Why conservatives like Barrak Obama

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Something has been bothering me for some time and I think I may have just worked it out. Senator Obama is clearly to the left of Senator Clinton. Yet there are many conservatives who say they could see themselves voting for Obama. Why?

I think PJ O’Rourke got it right recently on Bill Maher. Conservatives fear Hillary Clinton because they know, if she gets her hands on the levers of power, she’s now too experienced, too competent and too ruthless to be stopped the way she was in the early 90s.

But there’s a corollary to that point: Conservatives like Barrak Obama because they think he’ll be an incompetent President. He’s every conservatives favourite liberal – one who looks and sounds good and gets nothing done.

What really bothers me is that American liberals under 35 are falling for it.

If it's McCain v Obama, and McCain has a non-crazy running mate, I hope McCain wins. But I don't think he will. And I don't think the world can live with another naive US President getting on-the-job training.

[Pigs in Space]

Why would he be incompetent?

Surely he'll have about a billion advisors making sure he's not as useless as Bush.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Why would he be incompetent?

Surely he'll have about a billion advisors making sure he's not as useless as Bush.

Bush had "about a billion advisors making sure he's not as useless as Bush". Bill Clinton had about a billion advisors making sure he was not as useless as he turned out to be in his first term. Advisors are only as good as the judgment, experience and commitment of the person they're advising.

And yes, I know Bush had some crappy advisors like Cheney and Rumsfeld. But he als had some great advisers like Colin powerll and Dick Armitage. And he listened to teh former and not the latter. And that's jsut the thing: when a president's advisors disagree - as the almsot always do on the difficult important issues - it is the president's judgment, experience and commitment that counts.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This woman from the Jeruselem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742140008&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) puts it well:

Why I support Hillary Rodham Clinton
By JUDITH COLP RUBIN

In any other serious job search, the decision would be obvious: The first applicant has 15 years of experience at the highest levels of the institution with a string of accomplishments, direct experience regarding the position being filled, a strong understanding of how to get policies through a complex bureaucracy, and a clear stand on the vital issues involved.

The second applicant has only 2 years of high-level experience marked by no major accomplishments, no clear positions, no previous involvement in getting policies implemented, and no documented grasp of the issues. In fact, the latter candidate's success has been almost totally due to a talent for making inspiring, though vague, speeches.

Clearly, a search committee would not find the choice to be a difficult one. To fill the job of US president, there is no doubt that the first candidate, Hillary Clinton, is the better choice over the second applicant, Barack Obama.

This is no high school popularity contest. Rather, it involves the most powerful job in the world, one involving the life and death of nations and of millions of people.

Yet many voters, who would never think of behaving like this to fill any other job, have been swayed by Obama's emotional rhetoric and general appeals for a change. Obviously, both candidates would, if elected, represent a change in two respects. First, from eight years of Republican rule; second, because they would equally be historic firsts - Clinton as a woman and Obama as an African-American.

"Change," however, is the perennial slogan of most politicians seeking to win office in every election. What kind of a change and who do you trust has the ability to ensure that it would be a change for the better?

WILL AMERICA benefit by having a president who has to undergo the most basic - and not necessarily successful - on-the-job training? Hasn't this, to put it mildly, been a rather serious problem in the last eight years?

Moreover, voters need to remember that the winner in this job search cannot be hired on a trial basis. We need to know exactly what we are getting in a president and therein the gap between the two candidates is big.

Clinton brings a string of real accomplishments to the race. She has eight years of first-hand presidential experience as one who saw how things worked at the top and played a direct role in important policy debates and implementation.

Of course, she was not elected and yet there is no doubt that she was the most powerful, politically involved First Lady in American history by a wide margin. This reality was brought home to Americans beginning with Bill Clinton's famous, effective 1992 campaign slogan that they were being elected as a team: "Buy one, get one free." In every way, she was a White House official in those eight years, not merely a hostess.

SHE WENT on to become US senator from New York, and a successful one at that. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, she immersed herself in national security issues, something on which her opponent's experience is close to zero. Arguably, she has now been focussing during the last eight years on the most vital issues the next president must face.

In contrast, Obama has only two years in the Senate with no major legislative achievements, along with 10 years as a state senator in Illinois politics. It may be somewhat impressive, but hardly the resume that qualifies one to be the president of the United States. He has not had to deal with the most important national issues and there is little evidence at best that he has a vision of how to deal with them.

There is no question that Obama is an inspirational speaker who has lit a spark in many Democratic voters, and he is a huge asset to his party for that reason. With more years in the Senate, or some similar position, he might well prove to be qualified for the presidency. But he is not there yet and this is hardly something that can be hidden from the more skeptical voters he would have to convince in November.

Clinton has other assets for being president and for being elected president that, ironically, have brought her problems in the Democratic battle. Since her positions are clearer, some people disagree. With Obama, people on opposite sides of issues are free to imagine that he agrees with them.

Like her husband, who won two national elections, Clinton has moved toward the center. This may not sit well with the party's large Left side but would make her a more electable candidate and a better president. Being perceived as too far to the Left has repeatedly doomed many prior Democrats with the larger electorate.

SHE HAS also shown pragmatism on issues such as the war in Iraq, where she shows an admirable realism. She has bravely refused to disavow her early support for the war. And while she has stated that the troops should be brought home, she rejected cheap demagoguery by saying that such a withdrawal will take time.

On issues of importance to Israel, there are few US politicians that can rival, Hillary Clinton. Both Clintons have understood that Israel is a strategic asset. They have worked with past Israeli governments and been deeply interested in the region.

Obama's connection to Israel is infinitely more tenuous and, like much else about him, unclear. His view of the Middle East is at best naïve, as his statements have shown, and his choice of advisors - which is a real problem despite attempts to cover this up - is potentially troubling to Israel.

Simply ask yourself this question: Who do you trust more to deal with such issues as terrorist threats, Iran's nuclear weapons' drive, Syria, and North Korea?

Those of us who know firsthand the realities of the tumultuous Middle East understand that this is not the time in history for confusion, inexperience, and on-the-job training. Could Barak Obama be a good president? Perhaps. But that's not the kind of odds I want to face during one of the most difficult periods in American history.

The writer divides her time between Tel Aviv and Washington, DC.

[Hatter]

The way Hillary is mismanaging her campaign I'm starting to doubt her qualifications more than I doubt Obama's. She's already demonstrated qualities I dislike in a leader: valuing loyalty over competence and surrounding herself with people who are afraid to tell her bad news. These are qualities Bush has and they led to the war in Iraq, I'd rather not see another President like that in office.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The way Hillary is mismanaging her campaign I'm starting to doubt her qualifications more than I doubt Obama's. She's already demonstrated qualities I dislike in a leader: valuing loyalty over competence and surrounding herself with people who are afraid to tell her bad news. These are qualities Bush has and they led to the war in Iraq, I'd rather not see another President like that in office.

Is that right? I read that people inside had been telling her Obamamania was a problem for some time. She's in a bind though. I don't really see what she should have done differently in this campaign except keep a tighter leash on Bill - and that's always been a problem for her.

Her problem is that she can't really go full on negative on Obama without being accused of being a racist. She has to find a way to bring this race back to her strengths and/or Obama's weaknesses. And maybe there's no way to do that. Maybe Obama won't fall apart until the general, if at all.

One thing I do know though, the fact conservatives like Obama is not a good sign...

[Dr. Paragon]

What planet do you live on?
Republicans have been saying for months (Since before Christmas) that they
would rather have Hillary win. The Republicans have stated repeatedly that
they believe (rightly so) that Hillary is a staggeringly divisive figure in
American politics. This has escalated to the point that the GOP were discussing voting in VA primary in favor of Clinton to upset Obama's gathering
inertia. Also Republicans believe that if Hillary wins they will retake congress
which is prediction I'd bet good money on.

Jeez! No wonder the other politicos around here love to boot you around
Atticus, you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.
:rolleyes:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

And yet I keep reading stuff at the national review and some conservative blogs and seeing conservative commentators saying very nice things about Obama. And PJ O'Rourke's comment about the right fearing Clinton's competence was pretty revealing.

My view is that you can't smear Clinton more than has already been done. You can't knock the gloss off her in a swiftboat way - because there's no gloss left.

By contrast, Obama is nothing but gloss...

[francisca]

This woman from the puts it well:

Unfortunately, in the US, it isn't about your accomplishments, it's all about making sure you weren't left holding the bag in the big blame game.

EDIT: At least that's the way it feels most of the time, IME.

[Stratego]

Conservatives fear Hillary Clinton because they know, if she gets her hands on the levers of power, she’s now too experienced, too competent and too ruthless to be stopped the way she was in the early 90s.


I don't understand this at all. What has she done to show how experienced, ruthless, and competent she is? I mean other than just saying that she's those things.

[Hatter]

Her problem is that she can't really go full on negative on Obama without being accused of being a racist. She has to find a way to bring this race back to her strengths and/or Obama's weaknesses. And maybe there's no way to do that. Maybe Obama won't fall apart until the general, if at all.


Her problem is that her campaign ran out of money before Super Tuesday and nobody told her until then. And she out-fundraised Obama. And he still has money. That's not a sign of good management.

[Special K]

I think people like to blow differences in candidates way out of proportion when at the end of the day, it is all too clear that having either Obama or Clinton as president would be just about the same. And if not, then maybe our country will have tiny, insignificant problems that the same people can blow out of proportion for four years before we elect someone else.

[Eliezer]

I don't agree with those pundits at all. The problem is that most "conservatives" don't really fall within the label.

Most conservatives would like to see more "social equity" but don't know how to get there.

I am more comfortable with Obama than I am with Hillary because Obama has roots I can relate too more. His Dad came from Africa as an immigrant. His family worked hard, he had to work hard in school and has lived as middle class.

A good anecdote to highlight the difference is Obama as a Senator was called by his wife while he's in the airport flying back from Washington and she tells him they have ants in the house and he needs to stop at the store on the way home and pick up some bug killer.

The can work with the ideals of an individual who recognizes the value of hard work, a willingness and ability to lift yourself up out of poverty and middle class. He has many of the values I do with regard to money.

I'm a conservative and I'm not opposed to universal health care. I even like the Clinton plan better than Obama's. I'm not opposed to higher taxes on the wealthy. I think it's a good idea. The taxes ought to be distributed more toward the higher end brackets. The social and wage inequalities ought to be dealt with, and I'm a conservative.

So the difference isn't that we fear Obama less because he's less competent than Hillary, we fear Obama less because he shares more in common with us. Most conservatives want the things I want, but fear how to get there. We believe Obama may have a vision to help us achieve what we want in terms of social justice and at the same time preserving our conservative values of hardwork, self-reliance, lifting yourself up, getting yourself educated and bettering the world for your children.

[Dr. Paragon]

And yet I keep reading stuff at the national review and some conservative blogs and seeing conservative commentators saying very nice things about Obama.
Oh you live on that planet...
I have found that 90% of the time the truth is in the middle third of
a the spectrum of possibility/opinion. The National Review and the
Republican Blogosphere are in the right third, more like the right sixth
of the range.

As for Eleizer's comments.
you are not of "The Far Right", in fact what you just posted brands you
as a rational moderate with populist leanings.

I on the other hand have generally kept to a "doubly conservative"
political view with a strong populist streak. IE
Economic Conservative:
"Don't waste our money. Especially not on Beauracracy."
Social Conservative:
"Don't tell me who/what to worship. Don't tell me how/who to fuck."
Populist:
"Money taken from the people better be spent for the benefit of the people."

Simple as that.

[Varaj]

Social Conservative:
"Don't tell me who/what to worship. Don't tell me how/who to fuck."


Not to derail too much but the current social conservatives seem to me to be the exact opposite of that.
"This is a Christian county and we will keep it that way. Don't fuck unless God says it is ok."

What you listed seems to be, in my mind, a social liberal view.

[doc]

If there's going to be a Demo in the White House I'ld rather it be him the hte Hill bitch

[Space Cadet B^3]

In comparing the two democratic candidates for president, using the metaphor of a job interview as was quoted in the article above, I see a very major flaw.

The image of the leader is the image of the "company" and whether or not you think Bill Clinton was a good president, the image of the "company" changed in his presidency.

My personal fear is that all of that hullaballoo would come back with a Clinton nomination. I'd rather have the leader who has passion and can speak like no other statesman in recent history, simply because of what that does for the "company's" image.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think also we need to distinguish between which Democrat conservatives think they are more likely to beat (Clinton) and which they think would, if elected, be less dangerous to their interests (Obama).

In other words they want to fight Clinton because they think they can beat her.

But if they had to have a Dem president, they'd prefer Obama because they think he won't be able to get his programme through.

And I suspect they're right about Clinton's effectiveness. She would sell Chelsea into white slavery to get universal health care. By now it's a matter of pride and revenge on her opponents, as much as genuine belief in the cause.

Obama, OTOH, will conciliate his way into a neutered unworkable compromise that would put even the first term Bill Clinton to shame.

And, as I never tire of saying, in the war on terror, a ruthless liberal bitch who isn't afraid to bomb the crap out of Iran if necessary is EXACTLY what the world needs.

[Dr. Paragon]

Not to derail too much but the current social conservatives seem to me to be the exact opposite of that.
"This is a Christian county and we will keep it that way. Don't fuck unless God says it is ok."

What you listed seems to be, in my mind, a social liberal view.
Yeah the Republicans aren't doing so well in any class on the "literal
conservative report card".

[Special K]

I'm pretty sure that by definition, a social conservative believes in maintaining old values, whereas a social liberal thinks restrictions on speech, religion, and personal life should be more relaxed. So in that regard, "conservative" might not be a complete misnomer.

[Schizm]

Her problem is that her campaign ran out of money before Super Tuesday and nobody told her until then. And she out-fundraised Obama. And he still has money. That's not a sign of good management.


ok, where are you getting the "campaign is out of money" thing from? just at a glance, CNN is reporting that she's got thirty seven million in cash on hand right now, nearly 20 million dollars more than Barak.

Perhaps you mean the democratic national committee?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html

[Space Cadet B^3]

ok, where are you getting the "campaign is out of money" thing from? just at a glance, CNN is reporting that she's got thirty seven million in cash on hand right now, nearly 20 million dollars more than Barak.

Perhaps you mean the democratic national committee?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html
Well there was a big to-do about her releasing $5 million in the Clinton's own money into the campaign shortly after Super Tuesday. That and her top campaign workers are going without pay.

I googled it, this is just one of many articles I found: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/election.clinton/

[Schizm]

Well there was a big to-do about her releasing $5 million in the Clinton's own money into the campaign shortly after Super Tuesday. That and her top campaign workers are going without pay.

I googled it, this is just one of many articles I found: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/election.clinton/

Her problem is that her campaign ran out of money before Super Tuesday and nobody told her until then. And she out-fundraised Obama. And he still has money. That's not a sign of good management.

see the news article you posted there doesn't really jive with hatter's statement.

She's got funds set aside for the general election still that she hasn't touch. also, by "loaning" her campaign five million dollars, she's effectively putting her own money on the line at this point.

A presidential candidate who has funds earmarked for something else and doesn't touch them? sounds like someone who understand the problems with social security, at least...

[Kyle Voltti]

is it just me or does it seem like there are 4 to 6 different parties in America that are forced to be in two parties?

[Varaj]

is it just me or does it seem like there are 4 to 6 different parties in America that are forced to be in two parties?

I would love to see some serious new parties come into the mix.

[Dacke]

I would love to see some serious new parties come into the mix.
The problem is that the "winner takes all" election system basically forces a two-party situation on the system. Political systems with more proportional representation (i.e. my party gets 15% of the popular vote, means they get 15% of the parliamentary seats) tend to be more friendly toward small parties.

On the other hand, that means that you generally need to put together a coalition in order to govern the country, which can result in instability and/or small parties getting disproportionate influence. In Italy, for example, I think the average lifespan of an administration is something like 10 months. Here in Sweden, between 1991 and 94 we had a party called "Ny Demokrati" (New Democracy) whose support the administration needed, which meant that they could force select parts of their policies through ("Make it harder to immigrate her or we won't support the budget").

[Atropine Mama]

Atticus, your arguments have won me over to the Clinton camp. I was firmly supportive of Obama until just recently when I started to take a closer look at his Senate record and make some comparisons without having "hope" rammed down my throat because of the charisma that sugar coats his speeches. I don't believe that he's a bad candidate by any stretch, but I do think Hillary is a better choice.

I don't understand this at all. What has she done to show how experienced, ruthless, and competent she is? I mean other than just saying that she's those things.

Honestly, it doesn't matter what she's done to the majority of the American people. That's the image she has, and that image carries a long way. That rep gives her credence when dealing with other politicians because they know she can get away with less being nicey-nice than Obama can. If she's elected, it'll certainly be to her advantage -- any woman who is viewed as easily steamrollered doesn't have a snowball's chance. That reputation is essential.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, your arguments have won me over to the Clinton camp. I was firmly supportive of Obama until just recently when I started to take a closer look at his Senate record and make some comparisons without having "hope" rammed down my throat because of the charisma that sugar coats his speeches. I don't believe that he's a bad candidate by any stretch, but I do think Hillary is a better choice.



Honestly, it doesn't matter what she's done to the majority of the American people. That's the image she has, and that image carries a long way. That rep gives her credence when dealing with other politicians because they know she can get away with less being nicey-nice than Obama can. If she's elected, it'll certainly be to her advantage -- any woman who is viewed as easily steamrollered doesn't have a snowball's chance. That reputation is essential.

Hey Bella,

It's nice to know that some people get what I'm saying.

I'm sure everybody realises this, but I should stress that I don't think Obama is a bad candidate. Indeed, my (by now probably forlorn) hope is that he becomes Clinton's running mate and takes over from her in four to eight years.

Ironically, Obama reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton. Charismatic but naïve about the tough realities of Washington and national politics. That naivete nearly destroyed the first Clinton term. You just KNOW Hillary is not going to make anything like those mistakes in her first term.

I think it may be time for Hillary to go quasi-negative. She needs to bitch-slap the little whipper-snapper back in his place. I'm thinking of something like President Bartlett's performance in the debate against Governor Ritchie in the fourth series of the West Wing. Just run rings around him on policy and her understanding of the workings of the White House. Make him look like a talented amateur.

As Sam Seaborn said in the West Wing after that debate: "There was no way we were ever going to shake the perception that Bartlett was an arrogant intellectual elitist. And then, at 3 in the morning, Toby Zeigler calls me and yells, 'Don't you see, it's a gift! They're giving him permission!" If you're guy's going to be perceived as arrogant no matter what you do, you might as well knock down some bodies with it."

I think its time for Hillary to really get in touch with her inner bitch. Totally let loose like she reportedly did with Bill during White House policy debates. Make everyone realise that this is someone the Republicans fear for a reason and that the US's enemies ought to fear her far more than John McCain. In a strange way, I think that could actually humanise her in the way her tearing-up moments did. She needs to show more of the emotion that's hiding behind that controlled exterior. Sure, it might backfire, but what has she got to lose at this stage? If she doesn't break this current pattern, she - and the country - are going to lose out.

Yes, she's a ruthless bitch. And that's EXACTLY what America needs.

[Name Lips]

I just think it would be hilarious for the heads of state for certain allies that don't acknowledge that women are human beings (i.e., Saudi Arabia) to suddenly have to contend with a female president. It'd be great watching King Abdullah try to explain to his people why he's letting a woman tell him what to do.

[Stratego]

Honestly, it doesn't matter what she's done to the majority of the American people. That's the image she has, and that image carries a long way. That rep gives her credence when dealing with other politicians because they know she can get away with less being nicey-nice than Obama can. If she's elected, it'll certainly be to her advantage -- any woman who is viewed as easily steamrollered doesn't have a snowball's chance. That reputation is essential.

How is an unearned rep of "change and hope" any worse than an unearned rep of "experience and ruthlessness"?

Coupled with McCain, who's ads seem to say his best qualification is that he spent several years in a Vietnamese prison, and I'm once again driven to call a plague on both houses. God, I hate election years.

[Utrecht]

I am likely voting Republican in the next election (assuming that MCain does not nominate a loon for his veep - and for a man of 70 years of age, that is going to be a HUGE issue for him).

However, if something was going to prevent me voting Republican, I was leaning towards Hillary - especially because of her Senate record. However, the more I have seen her and her husband (because lets be honest, we are getting that team again) the less I have liked her. What finally broke my support for her was a combination of

1) Her claims of more experience (she has a grand total of 2 more years of senage experience)
2) Her sense of entitlement to the nomination
3) I really don't want 4 - 8 (if not more depending on the republican response) more years of the same old crap that we have had for the last 16.
4) Obama is change, he is beholden to a different set of masters, he a different set of worldviews - not necessarily better, but different, and I think that this country needs different.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

The problem is that American politics is about 80% charisma and 20% policies. More than any other reason, that is why Clinton bested Bush Sr. in 1992, and why GWB bested Gore and Kerry. The American public, in the end, ALWAYS votes for the more likable candidate. Likability is the central problem Hillary Clinton has, and it's somewhat of a lesser problem for McCain as well. What makes them likeable, even in small amounts, is that Hillary is a very successful woman (and that appeals to people who put high stakes on that sort of thing) and McCain has a reputation for individualism/heroism. But let's be honest, both Clinton and McCain are not very nice people, and most of the American public knows that... and they will be reminded of it day it and day out until election day, assuming they make it that far.

Obama on the other hand, is essentially the opposite of both Clinton and McCain. He is incredibly likeable, but is basically an empty shell. Republicans are banking that they can swing enough voters to McCain because, by election day, everyone is going to be made aware that Obama is essentially an old-school member of the American Left, a Jimmy Carter with dark skin, and if that sticks Obama will lose in the general election. Whether that happens or not is anyone's guess, but that seems to be where the Right is putting their bets. Hillary on the other hand is more frightening for the Right, because a Hillary/McCain contest will probably be as narrow and desperate a fight as we had in 2000. And personally, I think Clinton would win that contest, because petty social conservatives would rather sit at home on election day than vote for a man who is 3/4 conservative and called some of their leading luminaries "agents of intolerance."

That's my take on it anyway.

[doc]

I'ld vote for McCain over Huckabee and Obama over the Hill Bitch

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The problem is that American politics is about 80% charisma and 20% policies. More than any other reason, that is why Clinton bested Bush Sr. in 1992, and why GWB bested Gore and Kerry. The American public, in the end, ALWAYS votes for the more likable candidate. Likability is the central problem Hillary Clinton has, and it's somewhat of a lesser problem for McCain as well. What makes them likeable, even in small amounts, is that Hillary is a very successful woman (and that appeals to people who put high stakes on that sort of thing) and McCain has a reputation for individualism/heroism. But let's be honest, both Clinton and McCain are not very nice people, and most of the American public knows that... and they will be reminded of it day it and day out until election day, assuming they make it that far.

Obama on the other hand, is essentially the opposite of both Clinton and McCain. He is incredibly likeable, but is basically an empty shell. Republicans are banking that they can swing enough voters to McCain because, by election day, everyone is going to be made aware that Obama is essentially an old-school member of the American Left, a Jimmy Carter with dark skin, and if that sticks Obama will lose in the general election. Whether that happens or not is anyone's guess, but that seems to be where the Right is putting their bets. Hillary on the other hand is more frightening for the Right, because a Hillary/McCain contest will probably be as narrow and desperate a fight as we had in 2000. And personally, I think Clinton would win that contest, because petty social conservatives would rather sit at home on election day than vote for a man who is 3/4 conservative and called some of their leading luminaries "agents of intolerance."

That's my take on it anyway.

I still think the big difference is that Hillary will deliver even if she has to sell her own daughter.

Obama will be eaten alive by Washington.

For me, there are only two serious candidates for president - McCain and Clinton.

In a strange way, Obama reminds me of a Democratic version of Bush. All hat and no cattle.

[Name Lips]

Also, statistically, the taller candidate usually wins. And the one with the most hair.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Also, statistically, the taller candidate usually wins. And the one with the most hair.

Does that count leg hair?

[Eliezer]

I still think the big difference is that Hillary will deliver even if she has to sell her own daughter.

Obama will be eaten alive by Washington.

For me, there are only two serious candidates for president - McCain and Clinton.

In a strange way, Obama reminds me of a Democratic version of Bush. All hat and no cattle.

For me, Obama has more substance than all of that. Now, I'm probably going to vote for McCain unless things change, but I like Obama a lot. I don't think Washington will eat him, in part because he has survived while bucking the majority. Now, McCain has done that as well and has a longer track record of it.

As far as the Jimmy Carter - Obama comparison... Well, I for one would like and welcome a Jimmy Carter type president who has the strength to not be eaten by Washington.

Hillary is too controversial in my mind. I'd rather have a candidate that neither side can effectively pile vitriol on. Bush (current) and Bill Clinton were both too polarizing. I'd rather have a moderate who is willing to buck their party and do what they think is right for America.

[NRG]

I still think the big difference is that Hillary will deliver even if she has to sell her own daughter.

Obama will be eaten alive by Washington.

For me, there are only two serious candidates for president - McCain and Clinton.

In a strange way, Obama reminds me of a Democratic version of Bush. All hat and no cattle.

What you see as a strength, most American voters see as a defect. We have seen the Clinton/Bush political strategy of attempting to win what Rove calls %50+1 ad nauseum. The country is deeply riven by the partisanship engendered by such a strategy.

For me, the cognitive dissonance of voting for someone who voted for the Iraq invasion was simply too much. Leave aside any other virtue of Obama, of which there are many, and take a look at his 2002 opinion of the Iraq invasion:


Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 arm-chair, 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.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

We need a President with the judgment to see the world as it really is. Experience at being repeatedly wrong is not desirable, nor is ruthlessness when exercised for one's own self interest.

Hillary Clinton is a known quantity, as is John McCain. We know what we will get, and truly hope for more. Obama has the potential to provide a lot more, but at the risk that he'll be less than we hope. That said, he has helped insulate himself from that downside by surrounding himself with a stellar cast of advisors. For example, you know he is a former Con law professor whose chief legal advisors are Larry Tribe and Cass Sunnstein, right? Tell me how he's like Bush again?

NRG

[Name Lips]

Geez. If Bush could string together words like that, we'd be happy to be in Iraq!

The art of rhetoric, charisma, the ability to influence beliefs... these are traits a President, no matter his political agenda, should have in spades. That's what makes a good politician.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

NRG, you're never going to "bring America back together". There are incompatible world-views and one has to win and the other has to lose. It's a fight and you have to win it.

In that fight, Obama is a loser's move - unless, of course, he's a "uniter not a divider" in the same way Bush was: that is to say, the unity rhetoric is self-conscious bullshit which will be abandoned as soon he gets into office. If I thought that were true, I'd be tempted to support him. Unfortunately, I think he means what he says. And that is precisely why I don't want him to be President.

Tribe and (to a lesser extent) Sunstein are great intellects. But what is required to effect change is politics - ruthless, old style nasty politics. Obama can no more repeal the laws of politics than the tech-bubble could repeal the laws of economics. Indeed, that's another way of putting my view - Obama is to politics what the tech-bubble was to the stock market. Which suggests, of course, that it isn't going to be stopped until it bursts.

[Space Cadet B^3]

What you see as a strength, most American voters see as a defect. We have seen the Clinton/Bush political strategy of attempting to win what Rove calls %50+1 ad nauseum. The country is deeply riven by the partisanship engendered by such a strategy.

For me, the cognitive dissonance of voting for someone who voted for the Iraq invasion was simply too much. Leave aside any other virtue of Obama, of which there are many, and take a look at his 2002 opinion of the Iraq invasion:



We need a President with the judgment to see the world as it really is. Experience at being repeatedly wrong is not desirable, nor is ruthlessness when exercised for one's own self interest.

Hillary Clinton is a known quantity, as is John McCain. We know what we will get, and truly hope for more. Obama has the potential to provide a lot more, but at the risk that he'll be less than we hope. That said, he has helped insulate himself from that downside by surrounding himself with a stellar cast of advisors. For example, you know he is a former Con law professor whose chief legal advisors are Larry Tribe and Cass Sunnstein, right? Tell me how he's like Bush again?

NRG
Based upon what was known at the time, is it so unreasonable to assume he might have had a different opinion if there'd been full disclosure?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Plus, you have to remember that Hillary Clinton watched her husband's efforts to stop the genocide in Yugoslavia hindered by a Republican Congress and saw what that undermining of her husband's presidential authority did to his ability to negotiate.

With that experience, she had a legitimate bias against undermining Presidential authority on the international stage. She had the entirely legitimate view that if there was a reasonable case for the military intervention, and the President was competent, then she shouldn't actively block it if doing so would undermine the President's international authority - even if she herself wouldn't have intervened if she were the President. In other words, she was behaving towards Bush's foreign policy in the way she thought Republican Senators should have behaved towards her husband's foreign policy.

Let me put it another way: Back in 2003, no one on these boards' predecessors was a bigger critic of the Iraq invasion that me. But if I had been in Clinton's shoes at the time, I really don't know which way I would have voted.

[NRG]

NRG, you're never going to "bring America back together". There are incompatible world-views and one has to win and the other has to lose. It's a fight and you have to win it.

There is more than one way to change people's minds. It's said that said that you can win more friends with honey than with vinegar. After the last 16 years of vinegar, people are ready to give honey a chance. There is a reason Obama leads Clinton 52/38 in the most recent nationwide polls.


In that fight, Obama is a loser's move - unless, of course, he's a "uniter not a divider" in the same way Bush was: that is to say, the unity rhetoric is self-conscious bullshit which will be abandoned as soon he gets into office. If I thought that were true, I'd be tempted to support him. Unfortunately, I think he means what he says. And that is precisely why I don't want him to be President.

Let me invoke another Democratic president from the past. You're thinking JFK, right? No. My hope is that Obama will provide us with the best of Lyndon Johnson, a man with the political skill to co-opt his political enemies to get things done. He was a man who made bold strategic choices, and significant strategic sacrifices, to get done what the country needed to get done. Obama's time in the Illinois state Senate demonstrates some of those same skills.


Tribe and (to a lesser extent) Sunstein are great intellects. But what is required to effect change is politics - ruthless, old style nasty politics. Obama can no more repeal the laws of politics than the tech-bubble could repeal the laws of economics. Indeed, that's another way of putting my view - Obama is to politics what the tech-bubble was to the stock market. Which suggests, of course, that it isn't going to be stopped until it bursts.

We have tried the old, ruthless style of politics for too long, now. It doesn't get us anyplace that we want to go. I, too, have some questions about Obama's cojones when the rubber meets the road. Thus my initial support for Edwards. That said, I trust him to make good choices about his cabinet, to listen to experts, and to consistently make the right choices on policies. I don't trust Hillary Clinton to do the right thing, even when she knows very well what is right. In fact, she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is too willing to compromise her principles for political gain.

Moreover, the US desperately needs to send a message to the world that we recognize the error of our ways. Electing someone who voted to invade Iraq can in no way do that. Voting for someone who didn't buy into that nonsense, as I know neither of us did, just might start to send that message.

If Obama survives the coming wave of insidious attacks during the general election, he will have demonstrated his capacity to function in the rough and tumble world of Washington. I can easily see that happening.

NRG

[NRG]

To answer the initial question of this thread, why conservatives like Barack Obama, we should ask Hatter. That would be someone who identifies as a McCain voter, with Obama as a second choice. You would be surprised how many people I've spoken to who have expressed the same sentiment, and not because they're hyper-partisans who want to see a Democrat fail.

NRG

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Obama isn't Lyndon Johnson. Hillary is. Think about it. LBJ was ruthless son-of-bitch who acheived far more than JFK ever did. Real agents of change aren't nice. They're ruthless, deal-making, bare-knuckled assholes who get the job done. If you're lucky, they come with a little charisma to mask the wolf's grin, like FDR. But Obama sure doesn't strike me as having FDR or LBJ-level ruthlessness - he seems to me to be the idealist he claims to be.

Obama is a big mistake. I'm convinced that his nomination will mean the US will not get universal health care for another decade or two. And I'm reasonably sure his first term will be so incompetent that it will revitalise the forces of conservativism in the same way that Jimmy Carter did.

I repeat, conservatives like Obama because, deep down, they think he'll be incompetent; whereas they fear Clinton because they think she'll be ruthlessly capable in office. I don't like Obama and support Clinton for the same reason.

Do you seriously think the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry and the the religious conservative movement and all the other forces arrayed against the progressive agenda will just join hands with Obama and sing Kumbaya? You're dreaming. You're engaged in a version of the "faith based policy making" that we so deride in Bushain right-wing post modernists. Remember "reality based community"? New realities aren't built on hope. They're built on ruthless, Machiavellian politics in a good cause.

You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you can't wish away a fundamental political and cultural conflict. Obama is a loser's move.

Don't get me wrong NRG, I'd like to be wrong on this. I'd like Obama to be the saviour the Obamaphiles think he is. But I just don't' see the evidence. He seems to me to be using an understandable weariness of the culture war as an appeal. It seems to me that your enemies will see that as nothing but a sign of weakness.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I'm a Conservative and I don't like Obama. I'm an American who wants a strong country with good leadership, and I don't think Obama has what it takes.

[Radu]

I'm throwing in with Obama exactly BECAUSE I'm so tired of the take no prisoners, nothing-but-hardball politics that you praise Clinton for. I've had my fill of politicians with an ax to grind and a never say die attitude. I don't care that Hillary might be more ruthless. I don't care that she knows how to play politics. Playing politics also means betrayal-- your cause, your promises, your friends, or your good name. Another word for betrayal, a nicer one, would be, "compromise."

But, pretty it up or not, sacrificing your ideals for the sake of legislation undermines the very purpose of legislating in the first place in my opinion.

Socialized medicine? I'm all for it. But it's got to get in line behind a few other priorities-- like cleaning up our messes in Afghanistan, the Forgotten Country (TM) and Iraq. Repairing the country's image and influence abroad. We need to reduce (and being ludicrously idealistic and optimistic, eliminate) our dependence upon foreign energy by refining our alternative energy sources, requiring all government owned vehicles to have a minimum of 40 mpg by 2012 (that alone would fuel a spurt of research into fuel efficiency. You know how fucking MASSIVE the government fleet is?). We need to stabilize the economy. We need to address trade imbalances--- if countries won't open the fuck up to our products, we need to make sure they suffer penalties. It's time to stop the one-way flow into America and PRODUCE something besides lawyers.

Sure, socialized medicine is important. But right now, I want to be able to say, "I am an American, and I am proud of my country" instead of "I am an American, and I believe in what America can become. I believe in the dream of what America should be. But we've got some work to do."

So Obama may not exactly fit your idea of what a politician should be... but in my eyes that in combination with his principles, inspiration, and intelligence make him EXACTLY the candidate I'm looking for.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Wishing won't make it so.

Politics is about conflict and the US is riven by an internal conflict that can't be solved by pretty speeches and holding hands.

Pretending otherwise is just going to waste 4 years.

And, btw, as someone who lives in a country that has had universal health care for at least thirty years, calling "socialised medicine" is pretty stupid.

[Varaj]

I'm a little more cynical about Obama. I don't believe he could have gotten to the position he is in on just being what Atticus suggests. It is my believe he is playing the American people in exactly the way Clinton is. He is being cold, heartless and very political. He just is good enough that most people don't realize he is doing it. I really don't believe he is just a charming guy that by chance has happened to get to the position he is in.

[Name Lips]

I'm a little more cynical about Obama. I don't believe he could have gotten to the position he is in on just being what Atticus suggests. It is my believe he is playing the American people in exactly the way Clinton is. He is being cold, heartless and very political. He just is good enough that most people don't realize he is doing it. I really don't believe he is just a charming guy that by chance has happened to get to the position he is in.
Yes, a big part of his game could be getting people to underestimate him. He'srisen through the political ranks awfully fast for somebody who, as some people accuse, doesn't understand how to play politics.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Yes, a big part of his game could be getting people to underestimate him. He'srisen through the political ranks awfully fast for somebody who, as some people accuse, doesn't understand how to play politics.

Wait until the general election when his proxies start complaining that every "attack" against him is racism.

[Harry]

Wait until the general election when his proxies start complaining that every "attack" against him is racism.

It's already bugging the hell out of me the little things that are being labeled racist. For one, when something like 25% of whites in South Carolina voted Obama, and 80% of the blacks, that was proof of the entrenchment of racism among older whites. :confused:

[Radu]

That is one thing I note about the race this year... no matter who wins, we lose.

Clinton won't lose because more people like Obama. She'll lose because she's a woman. Likewise, Obama won't lose because people like Clinton, it'll be because he's black.

There isn't a roll eyes smiley large enough. :sigh:

[Space Cadet B^3]

Cynics. :lol:

[NRG]

Obama isn't Lyndon Johnson. Hillary is. Think about it. LBJ was ruthless son-of-bitch who acheived far more than JFK ever did. Real agents of change aren't nice. They're ruthless, deal-making, bare-knuckled assholes who get the job done. If you're lucky, they come with a little charisma to mask the wolf's grin, like FDR. But Obama sure doesn't strike me as having FDR or LBJ-level ruthlessness - he seems to me to be the idealist he claims to be.

His record shows otherwise. His chief accomplishments have been in two key areas, ethics reform and campaign finance reform. Without change in those two areas, we cannot effectively make headway elsewhere. You don't author bills slapping down corporate lobbyists because you want to make friends. You do it so you can win a campaign based on small donor contributions, which is exactly what Obama is doing.


Obama is a big mistake. I'm convinced that his nomination will mean the US will not get universal health care for another decade or two. And I'm reasonably sure his first term will be so incompetent that it will revitalise the forces of conservativism in the same way that Jimmy Carter did.

I repeat, conservatives like Obama because, deep down, they think he'll be incompetent; whereas they fear Clinton because they think she'll be ruthlessly capable in office. I don't like Obama and support Clinton for the same reason.

Do you seriously think the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry and the the religious conservative movement and all the other forces arrayed against the progressive agenda will just join hands with Obama and sing Kumbaya? You're dreaming. You're engaged in a version of the "faith based policy making" that we so deride in Bushain right-wing post modernists. Remember "reality based community"? New realities aren't built on hope. They're built on ruthless, Machiavellian politics in a good cause.


I disagree wholeheartedly. I am not a naive person, believe me. I am not "dreaming." I am just not irredeemably cynical. I know that politicians are bought and sold. I believe, however, that the best of them stay bought by those who got them where they are going. Obama is being bought by exactly zero lobbyists. He is, instead, financing his campaign much as Howard Dean did, on tons and tons of small contributions from actual voters. He has no reason to go away from those people. You know, the voters.

This isn't about wishing or hoping. It's about the possibility of really getting something done. Hillary Clinton would triangulate, would compromise, and would sell us out to the same forces that her husband did in passing NAFTA without sufficient environmental and labor standards. She would compromise with the lobbyists and business interests who are funding her campaign (including Rupert Murdoch!).

As for why conservatives like Obama, it's really pretty simple. He doesn't openly hate them. He gives them the opportunity to carefully back away from the insanity that elected George W. Bush without having to buy into the much-hated Clinton family. For a Republican, supporting Clinton is saying to yourself that you just finished 8 years worth of horrible mistakes. Supporting Obama isn't. With the President at 19% popularity, the population of Republicans that want to put Bush in the rear view mirror is gigantic. The percentage of those folks who would even consider voting for Clinton, however, is tiny.


You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you can't wish away a fundamental political and cultural conflict. Obama is a loser's move.

Don't get me wrong NRG, I'd like to be wrong on this. I'd like Obama to be the saviour the Obamaphiles think he is. But I just don't' see the evidence. He seems to me to be using an understandable weariness of the culture war as an appeal. It seems to me that your enemies will see that as nothing but a sign of weakness.

I think you are wrong on this. I think you are willing to throw away the potential for greatness in hopes of getting something that is barely passable. That isn't enough for me, nor is it enough for the majority of Americans at this point. This country has consistently succeeded over the past 230 years by taking risks. Our greatest moments have never occurred when we played it totally safe. The Democrats tried that in 2000 with Gore, playing it safe. They tried it in 2004 with Kerry. Old-timers and cynics told us that playing it safe wasn't just the most important thing, it was the only thing. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.

I will not hold my nose and vote for a hoary old politician who is slightly less indebted to corporations, slightly less hawkish, and slightly less awful again. I will not awake after election day yet again and say that I compromised myself by voting for someone with whom I largely disagreed, and lost anyway. At the very least, I'll look myself in the face and say that I fought the good fight in support of a candidate that could have been a great president. At best, I'll be damn happy to see a President this nation can be proud of.

You seem to be telling us that we can't afford to take a risk. In return, I tell you that we can't afford not to.

NRG

[Atticus_of_Amber]

NRG, you're starting to sound like Hastur in the religion debates - grasping at straws.

That doesn't mean you're wrong. Obama may be a good president just as there may be a god and there may be fairies a the bottom of my garden. Indeed, I'll happily concede that the chances of Obama being a good president are massively greater than the chances of God or fairies existing - but they're still small. The available evidence says that of McCain. Clinton and Obama, he's by far the least likely candidate to make a good president.

Of course the evidence said the same of JFK and he was - oh, yeah, that's right: when you dig under the hype, he sucked too.

You've already elected one learn-on-the-job and rely-on-his-advisers president. How did that work out?

A good counter-example might be Bill Clinton. Sure he had much more experience than Obama. But he still fucked up most of his first term. Can you really afford that again?

Seriously, NRG, you know my politics pretty well. So you'll understand how serious I am when I say this: If I were an American, I'd vote for McCain rather than Obama. (Though I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama over any other Republican candidate - and if Huckabee were McCain's running mate, I'd be in a real quandary in November.)

[Special K]

I'd just like to ask where all this evidence is that points to Hillary as a ruthless, savvy politician who will get things done. And the evidence that points to Obama being naive, inexperienced, and unable to get anything done in the political system.

It just seems like people are taking the media hype around these two candidates and constructing arguments around that hype. I see little that would suggest that the candidates would be drastically different from each other.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'd just like to ask where all this evidence is that points to Hillary as a ruthless, savvy politician who will get things done. And the evidence that points to Obama being naive, inexperienced, and unable to get anything done in the political system.

It just seems like people are taking the media hype around these two candidates and constructing arguments around that hype. I see little that would suggest that the candidates would be drastically different from each other.

Obama:
- three years as a US senator, in which he was regarded as a show-pony lightweight (but so was JFK in his senate years and see below)
- several years as a state legislator (in which he was regarded as a smart, hard-working coalition builder who could really get things done, so his US Senate rep might have been the result of being a newbie)
- several years experience as a lecturer in constitutional law at a first rate lawschool
- several years experience as a local civil rights lawyer
- did extremely well at Harvard law school
- several years as a local level civil rights organiser

Clinton
- seven years as a US senator, in which she was regarded as a heavy-weight on both sides of the isle
- eight years as a close adviser to a US president, including having the running of a failed attempt to introduce universal health care during which she learned first hand what forces will have to be overcome if universal health care is to be introduced in the next four years;
- several years as a close adviser to a Governor of a small State; including being in charge of a reform of the state school system that moved educational outcomes from the second-worst in the nation to somewhere in the top third.
- several years as a senior partner of a law firm, specialising in corporate law
- several years as a director of a major national corporation (WalMart)
- several years as a campaigner for the legal rights of children including ground-breaking articles in the field and on-the ground work lobbying in Washington
- several years as a lecturer in constitutional law at a mid-to-low level lawschool (Arkansas) after having turned down job offers at leading law schools like Yale
- a couple of years working as a staffer to the Congressional committees doing the Watergate investigations
- did extremely well at Yale law school.

I have actually been on a job selection committee faced with two candidates like these - the extremely promising youngster and the unbelievably qualified veteran. What did I do? I took the youngster out to lunch, praised her qualifications, then took her through the qualifications of the guy who beat her. And then encouraged her to apply for the job when it would come up again in three years and gave her some tips on how to get the experience she'd need to be the prohibitive candidate then.

Switch genders and that's exactly what should happen here.

[Special K]

Its the "In which he/she was regarded as..." statements that I take specific issue with. I already know how both Obama and Clinton are regarded, I asked for clarification on those points. I see no differences arise in their governmental capabilities based on the fact that they were "regarded" differently.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Its the "In which he/she was regarded as..." statements that I take specific issue with. I already know how both Obama and Clinton are regarded, I asked for clarification on those points. I see no differences arise in their governmental capabilities based on the fact that they were "regarded" differently.

Huh?

Even if you remove those statements (and they seem to me to be valid evidence for persons in our position) Clinton still kicks Obama's ass?!?!?!?!

[Dr. Paragon]

That is one thing I note about the race this year... no matter who wins, we lose.

Clinton won't lose because more people like Obama. She'll lose because she's a woman. Likewise, Obama won't lose because people like Clinton, it'll be because he's black.

There isn't a roll eyes smiley large enough. :sigh:
Ask and ye shall receive!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/Devora/giantrolleyesofDOOM.gif

[Ergeheilalt]

I was reading the daily KOS today. I know - not exactly an unbiased source, but there was an interesting article on Obama and Clinton, by a user to delved into their Senate history and took a good look at what they've been doing the past few years.

It helped me cement my faith in Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Clinton's inability to draw people under her banner for her passionate issues (health care and women & children causes) makes me kind of cynical with regards to her ability to get universal health care off the ground.

Obama on the other hand seems to be able to get support for his bills from his own party in addition to the Republicans. His breadth of bill writing topics also makes him, in my opinion, a more well rounded member of the Senate.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Anybody see the debate tonight?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Anybody see the debate tonight?

Yeah. Bits. Hillary sucked. :-(

I really hope Obama has the cattle to go with the hat.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I wouldn't worry about universal health care anyway, cause it ain't gonna happen in the US. Last time it was pitched with a Democrat president to a Democrat-controlled congress, and it was defeated in a LANDSLIDE. Just like Conservatives bantering about abortion, this obsession with universal health care is a bunch of smoke blown up our asses... it's political theater and nothing more.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I wouldn't worry about universal health care anyway, cause it ain't gonna happen in the US. Last time it was pitched with a Democrat president to a Democrat-controlled congress, and it was defeated in a LANDSLIDE. Just like Conservatives bantering about abortion, this obsession with universal health care is a bunch of smoke blown up our asses... it's political theater and nothing more.


Rubbish. As I said, Hilalry would sell Chelsea into white slavery to get it now, it's a point of pride for her. Obama, OTOH, has already sold it for a chance at the White House.

[Harry]

My father and I have similar names, so I get all kinds of RNC spam intended for him. This is a portion of an emailing from Bill Frist called "The Democrat Iceberg":

Votes cast by Democrats in the recent primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Tuesday's Wisconsin primaries have greatly exceeded those cast by Republicans in each state. In fact, if you combine the total of votes cast for Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee in Wisconsin they don't equal the number of votes cast for Senator Obama (and come nowhere close if you add in those cast for Senator Clinton.)

Our Republican Party is going to have to get on it’s “A game” if we expect to curb this Democrat fervor. The good news for us is that this enthusiasm is being fueled by a flowery rhetoric and little substance and it won’t take Americans long to figure that out. That said, we need to start to work today, as the elections in November will be here before we know it. Because, while the enthusiasm Democrat voters are showing for their candidates is a real concern, it is far outweighed by the dangerous national security ideas the Democrat presidential candidates and the Democrat Congress seem committed to...

[NRG]

NRG, you're starting to sound like Hastur in the religion debates - grasping at straws.

That doesn't mean you're wrong. Obama may be a good president just as there may be a god and there may be fairies a the bottom of my garden. Indeed, I'll happily concede that the chances of Obama being a good president are massively greater than the chances of God or fairies existing - but they're still small. But the available evidence says that of McCain. Clinton and Obama, he's by far the least likely candidate to make a good president.

Of course the evidence said the same of JFK and he was - oh, yeah, that's right: when you dig under the hype, he sucked too.

You've already elected one learn-on-the-job and rely on his advisers president. How did that work out?

How did that work out? LBJ did pretty damn well on domestic policy in his first-ever term as an executive. He leveraged the skills he developed in the legislature into some lasting and significant changes. Or were you talking about a person who was largely a Washington outsider with a strong agenda for change (for better or for worse), Ronald Reagan? He sure as hell achieved a lot while he was in office (again almost entirely for the worse, but the point is effectiveness).

The person with the most legislative experience, and the most successful legislative experience in this race is not Clinton. It's Obama. The person with the greatest possibility of splitting the iron discipline of the GOP bloc in Congress, particularly the Senate, is surely not Clinton. Voting with her on pretty much any issue would be the death knell of a Republican, who would certainly face a primary challenge from the right for having done so.


A good counter-example might be Bill Clinton. Sure he had much more experience than Obama. But he still fucked up most of his first term. Can you really afford that again?

Seriously, NRG, you know my politics pretty well. So you'll understand how serious I am when I say this: If I were an American, I'd vote for McCain rather than Obama. (Though I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama over any other Republican candidate - and if Huckabee were McCain's running mate, I'd be in a real quandary in November.)

I must not know your politics as well as I thought, then. I don't think you want the US in Iraq for another 100 years. I don't think you want to continue the acceleration of the class divide in the US. I don't think you want to see another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't think you want to see us bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (McCain's own words). I am pretty sure you don't want to see a continuation of the hollowing out of the US government by placement of corporate lobbyists at the heads of every regulatory agency from the FDA, to the EPA, to FEMA. I don't think you want those things, but they are what Bush 3.0, aka McCain, would bring.

I also think you must really not be aware of the hypocrisy of John McCain on his "signature" issues. He staffs his campaign with the very lobbyists he purports to oppose. He just voted against a bill that would prohibit the CIA from continuing to torture people and, when the bill passed anyway, has urged Bush to veto it. This despite his so-called principled stance against torture. He voted against, but then for, Bush's huge deficit-fueled tax giveaway to the wealthiest few. Worse yet, he would be more effective at achieving the malevolent ends to which Bush has half-wittedly driven.

I don't know this for sure, but I think what we may be having here is a generational debate. For reference, I'm 38, but a youngish 38 in attitude. I firmly believe that the selfish baby boom generation has severely fucked up our nation, and our world. I want to see power pried from their hands as soon as possible. They have shown us their priorities, and we will be paying off the debt for their foolishness for the rest of our lives. I don't see experience in Washington as the end-all, be-all. In fact, I see it as a significant hindrance in many regards. Experience at working the levers of a broken system isn't desirable when an available alternative attempts to force a paradigm shift in the way government works.

Not everyone from outside Washington is naive, a neophyte, or incapable of leading the country. Not everyone inside it is competent, realistic, and ready to lead. This goes doubly for the corrupt, unprincipled John McCain, who has repeatedly sold his soul for money -- see the Keating 5 for one example where he was caught at it. That one instance cost the taxpayers $3.4 billion (in 1989 dollars).

It goes less so for Hillary Clinton, I'll admit. However, her campaign is funded by large donors with deep pockets who have an interest in keeping things just as they are. (A graphic in the NY Time this morning depicts how 61% of her donations came from donors who contributed over $1500, while 37% of Obama's did -- this leaves aside the fact that only one of them takes lobbyist contributions.). I trust that she will serve the interests of her constituents, those who got her elected, the big well-connected donors. She would be a fool to do otherwise, right? The same goes for Obama. I trust that he will serve the interests of his constituents, the people who funded his campaign and got him elected. That would be those who provided almost half of his donations in chunks less than $500.

I realize that it's easy to pretend that one is pragmatic when one is really cynical. I've been there. I realize that as time goes on, the desire for the familiar and the safe grows in a person. I can certainly identify with the temptation to say that the 8 years under Bill Clinton was certainly a lot better than what we've had for the last 8 years. But that is setting the bar far too low. After the illegal pre-emptive wars, the torture, the shredding of our Constitutional rights, the insane deficit-fueled tax cutting, the hollowing out of our government from the inside, the disregard for the well being of tens of millions of our own citizens, we cannot afford to slowly turn the ship of state a couple of degrees to the starboard. We need to reverse direction. Clinton will not do that. Clinton cannot do that. Meanwhile, McCain will go full speed ahead in the wrong direction. The only hope we have of turning this ship around is to elect a captain with the vision, the will, and the skill to pull it off. Barack Obama has, over the course of his years in the legislature(s), proven that he can do this if we have the courage to let him try. This nation is going to let him try, with or without the support of one concerned and well-meaning Aussie. ;)

NRG

[Name Lips]

Republican propaganda always gives me a headache... I keep thinking, this makes sense to them? People read this and nod their heads? What the fuck is wrong with them?

That was, thankfully, a fairly mild one.

[obryn]

You know, in high school or college I figured out that cynicism was not always brilliance.

Fortunately, I've taken that lesson with me to adulthood.

-O

[Atticus_of_Amber]

NRG, I think you've drunk the Obama koolaid. Go read a biography of LBJ. He was a ruthless, machiavellian, unprincipled machine politician and the epitome of the Washington insider (senate majority leader for two decades). He was hated and feared by all and sundry for his ruthless Texas machine and cast network of national allies. And that was precisely why he achieved so much as president.

In this race, HILLARY is LBJ with bigger tits. Obama is JFK with a smaller dick.

As for McCain, he's qualified. We're in a war between the forces of the Enlightenment and the medieval ideology of Islam. I'd much rather my leader in that war be a grizzled, machiavellian veteran than a romantic dreamer who thinks he can solve intractable conflicts with pretty speeches. He'll fuck you on domestic policy, but so will Obama - its just that Obama won't mean to.

Obama is a loser's move.

[Radu]

Atticus, for those of us without such insight... exactly what makes John McCain qualified?

Call me what you will, but one of the major qualifications I've heard touted for him is that he spent some time in the Hanoi Hilton. I don't mean to be insensitive, but being a prisoner doesn't make you more qualified to speak out on war issues in my mind. Perhaps it would make him extremely qualified to speak out on the psychological effects of war, on the treatment of prisoners, and similar issues...

But I just don't see where you get that he's a good bet. Show me.

[GreyOne]

Obama is the best choice.

He seems to be getting progressively better as you listen to him.

He gets progressively smarter and more experienced as the campaign goes on. It's as if he's some sort of cyborg, learning and adapting at a geometric rate.

He's schooling Clinton and her staff in the campaign. The polls and the debates increasingly show this.

The guy's foreign policy understanding is impressive for a so-called inexperienced politician. His election as president automatically reestablishes world respect.

I listened to the foreign policy discussion of his "experts" on his website. He surrounds himself with smart people.

Without a doubt he picks someone with good international credentials as his running mate.

He has remarkable charisma: enough to carry democrats, independents and republicans. That's maybe the answer to the original question. He's likable enough to cross party lines.

I drank the Obama-aid ages ago, and not only was it tasty, hearty and slightly tangy, but it made me high and gave me major wood.


The math is simple. Obama vs. McCain wins.

Clinton vs. McCain probably loses.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, for those of us without such insight... exactly what makes John McCain qualified?

Call me what you will, but one of the major qualifications I've heard touted for him is that he spent some time in the Hanoi Hilton. I don't mean to be insensitive, but being a prisoner doesn't make you more qualified to speak out on war issues in my mind. Perhaps it would make him extremely qualified to speak out on the psychological effects of war, on the treatment of prisoners, and similar issues...

But I just don't see where you get that he's a good bet. Show me.

McCain: 25 years in Congress (21 in the Senate, 4 in the House). Another twenty or so years in the US Navy.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

In this race, HILLARY is LBJ with bigger tits. Obama is JFK with a smaller dick.


Man, that sums it up right there.

[GreyOne]

McCain: 25 years in Congress (21 in the Senate, 4 in the House). Another twenty or so years in the US Navy.

You've had 8 or so years on the intertubes.

What does that say?

[GreyOne]

Man, that sums it up right there.

No way. Hillary's dick is thicker in girth and length.

[Space Cadet B^3]

It's all in the breasticles.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Man, that sums it up right there.

Actually, I should have said: In this race, HILLARY is LBJ with a bigger dick. Obama is JFK with sand in his vagina.

[GreyOne]

Actually, I should have said: In this race, HILLARY is LBJ with a bigger dick. Obama is JFK with sand in his vagina.

Atticus has me on ignore! :mad:

[Dr. Paragon]

Obama is the best choice.

He seems to be getting progressively better as you listen to him.

He gets progressively smarter and more experienced as the campaign goes on. It's as if he's some sort of cyborg, learning and adapting at a geometric rate.

He's schooling Clinton and her staff in the campaign. The polls and the debates increasingly show this.

The guy's foreign policy understanding is impressive for a so-called inexperienced politician. His election as president automatically reestablishes world respect.

I listened to the foreign policy discussion of his "experts" on his website. He surrounds himself with smart people.

Without a doubt he picks someone with good international credentials as his running mate.

He has remarkable charisma: enough to carry democrats, independents and republicans. That's maybe the answer to the original question. He's likable enough to cross party lines.

I drank the Obama-aid ages ago, and not only was it tasty, hearty and slightly tangy, but it made me high and gave me major wood.


The math is simple. Obama vs. McCain wins.

Clinton vs. McCain probably loses.
I bet he doesn't have me on ignore.
Well not yet...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

There is a difference between having someone on ignore and ignoring them.

[Utrecht]

I find my self in the strange position of agreeing with pretty much everything Atticus is saying - but then disagreeing with him on the final analysis.

Of the two democratic candidates - Hillary represents 4 to 8 more years of the same old crap witht he same old people. Obama gives us the opportunity to move into a different set of crap - and Atticus, whether you appreciate it or not - that is actually important.

It is time for BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans to stop trying to live the 90s/early 00s. We need to move on.

I firmly beleive that Obama will be the worse of the thee presidential from a policy standpoint - but it is also one that Americans can look themselves in the mirror and feel good about - it will help immensly with racial issues, it will help immensly with world opinion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am likely voting McCain (unless his running mate is a loon), but I would be OK with Barak (even though he will directly hurt me in the wallet - universal health care.....shudder....)

[GreyOne]

I find my self in the strange position of agreeing with pretty much everything Atticus is saying - but then disagreeing with him on the final analysis.

Of the two democratic candidates - Hillary represents 4 to 8 more years of the same old crap witht he same old people. Obama gives us the opportunity to move into a different set of crap - and Atticus, whether you appreciate it or not - that is actually important.

It is time for BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans to stop trying to live the 90s/early 00s. We need to move on.

I firmly beleive that Obama will be the worse of the thee presidential from a policy standpoint - but it is also one that Americans can look themselves in the mirror and feel good about - it will help immensly with racial issues, it will help immensly with world opinion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am likely voting McCain (unless his running mate is a loon), but I would be OK with Barak (even though he will directly hurt me in the wallet - universal health care.....shudder....)

Why will Obama be worse from a policy standpoint?

[Utrecht]

Why will Obama be worse from a policy standpoint?

Because (IMHO) he does not know shit about governing. He knows a crap load about leading though - and I think is a sublty that many Americans (including myself at times) have trouble grasping.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Why will Obama be worse from a policy standpoint?

Ultimately he won't be, because very little of what he is advocating will ever pass Congress into law.

[GreyOne]

Because (IMHO) he does not know shit about governing. He knows a crap load about leading though - and I think is a sublty that many Americans (including myself at times) have trouble grasping.

Presidents don't really govern though. Congress governs. To me a President is supposed to lead the country somewhere and ultimately, let's face it, the executive of the US is really not that powerful-the attempts by the Bush administration to change that, notwithstanding.

The US and the world needs somebody that can tear down walls rather than erect them.

To do that, Obama seems the best choice by far to me.

Yes we can!

[GreyOne]

Ultimately he won't be, because very little of what he is advocating will ever pass Congress into law.

I think he's got a better chance at this than Hillary.

Any way you slice it though, your politics is way more interesting and exciting than ours in Canada.

[NRG]

Ultimately he won't be, because very little of what he is advocating will ever pass Congress into law.

That all depends on how big his coat tails are. With 36 Republicans retiring from the House (I think, that's from memory), and several from the Senate, they may be big indeed. Further, Howard Dean has tossed aside the foolish and divisive 50%+1 Rovian strategy of electoral politics, focusing instead on being competitive in all 50 states. Democrats were elected in formerly red states such as Virginia (Senator Jim Webb) and Montana (Senator John Tester) in 2006. I expect to see a lot more of the same in 2008, particularly if the economy crashes as hard as it looks like it will.

NRG

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That all depends on how big his coat tails are. With 36 Republicans retiring from the House (I think, that's from memory), and several from the Senate, they may be big indeed. Further, Howard Dean has tossed aside the foolish and divisive 50%+1 Rovian strategy of electoral politics, focusing instead on being competitive in all 50 states. Democrats were elected in formerly red states such as Virginia (Senator Jim Webb) and Montana (Senator John Tester) in 2006. I expect to see a lot more of the same in 2008, particularly if the economy crashes as hard as it looks like it will.

NRG

Yep, Obama will probably get a big Congressional majority - and, like the inexperienced Bill Clinton in 1992-4, he'll piss it away and achieve nothing. HillaryCare '93 was a tragedy; ObamaCare '09 will be a farce.

[Name Lips]

Presidential candidates always promise the world. Most of America seems to forget they have little power to actually implement anything. In terms of legislation, what can they do except veto things they don't like? Not a heck of a lot...

[Ergeheilalt]

Yep, Obama will probably get a big Congressional majority - and, like the inexperienced Bill Clinton in 1992-4, he'll piss it away and achieve nothing. HillaryCare '93 was a tragedy; ObamaCare '09 will be a farce.

You know, Obama had more authored and coauthored bills passed in the Senate than did Hillary involving the medical field - with more support from a wider variety of fellow Senators.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I like the transparency he wants to introduce to the process too.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think a good number of Obama's votes in the primaries have come from Republicans, trying to kill off Hillary before the general election. I don't think Obama's support will be as widespread as many seem to believe.

[Name Lips]

Well, I know in New Mexico only registered Democrats are allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You know, Obama had more authored and coauthored bills passed in the Senate than did Hillary involving the medical field - with more support from a wider variety of fellow Senators.

Go research what that word really means and you might find out why his colleagues thought he was an attention whore.

[cyphersmith]

I like the transparency he wants to introduce to the process too.

This and his stance on net neutrality are big in my book. Think about it. He wants a better informed public. Imagine putting the entire federal budget out in the open in an obvious place on the internet. Obama wants to do that. He wants to put in a fairly large amount of transparency into the federal government in this manner. Another example. If a bill comes to his office having had minimal debate. He will post that bill to the internet, and get feedback from the people before he signs or vetoes it, so that people will know what is happening. These are good things. Bringing the higher levels of government into the 21st century is a good thing.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This and his stance on net neutrality are big in my book. Think about it. He wants a better informed public. Imagine putting the entire federal budget out in the open in an obvious place on the internet. Obama wants to do that. He wants to put in a fairly large amount of transparency into the federal government in this manner. Another example. If a bill comes to his office having had minimal debate. He will post that bill to the internet, and get feedback from the people before he signs or vetoes it, so that people will know what is happening. These are good things. Bringing the higher levels of government into the 21st century is a good thing.

Great idea. Wonderful. But if I had to choose, I'd prefer universal health care.

[NRG]

Yep, Obama will probably get a big Congressional majority - and, like the inexperienced Bill Clinton in 1992-4, he'll piss it away and achieve nothing. HillaryCare '93 was a tragedy; ObamaCare '09 will be a farce.

Tell us more of the future, oh soothsayer. :what:

In the meantime, Here is an article attempting to explain the growing phenomenon of the Obamacan:


Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’

Some prominent Republicans have caught Obama fever.
By Richard Wolffe
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 7:02 PM ET Feb 1, 2008

Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her--energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world.

"Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans," she told newsweek. "I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There's a long and fine tradition of crossover voters."

Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called "Obamacans"--disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. They include lifelong Republican Tricia Moseley, a former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time segregationist from South Carolina. Now a high-school teacher, Moseley says she was attracted to Obama's positions on education and the economy.

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC's "Morning Joe," says many conservative friends--including Bush officials and evangelical Christians--sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama's post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does]," Scarborough told NEWSWEEK.

Plenty of Republicans are immune to the Obama swoon, of course. The Republican National Committee has emphasized a recent analysis suggesting that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate last year. But even small numbers of Obamacans can help reinforce the candidate's unity message and bolster his "electability" argument. In Iowa, the campaign identified more than 700 registered Republicans who committed to caucusing for Obama (although staffers say they don't yet know how many showed up to vote). And in the Super Tuesday state of Colorado, campaign staffers say they found more than 500 erstwhile Republicans who were willing to switch their party registration.

Even if Republicans don't convert in more significant numbers, the friendly outreach may blunt the ferocity of GOP attacks. One senior aide to John McCain has already said he's reluctant to attack Obama: last year, McCain's adman Mark McKinnon wrote an internal memo promising not to tape ads against the Illinois Democrat if he were the nominee.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476/output/print

NRG

[Atticus_of_Amber]

All that article cited as the evidence for Obama's ability to bring liberals and conservatives together is his use of language. And these feel-good vibes will prevent conflict and acrimony once actual policy issues are at stake? Sheer folly.

Obama is either a fool or a very ruthless liberal intending to do a Bush-esque compassionate-conservative-to-neo-conservative transformation after his inauguration. If I believed the latter, then I'd support him. But I think he actually thinks he can hope away fundamental conflicts.

You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you cant wish away fundamental social conflicts.

[Radu]

You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you cant wish away fundamental social conflicts.

Oh, of course. So we shouldn't ever attempt to try. Let's stick with status-quo because that's always worked so well.

Your bitterness and cynicism are no longer interesting or insightful, Atticus.

[tleilaxu]

All that article cited as the evidence for Obama's ability to bring liberals and conservatives together is his use of language. And these feel-good vibes will prevent conflict and acrimony once actual policy issues are at stake? Sheer folly.

Obama is either a fool or a very ruthless liberal intending to do a Bush-esque compassionate-conservative-to-neo-conservative transformation after his inauguration. If I believed the latter, then I'd support him. But I think he actually thinks he can hope away fundamental conflicts.

You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you cant wish away fundamental social conflicts.

what obama thinks is the only way to change the relationship between the state and the people is through a mass movement. only with masses of people behind him can he change the social contract. that's what the 'uniting' is all about. what he doesn't talk about is the crushing of the opposition after you have overwhelming support. that doesn't sell as well, except to people like me.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

what obama thinks is the only way to change the relationship between the state and the people is through a mass movement. only with masses of people behind him can he change the social contract. that's what the 'uniting' is all about. what he doesn't talk about is the crushing of the opposition after you have overwhelming support. that doesn't sell as well, except to people like me.

If I thought Obama was that Machiavellian, I'd be far more enthusiastic about him. But I just don't see the evidence.

I think the nomination comes down to this: If you want universal health care, and are prepared to go through a four-year long mother of of all nasty partisan battles to get it, vote for Clinton. If you want to have a more feel-good and less partisan politics (with a vague hope of reforming the Washington lobbying system in unspecified and probably unconstitutional ways), even if it means sacrificing universal health care, then vote for Obama.

What was the name of that movie, "Hope Floats"?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oh, of course. So we shouldn't ever attempt to try. Let's stick with status-quo because that's always worked so well.

That's how LBJ got you civil rights. That's how all real change is made, the old fashioned "cynical" way.

Your bitterness and cynicism are no longer interesting or insightful, Atticus.

That's what the tech boys said to the old timers back before the tech wreck.

You're drawing the wrong conclusion. You can have change, you just have to fight for it the old-fashioned way. That was Clinton's point about LBJ and Martin Luther King. MLK got people inspired, but it took a knock down drag out old school ruthless politician like LBJ to make it happen.

Change without brutal realism isn't a political movement - it's political masturbation for the young and the stupid.

Bitter? Yes, a little. I'm seeing the US throw away it's best opportunity for real reform in decades. In four years time there'll be no universal health care and people will ask "why?" The answer will be that good people like you and NRG pissed it away when you had the opportunity because a silver tongued empty suit offered to make you all feel better. For goodness sake, when will America grow up?

[tleilaxu]

I think the nomination comes down to this: If you want universal health care, and are prepared to go through a four-year long mother of of all nasty partisan battles to get it, vote for Clinton.

done and done. obama won't be a bad president, he'll just be less effective than clinton, so there will be less crushing. that is, unless he can convince a great number of folks to jump on the hope train. then we'll have healthcare and magical pollution free cars and there won't be any racism or hate and pop music will become good again and everyone will get laid two to three times as much as they do now but there won't be any STDs and the terrorists will surrender too.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

done and done. obama won't be a bad president, he'll just be less effective than clinton, so there will be less crushing. that is, unless he can convince a great number of folks to jump on the hope train. then we'll have healthcare and magical pollution free cars and there won't be any racism or hate and pop music will become good again and everyone will get laid two to three times as much as they do now but there won't be any STDs and the terrorists will surrender too.

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

[GreyOne]

Atticus is right about Hillary being a ruthless bitch. Check out the Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein for some real juicy bits and pieces.

He's just in lala land in his belief that she would be successful as President just because she's ruthless.

Let's face it. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a co-presidency.

[Harry]

Atticus is right about Hillary being a ruthless bitch. Check out the Truth about Hillary by Edward Klein for some real juicy bits and pieces.

Hey, good call. And after finishing that book, I would suggest picking up Al Franken's "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot", which has some real interesting background material on John McCain.

hth

[NRG]

All that article cited as the evidence for Obama's ability to bring liberals and conservatives together is his use of language. And these feel-good vibes will prevent conflict and acrimony once actual policy issues are at stake? Sheer folly.

Obama is either a fool or a very ruthless liberal intending to do a Bush-esque compassionate-conservative-to-neo-conservative transformation after his inauguration. If I believed the latter, then I'd support him. But I think he actually thinks he can hope away fundamental conflicts.


On what basis are you making these repeated assertions? You seem to have some strong opinions, and seem to be willing to make some pretty sweeping generalizations based on them. What you haven't done, is introduce that critical element called evidence. I am happy to go over his record in the Senate if you are. Rather than hurling baseless invective, how about trying to prove your point?


You can't repeal the laws of supply and demand and you cant wish away fundamental social conflicts.

Point out where anyone said you could. Seriously, how about demonizing the man by using things he's actually said and done rather than making up spurious stances to attribute to him?

You can't wish away fundamental social conflicts. That much is true. What you can do is work to change people's conditions, and work to change people's minds. It's the kind of thing you do as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer, for example.

NRG

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Already done. Go back and re-read my posts comparing their two records. There's your evidence. EDIT: since you seem to have missed it the first time, I'll repeat it:

Obama:
- three years as a US senator, in which he was regarded as a show-pony lightweight (but so was JFK in his senate years and see below)
- several years as a state legislator (in which he was regarded as a smart, hard-working coalition builder who could really get things done, so his US Senate rep might have been the result of being a newbie)
- several years experience as a lecturer in constitutional law at a first rate lawschool
- several years experience as a local civil rights lawyer
- did extremely well at Harvard law school
- several years as a local level civil rights organiser

Clinton
- seven years as a US senator, in which she was regarded as a heavy-weight on both sides of the isle
- eight years as a close adviser to a US president, including having the running of a failed attempt to introduce universal health care during which she learned first hand what forces will have to be overcome if universal health care is to be introduced in the next four years;
- several years as a close adviser to a Governor of a small State; including being in charge of a reform of the state school system that moved educational outcomes from the second-worst in the nation to somewhere in the top third.
- several years as a senior partner of a law firm, specialising in corporate law
- several years as a director of a major national corporation (WalMart)
- several years as a campaigner for the legal rights of children including ground-breaking articles in the field and on-the ground work lobbying in Washington
- several years as a lecturer in constitutional law at a mid-to-low level lawschool (Arkansas) after having turned down job offers at leading law schools like Yale
- a couple of years working as a staffer to the Congressional committees doing the Watergate investigations
- did extremely well at Yale law school.

I have actually been on a job selection committee faced with two candidates like these - the extremely promising youngster and the unbelievably qualified veteran. What did I do? I took the youngster out to lunch, praised her qualifications, then took her through the qualifications of the guy who beat her. And then encouraged her to apply for the job when it would come up again in three years and gave her some tips on how to get the experience she'd need to be the prohibitive candidate then.

Switch genders and that's exactly what should happen here.

There's just no contest on the evidence - Hillary is clearly the more qualified candidate (though, of course, Obama is no slouch).

And on policy, Hillary is also superior. (Health care alone puts her miles in front.) The only strike against her I can see is her vote on the Iraq invasion. And, while I disagree with her on that vote, given her experiences in the White House with the Republicans blocking her husband's efforts in Yugoslavia, I can see where she was coming from and I respect her for it.

The only real argument for Obama I can see is electability. I can see that argument, but for me its not yet enough to overwhelm Obama's disadvantages on experience and policy, because I think Hillary can beat McCain.

Another thing that makes me wary of Obama is his oratory. Those windy, vague Pollyanna-esque speeches are starting to make me want to vomit. It's funny, I really liked his 2004 Convention speech. But then he was a newcommer and he wasn't expected to have real meat. Since then, I've just seen him deliver variations of the same homily over and over. At first they was hopeful and inspiring. Then they got a little boring and I started waiting for the beef. Now they strike me as profoundly disturbing in their emptiness. He needs some more years to get some substance to go with that style. (Of course, to be fair, I come from a political culture in which all US political oratory would be considered to be comically content-free, so I may be tone-deaf to what American's like to hear from their leaders.)

And a further thing that worries me is his brittleness. He's gotten an incredibly easy run from the media, yet whenever he encounters a setback or criticism he, and even moreso his supporters, seem to be affronted by the very idea that anyone would attack Saint Obama. That attitude is not going to serve him well in the general election or, a fortiori, in office. It's one of the things I like about Clinton. She expects to be criticised. She expects to be unfairly treated.

A good example of the whinginess of Obamamaniacs is your characterisation of me as "demonising" him. Demonising him? I think he's the most talented and promising young politician to come on the US political scene in decades. I just don't think, comapred to Clinton, that he's as ready to be president, yet. How is that "demonising" him???? Or is even the mildest criticism (or even just an unfavourable comparison) of St Barrack an act of blasphemy?

[obryn]

And a further thing that worries me is his brittleness. He's gotten an incredibly easy run from the media, yet whenever he encounters a setback or criticism he, and even moreso his supporters, seem to be affronted by the very idea that anyone would attack Saint Obama. That attitude is not going to serve him well in the general election or, a fortiori, in office. It's one of the things I like about Clinton. She expects to be criticised. She expects to be unfairly treated.
Wow, are you off on this one.

There's a great piece on just this issue in ... I think, Salon.

Taking umbrage is a brilliant political and PR tool. You get to look above the petty squabbles people are trying to throw at you, while pointing out that the political games are silly.

Since one if his platforms is to change the way politics work in America, this is a brilliant plan. The objections are completely calculated to make Clinton and McCain look petty and ignorant.

-O

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Wow, are you off on this one.

There's a great piece on just this issue in ... I think, Salon.

Taking umbrage is a brilliant political and PR tool. You get to look above the petty squabbles people are trying to throw at you, while pointing out that the political games are silly.

Since one if his platforms is to change the way politics work in America, this is a brilliant plan. The objections are completely calculated to make Clinton and McCain look petty and ignorant.

-O

I think you misunderstand me.

If I believed his umbridge was an act, I'd be a fan. Just as if I believed his naiveté was an act, I'd be a fan.

At the moment though, I think he's genuine on both counts - and that's my problem with him.

[NRG]

Already done. Go back and re-read my posts comparing their two records. There's your evidence. EDIT: since you seem to have missed it the first time, I'll repeat it:

There's just no contest on the evidence - Hillary is clearly the more qualified candidate (though, of course, Obama is no slouch).

You're simply incorrect, and your previous post was full of unsubstantiated crap like "was considered a lightweight show pony". By whom? Seriously, try putting that in front of a judge as "evidence" and you'd be laughed out of court. I would take his Senate record over hers any day. One of them claims to have thought that GW wouldn't go invade Iraq when given permission by the Senate to do so. Do you think she is telling the truth about her reason for the most important vote she's ever cast? Did you think Bush wouldn't attack after having been authorized to do so? If this is the kind of "experience" we are supposed to value, I'll pass, and so will the majority of Democratic primary voters.

Look, the American people know what they will get with Hillary Clinton. They know she will be a moderate, centrist, pro-corporate Democrat who triangulates and maneuvers over every issue. That wouldn't be the end of the world. Either Democrat would certainly be better than another 4 years of Bush's policies with McCain running the show.

It is unfathomable to me that you would think otherwise. Have you bought into the "clash of cultures" meme to such an extent that you are willing to throw away US domestic policy altogether? Given that we American voters have to live here, we sure as hell haven't.


And on policy, Hillary is also superior. (Health care alone puts her miles in front.) The only strike against her I can see is her vote on the Iraq invasion. And, while I disagree with her on that vote, given her experiences in the White House with the Republicans blocking her husband's efforts in Yugoslavia, I can see where she was coming from and I respect her for it.


Except for being a mass murderer, Joe is a great guy? In other words, that's a pretty big "except". I guess we disagree on our priorities. Further, the differences between the majority of their proposals are slight. It's a matter of who can carry them out. Clinton has shown that she inspires nothing but hostility from half of the population and their elected representatives. One might imagine this could interfere with her ability to get things done. Then again, one doesn't have to imagine, given her utter failure at the only major policy push she has ever undertaken.

Even that, however, pales in comparison to her trillion-dollar Iraq mistake. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you and I knew the vote was wrong at the time, but she didn't? Moreover, can you tell me you respected her for it at the time? Or is this just post hoc rationalization for a tragically bad decision?


The only real argument for Obama I can see is electability.


Then you have been paying attention neither to this race in general nor to most of the posts in this thread. Several dozen other arguments have been presented, many of which you have tried to belittle away with pronouncements that people supporting Obama have "drunk the kool-aid" or are fools. We, the majority of Democratic voters, are neither fools nor suicidal cultists, thank you very much. We are, despite your insulting implications to the contrary, carefully considering our options and deciding who is the better candidate, and who will make the better President. I realize that you disagree with our judgment, but belittling the very people you are trying to sway is an option I would advise against continuing.


A good example of the whinginess of Obamamaniacs is your characterisation of me as "demonising" him. Demonising him? I think he's the most talented and promising young politician to come on the US political scene in decades. I just don't think, comapred to Clinton, that he's as ready to be president, yet. How is that "demonising" him???? Or is even the mildest criticism (or even just an unfavourable comparison) of St Barrack an act of blasphemy?

You appear to have forgotten what you have spent this entire thread doing. Let me remind you:


. . .attention whore.

Obama is either a fool or a very ruthless liberal intending to do a Bush-esque compassionate-conservative-to-neo-conservative transformation after his inauguration.

Obama will probably get a big Congressional majority - and, like the inexperienced Bill Clinton in 1992-4, he'll piss it away and achieve nothing. HillaryCare '93 was a tragedy; ObamaCare '09 will be a farce.

Obama is a loser's move.

Obama is JFK with a smaller dick.

Obama is JFK with sand in his vagina.

Obama is a big mistake.

Obama will be eaten alive by Washington.


You were saying all these things about a guy you like? This is harsher rhetoric than you break out against GW, whom you openly hate and hold in contempt. Why such venom? Is it because Obama doesn't buy into your newly-revised foreign policy views?

NRG

[Space Cadet B^3]

As a former debater, Obama's refutation and rebuttal the other night was really fun to watch. Mad skillz.

I can't wait to bring change to the country.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

EDIT: NRG, let's try to take the heat out of this. We respect each other. You've come to a judgement that I think is just nuts. Maybe there is evidence and arguments to justify that judgement. I really hope there are. But I haven't seen them yet. Maybe I'm missing something. If so, please point it out to me. But all I see are appeals to "unity" and "hope" which seem to me to be just wishful thinking. Where's the evidence?

You're simply incorrect, and your previous post was full of unsubstantiated crap like "was considered a lightweight show pony". By whom?

"Full"? WTF. It was in two entries. And are you denying it? So much goes on in the Senate that as outsiders it's entirely legitimate for us to use the opinion of her peers as a measure of her competence. And those opinions were clear (though, as I noted, they may have been because Obama was a new-comer, given that he had a good rep in the Illinois senate)

Seriously, try putting that in front of a judge as "evidence" and you'd be laughed out of court.

On the contrary, judges do that in court all the time when assessing expert evidence. In a complex environment like the senate, where coming to an independent view would require prohibitive amounts of time and research, relying on the opinion of a senator's peers is entirely rational.

I would take his Senate record over hers any day. One of them claims to have thought that GW wouldn't go invade Iraq when given permission by the Senate to do so. Do you think she is telling the truth about her reason for the most important vote she's ever cast? Did you think Bush wouldn't attack after having been authorized to do so? If this is the kind of "experience" we are supposed to value, I'll pass, and so will the majority of Democratic primary voters.

Actually, I did think Bush might be bluffing. In fact, I said so on the predecessors of these boards. (EDIT: To be more precise, I said I hoped that was the case). Indeed, I even said back then that if I had even a shred of respect for Bush's competence and motives I might have been tempted to vote for the authorisation to give him the leverage to make Sadaam let the inspectors do their job. You're right that Clinton saw Bush as honest and competent whereas we saw him as the hack he was. But I can't blame Clinton for wanting to give her newly elected President the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, it was bad call, but it was an understandable and an honourable one.

Look, the American people know what they will get with Hillary Clinton. They know she will be a moderate, centrist, pro-corporate Democrat who triangulates and manoeuvre's over every issue. That wouldn't be the end of the world. Either Democrat would certainly be better than another 4 years of Bush's policies with McCain running the show.

It is unfathomable to me that you would think otherwise. Have you bought into the "clash of cultures" meme to such an extent that you are willing to throw away US domestic policy altogether? Given that we American voters have to live here, we sure as hell haven't.

I just don't see the evidence that Obama has what it takes to be a more competent president than Clinton. And competence is incredibly important right now given the mess Bush has left us in. We just can't afford another learn-on-the-job President, like Bill Clinton. We could afford that in 1993. But not in 2009.

Except for being a mass murderer, Joe is a great guy? In other words, that's a pretty big "except".

Clinton's a mass murder now??

I guess we disagree on our priorities. Further, the differences between the majority of their proposals are slight.

One of them is in favour of universal health care, the other isn't. What part of the word "universal" do you not understand? As Krugman has pointed out, Obama's is both economically and politically fragile. Clinton's is the real deal (though her reliance on private companies is a potential weakness).

It's a matter of who can carry them out. Clinton has shown that she inspires nothing but hostility from half of the population and their elected representatives. One might imagine this could interfere with her ability to get things done. Then again, one doesn't have to imagine, given her utter failure at the only major policy push she has ever undertaken.

And that failure is an argument FOR her. She knows what she'll face. Obama shows all the signs of making the same mistakes she did. Getting universal health care through will require ruthlessness and guile and a knowledge of what you face. I don't see evidence that Obama has that yet.

Even that, however, pales in comparison to her trillion-dollar Iraq mistake. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you and I knew the vote was wrong at the time, but she didn't? Moreover, can you tell me you respected her for it at the time? Or is this just post hoc rationalization for a tragically bad decision?

Had I been in Clinton's position I honestly don't know which way I would have voted. By "Clinton's position" I include her standard US politician's scepticism of international law. You'll remember that my main objection to the war was its illegality at international law. If that hadn't bothered me (as it doesn't for US politicians generally), then I'd have been in a real quandry about whether I cut off my own president at the knees by denying him authorisation to use force if Iraq "called his bluff". On balance, I think I would have voted against the authorisation, but only because I would have had the utmost contempt for Bush's leadership.

Then you have been paying attention neither to this race in general nor to most of the posts in this thread. Several dozen other arguments have been presented, many of which you have tried to belittle away with pronouncements that people supporting Obama have "drunk the kool-aid" or are fools.

What arguments? Really, I'm being honest here. I've just re-read the thread and I don't see them. I just see appeals to "hope" and "unity". I'm prepared to be persuaded here. Maybe I'm tone deaf to what you're saying. What arguments? Where's the logic that says Obama would make a better President than Clinton?

We, the majority of Democratic voters, are neither fools nor suicidal cultists, thank you very much. We are, despite your insulting implications to the contrary, carefully considering our options and deciding who is the better candidate, and who will make the better President. I realize that you disagree with our judgement, but belittling the very people you are trying to sway is an option I would advise against continuing.

I wouldn't belittle your judgement if I were persuaded that you've actually *used* your judgement, rather than your emotions. Please, please show me the arguments. I don't want to believe you've all lost your minds. But it sure looks that way to me right now.


You appear to have forgotten what you have spent this entire thread doing. Let me remind you:

Double standard. That's standard NKL hyperbole and on a level with the nastiness that's been used against Clinton both in this thread and in the real world. Of course Obama is a good candidate. He's just inexperienced and a bit naive (like Bill Clinton was) and there's a much, much better candidate on offer.

And yes, in a choice between one candidate (Obama) who's ideals I agree with but who's competence I doubt; and another candidate (McCain) who I think is very compentent, and who's views I disagree with but respect, there's a genuinely hard choice. I suppose that was the choice in 1992, between Bush the Elder and Clinton. Back then, the climate was such that it was worth taking the risk on Bill Clinton. Now? Now, given the international situation, if the choice were Obama (the new Clinton) vs McCain (the new Pappy Bush) I suspect I'd have to reluctantly choose McCain. Of course if it were McCain vs Hillary Clinton, I'd vote Clinton without a second thought.

You were saying all these things about a guy you like? This is harsher rhetoric than you break out against GW, whom you openly hate and hold in contempt. Why such venom? Is it because Obama doesn't buy into your newly-revised foreign policy views?

NRG

Huh? WTF? That's more venom that I use for Bush? You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

Calm down. Now please show me these "dozens of arguments" for there being evidence that Obama would make a better president than Clinton. You don't even have to convince me he *is* the better candidate. You just have to convince me there's a rational case so I can be confident you people haven't gone completely lost your sanity. Because right now, I have a de ja vous (much less serious, I hasten to add) of how I felt when your nation elected the Shrub.

EDIT: Buddy, I'm not trying to be a prick here. I really, really don't see the evidence here. Please tell me what I'm missing, because right now, this looks like a repeat of your country's insanity in 2000 and 2005, just on the other side of the aisle.

So, can we take the heat out of this thread and actually discuss the arguments for why Obama would be more competent as President than Clinton. Or, if we agree he wouldn't be more competent (but would still be pretty good and would learn fast, which is what I think), can we discuss whether we can take that risk at this time?

[tleilaxu]

i just joined the obama campaign here in south carolina.

i voted for clinton. if clinton wins the primaries she won't win south carolina, but if barack ends up as the democratic nominee, we can force the GOP to waste a bunch of money down here. sure, they'll win the state, but the insurgency campaign will bleed them.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

i just joined the obama campaign here in south carolina.

i voted for clinton. if clinton wins the primaries she won't win south carolina, but if barack ends up as the democratic nominee, we can force the GOP to waste a bunch of money down here. sure, they'll win the state, but the insurgency campaign will bleed them.

Question: In your mind, what are the chances that McCain beats Clinton? I just can't see a 71 year old (admittedly highly competent) candidate who's committed to the war beating a 60 year old highly competent candidate who wants to get everybody out of the at mess in an orderly fashion. Add things like health care to that mix, and I just can't see how Hillary loses. Especially since she's basically inoculated against the GOP smear-machine ("Yeah, yeah, we've heard it before. What's new?").

Obama worries me more. Sure, he's got the Obamamania thing going, but he's also so new and comparatively untested that he seems to me to be a prime candidate for swift boating. In a fair fight, of course he wins. But I just see him as far more vulnerable to an unfair fight - unless he can leverage the whole race thing and spin any attack as "race-baiting" (which, now I think about it, may just work).

[Space Cadet B^3]

Atticus, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

That word is what scares me about this Obama thing...

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm just giving you a hard time, it just often seems you have little faith in people. Sure Obama mania is widespread. Sure he's had over 1 million individual people donate to his campaign. But he does have a plan, I've read a lot of his views on things because of what I've read and I am willing to be a part of this movement for change.

Sure, I could be misguided, but I don't think that I am, in fact, I believe he is our best hope for a future I want to live in.

How's that for a testamonial from one of his converts? ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm just giving you a hard time, it just often seems you have little faith in people. Sure Obama mania is widespread. Sure he's had over 1 million individual people donate to his campaign. But he does have a plan, I've read a lot of his views on things because of what I've read and I am willing to be a part of this movement for change.

Sure, I could be misguided, but I don't think that I am, in fact, I believe he is our best hope for a future I want to live in.

How's that for a testamonial from one of his converts? ;)

Ok, but why?

What are your specific arguments for his superiority to Clinton? Where is he better? Why? I'm happy to be convinced here. I just haven't seen anything solid yet. Maybe I'm missing something. If so, show it to me.

The only thing I've gotten so far is that he "brings people together". But do you seriously think that's going to survive the propaganda onslaught of the health care industry when he tries to introduce his health care policy? Where's the evidence that he can get in the gutter and fight these ass holes when he has to? And even before that, are we sure he can weather the swift boating he's eventually going to get?

[Name Lips]

Yes, from a purely pragmatic view, Obama is confusing. That's because while Bush managed to win two elections using "Appeal to fear," the lowest and basest of the "appeal to emotions" tricks, Obama is banking on "Appeal to hope." He's still getting his support by manipulating emotions, not by rational arguments. People aren't sure how he will lead them into the future, but his hope (real or not) is infectious. People feel inspired, like he can really do it. Like WE can really do it - he uses inclusive pronouns, never "I." You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Perhaps one day you'll join us...

It's getting surprisingly to the point where I don't think people care much what he's done in the past. You can't attack him that way. People brush it off because they're looking to the future, and they see him not as inexperienced, but as uncorrupted.

And you can't use facts and issues to fight that.

[Space Cadet B^3]

To be fair, when I balance the two, I just keep tripping over the image of the presidency. I really do believe they are very similar in many respects, but a couple of things he's said have really made me completely in his camp.

1. The transparency he wants to bring into the government.
2. That he leaves it up to the people to make an effort, because no change will happen unles the American citizens take up their own part of the effort.

Yes, under his health care plan, parents DO have to enroll their children. I can't find why that's a bad idea. Be accountable. Be American.

When I picture our next president sitting down with global leaders, I prefer the charisma and forthrightness that Obama has shown, and fear Hillary's dour little frown. So does charisma make a difference in my choice? Yes, but I also believe that what the U.S. needs is a break from the past. Clinton could be the future, but most of what the world knows her for is scandal. Granted, the leaders know her for more, but the common people of the world? I fear the resurgence of that scandal blasted across the media in a race with Hillary as the nominee.

Lord knows I was sick and tired of that drama back in the day, I just don't think the U.S. can really afford to deal with that again from a P.R. standpoint.

So my arguments may not be convincing based upon the issues, but that's why I prefer Obama to Clinton. I like his message, and I buy it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never been so actively in support of a candidate before either.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

To be fair, when I balance the two, I just keep tripping over the image of the presidency. I really do believe they are very similar in many respects, but a couple of things he's said have really made me completely in his camp.

1. The transparency he wants to bring into the government.
2. That he leaves it up to the people to make an effort, because no change will happen unles the American citizens take up their own part of the effort.

But, aside for sounding nice, what does that last sentence actually mean?

Yes, under his health care plan, parents DO have to enroll their children. I can't find why that's a bad idea. Be accountable. Be American.

That's not the issue. They both mandate parents enrol children. But Obama's plan allows adults to not have health insurance, creating opportunities for free-riding on emergency rooms and reducing the pool for the funding of everybody's health insurance. To get a proper universal health care you need everyone in (hence the word "universal"), because having young healthy people paying while they're young and healthy helps to pay for the old and sick people to get better care.

When I picture our next president sitting down with global leaders, I prefer the charisma and forthrightness that Obama has shown, and fear Hillary's dour little frown.

Huh? You think Putin's gonna drink the Obama juice? Really? That dour little frown is exactly what you need. What you need on the international stage is a ruthless bitch with liberal ideas who's believable when she threatens to bomb your country back to the stone age even when she's bluffing (indeed, especially when she's bluffing).

As for international reputation, the Clintons are deeply respected on the world stage - perhaps more than they are at home.

So does charisma make a difference in my choice? Yes, but I also believe that what the U.S. needs is a break from the past. Clinton could be the future, but most of what the world knows her for is scandal.

Most of the world thought the scandal was a joke that never should have gone anywhere. In the ROTW, the Clintons' weren't the laughing stock during Lewinski, the GOP was.

Granted, the leaders know her for more, but the common people of the world? I fear the resurgence of that scandal blasted across the media in a race with Hillary as the nominee.

Seriously, who the fuck cares about her husband getting a blowjob from an overweight intern? JFK had models on tap in the White House. George Bush Snr kept a mistress in the Watergate building. Lincoln was almost certainly gay. So what?

Lord knows I was sick and tired of that drama back in the day, I just don't think the U.S. can really afford to deal with that again from a P.R. standpoint.

Again, the blowjob didn't hurt Clinton on the world stage, it hurt the GOP and it hurt America because the ROTW was laughing at you for taking it at all seriously.

What hurt the US on the world stage was Bush's patent incompetence. What the world wants to see is an unequivocally qualified person in the White House for the next 8 years. Clinton fits that bill. So does McCain. At this point in his career, Obama has a legitimate question mark over his head.

So my arguments may not be convincing based upon the issues, but that's why I prefer Obama to Clinton. I like his message, and I buy it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never been so actively in support of a candidate before either.

I'm sorry but I still don't get it.

It seems that weariness over a GOP manufactured scandal eight years ago is causing you to go for the first credible clean-skin you can find, rather than a tested and qualified candidate. As I say, Obama isn't a bad candidate by any means - in fact he's a bloody good candidate in a year like '92 when you could afford to take a risk. But from what I can see he's clearly inferior to Clinton on qualifications for office and this is not the year to take a punt on an (admittedly immensely talented) newcommer.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm sorry but I still don't get it.That's okay, you don't have to. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yes, from a purely pragmatic view, Obama is confusing. That's because while Bush managed to win two elections using "Appeal to fear," the lowest and basest of the "appeal to emotions" tricks, Obama is banking on "Appeal to hope." He's still getting his support by manipulating emotions, not by rational arguments. People aren't sure how he will lead them into the future, but his hope (real or not) is infectious. People feel inspired, like he can really do it. Like WE can really do it - he uses inclusive pronouns, never "I." You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Perhaps one day you'll join us...

It's getting surprisingly to the point where I don't think people care much what he's done in the past. You can't attack him that way. People brush it off because they're looking to the future, and they see him not as inexperienced, but as uncorrupted.

And you can't use facts and issues to fight that.

Where have I head that sort of reasoning before, I wonder? Oh yes, that's right:In the summer of 2002 ... I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush ... he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend – but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

Sorry guys, I can't seem to get myself out of the "reality based community" - I can't help but be "obsessed" with those "facts and issues".

[doc]

Move here and you can do something about the politacal system otherwise.......