Can you name a single policy position he holds that you think is better than Clinton or Edwards? And explain why?

If not, do you really think hoping he will "change the tone in Washington" is a good enough reason to vote for him? Remember, Bill Clinton made the exact same promise in 1992. And so did George Bush in 2000.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7987126a-7ff9-41c0-a6d0-9f0e44ffbc8c

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason : Vote Smart. Vote Policy. ]

1/27/2008 9:52:30 AM

In general terms he's a change candidate like Edwards and he's often followed Edwards on issues like being the 2nd to make health care an issue for his campaign and many others. For that reason, being a change candidate, he has been my 2nd choice and I've wanted him on the ticket. There are several reasons why Edwards is my first, but I wont go into that too much in this thread. And by change candidate I don't just mean abstract things like talking about new ideas and hope, but also concrete things like him & Edwards avoiding taking money from certain corrupting influences.

Some reasons Obama is my 2nd is that he was the only of the top 3 to be against war in Iraq from the start (whereas Edwards was willing to say he was wrong to have voted the way he did... something I like is an ability for a politician to admit a mistake, whereas Hillary stood ever by her vote for war with Iraq). Obama was also the first to agree to go to the gay issues presidential forum/debate. The republican's altogether said no to such and forum and it didn't happen, but Obama helped lead the way for the democrats to make it happen. Gay issues obviously aren't my only issue or Obama might be my straight up first candidate, but he is a strong candidate for unity which is what we need after something as divisive as Bush.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 10:09 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2008 10:04:52 AM

They are just like Bill and Hill were in 92, same age, same "change" theme, basically same experience......probably why so many people like him.....Bill Part 2(his wife is just like Hill) What did Bill change, nothing....same with Obama, he can talk all he wants about change but you have the wonderful Congress that is basically 50/50 and "change" will occur only if the GOP agrees.

I dont think Obama has a shot at winning against McCain, and Hill probably will not either...but Hill has a better shot at it than Obama. The battleground states will go to the GOP for sure if Obama is the Dem. I am starting to think that a Republican will win the White House even though Bush sucked...McCain attracts conservative Dems, moderate Republicans and loads of independents.



[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM. Reason : w]

1/27/2008 10:17:21 AM

He speaks so well!

1/27/2008 10:25:21 AM

Supplanter,

But Obama has not really led the way on the issues. I agree, speaking out against Iraq in 2002 and agreeing to a gay forum are both very symbolic pluses for the man. But he did not come out with his own Health Care reform package until months after Edwards and Hillary.

And the plan he has come out with is seriously flawed because it lacks a mandate for every American to buy insurance, but insists that insurance companies be forced to offer *everyone* a basic health care package. What does that mean? It means you don't actually have to buy health insurance until you are sick. That further means that insurance companies will have to raise rates on healthy people, reponcible ppl to pay for the shirkers that put off buying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

Also, Obama has done jack about Iraq since being brought into the Senate. He introduced a bill (that had little hope of passing) that called for troop withdrawls, but then continually voted to fund the war. And he has yet to articulate a detailed exit strategy beyong pulling the troops out ASAP (i guess he doesn't care about what will happen in Iraq, real nice guy).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18106281

The guy is a king of symbolic gestures and fancy rhetoric. But where's the beef? I agree that Edwards would be the best candidate and I can tell you do care about the issues. But Edwards prob wont be a viable option (sadly). That's why I want to convince you to vote Hillary when the primary rolls around. On Health care she is much better (she wants a mandate, like Edwards) and on Iraq they are about the same (which ain't great, but not worse). Think about it.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ``]

1/27/2008 10:56:25 AM

Obama doesn't actually believe that you can pull the troops out of Iraq right now. Hence, he keeps voting to fund the war. He has said many times, maybe not in debates, but many times that you have to figure out the quickest way to get the iraqi people in charge so we can pull our own out. He's not an idiot. He knows the consequences of pulling out of iraq right now. As for his plan, you may be right about him not having a good one, but he's not going to leave that place a disaster. (although, that will happen anyway imo, no matter what we do)

His health care plan targets the insurance companies since thats where the disaster started in the first place, but it also has provisions to hold doctors accountable and make health care more efficient. I don't think any of the candidates have great health care solutions but his is the best of all the democratic candidates. He is also willing to listen, and that plan isnt set in stone. If it requires something slightly more progressive to pass, he isnt a "my way or the highway" type of guy. Thats the reason I like Obama. I may not vote for him if he's on the ticket, but he's a good candidate as far as democrats go.

1/27/2008 12:01:02 PM

He's black.

1/27/2008 12:08:57 PM

Quote :

"Can you name a single policy position he holds that you think is better than Clinton or Edwards? And explain why?"

My understanding is that all three candidates' policy positions are very similar.

Quote :

"I agree, speaking out against Iraq in 2002 and agreeing to a gay forum are both very symbolic pluses for the man."

Obama also called out blacks for being homophobic on MLK day, something that might've cost him a few votes. The only other "black leader" to take such a step was Coretta Scott King.

Quote :

"That's why I want to convince you to vote Hillary when the primary rolls around."

Billary's been engaging in some subtle and not-so-subtle race-baiting these last few weeks that's really turned me off, most recently comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. And with the Repuglicans disillusioned with most of their frontrunners, no one can unite them like Hillary as hatred for her runs deep within their ranks. Obama has a better chance at grabbing Independents and "swing voters".

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ']

1/27/2008 12:11:28 PM

Wolf,

Obama wanted to start pulling out troops LAST YEAR.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html
The 2006 bill he introduced called for troops to start leaving in 2007.

And I would be very worried if the only nice thing I had to say about his health care reform plan is that "he will probably change it later".

---

Shin,

1) On health care, Hill's and Obama's plans are not very similar. They use similar language sure, but the specifics indicate they will have very different consequences (see link and post above). That's the biggest domestic issue I care about. On Iraq they fairly similar because they both refuse to go into specifics beyond platitudes like "we need to step down, so the Iraqis can step up."

2) If you're only voting for the guy because you think he will win (grab swing voters), maybe you should remind yourself that winning only matters if you like what the man will do in office.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : Obama - Where's the Beef?]

1/27/2008 12:20:20 PM

pretty sure mccain is gonna win....its the one that makes the most sense

1/27/2008 12:21:33 PM

Quote :

"My understanding is that all three candidates' policy positions are very similar."

that's what Hillary wants you to think, especially since she seems to have copied most of everyone else's policies

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : asdfgh]

1/27/2008 12:31:48 PM

Quote :

"that's what HillaryObama wants you to think, especially since she seems to have [poorly] copied most of everyone else's John Edward's policies "

If you are looking for an innovator of public policy, vote Edwards. If you're looking for someone that will make you feel tingly in your pants and make a lot of symbolic gestures, vote Obama.

It's really that simple.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason : Brutus > Marc Antony]

1/27/2008 12:49:34 PM

Quote :

"But he did not come out with his own Health Care reform package until months after Edwards and Hillary."

That's just not true. The timeline was Edwards (far ahead), then Obama (May), then Clinton (September).

1/27/2008 12:49:37 PM

Kay_Yow,
Oh. Excuse me. He was the FIRST copy cat. Then I retract my statement.
Now would you care to DEFEND that plan over Hill's and Edward's?

1/27/2008 12:51:32 PM

If Edwards' plan has a mandate and Obama's plan does not (for adults, at any rate), then wouldn't that make Hillary's plan with a mandate, the first copy cat?

1/27/2008 12:54:23 PM

If Obama is ahead of Clinton at the convention but doesnt have enough delegates.....will he

1)promise that if he wins nominate her to the Supreme Court if a vacancy comes to
2)promise to nominate her as AG
3)promise to nominate her as Secretary of State
4)....profit


Edwards I doubt will have enough delegates to do much bargaining

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM. Reason : w]

1/27/2008 12:56:54 PM

e) none of the above

1/27/2008 1:05:44 PM

Kay, If Edwards plan only amounted to mandated health insurance...yes.

Of course, it doesn't. It also includeds expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP as well forcing insurance companies offer plans that are at least as generous as some public alternative.
http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

Guess what Obama's plan also offers?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

And I'm hardly the first person to say this. Here's the NYT on the day Obama announced his plan.

Quote :

"The plan also shows his willingness to tap into a long line of Democratic policy thinking; it reflects elements of plans put forward by the Clintons, by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, and by his rival, Senator John Edwards, earlier this year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us/politics/29CND-OBAMA.html?em&ex=1180584000&en=5cfaca388aac563d&ei=5087%0A

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ``]

1/27/2008 1:09:00 PM

You think I need you to quote policy positions to me, particularly from John Edwards? C'mon now.

I just think it's funny that one minute people are like ohmigod, he copied me and then in the next breath say ohmigod, his plan sucks.

1/27/2008 1:13:13 PM

Kay,

His policy sucks BECAUSE HE DIDN'T COPY EDWARDS WELL ENOUGH!

And I don't think you can argue differently.
So I ask, why do you support this guy?

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM. Reason : Not being mean because Kay Yow is Awesome. ]

1/27/2008 1:15:37 PM

He doesn't have a vagina.

1/27/2008 1:30:43 PM

Personally, I trust Obama more than I do Clinton and Edwards. I suppose that I have no real reason to distrust Edwards, but I know Clinton is a liar. Obama seems more down to earth than Edwards.

1/27/2008 1:49:23 PM

Quote :

"If you're only voting for the guy because you think he will win (grab swing voters), maybe you should remind yourself that winning only matters if you like what the man will do in office."

Ummm, not exactly. It's also matters how much I hate what his opponents will do in office. But I'll admit I'm a little lost when it comes to the specifics of healthcare.

1/27/2008 1:49:24 PM

When someone gets into office, they may get to implement one of their campaign proposals. Shit they promise now is much less important than how they deal with the reality of washington once they get into office.

I wonder how well Hillary and Bill clinton will get along with republicans.

1/27/2008 1:58:17 PM

Ug. Emotion.

This is exactly why Bush was elected in 2000. People thought he seemed more "trustworthy" and "down to earth" than Al Gore. Hell, who would you rather have a beer with? Plus he promised to change the tone in Washington! Never mind the man displayed little understanding of policy nuance.

I just hope Obama isn't another disaster of American democracy. In either case, I need to get back to work. Peace out y'all.

1/27/2008 2:01:54 PM

I like him cause he's black

1/27/2008 2:03:49 PM

The fact that people like him for similar reasons doesn't mean they are the same. You think an academic lawyer will have the same problems understanding policy nuance as GWB?

Regardless of what most other people thought, I saw the GWB presidency unfolding exactly as it did -- extremely ideological, impractical, lots of nepotism, lots of religion. You get that from judging the person and his abilities, not looking at meaningless promises and campaign slogans.

1/27/2008 2:10:32 PM

Well, one thing is for certain: Obama doesn't understand the simple things about the Constitution. So "nuances of policy'" really aren't a concern for me.

1/27/2008 2:15:42 PM

He was a lecturer of constitutional law and has the best knowledge of how to interpret and abide by it.

He's aware of what political reforms are needed to ensure democracy continues.

He would bring the troops home.

1/27/2008 2:16:21 PM

Quote :

"The fact that people like him for similar reasons doesn't mean they are the same. You think an academic lawyer will have the same problems understanding policy nuance as GWB?"

In many respects yes. He has already shown a problem understanding policy in both his proposed "stimulus package" and his proposed health care reforms. He's also shown a stuborness to not change those positions when they are clearly shown to be wrong. For example, he excluded mandates because he didn't think were necc for the plan and that they would be unenforceable.

Economists such as Paul Krugman have already effectively argued that leaving out those mandates will result in higher premimums for adults seeking insurance (scroll up to see why) and John Edwards has already offered a solution to enforcement (sign folks up when they file income tax). Yet he insists he will not include the mandate. That is a bad quality to have in a President.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ``]

1/27/2008 2:45:44 PM

I like Edwards policy positions. However, I am supporting Obama to keep Hillary out.

So get the fuck over yourself.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2008 2:58:31 PM

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think the party got into deep trouble when it became obvious that the democratic candidate was going to be a.) black or b.) a woman. I still think this country has a huge pool of people that don't want either of those to happen and will show up in masses come election day. And that racism/sexism isn't going to show up in the polls, the dems are going to be as dumbfounded as they were when Kerry got his ass handed to him.

1/27/2008 3:27:51 PM

a) There is nothing to suggest this at all. We have female governors, black governors, hispanic governors. We've had minorities elected to the highest positions of government (this include VP, we had an American Indian once). You have nothing to back up this ridiculous assertion about people not wanting a black man or a women. More than likely, you are projecting your own bigotry on everyone else.

b) The Democrats were not dumbfounded when Kerry lost to Bush in 2004. No one was dumbfounded that year. Just like the Republicans in '96, the Democrats lead a sacrificial lamb to the altar. Bush was a somewhat popular president who just lead us into a popular war. Yes, Iraq was a popular war at the beginning. So no, us Democrats were not dumbfounded.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2008 3:38:52 PM

Of course I have nothing to back up this assertion, it's simply an opinion. It has nothing to do with the way I feel about minorities or women, but the level of intolerance I think still exists in this country. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

1/27/2008 3:54:28 PM

not to mention, kerry hardly had is "ass handed to him". 50.7% to 48.3% is a clear victory, but is hardly a rout

1/27/2008 4:26:39 PM

^^There is nothing to back it up. If there is that much intolerance we wouldn't have elected minorities to high positions in our governments.

1/27/2008 5:31:35 PM

i'm really tired of white dudes getting to be pres...43 of these mf's and they are all white dudes...lets get some bitches or color up in that piece

1/27/2008 5:39:06 PM

Although I agree with the points about Edwards being the candidate that initiated a lot of the policy positions now common to all the remaining Dems, in fact it was the very thing that made me continue supporting him for a long time, I eventually decided to support Obama.

I changed my mind when Edwards started making statements about compromise not working and fighting being the only solution. For instance:

“Compromise is not going to get us there, triangulation is not going to get us there, being careful is not going to get us there. We need somebody who's used to fighting these people and beating them and I've been doing it my whole life.”

It excited a lot of people, but it sounds a lot like George W. Bush to me. No compromise, I am certain in my beliefs and don't need to listen to others. It's equating negotiation with capitulation, convincing with placation. It's what gets us statements like you're with us or you're with the terrorists for instance. Although I like Edwards ends better, I don't think substituting far-left policies for far-right ones really fixes that many of our problems.

What it came down to for me was politics being about more than just a set of policy ends, ticking off a set of boxes on issues, but also a question of process. I think that Obama has articulated a pluralist message in which he will advocate for the ends I also believe in, but by building a consensus around them rather than just attempting to force them upon people.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ...]

1/27/2008 5:50:57 PM

hadrian,

That is hands down the best answer I've heard yet. I obviously don't agree (Bush talked a lot about being a "uniter" too, and Obama has been very sturburn about changing his health care plan thus far despite its obvious flaws), but it's a VERY reasonable position.

No mention of charisma or race, you acknowledge that his positions are not the best, but you think there's more to being a good President than policy analysis. In particular, you think that Obama's willingness to listen to both sides will yield better policies in the long run (better process, better ends). Shit. You almost convinced me.

Until someone comes up with a better answer, hadrian has won the thread.

1/27/2008 6:11:27 PM

"We need somebody who's used to fighting these people and beating them and I've been doing it my whole life."

I've heard him say things like this, and after 2004 I don't blame him, Bush-Cheney made lawyers sounds almost as bad terrorists for a while, so if he needs to spin his career as a fight for the little guy to fit into the broader populist themes of his campaign then I don't have a problem with it.

All candidates have to some degree used fighting words & uniting words at different times. Standing up against policies and positions like those that got us into Iraq or have caused us to lose a great deal of civil liberties are causes worth fighting for.

A clip from the most recent democratic debate.


I might not be able to win this thread or convince people that Edwards is the best choice, but hopefully seeing the candidate in action can help people make up their minds.

Although I've got tell ya, despite all my support for Edwards, watching Obama's victory speech in South Carolina (which I'm sure can be found on youtube) was almost moving.

1/27/2008 6:44:11 PM

Just to clarify...I never said I didn't think he had the best policies as well, I just said the deciding factor for me was the process argument.

I'm skeptical of stimulus plans but if it's decided we're to have one I think his is the best as it focuses on getting money into the hands of people that will spend quickly, instead of things like 'green collar jobs' (I don't have a problem with them, just tacking them into a stimulus plan). Again I don't like the stopgap aspect of a stimulus package, we need longer term solutions, but he has those too. I particularly like his statements on the mortgage crisis when he said we can't just bail these companies out as it creates a moral hazard for them to engage in overly speculative behavior, you know capitalism in all its glory for the rich as well as the poor.

I think his healthcare plan is at least as good (to be you know nice and conciliatory about it) as the others. I think that Edwards and Clinton's plans achieve universal coverage by just defining people as covered, we have universal healthcare because everyone has to have insurance. To me it's like saying if we just legalize crime, our crimerate drops to zero. Yeah by definition it does, but it's not clear you've really fixed the problem. I think Obama's plan tackles the problem (affordability) instead of defining it away. This is of course besides the point that the 'mandates' will not cover everyone, just as mandating auto insurance does not mean everyone has it, or making abortions illegal does not mean they won't happen(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05truth.html?ex=1354510800&en=994f8868b8d1afb9&ei=5088&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss.

Finally of course when it comes to foreign policy I also like his positions, such that they are, more. He is the only serious candidate left who opposed the war from the start. As a former Edwards supporter obviously it's not a deal maker/breaker for me, but it is a plus and it does show good judgment to steal the talking points. But also his statements on Pakistan, when he said if we had actionable intelligence on Osama Bin Laden, he would act on it without their permission if necessary. While this may seem to contravene opposition to the war in Iraq, the key here is the idea of actionable intelligence and acting (as opposed to you know invading). I think this represented the way that the fight against terrorism should be fought, through good intelligence and strategic action instead of operating under a state-centric understanding of the conflict which leads us to costly and unnecessary occupations for the sake of making it understandable to the public. It was a point that Clinton mocked as being sophomoric and showing his inexperience then later agreed with. It was also on August 1st, just a week before Musharraf instituted a 'state of emergency', several months before the Bhutto assassination and you know...everyone started talking about what to do about Pakistan. I think it again showed good judgment, identifying it as one of the major points of concern in foreign policy which was later borne out by events. That's only a couple points, but If think that they illustrate the trend.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : apparently I'm cockney and dropping my h's]

1/27/2008 6:49:08 PM

Sorry for the double post: I didn't see the other post while I was writing.

Quote :

"All candidates have to some degree used fighting words & uniting words at different times. Standing up against policies and positions like those that got us into Iraq or have caused us to lose a great deal of civil liberties are causes worth fighting for."

I absolutely agree, and see no reason to believe that Senator Obama won't fight for what he believes when it comes down to it. But I think it comes to the old saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." Which is to say I like that Obama starts from a position of conciliation then works towards the fight, instead of the other way around. Like I said I like Senator Edwards, but it's a slippery slope...

Quote :

"A clip from the most recent democratic debate."

It's a nice clip, Edwards talking about the issues not just squabbling. I particuarly like his point on Social Security (that Clinton, who is the candidate of action not words, has only said she wants to save Social Security without specifying how), I wish Obama would pick up this point on her as it offers a clear contrast to her attack that he is just a man of words. What strikes me as interesting about the point of Edwards being the "grown-up" talking about issues while the others squabble is that he was the first to go negative in this campaign (one of the reasons I supported him in 2004 was that he refused to).

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM. Reason : capitalization]

1/27/2008 7:08:13 PM

Quote :

"He was a lecturer of constitutional law and has the best knowledge of how to interpret and abide by it. He's aware of what political reforms are needed to ensure democracy continues."

And yet he doesn't seem to understand that healthcare and education are NOT powers relegated to the federal gov't. go figure.

1/27/2008 8:50:09 PM

I like him because he makes Slick Willy point his finger at folks a lot more.

Also he gives Reagan some credit, if only for his enthusiasm and general sense of purpose.

I also like that he came out with the fact he did drugs on his own terms.

Besides that he seems to be a generally likeable fellow, besides Huckabee maybe the most likable in my book.

As far as his positions go verses say HRC or the pretty boy I've not bothered to research it. Seems to me they are all interested in increasing the size of government and/or reducing the tax advantages of the rich. IN other words they all want to raise taxes. And I'd expect all three of them to appoint liberal revisionist judges.

I only wish the contrast with the republican side was more universal.

1/27/2008 9:29:19 PM

My policy position is along the lines of hadrian's.

Its not the exact issues he represents or his answers, but his advocacy for a pluralist federal government, that will not turn its back on the States (in regards to funding and ability to address their problems) and to build a consensus around solutions.

It politics its not where you stand that gets shit done, its who you trust to get your policies and programs done right. Policy makers, people that are not politicians but key in making change, are most often overlooked by people. I believe Obama would not burn bridges to key minds that Clinton & Edwards would just to accomplish what they want the answer to be.

That and he's from Hawai'i. I love that state.

1/27/2008 10:54:39 PM

If he wins the nomination this will be his downfall:

"And a Congressional Quarterly review found Obama has a near-perfect partisan voting record, casting his lot with the Democratic Party line 97 percent of the time - higher than Clinton and dead even with Sen. John Kerry (Mass.)."

^doesnt really backup his "new" message.

I fear if he does get the nomination and loses the general, people will simply blame race and not issues/experience as the cause.

1/27/2008 11:30:03 PM

Oh, there's so many reasons. its not because he can put a mulitcultural face on america.

For starters, it's because he's an ethical and principled leader, and is committed to restoring the government to the people -- by demanding and enforcing ethics at all levels of the Executive branch.

It's not just because he's an inspiring speaker. He is, but he leads by example and has a significant history of working to bring together various groups of people for a common cause --- one of these causes is to remove the stranglehold lobbyists have on our government agencies.


REQUIRE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT

-- Create a searchable "contracts and influence" database, to disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

-- disclose any tax breaks (earmarks) for corporate recipients on a publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format

-- disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

-- End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts by requiring nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

-- Make White House communication public, such that all communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed and accessible.


RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST BY INCREASING INVOLVEMENT

-- As President, he will give the American public an opportunity to review every non-emergency bill and comment on them on the White House website for five days, before signing them into law

-- require Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.

-- Conduct executive branch and regulatory rulemaking business in public, so that anyone can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

-- nullify Bush's attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.


REMOVING POLITICAL NEPOTISM

-- appointees in an Obama administration will be prohibited from working on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.

-- no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

-- all new hires at government agencies must sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.

-- FEMA Director Michael Brown was unqualified to head the agency, and his tenure was a disaster. Every official must meet a standard of proven excellence in that agency's mission.

1/28/2008 12:02:51 AM

^^

Oh that will be a given if he loses. He can only lose due to racism.



This is your future Prez looking like he's waiting for a bus, while the National Anthem is being played. At least he doesn't have his fist in the air. His lack of showing any traditional respect for the country may be a minor thing but still is annoying to me.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 12:07:02 AM

^ eh. you know how many people don't put their hands on their heart?

^^^ that quote doesn't mean much. 1st because there is no link. 2nd because the only one i found was from the NY Post. 3rd, is that partisan line issues only?

I probably vote with the Democratic party 97% of the time too, but it doesn't hinder my ability to agree with republicans on other non-partisan issues. and partisan issues, such as abortion and mindless wars are why we need "new" leadership anyways.

regardless its also from past 2005. and is that study for the Senate or House?

1/28/2008 12:21:15 AM

Quote :

"eh. you know how many people don't put their hands on their heart? "

A lot. But I want my president to show some respect for the country he leads. This is disgraceful.

1/28/2008 12:24:35 AM