I agree somewhat. I couldn't come up with anything other than a sentence sounding like the wind just got knocked out of me when it came to acknowledging that Palin as the VP pick. Never really liked McCain either. I think it comes down to why a person is elected. We have a certain amount of people I think it is fair to say that are voting for Obama because they are preventing McCain. Than we have the second majority group of voters who are voting for Obama because they like him. Those very basic and uninformed reasons for voting for someone only signals two things. The first thing is that the education of this country is falling rapidly. The second thing is that a person elected mainly because of these two reasons only predicts a high probability of failure down the road. I am NOT blaming only liberals. I think conservatives vote to prevent someone from becoming president as well. Who am i kidding though to think that the majority of voters could actually vote the ideal way. I think the only thing this leads too is mass manipulation of reasons to vote for people that rob people of their own senses. When an issue about a certain candidate reaches the highest ratings such as Obama being evil and Bush being the worst president ever than those are the only things people are informed about. People I guess really have no choice but to vote for the lesser evil. If a majority of people lose the ability of voting correctly what will happen to the country?
Personally I would have voted for Paul if he had the nomination.Obama and Romney was tied for my second pick. In the end it came down to Obama/mccain- palin.No brainer for me
Rather than continue to look in the "rear-view" mirror about how or why Barack Obama got elected, can you tell me who he has appointed to his cabinet that you feel will lead to failure down the road and why?
This specific analysis has nothing to do with his cabinet positions. I am actually somewhat pleased with his picks. My statement was the problematic reasons for why Obama was voted to become president. The two biggest problematic reasons in my opinion is that people became emotionally connected and basically seduced by him and that people voted for him to prevent another candidate from winning. What I am barely scatching the surface of is that people conservative or liberal don't vote for the right reasons anymore. I am not a doom and gloomer but if it takes absolute superficial reasons to become elected to any public position than our country is on the wrong track. I think I am going to call this Neorio's moderate word of the day.
I think that you underestimate the intellect of the American voter. You continue to speak in very "vague" terms and allude to "superficial" reasons as to why Obama was elected by voters, yet you don't SPECIFICALLY touch upon any of these so-called "superficial" reasons yourself. Moreover, you seem to contradict yourself a bit by stating that you are pleased with Obama's cabinet appointments ( on one hand ), and yet you give the American voter absolutely zero credit in believing that Obama would make appointments to his cabinet that the American voting public would be supportive of. People who voted for Obama wanted to see a new Administration explore alternative fuels and energy. Obama appointed Steven Chu from the Berkeley Lawrence National Lab. Enough said. People who voted for Obama wanted to see a new Administration deal with the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq over a 16-18 month period. Obama appointed current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates to do so. Mc Cain's policy on Iraq was dramatically different. Enough said. People who voted for Obama wanted to see a new Administration deal with the crumbling economy and mortgage crisis. Obama had such noteworthy finance people as Paul Volcker and Warren Buffett in his corner along with chief economic advisors Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman. John McCain had former Texas Senator, Phil Gramm as his campaign's chairman and chief economic advisor. As I recall, Gramm is most noteworthy for tons of de-regulation legislation ( such as the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" ) which lead to the creation of credit default swaps trading without any SEC oversight and a company like Enron's ability to trade power contracts electronically without any CFTC oversight. McCain's sole economic solution ( announced during one of the debates ) to solve the mortgage crisis was a rather "socialist" concept of bailing-out those homeowners that were defaulting on their mortgages with $300 billion of taxpayer money. His idea was for the government to buy-back these mortgages ( at full appraisal ) from the banks and allow the homeowners to obtain a lower interest mortgage, all subsidized by the taxpayers of this country who have paid their mortgage on time each month and were not in default. I know many Republicans that were totally turned-off by this idea and it only served to re-inforce the idea that McCain really didn't have a very good understanding of economics, as he once even admitted himself back in 2002. You keep talking about all of these so-called 'superficial' reasons as to how and why Obama got elected, yet you conveniently ignore much of the FACTS above that served to differentiate both candidates.
I am glad you actually raised specific issues. This entire argument deserves one question. How do you and the majority of the voting population know that Obama can be a positive factor towards the issues that you mentioned? They "know" because Obama said he could be a positive factor. He talked and stated that he himself can be a positive factor. Talk is cheap and superficial. There is no evidence that Obama can do what he said he can do, he just basically said he magically has the powers to do what he wants to do. So where are we now? We are at a point where the majority of voters vote for candidates that have no proven track record of doing much if anything. If voters vote for candidates that don't have a proven track record than they are voting for the wrong reasons. Cheap talk is a very wrong reason to vote for someone.
Landis told you how Obama tries to make his campaing promises true by the people he selected. Do you think Obama is expert on everything he wants to do? Who in the world is expert on everything?
First of all Obama campaigned on his singular ability to bring change to the rest of Washington. If he would have told the voters who he wanted to appoint (and who he actually appointed) than the whole premise of change would be thrown out the window because he basically rehired the Clinton administration. It would be nice to at the least be around and involved in the specific issues he claims he can change. I never once said the president needs to be an expert on everything. Here is what I want you to do trendlover. Go to the post by Landis in which he states the issues for why people voted for Obama. Now after doing that research Obama's political and historic experience within every single one of those issues. You will come to find that Obama barely has any experience on those issues that Landis stated. Secondly the only way you can come to disagree with my statement that the majority of voters vote for the wrongs reasons is if you are in denial.
I understand you are saying people vote for issues that Obama claim he will change if he is president. Then you say he has no experience with those issues, so why did people vote for him without looking at experience. Landis is saying that now Obama is elected, he tries to pick the best people to help him with the issues he campaign on. So Obama built a trust with people that his character is good, and McCain (through experience) has prove to some voters that they do not want him as their president. So it is like this for example. You have 2 cookies. One you have tasted before, and you are not happy with the taste. And one you have never tasted, but you look at the ingredients in the cookie, and it looks like it will taste good. So you choose the cookie you never tasted before, not just becasue you hate the taste of the other cookie, but because the ingredients look good.