. . .a coalition movement operating at the grassroot of the society has immense power and influence to restore power to the people and reform Government.

This is what President Barack Obama once said in a radio interview years ago when he was a community organizer.

The Tea Party is exactly that! It is a coalition of different ideologies with broadbrush agendas. All which in an honest effort to champion the Administration lost following and appeal, becoming villain instead of an hero!

As President, Mr Obama owns the White House, in its glory and in its challenges; likewise he owns the Democratic Party, in its electoral successes and failures. The President must be keenly aware of his position and respond magnanimously to threats against these two traditionally American institutions. It is worth repeating that their ownership rests with him. . . ."The Buck Stops Here" that is!

There are many lessons to learn from yesterday's loss in Boston. The "Buck Stops with The President", not with candidate Coakley.

"We The People". . .are dissafected with Washington and with situations in the economy. The repeated claim that it was an inherited problem is a lazy and reckless response, "The Buck Stops with The President", not with the Ex-President (now private citizen) George Bush.


2010 is an election year. So far under his 12months old tenure the party has not had any electoral victory- four losses in four elections! Some say the election in NY Congressional District 23 was a Democrat victory. No it was not! That was a collateral win - a default outcome, not because "The People" overwhelmingly wanted the Democrat candidate, but rather that they overwhelmingly rejected both the Democrat and the Republican candidates and embraced, shockingly, the Independent candidate. Hence the thin margin between the winning Democrat and the Independent.

4 out of 4 times now, a 100% trend, the dissafection with Washington has translated into losses at the polls. A clear and distinct attribute of a grassroot organizing commandeering the political future. That future is a short one; only 9 months away!

The President, in order to be effective, need a strongly bipartisan team of loyalists that support his programms and policies. They do not necessarily have to support his politics! Short of that bipartisanship, then he needs his own party to be in the majority and in control of both Senate and House. At no time during his Presidency is it good to have the opposition party in congressional majority and it is even, to a degree, bad omen to have the opposition in majority of the House, assuming his party has majority of Senate. Senate represents statutory power, House of Representatives stand for political voice.

So what can the President do to change the dissafection against Washington, win the 2010 midterms, keep his congressional majority and accomplish the goals he has set? Right now its just one thing.

If he wasn't the President and The Tea Party rallied in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised that Mr Obama would be one of the organizers. . .he speaks their language for change, for independence and for accountability. So why does he find it hard to connect and align them to his leadership?

Mr President, The White House need a communication script for The Tea Party. . . no more mockery and disparaging cartoons to discredit their values and agenda. As you have seen,. . . . they have power of influence to tranform Washington.

Oga Negro na you write this one yourself? I for think say na one of them political analysts on CNN 

Very good write up. Several points I'd like to touch on:

Negro_Ntns:

. . .a coalition movement operating at the grassroot of the society has immense power and influence to restore power to the people and reform Government.

This is what President Barack Obama once said in a radio interview years ago when he was a community organizer.

Oh the irony.

"We The People". . .are dissafected with Washington and with situations in the economy. The repeated claim that it was an inherited problem is a lazy and reckless response, "The Buck Stops with The President", not with the Ex-President (now private citizen) George Bush.

Jehovah bless you  After the first couple times he said it, it was okay and true, but now it is indeed a "reckless" response . . . as if every incoming president did not inherit a mess from his predecessor. Roll up your sleeves and stop whinning.

2010 is an election year. So far under his 12months old tenure the party has not had any electoral victory- four losses in four elections! 4 out of 4 times now, a 100% trend, the dissafection with Washington has translated into losses at the polls. A clear and distinct attribute of a grassroot organizing commandeering the political future. That future is a short one; only 9 months away!

Here I was thinking that Hillary and Palin are divisive, polarizing figures that invoke extreme emotions from the populace . . . it would appear Obama and his policies are the most polarizing of them all.

The President, in order to be effective, need a strongly bipartisan team of loyalists that support his programms and policies. They do not necessarily have to support his politics!

A very tall order. I myself am hoping for such but the right has been so viciously attacked, demonized and alientated by Obama's people that it'll be hard to enlist their help. They may be too busy gloating over the tide turning.

So what can the President do to change the dissafection against Washington, win the 2010 midterms, keep his congressional majority and accomplish the goals he has set? Right now its just one thing.

If he wasn't the President and The Tea Party rallied in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised that Mr Obama would be one of the organizers. . .he speaks their language for change, for independence and for accountability. So why does he find it hard to connect and align them to his leadership?

Mr President, The White House need a communication script for The Tea Party. . . no more mockery and disparaging cartoons to discredit their values and agenda. As you have seen,. . . . they have power of influence to tranform Washington.

Gbam.
  And tell him to reign in the attack dogs from the white house who ridicule anything right or conservative at every opportunity. I wish this had come sooner, perhaps things wouldn't be as far gone as it is now. I wanted to like him so bad when he first came out and after he won, but he has let his stewards run amok and drive a deep wedge between himself and independents.

  Another thing I cannot understand is why oh why he would let all these terrorists be tried in civilian courts, giving them lawyers paid for by the american people. Is that not madness? What quicker, easier way to incite anger and fury in the public? I don't get it.

The right wing ran the country down worst than anyone that ever held power. During their tenure, the rest of the world including europe tried hurriedly to put china at the top. It is too bad to say to an intelligent law graduate to put people on trial outsidethe nation as if there are no worst offenders here. The same USA that prides itself on human rights and liberty. If the uy(mutallab) was caught in China, russia, or any african or middle east nation, he would go to court once and then that's it. Please people should not turn Obama to a demon because it will be bad for USA and anyone in it. Muttallab might get an injection later or something but as for miltary court when he was not caught on the battle field.
Tea party kini have close minded racist that are not concerned of anything in particular but just to thwart success. Where were they when Bush was threatening the world and spending like a mad dog. All of a sudden, they are claiming to care. If obama was biden, tea party people were going to be in their respective states just hating even if biden had the same approach obama has.
Negro has complained about USA trying to help civilians in haiti because he thinks is a ploy. Tell me what country would help even half efficiently as the army and united nations are doing now. Their presidential palace is damaged but they should still find any place with vast amount of land and seems efficient. If America did not help, Negro would have called the president all sorts of names and even threaten the guy with personal action. Nigeria's president has been missing and negro doesn't see that part. USA is doing a good job, and the world is changing fast with many people having more knowlegde; so it is much more tricky to get sales to other nations. Obama has to keep his charisma and sharpen his actions. Forget about trying to cooperate with the republicans like that, those chaps more than the president and democrats are trying to stick to their contracts with various special intrest. The buck stops with me doesn't mean you don't campaign yourself mrs cloakly.

naijaway:

Tea party kini have close minded racist that are not concerned of anything in particular but just to thwart success. Where were they when Bush was threatening the world and spending like a mad dog. All of a sudden, they are claiming to care. If obama was biden, tea party people were going to be in their respective states just hating even if biden had the same approach obama has.

Spot on. . . . .

Oga Negro na you write this one yourself? I for think say na one of them political analysts on CNN

hahahaha, JeSoul, you are funny!!
My writing is adaptive. I'd work for Amy Goodman for $5/hr before I work for CNN for $200/hr. Thanks for the compliments all the same! lmao!

Hey, guess what? Palin is the future, not Democrats, not Republicans. She has a down to earth pragmatic understanding of politics. She is shrewd and savvy! Look, Coakley made just as much blunders as Palin did but no one is dismissing Coakleys intelligence. You know why? Coakley remains in her envelope, commfortably! Palin does not. . .she is submissive to her husband as head of household and respective of family values but on the other hand is not intimidated by nature and the environment, a traditional protectorate of masculinity. Men venture into the woods, gun toting hunting for wild beasts. . .not women, particularly not one very beautiful and sexy as she is. That's hard for our ego to reconcile. We are unconsciously programmed to look at someone that gracefully beholding as a sex object, not a leadership model and so we barked and growled and bared our fangs to intimidate her back into her nest with the babies. Separate her blunders and the way she has wrongly be portrayed, take the gun, the knife and fishing rod from her and just listen to her views and passion, she sound like a reincarnate of Reagan.

We need to start demanding personal accountability and get away from party identity. Ideological pursuits tempered with civic duty is far more honorable than political popularity devoid of compassion. I never align myself with any party, I vote along issues but Palin has changed that. I follow where she goes.

On the issue of terrorists trial in the homeland, President Obama has a respect for the brotherhood of mankind at a cosmic level. He believes he has power of persuasion to bend adversaries and win them over to his side. This is possible but there are many factors that will contribute to such an outcome. Through persuasion and using symbolic and tangible tactics such as treating the terrorists humanely, he can create a relative dimension for the terrorists to view Bush as the bad cop and Obama as the good cop.

Offenders bare their soul to the good cop but they respond antagonistically to the bad cop. It will not happen overnight but if he keeps the symbolic gestures and stays on message, barring any outside impact to derail the effort, I believe with time he will start to win hearts over and influence drop in terrorist acts. On the other hand, the Middle East is too volatile for the action of Obama alone to effect change. . .it has to be in concert with other nations supporting his moves. I am hopeful that if the next five successors in line after Obama's presidency will continue in his footsteps, then it might not be totally impossible to expect that even Osama Bin Laden himself might initiate negotiations for peace with America. However, this is wishful thinking! Soon as a Republican get in there all the idealism and brotherhood doctrine will be thrown out with the rug.

Anyway, the rules is not what is important in all of this. What is crucial is a precise and discrete definition and qualification for what constitutes terrorism.

Negro_Ntns:


hahahaha, JeSoul, you are funny!!
My writing is adaptive. I'd work for Amy Goodman for $5/hr before I work for CNN for $200/hr. Thanks for the compliments all the same! lmao!

lol CNN is not that bad I think. I like John King and Campbell Brown, very good and as close to objective you'll see on CNN.

Hey, guess what? Palin is the future, not Democrats, not Republicans. She has a down to earth pragmatic understanding of politics. She is shrewd and savvy! Look, Coakley made just as much blunders as Palin did but no one is dismissing Coakleys intelligence. You know why? Coakley remains in her envelope, commfortably! Palin does not. . .she is submissive to her husband as head of household and respective of family values but on the other hand is not intimidated by nature and the environment, a traditional protectorate of masculinity. Men venture into the woods, gun toting hunting for wild beasts. . .not women, particularly not one very beautiful and sexy as she is. That's hard for our ego to reconcile. We are unconsciously programmed to look at someone that gracefully beholding as a sex object, not a leadership model and so we barked and growled and bared our fangs to intimidate her back into her nest with the babies. Separate her blunders and the way she has wrongly be portrayed, take the gun, the knife and fishing rod from her and just listen to her views and passion, she sound like a reincarnate of Reagan.

Lol, don't let David and Ibime see this oh!
I've liked "Palin since she came on the scene, no question about that. Inspite of all these characteristics you list, I hope she doesn't run for president. I think what she is now is good, she's given a voice to a previously silent multitude of conservatives around the country.

We need to start demanding personal accountability and get away from party identity. Ideological pursuits tempered with civic duty is far more honorable than political popularity devoid of compassion. I never align myself with any party, I vote along issues but Palin has changed that. I follow where she goes.

This one na real love oh

On the issue of terrorists trial in the homeland, President Obama has a respect for the brotherhood of mankind at a cosmic level. He believes he has power of persuasion to bend adversaries and win them over to his side. This is possible but there are many factors that will contribute to such an outcome. Through persuasion and using symbolic and tangible tactics such as treating the terrorists humanely, he can create a relative dimension for the terrorists to view Bush as the bad cop and Obama as the good cop.

This is what I was saying before hie election, his kool-aid view of the world

Offenders bare their soul to the good cop but they respond antagonistically to the bad cop. It will not happen overnight but if he keeps the symbolic gestures and stays on message, barring any outside impact to derail the effort, I believe with time he will start to win hearts over and influence drop in terrorist acts. On the other hand, the Middle East is too volatile for the action of Obama alone to effect change. . .it has to be in concert with other nations supporting his moves. I am hopeful that if the next five successors in line after Obama's presidency will continue in his footsteps, then it might not be totally impossible to expect that even Osama Bin Laden himself might initiate negotiations for peace with America. However, this is wishful thinking! Soon as a Republican get in there all the idealism and brotherhood doctrine will be thrown out with the rug.

Oh dear, I could not disagree more. I don't think anything or anyone is going to assuage the zealots jihadists enough to make them soften their agenda of worldwide domination of islam. They have been fighting since Abrahimic times, now they've got the resources to spread the battleground and they'll still be fighting when Jesus comes back. Nothing anyone can do to change that, not even Obama And expecting long term, consistent, fervent help from the usually complacent Europeans is like waiting for rain in the Sahara desert.

don't let MaryJ Blige hear you say I love another. . .lol! That's my one and only love but yes, I do have a crush on Palin.

Why would you not want her in the White House?

Negro_Ntns:

don't let MaryJ Blige hear you say I love another. . .lol! That's my one and only love but yes, I do have a crush on Palin.

Lol, don't let her husband hear you

Why would you not want her in the White House?

While I like her, I think she's too much of a polarising figure. We don't want to demonize or antagonzie those we disagree with, but find a way to engage them - I know this is idealistic speak - but this is my hope for whoever runs for president next be it democrat or rep.

JeSoul:

Here I was thinking that Hillary and Palin are divisive, polarizing figures that invoke extreme emotions from the populace . . . it would appear Obama and his policies are the most polarizing of them all.

Please can you list just TWO of such polarizing policies?

Lets be factually honest . . . the only thing polarizing about Obama is his race. Period. We can pretend all we want, i know its not a conversation America likes to have but someone has to say it.

JeSoul:

And tell him to reign in the attack dogs from the white house who ridicule anything right or conservative at every opportunity.

Its funny but i dont see any white house "attack dogs" ridiculing the right wing. All i see is a rabid right wing who have proclaimed from day 1 and never stop telling us that their number 1 goal is NOT the prosperity of America but the destruction of Obama.

when you say white house attack dogs . . . i'm just wondering if you're talking about Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

davidylan:

Please can you list just TWO of such polarizing policies?

Lets be factually honest . . . the only thing polarizing about Obama is his race. Period. We can pretend all we want, i know its not a conversation America likes to have but someone has to say it.

Its funny but i dont see any white house "attack dogs" ridiculing the right wing. All i see is a rabid right wing who have proclaimed from day 1 and never stop telling us that their number 1 goal is NOT the prosperity of America but the destruction of Obama.

when you say white house attack dogs . . . i'm just wondering if you're talking about manliness Cheney or Karl Rove.

Oh dear. Race again.

montelik:

Thinking like yours is the reason why things look so bleak for Obama and Dems. Your type of thinking is the surest way for them to continue to fail and lose. So Obama is the only one with the answers and anyone who disagrees is doing so out of hatred, for political gain or racism. Wow. Okay just one thing. Fact is Obama doesn't have all the answer and should start listening to other people not ignoring them. This is what made Clinton a success.

Montelik has no point.
No we have never said Obama was the Messiah . . . no i dont believe he has all the answers. Infact i believed he would stumble through the first year and a half before he finally starts to get things right. I believe he has made quite a few mistakes that i and a lot of other progressives dont agree with.

But one thing we are not doing is saying NO to everything. One thing we are not doing is teabagging when NO taxes are going up. What we are not doing is calling him a LIAR in congress when no other president has ever been put through such a disgrace.

As regards to Obama listing to other people instead of ignoring them . . . well listening and trying to mollycoddle republicans hell-bent on destroying his presidency is why the health care bill has all but become watered down today. To say he isnt "listening" is a cynical joke.

I noticed you avoided listing just TWO examples of Obama's polarizing policies.

Lol, don't let her husband hear you

dang! you are mean!

. . .no worries dear, Palin is a kingmaker for now. There is only one instance where she could become President in 2012 and that is if "The People" revolt against all rules and insist that they will fall behind any party platform that field her as a candidate.

davidylan:

I noticed you avoided listing just TWO examples of Obama's polarizing policies.

How about just one? Giving rights and priviledges to terrorists, trying them in civilian courts. The one policy of Obama that infuriates me to the core.

If you already believe opposition to Obama is rooted in racist emotions, then there's nuthin I or anyone else will say to convince you otherwise. But how wrong you are David, so wrong.

Negro_Ntns:

dang! you are mean!

Oga, I'm only trying to help you now lol the sooner you move on the sooner you can truly find mrs right

. . .no worries dear, Palin is a kingmaker for now. There is only one instance where she could become President in 2012 and that is if "The People" revolt against all rules and insist that they will fall behind any party platform that field her as a candidate.

I see it highly unlikely that she will run. I don't even think she herself wants to, from what I get, she's fine being the populist that she is, being a voice for conservative America.

JeSoul:

How about just one? Giving rights and priviledges to terrorists, trying them in civilian courts. The one policy of Obama that infuriates me to the core.

Hmmm can anyone say Richard Reid? Wonder why that didnt "infuriate you to the core" then. 

I remember a certain Ruddy Giulliani testified at the "civilian" (infuriating) trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker.

Obama is now doing the trying and everyone is "suddenly" worried about trying terrorists in civilian courts . . . hmmm.

Sorry but it was under Bush/Cheney that the nonsense of trying terrorists by military tribunal started. The Lockerbie bomber of 1989 was also tried in civilian courts in Scotland. This ridiculous idea of pretending as if this is a unique Obama policy needs to be called out for what it is.

Lets even assume that Obama just started this new "policy" (a misnomer as that has been the modus operandi before the anomaly called Guantanamo bay) . . . what about it is "infuriating to the core"? That a terrorist is given "rights and privileges" does not mean he/she cannot be convicted by the courts.

JeSoul:

If you already believe opposition to Obama is rooted in racist emotions, then there's nuthin I or anyone else will say to convince you otherwise. But how wrong you are David, so wrong.

You folks keep proving my theory over and over and over again. Sorry try again.

If that "example" is why Obama is the most polarizing president of the US ever then i just wonder what the real elephant in the room is . . . his skin color maybe?

davidylan:

Hmmm can anyone say Richard Reid? Wonder why that didnt "infuriate you to the core" then.  

I remember a certain Ruddy Giulliani testified at the "civilian" (infuriating) trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker.

Obama is now doing the trying and everyone is "suddenly" worried about trying terrorists in civilian courts . . . hmmm.

Sorry but it was under Bush/Cheney that the nonsense of trying terrorists by military tribunal started. The Lockerbie bomber of 1989 was also tried in civilian courts in Scotland. This ridiculous idea of pretending as if this is a unique Obama policy needs to be called out for what it is.

 There is no policy under the sun that is unique to any one person. And this practice of reverting to "What about bush" "bush also did it" does not help your case.

 You asked for a policy that is polarizing americans away from Obama and I have given you the most prominent one. We're not debating the past practices or who else did it.

Lets even assume that Obama just started this new "policy" (a misnomer as that has been the modus operandi before the anomaly called Guantanamo bay) . . . what about it is "infuriating to the core"? That a terrorist is given "rights and privileges" does not mean he/she cannot be convicted by the courts.

Does not mean that at all and no one is arguing that.

 I repeat what people are angry over is giving american rights to the likes of Muttallab, it is a sign of being soft and even compassionate towards murderers whether or not you agree.

davidylan:

If that "example" is why Obama is the most polarizing president of the US ever then i just wonder what the real elephant in the room is . . . his skin color maybe?

*shaking my head* your case is hopeless David. Everything Obama must be colored by race.

JeSoul:

There is no policy under the sun that is unique to any one person. And this practice of reverting to "What about bush" "bush also did it" does not help your case.

Neither you nor other right wingers i have come across seem to be interested in examining your own positions with any form of objectivity. This is NOT about reverting to "what Bush did" . . . it is simply trying to understand the "sudden aversion" to everything Obama that used to be normal under every other president.

Bush tried 2 prominent and more dangerous terrorists in civilian courts . . . no one raised an eyebrow and there was NOT ONE republican dissent. Rudy Guilliani even testified in the much publicised NY trial of an al qaeda member of the 9-11 plot.

What suddenly happened between 2006 and now? What is now wrong with civilian courts?

THAT is the issue.

JeSoul:

You asked for a policy that is polarizing americans away from Obama and I have given you the most prominent one. We're not debating the past practices or who else did it.

and i just used examples to show you that has been standard US policy for so long. When did it suddenly become a different policy now that Obama is in power?

Yes it is about "past practices" . . . the ridiculous idea that we can somehow scrutinize Obama's presidency independently of previous US government policy makes no sense to me. What is it about this policy is polarizing Americans?

3000 Americans died on 9-11, the mastermind was tried here in NY. Where was the outcry then? Why were Americans not polarized against Bush then?

JeSoul:

I repeat what people are angry over is giving american rights to the likes of Muttallab, it is a sign of being soft and even compassionate towards murderers whether or not you agree.

that holds no water. These same Americans were not angry about rights given to Reid or Moussaoui . . .

that is what you shld ponder on . . . not on shaking your head at me.

JeSoul:

*shaking my head* your case is hopeless David. Everything Obama must be colored by race.

You all can go on pretending the elephant isnt there. I'm not one to bring up race at all when it isnt there.

davidylan:

Neither you nor other right wingers i have come across seem to be interested in examining your own positions with any form of objectivity.

David, david david, I tire for you. Since there is no honest "right winger" that exists in David's world, I guess furthering any discussion with I is pointless since we're all dishonest racists who disagree with Obama just because he's black.

JeSoul:

David, david david, I tire for you. Since there is no honest "right winger" that exists in David's world, I guess furthering any discussion with I is pointless since we're all dishonest racists who disagree with Obama just because he's black.

Plenty of lefties disagree with Obama and for good reason. Labour is threatening to withhold support from Dems in 2010 if Obama allows the cadillac health care tax on middle class families. That IS a valid disagreement and i support it 100%.

I'm sorry but i notice a serious flaw with you and other righties . . . each time your "disagreements" with Obama are questioned you all take to hiding behind a flurry of irrelevancies. Rather than face the issue you simply continue kicking up conspiracy theories. I dont think all right wingers are bad, i dont think every disagreement with Obama has to do with his race. I am however worried about those who CONSTANTLY disagree with Obama over trumped up non-issues like you just pointed out.

I asked a valid question the other time which you artfully dodged (not surprised). Since Obama's "policy" on civilian trials for terrorists "infuriates you to the core" . . . where was your fury (and Rudy Giulliani's) when Mousaoui was being tried in NY? you forgot about Richard Reid?

According to the justice department, over 189 terrorists have been tried in civilian courts since 2001 . . . and here i was thinking the idea was Obama's. the way you all crow about it i'd have thought it was a radically new Obama policy.

Face the issues. leave red herrings alone.

davidylan:
I'm sorry but i notice a serious flaw with you and other righties . . . each time your "disagreements" with Obama are questioned you all take to hiding behind a flurry of irrelevancies. Rather than face the issue you simply continue kicking up conspiracy theories. I dont think all right wingers are bad, i dont think every disagreement with Obama has to do with his race. I am however worried about those who CONSTANTLY disagree with Obama over trumped up non-issues like you just pointed out.

Don't flatter yourself.
You asked for a policy that people are upset about, I gave you one. You saying well Bush did it too - like that is supposed to make Obama doing it any less wrong?

You say where were people to cry foul then? what kind of response is that? you sidestepped the issue to point fingers. The issue of terrorists on the home soil is much more pronounced now but you're refusing to acknowledge that. You're refusing to debate the merits or shortcomings of the issue itself of trying terrorists in civilian courts as has been brought to the forefront by the Muttallab issue, instead you as usual want to point at others and say "where were you then?"

This is why I tire quickly when discussing politics with you because everyone else is wrong and you are right. I discuss regularly with other lefties like Prez and Naliakar, they make points, they concede points without crying "where were you when Bush did it too" - a tactic you use almost every debate. This is why I "take flight" (and I'm sure many others) when you supposedly start pointing out "inconsistencies".

As for the issue of Obama's race, I almost cannot take anyone seriously who brings that up as a debate point. Yes there are some who cannot see past his skin, but you make it sound like there's a huge conspiracy out there motivated solely by race to bring him down.

. . .hmm, mrs right! well, let me say Amen.

To the Palin issue, she did not canvass for the VP position, she was selected for it. Her story so far, to some extent, parallel that of Obama on the national stage. If Obama had not been selected to give the speech at the convention, we would not at this time be celebrating his Presidency. Palin was comfortable being a mom and a naturalist until she was exposed to the nation. She has tasted a honey too sweet to turn away from. I do believe that the negative coverage and the loss helped to decelerate her aspiratons and broke her spirit on one part but then, like the typical adventurer that she is, she would not buckle to adversarial challenges and so resigned from state politics and advanced to the national stage.

She, better than anyone, know that the game play at national level has higher skillsets than she is equipped for and therefore she would need to update and rehearse the roles. She is in the right place at the moment to get that necessary exposure that will solidify her for a run post 2016. . . unless however, as I stated in last post, "The People" run amock and demand her for 2012.

We shall see. . .lol.

Negro_Ntns:

. . .hmm, mrs right! well, let me say Amen.

To the Palin issue, she did not canvass for the VP position, she was selected for it. Her story so far, to some extent, parallel that of Obama on the national stage. If Obama had not been selected to give the speech at the convention, we would not at this time be celebrating his Presidency. Palin was comfortable being a mom and a naturalist until she was exposed to the nation. She has tasted a honey too sweet to turn away from. I do believe that the negative coverage and the loss helped to decelerate her aspiratons and broke her spirit on one part but then, like the typical adventurer that she is, she would not buckle to adversarial challenges and so resigned from state politics and advanced to the national stage.

Well you're right in that all this was thrust upon her, she didn't exactly put her name in the hat to be considered for the VP - you is right. But she's stuck with it now and I can't help but think the many missteps she had with the media/interviews will be a mountain that she will not be able to climb. You only get one chance to make a first impression and unfortunately hers was "unintelligent". Did not affect for a second the fact I like her, her first speech at the convention was aggressive and fearless, I like her record, I like what she stands for - but alas a divisive figure she is.

She, better than anyone, know that the game play at national level has higher skillsets than she is equipped for and therefore she would need to update and rehearse the roles. She is in the right place at the moment to get that necessary exposure that will solidify her for a run post 2016. . . unless however, as I stated in last post, "The People" run amock and demand her for 2012.

We shall see. . .lol.

Well shall indeed see! It would certainly make things very very interesting. Mitt Romney seems to be among the top prospects for 2012 . . . once the mess that is massachusetts healthcare (which he signed into law) comes to the forefront his chances will be dashed and smashed to smitherings.

JeSoul:

Well shall indeed see! It would certainly make things very very interesting. Mitt Romney seems to be among the top prospects for 2012 . . . once the mess that is massachusetts healthcare (which he signed into law) comes to the forefront his chances will be dashed and smashed to smitherings.

Why now? I like "Mittens". Abeg forgive and forget, all men can fail (see Tiger Woods )

montelik:

Why now? I like "Mittens".

Lol mark my words. It will come back to bite him big and bad in the axx when the campaigns start.

Abeg forgive and forget, all men can fail (see Tiger Woods )

True dat see Davidylan, Prez and Naliakar

JeSoul:

Don't flatter yourself.

Not necessary.

JeSoul:

You asked for a policy that people are upset about, I gave you one. You saying well Bush did it too - like that is supposed to make Obama doing it any less wrong?

1. That is official US policy. It is a lot more than "Bush did it too". It isnt an Obama policy, i cited a department of justice statistic and 2 very recent references of terrorists who have also been tried in civilian courts with absolutely NO WHIMPER from either you or the right. Please read Giulliani's own comments after testifying against Moussaoui.

2. the only people "upset" about this policy are those on the right who wanted Obama to fail anyway so there's nothing new there. Funny how Guilliani is suddenly "alarmed" at trying terrorists in civilian courts. It wasnt too long ago he was ok testifying against a worse one.

JeSoul:

You say where were people to cry foul then? what kind of response is that? you sidestepped the issue to point fingers.

I faced the issue head on . . . you're the one side-stepping. You have so far REFUSED to tell us what happened between Richard Reid and now.

JeSoul:

The issue of terrorists on the home soil is much more pronounced now but you're refusing to acknowledge that.

Now this is completely absurd. I wonder how Muttallab was more pronounced than 9-11. Up to 3000 lost their lives and the same planner was tried in the same city.

JeSoul:

You're refusing to debate the merits or shortcomings of the issue itself of trying terrorists in civilian courts as has been brought to the forefront by the Muttallab issue, instead you as usual want to point at others and say "where were you then?"

I fail to grab the point here. What are the merits or demerits of trying terrorists in civilian courts that have suddenly just popped up? Have terrorists suddenly changed? Have the civilian courts changed? Have military tribunals suddenly gotten stronger psychic powers that they didnt have before?

I dont like to point to people and say "where were you then" . . . i simply try to make sure much of the noise about "Obama policy" arent simply hot air. I say again - to pretend to discuss his alleged policies in complete isolation of past presidents is simply missing the point.

JeSoul:

This is why I tire quickly when discussing politics with you because everyone else is wrong and you are right. I discuss regularly with other lefties like Prez and Naliakar, they make points, they concede points without crying "where were you when Bush did it too" - a tactic you use almost every debate. This is why I "take flight" (and I'm sure many others) when you supposedly start pointing out "inconsistencies".

Pot calling kettle black.

There is nothing to concede here . . . i simply made a point. Those who suddenly accuse Obama of making the grave mistake of trying terrorists in civilian courts shld tell us why what used to be official US policy is suddenly a bad thing all in the span of 12 months.

JeSoul:

As for the issue of Obama's race, I almost cannot take anyone seriously who brings that up as a debate point. Yes there are some who cannot see past his skin, but you make it sound like there's a huge conspiracy out there motivated solely by race to bring him down.

I'm sorry, quite a lot of folks and pundits out there agree with me. You dont necessarily have to, its the way i look at things.

I made a point earlier that not all disagreements with Obama are motivated by race . . . Labour, much of the left, independents, some republicans.

When you disagree with Obama it shld be over a substantive issue not just parroting right wing talking points.

I ask tea baggers to show me how much their taxes have increased since Jan 20 last yr.

I give up. You are right, I am wrong.

davidylan:
I ask tea baggers to show me how much their taxes have increased since Jan 20 last yr.

You do know what that derogatory term means right? if you do shame on you. If you don't look it up.

montelik:

Abeg forgive and forget, all men can fail (see Tiger Woods )

JeSoul:

True dat see Davidylan, Prez and Naliakar

Jesoul,
are u calling me a failure?

pres-elect:

Jesoul,
are u calling me a failure?

Of course not Prez. It was an attempt at a joke at your liberal leanings. You're one of the very very few here on NL I have an incredibly high opinion of. We hardly agree on much, yet I find you most endearing. Keep it up!