thanks to Barack Obama

[fakemaster]

Please, dont be offended by this, but I somehow dont understand those who adorn themselves with pictures taken with prominent people.

I mean, I have pictures with myself and the Minister of Defense the Chief of Staff of the Nato and severall other important persons aswell, but I would never ever put them on my wall.

My friend who is a lawyer adorns himself with pictures of soo many prominent people.. I dont think it makes him a better person or even more special.

Maybe this is an american thing? (my friend is american) I dont understand the purpose!

Amazing. You have this ability to state the obvious truth in such an unassuming way people don't get angry. That is a talent friend. No one wants to hear that.

People keep those picture around because they want everyone to think they are important. Which is usually far from the case. Especially when those pictures were taken at some public event where they met someone for 5 seconds.

[wombat247]

Please, dont be offended by this, but I somehow dont understand those who adorn themselves with pictures taken with prominent people.

I mean, I have pictures with myself and the Minister of Defense the Chief of Staff of the Nato and severall other important persons aswell, but I would never ever put them on my wall.

My friend who is a lawyer adorns himself with pictures of soo many prominent people.. I dont think it makes him a better person or even more special.

Maybe this is an american thing? (my friend is american) I dont understand the purpose!

It's a way of simulating the idea that since you're in a picture with someone "important" that you too are important. It's similar to getting your picture taken with a celebrity. I think it has something to do with self-esteem and proving your self-worth. For some reason, I come into contact with celebrities all day long but I don't even talk to them unless I have something to say other than, "I'm SUCH a big fan of yours!" When I see people in a pic with a celebrity, I just think they're saying, "I'm your biggest fan! I'm the president of your fan club in the greater metro area!"

A coworker once showed me (and everyone else in the office) a picture of Barack Obama from 50 feet away and exclaimed, "MY BROTHER TOOK THIS PICTURE CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW CLOSE HE GOT????" I feigned amazement and moved on.

I'm American and I'm with you- I just don't understand it either. Maybe it's different for sycophants- who knows.

[tomhorn]

there will be no digressing this thread into bla bla political banter.

only high minded analysis.

No bla bla political banter intended. My high minded analysis is that Obama does not have enough experience to be President. Feel free to disagree ... that's why we have elections.

Obama is a 2 1/2 term State Senator, who got elected to the US Senate by running against a guy who got brought in at the last minute (from Maryland) to replace his opponent who dropped out of the race. After a whopping 3 years in the Senate, he started running for President. Even his running mate said he wasn't experienced enough to be President when he was running against him, so don't blame me for bringing it up.

Pug is correct, no one has actually been President before they get elected for the first time. I had never been the President of a company until after I started my second business, but I had been a General Manager and a department head for others prior to doing it. I failed miserably in starting my first business, but have succeeded quite nicely now because I was much better prepared the second time around. If you look back at recent history, GWB, Clinton, Regan and Carter all ran State governments before becoming President. George H.W. Bush was a V.P. While neither candidate has done that in this case, you have one candidate with 25 years in the US Congress/Senate, runing against one with three.

In this, or any other election (at least in the US 2 party system) there are three types of voters. Those that will vote for their preferred party's candidate no matter who they are, those that totally support and believe in their favorite candidate, and those who don't make up their minds until shortly before they walk into the voting booth. The latter group is a lot bigger than people think. People can talk all they want about candidates, and answer all the polling questions they get thrown at them during a campaign. When they walk into that booth and actually have to pull the lever, they are going to ask themselves who they think will do the better job of running the country. IMO, experience is going to be a big factor in that decision.

Just in case you couldn't tell ... I am one of those people.

I am not sold on McCain as my candidate, nor was I sold on GWB in either of his elections. I voted for GWB only because I thought he was the best of a bad lot, and believe me, that's not saying much. I would have loved to have seen another candidate besides the two that ran against him come forward on the Democratic side that was not a total bust. Gore and Kerry were perhaps popular guys among Democrats, but they were unelectable. Both came off poorly in their campaigns, but should have won easily. And they were both experienced too.

If the ticket were reversed, Biden as President and Obama as V.P. then I would be more inclined to vote for the ticket, but we elect Presidents, not Vice Presidents.

Also, don't underestimate the power of the Clinton machine. She and her supporters all know that the best thing that can happen for her is for McCain to get elected. If Obama wins and serves two terms, she will never be President and that is her end game. If McCain gets elected, he will likely be a one-term President due to his age, unless something phenominal happens during his term. This makes her the clear favorite in 2012. Don't get me wrong, she will say and do all the right things in public, but don't be surprised if the difference in this election is the Clinton machine.

Edited August 26, 2008 by tomhorn

[slay]

oh boy, here we go again...!

[fakemaster]

LOL. Like it's hard to be President.

(Did he say that?)

That's how you stir it up slay.

[redbird]

No bla bla political banter intended. My high minded analysis is that Obama does not have enough experience to be President. Feel free to disagree ... that's why we have elections.

Obama is a 2 1/2 term State Senator, who got elected to the US Senate by running against a guy who got brought in at the last minute (from Maryland) to replace his opponent who dropped out of the race. After a whopping 3 years in the Senate, he started running for President. Even his running mate said he wasn't experienced enough to be President when he was running against him, so don't blame me for bringing it up.

Pug is correct, no one has actually been President before they get elected for the first time. I had never been the President of a company until after I started my second business, but I had been a General Manager and a department head for others prior to doing it. I failed miserably in starting my first business, but have succeeded quite nicely now because I was much better prepared the second time around. If you look back at recent history, GWB, Clinton, Regan and Carter all ran State governments before becoming President. George H.W. Bush was a V.P. While neither candidate has done that in this case, you have one candidate with 25 years in the US Congress/Senate, runing against one with three.

In this, or any other election (at least in the US 2 party system) there are three types of voters. Those that will vote for their preferred party's candidate no matter who they are, those that totally support and believe in their favorite candidate, and those who don't make up their minds until shortly before they walk into the voting booth. The latter group is a lot bigger than people think. People can talk all they want about candidates, and answer all the polling questions they get thrown at them during a campaign. When they walk into that booth and actually have to pull the lever, they are going to ask themselves who they think will do the better job of running the country. IMO, experience is going to be a big factor in that decision.

Just in case you couldn't tell ... I am one of those people.

I am not sold on McCain as my candidate, nor was I sold on GWB in either of his elections. I voted for GWB only because I thought he was the best of a bad lot, and believe me, that's not saying much. I would have loved to have seen another candidate besides the two that ran against him come forward on the Democratic side that was not a total bust. Gore and Kerry were perhaps popular guys among Democrats, but they were unelectable. Both came off poorly in their campaigns, but should have won easily. And they were both experienced too.

If the ticket were reversed, Biden as President and Obama as V.P. then I would be more inclined to vote for the ticket, but we elect Presidents, not Vice Presidents.

Also, don't underestimate the power of the Clinton machine. She and her supporters all know that the best thing that can happen for her is for McCain to get elected. If Obama wins and serves two terms, she will never be President and that is her end game. If McCain gets elected, he will likely be a one-term President due to his age, unless something phenominal happens during his term. This makes her the clear favorite in 2012. Don't get me wrong, she will say and do all the right things in public, but don't be surprised if the difference in this election is the Clinton machine.

What a load of bla bla bla. I'll attempt to bring it back up to an analysis level but it's going to be difficult from here.

As a student of American History, this blows my mind. The only presidents of the past 25 years with considerably more experience going into office than Obama will have is George Bush I, perhaps the worst president of the last 25 years (most would argue his son is worse but Bush I was similarly ineffectual).

So you won't vote for Obama because he's unexperienced and you didn't vote for Gore or Kerry because they are 'unelectable'. Your standards for what you need to vote for has certainly changed as both Gore and Kerry had far better resumes to lead the country than George Bush. If George Bush was more 'electable' than Gore or Kerry I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a simply a partisan that wouldn't ever vote for a Democrat. It seems you're just the type of voter that many on this thread cannot understand.

Also, I think you're way off on your Clinton analysis. Clinton knows full well that if Obama looses she'll be blamed and will never have a chance to run for president again. After 8 years of Obama she'll still be plenty young to run and will probably be seen as the heir apparent.

[fotoman]

"not experienced enough" is a talking point - no talkingpoints allowed

Anyway - End it here, get back to the photos - no one can name them all?

[fakemaster]

The people who complain the most are the ones who keep re-electing Ted Kennedy. Until people have to pass a test to vote then it will never change. So there's no point in getting in a fight about it.

[redbird]

The people who complain the most are the ones who keep re-electing Ted Kennedy. Until people have to pass a test to vote then it will never change. So there's no point in getting in a fight about it.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

[tomhorn]

What a load of bla bla bla. I'll attempt to bring it back up to an analysis level but it's going to be difficult from here.

As a student of American History, this blows my mind. The only presidents of the past 25 years with considerably more experience going into office than Obama will have is George Bush I, perhaps the worst president of the last 25 years (most would argue his son is worse but Bush I was similarly ineffectual).

As I said in my post GWB, Clinton, Regan and Carter all were Governors before becoming President. I repeat for clarity, they all had experience running governments before they became President. If you don't believe that having done that gives them an edge in experience over Senator Obama then I don't know what to say. We simply disagree, whether you think I am capable of being analytical or not.

So you won't vote for Obama because he's unexperienced and you didn't vote for Gore or Kerry because they are 'unelectable'. Your standards for what you need to vote for has certainly changed as both Gore and Kerry had far better resumes to lead the country than George Bush. If George Bush was more 'electable' than Gore or Kerry I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a simply a partisan that wouldn't ever vote for a Democrat. It seems you're just the type of voter that many on this thread cannot understand.

Actually, I've voted for several Democrats for President, most recently Bill Clinton in his first election. I have also voted for Independents. I vote for the candidate that I believe to be best capable to run our country. The party they belong to is of no consequence to me. Sometimes, that person is merely the best of a bad lot, as it was with GWB, and I believe this is what is going to happen for me in this election. As for the experience of GWB vs Gore and Kerry, we can agree to disagree on this as well. IMO his two opponents also had enough experience to be President but I would not characterize them as having far better resumes. GWB was a Governor and ran several large companies including being the Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers before becoming President. I disliked his opponents for other reasons, so for me experience was not the deciding factor in those elections. In fact, I was very likely to have voted against him after his first term, but couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry.

Also, I think you're way off on your Clinton analysis. Clinton knows full well that if Obama looses she'll be blamed and will never have a chance to run for president again. After 8 years of Obama she'll still be plenty young to run and will probably be seen as the heir apparent.

While that's a well reasoned argument and may end up being the case, I think the prospect of her being blamed for an Obama loss is exactly why she will say and do all the right things publicly and encourage all her supporters to do the same. However, if Obama gets beat, I'm guessing she won't be too disappointed. In 2016 she will be 68 years old, which although not young, is still younger than McCain is this year. I'm not sure that helps her though, and she will also have to try to maintain her current popularity for eight more years while having to support Obama and her Party. She will also be a Democrat trying to get elected following a 2 term Democratic President. This has successfully been done exactly one time since 1900 (vs 3 times for the Republicans), when Harry Truman became President after FDR. He was FDR's VP where HRC is not. If Obama happens to be an extraordinary President, then maybe she can buck history. If not, the country will be looking for another change. It's a tough go for her.

I love that in America we can have these kinds of debates without fear of reprisal or getting thrown in jail. It's one of the things that makes America great.

We can disagree on politics and still go out for a beer afterwards ... and talk watches ...

[redbird]

As I said in my post GWB, Clinton, Regan and Carter all were Governors before becoming President. I repeat for clarity, they all had experience running governments before they became President. If you don't believe that having done that gives them an edge in experience over Senator Obama then I don't know what to say. We simply disagree, whether you think I am capable of being analytical or not.

Indeed. In my opinion being a governor of a state is nothing like being the president of a country. Being a senator you are at least part of the government that runs the extremely complex issues of the federal government. As a governor you're not even exposed to these issues in any way. Obama's experience in foreign affairs and national politics is obviously greater than any of the governors you mention. There is a reason that countless governors become senators but few senators return to governorships. A Senator is a much more important (and difficult) job in this country, whether or not you agree it should be.

What you're saying is similar to taking a CEO that worked at Anchor Steam Brewing company and making him the CEO of Budweiser. I think I'd rather have one of the VPs of Budweiser take the head job.

I really am not very interested in his ability to be an administrator, as his only job in this regard is to appoint the right people for the administrative roles in the executive branch. People that he trusts and that will give him good advice. People like Chuck Hagel, Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan, Richard Posner, Robert Lucas and Joe Biden.

Again, the McCain of 2000 would have been a legitimate contender for my vote. The McCain of 2000, of course, would never dream of voting for the McCain of 2008. Total sellout panderer that has degraded the (already sorry) level of political discourse in this country because he knows this is his last shot. It's one thing to change your mind on an issue, but quite another to completely 180 on issues that you had been fighting for your whole 30-year career.

It's all about priorities to me. Obama's 2 top priorities, energy and economy, are my 2 top priorities and his plans on both make great sense to me and have even been lauded by countless conservative economists- guys like Ben Stein, Posner, Lucas and Alan Greenspan.

PS: Making the statement that you voted for Bush in 2004 and Dole in 1996 while trying to claim a lack of partisanship is the biggest head scratcher though.

[ubiquitous]

Pho-

Is that a pic of you with Henry Rollins?

BTW, do you have a pic with Jetmid?

[fakemaster]

LOL! We have a Jetmid sighting!

[tomhorn]

Indeed. In my opinion being a governor of a state is nothing like being the president of a country. Being a senator you are at least part of the government that runs the extremely complex issues of the federal government. As a governor you're not even exposed to these issues in any way. Obama's experience in foreign affairs and national politics is obviously greater than any of the governors you mention. There is a reason that countless governors become senators but few senators return to governorships. A Senator is a much more important (and difficult) job in this country, whether or not you agree it should be.

Whether or not a Senator's job is more important or difficult is not the issue, nor is their lack of desire to go back to being Governors. Governors have far more experience managing large bureaucracies than a Senator ever will, as do CEO's of major companies. This is the prime responsibility of being President. Also, if Senatorial experience is so much better than a Governor's experience to prepare one to be President, then please explain why the last former Senator to get elected as President was Nixon, and the last sitting Senator was Kennedy.

But thanks for proving my point anyway. Obama has a grand total of three years experience in the areas you mentioned. McCain has 25.

What you're saying is similar to taking a CEO that worked at Anchor Steam Brewing company and making him the CEO of Budweiser. I think I'd rather have one of the VPs of Budweiser take the head job.

No, to use your analogy, I'm saying I would rather have the CEO at Anchor Steam over a Budweiser VP that just started working there after moving up from a middle management position at another smaller brewery. Big difference.

I really am not very interested in his ability to be an administrator, as his only job in this regard is to appoint the right people for the administrative roles in the executive branch. People that he trusts and that will give him good advice. People like Chuck Hagel, Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan, Richard Posner, Robert Lucas and Joe Biden.

There is a lot more administration to be done than just hiring a few people. You have to lead the people that work for you, set the agenda, and be certain that the people you hire are not off doing their own thing. This is one of Bush's major failures IMO, as Rove and Cheney certainly appear to have set the agenda, and were clearly off doing their own things.

It's all about priorities to me. Obama's 2 top priorities, energy and economy, are my 2 top priorities and his plans on both make great sense to me and have even been lauded by countless conservative economists- guys like Ben Stein, Posner, Lucas and Alan Greenspan.

You're apparently an Obama supporter, and that's fine with me. I think the guy is charismatic, and he does have some policies I like. In four years I will have less concern over his level of experience and at that point I think he will be more ready for the job than he is now. Don't get me wrong, people rise to the occassion all the time, and I hope he does if he gets elected.

PS: Making the statement that you voted for Bush in 2004 and Dole in 1996 while trying to claim a lack of partisanship is the biggest head scratcher though.

I suggest you go back and read my previous posts. I never said that I voted for Dole in 1996, and I also did not say I voted for Bush because he was a Republican. I did say, "I voted for GWB only because I thought he was the best of a bad lot, and believe me, that's not saying much." I also said, "I vote for the candidate that I believe to be best capable to run our country. The party they belong to is of no consequence to me." Believe what you want, but I have no partisan agenda. If Obama were a Republican, an Independent, or a Martian, I'd still feel the same way. The fact that he is a Democrat makes no difference to me.

For the record, I actually voted for Ross Perot in 1996 as purely a symbolic protest vote. I was a bit more of a rebel back then.

[fotoman]

Pho-

Is that a pic of you with Henry Rollins?

BTW, do you have a pic with Jetmid?

YUP! that was one of the toughest ones to call

Hey, Political arguers - take it to another thread ok

re: jetmid himself - no, but here is a photo of me chillin on a gulstream 4 flying to pick up a US senate candidate and take her to a few different fund raisers around the state.

[chronoluvvv]

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/yt--fE19za...about_obama.swf <--- what Jesse really said about Hussein