Three reasons to vote for Obama
In comments, a Georgia voter asked me to give him "three reasons to vote for Obama tomorrow." His question is timely, as I've been working on a post like that anyway. Cobbling together some of the arguments I've made previously in e-mails to my parents (who are undecided Connecticut voters) and here on the blog, I've done my best to answer the call. Because my reasons are quite lengthy, I've put them after the jump.
* * *
1. Obama's "Reagan touch" will allow him to actually make progress on the domestic issues that have vexed us for two-plus decades. Like Reagan, he has the political and rhetorical skill to use the bully pulpit of the presidency the way it's meant to be used. Obama can convince broad swaths of the public to agree with his policies, which agreement he can then leverage to get Congress behind those policies as well.
This is in stark contrast to our last three presidents, and especially the last two, who have governed mostly by the philosophy of triangulation, the strategy that says the best way to stay in power is to cobble together a 51 percent majority by appealing to various interest groups and telling people what they want to hear. Basically, you consult the polls and focus groups, and then seek out a pre-existing majority, rather than building a new one. This works well for winning elections if you have good strategists on your side (e.g., Dick Morris, Karl Rove), but it's terrible for getting anything done on the domestic front, especially on intractable issues like health care and immigration, where everyone agrees there's a problem but there is substantial disagreement regarding what to do about it.
You can't break the strangehold of competing interests in Congress if all you've got behind you is a tenuous, triangulated 51% "mandate." And you can't build a larger mandate if you don't have the political skill to really pursuade people to go along -- something President Bush learned when, to his credit, he at least tried (but failed) to move public opinion and create a consensus on one of those intractable issues, Social Security. (He subsequently tried to deal with another of the issues, immigration, through back-room deals in Congress, without first forging a public consensus. Obviously, that failed too. Without the public's solid backing, it's hard to push Congress around.)
Assuming that a President Hillary Clinton is even inclined to depart from the triangulation philosophy -- which seems unlikely -- she would, I fear, learn much the same thing that Bush learned from the Social Security fiasco: she's just not cut out to do the bully pulpit thing. She, too, lacks the political skill to rally the Great Middle (plus she starts with a ton of baggage that makes her very divisive).
Obama is a different story. If you've talked to enough moderate Republicans, you know what I mean: people just really like this guy, and they find him very convincing. Obama on the bully pulpit would be dynamite: he can rally people behind his ideas, and thus get things done, just as Reagan got things done.
I'll give you a concrete example of what I mean. I don't know a lot about health-care policy, but from what little I understand of it, I think I prefer Hillary's plan to Obama's plan. They're quite similar, of course, but I think Hillary's is probably marginally better. But Hillary's plan will never actually pass, because she has neither the political skill nor the personal charisma to make it happen. She'll never be able to rally a broad majority behind her plan. Republicans will be able to continually demonize her as a quasi-socialist, and at least 49% of the public will eat that argument up. She won't be able to rise above it, as I think Obama could, and convince people to support her plan. So we'll be stuck with a untenable status quo for four or eight more years, when we could have made substantial progress if we'd elected Obama instead. (And if Obama's plan needs to be tweaked later on, that'll probably be a lot easier to do than starting from scratch, as the post-Hillary president would have to do.)
If you're a doctrinaire conservative, all this is a reason to fear Obama, not a reason to support him. A President Obama would have the potential to do for liberalism what President Reagan did for conservatism -- "mainstreaming" ideas that are currently considered politically untenable. (Many of the policies enacted by Reagan were more conservative than what the average American would normally support. But they supported those policies when Reagan suggested them, because Reagan convinced them to do so.)
But if you're a liberal, this is a reason to enthusiastically back Obama. And if you're a moderate who just wants to see the government make some damn progress on these issues at last, it's a reason to give him a shot. Maybe his programs won't work, but on the other hand, maybe they will -- and on some of these issues, aren't we at the point where it's better to try something than continue to do nothing? I'm well aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and that good intentions aren't necessarily enough (the road to Hell, etc.). But it's not like Obama is proposing anything all that radical, and if given a choice between eight more years of triangulation and gridlock (Clinton) vs. eight years of a different approach (Obama), doesn't the latter seem at least a little bit appealing?
* * *
2. On foreign policy and security, Obama's superior leadership and judgment makes up for what he lacks in experience. No one is truly "ready on day one" to be president. There is no job in the world that can prepare you for it -- not First Lady, not Senator, not anything. Would Hillary feel a wee bit more at ease the first time she sits down in the big chair than Obama would when he first sits down? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a small advantage easily outweighed by other factors. It's also worth remembering that the genius of our system includes a lengthy transition period to get the new folks acquainted with the levers of power, so no matter who wins, it's not like they'll be flying blind on "day one."
The bigger issue is not experience, but leadership. When Hillary says she's "ready to lead," the question should be, "lead where?" As I mentioned above, the Clinton Machine is an active participant in the politics of triangulation that have dominated Washington, D.C. for two decades, and I see no reason to believe President Hillary Clinton would break that trend and suddenly start exercising true leadership -- that is to say, that she would consistently put her own fundamental sense of what is best ahead of the fickle demands of public opinion.
In this regard, Obama's consistency on the Iraq issue speaks to his character -- and I say that as someone who supported the Iraq War, and is still not convinced it was a mistake. But just as I admire Joe Lieberman for "sticking with his guns" even after it became manifestly politically disadvantageous to do so, you have to appreciate the political risk Obama took in 2002 and 2003 by opposing the war before it was "cool" to be antiwar. Yes, he was only a state senator at the time, but he was a state senator with national ambitions. At the very least, he was prepping himself for a U.S. Senate run -- and in that role, he took a stance that many Democrats already in the Senate were unwilling to take, because they feared the short-term political ramifications. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and so many others voted for the war because that's the direction the winds of public opinion were blowing, and they were worried about the damage to their careers if they took a principled stand. Only after the winds shifted did their antiwar principles conveniently assert themselves.
It makes you wonder: if Iran takes a provocative action but the war-weary public doesn't support an aggressive response, and yet such a response seems absolutely necessary, will a President Clinton dare defy public opinion and do what must be done? Or, conversely, what if events take a turn -- perhaps in the wake of a terror attack -- such that the public is clamoring for war (or for increased civil-liberties crackdowns, etc.), and yet such a response seems unwise? Would Hillary be able to resist the urge to go along with the misguided masses in such a circumstance?
Whatever their policy positions on paper, when it comes to foreign policy and national security, what you really want in a president is someone with good judgment and a strong moral center -- someone who is willing to make the tough calls, to do what he (or she) believes is right, and then stand forthrightly behind the decision he (or she) made -- someone who respects the will of the people (who are, after all, sovereign), but at the same time, won't kowtow to public-opinion polls when an unpopular decision is clearly in the best interests of the country. Although nothing is certain, Obama seems much more likely to be that president than his opponent. As he said in the recent debate, it's more important to be "right from day one" than to be "ready from day one" -- the latter being essentially an illusion anyway.
Obama seems like the kind of politician who will bring judgment and forthrightness to the White House after 16-plus years of ducking and dodging. Some will say this is naive, but even a skeptic must admit that there's at least a chance Obama will be such a president, whereas Hillary is the proverbial "Devil We Know" -- and one of the things we know is that she's a serial triangulator. Obama lacks that unfortunate history, and if he makes it to the Oval Office, he will arrive riding a wave of idealism that he would abandon at his political peril.
However you look at it -- idealistically, cynically, or somewhere in between -- there is ample reason to believe that Obama's leadership advantage is real, and that it more than makes up for the experience gap.
* * *
3. Obama is clearly the more electable choice, and an Obama-McCain race would be a refreshing change of pace in a country that's had more than its share of divisive battles that can only end in a near-50/50 split. Don't tell me about head-to-head general-election polls in February; they don't matter. What matters are the dynamics of the race, and all the dynamics of an Obama-McCain election favor the Democrats.
Whereas Hillary has little appeal to the center because of her divisiveness and the baggage she carries, and thus McCain is likely to clean up among independents against her, Obama has enormous appeal to the Great Middle. Meanwhile, Hillary is so reviled on the right that she would do the improbable, uniting the Republican base behind John McCain. Obama is more liberal than Hillary, yet he is so likeable and charismatic that he's widely liked even by those who disagree with his policies, and so with the exception of a few ralcitrant racists (mostly in states the GOP would win anyway), his presence on the Democratic ticket wouldn't motivate McCain-hating Republicans to hold their noses and vote for Mr. Straight Talk.
In other words: anti-McCain Republicans are much more likely to stay home and let Obama become president than to stay home and let Hillary become president. (Also, for the same reason -- and with the same end result -- a conservative third-party revolt against McCain is much more likely if Obama is the nominee than if Hillary is the nominee.)
So, in sum, while Obama and Hillary would both do extremely well among Democrats, Obama would do far better among centrists and even moderate Republicans (in fact, I believe he could create a class of "Obama Republicans" just as Reagan created the "Reagan Democrats"), and McCain would do less well among Republicans against Obama than he would against Hillary.
Moreover, whereas Hillary couldn't play either the "change" card or the "experience" card in a general election against McCain (the former because it's just inherently laughable coming from a Clinton, the latter because McCain is more experienced than her), Obama would be able to continue playing the "change" card, which is generally a winning hand in American presidential elections. History shows that the voters almost always choose the "change" candidate over the "experience" candidate in a change-versus-experience election: Kennedy over Nixon in 1960, Carter over Ford in 1976, Reagan over Carter in 1980, Clinton over Bush in 1992, Bush over Gore in 2000. (The counterexamples involve either challengers whose ideologies and/or personalities made them inherently weak challengers -- e.g. Goldwater, Dukakis -- or campaigns where both candidates had ample experience.)
Obama's change-over-experience electability advantage is further bolstered by the overwhelming youth/age dichotomy; the debates would present the starkest televised contrast since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. Obama also beats Hillary in terms of an attractive media storyline (he's the inspiring young black man trying to "make history"; Hillary, although also trying to "make history," would inspire much talk of restoration and dynasty, which don't play well with voters).
All in all, for Democrats desperate to win back the White House, Obama is clearly the better choice. But that's not all. For moderates who aren't desperate for either party to win, but who want to see a bit less of the bitter divisiveness that has permeated recent campaigns, Obama is again the superior choice.
Despite what Bill Clinton might say about how well Senators McCain and Clinton get along, the reality is that any election pitting the Republican political machine against the Clintons (and it would be "Clintons" plural in the GOP attack ads, make no mistake about that) is going to bitter, scorched-earth stuff. Against Obama, the Republicans would have to be more careful, firstly because he's more well liked than Hillary, and secondly because, rightly or wrongly, they can't be seen as smearing the first black candidate too badly; such a spectacle could do long-term damage to the party, and the strategists know it. As for the potential of actual racist tactics, I believe McCain is too honorable of a man to stand for, let alone participate in, such things, as he demonstrated when he defended John Kerry against the Swift Boat attacks.
Meanwhile, for Obama's part, his own campaign themes of unity and hope would force him to largely eschew bitter negative campaigning, even if he were tempted to do otherwise. With Hillary, it would be quite the opposite: she is explicitly committed to fighting tooth-and-nail against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. So a whole hell of a lot more mud would fly, from both sides, if she were the candidate.
All in all, whereas a McCain-Clinton race would be a bitter rehash of the 1990s, pitting the conservative Clinton-haters against the liberal Bush-haters in a battle for the ages, a McCain-Obama race has the potential to be an unusually civil campaign that might, just might, wonder of wonders, actually focus on the issues -- on which there would be stark differences between the candidates. That's a really good thing, as it would provide centrist swing voters like myself a real opportunity to weigh the issues and make a reasoned choice, instead of having the whole election be about mud-slinging and personal attacks.
Again, the skeptics will say this is naive, but it's at least a reasonable possibility, whereas there is no way it would happen in the alternative scenario.
* * *
So, in summary: Obama is a (potential) liberal Reagan who can get things done; he has (or seems to have) the judgment, character and leadership that a president needs; and he can win, and do so without putting the country through another ridiculously bitter election battle in the process. I think those are three pretty good reasons to vote for him.
Three Cynical yet Applicable Reasons to Vote for Obama:
1. He's not a Clinton.
2. He isn't promising to continue Bush's failed policies, unlike McCain.
3. He'll help crush the African-American "victim" mentality that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have cultivated for years for their own enrichment at the expense of the Black Community.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 4, 2008 1:11:10 PM
#3, in particular, is an excellent one. Yes.
And #1 is a huge reason for me, because of the dynasty thing. This is America, dammit; we're not supposed to have royal families. As I wrote in an e-mail to my parents:
But for purposes of this post, I was asked not to include answers that are purely "Not Hillary," so I stayed away from the dynasty argument. :)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 4, 2008 1:16:46 PM
nice post brendan, i enjoyed reading it.
Posted by: yea | Feb 4, 2008 1:18:47 PM
The weasel words in the last paragraph: 'potential' and 'seems to have' highlight one of the major reasons to not vote for Obama: we can not afford to take a leap of faith right now. We need someone in that office that we *know* is strong enough, smart enough, and experienced enough to turn this giant ship around. Obama is no Reagan. If anything, he is Kennedy-lite (which is somewhat akin to being diet-crystal-light). We don't need symbolism and hope in the White House. We need someone who knows the issues, who knows the policy, and who knows the process. All soaring, rhetorical appeals to emotion aside, shit gets done by working the process not trying to 'rise above it'. Side by side with John McCain, Obama will look like the welterweight that he is and be down for the count before he knows what hit him. It is time for Democrats to start thinking with their heads and not their emotions.
Barack Obama is unrealistic, unproven, inexperienced, and even the one thing ascribed to him, his soaring rhetoric, only makes an appearance with a memorized, generic speech. In debates, in question and answer, anytime he has to craft his own response on the spot, he is stumbling and bumbling and unpersuasive. Anyone who knows Reagan, could see how very unlike they are in this regard... So much of Reagan's success was his off the cuff wit and quick response, combined with his cowboy 'keep you safe' persona. Obama has neither.
Watch those debates... 99% of the time you will see that Obama's greatest applause comes after delivery of a pithy one-liner, a sound-bite, one of the kind that you know you'll be working in somewhere and you are just waiting for the chance. Clinton's biggest applause comes after she has made a multiple paragraph argument about an issue-- 'frame the issue, state clear supporting points, conclude'. This is how politicians used to speak; persuasively and showing a clear command of the argument -- not in soaring yet meaningless rhetoric; soundbites that you could re-order in any way you chose and it wouldn't make a difference because logic and argument have been thrown out the window.
I would only remind you of what happened the last time we, as a country, went for the supposed 'unifier', the 'heart' over the 'head', the guy we trusted more and felt more personally fond of and attached to, the one we wanted to have the beer with... we've had that guy for 7 years. The last thing I want for this country is the election of another symbolic empty vessel, ready to be hijacked by the next group of unelected idealogues he surrounds himself with to fill the void of experience and knowledge. My only solace is that the idealogues are likely to be more aligned with my personal political goals than the ones we've had the pleasure of for the last 7 years.
Vote for Clinton.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 1:21:13 PM
Well, that nicely sums up the argument against Obama. Well done. I'm unpersuaded; I admit Obama is a risk, but I believe there are times when a "leap of faith" is preferable to "devil you know," and having weighed both sides of the equation, I believe this is such a time. If there were a more experienced candidate with Obama's advantages and without Clinton's disadvantages, I would support that candidate, but as between these two alernatives, I think Obama is the better bet. The uncertanties regarding his candidacy are, in my view, outweighed by the negative certanties regarding Clinton's. But you make your case well.
With regard to "shit gets done by working the process not trying to 'rise above it'" -- of course Obama would still have to "work the process." And I see no reason to believe that he couldn't do so. However, it's much easier to successfully "work the process," rather than fighting a valiant losing battle, if you can rally a significant majority of the public behind you. Congress doesn't like to oppose a president with a strong mandate. I don't think Hillary can build a strong mandate; I think Obama can.
ALso, once you're president, you don't have to debate anybody -- well, not until four years hence, when you're up for re-election. But as president, you get to memorize your lines in all your speeches. The bully pulpit plays to Obama's strengths, not Hillary's.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 4, 2008 1:40:33 PM
"Obama can convince broad swaths of the public to agree with his policies."
Huh? He can get up one morning and, with a flick of his wrist, convince "broad swaths" that abortion is moral, same-sex marriage is laudable, tax increases are beneficial, nationalized health care is demanded, prompt withdrawal from Iraq is imperative, and tort reform is ill-advised, among other positions?
The precise reason that Obama has been "convincing" individuals is precisely because of the lack of policies discussed. Largely cosmetic, the Obama campaign is about "post-partisan" politics. When policies enter the discussion, his charm can't win those "broad swaths."
Posted by: anon | Feb 4, 2008 1:54:12 PM
Well, not the first two, most likely (abortion and gay marriage). But, yes, I think he can convince a majority to support various other substantive policy positions, just as Reagan did, and as other skilled politicians have done through the years.
He won't convince blogospheric policy-wonks, of course, but that's 0.001% of the population. Just because you and I spend a lot of our time reading the opinions of articulate people who have very well-thought-out and deeply held beliefs on all manner of policy minutiae, doesn't mean we should fool ourselves into thinking that the average American is in any way similar to those opinion-makers. The vast majority of the public is far more susceptible to being convinced by the rhetoric of someone like Obama on issues like the ones you mention, with the exception of the first two (most especially the first one).
The fact that Obama is currently focusing his inherent rhetorical skills primarily on a broad and nonspecific message of "change" and "hope" doesn't mean he's incapable of taking those same skills and putting them to a more concerete use. On the contrary, when he does get a bit more specific in his stump speeches, he's just as good. The reason he's taking a big-picture view right now is because a broader message is what he needs at the present moment. Once he's president, speechifying about change won't be relevant anymore, and he'll turn that same skill set toward the advancement of his agenda... obviously.
If you think charisma and political skill have no role in shaping public opinion about policy issues, I again invite you to consider the Reagan Era, which saw large majorities supporting a purveyor of policies that would normally be opposed by a majority of Americans. America intrinsically is not as conservative as Ronald Reagan; if it was, we'd have seen a series of successive Reaganesque presidents since 1988, which, obviously, we haven't. The country is pretty moderate (and often, on complex issues like health care, confused and undecided). But they can be nudged either to the left or to the right by the right politician.
You can argue, if you wish, that I'm wrong to believe Obama is such a politician. But you're a fool if you deny the premise that such a thing is possible, which you seem to be doing.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 4, 2008 2:10:13 PM
Ever heard of the press corps? On your feet responses can make or break a president. Worked wonderfully for Reagan. Killed Bush, which was why he basically did everything humanly possible to never take questions. President's speak on their feet all the time.
Additionally, more important than mandate, is a president's ability to work with Congress. Clinton has shown us for 8 years that she can work very effectively in Congress, on both sides of the aisle. She has not been a divisive Senator, at all. Her so-called devisiveness lingers from her husband's campaigns and presidency and is not reflected in her time in the Senate.
There is no evidence that Obama would have any stronger mandate than Clinton. I would argue that she will do far better against McCain and win in a much less close election than if Obama were facing McCain. A great line from the far too little watched show 30-Rock, written by Chicago-cum-New Yorker Tina Fey: "There is a 99% chance that I will tell all of my friends that I am voting for Barack Obama in the next election, but secretly vote for John McCain".
There is a reason Hillary is being very careful about not coming out and pleasing the Dem base by saying the Iraq war was a mistake. She is thinking ahead to that battle with John McCain and being realistic about the fact that even though a majority of Americans are angry, and sick of the war and want an eventual end to it... they are still concerned about our place and safety in the world, they are still concerned about terrorism, they are still concerned about places like Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, North Korea, Russia, China. Obama will be the same ol' same ol' for the Dems and John McCain will hammer him with it, making Americans see that they are not safe with this lightweight at the helm.
Hillary has spent 8 years in the Senate building a careful and competant record on foreign policy and the military. She has garnered knowledge and respect from both sides of the aisle on these issues. She is the only one that can hang with McCain on this. In fact she can beat him by meeting the challenge of toughness and demonstrated willingness to 'protect' America by supporting the war in Iraq originally, yet currently admitting that this war is not working and needs to be ended so that we can re-focus our military might.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 2:11:08 PM
Nobama-
The "experience" you speak about has brought us Iraq, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the weak dollar, a rising China, a despot Russia, Pakistan on the brink of anarchy, rising gas prices, etc, etc, etc.
Some of this country's most experienced Presidents have been among its worst (Hoover, Harding, both Adamses, LBJ, Nixon, Buchanan, etc,). I personally prefer an inexperienced leader like Abraham Lincoln or Harry Truman.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 4, 2008 2:16:31 PM
I take your point about the press corps. The fact remains, however, that a president is at much more liberty than a presidential candidate to "manage" his public appearances. And anyway, it's not as if Obama is awful (like Bush) when he has to think on his feet. He's just not quite as polished as Hillary yet. But he's been improving throughout the campaign. I don't see this being an Achilles' heel for him, it's more like a mild weakness that he has to, and will, overcome.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 4, 2008 2:18:13 PM
I'm relatively sure that the only one of those issues (or their 1980s equivalent) Reagan convinced Americans of was that he was running the Cold War really well. Not Bork/abortion. Not his trickle-down economics. Just a message of hope when everyone else feared a nuclear bomb.
Speaking cynically, or realistically if you prefer, the "great communicators" of American politics (Reagan, FDR, Wilson, Lincoln) have had fear as the basis for people trusting them, and hope as the message (Cold War, WWII/depression, WWI, Civil War). Even Bush had the same post-9/11--many believed him because they feared terrorism and he gave them hope that America would prevail.
Obama doesn't have that "fear" base of the others. He has "hope" alone, which is fine, until you stick a policy on it. Without any fear, there's nothing but bare policy disagreement, and that's not something that will convince anyone. If people just want to rise above the "partisan rhetoric," they'll... just go back to partisan positions without the rhetoric. If Obama withdraws from Iraq, you'll have a lot of people stunned at the naivite of letting the region degenerate into civil war, and others pleased that we're out of a fight we didn't need to enter in the first place. If he implements socialized health care, you'll have a lot of people excited and a lot of people flying around the globe to avoid the long lines. Nothing's changed. Just maybe the way the guy's talking about the policies.
Posted by: anon | Feb 4, 2008 2:18:58 PM
PS, the dynasty argument is ridiculous. You can make it for the Bush's. They after all, are a family with multiple generations of national office holding... Senator to VP to President to President. They are the ones that have been in the executive branch for 20 of the last 28 years. The Clintons are a married couple, not blood related, both of whom had political ambitions from the time of marriage and both of whom have spent time chasing those ambitions as well as supporting the other in the same. To insinuate that Hillary somehow inherited this role is a great disrespect to her and all that she has accomplished. Could you see Hillary where she is today without Bill? My answer is hell yes. Could you see George H.W. where he was without Prescott? Could you see W where he is without H.W.? Well, that's for you to answer.
It remains, that the Clintons are no dynasty. Do not seek to punish them for the sins of the Bush family.
When Chelsea is running somewhere down the line against George P... I'll concede.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 2:18:59 PM
The reason Hillary has had bi-partisan success in the Senate is because up until now she has been inconsequential. If she were President, the Republicans would go after her like she is Bill. They want revenge for 1998.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 4, 2008 2:20:19 PM
Angrier: "The "experience" you speak about has brought us Iraq, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the weak dollar, a rising China, a despot Russia, Pakistan on the brink of anarchy, rising gas prices, etc, etc, etc."
Wow. An incredibly ethno-national-centric view of the world to ascribe these things to... well, who exactly? Hillary Clinton? Or are you speaking of all of Congress? Or Bush? If you want to start talking about how current politicians have or have not effectively responded to or managed world and national problems, and in some cases even made some problems worse or facilitated a problem continuing, fine... but if your claim is that these problems were brought to us by US politicians I don't even know where to start responding. I don't have the time. I would like to hear how you think Barack Obama is going to solve all of those 'problems' though!
Your list of "bad presidents" is enough to convince me that your grasp of what makes a president a good one is very limited. So I shall not waste my time.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 2:28:57 PM
Regarding Hillary's health care plan: She just said that garnishing wages of workers who don't buy insurance would be a possibility.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31
Posted by: JD | Feb 4, 2008 2:29:06 PM
I think nobama's characterization of Obama's debate responses is a gross exaggeration at best and a blatant falsehood at worst. He's given plenty of deep substantive answers and gotten plenty of applauses for doing so. To characterize him as someone who can't think on his feet really isn't fair and reeks of a Clinton supporter annoyed by her impending collapse.
I just read a story that said that Hillary cried again on the campaign trail. It seems pretty silly to mischaracterize Obama's ability to speak on his feet when his opposing candidate breaks into tears multiple times.
Posted by: yea | Feb 4, 2008 2:50:59 PM
Nobama-
Your insults aside, the fact remains that most of the Presidents I listed are commonly considered bad ones for a variety of specific reasons that I don't have time to get into.
While I don't see Obama as some Utopian leader, the fact is Hillary has demonstrated her experience by (1) voting for the war when she thought it was popular and then dropping her support the minute Obama got into the race, (2) failing on health care reform the first time largely because her ego got in the way at the expense of the American people, (3) hiding evidence when she was under investigation, (4) proposing socialist steps like freezing interest rates for five years, which will undermine the economy, and (5) playing the gender card whenever she starts to fall behind.
What Hillary has in "experience," she lacks in everything else. She is unethical, immoral, unpleasant, uninspired, vindictive, paranoid and undeserving of being President. She needs to go back to the Senate where she was supposedly successful.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 4, 2008 3:06:15 PM
Last I checked, 'tearing up' does not consitute breaking into tears. Neither does what you are referring to today (which, together, comprise your 'breaking into tears multiple times' accusation)...
Have you been watching the male candidates like a hawk to make sure they have not had one emotional moment during this entire grueling campaign, has anyone... That they've never been so moved that their voice broke or that their eyes welled up? I'm not so convinced that they haven't, in fact, I would hope that they had. Boy, you Hillary haters sure have her between a rock and a hard place... she shows any emotion and she is a weepy, emotional female, she doesn't and she is a hearltess, calculating, cold bitch. I don't even want to get into what this kind of venom really stems from, it's far to depressing because it isn't really about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As for his not so inspiring debate performances and question and answer sessions, that is a well documented and recognized issue for him. You don't even have to compare him to Hillary, just watch Michelle Obama for two minutes and you'll see he isn't even the best, quickest or sharpest speaker in his own marriage.
You won't see me attacking Obama's character... calling him a bad guy, resorting to rhetorical vitriol. I really find it ironic that so many Obama supporters are so willing to say such vile things about an American like Hillary Clinton, in the name of their candidate, whom they supposedly love because he 'rises above it' is only about 'the positive message' and inspires 'hope' in us all.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton had an emotional reunion Monday with a colleague from the early days of her legal career as a child advocate.
The moment came as she revisited her law school days while hosting a campaign event at the Yale Child Study Center where she first pursued her interest in child advocacy.
‘‘It was so 1972,’’ he recalled, praising Clinton for her longtime interest in helping children.
‘‘Here is the abiding truth we know — you have always been a champion for children. Welcome home, dear friend. We are so proud of you,’’ he said.
Clinton responded emotionally to Rhodeen’s praise, at one point wiping her eyes with her hand. But unlike her teary-eyed moment in Portsmouth, N.H., her voice never broke and she tried make light of her emotion.
‘‘I said I would not tear up. Already we’re not on that path,’’ Clinton replied to laughs.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 3:19:41 PM
Hillary didn't tear up the first time. It was an obvious act then. Haven't seen the CT thing, but I am skeptical.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 4, 2008 3:28:14 PM
[Obama] isn't even the best, quickest or sharpest speaker in his own marriage.
That, of all things, is not an accusation that a Hillary Clinton supporter should be throwing around.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 4, 2008 3:30:20 PM
I'd put Hillary toe to toe with Bill anyday. They have very different and equally eloquent styles. Both of them extremely polished speakers.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 3:40:11 PM
"Obama] isn't even the best, quickest or sharpest speaker in his own marriage."
yea public speaking is a real weakness for the obama campaign. obama has done more than hold his own in all of the debates. the fact that hillary "won" the most recent debate isn't a knock against obama but its indicitive of how well hillary performed. thats a good thing for the democratic party that they have 2 candidates who can discuss issues as intelligently as both of these candidates can. despite hillary's many many faults, she's still a good candidate and has my vote if she wins the nomination. you should focus on clinton's many positives instead of making stuff up about obama's debate performances. you do her an injustice by grasping at straws to attack obama.
Posted by: yea | Feb 4, 2008 3:40:46 PM
"[Obama] isn't even the best, quickest or sharpest speaker in his own marriage."
That is not meant as a 'low blow'. Michelle Obama is one of the most impressive speakers to be found out there right now. It's all relative, and certainly we don't have any Bush's in the field this time around (although McCain does speak in a strange gibberish a certain percentage of the time). However, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize what is laid out there as one of Obama's main, convincing strengths. It does not, in any way, constitute a personal attack. In fact, I see no personal attacks against Obama anywhere in this entire thread... personal attacks seem to come more easily from the mouths of his supporters against his opponent.
I'll be voting for Obama in November if he is the nominee, McCain or no. But I don't want to have to.
Posted by: Nobama | Feb 4, 2008 3:52:06 PM
whether they constitute personal attacks or not, i really think your comments about his speaking ability are horribly inaccurate.
one thing i think we can agree on is that a long primary process like this is a good thing. people are getting to know both candidates and more people are getting involved in the choice than i can remember. the fact that most of the country will get to vote in a primary as opposed to just people from iowa and new hampshire is a good thing. it looks like at least 30+ states will get to have primaries this time. turnout for the democratic primaries has been amazing and is a hopefully indicitive of a strong turnout in the general
Posted by: yea | Feb 4, 2008 4:23:55 PM
I'm entertained at the notion, per Nobama, that Reagan was skilled at speaking off the cuff as if to imply that he was an extemporaneous speaker. Sorry to sound like the old fart that I am, but that strikes me as something you'd say if you're not old enough to remember winners like his crack about outlawing the Soviet Union over an open microphone when he thought he was doing a soundcheck.
Churchill once made a comment about his best off-the-cuff comments being written far in advance; Reagan was a consummate actor who always had his lines ready to go. He was no more able to wing it than fly in the air - but I've rarely seen someone more charismatic in person, for what that's worth.
Posted by: DC Trojan | Feb 4, 2008 5:21:19 PM
Good post Brendan, as usual. Very thoughtful.
I will read it again, a bit more thoroughly, and let you know if you've 'convinced' this Georgia voter.
Chuck
Posted by: Chuck | Feb 4, 2008 11:24:53 PM
....For moderates who aren't desperate for either party to win, but who want to see a bit less of the bitter divisiveness....
You are speaking to many hearts Brendan. So many are literally 'sick to their bones' about the last 16 years of (C D S) Clinton Derangement Syndrome and then (B D S) Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I'm not sure the country could take 4 more years of C D S. Or, perish the thought, 8 more years.
Posted by: Chuck | Feb 4, 2008 11:38:54 PM
"Obama can convince broad swaths of the public to agree with his policies, which agreement he can then leverage to get Congress behind those policies as well. "
What policies? Does he have any? I'm unaware of any policies. Just empty rhetoric "change" "unity", blah... blah...
Posted by: Jacob | Feb 5, 2008 7:45:36 AM
The last time I read your blog the post was a letter to Obama about why you would not vote for him - if I recall correctly.
Posted by: Jane | Feb 5, 2008 7:53:14 AM
I don't want Obama to be President, but I would rather have him President than Hillary. So, I want Obama to get the nomination, if for no other reason than it will be good for the Democrats to finally turn the page on Clinton power and influence, and their divide and conquer, do what you gotta do, private detective fueled, political shenanigans. Hillary can keep being a Senator from New York (they wanted her, she wanted them, and they deserve each other) and Bill can keep running around the world being the perpetual teen-ager and most eligible married bachelor.
For the record, I am not a Republican, and don't much like Bush. But I do think that the Clintons, Dick Morris, James Carville, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Karl Rove, and others of that ilk, were all cut from a bolt of cloth that really needs to be put back on the shelf. And left there. To gather dust and occasionally be described as "out of fashion."
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. | Feb 5, 2008 7:55:19 AM
Of course saying he can get things done is a real stretch. Obama... the man who began to run for President after a 'whole' year in the Senate. Who got elected in Chicago area by getting his opponents removed from the ballot.
Posted by: Dasher | Feb 5, 2008 8:23:11 AM
That argument seems to come down to:
He remindes of of Reagan, He's a leader and it would be nice.
#1 & 3 are all about feelings and as for #2 other than the fact that he is a good speaker there is no history to suggest this is true.
Its not for nothing that Obama supporters couldn't name an accomplishment of his.
Don't get me wrong, your argument may be a good explaination of why people may vote. That doesn't make them good reasons.
I don't care for Mrs. Clinton and I dread her back in the White House but its a stretch to suggest that today Obama would be a better president, particularly in time of war.
Posted by: Peter Ingemi | Feb 5, 2008 8:24:28 AM
1 - a lot of bad people in history were ones to "get things done". only if one has liberal values is obama's "get it done" attitude and potential seen as an asset.
2 - Obama's "superior leadership and judgement" are not exactly measurable, in terms of past achievements.
3 - his "electability" only matters if he is what you believe is the best for the country. if being on the winning side is important, then one needs to rethink what is important here (bitter election battles are not the result of close races - it depends on the civility of the participants).
this election is worth the effort everyone puts into it. in the end we must vote our conscience (not who we'll think will win) with everyone accepting/respecting the result.
Posted by: trev | Feb 5, 2008 8:25:35 AM
Obama has totally convinced me that we should definitely invade Pakistan. Sure, he doesn't know what he's doing now, but he has the potential to someday.
Posted by: chairman me | Feb 5, 2008 8:35:39 AM
I'm a broken-glass Republican who lives in Chicago. Which means that I always vote in the Democratic primary. Why? Because I want some say, at least, in how my city is governed. Which means that today, I choose between Hillary and Obama.
I could try and vote based on strategic considerations, such as who would be easier for the Republicans to beat, but my feeling is that if I take a ballot, I should vote for who I think would be best for the country in his/her own right. Which is why I will vote for Hillary today, despite the fact that I despise her.
My reasons are precisely the opposite of Brendan's.
1. Obama is a unifier. True, but a unifier to do what? As another commentator noted, is he suddenly going to get pro-lifers to change our minds about abortion? Is he going to get people who are strong on national defense to acceed to his policy of unilateral surrender at al Qaeda in Iraq? Hardly. As soon as he starting doing some of the radical actions that he's promised in his fine print, dissent will come, sharp and hard. Which is as it should be: for our form of government is predicated on the idea of disagreement and debate. What deeply disturbs me, though, is that, being a "unifier", he (or his acolytes) will take the stand that to disagree with the Obamessiah is to be unpatriotic. I will gladly take a divisive figure like Hillary! over a false unifier like Obama any day.
2. Obama is certainly more consistent than Hillary in foreign policy. But is that a sign of leadership. or of rigidity in his thinking? He may have been right that we were wrong to go into Iraq, though I disagree with him on that. But the situation has evolved over the last six year; and particularly in the last year, the strategy of the surge has changed the situation sharply - to the point where there is hope of a positive outcome there - a hope that Obama's policy of immediate withdrawal would crush. There is a word that describes a man who is unwilling to question his assumptions in the light of few facts: an ideologue. A harsh word, perhaps, but one that I think fits Obama. And frankly, I'll take a weathervane like Hillary over an ideologue any day of the week.
3. This point is related to the first. The fact of Obama's "electability" is pointless, given that his appeal is based on his cult of personality. A man who unifies an ignorant public behind himself personally so he can carry out an extreme left policies is not the sort of man I want in the White House.
Another reason I'm against Obama is personal. The man, frankly, is a product of Dick Daley's Chicago machine. Is that really the sort of man you want running the country?
And my final reason is simply this: when we elect a president, we are hiring a chief executive. Someone to run the business. Not a philosopher-king, not Dad (or Mom), not a Fearless Leader. Executive experience is extremely important: but the fact is that Obama is as green as the grass. He has hardly any experience in life, let alone in government. He's never run anything, not so much as a hot dog stand, yet he wants to be chief executive of the largest enterprise in the world. He's never constructed a budget, led men in battle, fired an underling, hammered out a legislative compromise, negotiated with hostile opponents: none of it. His record in the Illinois legislature is mediocre at best. His habit of voting "present" on controversial bills hardly speaks of strength of character, and his record in the US Senate is practically nil, since he's spent most of his two years - TWO YEARS! - there running for president. Electing him president is like promoting a kid from the mailroom to CEO.
"Angrier" pooh-pooh's experience. Well, experience doesn't always lead people to make the right judgement, but all else being equal, I'll take experience over ignorance any time. If you look at the biographies of Lincoln and Truman, for example, you'll see that they both had long experience in areas outside the federal government - Truman as a county administrator, Lincoln as a corporate lawyer. The last time we had a candidate as inexperienced as Obama was 1960, with JFK. A handsome man, with an attractive, cultured wife, sharp dresser, excellent speaker, witty. And who brought about the Bay of Pigs. And got us into Vietnam. And whose blundering nearly started World War III with the Cuban Missile Crisis - a time I remember well. Experience may be overrated, but there's no underestimating the effects of ignorance, which is Obama to a 'T'.
So, today, I'll hold my nose and punch the card for Hillary.
Posted by: Brown Line | Feb 5, 2008 8:36:18 AM
Brendan this is quite excellent, and you cover all the domestic policy reasons that i am an Obama Republican. I would like to address the the foreign policy advantages that Obama brings to the international table.
I strongly supported Gulf II, perhaps because because i have "work experience" from the defense contracting industry and my math/stat background dictates acting on available data.
But Obama can give us incredible credibilty with the world population (not with the leaders). No longer can al-Q and their ilk maintain the storyline that the cauc colonist crusaders are just out for imperalist capitalism and seeding MENA with xian missionary tracks.....Obama gives us a huge memetic warfare advantage, an opening in the deadlock of the meme wars.
I dont know if he can parlay that into foreign policy successes....but it is an opening...and certainly a change from clintonesque appeasement and bushesque strongarming.
I am quite astonished by the power of the Yes I Can video....
I am a big fan of Stephenson, and of Snowcrash in particular...i think the video is a neurolinguistic hack. ;)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi | Feb 5, 2008 8:56:03 AM
The man is a hard-left radical. I have true fear that he will trick enough people with his lofty, empty rhetoric and combined with the Guilt Vote, make it in. Then we are going to see change alright. He will attempt to make America unrecognizable.
Posted by: Samuel | Feb 5, 2008 9:54:20 AM
The proverb is: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" which reflects the common-sense wisdom that blind gambling on an unknown in the hope that something perfect will just happen for no reason is a foolish thing to do. There is also the one about buying a "pig in a poke." You want to turn that common-sense on its head, but overturning the collective wisdom of mankind usually requires some recognition that there is a heavy burden of proof.
You don't meet that burden at all. In fact, there is barely a half-ounce of logic in anything you say. It is all founded on your entirely untried belief that Obama is some kind of super-man. Is he really? When has he proven that outside of this campaign for president.
Obama's consistency on Iraq is meaningless because it was entirely untested. Obama's position was no more courageous than each and every Democrat who opposed the war, which was already unpopular among party activists. Indeed, it was less courageous, because he was looking to become his party's nominee for Senate. Would he have voted differently if he were in the Senate when the war resolution was on the table? We don't know. Comparing him to Lieberman in that context is absurd. Lieberman actually risked something and actually faced harsh criticism for his position. Has Obama, in the past, courageously opposed the majority of his party on some other issue or taken some position that risked his popularity in the polls? From all I have seen, he has voted strictly along party lines as a committed progressive, left-leaning politician. He is a tall Dennis Kucinich, except that Kucinich actually stands for something in a meangingful way with a career in politics.
You just pile one unevidenced assertion upon another: that Obama is different because "people really like him," that he "seems" to be a man of such great leadership and judgment that it overcomes his inexperience, the significance of his "theme" of hope and unity, that he is "someone who is willing to make the tough calls," that his is a "a (potential) liberal Reagan," and I could go on. This is not an argument any more "I am the Walrus" is an argument. It is just a pile of assertions.
The comparison to Reagan is just dumb. Any unknown candidate is a "potential" Reagan, just as he is a potential Jimmy Carter, or a potential Richard Nixon. Reagan had a Governorship and two decades in politics under his belt, and many years of political writing, speeches, and interviews. Reagan was not a cypher.
"[S]keptics will say this is naive." Yes, and they would be right. This is one of the most naive pieces of tripe I have ever has the misfortune to read. It is just shamefully bad political analysis. You usually are better than this.
Posted by: Kevin B. | Feb 5, 2008 10:10:03 AM
Speaking as a committed Conservative, one reason to vote for Obama is to kick the big-government wing of the Republican Party to the curb. Beating these RINO-saurs into submission is the only way they're going to learn to avoid selling out Conservative principles.
Now, make no mistake. Voting for Obama is your best bet to ensure that America gets hit by the Islamist mutts again. Nothing inflames and motivates the Islamist mutts like weakness and appeasement.
Yes, we know it's going to happen at some point, but Obama's policies are going to be the ones that make it most likely that innocent Americans will perish again. All you who yearn for Obama will have that on your consciences until the end of time.
You want your chance with the reins in your hands? Fine. Let's see what you've got. But remember that those of us who watch you Liberals are going to remind you, over and over again.
You asked for it.
Posted by: Paul A' Barge | Feb 5, 2008 10:10:12 AM
"...but who want to see a bit less of the bitter divisiveness..."
The reason there's "bitter divisiveness" is that people are bitterly divided on the damn issues. The transnational post-American progressive and the traditional conservative have almost nothing in common politically.
If Obama wants to remake America in his liberal image, he's going to have to run roughshod over those people who find his policies odious, if not immoral. Do you think these people aren't going to fight back?
Posted by: Percy Dovetonsils | Feb 5, 2008 10:19:17 AM
I don't know what to say, but after I read:
On foreign policy and security, Obama's superior leadership and judgment makes up for what he lacks in experience
I just laughed. Funny.
Mel
Posted by: Mel | Feb 5, 2008 10:32:57 AM
Speaking as a committed Conservative, one reason to vote for Obama is to kick the big-government wing of the Republican Party to the curb.
Of course, committed conservatives can accomplish the same thing by voting for McCain, and they'll have the added benefit of electing a president that actually agrees with them on far, far, far more issues than Obama does -- including, perhaps most importantly, avoiding the "weakness and appeasement" that "inflames and motivates the Islamist [extremists]," thus ensuring that America does not "get[] hit by" them again and that "innocent Americans will [not] perish again."
One hopes such conservatives are at least as pragmatic as they are idealistic.
Posted by: Brian Foster | Feb 5, 2008 10:39:55 AM
I'm registered as an Independent in California, and have wondered if I should get a Democrat ballot this morning, which Independents are allowed to do, or let the Democrats figure it out for themselves. Your post has helped me make a surprisingly firm decision: I'm going, I'm getting, and I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. And I never thought in a million years that I'd ever write those words.
Posted by: maddy | Feb 5, 2008 10:40:51 AM
It makes you wonder: if Iran takes a provocative action but the war-weary public doesn't support an aggressive response, and yet such a response seems absolutely necessary, will a President Clinton dare defy public opinion and do what must be done?
A fare more salient question is whether, in this circumstance, a President Obama would dare defy his own radically pacifist anti-war position and "do what must be done." All signs point to his laying down and letting Iran run right over him.
Posted by: Brian Foster | Feb 5, 2008 11:06:13 AM
1) If Obama can convince large swathes of the American people to support wrong policies just to move forward on the issues you mentioned them more power to him and I hope the people won't complain too much when they prove to be a big mistake.
2) I don't want a president who "when it comes to foreign policy and national security is someone with good judgment and a strong moral center -- someone who is willing to make the tough calls, to do what he (or she) believes is right, and then stand forthrightly behind the decision he (or she) made."
I want someone who can do all of the above AND make the right decision......not the decision they believe is right. Obama keeps saying that he's been right from day one on Iraq, and I guess if he repeats it enough, maybe people will actually believe him....but I don't believe he was right and I don't care how much he stands behind that decision. I want to know what he would do if that decision turns out to be the wrong one.
Posted by: JohnnyL | Feb 5, 2008 11:10:16 AM
philosophy of triangulation, the strategy that says the best way to stay in power is to cobble together a 51 percent majority by appealing to various interest groups and telling people what they want to hear.
By the way, that's not triangulation -- that's standard party politics, at least 20th century style, from the New Deal stright on through to Reagan-Bush. Build a coalition that translates into a majority by cobbling together their various interests into a single platform, whether coherently linked or not.
Triangulation, in contrast, is as the name suggests, a "Third Way" -- take the most popular bits from each opposing party's platform and bring them together in the middle and above the fray, hence a "triangle" where the traditional positions are the two points on the base and the newly created triangulated position is the point at the top.
You are correct, then, that the Clintons are master triangulators. They stand for nothing and pilfer from both parties at will to create a triangulated position that leaves both poles castrated and themselves insulated from significant attack, all the while believing none of it and doing it simply to gain or hold power.
The Bush administration rarely, if ever, triangulated. The "compassionate conservative" rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric -- and not an actual triangulation. The actual governing was almost exclusively aimed at appeasing the base of the party -- Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" pipe dream.
On the relatively rare occasions when Bush went against the base (NCLB, Medicare prescription drugs, etc.), he either didn't try to triangulate at all, or he tried and failed miserably, as he ended up with a program far more traditional-Dem than triangulated third way.
Posted by: Brian Foster | Feb 5, 2008 11:19:32 AM
Obama seems like a great guy. I have a friend in Oklahoma I have know for over 30 years who is also a great guy and a flaming liberal waaaaaaaay left. I wouldn't vote for my buddy for president either.
As far as the dynasty thing goes, if you check you will find very few kings and queens who stand for election ever, much less ever four years, so that is a non-issue.
"I believe McCain is too honorable of a man to stand for, let alone participate in, such things, as he demonstrated when he defended John Kerry against the Swift Boat attacks."
So you feel it is dishonorable to quote the opposing person? What part of the swift boat was dishonorable? And I mean really dishonorable, not the spin from the Kerry camp. I always hear about how everything the swift boaters said was a lie,, but no one can document anything that actually was.
Posted by: buzz | Feb 5, 2008 11:23:04 AM
Brendan, et. al.,
It all comes down to this simple question:
"Would you be willing to bet your life, and the lives of all you hold dear, on Obama being a competent President?"
Well? Would you?
I've already asked myself this question--I'll wager you'll know what my answer was.
Posted by: MarkJ | Feb 5, 2008 11:31:50 AM
Three reasons not to vote for Obama:
1) He has accomplished absolutely nothing. The man didn't even buy his own home. It was purchased for him by, criminally indicted political money man, Tony Rezco. His big claim to fame is his work with questionable "community groups". The media loves him and has given him a pass so far. He has not had to outline his programs and discuss the costs associated with implementing them. Once he takes a stand the feel good phase will come to a screeching halt.
2) His spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., is a racist and an anti-semite who aligns himself with Louis Farrakan. It is rumored that Obama even has Nation of Islam members on his staff. If you think that anyone who associates with people like this will be able to "bring the nation together" your delusional.
3) The war is real. These people really mean to kill us. Iran is a real threat. Sticking our heads in the sand will not bring peace to the world. If you don't like Bush's approach, fine, outline your coarse of action. Surrender will only taint the Democratic party as untrustworthy on national defense for another generation.
Posted by: Art | Feb 5, 2008 12:01:06 PM
it is a surer bet than the clintons.
a small thot experiment for the Undecided.
can u envisage a situation where the clintons would put the interests of the country over their own interests?
i cant.
consider....serial traitor sandy berger is advising the clinton campaign will in all liklihood resume his position as nat sec advisor...
consider...impeachedpresidentclinton gutted our HUMINT programs in the leadup to 911 causin us to be blind an deaf in MENA...
consider....impeachedpresidentclinton gave Kim Jong Il (in 1994) the two nuclear reactors which are Kim's chief weaponized uranium producers...
the history books will show bill clinton was the worst president in history for national defense....and this is hilary's experience cite....and he certainly will not be a silent partner in the presidency.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi | Feb 5, 2008 12:08:56 PM
yes..i would bet my life that Obama will be a better choice for national security than the clintons.
it isnt that high a bar.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi | Feb 5, 2008 12:10:33 PM
He is a great speaker and a good motivator. Maybe Tony Robbins needs a partner?
1. Obama is a Socialist more so than Carter or McGovern and his policies would be worse than Nixon's price controls. The end result would be an economic contraction.
2. Obama is a gun-control freak from the fringes of the Illinois left. Once he starts to implement his beliefs, he will instantly polarize 20% of the country against him and force 1/3 of the Democrats on the House to defend their seats in contested elections.
On these two issues alone, he will divide the United States rather than unite it.
On Foreign Policy, he is too trusting and he will get his britches put on for him by the world-class shysters who run other governments.
All of his executive experience is in the public sector on boutique projects. No firm would hire him to be a middle manager or executive with P/L responsibilities.
Posted by: | Feb 5, 2008 12:12:55 PM
He's a flaming SOCIALIST! But so is Hillary...
Posted by: sunshine484848 | Feb 5, 2008 12:47:29 PM
Brendan,
Good post. I favored him 3 to 2 in my analysis on how he debated with Hillary...
The link follows...
http://economy.franteractive.com/Politics/hollywood1.html
Supertuesday is over, but the race for change is not. When Hillary touts she has been working on 35 years of change, that sounds more like 35 years of status quo... It remains to be seen whether Obama can bring in a radical change in the white house though... To his credit, he has radically changed on how and what people should think about while voting...
best,
Sam
Posted by: sam mishra | Feb 5, 2008 8:17:32 PM
ted kennedy is his main endorser. that should make you not want to vote for him right off the bat. how could you involve yourself with such a person? ted kennedy was witness to a rape crime, and didn't do ANYTHING. the drowning of his pregnant girlfriend was said to be accidental but we all know it wasn't (look at the facts, people..)
p.s.
Obama may have ideas but he NEVER states how he'll acheive them, how he'll pay for them
he's a dreamer
and we don't need someone who lives in a fantasy world as our president
Posted by: sarah | Feb 6, 2008 1:19:36 AM
Sarah, please. The Ted Kennedy thing doesn't prove anything, sweetheart.
Posted by: Wobbly H | Feb 6, 2008 1:24:30 AM
I absolutely cannot stand Obama and his Cult Of Personality.
It's absolutely impossible to escape people praising how great and noble he is, without actually having reasons more substantial than those in the post.
Posted by: J Roberts | Feb 6, 2008 3:03:39 PM