To those who think that the people who support Obama are fanatics, that he is an empty suit...

How do you rationalize all the endorsements from important political figures and newspapers? I consider all 3 candidates to have substance, and just find it silly that anyone still thinks otherwise.

That's how I see it

You sure are flexible.


:rofl:

Not all of them though.

I don't let "important political figures and newspapers" make important decisions for me.

n/t

I take the point of your answer, but it's not related to the question. I don't consider endorsements when I make my decision either.


I'll rephrase it.

If a large amount of intelligent, credible people support a candidate, how is it easy to consider that candidate not at all credible, an empty suit, just deceiving people and making empty promises with no substance(I've heard many claims of this)?

But to make it more specific: it's quite possible to have a difference of opinion even with other "intelligent, credible people." I make my own decisions on the basis of facts. I don't allow endorsers, newspapers or anyone else to make those decisions for me.

I have decided, on the basis of his own actions, not to vote for Obama. End. Of. Story.

are fanatics. That doesn't make ALL of them fanatics.

Obama is not.

That said, I believe that if he is the nominee, he will have his ass handed to him come November.

The Obama's have been bitching about campaign tactics lately? They haven't seen 10% of what will be thrown at them.

Its sucks. Its reality.

He's not ready for it. Hillary has been through the grinder before. She comes across tough because she's had to be in the past and she knows what's about to happen in the coming weeks and months.

I really don't think BHO understands what he's getting himself into.

Fasten your safety belts.

Although some certainly are, particularly here on DU (yes, I know that's not representative). And he's not an "empty suit," although he's often very light on specifics.

As for endorsements...those from "important political figures" who are also super delegates are important, because they're a part of the delegate count. Other endorsements, particularly celebrity and newspaper and other media endorsements are frankly next to meaningless. A celebrity endorsement may give a candidate a slight boost for a very short time (Hello, Oprah!) but in the long run, few people care.

but, isn't it saying something when someone intelligent endorses a candidate and wants them in the White House?

If only, that he isn't a worthless candidate, and as viable as the other two.

and the Clinton's have plenty of enemies...
So the obvious endorsement would go to the other top candidate. Political payback.
Please tell me you didn't REALLY think that it was because they were all in love with Obama...:eyes:

and if all or shall I say some of you that support obama is that he gives a damn great speech are voting for him becasue of that then damn, please stay as far away from the voting booth as you can. This type of blind support is what got us george bush in 2000. The public did not know a damn thing about bush other then he is so likable and wish we could have a beer with him, and the mediawhores telling the nation, bush does not have to be the smartest man in the room, cause he is a grown up and now it is time for the grown ups to be in charge of the government.....We the public were fed this crap until 2005 and the public became eduacated to see that bush too was an empty suit and compared to the clinton administration the bush administration were the grown up that really did good for this country....

So you can take your obama and his great speech giving and vote for him because no one knows where exactly he stands but I do have a few thoughts that obama is not the person he campaigns as. There is further evidence that not only does Obama have no sense of the history of the last half of the 20th century, but also that he really is as conservative as his weak health care plan and far weaker economic stimulus plan have hinted. Then there’s his use of GOP scare-tactic talking points on Social Security, and how he has been embraced by the right.Wonder why those facists and racists bastards would be so sweet on obama?

Listen, Obama and those that support him blindly, if you think that President Clinton accomplished those amazing turnarounds for the economy and for minorities by singing “Kumbayah” with Republicans, you’ve just shown how naive you are. remember, President Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote and led to the greatest econmic period in american history.....

We have serious problems in this country folks and we need serious people to get us out of this morass and it will not be lead by some smooth talking revival sounding preacher from Illinois that can bring this about, and truthfully you all or shall I say most all exposed how uninformed you are about the brutal history of U.S. politics where every progressive step is spattered with the blood, sweat and tears of all who fought so hard for those gains.

And there is indeed more to him than that. My problem with Obama stems largely from the fact that he seems confined to conventional wisdoms ... he advocates progress but his approach to achieving that progress is quite timid, and quite tepid. The man is brilliant, and his heart clearly filled with good intentions.

And he will get next to nowhere. What none of the candidates have done (though Edwards has come perilously close) is propose a model of economic and social progress that departs from the Milton Friedman inspired models of the 1980s. Obama has already well discussed (and received a lot of undeserved crap for it) how the conservative movement showed up with an intellectually coherent approach to economics and government that could be sold to the people.

But he proposes no clear alternative. And Clinton does not seem to think that one is really required.

Many of us perceive that there is no greater threat today to human freedom and dignity, or indeed national security, than unbridled corporatism. Those who understand that tend to find themselves aligned with Kucinich and/or Edwards, because they are the only candidates who have talked about it sensibly.

Because Obama at best pays lip service to that concern, many of us regard him as an "empty suit". This is in my view an overly harsh judgment. But I do not expect substantive change in things under an Obama administration. I do expect better and more humane management of the established order of things, as well as a few honest attempts at modest innovation, and that would be a welcome improvement over the past seven years.

He would something like a 4000$ credit to all college students, BUT they would have to work for it, either through community service or something like signing up for the Peace Corp after college. This is part of the plan for his goal to make college affordable and accessible to EVERYONE, without amassing debt.

He has coherent plans to get Health Care for everyone(today he claimed before the end of his 4-year term), better education (especially early education), solving the energy crisis, and getting rid of lobbyists... among other things.

I'm not an expert on his plans, so I can't compare and contrast them to Edwards. But they both have the same concern, and similar approaches in intent(although perhaps different in some smaller, but important ways).

Those are topic headings.

Barack's proposals do seem to be evolving ... there has been considerable "fleshing out" of late. This is what you would expect from an intellectually honest candidate, for a campaign without learning and thinking is not a campaign worth having, eh? I doubt Barack has come through this entire process without having encountered a new idea or three.

But, as Edwards has pointed out, a fundamental problem blocking solutions to a wide range of problems has been the excessive and unchecked accrual of corporate power. Obama has taken a relatively tame stand on that controversial but crucial issue. And that is my main problem with him.

My gods, though ... any of these three would represent a major improvement over the current regime. A fact we advocates of candidates must keep in the back of our heads as we discuss, debate, and bicker.

This country is bleeding deeply from near mortal wounds. We must come together and begin fixing things.

Most of the Democratic candidates in 04 included a variation of the same thing.

and decided it was a power struggle between the DNC and the DLC

and when I realized that, I decided to support Edwards all the way and when he loses the nomination (which is looking like a sure thing, unfortunately) I will spend my time this summer and fall working on the down ticket races.

We have a chance here, with Domenici retiring, to gain a Senate seat and possibly two house seats for the Democrats.

It's a better use of my time.

in November I'll vote the straight party line because I just can't vote for a Republican no matter what.

quotes from right here on DU that have concerned me lately:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4220796#4221474

"shaking with anger"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4201100&mesg_id=4201123

"shaking with rage"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4233949#4234543

"He spoke to the rage and desperation that people were feeling..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4206823#4206823

"All the ugly tough talk here accomplishes nothing but to inspire anger over what two states did."

<snip>

It just seems that there is so much "rage" and "anger." I do wish there was less of that and more actual comparisons of issues.

...Kerry for all his flaws is still very thoughtful man and would of weighed the pros and cons before decideing on Barack and gave the best speech in Obama's favour.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVLQ6K56Dk8