comment #1

MAGGA says ...

The Spielberg of politics

comment #2

mutinyco says ...

In other words, Democrats are acting out of emotion rather than thinking things through...

comment #3

berg says ...

Yet, why do I feel like the sword of Damocles is dangling o'er our collective heads

comment #4

StewartforPresident says ...

"In other words, Democrats are acting out of emotion rather than thinking things through..."

No, both parties are acting based on emotions. The Democrats based on optimism. The Republicans on fear.

I think most people can identify which one is more noble.

comment #5

mutinyco says ...

But that's inherent to both POV's -- liberalism is based on optimism, conservatism is based on a certain pessimism.

I just find it interesting that for every other job position imaginable, experience is considered a virtue. Yet when it comes to us picking a president, the country seems drawn toward people with minimal Washington experience. H.W. was the only president in the last 30 years who actually had significant national/international experience. Not that that helped him... But we keep picking people who we think will change the system rather than people who understand how to use the system.

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

I think most people can identify which one is more noble.

I think most people can identify which one is more likely to get you killed, too.

comment #7

le corbeau says ...

Here's my idea of a soaring, inspirational argument for Obama:

The most enjoyable aspect of watching the HMS Hillary take on water is the prospect that Bill — and his cult of personality — will go down with the ship, too. He made this election about him and people are saying no thanks. This is why they came up with the word schadenfreude. For all the "I Miss Bill" bumper stickers, spade work by Hillary Matters for America and generalized Blumenthalian Clinton nostalgia, it must be said with a joyous heart that the activist base of the Democratic Party, young people and "open-minded" independents have been presented with a referendum on Bill Clinton and they're voting no. --Jonah Goldberg

I liked Clinton fine in his time. I liked Abba fine in their time too, but I view the return of both with about equal dread and contempt for a time that can come up with nothing better than nostalgia for a fairly weak decade.

comment #8

StewartforPresident says ...

Most jobs require a certain level of expertise, that’s why experience is considered an asset, though not necessarily a virtue. Companies constantly turn over management if they feel that they have become stale or stagnant in the roles, and resistant to change.

As for the President he doesn't need expertise to understand how to use the system, he has people that can explain that to him and take his ideas and make them laws/regulations/etc.

The main job of the President is to be a leader. Washington experience may help, but it also tends to corrupt.

comment #9

Arizona Joe says ...

The E.J. Dionne analogy is most appropriate, and thanks to Jeff Wells for bringing it to denizens of this site.

A President who can inspire is needed in bad times. People preferred Ronald Reagan for that reason. Now it seems Obama has an opportunity.

It is surprising how second-rate Hillary Clinton now seems, both in content and style. She calls on an experience she does not have, and evokes a past that most Americans have very mixed feelings about. I hear little new.

Hillary is brilliant in a law school or policy wonk way, but she is not a superior politician. Her appearances the last few days have been awful. And she looks haggard, and not by the old standards by which women are measured. Clinton looks like a defeated candidate, one who sees the end of her political life.

The Republicans fear Obama. Hence, that's why I think we are seeing the reemergence of McCain. If the Obama groundswell for change continues to grow, we may see something radical from the GOP, like a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

comment #10

mutinyco says ...

"As for the President he doesn't need expertise to understand how to use the system, he has people that can explain that to him and take his ideas and make them laws/regulations/etc."

Sure. Worked great for W.

And I don't think the GOP fears Obama. If they did, they'd already be trying to take him out. They're focused on Hillary; this isn't just a Dem smackdown.

comment #11

Sean says ...

"I think most people can identify which one is more likely to get you killed, too."

Yeah, I agree, trumping people up with fear in order to justify a war your friends have wanted since 1995 is far more likely to get Americans killed than optimism.

Though I guess it depends what you mean by "optimism"; "Them levees won't break no matter what the scientists say" might count as optimism, but it's the sort of foolhardy optimism most would label "ignorance" or "refusal to deal with reality".

comment #12

StewartforPresident says ...

"Sure. Worked great for W."

Actually it did. He had no problem implementing almost any policy he wanted, mainly due to having Washington carrerist on his staff who knew how to work the system.

The fact that his policies were idiotic does not negate the argument.

comment #13

mutinyco says ...

The point is, if W. knew what he was doing, he'd have understood what bad policies they were. He didn't know what he was doing, so he delegated responsibility. Reagan delegated too -- and respectively they've saddled us with a 9-trillion debt and a disastrously managed long-term military commitment.

The president who was most legislatively accomplished was LBJ. Why? Because he was the ultimate insider.

Basically, Obama is promising people the universe. Hillary is saying, based on experience, that realistically, only so much is possible. And right now, people view sober realism as the words of the establishment and would rather take a chance on the universe.

comment #14

Dave says ...

Greg Gutfield says it best:

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=3526

"In a nutshell: Obama is a stripper and Hilary is your wife. Think about it. When you go to a strip club, you see the very best attributes of the stripper you're ogling. You see her curves and her implants, but you see none of her problems. You don't see her meth habit, her biker ex-boyfriend, the box of severed ears she keeps in her closet. But with your wife, you are familiar not with only the good, but with the bad. The very bad. And this is why men sometimes prefer strippers to their wives.

But, once you leave your wife and start dating a stripper - you quickly find out that she's far worse than your wife could ever be. . ."

comment #15

christian says ...

"Yet, why do I feel like the sword of Damocles is dangling o'er our collective heads?"

Brilliant.

I listened to Stephanie Miller this morning and when repeatedly questioned by callers tired of this speechifying as substitute for policy, she literally had no answers except Obama offers "change' and people are "inspired."
To do what exactly?

And I think there are a few Repubs who would love to see Obama run for various reasons. Even in debates, he can't just sermonize and not take questions, as is his mo thse days.

If Obama gets the nom, I'll vote for him just to defeat the Repubs, but Dems may only get 4 years if they don't temper this surface infatuation.

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

As a conservative likely to vote Republican, I'm thrilled the Democrat's choice seems to be either Obama or Clinton. This could be the easiest cakewalk of an election in US history, and you guys seem to want to make a catfight out of it.

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

Don't blame me, I'd vote for Edwards if I lived in IA or NH.

And it's a shame, because you seem so nice and reasonable, Josh.

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

Eh, I'm not that bad - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and cognizant of which of those the president affects more.

comment #19

christian says ...

And once the sheen of Obamarama wears off, he'll eventually have to undergo the same "liberal" MSM blowback that Clinton suffered.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

I don't know how anyone who considers themselves 'socially liberal' can also call themselves 'a conservative likely to vote Republican' in any election, Presidential or otherwise, especially considering how little impact the President has on the economy (isn't that the argument regarding the 90s economic boom under Clinton? Which I tend to agree with?)

comment #21

mutinyco says ...

That was always Giuliani's thing. He ran simultaneously as a Republican and a Liberal. Worked for NYC. Don't know if it works nationwide.

comment #22

dangovich says ...

Greg Gutfeld has never said anything best.

comment #23

le corbeau says ...

Anyone who doesn't find Greg Gutfeld funny has just lost 50 points for humorless partisanship.

That would include the entire readership of the Huffington Post, apparently.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I think most people can identify which one is more likely to get you killed, too."

Says the apologist defending a party responsible for ignoring 9/11 warnings, New Orleans flooding, and a bridge and mine collapse...

comment #25

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review