I've just skimmed this thread and I agree with the original post. While I generally think Obama would do fine as president and would likely vote for him if he won the Dem nomination I am bothered by the messianic nature that his campaign has taken. I've seen here on CF.net and other places Obama supporters say that his positions don't really matter as much as his style. That strikes me as a misguided and shallow reason to support someone, akin to the argument that I would vote for the guy I would rather have a beer with. While there is no doubt that having an inspirational candidate is a great thing it doesn't seem like most Obama supporters have really thought through how is Obama going to bring about change. The impression that I get is that Obama supporters believe that political opponents will simply swoon as much for Obama as they do and the mere presence of him will somehow lead to great change. The problem with that is if Obama has such magical powers why are there those who share most of his views in the Democratic party still willing to oppose him? Politics is a game of power and interests and its naive to think that other groups will simply give up their power and interests in the face of a very charismatic politician. Yet most Obama supporters have invested their view that Obama is truly a uniter and not a divider to bring about major change. Leaving asides these are platitudes that almost every candidate will throw out I think in Obama's case there is a real question of how will he do that? Are Obama supporters prepared to accept that he might have to make serious compromises to his platform to get things passed or that his incredible oratory won't sway those vehemently opposed to his platform? Obama and his supporters like to say that Obama will focus more on what we hold in common rather than what divides us. That's fine and good but it has also been said by many politicians including the current occupant of the Whitehouse. The other problem with that is that for how much we have in common there is a lot that does divide us. There wouldn't be political parties otherwise. Also the process for getting things passed is by nature a messy and unpleasent process. Consider why many bills that have wide support get held up or have all sorts of riders attached to get something else passed. So while Obama might rightfully say that the country is interested in getting a healthcare plan would he compromise if the price of getting that passed is to agree to something like a federal waiting period on getting an abortion? My view is that a lot of people have made Obama a cipher and imbued him with all sorts of hopes and dreams. The problem I have though is what happens when the rhetoric has to become a reality.
Except that his style of leadership is different than just having a beer. If people support someone because they have a record of being very efficient and getting things done, then supporting the style of efficiency in a leader makes sense. Likewise if his style is likely to get things accomplished, then that is what is most important, especially since he will focus accomplishing things that most people can agree on. I disagree that the current administration had the same plans on focusing on what we all had in common. The current administration did claim to be uniters that could work in a bi-partisan fashion, but they never spelled out the method they use to accomplish that like Obama has. It has to do with how he will accomplish working in issues. As far as compromise, there will need to be some, but not as much because compromise deals with two sides wanting opposite things and agreeing to each give up some of what they want to keep the rest. Compromise starts with a principle of disagreement. Obama is talking about starting at places that are already in agreement. When two sides agree on something neither really has to compromise that much. The danger isn't in compromise so much as having too much of the areas that people disagree on, being stripped away before focusing on the areas of agreement. But I don't see it as being so much I'll give in to this demand that I don't like if you agree to that demand that you don't like. That being said, I don't expect anyone to give up the old ways easily, or that they will just fall under his spell and do whatever he asks. I don't expect politics to all of a sudden change should he get elected. It will take work and time. I do believe that his way is a good way, and more than any other candidate he has the potential to improve the tone over time, and show a path even if everyone else doesn't follow that path immediately. It is a better way. His goals are ambitious, and they believe it is better to start a whole movement than argue over something smaller like each individual policy. One is more productive and new. The other has gotten us to where we are now. As Obama says, for some people they thing in order to be realistic you have to set your sights lower. Obama doesn't think that way and sets his sights higher. People somehow believe that hope is just sitting around with your head in the clouds and waiting for something new to happen. That isn't Obama's idea of hope. He has shown that he is willing to act, and isn't afraid to do so in tough situations. He has a solid record of accomplishments in just two years in the Senate. It is fine if people disagree with Obama, but I don't think it's accurate to say his campaign is lacking in substance because the main focus is on something bigger. His positions are stated, written and present for folks to see, but arguing about them over and over has been done for decades and gotten us to the point we are at now.
That's complete nonsense. Do you disagree that Bush's style of leadership has caused a large number of problems for this country? Not the policies themselves, but simply his view of the law and when/who it applies to, etc? Here's a more direct example of the value of "leadership style". In 1994, when HillaryCare got killed, there was a bipartisan compromise plan for health care that would have helped millions of people. But Hillary killed it - because it didn't include mandates. The result? 15 years later, we are still left with nothing. Millions of families would have had better healthcare for the past decade but got screwed because Hillary had a "my way or no way" policy in the expectation that she would get her way. That's where leadership style and philosophy matters. Beyond that, I have yet to see the "substantive" argument for Hillary either. Where is that? Her strengths are supposedly "experience" and "management skills". On the former, what experience does she have exactly? What are her successes? She accomplished virtually nothing in the Senate. A few days ago, she made a big deal about how, when she is President, DC would get a representative vote in Congress. Why didn't she ever bring that up in her eight years in the Senate? Or the eight in the White House before that? On the management skills, look at the disaster that is her campaign. Her closest friends were too scared to tell her they were out of money. She has been out-organized and out-managed by the supposedly inexperienced guy. She's the only one tough enough to take on McCain, but she she's struggling against Obama. How messed up is that? I'd love to hear the argument for Hillary from one of the people who claims Obama has no substance.
That's easy. Whatever you're for, she is for too! Whatever you don't like, she dislikes too! If you change your mind - don't worry - she has too!
For Hillary, the goal is winning, not leading. That's the fundamental problem with her. This is the Hillary style of "leadership". Harsh, but well supported. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
an even greater problem is when rhetoric becomes policy. watched his speech last night and his "soak the rich, profits are bad" mantra shows a disturbing lack of insight into the basic underpinnings of capitalism. add that to the messianic appeal of the candidate, storm the barricades attitude of his supporters, and you have a recipe for potential disaster. i can think of an example or two from contemporary south america, and others from history, if one wants a sense of what america under obama would look like. i'm disturbed.
You guys sound like some hialrious parody of every anti-Bush politico for the last 8 years. It was terribly disturbing. Prepare to be counter-disturbed.
It is hilarious how scared the republicans are of Obama. They know Mccain can't beat him. He dominates their thoughts. The conservatives aren't worried about Hillary at all anymore.
I would like to point out that in regard to the Iraq resolution that Obama wasn't in the US Senate at the time and couldn't vote on the resolution and has said that he wasn't sure how he would've voted if he had been in the Senate. Under the reasoning that its better to be right then heck I'm more qualified than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and anyone else in the US Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution since I never voted for it and thought it was a bad idea.
I would say both his positions and his policies are problematic. In regard to comparing GW Bush to Obama, GW Bush in 2000 did run a campaign largely based on platitudes and style as compared to the technocratic campaign run by Al Gore. I've already stated in another thread some of Hillary Clinton's major accomplishments but I will also add that for Obama supporters who fret about the amount Bill Clinton is playing in Hillary's campaign then Hillary's record is also tied up with Bill Clinton's and I would take the Clinton presidency over any campaign of 2008.
Well he was on the right side of the war then, and he didn't vote for it. True he wasn't there, but that shouldn't be held against him. It isn't a fault. What is a fault is that Hilary was there, and voted in favor of it. Even more troubling is that her voter record on Iran shows that once again she's willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I will take someone who was in solid opposition to the war even though he wasn't in the senate, over someone who was there, and voted the wrong way once, and has shown that she hasn't learned her lesson.
But you didn’t make a speech in 2002 against the war before the war started And as far as his saying he didn’t know how he would have voted, you have to look at the context of that answer and where it was asked. It was asked during the Dem convention in 2004, I belive it was right before Obama was about to give his key note and he didn’t want to embarrass the nominee, Kerry so he tried to be diplomatic in his response.
Bill Clinton's presidency was great - lots of great things got accomplished. The major aspects Hillary worked on, however, were pretty dismal failures. She had two major areas - health care, which was a complete disaster, and fundraising, which led to major scandals. However, Bill's presidency also resulted in the Democratic Party losing both the House and the Senate, as well as governorships and state legislatures all over the country. Part of it was that confrontational style of Hillary's in her health care disaster. Bill was at his best with a GOP Congress. Frankly, that's my biggest concern with Obama. I'd much prefer Obama with a GOP Congress (but there's no way for that result to occur), and it's one of the reasons why I wouldn't mind McCain with a Dem Congress. When you have rational leaders on both sides, then a split-government tends to work best in my opinion, because you end up with compromise, centrist solutions.
The problem though is that often to make legislation work it is common practice that bills or appointments get muddled and something unpopular but very dear to an interest group gets attached to something popular. As I stated earlier Obama might see common cause with a conservative on an issue like reducing unwanted pregnancy but what is he going to do when that conservative attaches a rider to a bill regarding unwanted pregnancy that limits access to abortion clinics? Yes Obama does have positions but the problem is that his positions out of the remaining candidates is the most liberal yet the theme of his campaign is all about unity. His platform doesn't square with his positions unless you buy into that he can win over opponents. Anyway you make the point of why I think Obama's campaign lacks substance. "His positions are stated, written and present for folks to see, but arguing about them over and over has been done for decades and gotten us to the point we are at now." The question then is should positions matter? If you don't think we should be debating those and just buy into his style you are putting style over substance.
