A Question to Obama Supporters

I apologize for not posting more recently but I've been sidelined by pneumonia and if you notice I haven't posted anything on Clutchfans in any forum in days even though I would love to get fired up about impending pounding the Rox will deliver on the Jazz.

I was in no means doing a post and run and I was in no means attempting to offend Obama supporters but I will stand by my view that most of the opposition towards Clinton has been personal in nature.

Except that most of your criticism for Clinton and praise for Obama mostly deal with personality and very little have to do with issues. You praise Obama for being someone who you feel has the character to unite people and is trustworthy while you condemn Clinton for being distrustful and willing to do anything to win. You argue that Clinton will win by trying to destroy Obama but seem to not mind when Obama or his surrogates take shots at Clinton. As much as you argue it isn't the personalities it seems to come down to personal issues.

And again I find it ironic that if she does become the Democratic nominee you will punish the Democractic party by not voting for them. It strikes me as odd that your view of the defending the party is to punish them if your candidate doesn't win.

Which is the point of my question. After the nomination process is over will you support the candidate who espouses the ISSUES that you support even if that isn't the candidate that you support in the nomination process?

Your argument seems to be that we should short circuit the nomination process and declare it over and unite behind one candidate even though the process isn't over. Further your position is that if the current front runner doesn't end up as the nominee that you will abandon the party.

You feel threatened by my challenging you on where you stand?

and I'm lecturing you?

I've already stated I will support Obama if he wins the nomination and the reasons why. I want to see the war ended in less than a 100 years and would prefer another Breyer than an Alito on the court. I will vote for the candidate in the general who supports those issues and who I think has the best chance of winning. When it comes to the general what happens in the primaries is past as compared to what happens next.

I'm sorry you feel so personally slighted that I can't take a break from Clutch BBS for a few days.

 

Sorry for my absence in the thread and I've been skimming it to catch up. It looks like most of the substantial discussion stopped after page 3 and I'm not going to weigh in, for now, on whether Rev. Wright is profiting from his church. I'm not one to get upset about a derail but really there are several threads on Wrigth that would be better discussed in.

A few thoughts on the thread.

I think it was Batman who raised the question "what about the Clinton supporters who have said they won't vote for Obama?"

That's an important question and one that is very pertinent as even I think Obama is likely to win the nomination. Speaking for myself I've already said that I will vote for Obama because in the general I will suppport the candidate who I think has the best chance of ending the war in many decades less than 100 years and who will appoint justices not looking to repeal the 20th C. to the court.

I thought about starting a thread but didn't think I would get much response as there aren't many CLinton supporters, sorry T_J and Bigtexxx don't count as they wouldn't vote for the Dem. nominee in the general no matter who it is, and there was a thread called "I will never vote for Hillary Clinton"

For Clinton supporters who plan to vote for McCain, a third party or sit out the election though I think it is a very important question whether they think there doubts regarding Obama's background, his associates, his experience, and sadly his race, matter more than the issues that most Clinton supporters seem upset about the war, the economy, the environment, and etc... I don't think the doubts about Obama outweigh those at all.

Next I see a few posters have raised the issue that even if McCain is elected he will be checked by the Congress. I've said this before abut to restate , I think you are greatly underestimating the power of the Presidency.

Like it or not the balance of power has greatly shifted in the past 100 years and we do have an imperial presidency. A lot of this has been deliberate but a lot just do to the growth of the US Bureacracy. Consider just the power of federal appointments and executive orders, not to forget the War Powers acts, and the President wields considerable power without going through Congress. Consider that under Clinton through executive order several new national monuments were created while under GW Bush drilling and mining were allowed in them. Consider the difference between having a James L. Witt vs a Michael Brown as FEMA director or a Janet Reno vs. Albert Gonzales as AG. Even without Congress the president has vast powers that can greatly affect the course of the country.

The other thing to consider is that in showdowns between Congress and the President almost all of the time the President wins. Look at recent history. In 2006 a Democratic Congress was swept in over dissatisfaction with the war well since then we haven't seen a draw down of troops but an increase. Even if Congress were to draw down troops the president could recommit them under the War Powers act for three months. As for blocking Supreme Court nominees, consider that while Bork was blocked Reagan still got Scalia confirmed over a Democratic Congress, and GH Bush got Clarence Thomas confirmed even with a scandal. So while we do have some balance of power to paraphrase Orwell that power is balanced a bit more to one branch than another.

 

I give McCain credit for pledging he will do away with signing statements but even without it the president still wields enormous power. Many of the examples of that I cited had to do with presidencies that didn't use signing statements to the same extent that the current Admin has, something that is unprecedented.

As for McCain running a smooth campaign remember his campaign went broke early on in the campaign and he was the first of any campaign to lend his own money. Also consider his tango around public financing. I would say he has hardly run a smooth campaign but benefitted greatly from the Republican take all system where as Clinton and Obama have been forced to slog it out. As for Clinton's poorly run campaign she has raised more money and garnered more votes than any other campaign in history, with one exception. So it is only in comparison to what I fully acknowledge a phenomenal campaign by Obama that her campaign seems poorly run. That still hasn't excused both campaigns of having to fire staffers for undermining their candidate's message, Clinton from her gaffes or Obama from anticipating the trouble that Wright could cause.

Just to add one more thing regarding appointments since you stated you don't think appointment matter that much. Its not just a matter of competency vs. cronyism but a matter of bureaucractic outlook. Is it any surprise that GW Bush appointments won't aggressively enforce environmental regs or in the case of the FDA or FCC seem to forget at times they have a regulatory responsibility. Its not a matter of Bush appointees all being incompetent, Ashcroft was certainly competant, but a matter of how and what they enforce. While I think McCain's interest in the environment is genuine I have some severe reservations regarding how his AG and Justice dept. will enforce things like civil rights.

 

This is a derail but the problem with your interpretation is that puts the President in the position of the Judiciary in deciding what is constitutional or not.