Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>Thanks for changing the tone, and I understand how hard it can be to switch from machine language to the human kind, my wife works for the Evil Empire </p>

<p>You may be right. All the things you have listed explain why he has risen so rapidly through the ranks. But aside from his speech to the DNC in 2004, which impressed everybody and made Kerry look like a tool in comparison, I've seen nothing from him that indicates he did more than deliver great speeches. FairEcon posted some stuff, and it all looks good, but does it justify his fast track to the Presidency? I'm not trying to say that there is anything nefarious involved or that there is some conspiracy in place. But to use your analogy, a promotion is theoretically based on great work and someone who is rising fast usually does so because they are doing a lot of great work. Aside from some co-sponsored bills and a few bits of legislation that got tacked on to other bills, I don't see evidence of a lot of great work. I see a smart man, a great speaker, and a very unique politician; I don;t see a legislative dynamo.</p>

<p>Regarding message vs. messenger, you said it yourself: " I get the feeling that people are tired of the Rep/Dem fighting and doing nothing." I agree with this statement, but I also follow it to it's logical next step: "what is this guy going to do when elected vs. the other guy/girl/party?". I loved Obama's speech on race. But if he follows it up with a policy proposal that I don't agree with then I can't support the messenger even though I love the message. The point of my comment is that you seem convinced that because of his message, the messenger will prove to be the best President and also seemed unwilling to consider any criticism as valid. I'm glad to see that you acknowledge he isn't perfect, great message or not.</p>

<p><em>At least Obama knew enough not to go to war in Iraq. That is better judgment than the other, experienced, candidates.</em></p>

<p>Obama wasn't a U.S. Senator, which provided him the benefit of not having to make that call. It is disingenuous to hold that up as a qualification to be President because it assumes that he had equal access to the information, equal responsibility in the outcome, and his opinion was unbiased by political expediency. Hindsight, being 20/20, says it was the right call. </p>

<p>But let's keep this in context: Dick Cheney, in 1992, said <em>"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."</em> Ten years later that same man with the (then) impeccable credentials and years of experience is asking for the exact opposite, remove Saddam and occupy Iraq. It's not like he forgot everything about Iraq in 10 years. At the time, people were still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at a time when the country was already on a war footing. And his delivery, his speeches, his vision made it happen even when Colin Powell was opposed. Was he wrong to pursue it, obviously. Would Obama have voted against the war as a U.S. Senator? There is no way to know, but his speech against the invasion was made when he had no responsibility in the matter and at little political risk.</p>
 
<p>FE,</p>

<p>Bush, as governor, was not prepared for the infighting that began between Cheney and Powell prior to 9-11. That situation led to all others, like dominos. Cheney had final access to the President, and his opinion made all the difference post 9-11.</p>

<p>As for Katrina, there are laws that have to be followed before the U.S. Military can be mobilized domestically. Talk to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Blanco">Governor Blanco</a> before you start bashing Bush.</p>
 
<p><em>At least Obama knew enough not to go to war in Iraq. That is better judgment than the other, experienced, candidates.</em></p>

<p>Um, as far as I'm concerned, based on the information that was presented to us at the time, the right decision was to go to war. </p>

<p>In hindsight, with the new information, the right decision is not too. To say he wouldn't go to war is either blatant pandering, outright lying or a sign of very poor judgement and pacifism. Take your pick, they're all bad in a President.</p>
 
<i>FairEcon posted some stuff, and it all looks good, but does it justify his fast track to the Presidency?</i><p>



The fast track to the Presidency is based on his political skill. In a year, he's put together a national political machine which is comparable to that of the major parties in terms of money, organization, and volunteers. That's truly a boggling achievement, and it will be a powerful asset if he gets elected. The ability to inspire, which he has in spades, is a very real and critical political tool. Politics is about collective action, and inspired people vote and act. <p>



A year ago, Obama was my favorite among the announced contenders because he was the one most likely to be pushing important issues when they were out of the spotlight, and because I agree with his philosophy of talking to and negotiating with everybody, not just people you agree with. But the Dems were all close on major issues and it was a mild preference. The past 3 months have changed me into an enthusiastic Obama supporter, even in comparison to those with similar platforms, because I think he's the guy who can get things done.<p>



Obama has a very good set of proposals and a demonstrated ability to pick important issues and address them early (mortgage fraud, bird flu, Iraq War). That combines nicely with political clout. Based on what he's done already, I expect him to both choose better goals than either Hillary or McCain, and to better achieve the goals he sets.
 
"To say he wouldn't go to war is either blatant pandering, outright lying or a sign of very poor judgement and pacifism."



or he could have thought that the reports were incomplete and needed more time for the inspectors or he could have thought (as i did) that bush and his team of crackpot spin doctors were full of cow-poop...
 
<p>4Walls,</p>

<p> <em>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."</em> </p>

<p>Yeah, all the reasons I gave are not necessarily reasons that we might want to have be important. I think this one in particular helps him because these younger voters spend time and energy volunteering in his campaign. This doesn't necessarily make him the best candidate, but it does help explain how he has risen so fast, which is the question I was answering.


</p>
 
<p>hindsight is 20/20 </p>

<p>the fact is - regardless of whether many people in this country have enough intelligence in thier little brains to accept it - there were a lot of reasons to go to war - and there were a lot of highly educated people in our country that were well educated in history, culture and politics that did support Bush's decision to go to war.</p>

<p>just because some people disagreed with the decision at the time does not mean it was the wrong decision at the time.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p><em> his speech to the DNC in 2004, which impressed everybody and made Kerry look like a tool in comparison</em></p>

<p>LOL! </p>

<p><em>FairEcon posted some stuff, and it all looks good, but does it justify his fast track to the Presidency? ... Aside from some co-sponsored bills and a few bits of legislation that got tacked on to other bills, I don't see evidence of a lot of great work.</em></p>

<p>I hear you. I thought that before, too. Looking into it, I've been surprised at how little most Senators actually get done. He has been in the Senate for less time than Clinton, but has more to show for it. Now, depending on your opinion of her, that either means a lot or next to nothing. However, I still don't have a real good idea of how he compares to most other Senators.</p>

<p><em>I loved Obama's speech on race. But if he follows it up with a policy proposal that I don't agree with then I can't support the messenger even though I love the message. </em></p>

<p>Sure, I gotcha. I agree with this.</p>

<p><em>The point of my comment is that you seem convinced that because of his message, the messenger will prove to be the best President...</em>[On Iraq] <em>Obama wasn't a U.S. Senator....</em></p>

<p>Yeah, he definitely had it easier in one way since he wasn't a US Senator and didn't have to actually cast a vote. However, he was still sticking his neck out. Don't forget that though he wasn't a US Senator, he was an elected official, and he did want to progress there. At the time, being against the Iraq war wasn't a way to be popular, and was getting people labeled as unpatriotic. The time period seemed so paranoid, and brought McCarthyism to mind. The main reason I think so highly of Barack is that he (so it seems to me) consistently sticks to what he believes even when it means sticking his neck out and doing the politically risky thing. Most politicians play it safe. The Clintons would have just thrown their minister away. When Barack said he would talk to our "enemies" and that he would not use nukes in Iran, he was blasted. (And I completely agree with him.) No other politician says these kinds of things even if they believe them. If he was consumed by ambition, he would not say these kinds of things. He would look more like Clinton (and the 2008 McCain) and would do the standard, safe political things. I see Obama saying things that I have wanted to hear a candidate say, but they are all too chicken to say it. He also is able to clearly communicate the nuances of issues. (Without delving into Bush-bashing, let me just say that Bush is too simple black-and-white for me. Few things in life are as simple as he paints them and I'm not sure if he thinks in those terms or just speaks that way.) For some reason, the combination of the times and the man are just right.</p>

<p>Now, he could just be a lot of hot air. I guess I am hoping that he will follow up his talk with actions that match. Since I don't like what Clinton and McCain say, I don't see why I would expect their actions to more align with me. Does that make sense?</p>
 
Re: Katrina



Not only is there an issue of Federalism (and if you had asked Democrats before Katrina if a Republican President had the executive authority to mobilize the Military for action supplanting state and local governments, the first word out of there mouths would have been "Impeachment"), there is also a logistical challenge. In order to fly them in, you need an airport. The airport was closed. In order to bring them in on rail, you need train tracks. The tracks had been washed out. If you want to fly them into another area, and bring them in by road, you need roads There was only one road in, and there were no trucks prepositioned. Inorder to come in on water, you need navigable waterways. Obviously, a destroyer cant sail down Borboun st. And if you want to use inflatables, you need a lot of them, and they need to be in Louisiana as opposed to Navy bases in other parts of the world (most of our war fighting material is pre positioned in other countries - we do not assume to be going to war against Kansas any time soon).



Once they are on site, you have have an area for them to set up camp, (they can't set up camp in three feet of water). A batallion is approximately 500 men, so you need an area large enough that is not flooded. I think they eventually had the equivalent of a reinforced brigade, which is several thousand men. Then you need to feed them. Obviously, in an area like post Katrina NO, you are not going to drop in on the supermarket and get food for several thousand men. Also, due to the fetid conditions, you have to plan to care for the people you put on the ground - you do not want to make matters worse by adding to the people who are sick.



When you start going through a list of considerations like this, and realise that you are going to have to shuttle all this in from neighboring areas, on one road, with trucks that are not even there yet, you have quite a challege.



I think the net-net on Katrina is that our emergency response system had never taken into account the possiblilty that both local and state government would collapse in face of a disaster, and would need to be replaced in their entirety by federal government. Look at some of the disasters that we have had in California. We have never had a breakdown where the local government could not evacuate those that could not take care of themselves, and maintain law and oreder, as well as provide basic services. Look back at other massive hurricanes such as Andrew. The difference wasn't the level of damage, it was the ability of local government to maintain services. Eventually, you have to come to the conclusion that Louisiana government was corrupt and ineffective (what a surprise that is).



In regards to: Intelligence.



There is no such thing as perfect intelligence, and the interpretation of said intelligence. If you are waiting for perfect inteligence, you will never take action. One of the reasons why Clinton did not strike more forcefully at Bin Laden was that his administration did not feel like they had concrete intelligence that Bin Laden could strike in the US again after his first attempted car bombing of the World Trade Center. Now we wish that we had acted more forcefully, and earlier.



Prior to the Battle of the Bulge, intelligence said that the Germans couuld not mount an offensive in that sector. They were wrong, but the action ended in a massive victory for the Allies.
 
<p><strong>movingaround: </strong><em>


</em></p>

<p><em>hindsight is 20/20 </em></p>

<p><em>the fact is - regardless of whether many people in this country have enough intelligence in thier little brains to accept it - there were a lot of reasons to go to war - and there were a lot of highly educated people in our country that were well educated in history, culture and politics that did support Bush's decision to go to war.</em></p>

<p><em>just because some people disagreed with the decision at the time does not mean it was the wrong decision at the time</em></p>




Hindsight is 20/20.





Adolf Hitler had a lot of reasons to go to war. There were a lot of highly educated people in Nazi Germany that were well educated in history, culture and politics that did support Hitler's decision to go to war. Just because some people disagreed with the decision does not mean it was the wrong decision at the time.





Hindsight is 20/20.





Hirohito had a lot of reasons to go to war. There were a lot of highly educated people in Imperial Japan that were well educated in history, culture and politics that did support Hirohito's decision to go to war. Just because some people disagreed with the decision does not mean it was the wrong decision at the time.
 
<p>And since you can't have perfect intelligence, the whole Pre-emptive Strike doctrine of the Bush regime should not be used. We should not attack someone for something we think they maybe might do. I remember when they started talking about this idea. I thought I had been teleported to a parallel, evil-twin universe.</p>

<p>After 9/11, the US had the sympathy and love of almost the whole world. He squandered it by moving into Iraq. So much good could have been done, but that chance is gone. They try to say that those who have died in Iraq have given their lives for a good cause. Unfortunately, the horrible truth is that the Iraq war has not only killed 100,000 for no good reason, it has also made meaningless the deaths of those 2,752 who died in 9/11.</p>
 
In terms of what Obama would have done on the Iraq War, there's a telling piece by <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine">Spencer Ackerman</a> on his (foreign policy) advisors:<p>



They also share a formative experience with each other and with Obama. Each opposed the Iraq War at a time when doing so was derided by their colleagues, by journalists, and by the foreign-policy establishment. Each did so because they understood that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda. And each bore the frustration of endless lectures on their lack of so-called seriousness from those who suffered from strategic myopia.<p>



I think the fact that <b>everyone</b> on his foreign policy team opposed the war in spite of getting a lot of flak over it shows he really meant what he said when he said we shouldn't go to war.
 
<p>hence my problem with the attitude about this war</p>

<p>Bush is NOT Adolf Hitler and getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a in my opinion a good thing. People in this country who continue to present this war, America, or Bush himself - as evil - are not, in my opinion the type of people I want leading my country. Unfortuntely that includes a number of members of my own family. What Hitler did was so obviously evil - don't know enough about Hirohito and that bit of history to discuss - but, the comparison to Hitler just doesn't make sense to me in any way.</p>
 
<p>To paraphrase IRs blog opening paragraph:</p>

<p>It’s a mistake. What else can you say about the <em>Iraq War?</em> It is a monumental mistake: testament to the greed and folly of man. A mistake of assuredness. An instance when man’s arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance. Unfortunately, mistakes have consequences, and we will all pay for the mistakes of the bubble through higher interest rates, higher tax rates (to pay for <em>the war</em>), higher inflation rates, higher unemployment rates, higher bankruptcy rates, higher divorce rates, and higher depression rates.</p>
 
<p>md, I can't believe you just Godwin'd this thread. </p>

<p>But since you went there...</p>

<p>Hitler was also a very charismatic speaker who inspired millions to follow him. Hitler was also a politcal unknown that seemingly rose to high office overnight based his power to motivate people. Hitler also built a strong organization outside of the current political machine. Hitler also came from a broken family. Hitler also believed in a strong centralized government. Hitler had to over come massive infighting within the government to rise to power. Hitler attained national power after his country suffered a massive financial disaster. </p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top