Voting for Obama: It Just Feels Right
Barack Obama is a superb public speaker. He is often compared to John F. Kennedy and he has received Ted Kennedy's endorsement. He has inspired many and brought new people into the political process. I voted for Obama in the primary because I believe his ability to speak well among other things makes him more electable than Hillary Clinton.
But, lets take the comparison to JFK seriously. I think JFK was a great president, but I also think he is quite overrated. He is often considered to be in the same league as Lincoln, Washington, and FDR. What is it that he accomplished as president? What major legislative achievements did he have? It's easy to find some mistakes he made. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster. JFK agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, and defoliants in Vietnam. He also escalated U.S. involvement in that mistake. In 1963, the Kennedy administration backed a coup against the government of Iraq. The CIA helped the Baath Party government by providing them with a list of suspected leftists and Communists. The Iraqi government used that list to murder untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite. Saddam Hussein is thought to have participated in those killings. These are all some pretty big policy mistakes that any good progressive would oppose. Kennedy was a great speaker and very inspirational. That was a good thing. I also think it explains why JFK is over-rated. I just listened to Kennedy's Inaugural Address again, and again I was stirred when he said, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country..", but we should not confuse that feeling with real accomplishments that make a real difference. That feeling should not make us think that JFK was on a par with FDR or Lincoln.
Stop. Think. Are you feeling angry now? Do you want to wrap your fingers around my neck and squeeze? Are you ready to snap off a snide comment? This is the reaction that I want you to be aware of. Your anger at me clouds your judgment. Do you think I just said JFK was a bad president? If you think that is true go back a read the paragraph above again. That's not what I said.
Obama's speeches are inspiring as well, but what evidence do we have that he can actually achieve something meaningful like universal health care. He is starting from a weaker position than Hillary by not supporting mandates. We can look at his voting record in the Senate. It's not that impressive. Lets not confuse the good feelings we have listening to Obama speak with evidence that he is actually going to make a difference. Just having a feeling about him isn't evidence. Obama's supporters sometimes act as though he can do no wrong. The level of hostility toward Charles Lemos and others who have criticized Obama is telling. We should not allow our emotional reactions to Obama's speeches cloud our ability to think critically about his candidacy. And so I say, ask not does Obama feel right for our country; ask if Obama is right for our country.
Please note: this post is not by Norm I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. I wasted my vote on Edwards, as a protest. This post is from my errant son Chris who is supporting Obama.
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/12/terrorism.usa
Obama showed up. He voted the only decent vote. Clinton abstained. Her corporate masters would not put up with the only decent vote on this. So she abstained. I'm done, I've had it. We will not get a perfect candidate, you will not ever see a perfect president, your marriage wont be perfect, and there's no Easter Bunny either. I'm voting vote for Obama because I think he will be a good president.
PS. my apologies, in my haste i neglected to state what the vote was on, and i only posted a link to an article about it. today Obama voted with the minority, correctly, to NOT give telecoms retroactive immunity for illegal spying on Americans. Clinton abstained. what, exactly, more, do you need to know?
Well, I voted for Obama for many concrete reasons other that it just feels good and yet I have not yet received a response to anything that I've offered.
Excellent post: JFK WAS over-rated in terms of what he actually accomplished.
However arguably his legacy was that inspiration: we did go to the moon, we did get civil rights laws, etc. etc. Was this more to do with his martyrdom? Possibly. But pretty speeches help to motivate agents of change, and Obama's proved he can do at least that.
As to matters of policy: certainly we can worry about Obama's weakness on a lot of issues, and we can worry about what he means by "bipartisanship." However, it's not as if Clinton isn't also a huge liability on this score. Her FISA abstention today demonstrates this, and is highly reminiscent of Bill signing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allowed the sort of conglomeration that makes our mediascape so horrible today. Clinton might "fight" for healthcare and get that done, however she strikes me as far more likely than Barack to "fight" for things that as progressives we should adamantly oppose.
So which is worse: a somewhat anemic progressive, or a really strong progressive with a bad case of conservative tourette's? I'll go with the former, because if nothing else he might be able to fool people and/or inspire them to pick up the slack where he might fail.
In fact, I'm beginning to think that the only reason that HillaryBots are voting for her is because "it just feels right"
really, and i have to agree with JoAnn, and allow myself the faux pas of posting again. your argument Mr. Jensen is not merely weak, but also insulting. I trust you didn't mean it to be insulting, but when you suggest that people who favor Obama in this race and post on this board are somehow less sophisticated thinkers, who follow the whim of their passion without thinking the matter through, you are mistaken and i do not like to be characterized that way. like JoAnn, i have yet to see a reply to my concrete arguments. if this is a pro-Clinton site, instead of one which is seeking to inform through debate and shared knowledge, please alert me to that fact and i'll go away. ok? thanks.
I think we're screwed either way. Half of Hillary supporters are centrists who will flock to Mccain because they see Obama as too far left. Half of Obamas supporters hate Hillary more than cancer so they will stay home if Hillary gets the nomination. Either way, we're stuck with president Mccain.
Norm,
The JFK comparison is fair. In fact, I would have pushed it a little further. I suspect, for example, that a more experienced JFK might have avoided the Bay of Pigs fiasco. I get the impression that he may have gone along with the project, initiated during the Eisenhower administration if I recall, because he wasn't yet secure enough to stand up to the project's supporters. This is just a guess on my part. Obama's lack of federal government experience may be a concern. On the other hand, he strikes me as quite intelligent and secure enough to surround himself with other bright people. An advantage I think both Obama and Clinton have over McCain is a willingness that I sense in both of them to listen to advice they may not want to hear - It'll be nice to have Bush's sycophants gone, won't it? (Overall, I would agree that JFK is somewhat overrated, BTW.)
As to the alleged "level of hostility toward Charles Lemos" of which you speak - I do not think his posts were handled unfairly by most of his critics. But the discussion was good anyway - I actually was more negative about Obama before Lemos' series of posts that I am now.
I'm sure you did, and I'm sure the reasons you've given are what persuaded you to vote the way you did. The post by Chris who also voted for Obama is directed at those who voted for him or support him for emotional reasons. There are also supporters of Hillary that support her for emotional reasons, but I think there are more of that kind in the Obama camp. They are certainly less tolerant of other viewpoints if the comments that have been directed at me here are any indication.
On to the question of the telecom vote. It is certainly a strike against Hillary, are we now voting on single issues, and to characterize not showing up as abstaining doesn't seem accurate to me. Did you feel the same way when Obama failed to show up on the Iran vote that many have criticized Hillary for. Further if you think ALL those that post on this board are sophisticated thinkers you're sadly mistaken. The insulting language is coming from you amorphousblog. Your simplistic analysis I'm sad to say places you somewhere other than a as sophisticated thinker.
Amorphous is right: Obama cast the right vote re. telcom immunity today, and Hillary was in the ladies room or something at the time. Glenn Greenwald names names over at Salon.
I am frankly disgusted with most of the spineless Democrats, including Hillary and Obama, but most of all Reid and Pelosi.
sounds like you're the one who's a little flustered, mr. i'm-a-sophisticated-thinker. :D
And of course the attacks against you, Norm, are unfounded. Anyway, this blog has provided a great place for vetting our two candidates as all of these questions will have to be answered in the general election. although I could do a much better job of criticizing Obama were I disposed to do so.
Chris: I enjoyed your post very much (and I am an Obama supporter, so let me clarify why).
First, I'm not big on analogies of this kind unless it is precisely specified which aspects of the two items being compared are relevant and which not. In that light, I find comparing Obama to JFK is a far, far, far less incendiary, less undermotivated, and less tendentious than comparing him to a fascist dictator, which seems to me outrageous because it tacitly implies-- intentionally or not--that he shares all their morally abhorant qualities in addition to being a good speaker.
Second, for exactly the reasons you list, I agree that JFK is no where near Lincoln or FDR (although I raised an eyebrow at your silence on the civil rights work he did).
Third. No, there was no point where I wanted wring your neck, but the comment gave me a good laugh.
Third: On the issues. See my post at the bottom of 'links with your coffee Tuesday' to see why I think the issue of "mandates" is pretty much a red-herring in the U.S. context where the issue of how mandates are going to be enforced is simply divorced from the familiar mechanisms in other countries like paying for everyone's heathcare through taxes. That leaves open the question of how to enforce a mandate in an open-market system of the kind proposed by both Obama and HRC. No one has explained why mandates matter so much except to simply insist, without an argument, that they somehow guarantee universal coverage. How they would be enforced when financing for health insurance is not automatically deducted from taxes to provide fully for everyone (because single-payer and employer-sponsored insurance will remain available, and in competition with government insurance). So how you move from the bare appeal to a "mandate" to the idea that this will better achieve broader coverage, is a mystery to me without specifying mechanisms of enforcement.
That is not what Norm is saying at all. How about we think outside the box just a little? What Norm is asking, I think, is that everyone take a critical look at themselves. That is all anyone can ask of another. His comparison is just an example of what it takes to keep people from practicing those all important critical thinking skills. People tend to get a completely different meaning out of what they are subjected to if those skills are suppressed by emotions.
how is not showing up any different from abstaining? perhaps your sophistication allows you to see a vote like today's and not get angry? perhaps my lack of sophistication allows me to see that Clinton is running for re-election, that feeds at the military industrial trough along with the Bush family, that she represents the neocon right wing of the Democratic party, has no moral courage, as demonstrated by today's vote, and is a political opportunist from head to toe. yes, must be my unsophisticated nature. look, Norm, i'm sorry. i feel i'm a guest here, it's your blog. and i apologize if my tone got out of hand. i do agree that it is in the best interests of our nation to question any and all leading candidates, as well as our motives for supporting them. but i have felt that the tone coming from you guys ever since Edwards dropped out, has been suspicious and dismissive of Obama, in much the same way that you have observed you think others are unfair and dimissive of Clinton. i didn't mean to insult anyone here and i'm sorry if i overreacted. and thanks for acknowledging that today's vote goes against Clinton. cheers.
If you are present you can vote for the bill or against or you can abstain. If you don't show up I believe it is just recorded as not voting. For example Barack didn't show up for the vote on Iran something he apparently opposed, but didn't think important enough to vote on. Had he been present and abstained that would have said something entirely different about his position. So what you have done is to distort what happened. Perhaps Hillary would have voted against it if she had been present the same way Barack said he would have voted against the Iran deal if he had been present. I don't know if Hillary as been asked why she didn't show up and what her opinion of the bill is, but your claim that she abstained if she just didn't show up is misleading, and unfair. I understand that it is an emotional issue, but you must admit it is ironic that Chris makes a post warning to think and your reaction was to post an emotional response.
Maybe I've been too busy amongst the living, but I have yet to see some good evidence that Obama supporters are more defensive than those who follow any other candidate. At any rate, to say so much is a tactical move, that of rhetorics, but it's a lousy one at that. Red herring, anyone?
What exactly did you expect? The blog suddenly becomes a place where there's constant Obama criticism without any Hillary criticism in sight, by a Clinton supporter apparently oblivious to her faults, what other term can you use to describe it, rather then anti-Obama. Fact is, if you had wanted a good response you should have posted skeptical comparisons of both candidates, not dig up some dirt on Obama and post it to sway readers. It confuses me that you can't see the difference.
I expected people to take it as a cautionary voice. I didn't vote for Hillary in my primary but for Edwards as a protest vote against both, but I've been concerned by the number of Obama supporters who seem to be more emotional than rational.
I believe that if I'd spent the time criticizing Hillary and there is plenty to criticize, there would have been objections, but not the bile exhibited by some Obama supporters. For example, and this is just anecdotal, I've seen Obama supporters who refuse to use Hillary's name and only refer to her as president Clinton's wife. I haven't seen a similar level of disrespect from Hillary supporters towards Obama.
Oh and I have presented comparisons of the candidates. I don't try to be balanced I have a point of view and I express it. One view is that many Obama supporters are overly emotional and that it is a problem. The responses to Chris' post here and those of Charles and myself demonstrate that the problem is real.
I've spent a good deal of time looking at both candidates' positions, and it seems to me that they are more or less the same on all of them.
I find it kind of funny that any liberal thinking person could be so for one and so against the other. Just an observation there...
"Obama's speeches are inspiring as well, but what evidence do we have that he can actually achieve something meaningful like universal health care. He is starting from a weaker position than Hillary by not supporting mandates."
What evidence do we have that Hillary can get these things done? I think she's the perfect type for the senate, really bad for executive positions. She's not comfortable with leadership. She is comfortable with policy details, horse-trading, and collaboration. That's my impression, FWIW. At any rate she has no more experience succeeding in these kind of big initiatives than he does.
Hillary didn't have a (publicly revealed) health care plan until Edwards proposed one. To her credit she basically endorsed what Edwards put forward. Her plan for mandates is better than what Obama is supporting. However, I'm not sure he's starting off behind on the issue, because he's said that he would consider mandates if many people remained not-covered. As a political strategy, it might be better than what HRC has done, because mandates are the most controversial element of the plan. In fact it was her strategy before Edwards released his plan. The difference is more strategic than substantive.
I agree the anger at Lemos is pretty strange. I was surprised by it, too. Of course, it's not hard to imagine that Lemos' psychobabble about Obama's allegedly cultlike supporters would bother some people who happen to fall in that category. So perhaps some understanding on both sides is warranted. On the merits, I think the lengthy ruminations about Obama's supporters have been evidence-free and beside the point. The reaction to an inflammatory post on one blog is a good indicator of what Obama supporters are like? We should vote against Obama because some of his supporters back him for bad reasons? We should all examine ourselves and make sure that we're not mindlessly supporting him, that we're being sensible like more HRC supporters are? The whole point seems useless for making a decision betweent the two candidates.
In some ways it is Rovian. Take someone's best qualities, and then simply assert some dark side to it. McCain was a POW? He must have been brainwashed in captivity. Kerry won that many medals? He must have been glory-crazy. Huckabee has no money but is moving up in the polls? He must be backed by an anti-Mormon horde. Obama is a charismatic insurgent candidate who is beating the biggest name in the Democratic party? His supporters must be mindlessly supporting him out of emotion. In each case I don't see any evidence, just an acknowledgement of someone's strength combined with a kind of cynicism about it.
Obama feels good. I admit it. Hillary feels good to some people, too, as did Edwards. I'm not sure what the point is. There are great reasons to feel good about Obama; it's not coming out of nowhere. It's not some Hitlerian frenzy, it's rooted at least in part in the political hopes of liberal and moderate people. His candidacy stands in for a kind of progress, a kind of change (yes, before he ever passes a single piece of legislation, just by being elected). To some extent it's purely symbolic; but I don't see the problem with that. Much of the difference presidents make is in what they stand for, what they represent, what they mean to people. At any rate I'm not sure it's worse than voting on electablity. Kerry was nominated on electability and yet evidence indicates he likely dragged down Dems in many parts of the country and lost to a president with less than 50% approval. You may have figures and evidence I don't have, but I don't think primary voters who hang out with liberals have a good grasp on it (myself included, who thought Kerry would do great).
I'd be interested to know why you think that Obama's Senate record is not very impressive. It happens to be quite short and it's not perfectly to my liking. But it's not really controversial that it is more liberal than Clinton's and Edwards'. This is the most frequent criticism that's made of it. HRC's attacks on his record have largely been fraudulent, so it makes me wonder what are all these bad votes that people refer to. There are some that I know about, but on a relative basis (compared to HRC), it's not really close.
And also, I think your comment about us wanting to "squeeze your neck" for your comments shows that you have a childish view of this situation, if you really believe that.
Who is your comment directed at, me or the author of the post?
I don't quite agree with Theowne's comment because and only because 'Obama criticism' doesn't quite cover it. Taking a detailed, factual look at a candidates' actual positions on policy, electibility, and other relevant issues, and making rational criticisms of him or her, would be called "vetting"--by leftist lights, at least. (And Chris makes a very positive contribution in that direction, it seems to me). What has, I feel, sometimes--certainly not always--gone under the name of "vetting" lately around here, particularly in Charles' posts, is tendentious, poorly reasoned attacks that lodge outrageous accusations at him, without evidence, such as that he once upon a time "disenfranchised the homeless," or that he is (somehow?!?!!!) like a dictator (without much qualification other than the blanket assertion that inspiring crowds has in some places, at some times, led to bad stuff), that (again, somehow???!?). When the obvious shortcomings with these tendentious attacks and paranoid ramblings is pointed out by evidence and analysis, those defending him are accused of being "over-emotional Obama supporters". And that is absurd.
Let's talk mandates and health care, and who has the better plan. Let's talk who has charisma and who is the tough-minded policy wonk, and which is better. Let's talk about Obama missing some votes and making bad ones, and if you're feeling generous, Hillary making some--to me--pretty awful ones. But to me it's not about HRC not being criticized enough. It's about delusional accusations one might have expected only from Fox News being called "vetting," which is just ridiculous. Let us leave the dictator analogies and empty accusations of the putatively "religious" fervor Obama inspires to the smear experts, and actually talk about the real world, shall we?
And while we're at it, let's not forget that the Republican's still control things for now, and that our putatively "democratic" majority in congress (just today) sided with them to grant legal immunity to the telecomm companies that enabled the Bush's illegal spying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12cnd-fisa.html?hp
I have been reading these conversations carefully for a while now. Completely unbiased. I had been rooting for Edwards and then found myself at a loss...
I do have to agree with Theowne. The actual conversation here does seem a bit one-sided... but then again, it is a blog. It isn't meant to be democratic.
Take it for what it's worth. If we really disagree we should start our own blogs.
Norm. I have no idea what you want.
Do you want someone to make compelling argument for why Obama is vastly superior than Hillary in every way?
What do you think are Hillary's pros? Cons?
Are you trying to 'wake us up'?
Are you trying to just push buttons in the hope of spurring debate?
Are you just trying to toughen us up for the general election?
Do you think Obama is threat to our Democracy?
Do you think there are any good reasons to support Obama?
What do you want an Obama supporter to do? Just think critically? And if they do and still support him, what then?
Are your reasons to support or oppose a candidate the only valid reasons?
I really wish you would have posted something about Hillary, pro or con. I think you would have been surprised to see people react the same way. I spent a lot of time defending the irrational responses people have made to her campaign. She and Bill have been continually misquoted and taken out of context.
I considered Obama a possible presidential candidate a long time ago, back when I was supporting Biden. I joined you when my support shifted from Obama to Edwards. You offered some good compelling reasons to support Edwards and after running all three through my decision making process, he was my man. I gave Edwards another look because of you.
Then came all of your statements (or Lemos) as to why someone should take pause when supporting Obama, I did take pause. I then went to the links provided, Googled, talked to friends about it, and thought about it some more. None of them seemed well reasoned. They were interesting, thought provoking, and well, that was about it. After looking at the facts it seemed like non-issues, no matter how hard you argued that they were important facts, I just had to disagree. The points that you made were not that important to me.
I think that my standards for entry to the presidency are different than yours. Some people demand executive experience, some consider any government experience to be a negative. Some want a peacemaker, some a warrior.
What set me off about many of the Obama posts, was the tone. The tone put me in a box by the simple fact that I supported Obama. I'm not expecting the world to magically change. I do not expect Obama to be perfect. I expect him to be a decent president, as good if not a better than Hillary.
There are too many unknowns in the future. I don't think you can have some lock tight reasoning for who will make the best president. The best you can do is make a educated guess and to that end, I thank you for your efforts, regardless of the reasons that motivated you.
Funny, I've often thought of him as JFK for exactly the same reasons, and assigned to him the same weaknesses.
JFK had moments that were far worse than the Bay of Pigs (Watch Fog of War with Macnamarra). He was often on Meth, had many lovers.
He was a dreamer who's mistake was wanting it all.
He wanted to put an end to organized crime and dismantle the CIA. He saw accurately that the Race For Space could possibly defend 'freedom', and that we were horribly behind the russians in attaining control of this 'high ground'. He had to change that. His influencial speeches forced our hand and put us in a 'can't fail' situation. His death cemented it.
Often times, greatness comes from such hardship. And from his dream of a man on the moon, America became Great. The entire world looked in unison at Neil Armstrong and for a moment Humanity was united.
Obama's strength is not in making policy, but forming irrational concensus, as Norm points out. He is a good man, deep down, so I don't fear this. He will have a high approval rating however, and therefore will be able to push those who are in office toward better legislation. Give him a line-item veto and watch the sparks fly.
Hillary has more experince. No doubt. But, she is also tainted by that experience. If she though she could vote against the war and still be eligible for the presidency, she would have. She did not. She was not fooled, she was 'a part of the system' and afraid to voice her own beliefs. Sometimes it takes an irrational dreamer with popular appeal to get to the moon.
My concern is less 'is Obama like JFK', but, 'is Obama like Carter'.
Carter is perhaps the 'best man' to have held the office this century, but he had a less than perfect presidency, perhaps due to his decency.
Oddly, the CIA (and other dark forces) worked against both JFK and Carter, and Bush Sr. had a direct hand in Carter's killing blow as evidenced in the Iran-Contra scandal and was in Dallas the day JFK died (and probably helped cooridinate the bay of pigs invasion). Oddly some of the same exact folks were directly behind the constant attacks on Clinton's presidency. (watch Hunting of the President)
So, will Obama be able to wither that storm?
I think it may be possible, if he doesn't get assassinated, but he will need a VERY strong cabinet and Media handler.
Anyhow, enough rambling. I'm sure everyone has me pegged as a conspiracy nut anyhow smile. I'm certain Ron Paul (and John Stockwell) would agree, however. He is the only man willing to admit our dark efforts in the world during a national debate.
--Robinson
what puzzles me most is when i hear that Obama and Clinton are the same on most issues. perhaps there is a public record of exactly why Clinton missed today's vote. i'd sure like to see it. because i think this illustrates a vast difference between the two. i wish Obama had showed up for the Iran vote, and that's a good point to bring up. i wish i knew why he missed that. to me it is a vote, however, no different than an official "abstain" vote. it happens that attendance records for both houses of congress have been at a disgraceful and historic low of late - i believe that before the 2006 election it was actually at the lowest ever. that is one broken democracy. i'd like to think a serious candidate for president would be in attendance for a vote as important as today's. i had just learned of Clinton's absence when i read this post. and yes, i got emotional. instructing your readers how to react is, well, not going to work. that said, i normally take the time to re-read anything i post, and today i didn't. i appreciate most of the replies i've read and i do hope people will see the significant, substantive difference between Obama's vote today, and Clinton's absence. to me it speaks volumes, and eradicates the notion that these two candidates are the same.
"today Obama voted with the minority, correctly, to NOT give telecoms retroactive immunity for illegal spying on Americans. Clinton abstained. what, exactly, more, do you need to know?"
How about leading a filibuster to protect the Constitution and hold corporate criminals accountable to the law? He is still a Senator, isn't he? Oh, that's right, Obama did the bare fucking minimum, requiring, once again, zero amount of political courage. And Hillary did even less. I guess these two worthless pieces of shit have campaigns to run-- much more important by far than upholding the rule of law and protecting the civil liberties of the American people.
But aren't they both just fucking inspiring? Hope, unity, and all that bullshit . . .
Obama might have great speech writers and good oration, but Obama's debating skills are poor.
McCain will tear him to shreds on the national stage.
nonsense. mccain has not a leg to stand on. his positions are discredited in advance.
Amorphous: In the interest of factual strictness, Obama missed the final vote on passage (of the spying bill), so far as I can tell. (He was there for amendments, including Dodd's). It appears he was the 29th vote (of 'no') on the cloture motion, and that is why the final vote had only 28 "no's".
Here is Obama's voting record for the last month (including for today on the spying bill and its amendments): http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/ He has missed 38% (175) of total votes in the current (110th) Senate.
Hillary missed all of today (and most of this month): http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/
She has missed 26% (120) of all votes in the current (110th) Senate.
"How about leading a filibuster to protect the Constitution and hold corporate criminals accountable to the law?"
You need 41 to support a filibuster. Apparently only 31 voted against immunity. Perhaps Hillary knew the vote was not close, so the anti-immunity forces didn't need her vote. She did vote the right way in previous votes on immunity. But it was an important vote, and she had to know that this is very important to liberals (as well as to the telecom companies).
"McCain will tear him to shreds on the national stage."
The fear of McCain is bizarre. He is tired, unstable, gaffe-prone and his positions are really repulsive to most Americans. Bush seems dumb, but McCain seems crazy half the time. Obama is not a great debater, but he's good enough to take on McCain. HRC is too. McCain beat all those other well-funded Republicans, so he is a formidable opponent, but he is a very flawed candidate. I'd much rather be the campaign manager to one of the two Dems.
McCain's statement that we may be in Iraq in 100 years will kill him. His lack of Conservative Support will cement the deal.
Shame, I used to like McCain, before I learned about his voting record.
I'm far more afraid of people learning Obama's middle name.
Humor: I wonder what the old vietnamese guys who tortured McCain are thinking these days. I mean... f########ck, they kinda picked the wrong guy to piss off. Rambo never had nukes.
unity pony, hey, you're right, he could do a lot more. although i don't agree that Obama is uninspiring as such. in fact he inspires me and many others. i think the point of this post was to suggest to those like me who support Obama AND are actually enthusiastic about the prospect of an Obama presidency - to suggest we examine our motives critically, and see if there's any blind faith at work. i'll reflect on that. you aren't a boring lot =)
Adam, thanks for that info. Hmm.
"You need 41 to support a filibuster. Apparently only 31 voted against immunity."
I thought Obama's skill set was building unity and getting people to work together. I guess inspiring 41 Democrats to defend the Constitution was too great a task even for Little Jesus . . .
Norm (and you too unity pony): Since you harped on the absentee issue, this incident shows how these absences can be distorted when taken out of context: No one who voted for the cloture motion would have voted 'no' on the bill because Dodd and other dems were filibustering to buy time. Are you really going to hold it against Obama that, after voting 'no' on cloture and knowing he'd be the 29th vote of 'No' on a bill that had 68 votes in support, it is somehow cowardly or illegitimate to go attend to his national campaign?
He stayed until he knew the bill would pass, whichever way he voted, and so his 'no' vote would not have changed anything. Under the usual circumstances, maybe he ought to have stayed. But he kind of is running a nationwide presidential campaign now, no?
Norm (not norm?) said: "Stop. Think. Are you feeling angry now? ... Do you think I just said JFK was a bad president?"
What makes me (and I'm assuming, a few others) lapse into petulant, red-faced fits is that it's felt more like Barack Obama supporters were on trial here, not the man himself.
You could come right out and say, "I, Norm Jensen, believe that Barack Obama will be a bad president. Here's why..." and it would be of little consequence to me. Barack Obama is a fully grown man running for president, he is not my dear, sainted mother. I expect him to criticized, and savagely so.
But until very recently, most of the "Obama Vetting" (...oh chortle, chortle...) has been comprised primarily of rampant hand-wringing about whether people were supporting him for the "wrong reasons"
Forgive me, but who the fuck are you to say what's right or wrong for SOMEBODY ELSE in regards to choosing a president?
I have my reasons, thank you, and they are quite valid to me. And when you question them, and imply that I could be wrong, you sound, frankly, like an arrogant jerk.
Tell me, when you were in high school, did you stop listening to certain bands or not read certain books if they were too popular? That's the image I have of you now.
In your zeal to nail down these candidates (and really - your enthusiasm? It's adorable!), and your pathological fear of giving emotion any voice in the debate, it kinda quashes the joy that could be ringing through the comment section of this blog in the wake of this awesomely compelling campaign.
But maybe joy is bad now, too. I just don't really know anymore.
Anyway, for the record, I have never wanted to choke the life from Norm. I've enjoyed this blog for many years and I hope to enjoy it many more. I appreciate his energy and his stability.
Charles, however, can go and do something unnatural to himself with the business end of a pineapple.
I don't know that he'd be a 'bad' president and so I don't make that statement. I'll be supporting the Democratic candidate for president on this blog whether it is Barack or Hillary. Right now I think Hillary is better on the issues that are most important to me namely healthcare. Since I live in Utah my vote will be meaningless and so I'll probably vote for the Socialist or Green Party candidate. I didn't write this post, my son Chris did, and our last name is spelled Jenson.
If you don't like posts by Charles or others I choose to let post. Don't read those posts.
I know it wasn't Norm who wrote this post, but was it Chris? It sounds more like a cross between the Emperor from Star Wars ("Feel the hate surging through your veins!") and Yoda ("But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they."). Maybe I'm being irrational, but are you suggesting that my support of Obama means I have gone over to "the dark side"? Why you gotta bring race into this? (NOTE I am kidding, okay? Tho I guess it was a bit snide -- hey you're right!)
On a more serious note: There are some Obama supporters who behave in unthinking, over-emotional, or cult-like ways. (Kudos for having Paul Krugman on your side about that.) In the same spirit Chris' suggestion was offered, I suggest that Clinton supporters take a moment to think soberly and critically about their candidate, their reasons for supporting her, and their responses to the criticism that she has faced. (I believe that there is a similar amount of emotional, unthinking and uncritical support on HRC's side as there is in OHB's side.)
Does it seem condescending to be invited to think by an Obama supporter? Do you want to wring my neck? Feel like firing off an angry, petulant response?
Use the force.
Hey, which end of the pineapple is the business end? I mean, it is kind of prickly all over with those leaf thingies that are on them.
First I just want to say, reading these political blogs as we do, I think we place ourselves in danger of losing sight of the "ground" issues. Too often the extreme, least valid argument is made for Clinton/Obama/etc. in quick posts and replies, and too much does this grab our human attention away from the reasoned discussion of the moderates. We run a compound risk I see as fully realized in these weeks: first, a tendency to generalize these extremes to the "support-base" for whichever candidate they support; second, to allow judgments of the candidates to be clouded by these generalizations of their support. Over and over I see posts end with "so-and-so's supporters are _" and coincidentally enough this captures the theme of that post's political criticism. In our well-intentioned dancing and circling here, we risk draining ourselves of perspective and spiraling into fallacy.
On the ground, among the activists, liberal advocates are just as respectable and homogeneous now as they are in a non-election year. Considering how much these candidates agree on the biggest issues, if there truly is such an identifiable difference among candidates' supporters, then I'm afraid that means we have become petty, fickle, and suckered into the game we loathe equally.
It seems to me that these are two great candidates, and a great deal of personal taste dictates our sway one way or the other. Much of my decision (though by no means MOST of my decision) was based on my observation of how each candidate ran their campaign. By this I mean what did they say to the voters gathered around them, how did they treat them. The reason I looked to this was because for the most part they all had laid out a list of parallel priorities, and for the most part agreed with one another on each issue.
I ruled out Edwards first, and was surprised by the strong (passive) endorsement of this site. Too often Edwards was the first to voice the political jab of the week that was based on a distortion and spinning of another candidate's position. The first thing i think of is the "Obama loves Reagan" week. Edwards stood in front of voters saying "You will never hear this president praising the works of such republicans", getting a round of applause. Clinton too hammered this point home within days of Obama's interview.
This infuriated me. I read Obama's words, all of my friends (who support different candidates) read his words, and we all concluded that this was a blatant distortion. Obama gave an analysis of why republicans have had such a strong grasp on power for the past two decades, absent any party line or DNC spin. It read like any one of a thousand facially unbiased political science papers I've read. And it was refreshing. That this was a different, more naked discussion of politics than we are used to is evidenced by the reaction this small-time interview received. I knew this "Obama loves Reagan" line was a distortion, everyone I talked to knew it, and that left me with two possibilities:
one, clinton and edwards simply did NOT understand, and could not see past the absence of a party line.
two, clinton and edwards did understand, but distorted it anyways.
Evidence points to Clinton and Edwards being highly intelligent. Which leaves me with assuming they stood in front of voters and patronized them with ingenuine distortions. This lowest-common-denominator approach insults me, it insults the intelligence of the voter, and it insults the integrity I know does not exist in politics, but believe so strongly that it can.
It is not the FACT that he is inspiring, it is WHY he is inspiring. Obama has given a visible, palpable effort to run a different kind of campaign, to present a different theory of politics. It started with his campaign funding rules (while not perfect, far closer than we've ever seen, and he's set an amazing example with the power of drawing support from the people rather than the interests - 10,000 people gave 100 dollars or less in a matter of weeks.) It then moved to his choice of topics in interviews and debates (in which he refuted distortions against him and rather than retorting [although occasionally he slipped, I admit] with another distortion he would say "let's come back to the issue __").
Obama is not the first to promise a different kind of politics. But he is the first one I believe. My belief does not come from adjectives or oratory skills, and such an accusation is very insulting to people who will be your allies and partners in a matter of months. It comes from my observation of how he conducts himself, searching for true inconsistencies and finding instead honesty.
Bush and Cheney feared and loathed the American voter. With Obama, for the first time, I feel respected.
Thanks, I'm a HillaryBot, myself. And I'll happily return the compliment, Obama-cultist.
But, really, is that the level of discourse now common on this blog? I like Senator Obama and I've no problems whatsoever with coming to terms with a nominee Obama. And if some Obama voters vote for him because "it just feels right", so be it. I've seen worse reasons for voting for somebody.
What gets on my nerves is a certain disdain from Obama supporters towards HillaryBots. So, actually, no: we're no HillaryBots.
Perhaps the number one reason that the "Obama-bot" criticism is inapplicable to people on this blog is that most of the regular posters here had declared their preference for some else before deciding for Obama. Were the support of Obama derived from some mindless devotion to "the charismatic leader", it wouldn't make much sense that so many of the people for Obama here had first hoped for Kucinich and then switched to Edwards. Presumably, Obama's hypnotic powers should have swept up the weak-minded long ago.
A Time magazine poll showed more Clinton followers willing to support Obama than vice versa. Obviously we can conclude that the supporters of Obama are so vicious they hate all things Clinton and love their new Savior. Of course, that line of logic precludes the probable result of having Clinton run for the presidency: that of a unified, galvanized Republican party, which should be a real concern for the Democratic Party.
Before Clinton supporters call us Obama supporters monomaniacal, spiteful, or cult-like because we want to take a rain check on this whole Clinton run, they should really pause and think of how much the Right hate Clinton (which, as Bill Maher accurately says, is only because they hate themselves—but I digress). Or, failing that, they should at least get over the fact that we don't want to support their candidate. Get over it. We all think it's really cool that you'll support whomever. Really, you're much cooler than us. But get over our lack of coolness and narrowmindedness. Because, we've seen a Clinton in the White House, a hostile environment that renders the occupant impotent. Get over your hard feelings, and let's discuss important things, like elect-ability.
It has little to do the ridiculous claim that Obama supporters are mentally ill (thanks, Lemos, plus those conservatives who've already felt similarly).
I do feel that the media and many Obama supporters (not all) are spending a whole lot of time talking about how great speeches are and not alot of time talking about substance. It's nice that his speeches move people, but he running for president, not for a post as a motvational speaker. In order to have a functional democracy we have to have people critizing candidates. I am glad to see that on this blog.
Now that being said, I support Obama over Hillary. I think overall their positions are not too different. However, I think the polls and the recent primaries show he is more electable. More importantly, he opposed the Iraq war when Hillary voted for it. She is a smart woman and must have known Iraq wasn't a threat. The fact that she failed to act says alot about her and what she might do as president. Now maybe Obama wouldn't have been vocal against the war had he been in the Senate. We don't know. We do know however Hillary went along with a plan that ended with thousands of dead Iraqis. If she was willing to admit it was a huge mistake like John Edwards did maybe I'd reconsider, but she hasn't. I think we have had enough with stubborn presidents who don't admit their mistakes.
Now I pose a question to all Hillary supporters. Why do you support her even though she voted for the Iraq war? This isn't a criticism. I just want to know what factors make you overlook this.
It also leaves aside an obvious alternative explanation. Obama attracts more independents and disaffected Republicans than Clinton - for rational reasons or not. Which, of course, also enhances his electability.