Obama: I did drugs, drank, went after girls and didn't do well in high school

Or Bush, for that matter.

Well, other than creating the biggest clusterfuck in recent memory.

 

I'm just asking. If anyone supports Obama or Hillary, I'd like to hear about all their accomplishments.

Wh do you like either of the two, JR? Any reason other than political affiliation?

 

Internet muckraking at its finest.

 

Good answer.

 

<i>Sigh</i> There's really no point, but here goes: I don't HRC because I feel she's in the back pocket of some interest groups I don't care for so I can't discuss her. But Obama's lack of "experience" is something I like about him. He has yet to be involved in much of the Washington filth and brings fresh ideas to the table. This country could use new blood.

 

Fair enough, except you could have said that to begin with.

And I'm not specifically addressing you because I don't know who the hell you are, but I guarantee many of the people who are pleased with that lack of "experience" railed against George Bush for the same thing.

 

There is no political affiliation. I'm a card carrying member of the Canadian Liberal Party.

All I can say is that I don't foam at the mouth over HRC

 

And here I thought you said you were a Red Tory.

Well, which is it?

 

lyman - from what i hear, valium's going around the board tonight. they're like two bucks a tab if you buy 25 or more. maybe you should check into getting some for yourself.

 

No, most people railed against GWB because he was manifestly not up to the job.
Events have proven the wisdom of that.

 

Lack of experience as a positive trait? Isn't that like taking some assistant copy editor for obituaries and making him/her managing editor?

Given the failures of GWB and his relative lack of experience, and intelligence, don't you think America should be looking for a seasoned, experienced politician with of broad interests? Bush's resume is every bit as impressive as Obama's as far as education accomplishments. With Bush you have nepotism at every corner, though. However, given Obama's self described lackluster high school years, his admission to Columbia University seems as suspect as Bush's admission to Yale.

 

I'm not saying the lack of experience is the positive, I'm saying the limited exposure to Washington filth is a positive. How or why Obama was admitted to Columbia is irrelevant to me, as is Bush's tenure at Yale. I don't care about either. What I care is what I feel the candidate brings to the table in terms of goals, ideas, etc.

Also, I'm not looking at experience in terms of years, but what's accomplished in the given time. In Bush's case I didn't like what he accomplished in his time as Texas' governor. More importantly, I didn't like the ideas he campaigned upon. Essentially there were no ideas, just vague talk of family values and morals.

I see what you're getting at with the comparison of an asst. copy editor, but I look it more like this: would you rather have a gladhander who's been around the block and thus has a lot of backs to scratch as publisher, or someone with limited experience but good character and work ethic? That's how I see Obama. He doesn't owe a lot of people favors, which means getting right down to business as opposed to paying back debts his first year in office. And that "business" as he sees it is what I like about him: the ideas he brings. He was never part of the Iraq bandwagon, he wants to get us out of the financial and ideological sinkhole and refocus on domestic issues.