I've posted about this on several occasions previously- I'm open minded about Obama. He's far preferable to either Hillary or Edwards, the only other viable democratic candidates at this juncture (to be completely forthcoming, i was open-minded about Biden and Richardson as well. The former has bowed out, the latter might as well have). Several of you seem not to think i was being sincere, to which i can only say, go **** yourselves. Additionally, several of you seem to think this is some sort of watershed moment in american history. perhaps it is- my thoughts are here. Lastly, many of you seem to think that challenging Obama to directly answer difficult questions is somehow a "rovian" tactic- if it is, then i say we can't have too much Karl. but to the point, Obama is something of the Rorschach candidate, each of us projecting our own hopes and fears onto what is at its essence a very thin record, not that there's anything wrong with that. the danger is we ignore that record, and only look at what we hope he will become. I did that in '76, '92, and 2000. in at least 2/3 of those I was disappointed. The best commentary any of us could provide on the state of race, and race relations, in this country is to allow Obama the dignity of being judged on his merits. There is much to be admired, and much we don't know. I want to know more.
I agree. But Obama is questioned about real issues in this forum. His healthcare plan, his plans for NASA. People take those concerns seriously. The thread I believe that prompted this thread shouldn't be taken seriously. Because that issue isn't even on the political radar. Its a moot point only brought up to slander.
I agree he should be judged on his merits, not with inflammatory demagoguery and fear mongering. So far we have two misleading thread titles. I'm sure there will be a lot more. Next up: "Obama is a closet Black Panther". How about we try these: "Obama and healthcare" or "Obama and energy policy".
I think basso is just afraid of Obama. They are not posting positives about their candidates at all. Did Obama win already?
I think that many conservative leaning voters (myself included) want to know more about Obama. This is going to be the first time in quite a while that I am looking forward to the debates. If Obama is more grounded than Hillary and Edwards, then he has a pretty good chance at taking the whole ball of wax come November.
I think you are right. Basso and his "fellow travelers" (used without permission by basso) are empty when it comes to the candidates of their party. Without anything good to say about them, as you say, they are left attacking whichever Democrat is the frontrunner. Before, it was Hillary Clinton. Now it's Obama's turn. Sure, Obama has already been hammered with ludicrous innuendo and assorted bull****, but now as the leading Democratic candidate, the bullseye is squarely on the guy. Pretty sad reflection on the intellectually bankrupt "Grand Old Party." Impeach Bush.
I pretty much agree. Both Obama and Huckabee are running the most cliche campaigns ever. Obama is all about change. Change to what? wtf does that even mean. Huckabee is all about the aww shucks I'm a nice guy, I'm not going to negative campaing, I'm trying to change the tone. Its like these guys watched some hollywood movies about campaigns and copied the heroes.
We are taking turns scanning this site for any (and I mean any) remarks you make about Republican candidates. First shift is basso's, of course! We need a volunteer to dig through the archives.
In all seriousness, what are you talking about? Both guys have staked out clear positions on nearly every major issue. Obama disagrees with Bush on nearly everything, including how to treat political opponents. Huckabee has offended both the pro-business and the neocon pro-military wings of the GOP and has directly criticized President Bush. Both have clearly stated how they would change things. Allow me to brag. I said here right after Bush was re-elected that he would be radioactive by 2008 for candidates of both parties and even the GOP candidates would have to run away from him. So what is the #1 mantra in both primaries: "Change", which is a direct shot at our current pathetic disaster of a president.
Deckard, you never cease to amaze, how someone so apparently intelligent can fail so utterly in the basics of reading comprehension. i'm trying to find out more about a candidate i might support, and you seem to think this is somehow "trashing" the candidate. probing glib responses for additional substance is not indulging in ludicrous innuendo. rather, it's all of our responsibility as citizens. sometimes i think i'm the only liberal left on this board. you and your fellow travelers are just party animals. or perhaps you're just willfully obtuse.
If you listen to their speeches. They speak mostly in platitudes and generic bs. Very similar to what George W. did when he was running for president the first time actually.
Great post and right on the mark. Obama's popularity is reflective of a few things: 1) Our brain-dead superficial pop culture in America cozying up to him because some think he is attractive, well spoken, a media darling, and then a side dish of sympathy/white guilt for him being half black 2) The reluctance of the democrats to ask the hard questions and challenge the record of Obama's very very short political career. His record still has yet to be vetted, and once it is by moderates and Republicans, look out. 3) The vast heaps of media praise and attention lauded on him by the likes of Oprah and Hollywood, but also young college-aged voters. Note that none of these voting blocks are particularly viable sources for vetting policy matters or for vetting a candidate. Basically, it's the most inexperienced, ignorant voting blocks. Read this forum and all of its young opinions for support of this thesis. The libs are going to have one heck of a strong case of buyers remorse if they elect Obama, or Hillary for that matter. If an extremely partisan, rabid few libs in Iowa are in charge of picking the lib candidate, I can't see how mainstream, common sense America is going to approve. Look at 2004 for proof.
Poor Jorge Foaming at the mouth so early on a beautiful Saturday morning. Deck is right The TJs of the world are so frustrated with their choice of candidates that they have to resort to kneecapping the obvious front runners. And basso you're not fooling anyone with your "open minded" tire kicking. Stick to plagiarism
Umm, I think his point #2 is legitimate. Points #1 and #3 are not much off the mark, either, inflammatory tone aside.
Stump speeches are stump speeches. Over the last several months, both Obama and Huckabee have made it clear what they believe in. Obama has made several major policy addresses and Huckabee is on record with several controversial ideas, the main one being replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. He also isn't a hardliner on immigration. Before the primaries is where candidates flush out positions and define themselves. The primaries are mostly stump speeches, organizational issues, advertising, sound bites and "get out the vote". Before things heated up on October, Obama was very professorial, wonkish and uninspiring, but he said what he believed in. It was too stale. He had to change gears. The difference between Obama's speeches now vs 6 months ago is amazing. On policy issues, he's still the same guy.
The problem with this is the article was clearly a hit piece - it didn't use any quotes or even thoughts by Obama. It just simply relied on the fact that Obama is friends with someone who supported reparations. I would say that applies to a lot of people in Congress. As an Obama supporter, I tend to agree with this. Frankly, I know relatively little about his specific positions - though they ARE out there if I want to go find them. But frankly, I don't care too much. It's the same reason I support McCain and Bloomberg - I want someone credible, honest, and different from the usual slimy politicians we have out there. Normally, I'm a big believer in divided government (I thought the late 90's were great and got major things accomplished) so it concerns me a bit that Obama would likely have a solid Dem majority in Congress. But with the partisanness of Congress right now, I'm not sure divided government is all that good anyway until the two parties decide to stop simply blocking everything the other side does just for the hell of it. And of the few positions I do know of Obama's, they seem relatively moderate so that is a good sign to me (toned down health care plan, for example). But I fully agree that much of Obama's support comes from the "idea" of what he could be rather than anything specific to his positions. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing but I could certainly see the concern there.
If the measure of a man may be taken in the character of his supporters, the likelihood of my voting for Obama diminishes with each of your posts.
I support Obama, he's my favorite candidate, and I agree. Some pundits on Charlie Rose yesterday were saying the same thing. His speeches are just fantastic. But Honestly, they are mostly sweeping generalities of a better future. But is any other candidate any different? I always think back to the 2000 election- remember when Bush Jr was running (and people believed him!) as the "uniter, not a divider?" That he would "restore dignity to the White House?" We got the most divisive, arrogant, secretive, my-way-or-highway president imaginable. It's not fair to treat Obama like he hasn't taken a stance on the issues. You can check his website, it's pretty clear. The question to me is... what kind of president will he be? Really? I mean, how will he actualize this vision of a unified country, in real-life, day-to-day work? Will he be so persuasive, so good at negotiating, that he'll be able to get his initiatives through the house & senate? What gives me hope is his past record and his demeanor, his energy. In Illinois he pushed some difficult measuers through with true bipartisan support. He doesn't carry himself with spite. When attacked he doesn't attack in return. He doesn't seem interested in winning by defeating/crushing/wreaking revenge on the opponent. Instead, he tries to transform opponents into allies. Of course, it's possible that's all a pipe dream. Maybe that's just my hopes projected onto him, and that's not the reality of the guy we'd get in the Oval Office. But I don't think we'll have to wait long to find out. If he wins NH and SC, if he becomes the Dem candidate and we see the real repub attack machine roll out against him- then we'll see how he reacts to adversity.
One thing to point out, though, basso - most of the top guys on either side have this same danger. Limited "big time" experience, speeches with broad generalizations of change or leadership or thousands of other things that are meaningless, promises of fixing everything when (if lucky) 10-20% could and would actually be done. I guess Hillary and McCain are the two who have the most experience on the big stage and they obviously are flawed themselves. Rudy, Huckabee, Edwards, Obama, and Romney will all face a stark reality if elected and they will all falter at the beginning. They will also all disappoint voters who thought they were something different than what they become as president.
