Obama tells 7-year-old America not so great

[IAMX 3,055]

No real surprises there coming from the line of thought that equates patriotism with blind allegiance.

Amen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Link

I am not sure how seriously the US goverment considered this proposal, except for the transport of prisoners but the mindset is there.

Wow... That really is unbelievable.

Soon we'll be flying in leg irons and having to ask permission to be unshackled in order to use the facilities (which won't have a door by that point).

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

[IAMX 3,055]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

What does QFT mean? Question For Topic?

[HAL 9000 96]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

True to that. Lets see if he can topple the relatively insipid tide of gloom that is hovering over this election (as if any other were different) that has only worsened over the last two presidential terms.

I wonder why.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

The problem with Slogans can be seen quite clearly in the whole "flip-flop" fiasco in '04, with all those people clapping plastic flip-flops together - surely the height of infantilism.

Generally speaking there isn't anything wrong with slogans as general mission statements, but I do think in this case that there's a real danger of them obscuring Obama's policy ideas. To some extent this does seem to have been borne out in recent poll data - and Obama doesn't seem to be doing as well among independents as perhaps he should be - given how much damage the current lot has done to the prestige of the Republican party.

Indeed some of this seems to be have been borne out in recent poll data.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

i'm afraid to find out. i'm in fear for my wallet.

[HAL 9000 96]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

The problem with Slogans can be seen quite clearly in the whole "flip-flop" fiasco in '04, with all those people clapping plastic flip-flops together - surely the height of infantilism.

Generally speaking there isn't anything wrong with slogans as general mission statements, but I do think in this case that there's a real danger of them obscuring Obama's policy ideas. To some extent this does seem to have been borne out in recent poll data - and Obama doesn't seem to be doing as well among independents as perhaps he should be - given how much damage the current lot has done to the prestige of the Republican party.

Indeed some of this seems to be have been borne out in recent poll data.

IMO "independents" in this country is a very variable community of voters. I see a very large chunk of independents as merely disgruntled Republicans.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He could have said, "I'm running for President because I want to help improve (change) America." That way it's a positive "I" statement instead of a negative statement and the opposing sides media wouldn't jump all over it.

From what I've seen the whole campaign is one to two words, "change" and "hope". I don't think that people are really taking the time to think about all the things, positive and negative, that those two words mean.

QFT. Anyone know what Obama would change? I sure as hell don't.

In fact, the "change" mantra was done in 2004 and 2006. Democrats were given the chance to "change" things in 2007-2009 and thusfar they've changed #######. So they need to come up with things a bit more constructive. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the Republican ideas suck badly.

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

The problem with Slogans can be seen quite clearly in the whole "flip-flop" fiasco in '04, with all those people clapping plastic flip-flops together - surely the height of infantilism.

Generally speaking there isn't anything wrong with slogans as general mission statements, but I do think in this case that there's a real danger of them obscuring Obama's policy ideas. To some extent this does seem to have been borne out in recent poll data - and Obama doesn't seem to be doing as well among independents as perhaps he should be - given how much damage the current lot has done to the prestige of the Republican party.

Indeed some of this seems to be have been borne out in recent poll data.

IMO "independents" in this country is a very variable community of voters. I see a very large chunk of independents as merely disgruntled Republicans.

Maybe - but a party-line split is hardly decisive. They both need the independent and undecided voters.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep, they do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep, they do.

After 20 years of Tory misrule, Tony Blair's New Labour won by a landslide in Britain (though subsequently we discovered he wasn't really any better). By rights Obama should be doing the same - but for one reason and another his campaign doesn't seem to be taking off outside of the Democratic base.

I hope he does win - if only because McCain's proposed healthcare plan is monstrous.

[IAMX 3,055]

It's a bloody campaign slogan...Obama didn't invent slogans nor did he invent the theme of change (see Clinton '92). As for what that change could mean - for one you could start with a change from the current administration's policies. That'd be a pretty dramatic change alone.

What policies would he change?

Remember, he was a Senator that had no important bills he made which were passed.

He's missed 1/4 of the votes since 2005.

He voted with Republicans to give immunity to AT&T/Verizon for the executive branch illegally spying on Americans, plus aggressively supported amending the FISA bill to include perpetually monitoring phone conversations of Americans via AT&T/Verizon (bells).

He can't even make his mind up on oil.

This same nonsense has been seen for the last 4-5 years.

I don't buy it.

What does QFT mean? Question For Topic?

Quite effing true.

Edited August 8, 2008 by SRVT

[Scott & Lai 12]

All Limbaugh laughs aside (the guy's a walking hypocrite joke.. would make a good pastor), Obama's clearly a politician, so making political points out of his ### is his MO.

However, what he said was:

"America is no longer what it could be.. what it once was".

And he's right. This country has sunk and isn't what it could be. The U.S. has been in dire straits economically, losing ground to other countries, and the shitty foreign policy the Bush Administration employed is a failure, making the country no more "safe" than it was pre-9/11.

A President doesn't need a flag jammed up his ### every time he/she speaks.

huh? We haven't had another 9/11 type attack since 9/11. I guess the KKK or the IRA are afraid of us.

Hmmm... we didn't have one before either - so that doesn't really mean a hill of beans.

The first attack on the World Trade Center, which was intended to be as devastating as 9/11, was in 1993...