Star power vs. substance
It is truly tragic to see the bias that the Media is presenting, which is the unchallenged adoration for Senator Obama. I cannot see why people can not see through Obama's lofty words and see that he lacks substance, leadership experience and the international knowledge to lead this country.
If people would take out race and gender and just look at both the candidate's resumes, then logically, the choice would be for Senator Clinton.
The Media too busy bashing Clinton and challenging her position on tough issues, which by the way, she always answers her questions, unlike Obama, who never gives specifics. Obama just paraphrases Clinton's answers during the debates, that is why Clinton is the first, it seems to be ask questions during the debates.
I am scared for our country if Obama wins. Not only does he attend a racist church and clearly does not know international politics ( he thought Canada had a president), but he will not represent all people. His church only promotes black culture and does not support the middle class.
It is such a double standard, Obama can be part of a racist or one race centered Church, but if Clinton belonged to a church that supports the same tenets as Obama, she would quickly be labeled a racist and rightly so.
If our country is to ever transcend race as a factor to judged someone's merit (qualifications) and especially for voting for someone to hold the highest political office, then we must look pass race and not vote on race preference. Obama is getting over 80% percent of the black vote, which if Clinton was getting 80% of the white vote, then there would be cries of racism.
If truly we want equality among all races, then we must vote on qualifications, experience and content of character, not because someone's race or inspirational words.
Senator Clinton will fight for all our rights, regards of your race. She has the leadership qualities and experience to lead our country. I do hope that all Americans can be smart enough to look beyond the lofty words and see a true American and leader in Senator Clinton.
Actions not hope will help all Americans achieve their pursuit of happiness and justice for ALL.
If people would take out race and gender and just look at both the candidate's resumes, then logically, the choice would be for Senator Clinton.
The Media too busy bashing Clinton and challenging her position on tough issues, which by the way, she always answers her questions, unlike Obama, who never gives specifics. Obama just paraphrases Clinton's answers during the debates, that is why Clinton is the first, it seems to be ask questions during the debates.
I am scared for our country if Obama wins. Not only does he attend a racist church and clearly does not know international politics ( he thought Canada had a president), but he will not represent all people. His church only promotes black culture and does not support the middle class.
It is such a double standard, Obama can be part of a racist or one race centered Church, but if Clinton belonged to a church that supports the same tenets as Obama, she would quickly be labeled a racist and rightly so.
If our country is to ever transcend race as a factor to judged someone's merit (qualifications) and especially for voting for someone to hold the highest political office, then we must look pass race and not vote on race preference. Obama is getting over 80% percent of the black vote, which if Clinton was getting 80% of the white vote, then there would be cries of racism.
If truly we want equality among all races, then we must vote on qualifications, experience and content of character, not because someone's race or inspirational words.
Senator Clinton will fight for all our rights, regards of your race. She has the leadership qualities and experience to lead our country. I do hope that all Americans can be smart enough to look beyond the lofty words and see a true American and leader in Senator Clinton.
Actions not hope will help all Americans achieve their pursuit of happiness and justice for ALL.
Advertisement
Perhaps you can explain all the adulation for Bill Clinton as a "rock star"?
Here's the issue laid bare:
Ronald Reagan had charisma.
GHWB has more charisma than Dukakis. (Which really tells you something about how little charisma Dukakis had.)
Bill Clinton has charisma.
GWB has charisma.
HRC has no charisma. She has celebrity status, not the same thing. This does mean she doesn't have ardent supporters, but she had no charisma which is a real problem for her.
Obama has it, so we get posts that say it's not important from HRC supporters.
The fact is, had WJC not had charisma, the White House would not have gone to him in 1992.
Leaders inspire. HRC lacks all the necessary components to lead a nation. It's as simple as that.
March 2, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I respectively disagree with your comment about HRC not having the components to be a leader. We can look upon history and see that not all leaders whom lack charisma, were unfit to be president. Lincoln comes to mind.
I am aware this is a time of mass media and celebrity worship, but I can't help to think that intelligence, a proven track record of successes,cannot be the "stuff" require to be a leader.
In the real world, people may like me and even say I possess charisma, but if I don't have the work experience, education and qualifications for the job, they will not hire me.
So, why is it we can say that Obama should be hire for job of president, just because he is handsome ( for many just because of racial preference) and can speak with an inspiration fashion?
Former President Clinton had charisma, but it was backed up with great leadership qualities such as intelligence,communicator and foreign policy expertise.
This is a critical time in our nation and I do hope we can come together and vote with our minds and not because of "feelings" of hopeful illusions.
March 3, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, prior to his getting elected, foreign policy expertise did Bill Clinton have, pray tell?
Being part of the Foreign Relations committee actually gives Obama MORE experience than former President Clinton when he was elected.
Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. He also taught/lectured at the University of Chicago (Constitutional Law) and passed his Bar Exam on the first attempt. So he at least matches former President Clinton in that regard as well.
Communication. I will concede that Bill Clinton is a gifted orator if you will concede that Barack Obama is as well.
You mentioned 3 aspects in which you feel that Former President Clinton was a good choice when he was elected in 1992.
Barack Obama matches him in two aspects (intelligence and communication skills) and beats him significantly in the area of foreign policy expertise.
I'm not going to bad-mouth the Clintons (especially not Bill), but going by your criteria, Obama more than meets your threshhold, he beats it.
We thank you for your vote.
March 3, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to keep a straight face at this:
If people would take out race and gender and just look at both the candidate's resumes, then logically, the choice would be for Senator Clinton.
I'd have to say that's not true. Rose Law Firm and Wal-Mart board would kill any candidate for me. But, it's March 2008 and I guess this is one of the campaign's talking points for the day before the primary. It'a hard to take anyone serious who'll actually write:
I cannot see why people can not see through Obama's lofty words and see that he lacks substance, leadership experience and the international knowledge to lead this country.
Then you spread the lie that his church is racist. Whatver...that's another lie that's been debunked years ago. But you laughably say that if whites voted for Clinton that would be racist. How? Because it fits with your narrative that blacks voting for Obama are racists? Did it bother you when, for whatever misguided reason, blacks overwhelmingly supported the Clinton's in their first 2 terms? I doubt it.
So either you're a person who chooses not to pay attention or you work for the Clinton's campaign. Which is it?
March 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The diarist urges that we get beyond racism in politics, but the diary itself is a full deck of race cards. If you truly believe that a president Obama would only represent black people, I'd suggest that you have some issues about race.
As for who is more qualified, I have yet to see any evidence that Hillary is more qualified than Obama to lead this country. What, exactly, are her foreign policy achievements? Can you point to anything specific that she has done on foreign policy, other than vote to give Bush the authority to wage an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq and pave the way for the same in Iran?
March 4, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink