Obama Rebounds in the Polls

[nianfong]

disagreeing with you is not trolling you, Buddy.
is ron paul your candidate then? he has no executive experience either. that line of reasoning is pointless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

[MikeC]

Which now means that Palin has more exec experience than anyone on the ticket.

[zenshiite]

Which now means that Palin has more exec experience than anyone on the ticket.

Which means exactly nothing.

[MikeC]

whatever

[zenshiite]

Dude, what president have you liked in the past 20 years? If you didn't like Clinton, since you seem to be conservative and all, dude was governor of Arkansas for how long? If you don't like Bush, how long was he governor of Texas?

Executive experience my ass.

[MikeC]

So you don't think any managerial experience would help in the highest executive govt position in the country?
Ok...

[Teazer]

This page has an interesting summary of the relation of previous 'executive' experience vs US presidency popularity (based on a WSJ poll).
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!760.entry

[zenshiite]

So you don't think any managerial experience would help in the highest executive govt position in the country?
Ok...

I'm saying in the last 20 years. no the last 30 years, what has managerial experience really accomplished in the White House? Reagan was nothing but failed economic policy. Bush I went into a useless war that was launched against an invasion of a country that was tacitly sanctioned by his Secretary of State shortly before hand to a tyrant that had previously been the greatest ally of Reagan/Bush. About the only thing I recall about Clinton is that he left the country with an economic surplus, but I do know that he did alot to deregulate Wall Street that's set the stage for the economic crisis we currently face. And then there's Bush II... I think his name speaks for itself.

So I ask you, in 30 years... what has "managerial experience" done?

[Steve James]

It's useless to argue it rationally. Washington wasn't a governor. Some governors have made better presidents than others. And, the fact that the last series of presidents have been governors is not exactly an argument that they do better than non-governors. Then, as far as the argument is concerned, 1 day of gubernatorial experience makes a candidate as qualified as 10 years. Time spent actually in office, or the results of that time, is an irrelevant technicality. Imo, it would be better to emphasize other qualities that a person might have. Besides, if not, might as well elect governors for life, as any of them will always have more experience than his or her challenger.

[C-Hopkins]

Indeed. Strong leadership is based upon the individual. Mike C seems to like to lump people together and judging them all at the same time.All this or all that- this is called 'Black and White thinking (not the race- rather All good All bad, all this all that) when in reality, there are allways varying shades of Grey area in the middle.

It's simply a matter of individual abilities.Some are good at this, some at that.Just because you've done something for a long time doesn't automatically mean that you're good at it.

Good Leadership has nothing to do with appeasing one's constituancy. It has everything to do with doing what's best for the whole- to best serve ALL peoples, without prejudice or leaning twords special interests or being one sided.

This is my thing:

As voters, we have to realize that WE are the boss.

What does that mean?

We as individuals are appointed the task of choosing who will run our company- our country.

If we view ourselves the way executives view themselves, then we would have to ask-

"If I'm going to appoint someone to run my company, should I appoint someone who will serve the company as a whole- to make it prosperous which will in time benefit Myself and everyone else envolved?"

Or should I choose a "President" based upon whether or not they will actively seek to appease and prosper a small segment of the company- Myself the individual and others like me...

What's smarter?

One big problem is that people are fundamentally Greedy and are only interested in what the *think* will benefit themselves.

When we focus on us, we lose sight of the greater overall picture in lieu of percieved personal gains and gratification, losing sight of the broader overview-

Trading short term desires for long term gains for all envolved- which over the course of time would benefit us more.

Too bad really.

[MikeC]

So you don't think any managerial experience would help in the highest executive govt position in the country?
Ok...

I'm saying in the last 20 years. no the last 30 years, what has managerial experience really accomplished in the White House? Reagan was nothing but failed economic policy. Bush I went into a useless war that was launched against an invasion of a country that was tacitly sanctioned by his Secretary of State shortly before hand to a tyrant that had previously been the greatest ally of Reagan/Bush. About the only thing I recall about Clinton is that he left the country with an economic surplus, but I do know that he did alot to deregulate Wall Street that's set the stage for the economic crisis we currently face. And then there's Bush II... I think his name speaks for itself.

So I ask you, in 30 years... what has "managerial experience" done?

Correlation or coincidence?

[C-Hopkins]

Indeed. Strong leadership is based upon the individual. Mike C seems to like to lump people together and judging them all at the same time.All this or all that- this is called 'Black and White thinking (not the race- rather All good All bad, all this all that) when in reality, there are allways varying shades of Grey area in the middle.

It's simply a matter of individual abilities.Some are good at this, some at that.Just because you've done something for a long time doesn't automatically mean that you're good at it.

Good Leadership has nothing to do with appeasing one's constituancy. It has everything to do with doing what's best for the whole- to best serve ALL peoples, without prejudice or leaning twords special interests or being one sided.

This is my thing:

As voters, we have to realize that WE are the boss.

What does that mean?

We as individuals are appointed the task of choosing who will run our company- our country.

If we view ourselves the way executives view themselves, then we would have to ask-

"If I'm going to appoint someone to run my company, should I appoint someone who will serve the company as a whole- to make it prosperous which will in time benefit Myself and everyone else envolved?"

Or should I choose a "President" based upon whether or not they will actively seek to appease and prosper a small segment of the company- Myself the individual and others like me...

What's smarter?

One big problem is that alot of people are fundamentally Greedy and are only interested in what they*think* will benefit themselves.

When we focus on us, we lose sight of the greater overall picture in lieu of percieved personal gains and gratification, losing sight of the broader overview-

Trading short term desires for long term gains for all envolved- which over the course of time would ultimatelybenefit everyone
more.

Too bad really.

[pujimeng]

obama was a member of the illinois senate for 7 years. US senate since Jan 2005--remember with only two senators per state, he effectively is responsible for half of the state population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
Illinois has a population of 12.8M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois
chicago alone having a population of 2.8M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago

in fact the community he "managed" in chicago probably had several times more people than the entire township of wasilla.

He is not "responsible" for any of them, and he did not "manage" a comnmunity. As a state Senator he at least did represent a small portion of the population, and if you wouldlike to know hoe Illinois is doing fiscally feel free to check. You'll see what an Obama lead Government will look like. Saddled with a huge tax burden and still deep in debt. Yep, change we can believe in.

[steelincotton]

Getting back to the polls...... It's looking even better for Obama today. He's generally up around 5 points in all the national polls, and he's 2 to 4 points ahead in Ohio, Florida, Pennsyvania, and Minnesota. Also up 5 points in Michigan!

Also, keep an eye on the Minnesota race, because Al Franken (former SNL star and Air America liberal DJ) just won the democratic primary there. Here's hoping Al can take another seat for the democrats. We gotta kick most the old blood out of their seats - one by one - state by state!

[Darth Rock&Roll]

well at least the mercuns are united in their disagreement with each other.