Explain to me how we're supposed to have "faith" on what Obama says in speeches

Because I, for one, would love to know.

In 2003, he spoke out against war funding:




A speech about how he wouldn't have voted for something. I've heard those before, and they ARE good speeches. Inspiring, even.

However, when he had the chance to really stand up for what he says in his speeches in an official, meaningful way, he failed miserably:






So obviously, there is a very good reason to question if he has the "audacity" to follow his speeches through when it actually MATTERS. So please, explain to me how I can have hope and faith that he will, when history dictates otherwise.

And please, if you will, focus on this issue instead of attacking Hillary Clinton (who, I might add, was on the right side of standing firm against Bush). Talk to me like you want me to vote for your candidate.

...this article:

http://www.theroot.com/id/44630

Why?

Had he been in the Senate at the time? Please.

Why aren't any Obama supporters responding to this?

If you are open to the possibility of voting for Obama, and open to being
persuaded, then spend time listening to him talk, and read everything
available at his website. Take a look at the demographics of his support, and
ask your own heart and gut and mind who you really believe will be
the best person for this country. Listen to the people who have come
out in support of him, and see if they move you or not. If you have
kids, ask your kids what they think, and why.

If none of that is compelling enough, ask yourself if you are choosing
your candidate based on fear of the unknown or based on insight, certainty.

If you feel certainty about a different candidate, that's probably the one
you should vote for.

(I know this isn't what you wanted but I had a similar thread sink a
while back... I wanted to hear persuasive arguments from both Obama
and Hillary supporters, minus the attacks. Only two people responded,
but only with jokes.)

Because I might have to, but I would certainly love to feel good about it. As of right now, I don't.

But this is my point, I have heard him talk - but it doesn't mesh with his record. I have looked over his website, and he's got a great website design. He's a flashy candidate, that's for sure. On the issues, he seems to be mostly in line with Clinton, except in a few KEY areas in my opinion. And how much can we trust what he says he's going to do? Frankly, I think we're being taken for a ride here.

I live in a safe blue state, so I can skip voting for him, and then if he wins and turns out to be a giant fucking mistake like I feel sure he would be, I don't have to feel bad about it. If I lived in a swing state it would be a more stressful decision, but even though I have voted Dem in every election for 30 yrs, I don't know if I could do it for him.

An anti-McCain vote is the most I hope to muster at this point. I know several Dems who plan to abstain if he's the nominee, though. I haven't missed a single election and have voted straight ticket Dem since I turned 18 in 1991. I never thought I'd feel this way, but I do.

Must be all that hope and unity.

Obama or Clinton until pretty recently. Now I think I've caught Obamania, despite extensive precautions.

However, I believe that it will be up to us, the voters, to hold the new president to the standards they are promising. In my opinion this is much more likely to be successful with Obama than with Hillary.. but I am a bit more jaded towards her. Also, the majority supporting him are the youth. They will not take kindly to having their ideals betrayed. I think he's good for this country.

There's an excellent (in my opinion) piece by Dave Lindorff:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/12/6995/

Also, if you haven't watched Senator Dodd's speech -- well it was very moving for me, I don't know if you would feel the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DrXRIUlqaY

I also was moved by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG0PfADEbDs

and especially by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyn35HL0eng (Susan Rice being interviewed on Tucker)

Here's another pos tI wrote on this subject, on another thread. It's long, hope it doesn't bore you.
Someone else (a Hillary supporter) was asking what process people had followed to find out who Obama was. the thread is called "Barack is not"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x98855
................................................................

My process in finding out who Obama was

First: I heard from my daughters -- who were enthusiastically moved to become politically engaged, inspired by what Obama had to say. This is not a small thing to me; these are strong and independent, brilliant young women, and I have a great deal of respect for their point of view & judgement. So I started paying more attention to Obama.


So I listened to Obama, and I read, and I looked up Obama's record, and I listened some more -- to both pro and con arguments & representations of his message.

During these recent years of war, at times I longed for the days of the military draft. I felt so strongly that without young people getting involved, nothing would ever change in Washington. When I was young, there was a powerful surge of hope and inspiration, activism during the Vietnam war, coming mainly from the young. They were engaged because their lives were on the line. (That surge receded, as a wave does; but in my opinion it is back, more like a tsunami this time.)

The Bush administration knew this would happen again if a draft were reinstated for their wars; so instead of a draft they used the backdoor stop-loss policy. (aka continue loss) Young people not directly affected by the war could yawn and sigh and go back to other priorities.

Despite insane wars, cheat and deceit in government, crumbling economy, desperate environmental situation, the majority of young people in America seemed to be politically apathetic, or just too busy having fun with iphones and ipods and the internet -- the tons of ways to be entertained & distracted that didn't exist 40 years ago.

So when I saw Obama's huge surge of support coming from young people it made me really pay attention. I found his speeches inspired me too. He didn't inspire me to blindly put my faith in him -- but to become engaged & hopeful about the future of this country. For the first time ever I began to believe real change in this country is a real possibility -- if the people are empowered.

His background as a community organizer is not insignificant to me. A person, male or female, who can inspire people to get involved in making things better is a great leader, period. I find him dignified & fair, and I think his judgement is good. In my mind, there is no way he could get away with being deceptive -- the young would be seeing through it quickly. People may say Hitler fooled the young too -- but the comparison would be absurd, not to mention odious.

I love the idea of the elders stepping aside, making way for a new generation of voters and younger politicians who can make America new again. This is desperately needed, and it's the right time. People getting behind Obama are not only Democrats but Independents, even some Republicans and Libertarians, and most important of all, the largest voting bloc in America -- the Apathetics. Can this be a bad thing?

Most of all, I trust my heart and my gut over fear. I will not vote for anybody who encourages me to feel afraid.

(Also, small point on health care: I personally do not want a mandate to purchase health care from an insurance company. Call me wacko but .. I'm not.)

If you are the least bit open to Obama, I encourage you to listen to him more, make your own judgement.

"Now I can stand up here and say: Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect."

"Maybe I just lived a little long. But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear,"

I still feel embarrassed for her.

The tape is even better when watched in its entirety: she's blase and snide at the same time, not even rising to the full furore of the satire, which was even better: it showed the tiredness of his and his most fervent acolytes' approach. The audience loved it.

She called him out for empty, other-worldly hoopla, and it hit home with lots of us.

and it's nice to hear about the Emperor's clothes sometimes...

When I saw that tape, I was convulsing, and the deliberate sloppiness of the performance was what really did it for me: the lackadaisical sighing of the whole thing was such a fabulous constast to the stentorian, preachy seriousness of the sloganeering twaddle so many are in such bated-breath awe over, and it had me laughing out loud.

It was long overdue.

When they start sending out young girls strewing flower petals before him, I hope there's an adult around to scream some sense into the zealots before they bring it all crashing down around our ears.

the sentiment that government cannot solve our problems unless the will of the people makes it so. So now the will of the people is coalescing around a candidate who resonates with them. (Of course, rather than explore the political sentiment that is driving this force it is far more convenient to say that his supporters are cultists. That's fine, it's a reflection of the politics of hopelessness.) Well now that the will of the people is about to translate into a mobilized electorate, it suddenly becomes a problem.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

What does that even mean? Does he plan on opening up congress and letting us all vote on the next FISA bill, or what?

There was no political reason not to do so, really. The people were in favor, as was the Democratic party. And he said himself that we need to do that. Yet, he didn't. Why?

I don't have any problem with the people mobilizing. I do have a fair amount of skepticism about it though, I'll admit, since he's getting so much support from Republicans and the media. That ALWAYS makes me nervous, and makes me apt to explore hidden agendas. Are they supporting him because they see that he won't be pushing liberal, progressive ideas? Maybe. Are they supporting him because he can be beat in November? Maybe. Either scenario isn't ideal.

Do you agree that on the Dem side there is wide spectrum from left to right? Of course there is.

The same exists on the Republican side. So by labeling them one thing or another you remove a layer of nuance that is necessary to conducting a rational analysis. Just s there are insane Democrats (Joe Lieberman), there are rational Republicans. Now imagine that the Dem/Repub labels didn't exist, how then would you conduct your analysis?

The rational Repubs are voting with someone they find acceptable because they understand that their own leaders are screwing them as well.

And I'm not naive enough to think that Obama can change the fucking world and the way everyone thinks. It's idealism vs pragmatism.

And you have much more faith in the motives of people who are basically responsible for running the country into the ground than I do.

Several other friends who are Republicans are going to vote for him. We have good reason to be suspicious and even cynical; but be open to the possibility that people actually are inspired by him.

I don't see how people can minimize inspiration.

At least Obama was at first critical of "Yes, we can!" as being too simplistic, but he did lose to Bobby Rush (Black Panther in Illinois) because of being perceived as too elitist.

I tune out when I hear Bama. He's not the real thing.

One never went broke underestimating the American people.

And I'm not that naive.

BO is all about calculation, compromise, corporations and cunning

How exactly did she stand firm against bush (YOU BROUGHT IT UP)?

and he is promising to "work with them." That ought to tell you all you need to know in this election right there.

I'm not ignorant on positions or the election either (or history of this Iraq war).

I do not understand how you cannot see that. He says it almost every day.

You do recall Clinton saying she'd cross over and work with Republicans, right?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/12/clinton_i_can_w.html

And wasn't her husband the guy who bent over backwards for the Republicans in his second term?

Your schtict is becoming predictable and pathetic, Mags.

How can you deny that? He says it every single day. Yes, every president will have to work with others in the opposite party from time to time. But he is campaigning on compromise. There is an excellent article link upthread that speaks to that very issue.

"In the face of a black electorate that still craves messianic leadership, Obama has skillfully positioned himself as the Martin Luther King of his generation. Unlike King, however, Obama does not aim to disrupt the fundamental structure of society. Rather than dismantling the triple threat of global racism, poverty, and militarism that King warned against, Obama has promoted a doctrine of compromise that is self-serving rather than strategic, milquetoast rather than pragmatic. As opposed to Dr. King, whose legacy has been promiscuously appropriated by his ideological opponents after his death, Obama has freely offered himself up to the enemies of the Left by attaching few material stakes to his grandiose moral and political vision."

You are in for a world of dissapointment if you actually believe Obama is going to fight for progressive values.

But again, you're playing this bullshit line where Hillary can get away with doing the exact same thing Obama has done.

So when Obama does it, it's bad, but when Clinton does it...well that's good?

Bill Clinton has been criticized, and rightly so, for his compromises with the right that lead to shitty legislation. But now, we're told that Obama compromising and working with Republicans is the key for winning, the key for change, and the key for a successful administration.

It's cognitive dissonance.

There is a difference. Roosevelt was great at getting Republicans to support him and his New Deal, even though many were very conservative.

We can't have a president walk into Washington with a slim majority and expect to get everything done without including Republicans. It won't happen and anyone who thinks it could happen needs to brush up on their history.

But Obama has made that the entire basis for his campaign, and it does make people question how committed he is to pushing progressive ideas, especially coupled with the issues I outlined in my OP.

Ya' know, with how fast she folded on the Iraq War vote.

I have more faith in Obama than I do Clinton. Maybe you don't, I really don't care, but stop acting as if Clinton has never sold out progressive ideals in the past.

I was an Edwards supporter, who is pretty surprised to find myself backing Clinton, frankly.

I can admit her mistakes. She's flawed. We've been up and down the IWR vote a million times.

But right now, let's talk about Obama. Let's talk about when he said that we should cut off funding for the war, and then rolled over when it mattered. Let's talk about how he made one speech about the IWR, and convince me that he would have done ANY DIFFERENT if it mattered.

Obama supporters don't seem to be able to criticize him on anything. It's kind of strange, actually.

I trust Clinton more because she has more of a history on the issues that I can look back on. Obama is more of a fresh face, so I look very seriously at what he says vs what he does. The McClurkin debacle also comes to mind.

Why not talk about Clinton?

And what history does Clinton have when it comes to issues? What has she accomplished outside of a failed healthcare policy and supporting Bush and the neo-con's war?

And he might very well be our nominee, so this is a very valid concern.

If you want to talk about Clinton, make a new thread, or pick one of the hundreds already in GD:P.

Every reason you listed for not liking Obama can be used to not like Clinton -- yet you're supporting Clinton.

Why?

On relevant threads. And I can dig up some old posts of mine if you like, when I have time.

But I don't think that Hillary is painted as someone with soaring, inspirational speeches who says the right thing but has a history of doing the exact opposite. Obama is the one that is supposed to change the world, Obama is the one people are saying is the "anti-war" candidate, Obama is the one people always quote about how he wouldn't have voted for this and that, Obama is the one who is supposedly uniting a nation in hope, based on his WORDS. It is completely legitimate, and responsible, to question that when there is a lot of evidence that he doesn't follow through on his words when he is put to the test.

And since Obama supporters seem to think this primary is all but done, I'd really love to see MY vote courted for once. I realize that as a life-long yellow dog Dem my vote isn't as important to Obama as wishy washy Indies and Republicans that enabled destroying the country, but it would be nice if I mattered for a change.

So since Clinton doesn't give soaring speeches, she's immune to criticism when it comes to backstabbing progressive ideals.

See this is the type of logic I don't get. I'm an Obama supporter but realize he isn't the perfect candidate and isn't the most progressive we've ever seen. However, that isn't the only reason I'm voting for Obama. You fault him on the fact he isn't as progressive as you think his rhetoric suggests, but embrace a candidate that -- by all rational debate -- may be even less progressive than Obama.

That just cracks me up.

Recent mistakes, even.

But that's the question. Much of Obama's appeal comes from his riveting speeches. But if what he says in his speeches doesn't translate to anything meaningful, that's a huge problem, especially when you have two candidates that are so close on the issues anyway. And that's the elephant in the room here - how can we trust what he's saying, really, about any of those issues? He hasn't really been in the public eye long enough to know, so all you can do is look to what he's said in the past and then what he did when he was in a position of power. He doesn't have a good track record there, frankly.

Typical.

Bake

She stood firm, along with other Democrats, in demanding that Bush include the timeline for withdrawal and to not veto the bill. Obama immediately rolled over and said hey, if you veto it, we'll send you a bill with your objections removed.

This is exactly why his speechifying about the AUMF sounds like a bunch of BS to me. What Obama does best is stick his finger in air and call it principles. Unfortunately the is just another craven politician.

I guess I'm just supposed to hope.

And that isn't tolerated. You might as well question God.

*heavy sigh* The light hasn't shone on me yet. Clearly, this is my problem.

It reminds me of a charlaton preacher hawking being "saved."

It's all there. The "light," the "epiphany" the sense of helplessness (I have to vote for Barak).

:scared:

suggest obama repair the "hole in your own soul" before you try and repair the souls of your followers. Someday soon, he'll promise eternal life. Maybe that can fix the hole?

HRC, will make it possible for you to have health care if you don't already, she can't heal your soul but at least she'll help heal your heart - or lungs, or liver, or brain, or stomach...

Neither is an ideal candidate in my view, I'm simply more able to reconcile myself to Obama than Hillary.

Neither of them has fought hard enough against the war. Neither of them has championed the return of constitutionality as strongly as I would like. Neither of them is as independent of corporate special interests as I would like. Many arguments are made comparing these two to each other, but if you want a some perspective, try comparing them both to Russ Feingold. He is the sort of progressive I would really love to support.

I am drawn to Obama primarily because of his approach to politicking. He has run a nearly flawless campaign with inclusive rhetoric, Dean style fundraising, and attention payed to all of the primaries instead of just Iowa and the big states. He is offering a fresh approach against the traditional Mark Penn DC political establishment, the ones who (correct me if I am wrong) gave us triangulation, republican lite as an electoral strategy, and many of our spectacular presidential losses of the 80s and '00s. A fellow DUer called Bread and Circus offered that Obama offers a "DLCectomy" for the democratic party, and this is a really key part of why I support him.

Beyond wanting to see the James Carville types loose some credibility, I think the importance of the populist internet based fundraising tactics Obama is using are difficult to overemphasize. These tactics shift the logistical dependence of the campaign away from large corporate contributions toward little people like most of us on this board. This frees a politician to act against the interests of large corporations if he or she desires, and would result in a president Obama who is less inherently pressured than a corresponding president Clinton.

Finally I see Obama as the type of politician who can build coalitions for the policies he wants to support. This is why his inclusive style and republican support are appealing to me. We have had republican dominance in Washington since the '80s because Reagan was able to do this, and we still have social security because W. wasn't. Now imagine a Democrat who has the potential to be an anti-Reagan and turn the tide and tone back to the time when "liberal" wasn't a cussword in Washington. I can't tell you with any certainty that Obama is this person, but I do believe that he has the potential to be, if he so chooses.

Neither candidate has the policy record I want, but these are my reasons for backing Obama. I hope I haven't bored you.

If some Hillary supporters have positive recommendations for their candidate, I would love to hear them.

You know, the one that has inspiring, life-changing speeches? The one who his supporters are touting as the main difference between him and Hillary is that he made one speech about how he wouldn't have voted for the IWR?

You're the one that responded to the OP. Try reading it.

Obama’s initial opposition to the $87 billion was based on the fact that $20 billion of that sum was earmarked for reconstruction projects that he feared would be awarded by the White House in no-bid contracts.

Obama Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Also Voted Against $70 Billion In Emergency Iraq Funding. (S. 2340, CQ Vote #410: Rejected 45-53: R 44-3; D 0-49; I 1-1, 11/16/07, Obama Voted Nay)

through these in for good measure

Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers. Voting YES would increase funding by $51.9 million for after school programs run by the 21st century community learning centers and would decrease funding by $51.9 million for salaries and expenses in the Department of Labor.
Reference: Amendment to Agencies Appropriations Act; Bill S Amdt 2287 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-279 on Oct 27, 2005

Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. To provide an additional $5 billion for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Voting YES would provide:
$2.5 billion for targeting grants to local educational agencies
$2.5 billion for education finance incentive grants
Reference: Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment; Bill S Amdt 2275 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-269 on Oct 26, 2005

Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion. A YES vote would:
Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.

That's the biggest question here. He said we have to stand firm against Bush, and I completely agree. But when other Democrats were (including Hillary), he immediately rolled over, talked like an observer instead of an active participant, and said that if Bush vetoed the bill, he'd send him one with Bush's objections removed.

Why? There was no political reason to do so. It was the will of the people (which he reminds us constantly that he will uphold), and it was the will of the Democrats.

It's not JUST about the vote, it's how he changes his tune when he's in a position of power.

It's also believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Believing something based on reason and evidence is anathema to faith since faith is irrational belief.