selise @ 136

i have no problem going after the actual perpetrators of 911.

however, i insist it be done is a way that does not make americans less safe. and i insist it be done in a way that respects the rights of all bystanders.

from reading portions of obama’s speach it appears he fails these tests. but, i will listen to it when possible, and may revise my evaluation then.

Selise, don’t take this personally, but I want to use this opportunity to address what some think is a flaw for Obama: that he doesn’t get to the details. He is as detailed as any other candidate on any issue. He has written two lenghty books on his views, and has over 12 years of governing experience in addressing the most important issues. He cannot simply go into every little detail about what he would do if he attacked a country because they were harboring terrorits because it would be impossible, and a little pedantic. I envision a guy like Obama being like Michael Douglas in The American President: when he bombed Tripoli, he made sure that the least amount of custodial staff were in the building. Obama would be the same way, I have absolutley no doubt about that.

First, I think Obama is a bright guy. His fantastic speeches reflect that. I also see, at moments, that he mimics and follows the lead of others and is therefore both shallow and sometimes inaccurate in his policy suggestions. Given time to reflect I think he could be very good. And, I think people recognize that and that’s why he’s one of the top contenders.

Per Pakistan: It irks me that he doesn’t seem to recall (or care to consider) the very recent discussion about a potential attack in Pakistan to take out Zawahiri. Does Obama really think he knows, at this point, how to relate to Musharraf and Pakistan? Who could without some actual face time and study? Yet he makes this pronouncement which not only seems wrong, but is certainly specific about the US going into Pakistan and it warns whomever is listening. These are not good things to talk about.

I think Clinton and Edwards were right on target (which is why I don’t criticize Edwards for parroting Clinton’s statement) about not committing to meeting foreign leaders with whom American relations are strained without taking time and preparing. Obama should haveve also left himself wiggle-room and not felt compelled to ‘lead’ by committing this way.

I note he now seems to get that ‘leadership’ is important. Maybe in time he’ll have it in his bones as well as in his mind.

The GOP is not going to win the 2008 election for the WH. Hillary gets the nod from Dems and gets elected.

Who better to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare like her husband wiped out welfare. They need a Dem DLCer to do the dirty work that aGOP president couldn’t get away with.

And unless we make sure that electronic voting machines are not used anywhere and Jim Crow election laws like the Georgia voter ID law are challenged and changed, can we really be certain about the outcome of the 08 election?

I have been thinking that Bushco was going to pull something to call off the elections, but now I think the elections might just be permitted so that the GOP agenda of completely dismantling the New Deal can be furthered by the election of another Clinton.

And I’m not within 40 meters of tin foil.

Right-wingnuts are so full of hate and bile and nastiness! Karma, I say. They’ll get their just desserts one of these days, months, years…

Sorry…in the words of Earl Warren, “Not in our lifetime.”

Sally @ 157

Get Tough @ 155, people didn’t think Bush would invade Iraq without negotiations and UN commitment.

Bush-Cheney is not Obama. He has far more intelligence, integrity, and morals. To even talk about Obama and Bush in the same breadth is nuts. Plus Bush is in with the rapturites and the neo-con facists – far from Obama’s crowd.

It’s a good point. No matter what criticisms we level against any of the Democratic candidates (even Hillary he said biting his tongue) they are all light years ahead of the cretinous bigots the Republicans are running.

OT ‘Americans’ sadly are seen by too many people throughout the world as grasping/greedy/self absorbed/ etc.
Pat Tillman’s (and all our troops and their families too) courage and belief in their country shows that ‘we’ are not all as the world sees us.
Pat could have just done USO shows (NO slam on USO) a couple of times a month/year. Nobody would have thought badly of him, but he CHOSE to give up millions, a safe lavish life style, to enlist in the marines, live, fight and be killed in the deserts in the Middle East (for a war he knew was wrong) because he wanted to protect/defend his country and his people.
Pat Tillman should be honored as the patriot he was and these bloody people in the Military/White house who have their fingers all over this ‘friendly fire accident’ deserve everything they get.
Sorry Mods and posters I know its a long post, but I feel much better now… Thanks for being patient and letting me vent :)

Get Tough @ 155, people didn’t think Bush would invade Iraq without negotiations and UN commitment.

Bush-Cheney is not Obama. He has far more intelligence, integrity, and morals. To even talk about Obama and Bush in the same breadth is nuts. Plus Bush is in with the rapturites and the neo-con facists – far from Obama’s croud.

Having a fundraiser and being best buds are two different things.

The head of Fox News does a fund raiser for a Dem candidate (already in the pocket of corporate America) and he doesn’t expect payback? They were both certainly smiling like things were nice and cozy.

Get Tough @ 139

Selise, don’t take this personally, but I want to use this opportunity to address what some think is a flaw for Obama: that he doesn’t get to the details. He is as detailed as any other candidate on any issue. He has written two lenghty books on his views, and has over 12 years of governing experience in addressing the most important issues. He cannot simply go into every little detail about what he would do if he attacked a country because they were harboring terrorits because it would be impossible, and a little pedantic. I envision a guy like Obama being like Michael Douglas in The American President: when he bombed Tripoli, he made sure that the least amount of custodial staff were in the building. Obama would be the same way, I have absolutley no doubt about that.

well, maybe you know him personally and have reason to have “no doubt”.

but i don’t. what i hear is pol who doesn’t want to get pinned down… who wants people to be able to hear what they want to hear. and when he was pinned down (for example, by gravel in an early debate), what i heard did not reassure.

btw – no way i’m going to take your comment personally. i’m happy to be corrected or educated here (indeed, i appreciate it).

and i wasn’t comparing obama against the other candidates so much as comparing him against my own standard of what is an acceptable foreign policy.

No, I don’t know him personally. I know someone who went to Harvard at the same time and played basketball with him, and we talk from time to time (he doesn’t necessarily keep in touch with him, either, especially right now). Obama is a revelation. The NYT article about him was perfect: Pragmatic, shrewd, and brilliant. Plus, he has some sharp elbows. I defend him, maybe a little too much, because it seems he doesn’t get the love at the Lake that I think he should.