<p>Listening to Obama’s speech tonight he stated that he can change Washington…what do you think…can he or can’t he?</p>
<p>I look at the question more like can Washington be changed. If anyone can do it, I think he can. Not sure if it can be done at all, or if it can, it will take a two-term president.</p>
<p>Yes! Obama’s just plain out amazing.</p>
<p>Yes he can!</p>
<p>don’t know & don’t care. But whoever is going to be in the WH. There WILL be a new crew in Congress.</p>
<p>Obama’s advisers are doing a fabulous job of framing. So much is perception, not substance, in politics. There really isn’t all that much difference between his agenda and Clinton’s. </p>
<p>Last time our nation wanted a change in Washington-- an outsider to heal us after Watergate and a corrupt administration – we elected Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>Washington is exactly the way people want it. Who do you think elected the Senators, Representatives, and the President? What exactly do people expect? Those of us who lived and worked in Washington are the ones who have to deal on a daily basis with the knaves, incompetents, fools, and ner-do-wells that all of you sent.</p>
<p>Don’t like Washington? Elect higher quality people.</p>
<p>My vote is to vote against any incumbent, regardless of the political party you are affiliated with this way we will have limited “cronies”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Got to get them to:</p>
<p>a) run
b) be able to afford to run</p>
<p>I don’t remember hearing from Obama HOW he is going to change Washington. What I hear is mostly empty rhetorics and lots of “Yes We Can” slogans. Have I missed something?</p>
<p>No, of course not, as long as the old bulls continue to wander the halls, as a result of gerrymandering. California’s Congressional delegation, for example, is comprised primarily of two groups of extremes who are in safe seats, so they have no need to “compromise” on any issue.</p>
<p>Again vote everyone out who has been there for more than 1-2 terms. </p>
<p>I do agree I think Obama is a great orator, but words won’t help the economy. My only true issue with him is he thinks you can get somewhere by talking to Chavez, Castro or Ahlmendijad ((sp?) I call him I’m a Dinner jacket) Afterall, he believes there are no homosexuals in IRAN! How can anyone expect to have a real conversation with someone who is in denial</p>
<p>bulletandpima:</p>
<p>He has a great economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee who does not sound in the least off the wall (can a Chicago economics prof be so much to the left?)</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee</a></p>
<p>As for his policy toward Cuba, I think it is far more rational than Clinton. But Clinton is trying to court Cuban-Americans in Florida (despite the fact that the primary was not supposed to be held).</p>
<p>As for Iran, what can we do? “If you don’t play nice, I’ll take my marbles away” is not an option, especially if trying to keep the other guy from going nuclear. And besides the nuclear issue. Iran is crucial to a resolution of Iraq and international terrorism. Politics is not a dinner party. We do not get to invite only our friends.</p>
<p>The question I am asking is do you think sitting down with him, he’ll pony up about his nuclear capabilities? We met with Japan and they bombed us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A professor is not who I want running the Fed or the treasury. We need to be realistic, that the stock market affects everything, I would rather see someone with work experience before book experience</p>
<p>So you don’t like Ben Bernanke, Princeton prof or Laura Tyson (Berkeley) or Greg Mankiw (Harvard)? Most candidates, and often presidents, select their economic advisors from the ranks of the professoriate. And most academic professors work “in real life” which is why 1. economics departments are huge; 2. economics profs earn a whole lot more than a lot of their colleagues in different departments; 3. they teach a whole lot less.</p>
<p>The econ factor is not bothering me as much as believing that after 40 years Castro is willing to sit down and talk as a rational person</p>
<p>bulletandpima: The answer to your question is- No. </p>
<p>Now here is a question for you- do you think NOT sitting down with him is going to make him pony up about his nuclear capabilities? </p>
<p>There is a huge difference between Japan during WW2 and Iran today. Iran desperately needs to improve its economy and the Iranian people would love to have a less hostile USA. These countries (Iran, N.Korea and Iraq under Saddam) all use <em>the threat</em> of developing nuclear weapons in order to remain relevant and perhaps get some respect. Just as Saddam did about WMD, these guys are mostly bluffing and exaggerating their capabilities. Look at the NIE about Iran. </p>
<p>If you make <em>all</em> these third world countries relevant, give them some respect (without compromising on principles), and give them a reason to behave well and join the world economy, you take away their motivation to be hostile. </p>
<p>In this respect, I congratulate the current administration on its policy towards Libya. I remember Gaddafi was enemy number 1 at some point in history. Today he is a releatively well-behaved ally. Bush could have done that with Saddam, at much lower cost to ourselves and to the Iraqi people.</p>
<p>Castro is irrelevant. He’s old, he’ll die soon. It’s the policy toward Cuba which is at stake.</p>
<p>But are you still bothered by the economy issue? And why, since the majority of folks in charge of economic policy for the past couple of decades have been academics? Oh, throw in Larry Summers, too.</p>
<p>If I am remembering my history correctly about Japan, they bombed us because they were going to run out of oil and their economy was tanked already.</p>
<p>Gaddafi also got bombed in 86 (?) by us. For Gaddafi I think he came back to the table because he didn’t want to be on the wrong end of the sword again.</p>
<p>I believe sitting down with him will accomplish the exact same thing as not sitting down…NOTHING. I think they all live in their own universe and are not capable of looking at the world in a global capacity. Chavez is so self absorbed that he actually thought his country would allow him to actually become a dictator (remain as pres for the next 50 yrs, thankfully his country said no)Now my fear is not Ahlmendinjad, but Chavez. Chavez=Citgo…I will not buy gas from any Citgo station for that purpose. I have no problem spending 2 cents more a gallon to BP before giving Chavez another dime.</p>
<p>Marite, yes he’s old, but brother dearest will take over the reigns, same story, same name</p>