Calling all Obama Fans!

[Care4all]

Ok, as a Democrat, I would like to hear a few things from my fellow Democrats supporting the Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination.

I need to be "sold" on him, can you sell him?

1. What CHANGE will there be in having Obama as a President verses having Clinton as a President? What exactly is the "CHANGE" you see and chant regarding Obama being the Candidate of Change, that should make me want to have him in as our President verses Clinton?

2. What HOPE is it that you see in Obama that I should see in Obama?

3. What is it that you know about Obama and his actions and voting record that would make him qualified to be the President of the United States at this time in our History? What are his strengths that would qualify him as our President compared to his weaknesses as president?

4. What is it that you expect Obama to do as your President, what are your needs and wants that you believe he can bring you or bring to America as President?

Care

 

[DeadCanDance]

I can't speak for clinton haters, because I've never hated her. I actually think there's not much difference between her and Obama policy wise. I have been distressed at how ugly this campaign has become, and some of the tactics she has used.

I've never been one to be duped by simplistic rhetorical campaign slogans, like "change" or "hope".

But, THIS is primarily why I voted for Obama:

Barack Obama, in 2002:

I don't oppose all wars.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man.....He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars.

I'm opposed to dumb wars.

 

[Toro]

First, I haven't decided between Obama and McCain, though I'm leaning towards Obama. But between Obama and Hillary, I'm backing Obama.

I have no problem with Hillary as a person or as President. There is little difference between the two on policy. So I base my opinion on three factors.

1 - The political environment has become poisonous and toxic. The dialogue is often in the sewer. I blame this primarily on the political Right, but the Clintons throw the muck around with the best of them. Enough of the politics of division.

2 - Enough with the f****** Bushes and the Clintons! This is America, not some tin pot third world nation ruled by hereditary! Are you telling me that in a nation of 300 million people, the most powerful and richest country the planet has ever seen, that it can only be ruled by two f****** families? Enough already!

3 - Its time to look forward to a nation of new leaders. This country needs a big change. The Clintons represent the past.

 

[jillian]

Hi, Care... with the choice between Obama and Clinton, like you I voted for Clinton.

If it was between Clinton and McCain, again, I'd vote for Clinton.

The problem is that our choice won't be either of those. We're going to choose between Obama and McCain. I can't in good conscience vote for McCain because I see him as little more than a continuation of the failures of the last 7 years... When he ran in 2000, he was a different candidate. So, we can't keep going after Obama and asking these questions, really, not if we expect to take the white house in november.

So, you and I and others like us, can keep bemoaning the way they've been telling Hillary to drop out of the race for months (regardless of the effect that must have had on her fundraising), and them pretending she didn't win all of the big purple states that we need... and ask.. well, what is better for us? Someone who thinks that judicial review shouldn't exist and "doesn't know much about economics" and doesn't understand the difference between shi'a and sunni, or someone who is untried and will have to prove himself? To me, at least, there's no choice.

On a side note to Toro: perhaps those of you who object to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton should have complained about that before Baby Bush's insertion into the office of president.

 

[Toro]

On a side note to Toro: perhaps those of you who object to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton should have complained about that before Baby Bush's insertion into the office of president.

I did. I didn't think Bush was qualified to be President, and that if his name hadn't been "Bush," there was no way he would have been in the position to run for President. I'm pretty sure my suspicions have turned out to be correct.

EDIT - And my political hero is Margaret Thatcher, just to dispel any notion this might be a gender thing.

 

[jillian]

I did. I didn't think Bush was qualified to be President, and that if his name hadn't been "Bush," there was no way he would have been in the position to run for President. I'm pretty sure my suspicions have turned out to be correct.

EDIT - And my political hero is Margaret Thatcher, just to dispel any notion this might be a gender thing.

I agree, obviously, with respect to Baby Bush. Thing is, Hillary is qualified and she could have won. I'd have liked to see a woman president. I figure in terms of toughness, Hillary Clinton matches Margaret Thatcher ounce for ounce. (Though I disagree with Thatcher's policies, I respect the woman).

As for gender bias, never saw any in your posts.

 

[Dogger]

I did. I didn't think Bush was qualified to be President, and that if his name hadn't been "Bush," there was no way he would have been in the position to run for President. I'm pretty sure my suspicions have turned out to be correct.

Not only correct, but elegantly understated, too.

Had W. been born into a typical working class family, a man of his talent would be sporting a mullet and pumping gas.

 

[Ravi]

I don't Obama represents a change. If he were as squeaky clean as he pretends to be he would have disqualified himself from the Florida primary after he spoke to the press. IMO, if he wins the nomination he wins it by taking advantage of Florida voters.

And this latest nonsense where his campaign tried to make it seem like Hillary was hoping he'd be assasinated...there's really no difference between him and the rest of the politicians.

 

[CharlestonChad]

1. What CHANGE will there be in having Obama as a President verses having Clinton as a President? What exactly is the "CHANGE" you see and chant regarding Obama being the Candidate of Change, that should make me want to have him in as our President verses Clinton?

If feel the change comes in his technique of diplomacy. He is not a polarizing figure quite like Clinton.

2. What HOPE is it that you see in Obama that I should see in Obama?

I have hope in progress. Obama has been able to work on both sides of the fence, which is something that has become almost extinct nowadays.

3. What is it that you know about Obama and his actions and voting record that would make him qualified to be the President of the United States at this time in our History? What are his strengths that would qualify him as our President compared to his weaknesses as president?

I'm not going to cite specifics, but I feel like Obama has a strong background of showing solid judgment regarding important issues that face our nation.

4. What is it that you expect Obama to do as your President, what are your needs and wants that you believe he can bring you or bring to America as President?

I expect Obama to lift the ban on stemcell research funding.
I expect Obama to influence the rest of the world to start combating global warming
I expect Obama to END the war in Iraq, and strengthen our fight against terrorism overseas without removing more freedoms at home

 

[rayboyusmc]

If it was between Hillary and Obama, it's a toss up for me.

If it's between McCain and either of the Dems, I don't have any problem making a decision.

The only time I voted Republican was the first term of that actor from Hollywood. After I saw what he was doing to the middle and working class, I voted against him.

McCain isn't even as qualified as the actor from Hollywood was.

 

[Yurt]

First, I haven't decided between Obama and McCain, though I'm leaning towards Obama. But between Obama and Hillary, I'm backing Obama.

I have no problem with Hillary as a person or as President. There is little difference between the two on policy. So I base my opinion on three factors.

1 - The political environment has become poisonous and toxic. The dialogue is often in the sewer. I blame this primarily on the political Right, but the Clintons throw the muck around with the best of them. Enough of the politics of division.

2 - Enough with the f****** Bushes and the Clintons! This is America, not some tin pot third world nation ruled by hereditary! Are you telling me that in a nation of 300 million people, the most powerful and richest country the planet has ever seen, that it can only be ruled by two f****** families? Enough already!

3 - Its time to look forward to a nation of new leaders. This country needs a big change. The Clintons represent the past.

and that is why obama will be the next president. mccain is a pussy that can't make up his mind on which platform he stands. he claims to be an independant platform, yet we (US citizens) are still waiting mccain.....

it is human nature to be tired of ruling party, a king, it is what made this country. and that is our right. i think obama is a mistake, but he is different, and that will propel the american people to vote. right or wrong, we tend to vote 'change', without considering where that change goes or what the change truly is, only that it is change.

 

[Toro]

I thought this was an interesting take.

Let's get this straight. Hillary Clinton now complains that she's a victim of sexism ("Sen. Clinton Discusses 'Sexist' Treatment," video at Washingtonpost.com, May 20). Forget that she graduated from Wellesley and Yale – that she handily won two terms to the U.S. Senate – that she earned millions of dollars during her adult lifetime – and, most relevantly in this case, that she gathered many more Democratic primary votes than did John Edwards, Joe Biden, and other middle-aged white guys running for this year's Democratic nomination.

Instead, focus on this fact: If Mrs. Clinton's failure to win her party's nomination is due to sexism, surely her claim that she's the strongest candidate to run against John McCain is mistaken on its face - unless it's the case that Democrats are more sexist than are American voters overall.

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/05/woe-is-she.html

 

[Care4all]

I thought this was an interesting take.



http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/05/woe-is-she.html

It was the Press, that started hounding on her to quit 3 MONTHS before Obama had won the nomination, in fact Obama STILL has not won enough delegate votes to win the nomination.

The ONLY meaning of this, is THAT Obama has NOT been able to "close" and win the nomination and this is because it IS A VERY CLOSE RACE, near 50/50 on voters going towards either Candidate....

HOWEVER, the Media has been playing it as an Obama candidacy and win for over 3 months...

NOW, if you can HONESTLY say that you believe that if Edwards was the person SLIGHTLY TRAILING OBAMA, that the predominently male driven media, would have been hounding him to quit, and saying he should just quit, and questioning why he hasn't quit yet and wondering what the game plan is of his and why he hasn't just given the nomination to Obama yet, or how by him not handing the nomination to Obama will Hurt the party, etc etc etc etc etc.... for 3 FRICKING MONTHS, while never focusing on the issues or on WHY OBAMA CAN'T EVEN WIN this election with enough votes from the delegates and BEAT John Edwards, you are fooling oneself imho.

Or the Opposite, if Oama were just slightly trailing Hillary Clinton, neck in neck really.....would the media for the last 3 months have been hounding him to quit, to just give up even though Hillary did not have enough delegates to win the nominationyet? HELL NO! It would have been more about issues and a real horse race....the media rooting for Obama of course, but at least it would have brought their differences on issues and more of their strengths in being the decision making factors....

It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to raise campaign funds when every one has been calling her a loser for 3 months, while the opponent who has NEVER WON the nomination, is being touted as the winner....

Yes, if she were not a Woman running, I truely do believe that the media would not have expected her to "just bow down" in this Primary process before someone has enough winning votes to me, it was very demeaning of them.

And I ain't no feminist , I'm presently a home maker....


Care

 

[Jon]

If feel the change comes in his technique of diplomacy. He is not a polarizing figure quite like Clinton.

How laughable. He's MORE polarizing than Clinton. The exit polls prove it. More than half of the Clinton supporters said they would not vote for him.

If he weren't as polarizing as Clinton, he would have wrapped this nomination up months ago.

 

[Ravi]

How laughable. He's MORE polarizing than Clinton. The exit polls prove it. More than half of the Clinton supporters said they would not vote for him.

If he weren't as polarizing as Clinton, he would have wrapped this nomination up months ago.

I agree. As a total suck up to Dem policy, I'd never, ever think I'd get to a point where I'd consider sitting out a presidential election. But here we are.

 

[ReillyT]

I agree. As a total suck up to Dem policy, I'd never, ever think I'd get to a point where I'd consider sitting out a presidential election. But here we are.

Why?

I don't personally like Clinton, but if she were to win the primary, I would vote for her because it would be best for the country. People's live will be affected by the outcome.

Obama seems to be a decent and intelligent man, who, like Clinton, is pulling out all the stops to win a hard-fought primary. One can disagree whether Florida and Michigan votes should count, but there is clearly a reasonable argument that they should not. Of course, whomever benefits from not counting those votes will make that argument. Whomever benefits from counting those votes will make the opposing argument. Neither Clinton nor Obama should be demonized for trying to win the primary.

 

[Ravi]

For a few reasons. I've come to see him as intellectually dishonest. And polarizing, as jsanders pointed out above. I'm also having a difficult time with the concept of letting every vote count unless it counts against Obama. I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

 

[ReillyT]

For a few reasons. I've come to see him as intellectually dishonest. And polarizing, as jsanders pointed out above. I'm also having a difficult time with the concept of letting every vote count unless it counts against Obama. I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

Perhaps Obama is polarizing. Clinton is also polarizing, and has been for a long time. That doesn't seem to affect your support for her. Martin Luther King was polarizing in his time. Sometimes it has little to do with the person at all, or merely reflects the climate in the nation.

He doesn't want the votes to count in those states in which he didn't campaign (silly press conference aside - I am talking about real campaigning). That seems reasonable. I am sure that Clinton would take the same position were the shoe on the other foot. I would think she were silly if she did not.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, they are all polarizing. But Obama pretends he isn't.

If Clinton took Obama's position if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm almost positive I'd feel the same way about her.

 

[ReillyT]

Oh, they are all polarizing. But Obama pretends he isn't.

Should he acknowledge that he is? How would that benefit him? Perhaps he does not believe himself to be as polarizing as Clinton - especially with independents.

Clinton took Obama's position if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm almost positive I'd feel the same way about her.

I don't understand the argument that the votes should definitely be counted. It was an uncontested primary. That is not how primaries are supposed to occur. If they were contested (i.e., there was campaigning), the results may have been very different. No one will ever know. I can see arguments on both sides, but neither argument is absolutely compelling. It is a judgement call and I can understand why different persons feel differently about it, but it is not so clear cut that I draw any specific conclusions about someone because they feel differently than I do about the issue. Clinton isn't horrible for wanting to count the votes in Florida, and Obama isn't horrible for feeling that would be unfair in light of the manner in which the primaries were held.