Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<em>"I remember Carter, gas lines, Iran, and bonds yielding 18%."</em>





25 years from now people will remember Bush, Iraq, and the Great Housing Bubble crash...
 
<strong><em>"I remember Carter, gas lines, Iran, and bonds yielding 18%."</em>





25 years from now people will remember Bush, Iraq, and the Great Housing Bubble crash...</strong>



... and Starbucks
 
McCain will win. How do I know? Both the Democratic Candidates are Lame. More importantly even my democrat friends, and by that I mean guys who are elected officials, one a member of The House, are voting McCain. That was the conversation we had over dinner last week. These were guys that had worked to help raise money for Obama as recently as last year.



Why the change?



They don't trust Obama.
 
I think Obama getting elected would kill my hope. As he is quite the liberal, I believe he is wrong on many, many issues, which limits the prospect of hope on my part. He'll try and raise my taxes, which personally does little to up my hope factor. On an emotional level, he also strikes me as one of those "always blame America first" types, which irritates me to no end. I don't trust his pretty words. Partly b/c they are so pretty and partly b/c I have no reason to trust him. All his blah blah would further deflate my hope balloon.



I'm for McCain because I believe he knows what he's doing, has serious cred on the integrity thing (he's shown he can put the good of the whole above all else by staying a POW when he could have blown that popstand...Obama's words cannot touch the reality of McCain's demonstrated integrity and committment to his commrades and to this country ), and I agree with most of McCain's positions on the issues. For me, McCain=hope. Obama=large quantities hope repellant.
 
Partisans always see what the want to see rather than what is there.





I don't know what I see in Obama as yet, I haven't paid that much attention. I just know the extremely negative characterizations I read about him are wrong. If they weren't, he would not be in the position he is now.
 
What are you saying IR, that he isn't a closet Muslim biding his time until drains the rich of all their wealth with draconian tax hikes before he secretly hands the country over to Osama bin Laden, thus completing the Reverend Wright's master plan to screw the Great White Satan?
 
<p>I tried not getting involved in this thread as it would ruining my work hours but I cannot help it. </p>

<p>I do not understand people who say that Obama is not legit because he speaks too well. We can always have Bush again.</p>

<p>McCain has sold out every belief he has since he began running for prez this time around. He called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell intolerant bigots several years ago and then all of a sudden say that they are okay and even visited Falwell's Liberty University. He used to be upholding Roe v. Wade and now supports overturning it. He is "allied" with GWB even after Bush repeatedly trashed McCain's war record and called his wife a druggie. He used to have morals, now he just wants to be president.</p>

<p>Abraham Lincoln was an eloquent speaker who had very little experience before becoming president. I think he worked out pretty well.</p>
 
<em>I do not understand people who say that Obama is not legit because he speaks too well. We can always have Bush again.





</em>Ever see the movie Idiocracy by Mike Judge? It was about a dystopian society in the future that resulted from natural selection favoring all the idiots (who bred faster and more than the smart people and weren't weeded out because of modern medical advances saving them from their normally fatal stupidity). The main character Joe (played by Luke Wilson)"the most average person in the US" was cryogenically frozen in an Army experiment and woke up in that world. The general populace, who spoke in a dumbed down version of English (a combo of surfer/white-trash/gangsta slang), couldn't understand Joe because he spoke articulately, dismissing his words as "fag talk." Maybe Mike Judge was making a documentary...





Anyway, now this is a president that you can trust:


<embed width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="VideoPlayback" quality="high" pluginspage="http://macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/diEdNgnzR3g"></embed>





<embed width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="VideoPlayback" quality="high" pluginspage="http://macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/whhbPVrb5KM"></embed>
 
Some perspective on the whole Rev. Wright flap.





<embed width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="VideoPlayback" quality="high" pluginspage="http://macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_QP2wluVVY"></embed>
 
About the candidates on the issues:<p>



Barack Obama has a detailed and specific <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/">housing plan</a>. This includes:<p>



Ban mortgage fraud, including liar loans, and jail mortgage brokers who produce fraudulent loan documents.<p>



Put primary residence mortgage loans on the same footing as apartment, investment, second residence, and auto loans in bankruptcy court.<p>



Mandating full disclosure of loan terms, including <b>maximum</b> payments and <b>maximum</b> balances (i.e., goodbye teaser traps and neg-am).<p>



He's also proposing a 10 billion dollar program for mortgage counseling and refinancing support, which I do <b>not</b> like (well, the counseling is OK) but in view of the fact that he's zeroed in on the things that really need to be fixed in the mortgage market, I can live with it. Also, see below on Hillary.<p>



Hillary Clinton also has a plan with <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4530">teeth and specifics</a> albeit less than Obama's, but I think she is not addressing the real problems. She proposes:<p>



A 90 day foreclosure freeze.<p>



A 5 year rate freeze on subprime ARMs (and maybe all ARMs).<p>



Reporting of workout attempts.<p>



5 billion in distressed homeowner assistance (i.e., disguised bank subsidies, as we know).<p>



Hillary is treating problems, not causes. She does nothing to prevent this from happening again, and in particular does nothing to prevent the rampant fraud which is the biggest part of this mess. I also think a blanket foreclosure freeze would be a minor disaster. <p>



John McCain has, as I've said, <b>nothing</b> on the housing problem. Liar loans? Crooked brokers? Slanted bankruptcy laws? No prob! He does have a small, limited economic plan, which consists of <b>nothing</b> but corporate tax breaks. Literally nothing else, just several substantial tax cuts for corporations. I am not <a href="https://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/1a8640f0-b2e3-4edb-b2a9-236df79d2579.htm">making this up</a>.<p>



The candidates' approaches are extreme, but illustratory versions of their general attitude. Obama tries to fix the cause of a problem. Hillary tries to fix the symptoms of a problem. McCain tries to pretend there is no problem.<p>



In terms of the nonsense of Obama being vague or faith-based, check out his issues pages and advisors. Quite the opposite: Obama is downright wonky, with a knack for being out front on issues like nuclear proliferation, bird flu, mortgage fraud, and government transparency. He gets his proposals through his extensive academic contacts at Harvard and the University of Chicago. He's also famous for talking to all sides, including people he has major disagreements with.
 
<em>>>Eva, I think you misunderstood me. It was your sarcasm to which I was referring in my comment. I'm not singling you out, both sides do it. But it has the unintended side effect of making people like me, who hasn't seen Tennessee in more than 20 years and that was from a Greyhound bus, turn defensive and that never helps the conversation. I know it was intended as a justified indictment of the RNC, but it can't help but start the conversation off on the wrong foot when the goal is to get past the anger. I am as sarcastic as they come, but I don't see it as appropriate for this topic when tempers can get so hot so quickly.</em>





Nude, I can't control your feelings or prevent you from being defensive about something you haven't participated in (as best I can tell). But there are a group of people out there for whom it is outrageous that a black person would run for public office not because he/she lacks talent, passion, or good ideas, but simply because that person is black. Now <em>that</em> is an idea that I find outrageous and so contrary to my values that I will mock it to make a point. If that makes someone feel uncomfortable, then good. I want them to know that I do not buy into or implicitly condone their opinion and/or values.





Angry? I know only the cold text appears on the screen, but I'm not angry, and am surprised it came off that way. I am frustrated. How many times do we, as a society, have to go through this? We have been arguing about the full human-ness* and full participation of African Americans since the late 1700's, and yet, there is still a sizable segment of society that thinks it is ok to judge a person by their skin color. A long time ago society decided that stealing was bad and criminalized the conduct. If you thought stealing was ok, the rest of society has no problem telling you that your values are wrong. Why can't we do that with something a lot more important that things?





<p><em>It also doesn't help when people read racism into every single act or comment, as happened to Ferraro.


</em></p>

<p>Have I done that? I don't think so, but if I did, please let me know. I know I didn't comment on Ferraro.


</p>

<em>That kind of over reaching political correctness means that even making the joke about 'calling a spade a spade' off limits because someone will accuse me of being racist just for thinking it, despite it's accuracy. </em>


<p>I don't know about you, but I try my best not to hurt other people's feelings. And if using a phrase inadvertently does so, I'm happy to "call it like it is," instead. That said, I think the reactions I have received on the times I have goofed are based on the preexisting relationships I have with the person I'm talking to. Someone who knows me well would be more likely to brush it off or say "I don't know if you know, but where I'm from, that phrase has negative connotations." When someone hasn't been so charitable, <em>my </em>reaction to their reaction has been very important. And that's where I agree with you that being defensive does not help. Putting your good faith on the table and asking the person to help you understand how you have offended them does.</p>

<p><em>Personally, I'm sick of starting out with the assumption that because I am conservative I kick kittens, advocate slavery, and hate gays. </em>


</p>

<p>You mean you don't? Nude, I know plenty of conservatives who are more liberal on social issues. Hell, I married one. But the people who stand at the megaphone and identify themselves as conservatives are the ones ruining your reputation. Maybe it's time for the more open minded conservatives (of which Bill Buckley was not a part), to stand up and challenge their brothers and sisters for the megaphone.


</p>

<p><em>What I'd like to see is Obama be able to foster the kind of change that changes the assumption that skin color identifies you, defines your politics, or comes with a natural bias.</em></p>

While Obama can be a part of that, he can't do it on his own, and it is incumbent on each person who believes similarly to discuss that and live it everyday.








*Yeah, I know, it's not a word, but it still early as I type this, and the word I need isn't springing to mind.

 
<p>Eva, to my knowledge no one on this board has posted that black people shouldn't run for office because they are black. The only possible audience for your sarcasm is the people that do read/post here. I don't see how it could fail to put conservatives who read these forums on the defensive, and thereby start things off on the wrong foot for rational discussion. That kind of mocking is deserved when confronted with the argument that you laid out, but no one on these boards has ever made that argument, which leaves me to assume you are grouping all Republican voters in with the racists in Tennessee. I wasn't trying to imply that you were angry, simply that the overall goal is to get past the general anger that racial divisions have created. I probably should have made that clearer =)</p>

<p>The second and third paragraphs were not directed at you; I had a good head of steam going and kept on ranting, but I was careful to say "I" and not "you". Apparently I wasn't clear enough.</p>

<p>We are in the same book, if not on the same page. I am sure there are people in the Democratic party that you would like to see muzzled for life, just as there are people in the Republican party that need to be stripped of their "megaphone", but the best either of us can do is speak our own minds. I was moved by Obama's speech because it wasn't the usual finger-pointing, class-war, anti-white rhetoric. In my opinion, we need more of that and less of the sarcastic mocking if we are going to resolve the issue. When you don't start people off on the defensive you have a better chance of having a rational discussion with a larger audience, and when the nutters start to stand up and shout they look even more ridiculous. Do Republicans need to do a better job of weeding out the racists? You bet. At the same time, it's a safe bet that nutters like Reverend Wright are not registered Republicans. My entire point is that if we really want to get past "race" we need to adopt Obama's approach and drop the antagonistic approach.</p>
 
My biggest fear about Obama is that he will turn into the next Jimmy Carter.





Carter came to office in similar circumstances to what Obama would face. In 1976, the Republicans were not popular. Nixon had resigned two years earlier, and the Republicans lost a huge number of congressional seats in the 1974 elections. When Carter won office, he was an idealistic and very moral outsider with no Washington experience. He had a solid majority in Congress to work with. He took his cornucopia of ideas to Capital Hill, and his agenda went nowhere. His lack of political experience in Washington was a major detriment.





Obama may have the greatest ideas and hopes about bringing everyone together, but the reality of Congress is that these guys will not work together, and the only way to get legislation passed is through hard-nosed political battle. If Obama tries to build consensus and bring everyone together, he will not get anything done, and he will fail.
 
<p>Don't worry IR, there is no Reagan waiting in the wings for the Republicans. If Obama gets elected, he'll serve 8 years.</p>
 
<em>"If Obama gets elected, he'll serve 8 years."</em>





If he turns out to be as useless and ineffective as Jimmy Carter, I will be looking for the next Reagan to take him out...
 
<p><em>I do not understand people who say that Obama is not legit because he speaks too well.</em> </p>

<p>Again for the Obama supports that don't get it. The concern isn't that he speaks well, the concern is that is all he has. Well spoken platitudes. The ultimate seagull manager.</p>

<p>For all the decrying of politics as usual that Obama supporters make, they are among the worse in misrepresentating everybody's concerns about their candidate. That is politics as usual.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>NSR, but what do you base your concern upon? It seems that most Obama detractors are worried about the unknown. While I understand that concern . . . I am willing to give it a shot especially since the other choices are basically politics as usual. </p>

<p>As for the experience issue, I hate to admit it but I do read other blogs. I found this blog in 2004 while looking for breakdowns in the electoral vote. The blogmaster did an awesome job breaking down all of the presidents comparing experience with successful administration. Result, experience does not equate success as president.</p>

<p><a href="http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar10.html">electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar10.html</a> (Seriously, I strongly recommend reviewing the guy's analysis, especially the last chart)</p>

<p>I am aware that Obama could become another Carter but he could also become the next Lincoln. Obama is ilke a technology company that could be the next Google or the next Pets.com. McCain and Hillary are basically GM and Coca-Cola. I guess it just depends on how politically risk averse one is. After Bush, I am willing to give "different" a chance. </p>

<p> Additionally, everytime Obama has faced an adverse moment in his campaign, he has stepped his game up. After losing New Hampshire, Obama made his "Chorus of Million" speech and invigorated the campaign. He pushed through all the junk and lies thrown at him and stayed above the fray. He handled the "Wright controversy" like a true leader and showed what should be done as opposed to just settling for normal political cliches. To me, Obama has shown that he can adapt to changes and remain a leader through it all. </p>
 
In spite of having been in the Senate only half as long, Obama has much more accomplishments than Clinton. He has Obama-Coburn (expenditure transparency), Obama-Lugar (nuclear and anti-aircraft antiproliferation), and the lobbyist reform provisions in the omnibus ethics act (with Feingold). Hillary has been in the Senate 7 years with nothing notable.<p>



McCain is an accomplished legislator. But I don't want a President who <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html">doesn't understand the economy</a> and wants to stay in Iraq forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top