will Obama be a good President?

[AGBF]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:33:04 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

I don't identify with either political party, but I blame BOTH parties equally...after all, there is Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the people who actually legislate.

I respectfully disagree. That is the kind of statement that sounds great on the surface, but is often quite untrue when examined closely. As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majesty, makes it illegal for the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges". It sounds so fair to make a law about sleeping under bridges, doesn't it...? But it really only affects one segment of the population in reality.

It is true that both Democrats and Republicans are in the legislature, but with a Republican president, legislation cannot be passed unless it can pass a presidential veto. That gives the executive branch a great deal of power that you are not taking into account. And, far more importantly, George W. Bush deliberately misreprented (see The Downing Street Memo) the situation in Iraq so as to mislead the American public about Iraq and get the US involved in a war there.

Once the Republican president had committed that act-deliberately misleading the people into a major war-the United States Congress was never free not to fund the war. It was absolutely NOT free to fail to support American troops in the field. So to blame both parties equally for being caught in a bind from which no honorable or reasonable member of Congress could escape once troops were on the ground in a foreign country (for all Congress could do was to cut off the funds for the war precipitously) is absurd. This war was manufactured by the Republican administration of George W. Bush out of whole cloth. This war drained the country of its money. Anyone concerned about high taxes should look at the war in Iraq first and then look at it again!


Deborah

 

[partgypsy]

Indygirl22, Hollys, just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in the 2004 election? I can understand why you may not want to answer, but justifiably or not, I feel that people who voted for Bush in 2004 are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It wasn''t a situation of not knowing what Bush''s policies or actions were, because we already had 4 years of it.

It was a 4 years that were very bad for the country, because I don''t know if you remember, but people''s very patriotism and love for their country was impunged if you did not go along with the Bush administration''s policies, whether it be the Iraq war, wiretapping and other information collecting, torturing and illegal detention of foreign nationals. "You are with me, or you are with the terrorists".
It was a very scary time with a climate of fear for regular everyday citizens to even state how they felt about how things were going. I don''t even know if regular "middle class" citizens understand what a black mark Bush''s administration placed on this country, because to tell you the truth the media was also intimidated. I only know more fully about it because I have relatives from abroad.

We need our president that is in the mentality of the 21st century. Obama gets it, McCain does not. I feel that having Obama be in that position of leadership would go a long way towards healing relationships to former allies and having a clear foreign policy.
I think this is very important because it is not the US alone in the world. We are facing very challenging times, and we need to put our country in a better position to handle these challenges such as by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, balancing the budget, and repairing relationships abroad versus escalating them. Rightly or wrongly voting in McCain would send a signal that we really didn''t care or were aware of what went on the past 8 years.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:57:43 AM
Author: AGBF

I respectfully disagree. That is the kind of statement that sounds great on the surface, but is often quite untrue when examined closely. As Anatole France said, ''The law, in its majesty, makes it illegal for the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges''. It sounds so fair to make a law about sleeping under bridges, doesn''t it...? But it really only affects one segment of the population in reality.

It is true that both Democrats and Republicans are in the legislature, but with a Republican president, legislature cannot be passed unless it can pass a presidential veto. That gives the executive branch a great deal of power that you are not taking into account. And, far more importantly, George Bush deliberately misreprented (see The Downing Street Memo) the situation in Iraq so as to mislead the American public about Iraq and get the US involved in a war there.

Once the Republican president had committed that act-deliberately misleading the people into a major war-the United States Congress was never free not to fund the war. It was absolutely NOT free to fail to support American trrops in the field. So to blame both parties equally for being caught in a bind from which no honorable or reasonable member of Congress could escape once troops were on the ground in a foreign country (for all Congress could do was to cut off the funds for the war precipitously) is absurd. This war was manufactured by George W. Bush out of whole cloth. This war drained the country of its money. Anyone concerned about high taxes should look at the war in Iraq first and then loook at it again!


Deborah

Oh, okay, you were speaking only about spending for the Iraq War? I am very aware of the sleeping under bridges/disparate treatment argument and I understand your points, but I just don''t singularly blame ONE party when a Democratic Congress itself has voted to pour so much money into Iraq and several key Democrats supported the war. Bush is ONE member of the Republican party and to blame the entire party for his actions seems to reach a bit too much for me, but I also don''t vote along party lines. I would have agreed more if you would have said, "Bush has spent very foolishly" rather than address the entire party. As a member of neither party I don''t have that much of a vested interest in comments aimed at either party, but I just thought it was too general.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:53:58 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/29/2008 9:39:27 AM
Author: MoonWater
Well then I suppose you should understand why my response to your ETA was appropriate, whether you were talking to me or not. You made a general statement that people should look further and I told you what I found when I did when someone first tried to make that same argument. Also, I was confused about the Bush comment because at that time, you were responding to me. So, I just didn''t get it.

Policy, yeah, maybe it should get people worked up, but it doesn''t, oh well. I wish common sense was actually common, but it ain''t, oh well. The average person just doesn''t seem to care beyond what impacts them directly. They take the pieces they need and if they believe the candidate will work for them, they go for it. Hell, some people don''t go that deep and just pick people on instinct, or a feeling. Some people vote against their own interest just to teach the other guy a lesson. So we can wish all day that more people did their research and cared about the details but it''s not going to happen. And for the DNC to try to force that on the majority would be absolutely idiotic. You have that many people in a stadium for that many hours, you damn well better play some freaking music.

I don''t need to like it personally because I don''t expect everything to be tailored to my individual needs. I know, like all should know, that if I want the details, if I want the policy, I''m not looking at the tv to get it and I''m not looking for it in freaking speeches. The internet has an amazing amount of information. I wish more people would use it before complaining about what''s on the tv screen (and this is in general so don''t take personal offense).

I was rseponding to your confusion about my post & clarified my statements...hopefully I cleared things up for you. My statement wasn''t general but referred to a very specific post in which Obama''s voting record in regards to the Iraq War was mentioned. If you spoke about that then yes, my response was to you, but if not, then it wasn''t.

Policy (not just foreign policy) *does* affect people in their everyday lives...I wish more people would take an interest in it for that very reason, but I guess not all voters want to be informed. Policy is what enacts legislation and is the means and ends for every decision a political leader makes. So I would hope that policy would interest people. I would also hope that those attending the DNC would care about it as well, more so than seeing their favorite act on the stage. Just seems like a wrong forum. People can have their own reasons for voting, but I take that right very seriously and I have an idealistic hope that others do the same. I realize this is not true everytime I turn on the radio or TV.

I don''t expect the DNC to be ''tailored'' to my needs because I am not a Democrat. I was merely expressing an opinion that, as an undecided voter, the DNC completely turned me off with all of the celebrity focus. Since Barack''s own website is void of details of the plans he seeks to implement to accomplish his goals, I was hoping the DNC would offer some information, but it didn''t. The Internet is usually not the place to go to find reliable information. But I guess speeches and Conventions are all about rousing up the crowd nowadays. I look forward to comparing the two Conventions.

I understand you are an Obama supporter, but everytime somenoe expresses a contrary opinion it is not necessary to attack them for their viewpoints...

ETA: I''m not offended by ANYTHING anyone has said on here...I just think an open dialogue would be more helpful than trying to discredit/argue about everything someone posts.

If you felt attacked, I''m sorry. I didn''t realize I was attacking you. I thought I was expression my opinion on why I don''t think it''s a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, that there was music being played at an all day event with 80,000 people. Talking policy all day long simple would not keep those people going. It wouldn''t even keep the people in my circle going that are all about policy. The event was a celebration after all.

When I said people don''t take an interest in things that do not effect them directly, I meant that they would most likely tire of hearing of the details of a particular policy that doesn''t impact them directly (i.e. your issue is health care, but they are addressing lost jobs in small towns). To try to go through the details of every policy issue the Administration will attempt to address would wear such a large group down in an event that lasted so many hours. Maybe we should recommend they shorten this stuff? But then the shortest one was held in Baltimore in 1872 and that was 6 hours long! (I know I mentioned this before but Andrew Sullivan mentioned that he went to see Obama speak about his tax policy. It had ALL the damn details and Sullivan said it was unbelievably boring. Very detailed, very well laid out and organized, but boring. He said it was amazing to him because he never thought he could call Obama boring...but that''s how it is with the details...unless it really addresses your particular need...and even then I think would wear down the average person).

Now, what do you consider an open dialogue? If someone posts something that you think is inaccurate, do you just let it slide so it can be open? Or do you ofter an alternate view hopefully supplied with facts? I thought this was an open dialogue. You say your piece, I say mine. Please describe the fashion in which you''d like to have this discussion.

Also, and this isn''t just for you, I notice that people can sit and complain about Obama all day, and even say they absolutely will not vote for the guy, but no one seems to discuss in detail who they prefer and why. I''ve always had this thing against, and not just with this election, spending too much effort discussing people or things that I do not like. I generally don''t like to waste the energy (which is why I''m not rambling on my issues with McCain, if a news story pops up I may post it). The arguments against Obama are redundant and most, at least for me, have been refuted countless times (and often times the complaints are about his supporters or the media and not actually him). So instead I would love for people to tell me who they support and why. I think it would be a lot more interesting.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:57:43 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 8/29/2008 9:33:04 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

I don''t identify with either political party, but I blame BOTH parties equally...after all, there is Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the people who actually legislate.

I respectfully disagree. That is the kind of statement that sounds great on the surface, but is often quite untrue when examined closely. As Anatole France said, ''The law, in its majesty, makes it illegal for the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges''. It sounds so fair to make a law about sleeping under bridges, doesn''t it...? But it really only affects one segment of the population in reality.

It is true that both Democrats and Republicans are in the legislature, but with a Republican president, legislation cannot be passed unless it can pass a presidential veto. That gives the executive branch a great deal of power that you are not taking into account. And, far more importantly, George W. Bush deliberately misreprented (see The Downing Street Memo) the situation in Iraq so as to mislead the American public about Iraq and get the US involved in a war there.

Once the Republican president had committed that act-deliberately misleading the people into a major war-the United States Congress was never free not to fund the war. It was absolutely NOT free to fail to support American troops in the field. So to blame both parties equally for being caught in a bind from which no honorable or reasonable member of Congress could escape once troops were on the ground in a foreign country (for all Congress could do was to cut off the funds for the war precipitously) is absurd. This war was manufactured by the Republican administration of George W. Bush out of whole cloth. This war drained the country of its money. Anyone concerned about high taxes should look at the war in Iraq first and then look at it again!


Deborah

Can I buy you flowers?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:01:01 AM
Author: part gypsy
Indygirl22, Hollys, just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in the 2004 election? I can understand why you may not want to answer, but justifiably or not, I feel that people who voted for Bush in 2004 are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It wasn''t a situation of not knowing what Bush''s policies or actions were, because we already had 4 years of it.

It was a 4 years that were very bad for the country, because I don''t know if you remember, but people''s very patriotism and love for their country was impunged if you did not go along with the Bush administration''s policies, whether it be the Iraq war, wiretapping and other information collecting, torturing and illegal detention of foreign nationals. ''You are with me, or you are with the terrorists''.
It was a very scary time with a climate of fear for regular everyday citizens to even state how they felt about how things were going. I don''t even know if regular ''middle class'' citizens understand what a black mark Bush''s administration placed on this country, because to tell you the truth the media was also intimidated. I only know more fully about it because I have relatives from abroad.

We need our president that is in the mentality of the 21st century. Obama gets it, McCain does not. I feel that having Obama be in that position of leadership would go a long way towards healing relationships to former allies and having a clear foreign policy.
I think this is very important because it is not the US alone in the world. We are facing very challenging times, and we need to put our country in a better position to handle these challenges such as by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, balancing the budget, and repairing relationships abroad versus escalating them. Rightly or wrongly voting in McCain would send a signal that we really didn''t care or were aware of what went on the past 8 years.

I was actually out of the country during the 2004 election in rural Vietnam without any electricity or running water (let alone a postal service) so I regret to say I didn''t get to vote. However, I am from Indiana, a very much red state (only in regards to the president, though) and I don''t think my vote won or lost it for Bush/Kerry. It is your opinion that people who voted for Bush are "part of the problem," but instead of turning this thread into a Bush-bashing one I would love to focus on Obama. It is obvious that most Americans are unhappy with Bush, but Bush is not running for president.

I bolded the part above because I don''t think you are giving "middle class" Americans enough credit in that statement. Most "middle class" Americans I meet are highly knowledgeable about what is going on around them and in the world, and I often find the "high" or "low class" Americans are ones who are often out of touch. Not all, but in my experiences a lot more so.

Again, I don''t think voting for McCain = voting for Bush, for the reasons HollyS has already explained in previous posts, but of course, everyone has a right to vote for whichever candidate they feel will best represent issues they feel are most important.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:18:25 AM
Author: MoonWater

If you felt attacked, I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was attacking you. I thought I was expression my opinion on why I don't think it's a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, that there was music being played at an all day event with 80,000 people. Talking policy all day long simple would not keep those people going. It wouldn't even keep the people in my circle going that are all about policy. The event was a celebration after all.

When I said people don't take an interest in things that do not effect them directly, I meant that they would most likely tire of hearing of the details of a particular policy that doesn't impact them directly (i.e. your issue is health care, but they are addressing lost jobs in small towns). To try to go through the details of every policy issue the Administration will attempt to address would wear such a large group down in an event that lasted so many hours. Maybe we should recommend they shorten this stuff? But then the shortest one was held in Baltimore in 1872 and that was 6 hours long! (I know I mentioned this before but Andrew Sullivan mentioned that he went to see Obama speak about his tax policy. It had ALL the damn details and Sullivan said it was unbelievably boring. Very detailed, very well laid out and organized, but boring. He said it was amazing to him because he never thought he could call Obama boring...but that's how it is with the details...unless it really addresses your particular need...and even then I think would wear down the average person).

Now, what do you consider an open dialogue? If someone posts something that you think is inaccurate, do you just let it slide so it can be open? Or do you ofter an alternate view hopefully supplied with facts? I thought this was an open dialogue. You say your piece, I say mine. Please describe the fashion in which you'd like to have this discussion.

Also, and this isn't just for you, I notice that people can sit and complain about Obama all day, and even say they absolutely will not vote for the guy, but no one seems to discuss in detail who they prefer and why. I've always had this thing against, and not just with this election, spending too much effort discussing people or things that I do not like. I generally don't like to waste the energy (which is why I'm not rambling on my issues with McCain, if a news story pops up I may post it). The arguments against Obama are redundant and most, at least for me, have been refuted countless times (and often times the complaints are about his supporters or the media and not actually him). So instead I would love for people to tell me who they support and why. I think it would be a lot more interesting.

Haha I would *love* to be able to hear Obama speak on his tax policy, especially because it is such a hot button in this election & one of the main reasons people cite for not wanting to vote for Obama.

I won't outline my idea of true "open dialogue" because it will never happen on an Internet forum. I've had several open forums at my law school concerning this election and those have been refreshing and have discussed in detail the candidates's plans with panelists from both sides. People get personal on here (which is against the rules) and assume many things about posters that they shouldn't (not talking about anyone in particular), which makes people uncomfortable stating their opinions.

For the record, I have never said I wouldn't vote for Obama, I actually came to this thread to seek more information about his policies but have for the most part not found it as it relates to my life and issues I feel are important. This thread is named "Will Obama be a good president?" so that explains why every post is centered on him and not other candidates. That is why in my earlier posts I encouraged people to state their reasons for voting for Obama as opposed to reasons why they won't vote for McCain. Feel free to start a thread asking PSers who they are voting for and why.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:09:31 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

Bush is ONE member of the Republican party

I have to pack for a trip, so I will not be able to debate further until tonight or tomorrow, but I did want to make one point. It is irrelevant to the current discussion, but germane to your discussion of Barack Obama. You are on a fact-finding mission about him, after all. While George W. Bush was deliberately misleading the American people about Iraq, having all the facts before him (again, see the Downing Street Memo), Barack Obama was resisting a rush to war.

As you have said, George W. Bush is not running for office, but it says a lot about Barack Obama that he was not one of the many gullible Americans fooled by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and their little plot to find a seemingly legal pretext upon which to start a war. (How sad that neither we nor the Britons can trust our political leaders! I was going to write, "heads of state", but I believe that in the UK the Queen is the head of state.)

At any rate, I look forward to more discussion once my travels are over!

Deborah

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:29:54 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Haha I would *love* to be able to hear Obama speak on his tax policy, especially because it is such a hot button in this election & one of the main reasons people cite for not wanting to vote for Obama.

I won''t outline my idea of true ''open dialogue'' because it will never happen on an Internet forum. I''ve had several open forums at my law school concerning this election and those have been refreshing and have discussed in detail the candidates''s plans with panelists from both sides. People get personal on here (which is against the rules) and assume many things about posters that they shouldn''t (not talking about anyone in particular), which makes people uncomfortable stating their opinions.

For the record, I have never said I wouldn''t vote for Obama, I actually came to this thread to seek more information about his policies but have for the most part not found it as it relates to my life and issues I feel are important. This thread is named ''Will Obama be a good president?'' so that explains why every post is centered on him and not other candidates. That is why in my earlier posts I encouraged people to state their reasons for voting for Obama as opposed to reasons why they won''t vote for McCain. Feel free to start a thread asking PSers who they are voting for and why.

Well one thing I don''t like about this particular forum is the assumption that when someone disagrees they are attempting to insult or attack the person (and even though you said you felt attack I''m not actually talking about you). Instead of the responses being about the issue, it turns into a defense of self. I don''t have that problem on other boards I frequent when we discuss politics. People have very strong views and express them strongly and are sometimes, or heck, often times sarcastic, but no one ever takes it personally. So my postings here would be insanely inoffensive. So it''s weird for me when people keep having this defensive reaction. Part of the reason I laid off this particular area for a while.

This thread actually came after another thread about Obama and people hashed out all of their reasons for supporting him which is likely why many people didn''t bother repeating them in this thread. We were all worn out by then. It''s only so many times you can repeat the same things (although people do repeat the same complaints which I find odd).

I know why this thread is focused on Obama and I would start a new thread but I know it will die. That''s the funny thing about it all. Apparently, Obama is the only thing that''s interesting to people right now. People are more interested in bashing him than they are discussing who they actually like. The McCain thread died two months ago. I know we have a Green party and you can always write someone in, but let''s face it, we will end up with one of the two we have here: Obama or McCain. So even if you will vote for neither, it would be nice to see who people would prefer to have and why. But hey, I bore easily, it''s but so many times I can read about how it''s like he''s a celebrity, he has no substance (after it''s been refuted), he''s an empty suit (been refuted), he has no accomplishments (been refuted).

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:44:59 AM
Author: MoonWater

The McCain thread died two months ago.

Things should get heated up again now that most sources are reporting that McCain''s VP is Sarah Palin.

 

[partgypsy]

Hopefully he will refrain from calling her a c*nt.

(sorry couldn''t resist)

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 11:00:41 AM
Author: part gypsy
Hopefully he will refrain from calling her a c*nt.

(sorry couldn''t resist)

LOL...oh wow...really.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 8/29/2008 8:55:11 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 8/29/2008 8:38:22 AM
Author: HollyS

You need to check the Congressional Record for accurate voting records; not rely on the media or left-wing pundits to tell you that, 95% of the time, McCain voted with Bush. Since the majority of votes are by acclaimation in both houses, because the majority of votes are not about policy or real issues, it can be said that anyone votes with the President 95% of the time. McCain has not voted with Bush on some very key issues in this campaign, including energy, the surge, health initiatives, etc. If you are going to have an opinion, back it with real knowledge. Not a rote memorization of what you''ve been told.

Oh, and folks, we are not in a recession. We had a 3.3% upswing in the economy yesterday. And if you think that''s a small percentage, then once again, you don''t have a clue as to what is true and what is campaign rhetoric. Turn off MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and NBC. Read a newspaper, even the liberal rags, so you can read between the lines. Soundbites are soundbites because they sound good, and people remember them. Doesn''t necessarily make them true.

Great points Holly. I really hate how the media is able to spin ANY ''fact'' & most Americans buy into it. There is a radio station here in Indianapolis (catered towards African-American youths) who has taken it upon itself to pretty much hold an Obama rally every single morning on the air. I switched radio stations because I couldn''t stand the lopsidedness of their rhetoric - praising anyone who called in support of Obama & berating anyone who called in support of McCain. They even insulted MLK Jr.''s daughter for supporting McCain due to his stance on abortion, assuming that she ''owed'' it to her race to support Obama.

It just seemed to me that a media outlet with an audience who does not have a strong voting record would feel some sort of responsibility to address both candidates''s sides of every issue and encourage an open dialogue. Sorry for the rant - the media has really gotten out of control this election & I hope people do their OWN research & are aware of the propoganda out there (from both sides).

I have more faith in the American PEOPLE than I ever will in any single man (president) to improve the nation''s economy.

I agree with Diamondfan that the DNC has turned into some sort of celebrity red carpet. When concerts are being held around the Convention making it look more like a music festival than a political gathering then something is wrong IMHO.

ETA: I would also encourage those saying that Obama has always been against the Iraq War to examine more closely his voting record...he voted against starting the war but he has also either not voted or supported several other measures related to the war...

Actually, I don''t belive Obama was yet in Washington - therefore he had no vote.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 8/29/2008 11:54:33 AM
Author: LAJennifer

Actually, I don''t belive Obama was yet in Washington - therefore he had no vote.

You are so right, LAJennifer. I was referring to a previous poster, but it is true that Obama was not even in the Senate to vote on the war at its beginning. He organized protests against it but never actually voted.

 

[diamondfan]

Holly, those spinmeisters can be invaluable!!!

Look up any of these guys voting records on line. Obama did not vote (just that he was present) in order to NOT have committed to a stance. Now, a few times that can be sensible, you are not ready to decide something, facts are not all in, etc etc, but it was almost like he was trying to be vague so no one could call him on a view or stance LATER.

I think he is bright, and I think the Muslim argument is not strong. Yes, his dad (who he met once at ten) and his step dad were Muslim, but I am not sure there is any real proof they were practicing Muslims or that he took on the views. Clearly for 20 years he has NOT been Muslim...though his preacher was a scary one as we know. His wife is also a bright woman. he has two adorable children, both of whom are being trotted out endlessly. I simply think it is premature for him to be the leader of the free world.

Saw the speech late. It was delivered wonderfully. It sounded great. He said NOTHING new. And let me ask you HOW in the world he is going to do ALL those wonderful things (which most people would agree are important for our future)? They ALL cost money. There is not a chance in this world he can do that and NOT raise taxes more than he is saying...he can get in office and then say, Oh America, I am so sorry, but things are SO much worse than I thought, gotta break some promises. Everyone is so busy lining up to drink the koolaid and getting caught up in the atmosphere that the cold hard light of reality has not shined down yet. This is history, this is emotion, this is the American dream in play, I get it. But this is also the running of a country, not a rock concert. And I just do not think he is the guy for right now. Listening to him last night, it was like, Okay, yes, we ALL want those things. Were are your plans for doing those things, not just standing up here basking in the frenzied adulation of nearly 100,000 people? It sounded like something just too good to be true...vote for me and I alone can figure out how to do all of this, trust me, I am your only hope...

Who does not want America to be a great nation again? Who does not want clean air/water and health care and good fuel alternatives and safe neighborhoods and good educational options for their children?! Who would not like to wipe out terrorism, end this war now, get the economy back on track and to be viewed with respect as nation, rather than with disdain? I mean, sheesh. I think we all want that, unless I mistaken...

Interesting choice by McCain, a woman, great, not one I have ever heard of. But it mixes things up for sure!

 

[MoonWater]

Hmm...this is probably the simpliest way for me to describe my support without all the extra details...

All politicians break some promises. I trust Obama and the promises he will break over McCain''s. That is, I believe that it is absolutely impossible, unless you are KING/QUEEN of a country, to do exactly what you want. You need to work with too many people to get it done. So there is always the chance of broken promises. But Obama offers a lot more of what I want and need than McCain ever could. Obama also possess the intelligence, self reflection, and temperment I desire to get the things I want and need done. McCain does not. Out of touch doesn''t even begin to describe that man. Further, Obama''s life experiences and past acheivements lead me to believe he actually does CARE to help those less fortunate than he. I honestly don''t believe it''s all ambition driving him because if it were, it would have been a lot easier to let Clinton go (after all, she was mentoring him prior to running), learned from them, and then went after her run or term was over...i.e. waited his turn like they kept saying.

 

[diamondfan]

I understand that the president is not sovereign but if I do not have trust or faith in him/her or the agenda, I cannot vote for him/her. Yes, there are checks and balances in our government, with good reason, we are a democracy not a dictatorship, but still...I cannot simply put aside my feelings and hope those checks and balances work, especially with some of the picks likely to be made by him if he wins. Again, I liked most of his ideas, who would not, just feel that in four years we ain''t seeing much in terms of sweeping change, and while a long journey starts with a step and we must, as a country, take that first of many steps, it just does not feel right to me. It would be a Herculean task to even make some of those things come to pass now, let alone that list of things he mentioned last night. I think given more years of experience I would view him in a different light. But it is 2008 and this is the set of options.

I do not find currently find him to be illustrative of what a president should embody. AND NOT THAT I THINK MC CAIN does either. But these are our choices for the most part.

I think a pro life conservative woman as a running mate is not the best choice either, seems you would alienate more women that way...and she seems to lack experience too, though I am not up on her records.

 

[MoonWater]

No person, no matter how many years of "experience" will get much done in 4 years. That''s why I hope Obama gets 8. Now, I only have two choices, so I only judge between the two choices and Obama by far whips McCain''s butt IMO. I at least feel like Obama can comprehend complex issues and utilize common sense. And it has been said many times, the only real way to train to be President is to actually be President. I simply think the man has shown in the past that he has the ability to surround himself with the right people to get the job done. I don''t need him to have all of the experience, I just need him to have the brains.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:10:55 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/29/2008 8:38:22 AM
Author: HollyS

If you are going to have an opinion, back it with real knowledge. Not a rote memorization of what you''ve been told.

To quote William S. Burroughs: ''Innarestin''

Well, the only things you''ve quoted have been biased tomes. Like Obama''s own books, for instance.

 

[HollyS]

AGBF: If you think The New York Times is far too conservative, you and I will never see things the same way. We''ll just have to agree that we disagree.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:01:01 AM
Author: part gypsy
Indygirl22, Hollys, just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in the 2004 election? I can understand why you may not want to answer, but justifiably or not, I feel that people who voted for Bush in 2004 are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It wasn''t a situation of not knowing what Bush''s policies or actions were, because we already had 4 years of it.

It was a 4 years that were very bad for the country, because I don''t know if you remember, but people''s very patriotism and love for their country was impunged if you did not go along with the Bush administration''s policies, whether it be the Iraq war, wiretapping and other information collecting, torturing and illegal detention of foreign nationals. ''You are with me, or you are with the terrorists''.
It was a very scary time with a climate of fear for regular everyday citizens to even state how they felt about how things were going. I don''t even know if regular ''middle class'' citizens understand what a black mark Bush''s administration placed on this country, because to tell you the truth the media was also intimidated. I only know more fully about it because I have relatives from abroad.

We need our president that is in the mentality of the 21st century. Obama gets it, McCain does not. I feel that having Obama be in that position of leadership would go a long way towards healing relationships to former allies and having a clear foreign policy.
I think this is very important because it is not the US alone in the world. We are facing very challenging times, and we need to put our country in a better position to handle these challenges such as by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, balancing the budget, and repairing relationships abroad versus escalating them. Rightly or wrongly voting in McCain would send a signal that we really didn''t care or were aware of what went on the past 8 years.

I believe anyone who voted for John Kerry is ''part of the problem''.

Obama doesn''t GET anything. He isn''t new and different. He''s the same song, fourth verse.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:44:59 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/29/2008 10:29:54 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Haha I would *love* to be able to hear Obama speak on his tax policy, especially because it is such a hot button in this election & one of the main reasons people cite for not wanting to vote for Obama.

I won''t outline my idea of true ''open dialogue'' because it will never happen on an Internet forum. I''ve had several open forums at my law school concerning this election and those have been refreshing and have discussed in detail the candidates''s plans with panelists from both sides. People get personal on here (which is against the rules) and assume many things about posters that they shouldn''t (not talking about anyone in particular), which makes people uncomfortable stating their opinions.

For the record, I have never said I wouldn''t vote for Obama, I actually came to this thread to seek more information about his policies but have for the most part not found it as it relates to my life and issues I feel are important. This thread is named ''Will Obama be a good president?'' so that explains why every post is centered on him and not other candidates. That is why in my earlier posts I encouraged people to state their reasons for voting for Obama as opposed to reasons why they won''t vote for McCain. Feel free to start a thread asking PSers who they are voting for and why.

Well one thing I don''t like about this particular forum is the assumption that when someone disagrees they are attempting to insult or attack the person (and even though you said you felt attack I''m not actually talking about you). Instead of the responses being about the issue, it turns into a defense of self. I don''t have that problem on other boards I frequent when we discuss politics. People have very strong views and express them strongly and are sometimes, or heck, often times sarcastic, but no one ever takes it personally. So my postings here would be insanely inoffensive. So it''s weird for me when people keep having this defensive reaction. Part of the reason I laid off this particular area for a while.

This thread actually came after another thread about Obama and people hashed out all of their reasons for supporting him which is likely why many people didn''t bother repeating them in this thread. We were all worn out by then. It''s only so many times you can repeat the same things (although people do repeat the same complaints which I find odd).

I know why this thread is focused on Obama and I would start a new thread but I know it will die. That''s the funny thing about it all. Apparently, Obama is the only thing that''s interesting to people right now. People are more interested in bashing him than they are discussing who they actually like. The McCain thread died two months ago. I know we have a Green party and you can always write someone in, but let''s face it, we will end up with one of the two we have here: Obama or McCain. So even if you will vote for neither, it would be nice to see who people would prefer to have and why. But hey, I bore easily, it''s but so many times I can read about how it''s like he''s a celebrity, he has no substance (after it''s been refuted), he''s an empty suit (been refuted), he has no accomplishments (been refuted).

You are insulting. And then you wonder why people respond to you as they do.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 1:33:29 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 8/29/2008 9:10:55 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/29/2008 8:38:22 AM
Author: HollyS

If you are going to have an opinion, back it with real knowledge. Not a rote memorization of what you''ve been told.

To quote William S. Burroughs: ''Innarestin''

Well, the only things you''ve quoted have been biased tomes. Like Obama''s own books, for instance.

Where as you have quoted absolutely nothing. Go fig.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 8/29/2008 1:51:18 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 8/29/2008 10:44:59 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 8/29/2008 10:29:54 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Haha I would *love* to be able to hear Obama speak on his tax policy, especially because it is such a hot button in this election & one of the main reasons people cite for not wanting to vote for Obama.

I won''t outline my idea of true ''open dialogue'' because it will never happen on an Internet forum. I''ve had several open forums at my law school concerning this election and those have been refreshing and have discussed in detail the candidates''s plans with panelists from both sides. People get personal on here (which is against the rules) and assume many things about posters that they shouldn''t (not talking about anyone in particular), which makes people uncomfortable stating their opinions.

For the record, I have never said I wouldn''t vote for Obama, I actually came to this thread to seek more information about his policies but have for the most part not found it as it relates to my life and issues I feel are important. This thread is named ''Will Obama be a good president?'' so that explains why every post is centered on him and not other candidates. That is why in my earlier posts I encouraged people to state their reasons for voting for Obama as opposed to reasons why they won''t vote for McCain. Feel free to start a thread asking PSers who they are voting for and why.

Well one thing I don''t like about this particular forum is the assumption that when someone disagrees they are attempting to insult or attack the person (and even though you said you felt attack I''m not actually talking about you). Instead of the responses being about the issue, it turns into a defense of self. I don''t have that problem on other boards I frequent when we discuss politics. People have very strong views and express them strongly and are sometimes, or heck, often times sarcastic, but no one ever takes it personally. So my postings here would be insanely inoffensive. So it''s weird for me when people keep having this defensive reaction. Part of the reason I laid off this particular area for a while.

This thread actually came after another thread about Obama and people hashed out all of their reasons for supporting him which is likely why many people didn''t bother repeating them in this thread. We were all worn out by then. It''s only so many times you can repeat the same things (although people do repeat the same complaints which I find odd).

I know why this thread is focused on Obama and I would start a new thread but I know it will die. That''s the funny thing about it all. Apparently, Obama is the only thing that''s interesting to people right now. People are more interested in bashing him than they are discussing who they actually like. The McCain thread died two months ago. I know we have a Green party and you can always write someone in, but let''s face it, we will end up with one of the two we have here: Obama or McCain. So even if you will vote for neither, it would be nice to see who people would prefer to have and why. But hey, I bore easily, it''s but so many times I can read about how it''s like he''s a celebrity, he has no substance (after it''s been refuted), he''s an empty suit (been refuted), he has no accomplishments (been refuted).

You are insulting. And then you wonder why people respond to you as they do.

Hmm...let me go find that dictionary and look up the word hypocrite. Or I could hand you a mirror if you like.

 

[Ali]

I was hoping to be able to keep the political threads open in this forum but it seems that the reminder that has been pinned at the top is not being heeded.
I am not being left with too many choices.

For what it''s worth, I will give one more reminder in this thread:

Do not attack eachother.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 8/29/2008 12:32:19 PM
Author: MoonWater
Hmm...this is probably the simpliest way for me to describe my support without all the extra details...

All politicians break some promises. I trust Obama and the promises he will break over McCain''s. That is, I believe that it is absolutely impossible, unless you are KING/QUEEN of a country, to do exactly what you want. You need to work with too many people to get it done. So there is always the chance of broken promises. But Obama offers a lot more of what I want and need than McCain ever could. Obama also possess the intelligence, self reflection, and temperment I desire to get the things I want and need done. McCain does not. Out of touch doesn''t even begin to describe that man. Further, Obama''s life experiences and past acheivements lead me to believe he actually does CARE to help those less fortunate than he. I honestly don''t believe it''s all ambition driving him because if it were, it would have been a lot easier to let Clinton go (after all, she was mentoring him prior to running), learned from them, and then went after her run or term was over...i.e. waited his turn like they kept saying.

It''s that self-reflection thing for me (I addressed it more fully in that other long post of mine). A person who still isn''t reflective - by his OWN admission - when in his 70''s, is not the man I want with his finger "on the button" so to speak. Oh, and the war....the war looms large as an issue for me, because it has the potential to trash whatever policies EITHER man plans to implement. It IS the 900-lb gorilla in our collective room, IMO.

Really, you don''t need to know every jot and tiddle of the details. As Moon says, promises WILL be broken, regardless of who wins. What matters are the issues that matter to YOU most and where the candidate stands in broad strokes on those issues. My husband isn''t thrilled with some of the proposals of Obama (regarding education as I recall, and a few others I don''t), but he will vote for him because on balance, his perceived pluses outweight the minuses. And so with me. I desperately want a man who THINKS. Who has a cool head. Can correlate vast swarms of data. And is nuanced in his approach. I see much more of this in Obama than McCain.

I see neither man as "evil" or stupid or incompetent. But they are VERY different.

 

[diamondfan]

I think it takes nothing to say things are "broken" for the most part in our country right now and that we need to take steps to fix things. It is a total no brainer. Bush may have accomplished a few good things (I am willing to say there are some, and hope there are) but his is not a legacy to be proud of and it is a shame that the US is viewed with such derision globally.

I also think it is so easy after pointing fingers and laying blame to use sweeping rhetoric to rile people into a frenzy. People WANT to hear it, they WISH to be told those things, they are so invested in believing it. And who would not be? America can be great again! We can wipe out poverty, illiteracy, terrorism, environmental troubles, economic woes, global warming, oil dependency, war, foreign relations problems...did I miss anything? I mean, sign me up! I would love to get those things under control and even eradicated.

But at the end of the day, being President of the US is a TOUGH and thankless job to a degree. It has tons of power but also tons of pressure. I am happy two bright men even want to take this on. However, there are things I am not happy about. Tax reform on one hand I am all for, the tax code is archaic and antiquated and needs an overhaul. But, I am in the hightest bracket and I want to be shown that government is doing all it can with the money it has and is allocating it properly and trimming where needed before I just happily accept a huge tax hike. I pay ENOUGH in taxes, thank you. I do not feel throwing more money at things is the answer. It also can backfire, as soon as you take MORE of someone''s money there are things that naturally get sacrificed along the way. I do not feel I should pay even more taxes as a blanket answer to all ills. Bring in a brilliant business man to fix the ecomony, appoint someone with fiscal experience to that post. Also, the line in his speech about I AM my brother''s keeper was a bit creepy to me. I am NOT a believer that government solves all ills and that more government is better. I simply do not feel this way. The government is there to help and protect and defend us, but it must also allow that people for the most part are capable and will make good choices. Of course that is not true for all people but it cannot be false for most people either.

 

[Dancing Fire]

i''m in favor of one flat tax % for everybody.

 

[stone_seeker]

I am not voting for Obama simply because he belonged to various anti-semitic institutions (Rev Wright ties to Louis Farakhan among others). He speaks countless times about judgment on various issues, but only gained judgment to leave a church that denounced the existence of entire races only when it helped his candidacy for President.

If Obama wasnt running for office, would he still be a member of this church? I think we can all say the answer to that is YES. And that, folks, speaks volumes when it comes to judgment. He deftly evaded the issue by giving a speech on racism and how his race was the reason he belonged to this church. Sadly, millions of Americans bought it.

 

[partgypsy]

An unfortunate outcome of the Bush administration was that he cut taxes, while expenditures were greatly raised. The biggest new expediture of course was the Iraq war, which was conveniently not even put in the regular budget so it was hard for people to know exactly how much money was being spent). (See any simularities with the Reagan administration?
Tax cuts are fun in the short term, but as we are seeing with the devaluing of the dollar (among other things) it is definitely not fun in the long term. This is the legacy that the next president, whoever it is, will be inheriting.

The reality of it is that most economic analysts think that no matter who is elected this year, the next president will HAVE to raise taxes, there is simply no sustainable way for this government to continue to operate if the deficit is not brought under control. It may also mean making changes in social security and medicare. Obama is simply being honest and realistic.

I agree that legislators like to throw money at problems, even if the problem is not readily amenable to simple dollar signs. That''s why someone who has promised to look at all programs with an eye to removing those which are not working, especially someone who is coming into office not beholden to special interests, is very attractive to me. Obama has been very consistent, in his work, in his speeches and in his voting that many problems are not amenable to government solutions. Regardless, there are basic things that the federal government needs to fund. The needs don''t go away, often they then fall to the already overloaded states budgets to contend with if the Federal government does not.

During World War II people did without, grew victory gardens, rationed items for the good of the country. We have gotten to the point that we are crybabies if a tax increase is mentioned, vote for anyone who promises tax cuts. The problem is that we all need to sacrifice a little (tax increase) to make sure this country is sustainable in the long term. I want to vote in a candidate who has a long term vision for this country, not just saying stuff (tax cuts) that is palatable but short-sighted. I really really wish that people would look beyond tax increase versus no tax increase for who to vote for. Though some people and corporations have really benefitted with a lack of taxation and of course want to continue that, no one will be doing well in this country if we end up losing the middle class.