Keleverone, "And why was he speaking with a "stern voice" as you say?"

Because he needs to. The media will walk all over you if you can not hold your ground. Being a senator or a congressman you will get walked all over by your own party if you can not be firm. Somebody running for the highest position in our country needs to be a strong person that people know means business. All three candidates are probably being followed by the Paparazzi like they were in Hollywood. They absolutely need to be, "stern."

I don't understand why this is a quality that turns so many people off about him. He didn't get up and flip out by throwing something or becoming irate, not even close. It is a good quality to a point....A quality that radical terrorist groups do not want in office. They are praying for Obama to win, so they can win.




[edit on 11-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

Is there really a difference between any of these 'potential' candidates? Would it matter what 'party' they claim they belong to? So he was willing to run under a different party - AND? Why 'hide/deny' it? They are all CFR and the winner is already known to the Bilderburg-CFR-.... yada yada anyway.

Why do you think the need for all these electoral shenanigans? 'Super' delegates? Polling machines with 'mystery' innards that cant be audited, 'special' supreme court decisions. C'mon already.

So McCaine 'flashes temper' --- hardly. They need to constantly remind people that there's a campaign going on, there wasn't enough mention of McCaine, so 'viola!" an event for your consumption! Enjoy. Hillary is next!

(sorry, it's been a long week.)

Originally posted by Comsence2075
Me neither. He did not raise his voice at all. He was just being firm with the reporter. Reporters can be ruthless, and I am sure all three candidates are constantly hastled about past issues or things unrelated to their campaign. We need a president who is firm, it is a tough job.

Reporters should be ruthless. Maybe if reporters had more guts, and their editors weren't hampered by the right-wing corporate fascists who own most of the media in this country, we'd have real news again instead of the heaping pile of dung the MSM feeds us on a daily basis--and this nation would be better for it.

As far as skelotons, ALL the candiates have them. I don't even see why the fact that he had a conversation with Kerry about this is a big deal. He gave him the respect to sit down with him and talk about something like two adults, and decided he wouldn't do it.

Clinton has a TON of skeletons and I think everybody knows that. Obama does not have close to as many, but has his own share of things he would like not brought up.

As do all political candidates. The question is, will those skeletons point toward a certain direction for that candidate's possible term of office? I think McCain's certainly do, and so to do Hillary's. Obama, I'm not so sure about. I think he may be the real deal, or as close to it as we'll get in this election.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by Comsence2075
Me neither. He did not raise his voice at all. He was just being firm with the reporter. Reporters can be ruthless, and I am sure all three candidates are constantly hastled about past issues or things unrelated to their campaign. We need a president who is firm, it is a tough job.

Reporters should be ruthless. Maybe if reporters had more guts, and their editors weren't hampered by the right-wing corporate fascists who own most of the media in this country, we'd have real news again instead of the heaping pile of dung the MSM feeds us on a daily basis--and this nation would be better for it.

As far as skelotons, ALL the candiates have them. I don't even see why the fact that he had a conversation with Kerry about this is a big deal. He gave him the respect to sit down with him and talk about something like two adults, and decided he wouldn't do it.

Clinton has a TON of skeletons and I think everybody knows that. Obama does not have close to as many, but has his own share of things he would like not brought up.

As do all political candidates. The question is, will those skeletons point toward a certain direction for that candidate's possible term of office? I think McCain's certainly do, and so to do Hillary's. Obama, I'm not so sure about. I think he may be the real deal, or as close to it as we'll get in this election.

I agree on both points. The media does need to be ruthless, that is their job. I didn't mean to make my comment appear to be bashing the media, I was just explaining why I felt they needed to be firm.

They absolutely all have things in their past they want to hide. I personally feel McCain has less than both democrats however.

I don't mind McCain's temper very much, it's his policies I object to.

McCain isn't so bad compared to Bush, from what I've seen, and I do think he has principles he'll stand up for (though he's no saint) whereas Bush only seems to care about ideology, not principle. But it looks like he's going to continue Bush's failed policies anyway, and that's a mistake.

I actually kind of like & respect John McCain in a personal sense, but I won't vote for him for President.



[edit on 4/11/08 by xmotex]

At least he is being honest by saying things he knows most of the people do not want to hear. That is something I can respect, unlike Hillary who would probably tell people Santa Claus was real to get elected.

He is at least being honest with his policies unlike Bush who ran on a conservative platform, against everything he has done.

He may be similar to Bush as far as foreign policy now but I really do not think he is as close to ignorant and irrational as Bush.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Comsence2075]