GatewayRedbirds.com

sighyoung wrote: Lost is the footage of Obama's Hannibal Lecter imitation.

That's not an imitation.

This is something I've been wondering about.

How many undecided or independents that voted for GWB feel "I just can't vote for Obama. The experience isn't there"? The experience thing keeps popping up -- though not as much -- and I wonder why it's an issue now when it probably wasn't (or maybe it was) an issue when Bush ran for office eight years ago. For all the bluster about how Obama doesn't have the resume, I'd say someone that voted for Bush is being a hypocrite if they cite this as a reason for voting against Obama. Bush served one term as governor then after he was re-elected he started gearing up for a presidential run.

When they get hit with this non-experience [expletive], the Obama campaign needs to hit back with "hey, America TWICE voted for a guy whose biggest accomplishments were running oil companies into the ground, owning a baseball team and executing criminals at a rapid pace." Then they can use Bush's paper thin resume and tie it to Maverick, who voted with Bush 95 percent of the time last year.

I'm kind of disappointed with Team Obama not playing up the Bush-Maverick comparison enough. Who was that guy who put out the Willie Horton ad and said something to the effect of "we're going to make people think Willie Horton is related to Michael Dukakis."

And Democrats have to be pissed off at Lieberman. Crapping all over his liberal ideals to stump for Maverick and an unjust war is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Can he really feel good about campaigning for a guy who cheers on Bush's retarded tax cuts after declaring them unfair just a few years ago? Lieberman has less integrity than Maverick.

I think if you take these arguments from each party too seriously you could drive yourself to insanity. They're both going to say what is convenient at the time with no concern for hypocrisy.

The easiest test is by looking at any argument and asking yourself would they still be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed? Would the Republicans be harping on inexperience if their candidate was in his mid forties while the opposing candidate was 70? Of course not. Would Hillary have been "fighting for the voices of the people in Michigan and Florida to be heard" if she had been beaten in those two states?

Everything is hypocrisy. It's sickening. It's embarrassing. And I lose respect for myself when I start to take it too seriously. Which is also embarrassing. That I have to treat our politics as a joke, or go crazy.

You raise some good points, kind sir.

GatewaySnayke wrote: And Democrats have to be pissed off at Lieberman. Crapping all over his liberal ideals to stump for Maverick and an unjust war is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Can he really feel good about campaigning for a guy who cheers on Bush's retarded tax cuts after declaring them unfair just a few years ago? Lieberman has less integrity than Maverick.

Lieberman isn't a liberal, and liberals didn't like him when he was a Democrat. I think he sincerely likes McCain and prefers him.

I hope that someday Obama realizes that there is only one president on a dollar bill.

pop_haines wrote:"Experience" isn't the issue.

By that logic, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't qualified to
follow Herbert Hoover. Yeah, that would have worked
out really swell.

Obama has ten years experience in public office and
a degree in political science with an emphasis on
international relations; he received his degree at
Columbia, which is as hard as it gets. He's the only
senator serving on three of the four committees on
foreign policy.

There have been great presidents with little experience
and terrible presidents with lots of experience. Focus
on the issues, policies, and intelligence (I want the
president to be one of the smartest men in the room --
if that means I'm elitist, so be it). Sometimes it's hard
not to fall back on trivialities and negative campaigning.
Especially since the media refuses to do its purported job.

Focus on policy (boring, it's true), and we'll all be better off
in the long run.

Well said, Pop.

pop_haines wrote:"Experience" isn't the issue.

Obama has ten years experience in public office and
a degree in political science with an emphasis on
international relations; he received his degree at
Columbia, which is as hard as it gets. He's the only
senator serving on three of the four committees on
foreign policy.

The issue is having ten years of experience in these offices, yet there's really nothing to show for it, and it doesn't live up to the image that has been painted of him. There is time there, but not enough meat. He's got a whole slew a few grand changes he wants to make, but in the office that actually proposes these changes as bills, he's done hardly anything to make them a reality.

ghostrunner wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote: And Democrats have to be pissed off at Lieberman. Crapping all over his liberal ideals to stump for Maverick and an unjust war is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Can he really feel good about campaigning for a guy who cheers on Bush's retarded tax cuts after declaring them unfair just a few years ago? Lieberman has less integrity than Maverick.

Lieberman isn't a liberal, and liberals didn't like him when he was a Democrat. I think he sincerely likes McCain and prefers him.

Well, he said:

"I support affirmative action programs, including in appropriate instances consideration of race and gender in government contracting decisions, when the affirmative action program is designed to remedy the effects of past discrimination."[27]

Lieberman has stated he wants to increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business, and he voted yes on setting aside 10% of highway funds for companies owned by minorities and women without regard to the demographics of their employees

And on the environment:

Lieberman has stated that the US population has to accept responsibility for global warming, and voted "yes" on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[40] Lieberman voted yes on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). Lieberman voted against Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior, and voted for funding for greater risk assessment by the EPA. Lieberman has even gone as far as saying he wants to raise mileage standard to 40 mpg.[41] Lieberman voted for the administration-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005;[42] facing criticism, Lieberman called the bill imperfect but good for Connecticut, citing a saving of $800 million for Connecticut electricity customers.[43] Lieberman has been a vocal critic of Bush's environmental policy

He's to the left on stem cell research, opposed the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, is critical of Bush's handling on Medicare, received an "F" from the NRA and was rated high by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. These aren't really right-win positions.

As much as I detest many of Lieberman's policies, he's a friend of the environment. The League of Conservation voters rates him high (86), slightly below Obama and Clinton but light years ahead of the senile, old, coal burning, tree cutting, and hater of trout old man.