Originally posted by Strangelove
Not unpopular with me, buddy 😄I consider myself to be one of the quote unquote "political elite" of the GDF, and I support Clinton 🙂
Well, at least you have a high opinion of yourself.
On a different note, are American debates somehow supposed to be a sort of competition who has the better ad hominem attacks?
Originally posted by Alliance
If I was actually able to watch the debate, I'm sure you'd be wrong...Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, you would know.
Worst of all, Obama has NEVER pushed his race....EVER. So, when you actually know something about candidates...come back and talk.
The media sure has. Really, tell me what exactly Obama has done. He's a good looking guy, I'll grant you that, but he doesn't have the operational integrity, or the demonstrated competence that Clinton has. He doesn't even have a conventional grassroots message of any significance (like Al Gore, for instance). I've been following his campaign.
He doesn't seem too different from most Democrats. The fact that he's black, handsome, and has mannerisms similar to Kennedy has made him a media darling. I do applaud him for not playing the race card himself, but at this point, I just don't think he'd be a good President. Maybe a few years from now.
Originally posted by Ymir
The media sure has. Really, tell me what exactly Obama has done. He's a good looking guy, I'll grant you that, but he doesn't have the operational integrity, or the demonstrated competence that Clinton has. He doesn't even have a conventional grassroots message of any significance (like Al Gore, for instance). I've been following his campaign.He doesn't seem too different from most Democrats. The fact that he's black, handsome, and has mannerisms similar to Kennedy has made him a media darling. I do applaud him for not playing the race card himself, but at this point, I just don't think he'd be a good President. Maybe a few years from now.
Well, as Bush has shown, it doesn't really take much to run your country, now does it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, are American debates somehow supposed to be a sort of competition who has the better ad hominem attacks?
Usually, however, thsi time we seem to be refraining for the most part...at least Obama and Clinton...which is all that matters.
Originally posted by Ymir
The media sure has.
Originally posted by YmirI don't have time right now.
Really, tell me what exactly Obama has done.
Originally posted by Ymir
He's a good looking guy, I'll grant you that.
Originally posted by Ymir
but he doesn't have the operational integrity, or the demonstrated competence that Clinton has. He doesn't even have a conventional grassroots message of any significance (like Al Gore, for instance). I've been following his campaign.He doesn't seem too different from most Democrats. The fact that he's black, handsome, and has mannerisms similar to Kennedy has made him a media darling. I do applaud him for not playing the race card himself, but at this point, I just don't think he'd be a good President. Maybe a few years from now.
Well, you are entitled to your uninformed opinion...maybe try digging a bit deeper beyond the first layer of brain cells.
No grassroots? Look at his fundrasining...
So your basic reasoning is that because Obama has succeeded in the plutocratic side of the primary, that means he has a great message? Please. It means he has a lot of backers. He isn't Al Gore, y'know. Does he have a specific cause? World hunger, etc? Nope. Like I said, Obama is a run of the mill democratic contender, just with a lot of charm.
Originally posted by Ymir
So your basic reasoning is that because Obama has succeeded in the plutocratic side of the primary, that means he has a great message? Please. It means he has a lot of backers. He isn't Al Gore, y'know. Does he have a specific cause? World hunger, etc? Nope. Like I said, Obama is a run of the mill democratic contender, just with a lot of charm.
Does a candidate for president need to have one specific cause? He/she/it should be a bit more diverse.
Originally posted by AllianceI did say that Edwards didn't do well. And Obama just didn't do anything to impress me. The jab about Iraq was good though. And he was exactly right about the question of English being a national language being a question that's designed to divide us. He did well. He just didn't shine.
fair in your opinon 🙂From what I've read, Obama didn't do horrible, and edwards didn't do well...I'd switch those two positions.
Here's a "Report Card" of the 8 candidates, according to Time:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1627817,00.html
Hillary Rodham Clinton: A-
John Edwards: B+
Joe Biden: C+
Barack Obama: C+
Dennis Kucinich: C
Chistopher Dodd: C-
Mike Gravel: F
Originally posted by Ymir
Why did we get into the tangent of race, again? I have to admit, seeing a few videos on YouTube of Obama did impress me. He's a marvelous speaker. Very elegant, and measured.
Originally posted by Ymir
So your basic reasoning is that because Obama has succeeded in the plutocratic side of the primary, that means he has a great message? Please. It means he has a lot of backers. He isn't Al Gore, y'know. Does he have a specific cause? World hunger, etc? Nope. Like I said, Obama is a run of the mill democratic contender, just with a lot of charm.
Bullshit. Obama has more message than ANY othe candidate out there. He is the ONLY cnadidate I know that has given a major speech on religions and government. He is the ONLY candidate I know of that has a philosophy on how government is run. People complain that he is all vision and no specifics and YOU say that he has no message? I can't believe you listened to more than 3 minitues of his speeches.
And his speicific cause is changing the nature of politics. Is that good enough for you? Who the hell is goinjg to elect a president just to solve global warming or world hunger. J*ckass candidates like Tancredo pick issues because that is the only way they can stand up in the primary. Run of the mill my *ss.