Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>I may not get this out right the first time, so bear with me.</p>

<p>Last night I watched <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/">Frontline's <em>"Bush's War"</em></a> and as my wife was chanting "Cheney is evil" and "Rumsfield must die" at the TV, I was ruminating over how the power struggle was even allowed by Bush to occur in the first place. I then thought back to the 2000 primaries and I remembered thinking at the time that Bush had better get one hell of a team together or his inexperience was going to allow Congress to roll all over him. When he selected Cheney as VP, I thought that it went a long way toward reassuring the party base that there would be some experienced people giving advice to Bush. I mean, he was a former White House Chief of Staff, a former Congressman, and a former Secretary of Defense; his resume was better than Bush's at that point. When Bush chose Colin Powell to be Secretary of State, I was actually proud of him for picking such an (still) admirable, competent man.</p>

<p>But over the years, and this was brought into sharp focus by the Frontline program, the results of those decisions began to pay some disasterous consequences. Which led me to this thought: <em>Bush's inexperience was the ultimate cause of the power struggle</em>. His power and abilities were clearly overwhelmed by those of the people that he surrounded himself with both prior to the general election and during his cabinet selection. I'm not saying he was led by the nose, but the system was being manipulated by people who clearly knew more than he did about how Washington works and the information being presented to him was always colored by the people he chose to trust. His lack of concrete values on some issues like government spending, taxes, education, and others, allowed for people he chose to pretty much write their own agenda.</p>

<p>The last 8 years is a great example of what the lack of experience in a leader can do to a country. Bush thought he could use executive experience to ride herd over the most experienced Republicans he could find and they ran circles around, under, and over him. Which led me to ponder the candidates in this election, and Barack Obama in particular.</p>

<p>In looking at Obama in 2008, I see some similarities to Bush in 2000: his choice for VP will have to be exceptional for both pulling in votes during the general and for stability during the transition; he will have to look to the Democratic party for his cabinet positions because he lacks the connections that come with a long political career which, in turn, makes his administration vulnerable to power struggles; he has little, if any, crisis experience to draw on in the course of world events; and finally, while his ideas are lofty and his speeches eloquent, his core values are still something of a mystery. And <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/mypolicy">this page</a> on his website states: <em>"The best, most comprehensive plan for change in our country will include your ideas and your feedback. America needs a president with a mandate from the people, and everyone deserves a voice in shaping our next president's agenda. Take a moment to share your ideas. Over the coming months the best ideas will be featured and incorporated into the campaign's policy proposals. Be as broad or specific as you want."</em></p>

<p>You know what? I don't want a President that has to ask me for my ideas. My part in shaping a President's agenda is done at the ballot box, not during the campaign. This is when I want a candidate to make clear who he is, what he wants to do, how he plans on doing it, and who he plans on entrusting with getting that done. I want to be positive that I know that he bases his world view on his own experience, I want to know why he believes in that which he speaks about, and I want to be able to see it in his record, in his actions, and in his personal relatiosnhips. I use "he" but it applies to candidates of either sex. </p>

<p>I need to know that a candidate can withstand the pressures put on him by those of like mind but with their own agendas, because we are all witness to what happens to a candidate that can't or doesn't have the experience to recognize it for what it is. Clinton is almost a force of nature when it comes to fighting for what she wants, McCain will tell the whole party off rather than compromise on what he considers 'right', and Obama... see my point?</p>
 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html?ex=1364184000&en=27e8bb2cf52e2dc1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" name="McCain comes to OC and speaks out against a mortgage bailout" linkindex="244" set="yes">McCain comes to OC and speaks out against a mortgage bailout</a>





If McCain is the only candidate who opposes a bailout, I may reconsider my decision not to vote Republican...
 
<p>IR - did you see FairEconomist's post on page 2 of this thread? He described the "housing plans" of each candidate. His post matches what I have found, FWIW.</p>

<p>Nude - I don't think the Bush Presidency failed so fantastically because Bush was inexperienced. Bush with experience would be no better. It doesn't take a lot of experience to know that you don't search for your dropped watch under the street light just because the light is good; you search for it where you lost it. Bush got where he got in life due to family connections, in spite of himself. Obama got where he got without that. If experience leads one to believe that going to war in Iraq was a good idea, then give me a n00b. If experience leads one to believe in the doctrine of pre-emptive military attacks, aka The Minority Report pre-crime plan, then, again, give me a n00b.</p>

<p>From what I see, McCain and Clinton will both do and say whatever it takes to get elected. Obama seems to be the only one that has his core self/soul left intact. My guess is that it is due to not being in Congress for too long. Every politician that I see has to make so many deals and compromises that I don't think he can remember what he really believes. McCain held on longer than most, but he seems to have changed his tune after losing the nomination in 2000.</p>

<p>As for Obama and Wright, why don't people get up in arms about McCain courting the endorsement of John Hagee. Remember Hagee? He's one that said hurricane Katrina was God's wrath because New Orleans was going to have a gay pride parade. Why hasn't McCain been made to answer to that?</p>
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p><em>As for Obama and Wright, why don't people get up in arms about McCain courting the endorsement of John Hagee. Remember Hagee? He's one that said hurricane Katrina was God's wrath because New Orleans was going to have a gay pride parade. Why hasn't McCain been made to answer to that?</em></p>

<p>If McCain had been sitting in Hagee's church for 20 years, I expect you would see the 'people' getting up in arms. Apples are not oranges.</p>

<p><em>If experience leads one to believe that going to war in Iraq was a good idea, then give me a n00b. If experience leads one to believe in the doctrine of pre-emptive military attacks, aka The Minority Report pre-crime plan, then, again, give me a n00b.</em></p>

<p>My argument, if you go back and read it, was that Bush's inexperience (meaning <strong>lack of experience</strong>) led to those things when Bush was faced with two opposing viewpoints from people he had come to trust. I have no doubt that Obama got where he got by his own talents, but those talents do not preclude him from being a failure due to lack of experience.</p>

<p><em>From what I see, McCain and Clinton will both do and say whatever it takes to get elected. Obama seems to be the only one that has his core self/soul left intact. My guess is that it is due to not being in Congress for too long. Every politician that I see has to make so many deals and compromises that I don't think he can remember what he really believes.</em></p>

<p>You seem content to equate a short time in politics as an indication of integrity. Doesn't it also indicate naked ambition? I mean, from private practice to State Senate to U.S. Senate to President in 12 years? And what propelled this rise, aside from his ability to deliver a speech? You want so much to believe in the message that you aren't paying any attention to the messenger.</p>
 
<p><em>If McCain had been sitting in Hagee's church for 20 years, I expect you would see the 'people' getting up in arms. Apples are not oranges.</em></p>

<p>But it is actually <strong>worse</strong> in McCain's case. McCain <strong>courted</strong> Hagee's endorsement. McCain should want to distance himself from the guy. </p>

<p><em>My argument, if you go back and read it, was that Bush's inexperience (meaning <strong>lack of experience</strong>) led to those things when Bush was faced with two opposing viewpoints from people he had come to trust. I have no doubt that Obama got where he got by his own talents, but those talents do not preclude him from being a failure due to lack of experience.</em></p>

<p>And I argue that it wasn't Bush's inexperience that led to it. Bush could have all the experience in the world, and he would still make dumb decisions because that is who he is. He has been POTUS for over 7 years now. No one gets much more experience than that, and he still sucks at it.</p>

<p>Well, of course Obama <em>could</em> be a failure due to lack of experience. Just as McCain's experience does not preclude him from a being a failure due to making bad decisions such as supporting the decision to go to war in Iraq.</p>

<p><em>You seem content to equate a short time in politics as an indication of integrity. </em></p>

<p>I'm not equating them; I am suggesting that there could be a causal connection. I could be wrong. It could just be that McCain has never had a soul, but I doubt it since I used to see evidence of it. Now it seems like McCain is doing things while simultaneously holding his nose and trying not to vomit.</p>

<p><em>Doesn't it also indicate naked ambition? I mean, from private practice to State Senate to U.S. Senate to President in 12 years? And what propelled this rise, aside from his ability to deliver a speech? </em></p>

<p>So, you are now holding Obama's success <strong>against</strong> him? Because someone advances faster than others, you think that is a negative? I hope you are not my boss. Are you also saying he shouldn't <strong>want</strong> to be President? </p>

<p><em>You want so much to believe in the message that you aren't paying any attention to the messenger.</em></p>

<p>What exactly does this mean? Should I take him out to dinner?</p>
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>You win. I'm not as emotionally invested in this as you appear to be and I don't feel like going to war over other people's religious practices, what other choices Bush could have made, or your knee jerk reactions to any criticism of Obama. You sound exactly like the Kerry supporters from 2004 whose best arguments were "Bush is an idiot", "So? Look what Bush said", and "Anybody but Bush". If you aren't willing to take a critical, dispassionate look at Obama that's fine. But I'm not going to continue a conversation when the best I can expect is some variation of "I know you are but what am I?".</p>

<p>But I am going to answer this:</p>

<p><em>So, you are now holding Obama's success <strong>against</strong> him? Because someone advances faster than others, you think that is a negative? I hope you are not my boss. Are you also saying he shouldn't <strong>want</strong> to be President?</em></p>

<p>I asked you a set of specific questions that you failed to answer, instead choosing to imply meanings behind my questions. No, I am not holding his success against him, I am questioning what caused it. I don't think success is a negative but unchecked ambition can be, expecially when combined with power and celebrity. Advancing faster than your peers can be the result of merit, but it can also be the result of favoritism, nepotism, or deception; any boss, even yours, had better know which. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was saying he shouldn't want to be President, but you are incorrect. Maybe you should spend more time answering the questions asked and less time trying to turn the tables.</p>
 
<p>Here are Obama's takes for housing and credit: I like the reforms for credit cards and bankruptcy.</p>

<h4>Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud</h4>

<p>Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.</p>



<strong>Create a Universal Mortgage Credit:</strong> Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

<strong>Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry:</strong> Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

<strong>Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure:</strong> Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

<strong>Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures:</strong> Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

<strong>Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies:</strong> Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

>

<h4>Address Predatory Credit Card Practices</h4>

<p>Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices.</p>



<strong>Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure:</strong> Obama will create a credit card rating system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents.

<strong>Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers:</strong> Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:



Ban Unilateral Changes

Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt

Prohibit Interest on Fees

Prohibit "Universal Defaults"

Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments

>



>

<h4>Reform Bankruptcy Laws</h4>

<p>Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.</p>



<strong>Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure:</strong> Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he'll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.

<strong>Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans:</strong> Obama will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.

<strong>Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis:</strong> Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

>
 
<p>Here's is some blog analysis of Obama's housing/mortgage proposal. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.blownmortgage.com/2008/02/03/barack-obamas-mortgage-reform-policy/">www.blownmortgage.com/2008/02/03/barack-obamas-mortgage-reform-policy/</a></p>

<p>I do not agree with Obama on the bailout issue but I think a bailout is what most democrats are asking for.</p>

<p><a href="http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/cutting/?p=169">wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/cutting/</a></p>

<p>Article: <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser">www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser</a> (interesting that Obama is being criticized in the article for not being aggressive enough).</p>

<p>"As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. "</p>

<p>"Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund."</p>

<p>"Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a "centrist market economist," has been most directly involved with crafting Obama's subprime agenda. In a column last March in the <em>New York Times</em>, Goolsbee disputed whether "subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems," touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned that "regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening [the mortgage market] too much." In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in the <em>Washington Post</em> to saluting Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he "seems to be the sort of fellow--amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be." </p>

<p>Regarding McCain:</p>

<p>"Mr. McCain did not rule out a bailout, instead saying any such aid should be temporary and “no assistance should be given to speculators.”</p>

<p>“Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes,” he said. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html?ex=1364184000&en=27e8bb2cf52e2dc1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html</a></p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p> I'm not trying to win. Sorry if I come off that way. I tried to add emoticons to signal that I'm trying to be friendly. I don't think my writing conveys my emotions well. I'm a programmer, not a writer! I'm trying to understand what you are saying and trying to say what I have to say. </p>

<p>The only 3 questions that I see that you asked me revolved around why/how Obama has been so successful. Okay, my answer is this:</p>

<p>I think he is a smart guy. I think his message of unity is one that has perfect timing for our society. I get the feeling that people are tired of the Rep/Dem fighting and doing nothing. He clearly speaks his mind, amazingly treating his audience like adults. I don't see another person running for President that has appealed to so many younger voters. His lack of a long track record in Congress means he can't be nailed for compromises on votes that all Congresspeople do. It seems to me that his policies/plans are smart and do not pander as much as the other candidates. While in Congress, he has worked well with Dems and Reps on legislation. Perhaps his peers think he is good? He seems to be a good leader - inspiring others by appealing to their better selves, rather than through fear.</p>

<p>That is why I think he has been successful. Some of these reasons apply to other candidates, some don't. Some of the reasons are "good" reasons and some are just reasons.</p>

<p>I still don't understand why you would question his rise over any one else's. It seems kind of weird to me. I guess we could just as easily question why McCain took so long to get a nomination. Maybe McCain isn't very smart. Who would you want to hire for a job: someone who got promoted much faster than his colleagues, or someone who got promoted much slower than his colleagues? But, I don't see where this gets us.</p>

<p>I still don't understand your comment about paying attention to the message and not the messenger. It sounds like one of those vague statements that sound meaningful at first, but really doesn't say anything -- like what a politician would say! </p>

<p>I don't mean to have "knee jerk" reactions to criticisms of Obama. Hey, he hasn't been in politics for long. Okay. I don't think he is perfect. I just don't see why someone would hold his success against him or be suspicious. If you don't want to vote for him because you don't like his policies, I've got no problem with that. You say, <em>"he lacks the connections that come with a long political career"</em>. I agree. You say, <em>"he has little, if any, crisis experience to draw on in the course of world events"</em>. I wonder how many Presidents have had much experience there before they got into office. At least Obama knew enough not to go to war in Iraq. That is better judgment than the other, experienced, candidates.</p>
 
OK, things that Obama has *already* done or proposed in the legislature (not counting just promises for his campaign)



Stop Fraud Initiative - an clear definition of mortgage fraud along with measures to enforce it and meaningful disclosure requirements (proposed, in committee)

Lobbyist Reform - extensive limitations on lobbyist gifts to Congressmen and adding a year to the "time-out" period for retired Congressmen (put on an omnibus bill as a rider)

Obama-Coburn - online database of all Federal Expenditures (passed)

Obama-Lugar - program to find, buy, and destroy loose nukes or other weapons like anti-aircraft measures usable by terrorists

First bill to prepare for international avian flu pandemic (proposed, most measures incorporated in other legislation)

Auditing Katrina expenditures (passed, then edited out by the then-Republican leadership)

Auditing Iraq War expenditures (passed)

Chemical Plant Safety Requirements (mostly against terrorism) (weaker version put onto an appropriations bill.<n>

(In the Illinois legislature): Videotaping all police interrogation (passed, against initial near-universal opposition)<p>



This is quite a record for a very junior Senator.



As to his promises, his issues page is here:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/Not everybody will agree with the proposals, but you certainly can't complain he doesn't have specifics. He has pages and pages of specific proposal.
 
I strongly disagree with Nude's assessment that Bush's "inexperience" was the problem. First, Bush had been a governor for 8 years and so *was* reasonably experienced. Second, the Bush administration hasn't acted like an inexperienced one; they have been famously tight on coordination and message. Third, at this point he's got about as much experience as anybody ever has and his administration still stinks.



The problem with the Bush administration has been of intent and judgement. They have worked for political and personal benefit, not the benefit of the country. The best example is probably Katrina. The day Katrina struck, Bush flew to Arizona to have ice cream cake for McCain's birthday and then to San Diego for a publicity session promoting Social Security privatization. Based on response time, he didn't authorize the emergency assistance Louisiana had requested the previous week until 2 days later. That's not inexperience, that's not giving a **** about thousands of Americans.
 
T!m,



I'd like to ask you about this statement "I don't see another person running for President that has appealed to so many younger voters."



I've seen other people say this and I don't understand why appealing to young votes is necessarily a good thing. Who cares that much about the opinons of munchkins in college? They don't pay taxes!! They aren't part of the system yet, they aren't in the real world, and they aren't trying to take care of family. It's extremely hard for college age kids to grasp anything beyond the idealogical stage. In short, they are buckets of naive. I know I was 10yrs ago! Why, fundamentally, do we care about appealing to them?



I understand wanting their votes...perhaps that is all you were refering to? But beyond that, I don't see why their political opinions would carry much weight.



Are you arguing that they'd vote in greater numbers in the general election, boosting Obama's "electability" over Clinton? Historically, they never do, but who knows. In terms of their votes, the democratic nominee will get 'em anyway no matter who it is (I mean absolutely offense to either side at all by mentioning it, but there is a sort of cute expression "If you aren't a democrat when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a republican when you're old, you don't have a brain." Kids are all heart :-)
 
<p> </p>

<p>FairEconomist,</p>

<p>I agree Katrina was horribly handled. But I think placing the blame on Bush per se and so personally is weak. The emergency systems to handle the disaster broke down and there is a world of blame to go around for that. Relief should have been in place and working, no matter what Bush was doing. Lots of people dropped the ball.</p>

<p>Perhaps you think I'm naive, but as much as I am not a fan of Bush, I have an impossible time believing he's a sociopath that simply did not give a rat's butt about thousands of lives. </p>
 
<p>It is Bush's fault. . .he is the "commander in chief" as he is constantly reminding us. If something was not working to help the Katrina victims, he should have done more. In fact, I am trying to find something that Bush has done that is effective. Iraq war, nope, Afghanistan, nope, Katrina, nope, TSA, nope, securing our borders, nope.. . .he was good at getting torture legalized and shredding the Constitution.</p>

<p>I do not think Bush is a sociopath, I think he believes that he has the right answer and ducks questions that he does not want to answer. He honestly believes that Iraq is a part of the "global war on terror" and believes that it is the most important thing going. Katrina caught him off guard and his handlers did not know how to deal with it. </p>
 
<p>My problem with Obama is that the supporters of his that I have met seem so amazingly unsuspicious of him - seems like the supporters I know just blindly believe he is a good guy - it reminds me of those bumper stickers that say 'Bartlet for President' - too idealistic for me - must be my age.....</p>

<p> </p>
 
"<em>Remember Hagee ? He's the one that said Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath because New Orleans was going to have a gay pride parade".





</em>Yeah, uh....just wanted to apologize for that. We had no idea.
 
Northern Command has a 24 hour response time. Nobody but the president can order them to take action. They are the only military force to intervene in disasters in the US. They started showing up on Thursday, three days after Katrina hit.



What possible excuse does Bush have for not sending them earlier other than lack of concern? Even if he didn't know about them (fat chance) he could easily have found out with a few phone calls. Really, even the fact that he was out doing photo ops rather than doing everything he could to alleviate the disaster is inexcusable. It would be even if the response had been passable. But in combination with a 2 day lapse, it's horrifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top