Navigation |
What do we think of Obama?Honestly. I would love Obama as our president. But I do not think it will happen. I don't mean to be pessimistic but I can't help it. I'm actually kind of upset with the democratic party. If HALF the effor that had been focused on Obama was focused on Clinton early on. We would have ourselves the first female president. Now I am gonna have to go to college in Canada if(and when) McCain wins... Submitted by Becky (32 posts) on June 30, 2008 - 6:22pm. |
User login
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
|


You might as well start
You might as well start packing up.
Even if Obama wins, I really don't think there's gonna be this drastic 'change' everyone's hoping for. He's still a politician; meaning, a lot of talk, very little action.
I'd hate for people to get their hopes up only to see us in Iraq for at least four more years, gas prices ever increasing, and more people out of home and health care.
Revolutionary change has to start with us, not some politician.
gay rights
he understands the fight for equal rights, he sees it as nothing more than that- a fight for equality.
set aside the fact that he's a politician, he is not mccain. he is not a bigot, he is not an elitest (did you hear about mccain not paying taxes on his 7 homes for the last 4 years? the county of la jolla is catching up to him and his unpaid taxes on a condo, and it aired on progressive radio this morning)
the point is, mccain was in a war. woohoo. that doesnt make him qualified. obama is, not as well as we'd like, but much more so than this warhawk.
he's getting my vote, because well..he's no doubt the lesser of two evils. plus, he's not a misognyistic pig...like mcbush.
Barack me Obamadeus!
From my overseas perspective? Your last Republican president was a dangerous fucking joke.
I'm feelin' the Obamarama. In so much that I don't trust any politician, but find him to be the better of the multitude of evils American politics seems to vomit up.
I love you Ed.
Obama is always saying that
The Obamas
Obama is the lesser of two evils as far as I am concerned. I don't trust either candidate. Obama has begun to worry me a lot lately because of this 'whitey' rant tape. I think the tape probably does exist, but I hope I am wrong. For anyone who isn't aware of what I am referring to, here's a clip:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91c_1214090026
Seems unlikely that the tape was for sale on a website though. We'd have seen it by now then.
_________
The Gentleman Who Fell
I don't believe the 'whitey"
That's a Lie!
It doesn't exist. It's one of the smears circulating on the Internet that continues to be perpetuated by anti-Obama crowds. No such tape exists because the event never happened.
It's a lie...and a plagarized lie, at that. The story of a "whitey tape" comes from a book called The Power Broker by Stephen Frey. Larry Johnson, a Clinton supporter/Obama hater, made up this lie, based on that book and it became viral on the Internet. Jim Geraghty, a conservative blogger for the National Review (not exactly the bastion of liberalism), reported about the parallel to the book last month.
Frankly, Harpy, I'm terribly disappointed that you'd resort to repeating these smears, which can be easily debunked with a quick Google search. I'd expect this from some others, but not from you. I knew you were a Hillary supporter, but I never anticipated that clouding your perspective so much that you'd buy into boldface lies pushed by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. I'm sorry I misjudged you.
-----
Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down.
Richard: When the fall is all that is left, it matters a great deal.
- The Lion in Winter
I'm gonna have to cosign
I knew it wasn't true, Pec,
there's this fantastic
book called 'a people's history of the United states' It's by Howard Zinn, he's a bit of an Anarchist!
he kind puts the point of view across that the democratic party are in general the lesser of two evils. All their candidates run on the idea of real change but never actually live up to it. If you go back as far as the founding of the US. Although the constitution is a nice basis for a society and the bill of rights, the governmental system itself was only set up to have an appearance of democracy but the original parties, the wigs and republicans actually believed in the same things. This seemed to carry on in the 19th and 20th Centuries where in one case a letter was found from a republican talking about the elections saying, it doesn't matter if the democrats win, it won't make a difference to the country! apart from the FDR's presidency where there was real change in the country (although that's only my opinion) there has been no president that has really worked for the rights of the people. I fear Obama will be The Same! obviously now a US president comes with foreign policy issues aswell but many Americans seem to feel that the ecoonomy is more important than foreign policy at the moment (hence why Obama has a 4 point lead in the polls). I still worry that Obama will just get into the white house and not really do anything as most democrats have done in the past democratic presidencies. It's really annoying that the Republicans run around doing everything they want to do during their presidencies with the force of hell behind them and the democrats sitting on their arses just to make sure they win re-election. Did you know that between them, Regan and Bush snr appointed of 800 judges between their 12 years in office! all of them right wing, pro-life, anti-gay. etc!
If Obama does get in he won't have to uphold his policy of the campaign, we've seen already that he likes to go back on his word (see public vs private finance issue) and it annoys me!
However i think he's a better option to Mcain any day. We don't want another 4 years of Bush!
Also it annoys me that people like ralph Nader can't get elected just because they're not best friends with big business so can't get included, i also don't love the electoral system so much in the that way as it means on the the nominations from the two major parties have a chance!
~~~~
"laugh, laugh on at all the dreams that i the dreamer dare to weave,
laugh on, that i sitll belive in the people, for I still belive in life"
Lincoln and JFK
Parties...are just titles. The Republicans were the leaders in abolishing slavery. (Which is why the Republican candidate, Lincoln, lost every single southern state which then seceded from the Union before Lincoln could even take office.) I think that was a pretty big damn change, which ultimately ignited a civil war.
And JFK spent a mere two years in office, but that was long enough to introduce the Civil Rights Act.
But really, the most important change a President can make is the attitude of the people. When the people are optimistic that they can change things, they do. Obama is encouraging people to change things from the bottom up, unlike Bush who consistently pushes the message that only he can change things because he's the "decider".
i agree
a bout lincoln. However JFK is a different matter, he too inspired hope in a people (and i'm being blunt here so excuse me) but not because he was a great president, he hardly did anything, but because he was shot. Now LBJ he introduced a ton of really great bills and actually fufilled kennedy's new frontier (LJB's great society) i think only by riding on the wave of Greif at Kennedy's death, also he was a southern president! but he managed to screw all that up wiht the Vietnam war. Nice one....
~~~~
"laugh, laugh on at all the dreams that i the dreamer dare to weave,
laugh on, that i sitll belive in the people, for I still belive in life"
OBAMA 08
I was a Clinton supporter,
I was a Clinton supporter, but honestly, I'd much rather have ANY Democrat win.. just as long as McCain doesn't
~ I need you like a heart needs a beat ~
Vote for Hillary
Just a speaker?
Really? And yet somehow he managed to organize one of the most effective campaigns in history. Yeah, right. Just a speaker with no experience...like his life didn't exist until he started running for President. How interesting that this inexperienced speaker managed to outmaneuver and outsmart every single democratic candidate, including the Clintons. No, but we'll just forget that set of FACTS.
Another thing you seem oblivious about is the fact that former President Bill Clinton's only political experience was as Govenor of Arkansas. Back in 1992 Arkansas had a population that was only slightly more than 2 milliion. The only real experience you can get for being President is on the job. There is nothing else like it.
By the way, if you support Hillary Clinton, how do you think she'll do if you manage to put some in office who stands in opposition to all of her positions? Do you even care about any issues? Get over the cult of personality. Wake up.
Barack may be popular, but he's not more experienced.
1) Barack's popularity among young voters (exit polls prove this) does not attest to his political skills and his ability to "outmaneuver and outsmart every single democratic candidate."
2) Let's not associate Hillary with Bill--they are two very different politicians with different backgrounds and "job experience." In any case, JenMerkel made no reference to Bill Clinton and his success (or failure) as president, so why bring him up?
3) "The only real experience you can get for being President is on the job." So surely all candidates are on even ground here, all have 0 experience.
In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day.
More Experienced?
What are you talking about? Who said Obama was more experienced? What I said is that his life and experience did not begin with running for President any more than anyone else.
His ability to focus on the objective of the Democratic Party rules and go for delegates does attest to his intelligence and organizational skills. He did not just do well among young voters to win delegates. He could not have won if only the youth had voted for him. So I'll repeat it if it has not sunk in, he won the Democratic Nomination. That is not up for debate. It's a done deal.
Oh yes let's associate Hillary with Bill. Bill Clinton number one is a former President and Hillary's husband. She brought him into her campaign, so you can't undo or ignore any of those things. Also one of Hillary's claims was that part of her important experiences was being First Lady. Well she certainly could not have been First Lady without Bill. The point of bringing up Bill Clinton's previous experience before becoming President of the United States was to illustrate how stupid one of the critiques on Obama is regarding experience.
As to the last that was exactly my point. Thank you.
au contraire...
Your sarcasm in stating that he's "just a speaker with no experience...like his life didn't exist until he started running for President" does seem to suggest the contrary.
I wasn't debating the legitimacy of his nomination, just commenting on your reply to the previous poster.
The point of her bringing Bill Clinton into her campaign is as a fellow politician who is giving her his undivided support. Nobody is going around looking at the political history of Barack's supporters and attributing it to his personal political experience, which would be outrageous. Why burden Hillary with that injustice? It's her presidential campaign, not her supporters'.
If I were to agree with your theory that only previous presidential experience accounts for any real experience, then yes, both Obama and McCain would be equal in that aspect. Let me use an analogy here (as much as I hate them): being promoted to, say, director of... public relations? in a company would be based on your success in your previous position in the company. So wouldn't you agree that one who worked for 30 years in said company at, let's say, any administrative job (successfully) would have more job experience to be considered for the director job than one who's done the same job for half that time and abstained from making any important decisions (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here)?
In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day.
Experience
I'll try to break it down a little further. Over the course of the campaign much ado has been made about Obama's supposed lack of experience, the orginal posting included. Obama had a multitude of experiences in both the public and private spheres before coming to Washington. Here's a comparison. I live in New York, and I voted for Hillary Clinton twice for the senate in NY. For her first run Hillary Clinton had no previous experience in political office, also she was not a New Yorker. There were many complaints about her because of those two things. If I was going to use your reasoning not only would I, but none of the New Yorkers who voted for her for the senate could have done so. We overlooked the experience part because we felt she had something to offer at that time that her Republican opponent did not.
On an even more personal level I have worked in both civil service and the private sector. I have seen individuals with long years of experience in a specific job or field. That experience does not necessarily translate into good judgment and intelligent decision making. What many high achieving corporations have come to realize is that while you can train people for skills, you cannot train them for attitude. Therefore, the high achieving well-run organizations will hire individuals for attitude and develop their staff. The company I work for has seen its experienced employees make both good and bad candidates for positions of higher authority. Experience did not make an individual the best leader. Effectiveness did. McCain has not in the past done anything positive with regards to the issues I care about. He has sided with the Bush administration more often than not. In particular, when it comes to LGBT issues McCain is not my guy, and he is no friend to the LGBT community.
Using Bill Clinton as an example of having little broad or national political experience was perfectly legitimate. If you are going to bring up experience in a posting as the orginal poster did, than Bill Clinton was fair game.
I definetly agree that he
I definetly agree that he is still a politician meaning taking money for favors from lobbyists and that sorta thing, However, the American people can use a little hope right now with gas prices,mortgage crisis, and the whole economy going down the toilet despite how arrogant and naive our current president from hell might think otherwise.Plus OBAMA is just what we need to rebuild our image with our mates all over the world. He has visited numerous countries in an effort to rebuild our relationships with our fallen allies. Just today he was in Berlin communicating the same message. So for him to loose this election, the world is still going to see us as an evil domineering power hungry and not to mention racist nation. And if Mccain wins prepare yourself for some World War 3 action.
Well as a Canadian I'm not
Well as a Canadian I'm not fond of Obama's stance on NAFTA. The recession the US is faced with (and therefore Canada by association) is bad news for trade, which only stands to reason that free trade is a legitimate method to avoid further complications. Economically speaking, McCain has a much stronger vision for the future of the US (tax cuts, support of NAFTA, etc.) and it's not all a bunch of hot air for the sake of saying something monumental.
However, Obama is a strong social liberal so he's found a place in my heart. He seems like a genuinely good-natured man. Now, the relevance of his character in regards to the presidency is disputable.
In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day.
Economic Policies
In brief Obama certainly does have an economic plan. Here's a short list: provide middle class Americans with tax relief (emphasis on the middle class, not the rich), job creation, support small businesses, protect home ownership and crack down on mortgage fraud, address predatory credit card practices, reform bankruptcy laws.
One thing on NAFTA. Obama is not against free trade. He is against policies that he thinks would harm average Americans. Looking out for the interests of average Americans is the job of the President.
I don't know why so many people insist that Obama does not have plans on so many issues, when all you have to do is go to his website and briefly look.
Trade
Here's Obama on trade. www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade
Trade
Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.
Green Jobs Plan
Here's Obama on green jobs. www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade
Invest in the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs
Jobs through improving infrastructure
Here's Obama on jobs through infrastructure improvement. www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade
New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment
Barack Obama believes that it is critically important for the United States to rebuild its national transportation infrastructure – its highways, bridges, roads, ports, air, and train systems – to strengthen user safety, bolster our long-term competitiveness and ensure our economy continues to grow.
Jobs through technology...
Here's Obama on jobs and technology. www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade
Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs
Barack Obama will increase federal support for research, technology and innovation for companies and universities so that American families can lead the world in creating new advanced jobs and products.
His record on the economy
www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade
Barack Obama's Record