Obama clinches the nomination

[anitram]

I think it curious that deep is fixating on every worst possible outcome when it comes to Obama. For every scenario he comes up with, there is an equally plausible positive outcome, but you'd never think the possibility even existed. The sky will surely fall.

 

[U2isthebest]

In the end, it's not Bush's purported lack of experience that caused his terrible presidency. It's his lack of intellectual curiosity, as noted by many of those who have worked with him. Richard Clarke, the former Counterterrorism chief from Reagan through W's first term said in 'Against All Enemies', "...(Bush) looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem. ...The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. ...Bush wanted to get to the bottom line and move on." That's simple-minded thinking has nothing to do with experience. It has everything to do with wanting to find the easy way out of complex problems. Nothing Obama has said or done has given any indication that's what he's looking for. Another problem with Bush and his administration is their arrogance and contempt for expert analysis on important issues and decisions. They simply think they know best. The best example is the run-up to the Iraq war when important dissents from CIA, State Department, Energy Department, and other intelligence analysts were omitted from intelligence reports submitted to Congress and the American public because the Bush administration thought they knew better than military, intelligence, and science experts. They wanted to go to war and they were bent on making sure that no information that damaged their case got out. These dissents turned out to be correct (CIA analyst dissents on the bogus documents that said Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, alunimum tubes that were indeed not usable for nuclear weapons as Energy Department scientists tried to tell the Bush regime, the unreliable biological weapons testimony, given under Egyptian torture, of a former Iraqi scientist, etc). This also accounts for part of the problems with Katrina management, the failure of No Child Left Behind and numerous other issues. The failure of the Bush administration has nothing to do with inexperience. Bush had been governor of Texas for 7 years and his highest ranking Cabinet members had all served in high-ranking positions in previous administrations. The failure came because a group of power-hungry, arrogant neocons decided they knew better than military, science, intelligence and numerous other experts on nearly every policy and issue; and they blatantly rejected any truth, knowledge, or fact that contradicted their narrow, often faulty views on complex issues. Obama has given no evidence to show he or his administration would follow this pattern. He is clearly more intelligent and informed than Bush and has shown that he's willing to work with experts to come up with sensible, achievable policy goals. To compare the two is off the mark.

 

[deep]

I think it curious that deep is fixating on every worst possible outcome when it comes to Obama. For every scenario he comes up with, there is an equally plausible positive outcome, but you'd never think the possibility even existed. The sky will surely fall.

"a crap shoot, (throw of the dice)" means it could go poorly = worst possible outcome
or
it could go well = there is an equally plausible positive outcome

Obama will be a crap shoot, (throw of the dice)

He will have a hard time controlling an exuberant Democratic controlled House and Senate.

It would have been a hard enough task for Hillary, in her steel belted, asbestos pant suit.

Who is being unrealistic?

At least I am saying he will have one hell of a task ahead of him if he gets the job,

Many of his supporters are just looking at this through 'rose colored glasses'
that once he gets elected all our problems will be over.

 

[anitram]

I was talking generally about your posts on this board. They have been far more on the Murphy's Law side of things than not.

 

[U2isthebest]

supporters are just looking at this through 'rose colored glasses'
that once he gets elected all our problems will be over.

These ridiculous stereotypes and generalizations are getting really old. I don't know one Obama supporter who feels that way, and I certainly don't. As for the "crap shoot" comment, it would've been or will be just as much of one if Hillary or McCain were in office. It has been and will be a crap shoot for every former and future president that'a ever been or will be president. That's not a very convincing argument.

 

[deep]

Let try and explain the "crap shoot" comment.

I know many of you don't remeber the 90s from first hand experience because you are not as old as I am.


I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1992.
in 1996, I felt very comfortable voting for him because of the 'competence' he displayed while in office. Voting for him was not a risk. (crap shoot) Voting for Bob Dole would have been more of a risk.


In 2000, voting for W would not have been a "crap shoot", it was the wrong decision.
He had displayed during the campaign that he had very little to offer. If elected, I expected him to be a mediocre to poor president.
Voting for Al Gore did not seem like a crap shoot (risk) at all. He displayed "skills" and had worked in the successful Clinton Administration. Voting for Gore was the sound decision.


In 2004, voting for W was such an obvious bad choice, there was no "crap shoot" unknown outcome, in voting for him.
Voting for Kerry, was the only sensible thing to do.

Please show me where I have repeatedly said "bad" things about Obama?

All I have said is that there are "unknowns" due to his lack of experience, especailly serving as an "Executive".

 

[U2isthebest]

Once again, there were unknowns for every person that has ever been president. By what you said in that post it seems that you're only comfortable voting for someone if they've already served one term or were in the previous administration. That's not always possible. It wasn't this time around. Choosing to vote for Kerry shouldn't have been a decision on whether or not he'd be a better president. (I highly doubt anyone could be worse than Bush, but I digress.) I, of course, feel that Al Gore is intelligent, competent, and would've been a very successful president. There's no guarantee of that, though. On inauguration day, we have no way of no way of knowing what situations or complications will arise, or if the policies and plans the president hopes to enact will come into fruition. We all look at the candidates and have an opinion on who we think is more qualified, but judging that based on who "probably" will be better instead of intelligence, policy and issue positions is not the best way to choose the next president of our nation.