<p>Marite. Thank you. As always, you are the voice of reason, moderation and consideration.</p>
<p>I’m not “militant,” BC. 
But I am hopeful, & I didn’t borrow that from him.</p>
<p>I have some reservations about his immigration policy (particularly on illegals). That’s probably my strongest reservation. He has some outstanding advisors on many other domestic issues; he seems thoughtful, open to getting as much info on an issue as possible. I really, really like his management style. I also cannot say enough about the effect of personality on results. Anyone who doesn’t see that in their own career has perhaps not been paying attention, or just takes that for granted. It’s important even in medicine. (Bedside manner.) Important in trial law, when trying to persuade a judge or jury. (They’d better not dislike you.) Etc.</p>
<p>No, I would not be supporting him mainly for personality reasons, without intellect, which he has as well. I do, however, like his calm demeanor, which is extremely helpful in leadership roles. In that he is a major contrast to McCain, who has a reputation for flying off the handle.</p>
<p>On most issues I agree with him. On virtually every issue & approach, & bedfellows, I disagree with McCain. I am the grateful daughter of a naval officer so I take military service quite seriously. Yet McCain does not impress me.</p>
<p>I also notice that for all the whining about the bad press McCain supposedly gets, the number of passes he gets for being “a hero” far exceeds the number of passes Obama gets for being a minority and/or young.</p>
<p>I don’t care about BO or BHO, but am puzzled by why the initial users rarely seem to refer to McCain by his initials. I’m puzzled by all the vitriol. I feel fairly happy about this election. Both sides have picked guys I can live with, though yes I am concerned about McCain’s age/verbal gaffes. We hear about his lively mother, but not his Dad who died at 70. I look at my parents one of who deteriorated precipitously in his mid-70s, the other who is still smart as she ever was, but has slowed down a lot in the last year or two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he simply misspoke. I think he meant to say that it included some provisions he authored.</p>
<p>“Senate Banking Committee Passes Obama Provisions on Divestment in Iran Sanctions Bill”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Senate</a> Banking Committee Passes Obama Provisions on Divestment in Iran Sanctions Bill | U.S. Senator Barack Obama](<a href=“http://obama.senate.gov/press/080717-senate_banking/]Senate”>http://obama.senate.gov/press/080717-senate_banking/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m an Obama supporter, and I’ve certainly acknowledged my issues with him on these threads. I’ve been furious ever since he won the nomination and began to transform himself into a Republican-lite. Indeed, he is not the second coming of the Messiah. He IS, in fact, a politician–a very smart and talented one, but who, like ALL of them, will flip-flop and pander as it suits him. Just as McCain has done. But, for the most part, I still agree with Obama on more issues than I do with McCain, and therefore will vote for him. …</p>
<p>Zoosermom: “BO” is insulting because of the longtime “stinky” connotation attached to it. “McSame,” as marite pointed out, is also childish beyond belief–and I apologize for using it myself some time back when I was in a rather unpleasant frame of mind. … </p>
<p>I agree that things can get pretty combative on these threads, but it really does come from both sides. I’ve seen Obama’s character and integrity routinely dragged through the mud on CC; his intelligence has been questioned; he’s been repeatedly painted as the worst sort of hypocrite, and branded as a self-serving, lightweight, stuttering egomaniac. None of which I believe is even close to being true. … I’ve really appreciated the posts where bz has enthusiastically and articulately outlined McCain’s strengths–without denigrating his opponent. Whenever someone writes something snarky or mean-spirited about Obama, I stop paying attention.</p>
<p>^^Just an example of the double standard, sorry Hindoo.</p>
<p>This man is in all likelihood going to be the leader of the free world? </p>
<p>We have the right, indeed the <em>obligation</em> to get into every single corner of his past, his beliefs, his character and much, much more. IN addition, people have a right to their opinions. Whether people want to read them is of course up to them.</p>
<p>Also, never even thought of the “stinky” connotation until you mentioned it.</p>
<p>Hindoo, in the specific instances, the BO was clearly not intended in that childish manner. The poster was chastised and told to switch to BHO, which she did and was then chastised again. THe poster didn’t recognize BO as insulting and, frankly, neither did I. It wasn’t part of my childhood vernacular. The bottom line is that those ARE his initials and the context was respectful, so it’s just ridiculous to object to the use of a person’s own initials. Can we discuss the fact that perhaps his parents should have been more sensitive when naming him? Maybe. That’s one of my personal pet peeves. </p>
<p>Did he misspeak today? Not likely. In context, Senator Obama knew exactly what he was saying.</p>
<p>ilsa–Of COURSE everyone has a right to their opinions. I never said they didn’t. I wrote the above post in response to comments from others saying that only the left-leaning posters were slinging mud and venom. My point was that it comes from the right, as well. … As for having an obligation to learn as much about a potential leader as we can, we’re in agreement. Which means that McCain has every right to be put under the microscope as much as Obama. It’s fair to be concerned by Obama’s “lack of experience,” just as it’s fair to be concerned about McCain’s possible age-related problems. … I’m not sure what you meant by: “Just an example of the double standard,” in relation to my post. 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Egads, zoos! That was definitely a part of my childhood vernacular, along with a lot of other inappropriate things! Seriously, as someone else pointed out, why have some chosen to use initials as shorthand for Obama, but not for McCain? I haven’t seen one single “JM,” but quite a few “BO’s,” usually from people who don’t like him. You’re a sweetheart, zoosermom, and I don’t think you’d be one to use BO in a disrespectful context, but others? Not so much</p>
<p>Hindoo, I swear to you that I didn’t recognize the problem until it was pointed out to me. I don’t think the OP got it either, and I’ve never seen it used disrespectfully, but maybe I’m missing something.</p>
<p>In any case, is this really the battle to pick? His initials are what they are and unless someone is being obviously insulting, shouldn’t this one be left alone on the forum?</p>
<p>OK, zoosermom, I’ll drop it!</p>
<p>Hindoo, you aren’t the one who took great exeption to it.</p>
<p>I couldn’t believe that I was really reading that objection from adults!</p>
<p>Well, zoos, I’m probably getting senile. :)</p>
<p>^^ Snort. Snicker.</p>
<p>I think most of you are older than my youthful self, so I’m going to have to assume you’re right.</p>
<p>^I’m not. I just turned 23. :D</p>
<p>^^ </p>
<p>Good one! Started young, did you? Hussy!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Premature Alzheimer’s? Could be, hee hee.</p>
<p>The problem with McCain is that he’s old enough the Alzheimer’s wouldn’t have to be premature. That’s the issue. And it comports with the rest of his tiredness.</p>
<p>I think the proper response to this, rather than harping on it as some blogs seemed to do is to suggest that making a gaffe is only human. That would let McCain get off the hook a bit.</p>
<p>Zoos - I didn’t realize that you didn’t get the connotation with “BO.” Sometimes things seem so obvious that we fail to see them from the other person’s perspective. As to your other question, I think part of the dichotomy you may be seeing is that many Democrats look at the election from a party perspective, not a personality one. John McCain is probably a great guy - but he’s a Republican. To me, that means another four years of debt, environmental degradation, economic stratification and fear-mongering from the Oval Office. I’d expect that from any Republican. I expect different results with Obama. I’d have felt the same about Clinton.</p>
<p>I think that the Republicans have done well in national elections by playing the “personality” card. Reagan and BushII certainly were perceived as likeable. Lord knows they’re smart enough not to tell the public what the actual economic results of their plans will be. So, to be honest, I don’t care of Obama is someone I’d like to have a beer with or not. I also expect that I’ll disagree with some, probably many specific decisions he will make once in office. I’m not going to obsess about that; it’s a given with any politician. (If I were elected I’d probably disagree with my own decisions. 
) But I trust that having Obama (or any other Democrat) in the White House gives us at least a hope of changing some of the policies which have been causing long term, serious damage to the nation our children will be inheriting in a few years.</p>
<p>Kluge, I really and truly didn’t get it until the connotation was pointed out to me, and neither did the original poster. Even knowing it now, I still think that the criticism was silly in the context. Now if the post was intentionally insulting, then that’s not acceptable. </p>
<p>Your comments about personality versus party were very enlightening. It is a completely different perspective and it’s great to have it set out and acknowledged.</p>
<p>Hussy? Can a male be a hussy? </p>
<p>;)</p>