Just so I know, could you tell me what Bush had in his “past, present or future” that suggested he would “do well when faced with difficult decisions”? Did Bush do well? Were you right?[/quote]
Red herring. No one is voting for or against Bush in 2008. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama is a good candidate, but it was a predictable response - someone was bound to “answer” criticism of Obama this way.
As for the answer, you mean outside of being elected governor to a state that has the 2d largest GDP in the nation and 15th largest in the world?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s he got to offer on the policy front?[/quote]
You act like the rest of them have comprehensive policy plans…
which they don’t.
You all go off on Obama because he says he stands for “change”. I personally believe thats better than “the same”.
What are McCain’s major policies? Clinton’s?
For McCain, I’ve heard about his immigration stuff. Clinton = socialist health care.
Barak Obama = Non-compulsive health care.
Other than that, I’m pretty sure we can assume that he follows the basic Democrat line of thinking, just as McCain and Romney both, in general, followed the GOP line of thinking.
I’ve just as comprehensive plans from Obama as I’ve heard from anyone else. And I listen to a lot more of McCain and Romney’s stuff than I do Obama’s.
Other than that, I’m pretty sure we can assume that he follows the basic Democrat line of thinking, just as McCain and Romney both, in general, followed the GOP line of thinking.[/quote]
Precisely, and yet Obama is advertising himself as something other than that.
Other than that, I’m pretty sure we can assume that he follows the basic Democrat line of thinking, just as McCain and Romney both, in general, followed the GOP line of thinking.
Precisely, and yet Obama is advertising himself as something other than that.[/quote]
Like most Democrats these days, he goes out of his way to avoid taking a hard stance on any issue, for fear of giving ammunition to his enemies. All of his talk about uniting, bringing consensus is childish, the Republican party is going to attack him whatever he does. Obviously, he knows this, and is being careful till he gets elected. If he wants my support, he has to talk to me like an adult, and run on a platform that offers more than “Gee I’m a swell guy.” He also has to prove that he can stand up for something in the face of vicious opposition, and is willing and able to ram it down their throat if he knows he is right.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Precisely, and yet Obama is advertising himself as something other than that.
Wow - then keep reading.[/quote]
A) I don’t think his policy is much different, it’s his approach that IS different. In Illinois he’s pulled tons of bipartisan support. My conservative friends who go to Northwestern, as much as they can and do disagree with him, still have a deep respect for him, and know that he is a great negotiator.
Where others will continue the disgusting partisan divide, I think Obama is our best chance at bring the parties together (more than they are I mean).
I don’t expect him to walk into Washington and suddenly cure a century of partisan cut throat behavior, but I think he’s a step in the right direction.
B) A read. A lot. Everything is vague. I’ve seen vague stuff about Obama’s policy, and vague stuff about McCain’s policy. Wanna direct me to some specifics?
Obama really doesn’t present any answers or solutions in his speeches. I mean what exactly is he going to change. I heard one of his speeches about being for medical marijuana, then I heard he was against it. I’d really like to know where the guy stands on issues.
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Obama really doesn’t present any answers or solutions in his speeches. I mean what exactly is he going to change. I heard one of his speeches about being for medical marijuana, then I heard he was against it. I’d really like to know where the guy stands on issues.[/quote]
…Once again, please give me a list on where the other candidates stand on issues.
Try going to all of the candidates web sites. They’re all freakin’ identical in the sense that they have NO DETAIL.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…Once again, please give me a list on where the other candidates stand on issues.
[/quote]
Speaking for myself, I can’t do that, because none of them are saying much of substance. However, I’m not advocating for any candidate, I’m only saying why I do not support Obama, which is the candidate this thread is about.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…Once again, please give me a list on where the other candidates stand on issues.
Speaking for myself, I can’t do that, because none of them are saying much of substance. However, I’m not advocating for any candidate, I’m only saying why I do not support Obama, which is the candidate this thread is about.[/quote]
But if your description matches all of the candidates, than why is it particularly negative?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
But if your description matches all of the candidates, than why is it particularly negative?
If they all suck why would it be positive? But again, read the subject of the thread, we’re talking about Obama. [/quote]
That response makes no sense. You claim they are all the same, but then claim that you won’t vote for him because…he’s just like everyone else? No, wait, it’s because you don’t know specifically what he is going to change…just like you don’t know as far as anyone else.
Does this actually make sense to you?
You all are complaining because Obama hasn’t given much artillery for mud slinging. I know I personally am impressed any human being on the planet could make it to that point without tossing turds like everyone else.
That doesn’t even mean I have made up my mind on who I plan to vote for. I just know these complaints don’t make any sense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That response makes no sense. You claim they are all the same, but then claim that you won’t vote for him because…he’s just like everyone else? No, wait, it’s because you don’t know specifically what he is going to change…just like you don’t know as far as anyone else.
Does this actually make sense to you?
[/quote]
I did not claim they are all the same. Actually, you did, kind of. I said he only speaks in warm fuzzy words, and you said that is what politics is all about.
Then I explained why I thought he was weak, and said he is falling into the trap many Democrats do, tip-toeing around issues so as not to give ammunition to his enemies, who will attack him regardless. Beowolf took that to mean “he is just like everyone else.”
But I’ll play along.
If Obama is just like everyone else, how is that a good thing? If he was indistinguishable from the other candidates, why would I choose him? Roll a die? Pick a card? Please explain.
And if I don’t know what he is going to change, why would I vote for him? Shouldn’t I know what I am voting for?
Taking a stand on the issues is not the same thing as slinging mud. I haven’t seen him launching any negative attacks, and I respect him for that, but instead, all he offers is warm fuzzy words. If he wants to earn my vote, he can do so by speaking to me as an intelligent adult.
If you look at presidential elections over the last 60 years, the most charismatic candidate has always won, with the possible exception of Nixon. It’s how the game works, and it’s how the game will always work as long as elections continue in this dumbed down manner.
Hillary and Obama (and Edwards) are so similar on the issues that the only way to distinguish themselves is by offering charisma and personality. But for voters, the issues aren’t really all that big of a deal.
For example, polls show that a huge percentage of Americans now oppose the war, and others show that it is supposedly of overriding concern to voters. The two democratic candidates with the strongest anti war records – Kucinich, and Gravel, got nowhere, while two people with mediocre to bad records made it to the top – Obama and Clinton.
Can we stop taking the statement “just like everyone else” literally?
I just meant that all of the candidates have only given vague notions about specific policies. Just like every other non-incumbent who runs for President. None of the candidates other than Ron Paul (who doesn’t really count) and I suppose Huckabee to a point, have given the specifics of their plans. They don’t want to alienate voters, and they probably don’t have it all though out yet.
Thats why I think it’s stupid to attack someone for not speaking about specifics. You say he says “a whole lot of nothing”… because Hilary’s speeches have shit loads of substance right?
The only place you can really attack Obama is his lack of Federal leadership experience.
[quote]Gael wrote:
If you look at presidential elections over the last 60 years, the most charismatic candidate has always won, with the possible exception of Nixon. It’s how the game works, and it’s how the game will always work as long as elections continue in this dumbed down manner.
Hillary and Obama (and Edwards) are so similar on the issues that the only way to distinguish themselves is by offering charisma and personality. But for voters, the issues aren’t really all that big of a deal.
For example, polls show that a huge percentage of Americans now oppose the war, and others show that it is supposedly of overriding concern to voters. The two democratic candidates with the strongest anti war records – Kucinich, and Gravel, got nowhere, while two people with mediocre to bad records made it to the top – Obama and Clinton.[/quote]
That’s more because name recognition is the absolute key in election.
People have heard of Obama and Clinton. They have no idea who the hell Kucinich and Gravel are.
Honestly, I’m surprised Rudy did as badly as he did. But I’m in New York, so my opinion of his name’s well knownness (word?) is biased I suppose.
[nice thing about Obama]Well, at least he’s not John Edwards. I also like the fact that he won’t force you to get health insurance.[/nice thing about Obama]
There’s no way in hell I’d vote for Obama. Too bad too. Just like with McCain, I WANT to like the guy, but I can’t. T-bolt was right about the “present” votes. It shows a lack of conviction. McCain has conviction, it’s just that like Obama I would prefer he votes “present”, because he often votes the wrong way.
Thats why I think it’s stupid to attack someone for not speaking about specifics. You say he says “a whole lot of nothing”… because Hilary’s speeches have shit loads of substance right?
[/quote]
Again, I’m not attacking Hillary, because the thread is not called “Hillary Clinton: My Candidate.” That would be changing the subject. I’m talking about Obama, because he is the subject of this thread.
When someone does start a “Hillary Clinton: My Candidate.” thread, you let me know.
Given the current geopolitical climate, the next U.S. President will very likely have to stick his (or God forbid, her) neck out and make a risky, heavily criticized decision that will undoubtedly piss off a huge number of people.
Many, myself included, feel that Obama doesn’t have the stones to make this decision, and will instead try to keep everybody happy with some half-assed “compromise” that does nothing but allow the problem to fester until someone “strong” enough comes along and tackles it head-on.
I have no doubt that McCain could make a decision like this.
I doubt Hillary could, but she could surprise me.
I have no doubt that Obama could not make a decision like this.
Correct - nothing in Obama’s past, present, or future suggests he would do well when faced with difficult decisions. The Oval Office is where the buck is supposed to stop, and Obama has given no evidence that he could handle the job.
In his brief and pedestrian stint in the Illinois legislature, when faced with controversial votes, he routinely voted “Present”. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff knock on his door at 2AM and inform him the Iranian president has closed the Strait of Hormuz, a President Obama doesn’t get to vote “Present”.
…[/quote]