[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by NorKal

Taxes haven't increased yet, but they will, because it will be the only way to cut into the debt. Either that, or we continue to grow our debt, which means eventually we become more dependent on other countries...and that would be pretty bad for our security as well as our sovereignty.

OK. There's the problem.

In support of your argument that the war in Iraq "is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing so poorly," you stated, "First off, it's a whole lot of spending. It puts us trillions of dollars in debt. So as a result, we're taxing people and businesses, which slows economic growth. Because consumers are not buying as much and businesses aren't profiting as much.

Of course, to offset this, we print more money to lower interest rates to boost economic growth and consumer spending, but this can lead to inflation."

Now, you agree that "[t]axes haven't increased yet, but they will, because it will be the only way to cut into the debt."

Therefore, this can't be a basis for the economy slowing.

Does that makes sense?

[usakos]

History is being written and re-written right before our very own eyes and if you are denying it simply because of his race and color of his skin, then you’re denying yourself the gift of being part of it.

During the days and times of Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, John F. Kennedy, Mohandas Gandhi and other great personalities, those of us who were not yet born or were too young to know it, experience it, hands-on feel it, literally see it with our very own eyes, and hear it with our own ears, now have a chance to live and re-live it, feel it, see it, hear it, and not just stand on the side line, but being part of it, and that’s the new voice, the fresh wind which is currently blowing from the East to West, South to North parts of the United States, the cultural phenomenon of the son of man, Barack Obama.

There are times when I just wished I was part of the Martin Luther King Jr’s and or Mohandas Gandhi’s movement, but I was not yet born, but now, when my children and grand-children, and great-grand-children will ask me; "dad or grandpa, how was it, when Barack Obama became the first African American President of the United States in the history of the U.S.?"

Then I would like to tell them everything, how since he stepped up on the podium in 2004 during the Democratic national convention, when the majority of the Americans and the world didn't know anything about him or have never heard the name Barack, for the first time for the whole US to get to know him, hear his eloquent voice and speech, his vivid passion, and the gift to capture and captivate all those who hear him speak.

Barack Obama is the real deal today; he's the voice that cries out in the desert, the vision, and the deliverer. He's today's cultural phenomenon.

I am richly blessed just for being part of the Barack Obama's phenomenal movement here, right now, in the U.S. and around the world.

Where would you be? What will you say when they ask you? What are you going to say?

Go out and vote, be part of it, let your vote be counted and be part of the historical movement.

Time is now, phenomenally, and it's true - Yes We Can.

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by Dale King

Jonathan, I suggest you look up the actual definition of the word "theshold."

Dale King

Dale,

I did look it up, did YOU?!

"thresh·old –noun
1. the sill of a doorway.
2. the entrance to a house or building.
3. any place or point of entering or beginning: the threshold of a new career."

You stated, "Now [Obabma]'s on the threshold of becoming the next president of the United States."

To restate my question:

I'm just curious for the reasoning behind your statement that Obama is on the threshold of becoming the next President. Isn't it still only the primaries? And isn't he in a rather tight race to be the Democratic candidate? True, he may win the primaries, and yes, he could then win the Presidency, but "on the threshold?"

Or in other words, I'm curious for the reasoning behind your statement that Obama is at the "point of entering" the position of President of the United States. Because he has yet to win a hotly contested primary, let alone Presidential race, I would think that Clinton and McCain are just as "on the threshold of becoming the next president of the United States" as Obama. In fact, since McCain seems to be much more clearly assured a place in the Presidential race than Obama, McCain is more "on the threshold of becoming the next president of the United States" than Obama, isn't he?

What are your thoughts? Again, based on the above, what is your reasoning for stating that Obama "is on the threshold of becoming the next President?"

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by usakos

History is being written and re-written right before our very own eyes and if you are denying it simply because of his race and color of his skin, then you’re denying yourself the gift of being part of it.

During the days and times of Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, John F. Kennedy, Mohandas Gandhi and other great personalities, those of us who were not yet born or were too young to know it, experience it, hands-on feel it, literally see it with our very own eyes, and hear it with our own ears, now have a chance to live and re-live it, feel it, see it, hear it, and not just stand on the side line, but being part of it, and that’s the new voice, the fresh wind which is currently blowing from the East to West, South to North parts of the United States, the cultural phenomenon of the son of man, Barack Obama.

There are times when I just wished I was part of the Martin Luther King Jr’s and or Mohandas Gandhi’s movement, but I was not yet born, but now, when my children and grand-children, and great-grand-children will ask me; "dad or grandpa, how was it, when Barack Obama became the first African American President of the United States in the history of the U.S.?"

Then I would like to tell them everything, how since he stepped up on the podium in 2004 during the Democratic national convention, when the majority of the Americans and the world didn't know anything about him or have never heard the name Barack, for the first time for the whole US to get to know him, hear his eloquent voice and speech, his vivid passion, and the gift to capture and captivate all those who hear him speak.

Barack Obama is the real deal today; he's the voice that cries out in the desert, the vision, and the deliverer. He's today's cultural phenomenon.

I am richly blessed just for being part of the Barack Obama's phenomenal movement here, right now, in the U.S. and around the world.

Where would you be? What will you say when they ask you? What are you going to say?

Go out and vote, be part of it, let your vote be counted and be part of the historical movement.

Time is now, phenomenally, and it's true - Yes We Can.

This is the essence of the Obama campaign.

Vote for Obama because you'll be a part of history, because he is an eloquent and captivating speaker, because he has a vision, because he is a "cultural phenomenon."

I will not argue with any of these, but I do want to point out an observation:

The hype around Obama seems to be what drives his success. Usakos, your post is not uncommon, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. In fact, as I mentioned, it really just captures this exciting new phenomenon.

However, it is not convincing to me. As someone who does not get caught up in hype, I prefer to base my decisions on facts and reason. As a result, since most of the support for Obama has been relayed in the above fashion, I have been unconvinced.

Show me his positions on issues, show me what he can actually do for our nation, show me anything. That is what would convince me to vote for Obama; NOT a plea for me to vote for an inspiring speaker or the "cool kid" or someone with a great idea, but no thorough business plan or experience to back it up, if you will. (To eliminate debate that misses the entire point of this post, I am not saying that Obama doesn't have a plan to make his idea a reality, I just mean that I don't know enough about because all of the attention has been on jumping on the Obama bandwagon rather than on rallying behind his specific plans for leading our nation.)

Still, like I mentioned before, I think it's incredibly interesting that Obama has been able to drum up so much support by branding himself well, creating such a hype to vote for him for the sake of voting for him.

[jasaunders]

Originally Posted by jmenq2

Still, like I mentioned before, I think it's incredibly interesting that Obama has been able to drum up so much support by branding himself well, creating such a hype to vote for him for the sake of voting for him.

To relate this back to business, all politics is about marketing. Obama has done a fantastic job branding himself. But Hillary and others have a marketing strategy behind everything they do and every word they say.

It's quite interesting when you actually think about it from a business standpoint. Who is their target market? For Hillary it has been women, lower-class blue collar workers and hispanics. For Obama it has been middle-class democrats, young people, and african-americans. You can see a differentiated marketing strategy in how each candidate markets to each segment.

I was watching Meet the Press this morning and what caught my attention and what is so interesting about political marketing is that you don't only market yourself, you try to neutralize the opponent's marketing. You don't see this as much in business. For instance, Obama talks about change and a fresh face in Washington and Hillary talks about how Obama is a great speaker, but talk is cheap and we need someone who will take action. Hillary talks about how she has the experience (although she has little executive experience herself) and Obama counters saying we don't need the same old experience in Washington, we need someone who can create the change.

It's not just about branding (although it appears that way on the face). Obama is definately leading in branding. It's also about segmentation, differentiated market strategies, knowing what each segment wants, and using an appropriate marketing mix (4P's). In fact, political marketing is so exciting because the results are immediately measureable. In business, where results are measured in revenue, you get lagging results that may not be entireley dependent on your marketing strategy. In politics, you get near real-time results that are absolute and clearly measureable.

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by NorKal

I honestly would prefer Hillary Clinton (I would have preferred even Edwards but he dropped out) of the remaining "top-tier" candidates. Because at the least when Hillary speaks, you don't have to ask for clarification on what she said, you can see where she stands on the issues.

Without offering my own opinion or position, in light of your comment that "at the least when Hillary speaks, you don't have to ask for clarification on what she said, you can see where she stands on the issues," I am curious to know your thoughts after reading the following article:

Hillary's Free Ride
She Can't have it Both Ways
By Daniel Muniz

Hillary cannot have it both ways. However, Senator Clinton (D-NY), a woman of contradictions, has been playing both sides of issues for a very long time. And as far as the press is concerned, she is going to get a free ride for her hypocrisy.

Here is a brief list of flip-flops that may be her undoing if her opponents can galvanize on them:

Iraq
Probably first and foremost in the mind of Lefties is the war in Iraq. The very base of the Democratic Party views the war as a debacle and demands that our troops return home. But most importantly, they assert that the war shouldn’t have happened in the first place, hence the problem for a number of Democrats.

At the time, many Democrats were in an embarrassing position. Unlike today, the president’s approval ratings were still sky high and a number of politicians of the opposition party wanted to be seen hugging a popular president especially in the early days of the War on Terror. Hillary, like John Kerry and John Edwards, needed to demonstrate to the public that they were strong on defense and that they could capture a sizable chunk of the centrist Americans who wanted the war in Iraq, especially if a presidential campaign was in the works.

Now that the press has incessantly bombarded the public with biased negative stories of the war, Democrats cannot run away fast enough from it.

The only problem is that they must perform acrobatic gyrations in order to explain how they voted for something that they were supposedly against all along. Lefties were willing to accept a sham explanation the first time with John Kerry mostly because of their hatred George W. Bush.

But for the next presidential election, Bush is not on the ballot. As a result, anti-war activists are not going to allow themselves to be manipulated by self-serving opportunists like Hillary Clinton. Cindy Sheehan, among others, has made that perfectly clear and surprisingly, a number of high profile Hollywood celebrities like George Clooney, aren’t buying it either. Clinton has tried to field the excuse that she was misled but since the Left Wing feels that she is smarter than George W. Bush, they are starting to see that explanation as a cop out.

In some ways, it is a bit ironic to see anti-war protestors demonstrating against Hillary. However, somewhere down the road, the Left Wing is going to issue an ultimatum about the war; choose the centrist or us.

Wal-Mart
Nothing stirs more acrimony with Lefties than the success of Wal-Mart. But also cloaked in obscurity is Hillary’s hypocrisy with the mammoth retailer. Although Senator Clinton loves to take center stage at union rallies to bash the retail giant for not providing better health care, she never explains her own past history.

Hillary Clinton was a board member to Wal-Mart for six years and the Walton family was absolutely critical in her husband’s political career. Bill Clinton played a huge role in Wal-Mart’s fortune especially when it came to free trade agreements like NAFTA. In addition, Hillary’s highly esteemed Rose Law Firm even handled much of Wal-Marts legal defense. In fact, Hillary was actually quite an accomplished corporate attorney.

Unfortunately, most rank and file union activists are hardly even aware of Hillary’s corporate past. For the previous decade, the press has been strangely quiet about her connections to big corporations and the senator would like to keep it that way. That has never been the case with the tremendous publicity surrounding the oil connections of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Unfortunately, Hillary has been cornered a few times and forced to account for her board member days. Just like Iraq, she gives a vague nebulous non-answer that is similar to her Iraq response. But as time passes, playing dumb again like the way she did with the war may not work with devoted Liberals who don’t want another duplicitous John Kerry as their standard bearer.

The Dubai Port Deal
Once again, Hillary thought she could gain traction on this issue and milk it for her own political purposes. Democrats and Republicans alike seized the opportunity to trash the port deal although the members of each party did it for different reasons. Democrats relished the thought of tarring the president especially since the press did such a poor job of informing the public of all the facts and it looked like Hillary was going to cash in on all the criticism.

However, Bill Clinton was actually actively supporting the deal and even using former Clintonites to help pass it along. The media didn’t make too big of a deal of it but it was still damaging to her credibility that she was opposing a project that her husband was simultaneous working for.

Again, when pressed for an explanation, she gave another lame excuse that she wasn’t aware what her husband was doing at the time. Of course, this wasn’t the first time that Hillary was completely unaware of what was going on inside her own household.

Summary
Hillary is a woman of contradictions. Although she may seem a solid supporter on certain positions, it doesn’t take very much digging to find out how opportunistic she really is.

Her vague responses provide plenty of ammunition for her opponents to use against her.

In addition, a growing number of Democrats are being to voice a concern about her. Hillary Clinton is a lightning rod of controversy but perhaps her contradictions of so many of her positions may create the perception that she is nothing more but another incarnation of a Kerry presidential campaign. And that is something that Republicans would like to see again.

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by NorKal

She flip flops yes, but so do all the other 'top-tier' candidates. What I meant was when she flip flops at least she speaks with a little clarity. She takes more lucid stances.

You see, Obama doesn't even take a stance. He supports both sides at the same time. Clinton on the other hand, takes one stance, then she may take another. But she is specific. She doesn't speak with vague words or try to rally support by sounding grandoise etc.

I've listened to the speeches that Obama gives and the speeches that Hillary gives. And after listening to them, I can see why so many people support Obama. He has great speaking abilities. A lot of people made fun of President Bush over the past 8 years simply because of his speaking abilities. I think that's ridiculous. We shouldn't judge a president based on how well they speak in public. In fact, if President Bush could run for another 4 years, I would support him over Obama.

But what I'm saying is, just listen to when Hillary Clinton speaks after another one of the primaries. You can see what she's saying. She's not using big words, taking pauses, and trying to sound like someone's she's not. She is running based on issues, not on charisma or personality.

I think Obama is gathering a lot of support because of his vagueness. Half the people supporting him don't even know where he stands on the issues. I agree, that's great marketing on his part, but I disagree that Clinton has been doing as much marketing. I think Clinton's appeal is because of Bill, her experience, and because she is more straightforward. Obama seems like he's just talking for the sake of talking. I can't really describe it but after listening to him speak you don't even know where he stood. Hate to put it this way, but he sounds rather deceiving.

OK, you're defending Hillary's flip-flopping on issues with the well,-everyone-else-is-doing-it, unconvincing defense, and then moving on to attack someone else, seemingly shifting attention away from her fault rather than addressing it.

Backing up, you stated, "[Wh]en Hillary speaks, you don't have to ask for clarification on what she said, you can see where she stands on the issues."

With regard to an issue, if Hillary says A on Monday but then says B on Tuesday, regardless of how clearly she speaks, how can you still "see where she stands on the [issue]?" How do you not "have to ask for clarification?"

[jasaunders]

Hillary is not doing as much marketing? That is ridiculous. She has droves of people behind her telling her what to say and how to appeal to people. Every word out of her mouth is part of a marketing strategy.

And you say Hillary's appeal is her experience. What experience? People keep toting that Hillary has much more experience. What experience are you referring to? The couple extra years she has been in congress (Obama was a state legislator at the time)? She doesn't have executive experience. Both her and Obama were corporate attorney's, except she was on the board of Wal-Mart while Obama was a law professor and community organizer. The only leg up she has is she was the first lady, which I personally don't think counts for much experience in my mind.

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

Originally Posted by NorKal

She flip flops yes, but so do all the other 'top-tier' candidates. What I meant was when she flip flops at least she speaks with a little clarity. She takes more lucid stances.

You see, Obama doesn't even take a stance. He supports both sides at the same time. Clinton on the other hand, takes one stance, then she may take another. But she is specific. She doesn't speak with vague words or try to rally support by sounding grandoise etc.

I've listened to the speeches that Obama gives and the speeches that Hillary gives. And after listening to them, I can see why so many people support Obama. He has great speaking abilities. A lot of people made fun of President Bush over the past 8 years simply because of his speaking abilities. I think that's ridiculous. We shouldn't judge a president based on how well they speak in public. In fact, if President Bush could run for another 4 years, I would support him over Obama.

But what I'm saying is, just listen to when Hillary Clinton speaks after another one of the primaries. You can see what she's saying. She's not using big words, taking pauses, and trying to sound like someone's she's not. She is running based on issues, not on charisma or personality.

I think Obama is gathering a lot of support because of his vagueness. Half the people supporting him don't even know where he stands on the issues. I agree, that's great marketing on his part, but I disagree that Clinton has been doing as much marketing. I think Clinton's appeal is because of Bill, her experience, and because she is more straightforward. Obama seems like he's just talking for the sake of talking. I can't really describe it but after listening to him speak you don't even know where he stood. Hate to put it this way, but he sounds rather deceiving.

Still, I do agree with you on at least on Obama issue:

I think that there are many supporters of Obama who do not know where he stands on issues, but support him merely for the sake of supporting him.

I am not arguing against supporting Obama, but I have been unconvinced to support him because I am convinced by fact and reason, not by bandwagons.