<p>poet; By far, Hillary is not my favorite person in the world. Compared to Obama however, she has quite a few more accomplishments. She was a very successful lawyer. She has done a lot for children and families in court while a law student and then after graduating. She ran a legal aid clinic and many other activities to help the poor. When Bill was governor of Arkansas, she was very active with children and health care. Even though she hasn’t been a senator much longer, she is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has been very politically active most of her life. She even started out as a Republican. </p>
<p>Again, I am not a Hillary fan. I would probably lean closer to McCain than her. But at least with her, I can understand people voting for her. She has major accomplishments. She knows the law. She has put her beliefs into action. You can find all sorts of information about what she did during and before politics. </p>
<p>The thing I have about Obama, is that it seems that most people want him because they “Like” him and they want change. Change for change sake is not good. A president can’t on a whim change things. Our political and legislative system isn’t designed that way. It requires a president who can lead both parties as well as the people into the same direction. If a president is lucky, they will accomplish about 10% of what they set out to do when they campaign. But the other 90% of what gets accomplished while they are in office has to do with their leadership. McCain or Hillary can do that. I don’t think Obama would have the respect or trust of the congress and the people to do that. </p>
<p>Regan was successful because he got the people to understand. People trusted him. Therefor they could force congress to cooperate. Carter wasn’t successful. Bush (Daddy) wasn’t that successful. Clinton was successful because he had the experience to get congress to cooperate and work together. He realized that he couldn’t always get it his way. But he could give and take.G.W. sort of got the raw end of the deal. If not for 9/11 and the middle east, I believe he could have done a lot more things. He wouldn’t have had to spend so much money on the war. (Yes, I believe we are justified being there). Unfortunately, it’s not free. Anyway, as far as the right person at the right time, I’m definitely glad it was Bush and not Gore in office. </p>
<p>Anyway, Bush sort of got screwed, and the next president is going to have to work with facts, a global economy, balancing domestic and foreign affairs, and maintaining world peace. Working off of emotions only will not do it. Ending a military presence over night in the middle east is definitely the wrong thing. Having a person in the whitehouse who doesn’t have any experience getting both parties to work together isn’t going to accomplish anything. In my opinion, if Obama is in office next year, it will be just like Ford, Bush (Senior), and carter. 4 years of constipation. We need someone with the experience and people skill of Regan; the charisma of Bill Clinton, and the Balls of G.W. This isn’t the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s any longer. We are dealing with a world economy and world wide military issues. We need someone now that can find a way to reach a balance. Obama just isn’t it. Maybe it’s Hillary. Maybe it’s McCain. Maybe it’s neither. But Obama is a much bigger chance that I can’t take with my vote.</p>
<p>I suppose by that, you’re saying that Obama’s law career hasn’t qualifed as “successful”. Why not? Is it because he chose not to go for the high profile, high powered, high dollar type of law practice chosen by Clinton? Obama was President of The Harvard Law Review, a high accomplishment by the most objective standard. As far as what was done for children and families in the courts, as well as the community at large, did you just decide to dismiss all the years of legal work and advocacy for the poor and disenfranchised in Illinois’ inner cities that have been widely attributed to Obama? I guess so. I suppose the fact that he is commonly regarded as an expert on Constitutional Law doesn’t mean anything either.</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>Again, what are her major accomplishments that stack up so favorably against Obama’s? She knows the law. He knows the law. She has put her beliefs into action. He has put his beliefs into action. It’s really NOT hard to find out the ways into which Obama has put “his beliefs into action”, either “during, or before politics”. It’s only difficult if you minimize or disregard them when they are pointed out to you. </p>
<p>You have said over and over that Obama has done Nothing! Well, any fair and objective analysis would show the patent falsehood of such a remark. If Barack Obama has done Nothing!, than so has Hillary Clinton, except perhaps, leverage her husband’s unique position to be elected to the Senate, representing a state in which she had never lived!</p>
<p>Certainly Obama does not fulfill the traditional qualifications commonly and historically set forth for Presidential candidates, you’ll get no argument from me there. I completely understand the reservations you may have concerning him in this regard. To be perfectly frank, I share some of the same concerns. But to claim that Hillary Clinton by comparison is far better qualified is a gross overstatement.</p>
<p>Why don’t you just be honest, and say that you don’t trust Obama, don’t think he’s qualified, and will not vote for him. Period. I can respect that. Like the rest of us, you’re entitled to your opinion and your one vote reflecting that opinion. But to buy into the Clinton campaign’s immanently-qualified-thirty-five-years-of-“experience” lie is intellectually dishonest—and so is measuring Barack Obama against such a fraudulent yardstick.</p>
<p>From Christcorp post -
'Unfortunately, it’s not free. Anyway, as far as the right person at the right time, I’m definitely glad it was Bush and not Gore in office. '</p>
<p>M,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m, need she/ he say more folks ???</p>
<p>“Regan (sic) was successful because he got the people to understand. People trusted him.”</p>
<p>Why is that good enough for Reagan and not Obama? You seem to think people “liking” Obama isn’t good enough, but “trusting” Reagan is. The personal charisma that Reagan had helpd him. The personal charisma that Obama currently enjoys should help him as well.</p>
<p>Obama fully realizes that Reagan was able to be transformative because he was able to appeal to a wide section of the American public, including the so-called Reagan Democrats. He was pretty strongly criticized by the Clinton campaign for saying so. But Obama’s cross-over appeal is very much comparable to Reagan’s cross-over appeal and should stand him in as good stead as it did Reagan.<br>
Clinton, to put it charitably, does not possess such cross-over appeal. It remains to be seen if McCain can even get the Republican base to support him. None of this relates to past experience, to be sure; but at least some aspects of future presidencies can be discerned from this summary.</p>
<p>What’s the matter Jerseymom? If a person happens to believe that military action in Afgan and Iraq was/is justified does that mean that somehow they are not worthy of a thought and must not know what they are talking about? I happen to have been there. While it may be a continuation from the Bush and Clinton years; I believe it is justified. Sorry that I don’t believe in the “Rodney King - Can’t we all just get along” attitude.</p>
<p>Poet; I am not saying Hillary is the best thing since sliced bread. Matter of fact, I said I would probably lean more towards McCain than her. I said that I can understand her supporters. Personally, I believe that she has more experience than Obama. I don’t think that Obama’s couple of years of law produced the accomplishments that Hillary’s has. Again, not saying that Hillary is great, just better. It has nothing to do with not trusting Obama. It has to do with I don’t see him of having done anything significant enough to gain trust. Harvard law Review is impressive, but it’s a stretch to put towards a resume to run a country. I don’t see that he has “ALL THE YEARS” of legal work. I think it was about 3.</p>
<p>Anyway, you can think I’m not being honest and that I just don’t like Obama. That’s not true. I don’t vote for someone because I “Like” them. Regan had experience and could talk to the people. Obama can talk to people, but I don’t think he has the experience. Then again, experience isn’t everything. Carter and Bush (Senior) both had experience, and they both sucked. Yes, liking them is great. people LIKED Regan and they LIKED Bill Clinton. Both of which had the experience and accomplishments needed to run a country. Being liked is great. It makes it easier to bridge the gap and get people/congress to work together. Obama has the “Like” factor, but that isn’t enough. On a side note, look how rare it is that a “Senator/Rep” has become president. Why Governors have been much more successful in becoming president. Unfortunately, this time we HAVE TO HAVE a Senator become president. That’s all that’s left. Senators/Reps don’t have nearly the experience that Governors and Businessmen have. In this case, Obama just happens to have the least amount.</p>
<p>Every president that has held office has some accomplishments and some failures. Many things that we individually agree with and things we disagree with. No president can be all things to all people. The problem here, especially with forums where you can’t actually debate, is that there are too many emotions in play instead of dealing with facts, accomplishments, and what is best for the country. There are too many people here that HATE Bush and the Republicans and would never vote for them or McCain no matter what. There are too many that HATE Hillary and won’t vote for her because of their emotions. And there are too many that “Like” Obama and will vote for him. Not because of anything significant other than as a protest vote FOR CHANGE and AGAINST everyone else running. That is their right. I can’t do that. Everyone has done something that some people will consider to be a significant accomplishment while others don’t. That is the abyss that we stand in front of. From what I’ve read, heard, and researched, I don’t consider Obama’s “Accomplishments” to be of any significance in the resume of being the President of the United States.</p>
<p>" What’s the matter Jerseymom? If a person happens to believe that military action in Afgan and Iraq was/is justified does that mean that somehow they are not worthy of a thought and must not know what they are talking about? "</p>
<p>Touchy there Christcorp, I simply restated your comment " I am glad it was Bush and not Gore in office", and you make this claim in light of ALL that this administration has done? </p>
<p>“She has done a lot for children and families in court while a law student and then after graduating. She ran a legal aid clinic and many other activities to help the poor.”</p>
<p>Speaking as someone whose first six years out of law school were quite similar to Hillary’s…this is standard operating procedure for those who don’t go the law review route. Obviously, I wouldn’t have chosen the same path she did if I didn’t think it was worthy of respect, but the lawyers who are really dedicated to helping children and the poor do it full time, not as an ancillary to their corporate careers. If Hillary were pitching her years at Rose as a time when she gained private-sector expertise in how American business operates or something, that would have a bit of traction with me, but to set that time up as a period of public service is just misleading.</p>
<p>This article in Newsweek explains a lot about how the average voter decides who they want based on emotion rather than a rational dissection of the issues. Something to do with most people having “cognitive-processing limitations” such that most cannot or will not learn about and remember candidates’ records or positions, and therefore will attach to something else, usually emotional.</p>
<p>Very good point mercymom. I am one of the recruiter for my company. They keep on hammering that point and provide training to us that just focus on content - no emotion, no ‘feel’ and be objective. Nothing about appearence, mannerism, dress etc. You are hiring people to do jobs - not be your buddy. The evaluation matrix we have has no room for those sort of things. I had one candidate who gave his interview while standing up.</p>
<p>The anti-Obama Republicans are having a hard time primarily because they are advocating a very pessimistic world view, and it is the nature of America to be optimistic. The anti-Obama arguments usually go as below:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We have a lot of enemies in the world who will always hate us and we CANNOT do anything except fight them to the death. This includes not just terrorists but a lot of other hostile nations that we CANNOT negotiate with.</p></li>
<li><p>We have a lot of economic and health problems but we CANNOT do anything about them, we just need to sit back and wait for things to get better. </p></li>
<li><p>You are either a tax-and-spend liberal or a free-market conservative and you CANNOT bring the two sides together to find practical solutions.</p></li>
<li><p>You CANNOT be a good Christian and still be for choice and gay rights.</p></li>
<li><p>You CANNOT be a President without having a track record of accomplishments, even if they are mediocre accomplishments. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>And on the other side the simple response of the Obama movement is:</p>
<p>Yes WE can…
Jim Wallis -new book the Great Awakening- reviewed in Phila Inquirer today-</p>
<p>"If Obama wins, though the Great Awakening that elected him will really have to get to work, “If he gets in,” Wallis said, “its not up to HIM to produce. It’s up to US to produce. Politics, lobbying they don’t change unjust laws and structures. Social movements do. Our job is to push. But change happens most when movements push on an open door”.</p>
<p>Then the reviewer, Chris Satullo concludes the article with:
“Pay attention to Jim Wallis, folks. Read his book. The guy has a habit of beng right.”</p>
<p>I think Christcorp just enjoys being contrarian. There are too many similarities between Obama and Clinton to get so worked up over Obama’s candidacy. There are too many differences between Clinton and McCain to really be torn between the two of them. No matter how much reasoning and factual examples are provided here, Christcorp will always come back with a “that’s not good enough” argument. And Simba will take little potshots without truly engaging in the responses that follow. It’s just a game to them, folks, not an actual debate over substantive ideas. No biggie. :D</p>
<p>vicariousparent, thank you for the list. You are right on, and I like your attitude.</p>
<p>^^^ touche Mom of 2inca, and vicariousparent-
With all due respect there is a wide chasm between many of these posters and Christcorp, which will never, ever be bridged. So be it.
He spent 20 years in the military, now lives in Jackson Hole, and has a world view very different from someone like Barack Obama.</p>
<p>( by the way wonder if Cheney is vacationing there now, because he hasn’t been seen for some time, right?)
Christcorp’s son/ or daughter is enrolling in the Air Force academy and this is my sincere wish for him/her. I hope Christcorp’s son/ daughter is never sent on a military occupation like we have seen in Iraq, one which sends our forces ill equiped, without sufficient vehicles, or body armor.
And, that should his child return from active duty it won’t be to substandard medical care, because anyone who serves their country deserves better.</p>
<p>I wish I had the money to live in Jackson Hole. I don’t live anywhere near it. For what it’s worth, I was born and raised in New Jersey; the New York City and New Jersey area for the first 18 years of my life. I have lived in Texas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Kansas, Wyoming, Holland, England, Spain, Saudi Arabia, and have visited many more countries. My kids were born in 2 different countries. Don’t tell me about my “Perspective”. It’s probably a lot more open minded and objective than most people. But then, you don’t know. </p>
<p>As far as military service and my son; you don’t have to worry about that. I am very well aware, 1st hand, what is right and wrong with the military. Probably more aware of it than you.</p>
<p>I voted for carter. I also voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. I also voted for Regan 2nd time; Bush both times, and G.W. both times. If you’re going to pretend to know me, at least know what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>I definitely don’t promote a pessimistic view of the world. If anything, I’m probably more optimistic than most. I brought up my original question because I did find Obama to be someone I “LIKED”. But liking someone is not a reason to vote for them. If you think it is, then we can never discuss it because I don’t think it’s possible. I can vote for either dem or rep. I’ve done it before. Unfortunately jersey, your responses have lost respect. Instead of talking about Obama and the concerns, you think that the answer lies in being a retired military person living in Wyoming. I don’t understand the correlation. Then again, you don’t know anything of my background, so I also don’t understand your point. </p>
<p>FWIW; Poet, mercy, Mini, hanna, and a few others; I really respect your opinions. They are thought out and based on information and not “feelings and emotions”. Good for you. I don’t have to agree with everything you say, but I can respect that. That is what is most important with opinions. A mutual respect.</p>
<p>And if it is Clinton v. McCain, I definitely won’t vote for Clinton, for reasons already stated. McCain would have to go a long way to win my vote, but it is possible. (wouldn’t matter in my state anyway)</p>
<p>Thanks for providing details about your life. Fascinating.</p>
<p>I agree with you that likability in and of itself is not a sufficient qualification for office; I do believe that it is important, as is rhetoric, just as the opposite poses a greater challenge for individuals to achieve their goals.</p>
<p>But I agree with you that candidates ought to possess other qualities and qualifications. We have a choice of three viable ones. as of now. So I would like you to share what you think McCain and Clinton have that Obama does not. both in the past and in the future. Experience in and of itself is a neutral factor. It can be good, it can be bad; one can draw both useful and erroneous conclusions from a particular experience. Beyond the candidates themselves, it is useful to consider their circles of advisors. Are you more impressed with some and others?
It would be great if you could give a rundown of what you see as the pros and cons of McCain, Obama and Clinton. Thanks.</p>
<p>Marite, I was thinking the same thing about finding out who is behind Clinton and Obama as in who their advisors are, and I found this article about the people advising them on defense issues. I think it’s a pretty fair treatment, altho’ it seems a little pro-Obama to me. You can form your own opinion.</p>
<p>I had found something similar weeks ago about McCain, which I cannot now find, and frankly it scared me as it seemed his defense people were even worse than Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz, etc.</p>