Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Obama couldn't have won by claiming to be a "Washington Outsider". That rhetoric works better with republicans. Obama won mostly because of how he handled himself, and his campaign. He was able to shrug off Atwater-Rovian style campaign and tactics from GOP that would have made McCarthy a proud papa.

To me, he demonstrated his capacity to think, on economy, on quality and diversity of people he chose to surround himself with, his focus, and intelligence. Many didn't give him the credit he deserved on his understanding of foreign issues, especially around Afghanistan and Pakistan, a thinking that America needed more than two decades ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:49 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,330,678 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Obama couldn't have won by claiming to be a "Washington Outsider". That rhetoric works better with republicans. Obama won mostly because of how he handled himself, and his campaign. He was able to shrug off Atwater-Rovian style campaign and tactics from GOP that would have made McCarthy a proud papa.

To me, he demonstrated his capacity to think, on economy, on quality and diversity of people he chose to surround himself with, his focus, and intelligence. Many didn't give him the credit he deserved on his understanding of foreign issues, especially around Afghanistan and Pakistan, a thinking that America needed more than two decades ago.
Yup. Though I always thought highly of Obama, it was during the economic crises in October (when McCain seemed to run around like a chicken with his head cut off) and during the Presidential debates (both times where Obama showed himself to be calm, clear and collected during while under pressure - especially when compared to McCain) that really increased my confidence that he was the right guy for the job. Based on how the polls behaved (with Obama increasing and solidifying his lead) it's a pretty good bet that I wasn't alone in drawing that conclusion.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Archer, FL
2 posts, read 2,989 times
Reputation: 11
nope he wouldn't have had a chance in hell. I wish him all the luck to get us out of this mess he is going to need it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raggy dee Ann View Post
....if Bush hadn't made such a mess of things?
What did Bush make a mess of?

The current problems with the economy are primarily because of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal, which is the Democrats mess. And yet they are the ones in charge of fixing it?

Give me a break!

Bush has kept us safe for the 7-1/2 years after 9-11, and that is the primary responsibility of the Commander in Chief.

So, you'll have to explain: What did he make a mess of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Bush has kept us safe for the 7-1/2 years after 9-11, and that is the primary responsibility of the Commander in Chief.
And Clinton kept us safe for 7-8 years, WITHOUT doing anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 12:00 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
No.
There were many voters who changed sides as a result of the Bush administrations' incompetence.

Ken
Incompetence in what area? I really get tired of you liberals and your generalities. No specifics. No facts. Just accusations and cliches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Southern NH
2,541 posts, read 5,852,079 times
Reputation: 1762
The major negative events of the Bush administration were not caused by him: 9/11, Katrina, the real estate collapse.... One can fault how he responded to these events, but he did not cause them. I agree with nononsenseguy that he responded well to 9/11 as seen by the safety since 9/11 (who would have bet on 1/16/2002 that there would be no more attacks in the US for the next 7 years?). Some say he took 9/11 too far when he extended beyond Afghanistan to Iraq....

Bush will be judged by what happens in the middle east over the next 30 - 40 years. For as long as I can remember there has been unrest in the middle east. If a democratic Iraq stabilizes the region, then people will look back and credit Bush for that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Southern NH
2,541 posts, read 5,852,079 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And Clinton kept us safe for 7-8 years, WITHOUT doing anything.
Right. Radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorist repeatedly attacked the US during his 8 years (from the first WTC attack to the Cole) and Clinton did nothing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,016 posts, read 5,583,167 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And Clinton kept us safe for 7-8 years, WITHOUT doing anything.
True, on account of Clinton and Bush BOTH sitting around and doing nothing leading us to 9/11 in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2009, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusnh View Post
Right. Radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorist repeatedly attacked the US during his 8 years (from the first WTC attack to the Cole) and Clinton did nothing...
On US soil? Are you telling me US personnel/property has not been attacked since 9-11? And are you telling me another terrorist activity on US soil isn't being planned, right now?

If anything, Bush's policies have hurt America, and we will be paying for it, for a while. I don't expect many to get it though... if everybody did, we would not have had to deal with what we've been "terrorized" of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top