Can someone explain this Obamalogic to me?

He's certainly cited his time in the US Senate as part of his experience to lead the nation. Yet today I read that he's an outsider as well. Not been in DC long enough to have the hope boiled out of him. Good line, but what does it mean?


How can you simultaneously claim experience from something while claiming to have been a part of that something only for a very short time, and claim both of those things qualify you to be president of the US?


What?

there is no logic in Obama-land. It's just accepted that whatever he says that day is the truth and he's a wonderful Leader full of Hope (or something).

.... but AUDACIOUS HOPE, the best kind!

:eyes:

How can Hillary simultaneously run on her own merits but also claim legacy status since her husband was President?

Welcome to the land of contradictions.

Obama supporters have said that he is both "experienced" and an "outsider"

you got a link or something to back that up? :-)

But Obama would NEVER do that right?

or as is known as:

"circular reasoning"

Definition: "a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic."

example:

The Evangelicals are anti-abortion. BUT if prayerful thinking is used beforehand or during...then it's acceptable.

Another would be:

The Evangelicals are anti-GLTB . But if "one" uses prayerful thinking, "one" can be cured and be made acceptable to their faith

Have you ever walked into a scene and understood how the whole mechanism works? It could be an office or a dormitory or a sports team or whatever. You don't have to stay around long enough to get bogged down in the small-time politics of whichever circumstance, but you can claim that you've got enough experience being there to deal with it.

sorry, just doesn't cut it.

presidents are not included in the culture as they are not out and about subject to lobbyists and the like like congress and the senate is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Obama/Novak double team against Clinton was classic Rove.

Not. And Bush one of the least.

or do you shill for Hillary too?

Obama — a man of letters: a true author.

Until Obama, Abe Lincoln was the last Illinois presidential candidate to open a literary window into personal politics-of-experience and conscience, penned in his own hand. I have not found the same in any of Hillary’s published works. As I recall, her experience as First Lady indeed precludes steady respect for enlisted Armed Service people — uninspiring affectations reminding veteran and active Americans they have a lot on the plate: electing a warrior CinC is imperative — any candidate who promises an open cabinet, and qualified loyal tribunes will do.

Barack and Hillary are both, inexperienced; but that’s not the issue: the Democrat campaign is about who will make the least mistakes. So far, B/H are running without grace and nuance — clumsy without resonance. When Hillary challenged Barack’s experience, it was the perfect time to move the topic up to primary platform issues. Barack missed the opportunity to set political dynamics in motion. As soon as Hillary engaged, he should have taken the high road and put up a legitimate issue, but he got suckered down in "experience” quals.

Voters want to be informed, not bought/sold off recommendations from focus groups and the K Street market class…. Any Campaign should openly inform citizens on legitimate political issues, and propose authentic solutions.

Democrats — harden up: the world is watching. There are many pressing issues: attacking inexperience is bytes wasted — pettifogging.

We challenge both Hillary and Barack to publish online daily journals — penned in hand. We are asking to read your thoughts — the unspun day-to-day interaction with politics-of-experience, and conscience. No ghostwriters, no office aides or staff: please ensure that journal entries remain authored, solely on your own.

DEMOCRATIC campaign.

... I stand corrected.

Thats a Can-Do... right after the BushI, BushII, Cheney presidential papers are released for public viewing.

Which branch did you serve in?

:shrug:

USN... and a few years on the inside w/ DoD.

:shrug:

Surely not as bad as Idiot George and the rest of the anti-American gang in charge basically telling veterans to go fuck ourselves...

Dubya's service record is reported as less than distinguished; his leadership as CinC is not inspired... but then, what share of criticisms go to George, and what share to Buckshot.

Recent stats show 25% of homeless are veterans; there is a shocking rise in desertion/AWOL within the rank and file; and recruiting and retentions have fallen on hard times.

Hillary is known to change her politics now-and-then. In the past, she was not particularly friendly toward US Armed Services people.

Recently, Hillary's voting record and election advertisements proclaim a tough stand-up attitude akin to the "Support Our Troops" bumper-sticker crowd. Many politicians do not have a son or daughter in service, nor have they themselves ever served - vicarious patriots... at times AKA "Chicken Hawks".

My family fought in the Revolutionary War and served in every war, since. For the most part, in these times I seek a President who has either been in the trenches, or owns-the-stones to place qualified people within the Administration; leaders who inspire respect - to and from the troops; experienced leaders who know how to get the job done.

The question is: how should Hillary and/or Barack demonstrate CinC experience/credentials?

The answer is: neither can show CinC experience/chops - it will be on-the-job training (scary, eh?); so now is the time for both to begin floating names for future administration cabinet chair and/or department/agency appointments. When candidates are perceived to be weak in one way or another, voters tend to elect the best team.

Either way, the Dems best get the issue covered, 'cause it'll sure as hell come up in the general election.

Hey, Wes Clark! You said you won't run for President, but you haven't said you won't accept a Veep nomination.

He has the experience to understand how things work in DC, but has not been bought out by special interests as many longterm Congresspersons have been, or lost his hope for real change, which happens after being in DC for awhile. Everyone comes to Congress hoping to make real change, but get discouraged after learning that the system as it is works against those aspirations. He goes into pretty good detail about this in "The Audacity of Hope." I understand Amazon still has a few copies left if you are interested in a more detailed explanation.

Maybe when compared to Hillary Clinton (First Lady), John Edwards (Veep candidate), Biden, Dodd, Richardson etc Obama IS an outsider.

AND at the same time...

he has experience in the US Senate and the Illinois State Senate and as a community organizer and as a constitutional lawyer/professor, etc.


But I don't think anyone is supporting Obama because he's the MOST experienced - he certainly isn't. I'm supporting him because of his sound judgment on a host of critical issues, his commitment to local political activism, and his ability to tackle tough partisan issues head on. He has a clarity of thought and ability to effectively communicate those ideas that is lacking in many other candidates.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had experience by the truckload. Experience should obviously be considered, but at the same time it shouldn't be overvalued.

He failed to vote on Kyl-Lieberman but he is against it. He's "for" civil rights for GLBT, but he panders to religious bigots. Basically, he's full of shit.

Tyranny has many disguises; it doesn't make any damn difference which flag and/or ideology advertised, the human condition is the same for everyone. That which motivates people to do and be what we are is the same for all: love, fear, anger, greed, hate, avarice, lust, brain damage, genes, memes, superstition… appetites, aversions, and all attendant insinuations, implications, inferences, perceptions, and realities therein.

There is no difference what race, religion, political affiliation, mantras, in-the-box group think standards, banners and flags they fly, every group and/or organization will include the best and worst of humanity.

There will never be any ONE or ONES that may be 100% relied upon to govern without citizen vigilance.

He doesn’t fit the "Double-High" religious authoritarian-bot type. Is he pandering, or sincere in faith? Does he struggle with conscience, or is he just another theme-park evangelical hypocrite zealot? Every voter should care enough to make informed decisions on their own. I’ve read Obama; he’s not perfect, nor am I.