will Obama be a good President?

[HollyS]

Well, I might ''amaze'' you, but if you want to know why the Obama-fest amazes and mystifies some of us, I suggest you read George Will''s column today in The Washington Post. He poses some very interesting questions about the ''promises'' Mr. Obama is making to get himself elected. We have reasons for being sarcastic, or in your words, snarky when it comes to discussing the man. He''s more than a little off the mark in what can be done, how it will be accomplished, and what he will have control over. Had he ever, at any point, actually done anything in life, or in the Senate, he might have more perspective and a little less rhetoric. And no, thank you, I don''t need a rehash of his ''accomplishments''. (yawn)

Remember, The Washington Post is not exactly a conservative rag. If they have their doubts--this bastion of liberal thinkers--you might want to question a few Obamaisms yourself. Or, you can be led down the garden path. Whichever.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 8/26/2008 1:06:40 AM
Author: diamondfan
I think he could be a great president at some point, I just do not see it now.

I think the frenzy and making him out to be a rock star or celebrity is silly. He has the charisma but lacks the gravitas and political experience to be President now.

I also think he is trying to hard, aren''t I hip and progressive and so going to be what this country needs...I just have a tough time buying that. It feels forced and contrived to me.

And that is not to say I think McCain is the answer either.

Exactly. Is he trying to the next president or the next American Idol?


Holly, Moon, you''re both snarks!

Hmm....which one should I stick up for?????



Get it? Cause I have a reputation of calling out the "mean" people?

Okay not funny.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 8/26/2008 6:36:43 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 8/26/2008 1:06:40 AM
Author: diamondfan
I think he could be a great president at some point, I just do not see it now.

I think the frenzy and making him out to be a rock star or celebrity is silly. He has the charisma but lacks the gravitas and political experience to be President now.

I also think he is trying to hard, aren't I hip and progressive and so going to be what this country needs...I just have a tough time buying that. It feels forced and contrived to me.

And that is not to say I think McCain is the answer either.

Exactly. Is he trying to the next president or the next American Idol?


Holly, Moon, you're both snarks!

Hmm....which one should I stick up for?????



Get it? Cause I have a reputation of calling out the 'mean' people?

Okay not funny.

I represent that remark, and will take it as the compliment I'm sure you intended. By the way, Pot, who have you snarked today?

And yes, I agree with your Obama comment; and wish I had thought of it myself.

Oh, wait. I would have been a silly snark, again, if I had said it. It's better I leave that one-liner to you.

Gotta go; working hard on my people skills. Gosh, I'm exhausted.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/26/2008 5:19:07 PM
Author: HollyS
Well, I might 'amaze' you, but if you want to know why the Obama-fest amazes and mystifies some of us, I suggest you read George Will's column today in The Washington Post. He poses some very interesting questions about the 'promises' Mr. Obama is making to get himself elected. We have reasons for being sarcastic, or in your words, snarky when it comes to discussing the man. He's more than a little off the mark in what can be done, how it will be accomplished, and what he will have control over. Had he ever, at any point, actually done anything in life, or in the Senate, he might have more perspective and a little less rhetoric. And no, thank you, I don't need a rehash of his 'accomplishments'. (yawn)


Remember, The Washington Post is not exactly a conservative rag. If they have their doubts--this bastion of liberal thinkers--you might want to question a few Obamaisms yourself. Or, you can be led down the garden path. Whichever.

And yet none of this has jack to do with the assumptions you made from one emoticon. C'mon, admit it, you were wrong to assume what you did and you were being a hypocrite. Be a big girl, admit it, I dare ya!

Like I said before, I really don't care about your Obama criticisms, I have many of my own. But I would never say he has never accomplished anything because I'm not fond of lying.

Now, on to Obama related news:

first heard from a co-worker, then found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-tharin-gartrell-080826-ht,0,3919724.story

searched again and found it here (my fave description btw): http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/08/the_obama_assassination_attemp.php

and then received from a friend here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/25/national/main4383593.shtml

there, there. hope it's better now.

 

[HollyS]

Let it go before this thread gets the axe too. It can't be that important to you.

And CBS isn't a biased news source at all. No.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/26/2008 9:47:17 PM
Author: HollyS
Let it go before this thread gets the axe too. It can''t be that important to you.

LOL she says after two posts in response to this stuff. C''mon Holly. Follow your own advice before passing it out. I seriously think this is funny. I''m not sure why you have such a hard time admitting you were wrong. I never once made any assumptions about your politics and yet that''s what you claimed. You defended your right to post whatever while attacking mine. Hello, is this thing on?

 

[HollyS]

Since you need to hear it: I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I don''t believe I did, but you insist that I did. So, I''ll be the big girl and assume that you are sincere and did not mean to offend me. I won''t ask for your apology in offending me. I''ll assume, again, that you did not mean me any ill will, and never did. That is, if it''s alright with you that I make these assumptions.


I''m pretty sure I can speak for Ali when I say, please let''s drop this.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/26/2008 10:15:36 PM
Author: HollyS
Since you need to hear it: I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I don''t believe I did, but you insist that I did. So, I''ll be the big girl and assume that you are sincere and did not mean to offend me. I won''t ask for your apology in offending me. I''ll assume, again, that you did not mean me any ill will, and never did. That is, if it''s alright with you that I make these assumptions.



I''m pretty sure I can speak for Ali when I say, please let''s drop this.

No problem. I accept your apology. Thanks!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 8/26/2008 12:59:28 PM

Author: CrookedRock

I do belive Obama is not the change that this country needs. Not all change is good, that's not to say that what's going on is good either. I don't personally believe that Obama understands what it takes to enact all the promises he has made, such as his Health Care plan. Bottom Line it that there isn't money to fund these things (and many things we are already doing), and we have to stop creating it out of thin air.

Thank you for the explanation, CrookedRock. I understand your position now. I do have a problem with your logic, however. If it was the Republican administration under Bush and Cheney with their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extremely expensive war in Iraq (as well as the one in Afghanistan) that brought us to this crushing load of debt, shouldn't it be Mr. McCain, who is accepting the mantle of President Bush, who should be expected to make the economy worse?

Mr. McCain's economic policies are the same as those of President Bush. President Bush thought that he could cut taxes while increasing expenditures...an odd position for a conservative. He took a fairly balanced budget from President Clinton and led our country into crushing debt.

It was Mr. Bush who spent and spent and spent...on the endless war in Iraq. And veterans suffered from lack of services at VA hospitals. And soldiers had to buy their own body armour and armour for their own vehicles. And a child health care bill was vetoed...one which was widely favored by both parties.

I realize that sometimes a country cannot have both guns and butter, but I think under Mr. Bush the amount spent on guns has been so enormous, that no one has realized how much good could have been done if just a fraction of that amount had been spent on butter. I wonder how many days of funding the Iraq war it would cost to fund a year of that health care bill for US children...? And how much of that money on any given day went to Bush friends in companies like Halliburton who got contracts early in the war and easily?

Deborah

 

[ksinger]

Dang! I''ve been out of it so long MY snark chops are getting a bit rusty. And I used to be so reviled!!! Ah but I''m sure I can be contemptible again with a bit of effort. Guess I''ll have to work on regaining my throne. I never did participate in the Great Obama-Fest that is recalled with such hissing. I''ll contribute something now.

But I''ll start small with a "Why I Choose Obama over McCain, Less Experience Notwithstanding" piece, just for warm-up.

Our national security issues ARE complex. If there is one thing Obama is clearly better at than McCain, it is dealing with complexity. The choice I see is either a man who gives a nuanced and clearly thought out and thoughtful answer to difficult questions most of the time, (a strategy with much potential for backfire, since there are a great number of intellectually lazy Bubbas who want the world distilled to us/them evil/good and black/white, not nuance), versus a man who answers in jingoistic bumper sticker sound bytes most of the time. I see it as the choice between a man who will surround himself with intelligent people, and who clearly has a campaign running on greased wheels, (which is demonstrative of both the ability to delegate AND the ability to attract and delegate to the right people, both pretty basic qualities for President) versus a man who has a campaign and staff that is much less organized, and and has William Kristol and Karl Rove as advisors - the same men who were some of the intellects and the architects of the very polices that have trashed our global reputation abroad and the Constitution at home. With them behind him, we truly WILL have another 4 years of Bush.

Depth of experience? What is that exactly? How many wars you''ve started/averted/approved this week? How many bills you''ve passed? Or perhaps McCain''s openly admitted ignorance of economics? I mean, what has the man learned in decades in Washington if not economics? But apparently he missed Macro Econ 101 and Appropriations for Dummies. Furthermore, IMO, and based on reading things written about him and his own words, McCain is still trying to redeem Vietnam, and will continue to try to do so on the backs of our military. He still believes Vietnam was a noble cause that could have been WON had our officials only had the moral courage.

"I think his mind is visceral," (Gary)Hart said, "driven less by thought and more by feelings. This doesn''t mean he''s totally reactive or without logic or thought processes; it just means he''s a fighter pilot. He reacts to circumstances."

A senior official in the Clinton administration who worked with McCain on Bosnia and Kosovo, where McCain defied most of his Republican colleagues to support strong U.S. action against Serbia, agreed. "In the many, many years that I''ve been in Washington," this former official said, insisting on anonymity to avoid upsetting McCain, "John McCain is far and away the most emotional politician I have ever met."

"McCain is all emotion," the former official continued. "People don''t understand that, so they keep talking about his temperament, his temper. He reacts emotionally, therefore unpredictably."

McCain can be impatient with complicated answers to questions he considers straightforward, with gray when he sees black and white. For example, he sees no gray outcome possible in Iraq: "In war," he has said, "there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose." But he has not defined victory in Iraq, and many wars have ended ambiguously.

McCain''s commentary on Iraq often echoes his descriptions of the Vietnam War. He can make both sound like classical military confrontations and rarely mentions their political complexities. Asked about this in the interview, McCain said the North Vietnamese won with a tank-led invasion of South Vietnam at a time when President Richard Nixon, hobbled by the Watergate scandal, could not respond by using American air power. "We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal," McCain has said, implying that the war could have been won -- again without defining victory."

Apparently he didn''t bother to read or gave not even a pause to Robert Macnamara''s book, where in the preface he states "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." Do you want a man to be president who is still in denial about the need for that war when the people who actually conceived and directed it admit how wrong they were? I certainly do not. Talk about not learning the lessons of history. He''s got something PERSONAL to prove by keeping the Iraq war going until we "win". We''ll be at war forever if McCain gets his way. And that will drain America''s coffers far faster than any social program, and is in fact doing so as I type. McCain is going to attempt to react to the world in a post-WWII manner, when the world and the US has moved far beyond that.

I also do not want a man in the White House who approaches his life this way : ""Although I seem to tolerate introspection better the older I am, there are still too many claims on my attention to permit more than the briefest excursions down the path of self-awareness. When I am no longer busy with politics, and with my own ambitions, I hope to have more time to examine what I have done and failed to do with my career, and why." We''ve already HAD a president with no inner knowledge, no curiosity, no ability to admit error, or to genuinely feel shame or pain for the decisions he''s made. He''s STILL like a kitten with a ball of string. Do we really want another man like that? Who is waiting until HIS ambitions are fulfilled before he feels any remorse for the mistakes he made on OUR backs? I don''t.

Given the previous analysis of McCain as "impatient" with "complicated answers", and assuming that a key presidential ability requires one to deal with and understand the connections amongst a ridiculous number of inputs, react swiftly, and delegate the enormous amount of details to people of like mind, I''ll take the chance on Obama any day. He is acknowledged as a truly excellent intellect, is not exactly a callow youth - and doesn''t yet seem to have the mental ruts like the elderly frequently have, and that McCain shows daily.

Another quality I see in Obama is the ability to shift gears. One of the things that I''ve heard about him is that he can stand just about anything but stupid, or wasteful. I believe this makes him more qualified to actually admit when something isn''t working. A trait I don''t see in Bush or his heir-apparent. Both are dogged by appearances over genuine and well-defined outcomes which you see in their single-minded pursuit of some airy-fairy goal - victory at any price - although when pressed to define "victory" neither one can.

I don''t agree with his every policy, the DH is concerned about his being steeped in the Chicago School of economic theory (don''t ask me, HE''s the econ/government/history teacher) but IMO, he truly is our best hope for something new, and the aforementioned flaws in McCain are just too large for me to overlook. I''m ready to take a chance on a new devil. We''ve seen enough of the old.

 

[MoonWater]

Excellent post per usual Karen. I wanted to say something about this in particular:

"Another quality I see in Obama is the ability to shift gears. One of the things that I've heard about him is that he can stand just about anything but stupid, or wasteful. I believe this makes him more qualified to actually admit when something isn't working."

Have you read Dreams From My Father yet? I started it last week, will be done by the end of this week (quite an enjoyable read, he could have easily stuck with writing), and his ability to shift gears when something isn't working is most apparent when you read about his time as a community organizer. It was quite a struggle to get the people to work for themselves, to get them motivated, to believe they actually had power to change the policies downtown. He failed a few times and easily admitted when he was wrong (and in some instances taking the fall when it was someone else), but he kept going, trying new strategies until something tangible occurred. Working with people he liked, people he didn't like, people he was skeptical of...didn't matter if they could help the community help itself. Definitely something I'd like to see in a President.

 

[CrookedRock]

Date: 8/26/2008 10:34:10 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 8/26/2008 12:59:28 PM

Author: CrookedRock

I do belive Obama is not the change that this country needs. Not all change is good, that's not to say that what's going on is good either. I don't personally believe that Obama understands what it takes to enact all the promises he has made, such as his Health Care plan. Bottom Line it that there isn't money to fund these things (and many things we are already doing), and we have to stop creating it out of thin air.

Thank you for the explanation, CrookedRock. I understand your position now. I do have a problem with your logic, however. If it was the Republican administration under Bush and Cheney with their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extremely expensive war in Iraq (as well as the one in Afghanistan) that brought us to this crushing load of debt, shouldn't it be Mr. McCain, who is accepting the mantle of President Bush, who should be expected to make the economy worse?

Mr. McCain's economic policies are the same as those of President Bush. President Bush thought that he could cut taxes while increasing expenditures...an odd position for a conservative. He took a fairly balanced budget from President Clinton and led our country into crushing debt.

It was Mr. Bush who spent and spent and spent...on the endless war in Iraq. And veterans suffered from lack of services at VA hospitals. And soldiers had to buy their own body armour and armour for their own vehicles. And a child health care bill was vetoed...one which was widely favored by both parties.

I realize that sometimes a country cannot have both guns and butter, but I think under Mr. Bush the amount spent on guns has been so enormous, that no one has realized how much good could have been done if just a fraction of that amount had been spent on butter. I wonder how many days of funding the Iraq war it would cost to fund a year of that health care bill for US children...? And how much of that money on any given day went to Bush friends in companies like Halliburton who got contracts early in the war and easily?

Deborah

Deborah~ I actually agree with you on all the points you have made!

Bush has been a disaster and will certainly go down in history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen, if not the worst. He has single handedly raised more national debt than anyone else in history. To me the Iraq war is not the worst thing he has done as far as spending, it's the prescription drug bill. There is no money for these things!

Obama promises to end the war... I'm all for that... But what I am not for is his promise to raise taxes for the "wealthy". So I really hope that you don't make more than $75k a year

. I'm going to choose not to get started on the estate tax...

With all honesty though, I don't support either candidate. I was/am a Ron Paul fan through and through. There's a reason he received more funding from active duty troops than any other candidate did. The man speaks the truth!

You know who I wish would run next time... David Walker, our country's former (bc he resigned) Comptroller General. Now that's a smart man!

Have you seen I.O.U.S.A?

PS... Thank you for the respectful debate. I feel that so many times on here these things turn nasty, and for that reason I usually steer clear of these threads. Unfortunate too, bc I really enjoy a healthy discussion!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/26/2008 10:34:10 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 8/26/2008 12:59:28 PM

Author: CrookedRock

I do belive Obama is not the change that this country needs. Not all change is good, that''s not to say that what''s going on is good either. I don''t personally believe that Obama understands what it takes to enact all the promises he has made, such as his Health Care plan. Bottom Line it that there isn''t money to fund these things (and many things we are already doing), and we have to stop creating it out of thin air.

Thank you for the explanation, CrookedRock. I understand your position now. I do have a problem with your logic, however. If it was the Republican administration under Bush and Cheney with their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extremely expensive war in Iraq (as well as the one in Afghanistan) that brought us to this crushing load of debt, shouldn''t it be Mr. McCain, who is accepting the mantle of President Bush, who should be expected to make the economy worse?

Mr. McCain''s economic policies are the same as those of President Bush. President Bush thought that he could cut taxes while increasing expenditures...an odd position for a conservative. He took a fairly balanced budget from President Clinton and led our country into crushing debt.

It was Mr. Bush who spent and spent and spent...on the endless war in Iraq. And veterans suffered from lack of services at VA hospitals. And soldiers had to buy their own body armour and armour for their own vehicles. And a child health care bill was vetoed...one which was widely favored by both parties.

I realize that sometimes a country cannot have both guns and butter, but I think under Mr. Bush the amount spent on guns has been so enormous, that no one has realized how much good could have been done if just a fraction of that amount had been spent on butter. I wonder how many days of funding the Iraq war it would cost to fund a year of that health care bill for US children...? And how much of that money on any given day went to Bush friends in companies like Halliburton who got contracts early in the war and easily?

Deborah

As always, love the clear intelligence and tenor of your posts Deborah. Didn''t you say your husband worked for the Federal Reserve Board?
And sat watching Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dissolve, like watching a massive slow-motion train wreck?

We should put my History Man in with your Banking Man, and let them weep and wail together. Mine has been aghast as well.

You said "Bush thought that he could cut taxes while increasing expenditures...an odd position for a conservative." Yeah I''ve always kinda wondered about that one too. Oh, and before I forget, ask you DH what HE thinks about our government conveniently ceasing publication of the M3, just about the time it went exponential while M1 and M2 actually dropped. I''d be curious as to his thoughts.

 

[ksinger]

To Moon:

No, I haven't read it. In fact, I only made it through about 24 pages of The Origins of Totalitarianism before I got sidetracked again. Sigh.... so much to read...think about...correlate...decide...AAAAHHHH!!!!

But....(stream of consciousness) Obama.....something....organizing days....Saul Alinsky....Hillary's Yale essay.....Saul Alinsky? Under wraps....must research...

My mind jumps around a lot.

Later!!! Must go work to keep roof over head!!

 

[swimmer]

Well written Karen and Deborah!

 

[Anna0499]

As a daughter of two Vietnamese parents who witnessed the war firsthand (one a south VN soldier & the other living in Saigon) with family still in southern Vietnam, I can''t say I take offense to McCain''s comments & I agree with "We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal." I don''t interpret this comment as a "need for war" and an very wary of all media spin on either candidate. Of course there were political complexities in the decision for the US to get involved in the war, but once the US *did* get involved there were far too many restraints in some areas and too much leniency in others for a "successful" outcome. There was a way to WIN the war, which would''ve resulted in a very different Vietnam today. The problem with defense spending is that most people think it''s wasteful unless our country is being actively attacked (i.e. no one talked about defense spending post-9/11). Should those costs be reduced? Of course, but we need a president who will know where and how to reduce them.

I don''t think Bush is a great president, but I guess I am just looking towards the future now more than blaming the past. After all, *WE*, collectively as a nation, RE-elected him. Congress everwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan and I don''t have a problem with that. The war in Iraq is an entirely separate issue, but again, CONGRESSional majority has also supported this endeavor the entire time. I think a more pro-active approach to electing ALL officials who make decisions for us, besides just the president, will achieve better results in getting our voices heard.

I had hoped that Obama would bring something new but his recent choice for VP demonstrated to me that he was obviously not as committed to "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" as I had thought. I have a problem with someone who criticizes his opponent for being a "Washington insider" who is part of the reason why "Washington is broken" and then turns around and picks a VP who is largely considered the biggest "insider" of them all.

The Child Health Care Bill being vetoed was not a huge issue for me...SCHIP has provided most uninsured or underinsured children with affordable health insurance and most children will never encounter catastrophic injuries or illness in their childhood. There are, of course, still children without health insurance, but I don''t see the "universal health care" plan taking off without drastic increases in taxes, which I despise.

I was hoping this thread would give me more reasons to vote for Obama instead of reasons not to vote for McCain (the reason why Kerry lost to Bush).

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 8:45:01 AM
Author: ksinger
To Moon:

No, I haven''t read it. In fact, I only made it through about 24 pages of The Origins of Totalitarianism before I got sidetracked again. Sigh.... so much to read...think about...correlate...decide...AAAAHHHH!!!!

But....(stream of consciousness) Obama.....something....organizing days....Saul Alinsky....Hillary''s Yale essay.....Saul Alinsky? Under wraps....must research...

My mind jumps around a lot.

Later!!! Must go work to keep roof over head!!

Oh it''s a MUCH easier read than The Origines of Totalitarianism! You''d probably finish it in a week or so. I''m taking longer because I skipped the weekend. I just may finish it tonight.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:23:12 AM
Author: IndyGirl22


I had hoped that Obama would bring something new but his recent choice for VP demonstrated to me that he was obviously not as committed to ''CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN'' as I had thought. I have a problem with someone who criticizes his opponent for being a ''Washington insider'' who is part of the reason why ''Washington is broken'' and then turns around and picks a VP who is largely considered the biggest ''insider'' of them all.

Hmm...superficially I would and did have a problem with this but on deeper inspection I don''t. Part of it may have to do with reading about how he worked as a community organizer. You don''t get things done by only working with those you agree with or those that like you, or those with the same exact values. To me, choosing someone that is an insider, someone that has criticised him, proves to me he really wants to get the things he stated accomplished. You certainly can''t do that with two fresh faced people. And you can''t do it with a yes man. In the end, however, if they win, Obama is still the President and it can still be "Change We Can Believe In." I really hope people realize that an Obama Administration will most likely be extremely diverse. He probably has a few more people, (yes, some insiders), that do not seem to coincide with his overall message (Clinton included), but that doesn''t mean the message will be neglected or forgotten. It just means you need to work with everyone in order to accomplish it. Only time will tell.

 

[CrookedRock]

Just to back up what I was saying about our spending... THIS article sums it up. (The blue Italicized part in quotes mailny)
I just don''t see why anyone would think we could possibly fund Obamas promises.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:01:49 AM
Author: MoonWater

Hmm...superficially I would and did have a problem with this but on deeper inspection I don''t. Part of it may have to do with reading about how he worked as a community organizer. You don''t get things done by only working with those you agree with or those that like you, or those with the same exact values. To me, choosing someone that is an insider, someone that has criticised him, proves to me he really wants to get the things he stated accomplished. You certainly can''t do that with two fresh faced people. And you can''t do it with a yes man. In the end, however, if they win, Obama is still the President and it can still be ''Change We Can Believe In.'' I really hope people realize that an Obama Administration will most likely be extremely diverse. He probably has a few more people, (yes, some insiders), that do not seem to coincide with his overall message (Clinton included), but that doesn''t mean the message will be neglected or forgotten. It just means you need to work with everyone in order to accomplish it. Only time will tell.

I get what you''re saying, but it still doesn''t sit right with me. There are surely qualified people who are between a "yes man" & a Washington "insider" that could serve as Obama''s VP. I don''t have a high regard for Biden in the first place though, so that could explain why I disagree with Obama''s choice. I agree that "only time will tell" in the case that either candidate is elected. Big promises without big plans seem to be the recurring theme with most presidents.

 

[CrookedRock]

Date: 8/27/2008 8:39:43 AM
Author: ksinger
Oh, and before I forget, ask you DH what HE thinks about our government conveniently ceasing publication of the M3, just about the time it went exponential while M1 and M2 actually dropped. I''d be curious as to his thoughts.

Just an FYI ksinger... John Williams reconstrusts M3 if you are interested. John Williams'' Site

 

[partgypsy]

I kind of agree that the choice of Biden seems anticlimatic. But I am satisfied with it. When talk of all the people he may pick for vp was bandied about, though I thought it was exciting, I was also thinking he would do best choosing someone who is older and experienced, basically so he wouldn''t freak out the majority of voters. Early on when I completed a poll for who best fit my political views, the three people who tied for first were Obama, Biden, and Dodd. I actually don''t know much about Biden and Dodd. While they don''t agree on everything there is alot of overlap (and obviously agreement with my viewpoints

).
Also, part of the vp candidate''s job is to be an "attack dog", and Biden I imagine could do well in that job.

 

[DIAMOND*QUEST]

I too will go back to the original question and the answer is no. I won''t rehash all the obvious reasons why, as that has already been done. I think Obama is a hypocrit and his wife is an even bigger H. Very happy Hillary is not his running mate. Nail in the coffin.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:23:12 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

I was hoping this thread would give me more reasons to vote for Obama instead of reasons not to vote for McCain ... .

IndyGirl,

I have thought about what you wrote here. I asked myself why I wanted to vote for Obama. Unfortunately, the reason why I want to vote for Obama cannot easily be extricated from why I do not want to vote for McCain.

I see that the United States is in terrible trouble and I think that the Bush administration bears a huge amount of responsibility for the direction that the country and the world has taken over the past eight years. I see that Mr. McCain is a stalwart Republican in the image of Mr. Bush. I cannot bear to see any more damage inflicted on the United States or the world.

Given my world view, it is hard to separate wanting to keep Mr. McCain and othe Republicans who would like to continue the policies of Mr. Bush from wanting to elect Mr. Obama. Actually, there are so many people whom I would prefer to elect than a Republican who would carry on the policies of Mr. Bush that it would be hard to keep track of them.

I am not going to try to come up with some astounding feats that Mr. Obama accomplished to convince you that he is the inspiration to me that JFK was to others. (For one thing, I am old enough to have been inspired by the real JFK!)

What I will say is that I am convinced that Mr. Obama is incredibly smart and dedicated to the welfare of others less fortunate than himself (as was the Kennedy family). His career at Harvard Law School; his being editor of the Law Review; his choice of being a community organizer in a steel mill town for a low salary after college (and doing a successful job at it) all convince me that he is a man I can trust. Those qualities in conjunction with the fact that he has been a United States Senator convince me that he is seasoned enough to be president. He is smart, on the right side of the issues, and he is not Mr. Bush.


Deborah

 

[MoonWater]

Deborah, I love your posts. Even when I don''t agree with them. I just love the way you say things.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/27/2008 1:02:33 PM
Author: CrookedRock

Date: 8/27/2008 8:39:43 AM
Author: ksinger
Oh, and before I forget, ask you DH what HE thinks about our government conveniently ceasing publication of the M3, just about the time it went exponential while M1 and M2 actually dropped. I''d be curious as to his thoughts.

Just an FYI ksinger... John Williams reconstrusts M3 if you are interested. John Williams'' Site

Thanks CrookedRock. I do already know about that site and posted the link myself in the thread on recession back in June? We discovered it while reading Kevin Phillips'' "Bad Money". He cites it there quite a bit.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/27/2008 6:03:41 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 8/27/2008 9:23:12 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

I was hoping this thread would give me more reasons to vote for Obama instead of reasons not to vote for McCain ... .

IndyGirl,

I have thought about what you wrote here. I asked myself why I wanted to vote for Obama. Unfortunately, the reason why I want to vote for Obama cannot easily be extricated from why I do not want to vote for McCain.

I see that the United States is in terrible trouble and I think that the Bush administration bears a huge amount of responsibility for the direction that the country and the world has taken over the past eight years. I see that Mr. McCain is a stalwart Republican in the image of Mr. Bush. I cannot bear to see any more damage inflicted on the United States or the world.

Given my world view, it is hard to separate wanting to keep Mr. McCain and othe Republicans who would like to continue the policies of Mr. Bush from wanting to elect Mr. Obama. Actually, there are so many people whom I would prefer to elect than a Republican who would carry on the policies of Mr. Bush that it would be hard to keep track of them.

I am not going to try to come up with some astounding feats that Mr. Obama accomplished to convince you that he is the inspiration to me that JFK was to others. (For one thing, I am old enough to have been inspired by the real JFK!)

What I will say is that I am convinced that Mr. Obama is incredibly smart and dedicated to the welfare of others less fortunate than himself (as was the Kennedy family). His career at Harvard Law School; his being editor of the Law Review; his choice of being a community organizer in a steel mill town for a low salary after college (and doing a successful job at it) all convince me that he is a man I can trust. Those qualities in conjunction with the fact that he has been a United States Senator convince me that he is seasoned enough to be president. He is smart, on the right side of the issues, and he is not Mr. Bush.


Deborah

Thank you for your post Deborah.

It helped to clarify the reasons why you personally feel that Obama is the best man for the job. I know we are often forced to choose from two candidates, neither of which we would like to see in that position, and that decision is always complex. I think this thread has just been a discussion of both candidates because there is no designated "McCain" thread and I realize that discussion of one necessarily brings up discussion of the other. Neither candidate is my dream choice, but due to the out-of-control media/campaign spin I have resigned to researching fact-based websites to find out the true stance of candidates (even if those stances will likely change or be pushed aside during their presidency). The whole political process has made cynics out of much of the American people and I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least not in those around me and my age (mid-twenties). There is always hope, I guess.

ETA: I realize that sometimes the answer of why one is voting a certain way is "Because he's better than the alternative." That is valid, I just wanted to know more of WHY he is better.

 

[miraclesrule]

Deborah and KSinger. I just can''t get enough of your posts.

Karen, seriously, you are very gifted in articulating in the written word. It''s always a pleasure to read your posts. Fact based with the right amount of emotion. Awesome.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/27/2008 11:56:17 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Deborah and KSinger. I just can''t get enough of your posts.

Karen, seriously, you are very gifted in articulating in the written word. It''s always a pleasure to read your posts. Fact based with the right amount of emotion. Awesome.

Pearls above price are praise from the praiseworthy!

I enjoy your posts just as much. And I love Deborah''s stuff too...

In seriousness, I try hard to have reason behind what I think. I can''t tell you how many times my researching stuff has actually modified an opinion I held, where I thought I knew the situation, and did not. I know we ALL tend to have a "feeling" that we then try to find "reason" to justify. All people do this - liberal, conservative, it does not matter. A mitigating factor of this tendency, to my way of thinking, is more knowledge. And another difference I think is that "introspection" thing again. Examine your bias daily -because you have one. Is it reasonable? Justified? Backed by MORE than a hunch? Does it pass what the DH calls "the sniff test"? Does it square with human nature? And finally, could I see myself in another''s position? Does it have "heart"? I never want to totally leave compassion for the "other" out of my equations. I truly try to do this.

Of course that "compassion" bit probably has those on the board who suspect that my upbringing and character are in question, gaping in disbelief. But then I don''t equate compassion with mere politeness. The DH is always amused at the froth here about "manners" all the time. You should see the stuff that goes on in the political threads on a forum he frequents. He snorts, shakes his head, and says, "Women". He may be onto something because I''ve been accused many times over the years of having more of the mind and directness of a man than a woman. Being with the DH has increased this I think....

Anyway, I have no idea where all THAT came from...I need to get ready for work. To go to my MANLY job!!

(jk - I''m not sure web development is all that manly actually, although we do seem to have more guys than gals in the office)

Later!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/27/2008 9:23:12 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
As a daughter of two Vietnamese parents who witnessed the war firsthand (one a south VN soldier & the other living in Saigon) with family still in southern Vietnam, I can''t say I take offense to McCain''s comments & I agree with ''We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.'' I don''t interpret this comment as a ''need for war'' and an very wary of all media spin on either candidate. Of course there were political complexities in the decision for the US to get involved in the war, but once the US *did* get involved there were far too many restraints in some areas and too much leniency in others for a ''successful'' outcome. There was a way to WIN the war, which would''ve resulted in a very different Vietnam today. The problem with defense spending is that most people think it''s wasteful unless our country is being actively attacked (i.e. no one talked about defense spending post-9/11). Should those costs be reduced? Of course, but we need a president who will know where and how to reduce them.

I don''t think Bush is a great president, but I guess I am just looking towards the future now more than blaming the past. After all, *WE*, collectively as a nation, RE-elected him. Congress everwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan and I don''t have a problem with that. The war in Iraq is an entirely separate issue, but again, CONGRESSional majority has also supported this endeavor the entire time. I think a more pro-active approach to electing ALL officials who make decisions for us, besides just the president, will achieve better results in getting our voices heard.

I had hoped that Obama would bring something new but his recent choice for VP demonstrated to me that he was obviously not as committed to ''CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN'' as I had thought. I have a problem with someone who criticizes his opponent for being a ''Washington insider'' who is part of the reason why ''Washington is broken'' and then turns around and picks a VP who is largely considered the biggest ''insider'' of them all.

The Child Health Care Bill being vetoed was not a huge issue for me...SCHIP has provided most uninsured or underinsured children with affordable health insurance and most children will never encounter catastrophic injuries or illness in their childhood. There are, of course, still children without health insurance, but I don''t see the ''universal health care'' plan taking off without drastic increases in taxes, which I despise.

I was hoping this thread would give me more reasons to vote for Obama instead of reasons not to vote for McCain (the reason why Kerry lost to Bush).

Indygirl...let me suggest a book if I may, entitled "March of Folly" by a historian named Barbara Tuchman. It is about societies pursuing policies that are antithetical to their own national interest. To make the grade, these policies had to be meet certain criteria. (I''ll elaborate a bit when I get a moment...gotta go soon!) I have not read the entire book - it is broken down by "folly" - I recall she addresses how the Renaissance popes provoke the Protestant Revolution, how the British lose America, and for a full quarter of the book, is a section entitled "America Betrays Herself in Vietnam". I''ve read that one. It is a SERIOUS eye-opener. America''s lack of moral courage didn''t happen at the end, it was part and parcel at the START. That war could have been averted SO many times and early...it staggers the mind.

An excerpt from the opening 2 paragraphs of that section:

"Ignorance was not a factor in the American endeavor in Vietnam pursued through 5 successive presidencies, although it was to become an excuse...All the conditions and reasons precluding a successful outcome were recognized or foreseen at one time or another during the thirty years of our involvement. ... The folly consisted not in pursuit of a goal in ignorance of the obstacles but in persistence in the pursuit despite accumulating evidence that the goal was unattainable, and the effect disproportionate to the American interest and eventually damaging to American society, reputation, and disposable power in the world.

The question raised is why did the policy-makers close their minds to the evidence and its implications? This is the classic symptom of folly: refusal to draw conclusions from the evidence, addiction to the counter-productive. The "why" of this refusal and this addiction may disclose itself in the course of retracing the tale of American policy-making in Vietnam."

From there it is about 150 pages of well-documented analysis. I highly recommend this book!