Obama - Only positive comments and feedback

Can someone please tell me what has Obama done that makes you believe he is a good candidate or what makes you believe he will be a good president. Granted the standard is pretty low, but we expect more from a democratic president (less deficit spending, less foreign hostilities, more equitable taxation, working with our allies, following the law, respecting the constitution, etc... ).

I don't have anything bad to say about him, I am sure he is a great guy, one of the new talents in the Democratic Party, but I can't believe the support and interest he is generating.

First, I have read his bio, I have read all the info in the official Website. I just don't see the benefit of having a one term US senator being elected President. He is really a one year senator as he was elected in 2004 and immediately started running for President. He probably missed all his responsibilities during this first term which is still active.

For ex: his one commercial running in California is critical of our dependence on foreign oil and the damage to the environment (melting the ice caps). Obama claims he went to Detroit to talk to car makers to solve the problem.
- did he introduce any legislation to achieve these goals?
- has he introduced any legislation for anything? Has it passed?
(again, I read his bio, he passed some US law for Illinois Vets)
- did anything come from his trip to Detroit?
- did he talk to the Foreign Car makers? If only Toyota, the new #2?
- has he sponsored any green legislation? For the US or Illinois?

He was an eight year Senator in Illinois. Did something profound happen under his guidance in Illinois?

I understand if Obama is just a way to keep the other candidates (Hillary) out but some of these supporters are acting like he is the second coming of Jesus. Why? I don't know any Obama Supporters. Any feedback welcome.

Joe, it's interesting that you should post this today. In today's New York Times, there was an op-ed written by columnist Nicholas Kristof about the whole "experience" issue, particularly as it relates to Obama and his presidential candidacy.

You can read it by clicking here.

I don't know what that article is promoting. He said this:
`````
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.

I agree whole heartedly. Did I miss something in the article.

I think Kristof's point was that the argument that Obama would not likely make a good president because he lacks the experience is not an argument that history has proven to be true. I don't think his point was necessarily pro or anti any candidate. He was just saying, don't dismiss Obama just because he doesn't have many years in Washington.

He does says the following,

"Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world."

He also talks about the other candidates and their strengths but I am focusing on Obama. He ends with a comical note: (paraphrased)

That if experience was the most important criteria, we should elect Dick Cheney..... agh!!!

I love any and all news, so thanks for the referral to the article.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 1 2008, 10:25 AM

Don't miss the Democratic Debate tonight. Should be a doozy. ONly on CNN (cable 56) 5-7pm. This is SUPER!

Thanks, Joe! I didn't know about that one.

Here's another really good piece on Obama by Frank Rich of The new York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03rich.html?

QUOTE

The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled. Implicit in this criticism is a false choice — that voters have to choose between his pretty words on one hand and Mrs. Clinton’s combative, wonky incrementalism on the other. There’s a third possibility, of course: A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus operandi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microinitiatives that have been a hallmark of Clintonism. He also suggests, in his most explicit policy invocation of J. F. K., that he can enlist the young en masse in a push for change by ramping up national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

It cracks me up when these idiots minimize success: "microinitiatives" by the Clintons. I defy anyone to show me a more successful presidency than the CLINTONS in the last 50 years. "BUDGET BALANCED" as a plan, unheard of at the Federal and the State level. "REVENUE SURPLUS", unheard of in business much less government. TWENTY TWO MILLION more jobs, we are losing jobs now. The Clintons even took a stab at Social Security reform and Universal Medical coverage. All in an environment of severe hostility. I always ask, how can a neophyte achieve what Bill could and Bill had the popularity, the will of the people?


This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 4 2008, 04:08 PM

Joe, I think it's a mistake to lump Hillary and Bill Clinton together. You keep using "Clinton" in the plural. If you vote for Hillary, vote for Hillary. Don't be voting for her husband through her. She's not the same person as her husband, and while I'm sure she'd discuss certain things with Bill, she would be the person in power, and the person responsible for making the decisions together with her cabinet.

I think that Hillary and Obama's policies are very, very similar. The one thing that Obama brings to the table is an incredible gift of oratory unmatched by just about any other politician out there right now. He has the power to move vast numbers of people. As we saw in Iowa, where he was polling well with Independents and even Republicans, he can move people on both sides of the aisle. With him, we could see a resurgence of youth in politics and of people in general getting involved in government and policy decisions in a way we haven't seen in years. We need someone to stir us off our feet - people have been apathetic for way too long.

Do you really believe that Hillary won't consult the most successful president in decades on the middle east, economic policy, health care? Hillary is moving more people than Barack as per the votes but Bill moved them even better and is still popular at home and abroad.

If you replaced Warren Buffett and was his wife, would you try to run his company without his input? I don't think so. Look at any wife that has replaced their husbands to see if their policies and programs were continued. We really are getting a two for one. She is qualified to do it alone, but why not employ an experienced,successful, popular, veteran who is still on the payroll. It is the best of all worlds. You never get to take the protege with the master. And we will be saving money. TEAM CLINTON!

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 4 2008, 04:26 PM

I just have a problem with you saying that when you hire a woman, she has her husband behind her telling her what to do. It wreaks of sexism, Joe, and I know you're not a sexist, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

We don't hire anyone based on the merits of their spouse - or we shouldn't, anyway. I don't think we would ever do this with a male candidate, but a lot of people are happy to do this with a female candidate. It really bothers me.

Bill Clinton was successful, but he could consult with any Democratic nominee for president - not just his wife.

I am not voting for her spouse but if I was, it would be a better reason than "he speaks good". How many people do you know speak good and can't put the "pedal to the metal". I know a ton. We are beyond being inspired, we need problems solved by people who have seen the problems on a national level. We are talking global warming, recession, war (4000 deaths of americans to date), people seriously suffering (foreclosures, homeless, loss of the middle class). If Hillary had been president and Bill was running, I would do the same thing. They have the experience, the success and the support.


This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 11 2008, 06:09 PM

QUOTE (ArsNova @ Feb 4 2008, 04:13 PM)

Bill Clinton was successful, but he could consult with any Democratic nominee for president - not just his wife.

I would hope presidents would do that but most people think of it as weak to ask for help (especially when you have their egos). We had the largest number of living presidents to draw upon as emissaries for many causes and I can only think of one application: George W handed Fund raising for New Orleans to Bush I and Clinton. George W didn't even go to his dad for foreign policy expertise and bad mouthed him on more than a few occasions. Bush I was head of the CIA and the President. Unthinkable.