What Drives Support for Obama Despite Concerns Over His Record?

[mheslep]

...I support Obama because he is an intelligent capable man. Not because he voted for against some particular bill.

Then wouldn't you agree that there are several such running for President on both sides? A quick look at educational backgrounds on both sides, other than Sen. Obama, gives me:

-Attorney (Yale)
-Attorney (UNC)
-Attorney (Vanderbilt)
-Naval Academy / Fighter Pilot
-Attorney (NYU)/ US Attorney
-JD/MBA - Harvard Law, Buis; Stanford; Valedictorian Brigham Young
-MD (Duke)

 

[BobG]

I didn't know about Hillary's contributers. She did fight for better Health care while being first lady. I got the impression that she is fighting for better health care because that is how she outlines her plan in debates. She says that she wants to abolish pre-existing conditions as an easy way to deny coverage.

I don't see how abolishing pre-existing conditions is going to work.

Surely, she can't mean a person with no medical insurance can walk in and buy medical insurance the day after they're diagnosed with cancer. That's guaranteeing insurance companies will just get out of the health insurance business altogether.

She probably means a condition that makes future health problems more likely (rather than certain) can't be a way to deny coverage. Does she also mean the insurance company can't charge a higher rate to people with some pre-existing conditions? If so, she's basically saying all insurance customers have to pay higher rates to insurance companies instead of paying higher taxes to the government.

I'm not all that hyped up about the solutions that are just inserting insurance companies in place of the government (which is basically what the mandatory insurance solutions are). Neither is providing the actual service - doctors and hospitals are. The only service either insurance companies or the government is providing is to collect the money from customers and distributing it to the suppliers.

About the only advantage of having insurance companies do the job is that they can invest the money until its used and the government can't. The profits from investing the money help keep the rates charged to customers down. On the other hand, a second way to increase profits is to decrease the amount paid out in claims. There's several ways to do this, but one way is to deny claims by finding exceptions to your coverage.

I'm not sure how common that is. I do know how much fun victims of Katrina have had trying to collect on home insurance. I also know how insurance companies charge car insurance rates based solely on year, make, and model, but assess your vehicle in order to downgrade its value prior to paying out on claims after an accident.

 

[Amp1]

Trakar said:

” 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.”

And

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.

Hillary and Obama apparently went along with the proposals of the Bush admin because - like it was mentioned earlier –They would have their characters assassinated all over the media for not supporting the troops and they were trying to support our troops and present a face of unity and patriotism to the international community. Alas, they at least half way hoped that Bush wouldn’t betray their support which his admin did. <Comment- that last paragraph is a slant the way it is written though still I think it true>. That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did! His vice, Cheney conducted classified meetings with “corporate America” secretly. Why? Why all the secrecy in this admin? Very little transparency equals the means and temptation for corruption to take root. There have been several programs on PBS (Frontline, Bill Moyer’s journal, NOW) which fairly conclusively showed that Cheney was/is practically our unelected President. The number of actions that have originated from the office of the Vice President is worthy of consideration. And the action initiated with the President having little to scarcely any knowledge is sobering.

Aside from Ron Paul the other person I liked as a candidate was Dennis Kucinich, whose positions are like a combination of John Edwards, Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky.

I’m an independent but I like Hillary because if she doesn’t become like the UK’s former head of state Margaret Thatcher (she was totally same old, same old) then I comfortable with her.

 

[Trakar]

That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did!

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

If I had to select a candidate to support this time it would probably be Edwards, but I don't see him getting the nomination or being on the ticket in Nov. I know who I will not vote for, and that is any of the Republican candidates, Hillary or Obama. As for who I will vote for, that is so far undetermined.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then wouldn't you agree that there are several such running for President on both sides? A quick look at educational backgrounds on both sides, other than Sen. Obama, gives me:

-Attorney (Yale)
-Attorney (UNC)
-Attorney (Vanderbilt)
-Naval Academy / Fighter Pilot
-Attorney (NYU)/ US Attorney
-JD/MBA - Harvard Law, Buis; Stanford; Valedictorian Brigham Young
-MD (Duke)

There is also one's political philosophy and quality as a person. The devil himself may be quite capable but I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[BobG]

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

If I had to select a candidate to support this time it would probably be Edwards, but I don't see him getting the nomination or being on the ticket in Nov. I know who I will not vote for, and that is any of the Republican candidates, Hillary or Obama. As for who I will vote for, that is so far undetermined.

Wow! You're really old!

Err, I mean... you died your hair, how nice!

Uhh, I mean... you've lost weight! You look good!

Geez, you've ruled out any candidate with any realistic chance of winning the nomination. Hoping Bloomberg runs?

LOL, unfortunately the way the economy is going and to listen to the rhetoric blown about by some, retirement may well become a thing of the past as people are forced to labor from cradle to grave in order to survive, and that's as it should be according to those who consider SS and most of the social safety net programs to be "candy for the lazy."

Actually, I could handle raised retirement ages. People stay healthier longer than when SS was first established. If a person is looking forward to retirement, then it's probably a sign they've gone into the wrong career. I'll most likely prefer to work as long as I'm physically able. You can never be certain your attitude won't change, but I have a feeling I'll be like my mother-in-law. She's been swearing to retire for about 20 years, now, but I don't think she could actually handle removing herself emotionally from the workplace.

Of course, if my job required physical labor instead of mental labor, my attitude would probably change, but kind of falls into the "physically able" part.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps Trakar is suffering from electile disfunction.

 

[mheslep]

There is also one's political philosophy and quality as a person. The devil himself may be quite capable but I wouldn't vote for him.

Agreed, I was following up on the 'he's intelligent and capable' post, and hoping to prompt some more statements of exactly what the Senator's political philosophy and qualities are or perceived to be, for they seem fairly nebulous to me.

EDIT: Here's something today:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have posted a number of interviews in which he is quite specific about various subjects. He has also been specific during many debates. The quote that I posted is highly specific, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

He has made his position on Iraq clear many times; both before and after hostilities began.

 

[hubertg]

It may very well be that the greatest threat facing America is the present administration.hg

 

[mheslep]

I have posted a number of interviews in which he is quite specific about various subjects. He has also been specific during many debates. The quote that I posted is highly specific, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

He has made his position on Iraq clear many times; both before and after hostilities began.

The Senator is gifted speaker (and likable). But I'm not the only one for which his policy on Iraq and other issues is not clear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mona-gable/have-hillary-and-obama-fo_b_81168.html"

Have Clinton and Obama completely forgotten about the war? Five years into this quagmire, do either of them have a plan for getting us out? A post-war strategy?...

While Obama and Hillary have continually trumpeted how they're all about change, let's not forget: when the time came to take a stand, they both voted to give Bush another $70 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq. This is progress? Giving corrupt private contractors more bucks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700472_pf.html"

...The freshman Illinois senator began his campaign facing the perception that he lacks the experience to be president, especially compared to rivals with decades of work on foreign and domestic policy. So far, he's done little to challenge it. He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.

In any case I assume you meant the quote you posted in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294255&postcount=125"
Now, the situation in Iraq has changed drastically, so:
-Does he still call for an announced withdrawal timetable?
-'Reduce' how much? Troop reduction is now in progress from the surge peak, planned to go down 5k/10k mo. until a total 30k down by summer and then unknown. Does he agree with that rate? Too slow?
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php"

...We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

-What does that mean? Does he favor cutting off funds to completely to force a withdrawal?

 

[Trakar]

Wow! You're really old!.

Only the good die young.

Err, I mean... you died your hair, how nice!.

No, its naturally this colour, but its more genetics than justice. :)

Uhh, I mean... you've lost weight! You look good!.

Actually I've put on about 20 lbs in the last 6 months but I carry 250 well, and most of it is upper body. I'm still running 5 miles a day but I switched over to free weights instead of the machines I think that's why I started packing on more bulk.

Geez, you've ruled out any candidate with any realistic chance of winning the nomination. Hoping Bloomberg runs?

Don't really know much about him, but what little I do know doesn't make it seem likely I'd support him.

My issues about President have never been about choosing someone who could win, just because they could win, and in this election in particular, its very important that America puts someone in that office that can lead us through some very rough times. My conscience won't let me settle for "good enough" or "better than the last bum."

I'll give whoever gets in a chance to do the right things, just as I have every other president, whether they were my choice or not. But I'll not vote for someone that I believe isn't willing or able to do the job which I perceive needs doing. There is a golden opportunity for our nation approaching, and unfortunately, the leading candidates seem blind to it as they are more interested in personal aggrandization than true public/national service.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps Trakar is suffering from electile disfunction.

LOL, not me, the entire nation!

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by Amp1
That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did!

#74

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

Above is your post #74, I’ll get back to it. When I quoted

“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.

This is from your post #20, sorry, I paraphrased the last part but that’s the whole quote above.

Now that’s cleared up, I meant that although Hil and Bam are getting quite a bit of support from corporate America, my perspective is that they diverge from the mold of the people you voted for #74. They are obviously different from your list and the Presidents who came before, ie Fair Skinned Men.

Unless Hil and Bam were indoctrinated and mind washed their lives took quite different routes in the things they experienced in society and civilization at large and through their educational processes. (remember, I started this by saying this is my perspective.)

Nixon, Bush, on down the line did not appreciate the experience of observing policies and attitudes, suppression and oppression, apathy and injustice, arrogance and patronizing, smugness and greed that a female and a black male would live through growing up. These earlier Presidents could have an idea verily only through an academic interest - book learning. Hil and Bam can see the dynamics more viscerally.

 

[Art]

Hil and Bam can see the dynamics more viscerally.

Reminds me of an old ditty - 'The working class can kiss my ass I got the foreman's job at last'

 

[Amp1]

Yeah, I think that is Edward’s platform.

However, generally people I've met say they try to help. Starting with kin first, then friends and so on...

<rant>It’s just that when a non-personal impetus dedicated to a particularly end takes the place of reasoned discourse, study and debate within the context of structures constructed to provide for eco-friendly, modern, efficient, transparent government. The entire population eventually is faced with the collapse of their society. (U.S.)

I (an American) think that is what Europeans and others not fed singular, slanted information see when some doubtful policies of the U.S. cause blowback and global economic instability. Follow the money; who or what entity is profiting from the mis-fortune of these people. (refs. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3999 , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Foreign_Policy.htm , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Free_Trade.htm , “Why Do People Hate America – Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, © 2002{ The Disinformation Company Ltd., ISBN 0-9713942-5-3} , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Jobs.htm , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Budget_+_Economy.htm , http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3727 ) I like to use Chomsky because he is clear and cites his references.

(consider) All that to say, we the people need a government that will help business’s to realize its stake in benefiting all peoples not just a single family, culture, nationality or ethnicity
or to eventually see its operations cease. Innovation being what it is has spurred novel business’s which are realizing value from untapped and before now unappreciated sources. Eco-business – businesses that recycle, reclaim, and/or renew resources.

Government as a unification of the collective will of the people must plan for future generations, increase true cooperation with other states and work towards a world collective whose main purpose would be the continuous recycling and reworking of the planet Earth in a way which will provide the best amenities of modern civilization. That’s the hope.

Hil, Bam, Gore, and perhaps Edwards may give us the most likely probability of seeing that kind of achievement realized and maybe studied in political social academia and work on policies to ease towards a uniform level of humanity.

 

[hubertg]

A uniform level of humanity will be not to be, as long as the corporatocracy remains in power. hg

 

[Trakar]

Now that’s cleared up, I meant that although Hil and Bam are getting quite a bit of support from corporate America, my perspective is that they diverge from the mold of the people you voted for #74. They are obviously different from your list and the Presidents who came before, ie Fair Skinned Men

You've established nothing other than that you are racist and sexist.

The color of one's skin or whether their reproductive organs are internal or external, makes little difference to the types of issues and abilities I am discussing.

 

[Amp1]

You've established nothing other than that you are racist and sexist.

If you want to call me names, its ok, I hope goodness and happiness follow you. I’m more positive than that and your outburst is more than probably wrong. Still on that point almost all of us (US citizens) have the legacy of human enslavement on our shoulders; it is about time to rid ourselves of that baggage as it affects black and white Americans even if we don’t acknowledge it; and the effects on the slaveowners in terms of the de-civilizing effects it had on their psyche (picnicking at a lynching read - http://www.unctv.org/bif/transcripts/2004/transcript2015.html , http://www.masspsy.com/leading/0308_9_ne_qa.html , http://www.posttraumaticslavesyndrome.com/docs/breakingchains.pdf , Allen, J., Als, H., Lewis, J. & Litwack, L. F. (2000). Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. New Mexico: Twin Palms Publishers)

The color of one's skin or whether their reproductive organs are internal or external, makes little difference to the types of issues and abilities I am discussing.

…#88

Abilities Hil and Bam have and they are – against media pigeonholing and focus on unimportant diversions – exchanging ideas they have for resolving and dealing with many of the types of issues bedeviling the U.S.

As to skin color and placement of sex organs, common sense and a few studies show that perspectives and views are probably shaped by those differences. Below are some readings I believe support that viewpoint.

Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status - Pamela Trotman Reid and Lillian Comas-Diaz, Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0360-0025 - Issue Volume 22, Numbers 7-8 / April, 1990
http://www.rachelstavern.com/ --(Jan 17)
Sociology: Understanding A Diverse Society, with coauthor Howard F. Taylor of Princeton University
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/race.html
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=209700
http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/96/961030gendergap.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics
American Body Politics: Race, Gender, and Black Literary Renaissance
By Felipe Smith -- Published 1998 - University of Georgia Press
ISBN 0820319333
Facing Difference: Race, Gender, and Mass Media By Shirley Biagi, Marilyn Kern-Foxworth Contributor Marilyn Kern -Foxworth --Published 1997 Pine Forge Press / United States --ISBN 0803990944

 

[Trakar]

If you want to call me names, its ok, I hope goodness and happiness follow you. I’m more positive than that and your outburst is more than probably wrong.

I am not calling you names, I am simply describing what you assert. The expressed preference of a candidate soley based upon the color of their skin is racist. The expressed preference of a candidate soley based upon their gender is sexist. That you dislike the description does not negate its accuracy.

I do not think that either sexism or racism has a place in making these types of political decisions, that you do speaks only to your world view and perspective. That you place such an emphasis upon racial and sexist issues suggests more about your own personal experiences and issues than the needs and qualifications of the country as a whole.

 

[Trakar]

Abilities Hil and Bam have and they are – against media pigeonholing and focus on unimportant diversions – exchanging ideas they have for resolving and dealing with many of the types of issues bedeviling the U.S.

As to skin color and placement of sex organs, common sense and a few studies show that perspectives and views are probably shaped by those differences. Below are some readings I believe support that viewpoint.

Interesting take, unfortunately, if that is your criteria then "Hil and Bam" aren't your best choices as their votes in the senate and proposals on their websites (the few hard points they can be nailed down on anyway) are entirely reflective of the same "fair-skinned male" views we've been treated to over the last 8 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/21/hillary-defends-iran-vote_n_69255.html"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5251.html"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3297741&page=1"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/"

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/10/26/4"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/whats_new_10.html"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/"

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

 

[Smurf]

Hillary is a tool. She's a career politician backed by pharmaceutical and credit companies and not a lot more. She's not there for a reason, she's there for a job.

The problem with Obama is if he did get elected he'd probably get shot. And then what? Edwards?

 

[Amp1]

Yeah, bummer. If Edwards, has repented; yeah, why not?

 

[Amp1]

Trakar

Hillary Defends Iran Vote In Iowa

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

Hillary defends lobbyists

Strange enough as it seems there are actually lobbyists that represent working and middle class Americans. That in contrast to the types of lobbyists – those representing conglomerates – its implied she’s in cahoots with, not saying she isn’t I don’t know yet, but from the article’s quotes of her words… she isn’t defending corporate lobbyists. 2

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton was booed this morning by some attendees at the liberal Take Back America conference for blaming failure in Iraq on the Iraqi government.

It is incumbent on them to develop and adapt to their current circumstances enough to cooperate and take charge of their future even though Cheney/Bush started it, the people of Iraq should not rely on that admin to help them to much… they’re to busy trying to plunder the Iraqi peoples’ resources. And I do disagree in that the largest portion of the blame should be placed again with the people who started it for no good reason. 3

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding

See 1 above, the same reasoning applies in addition, the troops were insufficiently equipped to begin with - (I wonder if the money for the equipment got swallowed up by some greedy corp. that cared more about major stockholders than about our soldiers, sea(wo)men and air(wo)men)- for gosh sakes, our troops had to improvise their own armor geezzz! And yes, I know what I’m implying to me it is obvious our people were so ill prepared.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2852426&page=1


http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/10/iraq-war-money-hole.html (excerpt-The GAO report of July 2004 found that in the first nine months of the occupation, KBR was allowed a free hand in Iraq: a free hand, for example, to bill the Pentagon without worrying about spending limits or management oversight or paperwork. Millions of dollars’ worth of new equipment disappeared. KBR charged $73 million for motor caravans to house the 101st Airborne Division, twice as much as the army said it would cost to build barracks itself; KBR charged $88 million for three million meals for US troops that were never served. The GAO calculated that the army could have saved $31 million a year simply by doing business directly with the catering firms that KBR hired. In June 2004, the GAO continued, ‘by eliminating the use of LOGCAP and making the LOGCAP subcontractor the prime contractor, the command reduced meal costs by 43 per cent without a loss of service or quality.’)

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/10669

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402307.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9784.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

same thing more than this in less than five.

Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

 

[Trakar]

Trakar
Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

Seriously, if he had ever had a legitimate chance, it would have involved fundamental changes to so many of his positions that he would have been little different from any of the current front-runners. There is no candidate running who embodies all of the things I believe need to be done and don't have any of the negatives that I feel should disqualify a candidate for president. I like Edwards for his domestic plans and agenda, I like Richardson for his foriegn policy/diplomacy experience, too bad there is no candidate that embodies those qualities without all the negatives of the two front-runners.

 

[Amp1]

After taking a quick look here - http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm - I don’t think I would want Kucinich to change very much. He is the candidate that is most in tune with 95% of the population of U. S. citizens (if they want a strong United States that takes care of its people… and I’m not saying the other 5% don’t but they are the ones who can make corporations really stop polluting that’s just for starters), the other 5% I can see why they don’t want him.

 

[BobG]

Trakar

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

 

[Trakar]

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

Fully agreed, and that is the primary issue with most of the other voting problems I have with these candidates, it isn't that voting differently would have cost them public support, much the opposite according to most of the polls I've seen. Its that it would have required them to open themselves to the same attacks that will come regardless of how they have voted, since they are Democrats. Problem is now, instead of being principled Democrats who stood up for the people they supposedly represent (the majority of Americans), they'll still be painted as weak and they can't argue as stridently against these policies because they voted to approve them! That they support the troops, but not the war, is too nuanced and too long to make a good sound-byte. Better to be damned for doing the right thing, than to give the appearance of flip-flopping indecision by opposing the administration's policies while voting to approve them.

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by BobG
I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

I see and agree. (How do you do those nice tricks like that >> and stuff?)

 

[Trakar]

So, I'm just wondering, 2 years later, any thoughts, changes of opinion, or of since confirmed biases (either way) to report among any of those who participated or read this original thread?

 

[Supercritical]

I think this is relevant, and will probably be discussed elsewhere on this forum:

The US believes the official intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear programme is wrong and Tehran is working on the design of a nuclear weapon, it was reported today.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-weapons

The gruesome irony of this will not be lost on those in this forum, for now Obama is:

A. Dismissing intelligence that says Iraq (whoops, I mean Iran) suspended it's WMD program

B. Going further than Bush did in claims about Iran's weapons ambitions following the 2007 NIE

and C. Probably ruffling the feathers of anti-war groups (even if it's just a little)

There are those who will backpedal like crazy about this (or try to move the goalposts). Those people should be advised that you can't shift gears on a bicycle while you're backpedaling, and that public debate really isn't much different.

That doesn't concern me, though, because shouldn't one be content if a public figure had eventually come to agree with one's point of view? For the record, I do have faith in Obama and his administration, knowing full well that intelligence can change when new sources become available.

I just absolutely could not go without pointing out the irony though!

 

[Nebula815]

On the flip side of the coin, one could say that being afraid to call out the true WMD threats when one sees them for fear of being wrong, because of Iraq, is what could lead the world to really being threatened with a true WMD threat.

 

[Jamin2112]

Several things:

(1) He is Black. A little bit ago, there was an Opinion article in the Washington Examiner called The black-white divide in Obama's popularity ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-white-divide-in-obama-popularity-43923897.html" ).

Asked whether their opinion of the president is favorable or unfavorable, 49 percent of whites in the Times poll say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. Among blacks the number is 80 percent. Twenty-one percent of whites say their view of the president is unfavorable, while the number of blacks with unfavorable opinions of Obama is too small to measure.

(2) He got an A in speech class, I'm assuming. There have been several incidences of his TelePrompTer failing him; that's when he fumbles with his words and sounds like a moron.

(3) He has no real beliefs or values; and if he does, nobody knows what they are. He equivocates on every issues to try and please everyone.

Consider his Nobel Peace Prize speech. He was all over the place!

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

A foreign policy liberal?

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

He mentions the Persian Gulf War and Afghanistan, but not Iraq, because that would touch on a contentious issue.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.




A realist, or what exactly?

 

[OmCheeto]

I think this is relevant, and will probably be discussed elsewhere on this forum:source:

The US believes the official intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear programme is wrong and Tehran is working on the design of a nuclear weapon, it was reported today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-weapons

The gruesome irony of this will not be lost on those in this forum...

I don't see the irony. The intelligence that said Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program was 3 years old. New intelligence says otherwise.

...Mr Obama's advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale – the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel...

I still support Obama because he: Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility, abolished torture, lifted the restrictions on stem cell research, expanded children's health insurance, signed equal pay law, diminished the role of lobbyists in the White House, lifted travel and remittance restrictions for Cuba, didn't halt the assault on the goon squads in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, reversed US policy on international family planning aide, Cash for Clunkers!, authorized the neutralization of Somali pirates, gave a great Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, authorized state mandated automotive emission standards, end of the war on medical marijuana, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Trakar]

I don't see the irony. The intelligence that said Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program was 3 years old. New intelligence says otherwise.



I still support Obama because he:
Ordered the closing of the Gitmo detention facility,
abolished torture, lifted the restrictions on stem cell research,
expanded children's health insurance,
signed equal pay law,
diminished the role of lobbyists in the White House,
lifted travel and remittance restrictions for Cuba,
didn't halt the assault on the goon squads in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq,
reversed US policy on international family planning aide,
Cash for Clunkers!,
authorized the neutralization of Somali pirates,
gave a great Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,
authorized state mandated automotive emission standards,
end of the war on medical marijuana,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Agreed, he has been great on the et cetera,
...on the rest,
I see less supportive evidence and more contentious positions in evidence.

Better than Bush, definitely! But Bush wasn't running, and I can't imagine that any of the candidates running in either party would have been as bad or worse than Bush.