Is Obama the right choice? [Archive]

stevento

Jan 27, 2008, 03:11 AM

i dont think barack obama is the right choice for the democratic party.

1. what if he turns out to be an incompetent president? what will happen to the democratic party then? what on his record shows he will be a good president? not saying he definitely be lousy, i'm just saying its a dice roll.

2. and what EXACTLY does he plan to do about Iraq, health care etc?
whenever i hear him talk he says "we need to hope of change" and "we need to believe in ourselves to bring people together to get things done"
but i dont think that's enough. whenevery he's critized for it he says " oh well they're saying we cant do it, we'll prove them wrong"
but you cant just snap your fingers and hope and expect change to come.
on his website, the plans are so vague. it just seems to me that he doesn't have any detailed plans for anything.

there's a lot of momentum behind him, but i see it as the democratic party going 100 miles per hour in the wrong direction.
dont get me wrong i like him alot. he's a breath of fresh air in politics. everyone is swept up in all this talk about change and hope and that's great but i just dont think he's qualified.

thoughts?

Blue Velvet

Jan 27, 2008, 03:18 AM

1. Incompetent presidents have been seen before. Somehow Reagan has acquired the patina of a hero and a political thinker, when he was nothing but... revisionism has a lot to answer for. There's nothing to suggest that Barack Obama would, or could be any worse than the current incumbent.

2. He's running a primary campaign to counter the Clintons and to establish himself as essentially a new product in marketing terms; that's all that needs to be said. A national campaign would be focussed differently.

As opposition, you don't put forth detailed plans for anything ten months out from a national election, lest it be hostage to fortune.

CalBoy

Jan 27, 2008, 03:24 AM

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but we really don't know how any candidate is going to be until after they are elected. Thus is the nature of politics in general.

That said, I'm voting for Clinton.

I don't have a strong preference for either, but I feel that Obama would be "Kennedy-ied" because he doesn't have the political capital to pass any real legislation. History shows us that it takes a lot of cooperation to pass bills successfully. I'm just not sure that the Senate or the House would have any real reason to play nice with Obama (especially if one of the houses switches affiliations, though that doesn't look likely).

On the other hand, Hillary brings her 7 years as Senator (vs 3 for Obama) and her time as First Lady. Add Bill Clinton (however strangely he's been acting lately) to the mix, and you have two very good negotiators/deal makers.

zioxide

Jan 27, 2008, 03:34 AM

1. He's smart (Graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude -- He also was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review). He's a good leader (He helped lead community action groups in Chicago, helping thousands of people to register to vote. [see article below for more info]). He cares about the common people and wants to end Washington being in control of the lobbyists (90% of his donations from the first quarter of last year came from individual donors of $100 or less (abcnews) (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3007098&page=1)). He knows and cares about the Constitution (He was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 10 years).

Good article about Obama's experience (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_record)

He has more experience in elected office than Hillary (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html) and also has more experience at a federal level than Bill Clinton had when he ran in 1992.

2. All of this information is out there. If you do a little bit of digging, you'll find it.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom <- over 500 videos, many of them detailing his ideas. The google one is great if you want to hear his ideas about technology.
The Audacity of Hope (http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201422287&sr=8-1)
Dreams from My Father (http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773/ref=ed_oe_p)

I don't have a strong preference for either, but I feel that Obama would be "Kennedy-ied" because he doesn't have the political capital to pass any real legislation. History shows us that it takes a lot of cooperation to pass bills successfully. I'm just not sure that the Senate or the House would have any real reason to play nice with Obama (especially if one of the houses switches affiliations, though that doesn't look likely).

Hillary has shown multiple times that she wants to fight with republicans more than work with them -- she would just further divide this country. Obama has worked with the republicans on numerous issues, from his time in the Illinois state legislature (when the democrats were still in the minority there) where he worked with Republicans to pass the Gift Ban Act (the toughest piece of anti-lobbyist legislation in Illinois since the WaterGate era). He has also worked with Republicans in the US Senate on nuclear proliferation reform and to pass the Google for Government (http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/) act, which gives the people a searchable database of all government spending.

On the other hand, Hillary brings her 7 years as Senator (vs 3 for Obama) and her time as First Lady.
As seen here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html), being the First Lady does not give you any real experience to being president.
Add Bill Clinton (however strangely he's been acting lately) to the mix, and you have two very good negotiators/deal makers.

All he's done lately is bash Obama and further divide the democratic party. He would end up doing the same thing with the country.

CalBoy

Jan 27, 2008, 03:58 AM

He cares about the common people and wants to end Washington being in control of the lobbyists (90% of his donations from the first quarter of last year came from individual donors of $100 or less
If only every single candidate since Jimmy Carter hadn't used the whole, "I'm running to change Washington" line, I could believe that.

He's still a primary candidate right now. I want to see how much money comes from "grassroots" if he gets to the general election.

And, if he continues to preach a message of change through changing Washington, he may end up alienating Congress. Jimmy Carter proved to everyone that just because you're a member of a party, it doesn't mean that your party has to support you in the passage of legislation.

He has more experience in elected office than Hillary (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html) and also has more experience at a federal level than Bill Clinton had when he ran in 1992.

I know he has more years in elected office than Hillary, but Hillary was no ordinary First Lady. She was unique in the sense that she was active. Not to mention that Bill and Hillary have an Eleanor-FDR relationship. If Barbara Bush was running, I would agree with you, but Hillary is a different kind of First Lady. Remember, she graduated from Yale too, and her law degree isn't exactly worthless.

As for "more Federal experience than Bill," I have to point out to you that Bill was a very successful governor for quite a while (that one election loss proved to be his greatest asset later on). Being a governor is much harder than being a Senator; one require organization, negotiation, and planning. The other requires the ability to filibuster and use riders in the worst way possible.

I'm sorry, but the Junior Senator from Illinois hasn't been able to impress me. He hasn't fought for change from his rather safe Senate seat. If he really believed his message of change, he would have been authoring bills in the Senate for the past several months, rather than make a run for President at too young an age. He has Kennedy written all over him (brief time as Senator, wins the presidency, then proves to be unsuccessful at bill passage).

All he's done lately is bash Obama and further divide the democratic party. He would end up doing the same thing with the country.

Bill is being a very tough advocate for his wife, but I doubt he would continue this past the primary. He's a smart man who was one of the few Presidents in recent history to work so well with a Congress dead set to oust him.

If Hillary does run (and win) for President, I think Bill will once again take on a negotiator roll, and I think he would be darn good at it.

In either case, it's pointless to argue about who we're voting for since our votes should be based on who we're comfortable with. I personally don't connect with Obama (even though I'm young and non-white).

leekohler

Jan 27, 2008, 04:19 AM

I would say yes- he's a great choice. He's far better than Hillary, who is merely a career politician, trying to better her husband. She voted for the Iraq war- what more do we need to know about her? She won't even admit that was a mistake, which is pathetic. I might have an inch of respect for her if she would say that was a bad decision.

themadchemist

Jan 27, 2008, 04:27 AM

stevento

Jan 27, 2008, 04:43 AM

1 hillary was ALWAYS against a preliMinary strike she voted to threaten to use force and she always voted against it after that
opposing the iraq war in and of it self does not qualify you for the job

2 its is erroneous to say that bill's expirience then is like baracks expirience now in that bill was governor of arkansas
that's a executive position that prepared bill for the job
barack ran for illinois state senate in 00 then congress in 04 and now he wants to be president

3 barack could not be worse that bush but that's not the point

the point is if he does a bad job he will give a bad naMe to deMs like bush has to repubs
what you have to get is that bush's own party hates hiM he is incoMpetent seperately froM being republican

barack says he will change everything but the way he attacks hillary is the saMe old

also dont get Me wrong here barack is very sMart (like bill and hillary) great guy and i totally repspect and adMire hiM for oppsoing the war froM the start
voting for the iraq war the first tiMe was a Mistake but i dont hold it against hillary or edwards because they voted against it after that

Thomas Veil

Jan 27, 2008, 08:19 AM

No, Al Gore is the right choice, but Obama's the best we're gonna do. I still contend that his policy positions betray such triumphant homage to the bland middle that they contradict his bold and exciting promise of change. His rhetoric is electrifying; the substance appears to be somewhat more milquetoast.Pretty much how I feel. I'm also with those who believe Hillary is too connected to the establishment to do much to change things.

Though I'm fighting a losing battle, I'm still for Edwards. Not only does he want to start an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but I like his views on media and the internet (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/). I think those are two very important issues that the other candidates are weak on.

But again, Edwards is not gaining traction, so I have a feeling I'll be voting for Edwards in the primary but settling for Obama in the general election.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 27, 2008, 08:40 AM

Our biggest problem is finding a president who will represent the people. We have had 8 years of nothing. Can Obama be the peoples representitive?

Queso

Jan 27, 2008, 08:48 AM

Out of the choices on offer in both parties, I'd say he is the best. With the current stench emanating from Washington his lack of time there will possibly be a plus point with the electorate.

MBHockey

Jan 27, 2008, 08:50 AM

No offense, OP, but you should probably do at least some reading up on him before you start making judgements or throwing out conclusory statements. Here's a good place to start:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html?#/context=index/issue=health

Thomas Veil

Jan 27, 2008, 10:22 AM

zioxide

Jan 27, 2008, 12:01 PM

1 hillary was ALWAYS against a preliMinary strike she voted to threaten to use force and she always voted against it after that
opposing the iraq war in and of it self does not qualify you for the job

She voted yes "to authorize the use of force against Iraq". One of the biggest ****-ups in this country's history.

2 its is erroneous to say that bill's expirience then is like baracks expirience now in that bill was governor of arkansas
that's a executive position that prepared bill for the job
barack ran for illinois state senate in 00 then congress in 04 and now he wants to be president
He actually was first elected as an Illinois state senator in 1996.

3 barack could not be worse that bush but that's not the point

the point is if he does a bad job he will give a bad naMe to deMs like bush has to repubs
what you have to get is that bush's own party hates hiM he is incoMpetent seperately froM being republican

Hillary gives a bad name to the dems already, doing nothing but attacking Obama and fighting with republicans instead of trying to work with him.

barack says he will change everything but the way he attacks hillary is the saMe old

It's a catch-22. Hillary attacks him, and he can let it go or attack back. Either way, people are going to bitch about it, whether it's "Obama and Hillary are fighting" or "Obama is too weak to respond to Hillary's attack".

also dont get Me wrong here barack is very sMart (like bill and hillary) great guy and i totally repspect and adMire hiM for oppsoing the war froM the start
voting for the iraq war the first tiMe was a Mistake but i dont hold it against hillary or edwards because they voted against it after that

So you're just going to give them a free pass on not doing fully in-depth research (instead of just listening to the lies bush was saying) and eventually voting for one of the biggest mistakes in this country's history.

Pretty much how I feel. I'm also with those who believe Hillary is too connected to the establishment to do much to change things.

Though I'm fighting a losing battle, I'm still for Edwards. Not only does he want to start an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but I like his views on media and the internet (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/). I think those are two very important issues that the other candidates are weak on.

I didn't read that in depth, but it appears that one of the main things Edwards is for is network neutrality, which Obama is also for. Watch Obama's Candidates@Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo) speech & interview. He talks a lot about what he wants to do with technology and the internet.

But again, Edwards is not gaining traction, so I have a feeling I'll be voting for Edwards in the primary but settling for Obama in the general election.

I'm kind of hoping that Edwards drops out soon (if he doesn't do well on Super Tuesday) and endorses Obama. Obama/Edwards would be a decent balanced ticket which would do well against all of the Republican candidates.

Our biggest problem is finding a president who will represent the people. We have had 8 years of nothing. Can Obama be the peoples representitive?

Obama worked as a community activist in Chicago. He helped to get thousands of people to register to vote. After graduating from Harvard, he worked as a civil rights lawyer in Chicago, fighting against discrimination and for voting rights.

Well, in stevento's defense, I wish Obama would talk about that stuff more, and not just hope hope hope change change change all the time. I'm sure he's playing it safe, but his speeches sure seem geared to get people to respond to him on an emotional, not intellectual, level.

Nothing against him, and obviously it's working for him. I just wish in his speeches he'd give us a little less sizzle and a little more steak.

I saw a few other people say this about his speech last night. What you have to realize is that was just a victory speech, trying to get people energized and hopefully to support him.

He's had plenty of other speeches (there's over 525 videos on his youtube channel), including the Candidates@Google I linked above, where he talks in much more detail about his plans.

Additionally, his website has a lot of information on the issues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo). Also, if you really want to know about his policies, get and read his book The Audacity of Hope (http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201422287&sr=8-1).

atszyman

Jan 27, 2008, 12:17 PM

Well, in stevento's defense, I wish Obama would talk about that stuff more, and not just hope hope hope change change change all the time. I'm sure he's playing it safe, but his speeches sure seem geared to get people to respond to him on an emotional, not intellectual, level.

Nothing against him, and obviously it's working for him. I just wish in his speeches he'd give us a little less sizzle and a little more steak.

That is one of the problems with the whole campaign. Appealing to people on an intellectual level tends to turn off many voters, especially if they don't really understand what you're talking about. Elections are won by appealing to people on an emotional level, as sad as it is.

Clinton may very well have more experience close to an executive, and been very involved in Bill's presidency, but she was no more an executive than Obama has been so the experience is a non-issue. He has more experience in elected office than Hillary, but Hillary had an active roll in a previous administration, but she was not the executive.

I think Clinton is a poor choice for 2 reasons, one is that she is too close to the establishment. If she wins 2 terms the countries executive office will have been occupied by 2 families for the last 28 years. The second reason is her ability to motivate the GOP base and that could cost the Dems the election in what should be an easy victory.

walangij

Jan 27, 2008, 01:08 PM

I think Clinton is a poor choice for 2 reasons, one is that she is too close to the establishment. If she wins 2 terms the countries executive office will have been occupied by 2 families for the last 28 years. The second reason is her ability to motivate the GOP base and that could cost the Dems the election in what should be an easy victory.

Nobody likes a dynasty.

The GOP base has already been planning to attack Hillary for the General Election, invested millions of dollars in developing anti-Hillary ads already. At least if Obama gets the nomination then that money would have gone to waste. Also, Hillary is just so divisive. Unless there's a democratic congress and senate, then I don't see much negotiation on the major issues but maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, hopefully theres a shuffle in the house and senate this November.

Obama's message of Hope and Change was inspiring, until every candidate jumped on the bandwagon after Iowa (along with the media) that it just seems trite.

IJ Reilly

Jan 27, 2008, 01:19 PM

That is one of the problems with the whole campaign. Appealing to people on an intellectual level tends to turn off many voters, especially if they don't really understand what you're talking about. Elections are won by appealing to people on an emotional level, as sad as it is.

I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing, at least not entirely. The last seven years in particular have been so deeply divisive. I do think we need leadership which at least tries to rise above. I believe Obama has the best chance of turning the page. Clinton has zero chance. A Hillary Clinton presidency will be a repeat of the political divisions of the 1990s -- and don't think a lot of people wouldn't be delighted to return to them. Not me.

Personally, I want to see a presidential candidate who can appeal to the nation's better nature, a lot more than I want to see 12-point plans. Call that an appeal to the emotions instead of the intellect if you like, but I think there's a legitimate intellectual reason to desire it.

themadchemist

Jan 27, 2008, 02:16 PM

Pretty much how I feel. I'm also with those who believe Hillary is too connected to the establishment to do much to change things.

Though I'm fighting a losing battle, I'm still for Edwards. Not only does he want to start an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but I like his views on media and the internet (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/). I think those are two very important issues that the other candidates are weak on.

But again, Edwards is not gaining traction, so I have a feeling I'll be voting for Edwards in the primary but settling for Obama in the general election.

There are some things about Edwards that I really do like, but then again, I'm a sucker for the populist message. I think Obama or Clinton would work better across the aisle, though, and I feel that Edwards' one foray into politics, as a Senator, was something of a failure. Nevertheless, I'm more and more liking the way Edwards is talking about healthcare...He seems the most open to single payer of any of the candidates, though it is nice to see all the candidates accepting that it is a strong and sensible policy option in the right political environment. Now just to create the right political environment.

stevento

Jan 27, 2008, 03:47 PM

1 i think we did great things in the clinton years and a dynasty doesn't sound like a bad idea in this case

2 barack obama has not said one thing that has proven that he is capable
its such a dice roll

3 republicans cant not stand to hear the word hillary - they hate her to the core

4 this election and specifically the debate this past monday has been the same old thing over and over attack attack attack attack all the time
from both hillary and obama and it was unbecoming of both of them
barack touts his character and ability to change but that showed the opposite
hillary's character was aslo hit during the debate but i wasnt voting for her based on character anyways

5 barack cannot attack hillary's plans to do great things in this country
all he can say is "she voted for iraq once" all the time
based on policies alone i think hillary is far better than barack obama and i'm not going to hold one nasty vote against them (especially when they voted against it ) because as war became more likely they spoke out against it and voted against it

6 hillary's plan for new green jobs is immpeccable as is her healthcare plan
what are barack plans for these things? i dont know becasue all he does is point out the problem (which i could've done) and then say "i' going to change the way washingtong works"

themadchemist

Jan 27, 2008, 03:52 PM

as is her healthcare plan

Her healthcare plan is a joke...Worse, a travesty. It is based on the apparently failed Massachusetts plan, which was based on a similar previous Massachusetts plan that was also a failure. The Clinton plan proves that just because a plan would probably pass, it doesn't mean it will do anything terribly useful in the long-term.

(Obama's plan also sucks...But my point is that it is ludicrous to claim that the Clinton plan is "impeccable.")

halfprep455

Jan 27, 2008, 04:10 PM

1 i think we did great things in the clinton years and a dynasty doesn't sound like a bad idea in this case
Great things in the Clinton years?
I think you forgot about Paula Jones, Waco TX, Lewinsky, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Clintons pardonings, and the numerous other scandals that plauged the Clintons.

2 barack obama has not said one thing that has proven that he is capable
its such a dice roll

Go to youtube and tpye in Barrak Obama. There are over 400 videos of his various speeches in which he does layout his plans for America. You should also read the Audsity of Hope

3 republicans cant not stand to hear the word hillary - they hate her to the core

Exactly! That is why Republicans will rally around who ever the GOP candidate is! The GOP will never work with Hillary, they will never give her any credibility. There is also no way in hell she can beat a McCain/Libermann ticket. Very few Independents and no Republicans will EVER vote for her. The GOP been planning to run against her for 8 years now. Why vote for such a polarizing figure? The GOP may not be that popular right now but I hate to break it to you, they are not going anywhere for a long time! It is time that more politicians work with both parties insted of trying to alienate them. Like it or not 40% of the nation is Republican!

4 this election and specifically the debate this past monday has been the same old thing over and over attack attack attack attack all the time
from both hillary and obama and it was unbecoming of both of them
barack touts his character and ability to change but that showed the opposite
hillary's character was aslo hit during the debate but i wasnt voting for her based on character anyways

Not voting based on character? Hmmmmmm lets all remember our last president who has no character.

5 barack cannot attack hillary's plans to do great things in this country
all he can say is "she voted for iraq once" all the time
based on policies alone i think hillary is far better than barack obama and i'm not going to hold one nasty vote against them (especially when they voted against it ) because as war became more likely they spoke out against it and voted against it

Her plan for this country will change next week depending on where she is. She is so phony! She has no spine or core values what so ever! We do not need a poll president. We already tried that with Carter and the results weren't good.

6 hillary's plan for new green jobs is immpeccable as is her healthcare plan
what are barack plans for these things? i dont know becasue all he does is point out the problem (which i could've done) and then say "i' going to change the way washingtong works"

Atleast I hear hope from Obama. Im so sick of hearing all of these other guys talking so pessimistic about our future. This country needs to move into the future! Lets stop this nostalgic BS! The 90's are over! It is time to move into the next decade. It is time for the baby boomers to hand over power to the next generation. Ltes move foward not backwards. I really don't want to live the 90's again!

leekohler

Jan 27, 2008, 04:53 PM

I think you forgot about Paula Jones, Waco TX, Lewinsky, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Clintons pardonings, and the numerous other scandals that plauged the Clintons.

Go to youtube and tpye in Barrak Obama. There are over 400 videos of his various speeches in which he does layout his plans for America. You should also read the Audsity of Hope

Exactly! That is why Republicans will rally around who ever the GOP candidate is! The GOP will never work with Hillary, they will never give her any credibility. There is also no way in hell she can beat a McCain/Libermann ticket. Very few Independents and no Republicans will EVER vote for her. The GOP been planning to run against her for 8 years now. Why vote for such a polarizing figure? The GOP may not be that popular right now but I hate to break it to you, they are not going anywhere for a long time! It is time that more politicians work with both parties insted of trying to alienate them. Like it or not 40% of the nation is Republican!

Not voting based on character? Hmmmmmm lets all remember our last president who has no character.

Her plan for this country will change next week depending on where she is. She is so phony! She has no spine or core values what so ever! We do not need a poll president. We already tried that with Carter and the results weren't good.

Atleast I hear hope from Obama. Im so sick of hearing all of these other guys talking so pessimistic about our future. This country needs to move into the future! Lets stop this nostalgic BS! The 90's are over! It is time to move into the next decade. It is time for the baby boomers to hand over power to the next generation. Ltes move foward not backwards. I really don't want to live the 90's again!

Great post! These are exactly the reasons we need someone new in office. Hillary is the absolute last thing we need right now. Let's not forget how many Dems can't stand her either. And you're right- as weird as McCain is- she'd lose to him.

stevento- go to Obama's site if you want to know more about the things he's done. You might be impressed.

http://obama.senate.gov/

zioxide

Jan 27, 2008, 05:01 PM

I'm not going to waste my time retyping the same stuff I said above because you can't bother to read any of it. I'm only going to respond to this:

3 republicans cant not stand to hear the word hillary - they hate her to the core

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. The cynics, pundits, and everyone keeps trying to divide it. Blue states, red states, democrat, republican. Why would you want to continue to further drive this country apart?

For the past couple of weeks, the Clintons have attacked Obama. They're now trying to "make him blacker", equating him to Jesse Jackson, all to try to drive white voters away from Obama. They're not campaigning on a message of unity, they're campaigning on a message of division.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

-Barack Obama, 2004 DNC Keynote Address 'The Audacity of Hope'

We NEED someone to reunite this country, not divide it further. This is the only way we are going to bring change to this country: we need to throw out the partisan politics and work together, democrats, republicans, and independents alike, to bring change. The last 7 years have been just about division, and you can see where that has brought us.

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

-Barack Obama, 2008 SC Primary Victory Speech (Jan 26 2008)

In the end, the policies of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all fairly similar. However, Obama is the only candidate who wants to unite the country and work with the Republicans for change. Clinton and Edwards have both said in debates that they will fight with the republicans to try to accomplish their goals. This is what's happening in the current administration, and it's not doing anything.

We need to end the politics of division, "because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America."

walangij

Jan 27, 2008, 05:54 PM

I'm not going to waste my time retyping the same stuff I said above because you can't bother to read any of it. I'm only going to respond to this:

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. The cynics, pundits, and everyone keeps trying to divide it. Blue states, red states, democrat, republican. Why would you want to continue to further drive this country apart?

For the past couple of weeks, the Clintons have attacked Obama. They're now trying to "make him blacker", equating him to Jesse Jackson, all to try to drive white voters away from Obama. They're not campaigning on a message of unity, they're campaigning on a message of division.

We NEED someone to reunite this country, not divide it further. This is the only way we are going to bring change to this country: we need to throw out the partisan politics and work together, democrats, republicans, and independents alike, to bring change. The last 7 years have been just about division, and you can see where that has brought us.

In the end, the policies of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all fairly similar. However, Obama is the only candidate who wants to unite the country and work with the Republicans for change. Clinton and Edwards have both said in debates that they will fight with the republicans to try to accomplish their goals. This is what's happening in the current administration, and it's not doing anything.

We need to end the politics of division, "because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America."

Great post.

The reason why so many people are going into the Obama camp is because of division. Edwards, Obama and Clinton do have similar positions, they are just nitpicking the differences now. The Clintons are on the attack, picking at inexperience. I don't know how much experience actually factors into being a good president. George W. had a lot of executive experience as a governor but look where we are now. Too much emphasis is always put on experience and on the past, but it doesn't have a direct correlation on how good of a leader someone will be in the future. For example, Romney may have a lot of experience but I would never want to see him as my president.

Obama inspires the electorate. He is much less polarizing than Clinton IMO. And as odd as it sounds, Clinton vs. McCain, McCain will likely win. At my university, as I talk with friends, classmates, ect, many of which are Obama supporters would rather see McCain as president instead of Clinton. Sounds crazy doesn't it?

stevento

Jan 27, 2008, 05:57 PM

change does not happen because you hope for it or because you believe in it

it happens because you work hard and that's what hillary has been doing for 35 years

obama talks about hope but that's all he's got it seems like

i definitely want barack's style of politics in washington but hope does not qualify you to be president
we're talking about the presidency of the united states here
i hear a lot of great things that i like from obama but none of it convinces me he should be president

halfprep455

Jan 27, 2008, 06:37 PM

eric55lv

Jan 27, 2008, 06:40 PM

Well another reason is that he does not have a lot of experience like Hillary plus,the time away from the senate campaning

yg17

Jan 27, 2008, 06:48 PM

An interesting tidbit I saw on the news last night was that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama is now when he was running for president. So they need to stop with this experience crap.

Thomas Veil

Jan 27, 2008, 06:49 PM

...it appears that one of the main things Edwards is for is network neutrality, which Obama is also for. Watch Obama's Candidates@Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo) speech & interview. He talks a lot about what he wants to do with technology and the internet.What impressed me about Edwards, though, is that he went beyond that to talk about the choke-hold that corporations have on the media (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/).

Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America, with extensive holdings in publishing, print journalism, online content, movies and radio. In the two years after Washington removed the 40-station radio ownership limit in 1996, nearly half of America's radio stations changed hands, and by 2000, one company had acquired over 1100 stations. Over the last 30 years, two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down. The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to dismantle limits on cable, broadcast and newspaper concentration. Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech, tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. This is an issue that really bothers me, because in my opinion this is how America got so divided in the first place. I believe with all my heart that Reagan, Ailes, Rove and all that gang very deliberately went about corrupting the media so that it was either facile (our CNN example) or actively malignant (Fox, hate radio, etc.).

Obama may talk about getting people together, but as long as you're working against that kind of power, you're pushing a rock uphill knowing that at any time it could roll down again.

walangij

Jan 27, 2008, 06:50 PM

change does not happen because you hope for it or because you believe in it

it happens because you work hard and that's what hillary has been doing for 35 years

obama talks about hope but that's all he's got it seems like

i definitely want barack's style of politics in washington but hope does not qualify you to be president
we're talking about the presidency of the united states here
i hear a lot of great things that i like from obama but none of it convinces me he should be president

The idealism of Obama's message is what draws a lot of people to him (and also what the media has focused on since Iowa). Even so I don't doubt his ability to lead any more than I doubt Hillary's abilities either. Experience has just been a sticking point because it is one of the only things that draws people to HRC rather than Obama yet like halfprep455 said, Obama's been in elected politics since 1996. HRC makes it seem like he's less than had 2 years of real experience.

I respect your opinion though. I was for HRC until the end of October, but things change.

yg17

Jan 27, 2008, 06:52 PM

walangij

Jan 27, 2008, 07:10 PM

I need to ask a question for you guys....would you skip 3 classes, spend almost 100 bucks on gas, and drive for a total of 8 hours to see Obama speak at a town hall meeting? Because I'm seriously considering that when he comes to KC on Tuesday.

I'd do it. If he gets the nomination and wins the General Election I'll drive hours and hours and spend hundreds of dollars to be in Washington.

yg17

Jan 27, 2008, 07:15 PM

I'd do it. If he gets the nomination and wins the General Election I'll drive hours and hours and spend hundreds of dollars to be in Washington.

Yep, I'm seriously thinking about it. Whether he gets the nomination or not, whether he wins the presidency or not, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

zioxide

Jan 27, 2008, 09:07 PM

change does not happen because you hope for it or because you believe in it

it happens because you work hard and that's what hillary has been doing for 35 years

The only thing Hillary has 35 years of is being the status quo, fighting with Republicans, and riding her husband's coattails.

obama talks about hope but that's all he's got it seems like

That's because you're too blind to read anything I've said, or to go and do research about Obama.

i definitely want barack's style of politics in washington but hope does not qualify you to be president
we're talking about the presidency of the united states here
i hear a lot of great things that i like from obama but none of it convinces me he should be president

So what qualifies Hillary to be President?

Being the First Lady certainly doesn't. The First Lady doesn't do anything. They don't have a security clearance, they don't read the presidential briefings, they don't attend presidential meetings.

So the only thing Hillary has is being a senator. But Obama has 11 years elected experience as a senator (state senators do the same thing, just at a lower level) to Hillary's 7 years.

This isn't even considering the fact that Hillary would probably lose the general election to McCain.

themadchemist

Jan 27, 2008, 09:49 PM

The OP is remarkably good at reciting Hillary Clinton's stump speech for us. Can't you give us something fresh?

MacHipster

Jan 27, 2008, 10:29 PM

The OP is remarkably good at reciting Hillary Clinton's stump speech for us. Can't you give us something fresh?

It's not going to happen. Stevento has shown a sincere dedication to ignoring replies to his assertions and a lack of curiosity to researching anything that's not on hillaryclinton.com. This is the same stevento that asked in three seperate threads why Giuliani's numbers were low, only to ignore the answers and ask again. Head meet wall.

IJ Reilly

Jan 27, 2008, 11:43 PM

An interesting tidbit I saw on the news last night was that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama is now when he was running for president. So they need to stop with this experience crap.

But they won't so long as it works, which for a lot of people, it apparently does. I wonder if anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton trumps Barak Obama in the experience department could explain precisely what experience this is, and why it would help her be a more effective president than Obama.

themadchemist

Jan 28, 2008, 12:16 AM

An interesting tidbit I saw on the news last night was that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama is now when he was running for president. So they need to stop with this experience crap.

In all fairness, keep in mind that Clinton served two years as Lt. Governor of Arkansas and 12 years as Governor. He served as chair of the National Governors Association for a year and as chair of the DLC for a year, as well.

Say what you will about this campaign, but President Clinton's age at the time of election does not reflect the broad and deep experience he had in executive leadership and American politics.

To equate the experience of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as first-time presidential candidates is ludicrous.

stevento

Jan 28, 2008, 03:48 AM

And you're right- as weird as McCain is- she'd lose to him.

stevento- go to Obama's site if you want to know more about the things he's done. You might be impressed.

http://obama.senate.gov/

been there done that. and i am impressed.
he's gotten stuff done but i dont see how that's qualifies him for the presidency.
you guys sound a lot like obama. you're saying he's a breath of fresh air (which i agree he is) and he has had accomplishments (again i agree) but what i haven't heard from anyone is what qualifies him for the job.

as for mccain lets not forget mccain is not a machine like the clintons.
republicans have been trying to kill hillary's career for 16 years and much to their dismay she's still thriving. there aren't as many people who hate her as you think.
mccain is not going to win against any of the democrats period.
he' not going to win his party's nod anyways, romney is and oh boy is he gonna get his flip floppin ass owned by hillary

kerry was the wrong choice in 04 and now it worries me that dems are getting excited about the wrong person again.

toaster_oven

Jan 28, 2008, 08:32 AM

I've worked with some very "experienced" people who are also very incompetent.

I'm not saying the Billary is incompetent - just that the whole "experience" thing doesn't really mean a whole lot.

leekohler

Jan 28, 2008, 11:17 AM

been there done that. and i am impressed.
he's gotten stuff done but i dont see how that's qualifies him for the presidency.
you guys sound a lot like obama. you're saying he's a breath of fresh air (which i agree he is) and he has had accomplishments (again i agree) but what i haven't heard from anyone is what qualifies him for the job.

as for mccain lets not forget mccain is not a machine like the clintons.
republicans have been trying to kill hillary's career for 16 years and much to their dismay she's still thriving. there aren't as many people who hate her as you think.
mccain is not going to win against any of the democrats period.
he' not going to win his party's nod anyways, romney is and oh boy is he gonna get his flip floppin ass owned by hillary

kerry was the wrong choice in 04 and now it worries me that dems are getting excited about the wrong person again.

Huh? So what exactly qualifies Hillary to be President again? The fact that she was married to Bill? She's spent less time in office than Obama and yet she's more entrenched in the good ol boy club than he is. Wow- so nothing on his site leads you to think he could be a good President? If that is so, then nothing will convince you.

Naimfan

Jan 28, 2008, 11:41 AM

Just to answer the thread title--he would be a HUGE improvement on the person currently in the White House. That alone qualifies him (tongue in cheek) as at least "a" right choice. Whether Obama or Clinton win is ultimately unimportant--I think this is one of those elections where the party means more than the individual.

clevin

Jan 28, 2008, 11:44 AM

i think he is a good choice, but i dont think he can win general election, i hope he can, but i dont think he can.

Mike Teezie

Jan 28, 2008, 12:13 PM

IJ Reilly

Jan 28, 2008, 12:37 PM

I think more people hate her than we realize. Here in the south, I've never met one single person that doesn't hate her. They never have a reason, but I don't think that matters much once it's time to vote.

A Clinton nomination would be a huge gift to the Republicans, an opportunity to replay the 1990s, and quite possibly win. It sure would give Rush Limbaugh a reason to live again. I wonder how many Democrats are looking down the road and thinking about this. Perhaps some of our resident Democrats who support Clinton could tell us how they believe the election would play out with Billary running, how it's going to be about the future instead of the past.

themadchemist

Jan 28, 2008, 12:45 PM

A Clinton nomination would be a huge gift to the Republicans, an opportunity to replay the 1990s, and quite possibly win. It sure would give Rush Limbaugh a reason to live again. I wonder how many Democrats are looking down the road and thinking about this. Perhaps some of our resident Democrats who support Clinton could tell us how they believe the election would play out with Billary running, how it's going to be about the future instead of the past.

An interesting alternative perspective from our very own Paul Krugman:

Lessons of 1992 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?em&ex=1201669200&en=90b8c5b968ab3627&ei=5087%0A)

Perhaps the shrillness of the rhetoric in the 1990s had more to do with the Republicans than with Clinton? And perhaps there is no reason to believe that Republican demagogues would be any more reasonable or fair in the face of an Obama presidency than they would be in the face of a Clinton presidency?

IJ Reilly

Jan 28, 2008, 01:08 PM

An interesting alternative perspective from our very own Paul Krugman:

Lessons of 1992 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?em&ex=1201669200&en=90b8c5b968ab3627&ei=5087%0A)

Perhaps the shrillness of the rhetoric in the 1990s had more to do with the Republicans than with Clinton? And perhaps there is no reason to believe that Republican demagogues would be any more reasonable or fair in the face of an Obama presidency than they would be in the face of a Clinton presidency?

Krugman jumps clear over the main point, which isn't about running the government but about the election. The point is, the prospect of another Clinton in the White House would have a huge galvanizing effect on the large number of Republican stalwarts who hate both of them to the very core of their beings. They've having a tough time coalescing behind any of their candidates, but you can be sure a Clinton would change all of that. Their guns are primed and loaded for Clinton fighting.

zioxide

Jan 28, 2008, 01:09 PM

been there done that. and i am impressed.
he's gotten stuff done but i dont see how that's qualifies him for the presidency.
you guys sound a lot like obama. you're saying he's a breath of fresh air (which i agree he is) and he has had accomplishments (again i agree) but what i haven't heard from anyone is what qualifies him for the job.

Because you've repeatedly ignored me, I'm going to put this in bold:

What qualifies Hillary to be President more than Obama?

Nothing.

as for mccain lets not forget mccain is not a machine like the clintons.
republicans have been trying to kill hillary's career for 16 years and much to their dismay she's still thriving.

She hasn't even had her own political career for 16 years.. only 7 years. The rest of the time she was just riding Bill's coattails.

kerry was the wrong choice in 04 and now it worries me that dems are getting excited about the wrong person again.

The wrong choice would be Hillary. She has yet to WIN a primary.

i think he is a good choice, but i dont think he can win general election, i hope he can, but i dont think he can.

Let's put it this way. South Carolina has been one of the most republican states in the past 30 years.. they've voted for the Republican in the general election almost every time.

Obama alone received more votes in the primary than McCain and Huckabee (1 and 2 for the republicans, respectively) received combined. This was the first time in at least 25 years that the number of Democrats who voted in primaries outnumbered the Republicans, and they did by a huge amount.

atszyman

Jan 28, 2008, 01:11 PM

Perhaps the shrillness of the rhetoric in the 1990s had more to do with the Republicans than with Clinton? And perhaps there is no reason to believe that Republican demagogues would be any more reasonable or fair in the face of an Obama presidency than they would be in the face of a Clinton presidency?

There isn't any reason to believe that one side will stop bashing the other, but for the past 16 years or so, the GOP has made attacking the Clintons into an artform. At least with Obama they'd have to start over, and wouldn't be able to play off of many people's dislike of the Clintons.

Sure Clinton might win the election but many democrats and independents will be voting for her purely to keep the GOP out of office and will be susceptible to the spin almost immediately, where Obama polls much better among independents and will not have as much entrenched dislike for the conservative pundits to exploit.

QCassidy352

Jan 28, 2008, 01:39 PM

Do you all really believe that Obama is going to "change Washington," much less the country? Because I sure don't. That's not to say I think he'd do a bad job, but let's get real here. No matter how he or she starts out, any candidate elected from either major party is going to end up a compromising, disappointing, Washington insider (if he or she isn't already) because let's face it - that's pretty much the job description.

To paraphrase Dave Barry: Washington was built on a swamp so infested with malaria-carrying mosquitoes that the British Foreign Office in the 19th century counted it a hardship posting - and not much has changed since.

(and just for the hell of it, another Dave Barry quote:
"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.")

leekohler

Jan 28, 2008, 01:50 PM

atszyman

Jan 28, 2008, 02:18 PM

Do you all really believe that Obama is going to "change Washington," much less the country? Because I sure don't. That's not to say I think he'd do a bad job, but let's get real here. No matter how he or she starts out, any candidate elected from either major party is going to end up a compromising, disappointing, Washington insider (if he or she isn't already) because let's face it - that's pretty much the job description.

I don't necessarily thing that he will change much. However given how much better he polls among independents and republicans, he offers a much better chance of an overwhelming victory and being able to push for more working together within the government rather than the partisan bickering and outright rejection of ideas, simply because it was proposed by the other side.

I think of all the candidates, Obama and McCain have the best chance of actually managing to work with the opposition rather than simply attacking and blaming them. Which would be a welcome change all by itself.

themadchemist

Jan 28, 2008, 02:22 PM

Krugman jumps clear over the main point, which isn't about running the government but about the election. The point is, the prospect of another Clinton in the White House would have a huge galvanizing effect on the large number of Republican stalwarts who hate both of them to the very core of their beings. They've having a tough time coalescing behind any of their candidates, but you can be sure a Clinton would change all of that. Their guns are primed and loaded for Clinton fighting.

But if anyone knows how to emerge from the Republican gunners triumphant, it's the Clinton family.

stevento

Jan 28, 2008, 02:27 PM

if edwards dropped out of the race and endorsed obama that'd be a slap in the face to everyone who gave money to his campaign and rallied for him.

Well another reason is that he does not have a lot of experience like Hillary plus,the time away from the senate campaning

right. just one year in the senate and he was off. its like he just did it as a step up to the white house.

But if anyone knows how to emerge from the Republican gunners triumphant, it's the Clinton family.

exactly. the clinton machine is not a joke. none of them stand a chance.
and if you listen to republican debates all they talk about his hillary hillary hillary.
because they're afraid.

walangij

Jan 28, 2008, 02:40 PM

exactly. the clinton machine is not a joke. none of them stand a chance.
and if you listen to republican debates all they talk about his hillary hillary hillary.
because they're afraid.

Umm, I don't think the GOP candidates are afraid when they talk about Hillary. Sure, they're trying to rally the GOP base by scaring them about a possible Clinton in the White House again, but it certainly is not because they are afraid of her. If anything, they want her to be the nomination because that alone would rally much of the GOP.

faintember

Jan 28, 2008, 02:53 PM

if edwards dropped out of the race and endorsed obama that'd be a slap in the face to everyone who gave money to his campaign and rallied for him. Would you feel different if he endorsed Hillary?
and if you listen to republican debates all they talk about his hillary hillary hillary.
because they're afraid.Obviously republicans are afraid of Hillary, I mean, they would never discuss her in debates because they disagree with her policy. The only think about Hillary that republicans should be "afraid" of is some of her more unfortunate pictures (http://www.kagedwolf.com/sites/kagedwolf/cache/580_HillaryScary.jpg).

atszyman

Jan 28, 2008, 02:57 PM

if edwards dropped out of the race and endorsed obama that'd be a slap in the face to everyone who gave money to his campaign and rallied for him.

How would it be a slap in the face? Was it a slap when Kucinich, Richardson, Thompson, etc dropped out of the primaries? At some point you have to realize that there is almost no chance of winning. If he doesn't have strong feelings either way about who gets the nomination (other than himself of course) then staying in is not a problem. However if he really does not want one of the two frontrunners to be the nominee, now is the time to drop out and endorse his preferred candidate, or risk the nominee being his non-preferred candidate. Right now he's siphoning off votes that would either go to Hillary or Obama, it may be a 50/50 split, but more than likely it is not. He's actively hurting one of them, and by dropping out and endorsing could really influence who the nominee ends up being.

elcid

Jan 28, 2008, 03:00 PM

You can't govern if you don't get elected.

Obama has a very good chance. Anyone who can truly energize youth will win. Thats the problems with primaries is people vote who they like, which is someone that is very left/right then they have to take that and woo independents in the general.

When I look at a candidate I choose someone who I can support but also have the realization that they could actually win not just nomination but also the general elections. I know a lot of staunch Dems that would vote for a third party if it is between Hilary and a Republican. You either love her or hate her, and thats not really how you win generals.

Obama can win the nomination and he has the best shot of winning the generals. There is a curse of running for president after being a senator, and I think that Hilary has burned too many bridges in order to get a lot of independent/republican help.

Also the more and more Bill is in the news the more I start wondering how a Hilary presidency will go.

clevin

Jan 28, 2008, 03:07 PM

lets just be realistic here, Up to now, Omaba experienced no serious negative attacks. And who think GOP will NOT be negative down the road?

His image of "above partisan politics" can only hold up when he speaks ideas w/o much substance. and who think it will work against massive fact distortion attacks from GOP down the road?

People like to say they don't like negative ads, but they sure are susceptible to it.

And racism. Not much, they can probably affect 2~5% of the votes, and who can say thats NOT enough to alter the general election results?

Obama is more to the left than Hillary, and who think GOP will hate Hillary, while love Obama?

I just don't see Obama holding up his "inspire" image in those GOP attacks.

I like his ideas, but really, Im not even sure what he can do at all if he were to be elected.

What did JFK do? Not very much.

QCassidy352

Jan 28, 2008, 04:09 PM

Where do you get the impression that we all think he's going to change things?

"Hope," "breath of fresh air," blah blah blah. "Obama as change" seems to be a major theme of his campaign both implicit and explicit. And I just don't buy it. He'd be fine... much better than Bush, not nearly as good as his diehard supporters think he'll be... same as Hillary. As between the two of them, I say "meh."

I also agree with what Clevin says. Obama is way left of the general public. The republicans have thus far focused their attacks on Hillary because a) she's easy to hate, and b) they have experience hating her. I think Obama will be an absolute lightning rod if he's the candidate. (And that's not necessary a reason not to vote for him, because Hillary would be too. I just don't think he has any advantage over Hilary in that regard.)

Naimfan

Jan 28, 2008, 04:14 PM

[Le]ts just be realistic here . . .

What did JFK do?

From a political legacy perspective, JFK did the best thing possible by getting shot, as he has largely avoided responsibility for Vietnam and his domestic policies were going nowhere.

stevento

Jan 28, 2008, 04:19 PM

if i gave money to a candidate and he endorse someone else, i'd never support him/her again.

edwards has tens of millions of dollars and 26 delegates (with about 1900 left to go) he's in it for the long haul.

leekohler

Jan 28, 2008, 06:19 PM

"Hope," "breath of fresh air," blah blah blah. "Obama as change" seems to be a major theme of his campaign both implicit and explicit. And I just don't buy it. He'd be fine... much better than Bush, not nearly as good as his diehard supporters think he'll be... same as Hillary. As between the two of them, I say "meh."

I also agree with what Clevin says. Obama is way left of the general public. The republicans have thus far focused their attacks on Hillary because a) she's easy to hate, and b) they have experience hating her. I think Obama will be an absolute lightning rod if he's the candidate. (And that's not necessary a reason not to vote for him, because Hillary would be too. I just don't think he has any advantage over Hilary in that regard.)

Obama's hardly way left of the general public. He and Hillary are about the same on social issues- even health care. I don't know where people get this stuff.

That said- Hillary is not going to get elected President. It's never going to happen. Not when so many people in her own party don't like her. You'll also get independents voting green and such rather than vote for her. Too many of us don't want the same old, same old. And believe me, she's more of the same-just in a different package.

yg17

Jan 28, 2008, 07:10 PM

Obama's hardly way left of the general public. He and Hillary are about the same on social issues- even health care. I don't know where people get this stuff.

That said- Hillary is not going to get elected President. It's never going to happen. Not when so many people in her own party don't like her. You'll also get independents voting green and such rather than vote for her. Too many of us don't want the same old, same old. And believe me, she's more of the same-just in a different package.

If you don't mind me asking, if Hillary won the primary, would you vote for her? Because she's still 10 times better than any of the republicans.

zioxide

Jan 28, 2008, 07:21 PM

Obama is more to the left than Hillary, and who think GOP will hate Hillary, while love Obama?

Obama has this weird ability to bring some Republicans and tons of independents to vote for him. If you look at his numbers from the 2004 Illinois senate election, he got a bunch of Republicans and almost all of the independent support along with the democrats.

just one year in the senate and he was off. its like he just did it as a step up to the white house

You're just as bad as Hillary. You continue to ignore my questions and just insist on attacking Obama.

What qualifies Hillary to be President more than Obama?

And don't say it's because she's been in the senate for 7 years, because Obama has held elected office for longer.

Macky-Mac

Jan 28, 2008, 08:13 PM

.....And racism. Not much, they can probably affect 2~5% of the votes, and who can say thats NOT enough to alter the general election results?.....

Certainly racism will effect some votes.....but then there are people who wont vote for a woman, or a morman, or a candidate they consider to be too old. It seems like all of the leading candidates are facing some sort of prejudice

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 28, 2008, 08:21 PM

From a political legacy perspective, JFK did the best thing possible by getting shot, as he has largely avoided responsibility for Vietnam and his domestic policies were going nowhere.Not to mention his bay of pigs fiasco, always thought he was over rated but he did get USSR missiles out of Cuba.

OBAMA the right choice? a random draw from the phone book would do us better then what we had the past 8yrs of Bush. Im thrilled with any non republican.

leekohler

Jan 29, 2008, 08:11 AM

If you don't mind me asking, if Hillary won the primary, would you vote for her? Because she's still 10 times better than any of the republicans.

I might have to, but I certainly don't want to. I would have to see how I felt about it if it actually happened. I could very possibly vote independent for the first time in my life. It may take the Dems losing when they should easily win to get them to stand for something again.

hulugu

Jan 29, 2008, 10:34 AM

"Hope," "breath of fresh air," blah blah blah. "Obama as change" seems to be a major theme of his campaign both implicit and explicit. And I just don't buy it. He'd be fine... much better than Bush, not nearly as good as his diehard supporters think he'll be... same as Hillary. As between the two of them, I say "meh."

I also agree with what Clevin says. Obama is way left of the general public. The republicans have thus far focused their attacks on Hillary because a) she's easy to hate, and b) they have experience hating her. I think Obama will be an absolute lightning rod if he's the candidate. (And that's not necessary a reason not to vote for him, because Hillary would be too. I just don't think he has any advantage over Hilary in that regard.)

I don't see how Obama is "way left" of the general public. What this even means, beyond the general platitude of right versus left, I have no idea. Of course, I'm throughly convinced that the best Republican lie of the last decade has been that they're near the center of American politics.

Frankly, you could put Abe Lincoln in the Democratic nomination and he'd be a lightning rod for the Republican party. There's a vested interest in electrocuting anyone who is working against the party's current odious positions.

Democratic voters shouldn't consider their candidate based on what the Republican attack machine is going to do, that dog is going to bite anyone that has the unfortunate lucky of getting near him. Rather, we should be voting for the best candidate we can.

themadchemist

Jan 29, 2008, 01:09 PM

Not to mention his bay of pigs fiasco, always thought he was over rated but he did get USSR missiles out of Cuba.

But that was kind of handed to him, no?

IJ Reilly

Jan 29, 2008, 01:22 PM

But that was kind of handed to him, no?

If you mean the Bay of Pigs invasion, then yes, it was planned by the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy could have canceled it, but he was keen on maintaining his anti-communism credentials. You can certainly argue that Kennedy didn't consistently exercise the best judgment as president, but I don't think anyone can easily argue that the mood of the nation wasn't altered for the better by the very fact of his election.

solvs

Jan 30, 2008, 12:43 AM

what if he turns out to be an incompetent president?
He couldn't be worse than the current guy, and as long as he isn't an absolute disaster, he probably won't hurt. They already hate Bill and Hill, don't know if that's a good thing or a bad. But what if he isn't? Good for the Dems. If he is, they deserve to lose just as the GOP does right now.

he would be a HUGE improvement on the person currently in the White House.
Bingo. Don't like Hillary, for legit reasons I've stated ad naseum, and can again if needed. Obama's got his problems too. Edwards too for that matter. But I'd sooner vote for any of them than the GOP at this point. Our standards are so low, they don't have to do much to be better by comparison. And let's face it, the far righties are going to hate him even if either of them do a good job anyway. You can't work with people like that. I just hope Obama realizes that and Hillary stops trying to be Republican-lite. One of the reasons I have to laugh when they're called "far left", when anyone who knows anything about either of them knows that's not the case.

themadchemist

Jan 30, 2008, 08:14 AM

exactly. the clinton machine is not a joke. none of them stand a chance.

Just a word of advice. Referring to it as "the Clinton machine," is not helping your cause with anyone. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not sloths, breakfast cereals, or fruit bats.

QCassidy352

Jan 30, 2008, 10:50 AM

That said- Hillary is not going to get elected President. It's never going to happen. Not when so many people in her own party don't like her. You'll also get independents voting green and such rather than vote for her. Too many of us don't want the same old, same old. And believe me, she's more of the same-just in a different package.

If by "same old" you mean a return to the Clinton years, then sign me up.

I disagree that she's unelectable. She polls even or favorably against the only republicans with a shot.

What qualifies Hillary to be President more than Obama?

And don't say it's because she's been in the senate for 7 years, because Obama has held elected office for longer.

Holding a seat in the state legislature means about zero when it comes to qualifications for the chief federal executive. Hilary was not a typical first lady - she was actively involved in making policy. She's a Washington insider in a way that Obama is not. Maybe that's a point for her and maybe it's a point against her, but you're kidding yourself if you think Obama has the same experience.

I don't see how Obama is "way left" of the general public. What this even means, beyond the general platitude of right versus left, I have no idea. Of course, I'm throughly convinced that the best Republican lie of the last decade has been that they're near the center of American politics.

Your absolutely right about the republicans on that point. But that doesn't make Obama in the center either. Most Americans are fairly moderate, whether they ultimately vote dem or rep. But those moderates are less politically active than the far left and far right bases, so those bases control the parties, and consequently, we haven't seen anything like a moderate president in a long time. Probably the most centrist candidate left standing is McCain, and for that reason, I think he has a pretty good chance in the general election, if he makes it there. Neither base cares for him very much, but moderates in both parties see him as pretty reasonable on most issues.

What I mean when I say that Obama is left of the general public is that his policies regarding the economy, social welfare, etc. are more liberal than either the mean or the median of American attitudes. Just look at his support from young voters, who are famously (notoriously?) the most liberal voting block in the electorate.

Democratic voters shouldn't consider their candidate based on what the Republican attack machine is going to do, that dog is going to bite anyone that has the unfortunate lucky of getting near him. Rather, we should be voting for the best candidate we can.

Exactly what I was saying.

themadchemist

Jan 30, 2008, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=QCassidy352;4859747
Probably the most centrist candidate left standing is McCain

[/QUOTE]

Noooo way. McCain has done a great job of making himself look centrist, but he's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Come on--look at his foreign policy. It is a complete embrace of the Bush Doctrine, regardless of the specifics of how he would wage this battle or that. He, like the other Republicans, is also a fan of the Bush tax cuts, and would make them permanent. And his position in social programs is no better; I hazard to say he would harm them significantly. Now that he's also pandering to the fundies, he's got that strike against him. The handful of issues on which he crosses the aisle do not cancel out the vast support he has for the real core issues of the Republican Party. The rest is window-dressing.

Obama, if you ask me, is at least as much a centrist as McCain, if not more of one.

But, as I've said before, I don't think it is some great triumph of politics and integrity to be a centrist. I think the run to the middle is often also a run to the mediocre. Of course, in a perfect world, I'd have the entire spectrum shift to the left, much the way the great Backlash has shifted the entire spectrum to the right in recent decades. But if that's not possible, then I'd like to see the Democrats act more progressive. And the Republicans can continue on their destructive course, too, and we'll see whose policies make the most sense.

QCassidy352

Jan 30, 2008, 11:19 AM

The handful of issues on which he crosses the aisle do not cancel out the vast support he has for the real core issues of the Republican Party.

I don't think the social/religious base of the Republican party would agree with you on that. McCain has no real belief in or enthusiasm for any of the social issues that motivate the base to go out and vote.

I agree that being a centrist is not necessarily a good thing. The only candidate I really like is Ron Paul, and nobody could ever accuse him of representing anything like mainstream America. That said, history shows that America will tolerate one party dominating government - but only for a while. Both houses, and the presidency, shift back and forth enough to support the thesis that basically, America as a whole is somewhere in the middle.

IJ Reilly

Jan 30, 2008, 11:49 AM

Holding a seat in the state legislature means about zero when it comes to qualifications for the chief federal executive. Hilary was not a typical first lady - she was actively involved in making policy. She's a Washington insider in a way that Obama is not. Maybe that's a point for her and maybe it's a point against her, but you're kidding yourself if you think Obama has the same experience.

No two people have the "same experience." I didn't think this election would descend into nonsense babble quite so quickly.

hulugu

Jan 30, 2008, 12:24 PM

No two people have the "same experience." I didn't think this election would descend into nonsense babble quite so quickly.

I know it's hackneyed but....

are you new? :D

QCassidy352

Jan 30, 2008, 12:33 PM

No two people have the "same experience." I didn't think this election would descend into nonsense babble quite so quickly.

I'm assuming that you're deliberately missing my meaning and you don't really need me to spell out my exact meaning of the phrase "same experience." But in case that's wrong:

When I say "they don't have the same experience" I don't mean the self evident statement that "no two people have exactly the same experience because no two people are identical." I mean that Hilary has substantially more experience with high-level Washington politics based on her longer tenure in the senate and her 8 years as a powerful first lady. (again, that's not to say that being a Washington insider is a good thing, but as between the two, she clearly is one, more so than Obama)

I remember now why I stopped frequenting this sub-forum. :rolleyes:

zioxide

Jan 30, 2008, 01:06 PM

She's a Washington insider in a way that Obama is not.

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I don't like her. We need to get rid of this old way of running Washington. Move on to something new.

I also don't like having people from the same two families for over 30 years (Bush VP 81-89, Bush 89-93, Clinton 93-2001, Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 2009-2017)

Naimfan

Jan 30, 2008, 01:10 PM

I know it's hackneyed but....

are you new? :D

Hmmmm......Let's see, IJ joined in 2002, and you joined in 2003..... ;)

IJ Reilly

Jan 30, 2008, 01:20 PM

I'm assuming that you're deliberately missing my meaning and you don't really need me to spell out my exact meaning of the phrase "same experience." But in case that's wrong:

I'm not missing your meaning, just pointing out how little real meaning there is in terms like "experience." Nobody can say with authority what kind or level of experience makes for an effective presidency. It's a fundamentally empty term, like "change." These terms may hit pay-dirt at an emotional level, but when you actually take the time to dissect them, you'll find they mean virtually nothing at an intellectual or even practical level. To say you support any candidate because they better represent "change" or because they have "more experience" is to say your decision isn't based on very much.

killerrobot

Jan 30, 2008, 01:35 PM

Well, in stevento's defense, I wish Obama would talk about that stuff more, and not just hope hope hope change change change all the time. I'm sure he's playing it safe, but his speeches sure seem geared to get people to respond to him on an emotional, not intellectual, level.

Nothing against him, and obviously it's working for him. I just wish in his speeches he'd give us a little less sizzle and a little more steak.

Maybe its the fact that we've been blessed these last 7 years with such a great speaker for president that I say this, but Obama really moves people with his oratory. While it doesn't always go into depth of what he's going to do (I think that's more for debates anyways), he inspires people, and hate to say it, it does give a glimmer of "hope" that there will be change if he's president.

I think Obama will inspire more people to vote and look into the issues further than any other candidate will/has, and whether they vote for him or not, more people actually getting out and voting is an extremely positive thing.

EDIT:
About the experience issue, I guess George Washington was a piss poor president since he had no experience. This is the worst argument in the world because experience means nothing in politics.
Also, I would be very scared if it turns out to be McCain vs Hillary for president, because in all honesty, I think McCain has a greater chance of winning even though he's a scary republican.

Eric Piercey

Jan 30, 2008, 02:39 PM

No, Al Gore is the right choice, but Obama's the best we're gonna do.

Concur, except I'd change "do" to "get" since its chosen for us.

CalBoy

Jan 30, 2008, 02:48 PM

I also don't like having people from the same two families for over 30 years (Bush VP 81-89, Bush 89-93, Clinton 93-2001, Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 2009-2017)

That's pretty bad reasoning and is quite blatantly a genetic fallacy.

You can't judge the job someone is going to do simply because others in their family have done it before.

zioxide

Jan 30, 2008, 03:15 PM

That's pretty bad reasoning and is quite blatantly a genetic fallacy.

You can't judge the job someone is going to do simply because others in their family have done it before.

I'm not judging the job that she would do because of that fact. I just don't like the idea of two families being in power for 36 years.

The country is supposed to be a democratic republic. It just seems like it goes against these principals to have these two families in power for so long.

faintember

Jan 30, 2008, 03:32 PM

The country is supposed to be a democratic republic. It just seems like it goes against these principals to have these two families in power for so long.I totally agree. To me, it is bad enough that America only has two flavors to choose in regards to presidential nominees, much less the fact that two families have ran the country for such a long time period (which would only be extended via Hillary).

yojitani

Jan 30, 2008, 03:35 PM

I am pretty indifferent to whole election circus we celebrate here every 4 years, BUT it is clear to me that a republican is much more likely to continue promoting violent imbalance around the world. For that reason, I do hope the democrats nominate someone electable. I do not think Hillary Clinton is electable, however, not because of any of her policies, but because she is too widely disliked outside of registered dems. Face it, people who vote in the US don't often make a political decision, they make an emotional decision that becomes political. Unfortunately, Hillary excites too many negative emotions...

themadchemist

Jan 30, 2008, 05:54 PM

Concur, except I'd change "do" to "get" since its chosen for us.

Point taken. It's nice to construct a reality around myself that confers upon me more agency than I actually have...But constructed realities were so 2001-2009. :p I better get ready for a presidency that might *shudder* deal with real realities.

CalBoy

Jan 30, 2008, 10:45 PM

I'm not judging the job that she would do because of that fact. I just don't like the idea of two families being in power for 36 years.

Right, but it's still a genetic fallacy. You can say that Clinton doesn't have experience, is a divisive candidate, has no charisma, etc, and those would all be valid reasons not to vote for her.

To say that you wouldn't vote for her just because she happens to be a Clinton is logically lacking. There's no principle of democracy or republican government being broken by her running (or winning).

harcosparky

Jan 30, 2008, 10:57 PM

Our state ( Maryland ) Primary is coming up soon .... and for the first time in DECADES they are gonna watch what we do. The reason is simple.

Our Governor Martin O"Malley has come out supporting Hillary Clinton.

The Mayor of the lagest city, Baltimore, has come out supporting Obama.

Racial demographics will play a part.

Mayor is African-American - Baltimore City is African American majority.

Governor is Caucasion

Interestingly enough it was the African-American vote that got the Governor elected. I hate to say people will vote according to race, but in Maryland it seems to play out that way.

For the first time in recent history the Democrats will be fighting over Maryland.

Now on to the question " Is Obama the right choice? "

I am not a registered Democrat, and I am not African-American.

That being said, if I was a Democrat voting in the Primary I would vote for Obama.

Why?

1) I do not believe Hillary Clinton is qualified on many fronts.

2) Our Governor supports Hillary Clinton

You all might want to know, in Maryland Governor O'Malley is the most hated Governor I have known. In a recent public event while he was speaking he was BOOED so severely he could not be heard.

Keep in mind he was just elected Governor in 2006.

Too many people who voted for him are now walking around, their heads lowered in shame.

Of course I would vote for Obama regardless.

Hillary just isn't worthy of my trust.

WARNING: O'Malley have been very very friendly with Hillary lately - it is widely known here he has his eyes on Washington DC - like he wants to be Hillary's VP

obeygiant

Jan 30, 2008, 11:52 PM

change does not happen because you hope for it or because you believe in it

it happens because you work hard and that's what hillary has been doing for 35 years

obama talks about hope but that's all he's got it seems like

Obama has a lot more than just hope. If you only listen to his public speeches I can see why someone would think that. When he talks to crowds of voters he's not talking specifics, he's only covering vision. On his website, he has some fairly specific ideas (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) about how to bring about that change.

He covers some more specific ideas about the economy here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/).

If there is one constant in the universe its balance. The pendulum has swung right for the past eight years and its going to swing left. Also the next president represents you and me to the rest of the world. With Hillary, I don't feel like she's a good representation of what I think America is. For me it started at the last state of the union. She was gazing into space with a blank look, unengaged. Obama was following the speech clearly thinking and engaged. This year's address was strikingly similar, she just wasn't there. Of course she was just humiliated by Sen. Kennedy with the endorsement. All in all, to me, she's not leading, she's just another divisive figure.

I don't agree with every position Obama has but I'm willing to overlook that in return for a sincere, intelligent, forward looking president. The changes he wants won't happen instantly, but on certain issues thats what I'm counting on. Gotta love that system of checks and balances. :)

walangij

Jan 31, 2008, 12:19 AM

Obama has a lot more than just hope. If you only listen to his public speeches I can see why someone would think that. When he talks to crowds of voters he's not talking specifics, he's only covering vision. On his website, he has some fairly specific ideas (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) about how to bring about that change.

He covers some more specific ideas about the economy here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/).

I don't think OP actually looks at these links but just listens to the 30 second media clips on the news with Obama talking about Hope, change, ect.

I'm much more confident in Obama not only because of his rhetoric or idealism, but because of his advisers which do have experience, and its interesting to see that many who were former Clinton advisers are helping Obama:

Obama's policy team

Foreign policy/national security

Anthony Lake - Bill Clinton's national security adviser.

Susan Rice - Clinton assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

Samantha Power -Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor, Pulitzer Prize-winner author of book arguing for more vigorous U.S. action to counter genocidal campaigns.

Gregory Craig - Clinton impeachment defense attorney and director of policy planning for Clinton State Department.

Richard Danzig - Clinton Navy secretary, has written on potential dangers of terrorist biological weapons attacks.

Former Maj. Gen. Scott Gration - Retired Air Force officer, former director of strategy for U.S. European Command, military officer assigned to accompany Obama on senator's Africa trip.

Former Gen. Merrill McPeak - Retired former chief of staff of the Air Force.

Domestic policy

Austan Goolsbee - University of Chicago Graduate School of Business professor, economist. Has argued that taxpayers with simple finances should be allowed to forgo tax returns and leave tax computation to IRS.

Michael Froman - Citigroup executive, former chief of staff to then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (under Clinton).

David Cutler - Health economist, Harvard professor and member of Clinton White House Council of Economic Advisers. Advocate of tying health-care provider reimbursements to medical performance.

David Blumenthal - Director, Institute for Health Policy, Harvard Medical School.

Jeffrey Liebman - Economist, Harvard professor and member of Clinton White House Council of Economic Advisers. Research has focused on role of earned income tax credit in moving people from welfare to work.

Dan Tarullo - International trade expert, Georgetown law professor and former Bill Clinton economic adviser.

Eric Holder - Clinton deputy attorney general.

Cass Sunstein - University of Chicago law professor.

Laurence Tribe - Harvard law professor.

Cassandra Butts - Senior policy adviser to House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt.

Staff

Mark Alexander , campaign policy director - Seton Hall law professor, issues director for Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign.

Heather Higginbottom, campaign senior policy strategist - Deputy national policy director for John Kerry 2004 campaign, Senate legislative director for John Kerry.

Karen Kornbluh, Senate policy director - Deputy chief of staff to then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, has written of need to update social insurance system to accommodate dual-income "juggler families".

(descriptions taken from Chicago tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story?page=1))

atszyman

Jan 31, 2008, 04:05 PM

I'm actually a republican, so Romney is my guy. But if McCain get's the nomination, i'd hope Obama gets the democratic nomination so I can just vote for Obama.

If it's a McCain vs Hillary race, i'm not voting.

I don't agree with every position Obama has but I'm willing to overlook that in return for a sincere, intelligent, forward looking president. The changes he wants won't happen instantly, but on certain issues thats what I'm counting on. Gotta love that system of checks and balances. :)

Two examples of why I think Obama is more electable than Hillary. Two admitted conservatives from this board who would actually consider voting for Obama. How many can you find who would do the same for Hillary?

The fact that some conservatives and a lot of independents are more intrigued by Obama than Hillary will make the GOP attacks that much less effective. People might actually look into the attacks to find the truth which they might not be as inspired to do with Hillary.

zioxide

Jan 31, 2008, 05:21 PM

Obama raised $32 million just for the month of January!

He's also trying to reach 250,000 individual donors for the month of January.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/decpromise?match_campaign_id=5&match_is_pledge=1

Cleverboy

Jan 31, 2008, 08:46 PM

Obama just got the endorsement of the Massachusetts Coalition of Independant voters. They had a quote that pretty much sizes up his difference and why he's got my support.
"We are independents because we are interested in creating something new from the bottom up and want to do away with partisanship of party politics as usual" stated Diane Whitehouse, Chair of COIV. “That is why we independents feel so close to the ideas and vision expressed by Barack Obama. He is a change agent who understands that real change, real transformation comes from the people, not the politicians.”Hillary wants to get in the White House so that she can "lead". Remember her statement, "It takes a president"? The more saavy wouldn't be wrong for recognizing her bias towards "big government" and ego-politics. As a community organizer Obama encourages everyone to get involved and help from the bottom, so that he can effectively work from the top. That's the collaboration that Lydon Johnson would have readily acknowledged in passing huge changes like the Civil Rights Act.

Hillary envisions herself as the absolute personification of her constituency. Obama envisions himself as an agent of the people (as Edwards did). You'll hear Hillary say something like, "let me be your voice". Meanwhile Obama will spout comments like, "this election isn't about me, its about you." It's why Hillary wouldn't be able to pass universal healthcare. Meanwhile, Obama focuses on making politicians more accountable with campaign reform and transparency acts. Who's voting record is displayed on their senate websites? Obama? Yes. Hillary? No. It's not important for her to inform you, you'll find out elsewhere right? Hugely important and diametrically opposite views on politics.

In a preference poll conducted by COIV among independents last summer, Barack Obama received support of 46.2% of respondents, the highest percentage among the 8 candidates then running. With the primary season underway, Obama has bested Clinton by double-digits among independents in the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. In South Carolina, 23% of Democratic primary voters were independents and Obama won 42% of their vote, almost twice the number received by Clinton. I'm a registered Independent, and I think COIV makes a lot of sense with its endorsement.

~ CB

Hawkeye411

Jan 31, 2008, 08:50 PM

It's either the unknown black guy or Clinton's wife.. You decide.

Makes my even more glad that I'm not American!!!
.
.

:):apple:

zioxide

Jan 31, 2008, 10:18 PM

ya Obama just hit 250,000 donors for the month of January.

Naimfan

Jan 31, 2008, 10:20 PM

And now 250,001!

yojitani

Jan 31, 2008, 10:31 PM

It's either the unknown black guy or Clinton's wife.. You decide.

Makes my even more glad that I'm not American!!!

What in the world is that supposed to mean? I'm asking because my understanding of what you are saying here isn't very generous. So please, clarify.

-----

I'm just wondering, do you all find the CNN coverage of the debate tonight to be unbearably biased against Obama? It's not just about time allotment, but also for example, the topic of discussion is always Hillary first, then Obama - then the inane talk about the 'Clinton / Obama ' ticket... What's going on? Obama raised the money, but Clintons have Ted Turner in their pocket?

halfprep455

Jan 31, 2008, 11:21 PM

CalBoy

Jan 31, 2008, 11:28 PM

I live in Maryland too and I am finally glad to see that our primary will actually count for once!

If you think that's bad, think about California. ;)

Most delegates in the nation and this is the first election in years where we actually matter. :rolleyes:

And I need to watch that debate; I was on the train when they were being broadcast live. :(

IJ Reilly

Feb 3, 2008, 01:52 AM

toaster_oven

Feb 3, 2008, 11:11 AM

If Hillary wins, she will energize the republican base to vote against her. Republicans actually like Obama (even if they don't agree with him politically), and I know many Republicans personally that would vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.

anyway - I dare you to not be moved by this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LOvWoK_8f8

walangij

Feb 3, 2008, 04:39 PM

The latest Reuters poll has Obama now leading in California by four points. Whether you trust the polls or not, this is a huge change. Only a couple of weeks ago, Clinton had a comfortable double digit lead here.

This is incredible to see, especially on RCP polls, that Obama is slowly but surely diminishing her once huge national lead.

Naimfan

Feb 3, 2008, 05:03 PM

I've said elsewhere that I support Hillary; I am now reconsidering. The line about Hillary being a transitional candidate while Obama being a transformational one (from Kerry's endorsement, IIRC) is powerful, even if a bit of an exaggeration.

I still believe either would be a huge improvement over Bush, and a substantial (at the least) improvement over any of the Republicans now running.

Cleverboy

Feb 3, 2008, 05:49 PM

For the first time I decided to go out a volunteer for a campaign. I called them up, they called me back, gave me details, and yesterday and today I found myself out on the road canvasing for the Obama campaign here in Massachusetts (in the Newton area). There is an amazing amount of enthusiasm out here for Obama. I was walking up Cypress Street near Newton center, and an older gentleman (possibly Polish or Armenian) saw me with my sticker on, and he struck up a conversation about how much he's been moved by what the campaign has had to say about a vision for America. He kept reflecting on how poorly we've shepherded the vision we have of ourselves.

Out of the list of registered/undecided Democratic and Independent voters, I only ran into a few that had straight up made up their minds to vote for Clinton. Most people were still undecided, and I was amazed at how many Obama supporters there were out there. One woman, about my age, came to the door with her kid in one arm, and she kept saying that if she could, she'd vote twice for Obama, and thanked me for donating my time. One guy was leaving the house with a buddy and I asked him if he had any questions and if he planned on turning out to vote. He kept saying there was one issue he'd had a question on... eventually his friend laughed, and said, "Dude, stop wasting this guy's time, you know you're voting for Obama!" It was a really excellent morning, and I felt more confident talking to people than I did yesterday. The amount of effort going into this election is really amazing to see in action.

I think he's definitely the RIGHT candidate. As I walked from house to house, I kept mulling over things I'd heard people say in various conversations. "Well, Obama's young, he can run again next go-round", or "Clinton can absorb the inevitable attacks better." or "I think Hillary has more experience." At the end of the day, I don't think the future is promised to us. I'm personally only interested in voting for RIGHT NOW. I think Obama holds a very unique position in politics with regards to his time in Washington, his ability to foment bipartisan agreement, and as his wife put it, his current proximity to "normal" Americans in the way he lives his day to day life (Presidential campaigning not withstanding). I think he has much less "material" for attackers to work with, and he represents someone who knows how to admit a mistake and learn from it. Everytime I hear Hillary Clinton say that she thinks she made the right choice "at the time" to authorize the war in Iraq, I gawk when I see someone buy equivocating as a legitimate answer. If you shot someone on bad information and simply said, "Hey, with the same information, I'd make the same choice today" I personally think you're a fool.

I don't want to mourn for my country anymore, under the presidency of another version of ego politics. I don't want to hear the empty words of another president who fears attack SO MUCH, that they refuse to EVER fix a mistake and come clean with the American people about a poor choice. When I listened to Hillary Clinton's "Living History" memoir, I found it insightful, but I also noticed how often she opted for solidarity over an honest reaction. How often she gave her reaction to vast right-wing conspiracies, over saying or attempting to BLUNT such attacks by addressing the American people with frankness and humility.

While the Clinton healthcare plan was negotiated in secret, Obama plans to have the details of his plan broadcast on CSPAN... the idea being, that if someone tries to shoot it down... at the VERY least, it will be in FULL public view, and such persons will make themselves known for their dissent. Given the "Transparency Act" he co-sponsored, it seems clear that these aren't just words. Given his savvy as a constitutional scholar, they aren't purely optimistic or naive words either.

I love chess. I love looking a few moves ahead, and have a good impression of where the game is going. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'm almost certain Obama would accept a vice-presidency if the position were offered. Unfortunately, with the wrong tenor of the new administration... I call "checkmate" on the Democratic Party momentum in 2 years (assaults on character and a repeat of the Clinton years in full-swing). I'll just sit there watching it play out, and hoping I'm wrong.

~ CB