Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Obama Has More Experience Than Edwards

(217 votes, average: 2.84 out of 5)

8 Responses to “Obama Has More Experience Than Edwards”

1. Iroquois Honky Says:
   November 12th, 2006 at 12:17 am

   Edwards is creepy. Did you watch how when he made his convention speech he kept flicking his tongue back and forth sideways? It looked like a nervous twitch; if he knew he was doing it that would be worse, wouldn’t it? Maybe he was thinking about how Kerry kept draping his arms around guys in this touchy-feely way and was thinking of four years in office next to that. Kerry had his own weird little tongue action going during his speech. And what’s with all that thumb gesture Edwards was doing? He looked about 19 years old, which is still more mature than bush, but the guy is entirely creepy.

   Six years from now, Obama will be unstoppable AND have national experience he will need to be an effective president. Plus we can see him in action a bit, first. And who will the Republicans run? Who are the Dems running against? McCain?

2. Peregrin Wood Says:
   November 12th, 2006 at 9:44 am

   Russ Feingold has announced he won’t run. Won’t run.

   Who does that leave us progressives with? Al Gore (who picked Lieberman last time to run with) and Barack Obama the conspicuous churchy man.

   Bleck.

3. Steve Thompson Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 10:14 pm

   OBAMA at least seems to be honest. I do not trust Edwards. He should be named Slick Eddie. And Al Gore? Didn’t he invent the algorithm?

4. Peregrin Wood Says:
   November 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am

   Now, how can we tell who is honest? What is this seeming to be honest concept?

   If a politician seems to be honest, couldn’t they just be deceiving us about that? It seems to me that the most successfully dishonest politicians would seem to be the most honest.

5. Jim Says:
   November 14th, 2006 at 11:50 am

   Yeah, but it seems to me that most politicians aren’t successfully dishonest. You can tell that Edwards is selling you a used car when he emotes. If he comes off as sleazy to us, how will he possibly fare well in diplomatic circles?

   If a politician is such a good liar, is so good at pretending to be something that nobody can tell he’s really a fraud, then maybe he has become the equivalent of the real thing.

6. illinois Says:
   November 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pm

   On the morning of the day the military comissions act was passed, I contacted Senator Obama’s office both by phone and by eMail. Today I received the following response on a yahoo account. The weird symbols were in there when I received it. He addresses me by my first name, so I guess that means we’re good buds now!

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930). I understand your concerns. As you probably know, I voted against the bill, which passed by a vote of 65-34 on September 28, 2006.Â

    This legislation was offered in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hamdan case, which overturned the military tribunal system the President established for trying the detainees at Guantanamo. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the President proposed a system that would weaken both the nation’s commitment to the Geneva Conventions and our constitutional principles. I was pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected the President’s original proposal and passed a bipartisan bill (S. 3901). Unfortunately, that bipartisan alternative was rejected by the Administration and replaced by legislation that weakens the nation’s Geneva Convention obligations and seriously undermines important constitutional tenets, such as habeas corpus.Â

    Furthermore, the Congressional debate – and its ultimate decision – on this legislation occurred before we even saw the final compromise. Consideration of this bill was rushed in both chambers, where dissenting views were quickly dismissed or disregarded altogether.

   The House of Representatives took up the bill under a special rule that barred all Democratic amendments. During the Senate debate, Republican leaders allowed votes on only four amendments, all of which were defeated on party-line votes. Those amendments, which I supported, could have improved the bill significantly without placing any burden on our national security efforts. Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, for example, offered an amendment aimed at improving oversight of the program, and required only that the Pentagon submit quarterly reports to Congress on its activities. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is a constitutionally-endowed responsibility of Congress. I am disappointed that this common sense provision was rejected in favor of politics.

   While no president should be deprived of the tools necessary to keep America safe, the hurried pre-election debate and vote on this bill is another sign that some politicians are using the national security debate to question their opponents’ commitment to fighting terrorism.  It is my hope that policymakers focus on keeping the nation safe and preserving the values that make our country the envy of the world, not on scoring tactical political advantage as an election approaches.Â

   Â Thank you again for writing. Please continue to stay in touch.

   Sincerely,

   Barack Obama
   United States Senator

   P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

   Stay up to date with Barack’s work in the Senate and on issues of importance to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/

7. tim Says:
   January 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm

   obama is a communist.I would never vote for him.Look at his voting record.If you vote for obama go ahead and give up your right to defend yourself.ie gun control.You liberals love the constitution, except for that part.Why.With no guns,no way to overthrow this supposed evil gov’t we all now live under..Think about it.

8. Jim Says:
   January 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm

   I never said I don’t support the 2nd amendment.

   I do.

   But, golly, I just looked up Obama’s voting record… and YOU’RE RIGHT!

   Just look at this text from S. 6609, sponsored by Senator Obama himself, the NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS ACT:

   But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

   To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

   Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

   Aaaaaa! Obama is a communist!

Leave a Reply