Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[roam]

I don't care about a person's race etc etc... I simply don't vote.

Why vote to support a parliamentarian system I so ferociously dislike?

I would have understood the need to vote during some, say more, class-conscious times but at this point in the US; you're simply keeping the system up and running.

Never settle for the lesser of two evils. Don't even register yourself for the vote, simply ignore it.

That's my opinion, that's what I'd do anyway.

 

[mheslep]

... Here's what he said about his grandmother: "a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."...

He also used the phrase 'typical white person' referring to her in that line.

 

[vociferous]

It is perfectly reasonable to prefer one candidate over another. What interests me is the vile and contempt expressed by many people towards Obama. I understand political preference, but I don't understand the hate. I don't understand people who would paint him as a terrorists or whatnot without knowing anything about him.

I never liked Bush, in fact I don't trust any Bush, and I knew without any doubt that his admin would be a national disaster, but over the last eight years, Bush Jr. has earned my contempt. So whereas now I feel rage and contempt, sometimes verging on personal hatred, this would not have been justified in 2000. But I see people who HATE Obama now, and I can see no reason for it.

I never liked Bush much, and I think he is a bad President, but I do not understand why people hate him. I also do not understand how people can be so personally judgmental of a person they have never met. I think it is perfectly fine to say, "I think Bush is a bad President," but people will say, "Bush is an jerk," or, "Bush is a moron." Unless you personally know him, I think that is completely unfair, since you really have no personal experience to base that assessment on.

But, it does help explain why people hate Obama. If you do not like someone's policies and stances, the average person is going to start projecting the aforementioned dislike onto their perception of the individual's personality, which is why we get people who absolutely despise and loath those that they have never met.

 

[phyzmatix]

...in fact I don't trust any Bush...

Oh, for sure! It's gotten me into a lot of trouble over the years

 

[D H]

Do I hate him? No. Do I want him as my next president? No.

• He is the slickest of politicians who has somehow convinced the American public into thinking he is something else. He is not something else; he is a politician. A politician with a silver tongue.
  
  
• He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green) and too liberal a politician.
  
  
• The Senate may well be a 58/42 split (counting two independents as Democrats); the House 240/195. I do not like the idea of all the three being under the control of one party.
  
  
• I feel financially and emotionally threatened by Obama. He explicitly made a campaign promise as a kowtow to the teachers union that threatens the field in which I work: human spaceflight. He bolsters my opinion of him every time he speaks about NASA. This is much more than a financial issue; I can always get a job working on things that fly halfway around the world and finish the flight with a rather dramatic flair. This one issue strikes to the very core of who I am.

 

[phyzmatix]

Could someone explain to me what is meant by a "too liberal politician". I noticed that a few people have commented on this perceived aspect of Obama.

Is this someone who won't readily revert to bombing as an answer? Someone who won't rape and pillage economies of developing countries in order to strengthen their own? Someone who might actually sign the Kyoto treaty?

What actions or policies would qualify a politician as "too liberal"?

(PS, I'm not looking for an argument, just some insight into what seems to represent a large part of the American psyche)

 

[B. Elliott]

[*]He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green) and too liberal a politician.

That's my main concern. Not necessarily the liberal aspect, but all in all, why vote for someone who (relatively) has nil experience with government.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I don't hate Obama but I understand why some people might. However, i think that if they 'listen' to him they might like him better and maybe clear some perceptions that they might have. Sure his race and color is an issue, but maybe this can be a positive thing instead of negative one.

 

[Gokul43201]

I do not hate Obama; I simply think he is unlikely to be a good President...His foreign policy is naive and is likely to lead to almost as many problems as the man he would presume to replace. In my opinion, which I think is well-supported by fact, a decision to withdraw from Iraq before the Democratic government there is strong enough to maintain control, would be almost as bad of a decision as becoming involved in there.
...
I will probably write-in Hillary, as I have a feeling a lot of upset Democrats will.

So what exactly was Hillary's position on Iraq, and how did she demonstrate significantly better judgment than Obama?

I dislike him because everybody is making him out to be some kind of savior or messiah.

So you dislike Obama because of the actions of other people?

I never liked Bush much, and I think he is a bad President, but I do not understand why people hate him. I also do not understand how people can be so personally judgmental of a person they have never met. I think it is perfectly fine to say, "I think Bush is a bad President," but people will say, "Bush is an jerk," or, "Bush is a moron." Unless you personally know him, I think that is completely unfair, since you really have no personal experience to base that assessment on.

But, it does help explain why people hate Obama. If you do not like someone's policies and stances, the average person is going to start projecting the aforementioned dislike onto their perception of the individual's personality, which is why we get people who absolutely despise and loath those that they have never met.

The difference: Bush has had 7 years in a position of power where he has been able to directly affect the quality of our lives. Obama has not.

While I don't exactly hate him (pretty strong words), I'm definitely not going to vote for a freshmen senator...

[*]He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green)...

If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.

 

[OmCheeto]

Fox News is not comedy or parody

I disagree. When I saw that the National Enquirer was the source of their story one day, I laughed so hard, I almost pissed myself.

Go Obama!

ps. But I don't hate the other candidate. I think either will make a good president, regardless of the nonsense that comes out of their mouths.

 

[Astronuc]

Whoever become President is going to face constraints on the budget, unless that allows the government to continue massive deficit spending.

As for NASA, apparently none of the candidates (ostensibly including McCain) mention it, with the possible exception of Clinton.

Kaufman wrote in the Post that, “Except for Clinton’s, none of the official campaign Web sites appears to mention NASA or human space exploration specifically.” That’s still the case, and it shouldn’t be. Clinton made a smart move when she used the fiftieth anniversary of the Sputnik satellite launch this fall to announce that she would end the Republican “war on science.” Among other things, the New York senator said that she supports continuing manned space exploration and, seemingly, the Constellation program.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

Kaufman's article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201359.html

When asked about their candidates' positions on the moon-Mars project, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) did not respond, . . . .

A comparison of NASA and space exploration policies at Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4260504.html



On a broader note, I certainly think negative campaigning with the trend of casting aspersions on one's opponent(s) has had a detrimental affect on US politics and civil discourse. Rather than an objective assessment, it seems some (perhaps many) folks give into emotions and subjective criticism based on innuendo and hearsay. I would hope the PF community strives to be beyond that.

 

[B. Elliott]

If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.

I do believe it is insufficient. Fully. Abraham Lincoln also ran for president over 140 years ago which has no resemblance even the slightest to our current economic situations. Different times entirely. If I was around the time that Lincoln was running for president (unknowing of what the future held) I wouldn't have voted for him. And as far as him being one of the greatest American Presidents, that's something I don't agree with considering that my mother is a Civil War historian. But that's a discussion beyond the scope of this topic.

Just because someone can speak with the utmost charisma, doesn't make him a good leader. Adolf Hitler was an excellent speaker.

 

[seycyrus]

I disagree. When I saw that the National Enquirer was the source of their story one day, I laughed so hard, I almost pissed myself.

In the current events segment of many news channels, (CNN, MSNBC,NBC, FOX), the story often refers to allusions made by tabloids.

The fact is that members of both Obama's and Hilary's campaigns were on FOX and lauded them for their unbiased reporting.

The fact that people choose to turn their filters on/off due to what channel they might be watching is ludicrous.

Lots of people had a great laugh due to the fact that the "microwaving popcorn with a cell phone" story was mentioned on FOX, but no one brought up the fact that it was also brought up on CNN...

I remember watching "Judge Dredd" (I think) and a secondary character referred to "The Great Burger Wars"

That ain't nuthin compared to what will happen during "The News Channel Holocaust"!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

He is too green

The bigots say he is too black. The conservatives say he is too red. The Neocons say he is too yellow. The optimists say he is too blue. And you say he is too green. Did the Rainbow Coalition say he is too white? Only Cindy Lauper knows for sure.

 

[turbo]

I do believe it is insufficient. Fully. Abraham Lincoln also ran for president over 140 years ago which has no resemblance even the slightest to our current economic situations. Different times entirely. If I was around the time that Lincoln was running for president (unknowing of what the future held) I wouldn't have voted for him. And as far as him being one of the greatest American Presidents, that's something I don't agree with considering that my mother is a Civil War historian. But that's a discussion beyond the scope of this topic.

Just because someone can speak with the utmost charisma, doesn't make him a good leader. Adolf Hitler was an excellent speaker.

There are parallels, though, that bear consideration. The Republican party was emerging in power, and Lincoln was handed a terrible mess left behind by Buchanan, whose policies had laid the foundation for the secession of the South. Lincoln made some mistakes, including relying too heavily on ineffectual generals like McClellan, who dithered away precious time while the South built their military strength. The next president will have his hands full trying to disengage peacefully from Iraq, while trying to take down Al Qaeda and the de-fang the Taliban.

As for experience - no single person can do all the jobs of the administration - the trick is to get (and heed) good advice from people with in-depth knowledge of the problems and opportunities at hand, and delegate responsibility wisely, and demand accountability and follow-up.

 

[B. Elliott]

There are parallels, though, that bear consideration. The Republican party was emerging in power, and Lincoln was handed a terrible mess left behind by Buchanan, whose policies had laid the foundation for the secession of the South. Lincoln made some mistakes, including relying too heavily on ineffectual generals like McClellan, who dithered away precious time while the South built their military strength. The next president will have his hands full trying to disengage peacefully from Iraq, while trying to take down Al Qaeda and the de-fang the Taliban.

As for experience - no single person can do all the jobs of the administration - the trick is to get (and heed) good advice from people with in-depth knowledge of the problems and opportunities at hand, and delegate responsibility wisely, and demand accountability and follow-up.

True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.

 

[Swatje]

Hmm. As a non-European third party observer I'm going to add in some of my own opinion in here.

No president will fix the mess the United States is in right now. Neither Obama, neither McCain. The problem is, McCain could screw it up big time for, not only the US, but for the entire world. That's why I am 100% anti-McCain. I like Obama's standpoints, and he has books out about what his opinions are on change, but purely theoretical exposés on how to fix this country are lacking. But that is definately not what this presidential campaign is about. This campaign is about wether or not the next president will have the correct judgement on advisements given to him. McCain will without any doubt, have very poor judgement. He is an easy to influence type of person, and he doesn't think any further than his nose is long. Obama is more educated and looking ahead.

 

[mheslep]

...If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.

And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).

 

[B. Elliott]

To me it pretty much boils down to hiring someone with potential (fresh out of college) or hiring someone with years of actual work experience. In my book (along with nearly every business in existence) will choose not to hire an employee based off pure academia knowledge alone. They want someone who is proven where there is less risk involved.

Every single business that I have had personal experience with, will hire the person with actual work experience over one who is just 'educated'. Obama may do an excellent job and if he is actually nominated as president, I hope for the best.

 

[AhmedEzz]

True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.

You mean someone who is willing to extend the war on Iraq and perhaps Iran. Mccain speaks about 'victory' not about peace, he sounds to me more like Genghis Khan of the Mongols.
I remember a famous quote but not the exact text, it said "Victory is the one made during peace not war".

 

[B. Elliott]

No to stray too off topic with the Lincoln issue, but very few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864, key Confederate leaders, inclding Jefferson Davis were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Davis officially recommended that saves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be set free. Robert E. Lee along with many other Confederate generals favred emancipating slaves who served in the army. In fact, Lee long favored the abolition of slavery and actually called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

By 1864 Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition to save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the south at the time, who was alos chairman of the Was and Means Commitee of the Confederate House of Representatives strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions and sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary to ensure he could make the proposal to the british and French governments and that it would be taken seriously...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist54.html

Lincoln was originally for removing all Negros from the US entirely! What you need to do is go back and actually read the papers at the time. The 'slaves' were much more passive about their freedom than other people, today are about theirs. Less than 30% of families in the Confederacy had anything at all to do with slavery. To bring your comment into this issue Turbo, you are right. To an extent, slavery was as the Iraq war is today. A way to get those who have easily mallable minds behind an idea that there was no support for in the Union states. The occupation of South Carolina by the Union army was unconstitutional. The North invaded the South and the 'S' word was a last ditch effort to get public opinion behind the effort. For that reason, I round Lincoln and Al Gore in the same boat. That's why I don't believe Lincoln was one of our 'greatest' presidents, and that also why I don't believe Gore even remotely deserved to be awarded the Nobel peace prize.

You have to always remember that the history books are always written by the victors. The material which is taught in schools is typically chosen and cherrypicked because it is nigh impossible to teach everything

 

[D H]

As for NASA, apparently none of the candidates (ostensibly including McCain) mention it, with the possible exception of Clinton.

I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf". Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com" was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.

 

[B. Elliott]

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/book/export/html/2338

 

[B. Elliott]

I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf". Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com" was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.

Thank you for those links D H.

 

[Astronuc]

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.

AIAA Public Policy - http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=7 - unfortunately nothing on the Presidential candidates. O'Keefe was told to cut the budget and Griffin has changed priorities(and accepted a limited/restricted budget), and frankly I don't see any significant change in the next administration, except that Obama is considering a diversion of the federal budget from NASA (and perhaps other programs) to education. With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.

Prometheus and JIMO went as I expected, not as I had hoped.

 

[Gokul43201]

And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).

How is this relevant to the question of political inexperience? Yes, Obama didn't join the Illinois militia, and Lincoln couldn't work a computer.

Incidentally, do you actually know the margin in the 1858 Senate Race that Lincoln lost? I don't.

 

[D H]

With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.

Even Iraq and Afghanistan are backburner issues as of late compared to the frontburner issues of economy and energy. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue.

 

[Astronuc]

Even Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a back seat to the economy as the #1 issue. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue.

Yep.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!

 

[turbo]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Really! The talk of establishing a manned base on the moon is crazy, as well. There is no reasonable cost-benefit analysis, and the expense of resupply/shielding/personnel-rotation would be daunting. We would have to have a huge breakthrough in propulsion before we could consider such a program.

 

[D H]

I'd respond, Ivan, but doing so would be complete hijack of this thread.

Back to hating Obama ...
I don't see near as much emotional hatred directed toward Obama as I saw directed to Clinton. The far right sees the Clintons in much the same vein that the far left sees Bush: with hatred that borders is completely irrational and borders on insanity. The far right is emotionally spent from helping defeat Clinton. They don't have much steam left in them to rouse hatred against Obama.

 

[B. Elliott]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!

I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda. As it has been brought up in other threads, until there is a way to make traveling outside of the Earths realm profitable, I see no need to go. We can continue to send probes and other remote science labs to do nearly everything that a human explorer can do, with much less risk.

IMO, a manned mission to Mars is a political agenda. Just as it was with the Apollo missions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Completely off-topic, but I just found out that Dems won the Illinois senate in 1958 by a pretty slim majority (though it appears they used some kind of almost Parliamentary system back then).

 

[D H]

I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda.

A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.

NASA is working on it right now.

As for McCain:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.[continued]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?

Here at PF we are always concerned about critical thinking. So ask yourself, what are our prioreties right now? Gas is over $4 a gallon, and by July next year, we are likely looking at $6, or more.