I'd disagree about letting Bush off the hook for being a bad communicator. He's been so horrible at recognizing when to promptly respond, alone, has almost cost us the Iraq War. When he does respond, its often inadequate.

However, I don't think that means the Presidency is all about good communication. I think how horrible Bush has been has made it seem like an all important quality by contrast. Although, I think there needs to be some proficiency there.

Reagan had to excel at communication to pierce the MSM monopoly on reaching the public. However, today there is talk radio and the internet. Things Reagan never had. So I don't think you need to excel at it. You just have to have some competency with it.

PULLEEZE - Sen. Obama shares the same Democrat beliefs as the rest of the lefties running for the Donkey Party's nomination. Just because he's a different color, articulate and looks good doesn't change the message: Bigger government knows best. Is there any area - health care, education, etc., where he doesn't echo the same theme we're heard for the last 50 years: the solution to all our problems is more government programs from Washington. There is not one major difference between Barack and Hillary. He's had to create issues like the Iraq war vote and the vote on the terrorist status of certain Iranian terrorists. If anything, these differences show he's worse than the rest of the Demo-candidates on foreign policy. He may be able to suck in Oprah but anyone who's politically savvy should label his candidacy THE AUDACITY OF CLICHE.

He is running for vice president. The Hillary war machine hasn't even cranked up yet. He is all hat and no cattle, as we in Texas say. He does not even have any legislative leadership under his belt. All symbolism.

I am watching both Huckabee and Richardson. So far, they are the only ones that have proven leadership. The kind demonstrated by times they went against their own party to get what is right done. ww

You're kidding, aren't you? I must have stumbled upon "Wuzzadem".

"Career legislator", and "...a man of tremendous gifts and talents" are not phrases that resonate with Obama's resume. His gifts and talents are not tremedous are better suited to a car lot or a franchise department store than as the Chief Executive of the United States of America. Men of his ilk are commonly found as mid-level yes-men in medium sized companies, and as spokesmen for television-based church ministries; the gift of gab and the telegenic smile all funnel one's attention away from logical argument and reason and toward their previously packaged solution.

As for the legislative experience, well, there is none. You've been duped again. But this time you've not been talked into buying a five year old car with "only 137,000 highway miles", and you've not parted with 500 bones for "blessed water" promising to aid the healing of your bruised spirit. No, this time you've allowed the salesman/con-man to "help you understand" that he is a fit and viable candidate for elected office. And even if you choose another candidate he has won--guys like this always win no matter what is said or what happens--because he has added another certification to his resume. Next time he will be seen as an "experienced campaigner" with a "grass-roots organization" that can mobilize his base and weld a coalition that will bring free health care to everyone, dialogue with tyrants and dictators, ban all guns from everywhere, raise all taxes on everyone but you, deliver clean and cheap energy to everyone everywhere, and continue the fight for the common man that Che Guevera and Ho-Chi Min began all those years ago.

The guy is an a**hole with a bright smile, and someone needs to say it. No different than the other a**hole running for the Democrat party nomination, except that he wears a tie with his pants and has a talk-show host holding the money bag.

No, I am not impressed with Obama's credentials and I will not give him the benefit of the doubt because of his big smile and winning charm. I have been down that damned road before and have the scars to prove it. So do you if you would look at them.

Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel

Sign me up for Senator Obama, too.

The winner this time around will be a Democrat. Period. The Republicans have made a bad name for themselves, and the country wants change. They didn't get it in 2006 because the Democrats in Congress don't have a clue. The country will figure out that a Democratic President will be in a position to lead, and they will give the Democrats another chance.

Senator Obama doesn't really have the experience to do the job, but he will have an easier time because he will have a solid majority in both houses of Congress. I don't think that he will be that ineffective because it will be very difficult for people to fight him and avoid the racism labels. If you want ineffective government vote for Senator Clinton. She'll get nothing done because she'll overreach and bungle handling Congressional Democrats (as she did will healthcare reform).

The other big reason to pick Obama over Clinton is simply that Clinton stands for moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Another Clinton Presidency tells the world that the United States has totally run out of leaders and run out of ideas: there is nothing left. And the Clintons belong in jail - not in the White House. They are a criminal enterprise.

The Republican counterarguments are non-starters.

Yes, Obama is a lefty. In fact, he will try to bring in European-style Democratic Socialism. That is what the country is thinking about now because the country is too uneducated and inexperienced. They don't know what Democratic Socialism means, but they feel pressed by current events, and many want the State to take care of them. 51% of Americans now get direct support from the State, and as the population ages, the number will increase. People who haven't saved and didn't plan ahead will want the State to take care of them, and they won't care about the consequences because they won't be around when the really bad things start happening.

The American way of life will change in many fundamental respects, but must people in the country either want that change or don't see it as a problem. Many of the core principles that made this country great are things that many Americans today don't understand, don't appreciate, and are willing to give up for a little security. After all, that's what the first Clinton era was all about. Everyone knew that President Clinton was violating the law. They didn't care because the economy was doing well.

Mrs. Clinton's presidential bid should be an impossibility. People know she's scum, but they are willing to support her because they hope to somehow bring back the past or just gain raw power. If the country had any kind of backbone, her support would be around 5%.

Reading the comments I see a couple of references to foreign policy and the dangerous times that we live in. My reading of public opinion polls is that even if the American people are happy with the way the surge is working and even if they want Iraq to be a success, the war on terror is not going well, they don't want us going to war in the Middle East again, and they will want the new isolationism.

In fact, a Democratic administration that starts chipping away again at the military budget to pay for domestic programs will be very popular.

The essential argument made by Democrats in 2008 is that we need to be more like Europe. That is easily accomplshed. European countries don't spend anything like what we spend on defense because they defend themselves (sort of) and are not the policeman for the world.

I think that the American people are making a terrible mistake, but that's where I think the country is going.

Jay, seems to me your over exaggerating the importance of the 'executive experience' of being a Southern Governor...Let's take Texas, for example, 'a weak governor state' where "The lieutenant governor of Texas (such as longtime Texas Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock, a Democrat and Bush's mentor in Texas) presides over the Texas Senate, and exercises more power over legislation than the governor does," or from the Enclycopedia Britannica:

Famous for delegating details and making connections adept at making compromises and taking credit. Bush's governing style in Texas depended on bi-partisanship, a political tradition in that state. Bush did not earn a reputation as a hard-driving executive, often taking time out in the middle of the day to go jogging or play video games.. He complained that he did not like to read long books and that he hated meetings and briefings.

Using 'shrub' in a post nulls any and all credibility.

I'm always baffled how Reagan is known as the 'great communicator' and is even now recognized as such by many liberals. But during his presidency I heard all too often what a dullard he was, how he came across as "not too bright" and "bland". Mind you, I never thought of him as dull or not too bright, but many did at the time.

However, I agree with Jay that we could do worse than Obama as a Democrat in the White House. However, that he wrote a good book (I'll have to take Jeff's word for that as I haven't read it) only tells me he's a good author. And looking at who his biggest supporters are - vacuous and highly partisan celebrities - makes me uncomfortable.

Jeff's willingness to say A) he doesn't agree with Obama on two very important policies but B) is willing to trust him with, based on a book, is a bit much though.

Jeff is too concerned with mending the appearance of division in the country. Cripes. Political discussion around the dining room table is no more sharp or divisive than it was 40 years ago. We're having the same arguments about the same things as we did then. The cast of characters is the only thing that has changed. That and the fact that we can read more opinions on the internet now. It's ALWAYS been there. There have ALWAYS been negative ads and sniping. His implication that our divisiveness started with the Republican "witch-hunt" on Clinton shows he was probably too young to remember just how nasty people were long before.

Yes, Obama would raise taxes. Yes, Obama will put the government in charge of heath-care. But he'll be nice about it. There are a lot of good people out there - they're nice, and even inspiring, but are they fit or even suited to be President?

Carter was a nice guy too.

I take exception to one comment above.

If Democratic control of Congress and reducing the budget in Iraq to reduce the roops there was such a good idea that it was going to get a Democratic Presidential candidate elected, then why is the approval record for Congress at a historic low?

And the following is an observation only, please do NOT read any kind of intent into it: Hillary Clinton will never set foot in the White House as President. Whomever was elected VP at that point will become President.

Obama as President? What a joke. The guy has NOTHING as qualifications. The only reason Oprah supports him is if she doesn't SHE gets labeled as racist.

The only experience Obama DOES have is making bad choices by being a drug user in the past. (And to the lefties, no one has ever proven Bush used drugs, and I thought the same thing about Clinton's "didn't inhale" crap.)

Clancy, Molly Ivins was credited with applying the nickname "shrub" to George W. Bush who said "I respected her convictions, her passionate beliefs and her ability to turn a phrase"...What do you think Rove's Texas nickname for Rove was?
Mycroft..Obama gave up making 'bad choices'...when he entered college...Bush, on the other hand was 'irresponsible' long after that.

Steve:

Name-calling is useless. Governor Bush did a good job working with a divided Legislature to get new laws passed (i.e. "making connections adept at making compromises"). Texas passed education reform, tort reform, and tax cuts. If you're saying that he didn't work hard, that's OK. He got the job done (he was, after all, re-elected). That's better experience than Senator Obama or Clinton.

Oyster:

I agree with you on several points:
1. We can do worse than Obama: Clinton. At least Obama isn't hopelessly corrupt.
2. We have had sharp political divisions before. There are some new twists. In particular, the concept that "Politics stops at the water's edge" is gone - at least for one party.
3. Obama's rhetorical skills have helped him with Jeff and may help to bring people together.
4. Obama may be another President Carter. Sadly, that may be true.

[My previous reply seems to have been lost when my conenction went away.]

Mycroft:

RE: "If Democratic control of Congress and reducing the budget in Iraq to reduce the troops there was such a good idea that it was going to get a Democratic Presidential candidate elected, then why is the approval record for Congress at a historic low?"

Because the Democrats failed to deliver.

Americans voted for change in 2006, and the Democrats won on a platform that promised essentially nothing after the first 100 hours except get out of Iraq. They have failed to do much of anything. In particular, their policy in Iraq is essentially no different than President Bush's. They are a disaster, they don't appear to stand for anything, and they have power but cannot figure out what to do with it. They cannot even stand up to the lamest of lame-duck Presidents: he has basically beaten them at even turn. His poll numbers are low, but theirs are even lower.

If 2008 is a "Change Election", and I think that it is, the majority will be voting for change. They won't vote Republican. They will have to vote for a Democrat, and their basic hope will be:
1. With Bush gone, the Democrats will have to do something. They can't get past Bush or beat him, but they won't have to fight him any more.
2. A Democratic President will lead the party, replacing the intellectual vacuum in the Congress.
3. A one-party government is bound to get something done.

In the past, Americans have preferred divided government. In this election, the need for change will drive the idea of a united, one-party government. And even though Congress under the Democrats is a disaster, they will give the Democrats another chance.

kevino's post #6 provides a template for many reasons why this nations electorate will not support a Democratic administration:

"My reading of public opinion polls is that even if the American people are happy with the way the surge is working and even if they want Iraq to be a success, the war on terror is not going well, they don't want us going to war in the Middle East again, and they will want the new isolationism."

Eight years of a Clinton administration that governed by "opinion polls" made Mr. Bill very popular. While Clinton spent his time speaking out of both sides of his mouth, the world around him grew very dangerous, and the weakness portrayed with his "criminal mentality" when dealing with terrorism resulted in the evental 9/11. Isolationism and appeasement policies was the net result of a nation that was not prepared to defend itself.

"The essential argument made by Democrats in 2008 is that we need to be more like Europe."

IS THIS MEANT TO BE A JOKE KEV?

Does this statement mean to include Spain that caved into terrorist ideology by allowing their citizens to be murdered?

Does this include France that still puts up with over a 100 cars burned every day across the outer regions of Paris?

"In fact, a Democratic administration that starts chipping away again at the military budget to pay for domestic programs will be very popular."

This was the very mentality that Carter embraced and Clinton endorsed that weakened our military strength to allow fanatical nations to fester and promote unchecked terrorism.

I don't think "opinion polls" suggest that this nation prefers to kneel on prayer rugs and face the east. But reality doesn't seem to sink in well with many on the left that think the war on terrorism will just go away with a democratic administration.

The dependence on the security of this nation can not rely on their policys.

Eh, Truman went along to get along as well. See France and their bid to keep Vietnam after WWII. If, y'know, he had actually stood up for the values of this country he would have told them to fuck off. And then the whole 1960's/70's debacle never would have happened.

Ref #3. Wildwille, you are correct. Huckabee and Richardson do have the most and best experience. At one time Richardson was also a ambassador, don't know if Huck was.

If MSM gave all the critters equal air and print time, Huck and Rich would be so far ahead of the pack, they wouldn't need a primary.

And heaven help us if Clinton wins the White House. It will be two crime family's in a row. I don't think our country can handle that.

Rovin:

RE: "A Clinton administration that governed by 'opinion polls'"

You are correct. Governing by public opinion is stupid and dangerous:
1. You cannot wait to make some decisions based on opinion.
2. You cannot give the public or focus groups secret information.
3. You frequently already know the answer: the public wants lots of good stuff, they want it right now, and they want it free.

RE: Being more like Europe

That is essentially the argument that is being made. Does that mean that we will be more like Spain and France? Yes - and more. There are many Americans that think EXACTLY that way. I have on numerous occasions - in this forum and in others - argued that America must stand up to these thugs. And the consistent response by the Left is always isolationism. The Left will not present a plan to stand up to Islamic fundamentalism, and the American people will not demand that they do so or hold them accountable for this. The only logical conclusion is that Americans don't consider this a priority.

Look at the cartoon wars and other struggles with Islamic fundamentalism. You would think that the American Left would be first in line to defend Free Speech. They aren't. They are frequently the first to advocate self-censorship and hate-crime laws to promote tolerance.

RE: "The dependence on the security of this nation can not rely on their policies."

For the most part I agree, but we're about to get out-voted.

Of course they are going to cut the military budget. They aren't going to say it very loudly, but that's certainly the plan. And the American people should be smart enough to see through it, but they won't. All they see is lots of free stuff and the State taking care of them, and they won't ask the tough questions. And the Democrats won't tell them the consequences - until after the election.

Don't believe me? Well, the front-runner for the Dhimmicrats is Senator Clinton. Does anyone believe that we know what she intends to do? Her whole plan up to this point is to say nothing until after the election. Her records are sealed until after the election. Nothing of any substance will be discussed until after the election. The American people should be asking tougher questions. They didn't in 2006, and they don't appear to be willing to do it in 2008, either.

Ultimately, we will get the government that we deserve. And, yes, they will also get an education. That's the problem with learning by trial and error: first comes the test, then comes the lesson.

What gifts does Obama possess besides good looks ? Yes, he is a talented speaker even when he is lying through his teeth (I was concieved because of Selma) but his "gifts" are no more special that the contestants on Who Wants to be the Next Supermodel.
I don't want a gifted leader, nor do I care if he/she has clearly articulated talents.

I do want a leader who:

1) Sends our troops to kill terrorists
2) Doesn't attempt to take more of my paycheck that is absolutely needed for the Government
3) Secures the Borders
4) Defends the Constitution against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC
5) Doesn't bash business and supports free trade
6) Pisses liberals off

#6 is optional but I figure anyone that does 1-5 would pretty much cover #6

Obama is simply a liberal con man ... he tries to sound moderate but in the end would simply be another race baiting black liberal ... At least Al Sharpton is above board about his agenda and I think has just as many talents as Obama without the natural good looks.

"Ultimately, we will get the government that we deserve. And, yes, they will also get an education. That's the problem with learning by trial and error: first comes the test, then comes the lesson."

Well said Kev (including most of your post #11)

The one problem I have is this nation can ill afford another "education" such as 9/11. And I will not vote for any candidate that does not put the security of the nation ahead of all other priorities.

If you cannot address Obama's posturing in his book Dreams of My Father, you are blowing your comments out your asp.

Go to that book and read as much of it as you can stand. Then you will know the man behind the facade. If you like that man, then by all means vote for him.

Europe does not defend itself. The sucker US taxpayer foots that bill.

As for the USA becoming like Europe, I doubt there is time for that to happen. As an atheist who believes in the reality of religious apocalyptics, it is clear that should the US go the route of Europe, Europe's subsequent decline would quickly sweep across North America as well.

Mycroft..Obama gave up making 'bad choices'...when he entered college...Bush, on the other hand was 'irresponsible' long after that.

11. Posted by Steve Crickmore | December 11, 2007 10:06 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

More liberal BS. Your source is Wikipedia. I already know that Wikipedia has been taken over by the left. That's why I said we had no proof. Nothing has been proven about Bush and substances.

Now Obama, on the other hand, has come out and admitted to Felonies! This I consider PROOF enough.

And back to one other point I have made for years. George Bush is not the best choice we could have had for President. He was the best of the available choices - by a wide margin.

Obama doesn't even rise to that best of the Dem choices.

Mycroft:

RE: "If Democratic control of Congress and reducing the budget in Iraq to reduce the troops there was such a good idea that it was going to get a Democratic Presidential candidate elected, then why is the approval record for Congress at a historic low?"

Because the Democrats failed to deliver.

Americans voted for change in 2006, and the Democrats won on a platform that promised essentially nothing after the first 100 hours except get out of Iraq.

If 2008 is a "Change Election", and I think that it is, the majority will be voting for change. They won't vote Republican. They will have to vote for a Democrat, and their basic hope will be:

In the past, Americans have preferred divided government. In this election, the need for change will drive the idea of a united, one-party government. And even though Congress under the Democrats is a disaster, they will give the Democrats another chance.

13. Posted by kevino | December 11, 2007 10:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

And your one party government may have been part of what many were fighting in 2006. And htey got what they wanted.

But the bottom line is that I think that the 2008 election will not be one where the Dems will gain again, the people are starting to wise up some.

At least one can hope.

Mycroft:

RE: "And your one party government may have been part of what many were fighting in 2006. And they got what they wanted."

To a certain extent, you are correct. 2006 for President Bush was somewhat like 1994 for President Clinton. The public pulled the President's teeth and put the other party in Congress. The difference is that some of the 1994 vote was a rejection of Clinton, but a lot of it was a change to GOP policies. Many, in particular, voted for change in Congress simply to change congressional leadership and to support the Contract with America. In 2006 the GOP ran on a platform of "Stay the course in Iraq", while the Democrats went with little more than "Out of Iraq".

RE: "But the bottom line is that I think that the 2008 election will not be one where the Dems will gain again, the people are starting to wise up some."

I don't see any evidence of that. If you look at the polls that cover issues, the mood of the public is very much on the side of the issues that are good for Democrats. Republicans in some polls still win on national security and terrorism (barely), but those issues are very low in priority with the public.

And while it is true that the Democratic Congress as a whole is polling very badly, the polls for individual races clearly favor the Democrats. In fact, given the number of GOP seats at risk in the Senate, there is a real possibility that Democrats will pick up seats in the Senate to get a super-majority. If that happens, the GOP may not be able to filibuster.

I just don't see any polls that indicate the US public is changing back to the GOP. This is the Democrats election to lose.

And by the way, there is another dynamic at work in this election that I have written about before. If either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, there are large numbers of people who will go to the polls for the first time to vote for the first woman or minority President. These voters are overwhelmingly Democrats, and they will probably vote for Democrats straight down the line.

And by the way, there is another dynamic at work in this election that I have written about before. If either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, there are large numbers of people who will go to the polls for the first time to vote for the first woman or minority President. These voters are overwhelmingly Democrats, and they will probably vote for Democrats straight down the line.

24. Posted by kevino | December 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

And a large number who don't want either one of them.

But the other statement I made above is that there are some out there that will not let Hillary intot he White House, even by extreme methods.

The number of new voters will be huge.

Traditionally, the Democrats always try to increase voter turn-out, particularly for are disenfranchised. Such voters are solidly with the Democrats on domestic issues. The problem for Democrats is that they can't get these voters to the polls. If you pay attention to polls, then you know that there is a huge difference between polls of Americans versus polls of adults versus polls of "likely voters". Democrats in most years do well with the public but fail to win for likely voters, and that's why they frequently lose national elections. For them, it's a simple matter of getting voter turn-out.

But even without the impact of women and minorities this time around, the GOP has clearly lost ground. More people identify with the Democrats. Domestic policy is more important than foreign policy.

A quick google search shows multiple polls:

Democratic ideas for fixing the healthcare system to cover the uninsured enjoy more support among Americans than proposals coming from Republicans, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows.

Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track? 69% say: wrong track

Republican leaders share blame for Congress's lack of productivity; Democrats holds 12-point advantage over GOP as better able to manage the federal government.

I see a lot of dissatisfaction. The country is already in a housing slump and sees a falling dollar as a bad thing. Consumer confidence is down, and many see a recession coming.

This is not an electorate that is going to vote for more of the same.

Nothing has been proven about Bush and substances.

You're kidding, right?

"Have you used drugs in the last 7 years?" Bush: "No." "Have you used drugs in the last 15 years?" Bush: "No." "Have you used drugs in the last 25 years?" Bush: "No comment."

Replace "years" with "days" above, and then imagine yourself having this conversation with your child. And tell us that you would walk away thinking, "well, nothing has been proven!"

If Democratic control of Congress and reducing the budget in Iraq to reduce the roops there was such a good idea that it was going to get a Democratic Presidential candidate elected, then why is the approval record for Congress at a historic low?

Partly because the Republicans keep blocking the Democrats from doing what they were elected to do. As evidenced by the fact that Congressional Democrats still poll higher than Congressional Republicans.

Interesting and well written points. However: I could never, ever vote for someone who looks to Dick Durbin for how to vote on any given issue. Obama can't 'suss out stupid', and that scares me.

Brian,
Since a simple majority is all that is needed to win a vote (excepting things like breaking a fillibuster), it can't just be those nasty wasty wepubwicans getting in Reid and Pelosi's way.