<br>[color:blue]....and you don't like the colour scheme</font color=blue><br><br>I hope I am not reading this correctly.<br><br><br><br><br><br>

You're being flip. MrO has a real problem here. While I don't really expect his supporters, at least here, to entertain even the idea that he's getting it wrong, I hope his handlers do, because I don't want to see him screw the pooch. I don't like him, but I'm really getting scared that he's gonna blow it.<br><br>You ** have to have some sense of unease by now.<br><br><br>** Edit: Please insert the "All y'all" very plural here, I'm not singling you out. <br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Lea on 08/17/08 06:50 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

Color or sound what is the difference? In all of these posts you have focused on how tiresome you find Obama's way of speaking like a black preacher. I guess it could grate on your nerves but to really go on and on as the primary reason why you don't like the guy seems a bit ridiculous.<br><br>We have a president who cannot speak in complete sentences wanting to be replaced by a Republican nominee who seems to say nothing but completely recorded ten word platitudes. On the other side we have a nominee who speaks well in complete sentences, even paragraphs so that his meaning can be made clear. <br><br>Given those choices your arguments here are completely inane. Try focusing on what they say, not how they say it. You say Obama doesn't really say anything but you aren't listening to what he is saying but how he is saying it. <br><br>ps. I don't think the color comment was racial at all but that isn't my call.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In all of these posts you have focused on how tiresome you find Obama's way of speaking like a black preacher<p><hr></blockquote><p>You missed his point<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Try focusing on what they say, not how they say it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I believe that is what eck's saying. Big O man has these long drawn out answers but they have no substance, no details, just the buzzwords/phrases you all get a woody over, hope, change, yes we can, etc. Hardly any substance, mainly sensationalism.<br><br>sensationalism<br>noun<br>1 (esp. in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.<br><br>------>#1 - JD's Trivia game<br><br>------>#2 - MM-MCF Trivia game

Well, from the point of view of substance, the American way of campaigning is pretty specific: avoid saying anything that has any substance at all. Putting in variations that are relevant to whatever the specific question is, the proper response to anything is "Yes, I am most definitely for hot dogs, motherhood, and apple pie. And not necessarily in that order, my friends."<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A concise answer isn't automatically a sound-byte slogan, is it? I think there are times when ten words are too many already.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Situational, as you indicate.<br><br>The problem is, the media-consuming world today expects <10-word explanations of issues that may take volumes to explore, along with the ones where a concise answer is appropriate.<br><br>Unfortunately, the nuances and complexity of many of today's pressing issues are really beyond explaining thoroughly and accurately in just a few sound-bites -- in that regard, a politician feeding those sound bites in such a case is really engaging in deception of a sort, because he's (probably) telling a target audience more what they want to hear, rather than his/her entire position.<br><br>Then, when push comes to shove and they actually have to act on their position, that candidate gets criticized when the reality doesn't fit the sound-bites ...<br><br>So I guess the question is: would you rather have answers in easily-digested yet incomplete, perhaps deceptive 10-word slogans; or suffer a candidate taking a minute or two to actually try to explain his position more thoroughly?<br><br>I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. Personally, I appreciate a candidate who at last attempts a more thorough explanation (if appropriate) than one who falls-back on trying to simply make something digestible for the evening news ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

what are McCain's specifics? he was against the bush tax breaks but is now apparently in favor of extending them. i guess that's specifc. but we also know what Obama wants to do on taxes. my taxes will be reduced as will nearly everyone making under $250,000 (that's for an individual; not a family). on education, McCain merely wants to add vouchers to the mix and has nothing else detailed or even suggested with regard to education. McCain has nothing. Obama has page after page of education policy proposed starting with early childhood and continuing on up through college with plans for each level. i know people like to say they don't know what he stands for and then give a pass to McCain, but that's really being lazy. Obama has more specifics and more comprehensive specifics spelled out than McCain does. moreover, no presidential candidate who has tried to spell out specifics in much detail has won the presidency in our lifetimes. Gore tried and they mocked the specifics. the goal is to speak generally all the way to the election -- give your talking points and stump speech stuff and avoid the mundane that bores people (e.g., Al Bore). they all do this so it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Obama has more specifics and more comprehensive specifics spelled out than McCain does. moreover, no presidential candidate who has tried to spell out specifics in much detail has won the presidency in our lifetimes.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Apparently, actually having thought through some of this stuff is a Bad Thing™<br><br>People don't want solutions, they want sound bites, I guess =P<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

Sorry , M8<br>just sticking this on the last post, just for a lark;<br><br><br>As a member of the Democratic minority i...nal priorities.<br><br>THAT BAAASTARD! <br><br>teehee<br>actually I was wondering about his birth-sign<br>(another Hippy Thing) <br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> <br>

[color:blue]....speaking like a black preacher.</font color=blue><br><br>actually, I prefer the word "evangelist". It was you who recently asked me how I felt about MLK and JJ. <br>To me, Obama's speech is not racial as much as it is sermonizing ... and very don't-pin-me-down academic (also reflected by the absence of a political paper trail, i.e. extensive voting record.)<br><br>How can any of us judge a candidate? <br>By reading, by listening and by watching. And it has been my experience (personal as well as professional) that the latter frequently reveals more than the first two. Therefore, I find the manner in which he speaks at least as informative as "if you want to know what Obama is about, go visit his web-site." <br><br><br><br><br>