Obama-rama marches on
As if going on a nation-wide book tour, being on Time's cover and appearing with Keith Olberman, Charlie Rose, and every other talk show to the point where you stood a good chance of seeing him on TV just by changing channels wasn't enough, Obama was also the subject of dozens of heavy-weight political columnist's work last week, who all seemed to feel compelled to offer their opinion on whether he should run for president this time around.
This all can't be bad for book sales of "The Audacity of Hope"
And if you haven't had enough of Obama just yet, he's to appear on Meet the Press tomorrow along with columnist David Broder, political guru Charlie Cook, the NY Times' John Harwood, and the prince of darkness himself, Bob Novak, evidently returning from his exile of shame over escaping jail in the Plame scandal.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/21/2006
10 comments
10 Comments:
My wife and I met Obama for the first time back in 1998, and from the first moment we heard him speak, we knew he had the potential to go very far in politics.
Obama was the Senate Sponsor of the Bernardin Amendment, which would have used Cardinal Bernardin's words to amend the State Constitution to make health care a human right.
Mike Boland was the House sponsor of the same bill, and we worked with Obama and an entire coalition of health care activists to get advisory questions on the Bernardin Amendment on the ballot in something like 100 different towns and cites, including all of Cook, Kane and Knox county.
Even in Kane county, more than 60% of the voters agreed that health care is a human right.
Boland really has worked on some pioneering issues and with some real political pioneers. I can't speak for him, but Obama would likely have my vote for President, he's got a real vision and some very real charisma.
Ba-"rock" star indeed!
Obama seems like a very electable guy. A media darling with no record to kill him.
Amazing what PR will do for someone...He was not a standout State Legislator, has not even been in the Senate for 2-years and he likely is the front-runner for the 2008 Democrat nomination.
One cannot dislike the man, but one would have to look at his credentials and wonder if he has an ability to run the Country (can anyone say, Jimmy Carter?).
Anon, can anybody say failed businessman, AWOL national guardsman, bailed out of every screwup in his life, figurehead governor of a state where the governor has little or no power George W. Bush, certifiably the least experienced, least qualified president in history?
Something tells me Obama won't be a dim-witted arrogant incurious numb-nuts like Bush
I find it funny that the left always talk about how unqualified Bush is/was to be President.
This is especially amusing when you look at the experience of their former President (Clinton) and their next nominee Obama.
Clinton did not serve in the millitary, neither did Obama, and for all intensive purposes, neither did Bush.
Clinton went Georgetown and Oxford, Obama went to Harvard, Bush in turn went to Yale and Harvard Business School. (On a side note, Bush did have a better GPA than former DNC nominee Kerry)
Being the governor of a small state, Clinton had no foreign policy experience before taking office. On the other hand, because his state bordered a foreign country, Bush had experience dealing with many Latin American foreign leaders. Obama, being a two year senator, and state senator before that, has almost less experience than Clinton. (Note one trip to Africa dosen't count.)
All I am saying, is lets take Obama's advice and stop being devisive, dishonest, and partisan.
No matter what party you belong to, one can agree that all three of these leaders had what it takes to get to the big game, and that takes something special, no matter your lineage.
I'd note that Clinton had as much military experience as Bush, as all Bush did was get government funded flying lessons and then bugged out to go party and work on a campaign of some pal of his Daddy's and couldn't be bothered to show up to fulfill the rest of his service committment.
And Bush doesn't possess anything "special" other than his familie's connections both to the global elite, the inteligence community around the world, and corportate elites. He screwed up every business he was ever in and there was always one of Daddy's pals to cough up a few million to bail him out.
Seriously, if you think this president would have amounted to much of anything if he'd have been born George W. Schwartzenheimer, instead of George W. Bush, you must be tripping.
He'd be a drunken coke head sitting in county jail. He couldn't get elected dogcatcher without Karl Rove and the millions his connections bring.
I fail to see how anyone could suggest that he'd be anywhere close to where he is if he hadn't been George H.W. Bush's kid.
Clinton on the other hand wrote an anguished and thoughful letter and wrestled with his concious over the war, in the end deciding to not enlist.
Until he became president, Bush had only been outside the US on benders in Mexico. Other than that, he'd never left the damn country. And the only foreign leader he'd ever talked with was Vincente Fox of Mexico, not quite as worldly wise as you make his experience out to be.
After he was selected by the supreme court, Bush continued to meet with Fox as that was the only person they'd let him deal with.
Face it, Clinton, Obama, or anyone else wouldn't be an international embarassment like Bush, strutting around the world, chewing with his mouth open, saying, "Yo, Blair" and making the entire civilized world wince simultaneously.
I'm sorry, but you can't honestly begin to compare Bush to Clinton, Kerry, Obama, or anyone else. He's in a class of his own.
As for his college career, he first applied for the University of Texas and they wouldn't even admit him! It was only though affirmative action for the very wealthy, also known as legacy admitances, that he was put into Yale where he was a very fine cheerleader.
Everyone knew Bush was a lightweight in almost every catagory, but I think many people trusted that his daddy and all the Bush family retainers like Baker, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest would keep the boy in line and be the "grown-ups".
We've seen how that worked out.
Somehow I think Obama would be a bit more astute in choosing his close advisors and cabinet and we'd do a hell of a lot better.
I'm not gung-ho on him running this time around. I figure it's up to him. I think it would be fine if he did, fine if he didn't.
But to suggest he's as unqualified as Bush just doesn't have the ring of truth to it.
Obama actually likes to KNOW about things. He makes up his mind based on evidence and careful thought.
Bush makes every decision on how it will benefit him politically and lets ideology and corporate wishes be his guide. Anything would be better than that.
Hell, at this point, I think Americans would elect a potted plant rather than another Bush. (no pun intended)
IHG..
I don't know where you get your information, but Bush didn't "leverage" his way into or out of anything.
He was an utter failure at every oil venture he was set up in by his father, and was bailed out in the nick of time in every instance by rich people seeking favor with his Dad.
He was installed into the ranger organization as nothing but a glad-handing front man, then his partners quickly pushed through the organization of some quasi-governmental group which then proceeded to seize private property by eminent domain so they could then build their sprawling stadium and make millions.
He also was clearly guilty of securities fraud when he dumped nearly all his holdings in an oil venture for which he sat on the accounting board. The company was going broke and falsely pumping up their assets and worth ala Enron, and Bush knew that they were about to take a huge hit and sold almost all his holdings just before the stock tanked and didn't report the sale until far past the legal deadline.
The matter was investigated by his Dad's head of the SEC who also happened to be Bush's former personal lawyer. Guess what? No charges were brought. Imagine that.
If you'd like to be better informed of the facts on Bush's past, read "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger or other books which detail his shaky past. There's several of them.
Come on Dope, because it's in a book, it's true?
If that is the case, then Bill Clinton raped three woman and had two men killed.
You are a piece of work...
It's not just in one book, it's in many books and even more CREDIBLE reports and articles.
More importantly, it's never been denied nor proven false.
Excuse me for pointing out that you're a moron if you think all books are of equal veracity and credibility.
If you equate some loon writing a fantasy book about Clinton with books written by reporters with decades of experience at top news outlets and who have earned their credibility by producing volumes of work which have stood up to scrutiny, then you're frankly a moron.
YOU, are a piece of work, and a gullible twit.
Intelligent response TID - thank you!
I am not going to argue the Bush stuff, because I find it as rediculous as you may find the Clinton books. However, multiple books have been written on the numerous Clinton rapes, many by very credible authors with very credible sources and documentation.
I appreciate the fact that you are extremely partisan and do not want to accept this, so just keep calling me names so that you can feel better about yourself.
I'm partisan towards the truth. I don't believe patent bullshit even if it's about someone I don't agree with.
I want you to NAME ONE book that credibly accuses Clnton of rape.
And I mean actually makes the accusation, not simply reports that OTHERS have made the accusation.
And then we'll have a little investigation as to these authors you so stupidly think are "credible".
Let's find out, shall we?
If you weren't a moron, I wouldn't call you one.
Post a Comment
<< Home