Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know I would agree with you about Obama possibly bringing change if only he had chosen someone else as his running mate. Obama says he wants to change the dynamics of DC yet he choses someone who has been involved in the very thing he wants to change for over 30 yrs.
Yes, he did.. and I understand why he did that. If he had choosen someone seen as not having enough experience coupled with his own highlighted "lack of experience" as the Republicans like to highlight it would have been diasasterous. I would have preferred Hillary to be the Dem running for President and at th every least VP..but I do know why he didn't pick her. The VP is there for support and will offer an advice to the sitting President on matters, particularly in this case foreign affairs, that Obama may not have as much experience in. He choose someone to offset that balance. But, at the end of the day it's what the Presidents agenda is that will get put forth NOT the VP.
McCain picked someone that is also opposite on some issues to him.. but he will put forth his agenda , not hers. The difference between the two VP picks is that , should somethng happen to the president , Obama's pick is more qualified to step in then McCains.. who until last week didnt' even know what a VP did by her own admission.
I have nothing against Obama running for president, in a couple of years when he has more experience as a Senator, and when I have seen him do more than just co-sponsor a couple of bills. Up to this point he hasn't proven that he is willing to cross party lines to get things accomplished and sorry folks if we want our country back we need someone like that. At this point and time neither party is what our country needs, neither party is worried about the middle-class and poor people. It is easy to sit in DC and make laws when you are not worrying about how you are going to pay your bills, get to work and feed your family. My hubby has always said in regards to politics you have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils.
I can agree with that... but here is the way I see it.. as far as I'm concerned the Republicans are out of touch... BuSH is so far out of touch. Obama CAME from where we are all at AND he came there with a harder struggle than any of us being of MIXED race (because while is skin is darker, his mothers side is as white as snow!). I really do believe he gets it!! I really do. He may not have the "experience" McCain has, but I do know he knows how Washington works.. he's atleast been in it. AND the experience factor isn't a concern for me so much.. because he can go in there with fresh ideas and isn't lagged down in his "experience" to say. now we can't do this. I really don't see the republican president crossing party lines either.. but I do see someone who REALLY wants to turn things around in OBAMA.. In McCain I do NOT see that same spirit. I only hear more of the same stuff we've been hearing for the past 8 years that hasn't been working.
I think Obama said it best.. do I want to take a 10% chance on change? I'd rather put Obama there and see what he can do.. I already see what the Republicans can do and I'm not happy with it AT ALL!
This election I would prefer not to vote since I think both sides are equally evil. I understand that everyone dislikes Bush because he is the president and since his face is the one you see all the time and his voice is the one you hear, he gets complete blame for everything that is wrong in our country, but he did not make these decisions all alone and we seem to forget that.
What you have to remember is that the democrats only recently took back Congress after being dominately Republican and why? Because the people got fed up with the same old same old that wasn't working. Now we can put that final stamp on it by getting a Democrat elected as president.. then start making change and turning things around for the middle class.
Whatever he wants to do has to get through the senate and the house and if they don't like something he has done they can veto, but no all the senators are worried about are their pet projects and lining their pockets. People want to see a change in DC, then you fire all your senators and hire new ones. They do work for us do they not? As far as Katrina some of that was to be blamed on the state of Louisiana.
Yes.. it was Louisianna that performed poorly..but still doesn't excuse the abysmal federal response!
But like always it is far easier to place the blame elsewhere than to take responsibility. When Obama first popped on the scene both my hubby and I were really impressed but as time went on, that changed. I hope that if Obama does take office he is able to bring the change but I just can't see it happen. He is like a senior getting ready to graduate from high school, full of plans, hopes and optimism and then reality hits. I am afraid it will be same thing for him, reality will hit.
I'd rather have someone that is optomistic and really with the "yes we can" attitude than someone that says we can't and then just gives us the same old same old. If Kennedy had thought "no we can't" would we have had the space program. He was young, enthusiastic, charismatic.. etc. (Im' not old enough to have been aruond in Kennedy's day.. just what I've read and heard, etc.)
I would have preferred Hillary.. but I so prefer Obama and the democratic ticket over 4 more years of the same failed Republican policy.
“If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will,†- President Bush
elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/02/bush-mccain-understands-dangers-of-post-sept-11-world
that's coming from a guy who the dem. have basically in full force tried to call him everything from a criminal/thief/conspiracy theorist....ect. You can believe he sees the left as the angry crowd.....how much money has been spent investigating him over and over....and how many impeachment attempts? I'm sure Clinton refered to the GOP as angry when they did the same thing towards him.
I'd rather have someone that is optomistic and really with the "yes we can" attitude than someone that says we can't and then just gives us the same old same old. If Kennedy had thought "no we can't" would we have had the space program. He was young, enthusiastic, charismatic.. etc. (Im' not old enough to have been aruond in Kennedy's day.. just what I've read and heard, etc.)
I would have preferred Hillary.. but I so prefer Obama and the democratic ticket over 4 more years of the same failed Republican policy.
The change and yes we can are slogans you guys fall for everytime. Yes he is very optomistic with large goals but yet he failed to help even bring the foundation that he was chairman of any change at all.
"It highlighted the period between 1996-1997 through 2000-2001. Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on schools improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant difference between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self efficiency, and social competence."
"The study also examined trends in school improvement among a small group of "Breakthrough Schools," which received special financial and professional support from the Challenge between 1990-2001," "
"Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge[12]" from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.
"Factors that might explain the lack of an overall Annenberg effect on school improvement and student outcomes include (a) various shortcomings in the design and implementation of the Challenge, including broad goals and vauge strategies,too few resources for too many school, and weak levers for change; (b) External Partner's lack of capacity; (c) schools' lack of capacity to "do Annenberg," including weaknesses in human, social, and material resources; (d) school' lack of commitment to the Challenge; (e) sources of disruption and persistence within schools; and (f) countervailing forces outside of Annenberg schools, notably the school system's high stakes accountability policies."
page 15 of the OP .pdf
And yet hook line and sinker you trust your politician at his word. Not only could he not change he started a program requiring millions that failed......So the thought process moves forward let's have him be the chairman of the board for the new US he wants....will it be strike two?
Again he proposes vague far reached ideas and people are eating them up right and left.
And yes I have seen both of the candidates issues pages and detailed plans.
Are you saying that the president is not a Republican? Wow, kickin him to the curb are you?
The President does not speak for ALL Republicans, that would be like taking what H Clinton said, "Obama not qualified" and saying that ALL Democrats believe this!!
Your confused if you think Bush speaks for All Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I beliiiiv. I beliiiiv. pleezbilivit.
