Ok Obama supporters, convince me I can trust him

[lastliberalintexas]

I am one of the 4 undecideds left on this board, though I have ruled out one of the candidates. I thought I was ok with Obama as well, and then I read some things that have given me pause, and I admit I don't have enough time to do the research myself. Before anyone jumps me, I don't care because my vote will not matter, I live in Texas for goodness sake. I will very likely vote Dem in November, not that it will matter. I have never in my life been able to actually cast a vote for president, and I doubt very seriously I will anytime soon. Unless I move.

That said, I would like to be able to somewhat happily vote for Obama if he is our nominee. I am not happy with the McClurkin incident and the religiosity of the campaign thus far, but I am willing to overlook that as I am Edwards' sponsorship of the IWR and Kucinich's former anti-choice votes. Very big issues for me that I have worked on for some time now in order to be able to support one of them if need be.

However, I lately have additional concerns about Obama. Why does he tend to be more critical of the liberals in our party? Why does he seem to feel so uncomfortable with the stridency of the left? Why does he speak in the republican lexicon, supporting the free market and worrying over government programs? I know his positions on the issues are better than any republican- I am not asking for that reassurance. I know that about any of our candidates. What I don't like is the *tone* of his rhetoric and campaign, because it leads me to believe that he either 1) does not understand the people we are up against or 2) believes that compromise with psycho right wing nazi wannabes is advisable. Ironically, what has apparently drawn so many others to his campaign has started to turn me off. Not because I am a full fledged pessimist, but because I am starting to see him as either far more conservative that portrayed or incredibly naive politically (on edit- by this I mean too NICE, much like President Carter).

I'm sure a big part of my problem is that I am angry, and I want an angry candidate. But I do have an increasing problem with a man who *seems* to want to campaign as though we live in Candyland rather than our dying empire.

This passage from his book is one of the things I find disturbing and has led me to this post-

"I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised...

We Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups …

Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems… We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal. And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.…"



Now I know that some of you will doubt that I am undecided and will assume that I am pushing an agenda here. I'm not. If you care enough, do a search of my posts and you'll see I have repeatedly said I am undecided.

Thanks for any actual dialogue in advance. And please start your own thread if all you want to do is bash one of the candidates- that's not what I seek.

[jackpan1260]

1. I am not going to try to convince you but

I don't think he is "more critical" of the left, and I find the him to be to the left of Hillary and Edwards on most the issues I care about. I like Edwards too, but his voting record isn't great. I am not a fan of Hillary. What I guess I am saying is, I see him differently than you do.

[Kittycat]

2. I completely agree with you on Obama.

He's more left to me than any of the candidates in most regards. I think the defining difference is that he recognizes that in order to move forward - we have to let go of some of our differences (read as hatred towards each other). There is common ground, regardless of your political affiliation, especially in working and middle class households. I believe, based on what I know of him from IL, and what he is stating, is that he is going to foster this common ground to address the major issues that matter. In doing so, he's going to bring us together to overcome the "establishment" rule. No more can we be told that things are going great - when they're not. We're not winning in Iraq, and there is no reason we need to live in fear of another 9/11... Be prepared yes, but not building bomb shelters in our basements.

The point is, that this "Movement" he speaks of, is one that crosses political divides. It unites us to work together for the common good. I cannot begin to think of any one thing that speaks louder of the democratic party initiatives, than one in which we work to bring change for the good. All the work that's been done to obtain and maintain the social programs. Just what if, we aren't fighting to keep them in place anymore? And just what if we build on them for a brighter future for not just those that can afford college - but for all of our children. What if tomorrow you wake up and don't have to decide whether you can afford to go to the dr, or feed your family? What if tomorrow we find ourselves at the epicenter of development for new forms of energy that don't impact the planet. What if tomorrow we wake up and have jobs?

I don't believe that he can change everything, but I do believe that he can plant the seeds of change. One by one, together we can begin to work for a better tomorrow. Without regards to race, religion or what your background is - or what side of the tracks you grew up on. Tomorrow will never come if we continue to foster the great divide - pointing out our differences instead of building on our shared issues and goals.

That's just my opinion :)

[lastliberalintexas]

3. Do you actually know any right wingers?

I really don't mean to sound snarky, but I just can't imagine that you know any hard core fundy wack jobs. They'd just as soon roast you on an open pit for daring to vote Dem as they would breathe. I'm sorry, but not even Jesus H Christ couldn't bridge that gap.

There just isn't any working with those people, and it's rather disconcerting to hear Obama would like to try.

[Barack_America]

4. But the Republican party has "worked" with them successfully...

And by "work" with them, I mean produce some rhetoric that appeals to them and then fail to follow through on it.

Why couldn't a Democrat do the same?

I mean that half-jokingly.

I honestly think that Obama is a good guy. And I think that he truly feels that, if he becomes President of this country, then he's President for all of us. Now, I don't think that he would go so far as to promote social issues near and dear to the Fundies, but I do think that he would at least not discredit them and try to explain himself.

Let's face it, Christians fundamentally belong in the Democratic party (which is not to say that Fundamental Christians belong here). The social values of charity and solidarity that are cornerstones of Christianity are much the territory of the Democratic Party. Obama has stated that he is very much in favor of a clear separation of church and state, and I don't have a problem with him trying to bring those who understand what Christianity is truly about back into the fold. Particularly via the promotion of policies aimed at helping the poor.

And I agree with the other posters that Obama is really pretty left. He has the most progressive energy plan. His plan for healthcare is on par with Edwards. His tax plan seems extremely progressive. And the list goes on.

If you'd like to discuss any of the plans specifically, I'd be happy to do so.

[Kittycat]

5. My dad and Uncle are both holy roller, fundy pastors - does that count?

And my parents are *gasp* leaning towards Obama. As is about 1/3 of my entire family right now. I shit you not. When I found out, I thought for a moment that hell had frozen over, and that they were packing their winter gear.

Admittedly, my dad has lightened up over the years. Might have something to do with me leaving home at 18, and never coming back - outside of a short 2 year stint after college (but I was married to my now XH at the time anyway). I still live 3 hrs from them (which is close compared to all the other years I lived away from them).

So yes, I know some fundys. Since bush was re-elected, I've drilled it in their head, had screaming hang up phone conversations, left their house with my family in tow on holidays, and so on regarding this. I don't sit there and let them speak. They know the score if they dare to speak politics in front of me, and damn those pesky facts. But finally - I don't know what it was, probably the conversation where I asked my mom if she would disown my son, and speak the vile dribble that she spews, if he were to tell us one day that he was gay. I did notice a change in her around that time. But the point is - here we are. We actually have something in common - for once.

PS. I still haven't told them I'm UU. I do think that would push them over the edge, LOL. They're much happier believing that I'm a non-churchgoer.

[ArkySue]

6. I have a problem with compromise

Cripes, how many on this board have been roasting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for so-called "compromising" with the Repuubs? That hasn't worked out so well, has it. They have obstructed any progress in the Congress.
Do you remember Rep. Conyers having to hold a hearing in the basement because the Chairman wouldn't give him a room to use?
How about stinkin' Sensenbrenner turning off the microphones and stomping out of the hearing room (and taking the danged gavel with him)?
Remember the "Gang of 14?" Some conservative Dems trying to work with the Repubs didn't accomplish anything except to go along with the Repub agenda. And one of my Senators was one of them. :(
How do you compromise with that kind of crap? The Repubs won't budge an inch.
I'm not buying it.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

7. The media loves Obama, Chris Mathews

While Obama is an inspiring, powerful and charismatic speaker,
I'm concerned he will be another pushover for the GOP!

We the people, need a president
who will be an advocate for us...
That's the CHANGE America NEEDS!

Isn't Obama a corporate Democrat like Hillary? Didn't Obama say he would have Republicans in his administration? How in the world will he change anything?

Please convince me I have no reason to be concerned.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Endorsed by Barbara Lee, Ned Lamont, Bill Bradley, George Miller, Zoe Lundgren

Speaks progressive to me!

GOBAMA.

He needs to be stealth....till after the election. ;)

[readmoreoften]

9. How about if I try to convince you of the opposite?

Obama's irrational exuberance, coupled with his religious rhetoric, his incessant scolding of the left, his absenteeism, and his jaw-dropping inability to admit wrong (i.e.: his votes to fund the war are nothing more than votes to support the troops, McClurkin) have left me baffled for months now. I came into this season with Clinton as the least-trusted candidate (when she was my senator I voted against her in the primary) but something about Barack Obama has chilled me to the core. Maybe it's because at least Clinton is unliked by the Republican party even if she rubs elbows with them too much for my tastes.

I didn't understand why Obama disturbs me so (his position papers and promises seemed similar enough to most of the other candidates.) I chalked it up to both his use of the Religious Right's rhetoric (faith/family/etc.) against our own party and his insistent appeals to bipartisanship.

Any Democrat who's half paid attention over the past 8 years knows we've been trying to cajole this obstinate right wing bloque for almost a decade now. We've tried bipartisanship. The only thing we haven't tried is actually opposing the bastards. So, the big questions is: how could this guy be so goddamned thick?

These two posts clarified things for me:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/550eztvl.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

Obama is talking about bipartisanship with the neoconservative movement, not just the 'reasonable Republicans' like Olympia Snowe. If you read his Council on Foreign Relations' speech, you'll see that his goal is to expand America's global reach in order to 'protect America's vital assets.' His so-called opposition to Iraq is only because he didn't particularly think going into Iraq was the right way to go about it. It has nothing to do with him opposing wars of expansion on ethical grounds. Listen, maybe the guy is some warm-hearted do-gooder, but I've had enough of 'humanitarian campaigns' for the benefit of Halliburton. I don't want to see the neoconservative movement infiltrate our party.

The only defense of Kagan and Kristol's support for Obama that I've read so far is some blather about 'not wanting to appear racist.' Yes, and I suppose that's why they were behind Al Sharpton's run. :sarcasm: The neoconservatives aren't afraid of looking racist. This is not the reason they are supporting his candidacy. If he was overtly progressive I might say that they are trying to sabotage his campaign by their support. But he runs in their circle, he talks their language, and his ideas mesh with theirs. That tells me that their support for him is possibly real. And that tells me all I need to know about Obama.

At first I was leaning Kucinich--full well knowing he has no chance. Now I'm in the Edwards camp although I admit I'm wary: I don't like his past voting record on the IWR or his current hedge fund investments (not that Obama & Clinton didn't take cash from hedge funds for their campaigns.) My thoughts are: at least he admitted his mistakes, at least he's attaching himself to a rhetoric for which we can hold him accountable. He has stated that there is no military solution in Iraq and that we need to begin removing all troops, with the goal of all troops removed in 9 months. Do I trust him completely? No--he's a politician. But I'd find it hard to believe he'd ever cozy up to the neoconservatives or brook fanatical religious nonsense.

Unless the right bends to our ideas for a change, bipartisanship will moving our party further to the right. Any nonsense rhetoric about how we're not going "left or right" with Obama but "in a new direction" is millenarian dreaming of the worst kind.

"Change" and "Hope" don't just happen through nice words and wishful thinking. You're right to be suspicious of it. I sure am.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Good judgment......? Like Kerry said.....Obama got it right the first time.....

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[FrenchieCat]

11. Here.....

Losta of information for you on his career prior to the Senate.

quite some details!
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/1/12/171725/129/83#c83

[AGirl]

12. I like Obama's website.

It is very inclusive, he raised a lot of important issues that seem to be ignored on Clinton's website, i do think Obama is more to the left than Clinton.

[unc70]

13. His web site is filled with clever misdirections and omissions

This is true on a variety of issues. The nearly everyone first reading his site is convinced that he withdraws all troops within 18 months. But you have to read his statements as closely as you might read your insurance policy trying to determine if something is covered or not. Here's the plan to withdraw troops, looks good, continues until completed -- even better. Anti-terrorism? Where did those troops come from? Didn't he just withdraw all the troops under his plan? Oops!

In the example on withdrawing troops, Obama was forced to clarify during one of the debates.


My warning is not just for Obama, although I find it especially true in his case. You should examine the statements of all the candidates with the same caution. Many of our candidates (and spouses) are lawyers, all are very smart and very good with language.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Right.....

we should believe those who where wrong and got us into this war better than Obama because.....? :eyes:

[unc70]

15. Yes. Read very carefully what Obama says. Same for others

Don't be too quick to believe any one of them or any of us posting at DU.

Obama started right on Iraq, but his actions in the Senate and his plan for the future do not back up his inspiring rhetoric. Keeping troops in Iraq and continuing operations for anti-terrorism undermine him. He knew what was right, but flinches when faced with the hard decisions.

Clinton is more consistent, but most at DU fault her positions.

Edwards started poorly and now has a plan much more aggressive that Obama or Clinton.

Kucinich was against the war early and often, including voting against it and voting against continuing funding the occupation (while Clinton and Obama approved this funding).

If Iraq is your issue, you probably select Kucinich.

My general caution is that we need to look closely at the details of the plans of each candidate.

[ieoeja]

16. He chose community activism over personal profit.

To my mind his history suggests he has very progressive views. As you noted, his complaints about liberals have been about the strident tactics by a minority of liberals, not about liberal goals or positions.

As president he will be in a position to use the bully pulpit to turn this country around back towards the progress we rejected in 1980. Look what an incredibly stupid and unpopular president has done for overwhelmingly unpopular positions the past seven years? If an idiot could do that, there is certainly no reason an intelligent president couldn't get this country accepting popular issues.

And I really have to disagree with your "vote won't count" remark. How can you believe one of the top three candidates is going to win a vast majority of the Feb 5th primaries by an overwhelming majority in each of those states? Because that is the only way your vote won't count. If they continue splitting the votes in nearly equal shares, the later primaries will be the ones deciding the eventual nominee while all us early staters sit around watching from the sidelines.

Sing with me! "The eyes of the country are upon Texas ... post Feb 5."

[cloudythescribbler]

17. Question -- what has Obama said or done, especially lately, AGAINST the left?

Only general statements are made. The quote from his book is practically boilerplate, especially for someone running for president; I doubt that other Democrats, even Kucinich, would DISAGREE with the statement, tho they would have their own extra ideas to add.

The Clintons were MUCH more interested, in my experience, in ATTACKING authentic progressives, as well as betraying us politically. I would be VERY interested in what concrete signs there are that Obama is of that vein (not pointing out the inconsistencies in his voting record or any of the same old same old). I am NOT saying it isn't true about him, just that I haven't come across reasons to distrust him in the way described in this post. He seems all but silent about the Left (which is understandable).