Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

will Obama be a good President?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
The difference being that Clinton made a commitment where as Obama did not. People should read every single word he wrote when they thought he committed to public financing.
 
Date: 6/19/2008 9:10:00 PM
Author: MoonWater
The difference being that Clinton made a commitment where as Obama did not. People should read every single word he wrote when they thought he committed to public financing.
Click to expand...
I know what he wrote - and I still feel he is going back on his word. And in the words of the late Tim Russert, "your word means everything." What the defintion of "is" is.

And Moon - I''m on your side here - I think he will be elected and I hope he will be a good president. I just feel that a lot of his supporters are going to end up being terribly disappointed.
 
I really can not believe you are comparing what he wrote, which was not a commitment to public financing (although that''s certainly what McCain wants you to believe), to Clinton''s definition of is. It doesn''t even remotely compare.
 
Moon, can you post exactly what he wrote? I haven''t had a chance to read it and I''d like to.
 
LP, not to run out on ya, but I have to run out on ya. I just wrapped up a paper and FI wants some dessert and drinks. I''ll find it tomorrow!
 
LOL, np Moon--I actually just found and read it. I can't believe I fell for the spin--he didn't even agree to it! He said he would pursue a fair agreement. Obviously his negotiation with McCain didn't work. I feel bad for not researching the facts before posting.
7.gif
 
Date: 6/19/2008 9:47:15 PM
Author: MoonWater
I really can not believe you are comparing what he wrote, which was not a commitment to public financing (although that''s certainly what McCain wants you to believe), to Clinton''s definition of is. It doesn''t even remotely compare.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with McCain - I actually couldn''t care less about him (I''ve never been a McCain supporter). I know what he wrote - and regardless, he did not Aggressively Pursue an agreement with the opponent (as he said he would do - however, I''m not surprised). He''s a politician - of course he wants everyone to believe he is different. However, I''m not buying it. You do - and that''s fine.
 
I think the public financing fiasco is a valid one. I haven''t done enough research myself to be honest. I do know that Obama had initially tossed the possiblity into the ring to see if anyone would bite and nobody did. He then went on to amass an unbelievable and historic amount of citizen financing that he could never have predicted. Now that his opponents see that ability as a threat they are bringing up the past desire of Obama to use a limited funding amount.

This sort of remind me of my day job. I will toss out an offer in response to a demand for settlement of a claim and the opposition will reject it. I tell them upfront, if you make me have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to defend this case and continue, then I will pull that offer from the table because you will have exhausted the money I would have given you on a bunch of legal fees to defend this unwarranted claim and suit. Then when we get to the day of trial, the opposition decides to take me up my offer. Um...yeah...how do I say this kindly. NO, YOU DIDN''T GET IT! That offer is no longer on the table. Did you think it was a lifetime offer? Not happening. I spent all the money getting prepared for this trial so we are going to trial. Then I usually get a call the next day...begging for a settlement for less than my original offer and way, way less than their demand. That''s usually when I start second guessing myself and/or my counsel...but I usually stand firm and say...too bad. You missed the boat. Last year I was 10 for 10 in trial, so I love it when a jurisdiction has triers of fact who are swift with their decisions. I win. Case closed.

So, that sums up my feeling with Obama''s offer. Nobody would commit when they had the opportunity. The fact that they want to do so now...imples to me, that they are scared. Very, very scared.
 
Date: 6/20/2008 12:04:40 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I think the public financing fiasco is a valid one. I haven''t done enough research myself to be honest. I do know that Obama had initially tossed the possiblity into the ring to see if anyone would bite and nobody did. He then went on to amass an unbelievable and historic amount of citizen financing that he could never have predicted. Now that his opponents see that ability as a threat they are bringing up the past desire of Obama to use a limited funding amount.

This sort of remind me of my day job. I will toss out an offer in response to a demand for settlement of a claim and the opposition will reject it. I tell them upfront, if you make me have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to defend this case and continue, then I will pull that offer from the table because you will have exhausted the money I would have given you on a bunch of legal fees to defend this unwarranted claim and suit. Then when we get to the day of trial, the opposition decides to take me up my offer. Um...yeah...how do I say this kindly. NO, YOU DIDN''T GET IT! That offer is no longer on the table. Did you think it was a lifetime offer? Not happening. I spent all the money getting prepared for this trial so we are going to trial. Then I usually get a call the next day...begging for a settlement for less than my original offer and way, way less than their demand. That''s usually when I start second guessing myself and/or my counsel...but I usually stand firm and say...too bad. You missed the boat. Last year I was 10 for 10 in trial, so I love it when a jurisdiction has triers of fact who are swift with their decisions. I win. Case closed.

So, that sums up my feeling with Obama''s offer. Nobody would commit when they had the opportunity. The fact that they want to do so now...imples to me, that they are scared. Very, very scared.
Click to expand...
Very very interesting insight Miracles.... sounds like you''ve recognized a pattern you''ve seen before.
 
Date: 6/19/2008 10:33:39 PM
Author: LAJennifer
Date: 6/19/2008 9:47:15 PM

Author: MoonWater

I really can not believe you are comparing what he wrote, which was not a commitment to public financing (although that's certainly what McCain wants you to believe), to Clinton's definition of is. It doesn't even remotely compare.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with McCain - I actually couldn't care less about him (I've never been a McCain supporter). I know what he wrote - and regardless, he did not Aggressively Pursue an agreement with the opponent (as he said he would do - however, I'm not surprised). He's a politician - of course he wants everyone to believe he is different. However, I'm not buying it. You do - and that's fine.
Click to expand...

It does have a lot to do with McCain. I never said it did, in regards to you specifically, but it is how McCain is trying to spin it to the media. Obama wrote what he did a long time ago, you know, when EVERYONE was still in the race. He was the only candidate that would even talk about it. He said he would pursue an agreement but made it a point to bring up the flaws in the system. McCain has been the nom for how many months? The entire time he used private financing. He didn't commit to using public financing until the same day Obama announced that he wouldn't use it...well isn't that a coincidence.
20.gif


To aggressively pursue an agreement which is mutually beneficial to both parties is not the same as committing to the agreement (that no one had even agreed on yet!!). Obviously, no agreement could be reached which would be mutually beneficial (just ask John Kerry). Obama would have been an absolute moron to give the upper hand over to his opponent. Further, if anyone actually pays attention to the details, Obama's way of raising money is probably the most honest way you can do it right now (in regard to keeping track of donors and amounts). It's BETTER than public financing. Although frankly, when you consider the large number of small donors, it IS public financing.

miraclesrule Is that a legal mind I see? I thought the same exact thing. McCain wouldn't agree to it until he realized it would benefit him the most. Well boo hoo.
 
Date: 6/19/2008 10:08:06 PM
Author: ladypirate
LOL, np Moon--I actually just found and read it. I can't believe I fell for the spin--he didn't even agree to it! He said he would pursue a fair agreement. Obviously his negotiation with McCain didn't work. I feel bad for not researching the facts before posting.
7.gif
Click to expand...
Yeah, I believed it as well. I figured how could so many major news outlets be incorrect. Well, silly me. That's why I always advocate reading/hearing it from the horses mouth. It's absurd that this is even a real issue, but not suprising since McCain had been trying to make this an issue as early as February. Hey, I found something interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/124626/485/583/538429 (the last line made me laugh)

He stated he would pursue an agreement and he did. It didn't work out. Oh well.
 
Sorry for coming in late; I didn''t even know that PS offered these kinds of forums. Hurray!

Question for Freke: What course are you taking where you are reading Marx, Weber, and Arendt? Sounds fabulous!

For Moon: Have you read Luxury Fever by Robert Frank? I am surprised that (on a diamond forum) people aren''t jumping all over you for proposing a consumption tax. I love the irony (and the idea).

Oh, and for all. Here is my current issue with the ''08 election.

I fear that the next president will be a one-term president, given the recession, the war, the wealth gap, and all of the other general malaise that the current administration has created. That said, I have seriously thought that I sometimes would prefer that McCain be elected for one terrible term so a Dem can be the next two term president (since, sadly, the whole first term is much more vanilla to ensure re-election). This would, of course, never make me vote for McCain, but it does make me worry for Dems and for Obama.

Do you see Obama as a two-term president? In the current climate? With the messes that Bush (well, let''s be honest, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) has (have) created?
 
Hey katamari! Welcome to the "heated" forum
9.gif
.

I think the question you addressed to me should be addressed to miraclesrule. She suggested the consumption tax idea (interesting concept, I think she should expand more on this. yoo hoo!)
 
Thanks for the catch, Moon! It was a long forum to catch up on, so I lost an important detail :-)
 
Oh I forgot to answer your question. I''m not sure if Obama will be a 2 term President for the reasons you stated. When things don''t immediately turn around in those 4 years, many Americans will blame him for it. It sucks because he probably needs at least 2 terms to make a dent in all this damage.
 
Today - from Factcheck.org:

Obama''s Lame Claim About McCain''s Money
June 20, 2008
Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain''s money.
Summary
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."


We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain''s total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC''s receipts.


Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
 
Will Obama be a good president?

He''d better be, ''cause it''s either him or the other nut job. IMO, neither of them is a good bet.
 
The Wall Street Journal had a couple of interesting articles about him and the campaign money and about how he is so left of the Reagan type of Democrat like Bill Clinton was that he is really shifting the party drastically. I glanced at them today while flying to take my kids to camp. Our Philly paper also wrote a not so flattering piece about his about face regarding public funding and what the implications are. Every day there is just so much to wade through I am exhausted. Then I get a weekly think type magazine called the Week. The cover is a drawing of Michelle Obama with the headline "Is America Ready for Michelle Obama?" Not sure what their view is, hubby grabbed it and I will have to read it when it is done.
 
LA Jen: I don''t think he has a chance in hell of being elected. That may send Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman into therapy though, which could be interesting . . .
 

Date: 6/20/2008 5:16:41 PM

Author: diamondfan

The Wall Street Journal had a couple of interesting articles about him and the campaign money and about how he is so left of the Reagan type of Democrat like Bill Clinton was that he is really shifting the party drastically.
Click to expand...

diamondfan, I didn''t want to touch your wording lest I mispeak in trying to paraphrase what you said above. I am not sure what you mean, however. Obviously Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat; when you write about a "Reagan type of Democrat" are you referring to Ronald Reagan? To Ronald Reagan before he switched parties, perhaps? I am quite confused!


Deb
34.gif
 
Have you guys seen that Obama and Clinton are now campaigning together? I can''t believe no one has brought it up yet!
Me thinks he''s testing the waters to see what the public reaction will be before he asks her to be VP.
There''s actually a term for that....can''t remember what it is though.

Anyway, here ya go!


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izQosMtCfjNjE1uAP6fQV2BZ_qWwD91DRPPG0
 
Date: 6/20/2008 5:54:49 PM
Author: tradergirl
LA Jen: I don't think he has a chance in hell of being elected. That may send Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman into therapy though, which could be interesting . . .
Click to expand...
I watched Hardball yesterday - Chris didn't seem too happy about Obama's reverse decision regarding financing.
 
Date: 6/20/2008 6:26:14 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 6/20/2008 5:54:49 PM
Author: tradergirl
LA Jen: I don''t think he has a chance in hell of being elected. That may send Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman into therapy though, which could be interesting . . .
Click to expand...
I watched Hardball yesterday - Chris didn''t seem too happy about Obama''s reverse decision regarding financing.
Click to expand...
True that--Chris Matthews seemed pretty annoyed. Olbermann wasn''t phased, though--he read Obama''s original words on Crossfire. It annoys me that McCain is acting all high and mighty over this.
38.gif
 
Date: 6/20/2008 11:01:19 AM
Author: katamari
Question for Freke: What course are you taking where you are reading Marx, Weber, and Arendt? Sounds fabulous!
Click to expand...
No Arendt. Yet. I''m taking Classical Sociological Theory. Which is now HALF OVER! He gave us today off, without any homework for the weekend, and I can''t even begin to tell you how happy that made me. So I have ONLY 9 days left!!! But then I have to start Psychology Research Methods. Bleh.
 
Date: 6/20/2008 4:51:30 PM
Author: HollyS
Will Obama be a good president?

He''d better be, ''cause it''s either him or the other nut job. IMO, neither of them is a good bet.
Click to expand...
i''ll take any "NUT" that ain''t gonna raise taxes.
 
AGBF, I believe that the term was coined for people who were registered Democrats but were more conservative and thus supported Reagan in the two elections he ran in. They were people who felt that Democrats were not working to help them (they were mostly white working class) but others, and they supported some more conservative views in general. The, after losses to George Bush senior some people within the Democrat party sort of broke off and envisioned a third way as they felt their party needed a fresh approach to be viable. Clinton was considered more of a centrist and was termed a New Democrat as he was not viewed as so liberal and I think he bridged the gap for those Reagan dems to be able to vote with their party again. The article that I read today was saying that those voters who might have been more conservative but still affiliated with the Dems are going to be lost now with Obama and his liberal views. Just though it interesting.
 
Date: 6/20/2008 8:44:16 PM
Author: diamondfan
AGBF, I believe that the term was coined for people who were registered Democrats but were more conservative and thus supported Reagan in the two elections he ran in. They were people who felt that Democrats were not working to help them (they were mostly white working class) but others, and they supported some more conservative views in general. The, after losses to George Bush senior some people within the Democrat party sort of broke off and envisioned a third way as they felt their party needed a fresh approach to be viable. Clinton was considered more of a centrist and was termed a New Democrat as he was not viewed as so liberal and I think he bridged the gap for those Reagan dems to be able to vote with their party again. The article that I read today was saying that those voters who might have been more conservative but still affiliated with the Dems are going to be lost now with Obama and his liberal views. Just though it interesting.
Click to expand...
You are correct DF, I well remember that term.
 
Date: 6/20/2008 6:18:55 PM
Author: luckystar112

Me thinks he''s testing the waters to see what the public reaction will be before he asks her to be VP.
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful.
 
Hi Freke--

Long delay--crazy times at the office. I am a sociology grad student, so Classical Social Theory sounds like heaven to me. But, so does a day off without homework.

Barack the Vote!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top