<p>Our citizens are now dying in Iraq – and do you really think we have international respect now?</p>
<p>whoever is elected is going to be hogtied by the Financial DISASTER this administration has created.</p>
<p>I hope the Tuition and tax credit doesn’t get canned for 2008</p>
<p>Bringing home the troops IMMEDIATELY saves at least 5-6 BILLION dollars a WEEK. No that is NOT a typo</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I agree that his speeches can be repetitive, I see it from the perspective that everytime he has a rally, it’s a new experience for them, and hearing those words in person, amongst tens of thousands of other Obama supporters has a different impact than watching it on TV. I’ve watched many of his post-primary speeches, and yes, most of it (not all of it) is the same message, but he tries to customize it to the city/state he’s addressing. If I had a chance to go hear him (after all the times I’ve heard him on TV), I’d jump at it.</p>
<p>What I will say is that each of the candidate’s speeches are now beginning to reflect who they think they might face in December, and it adds a little twist to the presentation. It’s also interesting to hear the little innuendos being made in response to negative campaigning, as it increases, especially from the Clinton side. Obama is definitely taking the high road for now, and I hope he continues. There are soooo many digs (of substance)he could take at Hillary, but he hasn’t (where are those tax returns?). To me that indicates, that at least for the time being, he has integrity.</p>
<p>aren’t all their speeched redundant by now? I listened last night to McCain,Clinton and Obama.You’re hearing the same positions over and over from all, simply because there is so much media coverage.
To whomever is saying there still is no substance in Obama’s speeches, I guess you weren’t listening last night.If you want specifics, read the websites of the candidates calmly,without media pundits spewing opinions in your ears, and in your own timeframe.
Whoever gets elected in the fall will inherit quite a mess.It will take years to dig us out.
Just for the record…I am a campaign contributing Obama-Momma.</p>
<p>Are the Clinton speeches not repetitive? Give me a break. Talk about campaign rhetoric.</p>
<p>We know she is “ready for day one”, experienced, the solution magician, and in favor of Universal health Care for everyone. </p>
<p>Has she ever touched upon any other themes? (Maybe 35 years of who knows what experience…)</p>
<p>the founding fathers were brilliant in their awareness that a tension between federal liberalism (or classic conservatism) and free market conservatism (or classic liberalism) is critical to the country. </p>
<p>While the impacts on the poor and the environment are felt to this day, I don’t think many can argue that by the 1980s Democrats had become drunk with power so long that fiscal Republicans could position themselves as the responsible party and balance the forces.</p>
<p>I think the balance of Democratic and Republican power is what made the 90s work so well and freed us to obsess over power-grabbing political witch hunts.</p>
<p>In times of fear people naturally become more withdrawn to their immediate self interest. Thus, the power sweep of social conservatism after 9/11. </p>
<p>Now the Republicans have become equally as drunk with power as the Democrats of the 1960s/70s - out of control spending, illegal rigging of elections, and naive foreign policies. It comes naturally when one ideology has too much control.</p>
<p>We’re now emerging from the fear of the early 2000s into hope again - which is what attracted people to Reagan and attract them to Obama now. Important issues beyond ourselves - the environment, health care for all, poverty - have arisen again as we’ve started to look beyond ourselves. That’s why Democrats are becoming popular again. </p>
<p>So, my point is that we need to stop fighting for one ideology or another to gain absolute control and start understanding when it’s important to bequeath power on one side rather than the other while hoping that that power is not too dominant. Government works best when it is balanced.</p>
<p>no, sokkermom, as of last night she’s the only candidate prepared to lead us in this “dangerous world.” It’s a rhetorical change, but beginning to sound a lot like Bush/Cheney.</p>
<p>^ oh yeah. I almost forgot about her tea parties and <em>goodwill</em> trips. I feel much safer now …:rolleyes:</p>
<p>The hostages were not military.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do. Last time I checked, Russia is not considered to be a pwoerful force anymore. Libya has now caved in and finally given into UN inspections. </p>
<p>When Bob Geldorf goes out and yells at the press (yesterday) saying that Bush has done more than any other president, I think we do have respect.</p>
<p>BTW the citizens that are dying for your right to speak freely, chose that right to defend you freely…nobody forced them to go. The hostages were taken by force, and Jimmy Carter was too afraid that he might upset another country. His interests were not about us, but how it might be perceived. I do not want a President who will appease the world. History has proven that the global war will not give you a pass for holding hands</p>
<p>Going back to my original post, you selected one line, what about the global economy…do you want 18% int rates again or 7+ unemployment?</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t make all my judgements based on money. Second, the reason we got Carter in the first place was that Ford was the last remnant of the Nixon grotesquery. Finally, given the Reagan greedocracy and the Bush failurocracy, I don’t know why anybody would think that things would have been better under Ford than under Carter.</p>
<p>Gee bullett, wish you could talk to the world on behalf of the US. Because somehow they haven’t been told they respect the US. In fact, the US is considered by many Europeans as one of the key threats to world peace, the American president is seen as an idiot backed by a war-mongering vice president. About the only good thing people see about the US these days is the dramatic decline of the US dollar: Europeans love seeing America turn into one giant bargain basement. So much for respect. As to the hostages - these were professional diplomats who signed on for their jobs by choice. Carter tried to rescue them but the attempt was a spectacular military failure (all the helicopters crashed.) To this day Carter is seen as a humanitarian who managed the then-impossible: a handshake between Sadat and Begin on the front lawn of the White House. What do you think Bush’s legacy will be? Besides mangling the langauge, lying about WMD to invade Iraq and then flushing the nation’s economy down the toilet?</p>
<p>I agree with katliamom. Being scared of America’s warmongering doesn’t equate to having respect for the U.S.</p>
<p>I’m hesitant to jump into the fray here, but I just need to mention that… </p>
<p>WE ARE IN A DEFICIT! You all who advocate “Universal Health Care” for all, paid for and provided by the government need to forget about it. All of the entitlement programs we have now are putting us in the hole -and we’re borrowing money from CHINA just to stay afloat!</p>
<p>If you really care about this country, you need to vote for a president who will work to CONTROL SPENDING (McCain!) and not promise some new pie-in-the-sky government hand-out.</p>
<p>And if you think the WOT is costing too much - how much do you think another 9/11 would cost??</p>
<p>I sure hope all these people with “Obama Fever” will come back down to Earth and get a grip on REALITY before Election Day in November!</p>
<p>According to wikipedia only :
. in the failed attempt to get our hostages. </p>
<p>As far as Carter and his treaty, here is what it is written by wikipedia:
— notice he did not initiate it, he just was the final handshake.</p>
<p>Again from wikipedia:
</p>
<p>Finally if Carter was so great explain this:
</p>
<p>Do I think that he has done amazing humanitarian work? Yes, our family has actually volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. Was he effective as a president? NO</p>
<p>“you need to vote for a president who will work to CONTROL SPENDING (McCain!)”</p>
<p>Can you tell me why you believe that McCain will control spending when his party used its control of both houses of Congress and the White House to send deficit spending through the roof?</p>
<p>“I by no means am naive when it comes to how realistic an Obama presidency can be. He (as is any other candidate running) would inherit a horrible situation that took us eight years to get into…”</p>
<p>The current situation started much longer ago than eight years ago and I don’t think another president with limited experience would be good for us at this time.</p>
<p>“WE ARE IN A DEFICIT!” </p>
<hr>
<p>Obama is advocating a shared free market / government health care that ensures coverage for all. We are in a deficit because of Bush.</p>
<hr>
<p>“If you really care about this country, you need to vote for a president who will work to CONTROL SPENDING (McCain!) and not promise some new pie-in-the-sky government hand-out.”</p>
<hr>
<p>The Republicans have proven they are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility. In large part due to the endless attacks against them, the Democrats are far more cautious of spending than Republicans now. To suggest McCain will alter that fact is ungrounded.</p>
<hr>
<p>And if you think the WOT is costing too much - how much do you think another 9/11 would cost??</p>
<hr>
<p>You’re making a leap of logic in assuming that our engagement in Iraq has anything to do with terrorism. It has been proven that it does not and many officials within the 02-03 White House have stated on record that the they were forced to manipulate evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq.</p>
<p>You’re making a leap of logic in assuming that military force can decrease terrorism rather than act like a big two-by-four swatting a beehive. </p>
<p>You’re making a leap of logic in assuming our Republican government has no self-interest in supporting terror organizations. It has propped up all the governments (Iraq, Taliban) that we are now told are our sworn enemies.</p>
<p>“WE ARE IN A DEFICIT! You all who advocate “Universal Health Care” for all, paid for and provided by the government need to forget about it. All of the entitlement programs we have now are putting us in the hole -and we’re borrowing money from CHINA just to stay afloat!”</p>
<p>We could provide health care for every single American, including the 40-50 million uninsured, without spending a single dime more than we are now. (But not with Obama or HillaryCare, which will be provide several TRILLION extra dollars to the private health care insurers (and their lobbyists) who currently preside over our broken system.)</p>
<p>BZ2010, actually it is all those entitlements that prevent us from a total collapse. The Feds kite the money back and forth to different areas as needed.
The Social Security Money is actually the Federal Credit Card, home equity loan, or margin account - whatever the normal American is using to prevent total collapse.</p>
<p>The world’s most sophisticated economists don’t really understand it, so you shouldn’t expect to.</p>
<p>bullett, you convinced me. we’re living in an economic and political nirvana.</p>