|
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Fair question, CoW mAn. A Catch-22, that is!
|
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you. While I'm proud of the question I actually don't accept the premise that Obama doesn't have a plan - from the beginning of January when I started paying real attention he's been giving specifics but he's ALSO been giving a message of hope. I don't find the two mutually exclusive.
Yea the debate last night was mostly a wash. Hillary started off with some name-dropping that I thought would be seen as pandering but the crowd ate it up, then midway through the debate she got nasty saying that 2 lines suggested by his co-chair somehow equates to stealing entire passages and then that Xerox comment was low. Plithy, but a cheap shot devoid of substance. But then at the end her closing remarks got a standing O and I'm not really sure why. Was it because she made positive comments about Obama and thus provided a party-uniting note to end on? Or was it because, as some suggested, it was the first time she seemed to be aware that she might lose? I have no idea. And the laughter about the hard times she's faced, we're talking about Monica, right? When did adultery become funny? I have a polisci honours degree and the last few minutes of the debate confused the hell out of me. Last edited by CoW mAn : 02-22-2008 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Typo |
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have to agree. I don't think he's running on hot air (as some of the talking heads have complained) but that he's avoided getting bogged down in details during the speeches. Obama seems to be coming up with more of a concrete message lately. Assuming B.O. gets the Democratic nomination, Hillary's campaign will be right there w/Rudy's as "what not to do". They still don't seem to have found a message that resonates. It's a lot of the same points recycled, even though they haven't been effective.
I'm guessing here, but I think that the standing O for her closing remarks might have been for her showing a bit of her personal side, not the politician. More 'human' for lack of a better word. It did seem that her comments there at the end had a mend the fences w/the nominee feel to them. |
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it also worth noting that some of her closing remarks were taken from Edwards.
Irony abounds, no? I find it interesting their initials, for me HRC always stood for the Hard Rock Café and BO meant Body Odour...not really relevant to the subject at hand I suppose but the initials always throw me ![]() |
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
I still think that A Obama-Hillary Dream Ticket is the best option.
They could perfectly combine their opinions on health care. Barack's plan with hillary's law proposition. As president Obama should also include Nader and maybe mccain in its governement. But being realist, the latter would never be accepted in an obama presidency nor by the democrates nor by the republicans (especially the conservatives). |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I could see Nader and McCain possibly having a role to play in an Obama presidency but the question is what role. Nader as AG and McCain as SecDef maybe but there's another side of the coin. Would Nader legitimize an Obama presidency in the eyes of his staunch (and admittedly few) supports? Would it be seen as a compromise of his ethics/policies? Or, on the other hand, would it be seen as giving him greater influence? For McCain would it completely dissolve his Republican support? And even if it did, at his age would it matter that much to him? It'd likely be another 8 years before he has a serious shot at the presidency again. As for being a realist you must remember that conventional realism comes in large part from the current structure and unwritten rules of politics which Obama does not necessarily choose to follow. Remember the Vice President was originally intended to be the runner-up in the general election for president. There is also precedent for having opposing party members playing specific roles in a government, Bill Clinton for example had some Republicans working in his day. So I wouldn't rule it out completely but I do think that if they are given positions they would be very specific roles and would be contained to those roles. For example McCain as SecDef would not be able to advise Obama on economic policy - there just wouldn't be any point since they fundamentally disagree in that area. But even though they don't agree on Iraq I think McCain might be willing to carry out his orders to refocus on Afghanistan and hunt down terrorists. |
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Come on Barack. You can do it.
|
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm not really into polotics, and I'm not a voter.
__________________
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|