Not surprising that's your criteria for leadership considering the last 8 years. "The Danger of Obama" Care to explain how that is not a derogatory way to begin your open minded exploration of a candidate?
There is no . . i repeat. . NO POSSIBLE WAY Hillary or Obama can be worse than the current President and his administration. Rocket River
I think it is fair to mention that Obama's positions on issues are not the center piece of his campaign. He isn't out there hammering every move he will make with regards to the issues. He's made where he stands plain, especially if you look at his website. However the main theme of his campaign is finding the common ground. His campaign is more about how he will work with people to get things done, than a list of items he's promising to get done, but may not ever actually happen. Instead Obama says this is where I stand, and I will find as much areas with my stance, and areas in my opponents stances where their is the overlap, and we will work on getting that done. He looks for the center area of the Venn Diagram. That is what his campaign is really about. Some people may want more of a list of what he's going to do, but that just isn't the focus with Obama. It's always going to be more about the method which he will use to lead, than a laundry list of issues.
You obviously have not examined his stances on the issues. They are EXCEEDINGLY liberal. How is this "looking for the center area"? Are you joking? It's one thing to repeat a line, but it's another to actually back it up. OF COURSE the Obama supporters are trying to move this debate away from the issues -- it's because his policy stances do not conform to those of the valued independent voters who are so crucial for victory in the General election! It's that simple.
Except he already has vast support from independents - nationally, in NH, and in Iowa - where there were months of analyzing the issues. His positions may start out far left, but he has shown a history of compromise and working with the other side to come up with legislation that is widely supported. The end result is far more important and relevant than the starting point.
He's not going to take a centrist stance on issues and claim that as his own. He's going to take whatever stance he believes in, but point out that despite there being some differences with his opponents there will still be plenty of areas that they both have in common. Let's look at a hypothetical. Obama supports right to choose. Pro life folks don't. It seems they are on opposite ends, but late term abortion is a position where they will see eye to eye, so he will work to make legislation on that area. It's a hypothetical of course but his whole campaign is about his style. His stance on the issues aren't as important as figuring out where the common ground. His message has been all along that even liberals and conservatives have more in common than they have differences. As for the independents Obama won them over big time in Iowa, and scores will with independents in NH so far too.
As somebody who leans towards the Republicans, I think this is a short sighted, simplistic, knee-jerk assessment of the Republican Party. Politics would be easy if you could boil it down to good vs. evil, poor vs. rich, and breilliant vs. stupid. Such an analysis is intellectually dishonest at best. It isn't like the Democratic Party is trotting out a busload of Mensans either there buddy. Nobody who is truely a member of the intellectual elite WANTS this damned job. It requires a mental flaw that only a select few possess.
Never say never RR. Remember that bonehead economic policy turned an ordinary recession into the Great Depression. It could ALWAYS be worse.
Being able to envision a romanticized future for an administration is exactly why Americans elect their presidents. That's why so many president-elects are the antithesis of their predecessors and, are usually outsiders without a federal legislative track record. Reality is usually disappointing and we use hope for the future as our motivation to carry on. GW Bush was elected from the mostly ceremonial position of Texas Governor because of his flinty-eyed cowboy image as the antidote to the embarrassment of the Blewinsky scandal. And really, the job of the president is the 'the vision thing'. They give a sense of direction and a sense of identity to the nation. They certainly have influence in Congress, but the gritty day to day work of grinding out legislation compromises is done by the Senate and House leaders. Very few radical ideas proposed by any president have ever come out of Congress unadulterated. Frankly some of Obama's ideas are a little too liberal for me, but I'm not too worried about it. I wouldn't think they would become laws that in their final form that I would find unpalatable. In fact, his most positive factor for me is that he seems willing to work within the checks and balances as prescribed by the constitution, something the previous "Conservative' administration tried mightily to circumvent (it's like bizarro world!) Hope is the reason some of us are more interested in the NFL draft than free agency. (guilty) Hope is the reason people practice religion. Hope is the reason people have children. I think it's basic human nature.
Starting a thread about "The danger of Obama" and then claiming that you are open-minded is like: "No child left behind" that pulls funding from entire schools "Mission Accomplished" with years and years of full scale war still ahead of you "Patriot Act" that spys on it's citizens "He didn't deserve that purple heart" when your candidate outright dodged the war. "He supports reparations" when he's on record at least twice denying it. So I guess I can't really expect much honesty from you by judging your leadership.
Find a Democrat here who has been more critical of Obama than I have. If there is one, I must have missed it. Refman, with all due respect (sincerely), consider the record of the Republican Congress prior to the swearing in of the bare majority the Democrats have, and the record of this President, and honestly tell me that the Republican Party, based on its record, isn't intellectually bankrupt. I mean that in the general sense. I know Republicans far different than basso and the Bobbsey Twins... Republicans I wouldn't use that phrase to describe, but even ignoring the constant slander tossed at Democrats here, simply going by the record of the GOP the last several years, how can you say it isn't true? Feel free, but in my opinion, they are indeed intellectually bankrupt as a political party. And the country has figured it out. Impeach Bush.
To follow up on Rimbaud's excellent post there is a risk with any candidate that we don't know about. I'm not an Obama supporter, yet, precisely because I think high level is experience is important. Yeah I'm crazy that way. But to threads like "Obama supports reparations" or "The danger of Obama" are disguising attack under the banner of open mindedness. It would be the same as if I posted a thread called "the danger of Thompson" and said I'm open minded about Thompson but I know that he spent a lot of time in Hollywood and there are a lot of coke users in Hollywood and I haven't heard Thompson specifically deny cocaine use. So yes we should look critically at Obama's record as we should with all of the candidates but not every single question put to somebody is relevant and part of critical assesment is being able to separate what is valid from what is smear.
The problem is that I am not certain that the Dems are any less intellectually bankrupt (those seriously running - rank and file excepted). I'm not certain that intellect really has anything to do with it. Each side has their own pet projects. Each side has their selfish reasons for doing what they do. Each side is enamored with their own power. All I am saying is that I seriously doubt that if all the Dems win their respective elections in November that 4 years from now Shangri La will have replaced D.C. If the Republican party were so intellectually bankrupt (images of the short bus develop), and the Democrats are SO much smarter, then why have the Democrats not swept every election, and why do they hold a bare majority rather than a landslide majority? Frankly, the Republicans disagree with you politically. The current administration disagrees with me politically. But to take that as a total absence of intellect is...frankly...beneath you.
You know, I'm open-minded about that Huckleberry guy, but I'm afraid he might fall off the health wagon, revert to his obese days, and start eating children. That could be bad for America's reputation in the world community.
Would you prefer politically bankrupt? We're talking about a Congress and a President who pushed through tax cuts in the middle of two wars, something that may be a first in our history. I would say there was a lack of intellect in that case. We invaded a country that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States, something that's been a disaster, with tax cuts being pushed the whole time. When it comes to foreign policy, I'd say they were intellectually bankrupt. Bankrupt foreign policy that's alienated our allies and friends around the world, and bankrupt economic policy that's put us into a crisis. You may prefer another term to intellectually bankrupt, but a lack of brain cells within the leadership of the GOP is clearly, to me, in evidence. That's not even getting into advocating torture, surely intellectually bankrupt. Come up with a different phrase. I think it's justified. And when comparing the two political parties, consider who has been in power these last several years, what they were doing, and the consequences. Yes, I wish my party had better leadership, but they weren't in power. We're getting there. Perhaps we'll end up with someone in the White House who can make up for some of the failings of Democratic congressional leadership. I hope so, whoever it is. Impeach Bush.
I find it a little odd that you use 'danger' in the title of the thread and that I would be 'rolling the dice' by voting for Obama. Outside of McCain, Clinton, and Richardson... how many of the candidates on either side have long track records, really? Are all of them 'dangerous risks?' I just don't see it that way. I don't know that there are any candidates, Rebupblican or Democrat, that could do such a huge 180 and surprise us the way GWB did. But just to go along with your hypothetical- I think Obama's demeanor, energy, speeches, methodology, actions have been consistent since I first became aware of him (the awesome speech in 2004.) I think he is who he says he is, and will continue to be. And who is that? Someone who really believes that we're not all that different, neatly divided into red and blue. Someone who sees cooperation as the means to an end. Someone who would reach out to opponents to find as much common ground as possible, rather than stonewall them and fight them to a standstill. Obama's message speaks to everyone who is tired of the fact that Washington is mired in fighting, bickering, and hatred. This the name-calling and frequent declarations of disgust for one another in this D&D forum is a perfect example of that. In reality, will Washington become peaceful and cooperative with him as pres? Of course not! But it could become more peaceful and cooperative. Obama's stances are liberal, and the repubs aren't just going to let his proposals for healthcare and energy reform sail through the house because he's so nice. But with some cooperation and compromise, something might actually get done. Instead of nothing, which is status quo. ...But maybe I'm just projecting my hopes on 'cause he's so likeable. Maybe, but I don't think so, yet. Take the debates tonight- at least twice, he took the conciliatory tone with Clinton saying it's fine that they disagree... these are the words of someone who will negotiate by allowing the other party to have the dignity of the legitimacy of their own argument. Clinton threw her best shot at him and he never bickered back. Contrast that with Hilary's reaction to Eward's attack. I think that if he gets the nod, then we'll see what he's made of going head to head in long battle with the republican candidate.
I don't think the Democrats are necessarily smarter, but election results are hardly a litmus test for intellectual superiority. Look no further than the fact that in 2004, over half of America flooded to the polls due to some strange homophobic obsession or childish fetish with "moral values" to see that there is no direct relationship.
