It amuses me that you responded without reading my posts and then arrogantly tried to tell me that I wasn’t reading (or listening) to Obama. He has ideas; his ideas are outlined. In debates he has said he’ll ‘push’ to get his agenda through, (he has nobody to work with on the Republican side and bi-partisan politics is necessary these days.) He claims he’ll ‘take China to the mat’ to keep them from ‘manipulating’ the value of our dollar, but he doesn’t have any leverage to use against China; doing anything other than working with China is bad. (And he already declared in advertisements run locally that he has no intention of working with China.)

He has no clear cut plan of action, (and he gets called on it regularly by Clinton.) Whenever he’s pushed on it, he stutters and fumbles. He’s a great speaker whenever he’s working from a script, (as he normally is,) but whenever he’s caught off guard by a question, (as he is in debates very often,) he gets visually flustered.

Yeah, he is getting a lot of press and ‘love’ from people because he’s a great speaker; just because you can talk the talk, though, doesn’t mean you can walk the walk. Historically, Obama hasn’t walked the walk, he has been all talk.

The slogan, “We want real change” doesn’t apply to Obama just because he says it does. You claimed to read my posts? Well, maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that he’s basically trying to run a similar campaign to the campaign Bill Clinton ran back in 1992. He was the ‘new guy’ all about ‘change’ back then. He’s running a campaign similar to Hillary Clinton’s back when she was running for New York senator, too. She was the candidate for change.

Back when Obama ran for Senator of Illinois, he used the Clinton’s to help get him elected. They were part of his, “Change” slogan back then. Suddenly they’re not about change, though?

That argument is thinner than the Mac Book Air.

Hillary and Bill made effective change back in the 90’s. They’ve had progressive ideas for years and their ideas and goals are still progressive when you compare them to other’s ideas. Hillary knows how to use the system to her advantage, having crafted allies in both parties that would make her an effective president when you compare her to the likes of Obama, whose allies are the kind of Allies (like John Kerry,) who will turn their back on you at the drop of a hat. (Like he did to the Clintons.)

For those who continue to throw up ‘Clintons are in scandals!’ every few minutes, refer yourselves to the Watergate scandal; JFK’s term in office, and many of the other presidents that had mistresses, (there’ve been whole books published about it; I have one in the other room.) and/or been mired in scandal. (John Kerry/Liberman/Obama are not exceptions to this rule.)

Just because something is reported in the news doesn’t make it true. Obviously Bill Clinton did a good enough job after the Whitewater scandal that he got re-elected. He wasn’t the first president to have a mistress, either. Holding that against him is like saying George Washington was a bad president because he slept with a slave. (Proven historical fact.) or that JFK was a bad president because he had sex with Marilyn Monroe. (Also proven historical fact.)

You should be reminded that the House of Representatives impeached him, and congress as a whole doled out his punishment of not being able to practice law in Arkansas, (his home state,) for five years. The whole Lewenski ’scandal’ was only as big as it was because he’s a public official. (The news/media made it a big deal.) If it had been anyone else, it wouldn’t have mattered at all. (There should have been no trial over it in the first place.)

If you want a ‘real change’ don’t go for a guy who’s shouting about change but going through the same motions everyone else does. If you’re looking for someone who’s thinking different, don’t go with an established party member; they’re not proponents of ‘real change’ the way Obama is trying to make you think he is.

Stop listening to his words and look at his actions. The old phrase, “Actions speak louder than words” rings very true with Obama; he hasn’t really done anything other than lie to the American public about ‘bringing about a change’. His policies that have been listed, (in what scant detail he has provided!) are not unique, different, or a catalyst for change no matter how much he says they are.

He’s talking/acting like Bill Clinton did in the past. If you want someone like Clinton back in office, put a Clinton back in office. Don’t put a wannabe pretender in.

Obama’08

If your eyes are closed too think about this…You are proposing history will be written as: The leader in democracy, the U.S., had just two families ruling the president’s office for 32 years (if Hill wins) - the Bush & Clinton dynasty. Father/Son and the other Husband/Wife - wife DESPERATELY wanted to be president - her and her husband sat virtually above the law of the land committing perjury, pardoning the rich while the poor rot in jail for less offense, her involvement in the Whitewater scandal, etc.

Sorry - I’m not jumping on that bandwagon - I want a real democratic country not one based on who you know. Not another year, not another year…

Believing in what someone says is all fine, but when they’re actively doing something against what they’re saying, (such as not following through on your promises,) is a recipe for disaster.

Here, listen to me tell you about a wonderful paradise. Close your eyes… Keep listening to my voice… No, that’s not an incinerator you’re walking into…

Why can’t you just be happy for someone or keep your ignorant comments to yourself - calling out Torpedo…

David Young why are you calling for posters to give you concrete reasons for their decisions? It’s as if you are not listening - we are telling you over and over again. All races are voting for him - for the same reason…they BELIEVE in HIM. Hillary has shown she cannot be trusted - Bill in the office after he committed so many offenses against the citizens…Also, why don’t you do some independent research…be your own man.

To all the negative folks on here: CLOSE your eyes…OPEN your EARS…listen…you will hear the message loud and clear…

Obama ‘08 A candidate I can believe in

Your statement makes it sound like she’s only popular because she’s a woman, and that’s hardly the case. Do you remember her title back in the 90’s in the News/Media when Bill Clinton was President?

“Co-President Hillary Clinton” was heard just as much as, “First Lady, Hillary Clinton”.

Also, I wasn’t actively supporting Clinton; I was talking specifically about Obama’s record and what he has done against Clinton.

Also, that information that was ‘anonymously leaked’ could have come from anyone; the fact that a source couldn’t be cited does not prove that it came from Clinton. Obama was, however, trying to hide the information from the public because he knew it would work against him.

Obama has ran as a ‘black candidate’ and uses it to his advantage when talking with the Media. His face lights up every time they talk about him being ‘black’, and he’s the one that started drawing correlations between himself and Martin Luther King Junior.

Her ‘camp’ found out about 2 papers written by him, and his own political team admitted that the first day as a senator he had said, “Lets get me to the White House. I want to be president”. Which is just another lie he put out there. (Saying he never wanted to, or planned to become the president.)

I’m able to admit that the fact that they brought up two papers from when he was young. (Kindergarten and Second grade, I believe.) to be kinda ‘eh’. It seemed cheap, but significantly less cheap, (as they were calling him on a lie and it was based on truth,) than what Obama did to former president Clinton’s ‘fairy tale’ statement. (Given Obama tried to twist Clinton’s words out of context.)

She left South Carolina while the caucus was happening, not before it took place, by the way. She left because she recognized that she had lost. She was getting a jump on Campaigning in a new place; she was not trying to cause a ‘racial divide’ any more than Obama is a racist against white people. That idea is a ludicrous one, at best.

Hillary Clinton’s message is nothing like, “Vote for me or you’re a sexist”. That’s an asinine argument and shows an inability to grasp the concepts of why she’s running. It’s the same general rhetoric that blind Obama supporters have been spewing for months because they dislike Clinton. As it turns out, she is a woman; any woman running for the office of ‘president’ is going to be running as a ‘woman’. The way you’re talking is that’s all she has going for her, and it’s not. Men and women are both voting for her, and not just because she’s a woman.

I like her policies, for example, and I am a man. If she’s running ‘just as a woman’ as you claim, (which hasn’t been the focus of her campaign at all,) then Obama is running ‘just as a black man’, (which hasn’t been the focus of his campaign at all, either.)