Barack Obama for President

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on January 16, 2007 - 4:55pm

Barack Obama has formed an exploratory committed and will announce his candidacy for President on February 10. I urge you to go to www.barackobama.com and see what he has to say. There are two videos there.

My chief complaint about our "leaders" over the last decade or so is their petty partisanship. Their focus has been on beating the other party rather than helping the country. Obama promises to try and change that. And he has a history of working across the aisle both in the U.S. Senate and in the Illinois legislature. I think he would be an oustanding President. And if anybody wants to join me in campaigning for him, feel free to email me at klewis3.1@netzero.net

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 16, 2007 - 5:03pm.

Can we delete this SPAM?

Just what the country needs, another cult of personality.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 16, 2007 - 5:21pm.

I'm voting for Obama in the primary and for president if he gets the nomination. I'll pass your email address around, zk. Perhaps some people I know might like to campaign for Barack Obama.

I'm tired of the good ol' boys club in our leadership.

Submitted by zk on January 16, 2007 - 6:14pm.

Thanks, PC.

Actually, let's pass around this email address instead:

kllddy@netzero.net

The . in the other email address (between the 3 and the 1) is easy to miss and leave out.

NSR, I'll have a response to your post when I have time after work.

Submitted by North County Jim on January 16, 2007 - 6:27pm.

I'm tired of the good ol' boys club in our leadership.

Columbia University, Harvard Law, Illinois State Legislature, US Senate. An impressive resume to be sure.

However, Perry, if you're looking for an outsider to break up the "club", a former president of the Harvard Law Review is not where I'd start.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 16, 2007 - 7:50pm.

post error.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 16, 2007 - 7:50pm.

post error.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 16, 2007 - 7:50pm.

There's no need, I don't care.

It doesn't matter if this is an off topic forum, I'm sick of continuous political election process. I sick of political hacks intruding on every aspect of civil life to push their candidate like a crack dealer.

Obama wants to lead, then he should do his Senate job for the next two years. That goes for McCain, Hillary and any other politico that is already positioning for the next election when the elected members from this election took office barely more than a week ago.

What's Obama going to do about the housing bubble? The economy? Jack diddly, it'll be three years before any budget or presidential discretion he has can take affect.

In the end, I may actually support him if he's the best candidate, given the incredible lack of leadership in either party, that's not difficult.

However, given that the election is 21 months away and the first Democratic primary in Iowa is 12 months away, can we just give it a rest for 6 bloody months were they do the JOB they're currently elected for?

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 16, 2007 - 8:53pm.

don't want to interupt the lovefest between you and PC but zk where do you get your data? Obama has an extremely partisan voting record and hasn't embraced the "both sides of the isle" approach. He has an almost perfect 100% partisan (liberal partisan!) voting record. What you're really saying is you want a liberal democrat for president, and I am guessing you choose him as Hillary is just too scary, Kerry is to transparent (outwardly showing what every liberal believes), Edwards is just plain vapid and (in the off chance that he runs again) Sharpton is a bigot.

Submitted by jg on January 16, 2007 - 10:38pm.

Coke-sniffin', affirmative-action poster child Osama will lose out to Gore in the primaries.

Osama's a flat out socialist; he'll go nowhere fast with the biggest part of the Democrat base.

But, zk and PC, please do send your money to him now.

Submitted by Diego Mamani on January 17, 2007 - 3:07am.

JG, do you watch CNN and Fox News?
The other day, while flipping channels, I saw the following on CNN, in big letters: "Where is Obama hiding?" or something like that. The story, by the way, was about Bin-Laden! I don't think it was an innocent mistake. A few months ago, when Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon, CNN run headlines such as "The USA has a biblical obligation to help Israel". I was utterly disgusted at the war mongering; it was as if Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Rove composed the CNN headings.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 8:20am.

LOL, cnn isn't IMO a bastion of unbiased reporting (meaning wayyyy to the left)... and I don't find Fox exactly fair and balanced either... but that is my observation.

Defending oneself and those who share some of the same common values against those who seek to subjugate or destroy you isn't a definition of war-mongering.

Submitted by jg on January 17, 2007 - 9:21am.

DM, I just watch Fox News, and only occasionally (once a month). Never, ever, ever CNN or the networks.

It will be fun over the next two years, 'mistakenly' substituting 'Osama' for 'Obama.'

Submitted by zk on January 17, 2007 - 10:08am.

"can we just give it a rest for 6 bloody months were they do the JOB they're currently elected for?"

Well, if that's what you were trying to say, then I agree with you. I think that the campaign process lasts much too long and, more importantly, takes too much time away from running the country and costs too much money.

But your "cult of personality" comment was typical of the "bash the other side" approach that Karl Rove has made so prevalent in today's America. I say "America" rather than "American politics" because it seems to me that that mind set has started to permeate our culture in general.

sdnativeson, you're right, his voting record is liberal. But that doesn't contradict what I said, which is that he's willing to reach across the aisle and reasonably debate and discuss issues with those who are opposite him ideologically. As opposed to calling them coke sniffers and otherwise attacking them personally.

The responses to this post sum up perfectly what I'd like to see changed about this country. And what I hope Obama will change. We've become a nation of people who interact through attacks and manipulation of emotion rather than calm, reasoned discourse. And, worse, we've become a nation that thinks that this is an acceptable way to interact. It's time to start thinking about what's best for our country and not what's the best way to attack the other side. And, in my opinion, no one is more fit to affect that change than Barack Obama.

Submitted by capeman on January 17, 2007 - 10:50am.

Hmmm... I'm kind of putout by the idea that party pushers can put a guys face all over magazines and speak at conventions and all of a sudden he is qualified to run the country. I'm confused on what his qualifications are that will enable him to take 300+ million people and their country in the direction it needs to go. Ivy league schools don't do it for me as it is the same Ivy Leaguers who think they can predict and talk the real estate market back to life while they are leading buyers to their doom. The dude hasn't even finished one term as a Senator of one of the smallest states in the union. Looking at his resume I'm not seeing it and pundits telling me how it is doesn't work when he is not backed up by the quals.

Arnold the Governator is way more qualified to be President. Someone amend the Constitution!

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 11:26am.

I respect the opinion you stated in your last paragraph zk,
I just don't agree with it. Still, I can't find any particular time where he "has reached across the isle" gave way much less compromised as politics is "the art of compromise" (correct me if I'm wrong) then he isn't practicing that particularly well as I can tell.

I also disagree with you if you're saying Karl Rove started this "bash the other" side mentality. It was practiced way before he came along. I can't help but think about the way Dan Quayle was attacked off the top of my head. Both sides are guilty.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 17, 2007 - 12:10pm.

Both sides are guilty.. But I think that the right is more guilty. I think that conservative talk shows made it worse. The talk shows are well-suited for the one-liners that malign intellectual discourse. Carl Rove is a master of divide and conquer and took partisanship to a new level.

Personally, I read conservative papers/commentaries all the time (Christian Science Monitor, WSJ, Business Week, George Will, William Safire, etc... ). I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal and I just can't stand Bush. He's for a religious theocracy that I find disgusting.

I'm voting Democratic because the right needs a message that their politics is not acceptable. I guess you could say that I'm a Jim Webb Republican who turned Democrat.

The most fanatical Republican elements are like gung-ho crusaders. They only understand force and they despise reason. To beat them, it has to be an eye for an eye. They need to be beaten into submission.

I like Obama because he's from a different generation, a different class and different race. That's enough for me. I'm willing to give him a chance.

Submitted by Mark Holmes on January 17, 2007 - 12:34pm.

Perry, ZK, I couldn't agree more. The reasons I support Barack are simple; he's intelligent, well-educated, well-spoken and of a different generation than the leaders who have made such a mess of things. It seems that it is time for new blood in Washington, at least. But more than any of those reasons is his approach to partisanship. He repeatedly reminds us that we are not Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, black, white, Jewish or Christian only. First of all, we are Amnericans, and we are all in this together, like it or not. This country faces enormous challenges in the coming years, and a divide and conquer strategy is not appropriate in governing a country. Should we divide and conquer the terrorists? Yes. Should we divide and conquer in Iraq? If it will work. But divide and conquer,when you are talking about the citizens of this country, is not only counterproductive to good governance, it is morally wrong. Wedge issue politics need to be left behind if we are to tackle the coming housing collapse, the SSI / Medicare crisis, immigration and many more issues that are currently being pushed to the side. We can only tackle these problems together, in a civilized and sensible way; through reasoned debate. I hope Obama is sincere in his wish to do this.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 12:58pm.

I kind of thought some of the wedge political issues were the SSI/Medicare/immigration/security issues. I really don't believe Obama will be much different than any other politician who is affilated with either party, if he was they wouldn't be backing him, it isn't in their best interest and that is how both function. Obamas voting record is partisan, look it up, he might espouse this we are all americans, we are in this together but as his voting record would indicate, I am a democrat and I toe the party line.

I guess one could argue that the Republicans have acted in an obstructionist way - in the manner that they persued their own agenda, but the logic is invalid. I have seen failures on both sides of the aisle but overall, I have seen the Democratic party bring the government to a near standstill with their filibusters and other stalling tactics. So, the question is can he put aside his liberal leanings? I doubt it. So, his agenda is questionable, as is every politicians.

Both parties have failed their country.

From my own observations he is not ready at this time. I see little in his actions and persona that show me true leadership characteristics at this stage of his career.

Again, I hold to my opinion, I see very little that supports many of the statements/opinions bandied about on these off topic threads.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 1:12pm.

"The most fanatical Republican elements are like gung-ho crusaders. They only understand force and they despise reason. To beat them, it has to be an eye for an eye. They need to be beaten into submission."

Only Republicans? You sound like the fanatic. This is what
you bring to the table? You are not open, You have no interest in dialogue, you espouse what has been the liberals (failing) mantra for too long; Do as I say, not as I do.

You remind me of the peace protestors with their violent demonstrations, those who preach love, but scream down and even physically attack those who have differing values and opinions. Yet in their minds they are open-minded, intellectual and progressive.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on January 17, 2007 - 1:21pm.

Insider running as an outsider... coke sniffing... why am I getting 2000 flashbacks? :)

Submitted by jztz on January 17, 2007 - 1:49pm.

Obama has both intelligence (being elected the president of Harvard Review), and humulity (he worked as a community organizer in south Chicago, I don't remember for how many years. Anyone who knows about south Chicago can appreciate that choice!) that's so lacking in this administration; and the country is taking a beating because of it.

Occassionally, I think that his charistma may hide inexperience, and that's a slight concern. But he showed good judgement (voting against the war prior to the war!!!) and independence in thinking.

I actually hope to see that Hillary and Obama team up to bring the country back. Hillary has the rationality and deep intellect (Robert Rubin spoke well of her understanding of issues in his book; and many military leaders who initially doubted her said that they were impressed by how deeply she understood all the issues), and experiences. But she doesn't connect with people as well as Obama. I'd rather to see the two teaming up. Otherwise it's hard to know which one I'd vote for.

Note: for anyone who think that voting for Hillary is crazy, well, nothing is crazy since George Bush was "elected" - The lowest bar was set!

Submitted by jg on January 17, 2007 - 1:58pm.

Hey, public school graduates, partisanship in politics has been with us in America forever.

Dueling between Hamilton and Burr. Brooks beating Sumner over the head with a stick in Congress. Papers calling Jackson's wife, Rachel, a harlot.

You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies.

Read some of the old newspapers from this country's founding. You'll be amazed at the wit and sharpness of the attacks.

Submitted by North County Jim on January 17, 2007 - 1:58pm.

But he showed good judgement (voting against the war prior to the war!!!)

Indeed, he did not vote for the war. As far as I know, the Illinois Legislature had no say in the matter.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 17, 2007 - 2:26pm.

When I say an eye for an eye, I meant it in the context of Republicans not being afraid to get the big guns out to squash opposition to their policies. Democrats need to learn from that and give the Republicans some of their medicine. That's called deterrence.

I see the Republican party as a strict father able get his teenage children to toe the line through disciplinary measures. The Democractic father, on the other hand, would try to talk and reason with his kids who are running amok.

Imagine that Republican father and that Democratic father having a fight at a football game. If I were the Democratic father, I'd workout and take up Karate to give that husky Republican dad the fight he was itching for. After that, I'm sure that he won't mess with me again. There, problem solved. Sometimes in life, you have to bring out the big guns because reason doesn't always work.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 2:38pm.

soooo, well, again, you make my point, I read your last paragraph and I see the implied moral validation, predisposed attitude and expectancy of conflict, the subsequent physical preparation for violence and then it's initiation. And you rant about Bush and the "neocons"? LOL.

"Sometimes in life you have to bring out the big guns because reason doesn't always work." I take it you're referring to Cheney, Rumsfield et al? =) to quote cow-tipper, "cool"

Submitted by PerryChase on January 17, 2007 - 2:48pm.

I wouldn't strike pre-emptively but I would certainly be ready to strike back if one were to "mess" with me. Plus if you iniate the attack you're liable for "damages." Not so if you're just defending yourself.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 3:03pm.

jg, excellent point and post, poorgradstudent, it's deja-vu all over again ;).
I was supposed to graduate?

Submitted by zk on January 17, 2007 - 4:24pm.

jg, your last post is just more of the same. Your "sense of parody" is right along the lines of Rovian debate philosophy. Which is to say, not very well reasoned, not really making any logical points, not doing anything other than attempting to make others look silly and (if observers are intelligent and rational) only making yourself look silly in the process. Unfortunately, too many people in this country have been trained to act in an unintelligent and irrational fashion since Karl Rove masterminded the divide-and-conquer strategy that the Republicans have used over the last decade.

Sure, partisanship has been around for centuries. Millenia, really. Sure, Brooks beat Sumner over the head with a stick. The idea is to progress beyond that sort of simple, irrational, foolish behavior. The idea is to conduct ourselves in the civilized manner and discuss ideas in a way that is conducive to hearing each others' ideas and (in the case of politicians) making policy (based on those civilized discussions) that is best for our country. The idea that you can say, "You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies" and be thought of as anything other than distracing from reasonable discourse should be an idea that fell out of favor hundreds of years ago. And maybe that idea was fading out of favor as the last century ended. But it's back with a vengeance. It's become part of our culture. I say it's time to change that.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 17, 2007 - 5:52pm.

I appreciated jg's pointing out that partisan goes way back as you (zk) also agreed with, mainly since so many here state it started with the Republicans and Bush, (those who are more benevolent chronologically go back to Reagan) I believe you have used that even in this last post. As to the rest of his post well, it's the analogy he chooses to use, it doesn't bother me. One thing to consider, if you get such a charge from jg's post or jg for that matter you might consider the underlying issue is yours, not his.

I don't really get the Rovian Debate philosophy comment though. Tactic? Maybe, Strategy? Possibly. Philosophy? No.

If "Rovian debate philosophy" is structured in the manner you say then why do you get so charged up over it? IMHO, it's mostly a figment of your imagination and I think you are giving Rove and the Republicans way too much credit. Sometimes it's easier to blame others. My experience is on the surface it's others, underneath it's oneself.

I also disregard your comment of "too many people in this country..... and irrational fashion", I find that an extremely arrogant statement. You are saying/calling a large percentage of our population unitelligent and irrational - due to the fact they have/hold an opinion/ thoughts differing from those that you hold on to so vehemently.
It's a contradiction from your second paragraph (in which I think you could make a good point)but still a contradiction which calls your whole argument into question.

Submitted by zk on January 17, 2007 - 8:23pm.

sdnativeson, twice in your post you say I'm "charged up" by jg. I'm not quite sure where you get that from. What I said was that he was not really making any logical points, that he was making himself look silly, and that that type of comment distracts from rational discourse, Nothing charged there. No excitement. Just counterpoints to his manner of debate.

"As to the rest of his post well, it's the analogy he chooses to use, it doesn't bother me."

Calling people "public school graduates" and "ladies" and implying that they're not tough are not analogies. They're attempts to insult. Or, if you want to give jg the benefit of the doubt, you can call them what he calls them, which is parody. And insults from jg don't bother me except for the fact that they distract from the discussion. And that's the point: insults and parody have no place in a calm, rational discussion. Humor is fine. But attempting to parody or insult the other side generally ends up leading to division.

"I don't really get the Rovian Debate philosophy comment though. Tactic? Maybe, Strategy? Possibly. Philosophy? No."

You are correct. I should have said tactic or strategy.

If "Rovian debate philosophy" is structured in the manner you say then why do you get so charged up over it?

Again, I'm not charged up. And I don't know what you mean by "is structured in the manner you say." But the reason that I think it's bad for the country is that it distracts from discussion of what is best for our country.

I think you are giving Rove and the Republicans way too much credit.

It's possible. But I don't think so. Having watched the republicans in action over the last decade, their contempt for and ridicule of people who don't agree with them has been consistent and strong. Don't get me wrong; I think the democrats would do it just as much if they were any good at it. But they don't seem to be. And I think a big part of the reason for that is Karl Rove. I may be giving him too much credit, as I do give him tons of credit. It is my opinion that the man is quite a genius at what he does.

"I also disregard your comment of "too many people in this country..... and irrational fashion", I find that an extremely arrogant statement. You are saying/calling a large percentage of our population unitelligent and irrational - due to the fact they have/hold an opinion/ thoughts differing from those that you hold on to so vehemently."

You are correct about that being an arrogant opinion, but wrong about it being due to the fact that they have different opinions from me. I feel the same way about anyone who debates in that fashion, whether I agree with them or not. As far as the arrogance... I have no excuse for that. I do believe that a large percentage of our population acts in an unintelligent and irrational fashion. And is subject to the type of influence that Karl Rove and his minions provide. Note that I didn't say that they were unintelligent, just that they act that way sometimes. And I also believe that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion rather than insults and emotional manipulation.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.