Obama so far: Weak and NaiveFollow

Any democratic president, really any president of any party excepting republican would have been divisive. Hell, a republican president would have divided the republican party. I don't think there is a human being that would have been able to lead this congress to any compromising policy on the big issues.

Hilary may have done a better job than Obama of simply flipping them all off and pushing forward with whatever tricks Bill could lend her.

I miss Rahm too.


Edited, Jul 28th 2011 3:00pm by Elinda

For one thing, I thought Obama's path to health care was much more likely to pass than Clinton's insistence on a government-run universal program. For another, Clinton's campaign was a fiasco and made me rather skeptical of her ability to lead. I also assumed Clinton would be more divisive purely by virtue of her last name and the scorn Republicans have heaped upon her since 1992. I underestimated the amount of fanaticism the Right would whip up over Obama as well.

I disagree with a good bit of what Smash said but he's more liberal than I am so I imagine he was looking towards other goals. While Obama's presidency hasn't been perfect, he's largely done what I wanted him to do.

Samira should totally move to Chicago so she can hang with The Rahm.

Edited, Jul 28th 2011 8:44am by Jophiel

What Joph said. I also didn't agree with some of her personal views, such as blaming videogames for violence and calling for tighter restrictions on them. Obviously I'm biased, but we all choose candidates based on our biases, no?

Edit: Your turn. Who were the better candidates?

Edited, Jul 28th 2011 9:46am by LockeColeMA

Could be. Next time I'll know just how simple-minded Republicans are

That would require reading.

Just because people call you simple doesn't mean they're complimenting you.

I suspect I know more than a guy who claims Beck is part of the MSM Some days I'm not even sure you know who you agree with and whom you disagree with.

I know it was only yesterday, but please, try to keep up...

I thought Clinton was a far better candidate, but purely based on the debates. I watched all of the debates and for most of her answers, she responded with a plan that is either already in place from when she was in the white house as first lady or laid out on her website. Most of Obama's responses were thoughts of what he planned to do, which is good, but I thought the fact that Clinton had much of it already in action or had already done it made her a better suited candidate.

Now, I don't know specifics, that's why I asked you to see if I was missing something, but it doesn't seem that I did. It appears that your preferences lead you to Obama and that there wasn't a "Ron Paul" difference between the two.

Everyone here has a problem reading then, because everyone but you knows your comment calling a piece on the Blaze a MSM attack equates to you calling the Blaze part of the MSM.

But...he doesn't get his news from anywhere, lolgaxe!


Oops, wrong fanatic.