Ah, About That Vote I Cast...

I watched Fox News' segment last night on gaging public response to various speech excerpts, commercials by the candidates, etc. It's quite fascinating how many Republicans are reacting favorably to Obama and yet it's also not surprising how some have compared him to Reagan. Both in that sense are visionaries, projecting messages of hope. Of course, some in here would never give Reagan credit for shit, but he did what a leader should do and that is project a vision of unity, that we're all in this together. Not that I would vote for Obama at this point in time, but I can't say with certainty I won't either and it's because of that "message" he projects.

Now, just as the follow-up in last night's show depicted, when asked to cite any policy he had accomplished in Congress, no one in the audience could give an answer. I don't necessarily think he has to to have the credibility. That to me is what makes the difference between the two branches of government. The president should inspire, convince, shape the agenda that Congress in turn puts together.

Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill because of that part that was Reagan. Though I'm still in the McCain camp, I'm not so sure Obama isn't the only candidate among the three that can do that.

 

I don't know.
I think the restoration of the constitutional order is something. I'd like to see that. And I know that, while the consituency for it in the Democratic party isn't as broad as I'd like, there isn't one at all on the other side.
Do you honestly think that there are 20 Republicans in, say, the House who will bargain with President Obama or a Democratic Speaker in good faith? Ten? Five?

 

Coburn has worked with Obama directly.

 

On one issue, once, one guy.

 

Let me toss this out, crazy as it may sound: The party platform matters.

The electorate always gets itself worked up about the candidates' personalities, or at least what they perceive to be the candidates' personalities through the gross distortion of the political funhouse mirrors.

There is no candidate and can be no candidate who isn't beholden to many. All interests are special and some are very special.

 

I thought people would wake up to the Obama sham sooner than they did. Thanks Chris Mathews, et. al. People are starting to figure it out now. It's not too late but it's the bottom of the ninth.

 

Chris Matthews, given that great old-time "smell of fascism" quote regarding the early performance of Fredo, and his
abject fascination with McCain, is close to being counted out from any future expectation of providing a measure of rational discourse.

 

Fens,

Did Santos not choose Vinick as his Secretary of State?

Where was your outrage then?

Secretary of State John McCain...

Has a nice ring to it.

 

Good stuff Yawn (did I just type that?)

Also, maybe Obama is considering those two guys because he thinks they'd be able to do a good job? Agreed that Republicans haven't shown the slightest inclination to work with Democrats but what's the risk of trying? What if it works 10 percent of the time? Isn't that 10 percent better than nothing?

 

Think of it this way:

Just talking about it-- not necessarily doing it-- is a brilliant tactical move by Obama.

It makes him seem willing to 'put partisanship aside.' Independents likey.

Watch what happens if McCain tries to do the same thing. You think the wingnuts are mad at him now?... McCain feels the full force of the base's anger. He's stuck.

All Obama has to do is talk about it... doesn't mean he has to do it.

It's brilliant-- he's taking one of the key fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives (openmindedness)-- and using it to his advantage. For the first time I'm thinking Obama really does know how to win.

 

He knows. He's caught the right opponents at the right time, for him . . . but he knows.

He's far from home-free yet, but if he keeps the stumbles to a bare minimum, he's going to be hell to beat.

I just pray for his physical well-being, every night.

 

The problem that I have with Obama -- and considering he's still in a primary battle, I'll let it slide for now -- is that he has not expressed much in the way of holding the Republicans accountable for the last eight years.

All of his talk about charge and reaching across the aisle does not distinguish the difference between the two parties. Tell me why the Democrats deserve to be in the White House, not just why you deserve to be there.

Democrats are not equally culpable for the current state of the country, Senator. Start making that clear during your speech railings against the Washington culture. You can't make a half-assed examination of the opposition party's record in a general campaign, especially when they will throw everything they can pull out of their ass at you. John Kerry learned this the hard way.

Obama's response to the stupid lapel pin patriotism charge was a good start, but there needs to be a lot more of it.

And what concerns me the most: I know a President Clinton would turn a blind eye to investigating the how and why of the sludge seeping from the White House during the Bush years. After all, that's exactly what the first President Clinton did.

As of now, I think a President Obama would do the same.