No, he's not overtly an anti-change candidate. But he's one who has played the system for years. He hasn't made any big efforts to change the way things are done in Washington, he's simply become an expert at working the system the way it is now. In that sense, I don't think he fits Obama's message very well, and neither does Hillary.


Could be, but I'm thinking less of his stand on individual issues, than on how he stands with the system. He might agree with your stands on many issues, but I don't see him as a big proponent of changing the way things are done in Washington. He's too good at working the system the way it is now. Experience is good, but change means tossing out a good deal of your experience and learning to do things a new way that you have no experience with.

On the experience issue, I've been more concerned with whether or not Biden and McCain have too much experience, rather than Obama and Palin having too little.

In Obama's case, I've been fearing lately that the system is changing him more than he's changing it. But we'll see.

With history in vouge in the politics thread, today is the 7 anniversary of the 9/11 Terror Attacks. A rather central question is, who did it? 16,063 people in 17 nations have been asked about their opinion:

International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/

As a supporter of the 9/11 truth movement I find these numbers OK, given the general support of the official version in the main line media. From my kind of guys: Remembering 9/11

Well it might sound cynical, but I have a lot of experience in Washington, and it seems to me that if one thinks they can actually push a lot of change in Washington then they are in for a lot of sleepless nights with nothing getting done. Clinton seemed to learn that lesson pretty quickly and actually began to be able to implement some decent changes precisely because he began to 'work the system'.

You might be right. In fact, I'm afraid you are.


Yeah, there's certainly some truth in that. But is that what Obama is promising? To become an expert in working the system? If it's that, then why shouldn't we have nominated someone other than him, who already had more of this skill?

You said you were heavily in favor of change, but in this post you seem to be saying the opposite, that real changes are impossible and you have to just work with the system. What kinds of changes are you heavily in favor of, exactly? Are you talking about specific policies, like National Healthcare, or something like that?

Well, I am not a politician, and if I were I would be a terrible one, because I believe in blunt talk and standing firm for what I believe in. I do think that as much as we all hate the politics that we see, that it isn't so much the normal workings of politics that is bad, but rather the extreme divisiveness that we keep getting out of our politicians. I think much of it comes because of our television and internet age, where sound bytes and visuals take precedence over substance. I think it can be possible to work for change within the normal system without thinking you have to break it down. Clinton did this well, but didn't push hard enough in my opinion (not that he had the power to anyhow). What we need is a truly charismatic visionary who can be straightforward to Americans but speak to us in a way that can inspire us even when we are being told we need to tighten our belts and work together in order to stave off much harder times ahead. Obama is not that visionary, at least not that I can see, though he is clearly more promising than McCain.

What changes am I for exactly? Mainly I want us to actually try to deal with the huge problems coming quickly down the road at us. We keep ignoring them, trying to push the consequences onto others, never seeming to realize that we are only allowing the problems to become far worse than they need to be. They all seem to be hitting around the same time - population problems, too many elderly, water issues, social security, medical care, transportation, education. We need real solutions, or at the very least we need to begin the process of finding solutions. As much as Obama talks about change, he is not talking much about these huge problems, and that worries me greatly.

I consider this to be the biggest weakness in our relatively great system - that all politicians have such a short time in power that they are always worried about the short term and their reelections rather than trying to head off upcoming problems. I don't have a realistic solution to this other than to hope for a brave visionary to come to power; one worried less about reelection and more about the good of our people, country and world.

I just assumed that Biden was chosen to send a message to the Clinton wing of the party. The Palin pick can be seen as a message to the Republican party, namely, that McCain is aiming to put his stamp on the party for the next 12 years. I take the Biden pick to say "Hillary, you can have the party in eight years at the most."

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Akselborg, your views would be laughable if they weren't so offensive.

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Well, as for me, (and for the MANY United States citizens whom I am speaking for on their behalf), here is my response to Akselborg's quote above:

"We really don't give a rip what the "international consensus" is concerning who was responsible for 9/11!!"


Chess Fan

Here is a short video reminder of the evil and the wickedness that was committed against the United States of America SEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY.


Chess Fan

I wonder if the international community gives a rip about what you think, CF

Why "evil"? Like Spud pointed out, maybe God wanted 9/11 to happen, and perhaps hijackers were merely serving God's will. It doesn't look good when you unilaterally label 9/11 as "evil" and ignore Spud's (valid) point that was made several posts above.