Yes, we can.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

So given a McCain / Obama choice what are you thinking about doing?

Originally Posted by Rush

Even if you decide not to decide you still have made a choice

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

You are speaking, sir, of journalists at the paper of record.

McCain cheated frequently on his first wife. Wouldn't surprise me if he cheated on his second. That it might be with a lobbyist suggests a particular lapse in judgment, but not enough for me to truly care.

[JWBear]

Another Obama voter here, but with the caveat that he wasn't my first choice.

[scaeagles]

It is obvious due to shrinking circulation that many people are losing respect for the poorly named paper of record.

Both sides deny. No evidence. No evidence of votes cast against principle to support her lobbying.

Good Lord. I don't even like McCain and I have to defend him from stupidity.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

For the record - the Times' "story" on McCain is a joke. What a load of heresay crap.

[Alex]

I'd like to think that was an intentional blending of hearsay and heresy.

[Not Afraid]

I think the thing that scares me the most about Obama is his talk. It's not that I don't like what he's saying, I just think he's going to end up in a classic over-promise and under-deliver situation. I've seen it too many times and I don't believe he CAN do it. I would rather the President be a little more realistic and not so pie in the sky.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think the thing that scares me the most about Obama is his talk. It's not that I don't like what he's saying, I just think he's going to end up in a classic over-promise and under-deliver situation. I've seen it too many times and I don't believe he CAN do it. I would rather the President be a little more realistic and not so pie in the sky.

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.

Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.

Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?

Not to speak for Not Afraid, but it was that other Clinton that's exactly why we don't feel like getting fooled again.

It's quite a bit easier to give inspirational speeaches and even have your heart in the right place. Quite another to perform in that fashion once esconced in the White House.

We've been there, seen that.


Obama's sweet but hot air just does not impress me.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not to speak for Not Afraid, but it was that other Clinton that's exactly why we don't feel like getting fooled again.

It's quite a bit easier to give inspirational speeaches and even have your heart in the right place. Quite another to perform in that fashion once esconced in the White House.

We've been there, seen that.


Obama's sweet but hot air just does not impress me.

But this still doesn't make sense to me. You were burned once by Bill Clinton but you'll take the person claiming that legacy as her own, who will return him to the White House in at least a significant advisory role, and who was actually part of what you feel burned by over the one who, as you says, represents what you found so exciting the last time.

It looks to me like you're saying that you'll take the one you know will be disappointing since by knowing that it will make the disappointment less over the one that will have the most room to disappoint for having raised expectations in the first place. Essentially that you're saying "I'd rather have this really dry bland piece of cake simply because I know it is dry an bland instead of that other really delicious looking piece of cake because it might turn out to be dry and bland.

In terms of what either can accomplish I don't really see why there is any great expectation for either of them. Either the victory of a Democrat will sweep in a sufficient majority in Congress to overcome filibuster, in which case either of them should be able to do whatever they want, especially in the exuberant first 18 months, or it won't in which case neither of them will be able to do anything in particular unless the president has the ability to impassion the middle to their cause.

I must say that as someone on the outside of the Democratic party I really don't see the calculus where Obama isn't preferable in almost every way since it seems to me that at worst Obama ends up being what we pretty much know Clinton will be.