They’ve made the point here about as effectively as you can make it but surely his inexperience has been priced into the polls by now. He’s been deflecting attacks on this point literally for years; all this is, really, is Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad by another name. Why will it resonate any more than that spot did?
Right, right. I keep forgetting. Idgits don’t pay attention until the final week.
Facebook Photo Shows RFK Granddaughter Shooting Baby Seals
-
Strange enough to see a photograph of a Kennedy firing a rifle, one with a
telescopic sight no less, as the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination
ap...
40 minutes ago
4 Opinion(s):
I do not know if you understand American politics, but at the last hour, especially since it appears that Obama will win, the McCain campaign is throwing everything it can, including this bit about "inepexperience." How much experience did Reagan have when he assumed the presidential office? Same question for Clinton, and John Kennedy? My own preference would have been for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and for Barack to acquire some more experience and run in 2016. But it did not work out that way, the Democrats nominated Obama and the choice basically comes down to this: do we want more of same policies as we had under Bush, because that is likely what we would get from McCain? Or do we want someone who at least holds the potential for bringing real change to the White House and who seems to have the same ability of persuasion as Reagan did - namely Obama? I was one of people who voted early in Ohio and I cast my vote for Obama. And when it comes to experience let me say Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice-president and one could not ask for a better adviser in my opinion. Biden has experience in and a good grasp of both foreign and domestic policy. We shall see who wins on Tuesday night, but I think all of the people who are panicking about an Obama presidency will be proven wrong in 2012, if he is elected.
I do understand American politics actually, exceedingly well I might add. Read my post: Parallels: USA 2008 and SA 1992. That should be all doubt to rest.
This election is a referendum on the United States system and way of life - like ours was - and I'm afraid the wrong decision is about to be made.
I did not mean that you do not understand American politics, I should have worded the first sentence in my comment differently. Actually American politics can be difficult to understand even for people who live here in US and study politics. But for whatever reason you seem to have a pro-McCain agenda and anti-Obama. I have disagreements about this with members of my own family and my parents' friends, but if Obama gets elected I do not think all the things you and they are panicking about will come to pass. In your other post you bring up that no American soldiers died in Iraq in October. That is good, but it remains, in my opinion, the wrong war to begin with, the US should never have invaded Iraq. In my discussions with South Africans out of approximately 60 people I talked to there only one favored the American invasion of Iraq, and that was a white guy. The rest, black South Africans and a few whites, seem to have understood what is just dawning on some Americans. That war was never about "weapons of mass destruction" it was about America gaining control over Middle East and re-shaping it in whatever image the neo-conservatives (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) had, and about securing profitable contracts for companies like Haliburton in the process. McCain never questioned the morality or legality of this war, he only split with Bush on issue of how many American soldiers should we send, how many young soldiers need to get injured or killed so that Haliburton can maximize its profits. So if Obama ends this war, more power to him, it is way past time for Iraqis to step up and ensure the security of their country.
G-man, it's an election year, I have my favourite, you have yours, we're both pushing for our boy.
If I'm pro-McCain, you're pro-Obama. That point is settled.
As for Iraq, again, if one leaves the liberal, left-wing conspiracy theories behind, and just thinks lucidly, the thinking at the time was the Saddam HAD WMDs, so much so that even Dems voted in favour of going to war, including Hillary Clinton. I wonder how Rumsfeld, Cheney managed to persuade her, huh?
The US had just been rattled to the core with 9/11. It was under attack. There were indications that more would come.
For whatever reason, the war exists. Whether you are for or against the war, forget what went before and understand that thousands of good US soldiers have died for a noble cause that yes, deviated from the original mission but the facts on the ground dictate what happens now.
As you are about to win the war, Obama wants to pull out? That's just plain stupid.
Win the war first, then worry about blaming who got it right or wrong. The US is so close. The Dems' GAMBLE that the Iraqis must step up leaves out the FACT that for 30 years Saddam oppressed his people to the point where they cannot take care of themselves. To leave them now is madness.
And what if the "well, they must just step and do it themselves" plan fails? Is it ok for Iraq to implode? What happens then? Send the troops back in again?
Forget the arguments for going into war, forget what has gone before, McCain's argument is that the job must be finished. And that will be when the generals say it is ok to do so, not when the politicians say so.
Post a Comment