Originally posted by DJ Eco
I agree... +1 for that, that's what it comes down to....
I was just gunna reply with a closing statement before I head off... If the people wanted CHANGE, they woulda voted for Kucinich or Ron Paul. Both of them are radically different than anything we've had in decades and they would bring about real change... I'm saying this because I assure you I'm not a Hillary-lover. IIf Jersey was the first primary, Hillary and Obama woulda been my last two choices.
Respect! I figured people would write me off as a conspiracy theorist even though I don't talk about conspiracies.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I appreciate your reply and taking time to reply and I can't address even 10% of it for lack of time as I'm running out. But explain, how is he different? How is better? What in his 2.5 years in the Senate (1 of which has been all campaigning and fundraising) has set him apart from ALL the rest besides his incredible speech at the DNC. I just can't vote for someone as our next president based on a series of speeches. What has he accomplished?
I and/or Lebez would be happy to answer your questions, but rather than attempt to put the burden on us to explain, again I would like to know:
[/QUOTE]do you agree with Obama's stances? Do you know what they are?[/QUOTE]
It's okay if you don't, and I'm plenty good with that. But I am curious since you appear to be a Hillary supporter if you happen to know where he stands on issues in comparison to her.
Now we can talk about past votes like on the war on Iraq, voting for Patriot Act II, or we can discuss lobbying interests:
so and and so forth, and there's plenty of other things that have turned me off about Hillary long ago, but if you want to discuss issues only, that's fine too.
Now I don't necessarily want this to be a trick question, because on many of those issues they have more similarities than differences, but there are differences. A good place to start is his website:
We can also examine some of Obama's record on reaching across the aisle and working with some hard-nosed Conservatives on things like Nonproliferation Legislation with Sen. Lugar:
The ridiculousness of the "he's better argument" won't work against McCain. It's like saying "Oh wow, that freshman trying out for football in the first 15 minutes of trying out is BETTER than Joe Smith, that varsity captain of ours who gave us 2 championships and plays all state."
It was a major generalization statement on my part and I would hope that someone like yourself would not misconstrue it into something that I clearly did not intend to state like you're attempting to say above.
quote:
Why we may not like "Joe Smith" and his style of play, a 2.5-year career in the Senate is not criteria to tell how much better he is than someone who's been in the government for decades. And don't give me the "well he's not corrupted" argument, because they're ALL corrupt.
I would argue that he doesn't hold a candle to the years of influence and possible corruption on McCain, but that's not the argument I would bring to the table just yet. If we are to stick to the issues and differences between them, let alone what the majority of Americans want a President to do at this point, the winner is clearly Obama and the Democrats.
quote:
They've all taken money from lobbyists and the like, but I won't even get into that... I just want to see if you can list all his accomplishments. I admit, Hillary's not too far ahead in the year-count in the Senate, but, you can hate however much you want, I think 8 years alongside the President of the United States counts as some good experience.
Learning by osmosis?
Sorry, unless you hold the reins, it's simply not the same.
quote:
At the end of the day, she has a laundry-list of numbers and friends and old contacts in her roladex around the world that she can get things done with, thanks to Bill.
So we are wanting to vote for her because of Bill, not just on her record only?
Huh. I see.
quote:
According to TOO MANY (it's kinda freaky) Obama supporters, he has the color of his skin to help him around the world... I don't know, I don't knwo if I can bank on that as a reason for voting for my next President... But if he wins the nomination, I will bite my tongue and do it.
I can't think of one Obama supporter who's even remotely said anything of the sort. If they have, so be it, but I'd be hard pressed to examine any liberal blog and find something along those lines.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Dean's a coward who is single-handedly ruining the Democratic party. Every election that passes, it seems each one gets more and more ridiculous.
Yeah, that 50-state strategy really hurt us Democrats in 2006. If only he listened to the DLC who basically jumps high and runs crapping their pants every time Bush and the GOP whisper "national security".......
Because the candidates Dean and the netroots supported in 2006, even those in the red states and districts, seemingly did quite well compared to the DLC's triangulation strategy.
DJ Eco
Once again appreciate your reply and the facts you put forward, thumbs up on that :) The reason I ask all these questions is because I too was once an Obama supporter. Before the bandwagon was rolled into town, I was on it as early as before he announced running. I was inspired and saw "hope" and "change" in the distance... I attended countless Obama-events and fundraisers here in New York and my best friend himself was part of his campaign here in Jersey. The more and more you read about him and his record, or lack thereof, the more and more you question whether or not he is ready to be the President of the United States. His record and stance on the issues are very similar to Hillary Clinton. No one is debating that. However, call it stupid as much as you want, but being First Lady DOES give her experience, and yes that is voting for her because of the idea of "Billary", I have no problem admitting that... Nothing wrong with it in my opinion. Could Obama be a great president? Yes, of course, but give him 4-8 more years to actually know what he's doing to be a president.
That's my problem with him. He's something "new" and "refreshing" and brings "change" and yet he's another packaged and mass-marketed product of our political system, moreso than we've ever seen. I like his message as well but I just don't think he's ready for the job. Put him in office and he'll be learning as he goes, which we can't afford this day in age while our country is a mess NOW and needs a big band-aid NOW. Once again, I repeat, let's not make this a Hillary vs. Obama debate, as she's not much higher on my presidential scale. I just think we got the ty end of the deal as far as candidates go. I would have picked two or three other choices who were at the beginning of the race over Obama or Hillary, so to say that Obama is the best possible choice is just, idk, I have to terribly disagree with you there. C'mon man, honestly tell me that he's more qualified than Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, etc. No, he's not, he's just another packaged public relations success.
You pulled up a chart/graph of lobbyists' contributions, with Hillary on top with $862,500. Not only have I seen other charts with very differing information, but I'll lump all of those subdivisions with lobbyists. My point is, their both stinks. Not saying you, but one Obama supporter at my school told me he accepts only money from regular people, I told him to go do some research and/or open his eyes a little bit because he was clueless.
As for the idea that he'll change foreign policy because of the color of his skin and his perception, I've heard this argument way too many times, it freaking scares me. John Kerry himself said it: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/jo...plomatic_power/
Once again, let me repeat, this is as much about a Hillary vs. Obama discussion as it is me telling you to open your eyes and realize this wasn't our best choice. We shouldn't be satisfied with what we have now, with either Clinton OR Obama, but the pedestal he has been put on makes any intelligent Democrat wince and wonder at what's going to happen in November.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Yeah, that 50-state strategy really hurt us Democrats in 2006. If only he listened to the DLC who basically jumps high and runs crapping their pants every time Bush and the GOP whisper "national security".......
Because the candidates Dean and the netroots supported in 2006, even those in the red states and districts, seemingly did quite well compared to the DLC's triangulation strategy.
+1 - I was going to respond to this but Opus covered the gist. The 50-state strategy introduced by Dean revitalized the Democratic base and made it proud to be progressive.
As for policy, I'm not sure if you've really sunk your teeth in to the actual policies given by either candidate, because there are tangible differences. Of course there are similarities as well - after all, they are both Democrats.
For instance, on health care, Obama's plan mandates health care for children and works on lowering the costs for all Americans, in effect removing the prohibitive nature of costs that exist today. He doesn't say "all people must have health care," but instead makes it a realistic choice that all Americans can choose should they want to. Hillary, on the other hand, does mandate health care - all Americans would be obliged under law to have it. As you can imagine, the costs the federal government incurs under Hillary-care are much higher than it would under Obama-care.
The link to Obama's website (which has won award for its candor and detail in describing policy for a political candidate) is a good place to start if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of actual health policy.
But as I've stated many times prior, foreign policy was for me the deciding factor. Both candidates have demonstrated a real desire to leave Iraq - Obama has been consistent on this front since the beginning of the war, whereas Hillary seems to merely follow popular opinion, reversing her position when the war became unpopular in 2005. Obama, however, remains pragmatic, and I believe he will be less influenced by mass opinion in a withdrawal strategy. An immediate and total withdrawal (I believe) would be disastrous, and I trust Obama to be cautious in implementing a strategy that would responsibly transition security control over to another body, be it the UN or the Iraqi government.
As to Pakistan/Afghanistan, Hillary has repeatedly criticized Obama for wanting to exert more effort in placating the Taliban and eliminating al-Qaeda elements that may exist in Afghanistan and the Tora Bora region of Pakistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the reason we went to war in the first place?
And as to grandiose foreign policy ideals, I do believe that Obama is well-positioned to restore some of America's reputation abroad. It's disingenuous of you to say that people make this argument based solely on the color of his skin, though that does have some impact. As the article I linked to earlier shows, in Africa in particular the notion that a white American can support a non-white President gains some traction in places of the world that believe ethnic, racial, and tribal identity take prominence in politics over ideas (just look at Kenya in 2007). Obama has proven to me to have a truly global scope to his foreign policy, focused on issues that range far beyond what is going on in Iraq. Hillary's experience beyond Iraq seems to be that she's traveled there. Great for her, but I'd love it if she talked about US policy toward Latin America and Africa instead of saying "well, I've been there before."
In any case, in all things politics I'm a big fan of going directly to the horse's mouth - context is inevitably lost through ten second soundbites on MSNBC and CNN. Perhaps the best place to go for the canddiates' foreign policy strategies are their own foreign policy essays, published last year in Foreign Affairs. They're very good reads and illustrative of what kind of approach each would take in the world upon election.
Note that even in their introductions, Obama is talking about American policy "after Iraq" whereas Hillary merely says getting out of Iraq is our first priority.
In addition, Obama's friendship and choice of mentors on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is astounding to me. He arrived in Washington eager to learn from his most distinguished colleagues, and has sought them out to sharpen his foreign policy teeth, rather than distance himself and brag about how accomplished he is in his own right. His partnership, as Opus alluded to, with statesmen such as Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, as well as Joe Biden, Jim Webb, and other democrats, shows to me that Obama is on the right path.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
here's some cricitism on substance:
(1) Obama's fair trade talk is just another way of saying, trade barriers. that's not the answer. (i think hillary is saying the same things though).
(2) McCain is the only candidate who is taking notice that our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world. Obama is set on removing deductions that help american businesses stay competitive on the world market.
(3) obama keeps saying he will cut wasteful spending....HOW? Every candidate says the same , but exactly what the hell is your plan?!?
(4) How is Obama's tax cut for the working family going to be offset by his PAYGO reinstatement?
those are only a few of the things i could think of at 1 am, but i have many more issues. obama has the right policy ideas, but his plans aren't really thorough enough for me to be convinced. also, i'm not convinced he will be good for our economy. with that said, whatever democrat wins i will support; although i hope it's hilary.
Jer, thanks for infusing this discussion with some substantive criticisms rather than simply political differences.
Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about economics and finance, so I'm sure I won't be able to answer them to the extent you may want. I'm not even sure I'm able to defend Obama on these particular issues, as there do remain several things I'd like to see him change on his platform.
That said, all choices are relative. I do think Obama's talk on free trade is more liberal than Hillary's - she seems to be more willing to lambast NAFTA as a terrible thing (I opposed it before Bill supported it, etc.) whereas Obama seems to recognize the nuance involved with allowing that NAFTA has hurt many Americans and helped many more. Free trade is never universally beneficial, as you well know, and I think Obama is closer to acknowledging that it has positives than Hillary has been (at least in the debates).
I don't know anything about corporate tax policy, though if Obama is really doing that I can see why it is troubling.
I believe Obama has made remarks about reducing inefficiency in government spending - namely reducing waste within the DoD (which despite what Q may say is in horrid fiscal shape), and stream-lining bureaucratic procedure. Just last month the GAO released a report illuminating a massive amount of waste in the bureaucracy, and gave specific instances - Obama made a statement to the effect of putting together a task force to get serious about combating that kind of waste of tax dollars. In addition, I think he is a bit more pragmatic about actual spending - which is why I think he wanted to make his health care plan universal but ended up compromising in lieu of financial availability.
And I don't know what PAYGO is so I can't really respond to that either. So I'm sure that's not an accurate response, but I just wanted to let you know that your policy criticisms didn't go unnoticed. :)
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
In addition, Obama's friendship and choice of mentors on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is astounding to me. He arrived in Washington eager to learn from his most distinguished colleagues, and has sought them out to sharpen his foreign policy teeth, rather than distance himself and brag about how accomplished he is in his own right. His partnership, as Opus alluded to, with statesmen such as Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, as well as Joe Biden, Jim Webb, and other democrats, shows to me that Obama is on the right path.
I agree... That's one of my biggest opinions, that I would much rather see a Joe Biden as presidential candidate with Obama to follow in 4 or 8 years, than either Hillary or Obama RIGHT NOW. That, in my honest opinion, would have strengthened the Democratic party and kept us as the head of government for years to come. If either Hillary or Obama become president, we'll have 4 years of a gamble on either of them and might lose power to the Republicans just as quickly. Whatever though, we can't see into the future, so we'll see...
On any note though, I think you guys are all very well-educated and well-informed and it's been a nice discussion, a refreshing change from the Obama-bots that are all over every site or blog. That's why I don't really speak politics online anymore except here. In one discussion in the NYTA forums, I expressed pretty much the same views as I did here and someone said, "You're a psycho."... I'm glad you guys are informed and at least know what you're talking about in a decent manner... I'm out for the weekend, busy few days ahead me, cheers!
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And I don't know what PAYGO is so I can't really respond to that either. So I'm sure that's not an accurate response, but I just wanted to let you know that your policy criticisms didn't go unnoticed. :)
essentially paygo is offsetting reductions in government revenue with cuts in government spending. i would like to see a more definitive plan on how he plans to reduce the tax burden on middle and working class americans but still reduce the deficit. it doesn't sound practical just by reducing department of defense spending.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I agree... That's one of my biggest opinions, that I would much rather see a Joe Biden as presidential candidate with Obama to follow in 4 or 8 years, than either Hillary or Obama RIGHT NOW. That, in my honest opinion, would have strengthened the Democratic party and kept us as the head of government for years to come. If either Hillary or Obama become president, we'll have 4 years of a gamble on either of them and might lose power to the Republicans just as quickly. Whatever though, we can't see into the future, so we'll see...
On any note though, I think you guys are all very well-educated and well-informed and it's been a nice discussion, a refreshing change from the Obama-bots that are all over every site or blog. That's why I don't really speak politics online anymore except here. In one discussion in the NYTA forums, I expressed pretty much the same views as I did here and someone said, "You're a psycho."... I'm glad you guys are informed and at least know what you're talking about in a decent manner... I'm out for the weekend, busy few days ahead me, cheers!
Likewise on the sentiments. I appreciate a good discussion any day over a vitriolic debate, which unfortunately seems to pervade political talk way too much nowadays. And truth be told, I may have been a bit reluctant to do so, but I would have voted for Hillary over McCain pretty easily, since my Lefty views run much more closely to hers than his.
Have a good weekend, and I hope to see you around here more.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I agree... That's one of my biggest opinions, that I would much rather see a Joe Biden as presidential candidate with Obama to follow in 4 or 8 years, than either Hillary or Obama RIGHT NOW. That, in my honest opinion, would have strengthened the Democratic party and kept us as the head of government for years to come. If either Hillary or Obama become president, we'll have 4 years of a gamble on either of them and might lose power to the Republicans just as quickly. Whatever though, we can't see into the future, so we'll see...
On any note though, I think you guys are all very well-educated and well-informed and it's been a nice discussion, a refreshing change from the Obama-bots that are all over every site or blog. That's why I don't really speak politics online anymore except here. In one discussion in the NYTA forums, I expressed pretty much the same views as I did here and someone said, "You're a psycho."... I'm glad you guys are informed and at least know what you're talking about in a decent manner... I'm out for the weekend, busy few days ahead me, cheers!
Truth be told, Biden was my first choice while he was still in the race merely because of his foreign policy agenda. I'm still hoping he lands Obama's VP spot (he would immediately bring credentials and credibility to the campaign, which are attack points for McCain). Edwards was probably my favorite candidate on domestic issues, but I think both were pretty one-faceted. Obama offers a compromise between the two in a way that neither candidate really could.
As to the comment about experience earlier, I don't believe any human being, republican or democrat, governor or senator, could ever be prepared to be President. So I would just echo Susan Rice's comments from a few weeks ago in saying it's silly to have a debate about who is "ready" to be Commander-in-Chief since it's not a position you can train for.
But yes, I've enjoyed this debate as well - you should stick around PDD more often - politics can be a heated subject, but we generally keep it pretty civil.
DJ Eco
What do you guys think about that? haha... Not gunna be psycho and say OH HE DID IT!!!! haha... But it's peculiar timing and I can't say I've ever scratched my face with my middle finger, only with my index
:haha: :haha: :stongue:
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
What do you guys think about that? haha... Not gunna be psycho and say OH HE DID IT!!!! haha... But it's peculiar timing and I can't say I've ever scratched my face with my middle finger, only with my index
