So... if Obama is a "fraud", what is it you worry that he will do AFTER hoodwinking us??

[DeadElephant_ORG]

The more I read from those opposed to Senator Obama, that he's a "snake-oil salesman", a "fraud", the "cult leader" of a mass of "lobotomized" supporters, the more this question has been building in my thoughts.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that Obama is all of those things: What do you most fear that he will do with the power of the presidency once he as tricked us into giving to him? Please tell your fellow Democrats what exactly are you really afraid of.

[slinkerwink]

1. he'll be a GREAT President!

[Life Long Dem]

78. He'll be great because he'll have the great Reverend Wright move into the WH

Don't all Presidents do the same?

[moriah]

119. You forgot to hit the sarcam button, right?

I hope so. I'm just glad that this whole thing blew up now instead of after he had the nomination or closer to the GE. Maybe in six months it'll be old news to people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. He'll just sit around in the Oval Office performing cheap magic tricks

with props he ordered from an ad on the back page of a comic book. He'll also try to sell poor-quality aluminum siding to old ladies. You can just tell by the look in his eyes.

:sarcasm:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

3. OK... I'm waiting for the flood of complaints from the HRC supporters...

Folks, I'm asking sincerely because I don't understand your perspective, and I want to. Where do you fear that Obama is leading us?

[Blarch]

5. Don't try and rationalize their position.

Logic went out the window.

[EFerrari]

4. He may get angry

and unleash National Days of Language Skills.

He MUST be stopped.

:scared:

[VolcanoJen]

6. Easy!

Obama is a Stealth Muslim.
Obama is a Stealth Racist.
Obama is a Stealth Radical Christian.
Obama is a Stealth Black Panther.
Obama is a Stealth Uber-Misogynist.
Obama is a Stealth Al-Qaeda Cell Leader.
Obama is a Stealth America Hater as evidenced by his Rejection of Lapel Flag Pins Made in China.
Obama is a Stealth Black Liberation Theologist.
Obama is a Stealth Podiatrist (ok, I'm reaching here).
Obama is a Everything You Could Imagine, and Nothing He Says He Is.

Did I cover everything?

[EFerrari]

14. You forgot skater, tagger and hip hip hooligan!

lolo

[VolcanoJen]

15. Shit!

I suck at lists!! :-)

[Withywindle]

32. He's a Closet Homo Sapien

And he lets pediatricians near his children.

:scared:

[StevieM]

83. You forgot that he is a hateful man who tears his opponents down on a personal level

to get what he wants. And that he thinks he is entitled to the votes of people like myself, simply because he decrees it by fiat.

Steve

[JTFrog]

97. Wow. Another Opposite day in HillaryWorld.

From the Mark Penn led inevitability crown the queen or we'll Tanya Harding your ass campaign.

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

[DeadElephant_ORG]

103. wow. give me some specifics please. "tears his opponents down on a personal level" ??

[Jed Dilligan]

112. Assuming you're right--when he wins, his opponents will be pukes

So what's the problem?

[Berry Cool]

7. He'll tell me this dress doesn't make me look fat.

And, because he's such a seductive, tricky, sneaky person, I will believe him. :scared:

[Kukesa]

33. LOL! n/t

[TheDeathadder]

8. he'll lose the white house and the house and senate

after his first term and hand it over to the Republicans for 12 to 24 years.

That he won't be able to handle all the endless problems the world is facing.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

10. first serious answer.

[TheDeathadder]

12. well they asked

[Zodiak]

13. Didn't Bill Clinton do that?

...the first part, I mean.

I fail to see why going with Clinton would be better.

After all, Clinton has been unable to handle her campaign, which is a paltry thing in comparison to the "endless problems the world is facing".

[TheDeathadder]

46. No

Clinton won re-election

[Zodiak]

81. That is not what you said

The antecedent to "it" was Congress....lost for 12 years after the first term.

Clinton did that.

If you meant the Presidency, then you need to write more clearly.

[LSparkle]

16. Well, Bill C. did the first one too ... but he still gets a good grade overall?

[TheDeathadder]

47. Clinton won re-election

The Clintons are one of the few success stories

[ClassWarrior]

55. True. They're a remider of what's passed for "success" in this party for decades.

NGU.

[dkf]

73. I wouldn't call the Clinton years a success...no legacy to speak of

and everything quickly undone.

[mattclearing]

85. Like Bill Clinton did?

He handed it over for the foreseeable future, but it's not like he had control of Bush in order to get Congress back, so your time estimate isn't relevant.

Even so, if Obama's failures are truly his own and not the Party's, I don't see the electorate holding all Dems responsible. Don't forget that Republicans are suffering now because they rubberstamped every single crazy thing Bush did. If they had argued with him even a little they might not be in as bad of shape as they are.

[Blue-Jay]

9. He might punch me in the neck.

And then laugh at me.

[ecdab]

11. He'll fight for womens rights and appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court

that will defend womens rights long beyond his own Presidency. I guess that's what the Hillary supporters that say they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nod fear. I realize that is a silly statement - both mine and the ones made by Democrats that say they will not vote with the party in the Presidential election this November.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I don't think he's a snake oil salesman.

The worst that I fear is that

A) He might lose to McCain

B) He will need a crash course orientation to the logistics of running the Executive Branch and all that entails while also getting tuned into the players in international affairs which could take him longer to get his sea legs than Clinton.

C) He will need to get smacked around a few times bad and get his hand burnt from trying to priotitize a spirit of cooperation with the Republican Party before he has a realistic feel about what is possible in that regard.

D) He might be a little bit more flexible to some thinly disguised privatization type inititiatives involving public education than I am comfortable with.

E) His politics and programs will be pretty much the same as the ones Hillary Clinton would pursue, but since I am backing Hillary Clinton anyway that doesn't give me much standing to complain, lol.

[xchrom]

20. he has a lot of people from the fomer clinton admins

so adjustment at the beaurocratic level should be a little smoother as a result.

ironic -- but true.

[Arkana]

22. Hillary will need job training too, champ.

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. Less. But we can agree to disagree on that. n/t

[Kermitt Gribble]

18. One of my fears is

he won't be able to live up to all of the hype. A lot of people seem to think he will be the one to completely overhaul our corrupt government. I think he'll make some changes for the good of the country, but the massive "change" people are hoping for may not be possible with anything short of an all-out revolution.

Another fear is if he eventually succumbs to the corruption.

I guess I should add I'm in no way opposed to an Obama nomination - I don't care whether he or Hillary get the nomination, just as long as a Dem wins the White House.

[blm]

19. He's surrounding himself with anti-corruption, open government Dems and advocates

and I believe he will rely on them for guidance. I hope like heck he keeps Bill Clinton and his crew at a distance - the last thing this nation needs is another Democratic president who is too weak to stand up to the closed government's powerful elite.

[ClassWarrior]

56. You missed the point. His campaign is about empowering US to...

...completely overhaul our corrupt government. Look at the way his campaign is run. The local groups are given real power and choices. Bottom up, not top down. CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven had an interesting perspective on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

Obama doesn't represent "hope" or "change" so much as an "opportunity" for Progressives.

NGU.

[ClayZ]

68. You nailed it!

K and R

[Lyric]

21. Seriously?

I've never said Obama was any of those things, but I suppose that my biggest fear is that there's too damned much Hype about Obama, and he won't be able to even come close to living up to it once he has to deal with things like Congressional opposition, and budgets, and tit-for-tat in the Senate, and all of the insider beltway crap that every President has to deal with. He's got a big chunk of this country really fired-up, and I don't believe for a moment that reality will allow him to sustain that fervor once he's been in office for a few months.

Remember what happened with Pelosi and the House? How insanely excited we all were, how much we ADORED "Madam Speaker", and how much HOPE we all had? In the end, all that happened was that most of us wound up bitter, furious and even more cynical and hopeless than ever. The same thing happened during Clinton's presidency; he rode in as the "new kid" who was going to "change things", and instead of a miracle worker, we got...a human being. Flaws and all. The backlash from THAT led to the Republican takeover of 1994, and eventually to the loss of the 2000 election. THAT is what I fear the most from an Obama presidency. If he can't live up to his Hype, people will become bitter, furious and cynical. The fall is always worse when your expectations and hopes are the highest.

Obama represents passionate, enormous hope to a lot of people. Anything good he accomplishes will be "what we expected", and his failures will be deeply disappointing and upsetting. Clinton is more cautious hope for those of us that support her, and practically no hope at all for those who don't--therefore, any good things she accomplishes will be happy surprises, and the things she can't accomplish will be shrugged off as "no more than we expected". I'm not saying we should all have low expectations for our leaders--just realistic ones, which are a lot lower than what Obama's facing. Why do you think the superdelegates and party leaders haven't forced Clinton out yet? It isn't because she's some Evil Genius who has them all under her thumb; it's because they're fucking terrified of sending someone to Washington who won't be able to live up to those ridiculously high expectations. The political backlash from a disappointed electorate is the stuff of politician nightmares. They're still hoping like hell that something, anything happens to justify giving the nomination to someone else--Clinton, Gore, Edwards, anyone who isn't going to cause the kind of angry backlash that Obama is practically destined to cause the first time that he gets bogged down by Congress and can't fulfill one of his campaign promises.

I don't know why I bothered to answer this seriously--I know the reactionaries will just post some indignant tripe and ignore it/Ignore me. But Obama supporters are doing Obama no good by continuing this insane amount of Hype. It can't last, and it WILL hurt him--and us--in the end. I'm voting for the Dem nominee, but I'm focusing on the long-term here. I don't want to lose the ground we're starting to gain back because some people can't deal with the fact that a President has to work *with* the system, and does not possess a magic wand that "fixes" things in an instant.

I wouldn't be nearly this concerned if I hadn't seen the horrific backlash here against Pelosi and our House Dems with my own eyes. The more fervent here (most of which are Obama supporters) are absolutely *brutal* to leaders who disappoint them. I can step back and look at things realistically--but can everyone else? Can everyone else stay just as loyal and fervent as they are right now if Obama gets to Washington and can't get much done right away? And what the hell happens to the Democratic Party if they can't? Do we just go back to the idiotic rhetoric of "Dems and Repubs are all the same", the rhetoric that lost us Al Gore and gave us George W. Bush?

I am terrified that history will repeat itself.

[Ysabel]

23. not going to jump on you...

- i just think history will repeat itself if hillary wins (which at this point seems highly unlikely) whereas with obama i think things will be fine not perfect but fine...

p.s. and of course he will not be able to do everything necessary to fix all the problems as he said it will take more than one term hell much of what bush has done will reverberate for at least the next century if we last that long...

[Lyric]

28. I agree--our problems are not going away anytime soon.

There's been too much damage to fix even in two terms, much less one, and I'm just scared to death that the more fervent members of my party will not be able to maintain patience with the process. :(

[damonm]

25. No jumps, no flames.

Just simple disagreement.

I don't think your scenario will happen, primarily BECAUSE Obama's so damn popular. I think he will be able to do what Reagan (damn him to Hell) did to US so effectively - "go over Congress' head", and take his case directly to the American people.
You see, one of the reasons I support Obama is I believe he is, at LONG last, the progressive answer to Reagan, and can have a similarly transforming effect on American politics.

[Lyric]

27. I hope you're right.

This is one of those rare times in my life when I would love nothing more than to be proven 100% wrong.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

39. that's the most interesting argument I've read about Obama anywhere on DU.

And I encourage you to repost it as an OP. Your core question - can Obama's supporters "stay just as loyal and fervent" if Obama can't live up to our hype - should be put to DU as a whole and discussed.

I think you've put your finger on something going on inside many of us. It's not that Obama's a bad guy, or incompetent, or power-hungry, or any other personal failing. It's his offer of "hope" ITSELF that scares us. All that "hope" and "change" and "believe" stuff is threatening because it sets us up for disappointment. This is a spiritual question. And what it suggests about our current level of cynicism is profound. Your observation finally lets me understand the hostility many here have shown to the young and hopeful new Democrats that Obama has brought into the party. Their hope scares us.

You're right, the progressive movement in America has been let down so hard so many times. Personally, I've been married and divorced twice, and I don't think that I'll ever let myself fall in love again. So perhaps that's a way to picture our predicament.

Of all the opportunities one might have to become president, this is the one I would want least. With a 3-trillion dollar war underway, and a collapsing economy, we couldn't be in deeper shit. No mere mortal is going to fix this overnight.

But what alternative do we have? Here's where my metaphor about divorce and love doesn't map. I can choose to love again, or not to. But our nation WILL be led by a president, whether we participate in the choice of whom or not. Given how precarious our nation and our liberty are at the moment, do you really want that leader to be the one who LEAST inspires us to hope?

[ClassWarrior]

59. Okay, don't call it "hope." Call it "opportunity." See post #56 above.

NGU.

[TexanDem]

49. Personally, I don't expect miracles from Obama... (long)

And if people do expect miracles, then they are being foolish. This country has far too many problems now that any one person can fix overnight -- or even in one term. The damage that Bush has done is just about incomprehensible that he could screw up things in every category you can think of. It will be a series of baby steps, but at least steps moving in the right direction.

The reason I am totally committed to O is I believe he has the freshness and the vision to at least begin turning this ship around. I believe he has exhibited character and integrity that it's so very obvious that Hillary does not have. I lived through the Clinton years. Scandal after scandal, and I defended the Clintons. Hillary has not shown herself as a leader even once. She rides on her husband's coattails. She hasn't been able to run a campaign. She hasn't been able to manage her funds. She's shown more personalities than Sybil (multipersonality character) and none of them come across as sincere. She cries or whines when she can pull off playing the victim. She lies over and over again or goes vendictive like she did today. This is NOT what I want in a leader, to be our commander in chief, to be our No. 1 ambassador to the world. I'm not trying to be mean. These are objective observations.

McCain is a blithering fool and will just continue us going the same direction we've been going. I don't need to waste time explaining why I don't want him to win.

I want a president who we can all be proud of when they address the country, or other world leaders, proud in his stature and composure of himself, his integrity, his intelligence. The way his campaign has been run is a good start to see what kind of leader he is and will be. No matter what Hillary has thrown at him, he still has tried to compliment her and others who are out to "get him." Look at how far he's come from the beginning! Look how he draws people to him. He has a magnetic personality and eloquence that will make a difference when he is dealing with world leaders about all the affairs of our nation and the world. Think about this -- the Clintons are THE powerhouse of the Dem party! And look at the race he's given them! Who else could have done that! I firmly believe the elite, the media all had Hillary picked and primed to be their candidate, and now here comes Barack -- and they're all in a panic. I didn't need Gov Richardson to point out to me that he's special, something that comes along only once in a lifetime.

I have great confidence that he will help to begin mending some of the left/right hatred that has grown to a level that I've never seen before. He's been criticized for giving accolades to Republicans, but I think that's a good thing. We all have to live on this planet together. It's time for the hate to stop. At least to make a beginning.

Look at the achievements he's gained already -- state legislator, professor of the Constitution! -- that's a good one! He even knows what the Constitution says! Imagine that! He has promised to rescend all the executive orders that have been issued by Bush if they even come close to not being constitutional - i.e., restore our Habias Corpus, civil rights, etc. Has Hillary said that -- even thought of it?

Those are some of the main things. To get into the church controvery is too much to get into here. But I do think it's time we talk openly about race. Who else could have had the leadership to open that dialog??? I am white, over 60, and lived in the south all my life. I've seen the ugliness of segregation and racial hate on both sides. Racism is still very much alive today - only it's not politically correct to talk about it. Opening up dialog is a way to begin a healing in this country -- "begin" being the key word. no, not wave a magic wand and everything will be fixed. To have that kind of expectation is nothing more than childish foolishness.

I'm afraid of what will happen to this country if we DON'T elect O as our president. It's more critical now than ever before! The urgency is indeed upon us! If we don't, we will continue on as we have, and nothing will change except our great nation will keep gettin deeper and deeper into dispair. We may never have this chance again to at least give him a chance. The worse that can happen is we'll continue on like we've been doing; but we'll most certainly do that anyway.

Well, you said nobody would pay attention to your concerns. I hope this at least gives you -- and anybody else who reads it -- a little food for thought -- that is if anybody reads it.

[ClassWarrior]

57. I don't expect miracles from Obama. He expects miracles from US. And that's...

...the beauty of it. See post #56 above.

NGU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

64. wow... that's well-put.

[TexanDem]

67. Indeed -- leadership in its truest form.

[IndependentDem]

99. well said... this deserves its own thread. nt

[Tatiana]

51. That's an absolutely valid concern.

We did have high hopes for Nancy Pelosi and boy was she a big disappointment.

But I don't think most Obama supporters are expecting him to save the world (Obama Girl excepted). We just expect a more open government, a responsible fiscal and economic policy, withdrawal from Iraq, and a health care plan. There are people that support him for a multitude of other reasons, but I think those are the big ones and I think at least 3 out of the 4 will absolutely be accomplished within his first 3 years in office. He'll have a decent Congress to work with and he's shown the ability to gain support from across the aisle (like with his ethics legislation).

If he goes back on his word, well then, we are free to nominate someone else who will get the job done. But the likelihood is that he will accomplish those things he sets out to accomplish, especially if he has a mandate.

[TexanDem]

53. deleted

.

[flowomo]

60. I posted something along those lines a while ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4590579

at that time I wrote:

One of my few remaining reservations about Obama has less to do with him than with the expectations of those from whom has has evoked such passionate support. We expect "change" if he is elected -- though what is meant by that is open to wide interpretation. Perhaps it means a change in the tone of the "discourse" (badly needed and most welcome). But many identify that "change" with a specific policy.

Suppose Obama is elected and, given the political realities which constrain the White House, he backs off or goes against you on a specific issue or cluster of issues. Which ones would you yield without feeling betrayed, and over which ones would you be bitter that he had broken the promise? I suspect that Obama would do a lot of good, even if only in terms of the discourse, but I also expect him to be bogged down and derailed by opposing forces on most attempts to "change" the direction of the country -- and to make the usual trade-offs and bargains to achieve some of his agenda. Change comes slowly. But expectations for an Obama presidency are high -- and sometimes ill defined. What would be your "gold standard" for deciding whether he had come through for you?

I ask this because if people are brought into the political system, get excited about it, by a charismatic figure, and invest tremendous expectations in that person, and then are "disappointed" at how little can actually be accomplished, they may be so angry they walk away from politics altogether. It seems to me that most truly inspirational figures, in the U.S. and elsewhere, have operated outside the political system itself -- influencing it, shaping it, but no part of it. I am thinking Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and in his earlier days, even Ralph Nader. Inspiring, politicians on the other hand, often disappoint (Lech Walensa perhaps or even Tony Blair or Jimmy Carter).

[DeadElephant_ORG]

63. fantastic questions!

[kwenu]

76. I see. We should aim much lower so there is less disappointment!!!!!!

Is that the strategy of Clinton supporters?

[dsc]

24. If you really want an honest answer

I am deeply afraid he has no commitment whatsoever to gay rights. I am deeply afraid he will not know what he is doing as President. I am deeply afraid he really means this crap about working with the GOP. None of those would be acceptable.

[damonm]

26. Can't do anything about the first 2...

except to say, "how much commitment to gay rights do you believe Senator Triangulate and Senator McInsane to have?"

But as to the 3rd - grow up.

Like it or not - and I don't - the GOP is here and is part and parcel of the government, despite all wishful thinking. The fact that they are here means they have to be dealt with. Freezing them out and not working with them is EVERY BIT as wrong as when they did it to us for 4 years. Revenge doesn't get you anywhere. If you think it does, look at how wonderfully the Israelis & Palestinians get along...oh, wait...

[dsc]

31. We tried working with them

and it got us an Impeached Clinton. Sorry but if we have 51 Senators, 218 Reps, and 1 President, then tough shit GOP.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Do you know the difference between a party establishment and voters?

We tried working with the Rape-Publican party establishment and got an Impeached Clinton.

But we'll never get 51 Senators, 218 Reps, and 1 President without their voters.

:shrug:

NGU.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

34. I appreciate your honesty. Do you think he'll be any harder for us to push on gay rights than HRC?

[dsc]

107. yes

Hillary has tons of personal experience with gays and he appears to have none. People don't usually screw those they know well.

[Orsino]

94. The lack of commitment to gay rights is proven...

...by his opposition to same-sex marriage. In this all three presidential candidates are much alike.

[kwenu]

113. Except one of those candidates has a spouse who passed DOMA.

[kwenu]

110. Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Every president is going to work with the other side.

Hillary has no experience as President either unless you're thinking her husband is running the show.

Sounds like you are in for disappointment no matter who you vote for.

[NashVegas]

29. I'm Worried About Having a Total Newb In the White House

Who's going to have to rely on a bunch of "regents."

[DeadElephant_ORG]

42. Hillary is a "Newb" too. Most people don't really buy the "35 years" thing.

[JVS]

118. You've bought your own spin. He has more experience as a politician than Hillary.

And if you're bothered by someone relying on regents Hillary Clinton should be the last person you support. She couldn't even campaign without her more experienced husband eclipsing her at many times. You don't think she'll be leaning on him and some retreads from his administration for help? Do you honestly think he will refrain from meddling if she wins?

[EffieBlack]

30. That he'll turn out not to be one of the "good ones?" nt

[anamandujano]

35. Nothing.

His change mantra is a crock. Things will remain status quo.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

40. Well, surely "nothing" is better than an unprovoked war on "bomb bomb Iran". No? n/t

[anamandujano]

74. He's taking the war to Pakistan.

We will have the same problems we have now. He won't fix anything.

[Jim Sagle]

36. He'll help privatize Social Security.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

41. are you kidding? n/t

[Orsino]

95. He wants complete privatization of health care. n/t

[DURHAM D]

43. I agree.

Also, he has no real interest in health care reform so that won't happen.

And, he says that abortion is a "moral" issue (which injects sin and his religious notions into the equation) so I don't believe he will select Supreme Court members who will protect Roe v. Wade. Senator Reid holds the same position so wave choice goodbye because they neither one really care about the issue.

Don't plan to stand in line waiting for "green" jobs - the coal and energy industry owns him.

Obama wants to be liked - he doesn't care about being right. He will be an appeaser. He is more Bill than Hillary.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

44. so you 2 see real policy differences between them? Man... I don't.

I like what I like. And I don't like what I don't like. But I swear, their policies are indistinguishable to me.

[DURHAM D]

45. Not to me.

Obama has exhibited no passion for any liberal democratic core issues.

I have said many times that I don't think he is a Democrat. He is just a guy who wants to be President and is not a person driven by a desire for public service with a passion to change or push public policy for the good of all.

I am an old liberal Democrat. I know that Obama supporters think that they (as progressives) are better than us but when I talk to them they don't/can't articulate any public policy ideas that indicate they are progressive, much less liberal. They tell themselves we support Hillary because we are conservative when the opposite is true.

The opposition to Obama from us old time liberals is policy based - to us he is to the right of moderate. His talk about change is only about who is in the White House and not about national policy. As many have pointed out the policy positions he does take are just thinner versions of her policies. He copies her stuff because he has no real interest in developing his own - he wants the job but doesn't have any real desire to do anything with it.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

48. Does Obama's commitment to Wright's church suggest anything to you about his politics?

It does to me. And it does to the folks on the Right. Clinton today said she would not have associated herself with such a church.

Personally, I agree with everything I've heard from Pastor Wright's sermons. EVERYTHING.

[DURHAM D]

52. What do you mean by commitment?

Odd word to describe someone who attends a church occasionally and doesn't even donate much money until the year he knows his tax returns will be public info.

As for Rev. Wright - nothing he has said bothers me from a preaching/service perspective. Well, maybe a few things from a historical perspective, like "white" men invented slavery. Makes me cringe because it is a unbelievably stupid ignorant statement but I do understand he was trying to make a political point.

What bothers me about Rev. Wright is that Obama did not understand in advance the political fallout from the association. He should have understood the implications years ago. The result of Obama's tin ear on this is that it makes Obama unelectable in the general because the Republicans will not play nice with him.

[Teaser]

37. I'm afraid he'll trick me in three card monte

.

[theredpen]

38. He'll do a drive-by on a rival gang

:sarcasm:

[PylesMalfunction]

50. Thank you

to everyone that is answering this question in a sincere, thoughtful manner. It's very interesing and I thank you for your candor.

[bridgit]

54. I hope he's able to better attenuate what he's already given us so far: Roberts, Alioto, Mukasey...

Cheney's "So? They volunteered." Energy Policy, etc...I suppose the worse thing he could do with the power of the presidency is to do nothing at all. Just sit pat, like the cat that just ate the canary.

[Norrin Radd]

61. He'll bring sexy back to the White House.

[bhikkhu]

62. Seriously, he will inherit *'s flaming wreckage

and he may not be able to put out the fires. Perhaps no one could. The economy is in the crapper, the military is all over the globe and engaged with ineradicable enemies of our own creation, manufacturing is in terminal decline, the world is more than ready to dump the dollar and re-evaluate the necessity of having "us" around, climate problems are at or beyond tipping points, oil production has peaked and growth may no longer be possible - a condition economists are unprepared for...

So much for a list of worries. The solutions available to a president, IMHO, will solely domestic solutions, and I hope things work out.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

65. Damn people! this is great stuff. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

69. By far the best dialog this board has seen in months!

I commend all for the honesty, intelligence and civility that has been displayed. Great to witness here!

Congrats for starting the OP D E Org.

[bigbrother05]

66. He'll take over the whole country and "they'll" be in charge

Actually heard that from my SIL. She's a long time Dem, has been very active, always made us kind of proud of her commitment and knowledge. Now, after some family setbacks (Bro laid off in 80s, lost their house, but slowly recovered to retire to small town in NW OK), she seems to have fallen in with her S. Baptist neighbors. Still a Dem, ardent Clinton supporter, but talks about the emails (yes those emails) and how Rev Wright will be running a Cabinet Dept (she couldn't explain which one).

Mrs. BB05 and I were stunned at her unfounded fears, asked how she thought that 12-14% of the population could possibly "take over" the US without blood running in the streets? Guess she figured that it would be black folks doing us dirty instead of Waspy Repugs, it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Have heard some reference what happened in S. Africa to justify Obama fear.

It was never that Clinton was the better candidate because...
It was that Obama would destroy us. Didn't say it, but the most obvious explanation is thinly veiled R***ISM (don't like to use the word).

It's times like that that make me realize how short a distance we've traveled from Jackson/Selma/Birmingham. Also reinforces my first impression that Rev Wright had nothing to apologize for, there are truths that must be taught until they fade into the mists of ancient history. In November, the US will have a chance to prove that Rev Wright was wrong, hope we pass the test.

Please understand how hard it was to say this, regardless of the cynicism from my 50+ years, I still believe in the nation they taught us about in grade school.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

70. I too "still believe in the nation they taught us about in grade school" - right on.

and I heartily agree that "Rev Wright had nothing to apologize for".

[depakid]

71. Have a look at what Congress has been "doing"

and what Obama enabled during his short tenure there.

or have a look at the corporate donor list.

or the policies on his own website.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

72. ah come on - no cop outs. Offer specifics. Tell us your top 3 fears about a "President Obama".

[IndependentDem]

75. k & r

[housewolf]

77. Is anybody here afraid of assassination if Obama wins the nomination or GE?

And fearful of having to go through that sort of trauma?

Is anyone afraid of caring too much for Obama because of the fear of assassination and the loss of another beloved leader?

I've heard that from a few people, so I'm wondering if there's any of that here.

[StevieM]

84. It's not so easy to get to the President. I don't think that would happen and

I would hope it doesn't. But I also hope he never gets to the White House.

Steve

[DeadElephant_ORG]

109. yes. that prospect does not leave my thoughts.

much more for Obama than for anyone else because
a.) he's black.
b.) he represents Hope.

[chyjo]

79. As the insurgent Rapper Candidate

his only real goal is to record a Gangsta rap cd in the Rose Garden with Snoop , Dr. Dre , and Chuck D. Oh man when the American people find this out its over.

[readmoreoften]

80. I'll tell you EXACTLY what my fears are...

He'll start moving the rhetoric of the Dem party toward privatizing social security.
He'll keep No Child Left Behind.
He'll put money towards school vouchers.
He'll expand faith-based funding programs.
He'll do absolutely ZERO for gay people, reiterating his rhetoric that "discrimination should be up to the states" (a traditional RW position, BTW)
He'll move troops out of Iraq....annnnd into Pakistan, just like he says he will.
He'll be weaker on unions and women's issues than expected.
He'll let all the Repubicans off scot free.
He'll be a wimpy apologist for Republicans and a snotty, condescending asshole towards progressives.
He'll end up being ever so slightly to the right of Clinton, which concerns me because she's too far right for me already.
He'll do close to nothing about fixing health care.

To me this is "choose the centrist you know or the centrist you don't know". And by centrist I mean "bastards pushing our country to the right."

[crankychatter]

96. once again

you nailed it

[DeadElephant_ORG]

100. "choose the centrist you know or the centrist you don't know"

Great list. I don't entirely disagree. But as your "centrist" comment indicates, there's a problem. For each of the items in your list, would Hillary Clinton be substantially better? ANY better? In other words, is the distinction between them worth the cost of this fight?

[kwenu]

108. I don't think Hillary is any different on ANY of those issues. So what's the real issue?

Because there is virtually no difference between the candidates in the concerns you listed it forces me to think there has to be another more specific reason. I'm trying to understand why others (not necessarily you) won't vote for the other candidate if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination.

[StevieM]

82. Here's a list

1) He'll put labor and union issues at the bottom of his list of priorities.

2) He'll retaliate against those who opposed him, something the Clintons are accused of doing, but never really have.

3) He'll do nothing on health care.

4) He'll have a meandering, incohernent foreign policy that offers a validity-by-comparison to the GOP.

5) He'll allow thugs like David Axelrod to terrorize our nations' citizens the way Karl Rove did.

6) He won't be as adamant in making sure he appoints the right judges, like I am POSITIVE Clinton will do. This is by far the most important thing we need from the next president.

7) He won't take a firm stand on Global Warming and realize that this is the most important issue on which to call in political capital.

Steve

[More Than A Feeling]

86. I don't think he's a "fraud," and the campaign has answered some of my concerns, but not all.

My biggest concern is that he'll try to reach out too far to the reactionary Christian conservatives, leading to him holding back on important rights for gays and appointing judges/justices that aren't as liberal as he could get away with. Basically, he'll be too afraid of alienating the religious when the chips are down. This has happened to him twice on the campaign trail so far (McClurkin, Wright) and that worries me, even though one of those times produced a truly significant speech that I loved.

[Irreverend IX]

87. Obama will just be a pretty face...

For more of the supply-side "ownership society" that Bush has been pushing. If he gets into office he'll declare some bold new initiatives with names like "Keeping America's Promise" and "Youth for a Better Tomorrow." They'll have glitzy web sites that post cute little press releases about a single mother in Ohio who can keep up with her night classes better now that "Keeping America's Promise" is giving her vouchers for free months of cable Internet access. In the meantime, the upward aggregation of wealth and power and the destruction of the environment will continue unabated. Hell, it'll probably accelerate.

If I were a robber baron fascist mastermind, I'd be getting pretty tired of working with the Republicans by now. They've driven the country into a ditch and pissed off a lot of people, and America is in the mood for a "new boss" right now. If you think about it from the perspective of the power brokers, infiltrating and manipulating the Democratic party is a wise move.

Note: Everything I said above also applies to Hillary Clinton.

[annabanana]

88. k&r for a thoughtful thread. . . n/t

[JoFerret]

89. He will roll over and play dead

.

[noamnety]

90. That he will follow through on his rhetoric

about imposing sanctions against Iran, killing a million or so of them, just as Clinton did in Iraq, and somehow Americans will manage to convince ourselves this is "diplomacy" because our American troops aren't in harm's way.

That he will use economic blackmail in general against weaker countries to force them to do what's best for our corporate interests

That he will continue to ignore the rights of Palestinians

That he will pander to interests that aren't in our own best interest in order to protect his chances for reelection - that reelection will be a higher priority than having a spine

That his foreign policy expert was telling the truth regarding his plans for getting troops out of Iraq - that he actually isn't all that committed to withdrawing them (this seems to track with his funding votes)

When he talks about Iran he says stuff like it would be a bad time to attack them, what with all our troops being tied up in Iraq. Completely missing the concept that we have no legal or moral right to invade sovereign nations who haven't attacked us. Makes me think that despite his nice talk about race issues in the US, when it comes to middle eastern folks, he thinks life is cheap, and ours for the taking.

[DeeDeeNY]

92. He will make it a crime to wear flag lapel pins

He will not allow people to put their hand over their hearts during the national anthem
He will do whatever he is told to do by Rezko and Wright
He will allow Michelle to continue spouting how only now she's really proud of America
And he will throw everyone's grandmother under a bus

[Kitty Herder]

116. And I would say good riddance to flag lapel pins. I hate the things. It's a silly

notion that you must wear a certain piece of cheap jewelry or you're not patriotic.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

120. If we outlaw those pins, the Repukes would come up with some other stupid patriotism test. n/t

[DeeDeeNY]

122. I was kidding

I should have used sarcasm icon

[DeadElephant_ORG]

123. I understood. I just am pissed about the f---ing pins. They remind me of purple heart band-aids.

[shayes51]

93. That he'll go on vacation in the middle of something tough.

Oh! I guess he's already done that.

:party:

[DemzRock]

98. I fear...

He will be much more of a corporatist than people think.

I fear he will be ineffective, following Deval Patrick's pattern. It's hard to be the inexperienced Change man with so many promises and get the senior politicians in Congress to cooperate with you.

And my biggest fear is that he will not be nearly as effective with the economy as Team Clinton, who had the best economy in the 90's.

It amazes me people forget that.

[leftynyc]

101. I'm worried he'll lose the election

I've never called him any of those things in your post, my one worry is winning this election and I don't think he can. Is that simple enough for you?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

111. simple enough, yes. And my top priority, like yours, is winning this damned thing.

[Kitty Herder]

117. I think he is more likely to win than Hillary, but my biggest fear with either

one of them is that they won't win. It's a risk, putting forward a black man or a woman against a white, male veteran. Even if that white, male veteran is as unappealing as McCain. Not that the risk isn't worth it. It's about time we had a president who isn't a white male.

[Eurobabe]

102. He will fill the Oval Office with Cubans

not the people, but cigars.

[XemaSab]

104. Interesting thread

Thanks for asking this... the answers have been informative.

[Kitty Herder]

105. The things that I'm reading from Clinton supporters about what they fear

Obama will do after hoodwinking us are the same things I fear Clinton will do. To be honest, I have the same fears with Obama, but to a lesser degree. I know the Clintons will say and do anything to get elected and then rule from the right. It happened before. I don't know that about Obama, so I have some hope for him.

But the truth is, we never know what a candidate will do once they're in office until they do it. Political campaigns are misleading.

My fondest hope is that Obama is a stealth progressive and would actually prove to be further left in office than he has been in his campaign. But I don't really believe that. But I can't even hope it about a Clinton.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

106. you nailed my fears, and my fondest, but unlikely, hope. Thanks for the honesty. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Though I by no means count on it

I harbor some hope that Hillary will move slightly left if elected. She actually has more of an activist past than Bill does, and she has been connected to a specific cause; children and families, for decades - which is a different perspective than Bill's specialty which seems more to simply be "governing" from the center. And I think Hillary is passionalte about extending health care to all Americans.

Because she has had presidential ambitons, and because she is a woman when many older Americans especailly had reservations about trusting national security to a woman, Clinton cultivated a tough personality. And because the Republicans had her paired with Ted Kennedy for so long as America's worst Liberals in their hate attacks, Hillary tried to negate that image.

What you see may be what you get if she finally becomes President, but yeah I do have some hope that once she is there she will move slightly to the left and cooperate more with liberals in Congress.

[Kitty Herder]

115. Hillary's commitment to health care for all Americans:

"Tell me something interesting."

“Hillary Clinton had heard it all before. How, she asked Himmelstein, do you defeat the multibillion-dollar insurance industry? ‘With presidential leadership and polls showing that 70 percent of Americans favor a single-payer system,’ Himmelstein recalls telling Mrs. Clinton.

“The First Lady replied: ‘Tell me something interesting, David.’”
From: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/hillary-clintons-first-health-care-non-reform/

See also:

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122007.html

Not that I think Obama will even consider universal health care, either (and when I say that, I mean true, universal single-payer healthcare, not some half-hearted, piecemeal attempt to shut up the plebes). But I think he may be more open to it if we push hard enough. I just don't think Hillary is at all open to it. The fact is, who ever becomes President, we must agitate for universal healthcare if we really want it. They aren't going to just give it to us. And congress is the key. We gotta convince them. It might feel like we're doing this: :banghead: But that's how progress is made. We keep on fighting.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

121. According to our resident psycho Obama's going to start a race war. n/t