Given that, Obama’s empty platform, and his use of Rove’s tactics, it would seem, based on republican election pattern, Obama is being set up to lose, Obama is the one they can beat, or if he does gain the Presidency, he will function as a puppet, again, for the same people, (usually very wealthy coporate scions, and such) who put Bush there.

In which case, no real progress for the PEOPLE of America will be made, it will be more of the same.

This time, too much is at stake, given Iraq and the economy. Obama doest go in with a budget surplus.

But, you never know what the good Lord has in store.

Be careful what you wish for…

I’m starting to think that the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome” needs to be coined here.

I don’t think he knows the difference between personal career success and leadership to nation success for the good of the nation. It’s all for the greater glory of career opportunity for Mittens.

Also, on a basic level, I don’t trust anyone who does animal abuse. Note that law enforcement pros view it as a key predictor of a tendency for criminal behaviour. Once again, another Bush trait (fire crackers up frog’s asses).

It became about image, as opposed to talent, government run by PR firm, as opposed to empathetic intellectual or artistic brilliance.

And it culminated with the George Bush, and the devastating loss in Iraq his administration caged.

So, time to bring back real talent, and real brains. The spinners don’t even spin well, anymore, it’s like a hollow paper cone, trying to hide behind a mound of translucent cotton candy.

No taste, messy, an absolute inability to judge the quality of it’s own work, accepting of average mediocrity, and certainly not able to run a leading world government.

It isn’t only about marginal business skill(hey Mitt!), it’s about understanding and maintaining the AMERICAN system of democracy, successfully, while also leading the nation to prosperity, and security.

That ain’t Obama Bush.

(Isnt he a Saudi relative?)

And ask Mitt Romney what America means to him: support our troops? less taxes? another day in paradise? what ever his simplistic sloganeer can think up?

heh.

First there was Reagan, then W.Bush, then Governator Arnold; now we have the latest rising star of the ‘Who wants to be POTUS’ reality show, Mr. Obama.

Whatever happened to professional skill?

This reminds me of the movie Parenthood, where the Tom Hulce character is asked by his brothers about his claimed interest in hydroponics, and then answers, “…I don’t know, I’m the IDEA man”

As for Obama accusing Edwards and Clinton of dishonesty by deflecting the ‘weak point’ question with answers that appear as assets…
It appears that Obama has never actually applied for a job that required being interviewed for the position. Anyone who actually has, knows that you DON’T tell your prospective boss things like, “I used to be indecisive but now I’m not sure” or “I’d like to be better at time management, but I don’t have time, as I’m too busy brown-nosing by boss’s ass”. You always answer with an asset. That’s the real question you’re being asked, to see not only if, but more importantly how, you turn a negative question into an asset.

It’s a question about your positive attitude, not a probe into how fucked-up you’re honestly willing to admit you are. Don’t take my word for it; ask any career counselor.

Obama’s answer that he’s challenged by paperwork tells us, by way of the operative sub-word – work, that he thinks his “job” as president is to have ideas and opions (remind you of W.Bush?), and not have to actually DO any work. Delegation is certainly appropriate, but delegation itself is something that has to be worked at, and the delegator has to have the expertise and experience to know if the delegees are performing and producing results.

Of course any POTUS does not single-handedly manage the whole operation. But their job IS to have the skill to manage the managers.

I’m not convinced at all that Obama has a clue in this area.

I am a fifty-something professional person with a strong historical background, especially presidential history. I doubt I’m naive in the sense you mean.

In fact you are so naive and/or misguided that you think someone asking for even a semblance of balance must be an Obama supporter.

Please look in the mirror–hopefully you’ll see that you are becoming as bombastic and blinded as O’Reilly or Hannity.

And BTW, did I say Obama didn’t attack Hillary-NO! Or in your words–fuck no. Are you suggesting that Clinton or Edwards never attacked Obama?

I’ve been wondering how I, as an Edwards supporter, would feel if he came out for Obama, but I just can’t imagine that after that dreadful health care mailer and with the NYT story on Obama’s ties to Exelon – and now this – Edwards could maintain any credibility with an Obama endorsement.

For what it’s worth, here is a link to a Rick Perlstein piece in today’s WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102827.html

Here is part that rang true for me, but the whole thing is worth reading, both for the historical perspective as for the conclusion:

A President Obama could no more magically transcend America’s ’60s-born divisions than McCarthy, Kennedy, Nixon or McGovern could, for the simple reason that our society is defined as much by its arguments as by its agreements. Over the meaning of “family,” on sexual morality, on questions of race and gender and war and peace and order and disorder and North and South and a dozen other areas, we remain divided in ways that first arose after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. What Andrew Sullivan dismisses as “the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation” do not separate us from our “actual problems”; they define us, as much as the Great War defined France in the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and beyond. Pretending otherwise simply isn’t healthy. It’s repression — the kind of thing that shrinks say causes neurosis.

[Well, at least the Giants won the Super Bowl...]

I posted this earlier at Daily Kos, amidst posts by hundreds of exultant and, frankly, deliriously exuberant fans of Senator Obama, celebrating the endorsement offered by Maria Shriver, as she appeared alongside Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey:

(snip)

You people…

…are out of control. This is the same sort of euphoria that led to the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California.

As a Democrat, am I excited that our choice will almost assuredly come down to one of a woman or a black American? Of course I am. But, my observations are tempered by the tragic reality is that this is not the right woman, nor the right black American.

The rock start like euphoria surrounding Senator Obama is terrifying. The unquestioned allegiance among supporters of Senator Clinton is no less frightening.

For goodness sake, look for substance. It’s not there with Senator Obama: it’s sadly all ephemeral, feel-good, empty talk. And the substance offered by the opposition camp? Cloaking a dark and foreboding ‘mystery’ still largely behind the curtain. The more I listen to and look at Senator Clinton, the less I am inclined to pull the lever for her either. Which is actually scarier? What you don’t understand about one candidate, or what you do understand about the other?

While the pronouncements of Michelle Obama, Maria Shriver and Oprah Winfrey are indeed exciting, let’s please remember that none of them will occupy the White House as President in early 2009. Apparently either Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or Senator McCain will.

Given that Senator McCain is clearly the least reasonable and desirable choice, I am left to wonder of the remaining two, who is the best choice. Is neither one of the choices? I wish…

And, that from a supporter of Senator McGovern, Governor Dean and Senator Edwards. I promised Governor Dean that I would vote for the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, and so I will. But, not happily. I feel as disenfranchised now as I ever have at any point in nearly 40 years. I have already given up my position as a precinct captain, stopped contributing to any candidate other then Senators Edwards and Dodd, and am seriously contemplating registering as an independent.

And, when the rest of you are eventually slapped by reality, I fear you will too. Sorry to rain on the parade, but it’s just the way I—and so many others I know—feel about the emerging situation. For our sake and yours, I hope that my gloomy outlook is dead wrong. But, I don’t think so…

(snip)

I’ve alluded to this here, before. Obviously, I am not positive on the outcome this cycle. If fact, I am sufficiently dejected and negative enought that I don’t know that another face-to-face conversation with Governor Dean would pull be back into the fold at the moment.

I am used to political adoration. After all, I saw some degree of it in the campaign efforts of Senator McGovern, Attorney General Kennedy, Senator McCarthy and others. But, I have never witnessed such blind devotion to a candidate as I have seen demonstrated in this cycle, to Senator Obama. It’s mind boggling, and deeply disturbing. We are supposed to be electing an individual human being, not a demi-god. What more can I really say?