Obama is bad choice for job

It seems clear that you don't know what you are talking about and are only repeating Clinton campaign rhetoric. IF Bill were the greatest surgeon on Earth, would you let Hillary operate on you? That is the claim to experience she is making. Sorry, it doesn't add up. Her own real experience has led to a failed health care plan, a vote to go to war in Iraq and she didn't even read the NIE and she has joined the saber rattling Republicans on Iran. She has virtually done nothing in Congress outside of her tow the Bush line votes.

Obama has far more legislative experience and has worked on the ground with people to build a better community. Just comparing campaigns will show you who the better leader is.

As for the obvious Clintonesque racial overtones to your opinion, may I suggest integrated group therapy? It couldn't hurt.

The bottom line is that both are light in the resume and both espouse nearly identical political philosphies. I seriously doubt if you put their views on issues side by side, the average voter could tell which set of issues belongs to which candidate. They are both tax raisers who want to surrender in Iraq, pursue protectionist trade policies, throw money at teachers unions and hope for smarter kids, socialize medicine, appoint liberals to the Supreme Court.

Tell me more about Obama's legislative experience, please. He has been a very prominent member of a party in the majority for the last two years.
( Remember that we voted for "change" in 2006?) What exactly has he done besides talk?
Comparing campaigns will tell you who has the better P.R. staffs.
If you're honest and look at who has actually DONE what he's promising to do, you'll vote for John McCain. Remember the McCain-Feingold bill, the rages against pork barrel legislation, the constant criticism of Donald Rumsfeld? If you want someone who will stand up against the entrenched powers, McCain has actually done that. Electing Obama would be like going on a trip with a driver who just got a learners permit!

Dave harding has hit the nail on the head. even as a democrat there is no way I could vote for either candidate. If we do not put forward a posive unity candidate from the floor we're toast.

Eric wrote:

The bottom line is that both are light in the resume and both espouse nearly identical political philosphies. I seriously doubt if you put their views on issues side by side, the average voter could tell which set of issues belongs to which candidate. They are both tax raisers who want to surrender in Iraq, pursue protectionist trade policies, throw money at teachers unions and hope for smarter kids, socialize medicine, appoint liberals to the Supreme Court.

Speaking of having a light resume,Georges wasn't exactly the shining light that the world could see.
His education statistics for Texas were forty ninth out of fifty,he executed more people than any other governor,he skipped out on quite a bit of his military obligations,etc.etc.,oh but Daddy was connected and little George could be manipulated easily enough!
Give me Obama or Hillary over McCain,because all you get with McCain is more of the same failed policy,what major accomplishments has Bush attained in seven and a half years?

Mr. Caine is simply factually wrong when he writes that "it seems obvious that Sen. Obama does not support...Israel". A summary of his positions on the issues--which, unfortunately for the ill-informed--does exist and is easily found on his web site; check http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpoli... .
I've never been swayed by the "experience" argument. Besides, both McCain (soldier/legislator) and Clinton (lawyer/legislator)have exactly the same amount of executive experience as Obama.
GWB had executive experience and look at the total mess he's created. To admittedly echo an Obama talking point, experience pales in comparison as a qualifier for this job to judgment.

Eric wrote:

The bottom line is that both are light in the resume and both espouse nearly identical political philosphies. I seriously doubt if you put their views on issues side by side, the average voter could tell which set of issues belongs to which candidate. They are both tax raisers who want to surrender in Iraq, pursue protectionist trade policies, throw money at teachers unions and hope for smarter kids, socialize medicine, appoint liberals to the Supreme Court.

you don't really "surrender" in an asymmetric conflict. To frame the argument that way is to engage in propaganda, not to mention cribbing your talking points from talk radio.

Debbie-Downer wrote:

<quoted text>
you don't really "surrender" in an asymmetric conflict. To frame the argument that way is to engage in propaganda, not to mention cribbing your talking points from talk radio.

Strategic withdrawal is certainly not surrender,nor is it imprudent at this point in our occupation of Iraq!
The smart thing to do when one occupies a hostile environment is to dissarm the population!
We went in there without enough boots on the ground to protect the arms depots,the oil rigs and the pipelines.
The administration tried to have this war on the cheap and America is now paying for the thoughtless rush to war!
Our initial incursion into Iraq required over three hundred thousand troops and we did not intend to occupy the country.How Bush and his cronies figured we could occupy the country with less than half that number is beyond comprehension!

Ramdan wrote:

<quoted text>Speaking of having a light resume,Georges wasn't exactly the shining light that the world could see.
His education statistics for Texas were forty ninth out of fifty,he executed more people than any other governor,he skipped out on quite a bit of his military obligations,etc.etc.,oh but Daddy was connected and little George could be manipulated easily enough!
Give me Obama or Hillary over McCain,because all you get with McCain is more of the same failed policy,what major accomplishments has Bush attained in seven and a half years?

Sad-- you must be to young or way to old to understand how Washington works. Or do you think Hillery really cares about our country-- she is more interested in herself that anybody or any body else.

Zarbox wrote:

Mr. Caine is simply factually wrong when he writes that "it seems obvious that Sen. Obama does not support...Israel". A summary of his positions on the issues--which, unfortunately for the ill-informed--does exist and is easily found on his web site; check http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpoli... .
I've never been swayed by the"experience" argument. Besides, both McCain (soldier/legislator) and Clinton (lawyer/legislator)have exactly the same amount of executive experience as Obama.
GWB had executive experience and look at the total mess he's created. To admittedly echo an Obama talking point, experience pales in comparison as a qualifier for this job to judgment.

NO McCaine knows what he is doing.

By the way, from what you wrote, I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Zarbox wrote:

Mr. Caine is simply factually wrong when he writes that "it seems obvious that Sen. Obama does not support...Israel". A summary of his positions on the issues--which, unfortunately for the ill-informed--does exist and is easily found on his web site; check http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpoli... .
I've never been swayed by the "experience" argument. Besides, both McCain (soldier/legislator) and Clinton (lawyer/legislator)have exactly the same amount of executive experience as Obama.
GWB had executive experience and look at the total mess he's created. To admittedly echo an Obama talking point, experience pales in comparison as a qualifier for this job to judgment.

With your logic, Judge Judy should be our next president.

Thanks for the laugh.

Sal: Mr. Caine is the original author of the letter that we're supposedly commenting on. You, however, just seem to be talking to hear yourself talk, especially if you think I meant Senator McCain.

And Huntley: Judge Judy is not, to my knowledge, a sitting U.S. Senator the way Obama is.

Good to see that you really know how to ignore people's arguments in favor of patting yourself on the back. It's blowhards like you that infect and destroy constructive political discussion.

Thanks for the moral decay.

Don't forget that North adams tooth decay

The tooth fairy left NA long ago.

Ramdan wrote:

<quoted text>Speaking of having a light resume,Georges wasn't exactly the shining light that the world could see.
His education statistics for Texas were forty ninth out of fifty,he executed more people than any other governor,he skipped out on quite a bit of his military obligations,etc.etc.,oh but Daddy was connected and little George could be manipulated easily enough!
Give me Obama or Hillary over McCain,because all you get with McCain is more of the same failed policy,what major accomplishments has Bush attained in seven and a half years?

That's so true...and Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar...Dubya couldn't even spell Rhodes Scholar.....Here listen to your brilliant president speak...http://www.dubyaspeak. com/

And, for those of you who don't know what a Rhodes Scholar is...Read on:

The Rhodes Scholarship is a HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS international award for study at the University of Oxford. Rhodes Scholars may study any full-time postgraduate course offered by the University except for the MBA – whether a taught Master’s programme, a research degree, or a second undergraduate degree (senior status).

The Scholarship is for two years in the first instance, though may be held for one year only; applications for a third year are considered during the course of the 2nd year.

University and College fees are paid by the Rhodes Trust. In addition, Scholars receive a monthly maintenance stipend to cover accommodation and living expenses. Although all scholars become affiliated with a residential college while at Oxford, they also enjoy access to Rhodes House, an early 20th century mansion with numerous public rooms, gardens, a library, study areas, and other facilities.

The scholarships were initiated after the death of Cecil John Rhodes and have been awarded to applicants annually since 1902 by the Rhodes Trust in Oxford on the basis of academics and strength of character.

STAANDARDS of Rhodes' legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:

literary and scholastic attainments;
energy to use one's talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one's fellow beings.

Something George "The Shrub"could never attain!!

A politician who claims to be a Christian and yet does not support Israel is a fool and does not understand the bible whatsoever.

Genesis 12:1-3 (New International Version)

Genesis 12
The Call of Abram (the father of Judeo- Christian faith)
1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.( Israel by the way)
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Yeah...
Bill Clinton was Rhodes Scholar and he was stupid enough to have an affair with a intern girl that brought down huge shame on him, his wife and family, the United States and put him through all sorts of legal mess until he got impeached by the House of Representatives. All this mess took his attention off the ball and under his watch was when Al Queda flourished

Clinto was so smart that in the 90's he vetoed an Energy Bill that would have allowed drilling in Alaska that today would be producing a min. of 1mm barrels a day of oil and also would have added refining capacity and expanded offshore drilling. That's how smart this guy is.

I am tired of hearing how smart Bill Clinton was-- he dragged his poor wife and family through ones scandal after another Monica, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones-- that's not being smart.... no that is dumb very dumb. He's a dumb selfish immoral man.

Debbie-Downer wrote:

<quoted text>
you don't really "surrender" in an asymmetric conflict. To frame the argument that way is to engage in propaganda, not to mention cribbing your talking points from talk radio.

I don't know what dictionary you use. But if you say "I give up" then walk away, that's surrender in the English speaking world I've lived in for over half a century, not propaganda.

Second, I don't listen to talk radio. Who's plagiarizing me?

SharonMom of Bobby wrote:

And, for those of you who don't know what a Rhodes Scholar is...Read on:
The Rhodes Scholarship is a HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS international award for study at the University of Oxford. Rhodes Scholars may study any full-time postgraduate course offered by the University except for the MBA – whether a taught Master’s programme, a research degree, or a second undergraduate degree (senior status).
The Scholarship is for two years in the first instance, though may be held for one year only; applications for a third year are considered during the course of the 2nd year.
University and College fees are paid by the Rhodes Trust. In addition, Scholars receive a monthly maintenance stipend to cover accommodation and living expenses. Although all scholars become affiliated with a residential college while at Oxford, they also enjoy access to Rhodes House, an early 20th century mansion with numerous public rooms, gardens, a library, study areas, and other facilities.
The scholarships were initiated after the death of Cecil John Rhodes and have been awarded to applicants annually since 1902 by the Rhodes Trust in Oxford on the basis of academics and strength of character.
STAANDARDS of Rhodes' legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:
literary and scholastic attainments;
energy to use one's talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one's fellow beings.
Something George "The Shrub"could never attain!!

To bad neither ETHICS nor MORALS are required nor taught to these outstanding academics.

Slick Willie shamed the office of the President, was impeached and disbarred. She-beast Clinton can't remember any of it..........