I have couple honest questions about Obama,

Look - the reasons I chose Biden over Obama and Clinton are still there; and that is why I am still soooo undecided.
The truth is, I really don't like either of them, and the reasons why are long.
BUT feb 5th is right around the corner, and I need help about Obama.

I wish I could ask him these questions to his face -

1)He talks about hope and change and hope and change. He says that he is going to change Washington-
but what I want to know is how????
At the end of the day - Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl are still the minority leaders in the Senate and they are going to fight him every inch of the way. And then we have crybaby Boner in the House.
What does Obama think he will be able to do with them? Because as long as there are right-wing wackos like that in charge ~ he is not going to be able to do much.

2)And what makes him think that he will be able to get more done than Hillary?

I am hoping to start a discussion here, not a bash Obama or Hillary thread.

they're just that--a minority. Any democrat will be able to move the democratic agenda forward, if we have a democrat for a president. There are really only two main issues confronting you:

1) The war in Iraq--Obama gets us out in the first year, period.
Hillary does not.

2) Obama will do what he says.
Hillary lies, so you'll never know who you're voting for anyway.

means that he'll move forward legislation making lobbyist and bundling money more transparent. We'll be able to see all--all of the money going to campaigns and where it was spent.

Hillary takes money from lobbyists, most notably from defense contractors.

That's why I am looking closer at Obama.

the 'super delegates' will make 'the decision' for all of us. Any bets?

For me, there's no doubt. From Wes Clark to Joe Biden, and now a blank page, I'll write in at the General, and that's all, folks.

and ones i want answers to as well. Its all very well to want change but he aint said anything how.

If he thinks you an just waltz in DC as president and change the culture, he's got another think coming. He'll be taken down by people on every side, Democrat and Republican. He'll be a lame duck within a month.

Hillary has actually said, if you want to bring about change, you must take in all sides and that means sitting down with Big business, not excluding them from the debate.

someone that has the same questions I have.:crazy:

:-)

if this was about Biden, how many of us would have been able to answer?

What a joke!
I'm really trying to find a reason to support Obama - and i can't.

I can't support Hillary either, but I will defend the bullshit attacks against her, especially when the come from hypocritical Obama supporters.

and since I am a middle-aged white woman, you would think he would want to hear what is on my mind. lol.

I guess I'm going for Hillary. I can't find any reason to support Obama. None. Zip. Nada.

Its frightening.

that's all they know. They know nothing off the top of their heads. Pretty sad really.

They have no idea either. the standard answer will be, no lobbyists.

Problem is that lobbyists do good and they do bad stuff, if we didnt have lobbyists nothing would get passed in the Congress.

The very first time the GOP challenges Obama to a knife fight, he'll extend his hand in friendship and lose a few fingers.

The very first time the GOP challenges Hillary to a knife fight, she'll slice of their heads and shit down their necks.

Obama isn't prepared for a fight because he doesn't think there's going to be one.

The ALL CAPS posts make you seem angry.

Maybe you should relax a bit, wolfie.

I can recommend a good vacation spot:

Did I mention I like aircraft as well?

I thought the Soviet MIG-23 was a very well-built plane, myself.

You wouldn't be a Libra by any chance, would you?

Here, try these:



Take 23 and call me in the morning.

I assumed it must be you.

Been out by California lately?

That's what tipped me off that it was you.

just figments of your imagination? I have the answer:

I already said crack is whack, wolfie.

It should be a fun show. :-)

I love biking.

Crack is whack, wolfie. Any place with your crack problem is no place for a child to grow.

Here, read a book:

By the way, I see you're a fan of David Beckham.

Let's talk college basketball. I'll even make it easy - we'll talk Georgia college basketball.

On second thought, maybe not. I see you weren't well-liked at home regardless.



How's the Chewbacca suit?

I sorry to butt in to this disagreement between two guys I don't know from Adam, but the curiosity is killing me.

What the heck is up with this 23 stuff?

Sorry - couldn't resist - had to ask.

The "23 Enigma" is the Discordian belief that all events are connected to the number 23, given enough ingenuity on the part of the interpreter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_(numerology)

Interesting stuff. Maybe that's it.

Thanks!

:rofl:

Because you are right, they will still be obstructionist putzes. It's about Obama being a less polarizing figure in the public's perception. That's the point Obama was making about Reagan: He was able to "transform" the government by communicating in a way that the people (at least a comfortable enough majority of them) responded favorably to, even though the policies themselves weren't in their interest. With Clinton, you'll never have that because the RW did a damn fine job of demonizing them with the conservative base. This will embolden people like McConnell, Kyl, Boehner, et. al. to give her a hard time, because they know they will have the support of most of their constituents and not have to worry about keeping their seats. Obama seems to be more favorably viewed by Republicans. He definitely sees himself as the person who can do for Democrats and our ideas what Reagan did for the Republicans. I don't know if he can but I'm willing to take the chance. I pretty much know what I'm getting with HRC: 4 to 8 more years of gridlock, mudslinging, witch hunts, etc. Sure, she'll be a damn sight better than any Republican but I think we need to forge a new path.

they need to taken apart after the 8 years of total bullying. I want a President that will go straight away and dismantle the shit they have done and dismantle it quickly.

Fuck this holding hands out. I want someone to go in there and reset the Supreme Court and rebalance the courts, and sort out the justice dept and clean house.

Obama will not do that, he will be a Weak President.

And how does one "reset the Supreme Court"? Don't you have to wait for a vacancy to make an appointment?

Clinton will do little to none of what you say. She will be hobbled by her baggage.

Maybe not as polarizing as the Clintons, but I have no proof that the repugs like him more than Hillary.

It's impossible to not be polarizing at all, but there are degrees of it and HRC is about as high as it gets.

as for McConnell and Kyl, they'd harrass whoever wins. I'm hoping McC won't be reelected in November, but I don't know where that stands in KY. I think our best collective hope is to get a few more Dems elected come November, and that seems pretty doable as many rethugs are dropping out.

It may not be a case of getting more done, but I think Obama's approach will be totally different than Clinton's. I honestly believe he does want to change the status quo and I want him to have the chance to do that. I also think he will approach foreign policy differently. Here's one more thread I just posted on issues and comparing the candidates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4200355&mesg_id=4200355



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2629656

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4029835

On hope:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3953818

all his supporters do is post links...

Obviously the poster here didn't bother to READ the whole thread. Otherwise, they wouldn't have fallen in the classic trap of acting EXACTLY as predicted by "Corona".

:rofl:

Those Obamatons are such critical thinkers, aren't they?

telling me what legislation he introduced, or what he believes doesn't tell me how he is going to get things done.
That is what he is running his campaign on, on how he is going to change DC - and I just want to know how.

I don't think Republicans are particular fond of his ideas, but everyone seems to be fond of his rhetoric, and a president can do a lot with words and words alone - look at FDR or JFK or Reagan (ooga booga).

I don't think he's implying that once elected, Republicans won't be after him, he knows they will. But the level of distain and anger that permeates Washington right now will be toned down significantly, I think, with an Obama presidency.

Obama wants to reach out. He will let Republicans know he's willing to work with them, and not in the phony, empty sense that Bush said when he became president - but in a real sense of working together for the common good.

That's surface change, at least.

As for the nuts and bolts of policy issues and change there, well, you change the tone in Washington, and everything else can flow out of that. Keep a Dem majority in both houses and you can do a lot. Look what Bush was able to do with congress behind him, and he has no speaking skills whatsoever. Imagine what Obama, with his ability to move an audience and make political speak sound like poetry, can do with the full weight of congress behind him.

Plus, he'll have a major advantage Bush didn't - the ability to take his message directly to the American people and convey it in a way that they can support. He can sell his ideas much better than Bush did. And Bush still got a lot shit done with no oratory skills at all.

Don't underestimate the change that can happen going from the worst oratory President ever to possibly one of the best.

that's a riot...:rofl:

It wouldn't be long before people were calling him chimpy2.

But I will say he is motivating.

that's the only reason. I don't run right out and buy the 'newest thing'. And when I do, it's usually after doing a LOT of research, and knowing said product like the back of my hand...

If Hillary is President, the republicans and the media will divide the country worse than we see now.

This won't happen under Obama ...the right wing hate just isn't as strong for him.

This will aloow more to be done.

In addition to Democrats.

If Obama receives the Democratic nomination he can expect to receive a large amount of Independent votes and a significant amount of republican votes as well. That's what the exit polls have told us so far.

All of these people that you are concerned about Obama being able to work with are elected officials. If they sense that their constituents are largely supportive of Obama, then they have to at least give the impression that they are willing to work with him. They certainly wouldn't want to be singled out for hindering his agenda.

Combine that with the Dem majority in Congress and you end up with a pretty productive President.

The question is would this also be the case with Hillary. And the answer is no. Here's why:
1). She has not shown the ability to attract Independents according to exit polls (McCain would have the clear advantage here)
2). Republicans don't like her and would rally around the Republican nominee.

So, not only is there a strong risk that she wouldn't get elected, but if she did, Republicans in Congress have no incentive to work with her (in fact, quite the opposite).

Hope this helps.

for those of us who do not see anything special about Obama. Interesting. Yawn. *

First of all, the Clintons have proven to be divisive within their own party. You can imagine how they would mobilize the GOP to run AGAINST them. So basically, if Hillary is the nominee, we lose the White House anyway.

Secondly, Obama has a history of working on bipartisan issues and would be more of a unifier as well as a NEW FACE to put on the Democratic Party and show the World we get it. If the Clintons did get in, you can bet it would be old battles fought and nothing would be accomplished.

Thirdly, the point that he would get more done than Hillary is back to point two. He would be able to pass universal healthcare without the obvious poison pill of using mandates and would be able to move incrementally toward single payer style healthcare. He also would not get us into wars like Hillary seems prone to wanting to.

We've seen already what the divisiveness and legislation passed by the Clintons has done to this country. People who look longingly back to the Clinton years are living in the delusion of faux nostalgia. We need to turn the page.

The Clintons are a ball-and-chain on the Democratic party and Hillary's candidacy would bring plenty of negative coattails in other congressional races.

They had their chance and we got zero healthcare reform, plenty of scandals, a near-impeachment and the embarrassment of the Monica Lewinsky problem, NAFTA, the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act, lots of outsourcing (linked to the Clintons), the further monopolization of the media with the Telecommunications Act, loss of industry (like steel and others) due to China free trade deals and killing millions of Iraqis with the No-Fly Zone policy.

Why anyone would with a sane mind want to give these people another chance to screw up the party and this country is beyond me.

The first thing you mentioned is about Clinton. Geez.

1 reference to Obama....in a post about Obama. Rigghhhttt.

:shrug:

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm looking for a reason to support him.
But he hasn't given me any reason to.
I have major issues with Hillary, especially her K/L vote. omg. This Bidenite will never forget that.
But, I will never forget Obama announcing that he will invade Pakistan and pissing off Muslims all over the world either.

what you want. Do you want someone to make the decision for you? You ask some questions that are impossible to answer. I can't give you an itinerary of what he'd do if he wins, I don't know if he even has a game plan when the scrimmage isn't over.

I think about Biden saying that he thought about more what he would do as President than he thought about how to get elected.

With Obama, I see the opposite.

I guess I take this decision seriously and this is the one nagging question about Obama that keeps me from supporting him.
As I said before, I hope he comes to Phoenix before the 5th...or maybe I will just email him and ask him, and hope I get a response.

on edit - I did email his campaign with my questions. I'll let you know if I get a response.

So I just deleted it. What's the fucking point?

instincts there usually right! IMO, Obama is proving to be a very divisive dem candidate. I've been voting over 35 year's and don't buy the "kumbaya" message one bit!

Once we take back the congress and throw these rethugs out, then we can get things done.

Hillary is a brilliant woman and she knows how to fight and win!

Perhaps you think Obama "would invade Pakistan". He has never said that.

He would, as even Biden agreed, would try to do what Musharraf is being paid billions of US dollars to do and take out Osama bin Laden if there was actionable intelligence.

If you're really serious about checking out Obama, go to his web site:
www.barackobama.com

There is a lot of information to check out.

Hillary could very well have "reverse coattails", where Democrats suffer in downticket races for Governor, Senator, etc.

I suspect with Obama's lower negatives and higher polling numbers compared to Hillary, he'll have some coattails and extend our majority in the US Congress.

Does that help answer your question?

I really hate it when I take the time to write out a thoughtful analysis only to be ignored by someone asking an "honest question."

I'll just stick to being an asshole, and posting humor.

I was obviously angry that I took the time as a non supporter to type that out, and then saw you responding to other people after me.

If you think it helpful or wise, I'll try to get it from my cache.

edit: doh! I've gone too far on DU, so it's gone.

responding to a thread and no one noticing.
It's frustrating!

why are you only considering those two, and not Edwards?

:hi:

Fortress Funds bothers me alot.

As does this -
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edwards-campaign-mum-on-arrested-fundraiser-2007-05-10.html

Only because these are the exact things that Edwards speaks out against on the campaign trail.

At this point, I would consider him if he is still viable next week.

I'm not so bothered by *any* of our candidates' dirt.

I just happen to think Edwards has the best policy ideas.

Peace! :)

you are telling me that this is Edwards fault that this guy beats women??? Maybe I missed something in this article but if I didnt I can't believe you would even mention this as something that would weigh in your decision for or against Edwards. Lets look at the the mans plan... Just check it out (on his site) its 80 pages of details covering most everything that would concern any middle class person. I would challange you to read it yourself as opposed to listing to the rants here. Saying that, it is the most complete and thought out plan of the three and quite frankly the other 2 have stolen alot of his ideas and have claimed them as if they were theirs. Before you vote, no matter who you ultimatly choose, check out each of their plans and pay special attention to when the plans were released. While Mr Edwards is certainly not perfect, he is the strongest and most honest of the 3 left. He also is smart enough to know that there is going to have to be a fight to get things done. Thanks for asking I hope you do your homework.


Cheers!

Honesty, Transparency, open dialog with the people about the reasons for his decisions(think the opposite of Bush with Iraq). This also involves getting rid of lobbyist influences, of course.
Understanding towards different groups and ideas
GETTING THE PEOPLE TO MOBILIZE. This is sooo important, but government policy can't make people do it to a large enough level. The only way to do this is to truly care about and push it, to realize that change largely comes from the bottom up, that we must unite(even the 50% of Dems)to improve our country and our world. Government can't fix all our problems. We have to work on them. An example would be, pushing hard for everyone to do their own part to help the environment, by reducing their ecological footprint. But this same independent effort is necessary for so many other things.


Willing to work with the Repubs on SOME issues, and find common ground. He has done this in the past.

If you think Hillary is likely to get true complete mandatory universal health care, you are taking a risk. How Obama's plan is different is it mandates health care for those who do not have a choice(children), and other than that using market and government solutions to reduce cost so everyone can afford it.

On gay rights, push for civil unions, but not necessarily marriage.

I'll think of more. He usually mentions the ideas separately. He really should give clear-cut summary of all the things sometimes, but it is hard to do so, since the political environment created by these things(if they were carried out effectively) is so profound and has never been seen before, so it is hard to describe.

You have to see it happen, and see how we could drastically change the state of our country and our planet(again, considering if WE could work together and work hard). We could feed every person on the Earth right now, we could bring everyone out of poverty, we could save the environment, we could make politics honest and democratic again... but the PEOPLE need to work for it. We need to do this. It is 1000 times more effective than anything the government can do on its own. Mobilization of the people is key.


I like to compare the state of the world to that of being in a world war. In WWII everyone was willing to fight. There was overt killing and destruction that we could point out and see.

Now, there is just as much devastation, suffering, and misery, as it adds up, going on every day. People need to enlist themselves to fight the cause. The COUNTRY needs to enlist itself to fight the cause. Every moment, every day, we already have this ability to do so, if we worked together. Obama, or any other politician for that matter, doesn't need to pass some draft, some government policy, to make us do this. The leader has to explain what we could accomplish, why we should accomplish it... motivate and mobilize the people.

this follows in the legacy of MLK, of Ghandi, of so many other powerful figures. What did these people do to make change? Did they pass policies? Did they have powerful positions? No, yet they made some of the most powerful changes in our history.

I don't equate Obama to MLK, not even close. He is a hybrid of a policy-person and agent of change(MLK), and definitely not as profound. I'd consider him a disciple of MLK, though, as anyone could be, if they decided to(I am a disciple of MLK). Obama has the right view in my mind, of what needs to be done.

A new kind of politics, is what is needed.
The president is not a superman/superwoman, but I feel some look to the position as that. Someone so smart, savvy, that they will fix all our problems. The most genius policy expert in the world probably couldn't do it, the problem is one of many natures.

:hi:

You said; "Honesty, Transparency, open dialog with the people about the reasons for his decisions"

Sort of like he did the Rezko question in the debate? Or answers to why he voted 'present'...Yeah, that was 'open and transparent'....good example. NOT.

cannot make changes in Washington if we are not behind him all the way prodding Congress to get the job done. Obama is the only candidate who holds the promise of uniting the country.

I don't see that at all...

There is no way, for example to answer:

"What makes him think that he will be able to get more done than Hillary?"

It cannot be answered in the way you framed it for a variety of reasons, not least because it calls for opinion. But also, how do WE know what Obama is thinking?

Ask a more specific question maybe?

Is he going to have Republicans sit on his cabinet?

What are his plans to change the tone in DC?

I do not know the answer to the first other than to say I certainly never heard him say that he would and if I thought he did I would drop him in a red-hot minute.

On the other hand, on Hillary's official website, there is text indicating that at least some people think she will and, since it is on her website, it doesn't seem she is trying to disavow anyone of that notion.

In answer to the 2nd question, I feel that he is already working to change the tone by sending out a message of inclusion. he chooses words that specifically are meant to imply that he wished to lessen the bipartisan nastiness. My opinion is that he seems like a person who is good at getting people to see their common goals. So I think he will change the tone. I do not think the Bill/Hill show will do that.

It is his firm belief, and mine too, that the American people ought to be able to know what the hell is going on in Washington.

Obama plans to air health care negotiations on C-Span, not behind closed doors, right out there where the American public can follow along. He passed legislation with Tom Coburn (R-OK) resulting in a public online federal budget data base of where taxpayers' money is going, showing government contractors, who they are, what they're being paid for what work, and where. It tracks grants and earmarks, too, and will even track subcontractors.

It's right here: http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/index.php?reptype=a

Another bill he sponsored requires all legislation introduced in the Senate be posted to the Internet four days before a vote including any attached giveaways or earmarks, and allowing no anonymous changes to conference reports. Some of it was worked into the Feingold-Obama ethics bill that passed.

He's also sponsored election protection legislation requiring states to report performance - rate of ballots discarded or uncounted, machine malfunctions, length of time voters wait on line, number of voters redirected to a different polling place, etc. This would be public information.

There is much more in this vein. I show these few as examples of what I see illustrates a commitment by Obama (and this shows through his Illinois years, as well) to a more transparent and efficient democracy.

Maybe this isn't the sexy stuff to most people, but I think it is very, very important.

But my main point, I think, is that the man is a problem-solver. He sees something broken and takes steps to fix it. He does this by persuasion, by interaction, by raising and receiving common sense solutions. And working with the other side: with Lugar on nuclear proliferation and trying to keep nukes from falling into the hands of terrorists; with Coburn after Katrina to improve oversight of federal spending.

He is a practical, common sense liberal. He wants to get things done and he's not a showboat about it, as he is often painted here at DU. He does the work and if somebody else takes the credit, that's okay. He was known for that trait as an organizer, as a lawyer, and as a legislator.

Now can he also inspire masses of people? We know he can. But that's not everything to me. I want a more productive government.

I've tried to be specific in my answer to show a side of Obama beyond the, dare I say it, great communicator. But maybe his most promising attribute would be bringing the Democrats to an effective majority. He's not getting endorsed by red state governors and legislators for nothing and not because he's a conservative, which he is not. It's because he proved himself in 2006 to be the kind of campaigner that candidates are happy as can be to invite into their districts, one who can reach a broad cross section of Americans with his Democratic ideals and ideas, without scaring the horses.

Open gov't - good point!

He even insisted on using extra time for an answer in one of the debates, to talk about the need to make government more transparent so citizens could be more engaged.

I think that Obama really sees the value of participative government and on the other hand, my feeling with the Clintons is that they really kind of like the kind of secrecy Bush has been known for, and I just don't expect them to make transparency a high priority.

Snark and anger only turns me off.

There have been a couple of great answers on this thread... and I am going to give Obama a closer look.
Open gov't vs. secrecy would make a change in DC.
My daughter will be so happy - the first vote of her life is going to Obama.

justify that he will be successful. But if you would like to view it from the other perspective as to why he won't, possibly my OP could give you things to think about.

I'm glad in any regard that you are questioning whether he feels right to you. This next president will have the fate of the world in their hands.

My thread title was --- South Carolina, please hear me.....

Before his audience, Obama told a fortyish man worrying about taxes that government will have to do more to help the middle-class, not less, and that limiting taxes shouldn't be his narrow political priority. He told a white-haired woman peace activist who criticizes Israel that the Palestinians are in the wrong, and then when this appears to encourage a pro-Israel man, tells that guy that the Israelis are far from perfect, too. Obama was measured throughout; he tends to come off as an expert and wonk, an earnest, hopeful policy nerd. A group of older black women asked, humbly, for vague assurances that he would redirect federal housing policy to emphasize low-rise, rather than high-rise, projects—most housing advocates think low-rise buildings would be easier to police and maintain, and encourage more neighborly interactions. The grandmas were throwing him a softball, hoping only for a signal that he was open to their concerns, that he would side with the experts. Obama was having none of it. "Low-rise isn't going to solve all your problems," Obama said sternly. "I've worked in the projects, and, let me tell you, low rise has problems of its own." The particular lady who had asked the question looked rebuked, and there was a surprised wince in the church: Did he really just say that to a bunch of trapped-in-the-projects grandmas?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.wallace-wells.html


The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Barack also has a record of international relations that would allow him negotitions with other nations for more peace. search keny obama on youtube.

. . . bizarro would of the beltway.

Like any other "strategerist," he is blathering the opposite of reality. If he gets the nomination, hopefully enough of us will be able to hold our noses and do what we can to send him to the White House, but I fear he'll continue to alienate the most active and engaged citizens who are out here fighting for REAL American principle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3996527&mesg_id=3996817