Obama - how can he convince people?

The Raven.

Ludo wrote: »

No one has training for the presidency. Does a state govenor? erm...not necessarily...look at bush.
Does a senator? Not necessarily.
It generally depends on character.

I don’t know quite what you mean here. It looks like you are saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t need training and that Bush has done all right without it. If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

I disagree. He has been campaigning for 2 years now. What more can he do?

If he has tried and failed for two years, then there is nothing he can do.

I never mentioned people who don't approve of Obama. This is about people who need convincing...see my last post.

I never said you did. If people are not ‘convinced’ by Obama it is tantamount to saying they don’t fully approve of him or his policies. It’s just semantics. I saw your last post after I posted my last one.

Again, you are not the type of person I asked this question to. You will not vote for Obama and fair enough. Some say they can be convinced and I am curious as to how. You do not fit that group.

Are you suggesting that I should not post on this thread?

Black Swan

The Raven. wrote: »

If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

If Obama is to be held guilty by association, should not McCain also be guilty by association?

McCain's Criminal Associations

G. Gordon Liddy, convicted criminal of Watergate, advocate of killing Federal agents in 1994 during his radio talk show covering the Branch Davidian tragedy in Texas, and presidential primaries financial contributor and supporter of McCain, who appeared on Liddy's November 2007 radio show to a warm welcome.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of b*tches."

In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year... Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column


Charles Keating, the convicted criminal of the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal, where taxpayers lost $3 billion, some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, and many elderly investors lost their life savings. McCain was labeled and investigated on corruption charges as one of the Keating Five, and was ruled to have exercised "bad judgment" by the House Ethics Committee. During the time that McCain was representing the interests of his wealthy campaign contributor and friend Keating, when was he also representing the interests of those constituents that lost their life savings?

"McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981, and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating. Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

It would appear that McCain's associations with these convicted criminals continues? It was noted that McCain received a 2008 presidential campaign contribution from G. Gordon Liddy (above), and now from a firm started by Charles Keating.

July of 2008, The John McCain for President campaign received over $50,000 in contributions from 41 partners of the Cincinnati law firm Keating Muething & Klekamp. Source: http://www.themansfieldherald.com/2008/10/mccain-took-contributions-from-law-firm-founded-by-charles-keating/

Ludo

The Raven. wrote: »

I don’t know quite what you mean here. It looks like you are saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t need training and that Bush has done all right without it. If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

No I am saying there is no such thing as training for president. Bush has proved that being a govenor is NOT necessarily good training as he SUCKED.

And every politician has skeletons. For every skeleton that has fallen out of Obamas cupboard, there is an equivalent one for McCain (and every other politician) but they do not need to be explained apparently. Obamas do..different standards?

The Raven. wrote: »

I never said you did. If people are not ‘convinced’ by Obama it is tantamount to saying they don’t fully approve of him or his policies. It’s just semantics. I saw your last post after I posted my last one.

Are you suggesting that I should not post on this thread?

Nope not at all...just that you are not the target audience for this thread. i.e. you will never be convinced by Obama as you appear to disagree with him fundamentally. Therefore nothing he can say or do will sway you from what I have read of your replies. If I have mistaken your position I apologise.

cooker3

Seeing as it's highly likely Obama will win, the question should be what should McCain do to convince people seeing as he has clearly failed pretty miserably to do that.

Unfortunately for Obama the views of the US population don't wholly reflect the utter lovefest that tends to happen on forums such as these so you can't win them all but he will win enough

Ludo

cooker3 wrote: »

Seeing as it's highly likely Obama will win, the question should be what should McCain do to convince people seeing as he has clearly failed pretty miserably to do that.

Good point. I originally (pre-primaries) would have wanted McCain to win as to be honest on policy matters I would be pretty split between dem and rep on different topics. So for me it comes down to who can do the best job and achieve the most.

Unfortunately for McCain the complete mis-management of his campaign, ever-changing policy messages, absolutely pathetic choice of VP, his dramatic swing to the right to please the base, his utterly negative campaigning, his silly (mis)use of people like Joe the plumber (who now thinks he is some kind of expert on foriegn policy also), etc, etc have convinced me that he is unfit to run an ice-cream van, not to mind the most powerful country/military on earth.

I believe his campaign has been hijacked and he has lost all control of it.
Pretty much everything about his campaign which is meant to convince me he is capable of being president has actually convinced me of the opposite. If he can't run a campaign, then he cannot run a country...simple as that really.

Nothing he can do now to change that as it is too late.

bonkey

The Raven. wrote: »

The way she has been treated within her own party speaks volumes about the Democrats of today.

How, exactly, has she been "treated within her own party"?

She ran for the ticket, and was the darling of many.
She lost.
She was given an unprecedented opportunity to have her name put forward despite having lost at the convention.
She herself then said she had no interest in being the running-mate, nor anything else other than the position she currently holds - a stance which has been honoured.

Now, sure...some have argued that she was robbed...beacuse her party enforced their own rules*

Is this is the problem you have with the Democratic party today...that it didn't ignore its own rules?



* Admittedly...they didn't fully enforce the rules. They sought a compromise which ensured that they didn't change the outcome, but allowed some "face saving" to be done...in effect mitigating the punishment, but not to the detriment of the process.

Black Swan

Ludo wrote: »

absolutely pathetic choice of VP

This was the game breaker for most independents that I've talked with during this election, especially after Palin did her first interviews, starting with Charlie Gibson. Her answers were superficial and uninformed, often filled with chatter as if by an unprepared high school student when asked about homework she failed to do by her teacher. When she did answer, they were what you would typically expect from someone isolated in the Arctic state of Alaska, having never traveled beyond North America (and very little within the domestic US). Many now think of her as "Northern Exposure" Palin, with the comic and ironic attitudes attributed to the isolated small town in that old telly series.

The Raven.

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

What was it about Hilary that made her so appealing to you?

I was impressed by Hillary when she came to Ireland. She wasn’t the typical First Lady standing in her husband’s shadow. She came across as a sophisticated, courageous person who spoke out clearly and intelligently, notably on women’s rights. Sadly most of this fell on deaf ears as it distracted from the Bill love fest of the day. She has many years of political experience and significant achievements, too extensive to mention here. In my view she was clearly the most eligible candidate for the presidency.

bonkey wrote: »

She ran for the ticket, and was the darling of many.
She lost.

That’s debatable.

She was given an unprecedented opportunity to have her name put forward despite having lost at the convention.
She herself then said she had no interest in being the running-mate, nor anything else other than the position she currently holds - a stance which has been honoured.

That’s not surprising. Was she asked by Obama? In any case it would have been a bad choice for obvious reasons. It would never have worked.

Now, sure...some have argued that she was robbed...beacuse her party enforced their own rules*

Is this is the problem you have with the Democratic party today...that it didn't ignore its own rules?

· Admittedly...they didn't fully enforce the rules. They sought a compromise which ensured that they didn't change the outcome, but allowed some "face saving" to be done...in effect mitigating the punishment, but not to the detriment of the process.

I’m afraid I don’t understand these ‘Democratic’ rules. Perhaps you would care to explain.

How, exactly, has she been "treated within her own party"?

Here are a few examples. This is not Fox News. I find these people very credible and sincere. Part 3 is especially interesting as it includes a very dignified, elderly, black woman: a civil rights activist, who marched with Martin Luther King. These videos may not relate to what you are talking about but they are a grave cause for concern and clearly demonstrate serious problems within the Democratic Party and why some people won’t be convinced by Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXNqFQmGxDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XFvq5XMk8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnclKiHwatw&NR=1

Manic Moran

I’m afraid I don’t understand these ‘Democratic’ rules. Perhaps you would care to explain.

He means the punishments meted out to Michigan and Florida for shoving their Primaries so far foward.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

I saw, about two months ago, an article in the Irish Times basically saying that the only way that Obama could convince most Republicans was by embracing the policies of the fanatic right.

It would seem now that that was not true.