Obama Sinks as He's Vetted

[chance1]

Chance, you should preface every post you make from here on out with this statement: Obama "yeah he's the guy i voted for - explained that."

why ?

im on record

voted for him in NY primaries - was very disillusioned with the Hills at that point - Bill - her campaign .........

and Obama was impressive - there was no vetting done by anyone - no warts - and he is an electric speaker

is what it is

long primary season

allows people to rethink and reevaluate

some never do

funny - gwb and the repubs are castigated for sticking to their guns on iraq but the majority of the posters here on JUB are obama or bust and suck his cock no matter what - same "not gonna chg my mind about anything" that they kill gwb for - hmmmmmmmmmm

life is about .................

adjusting/reacting/thinking - wish more people would do it

 

[construct]

How ANYONE could consider Obama (or any Democrat) as "far left" is beyond me and is very telling about the sad, sorry state of American politics. Only a narrow world view (meaning NO world view) would produce the fallacy that there is a strong Leftist presence in American politics today.

Chance, read The Nation or Democracy Now or Counterpunch sometime if you want to see what REAL leftist progressive politics are. And all the people on that side are convinced that the Left is dead in America (at least in terms of political power). What we have with the Democrats and the Republicans is the Center-Right versus the Far Right.

Amen. Agreed.

 

[NickCole]

he aint sinkin

he's winning

the far left have taken control of the party

scary shit

He's not far left.

And his support is not far left.

It's much much worse than that, Chance.

He's unprincipled. And the people supporting him are not supporting principles, policy, anything that will address the People's issues facing our next President.

Obama stands for nothing, will throw anyone or anything under the bus (his own preacher, his grandmother, etc) in his reach for what he wants for himself. He's consolidating support, but notice it's with his personality not policy. His supporters attack anyone who opposes Obama but they never say hey look what's he's accomplished as a legislator and community organizer that shows what he'll do for us as President. Obama is the most dangerous kind of leader, whether it's a small cult or a national political movement.


You are right, it's scary shit.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Obama? Left? No...opportunist. Like with Reverend Wright - alright to associate with that when trying to get a political career in Chicago, throw him under the bus when running for President.

I supported Edwards because he was more left, by focusing on poverty. I supported Clinton because she was more left, supporting universal health care (which Obama's campaign attacked in rehashed Republican advertising).

Obama is only more progressive if you judge by rhetoric, not if you judge by policy. In that way, he appeals to those who believe they are progressive, the politically inexperienced. There's a reason why Obama gets the less experienced, limited life experience (college students) vote. Sucked in easily, little knowledge about reality, too impatient and rebellious to think policy. Rock star.

On women, gays, poverty, health care - Obama is not at all on the left of the Democratic Party and is in fact slightly to the more conservative side. Edwards supported an end to homelessness and war on poverty. Clinton supported universal health insurance. Biden supported gay marraige. And a whole bunch of people handed Obama the nomination because he can make a speech and make you feel good. Whoop de doodle doodle doo.

What a squandered opportunity on the part of the Democratic Party.
.
.
.

 

[Sammie13]

Kulindahr[/B];3921235]

For the U. S. of A., Obama's about as far left as they come.

I must return to Kuli's statement. I could get into some estoteric debate about liberalism vs leftist, and is American liberalism really true liberalism. But, that is completely irrelevant. All that matters is based on American values today, Kuli's statement is dead-on....Obama is as left as they come in the USA.


It's true that he hasn't talked about entitlements and poverty as blantantly outloud as Edwards and Clinton, but I feel strongly that his campaign, which has been very impressive, has intentionally tried to "self-moderate" because as a black candidate, he had to fight the stigma of Jesse J. and Sharpton, who embraced those types of issues. Had Obama come firing out of the gates talking about our welfare state, he would've quickly been clumped into the black Democrat stereotype. That said, my hunch is that these issues are highly significant to him, but he's simply not playing that hand.

I personally don't prefer liberal or conservative candidates. I'm a center kind of guy (slightly left of center) and I love candidates who are bold enough to sometimes flip the middle finger to their own party.

Yeah, ICO7, I do think liberalism is bad....very expensive monetarily. And I hate Rush, so don't affix that label to me. I'm amazed that you call yourself independent, you've bought into Obama hook, line and sinker....I've never been that blinded by a candidate...even the Clinton/Gore team in '92 whom I volunteered for, but still had reservations. If someone comes on JUB and says the least little anti-Obama, or pro-Hillary or pro-McCain thing, you're hiding in the weeds, ready to attack as if they've personally punched you in the gut. That may not be liberalism you're exhibiting, but it is extremism or, at the least, fanaticism. I find the open-mindedness of Chance refreshing. It's a long election process, why should one necessarily lock in so early to a candidate when the process allows you to continue collecting information.

 

[NickCole]

That said, my hunch is that these issues are highly significant to him, but he's simply not playing that hand.

Obama's been in elected office for several years. He doesn't have much of a record but he does have a record of expressing his opinion here and there, and casting a few votes.

Have you researched who he is, what he's done that would be evidence of which issues are highly significant to him and what action he takes when something appears to be highly significant to him? Why go on a hunch when there's real information available?

 

[naked gent]

You got that right!!!! For anyone to think Obama is not liberal makes me wonder if they even follow politics.

Sammie I've been following politics for a long time and I think if Obama is elected he'll be more pragmatic than liberal. But if you have a particular issue in mind which you believe he'll push which you think is far left I'd like to know which one it is.

 

[falconfan]

Well I didn't read the fast majority of it but much of it is petty back and forth bickering but to through my hat into the ring on "far left" matter...

That is a completely meaningless phrase. How "far" is "far" left depends entirely on your frame of reference. America, globally, is a fairly conservative nation. So yeah. What's right to us may be far left to a Saudi. What you're claiming is Left may be someone else's right. It's really a meaningless phrase.

 

[Sammie13]

Obama's been in elected office for several years. He doesn't have much of a record but he does have a record of expressing his opinion here and there, and casting a few votes.

Have you researched who he is, what he's done that would be evidence of which issues are highly significant to him and what action he takes when something appears to be highly significant to him? Why go on a hunch when there's real information available?

For the record, Nick, I'm hoping fighting poverty is not a big issue with Obama, but I'm guessing it is. Typically, when a Democrat is "fighting" poverty, it means I have to open my wallet really wide for a lot of entitlement programs. It is the Dems' love of govt-sponsored big-money programs like welfare and healthcare, Naked Gent, that turn me off about the overall party. Instead of working to resolve problems or simply accepting that a captialist country will always have a segment of un-motivated freeloaders, Democrats would rather throw millions of dollars at them, so they can make claims on how they're helping the down-trodden.

And in every low-income, drug-dealing, crime-ridden neighborhood that I drive through, there is Obama election signage everywhere. Clearly, they think Santa Claus in coming in November.

That said, I am hopeful that I have mis-calculated Obama and that he will be pragmatic. I could see that. The problem with Obama, for me, is like Nick said there simply is not a heck of a lot of history to make informed decisions upon. All of his "present" votes were intentionally done to make the waters murky.

 

[Sammie13]

Limbaugh and his ilk have succeeded into turning the word 'liberalism' into a bad word. And you've for some reason fallen for their campaign.

Heh, that's a silly claim. The 'least little' isn't too much of a concern to me; it's Nick's and iman's ham-fisted bludgeoning that typically gets countered---if not, it gets repeated over and over again. Rodham is a poorer choice---her Rovian politics of failure, her terrible economic plans, and her insurance scam. McCain would've been great in 2000, before the damage of Dubya, but we don't need another 4 to 8 years of a Republican president, regardless of who they choose.

Chance's 'open-mindedness' is not how I would describe it. He's been a fan of McCain for years and has never accepted any criticism of him. As soon as McCain got the nomination, it wasn't long until he turned on Obama. He defends the bias of Fox News, but attacks MSNBC's---that may sit well with you, appear 'open-minded', because it is similar to your beliefs. Electing a Republican, especially now, is not in this nation's best interest, regardless of what the Liebermans and Rodham fans think.

I used to consider myself liberal, and then I grew up!!!! Okay, I'm being playful with the 'growing up' remark, I am okay with and enjoy my radical liberal and radical right friends. And, I did label myself as liberal until 9/11, and that event, for me personally, began an evolution away from being tied to a specific party. I was already growing weary of the Democrats tax and entitlement policies and 9/11 put in persepctive that a left ideaology was not what I was all about. I realized that I was only a "Democrat" because they stood for gay rights, etc. I was a liberal, in essence, because that's what gay people are supposed to be. But, if I peeled further back, I realized that most of the liberal movement was not good policy. I think of Jimmy Carter, my own former Governor, who made us seem so weak to the world, and Bill Clinton, whom I still adore, having opportunities to go after Osama, but was too apprehensive. And I remember during those initial days after 9/11 being so upset and angry, and thinking I'm glad the party that I am affiliated with was in power. I felt a Gore response would have been like Carter's...and I want strength and resolve from my US government....protecting and securing our citizens is more important that any social issue. However, the current idiot in power has been a disgrace, and, in no way, inspires me to be a Republican. Hence, I'm an Independent now. So, ICO7, Rush and his friends had nothing to do with me droping my liberal label.

And, using the word Rodham is mean-spirited and disrespectful to her and her supporters. She does not go by the name, and you're baiting her supporters by using it. I think using Rodham is as wrong as calling Obama "Osama" or BO. In regards to your view on McCain '00 vs '08, I must say that I ....wait for it, wait for it.....concur with everything you wrote. I can't fathom 4 more years of Bush.

In regards to your views of Chance, I find that I can rarely not read one of his posts. I always look forward to what he has to say because he will usually be original. Yes, he likes to stir the pot, but that's okay. I don't always agree with him!!! My God, he voted for Bush as I recall. And he is right about MSNBC, but he is wrong about Fox. So, no, Chance's opinions are not that similar to mine. I've never even voted for a Republican in a general election. The similarity is that we don't walk hand in hand, lock step with any party....a candidate must actually WIN and earn our votes.

 

[naked gent]

It is the Dems' love of govt-sponsored big-money programs like welfare and healthcare, Naked Gent, that turn me off about the overall party.

Well the last democratic president gave us welfare reform and the current republican president gave us the largest govt-sponsored program big money program (the prescription drug bene) in the last 40 yrs although I concede the danger of combining a democratic congress with a democratic president.

As for healthcare under McCain's plan (as I understand it) those of you who currently receive your health insurance from your employer as a benefit will now be taxed on that benefit just as if it was wages and will receive a tax credit to make up the difference.

I like the idea but I doubt most americans will agree with me. As much as people talk about the wonders of a free market few americans actually want to be exposed to it and like it when their government protects them from it with social programs or market subsidies for those in business.

Instead of working to resolve problems or simply accepting that a captialist country will always have a segment of un-motivated freeloaders, Democrats would rather throw millions of dollars at them, so they can make claims on how they're helping the down-trodden.

The dems throw money at the poor and the republicans throw it at the rich......neither works very well for me and when I criticize the one I always mention the other.

 

[CGHJ]

For the record, Nick, I'm hoping fighting poverty is not a big issue with Obama, but I'm guessing it is. Typically, when a Democrat is "fighting" poverty, it means I have to open my wallet really wide for a lot of entitlement programs. It is the Dems' love of govt-sponsored big-money programs like welfare and healthcare, Naked Gent, that turn me off about the overall party. Instead of working to resolve problems or simply accepting that a captialist country will always have a segment of un-motivated freeloaders, Democrats would rather throw millions of dollars at them, so they can make claims on how they're helping the down-trodden.

Normally I would totally agree with you, I am no fan of the democrats or Obama for that matter. However, in this election, you have your choice of spending money to improve healthcare and whatever else is on the liberal agenda that will actually make the problem worse, or spending that same money to destroy countless lives in the middle east and grow a new generation of Jihadis that will threaten our security for countless years to come.

And I know what you're saying about "And in every low-income, drug-dealing, crime-ridden neighborhood that I drive through, there is Obama election signage everywhere. Clearly, they think Santa Claus in coming in November." But I don't think it's because they think Obama will be a gravy train for drug dealers. I think it's because those folks want something better and for once they think someone in Washington might try to help them out of their shithole. Yes liberals trying to solve social problems scares me but Obama is such an intelligent, reasonable, pragmatic guy I think he might actually be able to do some good.

Everything I see about Obama gives me hope that he will be the kind of guy that reaches across the aisle and comes up with pragmatic solutions that everyone has some stake in. I see him being way more interested in solutions than ideology, and I think if someone was able to show him a solution that contradicted his lefty leanings he would have no problem trying new things.

Also, Clinton was a democrat and he reformed welfare and we ended up with a $6 trillion surplus. Quite rankly the dems have a much better spending record any more. Sure they like to throw money at shit but but in their wildest dreams they would never have wasted as much money as the republicans have.

 

[CGHJ]

The dems throw money at the poor and the republicans throw it at the rich......neither works very well for me and when I criticize the one I always mention the other.

Agreed and likewise. I don't think the gov't should be allowed to spend our money iike it does but if we spent it on healthcare instead of Haliburton...I mean, I don't think it should be spent on EITHER, I think taxpayers should get to keep their money, and that government involvement in anything is corrosive and counter-productive...but if it's gonna be spent on something, better healthcare and social programs than the multi-billion dollar Jihadist Training Academy of Iraq. I mean we literally sent over $12 million cash on pallets, and it vanished into think air... that war costs us $5k a second. Can you imagine if you handed out $5k a second to schools in the US?

 

[Sammie13]

Naked Gent and CGHJ....you both make valid points and food for thought. Bill Clinton was an outstanding president and he was a centrists like I consider myself. I wonder two things regarding his success: 1) is his spending control transferable to other Democrats....or was it just him and the times we were living in? Can we truly say the Dems are now more fiscally responsibel just because this one man was and 2) was much of his success due to a GOP congress lead by Newt keeping him under control?


I think the best scenario is a Republican congress and a Democratic president. Bill bombed the first 2 years under a Dem congress, but seemed to soar under the legislative challenges of a GOP congress the next 4 years. Under Obama and a Democratic Congress, who will be there to stop the spending madness?

And CGHJ, regardless of who wins in November, we will be spending alot of money in Iraq for a long time to come. I don't really see troops being withdrawn that soon, and even when they are, the monies spent in Iraq and elsewhere will continue to mount as we provide more support funding as our military aid diminishes.

 

[Sammie13]

The Princeton definitions of liberal, ICO7, are completely consistent with my own. And it's these "generous and broad sympathies" that drive political liberals to throw tax dollars at every problem to ease their guilt. I don't consider the word evil or perverted; like I said, I was once liberal. So, enough already with associating my interpretation with Rush's.

 

[naked gent]

Can we truly say the Dems are now more fiscally responsibel just because this one man was and 2) was much of his success due to a GOP congress lead by Newt keeping him under control?

Sammie I don't think we can say the dems are fiscally responsible but we can say they are more fiscally responsible than the republicans who, upon taking power, immediately ditched the "pay as you go" rule ( which is how we got our surplus) where new spending or new tax cuts had to be paid for because if they kept it they could not pass the Bush tax cuts.

That was not fiscally responsible especially when you consider the way they spent money.

A party that cares about tax cuts above all else cannot be fiscally responsible and if they are not concerned with bankrupting their government can't be called patriots either no matter how often they wave the flag.

A divided government is the one which serves us best but given the way the republicans have governed if we are to have one party rule I'd rather the dems be that party.

 

[syntax]

And, using the word Rodham is mean-spirited and disrespectful to her and her supporters. She does not go by the name, and you're baiting her supporters by using it. I think using Rodham is as wrong as calling Obama "Osama" or BO.

She does use the name 'Rodham'. It distinguishes herself from her husband. Her real middle name is Diane. Any claim otherwise is disingenuous. How you equate with using her name with a perversion of a name (like calling Obama 'Osama') is ridiculous.

When Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton, she kept her maiden name. As a concession to Arkansas voters and southern sensitivities, she began to use "Mrs. Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton" when Bill was Governor. When Bill became President, she announced that she would be addressed as "Hilllary Rodham Clinton" She used the same nomenclature when she ran for the Senate.

At some point in her Presidential campaign, she changed her name once again to just "Hillary." Several of her supporters on these boards have objected to the disrespect shown to Sen. Clinton by referring to her as just "Hillary" oblivious to the fact that it is the preferred name of her campaign:

For someone who changes her name so many times, I see nothing disrespectful or perverted in referring to her as "Rodham" and her supporters as "Rodhamite."
Certainly, its use cannot be compared to the explicit slur of "Osama" or the implied insult "Barack Hussein Obama"

 

[Sammie13]

Sammie I don't think we can say the dems are fiscally responsible but we can say they are more fiscally responsible than the republicans who, upon taking power, immediately ditched the "pay as you go" rule ( which is how we got our surplus) where new spending or new tax cuts had to be paid for because if they kept it they could not pass the Bush tax cuts.

That was not fiscally responsible especially when you consider the way they spent money.

A party that cares about tax cuts above all else cannot be fiscally responsible and if they are not concerned with bankrupting their government can't be called patriots either no matter how often they wave the flag.

A divided government is the one which serves us best but given the way the republicans have governed if we are to have one party rule I'd rather the dems be that party.

Indeed, the last 8 years have been a spending frenzy....perhaps, the Dems are better at cost containment. I'm just saying the only evidence of this is Bill Clinton...otherwise, I'm not so sure that they are any better.

And, if we continue to spend in the Middle East...which, I feel certain we will regardless of who sits in the Oval office in '09....and the Dems starting writing more entitlement checks, then what? The debt will continue to balloon. But, you're right in that common sense dictates if you spend more money, you need more money, so why in the world would Bush enact tax cuts for the rich when, after 9/11, the spending increased.

I'm actually writing without an agenda here. Neither side gives me an ounce of hope that spending and taxing issues will subside with our next president. And Bush has made a mockery of the GOP's #1 issue, taxing and spending.

 

[Sammie13]

For someone who changes her name so many times, I see nothing disrespectful or perverted in referring to her as "Rodham" and her supporters as "Rodhamite."
Certainly, its use cannot be compared to the explicit slur of "Osama" or the implied insult "Barack Hussein Obama"

Personally, I feel like those who use Rodham or Rodhamite are intentionally trying to throw grease onto a fire. If it's so respectful, why don't the Hillary supporters use it? Why is it always Obama supporters? It is meant to agitate. Maybe I will start to address the Democratic nominee as Barack Hussein Obama. It's his name....no big deal. There's technically nothing wrong with her maiden name, but those using it on JUB are being malicious.

 

[syntax]

Maybe I will start to address the Democratic nominee as Barack Hussein Obama. It's his name....no big deal.

I often do, not to agitate but to defuse the issue. I find the anti-Muslim attitude often displayed here and in the MSM and public opinion to be anti-American.