Non-trivial Reasons Why Obama is Unacceptable to Me

[metalluk]

One-quarter of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama in November, if he is nominated. Since I am one of those folks, let me set the record straight.

My unwillingness to support Barack Obama has NOTHING TO DO WITH any of the following:

Victimization: I do not view Clinton as any more a victim than Obama. Each are victimized somewhat by persistence of racism or sexism in America, but it is not primarily the result of the other campaign's actions. Each is also benefiting to an extent from those same "isms," when, for example, SOME women support Clinton merely because she is a woman and SOME blacks support Obama merely because of his color.

Race or Gender: Neither race nor gender is a factor in my decision. There have been episodes of overt racism and sexism during the campaigns, from campaign aides and even from the candidates themselves. I'm not going to itemize the examples on each side because DUers are already familiar enough with all of that kind of rot.

Abuse of the Process: Both sides have argued the issues having to do with superdelegates and re-do elections to their own best advantage. Neither side has paid much attention to what is "right" or "fair" when such issues arise. The Obama camp has been on the "wrong" side of the argument in some cases; the Clinton camp in other cases.

Swift-boating Tactics: I respect Rev. Wright and his views, other than his tendency to use excessively incendiary language. I don't care what Obama did or did not hear while attending Wright's church. Intelligent and open-minded people often listen respectfully to volatile arguments with which they do not agree. It is actually a good kind of experience for a president to have had because he or she will certainly hear strongly worded points of view from leaders of other nations.

I don't care about tax returns, Bill's sex life, pardons, Passport-gate, or any other kind of "gate."

I will not be voting for Barack Obama in November because:

IMO, he is grossly underqualified and unprepared for the presidency. I base that viewpoint on a thorough study of his life and resume. Obama himself has acknowledged his relative dearth of experience, even though his more fanatical supporters never will. I reject the argument that experience is not an important factor in job performance. Obviously, it is not the only factor.

IMO, the claim that his "good judgment" will compensate for any deficiency in experience may be comforting, but my study of his speeches and policy positions convinces me that there are all too many examples of "poor judgment," not adequately tempered or illuminated by experience.

He advocates a "coalition of faith and bipartisanship." The latter is impossible except for an occasional, isolated issue. The former is a deplorable intrusion of religious thinking into public life. I do not want a Democratic Ministry in Washington, any more than the Republican Ministry that currently exists. Obama has not clarified how his congregation's racist doctrine (published on their website) would or would not influence his policies or decisions as president.

His economic proposals are weak and mostly a rehash of positions previously developed by Clinton. He has repeatedly articulated an unsound linkage between foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives. His excessively broad finger-pointing at Corporate America and Big Business will make it impossible for him to enlist these powerful interest groups in participating in his agenda.

Whereas Clinton's team features policy-wonks and pragmatists, Obama's advisors and campaign feature his personality and appeals to emotion. We badly need a wiser, more rational citizenry to decrease our vulnerability to propaganda and disinformation. As an educator, Obama should understand that need.

Obama's claim to strong anti-war credentials is a gross exaggeration and based almost entirely on one tepid speech given in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator.

Obama's foreign policy ideas, as reiterated in his Iraq speech this week, are dangerous in their naiveté and advocacy of unilateral military adventurism. He proposes a new "central front" for the war in the Middle East, along the Pakistani and Afghanistan border, with or without the consent and cooperation of our crucial regional ally, Pakistan.

Voters have a duty to vote in the manner they believe most consistent with the best interests of American and humanity in general. An excess of party loyalty has the detrimental effect of inviting corruption, cronyism, and nomination of unqualified candidates by political parties. Crossover voting helps motivate parties to tone down the worst of their tendencies to abuse power. My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable.

[XemaSab]

1. Enjoy the McCain presidency!

:hi:

[metalluk]

22. Not hardly!

The least of evils is nevertheless evil.

[roseBudd]

25. Bomb bomb Iran has DEADLY consequences, no?

[metalluk]

108. Yes.

So too will a new Central Front on the border of Pakistan -- which is what Obama has proposed.

[roseBudd]

You do realize that POTUS is one of 3 coequal branches of gov't?

[Catherina]

63. You say that with a straight face after backing Clinton?

:shrug:

[theredpen]

156. When women lose their reproductive rights, make sure you say, "You're welcome"

[metalluk]

164. I believe that you are saying

that a McCain presidency would risk further conservative appointments to the Supreme Court and increase the risk that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned.

If so, I fully agree. That would be one of the hardest reservations for me to overcome in relation to McCain. It is one of the many reasons that I deeply regret that roughly half of the people in the Democratic Party are determined to present me with a choice between a highly unqualified Democratic candidate and an experienced, moderate politician with some despicable Republican tendencies.

[theredpen]

166. On "experience" as a campaign issue

1. One of Clinton's strongest assets is experience. Thankfully, she's not going to beat Obama with this asset, because she has no chance of beating McCain with it. If the voters want experience, they can get a lot more of it from McCain.

2. Experience is not necessarily an asset. Voters want change, not experience. Mike Huckabee, the "change" candidate for the Republicans got 30% of the vote in Texas, even though he had no hope of winning the nomination. With the shape that this country is in and the horribly low ratings of our current government officials, "years of experience in Washington," is a liability, not an asset.

[metalluk]

172. You and I are coming at this from different angles.

Before I can concern myself with electability, I need to first have a candidate that I believe SHOULD be elected for the best interests of the country.

I don't really agree that "experience" is a liability for a candidate but I do agree with you about voters wanting "change" after eight years of failed Republican policies. Obama has played more effectively to that desire than has Clinton. That is why he is currently in the lead (and, I'll admit is odds-on to come out on top). I give you that point.

I believe that Obama will produce less actual change than Clinton could because he has no experience with getting things done and his campaign's approach is alienating the nation's most powerful interest groups. Contrary to what some people believe, the President is not powerful enough to get much done without the support of the major interest groups that control the country.

I think that the electability issue at this point slightly favors Obama over Clinton but that it may look different six weeks from now or in August. Obviously, I'm hoping so.

My problem, however, is different than yours. I do not have any confidence in Obama or his team and cannot look forward to their campaign in the fall, regardless of whether they win or lose.

[theredpen]

211. You're right that we're talking about different things

As far as Obama's competence, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Thothmes]

208. Don't see that as a big problem.

Unless there is a complete melt down of the Democratic party, we should pick up several more Senate seats in this election. IMO, if McCain becomes President, he will have to nom at least middle of the roaders to the Court. He may not nom another Ginsberg, but he won't be able to nom an Alito.

[walldude]

220. You actually think McCain is a lesser evil than Obama?

There's no fucking hope for you.

[metalluk]

221. Maybe, maybe not

I'll wait until fall to see what Johnny-boy has to say and will read his position statements carefully at that time. All I know at present is that I've ruled out voting for Obama for all of the reasons I've stated here and in other posts. If I can't stomach McCain, I'll vote Green or stay home.

[walldude]

227. Well then thanks for nothing

Some of have more than our pride riding on this election.

[metalluk]

229. Pride has nothing to do with it.

I just have this thing about voting for candidates with a modicum of experience, a secular and pragmatic orientation, and the decency to engage the issues rather than promoting a cult following.

Hey, listen, I can appreciate that you think he will make a good president. I just don't share your judgment.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. If Obama's the nominee, McCain wins. Period.

There is no way in hell a divisive Dem like Obama can win red states in the general election. He'd be lucky to win a couple of blue ones.

Most voters will not vote for a guy with so little experience and such poor judgement. Any politician who didn't have the savvy to distance himself from Wright years ago has very poor judgement.

[jbm]

154. yep, and the only question will be the size of the landslide for McCain

I'm guessing the largest in history.

[theredpen]

159. I disagree

The Rev. Wright flap is already fading. Fox News' morning show flogged Barack's latest race-related comment (the "typical white person" remark) for two hours yesterday. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace excoriated them and then host Brian Kilmeade became so frustrated with the tireless wanking that he walked off the set.

If Obama is divisive, he is dividing the adults from the forces of stupidity.

Edit: I guess one's predictions depends one one's assessment of the size of the forces of stupidity in this country. I'm holding out HOPE.

[Iceburg]

207. I agree - "little experience and such poor judgement" -- Bush redux 2.0/nt

[OzarkDem]

136. We'll enjoy it as much as we will Obama's

which is not at all. The two will be pretty much identical, they're controlled by the same people.

[K Gardner]

2. If you came all the way over here just to bash Obama, we aren't biting. Sorry, but good luck to you.

[metalluk]

126. I'm so glad!

I hate it when vampires bite.

[texastoast]

3. Gosh, you sound like my Republican father-in-law

He's a Republican. Oh, I already said that.

[metalluk]

112. I am your father-in-law!

Now, shut up and get to bed!

[Vinca]

4. Are you going to be in charge of counting the flag-covered boxes? nt

[metalluk]

26. Are you referring to

the boxes returning from Iraq or the ones returning from the new "central front" along the Pakistani/Afghanistani border that Senator Obama intends to open up if elected?

[Vinca]

34. You mean the effort to get the person actually responsible for 9/11?

Actually, I meant years and years of war in Iraq, most likely a war with Iran, and if all that isn't enough, McBush will draw in Syria. Add to that McBush's failure to give a shit about healthcare and you can add another 18,000 boxes without flags a year.

[metalluk]

116. I mean

opening a new "Central Front" in the Middle East War. I mean any unauthorized incursion of troops into Pakistan that jeopardizes our relationship with Pakistan, which is, among other things, the only current nuclear power among the Arab nations. The word "Front" implies a substantial number of troops at the forefront of a battle zone. Yes, I am against that.

[comrade snarky]

152. Pakistan is arab???

Really?
That's gonna be a surprise to some people I know from that region. I'll tell em for ya.

[JoFerret]

203. Playing "gotcha"?

.

[comrade snarky]

212. No

Not playing "Gotcha"

If a person thinks Pakistan is Arab they don't know the first damn thing about the region and I am done listening to their <penetrating> analysis.

That's no more a minor misspeak than McCain saying Iran is allied with Al Queda.

[metalluk]

222. Point taken!

You are quite correct.

[Why Syzygy]

115. What's wrong with a new central front?

You don't want to win in Afghanistan? You don't want it all to be OVER? You one of those war loving McHillabee supporters?

[metalluk]

119. Spoken like a true hypocrite.

"You don't want to win in Afghanistan?"

Spoken like a real war-monger. Rah-rah. Let's win in Afghanistan! How is Afghanistan a winnable war but Iraq not?

"You don't want it all to be OVER?"

The turmoil in the Middle East will not be over in my lifetime, your lifetime, your children's lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetime. It will simply move about from place to place.

"You one of those war loving McHillabee supporters?"

How is it that you aren't, considering you're both talking about winning wars?

[Why Syzygy]

121. To get it over.

There is a world of difference in Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe me, I wish they had never started.
But comparing the two leads me to believe you are not informed in any way.

You sure didn't answer the question. Is wrong why? There's already a war and Pakistan is playing a role in that. If shutting down their supply line into Afghanistan makes it easier to wrap it up and get the hell out, I'm all for it. WHY AREN'T you?

[OzarkDem]

138. How will he pay for it? We're long out of money

The Iraq war is destroying our economy. We have to get out and force allies to take up the slack.

If Obama thought this was such a great idea he would have done something about when he was chair of the committee w/ oversight.

No, Obama's Iraq plans are worse than horrible.

[JoFerret]

143. And that is connected...? how?

.

[dansolo]

5. So are you going to not vote, or vote for McCain?

Because McCain fails as well on most of the issues you mention. And you do realize that our "crucial ally" Pakistan has been harboring Osama bin Laden, and was and still is a supporter of the Taliban, who have regained most of their power base in Afghanistan? And that the CIA has already had missions in Pakistan that are remarkably similar to what Obama was suggesting?

[metalluk]

31. Who will I vote for?

I do not yet know. I'll do my homework. I'll listen to what kinds of concessions McCain makes in order to "woo" disaffected Clinton Democrats and Independents. If he fails to win me over, I'll examine the Green Party candidate. If all else fails, I'll stay home.

[Catherina]

64. If you don't care for Obama, I guarantee you won't care for the Green Party

candidate. He's even more radical in his views and dislikes everything about Hillary with a vengeance that will make you blanche.

[metalluk]

120. Thanks for the warning.

I'll keep my expectations in check but I'll still look for myself.

I am very concerned about environmental issues. The Green Party won't win in very many contests around the nation, but a vote for Green at least tells the major parties that there're votes to be mined in future elections by strengthening their environmental platforms. That would be my main rationale if I decided to go that route.

[roseBudd]

134. Be sure you check out his economic policies, I hope you can afford to pay

the medical bills of your elderly relatives. Nursing home? Quit your job to care for them when they are evicted after Medicaid is slashed.

I will also assume you don't care about SCOTUS. Intestines sucked out by faulty drain covers. Too bad.

[Hugabear]

6. Thanks for a well thought out post - welcome to DU

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions.

Lincoln had very little political experience when he ran for president. We all know Lincoln because of what he did after he was elected, not before.

[NanceGreggs]

7. ...

"My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable."

No doubt your one vote for McCain will send a powerful message to the Democrats - based on the ridiculous assumption that it would be noticed.

Of course, the Republicans do much better at producing "qualified candidates", like George W. Bush ...

[metalluk]

35. All political parties have shown unlimited capacity

for corruption, cronyism, and nomination of weak candidates. Crossing over helps to hold that in check.

I am surprised that you would offer the argument about the triviality of a single vote. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, why vote at all? One vote, combined with millions like it, elects a president. One crossover vote, combined with millions like it (remember, one-quarter of Clinton supporters and counting) will be heard.

[Raejeanowl]

209. The Ridiculous Assumption, Nance...

...In this contest is that the OP would be a singular anomaly.

[Redstone]

8. So don't vote for him if he gets nominated. Then go the fuck away. This is supposed to be

a Democratic website.

What that means, since you obviously don't get the concept, is this simple truth: A Democratic candidate, no matter how much we may think he or she is not ideal, is STILL better than whoever the Repubs nominate.

Especially now, in this election.

This little lesson, let me remind you, comes from a lifelong registered independent. But I'm with the Democrats on this one, even more so than usual.

You're perfectly welcome to post your bullshit-filled, navel-gazing expositions of your deluded self-importance elsewhere.

Redstone

[metalluk]

36. If Obama is nominated,

I will go away, until after the general election in November, out of courtesy to the intents of this board and supporters of the Democratic nominee.

At present, however, the best available candidate by far, IMO, is the other Democratic primary candidate.

I will continue to post here as long as there is any chance that the Democrats will nominate a candidate for whom I can vote with confidence that America will be the better for it.

[Redstone]

44. Oh, I see: Continued pointless posts from a pointless poster is what you promise.

Thank you SO much for your contribution, and welcome to my ignore list.

Redstone

[metalluk]

76. Thank you

for your intelligent contribution to the discussion.

[drmom]

129. Now, it is these types of peole who are making me vote for McCain...

I agree with the OP that it is very important to use our vote to send a message to the party about the candidates that they put forth. If we don't, why would they try and do things differently in the future?

[OzarkDem]

139. We are Democrats and always will be

But in certain situations, we have to send our party a harsh message, a wake up call.

Will it hurt the country if Obama loses to McCain? An Obama presidency will be as damaging to our country as a McCain one. There is no lesser evil in that situation.

[lark]

173. Curious

Would you vote for HRC if she's the candidate?

[Usrename]

180. That isn't the same thing.

If Hillary were actually winning, people might answer this question much differently.

Right now she is losing badly, with no legitimate chance of winning.

Implied in your question is the unassailable fact that she will only be the candidate following a selection process that many would view as illegitimate.

[Ron Green]

9. In my opinion, your post is a big, steaming heap of

weak ideas.

[metalluk]

37. Thank you for

your wisdom and insight.

[buff2]

10. Well said......excellent post!

I agree 100%. An Obama nomination will insure a McCain Presidency. NOBAMA!

:toast: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :hi:

[Middle finga]

21. When Hillary is soundly defeated will you please change that Avator..

it's really starting to creep me out.

[buff2]

27. No I will not

It will always be there as a reminder to the people who fucked up the chance for us to gain back the White House.

[Yes We Did]

42. What is "ignored" avatar?

[metalluk]

46. The issue of electability

is different from who we should WANT to be elected.

I have closely examined the issue of electability, state by state. First off, it is a fluid issue and changes with each up and down for the two candidates. There are all sorts of arguments that can be mobilized on either side, but some of them don't hold much water when examined closely.

Despite being a Clinton supporter, I do not believe that she has a stronger electability argument at present than does Obama. I am hoping she will by August.

[gabeana]

11. This is funny in regards to experience

especially with Clinotn's first lady records exposed this week, her experience is looking more like smoke and mirrors.

[babylonsister]

24. And don't forget Cheney and Rummy; both had tons of experience,

and look where we are today.

[metalluk]

49. As I said,

experience is not the only factor. Experience combined with misdirected values is more problematic than beneficial. Inexperience, however, can result in fiascos even when a President has superlative values (e.g, JFK).

[Usrename]

179. What would be good experience for a future president?

Just wondering what you think good experience would consist of.

[metalluk]

194. Challenging question.

First a "non-partisan" job qualifications list (not necessarily in order of exact priority but loosely so):

1. Executive experience running a state, a corporation, a major business, a governmental department, a high-level military command, a major White House function, or other organizations of comparable complexity.

2. Strong intellectual skills including especially analytical and strategic thinking skills and sound judgment in weighing options and priorities.

3. Strong communication skills in multiple forms, including responding to press questions, communicating priorities to the legislative and judicial branches and agency directors, staff communications, communication with the public, and communication with foreign leaders and their ambassadors. Ability to refrain from major or frequent gaffes. An ability to generate support for proposed initiatives.

4. Significant international experience, as evidenced by a fair number of the following (the more the better and weighted by extensiveness): personal contact with international leaders (government, business, science, etc.), wide-ranging international travel in an official capacity, in-depth knowledge of world history and current affairs, living abroad

5. Direct or indirect experience with a legislative branch (State level o.k.; Federal better) and how to move worthwhile ideas into implemented policies/activities through legislation. Ability to lobby lawmakers when required.

6. An understanding of economic and budgetary concepts (not at an expert level but enough to understand whatever data, proposals, and arguments are provided by expert economists, budget directors, and staff people). Enough general understanding of scientific issues to comprehend recommendations from science and technical advisors. Enough general understanding of military concepts to analyze effectively military options as presented by expert military advisors.

7. Strong evidence of integrity, character, and commitment to the common weal. (For me personally,, "character" concerns should be limited to issues like honesty, civility and compassion, and should not extend to the private domains of a person's life).


Then, adding my partisan requirements:

A. A commitment to liberal principles and the welfare of the entire populace of America (regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or political affiliations).

B. Substantial level of compassionate concern for humanity in general (without undue subordination of America's interests)


I reserve the right to revise this DRAFT list if I find that I've omitted something important.

[robbedvoter]

Solid arguments.

[Middle finga]

12. Barack will be OK

for every Hillary voter that refuse to vote for him out of pure stubbornness, he just have to work a little harder to bring in new voters to make up for the deficit. No big deal.

[metalluk]

52. I agree.

Obama might win the election without the support of people like myself.

I didn't argue that he was unelectable; only that his election would not be good for the country. I respect that you disagree.

I managed to get through eight years under Bush; I imagine I can handle four years of Obama (which, I'm convinced, is all that he'd get).

[Blue_Roses]

123. What an incredibly arrogant statement:

"Obama might win the election without the support of people like myself."

I think you put too much importance on your opinion. There are MANY young voters who WILL make the difference this election year and your tired rhetoric won't make one damn bit of difference.

[metalluk]

141. You apparently misread the sentence.

Perhaps you thought there was a "not" after "might."

The sentence, as is, far from being arrogant, is an acknowledgement that Obama may win the election despite losing about 20% of the votes of Democrats.

[U4ikLefty]

178. Put a link to that claim.

[Yes We Did]

13. Enjoy your stay... it won't be very long.

We have come to the basic conclusion that it is our job to make sure democrats vote for a democratic candidate this fall, assuming that candidate is chosen by the people.

If you can't do that, then you are on the wrong website.

[buff2]

16. Yep

Drink the kool-aid or eat the pizza. :puke:

[cbayer]

50. WE have come to the basic conclusion that it is OUR job

to make sure democrats vote for a democratic candidate this fall, assuming that candidate is chosen by the people?

And who exactly do you represent?

[metalluk]

58. I believe that the requirement

is that posters generally support the principles of the Democratic Party and their candidates. Surely that does not mean EVERY such candidate.

I will continue to support the principles of the Democratic Party, as a liberal-minded citizen, and will continue to vote for Democratic candidates that are qualified for the jobs they seek and likely to benefit my Town, State or Country.

Since I vote for Democrats 95-98% of the time, I imagine that I have a right to voice my views on this site.

I will, however, voluntarily discontinue posting if Obama gets the nomination until after the General Election is over, out of simple courtesy to those ardently supporting his campaign.

[juajen]

83. Excuse me, are you Skinner in disguise?

I believe your time here has been short, perhaps it could be shorter?

[lark]

176. Assuming the candidate is chosen by the people of YOUR choice,

but being totally OK with not letting the votes of millions of FL and MI Dems count. Yeah, that's truly an inspiring, all inclusive value that all DUers should support. Right.

[woolldog]

14. Some of our best presidents have been those with little "experience"

while some of our worst have been those with lots of government experience (Nixon, Buchanan and so on).

There is nothing that can prepare one for the Presidency, short of being President. I care more about the principles that the next president will have guiding him. I care about his intelligence. Obama will do fine.

[Aussie leftie]

84. Pardon my ignorance

but when did President Buchanan serve?

[woolldog]

87. 1857-1861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

[Aussie leftie]

88. Thankyou

Was he the president just prior to the civil war?

[woolldog]

89. Yes (nt)

[Drachasor]

111. While States were leaving the Union, he did nothing. While the Confederacy armed, he did nothing.

While munitions were rerouted to the South to arm them, he did nothing.

He also had a horrible record before that as well, lying to the people regarding the Dredd Scott case, for instance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Those are trivial reasons.

"IMO, he is grossly underqualified and unprepared for the presidency. I base that viewpoint on a thorough study of his life and resume. Obama himself has acknowledged his relative dearth of experience, even though his more fanatical supporters never will. I reject the argument that experience is not an important factor in job performance. Obviously, it is not the only factor."

Obama has as much political experience as Clinton. And as much as plenty of other great presidents.

"IMO, the claim that his "good judgment" will compensate for any deficiency in experience may be comforting, but my study of his speeches and policy positions convinces me that there are all too many examples of "poor judgment," not adequately tempered or illuminated by experience."

For example? Has he had any judgements as bad as his opponenets? Specifically the IWR?

"His economic proposals are weak and mostly a rehash of positions previously developed by Clinton. He has repeatedly articulated an unsound linkage between foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives. His excessively broad finger-pointing at Corporate America and Big Business will make it impossible for him to enlist these powerful interest groups in participating in his agenda."

Explain.

"Whereas Clinton's team features policy-wonks and pragmatists, Obama's advisors and campaign feature his personality and appeals to emotion. We badly need a wiser, more rational citizenry to decrease our vulnerability to propaganda and disinformation. As an educator, Obama should understand that need."

I'd hardly call Clinton's team wiser then Obama's. She's ran a shitty campaign from the beginning. They're broke. They keep screw up. And that's why they're losing. Also, they don't seem to have much grip on reality, since they can't even do the math.

"Obama's claim to strong anti-war credentials is a gross exaggeration and based almost entirely on one tepid speech given in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator."

Pure bullshit.

"Obama's foreign policy ideas, as reiterated in his Iraq speech this week, are dangerous in their naiveté and advocacy of unilateral military adventurism. He proposes a new "central front" for the war in the Middle East, along the Pakistani and Afghanistan border, with or without the consent and cooperation of our crucial regional ally, Pakistan."

And what are your ideas?

You know what? Scratch that. Given your comments, it doesn't matter.

[zulchzulu]

17. One more for the Ignore pile

Hillary lost. Buh-bye...

[Occam Bandage]

18. So, your reasons for voting for John McCain are:

1. Obama is unprepared, despite there being absolutely no statistical correlation between experience and success.

2. He has poor judgement. This is based on your "study." No specifics are given.

3. He has pandered to religious audiences. Every other candidate has done this.

4. His economic proposals are weak. Also, they're the same as Clinton's. Also, you have confused him with John Edwards. No specifics are given. This point is incompatible with a common Clintonite complaint, being that Obama has talked too much about giving business a "seat at the table."

5. Obama's advisors are terrible. (This flies in the face of a common Clintonite complaint, being that Obama's advisors are all Clinton people.)

6. Obama is not anti-war enough. Hillary or McCain would apparently be better on this issue.

7. Obama's foreign policy ideas, which have recently been adopted to great success by the CIA and NATO, are "naïve."

Therefore, you will vote for John McCain. Somehow, I'm not so sure you were ever voting for the Democrat.

[onenote]

51. well put.

[metalluk]

69. Your counterarguments are ridiculous.

I have not decided who I will vote for if Obama is nominated except that it will not be Obama.

Any reasonable person understands that experience is a factor in job success. Why else would organizations all over the world engage in careful search and hiring processes? The reason there is no simple statistical correlation is because success is multifactoral. Denying that experience is an important factor is absurd.

Poor judgment:
Running a campaign based on emotional appeals and a cult of personality
Inflating his claims to anti-war leadership
Referring to his grandmother as "a typical white person"
Linking domestic initiatives to ending the war in Iraq
Broadly attacking powerful interest groups rather than directing his attacks at identifiable abuses
Seeking a position for which he is unprepared (analogous to a first year medical student wanting to jump directly into practice)
Smoking and claiming to have "quit many times," which is not quitting at all
Advocating a new central front for the war in the Middle East
Etc.

He panders to religious audiences to an extent unlike any other SUCCESSFUL candidate before GWB. Only Huckabee among this year's candidates was equally offensive in that respect. Obama overtly advocates for "faith" as a component of his coalition.

Clinton's campaign has repeatedly issued solid policy proposals, twice taking the lead on the need for economic stimulus packages. Obama hardly ever talks about substantive issues and his campaign has proposed very little that is original.

Obama is not as anti-war as he claims to be and a close reading of his Iraq speech indicates a boldness that differentiates him from the other candidates. Boldness in leadership is good when it's well directioned and bad when it's reckless. Obama's ideas include both kinds of boldness and the reckless component is a matter of deep concern.

You are naive if you believe that the CIA and NATO have adopted Obama's ideas. He simply used his knowledge as a Senator and what he's learned from briefings to anticipate the directions in which these agencies were going. The CIA and NATO don't look toward a freshman Senator for their novel ideas.

I stated explicitly that I will not vote for Obama. I will vote for Clinton if she is nominated.

[Drachasor]

117. Again though

Some of our presidents have had little "experience." That's a red herring. There's no experience that prepares you for the Presidency.
Ignoring the campaign issue (though he has run a very good campaign, you must admit; highly effective)....

I can't believe given the TRASH our congress has produced, the constant pandering to big business and other special interests with little regard to the people that you don't see how this is obviously a problem. That seems like willful ignorance.

As far as Anti-war goes, he is far more anti-war than any other candidate. He spoke out against the war, intelligently and with very good reasons, before we went. How is that not leadership? What do you expect him to have done while he is a junior member of the senate? He has no authority there, has to speak last, and generally very little power (you yourself acknowledge this). There's not much room for a junior senator to do much; that said, LOOK at his senate record, and you'll find it fairly impressive. Sure he does want to go after terrorists and terrorism, but what exactly do you think is wrong with that? He wants to make sure WHEN we use our military forces, they are used properly and in a safe way. What's wrong there?

On smoking. Are you serious?

Obama wants religious people back into the Democratic party. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm an atheist and a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, but the religious groups are a significant segment of society. We can't ignore them. I suggest you listen to what Obama has to say about religion and the non-religious. You can search youtube for the video. There's nothing to fear from him; he just doesn't want religious people to feel alienated by the government (which is bad for numerous pragmatic reasons).

What's wrong with linking domestic programs to ending the biggest needless expense we have? What's wrong with fiscal responsibility?

[hfojvt]

165. Clinton did not take the lead on economic stimulus

Edwards did, and Clinton copied him two or three weeks later.

She also lied about the stimulus package. In a speech in South Carolina she claimed it "provided help to those who need it the most" which was flat out untrue. The Senate was still trying to add provisions like LIHEAP funding, unemployment extension, food stamps, and aid to states would help too as cities and states are now slashing their budgets because the recession has reduced their tax revenues. She should have been lobbying for those in need, and mobilizing support for other Senate Democrats. Instead, she took Bush's side and claimed the needy were already being taken care of by the stupid rebate checks, many of which are going to those above the median income.

"Here's why I think it's a bad plan. From Brookings Institute
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1780&DocTypeID=2

Of the total rebate money, only 29.7% of it goes to the poorest 40% of Americans while 47.1% goes to the richest 40% of Americans. 93.7% of households in the 80-90% group will get a rebate check compared to only 74.2% in the bottom 20%."

She does that all the time in her economic proposals - benefits go above the median income, while the poor will only get trickle down.

[Sparkly]

19. Obama vs. McCain....

If nothing else, the goal has to be to stop McCain.

There's a HUGE difference between either of our candidates and McCain. McCain's positions on foreign and domestic policy are totally unacceptable to me.

[metalluk]

70. The goal for me is

the best president possible, given the available choices.

I am an American first and a Democrat secondarily.

[Sparkly]

78. I agree there.

You see McCain as a better president than Obama?

[lark]

177. I agree that Obama is better than McCain

I just don't think he can beat McCain so don't want him as the nominee. I'm getting very depressed by the kool aid the party is drinking these days. I hate cults of personality, always did, always will. I like actions, plans, not fuzzy thinking and worship. I value counting votes, not disenfranchising voters because they don't vote your way. Because of all these reasons, I don't want Obama as the nominee. If he is the nominee, he will be very weak, and I see him going the way of Dukkakis in the GE. Our best chance in a long time is being wasted.

[DJ13]

20. I agree, but its Hillary who isnt qualified

She has proven that she doesnt have the good judgement required to be President with her IWR vote.

Nor does she have the temperment as proven by her outbursts during this campaign.

Sorry, but I want solid judgement and a temperment to think before reacting, and only Obama has both.

[roseBudd]

23. Obama's foreign policy judgement vs. Insane McCain's Bomb Bomb Iran

you are kidding us right?

My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable.

Will you be sending a telegram?

[metalluk]

142. No, I'll be sending

a ballot, neatly bundled up with millions of other ballets from disaffected Democrats.

[LSparkle]

28. The most "qualified" president we last elected was ... Nixon

And we all know how that ended.

I take issue with your characterization of the campaigns of both Clinton and Obama. You claim
that Clinton's team featured "policy-wonks and pragmatists." I'd counter that with the fact
that her campaign has been run by high-priced consultants and people who are personally loyal
to her, as opposed to believing in her POLICIES or her vision of where she wants to take the
country. You claim that Obama's advisors and campaign "feature his personality and appeal
to emotion." First of all, have you listened to his speeches over the past week? I wouldn't
say that they appealed to emotion alone -- in fact, many have wondered whether the speech on
race in particular would be effective because it might not be understood by a public dumbed-
down by 8 years of monosyllabic SOTU speeches. Obama has had the good sense to surround
himself with former advisors of Bill Clinton -- not just people he's worked with in Illinois --
and to run a masterful campaign (which has put her effort to shame, frankly).

I think her "experience" is greatly a myth which we're only now getting to dig more deeply
into thanks to first release of her White House records. I think it's unfair for you to
characterize Obama as "underqualified" if you consider the yardstick you're using.

[metalluk]

74. I have not only listened to Obama's speeches

but have printed them out and read them carefully.

You are right that the Iraq speech contained genuine substance. Some of that substance was reassuring, such as commitment to diplomacy and enhancing America's image abroad through more and better allocated foreign aid.

His proposal of a new front is reckless and will bog us down in a strategically unsound initiative. I don't believe that we belong in Iraq or that Democracy there is going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, but, from a purely strategic point of view, if a long-term conflict develops in the Middle East, which is more important: the oils fields in Iraq or a bunch of remote, sparsely populated mountains along the border of Pakistan? Which risks antagonizing one of the most important allies we have in the region?

I have written elsewhere about Clinton's qualifications. I believe she is singularly prepared and qualified for the presidency.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheDebbieDee]

30. .

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. Thoughtful and appealing to the electorate. Silly season will end n/t

[Oleladylib]

38. Best post I've seen on DU today! Thank you.

[metalluk]

79. Thank you for the support (NFM)

[cbayer]

39. I found your post refreshing.

It's nice to see someone lay out their views in a coherent and readable fashion that does use name-calling or invective. This has become astoundingly rare here, if not completely absent.

You clearly lay out your support for Clinton at the beginning of the piece and I reject those that who are slamming you for being a Republican who has come here to disrupt.

Many people share your views and they need to be heard if we want to win the GE. People on DU these days can not tolerate any views that do not support their position. Many have lost all ability to look critically at their candidate. This is dangerous and frightening. It's what got us Bush.

So I applaud you for posting this. I also implore you to re-consider crossing over if Obama is the democratic candidate. If the values you espouse in your piece are what you will use to judge the candidates, I would hope you would find Obama more qualified that McCain should that becomes your choice.

[Guava Jelly]

40. .

[Adelante]

41. Don't vote for him - who cares? nt

[msallied]

43. A few words on experience..

Experience...


Is a nebulous term. How much experience is considered to be "enough?"

Conotates a certain air of obstinance.

Is usually considered valid only if it is gained first-hand. My having worked in the same office as people who operate a payroll system does not give me experience in cutting a company's paychecks.

Is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to politics; one should always beware professional politicians.

Is not the magical ingredient in a good leader. In fact, it should be regarded with just as much scrutiny as inexperience, if not more.

Has a tendency to enhance the status quo, not change it.

Was not something possessed in great amounts by JFK, Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington.

Is overrated.

[Mimosa]

196. Experience...

MSAllied, yours are wise words, especially here: "Experience:

Experience...


Is a nebulous term. How much experience is considered to be "enough?"

Conotates a certain air of obstinance.

Is usually considered valid only if it is gained first-hand. My having worked in the same office as people who operate a payroll system does not give me experience in cutting a company's paychecks.

Is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to politics; one should always beware professional politicians.

Is not the magical ingredient in a good leader. In fact, it should be regarded with just as much scrutiny as inexperience, if not more.

Has a tendency to enhance the status quo, not change it."

In real life, don't we all know people who have degrees and seniority but are real dufuses or have tempermental flaws and tunnel vision?

[Frustratedlady]

45. Obama gives us a chance for a new way of doing business...

I, for one, am so sick and tired of the corruption and fraud in this government. I want the open meetings...the fresh air that will blow out the stench in our present administration.

Hillary would be the same old/same old. I have always been a Clinton supporter, but these past few years have shown me that we can't afford to have another Clinton follow another Bush with the possibility of passing the torch to yet another Bush when Hillary is done.

It is time for new blood, new ideas and a new direction. Hillary can't give us that.

Vote as you wish. No one is stopping you.

[metalluk]

82. I agree with you to this extent:

Obama is one of the freshest candidates that we've seen in a long time. He does bring a fresh approach to the political scene. I like his intelligence, integrity, and, of course, his excellent speaking ability. He is a true word-smith in both the written and oral forms of communication.

I am convinced, however, that he does not bring a new way of "doing business." Congressional and corporate leaders are not going to be persuaded by rhetoric. Obama has not yet demonstrated a capacity to translate his fine language into implemented policy. He sponsored no major bills as a U.S. Senator.

If he were to demonstrate an ability to actually get things done and acquired a reasonable level of experience, he would have my enthusiastic support, for the reasons you articulated so well in your first paragraph.

[paulk]

47. I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee

and I will do my best to talk the two (so far) family members of mine who are leaning toward McCain vs Obama to do the same. I think that Democratic control of the executive branch is that important - even though I share your misgivings about Obama as a candidate.

[cali]

48. Anyone posting here who won't vote for the dem nominee is

a fucking moron whose opinion isn't worth a single turd. And your OP is full of misinformation- to be polite. god, I'm sick of sanctimonious stupidity. If you won't vote for the dem at this critical time you're a piss poor human being.

[cbayer]

54. But cali, people here say that all the time.

Both Clinton and Obama supporters repeatedly state that they won't vote or will vote for McCain if their candidate is not selected.

And the polls support that many will in fact do that.

I think we need to listen to these people.

[cali]

61. and I've said it to both

Obama and Clinton supporters. It's unsupportable if only for the SC. And these folks are so self-righteous and misguided that there is no point in indulging them. They've made up thier petty little minds. I'd crawl through broken glass to vote for the dem this November. It's critical. I can't believe that people don't know that. And idots who say that Hillary would be no different than McCain incur my wrath just as much.

[cbayer]

65. I know that is your position and that you confront both sides.

My point is that we may want to listen to them and work with them so that when the time comes, they will vote with us.

Telling them to go away just doesn't sit well with me. I want to hear what their concerns are.

[cali]

72. Well, you're more patient than I, that's for sure.

But I think I'm pretty good at reading between the lines, and this post like a lot of the "I won't vote or so and so" posts reflects a rigid made up mind. And honestly, to me, if you can't see how vital it is to keep McCain out of the White House, you're priorities are fucked.

[msallied]

66. Give me a break.

Why in the hell would I reward a Democratic party who insisted on getting it wrong with my vote? While I'm at it, I will also cart a wagon full of vodka to the local AA meeting and take my obese diabetic friend out to a Twinkie buffet, because I'm all about being an enabler.

Jesus...

[cali]

80. ahh. perfect. you just illustrated exactly what's wrong with your

"thinking" and revealed it for what it really is under the tarted up self-righteousness.

IT'S NOT ABOUT REWARDING THE DEM PARTY, GENIUS. IT'S ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT, THE ENVIRONMENT, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, THE ECONOMY AND MUCH MORE.


And the Supreme Court should be enough for anyone here to vote for the nominee. You're full of nothing but hot air. It's the same old bullshit whether it's from Clinton supporters or Hillary supporters. And always boils down to this: Me, me, me. It's selfish as hell and egocentric in a sick childish way. I have no use for it whatsofuckingever.

[msallied]

127. You are overly-emotional

And if you think for one minute that Hillary Clinton doesn't already betray true Democratic values, you're an idiot. If you think that the party can unite under someone who has fought tooth and nail to divide us, you're a moron. Of course, I wasn't planning on resorting to namecalling, but since you already went there... If we want the right leaders to represent us, we have to insist, as VOTERS, that the right representative be chosen. And that's not done by holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils. It's demanding that they give us someone WORTH VOTING FOR.

Oh and it's called standing by one's principles. You say I have hot air. I'M the only one between the two of us who is insisting on actual SUBSTANCE in my candidates. You just want an empty suit with a "D" next to their name who may or may not represent your values.

There is no bigger idiot than a straight-ticket voter.

Grow the fuck up.

[cali]

171. I never said that Clinton didn't

reflect democratic values. You're the moron if you think I did. And obviously every bit as emotional as I am. And I'm not the asshole freak who's saying I won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, the way you've said you won't vote for Obama. Duh. Could your post be any more disingenuous. You showed your true colors: Spiteful, hateful, petty and supremely selfish.

Oh, and I'm not a straight party voter, dearie. I live in Vermont where we actually have a Progressive party and I voted for Jim Jeffords when he was a repub. But when it comes to the Presidential contest, yep, I've always voted dem. I think Hillary is a lousy candidate and yet, I realize that's opinion, just as your bullshit pile of crap about Obama is opinion. Do try and educate yourself as to the difference between opinion and fact.

You're clearly the one who needs to grow the fuck up, sweetie. It's clear that you aren't capable of it. Pathetic.

[Straight Shooter]

53. With the mess george w. bush is leaving us, ALL candidates are grossly unqualified.

I just can't bear to support someone whose defining characteristics are his supposed charisma and his oratory, which hide a thin-skinned arrogance and boilerplate feel-good rhetoric. It goes against my grain.

[hfojvt]

55. I'm confused (so what else is new?)

There's nothing in your reasons to vote against Obama that make McCain any better.

Experience is important? Then did you vote for George H.W. Bush over Bill Clinton? Did you support Nixon both times (or would you have, since I realized nobody is really that old)? What about Ford over Carter? Herbert Hoover over FDR. Clearly a sitting President always has more experience at being President than any challenger (except Grover Cleveland who had four years of experience both times he ran for his 2nd term, losing the first and winning the second).

Personally I will take an inexperienced person who agrees with me about the minimum wage, about the environment, about tax cuts, about budget priorities, about peace, against an experienced person who disagrees with me about all of those issues. And I include both McCain and Clinton in the second camp.

And I could keep going. You don't like his "coalition of faith and bipartisanship". So a McCain Presidency will be better on both counts? You really are not making any sense at all except for being passionately for Hillary for some unknown reasons and trying to threaten other Democrats to go along with you. You might be able, like Krugman, to make a case of supporting Hillary over Obama, but you are still giga-parsecs away from making a case for supporting McCain over Obama. Unless you normally support Republicans.

[metalluk]

122. Nice thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

I think that the essense of our difference is the following:

"Personally I will take an inexperienced person who agrees with me"

I weigh both experience/qualifications and how consonant the person's values are with my own. Barack Obama's values are very close to what I want in a president, but I feel that his lack of experience, at this point in his career, makes him a very risky choice for the presidency. Presidential mistakes sometimes cost many lives, as in the Bay of Pigs fiasco during the Kennedy years or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. McCain's values are not to my liking except on a very few issues (which I'm not going to elaborate on further given this board's intents). Clinton is my choice because she is ready to lead and her values on most issues are indistinguishable from those of Obama.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I think it is selfish to be guided simply by one's own interests and values. As a humanist and then as an American, I try to identify which candidate offers the best potential for improvements and least risks, for humanity and for America.

[hfojvt]

163. you sorta made my point though

Bush did not go into Iraq because of his inexperience. He went into Iraq because he's a greedy war-monger. Somebody whose values disagree with mine. You could say the same thing for most of the harmful things he has done. He did not cut taxes for the wealthy because he was too inexperienced to know better. He did not lie about the cost of his prescription drug benefit because of his inexperience. Nor did he promote pollution (clear skies legislation) or logging (healthy forests legislation), and so on. Those were all the product of intentions not experience.

Then there's Hillary. Her experience did not cause her to oppose the war. Even taking away her vote in October, she was not opposing the war in February. Instead, inexperienced "rubes" like Obama and I were. While Hillary was on TV saying "Saddam is not co-operating." She was making Bush's case for war. Instead of saying "Bush needs to give the inspectors more time", she said "Saddam is not co-operating."

As far as the selfishness charge, it's not really about me. The war is a good example. Obama agreed with me and Hillary didn't. But the war has not really impacted me personally. My preferences on issues are not just good for me, in my opinion they are good for all working people, good for the country and good for the world. I think Hillary is significantly to the right of Obama on economic issues. She is DLC and he isn't. Further, she is likely to hurt the Democratic party. She is also more likely to polarize the country. Republicans will be fired up to oppose her. She will accomplish nothing in her first two years and the M$M will trash her every day, and we probably will end up with a Republican Congress in 2010. Speculation, but I don't think she can unite the country any more than she can unite the Democratic Party.

[metalluk]

169. Another well-reasoned post.

"Bush did not go into Iraq because of his inexperience. He went into Iraq because he's a greedy war-monger."

I disagree with your assessment of the Bush administration. Bush himself is a figure-head, not very intelligent, and not even strong-minded enough to be doctrinaire. It was his neoconservative cabal of advisors that set the tone for the administration. They were the war-mongers. Bush was just there because he had the kind of glad-handing, drinking-buddy manner that could appeal to (half of) voters. (Imagine Rumsfeld trying to appeal to voters for their support.) I'm sorry to say it, but the Obama team has a somewhat similar construction, except that Obama is astutely intelligent. His main role, however, is whipping up a crowd in order to generate Obamania and hero-worship. Bush was not only inexperienced but also weak-minded, but, since he was a puppet anyway, it made little difference except that we did not have a president who could stand up to or understand the lunacy of the neoconservative clique that comprised the power behind the throne. His inexperience hurt us all badly.

"He did not cut taxes for the wealthy because he was too inexperienced to know better."

Again, he was just a front man. He was told how things would be and would not have gotten the backing of the people with money if he had been independent minded enough to question their requirements. The value-problem really belongs to his "team," he really has no values of his own other than those relating to his born-again Christian faith. The Republican Party is a coalition between the greedy and the ignorant. The neoconservatives dictated the greed element; Bush simply filled in the born-again Christian ignorance element.

"Those were all the product of intentions not experience."

We almost agree. These were all products of the intentions of his neoconservative puppeteers. Bush was too weak-minded and inexperienced to be an authentic chief executive.

"Her experience did not cause her to oppose the war."

There's nothing I can say except to acknowledge that you are completely right on that point.

"Obama agreed with me and Hillary didn't."

True, but that's in the past. I urge you to take a close look at Obama's Iraq speech (not the cost one, but the first one from this week) and look at his proposals in relation to shifting the focal point of the war. An anti-war person like yourself will probably understand that this is the language of an aggression young man anxious for a macho encounter with the terrorist leaders in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pay attention to the words new "central front" and think about what that implies. Look at the words he chooses to characterize the essential problem in the Middle East, strongly defending Israel and dismissing Arab anger toward America as "perverse and hateful ideologies," as though it had nothing to do with European and Jewish leaders inserting a nation into the Middle East, humiliating the Arab nations. How is Obama going to be able to negotiate effectively with Arab leaders with this language as a starting point?

Hillary was WRONG in 2002; now look at her plan for extracting us from Iraq and ask yourself, which of these two Democratic candidates has the more dangerously aggressive posture. My personal view in relation to the Middle East is that we can only make progress through a combination of strength and fairness. Where is Obama's understanding of the reasonable aspirations of the Palestinian people to balance his defense of Israel?

"I don't think she can unite the country any more than she can unite the Democratic Party."

I think that the whole idea of "uniting the country" and a "unity candidate" is a fantasy. Most political issues pit one set of interests against another. The best a President -- any President -- can hope for is a working majority. You get that by picking your battles carefully so as not to trigger opposition that exceeds support.

[hfojvt]

189. I don't think Obama has the same kind of cabal behind him as Bush

He's got people like Kennedy and Daschle advising him as well and will have to work with the (hopefully) Democratic Congress. Being a herd of cats, Congressional Democrats will not rubber-stamp his proposals the way the Republican Congress did for Bush. Further, I do not believe it is his inexperience that causes Bush to be guided or controlled by his advisors, it is his central agreement with their philosophy.

Again, even if Obama has some hawkish or Chicago-school advisors, that does not make him worse than McCain on any of those issues. McCain is promising to follow in the same direction as the Bush Cabal, Obama is not. It's not a three person race with Hillary running against Obama and McCain (although considering her seeming relentlessness on this campaign, and her GE war chest, I would not put an independent run past her - a Clinton/Bloomberg ticket? That would make her even more Liebermanesque than I give her credit for). But until that nightmare comes to pass, this fall is likely to be Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Huckabee.

[metalluk]

193. No question Obama would have a better team of advisors

than Bush. He has a solid team of campaign advisors. We don't know what his cabinet would look like or his White House advisors, but they will be a strong group. I won't even insult them by pointing out that they would have to be better than Bush's advisors, even if they were recruited from the county jail. They'll be eons better than the present set of greed-driven culprits.

It is Obama himself that I worry about. Intelligent, yes. A good, listener . . . yes, again. A good analytical thinker . . . bingo! A superlative speaker? Definitely. Adequately experienced for the job? Insert a deep, buzzing sound here indicating a wrong answer.

A wise man prepares himself for the role in life that he seeks before undertaking that role. A first-year medical student doesn't ask to be handed the surgical knife until he's well enough trained to use it safely.

[Hutzpa]

56. Let me guess.....

you're from that era between 50s and 60s which my guess is was the good ol' days,
hmmmmm......its hard to let go.....its hard, but a one dimensional march toward
disaster is not the future.

For once we need to stop being selfish and start thinking positively about what
we can do for this country, not what you've done in the past or what you're
doing now, its what can be done for our kids future the future of the United
States of America, remember that country, the one you live in, the one our
forefathers fought and die for thats the one.

So, STOP BEING SELFISH AND USE YOUR HEAD FOR ONCE.


:think:

[Tempest]

57. Vanity Thread = Spam

I sure as hell wish these vanity threads were deleted.

It's getting to where DU isn't worth visiting anymore because of all the spamming.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

118. Agree with you 100%

[Life Long Dem]

59. Goodbye.

[BenDavid]

60. yep, the dems are going for the pony or the rookie when all

they had to do was send in hrc against whomever the repubs offered up.....we had this election won until obama decided he had to "unite us."

[sueragingroz]

62. for me it's mcclurkin primarily

but the other stuff doesn't help either...

[TheWraith]

67. A list of reasons why you're wrong, if you actually cared. But it seems you don't.

I'll start this off by saying that you're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, including taking a lot of right-wing talking points. It looks like you're not really interested in discussion, but rather presenting a smear job as an "unbiased" opinion. For the benefit of others reading, though, I'll answer your criticisms.

"grossly underqualified and unprepared for the presidency."

Obama's been an elected legislator longer than Hillary has, and has more experience than most of the people who've been elected to the Presidency. Lincoln's only national political experience prior to his election was 2 years in the House of Representaties.

"He advocates a "coalition of faith and bipartisanship." The latter is impossible except for an occasional, isolated issue."

No, it's not. Kindly remember that Bush's approval rating is less than two thirds among solid Republicans, which is not to mention Republican leaning independents. More Republicans are disenchanted with their party and its policies than ever before. We bring those people over to our side, we win every battle.

"The former is a deplorable intrusion of religious thinking into public life. I do not want a Democratic Ministry in Washington, any more than the Republican Ministry that currently exists."

Despite what some people here think, it's not evil to talk about religion, or invoke religious and moral imperatives in the interest of improving society. I defy you to find anything in Obama's platform that suggests he would cross the line between church and state.

"Obama has not clarified how his congregation's racist doctrine (published on their website) would or would not influence his policies or decisions as president."

This is sounding more and more like a smear on your part. Care to cite how the United Church of Christ's doctrine is "racist"? Because its members include some of the whitest people you'll ever find. Unless you mean just Trinity UCC, in which case God forbid that a predominantly black church should talk about encouraging pride in black people.

"His economic proposals are weak and mostly a rehash of positions previously developed by Clinton."

Said by someone who clearly hasn't read any of Obama's economic proposals. And Clinton's proposals weren't developed by her: she has no economic experience of any kind. Most of the people who helped build the Clinton economic plan in the 1990s are now supporting Obama.

"He has repeatedly articulated an unsound linkage between foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives."

It's not "unsound" in the least. Every sane economist agrees that the massive defecit spending in Iraq has crippled our economy, raised oil prices, and tanked the dollar. Foreign and domestic policy linkage is one of the simplest and most basic things to deal with in the presidency.

"His excessively broad finger-pointing at Corporate America and Big Business will make it impossible for him to enlist these powerful interest groups in participating in his agenda."

So, we need more big business in government? More lobbyist representation? That's your solution? Big business "participation" is exactly what we've had for years now.

"Whereas Clinton's team features policy-wonks and pragmatists, Obama's advisors and campaign feature his personality and appeals to emotion."

Obama's campaign site includes a full set of policy proposals on just about any subject you could care to name, ones which avoid the Clinton campaign tactic of returning to policies which have previously failed.

"Obama's claim to strong anti-war credentials is a gross exaggeration and based almost entirely on one tepid speech given in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator."

Obama's so-called "tepid" speech, which you've clearly never read, is today considered the gold standard by many people in the anti-war community for its foresightedness and prediction of the disaster in Iraq.

This is as opposed to Clinton, who supported the war and continued to do so until it became unpopular.

"Obama's foreign policy ideas, as reiterated in his Iraq speech this week, are dangerous in their naiveté and advocacy of unilateral military adventurism. He proposes a new "central front" for the war in the Middle East, along the Pakistani and Afghanistan border, with or without the consent and cooperation of our crucial regional ally, Pakistan."

This is a right-wing lie that you and Clinton have been repeating. What Obama said was that if we had intelligence that would enable us to take out a major Al Qaeda target inside Pakistan, and the Pakistanis could not or would not act, we would. Are you opposed to hunting down actual terrorists?

"My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable."

Advocating the defeat of a Democratic candidate for office is forbidden under DU rules.

[metalluk]

97. A rejoinder.

"right-wing talking points"

No, every point that I've made is a concern that I have developed on my own after careful examination of the two Democratic candidate's speeches and policy statements. I do not expose myself to right-wing talking points.

"a smear job"

A convenient way to dismiss any criticism of your preferred candidate.

"Obama's been an elected legislator longer than Hillary has, and has more experience than most of the people who've been elected to the Presidency"

Six of those years were in the Illinois State Legislature while also a faculty member at a law school. He is a freshman U.S. Senator, at present, without a single major bill to his credit.

"More Republicans are disenchanted with their party and its policies than ever before. We bring those people over to our side, we win every battle."

The polls do not indicate that either Obama or Clinton has any significant pull among Republican voters. Obama does have substantially better draw than Clinton among Independents but he loses a bigger chunk of support from Democrats than does Clinton. If you are basing your governing coalition on appealing to a significant number of Republicans, especially those who are office holders and power-brokers, then your political strategy is a good deal more foolish than I had previously anticipated.

"Despite what some people here think, it's not evil to talk about religion, or invoke religious and moral imperatives in the interest of improving society."

Obviously, this is a matter of opinion. I value separation between church and state. I strongly object to a president promoting faith from the bully pulpit. It is not something that children from non-religious families should have to be subjected to while hoping to be politically informed citizens.

"I defy you to find anything in Obama's platform that suggests he would cross the line between church and state."

-- a coalition of faith and bipartisanship. It's a disturbing pandering to the religious segment of our society that pushes aside responsible and thoughtful people of no faith.

"Care to cite how the United Church of Christ's doctrine is "racist"?"

It subscribes to the "Black Value System" that encourages members of the congregation to "Pledge allegiance to the black community." The President of the U.S. needs to be equally committed to all racial and ethnic community. The Church promotes an Africentric orientation. The President of the U.S. needs to have an "Americentric" perspective and to approach international affairs without a bias toward a particular race or continent.

"Because its members include some of the whitest people you'll ever find."

The color balance in the denomination's membership does not concern me in the slightest. My concern is with the doctrine officially approved by the particular congregation to which Barack Obama and his family belong. It is the doctrine that is racist. I don't assume that the members of the congregation are any more or less racist than any other sample of people across the nation.

"Unless you mean just Trinity UCC, in which case God forbid that a predominantly black church should talk about encouraging pride in black people."

I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable concern for the people of Trinity UCC. My question is truly a question; I am merely asking for an answer. How will the Trinity UCC's doctrine called the "Black Value System" or its Africentric orientation influence or illuminate Barack Obama's policies or decisions if he is elected president. The question is no more than what I would ask in relation to Romney's Mormonism or JFK's Catholicism or Bush's born-again-Christian mentality. Citizens have a right to know the implications of a candidate's religion for his role in public life. I am not interested in how it impacts his private life.

"Said by someone who clearly hasn't read any of Obama's economic proposals."

This is simple sniping on your part. I have read his proposals thoroughly and have compared and contrasted them with those of the Clinton team. I am holding in my hand, at this very moment, the speeches of both candidates from Zanesville, OH that focused exclusively on economic issues.

"And Clinton's proposals weren't developed by her"

Obviously, neither candidate can be the sole or even the prime author of every policy statement that emerges from their campaign team. That is as it should be because Presidents, like candidates, have to operate a team of advisors and policy specialists from a variety of specialty areas. The Clinton team has consistently outperformed the Obama team in the quality of policy proposals and substantive ideas for change. Just yesterday, the Clinton campaign group issued a new economic stimulus proposal. They have consistently gotten their ideas out sooner than the Obama camp (of which, I presume, you are a member). Obama's health care proposals are widely judged inferior to those from the Clinton camp.

"Most of the people who helped build the Clinton economic plan in the 1990s are now supporting Obama."

Perhaps so, I really don't know. If so, they are sitting on their hands or have been silenced by the Obama's camps determination to put personality forward and policy in arrears.

"Every sane economist agrees that the massive deficit spending in Iraq has crippled our economy, raised oil prices, and tanked the dollar. Foreign and domestic policy linkage is one of the simplest and most basic things to deal with in the presidency."

I agree with the first sentence. I strongly disagree with the rest. Sometimes a country has to do what it has to do. I strongly opposed the War in Iraq, but any decision as to how we proceed from here has to be based on the best strategy for dealing with the problems of the Middle East and terrorism. We can't be pulling out of international commitments whenever they result in an economic pinch at home. Foreign policy is far too critical to the future and security of America to be subordinated to domestic initiatives. Your defense of the Obama viewpoint on this linkage reinforces my concern.

"So, we need more big business in government? More lobbyist representation? That's your solution?"

No, that is your twisting of what I said, not my position. We need a cooperative effort between government and business interests to address our nation's problems. A President needs to confront Corporate America where there are identifiable abuses that are damaging to the country and ordinary citizens instead of directing broadsides at Corporate America and blaming all of the nation's problems on that segment of our society. Otherwise, a President will so thoroughly alienate Corporate America that they will block his every initiative. That is the trap into which the naive and inexperienced Senator Obama has fallen. You can't blast a person or group unreasonably and then turn around and expect their cooperation.

"Big business "participation" is exactly what we've had for years now."

Not merely "participation." We've had eight years of giveaways via capital gains tax reductions and tax cuts. We've had eight years of the wealthy sucking every drop of milk from the American nipple. I see that as well as either you or Barack Obama. Those unconscionable excesses have to be halted and reigned in. But Corporate America and other business interests are also what has made America the greatest economy in the world. Change will require their active participation and you aren't going to get that with incendiary rhetoric. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has a lot still to learn about how the system works and how to get things done.

"Obama's so-called "tepid" speech, which you've clearly never read, is today considered the gold standard by many people in the anti-war community for its foresightedness and prediction of the disaster in Iraq."

Gold-standard my ass. I don't doubt, however, that many people think so since there are many people in the Obama camp. Everyone in the anti-war community predicted disaster in Iraq. That was one of the essential reasons for being anti-war. I've read Obama's speech repeatedly and it demonstrates that he lacked a genuine understanding of the principal arguments against the war that existed at the time.

"This is as opposed to Clinton, who supported the war and continued to do so until it became unpopular."

I make no excuses for Clinton's vote on the war or that of any other politician, especially those who were Democrats. I make no excuses for the many citizens who allowed themselves to be duped by false information and illogical arguments for the war. My prime, concern, however, is how we proceed as a nation from this point forward. I believe that Senator Clinton has the best plan for doing that. I strongly believe that Senator Obama's ideas in relation to the Middle East are reckless.

"This is a right-wing lie that you and Clinton have been repeating."

No. What IS a right-wing lie is that Senator Obama plans to bomb Pakistan. I have heard that lie perpetrated and I understand it to be a distortion of what Senator Obama said. I have based MY concern about his policy entirely on his own stated position and, especially, his speech this week on Iraq. A new "central front" were his words and it is hard to see much ambiguity in their meaning.

"What Obama said was that if we had intelligence that would enable us to take out a major Al Qaeda target inside Pakistan, and the Pakistanis could not or would not act, we would."

That is PART of what he said. I quote, "Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan." These are his words. What could be clearer? His intent in to shift the focus of the war from Iraq to a new CENTRAL FRONT in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Are you opposed to hunting down actual terrorists?"

No, assuming that the benefit outweighs the costs in dollars and/or lives. I am opposed to a new Central Front, unequivocally.

"Advocating the defeat of a Democratic candidate for office is forbidden under DU rules."

BO is not yet a Democratic nominee. I advocate Senator Clinton's candidacy in preference to that of Senator Obama, now during the primary season. If and when he becomes the Democratic nominee, I will not be posting anything at his site adverse to his prospects.

[Pooka Fey]

68. Thank you for talking about policy rather than personality. K&R

[Texas Hill Country]

71. kick and rec

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. the Richardson, Kennedy, Kerry endorsements outweigh any shallow assessment of this man

we see exactly the same drivel coming out of the Ms Hillary and Mr John campaigns. I expect you are a mouthpiece for one of them?

[JoFerret]

182. To whom?

Spread the hope not this second hand disdain.

[juajen]

75. Thanks. You said that so much better than I ever could.

I am waffling now as to whether I can vote for Obama. I have been thinking that I should start devoting my time and attention and any small amount of money I have to getting in place a veto proof democratic congress. They should be able to contain McCain and advance some democratic issues. It's rather interesting watching the machinations of a President whose Congress is unavailable to aid him. Bill Clinton handled it, though with a lot of difficulty.

I will not stop supporting Hillary until she tells me to stop, but I am looking closely at my choices if she tells me that.

[citizen snips]

77. Great post.

"We badly need a wiser, more rational citizenry to decrease our vulnerability to propaganda and disinformation. As an educator, Obama should understand that need."

Many college students are illeterate in subjects like History, Civics, and Economics. If students were educated in these areas they could sort out Obama's idealism. The quote above is why so many college students support Obama. Also, many republican college students supported Ron Paul because of the above quote.

[against all enemies]

81. Looking to make your tax break permanent? McCain is an idiot, enjoy.

[SoxFan]

85. Reality Check

"Whereas Clinton's team features policy-wonks and pragmatists, Obama's advisors and campaign feature his personality and appeals to emotion."

Riiiiight...

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor
Greg Craig, fmr. Assistant to the President and Director of Policy Planning, State Department
William M. Daley, former Secretary of Commerce
Bob Gee, former United States Assistant Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton
Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General
Noel Koch, fmr. Special Assistant to President Nixon; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense
Anthony Lake, President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor
Robert Litt, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General; US Attorney
Jan Lodal, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
Susan E. Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
David Scheffer, former Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Sarah Sewell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council
Ted Sorensen, President John F. Kennedy's top advisor and speechwriter
Tara Sonenshine, former Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council
Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy
Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the Army
Merrill A. McPeak, four star General (Ret), former Secretary of the United States Air Force
Richard D. Hearney, former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Ivo H. Daalder, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council
Jeffrey Bader, former U.S. Ambassador to Namibia and Fmr. Assistant US Trade Representative for Asia
Donald McHenry, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Laurence Tribe, Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School
Samantha Power, Professor at Harvard University and Pulitzer Prize-winning author
Riordan Roett, Professor of Western Hemisphere Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Michael Oppenheimer,Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University

[metalluk]

124. I'm looking for results, not names.

Which campaign has twice proposed stimulus packages for the economy, before either the Bush administration or the Obama team had recognized a problem or suggested a remedy?

And may I suggest you delete Samantha Power from your list?

Your campaign team (and I imagine you are indeed part of that team) made a conscious choice not to feature policy but, instead, to market your candidate as the kind of guy that Americans should want as their president, because he has "judgment." The basis of your "judgment" argument was thin at best, reflecting mainly early opposition to the War in Iraq. You benefited from the strategy you chose to the extent of attracting an unprecedented number of groupies. Why should you be surprised that you've also lost the support of those of us a little older and a little wiser who want tangible solutions to real life problems -- rather than vague appeals to "hope" and "change?" You have reaped what you sewed. You've got your cult of personality but the emperor has no clothes (or the clothes are tucked away out of sight in the closets of all of those excellent advisors that you've listed). In the meanwhile, your campaign has the effect of counter-education: encouraging people to vote based on shallow emotional appeals rather than examination of issues. It was a shameful choice.

Obama may get to the White House in 2008, but, if so, his administration will be ineffective because emotional appeals aren't going to work on seasoned politicians, he lacks experience and a history of getting things accomplished, and he will have alienated many of the segments of society that have to be on-board for any kind of real progress.

[Nedsdag]

168. Tell me my friend.

I don't think Hillary is qualified to be President. Why should I vote for her?

[metalluk]

175. Hillary's Experience

Valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley College

Work in Arkansas as State First Lady on issues pertaining to welfare of children

As First Lady, Task Force on National Health Care Reform -- yes, the initiative failed to get through, but the obstacles were (and are) enormous and the job still has to be completed. She has first-hand understanding to the obstacles.

As First Lady, lobbying efforts on behalf of Kennedy/Hatch State Children's Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, and Foster Care Independence Act

Leadership on health issues relating to children (immunization) and women (mammogram awareness)

Contributed to investigation of Gulf War Syndrome

Helped create Office on Violence against Women

Traveled in more countries than any previous First Lady

Spoke in Beijing at Fourth World Conference on Women

Spoke out against mistreatment of women under Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan

Historical preservation efforts such as chairing "Save America's Treasures

As First Lady, she was NOT involved in major foreign policy or domestic policy initiatives, but observed these endeavors and discussed such on-going issues with her husband (it would have been inappropriate for her, as First Lady, to have more direct involvement). Instead, she ran her own independent domain of liaison activities between the White House and various national and international constituencies. This gave her executive level experience, not direct hands-on experience with handling foreign affairs or international crises.

As a U.S. Senator, promised to produce 200,000 jobs during campaign and followed through with targeted tax credits for job creation, concentrating on "clean" jobs in high-tech sectors of the economy. Has worked constructively with business leaders in NY, such as CEO of Corning.

Has sponsored bills promoting affordable higher education and long-term care.

Established strong relationships with other congressional leaders

Served on Budget Committee

Served on Armed Services Committee where her understanding of detailed information and strategic thinking were recognized and commended by military leaders

Served on Environment and Public Works Committee

Served on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

Served on Special Committee on Aging

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Voted for military action in Afghanistan

Has visited both Afghanistan and Iraq since war began

Spoke out vigorously against Bush tax cuts

Sponsored Family Entertainment Protection Act (with Lieberman and Bayh)

Took leadership role in founding of Center for American Progress

Supported Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Urged creation of so-called Senate war-room

Led skeptical response to Gen. Petraeus's 2007 Iraq status report

Leadership role in effort to force Alberto Gonzales resignation

96% Liberal rating; 100% pro-choice rating; 90% pro-environment rating

[Aussie leftie]

86. If it is the will of the people

(and I mean, the people from all the states, Michigan and Florida included), then Democrat supporters should support that nominee at the general election. There is no way that Clinton or Obama could do worse than what Bush did. In 4 years time you get to choose again.

[metalluk]

99. GWB is an exceptionally low standard of comparison

for the current crop of candidates. He has been the worst President in history (and to steal a line from Jay Leno, in geography, math, and science as well).

I'm am not looking to elect merely the second worst President in history.

[Herman74]

90. Counter-arguments to consider:

"IMO, he is grossly underqualified and unprepared for the presidency. I base that viewpoint on a thorough study of his life and resume. Obama himself has acknowledged his relative dearth of experience, even though his more fanatical supporters never will. I reject the argument that experience is not an important factor in job performance. Obviously, it is not the only factor." -- mettaluk

Intelligence will trump experience any day of the week, and Obama is a magna cum laude Harvard Law School grad. Obama will wisely appoint those with "experience," and be guided by their assessments. Besides, his "lack of experience" only matters if it is significant compared to Hillary's which it isn't (no, you don't get brownie points for being the president's wife).

"IMO, the claim that his 'good judgment' will compensate for any deficiency in experience may be comforting, but my study of his speeches and policy positions convinces me that there are all too many examples of "poor judgment," not adequately tempered or illuminated by experience." -- mettaluk

I personally believe Obama's judgment is just fine, but I know you disagree. In any case, ask yourself: what evidence is there that Hillary's judgment is better? Her gullibility in believing that Bush would only go to war as a last resort? Her support for landmines and cluster bombs? Her comparing a Republican presidential candidate favorably to a Democratic one?

"He advocates a 'coalition of faith and bipartisanship.' The latter is impossible except for an occasional, isolated issue. The former is a deplorable intrusion of religious thinking into public life. I do not want a Democratic Ministry in Washington, any more than the Republican Ministry that currently exists." -- metalluk

Entire argument here strikes me as disingenuous, specious, or both. Ask yourself: what bills did Obama strive to pass in Illinois or in the U.S. Senate to bring about a "Democratic Ministry" anywhere? Or do you think he'll employ as president an unconstitutional religious litmus test in making appointments? Get real!

"Obama has not clarified how his congregation's racist doctrine (published on their website) would or would not influence his policies or decisions as president." -- metalluk

How could you write this after hearing his recent speech??? Seriously.

And look, there are likely many reasons to attend church other than to hear the pastor and his opinions. One of the reasons is that church attendance enables one to become a state congressman, Senator, and president. (Country is generally not ready for atheist politicians). Obama's church is rather prominent, a good spring-board for a political career, but in order to use it, you have to hear a lot of stuff that you may not agree with. Obama is half-white, was raised by whites, and has claimed that any good within him is a result of his white mother. He's not going to be doing anything that's racist one way or the other.

"His economic proposals are weak and mostly a rehash of positions previously developed by Clinton. He has repeatedly articulated an unsound linkage between foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives." -- metalluk

Well, at a minimum then, if your premise is true about his economic proposals being weak, then so too are Hillary's, as you state that his is just a rehash of hers. At a minimum, advantage to neither one. But perhaps you could explain, at least, how his economic proposals are "weak." I know that I do not find them weak.

"His excessively broad finger-pointing at Corporate America and Big Business will make it impossible for him to enlist these powerful interest groups in participating in his agenda." -- mettaluk

Another fellow, an American president, had a rather confrontational association with Corporate America and Big Business. He later became runner-up to Albert Einstein as Time's Person of the <20th> Century. This man's name: F.D.R. Enough said.

"Whereas Clinton's team features policy-wonks and pragmatists, Obama's advisors and campaign feature his personality and appeals to emotion." -- mettaluk

I know that I am not alone in concluding that Obama's advisor, Susan Rice, is one VERY sharp cookie!!
I'd match her against any member of Team Clinton any day of the week.

"Obama's claim to strong anti-war credentials is a gross exaggeration and based almost entirely on one tepid speech given in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator." -- metalluk

Speech didn't seem to me to be tepid. In any case, I'd take "tepid" opposition over gullible support for the war any day of the week.

"Obama's foreign policy ideas, as reiterated in his Iraq speech this week, are dangerous in their naiveté and advocacy of unilateral military adventurism. He proposes a new "central front" for the war in the Middle East, along the Pakistani and Afghanistan border, with or without the consent and cooperation of our crucial regional ally, Pakistan. -- metalluk

I think you're making too strong a conclusion here. In any case, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, with whom Obama has successfully worked with on foreign-policy legislation, would undoubtedly not call Obama "naive."

"Voters have a duty to vote in the manner they believe most consistent with the best interests of American and humanity in general. An excess of party loyalty has the detrimental effect of inviting corruption, cronyism, and nomination of unqualified candidates by political parties. Crossover voting helps motivate parties to tone down the worst of their tendencies to abuse power. My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable." -- metalluk

Please don't consider voting for McCain!!! Is teaching the Democratic Party a lesson truly more important than preventing the country from having to endure four more years of extreme damage under a Republican president?????

[metalluk]

103. Thanks for your counterpoints. My response:

"Intelligence will trump experience any day of the week, and Obama is a magna cum laude Harvard Law School grad."

And Clinton was valedictorian of her law school class. Performance as a student bears little relationship to performance as a professional, especially when the job in question is the Presidency of the U.S. Nevertheless, I agree that BO is very intelligent. I am more impressed by his being Editor of the Harvard Law Review than his magna cum laude (which is less than suma cum laude). I believe Barack Obama to be a man of great talent and potential. When and if those attributes are combined with a reasonable level of experience and evidences of "getting things done," I'll be delighted to support his candidacy for the presidency. I simply won't gamble on a freshman Senator.

"Obama will wisely appoint those with "experience," and be guided by their assessments."

The problem with that argument is that Obama still has to select those people. Bush was guided by the experience of Rumsfeld and Cheney. If you don't have the experience and, yes, intelligence to pick superlative advisors, then you're still stuck with the consequences of your own choices. Obama has intelligence and needs to have the further advantage of a sound level of upper-echelon experience.

"In any case, ask yourself: what evidence is there that Hillary's judgment is better?"

The policy positions coming out of her team are consistently better developed than those coming from Obama's group.

"Her gullibility in believing that Bush would only go to war as a last resort?"

I concede that point. Clinton's vote to authorize invasion of Iraq was indefensible.

"Her comparing a Republican presidential candidate favorably to a Democratic one?"

All three campaigns have been guilty of campaign gaffes. I won't hold Obama's "typical white person" comment against him if you'll overlook a slip or two by Hillary. It is silly to base one's preference for the presidency on isolated miscues. We all make them.

"Obama has not clarified how his congregation's racist doctrine (published on their website) would or would not influence his policies or decisions as president." -- metalluk

"How could you write this after hearing his recent speech??? Seriously."

Absolutely. His recent speech was brilliant from a language point of view and beautifully delivered. For me personally, he did not need to dissociate himself from Rev. Wright, though I understand that it was a political necessity. My issue is the doctrine of the Trinity UCC that expects members to "Pledge allegiance" to the black community and black families. My second concern is the Africentric philosophy they advocate. These pieces of their doctrine lead quite justifiably to a straight-forward question: How will those aspects of the doctrine of Trinity UCC guide the decisions or policies of Barack Obama should he become president? It is no more than was asked of Romney in relation to his Mormonism or JFK in relation to his Catholocism.

"And look, there are likely many reasons to attend church other than to hear the pastor and his opinions."

You are misreading my concern. I respect Rev. Wright and his views, except for his tendency to use inflammatory language. I'd be delighted to have Rev. Wright over to my house for dinner and to listen to his viewpoint. I'm glad BO has been exposed to a variety of ideas.

"Well, at a minimum then, if your premise is true about his economic proposals being weak, then so too are Hillary's, as you state that his is just a rehash of hers."

Two points in response. An essay that is plagiarized is weaker than the original one by dint of being plagiarized. The ideas that the two camps now share in common are good ones. The Clinton camp was first to propose the ideas. Secondly, one difference in the economic proposals of the two camps is that Obama draws a clear link between ending the war in Iraq and domestic initiatives. That kind of linkage is folly because foreign policy has to be guided by security and international concerns and not subordinated to domestic agendas. We can't be abandoning foreign commitments because we need better highways or whatever. Obviously, the spending for the Iraq War has badly constrained our ability to invest in our infrastructure and has damaged the economy. Furthermore, the Iraq War has been ineffective because the Iraqis are no closer to a working democracy today than they were under Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, foreign policy must be predicated on its own set of goals and objectives, not bargained against domestic priorities.

"I know that I am not alone in concluding that Obama's advisor, Susan Rice, is one VERY sharp cookie!! I'd match her against any member of Team Clinton any day of the week."

The proof is in the pudding. I have no interest in comparing the advising staffs, person by person. I am looking at the quality of policy ideas emerging from the two camps. The Clinton camp has consistently outperformed the Obama camp in respect to policy initiatives throughout the campaign. The Obama camp has outperformed the Clinton camp in campaign strategy, however.

"Speech didn't seem to me to be tepid. In any case, I'd take "tepid" opposition over gullible support for the war any day of the week."

I concede the last of those points. Clinton's vote to authorize invasion of Iraq was and is indefensible. My concern is for the future.

"In any case, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, with whom Obama has successfully worked with on foreign-policy legislation, would undoubtedly not call Obama "naive."

Both candidates have numerous endorsements, most of which are predicated on political expediency. I based my concerns on my own careful reading of their policy proposals and campaign styles.

[Splinter Cell]

91. Answer this

What experience has Clinton got that Obama does not? Being first lady of ANYTHING does not count as leadership experience.

Her whole story about being the only one ready to lead is BULLSHIT. She has no more experience then Obama, and has proven that her judgment and honesty leave much to be desired.

The fact of the matter is this: Nothing prepares you to be president. The only thing like being president is being president. Period. You can have "experience" coming out the wa-zoo and still be a shitty leader: Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, LBJ, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and on and on and on.

Hillary isn't any more qualified, and she sure as hell isn't as inspirational. What does that leave her? Jack shit.

[metalluk]

104. HRC's experience

"What experience has Clinton got that Obama does not?"

Clinton served on the Armed Services Committee. She introduced legislation to boost the number of soldiers in the Army by 80,000. She co-sponsored a bill to improve military health benefits (with Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim Talent). Talent has stated that Clinton's work on the committee is "very strong." She worked on a Pentagon committee to foster better relationships between the various branches of the military. She was named by Adm. Giambasiani to a Transformation Advisory Group. According to General Wesley Clark, "She has done her homework on national security and I know from my personal discussion with her and with many other friends that go in and brief her in her role in the Senate Armed Services Committee, she knows the facts, she knows the details, plus she has the big picture. She is a strategic thinker but she has the building blocks of the strategy in her personal knowledge."

Her role as First Lady counts for exactly what it was, no more and no less. The newly released diaries demonstrate two things to neutral observers, one point for each side of the debate. On your side of the debate is the fact that her role as First Lady did NOT place her in a position of direct involvement in dealing with world crises, major foreign policy decisions, etc. Anyone with common sense would have realized that it would have been entirely inappropriate for her, as First Lady, to play any kind of role in, for example, the Security Council. Americans should not want relatives of elected officials assuming responsibility for national affairs outside of their domain of expertise and appointed or elected position. The diaries do reveal, however, that Clinton effectively operated within her own assigned domain as an effective liaison between the administration and various constituencies and individuals. She was the most politically involved First Lady in American history, with the possible exception of Dolly Madison. Her involvement was appropriately limited to activities appropriate for a First Lady. She also learned by close-up observation and daily conversations with her husband. Among other accomplishments, she helped pass an important bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy by her lobbying efforts from the White House and was properly credited by Kennedy for that work.


"The fact of the matter is this: Nothing prepares you to be president."

Nothing prepares you FULLY for the presidency since it is probably the most demanding job in the world. That doesn't obviate the need for a candidate to be as fully qualified as is feasible. Otherwise, why not pick a random person off the street and see how it works out?

[AZBlue]

92. "underqualified" "tepid speech" "naivete" "impossible to have bipartisanship"

Wow - what an truly ugly and sad world you live in.
Next time, try reality.

[metalluk]

105. Thank you

for the insightful response. It is always a pleasure to encounter well-developed and skillfully articulated ideas.

[RiverStone]

93. Why even post?

If you think that Obama is no better then McBush, why the hell post this negative shit on a Democratic forum?

Tell us why you prefer a candidate, but why tell us why you don't like another? :shrug:

Are you hoping to change minds or just venting?

[DemBones DemBones]

94. I agree, will vote Green if Obama is the nominee.

Partly because of what you said here:

"My vote in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, will be aimed, in part, at reminding the Democratic Party that nomination of an underqualified candidate for the presidency is unacceptable."

Partly because the Dems keep moving right. If enough of us vote Green, they might get a clue that the Left matters.

[LWolf]

95. Those are the same reasons

I have for not gracing Obama with my vote, and I am not a supporter of HRC.

Add his support for merit pay and willingness to further privatize public education to the list.

[metalluk]

106. Thanks, LWolf.

And, as another poster once said to you, "I think I'm in love with you."

Well, at least I love the way your mind operates. It is a joy to behold.

[LWolf]

133. You are welcome.

;)

[Turn CO Blue]

96. Too late. We already have a candidate. It's Obama

It's a mathematical forgone conclusion.

[metalluk]

107. You wish!

He's odds on but not a certainty.

[TwilightGardener]

98. Well, I disagree with your take, but I salute your analysis of actual issues.

[metalluk]

109. Thank you and

I respect the honest difference of opinion.

Obama is an attractive candidate in quite a few ways.

[Honeycombe8]

100. Clinton will never win the Presidency. You are obviously deadset against Obie, no matter what his

resume would be. The fact htat you are just spitting up the Clinton campaign kitchen sink rhetoric shows that all too clearly. Misinformation, and judgmental accusations not based in reality. For example, you say, "Obama's claim to strong anti-war credentials is a gross exaggeration and based almost entirely on one tepid speech given in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator." This is of course not true. This is just a line that the Clintons spoke and that you have accepted as true (giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing you of speaking an untruth intentionally).

Obie gave an anti-Iraq-War speech initially, yes. Then he continued to speak against the war for the next couple of years, culminating in the keynote address at the 2004 Dem. Convention, where he again spoke out against the war.

In a time when the government does something SO wrong, SO evil (to some people), it is important for our leaders who disagree to speak up, speak out, and protest. He did just that. Clinton did not. In fact, she joined in with the other side.

Clinton, my dear, is part of the problem. Part of the reason we are where we are today.

[metalluk]

110. I am NOT dead set against Obama no matter what his resume

would be. He is one of the most refreshing politicians to come along in a longtime. I am no more dead-set against Obama than I would be dead-set against a first-year medical student becoming a physician -- when prepared enough to do so. I genuinely look forward to a time when Obama has acquired a level of experience that has prepared him for whatever office he is seeking, including the presidency.

I have Obama's 2002 speech sitting here beside me as I type. I have read it repeatedly. As someone who was actively involved in the effort to prevent the invasion, I gave speeches and wrote letters and e-mails myself. When I first read it a while back, I was prepared to be impressed. Instead, I found that his speech demonstrated a lack of understanding of the principle arguments against the was: no concern for it being unilateral; no concern for it being unprovoked. These were my own conclusions. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a shill for the Clinton campaign. Had I been in attendance in 2002 at that anti-war rally in Chicago, I would have given Obama's speech no more than polite, lukewarm applause, while hoping that the next speaker had more understanding of why the war should not be fought.

"Obie gave an anti-Iraq-War speech initially, yes. Then he continued to speak against the war for the next couple of years, culminating in the keynote address at the 2004 Dem. Convention, where he again spoke out against the war."

His speech in 2004 was VERY impressive and greatly to his credit.

"Clinton, my dear, is part of the problem."

Clinton WAS part of the problem, along with countless other Democratic legislators. Obama has admitted that he does not know how he would have voted had he been privy to security briefings. Obama defended the votes of Kerry and Edwards in 2004. Obama gets props for opposing the war but my concern is for the future. I don't trust Obama's intent to open up a new front in the war. Clinton's plan in relation to how we deal with the Middle East is laid out for all to see and strikes me as the most effective one.

[jaybeat]

101. Voting for McLame is unacceptable and your arguments are ridiculous

Period. End of story. If you want to "remind" the Democratic Party who they should and shouldn't nominate, vote, organize and volunteer in the primary campaigns of your chosen candidate. But if you don't win, you don't win. Does that mean you shouldn't support the Democratic candidate, who, assuming you really ARE a Democrat, represents 99% of your positions on the issues, vs. the Repuke who represents -1,000,000%???

"He has repeatedly articulated an unsound linkage between foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives."

"Unsound"? As in, if it is bad for America at home, it is bad for America abroad? Sounds like a reason to vote for Obama to me.

"His excessively broad finger-pointing at Corporate America and Big Business..."

"Excessively broad..." I'm sorry, but :wtf:

The domination of our government's actions by the Corporate agenda in direct opposition to ANY agenda of, by or for We the People is THE single greatest factor in the economic, foreign policy, military and political DISASTERS which have been the sum total of the current Republican administration. If you know anything, you know it is US vs. THEM. They run our government and in many ways our lives in DIRECT and COMPLETE opposition to what WE need, in order to further their interests, increase their power and their wealth. THEY are the enemy, not "interest groups" who could be "enlisted" in support of any agenda that is not their own. Edwards had it right, and to the extent that Obama has picked up the anti-corporate, pro-worker, pro-human being agenda, more power to him. Again, to the extent he's doing this, another reason to vote Obama, now and in the fall.

"...with or without the consent and cooperation of our crucial regional ally, Pakistan."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Bwwwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Our "ally" Pakistan, supported, funded and sheltered the Islamic extremists that are our supposed enemy, second only to, wait for it... our other supposed "ally" in the BS GWOT, Saudi Arabia (birthplace of OBL, most of the 9/11 hijackers, and Whabist-Islamic extremism, not to mention the money to fund global jihad). Musharaf is laughing all the way to the bank, working his delicate balancing act keeping the Islamic extremists and fundamentalist enablers in his government happy while putting up enough of a "I'm tough on terror" facade to keep the billions from the US military industrial complex flowing.

Get a clue. The entire scenario has always been a PNAC wet-dream for creating the war without end that the corporate military-industrial complex and their government cronies needed after the Evil Empire had the temerity to go off and collapse on them, leaving the US without an eternal enemy to justify endless military spending and economic and political imperialism.

Obama is NOT perfect, and, yes, I and many others would like a little more substance with our inspiration, if you don't mind.

But the trees you're barking up make it sound like you belong anywhere but DU.

I've heard the Freepers have a site. Maybe you'd find things more to your liking over there?

[Hoof Hearted]

102. Excellent post. Thoughtful and correct.

[IsItJustMe]

113. Hope you don't have children of draft age. Good luck with that.

[Why Syzygy]

114. Oh ye of little faith. Step aside and allow the visionaries to proceed. nt

[metalluk]

125. With pleasure.

The cliff is over that way: --->

[eridani]

128. Zbig Brzezinski was chosen for his personality?

Whoda thunkit?

[metalluk]

144. Zbig Brzezinski ?

I hadn't noticed him out on the stump whipping up the cheers of "Gobama" and "Yes We Can!" My Bad.

[eridani]

205. He's Obama's chief foreign policy adviser

Most of Obama's advisers in that area were against the war. Most of Clinton's were in favor of it.

[metalluk]

225. Past tense.

My concern is how American foreign policy proceeds from here forward. Obama's foreign policy proposals are riddled with holes and inconsistencies.

[eridani]

228. Obama's advisors disapproved of the Iraq war

Clinton's advisors tended to be for it. That points to a future that I don't want to see.

[metalluk]

230. Yes, but

the policy articulated by Obama last week is based on a continuation of American imperialism. It is not a liberal perspective on foreign affairs in any way, shape, or manner. It is essentially indistinguishable from the approach of the current administration except that the range of tactical ideas is superior. The plan for dealing with Iraq is badly flawed, amounting to trying to have it both ways: same strategic objective but without committing the resources required to achieve that objective. At the same time, they envision expanding the war into other parts of the Middle East. They claim that they will "end the war" in Iraq, which, if true, would be reason for some degree of demobilization, but, instead, they plan to increase total troop levels by 92,000. Obviously, they have plans to use the brigades freed up from Iraq as well as the added soldiers. They're not building up the forces so they can sit idly in military bases here in the U.S.

If you want to base your vote on a single vote by Clinton from five years ago and a single speech by Obama from the same era, go right ahead. I've taken the time to read what the Obama team has in mind for the future foreign policy of the country and it is not something that I could support with my vote.

[eridani]

231. No candidate can be considered by the MSM and our elite to be "serious"

--unless s/he fully endorses imperialism. That's why Kucinich is treated as a joke.

[CarbonDate]

130. Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[metalluk]

145. Thank you

for the warm welome.

[NickMorgan]

131. I'm going to refute you, but first I want to say

...that I appreciate your thoughtful post and the principled manner in which you reach conclusions and respond to critics. Let me also assure you that you are quite welcome at this website, and even, I'd venture, more welcome than many veteran posters who litter the discourse with childishness.

So let's engage the substance of perhaps the central claim you make:

"IMO, he is grossly underqualified and unprepared for the presidency. I base that viewpoint on a thorough study of his life and resume. Obama himself has acknowledged his relative dearth of experience, even though his more fanatical supporters never will. I reject the argument that experience is not an important factor in job performance. Obviously, it is not the only factor."

It is true that Obama lacks military experience. It is true he has relatively little diplomacy experience. It is true his career in politics has been somewhat short. But why, concretely, is this such a concern to you? Granted, experience matters, but no candidate has actual experience being a president, and no matter what Mrs. Clinton did in the White House, she never held anything near presidential responsibility. Experience matters, but what matters much more is a candidate's baseline position on an issue (e.g., for or against extended occupation of Iraq). I can think of a hugely qualified person with six years hands on executive experience dealing with THIS VERY WAR, but Dick Cheney would be a terrible President.

What matters equally as much as experience, if not more, is the ability to accurately size up a complex situation, make relatively correct predications of the consequences involved, and display the independence of judgment to say so in a hysterical climate where a majority of the public and its leadership is eating up the opposite message. Obama's "tepid" speech, which you give remarkably short shrift, was exactly such a demonstration of insight and independence, which I would expect someone of your apparent intellectual honesty to at least acknowledge as a pretty convincing indication of Obama's solid grasp of history and foreign affairs.

And finally, what matters most of all for any commander in chief or any holder of tremendous authority and responsibility -- what can never be accomplished by any extent of experience -- is a deep respect for complexity and human fallibility that is not satisfied with quick, simple answers, but demands all the information and all points of view. Obama's colleague of many years, who is, by the way, the second most, if not the single most, respected intellectual in legal academia, had this to say of Obama's reasoning process:

"He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more. Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time." (http://tinyurl.com/yr5f52)

Obama will no doubt surround himself with a Cabinet full of highly experienced advisers, and he will listen carefully to their input and question them rigorously on their judgments, and he will apply the same judgment that was SPOT ON back in 2002 to determining the best course of action based on all the information available. Back in 2002, Obama was the one who read the full intelligence report, which Clinton admits she did not.

Many of your reasons for questioning his judgment, which include his extemporaneous use of the phrase "typical white person" are just trivial. About his targeting not a specific abuse but the whole culture of influence in D.C. -- how is that related to judgment? I see a principled stand: it's not just the especially bad lobbies, its the whole economy of influence by monied interests, which pandemically excludes the majority of Americans who don't have the luxury of thousands of dollars extra cash for PAC contributions. That's a demonstration of moral priority, not a lapse of judgment.

In addition to hearing your answer to my points above, I would like to know, specifically, what about Obama's "life and resume" convince you he is "unprepared," and what about Clinton's makes you think she is. And I promise to be open minded about the evidence. I must be woefully uninformed because, from my point of view, Clinton did not exercise independent, intelligent judgment. As a leading champion for the Left, how do you fail to read the intelligence report? How do you take the word of a manifest idiot like W on an issue like war? From my point of view, Clinton will not surround herself with, and carefully listen to, eminently qualified advisers -- rather, she seems to exhibit a cronyism (ahem, deep loyalties to that buffoon incompetent, Mark Penn) that is too reminiscent of the current administration's love affair with incompetence.

Finally, you cursorily dismiss Obama's linkage of the Iraq war with domestic policies. I don't understand your point. The United States has limited resources, like every entity in existence. Hemmoraging TRILLIONS and getting nothing in return is a vast depletion of American wealth. Obviously nothing can erase this disaster, but ceasing (or moving toward ceasing) to expend brutally large amounts of money in exchange for nothing would increase American revenue on hand, which can be directed domestically to, for instance, infrastructure rehab or education.

So what are Obama fans missing? I see the most terrifically intelligent, wise, and, while flawed, most competent public figure of my lifetime.

[metalluk]

150. Thanks for the interesting and civil discourse.

"I appreciate your thoughtful post and the principled manner in which you reach conclusions and respond to critics."

Thank you for the warm welcome and the invitation to civil dialog.

"Granted, experience matters, but no candidate has actual experience being a president"

No candidate can be FULLY prepared for the presidency but there is a wide range of degrees of "unpreparedness." We need, at a minimum, for a candidate to have a reasonable level of executive level experience and evidence of being able to turn ideas into implemented policies or change. Barack Obama has been a Senator for four years and has yet to produce a single significant bill under his primary sponsorship. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has never had primary responsibility for anything more substantial than a classroom, prior to the present campaign.

"no matter what Mrs. Clinton did in the White House, she never held anything near presidential responsibility"

Agreed. Her experience as First Lady did provide her with executive level experience. She ran her own domain of liaison activities that was largely separate from the major foreign policy issues of her husband's presidency. I do not claim that she has de facto presidential experience. It was a FAR more substantial responsibility than running a classroom. Second, Senator Clinton has worked tirelessly with business leaders in New York to generate new jobs under her green-collar initiative. Thirdly, her work of the Armed Forces Advisory Committee of the Senate has been exemplary and highly regarded by military leaders. I will acknowledge, however, that Senator Clinton's level of experience for the presidency is less than ideal, but it is much greater than that of Senator Obama.

"Experience matters, but what matters much more is a candidate's baseline position on an issue"

We agree that BOTH experience and "baseline positions" (which I usually refer to as "values") are crucial considerations. The difference in our views is the "much more" that you use in comparing the relative importance of the two. Jimmy Carter, IMO, is an example of a president who had excellent values but, nevertheless, failed because of inexperience with how to get things done in Washington. There are therefore two distinct kinds of presidents I would prefer not to have: inept presidents with good values and competent presidents with bad values.

"What matters is the ability to accurately size up a complex situation"

Clearly that is important. You are apparently convinced based on Obama's obvious facility with language that he is also endowed with a special ability to size up complex situations. What I see, instead, after a thorough reading of his team's policy positions, is multiple examples of poor judgment. For example, he and his advisors "sized up" the political landscape in America in 2007/8 and decided to base their campaign on emotional appeals to "hope" and "change" rather than do their share to raise up the political I.Q. of the voting populace by inviting them to examine issues rather than sound bytes. To me, that is a short-sighted decision that places winning above the well-being of the nation. Another example is their decision in relation to the Michigan re-do primary. They made the short-sighted choice to oppose the re-do so as to maximize their chances of winning the nomination, even though it also increases the likelihood that the Democrats will lose Michigan in November. There are very few winning electoral combinations for the Democrats that do not include Michigan. These are just two examples among many that lead me to question the ability of Barack Obama and/or his team to "size up complex situations" and reach a responsible policy position.

"Obama's "tepid" speech, which you give remarkably short shrift, was exactly such a demonstration of insight and independence"

It is to Obama's credit that he opposed the war. His understanding of the principal reasons for doing so was very weak.

Thank you for the quotation from Obama's law school colleague. I respect Obama's intelligence and capacity to listen and absorb thoughtful analysis and arguments. It is a capacity that he shares with HRC. Both are extremely bright people, good listeners, and strong analytical thinkers. I have found, from my own experience at a University, that the addition of experience adds the opportunity to recognize situations, arguments and discussions that resemble ones you've already encountered in previous years and to therefore recognize quickly how those situations or discussions inevitably evolve. Intelligence combined with experience is a powerful recipe for success. I earnestly believe that Barack Obama would someday make a fine president but that, by throwing him into the fire before he is adequately insulated by a reasonable level of experience, we will have destroyed the possibility of great achievement for this man.

"Obama will no doubt surround himself with a Cabinet full of highly experienced advisers"

The problem with that argument is that it is still Obama who must choose those advisors. It is still the President who must decide between opposing views offered by various highly experienced advisors. The buck stops with the president.

"About his targeting not a specific abuse but the whole culture of influence in D.C. -- how is that related to judgment?"

It is not only about judgment but one of the most crucial determinants of an ability to govern effectively. Every effort to induce change stimulates resistance from those invested in the status quo. The trick for those who want to promote change is to target the efforts carefully so as to not trigger a level of resistance that is greater than the impetus for change. The more people that are alienated by your efforts for change and the more powerful those people, the less you actually get done. Change has to be incremental. If you attack Corporate America broadly, you incite a level of opposition that is insurmountable. If instead, you target, let's say, abusive practices of mortgage lenders, unscrupulous CEO's, and the excess influence of lobbyists in Washington, without simultaneously dissing all of Corporate America, you might succeed in one or more of those targeted efforts.

"I see a principled stand"

If the Obama team were truly about "principled stands," they would not have stood in the way of a Michigan re-do. If they were about "principled stands," they would not have designed a campaign strategy around emotional appeals. What I see is a political team no more principled than any other, determined to win by any means (though no more so than Clinton or McCain), and using the broadsides against Corporate America to appeal to the thirst of the downtrodden populace for easy targets for their anger. I expect ANY Democratic president to reign in the abuses perpetrated by the wealthy and business interests that are allowed to flourish under Republican administrations. I expect them to do it in a manner than allows their administration to get things done rather than inciting an excess of resistance that leads to gridlock.

"what about Obama's "life and resume" convince you he is 'unprepared'"

No executive, managerial, or budgetary experience
No evidence of "getting things done" in his U.S. Senatorial years
Never having had responsibility for anything more substantial than a classroom

For balance, I'll add that I give him credit for:
Deep knowledge of constitutional law
First-hand experience with the problems confronting disadvantaged communities (through his work as a community organizer)
Excellent academic background demonstrating intelligence and reasoning skills
Editor of the Harvard Law Review
Superlative speech-writer and speech-maker
Early recognition of the stupidity of the War in Iraq

"what about Clinton's makes you think she is"

Valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley College
Work in Arkansas as State First Lady on issues pertaining to welfare of children
As First Lady, Task Force on National Health Care Reform -- yes, the initiative failed to get through, but the obstacles were (and are) enormous and the job still has to be completed. She has first-hand understanding to the obstacles.
As First Lady, lobbying efforts on behalf of Kennedy/Hatch State Children's Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, and Foster Care Independence Act
Leadership on health issues relating to children (immunization) and women (mammogram awareness)
Contributed to investigation of Gulf War Syndrome
Helped create Office on Violence against Women
Traveled in more countries than any previous First Lady
Spoke in Beijing at Fourth World Conference on Women
Spoke out against mistreatment of women under Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan
Historical preservation efforts such as chairing "Save America's Treasures
As First Lady, she was NOT involved in major foreign policy or domestic policy initiatives, but observed these endeavors and discussed such on-going issues with her husband (it would have been inappropriate for her, as First Lady, to have more direct involvement). Instead, she ran her own independent domain of liaison activities between the White House and various national and international constituencies. This gave her executive level experience, not direct hands-on experience with handling foreign affairs or international crises.
As a U.S. Senator, promised to produce 200,000 jobs during campaign and followed through with targeted tax credits for job creation, concentrating on "clean" jobs in high-tech sectors of the economy. Has worked constructively with business leaders in NY, such as CEO of Corning.
Has sponsored bills promoting affordable higher education and long-term care.
Established strong relationships with other congressional leaders
Served on Budget Committee
Served on Armed Services Committee where her understanding of detailed information and strategic thinking were recognized and commended by military leaders
Served on Environment and Public Works Committee
Served on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Served on Special Committee on Aging
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Voted for military action in Afghanistan
Has visited both Afghanistan and Iraq since war began
Spoke out vigorously against Bush tax cuts
Sponsored Family Entertainment Protection Act (with Lieberman and Bayh)
Took leadership role in founding of Center for American Progress
Supported Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Urged creation of so-called Senate war-room
Led skeptical response to Gen. Petraeus's 2007 Iraq status report
Leadership role in effort to force Alberto Gonzales resignation
96% Liberal rating; 100% pro-choice rating; 90% pro-environment rating

Again, in the interest of balance, here is my list of Clinton miscues:
Voted for Patriot Act
Voted for Iraq War Resolution

I make no excuses whatsoever for her vote on the Iraq War Resolution. It was deplorable.

"You cursorily dismiss Obama's linkage of the Iraq war with domestic policies"

I don't simply dismiss it. I criticize it as foolish and deplorable. Here's a simple metaphor. Suppose I told you that I decided not to drive the burglar from my home because my car needs an oil change. You'd recognize that as a serious lapse of logic. If foreign affairs decisions are pitted against resources for domestic initiatives, it invites the public to oppose strategically imperative international decisions because they might lose their tax rebate or have to drive over more potholes. Foreign policy is far too important to be set against domestic spending as competing priorities. We should get out of Iraq with precisely the degree of haste or gradualness that will produce the best outcome that is possible and realistic, based on the best military and political intelligence. That withdrawal process should NOT be any slower or faster because of the promise of freeing up money for domestic spending. That is VERY foolish thinking and one additional indication of poor judgment on the part of the Obama team.

Thanks, again, for your very intelligent and insightful responses to my post.

[NickMorgan]

170. IF YOU WANT INSIGHTFUL, SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE, JOIN THIS THREAD

Thanks for taking the time to respond at such length. I'll have to make a selective response here so this conversation doesn't become a tome, but generally I think you make good points.

EXPERIENCE

To be perfectly candid, I think the experience issue is a wash. Clinton's experience is routinely inflated and Obama's routinely diminished, but ultimately the two both have varied, in depth experience. You say Obama lacks managerial experience, but what do you call a community organizer? What do you call head of a campaign that defies conventional wisdom, sacrifices the easy advantage of PAC and lobbyist money, and yet breaks records in fund-raising, from gross amounts to numbers of donors? Saying he has led nothing greater than a classroom is not a misinterpretation, it is actually just wrong. I'm going to quote from an article that nicely makes the case for Obama's leadership experience because it contains links to supporting evidence for each point. This article also refutes your claim that Obama has not passed any significant bills and has no record of "getting things done," unless you have a very peculiar notion of significance. The article is here: (http://tinyurl.com/yv3le5)

# Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include:

1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.
2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.
3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families.
4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row
5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.
6. And much more.

# While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he’s been there. Many of Clinton’s bills were about naming post offices and buildings. However, Obama’s legislation includes:

1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons.
2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money.
3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo.
4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls “one of the toughest ethics reform” bills in this history of the Congress.

Now, we don't need to get into the particulars here and argue which are significant and which aren't. The point is simply that Obama does get stuff done, he has major legislative accomplishments, and he has even held elected office 4 more years than Clinton.

I also note that, on Clinton's one great passion and lifetime commitment -- healthcare -- she has utterly failed to "get things done," even when she had the backing of the President and the White House. Sure, obstacles were great, but clearly she has not learned from her blunder of making working behind closed doors and refusing imput from even her Democratic colleagues.

Going over your list of her accomplishments, I can't help but notice how many are "speaking out" and "visiting" or joining committee type actions. Where are these significant bills? Are we talking about tax credits? The Family Entertainment Protection Act? Look, I'm not saying her experience was worthless, but does this really make the case that she is clearly superior in the experience department? I don't see it. The Clintons are and always have been polarizing figures (which has its pros and cons), so why should we expect her to be convincing to anyone but solid lefties?

CAMPAIGN STYLE

I'm really quite puzzled that you cite Obama's campaign style of emphasizing hope and "emotional appeals" as evidence that he cannot accurately size up a complex situation. Without agreeing that his choices were calculated for winning alone, it is at least clear that people WERE hungry for change and DID respond quite energetically to hope. You may think that, ultimately, it is better to raise the political I.Q. of the nation, but you can't deny that Obama did, in fact, make a sound a judgment in emphasizing themes of hope and change instead of making his campaign center on policy details.

But this leads to a second point, which is that Obama clearly IS an educator who raises the political I.Q. His major speech on race is but the most dazzling example of his ability and willingness to capture the public attention with elevated, mature, highly intelligent discourse that prefers nuance to generalization, compassion to judgmentalism, and open-mindedness to knee-jerk impulses.

CULTURE OF INFLUENCE

Instead of responding to my point that Obama's take on lobbying was a principled stand, you changed the subject and asserted that his "standing in the way" of Michigan revote was not principled. But there are several principled reasons for opposing a revote, not the least of which is that it would be unfair because untold numbers of OBama supporters may have voted in the Republican primary because his name was not on the ballot. Nobody really thought the whole state of Michigan was going to put together an entire election in a month in this kind of political environment. Clinton is just brazenly blaming OBama for the problem in order to sow doubt to supers about his ability to carry Michigan in the general, while continuing to utter some of the most ridiculous rhetoric I have ever heard: only her name was on the ballot, but she truly believes it WAS fair! That kind of detachment from reality and willingness to insult the intelligence of the American people is a little too similar to a certain current administration's rank abuse of language and logic, and is a far remove from raising the public I.Q. It's no coincidence that Obama appeals to the more educated half of the nation, a trend that has been remarkably consistent this whole primary.

Finally, if rejecting untold millions in potential funding from a system in D.C. that has hijacked the connection between our leaders and the American people is not a principled stand, then nothing is.

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY CONNECTION

Your argument appears to be that a commander-in-chief should not decide foreign policy based on it's cost to domestic policy, because handling a war must be about doing what is best on the foreign front. But this view is oversimplified. Every decision any leader makes will always involve a cost-benefit analysis. When deciding what to do about Iraq, a paramount concern is how much it has cost us and will continue to cost us -- in lives, revenue, international standing, and opportunities. As Nobel Laureate in economics Stiglitz has concluded, the Iraq War was a major cause of the recession we are now sinking into. Foreign and domestic policy are inherently connected for reasons that need no explanation, I presume.

Furthermore, making the public internalize the actual cost of foreign policies will in fact make them BETTER at choosing what you call "strategic imperatives." Bush's total failure to raise taxes sufficient for the War prevented the public from feeling the domestic impact of foreign blunders. The connection is real, and Obama's straightforward articulation of this connection is exactly the kind of "raising the public I.Q." that you advocate.

Granted, if domestic concerns were the SOLE justification for Obama's foreign policy decisions, I would agree that Obama is misguided and I would probably abandon my support for him on this ground alone. But this is clearly not the case. Obama's foreign policy platform is about ending the Iraq War, targeting terrorists, not nations, pursuing aggressive diplomacy, even with enemies, and reingratiating the country into the international community because we desperately need support from our allies. When you suggest that Obama's foreign policy is all about domestic concerns, I begin to wonder whether you've really have made a detailed study of his policy positions.

Please don't feel obligated to respond to all this if you don't have the time. I have very much enjoyed this discussion so far.

[metalluk]

184. Your views are well stated and cogent

In the interest of balance, I'm going to let some of your points stand unchallenged, not as an indication of agreement, but so that readers can react in their own ways to what each of us has said. On the experience issue, I have already made my points and you are surely entitled to your differing view.

I do have to take issue with your interpretation of the relative degree of obstruction provided by the two camps with respect to the Michigan vote. The Obama camp's defense, IMO, comes under the heading of finding the "good" reason for an action motivated primarily by purely strategic considerations. I formed my views in relation to the Michigan problem not from the spin of either camp but from media accounts. The Obama camp not only set up the final barrier to a solution but delayed the effort to reach compromise so as to minimize the likelihood that a re-do could be arranged. Nevertheless, I stated in the original post that BOTH campaigns have consistently placed winning above the interests of voters and above fair-minded process. I suppose that it should come as no surprise to those of us outside the political arena that interests would dictate each decision along the way and that voters would get screwed as a result.

"Obama's take on lobbying was a principled stand"

I agree. For what it's worth, McCain has stronger credentials with respect to campaign finance reform and lobbying issues than either Democrat, but that is probably the only Democrat-like stance he could be credited with.

My issue in relation to Obama's anti-Corporate America rhetoric is its sweeping, indiscriminate tendencies that will only serve to alienate this powerful group when their cooperation is needed. My plea is for Obama to be more targeted in his liberal rhetoric and to avoid excessively broad condemnations. I think he is damaging his opportunity to govern effectively by rhetoric liberties.

"Finally, if rejecting untold millions in potential funding from a system in D.C. that has hijacked the connection between our leaders and the American people is not a principled stand, then nothing is."

You are cherry-picking by selecting an example of Obama's attack language which is indisputably defensible. So, let me cherry-pick in return some examples of Obama's sweeping rhetoric that serve not to heal but to alienate, not to advance change, but to hinder it:

"It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington -- the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced."

The above sentence is rendered largely meaningless by the grandeur of its sweep, basically blasting every governmental and business leader of the last several decades and ranging from global economy to inequality without any actual relationship established between the ideas.

"trade deals with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits"

A nice example of gratuitous sniping in Obama's speech in Ohio. Do we want trade deals that do not protect business interests in America?

On the linkage between foreign policy and domestic priorities, I continue to disagree. I don't question Stiglitz's conclusion that the Iraqi War has contributed to the current recession, first because I'm not qualified to do so and secondly because it strikes me as quite likely. It is also obvious that all of the aspects of the federal budget are ultimately intertwined fiscally. The danger lies in Obama (and your team) asserting that we're going to pay for domestic initiatives by pulling out of Iraq. By drawing that kind of specific connection, you invite the public to adopt an isolationist viewpoint that will then poison good judgment when the next international crisis erupts. It is bad policy to suggest to the public that we can have such and such domestic investment if we restrict our international commitments. Then further, as an element in a political campaign, it smacks of bribing those elements of the public not already opposed to the war to see it your way.

Obviously, every major decision necessitates cost/benefit analysis, which means that all decisions within a given system are interrelated in a fiscal sense, but foreign policy decisions and domestic initiatives are governed by two largely separate sets of goals and objectives. It is unsound to invite the public to pit domestic initiatives against international commitments. You call it raising the public I.Q.; I call it drawing a connection made specious by its exaggeration, in order to mobilize public opinion in a direction advantageous to your candidate.

"When you suggest that Obama's foreign policy is all about domestic concerns"

Well, that was a little piece of intellectual dishonesty on your part. You will find nothing in what I have written that comes close to "Obama's foreign policy is all about domestic concerns." You've taken my position and spun it into an extreme that renders it nonsensical. My position was and is that Obama is linking foreign policy choices to the financing of domestic concerns to a dangerous extent that pits the two against one another in the minds of the public. I don't think you and I disagree about the actual degree of relationship between the two arenas. We just disagree over whether Obama's campaign language is describing that legitimate degree of linkage (as components of the same overall Federal budget), or whether he has dangerously overdrawn that linkage.

I do appreciate, however, that my concerns are now apparently drawing a high caliber of rebuttal than was evident yesterday.

[BigBearJohn]

132. Wow. If they have more people like you in Rhode Island, I'm moving there!

:toast: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :hi:

You are my new hero. Totally refreshing analysis.
Wish I could think as clearly as you do. So very
analytical and not easily intimidated.

More power to you. I will look for future posts of
yours.

All the best,
BIG BEAR JOHN

[OzarkDem]

135. He is not liberal, but controlled by Wall Street & corporations

On issues there is little difference between him and McCain. His lack of experience and reliance on corporate benefactors and mentors makes him vulnerable to outside control if president. Unwilling to appear inexperienced, he will rely on others to make major decisions for him.

His health care reform policy is fatally flawed and he knows it. He's demonstrated that he doesn't care to even protect his own plan since he's resorted to using the same GOP talking points against Clinton's plan that will also be used against his own if her tries to enact it.

[npincus]

137. so, you can vote for the senior citizen who sees imaginary al Qaeda in Iran!

a wise choice!

[metalluk]

162. I gather that you are referring to

McCain's gaffe while in Iraq, where he suggested that Iran (which is Shiite) was supporting al Qaeda in Iraq (which is Sunni).

I don't base my support for candidates on isolated gaffes. If I did, I would have to eliminate all three remaining candidates based on last week alone:

Clinton: the war in Iraq is unwinnable
Obama: typical white person
McCain: as you noted

Nevertheless, I haven't indicated that I will support McCain. I have only said that I will pay attention to what he has to say in the months ahead and, especially, the extent to which he moves rightward or toward the center in his positions. It is possible that he will convince me that he is a worse alternative than Obama, thereby further reducing my choices.

[Saturday]

140. Thanks for your thoughtful post. I was happy to be the 41st recommendation.

To add to your list of why you can not support Obama I'd like to say that he has lied to us. He told us that he did not hear in public or private the issues Wright expressed. He went to this church for 20 years and considered Wright his mentor but never knew how Wright felt? I find that a big lie that I can not get past. I also do not like the comment he made about "typical white". Although he seems to be the wonder kid of Democrats at DU I find him unelectable in the general. The 527's will bury him.

[Teaser]

146. In about two months, you won't be able to post this here

.

[metalluk]

151. Probably.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will have the courtesy not to post anything in opposition to him at this site.

If Clinton wins, there will be no point in further discussion of Obama's qualifications, at least in 2008. I sincerely hope that there will be another year, sometime in the future, when I can speak with enthusiasm about an Obama candidacy.

[usrbs]

147. I understand everything you've said but the final conclusion

You may think you're sending a message to the Democratic party, but here's news for you - there is no entity that can understand that message. Think about the past 7 years. Think about the MI and FL fiasco, and understand - there's no Democratic leadership, there's no group mind that will look at your vote and say - next time I'll let only candidates with experience run.

And how could anyone prefer a Republican over a Democrat after Reagan and W. Bush is beyond me. McCain will be the same - has he done anything but capitulate to Bush?

I don't like Obama, I doubt his qualifications to be POTUS, and I hate many of his more zealous supporters, but if he wins the nomination, he can count on my vote.

[metalluk]

153. No Democratic mind!

You have a point about there being no overarching Democratic strategic leadership, but candidates, donors, and political professions (e.g., campaign advisors) look at election results and exit polls in deciding which candidates to support. If Obama is defeated AND one of the contributing factors is inexperience AND many Democrats have chosen not to vote for the Democratic nominee, it sends a message to donors and professionals that inexperienced candidates are a liability.

I have not said that I will support McCain nor have I offered any reasons for others to do so. I will never offer any such reasons on this site, even if I acquire such reasons in my own mind. I respect the intents of this board and the collective desires of those who participate (though, of course, not every individual participant). There will be more than one alternative available to voters who choose not to vote for Obama in November.

[usrbs]

161. You know they just prattle on about the Bradley effect and racism

And unfortunately, the racism charge seems to be true for at least some Democrats. And that would be horrible if that stopped other black politicians from declaring themselves.

We're not in Europe, we're here in a 2 party system. Not voting for the Democrat is close enough in its effect to voting for the Republican. See Floridian Nader voters for proof.

[quiet.american]

148. Non-trivial reasons why I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

In spite of Hillary Clinton's thin resume (let's face it -- her 35 years of experience essentially boils down to being an unofficial advisor to Bill Clinton during his governorship and then his presidency), in spite of her surprisingly poorly-run, mean-spirited presidential campaign, in spite of her vote for the Iraq War Resolution and her seemingly subsequent position that we've given some kind of "gift" to the Iraqi people, despite these things and more -- I would not enable a third Bush term by way of handing the presidency to "Bomb Iran" McCain by not voting for Clinton should she become the nominee. Whatever my reservations about her as a candidate, she is a Democrat, and her presidency, which would no doubt include seating new Supreme Court justices, would serve this country better than a McCain presidency. So would an Obama presidency, in spite of whatever your reservations are about him.

You have the nerve to refer to so-called fanatical Obama supporters, yet state *you* will not vote for the Democratic nominee in November unless it is *your* candidate, Hillary Clinton. Physician, heal thyself.

[metalluk]

157. Hillary's Thin Resume?

Valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley College
Work in Arkansas as State First Lady on issues pertaining to welfare of children
As First Lady, Task Force on National Health Care Reform -- yes, the initiative failed to get through, but the obstacles were (and are) enormous and the job still has to be completed. She has first-hand understanding to the obstacles.
As First Lady, lobbying efforts on behalf of Kennedy/Hatch State Children's Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, and Foster Care Independence Act
Leadership on health issues relating to children (immunization) and women (mammogram awareness)
Contributed to investigation of Gulf War Syndrome
Helped create Office on Violence against Women
Traveled in more countries than any previous First Lady
Spoke in Beijing at Fourth World Conference on Women
Spoke out against mistreatment of women under Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan
Historical preservation efforts such as chairing "Save America's Treasures
As First Lady, she was NOT involved in major foreign policy or domestic policy initiatives, but observed these endeavors and discussed such on-going issues with her husband (it would have been inappropriate for her, as First Lady, to have more direct involvement). Instead, she ran her own independent domain of liaison activities between the White House and various national and international constituencies. This gave her executive level experience, not direct hands-on experience with handling foreign affairs or international crises.
As a U.S. Senator, promised to produce 200,000 jobs during campaign and followed through with targeted tax credits for job creation, concentrating on "clean" jobs in high-tech sectors of the economy. Has worked constructively with business leaders in NY, such as CEO of Corning.
Has sponsored bills promoting affordable higher education and long-term care.
Established strong relationships with other congressional leaders
Served on Budget Committee
Served on Armed Services Committee where her understanding of detailed information and strategic thinking were recognized and commended by military leaders
Served on Environment and Public Works Committee
Served on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Served on Special Committee on Aging
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Voted for military action in Afghanistan
Has visited both Afghanistan and Iraq since war began
Spoke out vigorously against Bush tax cuts
Sponsored Family Entertainment Protection Act (with Lieberman and Bayh)
Took leadership role in founding of Center for American Progress
Supported Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Urged creation of so-called Senate war-room
Led skeptical response to Gen. Petraeus's 2007 Iraq status report
Leadership role in effort to force Alberto Gonzales resignation
96% Liberal rating; 100% pro-choice rating; 90% pro-environment rating

"You have the nerve to refer to so-called fanatical Obama supporters, yet state *you* will not vote for the Democratic nominee in November unless it is *your* candidate, Hillary Clinton. Physician, heal thyself."

It is not about getting "my" candidate. There were other Democratic candidates that I could have supported whole-heartedly, perhaps more so than Clinton. Dennis K. comes to mind. No, my standard is less personal than you believe. I simply want a candidate with a reasonable level of preparedness for the presidency, rather than a freshman Senator who has never had primary responsibility for anything more substantial than a classroom. I don't think that is asking so very much.

[quiet.american]

167. Clinton is only one semester ahead of Obama in the senate.

It's been done here before, and it could be done again here, that a whole laundry list of Obama's accomplishments, similar to the ones you listed for Clinton, can also be produced, starting with his Columbia and Harvard degrees, that he was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, that he worked as a successful community organizer in Chicago (no small feat), that he actually has won more elections than Clinton, having first been a state senator, and that he now also sits on different committees in the Senate.

Clinton is disingenuous, and I suppose hoping no one notices, that her only actual legislative experience has been as a one-semester-above-freshman senator. True, she is no doubt very savvy in Beltway politics and that would come in handy, but all this "experience" she is touting, in cold, plain daylight, doesn't add up to more than the thin resume she claims Obama has.

Kucinich was also my original candidate. Then Edwards - sort of. When the race narrowed down to Obama and Clinton, I said the heck with it, and was thrilled to have for the first time, a woman, and an African-American candidate. Clinton lost me with her 1) two-faced "an honor to sit beside you/"Shame on you!" turnabout 2)"The sky will open, the light will pour down" total nonsense and her poorly-delivered "...that's change you can xerox"-type "witticisms." And she has kept losing any support I might have for her ever since.

It really doesn't matter who I was for, or am for now in terms of candidates. What will matter is who will I vote for in November? If Obama doesn't receive the nomination, I won't go off in a huff vowing I'll never vote for Clinton. I will vote for her and keep my fingers crossed that she will pleasantly surprise me once she's in office. There's no way, though, that I'm sitting out the election or writing in Obama (should Clinton be the nominee) to ultimately find I was part of handing McCain and Joe Lieberman victory.

[metalluk]

185. Obama's Resume -- Inviting Meaningful Additions

"It's been done here before, and it could be done again here, that a whole laundry list of Obama's accomplishments, similar to the ones you listed for Clinton, can also be produced, starting with his Columbia and Harvard degrees, that he was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, that he worked as a successful community organizer in Chicago (no small feat), that he actually has won more elections than Clinton, having first been a state senator, and that he now also sits on different committees in the Senate."

I would honestly like to see that laundry list. You seem to have run out of items in one short paragraph. Since these are the items with which I am already familiar, it's really the other ones that I'd like to review. Obama's position as a community organizer was a low level position in which he had some limited successes combined with frustrations (due to no fault of his own). I credit that experience mainly for giving him first-hand understanding of the problems confronting disadvantaged communities, but other than that "broadening" contribution, it was not significant training for high-level responsibilities. His academic credentials as an undergraduate student and in law school are unassailable. He deserves special recognition for being Editor of the Harvard Law Review. All of those items, however, are no more than is accomplished by a lot of exceptionally bright students every year in many excellent institutions across the nation.

So, it's not until we get to your last line that we have any training worthy of listing as preparation for the presidency. You could have added that he's an expert on constitutional law. So, apparently his "professional resume" can be summed up in about two lines. I welcome any additions that I've overlooked -- honestly.

The problem is that Obama's "laundry list" is NOT like Clinton's.

[quiet.american]

201. Neither is Clinton's any weightier in terms of on-the-record experience.

Point is, I wonder what is your point in saying you will not vote for Obama if Clinton is not the nominee. What good does that serve? Especially if you are posting on DU as a Democrat (are you?) What are the alternatives that are so much better to you than having Obama in the presidency? McCain is the GOP nominee. If you are not voting for Obama, what is it you're telling us you want to happen in the November election? Why bait people in this thread to post Obama's accomplishments until the cows come home when you know you have already decided he is not worthy?

Seriously, what you seem to be saying is that you would rather McCain win the election, or have the results come to so narrow a margin (because of the twenty-five percent of you that are not voting) that the election could be a repeat of 2000, in that the GOP cockroaches who now infest the Supreme Court will hand the presidency to McCain. I don't understand how you, as a Democrat, are so willing to do that, and I'd like to have that explained until the cows come home.

Further, in the real world, and bottom line, no matter if Obama had just received his diploma, his results in this campaign speak more to ready on day one than Sen. Clinton's. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she is an absolute anchor of experience -- well, that "experience" has sunk her in this campaign to the point where she's hanging on with her fingernails. Where she is now is hardly "ready on day one," let alone confidence-inspiring that she is THE ONE. "Just words" indeed. Yet, I say again, if it comes to it that she is the nominee, I will vote for her. Why? To add my vote to those against McCain, if nothing else.

[Laelth]

149. Thank you for your sound reasoning.

And, after having heard your sound reasoning, I wouldn't want to challenge your support of Hillary.

But I continue to believe that, despite his flaws, Obama has to be better than McCain.

-Laelth

[metalluk]

158. You may be right.

The future will likely provide us with a better basis for knowing about one of the two.

I don't claim that there is no possibility that Obama might be a good (or even a great) President. There is always uncertainty in such decisions. I just don't see a lot of strong indicators pointing in that direction.

[theredpen]

155. Why don't we TS McCain supporters on DU?

[DrFunkenstein]

160. Obama Was Never First Lady of Arkansas

What do you consider experience? For someone leading America in a globalized 21st century, I'd say that his life experiences - not to mention his grassroots work in the slums of Chicago - are better experience than having dinner with people who are no longer the leaders of their respective countries.

[metalluk]

186. I don't dismiss or disrespect Obama's community

organizing work and you've made a nice case for its importance. It broadens his understanding of America in a way that few politicians can claim.

[butterfly77]

174. Sounds like you are talking about...

your current president. Obama is over qualified have you looked at your country lately. Crime,joblessness,homelessness,abuse,on every level,judical system and cops are crooks, teachers having sex with student, pastors having sex with prostitutes, no regulations on anything,food contamination,bridges falling down,

Blackouts, wars and more wars and I could go on and on and who had the presidency,the house and the senate and you think that Obama could make it worse. I can not understand how some people can't see that it is really about race, so stop making excuses. Where were you when the asshole in the whitehouse stole the election in 2004.

[metalluk]

187. I agree

that Senator Obama is clearly more qualified than the worst President in American history. I'd gladly hand Obama the keys to the White House for a do-over of the last eight years, but right now I'm concerned about the next four.

[geek tragedy]

181. You're John McCain's useful idiot then.

As an objective matter, you are indifferent between keeping Bush's tax cuts or repealing them, in staying in Iraq or ending it, between a woman's right to choose and back-alley abortions, etc etc.

[metalluk]

188. You're making assumptions

about how similar a McCain Presidency will be to a Bush Presidency. That makes a great campaign tactic but it's not necessarily known at present. We'll have a better idea about that in the months ahead. Nevertheless, I'm definitely not advocating voting for John McCain at this point in time and will never so advocate on this board.

Perhaps the choice in relation to the Middle East is a choice between staying in Iraq (McCain) and opening a new front along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border (Obama). That changes the dynamics of the choice quite a bit from how you phrased it, doesn't it?

[geek tragedy]

192. Obama isn't going to invade Pakistan.

We are occupying post-invasion Iraq.

McCain has promised to keep W's tax cuts. That alone is reason to vote against him.

[metalluk]

195. I agree

that the Republican tax-cuts are a strong reason to throw out the Republicans.

It is a high priority but not my top priority.

I personally have to give greatest weight to (a) the Middle-East crisis (including Iraq, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran); (b) environment concerns that have potentially global survival impacts; and (c) other world crises such as genocydal struggles in Africa. These are my top three issues; there are others that follow, of course. Probably the economy is fourth and social inequalities fifth. I always put life/death issues above any others.

So, Obama's new "Central Front" is of major concern to me. Are you familiar with what he said this week on that topic? If not, please check it out for your own benefit.

[RestoreGore]

183. Appreciate your candor and agree with it and would like to include...

That his platform regarding the climate crisis does not meet the challenges of it. He is for nuclear power, bending to the coal industry, and he supports corn ethanol. I do not approve of any of those stances and as a matter of fact, all of the candidates call for 80% reductions in Co2 emissions by 2050 and that is simply too late.

So you bring up some good points regarding policy, and I too am concerned about his remarks on Pakistan, Iran, and Al Qaeda and his willngness to vote to confirm people like Rice and Chertoff also make me wonder where he really stands in expanding war which we never have a guarantee won't happen. His votes on it while saying he is against this war (and while commenting on Larry King the other night that he thought Bush Sr.'s stategy in Iraq was brilliant) have been in many ways similar to what we have now.

I also do not like his stance on Israel right or wrong, and since it is apparent that he like all others is AIPAC approved, I do not see how that will translate into peace at this point. It is also disingenuous to me of him or any of them to say they will end this war in Iraq next year. It is simply not plausible under the circumstances there right now thanks to continuing to allow these criminals to continue to conduct it, even if we pull all the troops out and if it is neither he or anyone else have told us how it is.

And these are things we should discuss regarding them all in lieu of it always being about their egos. I also think experience is important (it surely has counted on any job I was given,) though to be honest with you, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's either and think their policies on the whole are basically the same.

It is truly a conundrum some of us find ourselves in regarding voting this November (especially regarding the fact that touchscreen voting is still in place.) While there is no way I would vote for McCain, I find myself disappointed and am honestly angry that it appears that once again we had our choices selected for us by the media and Democratic party leaders who wanted their "first..." and yes, also being manipulated once again by "emotional" appeals as opposed to reasonable discourse.

I also find it amazing that some here simply think it is that easy to put the support faucet on or off just to "win." John Edwards was a great candidate, but because he didn't fit the mold he was pushed out. I don't really think I should then have to be expected to come here and shake my poms poms for any of those left. You can still be a Democrat and not be happy about the choices the party puts up, especially when yours was actually the one who led the way on the very issues we need to discuss. However, in the end, I suppose that they would both be better than Mc Cain.

Thanks again for your comments.

[metalluk]

190. Wow! Excellent post!

Thank you, especially, for alerting me to the environmental concerns. I need to examine that more closely.

I respect your reservations about Clinton. I'm not claiming she's an ideal candidate but I think she will have the know-how and connections to produce some important improvements. I'm convinced that Obama would attempt more and achieve less.

[RestoreGore]

210. Yes, and his donations from Exelon and his watered down bill...

He weakened a bill in Illinois that would have made it required of plants to disclose leaks to "voluntary" disclosure... which is exactly what we now have on the federal level with Bush. I don't particularly think that shows leadership or standing up to the lobbyists he claims he would stand up to. So for me it isn't words but actions tha matter, and I haven't seen it yet with him.

And personally, I also don't like the "messiah" image so many seem to have of him. I think that is a dangerous combination and what we already have regarding Bush. I seen no man as a messiah or Jesus, and his supporters who do are IMO over the rainbow to be nice ;-). Religion and politics do not mix and religion has absolutely NO PLACE in reasoned political discourse. Hopefully, they don't also exert any influence in his political policies. But after this whole Rev. Wright incident, it made me wonder about that and just what he really thinks of people and how it differentiates from his public words said simply as a politician who has to say them to get votes.

This entie political process is nothing but a big stinking pile of dog dung. We will get what we will get and we will have to make the best of it. As far as Clinton goes, I don't like her DLC ties and wish she would step away from them and be herself. And that's about where I stand right now.

[sudopod]

191. f(x) = 0 nt

[metalluk]

197. f(x) = kick

Thanks for the tip-off.

[nicknyc]

204. Thank you metalluk

Thank you very much Metalluk. For past 2 weeks i was disturbed over obama and paster-gate, and you helped me understand Hillary better. She will be a wonderful President.

I support HRC now, and will evaluate McCain's credentials if Obama is our candidate.

I hope, I'm not bullied around in making the deceleration of pulling my support for Obama back.

[xultar]

198. x

[metalluk]

199. fun with algebra

l(o(ts + f) + uck)

[JoFerret]

200. Two great candidates

...but to question any one of them is to expose yourself to distortion and personal vilification.

I am led to understand that many Hillary supporters have left DU. (Obama is in the ascendancy in DU and maybe in the election.) Good riddance some might say. But to all of them? To all the people who believe Hillary is the better choice - right now - for president. Have we sunk so low?

[Steely_Dan]

202. Good Realistic Post

I as much said much of this months ago. I also agree that Clinton has enough baggage that she can't get elected either.

Nice job Dems (and media) for picking a couple of real winners....We are in deep shit.

-P

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

213. On the experience issue

You would not have voted for JFK, correct?

[metalluk]

214. About JFK

I was a year too young to vote in 1960 but was very much aware of the presidential campaign, especially because I lived in Massachusetts at the time. I would have voted for Kennedy over Nixon, had I been eligible. Kennedy was very impressive in the televised debates against Nixon. To be honest, Nixon was quite impressive as well.

You are wrong in comparing Obama's level of political experience to that of JFK. Kennedy won a seat in Congress in 1946 against nine other candidates, and was reelected in 1948 and 1950. Then he won his Senate seat in 1952, running against Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., who was highly esteemed in Massachusetts, despite the fact that Eisenhower, the Republican candidate for president that year carried Massachusetts. In the Senate, Kennedy passed several important bills advantageous to the industries of Massachusetts and New England in general. Kennedy very nearly won the Vice Presidential nomination in 1956, losing out in a close race to Estes Kefauver. Kennedy won reelection to the Senate in 1958, so by 1960, when he ran for President, he had accumulated six years of experience in the U.S. House of Representatives followed by eight years in the U.S. Senate. How is that comparable to the experience level of Barack Obama?

Kennedy had won five elections to the U.S. Congress as either Representative or Senator, Obama has won only one such election. Kennedy had fourteen years of Congressional experience; Obama has had four.

Furthermore, Kennedy was a war hero and was captain of a PT boat squadron, a level of command responsibility that Obama does not have, whether as an executive, military leader, or in any other form, prior to his present experience of running a campaign.

Comparing Obama to JFK is quite a stretch, but even with JFK's level of experience, he made an incredible blunder near the beginning of his presidency which could quite reasonably be attributed to insufficient experience.

[treestar]

215. What was JFK's blunder?

It is unfair to compare those not born at a time to see combat with those who were not. And one had the right not to go into a war if one was not drafted.

[metalluk]

218. JFK's blunder

was the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

[stevenleser]

216. You are on ignore until 1 week after Hillary concedes.

IMHO, all of this is a waste. We all know Obama is the nominee.

[metalluk]

219. If and when

Hillary concedes, I'll be gone from DU, so we should say our goodbyes now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

217. .

[GalleryGod]

223. Took You 7 YEARS to find DU?: "Nice" Post Count/Arrival Date!

KMA & GFY.

[still_one]

226. didn't even notice that the op is a troll enabler /nt

[still_one]

224. OK, you convinced me I won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee

because of your bullshit logic

[Raffi Ella]

232. Talk about issue related!

Dayum!

:kick: