Why Nobama

[denuseri]

You have serious hate issues apparently with Bush, who by the way has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Nor does any other political leader unless it's a direct corrolation or in relation to Obama in a dipolmatic capacity(which kennedy certianly is not other than lack of experience, at least lets hope he is not as i will explain in a side bar)

One of which ( a foriegn religious leader) that was so eager to get him elected has now called him a rather derogative term refering to negro house servant/slave from the civil war era in a public challenge for him to surrender becuase he is seen as being "weak" by our enemies abroad.

As for Obama he certianly can be worse. Way way worse infact. Though that does remain to be seen, just as it does with every newly elected official.

If he really was so bold his selections for his running mate and cabinet positions etc would reflect that; alas they do not.

On a side bar:

As for Kennedy, oh my lets see, Mr flip flop, too scared to actually take on the Russians directly (hence the consolation prizes he offered the soviets to back down in cuba and his ability to get us going in Vietnam as overcompensation for past mistakes, disregarding the lessons of history so recent we allready learned them in Korea). I certianly hope Obama doesnt do anything like Kennedy did other than looking and speaking pretty that is, we allways want a pretty leader right?

Kennedy continued the cold war policies of his rivals administration inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower. (Sounds suspiciously like what Obama is planning to do now in the middle east, unless he actually plans on invading Pakistan as he suggested during the election; probably becuase he really doesnt have a better idea other than surrender but thats beside the point.)

In 1961, the USA had 50,000 troops based in Korea, and Kennedy faced a three-part crisis—the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement.

These made Kennedy believe that another failure on the part of the United States to gain control and stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies and his own reputation.

Kennedy determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam, said to James Reston of The New York Times immediately after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna:

"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place,"

Kennedy then increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. Begining a failed policey of increasing troop levels to contain the esculating situation. Dont be surprised when Obama has this done in Afganistan and later Pakistan.

Which didnt ultimately work becuase it didnt enfranchise the local population with any real authority as General David Howell Petraeus stratagy has successfully done in Iraq (looks like Petraeus does study history). So mabey there is hope for Obama, alltough I doubt that America can afford to keep invading one country over there after another for long.

Doesnt sound like a successful administration for Kennedy by any account to me and if Obama's is anything like it it doesnt look promising for his.

Back to the actual topic of Obama and to address the election results you seem to claim give him such broad support:

The electoral college hardly reflects the voting publics endorsment or full support.

Where as the popular vote is much more indicative of opinion.

52% does not a mandate from heaven make by any ones count.

It means allmost half of the voting public has been dis-enfanchised.

Not the first time such a thing has happened in American history, nor the last, of that I am sure.