Is Obama the right choice?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Jan 27, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    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.
     
  3. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #3
    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.
     
  4. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    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)). 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

    He has more experience in elected office than Hillary 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
    Dreams from My Father


    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 act, which gives the people a searchable database of all government spending.

    As seen here, being the First Lady does not give you any real experience to being president.
    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.
     
  5. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #5
    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.

    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).
    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).
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    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.
     
  7. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #7
    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.
     
  8. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    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
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    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. 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.
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    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?
     
  11. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #11
    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.
     
  12. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #12
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    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.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    She voted yes "to authorize the use of force against Iraq". One of the biggest ****-ups in this country's history.

    He actually was first elected as an Illinois state senator in 1996.

    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.

    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".

    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.

    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 speech & interview. He talks a lot about what he wants to do with technology and the internet.

    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.

    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.

    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. Also, if you really want to know about his policies, get and read his book The Audacity of Hope.
     
  15. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #15
    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.
     
  16. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #16
    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.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    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.
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #18
    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.
     
  19. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    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"
     
  20. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #20
    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.")
     
  21. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #21
    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!
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    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/
     
  23. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #23
    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."
     
  24. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #24

    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?
     
  25. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page