REUTERS: Democrat Obama enters 2008 White House race

2»

Comments

  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    jlew24asu wrote:
    well if this surge doesnt fail, troops come home, Iraq takes over security, and shiites/sunnis stop killing each other....republicans would beat hilary. but its a long shot of that happening

    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...

    People WANT to do something to clean up our environment and reduce our need to get involved with the Middle East. Most of us don't want to fight, but we would like to contribute somehow.

    If he just tapped that energy and ran on a platform of challenging America to rise to the call of the 21st century - he would be a fucking Hero the likes of JFK....
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    NCfan wrote:
    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...

    People WANT to do something to clean up our environment and reduce our need to get involved with the Middle East. Most of us don't want to fight, but we would like to contribute somehow.

    If he just tapped that energy and ran on a platform of challenging America to rise to the call of the 21st century - he would be a fucking Hero the likes of JFK....

    I havent heard that from him but if he does I'd vote for him.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...
    Again, he's a politician, so take this how you want, but he seems pretty green:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    RainDog wrote:
    This is from his website - though he is a politician, so you can take it however you like:
    "Since 2002, and now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences, and that's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment."

    As for funding the war, I'm not so sure about that one - though I'm pretty sure he's more for "funding soldiers" and is actually opposed to funding an escalation.
    Exactly...he disapproves of the Republican administration's handling of the war, not the war itself. "Begin a phased redeployment" is a very tactful term that most democrats use now. It gets people to think they're against the war, when really they're just against the fact that they're not running it. The Iraqi people want a complete withdrawal within the next year, and that's what we should be doing.

    Of course what he's saying on his website is all up for interpretation, but I never hear any high-up democrats say "this war is wrong" and "we should leave within ___ years/months".

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Saturnal wrote:
    Exactly...he disapproves of the Republican administration's handling of the war, not the war itself. "Begin a phased redeployment" is a very tactful term that most democrats use now. It gets people to think they're against the war, when really they're just against the fact that they're not running it. The Iraqi people want a complete withdrawal within the next year, and that's what we should be doing.

    Of course what he's saying on his website is all up for interpretation, but I never hear any high-up democrats say "this war is wrong" and "we should leave within ___ years/months".

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1
    He's stated over and over again that if he'd been given the chance he'd have voted against the invasion of Iraq. Of course, he wasn't given the chance because at the time he wasn't in Congress. However, he's spoken against the war, in both rallies and interviews, going back to 2002; so I don't agree when you say he's only against the fact that he's not running it.

    About the only pro-war thing he's done is vote against a total troop withdrawal by July 2007. Now, I don't necessarily consider that a pro-war position so much as a "not my idea of a good withdrawal plan" position. Were I in the Senate, I probably would have voted in favor of a July 2007 date - but I've long since given up on looking for a candidate that matches my every belief. To his credit, he - apart from just about every other elected Democrat in the country - has called it a mistake from the beginning. Mistakes are often hard to erase.

    Yeah, at the moment I'm pretty pro-Obama. Again, I don't agree with everything about him, but I do agree with a lot of it - and I consider him to be the best viable candidate in the field right now.

Categories