NCAAbbs

He better hope he has nothing hidden in his past, or Hillary will expose him. Anyone think this guy stands a chance against the Hillary war machine?

GrayBeard Wrote:He better hope he has nothing hidden in his past, or Hillary will expose him. Anyone think this guy stands a chance against the Hillary war machine?

No.

Well unlike Hillary, he doesn't appear to have any skeletons in his closet. He already told everyone that he tried marijuana and cocaine.

GrayBeard Wrote:He better hope he has nothing hidden in his past, or Hillary will expose him. Anyone think this guy stands a chance against the Hillary war machine?

Obama doesn't. But no one makes a serious run after only 2 years in the Senate.

They'll play nice together.

This is setting the stage for the future, and trying to counter any move by C. Rice.

Well, seeing as how those kooks at DU try and link GW Bush to Prescott Bush, I think Obama's entire family is fair game, including Islamic ties. No?

GrayBeard Wrote:He better hope he has nothing hidden in his past, or Hillary will expose him. Anyone think this guy stands a chance against the Hillary war machine?

i hope so. i shudder at the thought of hillary. if it comes down to that, ill definitely vote mccain.

What are Obama's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What are Obama's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

What are Hillary's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

If Obama wins the nomination I would seriously consider McCain or Guiliani. 2 years in the Senate isn't enough experience.

OwlJacket Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What are Obama's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

What are Hillary's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

1. She is a woman.
2. Her husband was president.
3. she stood by him when he was caught cheating.
4. She has been a Senator for a while, but i'm not sure what legislation she sponsored, or voted for, or against, or if she has even been there.
5. She has a lot of money

Obama is a little too light in the ass (2. yrs in the senate) to be president. Plus he may just have the worst name possible in today's political climate.
Barack Hussein Obama??

The only way it could get any worse is if his first name was Adolf.

Obama is a little too light in the ass (2. yrs in the senate) to be president. Plus he just might have the worst name possible in today's political climate.
Barack Hussein Obama??

The only way it could get any worse is if his first name was Adolf.

Obama is a little too light in the ass (2. yrs in the senate) to be president. Plus he just might have the worst combination of names possible in today's political climate.
Barack Hussein Obama??

The only way it could get any worse is if his first name was Adolf.

dwr0109 Wrote:Obama is a little too light in the ass (2. yrs in the senate) to be president. Plus he just might have the worst combination of names possible in today's political climate.
Barack Hussein Obama??

The only way it could get any worse is if his first name was Adolf.

No ****. When I go to war, I want the reason to be terrorism, not because some other leader talked about his bigass ears. lmfao

Perot? ;-)

what about naders raiders?

dwr0109 Wrote:Obama is a little too light in the ass (2. yrs in the senate) to be president. Plus he just might have the worst combination of names possible in today's political climate.
Barack Hussein Obama??

The only way it could get any worse is if his first name was Adolf.

Another Illinois native didn't have much experience going into the presidency. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

BamaBlazer Wrote:If Obama wins the nomination I would seriously consider McCain or Guiliani. 2 years in the Senate isn't enough experience.

When is the last time a Senator won?


JFK

RebelKev Wrote:Well, seeing as how those kooks at DU try and link GW Bush to Prescott Bush, I think Obama's entire family is fair game, including Islamic ties. No?

What has his family done? Let's not forget that being muslim, witch he isn't is not a crime, nor are we engaged in a Holy war against Islam.


Prescott Bush is W's father there is not denying that, did he do the things he is charged of? I personally don't know, but there seems to be alot of evidence out there.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... you know the rest.

JTiger Wrote:.......Prescott Bush is W's father there is not denying that, .....

What?

JTiger Wrote:

BamaBlazer Wrote:If Obama wins the nomination I would seriously consider McCain or Guiliani. 2 years in the Senate isn't enough experience.

When is the last time a Senator won?


JFK

I think the 2 years in the Senate may actually work in his favor. He doesn't have a long Senate voting history for anyone to dig up. The guy reminds me a little of Edwards. As soon as he gets to the senate, he starts campaigning for President.

A lot of people make a distinction between legislative experience and executive experience. The president is the Chief Executive, and experience in running an organization is a reasonable requirement. Governors have this experience. Senators don't. On a local level, this is why so many cities have professional city managers, instead of having the mayor run everything.

Senators pass laws, often without any thought as to the practicalities of enforcement - that is the Exectutive Branch's problem. Loopholes are the creations of legislators - some on purpose, some by accident.

Not to say that Senators shouldn't be president, Just that we need to try and discern their executive abilities from something other than their record.

Does Obama or Hilary have the ability to be a true Chief Executive? I don't know. Some would include Hilary's time as First Lady as executive experience, and in truth, it does carry some weight. Not much, but more than nothing.

Does Giuliani have executive ability? I would say so, based on his performance in Ny. Romney? He was Governor of Mass. Check his record. McCain? Well, he was a military officer. I don't know if his postings included any that required exectuve ability, but he does have a record that can be checked.

GB's statement that a lack of record may work to Obama's favor is absolutely correct. But is his lack of record working to the favor of the American voter? Is voting on the basis of a smile the best way to go?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What are Obama's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

What were Bush's qualifications? He had none except bankrupting an oil company.

RobertN Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What are Obama's qualifications?

No, seriously, give me a list - anyone.

What were Bush's qualifications? He had none except bankrupting an oil company.

You must have missed the part (on purpose?) about being Governor. He also had experience in running businesses, far beyond the one example you cite. Ironically, these were the same things I liked about Carter in 1976, so they are not ironclad evidence of capability.

Some people with only legislative experience have worked out well - JFK
Others, not so good - Johnson(VietNam) and Ford(falling down steps) had no executive experience prior to being VP, which hardly counts.

some governors have worked out well - Reagan
Some not - Carter, Clinton

Still, with a Governor you do have a track record of running a government. With a legislator, you have to go on supposition. Some people prefer a track record to refer to and analyse. Other people, of course, just vote the straight party ticket and don't worry their little heads about it. I'm in the first group.