The case for Obama

[Swedish Extrovert]

The Case for Obama

By Nathan Anderson

Times-Record Staff

I caucused for Obama, and I still support him. I don’t think he was the best candidate at first – I liked Biden - but now it’s Obamamania.

Ultimately, I’m an Obama supporter because of Hillary’s selfish pursuit of power that stands to potentially give the Republicans another 4 years at best, and ruin the Democratic part at worst. (I’ll explain this later.)

I don’t trust a lot of things about Hillary, but it’s mainly her calculating opportunism: growing up in Illinois, attending school in Connecticut where she was President of the college Republicans, married Bill in Arkansas and stood on the board of advisors for ‘Satan corp.’ (aka WALLMART), then carpetbagged to New York (she bought a house there just so she could claim residency).

Yes, I know she’s “changed” but I’m confident that that is because the wind of opportunity has changed on her as well. She never gives a straight answer, and these are the reasons why I don’t trust her.

Instead she feeds us with “Solutions for America.” But where is this experience she’s talking about anyway? I haven’t seen it. Her senatorial career has actually been rather dull.

Is it her health care system she proposed under the last administration that, according to Christopher Hitchens, “combined the heartlessness of capitalism and the brainlessness of socialism?” Being one of the - surely dozens - of women to sleep with Bill is like saying “I was the janitor at Harvard, therefore I’m an intellectual.”

Besides, Hillary was elected in 2002, and Obama in 2004. Obama had been serving in the state senate, so if you include that, Obama actually has more legislative experience.

Not only has her career been relatively dull (certainly in comparison to the likes of Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Robert Byrd, for example), Hillary has also been divisive. She’s secured over 3 times as many earmarks as Obama, and wont even release them to the public. She’s secured more money from lobbyists too. This is about as secret and corrupt as it gets in the Democratic side of the Senate chamber.

On the other side, Barack is a lot like Ted in terms of legislating. Neither Obama or Kennedy PROPOSED anything spectacular, but they are great in the legislative process in reaching a viable compromise. Kennedy is legendary at this.

And frankly, I don’t care about experience. This isn’t irresponsible because when it all comes down to it, the President is really just a cheerleader. Sure, their policy should be in the right place – Obama’s is - but he/she still has a congress and a supreme court to answer to. A candidates ability to reach across the isle to the other side and compromise is far more valuable than his or her ‘experience’?

This is why we can’t hold Bush completely responsible for the mess where in now: congress had to screw it all up too. In terms of partisanship, Hillary really isn’t any different from Barack, other than in divisiveness.

I didn’t mind Hillary so much until she was falling behind. She started a Karl Rove-like attack on Obama, to which he barely pushed back – just enough to cover himself. If the Democratic Party is the party of integrity and principle, then why campaign the way Hillary has?

You can tell a lot about a President’s decision-making by looking at the way they campaign. Obama, Romney, and McCain all ran fantastic campaigns – coming in as underdogs (except for McCain) and crawling back.

Hillary ran an inept campaign, squandering early leads of more than 20 points.

Do I even need to mention the crying? I don’t care if it was sincere or if it was calculated. What kind of message does that send? Is it that she is not tough enough for the job (at least that’s how many other nations will perceive it) OR that she will do anything to win?

Secrecy and mudslinging have defined the Clinton campaign. Do we really want another Richard Nixon in office?

A lot can be said about the 1984 election with Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. Walter Mondale was an old, moderate, ‘old establishment’ Democrat with a great amount of dissent from the Republicans for his work with Jimmy Carter. Gary Hart was a young, vibrant visionary with bipartisan support.

Mondale came out with a vicious attack against Gary Hart, criticizing his campaign as shallow rhetoric satirizing the popular Wendy’s commercial “Where’s the beef?”

Sound familiar?

It kinda sounds like “He offers speeches, I offer solutions.”

In a much-heated primary, Mondale won. (I believe this was the last election that actually required the superdelegates.) Guess what happened? Those dissented Republicans and Independents fell in love with a man named Ronald Regan. Mondale was trounced and the Conservative revolution was born.

What would have happened if Hart won the primary? This is pure speculation at this point - but he had a better chance at defeating Regan. A viable, charismatic non-polarizing liberal would have really toned down the Regan dynasty. As a result, there would be fewer conservatives today, and they wouldn’t be SO conservative - had Hart defeated Mondale.

In the viable situation that Hart could have DEFEATED Regan, do you really thing that Regan would have ran again, at 70 years old, after having failed twice? (McCain, anyone?)

There's a bit of an anachronism there - Regan had already served one term, but had a charismatic visionary like Hart won, I still feel the out come would have been drastically different.

The 2008 election is eerily similar to the 1984 election. Do we want to elect another Mondale (Hillary) to run against a pragmatic unifier like Regan (McCain)? We have a chance to put a vocal visionary like Hart (Obama) in office that will give Democrats inspiration for decades to come.

Barack Obama could become the Democratic Ronald Regan.

I’m serious.

If you haven’t figured out by now, I’m definitely left-leaning in my politics. But I would rather have a unifier like MCCAIN in office than a polarizer like Hillary in office.

There are plenty of left-leaning independents like myself that will go for McCain if Hillary continues this pointless endeavor.

Because regardless, the primary is pointless if one cant get elected.

Despite the fact that Hillary's voting record is more conservative than Obama’s, she is still despised by Republicans and many independents. Obama is actually the more liberal candidate – and one that can steal votes from the other side. Hillary is the more conservative of the two, but is still despised by the other side.

Hillary should know that defeat is inevitable, and she is only hurting her own party.

But that doesn’t matter when all you’re seeking is power.

According to Pollster.com, 43 % of the population has a disdain for Hillary... only 15% for Obama or McCain, and they're all the same in terms of percentage of people with "favorable" views.

How can someone expect to get elected when nearly half the population HATES you?

This goes all the way back to July of 2007, where Rasmussen was reporting the polls. Just about every viable Democrat was defeating just about every possibly Republican selection: except Hillary vs. McCain.

Hillary is already dividing the party, but in the highly unlikely *edit – now mathematically impossible* situation that Hillary takes the Democratic primary, she will divide the party and lose to McCain, giving us 4 more years of Republican rule. (Personally, I would rather see that than have Hillary as commander in chief)

So, ultimately a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain. (I wouldn’t mind having McCain in office, but I would rather see Obama.)

Why does Hillary run even though it’s a mathematical impossibility for her to be come nominated?

Why is she encouraging superdelagates to deny the will of the voters?

Why does Hillary divide the Democratic party more, at this crucial time in our history?

Screw McCain… a vote for Hillary is another vote for BUSH.

What we need is a vocal leader who is going to be unifying and pragmatic. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have those qualities – Hillary doesn’t. Obama is a better leader than Hillary.

The dumb voters support Obama because of his rhetoric and passion.

The average voters support Hillary because she really does offer more in terms of legislation than Obama (although Obama has a detailed health care plan, energy plan, and everything else to counter Hillary, contrary to popular belief).

The smart voters will vote for Obama because they know that having a ‘solution’ is only one tenth of the matter. The real test lies in bringing the branches of government together.

I’m far more confident in Obama’s ability to do that.

[cutthemdown]

lol at comparing someone to Kennedy as a way to influence people to vote for the guy.

[Dukes]

Bipolar much?

"I wouldn't mind having McCain in office"

"Screw McCain... a vote for Hillary is another vote for Bush"


I do agree with him about Hillary being a terrible president though.

[Arkie]

A candidates ability to reach across the isle to the other side and compromise is far more valuable than his or her ‘experience’?

That may be true, but Obama lacks both. He's got great style and personality. He will tell you that he can do that and make you believe it. The fact remains that Obama's voting record is one of, if not THE most liberal in the Senate. But then again, his inexperience is actually a positive because he doesn't have a lot to answer for, and he doesn't have as many promises to keep. People are just ready for change.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Quote:
A candidates ability to reach across the isle to the other side and compromise is far more valuable than his or her ‘experience’?

Originally Posted by Arkie

That may be true, but Obama lacks both.

This singular statement proves you know virtually nothing about Obama. He's been reaching across class, race and political party lines for 20 years, most of it outside the political limelight, and even his detractors on the right side of the aisle in the Senate aknowledge this. As for experience, he has more legislative experience than Hillary and while Hillary was using her law degree to make money, he was using his to create changes in his community, a community that is absolutely notorious for swallowing up those who aren't part of the approved political machine, and he did it as a half white/half black guy from HARVARD of all places. Consider how that must have flown with the good 'ol black guys network in Chicago...those same people now respect him and support him.

Obama isn't just a good public speaker, he's a true leader, and one who has also surrounded himself with other good leaders. Hillary is a packaged politico whose primary accomplishment has been to have the missfortune of being married to Bill.

[mhgaffney]

The real issue today is this: Will the next US president be controlled by Wall Street or the Military Industrial Complex? Will he/she be controlled by the Israel lobby?

We all know that Hillary and McCain are both in the thrall of all of the above.

The only remaining Q is: What about Obama?

We need someone who will act in the nation's best interest -- not in the best interests of the bankers, the industrialists or Israel-first.

Is Obama that guy? I still do not know.

MHG

[Swedish Extrovert]

Whats wrong with supporting Israel?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by Dukes

Bipolar much?

"I wouldn't mind having McCain in office"

"Screw McCain... a vote for Hillary is another vote for Bush"


I do agree with him about Hillary being a terrible president though.

OR.... maybe I think Hillary would be as bad as Bush

[epicSocialism4tw]

Decent article.

I like your ideas...you seem unafraid to let your opinions known even though they might be a little different. You also allow your ideas to be heard without coming off as a pretentious knot in the text. The writing could be a bit better arranged from an organizational perspective, and it could be better from the literary perspective. You also have some places where you lean on old grammatical crutches (elipses, overuseage of the hyphen, run -on sentances, etc).

Other than those criticisms, good job.

[Kaylore]

I like his resume' the best:

Number of pieces of legislation written: 0

Years of experience as a Senator: 2

Prior national public offices held: none

Percentage of votes missed on the Senate floor: 38%

Experience working on foreign policy: none

Experience working in the private sector: none

Experience heading a Federal department: none

Experience appointing judges: none

Experience speaking in nebulous terms about platitudes: extensive

He's the man, alright!

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by MightySmurf

Whats wrong with supporting Israel?

gaffney thinks it's wrong because he's a Nazi, and he hates Jews.

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffney thinks it's wrong because he's a Nazi, and he hates Jews.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I like his resume' the best:

Number of pieces of legislation written: 0

Years of experience as a Senator: 2

Prior national public offices held: none

Percentage of votes missed on the Senate floor: 38%

Experience working on foreign policy: none

Experience working in the private sector: none

Experience heading a Federal department: none

Experience appointing judges: none

Experience speaking in nebulous terms about platitudes: extensive

He's the man, alright!

Not to many freshmen senators get the opportunity to do any of the things you listed. But fewer still gain the respect of their political party at the national level to the point where they're able to run for President. I'll take this guys record any day over the one Hillary has. BTW...Obama has worked in the private sector for the Business International Corporation when he graduated from Columbia and for Alan Greenspans economic consulting firm.

[baja]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Not to many freshmen senators get the opportunity to do any of the things you listed. But fewer still gain the respect of their political party at the national level to the point where they're able to run for President. I'll take this guys record any day over the one Hillary has. BTW...Obama has worked in the private sector for the Business International Corporation when he graduated from Columbia and for Alan Greenspans economic consulting firm.

That's not good news...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffney thinks it's wrong because he's a Nazi, and he hates Jews.

Yeah. No American should be concerned that one of the top three most powerful PACs lobbying the American government represents the interests of another country which uses the PAC's political clout to determine which Americans are allowed to run for office in this country while shutting down any open discussion (in this free country) of the policies of Israel, which include militarism and the oppression of the Palestinian people; Policies which have gotten hundreds of Americans killed, entangled the U.S. in wars that were not in our best interests (like Iraq) and policies which continue to make America a proxy target of terrorism. Why be concerned about that? Ooops. I forgot. We're not allowed to discuss that in America. AIPAC says so.

I'm surprised that a self-proclaimed Libertarian like Wiggsy would be so nonchalant about such violations of American sovereignty.

[W*GS]

gaffney isn't interested in an open and honest discussion of Israel - he merely wants to blame Jews for all that's wrong. It's too bad that you've decided to serve as gaffney's mouthpiece on this issue, Ro.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Years of experience as a Senator: 2

Percentage of votes missed on the Senate floor: 38%

2 years-38% = not much to hang your hat on

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffney isn't interested in an open and honest discussion of Israel - he merely wants to blame Jews for all that's wrong. It's too bad that you've decided to serve as gaffney's mouthpiece on this issue, Ro.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to address your own hypocrisy.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Arkie

2 years-38% = not much to hang your hat on

Obama deliberately didn't vote on a range of issues because the REP majority set up legislative bills designed to forge a paper trail making it look like their opponents supported things they did not. So on a number of votes where it was clear what the outcome was going to be, he decided not to play their game. He's detailed this in his book The Audacity of Hope, and talks at length about the inner struggle with deciding whether to support something or not when faced with both good and bad consequences.

[BarefootKicker]

I'm 26 years old. In my lifetime there has never been an administration without someone named Bush or Clinton.

Regardless of your politics, hopefully the thought of Political Dynasties in the US disgusts you.

If you're a democrat, what have the Clinton's done for you lately (I mean other than everything in their power to destroy the democratic party)?

If you're a conservative (and not in the top 3% of income earners or a major shareholder of exxon-mobil) what has John McCain done for you lately?

Obama. 2008.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I can understand why you wouldn't want to address your own hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I don't blame Jews for all the ills of the world, as gaffney does. You obviously haven't done a good job reading gaffney's bilge - he always blames the Jews. Always.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BarefootKicker

I'm 26 years old. In my lifetime there has never been an administration without someone named Bush or Clinton.

Regardless of your politics, hopefully the thought of Political Dynasties in the US disgusts you.

If you're a democrat, what have the Clinton's done for you lately (I mean other than everything in their power to destroy the democratic party)?

If you're a conservative (and not in the top 3% of income earners or a major shareholder of exxon-mobil) what has John McCain done for you lately?

Obama. 2008.

I see. Obama isn't a Clinton or McCain, so he's good.

Baloney.

[BarefootKicker]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I see. Obama isn't a Clinton or McCain, so he's good.

Baloney.

Sure, it's a weak argument on it's own merits, and I didn't take the time to reinforce Barack Obama's Constitutional expertise, his time as a community organizer or a member of the Illinois state legislature, his sound judgment in opposing the Iraq war, or his sponsorship of ethics reform legislation in the Senate... but what are your other legit alternatives?

Unfortunately, our two party system severely limits yours and my choices in this thing. My argument, based on that fact, is that Obama is the superior choice.

Please don't forget McCain's involvement in the Keating Five Scandal Or his complete and utter misunderstanding of the demographics of the middle east. (Shia, Sunni, Al Qeda, Iran, etc). His professed lack of understanding of the economy, or that he's promised more wars (if not 100 more years in Iraq)

Please don't forget Hillary's maniacal pursuit of the presidency, sacrificing the entire democratic party for the slim chance she still has at the nomination.

Don't forget that Hillary voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and has never apologized for it.

Remember that Barack Obama is perhaps the most inspiring and natural leader I have ever seen. His ability to speak to americans on the issues of the day as though they are actually thinking adults gives me hope.

Obama. Now.

[BroncoBuff]

"The Case for Obama" was fully and finally made in my mind when he answered the question: "if you could take just two books into the WH, which two would you choose?"

He answered, 1) The Bible, and 2) 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns-Goodwin.

I read it last year, it was so amazing!

Lincoln was truly a great, great president, and a truly great, great man. Even without the Civil War, he would be such. 'Team of Rivals' details how Lincoln intentionally chose the smartest, best informed men available for his cabinet - from all three parties at the time, including enemies. Many of these men were "rivals," as the title suggests ... but Lincoln wanted ALL VIEWS HEARD. He understood that a vigorous internal debate and an airing of all ideas was the best way to arrive at the best possible conclusion. He soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good.

And the men he chose - including bitter presidential rivals Chase and Seward - came to revere him greatly, they each wrote of him as the finest man they had ever known - a man whose character and skill made shadows of all other men.

After this foolish, foolish president - this shell of an intellect - this man who represses and demonizes all dissent, and lives in a world where reality rarely intrudes ..... after this reprobate, electing a president who embraces and encourages competing views would be the most wonderful and refreshing change ... I get goosebumps.

"The Case for Obama" was made for me the minute I heard him say the book was among his Top 2.

[W*GS]

Obama's long-standing association with a racist bigot; his wife's comment that she hasn't been proud of America until just recently; his anti-free-trade stance, and his left-wing record in the Senate are deal-breakers for me.

Obama isn't getting my vote. Not in a million years. Neither will Clinton nor McCain. Looks like I'll be sitting this one out.