Obama: We can't screw it up any worse than they did.

[Truthmatters]

the one who has been there long enough to see what needs to be changed but not long enough to be changed by it.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Judgment:

It is good judgment to set positive goals to works towards such as getting country onto sustainables in the next ten years and create 5 million jobs in the process, as opposed to governing through negative means like fear.

Is it good judgement to talk about it, or is it good judgement to work to get it done. So far, all he's done is talk about his hudgement .. as in he had the "judgement to stand against Iraq and the mindset that got us there .. but NOW .. he wants to leave brigades in Iraq even though the Iraqis don't want us there, which is not "ending the war" .. and he wants to bring some troops home from Iraq, then ship them right to Afghanistan, which is not "bringing the troops home."

Obama talks a good game .. but he's flipped on virtually everything he said during the primary .. which Obama will ascend to the throne?

It is good judgment to speak in unifying and uplifting language rather than divisive language.

I agree .. but again, with Obama it depends on what time of day it is. He has used the same cowboy-speak that McCain has on Pakistan.

It is good judgment to pick a vp that can lead.

I agree .. but Biden is the biggest plutocrat in Washington and his state is virtually a safe haven for corporate thieves.

It is good judgment to work with allies towards common goals in multilateral ways rather than to bluster unilaterally about iran or russia etc.

Obama NOW agrees with the cowboy rhetoric on Iran AND has voted to decalre the Iranian Guard as terrorists .. AND has flipped on meeting with the Iranmians without preconditions .. AND has threatened Iran with military force.

Are you aware that it was Biden and Obama's idea to pay the Georgian President ONE BILLION DOLLARS of US taxpayer money as a payoff for their treachery with Russia?

Change:

One big piece of change obama brings is to energize and bring young people in droves into the scene. That's not a little thing. Another change is that he is more dedicated to getting us off oil, iow sustainable, much sooner. McCain's plan allows us to stay on oil through his entire administration and beyond, obama has set a timeline goal to be completely off foreign oil.

Obama is a plutocrat and he will do what the corporate interests .. who he works for .. tell him what to do. Have you noticed that he now calls the bailout/theft a "rescue plan?" ASre you aware thaty Obama has taken more money from Wall Street than McCain?

I wonder how long he will capture the interests of young people when they find out he has a place for them in Arlington Cemetary?

AS for getting the US off foreign oil .. that remains to be seen. Talks a good game though

Another change is that obama has repeatedly shown is his leadership style - he relies much more heavily on taking into account a variety of input from diverse advisors, unlike bush who only took yes men to support his pre-made decisions and also unlike mccain who touts his personal experience and knowledge ie he paints himself as someone who knows the answers (doesn't say much about gathering input from experts.)

AS Karl Rove was Bush's brain, on foreign policy, Brezinski is Obama's brain.

You should be very afraid.

Obama is a centrist, and as centrists do, they believe leadership comes from the wind. Stick a finger in the wind and if its blowing towards agreeing with Bush on FISA and illegal government spying on US citizens .. then go with the wind.

Stick a finger in the wind and if its blowing towards support of Bush's policies, then agree to putting ABM's in Russia's backyard, agression towards Iran, "The surge worked better thn our wildest dreams", faith-based crap, mass-murdering innocent civilians in pursuit of ghosts/"terrorists", and a variety of issues he once supposedly stood against.

Leadership does not come in the wind and Obama seems to have never met an issue he can't take both sides on.

I can't post links yet, but search for this article .. Obama Shares Bush's Goals in Foreign Policy .. in the Huffington Post and get up close and personal with the National Endowment for Democracy.

That ain't change my sister.

 

[dilloduck]

You know dillo , it really is disappointing that people are so blinded by their party that they cannot even admit that their party has some dipshits in it. I know my party sure does, the republicans have had their fair share of them. I just cannot understand how someone can say I'm for change in Washington when they are from Washington, I find that funny no matter who the hell is saying it.

I can only assume they beleive that the smallest admission of any responsiblilty will be used as a lever to bring down an entire political stance. Notice how the bailout bill is now gradually being pushed as an "administration" effort as if the demoacrats had nothing to do with it ? Before long it will be like Iraq and we will hear claims that they were al' "tricked" again.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Care I am very aware of those do-nothing knuckle heads, to me it's this partisanship thats hurt this country and republicans are as bad as the democrats at it.

What hurts this country is Americans are dumb as rocks and we demand that our politicians be actors and clowns.

WE don't want to hear the truth .. cognitive dissonance will block it out .. and we don't want the red pill.

Illusion works just fine for us, we don't need no stinking truth.

 

[Caligirl]

That ain't change my sister.

I am willing to wait and see, about the things you say, but I do disagree in general. Obama rings true, as much as Bush rang false. I may be as deluded as Bush voters were four years ago, or not, and time will tell. His flip flops - some are flip flops and dismay me but others are not - they are spin.

And, change comes every four years or eight years. Bush changed washington, whoever is next will change washington, to say there is change or no change is just rhetoric.

It's as silly to say that obama will not bring change as to say that he will. He'd be a different president, with a different congress, that not the same my brother. (or sister.)

 

[Navy1960]

I am willing to wait and see, about the things you say, but I do disagree in general. Obama rings true, as much as Bush rang false. I may be as deluded as Bush voters were four years ago, or not, and time will tell. His flip flops - some are flip flops and dismay me but others are not - they are spin.

And, change comes every four years or eight years. Bush changed washington, whoever is next will change washington, to say there is change or no change is just rhetoric.

It's as silly to say that obama will not bring change as to say that he will. He'd be a different president, with a different congress, that not the same my brother. (or sister.)

Cail, no offense intended here , but isn't that saying, your voting for change just for the sake of change. Heck Cali with that logic, if Cheech ran for president then he would represnt change. I'm not judging you here , but to me it comes across as a vote for the style and not the substance.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I am willing to wait and see, about the things you say, but I do disagree in general. Obama rings true, as much as Bush rang false. I may be as deluded as Bush voters were four years ago, or not, and time will tell. His flip flops - some are flip flops and dismay me but others are not - they are spin.

And, change comes every four years or eight years. Bush changed washington, whoever is next will change washington, to say there is change or no change is just rhetoric.

It's as silly to say that obama will not bring change as to say that he will. He'd be a different president, with a different congress, that not the same my brother. (or sister.)

It is brother my wise sister.

Obama will indeed bring some change, but it ain't the change he speaks of.

Flipping on FISA and illegal eavesdropping is not spin, nor is many of the others flips he's made.

One word .. Brezinski

Four words .. National Endowment for Democracy

 

[WillowTree]

But if things get worse they'll blame the Bush admin. Remember it's always the other party's fault. That might save the 2010 election for the Dems but if its a Obama / Democratic Congress and things don't turn around by 2012 the Repubs might sneek back in (provided they don't nominate an idiot)

That's the crazy Dems for ya. I just hope there are enough sets of Republican balls in the House to make life pure hell for them. I love John Bohener.

 

[Navy1960]

What hurts this country is Americans are dumb as rocks and we demand that our politicians be actors and clowns.

WE don't want to hear the truth .. cognitive dissonance will block it out .. and we don't want the red pill.

Illusion works just fine for us, we don't need no stinking truth.

I could not agree with that more BAC, IMHO a culture that demands the quick fix, an entertainment based culture that is based all on style should not be at all surprised on the actions of the people that represent them. When we continue to vote in apathy year after year for the same person to represent us withoout even knowing or caring what they represent as long as they represent they party we are a member of.

 

[Caligirl]

Cail, no offense intended here , but isn't that saying, your voting for change just for the sake of change. Heck Cali with that logic, if Cheech ran for president then he would represnt change. I'm not judging you here , but to me it comes across as a vote for the style and not the substance.

I personally am not voting for change, I am voting for the guy that I agree with on more issues and leadership style.

But BAC said there is no change and it looks to me like there is a lot of change with Obama. Energy and getting the youth involved are two biggies in my book.

Bush also brought change to washington, as every pres does. So the change comment always sounds weird to me, but I do agree with Obama on energy etc and I think he is more 'current' in his thinking - He is more likely to work with allies, he is more interested in proactively developing competitive technology here, he is more in touch with current technologies for that matter (as mccain talks about missiles Obama talks about suitcase nukes) etc.

 

[Navy1960]

I personally am not voting for change, I am voting for the guy that I agree with on more issues and leadership style.

But BAC said there is no change and it looks to me like there is a lot of change with Obama. Energy and getting the youth involved are two biggies in my book.

Bush also brought change to washington, as every pres does. So the change comment always sounds weird to me, but I do agree with Obama on energy etc and I think he is more 'current' in his thinking - He is more likely to work with allies, he is more interested in proactively developing competitive technology here, he is more in touch with current technologies for that matter (as mccain talks about missiles Obama talks about suitcase nukes) etc.

I admire your convictions Cali for Obama and I get a chuckle because the one thing that makes me not want to vote for Obama is his stance on Energy. I completely agree that he has energized the youth in a way that has not been seen in a while. The proof though will be if he can get these youth to the polls, and personally I am happy to see so many young people involved in the process. It really does make me happy to see my 19 year old daughter so involved. However, there are three basic issues that completely disagree with Obama on and IMO believe will be highly dangerous for our country. Energy, Defense, and the Economy.