What Drives Support for Obama Despite Concerns Over His Record?

[Trakar]

Seriously, no wisecracks, tricks, or traps.

Looking at his record, comparing it to what you feel needs to be done, and assessing his ability to accomplish those tasks, what is it that his supporters see that leads them to believe that he can get us from here to where we need to be?

He makes a good speech, but I really don't see anything in his record either in Ill. or so far in the US Senate that leads me to believe that he even supports the types of changes needed, yet alone that he can or will work toward actually achieving those changes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I for one don't care. I judged Bush based on character the same as I do Obama. And not only does Obama seem to understand what most concerns me, Obama is a good man with a great intellect who will prove most capable. I saw Bush as a crook and a buffoon, and I was absolutely right, so I'm sticking with my judgment of character.

We don't need any more trained crooks. Obama can hire all the experts that he needs.

Between Cheney and Rummy there was more experience than any President could hope to bring to office, and look where that’s gotten us!

Surely you realize that what is promised on the campaign trail means very little when confronted with the reality of Washington. What matters is character, intellect, and his political philosophy. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[Integral]

First of all virtually everyone running for the job is a politician, see my sig. So in that respect he is no better or worse then any of the others. History tells us that little said by a candidate during the campaign means much, so why even listen.

I see Obama as a Olive branch to the rest of the world. The current administration has totally trashed the reputation of the US in the eyes of the world, Obama, just by being who he is will go a long way in healing some of these wounds.

As Ivan says he seems to be intelligent, this is a lot more then can be said for the current pres.

 

[Trakar]

Well, a lot of people vote their gut. That's how Bush got elected. I was just hoping that there was some reasoning and supportive argument to something I had missed. Not that Hillary's any better, most who are supporting her seem to think they've found a loop-hole to get Bill back into the White House, or seem to be doing it solely because she is the first woman to have a legitimate shot at the job. Neither of which are any better, IMO, than your gut vote (and in fact are arguably worse), it sure isn't on the basis of her senate record or her "experience" prior to her senate seat.

I just haven't made up my mind yet. The Republicans don't seem to have any new ideas just the same old bad ones (but moreso!). There don't appear to be any independents worth making a statement vote for. I was leaning toward Edwards early on, but I don't see it happening, even though delegate wise what's the current count Clinton-24, Obama-25, Edwards-18. (of course that's not counting the superdelegate pledges but those are fluid and can quickly shift) and the total needed to become the party's candidate is something like 2025 out of 4049. I don't see any of the main three backing off until the convention.
I hate to say it but though I'd prefer a Democratic candidate to any of the Republican candidates, I just can't support Obama as a "gut-vote" (primarily because my gut doesn't tell me the same thing your's tells you evidently), nor can I support Hillary, simply because she's not running with an "R" after her name. It may well be the first time in more than 40 years of voting that I don't vote for a presidential candidate!

 

[Trakar]

First of all virtually everyone running for the job is a politician, see my sig. So in that respect he is no better or worse then any of the others. History tells us that little said by a candidate during the campaign means much, so why even listen.

I see Obama as a Olive branch to the rest of the world. The current administration has totally trashed the reputation of the US in the eyes of the world, Obama, just by being who he is will go a long way in healing some of these wounds.

As Ivan says he seems to be intelligent, this is a lot more then can be said for the current pres.

Again, I don't see this aspect of him being any better or any more impressive than any of the other Democrats, and simply not being Republican is not a sufficient reason for me to vote for someone for president, and it certainly doesn't speak to why him specifically.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, a lot of people vote their gut. That's how Bush got elected.

That isn't what I said. I am talking about the basis of a decision. Basing one's vote on character and intellect is hardly voting by the gut. Would you elect an idiot and crook who talks a good plan? It seems to me that THIS is how Bush got elected. His supporters have nuanced this country right to the brink [the US has been unrecognizable in my opinion]. And you seem to want a track record from a junior Senator who clearly doesn't have much of one. As a US Senator he did author what has been called the most sweeping lobbying reform in recent history. And as a State Senator he came out early against the war and predicted almost exactly what would happen; to the point of sounding prophetic. Given the magnitude and signficance of this bold action at a time when level heads were called traitors by the Bush thugs, what more could you ask? He has already passed the acid test and nailed it dead on!

What I have to wonder is how after all that's happened you would even think of not voting for a Democrat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

So much for Rummy and Cheney's combined 70+ years of experience. They are all eating the dust left behind the Senator from Illinois.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I was just in several places in Europe and EVERYONE loves Obama. Not sure if they know a lot about him, but they all seem to support his foreign policy and that is enough for them.

 

[Trakar]

That isn't what I said. I am talking about the basis of a decision. Basing one's vote on character and intellect is hardly voting by the gut. Would you elect an idiot and crook who talks a good plan? It seems to me that THIS is how Bush got elected. .

And you know, beyond the fact that Obama can strign several words together appropriately, that he is significantly different than this, how? Not by anything he's done in Ill. or the US Senate so far, for sure.

His supporters have nuanced this country right to the brink [the US has been unrecognizable in my opinion]. And you seem to want a track record from a junior Senator who clearly doesn't have much of one. .

His record goes back a bit further than this.

As a US Senator he did author what has been called the most sweeping lobbying reform in recent history. And as a State Senator he came out early against the war and predicted almost exactly what would happen; to the point of sounding prophetic. Given the magnitude and signficance of this bold action at a time when level heads were called traitors by the Bush thugs, what more could you ask? He has already passed the acid test and nailed it dead on!.

He's also stood up and supported nearly every piece of destructive legislation this White House has crammed down the throat of Congress. A Congressman that wanted my vote would have rejected these, stood up for election challenges when they had the opportunity, rejected these pieces of legislation, lobbied other congressmen to follow their lead, not have given the White House blanket approval on nominees that weren't acceptable. Given personal filibuster if necessary against even his own party leadership when they weren't following a course that protected the people and constitution. If there's a congress man that wants my vote, that's the kind of course they should have pursued. His speeches against the war carry little water with me, if he turns around and gives the president every thing he requests in order to pursue that war. I'm not impressed by hollow rhetoric. And Obama's echoes loudly. Hillary's is no better.

What I have to wonder is how after all that's happened you would even think of not voting for a Democrat.

Personally, The only difference I see between most of the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, is the flavor of their pandering and the letter they choose to follow their name.

 

[Trakar]

I was just in several places in Europe and EVERYONE loves Obama. Not sure if they know a lot about him, but they all seem to support his foreign policy and that is enough for them.

"Everyone" seems a bit exaggerated. I travel overseas frequently, and yes, some of the youth (those under 45), seem rather infatuated with Obama, but it is more in the same nature that they like any American Pop idol. I don't see that he is any more popular than any of the other Democratic candidates.

And that is the point, its not that I don't think that any of the Democratic candidates wouldn't be better than what we have currently in office, nor that I don't think that any of the Democratic candidates wouldn't be better than any of the Republican candidates. Its just that I don't see that much difference between the main candidates, and what scares me a bit is that the two lead candidates seem to be more Republican-lite in their record and that I don't see anything in what they propose that is truly making an effort to lead us into "change."

 

[Pat Cohen]

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

So much for Rummy and Cheney's combined 70+ years of experience. They are all eating the dust left behind the Senator from Illinois.

I've seen variations of Obama's argument. The obvious rebuttal goes something like this: despite the significant decline in Iraq's strategic and economic standing after 12 years of sanctions, the cost and risk of Hussein rebuilding his conventional military and NBC capability remains unacceptably high and ultimately outweighs that of military intervention.

The point is that Obama made an assertion that's still hotly disputed today. Nobody argues now that the intelligence failed to detect Hussein's unilateral destruction of his stockpiles, but all parties now agree that he retained the knowledge and infrastructure to reconstitute CBW stockpiles on the order of months and nuclear explosives on the order of years once the sanctions were reasonably undermined or removed. His intent and capability is neatly described in the ISG final report section titled "Realizing Saddam's Veiled WMD Intent." The serious debate then proceeds to whether or not Hussein was on track to collapsing the sanctions regime between 1998 and 2003.

This isn't to say that Obama's incorrect, just that his "wisdom" in 2002 is hardly obvious today--let alone then. For one, the second half his argument is irrelevant. Wars invariably see the strength of belligerents peak in their duration, not at the outset. If the threat is "grave enough," the risk your enemy will recruit within his natural constituency is hardly a reason to eschew fighting and has never the overriding concern in any American war to date. If the threat isn't "grave enough," then what cost in war is worth taking on?

At the end of the day, people have to judge for themselves whether cost of fighting outweighs the risk of staying put and make a decision to support or oppose a war. Obama made his choice in 2002, and it's doubtful even the presence of CBW stockpiles would have changed his mind. I'd say this tells us a little something about how he'll deal with rogue states with publicly acknowledged programs that can be or have been quickly diverted to stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, but he does try and hedge a bit by at least being open to the possibility of confrontation with Baghad provided the US gathered a more solid international consensus before hand. That, combined with his remarks about ingressing force into the territory of a publicly acknowledged nuclear state like Pakistan makes it a little more difficult to gauge the depth of his strategic thinking.

 

[Economist]

He makes a good speech,

Well, frankly this is all that matters much in politics.

but I really don't see anything in his record either in Ill. or so far in the US Senate that leads me to believe that he even supports the types of changes needed, yet alone that he can or will work toward actually achieving those changes.

This may be true, but it seems that the presidency is one by the charisma and social skills of the canidate, rather than their intellectual ability or ideas.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Trakar
He makes a good speech,

Well, frankly this is all that matters much in politics.

No, this may be all that seems to matter to much of the electorate, but it is not the end-all purpose or utility of politics. "Politics" involves much more than convincing a majority of the electorate to side with you in an election, and even this is quite the task with an informed electorate embodied with critical thinking skills and an ability to compare rhetoric to record.

Originally Posted by Trakar
but I really don't see anything in his record either in Ill. or so far in the US Senate that leads me to believe that he even supports the types of changes needed, yet alone that he can or will work toward actually achieving those changes.

This may be true, but it seems that the presidency is one by the charisma and social skills of the canidate, rather than their intellectual ability or ideas.

All too often this is, unfortunately the case, and results in many if not most of the problems we have seen in recent history. I believe that is why our nation's Forefathers originally set up our presidential elections the way they did. Unfortunately, we do not follow that path today. But this is side-tracking the discussion.

I would still like to have a good reason to support Obama above any of the other Democratic and Republican candidates, and would much appreciate any of his supporters who can make a reasoned case for doing so, to please present that case.

 

[ShawnD]

Not that Hillary's any better, most who are supporting her seem to think they've found a loop-hole to get Bill back into the White House, or seem to be doing it solely because she is the first woman to have a legitimate shot at the job.

I don't know why people keep saying this. She's a very intelligent woman with a fairly strong voting record. She's an ideal person to lead the democrats. You can disagree with her policies but don't try to play it off like she's some kind of idiot or flip flopper. You might think a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill, but I tend to think it was the other way around. She has probably had Bill on a leash for quite some time, even before the affair thing.

 

[Economist]

No, this may be all that seems to matter to much of the electorate, but it is not the end-all purpose or utility of politics. "Politics" involves much more than convincing a majority of the electorate to side with you in an election, and even this is quite the task with an informed electorate embodied with critical thinking skills and an ability to compare rhetoric to record.

In theory you are correct. Politics "should" be about much more than charisma, social skills, and the ability to tug at the heart strings of the public while simultaneously spewing mass amounts of bullsh*t. Unfortunately the "reality" of Politics is much different than it should be "in principal." My original statement was of "what is" rather than "what ought to be."

 

[mheslep]

they all seem to support his foreign policy and that is enough for them.

Which they believe is what? Just and approximation will do, as its not clear to me.

 

[ShawnD]

Which they believe is what? Just and approximation will do, as its not clear to me.

What I get, without actually looking up any of his plans, is that he's an advocate of peace. He was against Iraq from the beginning while everybody else was on the bandwagon, so that by itself speaks volumes.

 

[mheslep]

What I get, without actually looking up any of his plans,

Thanks for making my point.

 

[OmCheeto]

Is project Vote Smart a legitimate site?: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

He seems to have voted how I would want him to. Although it's difficult to ascertain from just the titles what the bills were actually changing or promoting. I had to check out why he voted yes on the "Congressional Pay Raise Amendment" bill. Turns out it was a vote to not give congress the cost of living adjustment that year.

I am impressed with his path through life. It makes sense to me that with the world getting smaller by the day, we should have a president who has actually lived somewhere else, and has family across the globe.

And he will be the first president I've voted for that is younger than myself. I'm tired of the old farts.

 

[Trakar]

I don't know why people keep saying this. She's a very intelligent woman with a fairly strong voting record. She's an ideal person to lead the democrats. You can disagree with her policies but don't try to play it off like she's some kind of idiot or flip flopper. You might think a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill, but I tend to think it was the other way around. She has probably had Bill on a leash for quite some time, even before the affair thing.

Actually, I think a vote for Hillary(or Obama) is a vote to largely continue business as usual, as it has been for the last 8-16(36) years. More largess and leeway to corporate America, more narrowing of individual rights and liberties, more power accumulation at the top, less freedom at the bottom.

 

[Trakar]

Which they believe is what? Just and approximation will do, as its not clear to me.

Me either, from what I can tell he wants the world to gather round, hold hands and sing Kumbaya, and then largely continue things as they've been under Bush.

 

[Trakar]

What I get, without actually looking up any of his plans, is that he's an advocate of peace. He was against Iraq from the beginning while everybody else was on the bandwagon, so that by itself speaks volumes.

True, he didn't jump on the band-wagon until after he got elected to the Senate, but I don't see that as a tremendous plus. To me it says he says what he needs to to get elected and then once in office follows the strongly conservative agenda with little more than a few lip-service protests about his powerlessness to do anything else.

 

[Trakar]

Is project Vote Smart a legitimate site?: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

He seems to have voted how I would want him to. ...

I take it you are Republican?

 

[OmCheeto]

I take it you are Republican?

Why do you say that? Is that where Republicans go to get their political news?
I'm a registered democrat. Although I took a quiz the other day that said I was a left wing Libertarian.

And why does your post count stay at zero? That's quite annoying.

 

[mjsd]

Seriously, no wisecracks, tricks, or traps.

Looking at his record, comparing it to what you feel needs to be done, and assessing his ability to accomplish those tasks, what is it that his supporters see that leads them to believe that he can get us from here to where we need to be?

He makes a good speech, but I really don't see anything in his record either in Ill. or so far in the US Senate that leads me to believe that he even supports the types of changes needed, yet alone that he can or will work toward actually achieving those changes.

you ask such questions because you belong to that 10%(?) of the population who actually cares about the nitty-gritty.

 

[Trakar]

Why do you say that? Is that where Republicans go to get their political news?
I'm a registered democrat. Although I took a quiz the other day that said I was a left wing Libertarian..

Because his voting record, reflects that of a moderate Bush-supporting Republican/Lieberman "Democrat"

And why does your post count stay at zero? That's quite annoying.

I guess I don't count! (s'alright I'm 60 years old and pretty much used to that!)

 

[Trakar]

you ask such questions because you belong to that 10%(?) of the population who actually cares about the nitty-gritty.

Comes from owning and running my own business,...I expect my employees to actually do the job they are hired to do, and I tend to think of elected officials as my employees. Unfortunately, I can't fire them on my own (its a board call, and the rest of the board seems more interested in quarterly profits and stuffing their pockets than the long-term health and well being of the Company/Country).
Obama and Hillary are applying for the job and have an inside track to replace the current head when he is fired or arrested, but other than new suits and pretty words they really aren't showing me that they have a record or the abilities to lead the company in the direction I would like to see it go.

 

[Anttech]

Which they believe is what? Just and approximation will do, as its not clear to me.

Less aggression

 

[Trakar]

Less aggression

This is substantively different from any of the other Democratic candidates, how?

 

[Anttech]

In Europe, generally we don't give a crap which democrat gets in, as long as it is a democrat. So to answer your question, I don't think it will make a difference (to us Europeans) which Democrat gets in, as long as it is one.

 

[Trakar]

In Europe, generally we don't give a crap which democrat gets in, as long as it is a democrat. So to answer your question, I don't think it will make a difference (to us Europeans) which Democrat gets in, as long as it is one.

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

 

[Evo]

Is project Vote Smart a legitimate site?: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

Here is a great link, it allows you to see how he voted and you can actually read the bill so you know what it was.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess I don't count! (s'alright I'm 60 years old and pretty much used to that!)

Being that this is a science forum, posts made in GD and P&WA don't go towards the post count.

 

[ShawnD]

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

In general yeah that's how it works. A quick look at the republican candidates and you can say "I honestly don't want any of them to win."
Some of them, like Giuliani, actually scare the rest of the world. Let's go Nation Building!

 

[Trakar]

In general yeah that's how it works. A quick look at the republican candidates and you can say "I honestly don't want any of them to win."
Some of them, like Giuliani, actually scare the rest of the world. Let's go Nation Building!

But if you actually look at the Obama/Clinton (thus far rather elusively stated) foriegn policies, they really aren't that much different from any of the moderate Republican nominees or the current administration's.