Obama I guess, but I'm not too sure why. Well, I think of myself as more left-wing and as far as I can gather the Republicans are like the Tories in England. And I hate Tories.
Depending on who runs, I might agree more with a 3rd party candidate, but I'll probably vote for Obama because my vote would be more likely to matter then.
Winston Churhill was a torrie, no? I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him. He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there. McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either. Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no? I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him. He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there. McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either. Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div> That's exactly the dilemma I have. I'm not an Obama supporter, for all of the reasons you listed and then some, but neither do I want to put McCain in office. I guess I'll make my decision when Obama picks a runningmate.
I'm voting for Obama because I agree with the bulk of his positions. And I like the way he ran his campaign for the most part, being able to take down that beast.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no? I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him. He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there. McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either. Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises. I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence. As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes. And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The good news is that for the first time in 20 years, the president won't be named Bush or Clinton.</div> Until Clinton has him capped in the first year of his presidency. Obama needs to be elected for two reasons: 1. End the Iraq War 2. Reinstate Net Neutrality.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winston Churhill was a torrie, no? I'm trying to figure out why Obama's qualified, as I'd like to find a reason to vote for him. He's not got much experience, nor does he have any executive branch type experience. His associates are dubious, so it's questionable that he'd even surround himself with the right people. He's barely shown up for work in the senate, where he's chairman of a committee that oversees the Afghan war and they've held zero hearings. He's not been to Iraq in the past 900 days (3 years), so he has no expert opinion on the situation there. McCain is underwhelming, and Barr is the Libertarian candidate. I don't see myself voting for either. Given the entirety of the field on both sides, I would probably vote for Rudy if he were running, and certainly I'd vote for Bloomberg if he made a 3rd party run.</div>Experience means nothing to me. In my opinion, the more time a politician spends in Washington (or as a mayor, governor), the less likely they are to be motivated enough to get anything done in office, or make good on their promises. I can see where you're coming from when questioning his associates, but things his Pastor may have said mean nothing to me. I'm actually more turned off by the fact that he attends a church, more than I am that he attended that church. But that's just me. I suppose there's some question about his shady deal with Rezko, but there's nothing really there. And even if there was, it still doesn't make sense that Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns when she's essentially running for the number 2 spot on the US Order of Precedence. As for his attendance, he's just completed a 17 month primary campaign in which he needed every vote possible to barely squeak out a victory. If you have a problem with his attendance, your problem is with the election process and not Obama. Jesse Ventura has recently brought it up, and I agree with him: the rules need to change because these campaigns are taking elected officials away from their jobs for way too long. They should either be forced to resign when they declare candidacy or they should cut down the time period for the election process. I don't understand why they can't hold every states primary on the same day. Give them a month to campaign and then everybody votes. And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything. </div> Maybe he should have served one term in the senate then ran? Get some accomplishments under his belt... Governors and Mayors do get things done. As for his associates, how'd you feel if he made his pastor secretary of state? That's the kind of people he's hung with... Going to Iraq, he'd at least see first hand whether it's worth staying.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.</div> A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 8 2008, 09:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 8 2008, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And going to Iraq does not make you an expert on Iraq, as much as John McCain wants you to believe that ( the same McCain that can't tell a sunni from a shiite). I highly doubt they are seeing anything of significant relevance when they do go over there. And Obama has always referred to Iraq as "a war that should never have been authorized and never been waged" so I don't understand how a visit to Iraq is going to accomplish anything.</div> A lot has occured in the last three years. Why should I accept what Obama says about Iraq is truth if he doesn't know the situtation on the ground? </div> Mccain has no idea either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 8 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know how that disproves Thrilla's point.</div> I can't imagine anyone that goes over to Iraq wouldn't come away with some impression of how the country is doing. If he's running on a campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, isn't the least he could do is go over there and meet with Gen. Petraeus? Instead of being part of a group of disingenuous Democrats who forbid any news of progress in Iraq for their own political gain. Now that is being part of the broken Washington D.C. he says he wants to change.
