Colin Powell backs Barack Obama!

[TX Tiburon]

I don't think lack of experience is necessarily a negative. It might even be turned into something positive, depending on the character of the person in office. But I see a difference in the potential of Obama and Palin. Palin strikes as quite inarticulate to the point of being borderline stupid. Obama, on the other hand, although not your favourite man, is actually someone that you would trust to have the ability to get things right. Of course, whether he chooses to get things right might be debatable. But the potential is there, nonetheless.

Maybe you have seen Obama off of teleprompter, I don't know. But he's no great shakes. I think it is a giant stretch to say she is stupid if you going by the debates. I have heard Palin in a number of interviews of the unedited variety and I just don't get that "stupid" impression that you have. To the contrary, she has a real ability to connect with the people. That, may be your rub. Perhaps you consider the typical Americans stupid and that is why she connects. Granted, we do have our share of dim bulbs. But I don't think that's any different that the rest of the world.

I don't want to put words in your mouth though. But I would ask you to be leary of the press though. I feel that they tend to paint the picture that they want you to see. There are two sides to every story and unfortunately, the press is not impartial. Interviews are easily edited and nowadays, editorials become internet realities. Half-truths and misleading statements said frequently enough also become "facts".

Neb, I trust you are being upright on your assessment of Palin. That your perspective is based on your observations. Because frankly, I am worn out by our political process that paints the other side as extreme or stupid merely because their political views are different.

 

[Dylan]

For a titter at all candidates concerned:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLaER-8pf5Y&feature=related[/media]

 

[Nebbiolo]

Maybe you have seen Obama off of teleprompter, I don't know. But he's no great shakes. I think it is a giant stretch to say she is stupid if you going by the debates. I have heard Palin in a number of interviews of the unedited variety and I just don't get that "stupid" impression that you have. To the contrary, she has a real ability to connect with the people. That, may be your rub. Perhaps you consider the typical Americans stupid and that is why she connects. Granted, we do have our share of dim bulbs. But I don't think that's any different that the rest of the world.

I don't want to put words in your mouth though. But I would ask you to be leary of the press though. I feel that they tend to paint the picture that they want you to see. There are two sides to every story and unfortunately, the press is not impartial. Interviews are easily edited and nowadays, editorials become internet realities. Half-truths and misleading statements said frequently enough also become "facts".

Neb, I trust you are being upright on your assessment of Palin. That your perspective is based on your observations. Because frankly, I am worn out by our political process that paints the other side as extreme or stupid merely because their political views are different.

TX, I am being upright in my assessment of Palin. To be honest, I think my use of the word "stupid", albeit of the borderline variety, was rather crass. Subsequently, I'm happy to take a rap on the knuckles for it. What I should have said is that she's appearing to be incompetent for the job she might one day have. It seems to me like she makes mistake, after mistake, after mistake. She says the wrong things, is evasive, badly prepared and is misinformed, even about the remit of vice president (NBC interview regarding her and the senate). She generally comes across as a less than able and trustworthy person (troopergate or claiming that because she is mayor she can spend what she likes on office renovations until the courts tell her differently).

I really believe that she is a disaster waiting to happen, particularly on the foreign stage. Imagine her negotiating with your next door neighbour, Afghanistan (sic). Or consider her dealing with American Nucular (sic) policy. What about Palin being in charge of policy on global warming? Here is a woman that has denied it can be attributed to man. What about foreign policy on Iraq? Palin is down as stating that this war is part of god's plan.

I'm sorry, TX. I've every reason to doubt that she has the qualities required of a vice president.

 

[trebilcock66]

Nothing's changed.

Clearly the voters in the USA were idiots for electing a neophyte such as Bush and now we'll be cheered for electing a neophyte like Obama.

Is irony or hypocrisy the word I'm looking for?


Sorry, Bill. Not sure I understand. Do you really think that Bush is an on-the-job learner? After all, he's got Cheney whispering in one ear and he ain't no trainee. Bush is portrayed over here as an idiot in the press (one cartoonist has him as an ape) but I've always thought that such a description is too simplistic - he can't be as dumb as our popular press would have it.

If you do think that he's too niave, then you see Obama's potential election as a similar mistake?

 

[TX Bill]

Maybe you have seen Obama off of teleprompter, I don't know. But he's no great shakes. I think it is a giant stretch to say she is stupid if you going by the debates. I have heard Palin in a number of interviews of the unedited variety and I just don't get that "stupid" impression that you have. To the contrary, she has a real ability to connect with the people. That, may be your rub. Perhaps you consider the typical Americans stupid and that is why she connects. Granted, we do have our share of dim bulbs. But I don't think that's any different that the rest of the world.

I don't want to put words in your mouth though. But I would ask you to be leary of the press though. I feel that they tend to paint the picture that they want you to see. There are two sides to every story and unfortunately, the press is not impartial. Interviews are easily edited and nowadays, editorials become internet realities. Half-truths and misleading statements said frequently enough also become "facts".

Neb, I trust you are being upright on your assessment of Palin. That your perspective is based on your observations. Because frankly, I am worn out by our political process that paints the other side as extreme or stupid merely because their political views are different.

Hey, hey...are you taking me to task on my usual m.o.??

 

[TX Bill]

Nothing's changed.

Clearly the voters in the USA were idiots for electing a neophyte such as Bush and now we'll be cheered for electing a neophyte like Obama.

Is irony or hypocrisy the word I'm looking for?


Sorry, Bill. Not sure I understand. Do you really think that Bush is an on-the-job learner? After all, he's got Cheney whispering in one ear and he ain't no trainee. Bush is portrayed over here as an idiot in the press (one cartoonist has him as an ape) but I've always thought that such a description is too simplistic - he can't be as dumb as our popular press would have it.

If you do think that he's too niave, then you see Obama's potential election as a similar mistake?

I was being a bit sarcastic there.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the press. The press that has for years, caracatured Bush as a blubbering idiot, has already portrayed Obama as some sort of savior of the motherland.

(What, people didn't know the press over here were in the tank for Obama?)

You are correct in your assessment that he (Bush) is not dumb.

A friend of mine was telling me that they heard of a conversation or interview that former Sec. of State. James Baker had with someone about Bush (this is obviously secondhand information so take it with a grain of salt as I couldn't verify it).

He was asked what Bush was like in person, away from the public and press. In short, it boiled down to "Is he really that stupid, idiotic, pick your adjective..."

Baker stated that Bush was one of the smartest men he knows and has a complete grasp on most all of the matters that come to his attention in the White House.

Bush's problem he said is conveying his understanding of the issues to the public. For whatever reason, when he gets in front of a TV camera or a group of people, his understanding of the issues don't translate to his explanation of the issues. In short, he's not very articulate.

Now, in my opinion, Obama on the other hand is a very good orator. He speaks clearly and whether he understands the issues or not, the public perception is that "here is a man who understands the issues and can articulate his thoughts clearly to us..."

Teleprompters and talking points aside, it's too bad that Bush didn't quite measure up in the public speaking department but no one's perfect.

 

[TX Bill]

Hey hey hey.

An editorial in the Kansas City Star.


http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493


Let me boil it down for you (but feel free to read it.)

McCain and Palin using the word "socialist" really mean the word "black" when describing Obama.

I can't believe the Kansas City Star would actually allow this to go to print but then I'm not that surprised by our press anymore.

At any rate, I recall about 20+ posts ago that while Obama hasn't made the campaign about race, his supporters most certainly have. And then this gets printed. Nice one by the Star.

By the Star's logic, I'm calling him out on his race by clearly pointing out his socialist beliefs.

Now, in addition to being a right wing extremist, I'm also a racist. Or am I repeating myself?

 

[atrottel]

The press in America doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity, let along columnists within those papers. Personally I object to Obama or King being labelled socialists - rather than liberal conservatives - but that's another story and probably another thread. And since it's just another term for "[Poor language removed]" in American politics, it doesn't mean anything anyway.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Hey hey hey.

An editorial in the Kansas City Star.


Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black | Midwest Voices


Let me boil it down for you (but feel free to read it.)

McCain and Palin using the word "socialist" really mean the word "black" when describing Obama.

I can't believe the Kansas City Star would actually allow this to go to print but then I'm not that surprised by our press anymore.

At any rate, I recall about 20+ posts ago that while Obama hasn't made the campaign about race, his supporters most certainly have. And then this gets printed. Nice one by the Star.

By the Star's logic, I'm calling him out on his race by clearly pointing out his socialist beliefs.

Now, in addition to being a right wing extremist, I'm also a racist. Or am I repeating myself?

Bill, I think there is a gulf in what you believe is a socialist and what we in Europe believe is a socialist. Obama to us is a centre-left democrat, similar in mould to, say, Gordon Brown and the like. In our book, a socialist is someone who is preparing the ground for communism. He or she is convinced that the means and fruits of production should be shared by all equally.

 

[trebilcock66]

I was being a bit sarcastic there.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the press. The press that has for years, caracatured Bush as a blubbering idiot, has already portrayed Obama as some sort of savior of the motherland.

(What, people didn't know the press over here were in the tank for Obama?)

You are correct in your assessment that he (Bush) is not dumb.

A friend of mine was telling me that they heard of a conversation or interview that former Sec. of State. James Baker had with someone about Bush (this is obviously secondhand information so take it with a grain of salt as I couldn't verify it).

He was asked what Bush was like in person, away from the public and press. In short, it boiled down to "Is he really that stupid, idiotic, pick your adjective..."

Baker stated that Bush was one of the smartest men he knows and has a complete grasp on most all of the matters that come to his attention in the White House.

Bush's problem he said is conveying his understanding of the issues to the public. For whatever reason, when he gets in front of a TV camera or a group of people, his understanding of the issues don't translate to his explanation of the issues. In short, he's not very articulate.

Now, in my opinion, Obama on the other hand is a very good orator. He speaks clearly and whether he understands the issues or not, the public perception is that "here is a man who understands the issues and can articulate his thoughts clearly to us..."

Teleprompters and talking points aside, it's too bad that Bush didn't quite measure up in the public speaking department but no one's perfect.

Thanks Bill.

If he's not as dumb as we're told - how the hell did he do what he's done to Iraq? Or more to the point, why? The real wolves are portrayed as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz over here - and Bush is portrayed as not truly in power. Was it all the hawks fault?

 

[TX Bill]

Bill, I think there is a gulf in what you believe is a socialist and what we in Europe believe is a socialist. Obama to us is a centre-left democrat, similar in mould to, say, Gordon Brown and the like. In our book, a socialist is someone who is preparing the ground for communism. He or she is convinced that the means and fruits of production should be shared by all equally.

I'm still learning the political differences (mainly on this forum ) between what is liberal in Europe and what is liberal here. So there may be some very big differences in those terms as well. I'm not an expert so still more learning to do.

 

[atrottel]

Going a little bit off-topic, I wouldn't necessarily agree with Nebbiolo on that definition (and nor, I presume, would the thousands of socialists and social democrats executed by the official communist parties in various countries through history).

 

[TX Bill]

Thanks Bill.

If he's not as dumb as we're told - how the hell did he do what he's done to Iraq? Or more to the point, why? The real wolves are portrayed as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz over here - and Bush is portrayed as not truly in power. Was it all the hawks fault?

I think that there's plenty of blame to go around where Iraq is concerned.

Let me state that I support what was done over there. But there is/was plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking when it comes to Iraq.

Most of Bush's political opponents quickly point to the WMD excuse to invade Iraq and that none were actually found. Now whether you count some of the things they found as WMD or not is up to interpretation I guess. But they clearly didn't find what they thought they'd find.

Bush relied on intelligent reports in making that assumption so some blame needs to be shared by worldwide intelligence services. Interesting that the Dems (not pointing fingers here) relied on that same intelligence and publicly stated that Saddam had WMD's. Bush made those same statements and acted.

Bush is/was in power to answer your question. I won't say that he's at fault for invading Iraq as I believe it was in the world community's interest that he (Saddam) was removed. But it certainly could have been handled differently looking back. No doubts about that.