Hunt

It's almost as if some people are annoyed that there just isn't that much bad stuff to say about Obama. Perhaps we've reached the level of cynicism that people assume that there must BE planty of bad stuff about him, but that the media is covering it up.

marite

>>So I went to Italy for the winter Olympics in 06, does that mean I have foreign experience too>>

No. And that's precisely my point. Obama went to Pakistan for the sake of learning about the country. This reminds me of the time when my niece went to China from France for a fashion photo shoot. Afterwards, I asked if she had had a chance to do some sightseeing. No, she replied, there had been no time. I've had the same experience with many of my travels both in the US and abroad.

Official visits are highly circumscribed. The kind of knowledge that is necessary to make such visits a success is either easily available by reading a couple of books on the political system, history and culture of the country to be visited or very narrowly cast (how to address Minister xyz, for instance) and highly perishable. What high level visits are probably most useful for is cultivating personal relations (such as between Bush and Putin or Bush and Blair).

I also agree with Hunt. People are disappointed not to be able to find more dirt on Obama. Well, he's younger than Clinton and McCain, for starters. But maybe, there's also less dirt, period.

bulletandpima

I don't care at all about the dirt.

I dislike the fact that as a state senator he voted present more times than he voted for or against. Then when he was called on it, he said, I meant to vote, but pushed the wrong button.

I also have a problem when his media spin doctor says in an interview that they select the reporters they will give interviews to.

BTW when I went to Italy, I learned about the country too, I visited the Vatican, Pantheon, churches. Heck I even know why Turin chose the design they did...It is a Catholic Spire for a church that was re-built after WWII...the catholics in town didn't have enough money to put on a spire so the jewish congregation donated the money to complete it.

Again I will go back and say, he does not and cannot claim visiting Pakistan even for a learning experience puts him on any international footing, unless he sat down with leaders and discussed any diplomatic situations.

I also think he has a lot of dirt...Wright and Ayers are just the beginning.

marite

Bulletandpima:

So you did more than attend the Olympics? Great. Most official delegations do not include time for much sight-seeing let alone really getting to know ordinary people.

I could not tell you much about some US cities that I've been to several times, but I could tell you a lot about different hotels.

kluge

Bulletandpima - can you honestly say that you would have voted for Obama under any circumstances, given that he's a democrat? Or that the "concerns" you have about him would be "issues" if he was a Republican?

mini

"I dislike the fact that as a state senator he voted present more times than he voted for or against. Then when he was called on it, he said, I meant to vote, but pushed the wrong button."

You do know that this isn't even close to being true, don't you? (like by an order of magnitude).

No reason to ride on the Clintons. They're toast, and irrelevant.

bz2010

Well, look how long McCain's been in government, and I'd bet that Obama already has more dirt that he does.

Take for example that Obama requested **$740 MILLION** in earmarks over the past 3 yrs. and McCain has NEVER requested one dime in earmarks for his state.

Think. Use logic, common sense. Who would you think is more corrupt? (Earmarks in themselves are a form of corruption & an example of government at its worst).

simba

"can you honestly say that you would have voted for Obama under any circumstances, given that he's a democrat?"

My answer would be NO. His candidacy is shallow without much foundation. Come November, my vote would not matter.

It is his indecision powers that worry me. To me that explains his 'present' votes.

Here from congressman G. Davis:,"After referring to Obama as a “snake-oil salesman,” he added that he had recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with the Illinois senator.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," said Davis. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - GOP congressman apologizes to Obama for ’snake-oil’ remark « - Blogs from CNN.com

Davis later apologized for calling Obama a boy.

marite

Oh dear. I would not use Congressman Davis as a person who should influence my vote. A 50 year old calling a 46-year old, and an African-American to boot, "boy?" someone who disclosed participation in a "highly classified, national security simulation"? Ahem.

mini

"I dislike the fact that as a state senator he voted present more times than he voted for or against. Then when he was called on it, he said, I meant to vote, but pushed the wrong button."

Let's be very clear. In 8 years, with more than 4,000 votes recorded, Obama voted "present" precisely 129 times, or 3.25% of the time. You don't have to like him, but it isn't necessary to make up or repeat lies about him.

As to why the "present" votes, you might want to check in with the Illinois Legislature:

'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers

simba

"As to why the "present" votes,"

perhaps he couldn't take a position?

bulletandpima

Most official delegations do not include time for much sight-seeing let alone really getting to know ordinary people.

That was my exact point...Hillary was on official business each time

can you honestly say that you would have voted for Obama under any circumstances, given that he's a democrat? Or that the "concerns" you have about him would be "issues" if he was a Republican

Absolutely! CAVEAT I truly believe that Obama would have a better chance if he waited until 12. He needs more depth in experience. Reality is he has had 1 yr of national experience prior to embarking on his campaign. There is very little on his record to give an overall view of what his true intention/direction is.

marite

B&P;

So we're in agreement. And, ultimately with Obama who suggested that the many official visits Clinton listed as the basis for her more extensive foreign experience did not necessarily confer a great deal of knowledge to her.

Re: intention/direction: I believe he has given plenty of clues as to what they are. But I agree that his actual national experience is limited, and thus of somewhat limited value as a gauge of his potential success in carrying out these intentions. What I think can be said about him is that he has worked in a bi-partisan fashion in both IL and in the US Senate (Clinton has also worked in bi-partisan fashion in the US Senate) and he has less "baggage" than Clinton.

bulletandpima

Yes he might have less baggage, but Hillary has many years that she has collected the baggage. I would feel more comfortable saying he has less baggage if he was running in 12 because than we could see more of his actions and reactions.

If we are to be fair than lets only count the 1st 8 yrs of all of the candidates. (State and Nat amount Obama has...I am only giving him 1 yr nat., since he has spent more time on the trail than the hll)
Is it fair that Obama has a short historical record and people say look he doesn't have baggage, you are judging him wrong, but look at all of Hillary and McCains...well of course there is more baggage, they have spent 20+ yrs in the political arena. In essence, McCain and Hillary are being judged for being experienced

kluge

B&P - That's more "national experience" than Carter, Reagan, Clinton and BushII had. What makes it an issue now, with Obama, when it wasn't an issue then? I personally think that "experience" is a phony issue - focus-group tested to generate a good response by the Clinton and McCain campaigns, but actually completely lacking in actual substance.