Reply With Quote
Obama/Daley' 08
Obama/Capone'08
which one sounds less corrupt?
I see no real listings here of why he should be supported. Because his compe ion and his predecessors aren't better choices doesn't automatically equate to him being qualified for the job. Although I did enjoy Peabody's post.
One snippet I can possibly give credence to is the fact that he's new possibly uncorrupted blood but I find that to be a bit of a stretch.
Obama/Daley' 08
Obama/Capone'08
which one sounds less corrupt?
It stinks. I was actually a supporter of Steve Forbes during the first primary. The RNC pushing Bush down my throat made me sick and they are now paying the consequence. Bush was the canidate because he was young and charismatic like Clinton, so the RNC thought he could win. The RNC is so corrupt for power they will easily abandon principals in favor of gaining votes.
BTW, the DNC isn't any better.
I really doesn't matter though, because ultimately it all boils down to the people unless we become a communist nation where the government will decide and censor everything.
In simplest terms, my support for Obama is entirely pragmatic. Someone will be elected President. I would prefer that whomever that someone is, he or she not be a republican.
Electability is not some minor concern in my calculus. I find it substantially more likely that what most Americans understand (or think they understand) of Hillary Clinton's past -- fair or not -- would engender the sort of alienation in the middle of the electorate (particularly in crucial states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that would significantly increase the possibility that McCain would win election, much in the same way that Bush was able to win election in 2000 (and even 2004).
If nothing else, Obama seems to engender hope and optimism while Clinton brings to the table a long history of being harrangued by the Right in an effective campaign to make her a truly divisive figure. It seems far more likely to me that Obama will be able to sustain the support of the average voter who is neither red nor blue.
Certainly, there are policy differences between Obama and Clinton, but I'll never find a candidate who will perfectly share my view on those policy issues. The thing that strikes me as more important to my decision is the fact that Obama and Clinton are generally talking about the same sorts of ideas; the differences in terms of how those ideas are to be implemented and advanced, in real terms, strike me as rather nuanced. I honestly see very little difference on the macro issues that tend to guide all of my votes for the Presidency. Given the tie, I find Obama to be the less divisive candidate and the candidate who brings the greater sense of optimism to the people I talk to.
That Obama has consistently walked the walk of his words -- his commitment to public work is unquestionable in my mind (he's chosen that route repeatedly over other lucrative opportunities) -- only emboldens me in my choice. That Obama has demonstrated himself to be both intellectually capable and publicly adroit satisfies me that he can look the part. The fact that he brings a message of hope and optimism that is rooted, in my opinion, in a belief in the American people demonstrates to me the sort of leadership that I expect to see in a President, too.
Good grief, Barry!"We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
-St. Barack, last night
"The RNC is so corrupt for power they will easily abandon principals in favor of gaining votes."
myth alarm! No politicians have principles, only open hands.
Leadership?
The Great American People don't want leadership.
They are leaderless because that's exactly what they want.
All that the Great American People want is more stuff,
and they elect politicians to get them more stuff.
Syria's got oil. He didn't go after them because they're sitting on a border with Israel and (generally speaking) serve as a buffer to some other countries over there who would love to wipe Israel from the map.
Yes, it's not enough. Feel good speeches are one thing (and he's a great orator), but that doesn't mean he is going to do for this country other than it up more.
It's pretty naive to think someone who has rolled up the bankroll he has hasn't already been corrupted.
Obama has a history of public service. He spoke out against Iraq when others voted for it. He is more committed to civil liberties and open government. His proposed policies are more in line with my views than the other candidates.
See, this is actually a decent point you made. You'd probably get a lot more respect bringing posts like this than your usual cut and paste jobs and profanity laced tirades...
So you're a marxist?
I think those issues are pretty significant to me, too. The efforts by the current administration to erode cons utional checks on executive power (Cheney's Law) are just disgusting to me. I honestly think that all of the candidates have understood that undoing some of those policies will be crucial to gain the trust of Americans who aren't ideologues. But of the bunch, I find Obama's rhetoric about that issue to be most compelling and believable.
In simplest terms, my support for Obama is entirely pragmatic. Someone will be elected President. I would prefer that whomever that someone is, he or she not be a republican. i'm not pro republican at all, but that's not entirely smart
Electability is not some minor concern in my calculus. I find it substantially more likely that what most Americans understand (or think they understand) of Hillary Clinton's past obama's past is clearer than hilary's. for sure-- fair or not -- would engender the sort of alienation in the middle of the electorate (particularly in crucial states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that would significantly increase the possibility that McCain would win election, much in the same way that Bush was able to win election in 2000 (and even 2004).
If nothing else, Obama seems to engender hope and optimism while Clinton brings to the table a long history of being harrangued by the Right in an effective campaign to make her a truly divisive figure. It seems far more likely to me that Obama will be able to sustain the support of the average voter who is neither red nor blue.
Certainly, there are policy differences between Obama and Clinton, but I'll never find a candidate who will perfectly share my view on those policy issues. The thing that strikes me as more important to my decision is the fact that Obama and Clinton are generally talking about the same sorts of ideas; BIG BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!! the differences in terms of how those ideas are to be implemented and advanced, in real terms, strike me as rather nuanced. I honestly see very little difference on the macro issues that tend to guide all of my votes for the Presidency. Given the tie, I find Obama to be the less divisive () candidate and the candidate who brings the greater sense of optimism to the people I talk to.
That Obama has consistently walked the walk of his words (
I answered GGA's same question in a contemporaneous thread, but here it is again....
1) Let's get over the experience/no experience thing.
The President doesn't really run the executive all by himself. He picks people, and has access to a LOT of resources. The "experience" factor matters less to me than judgment in picking the right people for competance.
The closest thing to real experience you can have for running the executive branch is a governorship, and that isn't even a given that it helps at all. 4 out of the last 5 presidents were governors, and that didn't exactly work out so well. In Bush's case, it turned out to be a downright hinderance.
Nothing can really prepare you for the Presidency, and you would have to provide a LOT of proof to convince me otherwise.
2) I have seen a lot of interviews and, yes, listened to speeches, and the guy is thoughtful, mature, and doesn't talk down to people like they are 12 years old.
The speech on race in Philidelphia pretty much sealed it for me. Any real reservations I had before then vanished right there.
3) I generally support most of his policies, after having read through the major candidates' websites.
Do I think he is going to be able to do half of what he plans to? No. The biggest difference is that he is pretty honest about his chances of carrying through on any given item.
Do I 100% sign off on everything? No. I don't expect any candidate to fully match my positions.
4) He isn't a Republican.
G. W. Bush. 'nuff said. The GOP doesn't deserve to win elections until they can learn how to run a government effectively. Sorry, McCain isn't it.
Yup.
I have yet to see any Clinton supporter really tell me why they support her in a rational, thoughtful way.
I would ask the same for Republicans, but they simply blindly fall in lockstep behind their nominee, no matter how stinky they find him, so asking that question is a bit moot.
Because I'd be packing my bags for Mexico if Hillary won the election. Wouldn't be all that bad, either. Open a pizza bar on the beach and watch the USA fail under that .
I certainly can't argue that. There are some legit hard working people out there but yeah I really can't argue your point at all.
Except for the small tidbit that most of that has been from small donors that have not come anywhere near the upper threshold.
Kinda hard to "corrupt" somebody with my two $75 donations...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10609.html
Bush ed up.
A lot.
This guy talks good.
That's how low the bar has been placed.
It's better than being a fascist.
I agree. For the $350 I've sent him in $50 increments, I'm expecting some big favors. Can you say "FEMA Chief Peabody"....?
You're doing a heckuva job, Peabie!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
