In this Discussion
- beckysioux May 2008
- canoe7grape May 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- cross98bengal February 2008
- DJRose May 2008
- dollarflame6 May 2008
- manx9shrine February 2008
- mayonaise January 2008
- moveadvice72 March 2008
- QueenofthePosers February 2008
- target35ghost February 2008
- Tempe Arizona September 2008
- thephantommilk May 2008
- tune1shade April 2008
- week84crab February 2008
- women60banana September 2008
Comments
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
As I said, Reagan "getting things done" is irrelevant and completely out of context. It's like if I asked you for an example of something yellow, and you said "banana" and I said, "A banana is not a good example because it doesn't make a good vehicle. You should've said 'taxi.'"
A banana is unquestionably yellow, just as Reagan unquestionably unified parties. In contrast, for the past 8 years this nation has been split down the line into red state- blue state instead of one whole United States. We're like two different peoples right now, Republican versus Democrat, Red versus Blue. Whatever happened to "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? Look further back than Bush: we were still divided. Bill Clinton is famous for his clashes with a republican congress. I say let's have a country that debates issues and makes progress rather than deadlocking legislation purely because of party lines. Let's have diversity and exchange of views that compromises rather than a kind of "you're a different party, omg" hatred, and really, discrimination.
Maybe Clinton should get over herself and get over the fact that Reagan was a republican and admit that he did transcend party lines; let's not deny that a banana is yellow because the context of transporation allows us to distort words dirty-politician-style.
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. It's a great concept, a great word, but what is it? Bill Clinton may have had clashes with the Republican congress, but his era was one of budget surplus, (attempted) reform on the health care system, and initiated welfare reforms. Surely, he wasn't a perfect president (ex. refusing to do more for gays in the armed services besides "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), but he definitely had his points. He may not have been a unifier in the same way Reagan was, but he was still a rather good president.
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. ...
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
This is where things are shaky in what we're discussing. I'm *not* arguing for "unifier over person of policy," which is what you're saying I'm arguing for- and Obama is *not* a person of "unity over policy," which is what you're implying he is. Never ever did Obama say he was. Obama simply mentioned that reaching out to Republicans is needed in order to win the election. In addition to the abstract "unity is good," the statement that the vote of Republicans is needed to win is a very logical statement. Of course republican votes are needed!!! In a 2-party 50-50 nation, you need some republicans to look past party lines and vote democrat, or else we'll have a 51-49 Bush-Gore situation all over again. Refuting that is like refuting that 1+1 =2.
Now, just saying that 1+1=2 doesn't mean you don't care that 5*3=15. Just because Obama said unity is needed doesn't mean he said unity supersedes policy. Obama isn't going to leave out policy for unity, or leave out unity for policy. He's not stupid and he doesn't only care about 1 thing. He cares, as matter of fact, about many more things than Clinton does. He's policy plans are sound and innovative- please do read his platform, for nowhere does he say "unity over policy." Also look at her dirty tactics, from false tears, third party money, distorting words, and pushing polls (which are illegal in some states) to playing the gender card in moments of weakness.
Also, I have to say that the "unity" that followed 9/11 was kind of scary. It was very much Rusty Ross's "just put another American flag on the bumper of your escalade." (That song made me love Rusty even more) Sticking flags all over the place doesn't make you patriotic or mean you understand democracy. In fact, it was during this period of zealous attitude that many Arabs and Muslims were the victims of hate crimes by Americans. If unity has to come from war or tragedy, it's not real unity and we have a big problem.
And now I think I've written too much and I really should get go study...I love debating with you and sorry if I sound pushy...I need to get over my forum addiction. um, in conclusion, Clinton is a dirty member of the old gaurde.
It is true that reaching out to Republicans is needed to win the election, I think I just react badly to mention of Reagan, regardless of the context.
I started growling slightly at the mention of Reagan, too, lol - he was great friends with our ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a woman who I despise more than any other human being I can think of at the moment. She was considered a unifier too, until she actually got into power. Disgusting woman.
Anyway, the point I was actually going to make was about needing Republican votes in order to win - do you?? Don't you have 'floating voters' in the states? Over here, there are some hardcore Labour supporters, some hardcore Conservatives, and then the in-betweens who make up their mind based on the individual policies and people. Those are the ones who are the most targeted in Britain. Don't you have that?
We do, just not enough of them these days. Politics in the US has been very polarized the last few years, and frankly with the last two elections having been as close as they were, it's more and more important to win by a larger margin.
The one thing that really gets me about Obama is his similarity to Deval Patrick, the new(-ish) governor of Massachusetts. Their campaigns have incredible similarities, and their public images, and their backgrounds (african american, opportunity for good education, on to Harvard law, etc.), even their power to convince voters with pure rhetoric.
Now, I was all for Patrick when he ran, but then again, he was running against Kerry Healey, Romney's lieutenant governor...*shudder*... it wasn't exactly a choice. I did really like him, though.
The thing is, I haven't been able to keep up with Patrick's actions as governor, so I don't know how he's done as a newcomer, etc. If I had more confidence in Patrick, more knowledge that Patrick has been a decent governor so far, and that his actions in power haven't really gone against his campaign...
If I just knew how well Patrick has done in office, then I would be SO much more confident in Obama as a candidate and as a future president. Because I seriously want to believe in him.
I mean, it could change my whole view of the election if I had proof that Obama could (or couldn't) succeed to an acceptable degree- not that I can vote in the primary(3 months!!), but still.
I dunno, maybe Sally will be able to help me with this, being another Massachusetts(-ian?-er? you know what I mean...)
anyways, since I can't vote in the Massachusetts primary, I'm finding it hard to really get interested in this part of the election process. I feel like once I'm able to vote, in the big election in November, my choice will pretty much have been made for me.
sorry for the double post, but I wanted to comment that my mom has made sure to let me know that I am most definitely NOT named after Margaret Thatcher, ever since before I knew or cared who Margaret Thatcher was (aka since I was like, five)
(and yes, my given name is Margaret, I go by Meg, etc. etc.)
So, we share a name, but it's purely a very bad coincidence.
(sorry, I'm quoting that episode of Buzzcocks again)
He is the only black governor in the United States, and the second in the entire history of the nation. But to get away from the race issue, Patrick is simply an amazing person and governor- the best we've had in a long time- maybe ever.
First off, he supports same-sex marriage whole-heartedly. He was actually at the head of the gay pride parade. He understands that nobody should ever be alienated or refused a right, and he recognizes that the government has no place in personal or religious matters: he is truly a great man. Because of him, we are and continue to be the only state in the country with same-sex marriage. Some people tried to change this, but Patrick wouldn't let them.
The two issues that best identify Deval are crime and education. Deval seems to have made ending crime and violence his number one priority. It's what he's been working hard at almost since he took office. I have to applaud him for that; I actually never go to Dorchester or JP because they're so dangerous. I'm really, really glad he's focusing on this issue.
The other thing that has attention is education. Even today on wbur, his new education spending plan was discussed.
The only thing that Patrick has done that has been criticized is that he bought expensive drapes for his office, using tax money. He realized, though, that he ought not to have done this, so he paid for it with his own money and put the drape money back in the state tithe. But, to be honest, I can't blame him. Nobody's perfect, and fancy drapes are hardly the worst sin one can commit.
But- I really don't think Patrick is at all a reflection of Obama, or vice versa. There's nothing to say is similar, other than being black and Harvard-educated, and that is nothing at all. There aren't any real points of comparison. Even career wise, there just isn't anything analogous: Patrick was an attorney while Obama was a city organizer before he became senator. And, a senator and governor have different responsibilities, so policies don't apply for comparison. I guess it could be said but that both are progressive democrats, but that's a vague statement. They're both extraordinary ppl, but they don't have much to do with each other.
In conclusion: vote for Obama.
Wait, no, I want to end a post Tempe/Tim style: That is all for now!
see, the Phoenix
for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
^^ these were the most important similarities to me. Because a lot of the criticisms of Obama are his youth/newcomerness, and his inexperience, and his "outsider" sort of figure. In these terms, Governor Patrick is a good example that these things (inexperience and outsiderness) won't necessarily pose a problem.
which is really all I wanted to know.
I mean, I know a senator/president is a lot different than a governor, but it's still helpful to see an example of someone who has, so far, succeeded.
So thank you, Sally! you give me hope in the political process once again! or something like that...
see, the Phoenix
for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
oh! I didn't even think about their consultant ppl or images- that's true! So thank you! I don't remember Patrick being very "change oriented," I think I felt more like it was somehow more issue-oriented than image, just because, like you said, it was mainly about whether or not we wanted Healy to continue what she was doing(while the presidential sadly seems to be more image). But I make no sense, actually, because that really meant new vs old.
I just realized how ironic- Healy = Clinton. And I mean, she had a TON of negative ads in this huge smear campaign, haha, just like Clinton is doing now.
(and yes, my given name is Margaret, I go by Meg, etc. etc.)
So, we share a name, but it's purely a very bad coincidence.
Hahahahah, unlucky!
That's awesome of your mom to make it clear to you tho, lol, even when you were that little!
And Sally - today I was talking to a guy about the Democrat elections, and he outlined all his reasons for hoping that Hilary Clinton wins (more experience than Obama being the main one). So I countered with all my reasons for disliking her (I haven't quite got to your level of hatred!!!) and backing Obama, and by the end of our conversation he changed his mind and now supports Obama too.
You'd've been proud of me
Meg- I had to add tho, he's not really inexperienced, and Clinton isn't really experienced. I didn't write this, but I wish I did:
The Facts: Senator Barack Obama1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)2005-2008 (United States Senator)12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton2001-2008 (United States Senator)7 Years of Elected Office Experience(FYI - George W. Bush had 6 years in office before the presidency)
Barack Obama is more experienced to be President of the United States.
35 - 7 = 28 years of zero elected office experience for Hillary Clinton. Again, what 35 years of experience is Hillary talking about? Here are the remaining 28 years - 8 Years (Lawyer)12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)28 Years of Zero Elected Office Experience Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president? FINAL ANALYSIS Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
I have a few things to add to this already volatile thread. First, Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself. It's one thing to support your wife and include her in in anecdotes of your own success- that's fine- but it's a completely different thing to smear and distort the record of her rival. Bill has become dirty, so dirty, in fact, that SC representative James Clyburn actually had to tell Bill to "chill." The next day, Bill was asked how he was, and he replied, "pretty chilled out." Bill's been a vicious attack dog and a convenient celebrity to hold down SC while his wife campaigns elsewhere. It's disconcerting that we can no longer tell which Clinton Obama is running against (conflict of interest, anyone?)
Second, there has been a vicious chainletter circulating inboxes lately, saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and that he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance. It's disgusting that these lies got so big that Obama had to actually say they're not true. He often the leads the pledge in Congress and he's been attending the same Christian church for 20 years. He's Christian and always has been (and, really, why does it matter?) These lies were printed in the free rightwing paper here, and, it crushed me. Totally crushed me. I lost my faith; I was helpless. But, the next day, I felt better and decided I would do something about it, so I talked to a conductor on the MBTA. I told him that there were lies about Obama in yesterday's paper (I was really pathetic talking to him- I was nearly crying). He was a sweet man; he talked to me about how in life there is always going to be false information out there, and you have to learn what to trust. And I realized that if I really want to be a liberal, I have to support and understand the marketplace of ideas, and that means I have to accept even rightwing propaganda. So, I'm trying...It's hard...And even though he'll never seen this, I want to thank that MBTA conductor. You've taught me a lot.
Anyway, check this out, from The New York Times:
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.
That was Abraham Lincoln.
Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.
They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.
Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.
The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.
Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.
In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.
Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/24/22.../908/686/442744
Clinton has sort of apologized for Bill's lying and distorting Obama's record. Too little too late.
Please do read this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325670,00.html
It's about the real Bill, the explosive Bill, that we've just recently been exposed to.
I don't like how she said spouses would get carried away- I mean, neither Edwards's nor Obama's wives have taken it upon themselves to start a smear campaign. And um, he's the former president of the United States- he should know the difference b/t right and wrong by now.
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
Yeah!
High-Five, my Obama buddy!
Hugs to the whole world!!!!!
Change really is possible!
HIGH FIVE OBAMA BUDDY!!!!!!!
I knew he could do it.