From what i've noticed, I think more than half the people who say that they'll vote for him really know nothing about his politics. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
It's the confident voice/tone that he has that people like.
you think this is different than any other election?
I know a lot of people don't know his politics, but I find that people see a great deal of hope in Senator Obama, and that feeling outweighs the politics in many households. To say that our nation is in need of a JFK/RFK like leader who can bring everyone together is long overdue.
what better time than now? what better place than here?
I think the reason he won't win is because his liberal policies are proven false over and over again.
That, and he's black. No offense, I'd vote for Alan Keyes, but I wouldn't expect him to get elected.
The fact that you would vote for Alan Keyes throws all your credibility out the window. You would vote for a man who would disown his own daughter because she is a lesbian?
That's one thing, and possibly the only thing, I respect about our Dick of a VP, he hasn't disowned his daughter for being a lesbian, I believe that he even disagrees with the conservative agenda for homosexuals.
Believe me, he's running. I worked with the man two years ago when he ran for Senate and still know many of the people that make up Barack Obama, and he is running.
Why do people keep bringing up inexperience? I didn't know that was required to run for President. Last time I checked, JFK wasn't even in the Senate a full term before running for President and that turned out allright...well for the country not so much Jack Kennedy
Believe me, he's running. I worked with the man two years ago when he ran for Senate and still know many of the people that make up Barack Obama, and he is running.
Why do people keep bringing up inexperience? I didn't know that was required to run for President. Last time I checked, JFK wasn't even in the Senate a full term before running for President and that turned out allright...well for the country not so much Jack Kennedy
ya its kinda dumb considering every leader is inexperienced at being a leader...
Reagan was of course an actor which probably helped him with all those speeches he gave to the american public. Many americans ate it up, good acting on his part.
Now are you saying that Like Reagan, Obama is a bit of an actor or just good with words?
I'm saying that the confident tone could be enough. In the 80s, poll after poll showed that people disagreed with most of Reagan's positions, but they LOVED Reagan. After Watergate and the Carter years, people just wanted to feel good about the country, and Reagan made them feel that. After the quagmire that has been the Bush administration, people may be feeling the same way. If Obama can make them feel proud and confident, his individual policies won't matter as much to a lot of voters.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I'm saying that the confident tone could be enough. In the 80s, poll after poll showed that people disagreed with most of Reagan's positions, but they LOVED Reagan. After Watergate and the Carter years, people just wanted to feel good about the country, and Reagan made them feel that. After the quagmire that has been the Bush administration, people may be feeling the same way. If Obama can make them feel proud and confident, his individual policies won't matter as much to a lot of voters.
1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.
2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.
He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.
Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.
Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.
2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.
He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.
Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.
Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.
1) Expectations of Presidents should be high, however being an experienced executive hasn't panned out too well for GW. Not being experienced worked out quite well for JFK. It's a gamble either way. I've met a lot of people and Obama is easily at the top of them when it comes to ideas and knowing what the American public wants.
2)I don't think anyone that's been in Congress over the last couple years has much of a voting history. It's been a rubber stamp. There hasn't really been much of anything to vote for that hasn't been strictly partisan. The Rezko land deal is nothing and people trying to dig up anything they can negative about the guy. There isn't anyone from Chicago who hasn't had ties to Rezko at one point or another.
1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.
2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.
He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.
Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.
Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.
YOU SAY ITS FACT....AND THAN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY...''I THINK'' ...GET REAL
its a difference of potential and kinetic energy. Kinetic is the one that affects us all now..and no one seems to wanna fix that.. basing things on potential, and what he could do, and what might happen... and what if this and what if that...meanwhile back on the ground...everything is still moving and happening why you are trying to predict the future, it passes by you.
and im lost.....behind......the words i will never find....left behind....the seasons roll on by
why do people now base opinions on stuff in the future...rather what has been done in the past?
human behaviors...
so weird the amount of distorted, opinionated information on these boards, proposed as fact, and taken as fact...
Well, if you can tell me how Obama did in his past presidential race, I'm happy to focus on that. Because the only presidential race of Obama's I'm aware of will occur in the future, that may help you understand why people are talking about the future. Just a thought.
That being said, puremagic nailed it.
The trouble with focusing on the past for all of the answers is that times have changed. Inexperience like Kennedy had is not going to be rewarded today. The press handles issues differently, and campaigns are run differently.
Also, it is infinitely harder to win a presidential race than a US Senate seat from your own state. You need to have a much broader message that appeals to a much broader, and more diverse base. Perhaps Obama has it but so far nobody's heard it.
As for your rant about facts, here's another clue -- when talking about future events there will be much speculation. Unless you are a seer, you will have to rely on opinion and speculation like the rest of us.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
YOU SAY ITS FACT....AND THAN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY...''I THINK'' ...GET REAL
Noone can predict the future. The fact is clear he will be tested on his inexperience. And YES, I THINK the people and the media will more quizzical in the expectation of Presidents from now on. As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
If that is not real enough for you, so be it. Tell me something of substance about the man that you have learned over the past few days because all the blah, blah, screaming does nothing to help spark my interest in why you feel he would make a good candidate in '08.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Noone can predict the future. The fact is clear he will be tested on his inexperience. And YES, I THINK the people and the media will more quizzical in the expectation of Presidents from now on. As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
If that is not real enough for you, so be it. Tell me something of substance about the man that you have learned over the past few days because all the blah, blah, screaming does nothing to help spark my interest in why you feel he would make a good candidate in '08.
As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
im only 23, and i know this will never happen! lol
1) Expectations of Presidents should be high, however being an experienced executive hasn't panned out too well for GW. Not being experienced worked out quite well for JFK. It's a gamble either way. I've met a lot of people and Obama is easily at the top of them when it comes to ideas and knowing what the American public wants.
2)I don't think anyone that's been in Congress over the last couple years has much of a voting history. It's been a rubber stamp. There hasn't really been much of anything to vote for that hasn't been strictly partisan. The Rezko land deal is nothing and people trying to dig up anything they can negative about the guy. There isn't anyone from Chicago who hasn't had ties to Rezko at one point or another.
Inexperience is not necessarily about time served, it can also be about how one gets caught by the seemingly innocence of an action when it's twisted in the media.
--Everyone is not from Chicago, so old news can become new and that is a point that has to be made.
--Rubber stamping can get twisted, remember McCain and breast cancer.
--Kerry and a joke got bad?
macgyver didn't get it. The people testing the waters for Obama needs to.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Inexperience is not necessarily about time served, it can also be about how one gets caught by the seemingly innocence of an action when it's twisted in the media.
--Everyone is not from Chicago, so old news can become new and that is a point that has to be made.
--Rubber stamping can get twisted, remember McCain and breast cancer.
--Kerry and a joke got bad?
macgyver didn't get it. The people testing the waters for Obama needs to.
As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
im only 23, and i know this will never happen! lol
No surprise here!!!!
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I'm saying that the confident tone could be enough. In the 80s, poll after poll showed that people disagreed with most of Reagan's positions, but they LOVED Reagan. After Watergate and the Carter years, people just wanted to feel good about the country, and Reagan made them feel that. After the quagmire that has been the Bush administration, people may be feeling the same way. If Obama can make them feel proud and confident, his individual policies won't matter as much to a lot of voters.
Well, if you can tell me how Obama did in his past presidential race, I'm happy to focus on that. Because the only presidential race of Obama's I'm aware of will occur in the future, that may help you understand why people are talking about the future. Just a thought.
That being said, puremagic nailed it.
The trouble with focusing on the past for all of the answers is that times have changed. Inexperience like Kennedy had is not going to be rewarded today. The press handles issues differently, and campaigns are run differently.
Also, it is infinitely harder to win a presidential race than a US Senate seat from your own state. You need to have a much broader message that appeals to a much broader, and more diverse base. Perhaps Obama has it but so far nobody's heard it.
As for your rant about facts, here's another clue -- when talking about future events there will be much speculation. Unless you are a seer, you will have to rely on opinion and speculation like the rest of us.
sorry but i was looking for supporting facts on why he won't win..and so far
1.No experience...i asked how
2.black..lol
3.He voted for Kerry
4.he supposedly has never given speeches
5.he will be ruined by the media for wrong-doings unknown at the present time but will arrive in the futere (speculation)
Comments
liberal policies..like what?
you think this is different than any other election?
weak? how
also...
middle of the road, typical politician..can you compare him to another previous please?
how is he inexperienced...and at what?
what better time than now? what better place than here?
The fact that you would vote for Alan Keyes throws all your credibility out the window. You would vote for a man who would disown his own daughter because she is a lesbian?
That's one thing, and possibly the only thing, I respect about our Dick of a VP, he hasn't disowned his daughter for being a lesbian, I believe that he even disagrees with the conservative agenda for homosexuals.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Believe me, he's running. I worked with the man two years ago when he ran for Senate and still know many of the people that make up Barack Obama, and he is running.
Why do people keep bringing up inexperience? I didn't know that was required to run for President. Last time I checked, JFK wasn't even in the Senate a full term before running for President and that turned out allright...well for the country not so much Jack Kennedy
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
ya its kinda dumb considering every leader is inexperienced at being a leader...
this is sarcastic...
Exactly.
Here's another reason why he would win...
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m61/ledvedderman/6989576-M.jpg
That was only 2 years ago and I look like a pup in that pic...
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
No, it's not just nonsense, it's fact.
1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.
2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.
He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.
Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.
Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.
1) Expectations of Presidents should be high, however being an experienced executive hasn't panned out too well for GW. Not being experienced worked out quite well for JFK. It's a gamble either way. I've met a lot of people and Obama is easily at the top of them when it comes to ideas and knowing what the American public wants.
2)I don't think anyone that's been in Congress over the last couple years has much of a voting history. It's been a rubber stamp. There hasn't really been much of anything to vote for that hasn't been strictly partisan. The Rezko land deal is nothing and people trying to dig up anything they can negative about the guy. There isn't anyone from Chicago who hasn't had ties to Rezko at one point or another.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
YOU SAY ITS FACT....AND THAN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY...''I THINK'' ...GET REAL
human behaviors...
so weird the amount of distorted, opinionated information on these boards, proposed as fact, and taken as fact...
and im lost.....behind......the words i will never find....left behind....the seasons roll on by
Well, if you can tell me how Obama did in his past presidential race, I'm happy to focus on that. Because the only presidential race of Obama's I'm aware of will occur in the future, that may help you understand why people are talking about the future. Just a thought.
That being said, puremagic nailed it.
The trouble with focusing on the past for all of the answers is that times have changed. Inexperience like Kennedy had is not going to be rewarded today. The press handles issues differently, and campaigns are run differently.
Also, it is infinitely harder to win a presidential race than a US Senate seat from your own state. You need to have a much broader message that appeals to a much broader, and more diverse base. Perhaps Obama has it but so far nobody's heard it.
As for your rant about facts, here's another clue -- when talking about future events there will be much speculation. Unless you are a seer, you will have to rely on opinion and speculation like the rest of us.
Noone can predict the future. The fact is clear he will be tested on his inexperience. And YES, I THINK the people and the media will more quizzical in the expectation of Presidents from now on. As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
If that is not real enough for you, so be it. Tell me something of substance about the man that you have learned over the past few days because all the blah, blah, screaming does nothing to help spark my interest in why you feel he would make a good candidate in '08.
As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.
im only 23, and i know this will never happen! lol
Inexperience is not necessarily about time served, it can also be about how one gets caught by the seemingly innocence of an action when it's twisted in the media.
--Everyone is not from Chicago, so old news can become new and that is a point that has to be made.
--Rubber stamping can get twisted, remember McCain and breast cancer.
--Kerry and a joke got bad?
macgyver didn't get it. The people testing the waters for Obama needs to.
just admit your a racist
No surprise here!!!!
Nope,
ah yeah, of course, that's what I think also.
I'm looking for the sheet music for "Present Tense". Anyone know where I can find it?
He was against the war yet voted for a person (J.Kerry) who supported the war.
That's not only weak, it's pretty pathetic. well to me anyway.
what is no surprise?
sorry but i was looking for supporting facts on why he won't win..and so far
1.No experience...i asked how
2.black..lol
3.He voted for Kerry
4.he supposedly has never given speeches
5.he will be ruined by the media for wrong-doings unknown at the present time but will arrive in the futere (speculation)
this is what has come from this post..
and search the posts...these ARE FACTS
you cant twist it around
Well so what if hes a dem? he was against the war yet backed a guy who was for it.
It just seems wrong.