Obama is going through the pressures of national attention and scrutiny while running for the office of President. If he's able to quit smoking through all that stress then we should certainly be able to too.
Today is, to steal a quote from you-know-who, DAY ONE of "Quitting Smoking With Obama" for me!
I started smoking during my later years of college. I started out smoking at parties, then on the weekends, and then it just came a full blown habit....
I saw the coverage on those comments and heard what he said. To me, it sounds like he IS more in touch with the people of Pennsylvania (and America). Life is not all roses as McCain and Hillary say it is. People have been worn down by a bad economy, a ridiculous war and a stagnant government. It's a fact, most Americans ARE bitter, and disappointed in their government. So to say that Obama is "out of touch" with the people of Pennsylvania is SIMPLY WRONG!
Also, I see McHillary trying to paint Obama as an elitist; "you need a president who doesn't look down on people..." is what Hillary said. That's absurd!! Obama is Not an elitist; he came from nothing just like most of us. It's only recently he's come into financially better times based off book sales and his wife's successes.
If he's such an elitist then why would he be asking so much of us, the common folk? He's asking us to become more involved with our government, hold them accountable, keep them transparent and make sure they represent us. He doesn't want us to just vote for him and then go on about your lives, like the "Don't-worry-about-what's-going-on-in-Washington-we've-got-it-covered" attitude that I get from Mcain and Hillary.
I think the one part of his statements that will need explaining, or 'sanding', is when he said something about how people "revert to religion or hold their guns tighter..." (paraphrasing here).
From my perspective, I think what he means is that people turn back to what makes them comfortable, or they get defensive, in times of trouble and hardships. I think the wording he used does give fodder to his competitors, but the underlying message is accurate and on point.
After winning in New Hampshire, during her victory speech, Hillary Clinton stated that "She has found her voice". Let's dig into that a little deeper.
How is it that someone with "35 years of experience" would take so long to 'find her voice'? Wouldn't an experienced candidate already know how to communicate with the general public about their message? I can't imagine being a Senator for New York for 7 years and not be able to find a way to communicate with the people of the state of New York. I guess she's not as experienced as everyone thinks she is.
What's more frightening and a cause for alarm in this statement is
Dear Editorial Board of the New York Times,
I’m saddened to learn of your endorsement of Hillary Denise Rodham Clinton for the Presidential Primaries. You like so many other Americans have not done enough homework before deciding upon a candidate. You're blinded by the success of Bill Clinton's presidency and blindly assumed that Hillary would offer the same leadership.
Let's review the issues where you feel that Hillary is better suited for the role:
1. You praise Hillary for her experience. She states that she has "35 years of experience" however she has only been an Elected Official for seven years. Any work done before that was when she was Appointed to positions by her spouse, and real politician, Bill Clinton. Obama has MORE years of experience because he served eight years, as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate, and going on four years in the US Senate. To state that Hillary has more experience is simply DEAD WRONG! If you're county her work as First Lady and Governors wife, then does that mean that my wife can do my job "on day one", or your wife's can do your job?
2. You mention that Hillary would be a strong commander in chief because of her involvement in the Senate and how she's won the respect of world leaders. This is subjective. You have NO IDEA about the opinion of Hillary by the World Leaders. What you do know is that they respect Bill Clinton but he is not, or should not be, the one running for President. Obama is not a tarnished politician, and within five minutes can win MORE respect from world leaders than Hillary can try to conjure over her "35 years of experience". Did you not learn that Obama was on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the committees for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs AND Veterans' Affairs? Have you even visited www.BarackObama.com or watched any of his speeches or has the New York media completely shut off anything that isn't produced between the Hudson and Long Island?
3. Regarding Health Care you feel that Hillary's second attempt will be more successful. How on earth do you think she's going to be able to unite enough people to get behind her this time? Don't you realize that it will be the Health Care Industries second time to fight her on this too? They already know how to defeat her on this topic, or pay her off.
You also state in this section that "Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not seen it". Here's an idea... open up a web browser, turn on the TV to a non-local station, or heaven forbid, read another newspaper (gasp!). Obama has the better plan here. At my job my employer pays for top notch health care. I have zero dollar co-pay. I have a wife with Multiple Sclerosis who is in a wheel chair. We run up some $30,000 to $60,000 of medical bills every year and I DON'T PAY A DIME! My health insurance is THAT good. Under Hillary's plan I would (as well as the 50,000+ employees at my company) have to pay for Health care, regardless if I don't want to. Obama is the one proposing a plan that offers Americans more choices yet still covers everyone that needs it.
4. You also state that you need a clearer sense of how Obama would govern....
