how on earth does GWB and Obama compare. The only thing that they have in common with their campaigns was/is the laid back personality. The differences are huge though even with that comparison. Bush seemed laid back, but he was really, a border line retard, extremely lazy and very incompetent. And full of BS. "I'm into ranching" the dude is afraid of horses! yeah a real cowboy.

Obama is laid back because he has an open mind and is actually weighing out what the other person has to say, not simply dismissing them as a pygmy or something similar. And yes, Obama is honest for a politician. the GOP simply isn't.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
I find it hard to believe that 84% of black Democrats favor Obama over Clinton based on politics alone.

And I suppose the women who support Hillary do so because she's a woman and white people who support John McCain do so because he's white? Is that how it works?

Unless you have a poll that asks black Obama supporters, "Why do you support Obama"? and 84% of them answer "Because he's black", you have no data. You're just speculating. You said:

Originally posted by sos37
98% of the African Americans and some white folks want to hand over control of this country to a man based on his skin color.

And you have no way of knowing that. Granted, there are probably some people, black and white, who will vote for him because he's black, but it's inaccurate (and worse) to assume that everyone who votes for him is doing so because of his race.

Like I already said, I gave you back 15% due to sensationalism. But this is where we will have to differ. It's true that I don't have a poll asking exactly why Black people are supporting Obama or that if such a poll were taken that the respondents would answer truthfully - all I'm saying is that the high numbers are speaking for themselves. When it comes time for the November election, I believe that percentage will be well above 90% - that is to say 90% of black voters both Democrat AND Republican are voting for Obama, with the majority voting for him based solely on his skin color.

Why do I choose to believe this? If anything, the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright saga made this point even more abundantly clear. It shook up the perception of Obama among non-blacks and has done damage to his candidacy. At first, the damage was bad but then Obama delivers a speech saying he wants racial unity, despite the fact that he spent 20 years under Wright's teachings in that church. And many people looked past it all and went right on supporting Obama.

I believe there is an equal amount of dirt out there on Obama AND Clinton and the only thing that separates the two is the level of experience.

This is why my vote in Nov. must be for McCain. I don't really trust him, either, and I believe he's too liberal a candidate for the office, but I believe he's the best of the three choices we're going to get.

More Obam-isms


"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions."
--exasperated by reporters after a news conference


"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
--after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
how on earth does GWB and Obama compare. The only thing that they have in common with their campaigns was/is the laid back personality. The differences are huge though even with that comparison. Bush seemed laid back, but he was really, a border line retard, extremely lazy and very incompetent. And full of BS. "I'm into ranching" the dude is afraid of horses! yeah a real cowboy.

No, you're not remembering the 2000 election very well. Forget policies for the time being. They don't matter for this discussion.

Bush ran in 2000 as a Washington outsider who was a uniter. This was his BIG selling point, along with compassionate conservatism, whatever the heck that was supposed to mean. Bush repeatedly referenced how he crossed the aisle in Texas and worked with the Dems on getting things accomplished, especially education improvements.

Now in 2008 Obama is running on the EXACT premise. Look at this web site. "There's no red America, there's no blue America, there's only the United States of America! (applause applause...)"

The template there using is the exact template Bush used. Heck, Obama even praised Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail. The 2000 Bush and the 2008 Obama were marketing the exact same way -as Washington outsiders, regular guys, people you could trust that sincerely wanted to change the way Washington works.

Oh... and one more thing... Both Bush and Obama were made to look more human and easier to relate to by highlighting their gaffes, their fallibility, and getting back on topic, the infantile side of their personalities.




[edit on 29-5-2008 by jamie83]

Originally posted by jamie83
Forget policies for the time being. They don't matter for this discussion.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head! Bravo!

And just because Bush ran as the Uniter and proceeded to divide the nation more than it has ever been doesn't mean that another person claiming to want to unite will follow in Bush's footsteps. That's faulty logic.

There's potentially a big difference in Bush and Obama. And the only way we'll know for sure is if he gets the chance to prove it. Bush proved what he was really up to.

IF Bush had been telling the truth, it would have been a good thing. In hindsight, we see he was lying out his bottom. Sometimes a person who seems like someone you can trust is just that. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. But he deserves to have the chance to prove himself.

By the way, ANY presidential candidate is going to promise to bring the country together. I don't think Division would be a very successful platform.

Originally posted by jamie83
The 2000 Bush and the 2008 Obama were marketing the exact same way -as Washington outsiders, regular guys, people you could trust that sincerely wanted to change the way Washington works.

Oh... and one more thing... Both Bush and Obama were made to look more human and easier to relate to by highlighting their gaffes, their fallibility, and getting back on topic, the infantile side of their personalities

I think you hit the nail on the head there. It is exactly the same. On the opposing side we have Hillary Clinton (Al Gore), not a great speaker, somewhat aloof, detail orientated, idiosyncratic.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jamie83
Forget policies for the time being. They don't matter for this discussion.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head! Bravo!

And just because Bush ran as the Uniter and proceeded to divide the nation more than it has ever been doesn't mean that another person claiming to want to unite will follow in Bush's footsteps. That's faulty logic.

Of course you're right, but you're missing the point. Because it's so easy for Obama to make promises about policies, etc., it's even more important to thoroughly dissect his personality, probably more so than his policies. Policies can be changed in the blink of an eye. Who he really is and what he really believes in isn't so easily changed.

By the way, ANY presidential candidate is going to promise to bring the country together. I don't think Division would be a very successful platform.

This isn't true at all. Just look at Clinton. She doesn't even fake like she is going to bring anybody together. McCain might mention his past attempts to work with Democrats, but he certainly isn't campaigning as a Uniter.

I don't know about you, but I followed the 2000 election very closely, and I can vividly remember the vibe of the time that was associated with Bush. It was very similar to the vibe Obama is trying to portray now. It's not just about being a Uniter, it's about being an Outsider.

Sorry, but when people like James Baker (Bush 2000) and Ted Kennedy are in your camp leading up to an election, you're neither and Outsider or a Uniter. Therefore, I'm going with my common sense and gut on this -Obama is playing a well scripted character.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I'd rather have a honest president

Well then, best not go with Obama. He's up to his eyeballs in corruption and corporate bagmen. Try Ron Paul on for size.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
how on earth does GWB and Obama compare.

The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments are the same package just wrapped up with a pretty bow.

And yes, Obama is honest for a politician.

Originally posted by Luxifero
I believe the Obama Campaign has spent around 51 million on marketing the man alone.

That's all Obama is - marketing. A cult of personality that feeds on victimization and frustration. What you ought to be worried about is the kind of people behind him. The people that have shaped his inner psyche. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, James H. Cone, William Ayers, and many more.

How about a willingness to sit at the table and talk with our "enemies"....that has not been done in quite a while.

What? worried about the people who shaped his psyche? I am more worried about the NeoCONS (CON is an important part of that title) who have been shaping our country for the last 25 years

Originally posted by loam
I can't help but watch in horror what I feel was true during Bush's first race. What you see is NOT what you will get. Mark my words.

In fact, I don't get this Obama guy at all, and have an even harder time understanding why so many do.

God help us. We will need it regardless who is elected this year.

That makes two things you and I have agreed on in the past 12 months, Loam. If I had more time to spend here perhaps there are more.

Originally posted by skipperchuck
What? worried about the people who shaped his psyche? I am more worried about the NeoCONS

That's called frying pan to fire. Very negligent of you and other Obama supporters not to learn WHO you are voting for. When you do, it'll be too late.

I don't like his wife...but you quoted mostly jokes, some of which are actually funny...does a political have to be serious all the time?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by yellowcard]

"Barack Obama has an infantile mentality." LOL, and this makes him different how? Aren’t all 3 of the “front runners” rather immature? As for the “who’s the stupidest, Obama or Bush?” debate, consider this: Maybe neither of them is stupid. Maybe, just maybe, they are very smart. Maybe they both are accomplishing exactly what they set out to accomplish? Just a thought. (Is anyone familiar with the phrase “They’re in cahoots!”?)
Another thought is this: we should all realize that the candidates aren’t campaigning for our votes, they are campaigning for the PTB, those who actually do the choosing. After all, they don’t make sense to us, so maybe we aren’t the target audience, after all?

Too many people not only seem to think their votes actually count for something, they aren’t even voting for who they think will do the best job. Instead they are placing their bets on who they think will win, according to their own explanations, across the boards and in the community in general. On an almost daily basis I hear or read someone, somewhere saying, “You know he/she can’t/won’t win, don’t you?” That’s just wrong. We should be voting, not placing a bet. Or is it just me?

To those who say they would vote for Ron Paul if they could, try a write-in vote. If everyone who said they would vote for Ron Paul actually did, and those votes actually counted for something, the man might actually get somewhere. Perhaps the reason his campaign was so different and so quickly squashed is that he was playing to the wrong crowd, so to speak.

Disclaimer – This is only an opinion, and is not meant to offend anyone or to prove anything.