"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

--Vic


Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him. The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

Eisboch

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:32:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

--Vic


Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him. The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

Politicians always do that. Nature of the beast.
What I found most interesting is the contention that the Clinton
administration was essentially a continuation of Reagan policies,
which Obama was at least hinting at when he said Bill Clinton was not
a "transformative" character.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Politicians always do that. Nature of the beast.
What I found most interesting is the contention that the Clinton
administration was essentially a continuation of Reagan policies,
which Obama was at least hinting at when he said Bill Clinton was not
a "transformative" character.

--Vic


I can understand that.

There was somebody discussing H. Clinton and B. Obama differences today on
one of the endless TV political coverage interviews. I don't remember who
it was, but he made some good points, including (paraphrasing):

The "wellness" factor of the USA (economic and otherwise) is a function of
the spirit and moral of her population. This characteristic is almost unique
compared to the more traditional acceptance of conditions in other
countries.
We tend to be more forward thinking, ready to embrace new ideas, new
technology and new outlooks. And we like to be liked.

Ronald Reagan understood and tapped into that spirit. He really didn't
change things much. He simply provided inspiration and confidence at a time
that the nation needed a spiritual vitamin. Barack Obama is doing the same
thing. I think he also understands the enormous potential of this country
to heal itself, given the inspiration, and that is what he was alluding to
in his recent comments about Reagan that raised so many eyebrows. I think
it's also why Obama is less specific about the details, whereas H. Clinton
is going to micromanage and dictate a "recovery". I think Obama has the
right attitude.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Politicians always do that. Nature of the beast.
What I found most interesting is the contention that the Clinton
administration was essentially a continuation of Reagan policies,
which Obama was at least hinting at when he said Bill Clinton was not
a "transformative" character.

--Vic


I can understand that.

There was somebody discussing H. Clinton and B. Obama differences today on
one of the endless TV political coverage interviews. I don't remember who
it was, but he made some good points, including (paraphrasing):

The "wellness" factor of the USA (economic and otherwise) is a function of
the spirit and moral of her population. This characteristic is almost unique
compared to the more traditional acceptance of conditions in other
countries.
We tend to be more forward thinking, ready to embrace new ideas, new
technology and new outlooks. And we like to be liked.

Ronald Reagan understood and tapped into that spirit. He really didn't
change things much. He simply provided inspiration and confidence at a time
that the nation needed a spiritual vitamin. Barack Obama is doing the same
thing. I think he also understands the enormous potential of this country
to heal itself, given the inspiration, and that is what he was alluding to
in his recent comments about Reagan that raised so many eyebrows. I think
it's also why Obama is less specific about the details, whereas H. Clinton
is going to micromanage and dictate a "recovery". I think Obama has the
right attitude.

Eisboch



AMEN

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:32:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects
to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him.
The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

If Hillary is the candidate, it's going to be interesting to see how
the American public accepts another HillBilly presidency.

In particular, as a former President, he gets the same NIE as she
will.

If it is Hillary, Bill is going to be a huge issue in addition to the
"dynastic" properties of the election.

My opinion is that average America has had enough of the Imperial Bush
and Clinton families.


Unfortunately, there are no viable potentials that don't already have their
roots deeply planted in the corrupt, sickening WashDC club with membership
consisting of both parties.

Eisboch

On Feb 6, 7:59*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:44lkq31am7latsoovdbc5adh7mgu18jovk@4ax .com...





On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:32:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Everybody is a racist to some degree. *Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. *Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...ts_choice_mana....

Make of it what you will.

Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects
to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. *Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him.
The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

If Hillary is the candidate, it's going to be interesting to see how
the American public accepts another HillBilly presidency.

In particular, as a former President, he gets the same NIE as she
will.

If it is Hillary, Bill is going to be a huge issue in addition to the
"dynastic" properties of the election.

My opinion is that average America has had enough of the Imperial Bush
and Clinton families.

Unfortunately, there are no viable potentials that don't already have their
roots deeply planted in the corrupt, sickening WashDC club with membership
consisting of both parties.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Terry Bradshaw would make a good president, make Howie long VP just so
there would be some teeth in there...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


I've always been a McCain fan and if he can keep it together, he's
pretty viable as an alternative.

I also have a lot of respect for McCain. His only drawback is 25 years in
the Senate.

Eisboch