Obama Video

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Can anyone give me a justifiable reason to vote for Barak Obama, without invoking the name of anyone else?

You specifically? Not really. I suspect no matter who's elected in '08, he or she is still likely to kick in your front door, point a gun at you, and steal a third of your money.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

I think he honestly wants to bring a new style of politics to America, and get away from the bipartisan crap that has enveloped Washington ever since Clinton took the White House.

He is young and isn't tied to a party line or a voting record. He hasn't been corrupted by Washington. He is extremely well spoken and very intelligent.

I think he is the most honest politician I've ever heard of. He has admited to using coke and pot, and doesn't hide from that or deflect it. That speaks alot to me about his character, and lessens my skepticism about his sincerity towards a new style of politics.

There's also another aspect to his "meteoric" rise. If he wins the Presidency for two terms, that's it for him as far as elected office goes. No one goes back to the Senate or becomes governor after holding that office. That would mean 4 years in the Senate and 8 in the White House - 12 years and he's done. That's gotta sound good to anyone (like me) who believes that the longer you're in, the more likely you'll become a crook.

Milhouse VanHouten

RainDog wrote:

There's also another aspect to his "meteoric" rise. If he wins the Presidency for two terms, that's it for him as far as elected office goes. No one goes back to the Senate or becomes governor after holding that office. That would mean 4 years in the Senate and 8 in the White House - 12 years and he's done. That's gotta sound good to anyone (like me) who believes that the longer you're in, the more likely you'll become a crook.

Hopefully he'd choose to stay active in the party after his two terms were up. I could see him in a Bill Clinton role: the elder statesman, fund raiser, philanthropist, etc.

Plus, they might actually stop calling him Barack Osama by then.

farfromglorified

So let me see if I understand this. Barak Obama is promising to "change" Washington politics? Has he described how that change would happen? More importantly, what would it change into?

VictoryGin

cornnifer wrote:

Furthermore, how much experience did Bush have? Thats a stupid fuckin' argument.

what i find interesting about the experience comments being made is that this administration has more experience than what other administration in history? and look where we are! you can have all the experience in the world and come from some other reasonably successful administrations and still really fuck things up. i think it really has more to do with the people, and not just "experience."

one thing i like about obama is that i think he can really, and does really, want to work with others--instead of against them, like what we've been seeing lately.

oh and i just love seeing the extreme right-wingers get all worked up!

obama 2008!

VictoryGin

RainDog wrote:

There's also another aspect to his "meteoric" rise. If he wins the Presidency for two terms, that's it for him as far as elected office goes. No one goes back to the Senate or becomes governor after holding that office. That would mean 4 years in the Senate and 8 in the White House - 12 years and he's done. That's gotta sound good to anyone (like me) who believes that the longer you're in, the more likely you'll become a crook.

that's a good point. we could go back to civil service not being a lifelong career. i mean he's already, what, 45? this might be perfect.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

So let me see if I understand this. Barak Obama is promising to "change" Washington politics? Has he described how that change would happen? More importantly, what would it change into?

Two examples:

He's worked on legislation that would require transparency in all federal spending. This is aimed specifically at earmarks added onto spending bills. If a member of Congress in either the House or the Senate proposed additional spending on an appropriations bill, he/she would be connected to it on an internet database accessible to the public.

He also supported setting up an independent ethics panel to oversee Congress, since it was pretty evident that Congress wasn't doing a very good job at overseeing itself.

cornnifer

VictoryGin wrote:

oh and i just love seeing the extreme right-wingers get all worked up!

obama 2008!

Me too.

i think they know they have no one to compete.
Most of all, the right is terrified because he threatens to break the stranglehold the right seems to have on the "religious" vote. By turning the discussion to issues such as poverty, war, the environment etc. while demonstrating how these issues are far more significant and paly to faith far more than "gay marriage" or "abortion" Obama will wake the "religious" voter up to things that really matter. If, and when that happens (its happening already) the right is screwed!

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

He's worked on legislation that would require transparency in all federal spending. This is aimed specifically at earmarks added onto spending bills. If a member of Congress in either the House or the Senate proposed additional spending on an appropriations bill, he/she would be connected to it on an internet database accessible to the public.

He also supported setting up an independent ethics panel to oversee Congress, since it was pretty evident that Congress wasn't doing a very good job at overseeing itself.

Ok, cool. What is the status of these things?

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok, cool. What is the status of these things?

You'd have to check for yourself, but i believe that the transparency bill passed, but the independent ethics committee never got off the ground because it was brought up during the last congress.

farfromglorified

NCfan wrote:

I think he honestly wants to bring a new style of politics to America, and get away from the bipartisan crap that has enveloped Washington ever since Clinton took the White House.

Partisan politics were certainly not born in the Clinton White House.

He would not be the first to run on a "uniter" platform, and I fail to see any reason why he would succeed where others have failed to even try.

I'm not sure how this guy "honestly" wants to do this. Is he not participating in the same bipartisan game here? Is he going to run outside the two-party system? Is he not going to attack his opponents? Is he not going to accept funding from outside sources?

He is young and isn't tied to a party line or a voting record. He hasn't been corrupted by Washington. He is extremely well spoken and very intelligent.

He definitely is well spoken and very intelligent. But I don't understand how he hasn't been "corrupted by Washington"? On what do you base that?

I think he is the most honest politician I've ever heard of. He has admited to using coke and pot, and doesn't hide from that or deflect it. That speaks alot to me about his character, and lessens my skepticism about his sincerity towards a new style of politics.

It's certainly nice to see someone be honest about their past, but am I supposed to pretend that past doesn't exist since they admit to it? Furthermore, isn't it valid to ask how that person with a bad past has fundamentally changed?

SweetHarmonics

Childish insults and a refusal (or inability) to read the man's literary work, this is working out just great.

hsewif

SweetHarmonics wrote:

Childish insults and a refusal (or inability) to read the man's literary work, this is working out just great.

Here's another childish comment:

Why does the man turn into George Jefferson whenever he speaks on the south side of Chicago?

I've searched for video but I can't find anything... I think he's even said "ain't" a few times. wtf?

IWishIWasASailor

NCfan wrote:

Much Agreed... I think it is his race to lose.

If you really believe that you are very inexperienced with the political system. He has no shot to even win his primary.

jlew24asu

IWishIWasASailor wrote:

If you really believe that you are very inexperienced with the political system. He has no shot to even win his primary.

Obama? whats makes you think that? and how are you such an expert?

who will be the Democratic and Republican nominees?

hippiemom

IWishIWasASailor wrote:

If you really believe that you are very inexperienced with the political system. He has no shot to even win his primary.

I am not inexperienced, and I think he has a shot to win not only the primary, but the presidency. I don't believe that it's "his to lose" by any stretch ... it's too early to say that about any candidate ... but neither do I think those who want him to run are heads-in-the-clouds dreamers.

JOEJOEJOE

CorporateWhore wrote:

Not really.

Essentially, he established an illegal dictatorship. He ignored the constitution and enlarged the federal government.

He did poorly.

Funny how you find ways to discredit anybody who has done wonders to advance the status of black people in America.

cornnifer

hsewif wrote:

Here's another childish comment:

Why does the man turn into George Jefferson whenever he speaks on the south side of Chicago?

I've searched for video but I can't find anything... I think he's even said "ain't" a few times. wtf?

Let me ask you this, do you speak the same way in, for example, a college classroom, or in a strict professional setting, as you do when hanging out with your friends and family? If you say yes, A: you're lying, or B: there is a stick in your ass that you should consult with a doctor about the possibility of having it removed.
All this shows is he is more relaxed with a certain demographic. Big deal. It shows he is a real person, and not some stuffed suit.

american

CorporateWhore wrote:

Not really.

Essentially, he established an illegal dictatorship. He ignored the constitution and enlarged the federal government.

He did poorly.

You forgot about that slavery issue which he brought an end to.

cornnifer

american wrote:

You forgot about that slavery issue which he brought an end to.

Not really. i'm not trying to be a prick, nor am i taking up sides on the Abe Lincoln argument, but in all historical fairness, and accuracy, this can't really be credited to Lincoln. He did, in fact, issue the emancipation proclamation, but it was little more than a strategical move. First of all, The E.P. only proclaimed freedom for slaves in those states that had seceded from the union. There were several slave states still loyal to the union which the E.P. didn't touch. Those slaves were still considered legal. Also, if you think about it, he was making laws for states he was no longer in control of! Those states were no longer part of the union, therefore did not recognize Lincoln as their president! Thats kind of like the canadian prime minister issuing decrees for the United States. Completely meaningless.
Furthermore Lincoln had made it clear from the beginning that his primary objective was the saving of the union. He was clear that if he could save the union, and free no slaves, he would do that. If saving the union required him to emancipate them, well, he would do that too.