An in-depth analysis of the Democratic frontrunner's own policies
The Obama train pulled out of Super Tuesday with a head full of steam, and proceeded to make the case for Democrat frontrunner status with Saturday and Tuesday's primary sweeps. The Democrats hottest property is winning voters in rural areas and the south, and giving Hillary Clinton a serious run for specifically her own money.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dan Miller
"Obnoxious. . . " You wrote,
"she does have the benefit of a husband with 8 years of experience. And despite the "party line" of experience not meaning a whole lot - I disagree, it does mean a lot. In fact, the more I look at Obama's platform, the more I am realizing just how much experience matters."
Obviously, as you also point out, the choice will be between Sen. Clinton OR Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. That's a given. However, right now the important question is whether the Democrat candidate will be Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. Once that is known, we will be in a better position to decide between the Democrat candidate and Sen. McCain.
As to experience, I tend to agree with those who credit her with lots of experience, most of it the wrong kind and much of it linked to the reasons so many people despise her and her husband. As to the "benefit" of a husband who was president for eight years -- what an eight years. Greed, corruption, untruth, lust for power and a whole lot of other disagreeable things.
President Truman, whom I admire more than any other president during my lifetime had lots of experience in politics and in the Senate. He grew up with the Democrat machine and, ultimately, pretty much turned on it. At the end of his presidency, with an approval rating in the low twenties, he would have been envious of President Bush's current popularity.
The presidency is a very different experience from any other. As I recall, Vice President Truman had one (1) meeting alone with President Roosevelt between the 1944 election and President Roosevelt's death; he was kept unaware of the Manhattan project until he became president. His useful experience in the White House was nonexistent. He was shunned by President Roosevelt's inner circle (and managed to get rid of most of them after he assumed office). He was there, like Sen. Clinton, but was not involved in the dirty work and cover ups as she was. As commented above, I don't credit much of Sen. Clinton's experience. On balance, President Truman did a very good job in very difficult circumstances. After WWII, through his Secretary of War (or was it then of Defense -- I don't remember) Johnson, he cut defense spending to the bone and then some, leaving us in bad shape for the Korean Conflict. BUT -- he recognized his mistake and did his best to correct it.
Recognizing and acknowledging mistakes is not one of Sen. Clinton's strong points. Nor, do I think, is her vicarious experience through her husband, President Clinton.
Dan
27 - troll
so 'noxious - any *system of good or services in exchange for other goods and services* is capitalism as you use the word...hardly any point in continuing to use it then
and it's ridiculous propaganda to claim that capitalism is the 'natural' result of economic interaction imo
28 - The Obnoxious American
Troll,
Are you serious? Do you want me to reiterate again that bartering is a subset of what capitalism is today?
Look, I guess you are right, and wikipedia and everyone else who disagrees with you is somehow mysteriously wrong.
Dan,
I never said I would vote for Clinton. I agree that the Clinton years were fraught with issues, but overall the country came out of it OK. This is because while Bill Clinton was a victim of his own compulsion, he also didn't try to change this country into a socialism. Well he did initially, but when everyone (including dems) smacked down hillary care, he wised up.
Economically, President Clinton received kudos from Alan Greenspan, with Mr. Greenspan saying that he was the best conservative president that he worked with.
On foreign policy, he tried. I disagreed with the whole yassir arafat coddling, but at the end of that process, he wised up then too.
I am by no means defending the Clinton presidency. But the fact is Clinton did not represent a real threat to the ideals this country is based on - at the end of his term of these very important issues, he did alright.
Reading Obama's populist platform is kind of scary for someone who believes in the underlying concepts of this country. Hillary too. Both candidates are leaning extreme left. Difference being Obama is truly a liberal, while Hillary just plays one on TV. All this said, I am voting McCain in November.
29 - The Obnoxious American
Dan,
One other thing, I do agree with your point, no one is every truly experienced. I think from term to term, the experience, the skills needed change. How can you possibly have the experience necessary for that? I don't think you can.
But I am really talking about a different kind of experience, almost a worldly wisdom. For example, Obama's change rhetoric sounds refreshing. But I can guaruntee that it drives hillary mad, because Obama probably reminds her of a younger, more idealistic version of herself, but with a much better talking game. And it's this type of experience that I'm talking about. Idealism, naivete, and a lot of power is a very bad combination, and that's the combination we end up with with a President Obama.
30 - troll
*Do you want me to reiterate again that bartering is a subset of what capitalism is today?* - and it is a subset of every economic system of exchange to date and it will be a subset of communism come the revolution...your bartering cavemen were not engaged in some sort of proto-capitalism despite your creation myth
31 - The Obnoxious American
There is no trade in a true communism. Everything is owned by everyone, and by the same token, no one. But ok sure, whatever you say...
32 - troll
once again showing your poor grip on this subject
unless you think that communism is going to do away with consumption it will have to involve exchange as ownership and possession are not the same thing by necessity...but then your argument is that all exchange is capitalism so communism is just a jub jub bird to scare the children with
but as you say: "ok sure, whatever you say..."
33 - Dan Miller
Obnoxious,
I think we agree more than we disagree.
My focus in these posts has been on Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Obama. When we know who the Democrat candidate is (and conceivably it may be neither, not likely but possible, I suppose) I will decide between him or her and Sen. McCain.
The Republic has survived some pretty horrible presidents. I think it could survive either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain and probably even Sen. Clinton. However, survival is not quite enough. The country is already excessively polarized, and with Sen. Clinton in office that problem would only get worse.
Based on recent polls (reliable polls is an oxymoron), I get the sense that Sen. McCain doesn't have a chance against Sen. Obama and only a slightly better chance against Sen. Clinton. Unfortunately, we have to consider the possibility that either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama will win the election. As between the two, I much prefer Sen Obama, warts and all, to Sen. Clinton.
If you ever get down south, to the mountains of the Republic of Panama, come for a visit. We will toast whomever gets elected with some great Panamanian rum.
Dan
34 - Dan Miller
Obnoxious,
Just one more point on experience:
Look at how the campaigns for Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have been run. Despite her "experience," Sen. Clinton has run a pretty miserable campaign. Despite his inexperience, Sen. Obama has run a pretty successful campaign. From an upstart with no chance, he now has more delegates than Senator Clinton. The inevitable winner, Sen. Clinton, seems to be less and less the choice of the party.
Much of a president's success in office depends upon whom he selects as his advisers, from Cabinet members down -- and, of course on his personal charisma. Sen. Clinton, thus far and despite her "experience," has done poorly. Is there any reason to anticipate that she will pick better advisers or demonstrate more charisma as president? I rather doubt it.
Dan
35 - Rob
Ah, who cares about policies? I just want me some HOPE and CHANGE!
36 - Propogandist
Exactly! We can always 'Hope' terrorism goes away and the budget balances itself and Iraq won't go into chaos and just 'Change' Iran and N. Korea's minds about the nuclear issues.
37 - Michael J. West
Obama is right that our system of taxes is unfair, but he is wrong about who it's unfair to. Americans who are in the top 50% of earners pay over 96% of all income taxes.
This figure is correct. But you, too, are wrong about to whom the tax system is unfair.
The top 10% of American earners control 90% of all the wealth in this country.
Thus the problem isn't that the top 50 percent pay too much in taxes...it's that the top 10 percent pay too little.
If you reshuffled the numbers so that the top 10 percent of earners paid 90 percent of the taxes, then the next 40 percent of earners paid 6 percent of the taxes, why, then, the 96% of the taxes that that 50% of the earners paid, would be absolutely fair.
38 - Dave Nalle
The top 10% of American earners control 90% of all the wealth in this country.
There's a flaw in your reasoning, Michael. We don't tax WEALTH, we tax INCOME. If we tax wealth we tax the same assets over and over and over again which is grossly unfair.
I agree that taxation should be proportional to earnings. Obviously the top earners should pay a LOT more taxes than those who earn less. But they should not pay more out of each dollar they earn just because they earn more.
Dave
39 - REMF
"Idealism, naivete, and a lot of power is a very bad combination, and that's the combination we end up with with a President Obama."
- Obnoxious American
So is that worse than GW Bush's combination of Desertion, lying (WMDs) and a lot of power?
40 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dee writes: There is a real terrorist threat out there I'm not naive to think there isn't, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia after 9-11? Almost all the hijackers where from there, hmmmm i wonder why we havn't caught Bin Laden too? He's supposed to be enemy # 1, when you say one thing and then do other things that make no sense, like invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us, then don't be surprised if people are suspect of your claims and your fear mongering surrounding the terrorist threat posed to this country...
OA answers: As far as attacking saudi arabia, come on now, you are just being silly. Even more silly considering your anti iraq stance. Would you really support a war against SA, one of our allies, even though they are one of our best allies in the war on terror? You are starting to show a lack of knowledge.
Dee, you need to use paragraphs - not because you are writing to entertain yourself, but because, whether you realize it or not, you're writing here to persuade people. On your blog or diary, if you don't ant to use paragraphs, others are free to walk away. This place is a bit different....
Having said that, you are the one with the intelligent point here. OA, you show your own lack of knowledge. The Saudis regard America as an enemy for the same reason that they regard all non-Moslems as enemies. They are not Moslems.
WAKE UP, DUDE!!!
41 - Michael J. West
There's a flaw in your reasoning, Michael. We don't tax WEALTH, we tax INCOME.
Yes, Dave, but wealth derives from income. If I have wealth, I have to have received it from somewhere - via some form of income.
42 - Lee Richards
1.) I can't decide to vote for McCain until I know who his running mate will be, because of the chance that's who we'll wind up with sometime in the future.
2.) Bush has lots of experience; what good has it been to us?
43 - handyguy
Rhetoric and bad habit can get in the way even for smart, reasonable people trying to discuss taxes. I'll repeat here a quote from a wonderful NY Times article from last fall called "Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts" [just read it, it's not a partisan argument]. The cold water of facts sometimes helps in a discussion like this.
A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling.
The top earners pay a bigger share of the government tab than in the past because their incomes have risen so sharply -- even more sharply than their tax bills.
44 - Baronius
I agree with Dan Miller that Obama seems more bipartisan than Clinton. Clinton could say that the sky is blue and get 40 votes against it in the Senate. But if Obama and Clinton have the same agenda, does it matter which one is more divisive?
Obama is running an ad in which he says that he will make health care affordable for everyone by bringing together Democrats and Republicans. Sorry, but you're not going to bring me together for that. Not for higher taxes, retreat, or abortion either. Obama's bipartisanship is the type that says "let's you and I agree I'm right".
45 - Krutic
I do agree with #14 about Obama seeming more bipartisan than Clinton. However the reason he 'seems' that way is because he hasn't done anything of substance in the Senate. He has played it safe, avoided confrontation and hasn't introduced any major legislation or cast a controversial vote on a bill that would cause rift with Republicans. Hell, he even avoided confrontation in the heavily Democratic IL Senate by casting numerous 'present' votes instead of Yes/No.
Not that I'm a big fan of the Clintons but I have to agree with Bill Clinton when he said that the Illinois senator was promoting a position that it's "actually an advantage to not have any experience because you've not made anybody mad."
So of course Obama seems bipartisan!
46 - Dan
Handyguy, if rich people are paying more of my share of the tax burden, then I don't begrudge them having sharply higher earnings.
This was an anticipated effect of the tax cuts.
One other striking feature of the NY Times article was the treatment of corporate taxes by the author. He seems to think corporate taxes should be higher, and that there are too many loopholes in paying them.
Corporate taxes are just an add on. It's passed on to the consumer, just as surely as a sales tax is. The corporations don't actually pay it, they collect it for the government.
Liberals pretend to not understand this. But if you were to argue to them that poor people who rent housing don't pay property taxes, they are quick to point out that the landlord must collect the property tax as an add on to the rent. So obviously they're just being dishonest.
Warren Buffett is likewise misleading when he claims he payed a lesser rate of income tax than his secretary.
Buffett's "income" was from capital gains on investment. Like shares of stock. His corporation doesn't pay him a dime. So he doesn't pay income tax. If his secretary wanted to take some of her earned money and risk it in the market, she would get that same rate.
Obama wants to almost double capital gains tax to 28%.
This article is about the best analysis of Obama policies I've seen so far. Good work obnoxious.
47 - Michael J. West
But if Obama and Clinton have the same agenda, does it matter which one is more divisive?
Depends on if you like the agenda.
48 - handyguy
Dan should read more carefully: The Times article said we should have lower corporate taxes with fewer loopholes, instead of higher rates with lotsa loopholes as we have now.
It also didn't say people made more money because of tax cuts. It said sharply higher incomes led to a higher proportion of total tax revenue from the wealthiest segment of the population. So it's misleading of Obnoxious to complain that the rich are paying too much tax because of higher rates - the rates are lower but the incomes are higher.
It also points out that after the Bush Senior and Clinton tax increases, the 90s were still a long period of economic growth, just as there has been growth since the Bush tax cuts. Meaning the tax hikes and cuts may not be the main thing driving growth or the lack thereof, even though Republicans accept this as unquestioned gospel.
The cause and effect of tax cuts and hikes are not as straightforward as the author of this piece and others would like to believe.
It's also worth remembering that although John McCain gives other reasons now, at the time he said the Bush tax cuts were too slanted toward the rich [as well as an irresponsible reversal of the budget surplus]. And he was right the first time.
49 - Dave Nalle
Yes, Dave, but wealth derives from income. If I have wealth, I have to have received it from somewhere - via some form of income.
Income also derives from wealth, and wealth certainly doesn't always come from earned income. Wealth can be transferred directly through inheritance or other forms of capital exchange. Wealth can be built directly through investment. It can be created through entrepreneurism and pure hard work which creates an asset which can then be sold. Most large amounts of wealth certainly DO NOT come from simple income.
Dave
50 - handyguy
The media, the Democrats, and even independents and Republicans have given Obama a free pass on talking about his policy…The candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.
This isn’t true. So the whole premise of the article is false. Mr. Obnoxious is not the first to note that Obama’s campaign is about inspiration rather than policy wonkishness. Hillary Clinton, for one, and nearly all the media, despite OA’s claim otherwise, have brought this up several times a day every day since Super Tuesday, and many times before that as well.
One of the reasons for Obama's lack of emphasis on policy specifics is the lack of strong policy differences with HRC herself. Because they are largely in agreement, there isn’t much policy to debate. There will be more focus on policy in the general election campaign.
Simply saying: “He’s a liberal; I don’t like liberals; so he’s not going to change me; if he can’t change me, he can’t change politics or the country” first of all puts too much importance on your own opinions and worldview, and second and most importantly, misses the point:
Obama's ability to inspire people has more to do with appealing to their better nature. He really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this - not just to get votes, but to change the country. Certainly there are no guarantees, certainly not in government or politics. But there is excitement in seeing people genuinely moved by a positive message. We can react cynically, or we can hope it leads somewhere good.
You seem to think that in order to accomplish this, Obama has to change his views and become more conservative. A counterexample would be Ronald Reagan: Asked about his individual policies, a majority of Americans often disagreed with them; but they liked him and found him inspirational, and so they went along with the policies. They hadn’t suddenly become rabid right-wingers; they were following a strong leader.
The same thing could happen this time with Obama. You won’t like it if it does, just as I cringed to see people loving Ronald Reagan. But that won’t keep it from happening.
Finally, you ignore the single most important aspect of “Change” in this election:
Either of the leading Democrats will be a sharp change from the current president, eh?
51 - handyguy
Here are more specific rebuttals to the foreign-policy issues Mr. Obnoxious brings up. Some of this is similar to other comments I've made on Blogcritics, because, well, I was right then too. =)
On Iraq
In the fall, when McCain says he wants to keep combat troops in Iraq, indefinitely, he will be on the losing side of public opinion. When Obama says he will withdraw the troops, he will be on the winning side of public opinion. No, you’re not going to agree with him; doesn’t matter. Yes, there are serious complications to be considered whether the troops stay or go; but the only equation that counts is Whoever will get us out = wins.
On the Larger War on Terror
First, a smaller point on the wiretapping controversy: the phone companies are being immunized against prosecution, because they broke the law, not just against lawsuits.
And this canard is offensive, and false:
Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war.
I happen to believe that the “War on Terror” is not a war at all; it is a propaganda campaign. Using it as an excuse to subvert the Constitution ought to disturb you if you love this country as much as you say.
And in fact, John McCain is not nearly as keen on curbing Americans’ personal liberties or ignoring the rights of non-Americans as you seem to be. He’s on record as being strongly anti-torture, and wants to close Guantanamo. No matter who wins in the fall, the next government will have better policies on detainees and Americans’ liberties than we have now under Bush.
What the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission. If we made a genuine effort to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, instead of living up to the worst caricatures of our behavior and policies, there might actually be hope for this.
Think of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Iraq invasion itself, the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, wireless wiretapping, our continued, uncritical 'friendships' with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and yes, certainly, our one-sided attitude in the Palestinian situation. When moderates in Iran sent an olive branch [pre-Ahmadinejad], Bush ignored it.
If we don't seriously attempt to refute and prove wrong the propaganda of the Islamists, their propaganda will of course win. Obama is more likely to be able to do this successfully than John McCain.
So 9/11 was what, an aberration? Dumb luck?
Not provable or disprovable. But it's beginning to look more and more like that's a possibility, yes. Most of the plots since then have been smaller in scale, only tenuously connected to each other if at all, often incompetent [e.g. Glasgow airport], or in fact mostly imaginary [this includes most of the guys arrested inside the US, like that pitiful crew in Miami].
This did not stop the government from wasting taxpayer money in prosecuting them, or from patting itself on the back for thus "keeping us safe." Pretty nauseating, really.
There is not one convincing case of another US-based plot, one that would ever have succeeded at any rate. If you believe this is because Bush's team are brilliant at law enforcement...well, I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn you'll want to come look at.
Yes, there are fanatics in the world who are willing to do unspeakable, unthinkable things. The question is whether we can actually prevent them from these acts, or whether it makes more sense to reduce the appeal of the fanatics' message and increase the appeal of our own.
By always responding to threats with more threats and with violence and with restriction of civil rights, and by invading countries without good cause, we increase the numbers of alienated young men who hate us and who are open to the ideas of fanatics. We make the world more dangerous, not safer.
I know that you and your fellow militarists and right-wingers will never buy it, but I believe the diplomacy of Obama will make us safer than the militarism of McCain.
52 - bliffle
Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war.
Well now, that's a dangerous syllogism. It might lead an unscrupulous person desiring dictatorial power to use any means, lying, cheating, dissembling, etc., to create a war just to gain power.
Say, you don't suppose...
53 - Krutic
Handyguy,
On your point about Iraq, if you really believe any Democrat will withdraw troops right away as they promise to do - you'll be in for a rude awakening. It would be political suicide to do so as well as serious threats to the security of Iraq and hence the broader middle east.
I have a great article for you to read by David Brooks of the New York Times. Search for the article on NYtimes.com (titled 'When Reality Bites' dated Feb 08,2008).
To quote an important point from that article:
"But if either (Clinton or Obama) of them actually did that (withdraw troops), he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.
There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year.
A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.
There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can't evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest.
They would point out that it's insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.
All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama's unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president's head."
And as for your point on the war on terror, it is dangerously naive and idealistic (much like Obama).
Until you and Obama convince Osama and Hezbollah and others to give up their arms I would like their phones and emails monitored.
I'd also like Iran to know that the military option is on the table and I would like 'the fluke' (as you claim it is) of us not having been attacked in more than 6 years to continue.
I don't know about you but I just feel safer that way.
54 - Dan
"Dan should read more carefully: The Times article said we should have lower corporate taxes with fewer loopholes, instead of higher rates with lotsa loopholes as we have now."
Actually, I stated this interpretation in my comment.
After explaining why corporate taxes are an add on passed down to the consumer, I didn't think further comment was necessary.
"Loopholes" is just a word to mislead readers to believe corporations are sneaking income past tax collecters, when really it is usually just a common and justifiable write off for research, expansion, and developement. Good things that increase employment, lower costs, and improve products.
The Times article is bogus.
55 - handyguy
Your saying that a thoughtful, fact-filled, non-partisan article is bogus just exposes your own bias.
56 - handyguy
Krutic:
I read the David Brooks article and it makes a good point, although assuming that this is exactly what will happen requires a degree of clairvoyance that you, I and Mr. Brooks all lack.
My point was that Obama's position on Iraq is the most likely to win votes in the fall election.
And calling my position on terrorism naive is the easy way out. Where are the terrorist plots inside the US? Why have the ones that have been "prevented" turned out to be so puny or even just fantasies? Why isn't it a good idea to try addressing the reasons so many others in the world [not just Muslims] fear and despise us? Maybe insisting on militarism at the expense of good sense is the real naivete.
57 - Dan
Handyguy, I read the article, found fault with it, and explained why.
If that makes me biased, then I prefer to remain that way until my criticism's are countered.
58 - handyguy
You only repeated an opinion you had already set in concrete, in your completely non-open mind, about corporate taxes, which is maybe a fifth or less of the article [written by David Leonhardt, who has been writing excellent pieces on economics in the Times for 8 years]. You do not directly refute anything in the article. You just call the whole thing bogus. Then you pretend to be surprised that anyone would call you on it.
I have watched you pull this "I'm just being reasonable and logical" bit before, when the subject was gay marriage. Then as now, the real subject is your own narrow range of knowledge and opinion, and your utter intolerance for anything outside that range.
59 - CindyD
What the F are you yacking about OA? Put something resembling a point in the first page for god's sake. I have better things to do than read more than one full page of nonsense!
60 - handyguy
Yay, CindyD is back! Although you have been more eloquent in the past. Is this the same Cindy?
61 - bliffle
HEY!!!!
BA DING
BA DA BING
(looking around)
Is this the "Official Obama Hit Piece" site? I gotta couple good ones:
"I went to an Obama rally and it was just like a religious revival meeting! But this is the first time that Jesus himself spoke!"
"We have two democratic candidates for president. On is from New York and was born in Illinois, the other is from Illinois and was born in a manger".
62 - Dan
"I have watched you pull this "I'm just being reasonable and logical" bit before, when the subject was gay marriage. Then as now, the real subject is your own narrow range of knowledge and opinion, and your utter intolerance for anything outside that range."
The subject then wasn't just "gay marriage" anymore than the subject now is just taxes.
If you can't counter the arguments, or even seperate the issues, then your charge of my "intolerance" or "narrow range of knowledge" has little impact.
63 - The Obnoxious American
HandyGuy:
"the candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.
This isn't true. So the whole premise of the article is false. "
Handyguy, if you are going to suggest that Obama's policies have been a focus over the last weeks or even days, you are not dealing with reality. This is one of the first if not the first article on BC that talks exclusively about Obama's policies. That alone goes to my point. But the sheer fact that Obama is viewed as a "bi-partisan" candidate goes further to the issue of his policies not really being known by the public.
You need to do more than make a statement with nothing to back it up. Further to wit:
"Simply saying: "He's a liberal; I don't like liberals; so he's not going to change me; if he can't change me, he can't change politics or the country" first of all puts too much importance on your own opinions and worldview, and second and most importantly, misses the point:"
Did I simply say that? Please. This 5 page article goes into depth about why he is a liberal, and picks apart each stance he's taken. I've quoted Obama, I've linked to each issue on his website. If that to you equals me "simply saying: he's a liberal" then let's just stop conversing now.
"Obama's ability to inspire people has more to do with appealing to their better nature. He really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this"
This isn't about his ability to inspire (which I acknowledge in the first few paragraphs anyway). This is about the free pass he's gotten on the issues. It's important for people who are inspired by this guy to understand his platform. That's the point of this article. Hitler inspired people too, not that Obama is comparable from a policy standpoint :>.
"You seem to think that in order to accomplish this, Obama has to change his views and become more conservative."
No, I think that for a guy running under the banner of change and bi-partisanship, people don't realize just how liberal this guy really is. It's not just his voting history that's liberal, it's the very stances he is running on in 08. I don't expect Obama to change, but I do expect voters, once given a glimpse of his platforms, to change who they are voting for.
"Finally, you ignore the single most important aspect of "Change" in this election:
Either of the leading Democrats will be a sharp change from the current president, eh?"
I hardly think I missed it. In fact, your comments bely a missing of the point. Not just a change from the current president, but also a change to the long held values of this country that focus on free enterprise, and capitalism, in lieu of some socialism posing as change, from a candidate with scant experience. It's this that I object to. Perhaps he will be elected, perhaps people will love him. I don't question or predict either. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT POLICIES.
"but the only equation that counts is Whoever will get us out = wins."
OK, that's your position. But you are in the minority. Most Americans do want the war to end, but most Americans also do not want us to just up and leave, and most Americans don't want us leave Iraq a failed state.
Moreover, military experts disagree with YOU whole heartedly. So you and Obama can enjoy your shared views with the rest of the extreme liberal orthodoxy. But don't pretend that your personal axe grinding of Bush and "his" war in Iraq is the same as a real way forward for this country. Nor have you answered the complex issues I raised regarding such a withdrawal, other than to allude to them.
"First, a smaller point on the wiretapping controversy: the phone companies are being immunized against prosecution, because they broke the law, not just against lawsuits.
And this canard is offensive, and false:
Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war."
Right, so the presidential directive of telecom to work with the CIA and NSA in the face of a terrorist threat is plainly against the law? Not really, in fact the president has special wartime powers. I know, I know most dems have forgotten about these powers as a result of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and this isn't a real war anyway right? Continuing on your piece:
"I happen to believe that the "War on Terror" is not a war at all; it is a propaganda campaign. "
Seemed pretty real to me when I looked south and saw the twin towers on fire. This is the most important thing you can say, that you don't believe in the war on terror.
I think that's what seperates you and I, I see a real threat, I want to deal with it. You pretend the threat isn't real, and the Dem talking points chutzpah knows no bounds to suggest that it is me who is operating from a position of fear (see politics of fear). To me, it's not the guy who tries to fight battles that operates from a position of fear, it's the guys who bury their heads in the sand when faced with a threat, and pretend it does not exist...
"Using it as an excuse to subvert the Constitution ought to disturb you if you love this country as much as you say. "
It does, and I mention that in the article. Did you read it? Can you provide a few examples where ordinary American's rights were systematically trashed in the name of the WOT?
"And in fact, John McCain is not nearly as keen on curbing Americans' personal liberties or ignoring the rights of non-Americans as you seem to be."
As I seem to be? Re-read the section. I support McCain, and one of the things I like about him is that he truly is a bi-partisan, as opposed to Obama's faux bi-partisanship. Interesting that you talk about McCain so much, perhaps you should be casting your vote for him in November.
Here is where you really start to lose me:
"What the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission."
Look, I won't continue arguing with someone who thinks the US is at root for the whole jihadist mentality of OBL and his ilk. I'm not in the business of making excuses for murderous gangs and criminals. Sure, we've allied where we were not supposed to, sure we've done things that we should not be proud of. So has every single country on this planet. No excuse to blow people up on a bus or fly a plane into a building of civillians.
Fact is, the biggest enemy to moderate Islam is the leaders of these middle eastern countries themselves. And even in cases where the populace was allowed to vote, they chose these very terrorist regimes, belying a whole lot of misinformation. Of course that misinformation rules the day in a developing nation is not a surprise to me. What is surprising is how much misinformation rules the day here in this fully developed nation (your points to wit).
"Most of the plots since then have been smaller in scale, only tenuously connected to each other if at all, often incompetent [e.g. Glasgow airport], or in fact mostly imaginary [this includes most of the guys arrested inside the US, like that pitiful crew in Miami]."
Foolishness to suggest that this issue isn't important because some of the attacks that WE KNOW ABOUT were crude in nature. Some that we know about were not crude. And as 911 proved, even a crude attack, with razor blades and seatbelt extensions, can cause a whole lot of damage to a society. It will only take a few crude attacks to cause massive problems in our society.
"I know that you and your fellow militarists and right-wingers will never buy it, but I believe the diplomacy of Obama will make us safer than the militarism of McCain"
Based on what exactly? McCain's sober reading of the situation on the ground in Iraq, versus Obama's fantasy that the war in Iraq will "End" once we withdraw?
Cindy,
Love that you couldn't be bothered to read this. I'm sure the lack of knowledge won't stop you from voting Obama. Enjoy that.
Ruvy,
You are very disappointing to me. Dee is right? Sure.
I really hope for the sake of Israel, that Obama does not get elected President. But if he does get elected, as his foreign policy plays out, I will gain a measure of pleasure knowing that you supported him. Wake up dude.
64 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Quick answer for you, Obnoxious. Fooliahness apparently becomes you. For Jews who support Israel, THERE IS NO DECENT CHOICE AMONG THE GOYISHER PRINCES. Full Stop.
Each and every one of the pricks running for president in your country will follow an anti-Israel agenda, the agenda dictated by the CFR. Each of them will clothe it differently, but the bottom line will be to destroy slowly the Jewish entity here. This is the policy of the sitting "prick-in-chief" the grandson of an active supporter of Adolf Hitler, and the headwaiter of the ibn Sauds.
That you cannot see that the Wahhabis are enemies of your country, you are as blind as the "rabbi" who heads up the Reform back-stabbers in your country, Eric Yoffie.
Saddam Hussein was nothing but a thug who spawned rapists, but he was a loyal thug. The asshole stayed bought. It was the United States that double-crossed him in 1990 when it pretended to give him the go-ahead to occupy Kuweit and then turned around, played with the satellite photos of Iraqi positions in Kuweit, and parlayed those lies into an American troop presence in Saudi Arabia.
I leave you to figure out why.
Again, I repeat my advice to Jews in America. Turn the page and boycott these elections. Vote for everybody but the president. There is nobody running who will not double-cross you.
65 - The Obnoxious American
"That you cannot see that the Wahhabis are enemies of your country, you are as blind as the "rabbi" who heads up the Reform back-stabbers in your country, Eric Yoffie."
Firstly, I never said the Saudis were our friends. In fact, if you read my response fully, you'd see that what I was saying is that our diplomacy with them is proof that Bush does talk to our enemies. Not all enemies are created equal, and different policies need to be applied accordingly.
Here is the full comment for your edification:
"And we should attack the Saudis why? I am not saying they are a pefect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-semetic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish.
Interestingly, this turn's Obama's claim of the bush admin not talking to it's enemies on it's head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them. Obviously, the Sauds are much more willing to be open to our requests than the Iranians, and thus we talk to them. The same offer is on the table for Iran or North Korea, and they know this."
And I have to say, your hatred for fellow Jews who happen to follow a different, but still peaceful, still respectable version of Judaism is perplexing to say the least, but also outright self hating and prejudice.
I happened to have grown up around orthodox Judaism, but the idea of hating other Jews for following a less strict version of Judaism is just silly. And considering the vast amount of anti-semitism out there, plain stupid.
There are simply not enough Jews in this world to hate any one of them. You should be ashamed!
66 - The Obnoxious American
Just so everyone is clear on the Jew that Ruvy is trashing, here is an excerpt from Yoffie when meeting with the Islamic Society of North America:
"And what can we do, American Muslims and Jews? Three things, I believe.
First, while the terms of a settlement must be negotiated by the two parties, an American role in achieving such a settlement will be essential. Therefore, we must urge our government to commit itself to active, high-level engagement, in order to move the parties toward peace.
Second, if the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is seen in religious rather than political terms, resolving it becomes impossible. If Israel is portrayed as “a dagger pushed into the heart of Islam,” rather than a nation-state disputing matters of land and water with the Palestinians, we are lost. As religious Jews and religious Muslims, let us do everything in our power to prevent a political battle from being transformed into a holy war.
And finally, to all those who desecrate God’s name by using religion to justify killing and terror, let us say together: enough.
No cause in the world, and surely no religious cause, can ever justify murdering the innocent or targeting the uninvolved. You cannot honor a religion of peace through violence; you cannot honor God if you do not honor the image of God in every human being; and you cannot get to heaven by creating hell on earth. If we can agree on nothing else, let us agree on this, and let us remain united on this point, come what may."
I take issue with Yoffie's apparent softness on the issue of Islamic terror and his willingness to give a benefit of the doubt. However, to refer to this man, this Jew, this Rabbi, as a "reform back-stabber" is plainly disgusting.
67 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"And we should attack the Saudis. Why? I am not saying they are a perfect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-Semitic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish."
Interestingly, this turns Obama's claim of the Bush admin not talking to its enemies on its head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them.
I fixed your spelling - you're welcome.
Like most American Jews, you are an expert at lying to yourself. If you want to lie to yourself, you only endanger yourself, but when you expect others to believe those lies, you endanger them. George Bush is not "talking to the enemy" in talking to the ibn Sauds - HE IS TALKING TO HIS EMPLOYER!!! The big reason that no Saudis were ever arrested over 9/11 is that George Bush would have been pissing on his boss' shoes! That is why all the attention was focused away from the Wahhabis in Riyadh, to the black sheep of the bin-Laden family,
ObamaOsama. The whole Wahhabi movewment is designed to undermine the United States and all other countries in the Dar al-harb, as well as all Moslems who are not Wahhabi. Your basic ignorance of this reality colors your perceptions, and allows you to lie to yourself about the intentions of the Bush administration regarding a whole host of things, including the ultimate fate of your homeland - ISRAEL.You additionally lie to yourself in thinking that because Jews haven't been waterboarded by Catholic priests in an inquisition, or burned at the stake, or driven out of their homes in pogroms, that America is better than Israel, and that you do not need Israel. You are not alone in following this delusion and in wrapping yourself in the Stars and Stripes. Millions of Jews are just like you, regard Israel as a mere hobby at best, and you will all suffer for this in the not too distant future, when the American economy tanks and your non-Jewish neighbors turn on you in a fury of blame. I do not hate you for this. I honestly pity you; and not just you. I pity my sister, my nephews, their children, and if they have them, their children as well. I pity my cousins who resolutely refuse to come here even for a visit. So what I write is not written out of hatred. It is written out of pain and sorrow. New York is not Jerusalem and neither is Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But only in sorrow will you learn this, if you ever learn this at all.
As for the back-stabber who heads the Reform movement, he is a traitor to the Jewish people for saying that he will support "concessions" over Jerusalem. He has no right to intervene in the politics of this country and put my sons, who will have to wear a uniform to defend this country, in any danger at all with his irresponsible babbling. If I pursue this further, I'll pursue this in my own article. The goal is not to hijack yours.
68 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
Why are we talking about Bush? This article is about Obama. We in the US are going to have an election to pick the next president, not the current one.
McCain, linked in the left wing mainstream media to Bush, and linked in extreme GOP circles to Hillary, is clearly not continuing the policies of Bush. And given that both the extreme left and right seem to have issue with him, he must be doing something right.
Contrast that with Obama who by all accounts (at least those that have knowledge of his platform) is an extreme liberal. Notice the Obama defenders in this thread, not a moderate Democrat among them. I'd even defend Mr. Obama if he was as moderate - he isn't.
You talk badly about Jews, rabbi's no less, offering concessions on Jerusalem, yet you chastise me when I take Obama to task. This makes no sense at all. Do you think the American liberal ideology, and Obama's ideology specifically would support Israel to your standards of no concessions? Do you really think that Obama's policy to have open negotiations with our enemies would help protect Jerusalem as much as McCain's more hawkish positions on foreign policy and support on Israel?
It's worth reiterating that both Obama and McCain are supporters of Israel, but Obama's leftist ties and commitment to open negotiations with enemies makes me question just how much he'd support Israel when the chips are down, or when the bargaining point is something like a specific town such as Jerusalem. At the very least, Obama's position at the start hampers his ability to support more hawkish actions taken by the Israelies.
So much hate in you, so much hate directed towards other Jews. It makes me wonder whether you are real, or whether you are a charicature made up by people who actually hate Israel and use your persona to convince others to feel the same.
69 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Let's return one last time to this issue before I work on my own article.
1. I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about the fact that you are lying to yourself. It's worth reiterating that both Obama and McCain are supporters of Israel, Say what?! No supporter of this country will support the expulsion of over a quarter million Jews from their homes, and that is what what both Barack Obama and John McCain support. Is that "support of Israel" because these idiots do not support the total destruction of the Jewish entity here?
That's called self-delusion, OB. So long at you do not put it out for the rest of the world to read, you endanger yourself alone. The minute you do, you endanger others.
2. Previously, you yourself have stated "I support a Palestinian state" - your words, not mine. From where you sit, if you want to support a twenty-third Arab state on Jewish land, get your damned ass over here and stay in S'derot for a few months, so you comprehend what yet another Arab state means!! To put it bluntly, you have no comprehension of what you are talking about. Put you ass where your mouth is, like I do!!
3. Neither you not any other Jew has the right to endanger those of us who have come home to live in our country from the "comforts" of exile. And you have no right to peddle your bullshit anywhere in the name of Jews, American or otherwise. That goes double for that loud mouthed son of a bitch, Eric Yoffie, who uses his position and power to undermine my safety and that of my children. When you get here and put your own life on the line to defend this nation, then you can open your mouth - not before!!
70 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Finally, to repeat what I said earlier - there is no good choice for Jews in this election THAT MEANS THAT OBAMA IS GARBAGE, McCAIN IS GARBAGE AND CLINTON IS GARBAGE. That is why I suggest repeatedly to Jews in America - "turn the page, vote for everybody but the president; do that and the politicians will notice; they count votes seven ways from Sunday and will want to know why they can't snow snow Jews anymore with their bullshit on Israel."
71 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
I welcome your article. In the meantime:
1) You're wrong about McCain. He backed the lebanese action (as did Obama), and he is a staunch supporter of Israel. Comparitively, Obama may have a hard time being as hawkish given his liberal credentials. McCain won't and that's why he would be better for Israel.
2) Yes, I have said that, and I still stand by it. I don't support the "right to return" don't support concessions on Jerusalem. But if you want to try and demonize me and turn me into some anti jewish monster because I also happen to believe that the 1.5 million or so Palestinians should also have an actual state to call their own then so be it.
You know, you can support palestinian statehood and still be a staunch supporter of Israel. In fact, I think it's a bit hypocritical, given the fact that a mere 60 years or so ago that it was the Jews who were asking for the same thing.
3) I'd like you to provide even one shred, one hint, one ioda of evidence that there has been anything I've done to endanger Jews. Your antics here have done more than enough damage to Jews.
4) In a general election between two candidates, Obama and McCain, one will win. If you want to ask American Jews to choose "none of the above," then you are advocating that they squelch their own voices on the matter. Realize someone will win regardless of whether Jews, a scant 2.2% of the entire populace votes.
So the question you should ask yourself, do you want American Jews voting for a liberal, who is anti-war but voices support for Israel, versus a decorated war veteran, who made public comments in support of Israel's war against Lebanon, and is the most hawkish candidate amongst the three in front of us now?
"None of the above" may be a great choice for Monty Brewster, but that was a movie. This is real life. In what will be one of the most tightest elections in history, everyone should be casting a vote for one of the two candidates, based on their policies. To do otherwise is a waste.
72 - handyguy
Obnoxious conveniently ignores the most direct rebuttal to his argument I put forward, comparing Obama to Reagan. If Obama wins, it will be a left version of what happened in 1980 and 1984: people who were not necessarily convinced by policy positions were still convinced we needed change and charismatic leadership, so they voted outside their previous comfort zone.
Thus the term "Reagan Democrats"; and thus the possibility of "Obama Republicans," of whom the most prominent Blogcritics example is Clavos, and about whom Obama did a very funny comedy routine ["Why are we whispering?"] the other day.
I was unhappy about those two 80s elections. It's possible Obnoxious and Friends will be unhappy this November. I'd say they've earned it.
73 - handyguy
Look, I won't continue arguing with someone who thinks the US is at root for the whole jihadist mentality of OBL and his ilk.
Foolishness to suggest that this issue isn't important because some of the attacks that WE KNOW ABOUT were crude in nature. Some that we know about were not crude.
Of course I think this issue is important, and it's offensive and simplistic of you to say otherwise. I just think the current administration has bungled the response to terror very badly. Most of the world was on our side as of Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the attacks. Much of the world despises us now.
Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but possibly, just possibly, we could have responded to the terrorist threat in ways that didn't alienate more than half the rest of the earth's population. It will take decades to undo that very real damage.
It's as if we set out to infuriate as many young Muslim men and create as many new and committed terrorists as we could: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the subversion of the very freedoms we claim to fight for.
I'm not making excuses for 9/11, I'm talking about the harm we've done since - harm that has made the world a much more dangerous place to live in.
Six years ago we could have started changing peoples' minds. Instead we chose to say "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks; and if that makes you angry, screw you."
You imply that there are more convincing examples of terrorist plots, but we just don't know about them. And you actually call me naive? Go ahead, believe every nightmare bedtime story Dick Cheney tells you. I think the administration has used fear, shamelessly, to win votes. And you repeat a lot of the same empty rhetoric. I hope, pray, and believe it's losing its power.
And yes, I do believe Barack Obama offers a very real alternative, and is potentially a great president.
74 - Clavos
"and about whom Obama did a very funny comedy routine ["Why are we whispering?"] the other day."
Wasn't the punch line actually, "Thank you"?
It's much funnier that way...
75 - Dr Dreadful
Obama did a comedy routine about Clavos??!