Your Opionion of Barack Obama

VictoryGin

polaris wrote:

in my opinion (and it don't really count for much and i'm not following this as closely as most of you) ... it really comes down to this ...

kucinich: the idealistic vote - if he became president would really turn the country and the world upside down ... is this a good or bad thing? ... hard to say - it would depend on how much support he has and how bad the establishment wants to railroad him ...

obama: the realist vote - the more versatile and flexible candidate, one who will work the backrooms and the front to try and accomplish things ... in the end probably too compromising to make a huge dent in the way things operate ... just a few cosmetic differences ...

to me - the entire system is faulty ... it doesn't really matter who you have there simply because it is rigged already for special interest ... it will take more than just one person to undo what has evolved ... so, be it any of these guys become president - it's more then just what their stance on issues are ... it's about whether they can disrupt the machine that currently runs the joint ...

that's pretty much how i feel about it too. kucinich is idealistic indeed, but the way our government works, with all of those checks and balances, i don't think his presidency would be what people would hope. i just don't think he could get done what he wants done for many reasons. there are also things about him that make me uncomfortable, but that's me. clearly i'm biased here, but i think obama wouldn't be *that* compromising. reading his book really gave me an idea about his ideas and goals and showed how he works with people to realize them. yeah, he's not going to accomplish everything the way he wants, but who would? having a democratic congress is going to help that, though they also have to be careful not to push too much because look what happens when you have republican congress and president. it's going to swing back and forth, and maybe we can postpone that next swing by taking smart, slower steps to rebuild. about the compromising thing though, that's one thing i don't like about clinton that much. she is an excellent politician and does great policy work, working with everyone. however, i think she gives too much, but maybe she feels she has to. and maybe people try to take more from her than a dude like obama, you know?

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I was mainly asking about the campaign contribution parts because that's what we were discussing. I guess it can be debated how conservative Lieberman is.

oh. i was referring to the zmag article posted above in response--the one with the fact listing (that i reject). they mentioned lieberman and war in that. i'm as fine as i can be over his contributors. he had over 100,000 individual donors and i find that to be incredible and exciting. so some of them are from employees who work for corporations (that may have been bundled). that's inevitable in our current process. obama has worked for campaign reform to deal with these issues and talks about it more in his book. regardless, he still did not accept PAC money. that's great.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I understand that you back him and I hate to debate this with some of you because I consider you to be true friends of mine. But so many people jump on these bandwagons without ever being presented the whole picture. So, I'm going do what I have to show both sides of Obama. If what I post doesn't change your vote or anyone's that is fine. But I do think people should be fully informed of who and what they are standing behind.

i don't feel i jumped on a bandwagon without being informed. i'm comfortable with most things he says and does. just because many other people like him doesn't make me feel like there's no substance or truth.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

oh. i was referring to the zmag article posted above in response--the one with the fact listing (that i reject). they mentioned lieberman and war in that. i'm as fine as i can be over his contributors. he had over 100,000 individual donors and i find that to be incredible and exciting. so some of them are from employees who work for corporations (that may have been bundled). that's inevitable in our current process. obama has worked for campaign reform to deal with these issues and talks about it more in his book. regardless, he still did not accept PAC money. that's great.

Which claimed facts do you reject?

VictoryGin wrote:

i don't feel i jumped on a bandwagon without being informed. i'm comfortable with most things he says and does. just because many other people like him doesn't make me feel like there's no substance or truth.

I wasn't saying that you, yourself, jumped on the bandwagon. And my probelm with him has never been about how popular he is. I was referring to some people who might not be so supportive of him given the whole picture that the media leaves out. Of course there will still be people who support him even when presented the information I posted. Everyone's different.

Bu2

Obama is not a career politician. Secondly, the Chicago Sun Times seems to have it in for him. The Chicago Sun Times posts every little piece of dirt they think is important about Obama, to the point of making it into big headlines followed by very little story.

Let me tell you how I do my research: I open Yahoo and I select their News page. I type "Obama" in the "search news" area. I read every new story, every day, with my morning coffee. Once finished, I type "Clinton" and "Hillary" and "Rodham" and I read all the different news stories that pop up on those three searches.

Then I move to the Yahoo Political News section and read every story posted by AP, Reuters, NPR, AFP, Bloomberg.com, Congressional Quarterly, Huffington Post, and then check the weekly Rasmussen polls.

And that's just Yahoo.

Then I move to Huffington Post and search their entire site for new news of the day. I don't just study Barack or Hillary -- I read everything.

And then I check out the Post, and Wall Street Journal (hard copies of both) and then I form my opinions for the day.

Barack Obama President 2008.

Or fucking bust.

xoxo,
Bu

decides2dream

VictoryGin wrote:

i already said i'm comfortable with what obama says when he says it about iraq. this is the stuff i am not willing to go back and forth on with you. i simply do not have the time or patience.

but you want me to say why i back him, fine:

ultimately if you really want to know, read the audacity of hope. much of what he says really inspired me. there's too much in there to type about here--i love his focus on education (especially college edu), health care (required cov for children, others have access to affordable care), and the need for foreign policy (!). i love that he keeps all options on tables regarding complex issues like war--i don't trust those who say otherwise. he also addresses some underlying issues that affect all the other issues--race and economic class (doesn't address gender as much as the others, but i can help him with that). too often candidates don't acknowlege those issues.

also, the way he is as a person does matter to me. i'm not ashamed to say i like his charisma. you know why? he gets people to work with him! he has worked with all sorts of other politicians to actually accomplish things. also, i think he is *realistic*. and that has never been more important to me than now. i feel there are some serious things that need to be addressed and fixed in this country and we need a realistic leader, which i think he is both--realistic and a leader. i love that he is younger too. he seems to be very smart, realistic, and can work with people to make things happen. you can't get stuff done from the inside if you are too extreme and don't work with a broad base. change happens in stages.

finally one of the biggest reasons i like him is that he has ALWAYS been strongly pro-choice.

here is an great example of why i like obama (illustrating some qualities important to me):

"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

i really like how you word things VG...echoes many of my own thoughts, but in a way i'd not thought to articulate. as i said earlier, i am not *for* anyone as of yet, but absolutely...i AM all for a true leader, and yes...a 'realistic' leader. i agree how important that is, and especially one who can and will compromise. to me, that is a BIG part of being an affective leader, being able to go in with your ideals, but also to realize, you can't always get what you want...and to work on real, workable solutions...in the best of interests of your citizens, the best that can be hammered out. b/c it is not one person who gets to call the shots, but working with congress and the senate...and to work out feasible, livable solutions...and to be willing to see things from differing points of view...and yes, sometimes...to change your mind, or to alter your view...simply b/c it is the best/workable solution at hand.

cincybearcat

Bu2 wrote:

Obama is not a career politician. Secondly, the Chicago Sun Times seems to have it in for him. The Chicago Sun Times posts every little piece of dirt they think is important about Obama, to the point of making it into big headlines followed by very little story.

Let me tell you how I do my research: I open Yahoo and I select their News page. I type "Obama" in the "search news" area. I read every new story, every day, with my morning coffee. Once finished, I type "Clinton" and "Hillary" and "Rodham" and I read all the different news stories that pop up on those three searches.

Then I move to the Yahoo Political News section and read every story posted by AP, Reuters, NPR, AFP, Bloomberg.com, Congressional Quarterly, Huffington Post, and then check the weekly Rasmussen polls.

And that's just Yahoo.

Then I move to Huffington Post and search their entire site for new news of the day. I don't just study Barack or Hillary -- I read everything.

And then I check out the Post, and Wall Street Journal (hard copies of both) and then I form my opinions for the day.

Barack Obama President 2008.

Or fucking bust.

xoxo,
Bu

How do you like not having to work?

Bu2

Well, yeah, I do work once in a while, while I'm at work!

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

Obama is not a career politician. Secondly, the Chicago Sun Times seems to have it in for him. The Chicago Sun Times posts every little piece of dirt they think is important about Obama, to the point of making it into big headlines followed by very little story.

Let me tell you how I do my research: I open Yahoo and I select their News page. I type "Obama" in the "search news" area. I read every new story, every day, with my morning coffee. Once finished, I type "Clinton" and "Hillary" and "Rodham" and I read all the different news stories that pop up on those three searches.

Then I move to the Yahoo Political News section and read every story posted by AP, Reuters, NPR, AFP, Bloomberg.com, Congressional Quarterly, Huffington Post, and then check the weekly Rasmussen polls.

And that's just Yahoo.

Then I move to Huffington Post and search their entire site for new news of the day. I don't just study Barack or Hillary -- I read everything.

And then I check out the Post, and Wall Street Journal (hard copies of both) and then I form my opinions for the day.

Barack Obama President 2008.

Or fucking bust.

xoxo,
Bu

I don't doubt you do read all that. But that doesn't mean people aren't going to come to different conclusions given the info that's out there. It also doesn't mean that everyone supporting Obama goes to the extent we do to research each candidate....chances are they don't.

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't doubt you do read all that. But that doesn't mean people aren't going to come to different conclusions given the info that's out there. It also doesn't mean that everyone supporting Obama goes to the extend we do to research each candidate....chances are they don't.

absolutely...that also holds true for ANY candidate, and/or the people who support him/her. different people do varying degrees of research, come to differing conclusions, etc...no matter who or what is up for discussion.

Bu2

But luckily there are books...two written by Barack Obama himself....about himself. One or two written by Hillary (with help) about herself, and ten times as many written about her by others (not so pretty as It Takes a Village). Unfortunately, none written about Kucinich, or Paul for that matter.

And if people can't even bring themselves to read books, or all the news available in print or on the internet, but only vote based on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN soundbites, God pity our country.

But that's the way it is, these days.

Ignorance is no longer bliss.

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

But luckily there are books...two written by Barack Obama himself....about himself. One or two written by Hillary (with help) about herself, and ten times as many written about her by others (not so pretty as It Takes a Village). Unfortunately, none written about Kucinich, or Paul for that matter.

And if people can't even bring themselves to read books, or all the news available in print or on the internet, but only vote based on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN soundbites, God pity our country.

But that's the way it is, these days.

Ignorance is no longer bliss.

There is, however, plenty of history about Kucinich you can read and plenty of long wonderful speeches he has written. I don't think he feels he needs to write a book about himself and I wouldn't see him making that move. Also, I won't just take a book about that someone writes about themselves as really getting to the heart of the matter. Who is gonna tell the dirt about themselves? Especially when they have high politicial aspirations?

Bu2

me thinks. But Obama's got the polls.

I love idealism, Abook. But I'm also a realist.

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

me thinks. But Obama's got the polls.

I love idealism, Abook. But I'm also a realist.

I gotcha Bu. And I'm a dreamer always have been, always will be. Both have aspirations for sure I believe they have different intentions, but that's me. I was only addressing the book thing.

The polls are no surprise.

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Going from saying 'we don't leave until the insurgency is defeated' to what he is currently saying is a huge change, imo.

not only did obama say that he also said we should keep a permanent presence in iraq to make sure iran and syria knew we were serious!!!!

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

i already said i'm comfortable with what obama says when he says it about iraq. this is the stuff i am not willing to go back and forth on with you. i simply do not have the time or patience.

but you want me to say why i back him, fine:

ultimately if you really want to know, read the audacity of hope. much of what he says really inspired me. there's too much in there to type about here--i love his focus on education (especially college edu), health care (required cov for children, others have access to affordable care), and the need for foreign policy (!). i love that he keeps all options on tables regarding complex issues like war--i don't trust those who say otherwise. he also addresses some underlying issues that affect all the other issues--race and economic class (doesn't address gender as much as the others, but i can help him with that). too often candidates don't acknowlege those issues.

also, the way he is as a person does matter to me. i'm not ashamed to say i like his charisma. you know why? he gets people to work with him! he has worked with all sorts of other politicians to actually accomplish things. also, i think he is *realistic*. and that has never been more important to me than now. i feel there are some serious things that need to be addressed and fixed in this country and we need a realistic leader, which i think he is both--realistic and a leader. i love that he is younger too. he seems to be very smart, realistic, and can work with people to make things happen. you can't get stuff done from the inside if you are too extreme and don't work with a broad base. change happens in stages.

finally one of the biggest reasons i like him is that he has ALWAYS been strongly pro-choice.

here is an great example of why i like obama (illustrating some qualities important to me):

"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

see, that wasn't so hard!!!

you should learn to not take these things so personal, just b/c i don't want to support your guy doesn't mean you have to get so bent out of shape

however, i still see him as another usual politician, sorry

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Maybe this will clear it up.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12837


A recent editorial in The Chicago Sun-Times, published on May 14, attempted to defile an essay I wrote in these pages [Dissident Voice] about Barack Obama’s fundraising channels and his ties to corporate America. The Sun-Times piece, written by former Clinton White House counsel Abner J. Mikva, challenged my claim that Barack isn’t taking on the pay-to-play politics we are all so used to in Washington. Instead Mikva asserted that the ethically minded Obama is “incorruptible”.


True, Obama has decided to not accept PAC money for his presidential bid, but that doesn’t mean the Illinois senator isn’t packing in tons of cash from the corporate sector (more on that shortly). True also that Obama’s campaign, like Howard Dean’s of 2004, is pocketing many small online donations at an average of $25 a pop. However, small donations from the Democratic grassroots do not mean he doesn’t also have his paws in the corporate cookie jar.



How can this be if companies cannot directly hand over cash to candidates for national office? Well, their employees can donate up to $2,300 per person. In my article I noted that Obama has raised money from several corporations, including Exelon, UBS, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, along with tobacco rich law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Of course there are others that have fattened the accounts of Obama for president that I didn’t mention, such as; Time Warner, Viacom, Williams & Connolly, Level 3 Communications, Credit Suisse Securities, Lehman Brothers and Ariel Capital.



So how can one assume that employee donations are representative of the companies they list on their donor forms? As OpenSecrets.org, a not-for-profit website dedicated to revealing the money trails of Washington, asserts, “Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families).”



Hence why UBS and Exelon are on the top of Obama’s contributor list. Even so, are the millions of dollars donated by employers of these companies actually influencing Barack Obama’s positions?



Abner J. Mikva doesn’t think so. But you may connect the dots as you see fit.



Fact: Barack Obama believes nuclear power is “green” and told the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of which Barack is a member, that Congress should allow “nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration”. Employees of Exelon, which is the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, have donated over $159,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign as of March 31, 2007. That amount has likely increased since the first public tallying of campaign contributions two months ago.



Fact: Obama, in one of his earliest Senate votes, departed with his own party and voted for class action “reform” legislation. The bill, as Ken Silverstein wrote for Harper’s, was “lobbied for aggressively by financial firms, which constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.” An amendment to the legislation, which the senator opposed, would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama, unfortunately, didn’t see a need for any cap on such predatory lending.



Fact: Obama may not allow PACs to donate directly to his presidential campaign, but the young senator started a PAC of his own, which has donated to other Democratic Party members, all of whom are moderates, and several are even staunch conservatives like Sen. Joe Lieberman (Obama backed Lieberman over Ned Lamont). Obama’s leadership PAC has been loaded with the help of credit card lobbyist Jeffrey Peck (who, subsequently, opposes a cap on credit card interests) and big oil proponent Rich Tarplin.



By pointing out these truths I am not implying that Obama is the most corporate entrenched candidate running for the presidency. That award may indeed go to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, I think it is pertinent for voters to know where candidates stand on important issues as well as what may have influenced these positions.



Aside from the purported corporate pressure on Obama’s campaign, there are other issues we should all consider before jumping on the Obama express — such as his lopsided support for Israel and his all-options-on-the-table approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.



Sen. Obama may not completely support the war in Iraq, but he has yet to put forward an agenda for the region that offers a critical departure from the failed Bush doctrine. On the Middle East, Obama is an avid hawk. On social movements in South America Obama has argued that citizens there should not follow left-leaning populists like Hugo Chavez, and advocates in his book The Audacity of Hope, that these poor nations should embrace free-market capitalism instead.



By and large Barack Obama is a mainstream Democratic candidate that is exciting many due to his personal, charismatic zeal. There is no question that Obama is a gifted politician, and his youth only adds to the mystique that he’s offering an alternative to business as usual in Washington.



Despite all of these claims, I still have to depart from Abner J. Mikva’s editorial in The Chicago Sun-Times, which insists Obama can’t be influenced. I connect the dots differently than Mikva, and see Sen. Barack Obama as just another ineffectual politician, who is more concerned with being elected than with standing by the ideals of his constituents.





Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008.

hmmmm, interesting...not to mention according to bloomerg as economic and trade advisors 2 of his main men are from citigroup and the other helped push nafta thru, had his law firm advise mexico on nafta and pushed to escalate the wto!!!

has that 'free-market capitalism' barack likes so much ever helped any country get out of debt and the hands of the world bank or imf? any? nope, not a single one...instead they have things like their water privatized and see their bills shoot up a couple 100% :rolleyes:

El_Kabong

dl hughley on glenn beck tonight:

HUGHLEY: Well, I think Barack Obama -- you know, I`ve watched him two times in the political debate, and he seems like a bit of a novice. I think that the idea that people would vote for a guy that they didn`t know where he stood politically was just a further point, that we just kind of want to think that we`re further along than we are.

his earlier point in that quote was

But I think that it speaks to a bigger point, which is that America, it just kind of wants to be -- we don`t ever want to know what`s going on in the world. We want to be tickled and played with. We`d rather know what`s going on with Sanjaya than we do with the Sudan. So it`s just -- I think it`s typical of the way that we are as a people.

But I think that it really goes back to the point I was making earlier. Celebrity, it`s all about celebrity. Around Schwarzenegger is the governor here. You know, we had -- the governor of Minnesota. And, you know, Ronald Reagan was the president and the governor of California. So I think that it`s more about celebrity. I think that the reason they`re talking about Fred Thompson so seriously is because he`s been in a lot of movies where he played president.

And you know what? I think that, where that`s concerned, you know, I have gone all around this country. I was recently - - Sunday, I was in the capital. And it`s funny, because the capital is in the roughest neighborhood. I mean, it`s surrounded by criminals, drug addicts, and pedophiles, and that`s just in the House of Representatives.

But I think that, you know, we`ve gotten to a place now where we don`t want anybody who is effective, or who might have leadership qualities that we dig. We want them to be mirrors of what we -- of the kind of agendas that we want to forward.

And I just -- I don`t know how -- just like the immigration issue, which I find disingenuous, because this country was built on free labor that was able to kind of extort, whether it`s the slaves that were brought over, or whether it was the Chinese immigrants, or the Irish immigrants, or the Italian immigrants. So this has been a pattern with this country. So to pretend like now, because it`s Mexicans who now have their turn in the barrel, it`s -- we`re at odds with ourselves, because we want the free labor, but we want them to clean our houses and get out. And I think we`re having a problem with that.

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

see, that wasn't so hard!!!

you should learn to not take these things so personal, just b/c i don't want to support your guy doesn't mean you have to get so bent out of shape

however, i still see him as another usual politician, sorry

i don't think i took it personally. i posted what i did because it is a waste of my time to go back and forth with you on some things. it's just that i have other things to do.

sorry but you supporting 'my guy' has nothing to do with it.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I did acknowledge them! I said they were trival issues that I'm not deciding my vote on also.

My bad. It was a quick post I made before leaving work. What I'm saying is that no politician (or public servant, if you will) is free of the kinds of "crimes" that are being pointed at Obama. And, for a mainstream candidate, these crimes are rather sparse. The excitement over "revealing" Obama's - which aren't really revelations - well, it gets me a' talkin'.

Also, I would like to state that those issues are not trivial to me. Free expression is very important, as are safe and legal abortions. So is ending the war in Iraq. Obama has all of those going for him - so he gets my vote. And, I'm not going to deny it, he's a somewhat realistic bet.

But it's all moot. Chances are we'll end up with President Fred Thompson and remain stuck in Iraq for another term - further pissing us both off.

Deni

My opinion of Barack Obama... I think he's cool! I'm not 100% sure why yet, but I'm keeping my ear to the ground! lol