Originally posted by: sunzt
Originally posted by: Farang
So your evidence is "various sources" you fail to mention and how he "responds to matters." Since the former is impossible for me to argue against, I will say again that you need to be more specific. Does he need to respond in a way that makes you believe he is psychologically capable of handling attacks, or in a way that means he is politically able to withstand attacks? If it is the latter then he has proved that many times over. He is obviously good at winning elections seeing as how he will soon be the first black man to win the Democratic primary.
I wish i could cite various sources, but unfortunately I can't remember all the sources since they were in print, TV, and online, nor do I want to go spend the time finding them all again.
It's not that he hasn't moved on from attacks, it's the fact that many of the attacks were weak and they still lingered on a lot longer than they should have. Those weak attacks also impacted his campaign more than they should have. He could have done a lot better to promptly and effectively address those issues. He could have handled those situations much more effectively and get past them. I am interested to see how he handles the onslaught from the general elections.
I remember reading his campaign's space policy and Hillary's. Not only did Hillary clearly detail a vision, but also gave specific details and steps to achieve the vision. Obama's policy was just a vague vision with no real specifics and in my opinion not offering solutions or attacking the right problems (I am in the space industry and have drafted team proposals to offer a new vision for NASA). That was a few months ago though so things might have changed.
Let's not forgot that being able to win elections doesn't necessarily equate to a good president.