

Unfortunately, that's Bloomberg and that's not a great choice either.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:53:43 -0500, HK wrote:

On the Democratic side, I think the tide is flowing in Obama's
direction, and I think the national tide is flowing that way, too.

Don't hold your breath on that one.