Do accomplishments really matter? Look at any economist and you'll find that they all differ greatly. Look at the liberal Berkeley grads and you'll disagree with them even though they could smoke you on an IQ test. How do you judge them by accomplishments? I only care about their position on the issues. As long as they meet the requirements to be President, I'll look at the issues. Richardson used the same argument in the Democrat debates and it got him nowhere. He may have foreign policy experience but it doesn't mean jack.
That's a good question that I doubt many Obama supporters can answer. But it doesn't stop there. Another question that can be added to that is: What is he proposing? He's promised to get out of Iraq, but hasn't offered a viable solution for doing so. He's promised to create jobs, but hasn't offered a viable solution for doing so. He's promised to stimulate the economy, but hasn't offered a viable solution for doing so. And on and on . . .
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
His principal "solution" will be to tax those of us who are earning a living so that he can redistribute our wealth and render us "equal" to the idlers on the dole at home... Seems to me a good reason to vote for the other side, even if you don't agree with the other side on a few issues...
The fact that Obama has done nothing is an advantage to Democrats. Less dirt to dredge up, less substantive voting record to wave in his face. This would have been the primary weakness of Hillary Clinton -- a long public record, probably with several skeletons in the closet that have yet to be rolled out for public view.
The behavior of most voters is not determined by looking at past acts or even present concrete platform planks. They are moved by style and surface appearances. They bond to candidates on emotional grounds not readily or easily explained by rational discussion. In the present case, though, I think the analysis can be readily reduced to (1) voting for a liberal presidential candidate (Barrack Obama) and (2) voting fora conservative presidential candidate (John McCain). Arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin notwithstanding, McCain is clearly conservative relative to the Democratic candidates and platform.
Maybe the deciding edge, however, is how many people sort of in the middle can be seduced to drift off of their stable political disposition -- liberal or conservative -- to shift their vote. In the present election, I'm guessing that lots of conservatives are going to be persuaded to shift and vote Democrat because the news media and the Democrats have so effectively demonized GW Bush. It is long forgotten that they all voted to go into Iraq and that the crystal ball was far from clear about whether WMD existed (everyone thought they did before the invasion, let's not forget that). Now the media and Democrats have successfully laid the table for a "GW Bush lied, soldiers died" construction of the history. Even now when it appears the surge may be working, the media and the Democrats are again successfully constructing the news as "failed policy." Similarly with other issues. We have a health care crisis in this country, and we are all, every one of us, receiving worse care than the poorest slave in colonial america in 1765, or didn't you know that? Everything is in a crisis, all GW's fault too, don't you know. This message has been repeated, and repeated, and repeated again, and people who are a little wishy-washy in their thinking find themselves little-by-little sliding left-wards and repeating the blithe constructions the media and Democrats keep blathering into their ears. For all this crisis, I have never been more prosperous or secure in my profession; my family has never been more healthy; the education of my children has not ever been more well provided for than at the present time. I don't see the desperation and crisis that others may see.
This is more how politics works -- propaganda, seduction, re-education, lieing on the part of media and politicians -- slack, inattentive, flawed thinking and analysis on the part of the voters. Most voters have not been trained how to think -- how to apply their mental machinery to analyzing information and drawing conclusions therefrom -- and have precious little time to dedicate to analyzing politics to form an informed judgment. This is really one of the fundamental weaknesses of radical democracy, which is our form of government. Not to say other forms of government don't have their own peculiar weaknesses.
None of this is to say McCain is a saint or that GW Bush is a saint. Or that they don't use similar techniques. I think it is a fact, however, that the news media is a willing co-conspirator with the Democrats in propagandizing and repeating, repeating, repeating interpretations.
Great post, as usual, Alsatisn, except for one thing ... wouldn't Hillary and Barack have similar voting records, as they are both in their first terms as senators?
Let me ask something. Would any of you have a house built by a contractor that has only a year experience because he speaks well?
He must not be dumb. Everyone was a newbie sometime in their career. Look, would you vote for Bill Clinton (after he was President for 1 term) over Reagan when he was 40 lets say? Clinton has more experience so you'd vote for him, right? Same with Fred Thompson. He hasn't done much. If Obama gets elected President and finishes his term, why vote for the competition during the second term when he has the experience?
Let me ask something. Would any of you have a house built by a contractor that has only a year experience because he speaks well?
He must not be dumb. Everyone was a newbie sometime in their career. Look, would you vote for Bill Clinton (after he was President for 1 term) over Reagan when he was 40 lets say? Clinton has more experience so you'd vote for him, right? Same with Fred Thompson. He hasn't done much. If Obama gets elected President and finishes his term, why vote for the competition during the second term when he has the experience?
First off F3, have you ever voted in a presidential election? Are you old enough this time? Second, yes experience counts, if they hold to your desired views. In other words, I put Bill Clinton and Obama in the same catorgory on views. So yes, I would want Clinton to be president over obama, simply for his experience on foreign policy.
Reagan is a tough one. Not too many people to put in his catorgory of views.
But yes, for people of simular views, I will take the one with the most experience.
McCain for instance, I would say knows just about everyone in washington. He has demonstrated the ability to work both sides of the isles. But in his case, his experience can be his biggest liability. Everyone knows he is a hothead.
what has Obama done ?
Look, would you vote for Bill Clinton (after he was President for 1 term) over Reagan when he was 40 lets say? Clinton has more experience so you'd vote for him, right? Same with Fred Thompson. He hasn't done much. If Obama gets elected President and finishes his term, why vote for the competition during the second term when he has the experience?
