Things that bother me about the Democratic Nominee

[crankychatter]

OK, here is the deal. My ignore bin is empty. I'm for Obama... completely in the bag. HAPPY, JUBILANT and now I've declared a personal moratorium on snitching on Clinton. She can be as bad as she wants to be and you can LOVE HER till the cows come home.

Big wet girly kisses to all Clinton campers. Yummy, scrunchy hugs too.

So... express all your misgivings about Obama here if you like. If you want to say he's a sexist; supporters are misogynists or WHAT FRIGGIN EVER... I don't give a shit. And just to kick it off....

HERE IS MY OBAMA TREPIDATION

I'm a little nervous (not much) about the race thing, given the inexplicably vehement negativity towards him from SOME Democrats.

Although he hasn't taken direct money from PACs, bundled cash HAS been accepted, and although exaggerated by Clinton supporters, it does give one pause.

I suspect he may be soft on Nuclear Energy expansion... but only because he's gotten so much positive press from MSNBC. Despite some of the liberal talking heads they feature... I don't trust those snakes. They ARE, the Nuclear Lobby.

I've yet to hear Neoliberalism defined as a topic in the MSM, or addressed as an issue to ANY of the three candidates. I'd like to hear Obama speak more crisply regarding extractive and exploitive foreign policy. I don't believe our Intelligence apparatus and Defense Establishment should be co-opted by Corporate Transnationals, as if THEY represent "American Interests." Times have changed.

Lobby's that represent transnational corporations/industries and foreign governments, should absolutely NOT enjoy super-citizen status, nor exercise undue influence over our elected officials. They should be considered what they are, potentially hostile foreign powers. Obama HAS spoken out forcefully regarding "special interests," but other than generalizations, I haven't heard a FULLY POSITIVE ENDORSEMENT of Public Campaign Financing. I think this is THE only way we can restore representative government in America. He will be dealing with a hostile Congress even IF we have a solid Democratic Majority, due to the influence of these PACs.

I believe firmly in Kucinich's "single payer, Medicare for all" medical plan. The absence of a "mandatory feature" for adults, won't give the Fat Cat insurance and health lobbies the future talking point of "we already have universal health coverage." Like Howard Dean, I believe Obama is being pragmatic. Unlike Clinton, I think he's not so "in bed" with those lobbies, and he's expressed an "in the best of all possible worlds" BELIEF in a single payer system. Still, his use of the word "universal health care" when it is, in fact, a competitive, corporate system, makes me very nervous.

I find Obama silent on issues that might offend the sensitivites of AIPAC. I had a long conversation yesterday with a former Israeli soldier and I have to say, they have a free-er media than we do. Our media ONLY gives the perspective of the MOST hawkish Israeli people. There are MANY voices in Israel and the do NOT ALL favor the jackbooted treatment of Palestinian people... Hamas OR Hezbollah.

I believe firmly in conventional Affirmative Action for minorities, women and the disabled. Redefining affirmative action to include pretty much, everybody that's poor... making it strictly an economic plan for lower income folks, is a back door to eliminating the laws as they exist. Title 9 is already not enforced. Equal funding for Women's College Sports and countless other effected policies started being not enforced under earlier administrations. It's gotten SO BAD, now, it looks like it's all going away. It's difficult for Obama, I understand... as a Black candidate trying to define himself as America's President. He is taking it easy to avoid traditional White Backlash. Still, I'd like to hear some reassurance from him, that he's not a "poverty is a moral issue" reactionary in the closet. Ya dig?

Well, that's just the tip of the ICEBERG as they say. I have lots of misgivings about most of our Democrats in Congress... and Obama is no exception. Only ONE SENATOR STOOD UP FOR OHIO, in 2004. I am not going to forgive ANY of the other 99, anytime soon. Those fuckers have some explaining to do.

Ok... let it sink or fire away. I have to go pick up a machine. I'll be back in an hour. I'm not going to pump this thread ...

BUT I WILL TALK WITH ANY CLINTON SUPPORTERS THAT STILL WANT TO TALK TO ME.

except of course, ad hominem attacks on my person... or aspersions to my moral character.

It doesn't say "Genius" anywhere on my resume'. I'm a working stiff... and I'm not really trying to initiate a debate.

Real Democrats need to get REAL with one another and RIGHT NOW.

[dkf]

1. Personally, I only care about one thing and that is the end of cheap and easily available oil.

All that you listed will pale in comparison. Just watch.

[lapfog_1]

6. And the rapid climate change that is NOW underway

which could threaten us all.

They are the two threats (end of cheap oil, global warming) to a billion plus human population. Reducing to less than a billion would be a huge traumatic event, with a very likely nuclear exchange somewhere in the world.

We are headed into the most dangerous time for the human race since the days of the black death.

[depakid]

7. Which makes our choice between a Herbert Hoover and a quasi DLC'er academic

though it likely also means that whoever wins, will likely be a one term president.

[dkf]

9. I don't care. I just need someone who will look at things seriously

and give us serious solutions.

The McCain/Clinton gas pander tells me that Obama is the only one who can possibly do this right. Al Gore could have, but he isn't running.

We need someone to save the world.

[depakid]

26. No politician can address the issue rationally

and hope to get elected.

What they do once in office is another matter....

[crankychatter]

44. I've read some very well known progressives that are endorsing Obama

Like me... I think they hope he's quietly more progressive than would appear on first read... or public persona would indicate

[crankychatter]

42. I agree... that moment was MORE than definitive

at first I thought it was just an easy target

but on reflection you are totally right

[JANdad]

73. SUPERRRRRR OOOOOBAAAAAAMMMMAAAA

"We need someone to save the world."

Funny thing is you believe that...lol

And just for clarification...JRE, Al Gore nor any other people I respect imho could "Save the World"

[JoFerret]

66. Whatever

Your credibility died a while ago.

[cliffordu]

69. DING DING DING We have a winner!!! Exactly right.

This is the SINGLE issue that can (and just might) kill us all 'Real Soon Now"(TM).

I asked a really old guy driving a full sized Humvee the other day if he was going to pimp out his grandchildren to fill his car if he had to....

Fucker lit up like Christmas....

[JANdad]

74. Sure ya did...

:eyes: :puke:

[anonymous171]

2. I'm more worried about neocons at the moment. I want them out.

[xchrom]

4. neocons are an arm of neoliberals. nt

[anonymous171]

5. I wish someone could make a graph for this.

[xchrom]

17. this might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to the economic policies of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberalism.<1> Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is a syllabic abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism", since in other languages "liberalism", minus any modifier such as "social" (as in social liberalism), has more or less retained its classical meaning.

This term should not be confused with new liberalism.

Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s and through at least the late-1990s, and possibly into the present (its continuity is a matter of dispute).

In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories and right-wing libertarian political philosophies which believe that government control over the economy is inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberalism is not a unified economic theory or political philosophy — it is a label denoting an apparent shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that manifested themselves in theories and political platforms supporting a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones. Few supporters of neoliberal policies use the word itself.

Neoliberal arguments gained a great deal of support after the Stagflation Crisis of the 1970s, the Developing World Debt Crisis of the 1980s (which primarily affected Latin America but was felt elsewhere<2>), and the Soviet Collapse of the early-1990s.


Policy Implications
Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from the public to private sector.<3> The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's<4> "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

Fiscal policy discipline;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
Legal security for property rights.

History


neocons come after neoliberals -- neocons differ from neoliberals in that they belive in using the nations military 'might' for their imagined version of spreading the u.s. version of both economic good and our version of democracy.

i think one of the primary differences that should be pointed out more often is that liberal/progressives and neoliberals/neocond view the basics very differently.

[anonymous171]

18. Thanks for information. nt

[crankychatter]

45. me too... it's a juggernaut to hell that MUST be derailed - nt

.

[tabatha]

3. Obama says governing should be from the bottom up.

Go to his website, and send a message to him about your concerns.

[Faygo Kid]

8. I have been deeply troubled at the level of racism that has been exposed.

I'm not naive, and remember the '60s well.

But still, the level of racism directed at Obama has been jarring. And this from fellow Dems! Wait until Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity really crank it up.

As you say, "{I'm a little nervous (not much) about the race thing, given the inexplicably vehement negativity towards him from SOME Democrats."

I think it's worse than you think. That's what has stunned me. And I fully expect to get called out by her supporters about sexism. But I don't see it as much as the sheer, raw hatred directed at Barack Obama.

[SwampG8r]

32. im gonna take this one

i am not troubled by the issue of race coming front and center to the people
it has been easy to pay lip service to equality for too many for too long
i am glad to see the film ripped from peoples eyes in this election cycle
and i am glad that so many of us (myself included)have had to actually face what is in our hearts

race has been the 800 lb gorilla in americas living room for too many years
now we are seeing him

i know that for myself it has been an education on myself and an education in what was in the hearts of many i know

as one who was a small child when segregation was in effect i know how far we have moved

now we are moving to a new place
our grandchildren will look at us and laugh about our racial attitudes
and im laughing with them
in advance

[VotesForWomen]

80. just so you know, not everyone who opposes O is a racist.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

86. that post just rocks

before the primary season began, I, liberal white guy, felt discouraged that essentially the democratic party would be telling voters in November to either vote for John Edwards or vote to make history. I sincerely doubted the country would do either of those things.

I was part of the problem. Yes, Hillary Clinton encountered sexism and had to break through gender stereotypes, but NEVER will a candidate be taken lightly again by mainstream America merely because she is a woman. Those days, thankfully, are done.

I feared worse for Barack Obama. While it's true that mainstream America is still subject to manipulation based on subtle and overt racial stereotypes, and of course it's still possible he'll lose to McCain, Barack Obama has shown that he is a person first. That, unfortunately, was news to lots of people--that people are people before they're African American, latino, white, or Native American--but it was news that this country had to reckon with. And as the country has reckoned with Barack Obama, the person, they've more than liked what they've seen.

People younger than us have already figured all this out, like you said. We owe them thanks. And I feel ridiculous for ever having thought that just because Obama was an African American the country wouldn't accept him. No matter what the outliers cry, no matter how divisive the politics gets, no matter what they decide about making him Commander in Chief, this country already HAS accepted him far more than anyone (or at least I) expected it would. There will always be hills in WV and fields in KY where the news breaks rather slowly, but this country isn't what I thought it was--and thank God for that.

[SwampG8r]

91. no you rock more

you said everything i didnt but wanted to
thanks for the addendum

[Skittles]

78. that is SUCH a lovely picture

yes INDEED

[Buzz Clik]

10. "America isn't ready for a ... you know ... one of those ... Negro Presidents. "

I disagree.

[crankychatter]

46. I think we'll win the biggest landslide in US History

"nervous" yes...

HOPEFUL? moreso

[Buzz Clik]

63. ditto all that.

[Ravy]

11. It worries me that he wants to bring the republicans to the table.

I don't really have a beef until I see how many and how much influence they will have. I hope he becomes more of a fighter against their policies though.

I don't like how the truth comes out of him a little bit at a time.. about his various stories of how much Ruzko contributed, his comments right after the Rev Wright tapes reminded me too much of "Kenny who???" from his hopefully future predecessor. I don't like how he accuses others of doing what he is doing himself. He has a bit of a pre-2000 "Bush" feel to me.

He has a chance to be extraordinary if he can turn this country around. I wish him the best of luck at it.

[panader0]

12. You lost me after "moist with anticipation"

[crankychatter]

14. it's supposed to be humorous but I'll delete it now - thanks, nt

.

[stray cat]

13. I'm nervous about Obama's experience both how he will govern and the effect on the GE

However, I'm just so sick of spin and being lied to. I suspectthat I would get more of the same from McCain and fearfully even the Clintons. I hope Obama will really bring more transparency in goverment (at least more so then now). I think he will be a thoughtful curious intelligent leader who believes in a role for educating the populist for effective governing and someone who knows what it means to work for a living. I'm willing to embrace the risk for the possible pay off of real change.

[crankychatter]

15. I feel the same way - nt

:-)

[MercutioATC]

16. I'd like to see his health insurance plan be mandatory.

I really don't see it as a 100% fix unless it's mandatory. If it's not, there will always be people who don't pay the premiums...regardless of how low.

We need 100% coverage, and the only way to do that is to make it mandatory.

[crankychatter]

19. no text, just smiles... bbl though

:-)

[sandnsea]

25. Read Edwards plan on his web site

It specifically called for the mandates AFTER everything else had been implemented. In other words, once he knew the costs were affordable and everything had been done to guarantee affordable delivery - then he would mandate everybody in. Gosh, that's the exact same thing Obama said, he's just more honest about it.

[MercutioATC]

27. I was thinking payroll deduction...like social security.

Since it's a government-subsidized program, those without paychecks don't pay anyway.

[sandnsea]

29. So what do I do?

I don't have a paycheck. I'm self-employed. I can't really afford my social security as it is because I pay double. Is that what you're going to have me do with medical too?

The mandate isn't the problem. It's the obliviousness of people who don't understand that 10% of someone's income can truly mean going hungry, or without power or a home. No mandate until we've got the costs figured out. That really is Edwards' plan on his web site, even though he won't admit it now. It's the right way to go.

[dansolo]

33. Mandatory insurance is NOT the solution

Unless you can tackle the outrageous behavior of the drug companies, insurance companies and the health care facilities, health care costs will never be managed. Mandating coverage does nothing to address the ever increasing costs of health care. We need to look towards the time where there is going to be a huge strain on the health care system due to the aging baby boomers. If costs can be driven down, more people can get coverage. I would like to see that tackled first.

[MercutioATC]

35. Rather than reply to a bunch of responses here, I'm going to do an OP in a day or two.

What I'm thinking is hardly revolutionary, but it would deal with most of the issues I've seen posted here.

[crankychatter]

37. looking forward to it - nt

.

[crankychatter]

36. I agree completely - nt

.

[OmahaBlueDog]

43. Dansolo, unless you have mandatory insurance of some sort, you can't address the costs

This is because the costs are, in large part, driven by debt (you charge me $100,000 for my hospital stay, I can't pay, the cost gets passed on) and good 'ol greed. I think we start by taking debt out of the equation, and then work on greed. Greed can be addressed in several ways -- debt can only be addressed by getting everyone covered.

[crankychatter]

48. this is an interesting post.... I'm saving it to chew on... n/t

.

[AZBlue]

20. Have you ever had a candidate for any office that you agreed with 100%?

I certainly haven't and I'd be shocked speechless if I ever did.
(and we all know how rarely I'm without something to say, LOL)

There are things about Obama I would like to change - but overwhelmingly there are things I agree with and support. And, I have looked into the man enough to know he's sincere, genuine and has a good sense of what's right for this country. He's what this country needs and deserves and that's enough for me to pledge to fight with everything I have for him to win in November.

[crankychatter]

38. I'm with you... I just think people should know I'm not, you know... the kool-aid kid

and I think this is therapeutic for us all... we need OUR heads TOGETHER

:-)

[Two Americas]

89. weak criteria for decision making

"Who I like best" is often at odds with who will bring the greatest good to the greatest number. The right wing propaganda has succeeded in getting us all to think of politics as a matter of personal choice. That is deadly to us and prevents any serious opposition to the right wing from forming. Politics is not an exercise in consumerism, not a matter of judging the features of the product that we like, and then selecting the candidate as a personal choice and then trying to sell or convert others to share our preference. The Republican party will always have all of the advantages if we persist in seeing politics this way. The assumption that dissenters or critics of the party are arguing one personal choice as compared to those of another another is a way to force the discussion into that destructive and self-defeating channel.

[EFerrari]

21. I mainly agree with you and I'm still voting for him.

Oh -- and, death to America!

lol

[crankychatter]

39. battle cry from Berzerkely

you funny

[sandnsea]

22. lol, and now I start my new ignore list

"Concerned" Obama supporters. Whatever. :eyes:

[stray cat]

23. Did you read the posts? Almost all Obama supporters but we do think he is human rather than divine.

[sandnsea]

28. Seen it before, not playing this time

You want to spend the next 6 months hand-wringing and nit-picking - knock yourself out. I'm not playing.

[crankychatter]

40. nah I ain't no concern troll.... i think this is therapeutic

BUT... it's the last time I say a negative thing about him

I will defend him with flame throwers

it's just time... I know lots of Clinton supporters in the real world and they are NOTHING like some of the crazies here...

and in HERE... there are some good folks with genuine concerns

what I want is for THEM to get those concerns over and DONE with

because I want them on board NEXT WEEK

that soon

[JimGinPA]

24. I Just Want My Pony

[crankychatter]

41. thanx for the smiles

:-)

[BeatleBoot]

30. The GOP will have defined him before August 1st - that's my fear

and rule number 2 in politics is you never let your opposition define you.

They are half way there with their base.

And he is an inexperienced empty suit (sound like someone we put up with for 8 years?).

Running away from his church, Ayers, et al.

It's a bad Omen, man.

What's the recurring line in each of the Star Wars movies?

"I've got a bad feeling about this."

[OmahaBlueDog]

47. The church thing is bad, but it's raining on both sides for once

McSame has his share of church and pastor issues.

And both parties are conflicted over their nominees. The main diff being that the GOP nominated their guy earlier. That doesn't make them any happier than we are.

[crankychatter]

49. exactly... I don't think McCain will go there....being vulnerable.... we'll see - nt

.

[BeatleBoot]

64. Nah, those Republicans wouldn't have the nerve.

:rofl:

Buckle up friends. It's gonna get a bit bumpy.

[VotesForWomen]

81. you better believe it; the picture is being painted as we speak. nt

[KAZ]

31. Another great post Cranky. K&R

[NC_Nurse]

34. Great post. Very wise, too. It's good to find the common ground we all share

rather than defining everything as Obama vs. Clinton. I'm sure many of us have the same concerns that we bring
to this election. I hope we can remember that. :-)

My biggest concern is the GE itself and how the race will be spun by the media. I also have concerns about Obama's safety that
were raised higher in my mind by the recent Clinton gaffe on the subject. Personally, I did not think it was her intention to raise
the spectre of the "a" word, but it did remind me of the possibility - which I had pushed to the back of my mind since our primary
is over. When he is elected, THEN I'll start to worry about how things proceed from there. I trust him to do the best he can to fulfill
his agenda. I hope that his coattails bring him a Dem majority in Congress to help that happen.

[Eric J in MN]

50. I'm concerned that we'll get more nuclear power plants under Obama, too,

...if he's elected.

Meanwhile, the industry doesn't know what to do with the waste from existing plants.

[crankychatter]

52. in fairness he DID say he wants to see more solid "waste containment plans"

... but that's weak in my opinion

[dsc]

51. His health care plan will make things worse rather than better

it would be an unmitigated disaster for everyone who currently has insurance but is otherwise fairly low paid. I can't imagine how teachers here with children would survive. Insurance costs will increase a ton. Without a mandate healthy young people will go naked while insurance companies will raise rates to pay for people they will be forced to insure (including people who went naked and then got sick).

I clearly have problems with McClurkin and some of his own comments about gays.

I also have huge problems with his stating that there is a social security crisis. There isn't.

[boppers]

53. Soft on Nuclear Energy expansion?

Yikes, if anything, we need someone pushing *hard* on non-fossil fuel expansion. I take it from your tone that you don't trust extracting energy from the radiation around us, and I definitely see the side of the argument where aggregation of that energy has its pitfalls, but we don't have a lot of other alternatives that we can implement *now*, do we?

[crankychatter]

54. good points... and my trepidation in this regard is a bit paranoiac, I know

I'm suspicious

The shelf life of nuclear waste is just too intimidating

Until it can be destroyed to a non-destructive level... not just "contained," I would oppose nuclear expansion

Other alternatives? I'm not a pro...

I know that bio-fuel is bad for hungry people...

[OmahaBlueDog]

57. Even given it's drawbacks, it is a better cost benefit than oil or coal

.. and not all biofuel is bad for hungry peopple. We are in 1st generation bio fuel. Other sources exist and can be used. Additional others will be usable soon enough.

[crankychatter]

58. yes... a type of grass... abundant in Iowa and the Dakotas

I've heard about that

can you recommend some reading for me?

[OmahaBlueDog]

60. The 3rd one is the one I've read most recently, and came from a UNL study

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Back_to_the_future_prairie_grasses.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=amber-waves-of-gas-gasoli

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/09/tech/main3692251.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_3692251

[crankychatter]

61. bookmarked for perusal... thank you for doing that - nt

:-)

[Eric J in MN]

55. There are acres of land in sunny places like Nevada which...

...could be covered with solar panels to feed into the grid.

[JANdad]

75. You are right...

Especially when your biggest contributor to your campaign is a nuclear energy company!

[OmahaBlueDog]

56. My trepidation is the obvious

Obama's black; he has a muslim family background despite his professed Christian faith; his middle name is the same as that of a formar Iraqui dictator, and his last name is eeerily similar to that of an infamous terrorist; he has no military experience; his wife and pastor "hate America"; he left his church

OTOH, McSame is old, he's too moderate for the Tancredo/Hunter crowd, he doesn't turn on Evangelicals; Ted Hagee and McSame had to part company; Cindy McSame has been uncooperative on her tax reurns; McSame has serious foot-in-mouth disease; McSame supports a highly unpopular war.

I think, at the end of the day, it will be another nail biter. McSame will take the deep south and the Heartland; Obama will take the Northeast and the West Coast. It will come down, again, to states like Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

I think if Obama can define McSame as out of touch, and clinging to the same bad ideas that got us here, we win. If McSame defines Obama as a clueless liberal who doesn't understand the realities of the Middle East, he wins.

The one edge McSame may have is that he's almost universally perceived as a one-termer.

At the end, I think the loser is the current 2 party system. I believe both parties will split after this one.

[crankychatter]

59. bad timing (for the world) for party realignments in the US

so much is at stake right now... instability and the risk of the wrong folks at the helm any more... very scary

but if it can be managed... I concur that in the long run, MORE voices means better government

[RichardRay]

62. I see a lot of Obama's postions as transitional

Yes, he advocates more nuclear energy than I want to see, but there are a lot of issues that have to be dealt with before we can move to better alternatives (transmission loss is a huge issue that never gets talked about when advocating for covering Nevada with solar panels, it's easy to extract energy from corn, not so easy to get it out of switch grass).

I want a single payer, universal coverage health care system that kicks in at birth and include assistance in dieing as desired. I do not expect the incredibly expensive and wasteful 'end of life' treatments that suck millions of dollars out of the pot to be extended to anyone. We all die and spending that much money to prolong life by a matter of months while other people can't get basic medical care is whacko. We have to get something on the table soon, though, and his proposed plans are the most likely to get made into law in the next few years.

I believe that, in the final analysis, class trumps race or gender, so changes to Affirmative Action don't concern me as much as they do you. But, I can live with your perspective while we figure it out.

[Prophet 451]

65. poverty IS a moral issue

Sorry, I'm not getting this one. Poverty IS a moral issue. Pretty much every holy book and most secular ethical systems consider the reduction or, if possible, elimination of poverty to be a moral issue. In the Bible (full disclosure, I'm a Satanist), Jesus spends much of his time talking about helping the less fortunate. As a Satanist, we don't have holy books in the normal sense but some of our most influential works say much the same ("If thou come across pain, then give relief; if thou art witness to injustice, ye must not stand idle" ~ Philosophies 72:2, TDA).

Poverty IS a moral issue, always was.

[crankychatter]

68. people are not poor because they are immoral

that's the point. ya big silly.

of course how we treat the poor is a moral issue...

treating the poor as if they deserve to be poor is immoral

get it?

I think we're in a heated agreement

[Prophet 451]

71. Sorry, misunderstanding there

I wonder if this is a US/UK thing? The idea that poor people somehow deserve to be poor never gained much headway here (outside the Daily Mail crowd).

[crankychatter]

83. They took Darwinism in the early 20th Century after the 1890s Depression

during Industrialization, major immigration, migration to the cities from rural areas... ghettos and abject poverty everywhere....

and made it into an Economic Philosophy....

Economic Darwinism... Laissez Faire Capitalism

frankly we got it from YOU guys... Work Houses? Criminal punishment for inability to pay taxes?... "Christian" anti-poverty relief, where Conversion and profession of faith... abstinence from alcohol and sin were preconditions to assistance?

We need to catch UP with YOU now... on Medical Care...

nobody does fascism better than we do... we'll screw ya and make ya say thank you...

[Honeycombe8]

67. Too detailed for me. Candidates NEVER install programs they promised.

And candidates are NEVER elected because of their minute positions on a variety of issues.

They are elected because they are liked, deemed intelligent, seem trustworthy, have a common sense head on their shoulders, have the interests of the particular voter at heart, and generally have a philosophy toward government similar to the voter.

These are the reasons I support Obama. Plus, he's charismatic and a natural leader.

I actually am in favor of expanding nuclear energy. So don't assume that everyone is against it. The toxic waste should be recycled, though, as France does.

I am against "clean coal" (there is no such thing). But alas, both Clinton and Obama are pro-"clean coal" (Clinton more so).

American has too many staunch and powerful Republicans to have universal health care. A step in that direction is the best that can be done at this time, IMO. I don't know whose plan, Clinton's or Obama's, would be better. But I KNOW that neither would get enacted their precise plan, as they campaign on it. I admit I don't like the mandate aspect of Clinton's plan, though. I think my employer might drop my insurance, since they would know that I would be forced by the govt to buy it on my own, thereby protecting the company's interests in having a healthy employee. Also, Clinton is heavily supported by insurance companies. Reminds me of the Medicare "Reform" Act that was heavily supported by ins. cos.

I basically trust his judgment. I will be voting for someone that I think has a good head on his shoulders, knows how to pick the best advisors, makes good decisions, and is basically honest (as honest as politicians are). That's all any voter can do, really.

[JANdad]

77. My head just exploded...

:nuke:

And this is EXACTLY how Bush got into office: "They are elected because they are liked, deemed intelligent, seem trustworthy, have a common sense head on their shoulders, have the interests of the particular voter at heart, and generally have a philosophy toward government similar to the voter.

"Too detailed for me" = Hurry up and give me the soudbite...American Idol is coming on and I don't want to miss ANY of it!

[Honeycombe8]

82. Don't be insulting to another poster. I gave you facts. You don't agree.

That is your prerogative.

Fact: Candidates are not elected based on their position on a specific issue. Don't blame me for that fact. Facts are difficult things. They exist, whether you approve or not.

Fact: I have never seen American Idol.

Fact: Neither Clinton nor Obama will be able to get his/her programs enacted, as promised on the campaign trail. So whether you like a particular aspect of a plan or not doesn't matter. The average voter seems to know this, but you have yet to learn that.

What does matter is the candidate's general philosophy toward an issue, and whether the person has the critical leadership quality of selecting the best people as advisors, as well as a good head on his shoulders to enable him to make decent judgments.

Bush did not have these qualities. All he had was a ruthless political maneuvering machine (Rove), the ability to seem like a guy you'd wanna have a beer with, and a well recognized name.

Bush lacked the qualities I listed....intellectual curiosity, common sense, intelligence, ability to appoint the best people to be advisors, good judgment. Obama has all these qualities. So I will vote for him.

It is all any voter can do. If you want to vote for someone based on a detail of a particular plan, that is your prerogative. But it is misguided, in my view. It is the qualities that matter; you never know what other matters will come up during a presidency. The qualities I listed are necessary to deal with what are now unknown issues.

[Two Americas]

87. personal qualities

Supporting a candidate based on personal qualities is appropriate in areas other than politics. It is dangerous in politics, and can lead to cults of personality, which is exactly what I think we are seeing.

There is no general philosophy coming from either of the candidates that I can detect. I heard George Lakos talking about this on the radio today. What is lacking is not responses to the Republican framing, rather what we lack is a comprehensive and comprehensible over-arching political context within which to discuss the issues. "We are superior people, and Obama is one of us, and Bush is a dolt and so are his supporters" is not a political philosophy, it is aristocratic arrogance. The public, in their wisdom, reject that and always will. Purging dissenters to create a smooth tapestry of "like minded" homogeneity is not "unity" and being "right" in a narrow and self-righteous way is the consolation prize in politics. I fear that we now will have to learn those simple political lessons the hard way, and the true hope is that this will break up the political logjam and bring clarity to our politics so that we can build the genuine article upon the ruins of the politics of the gentrified few, the cultural warriors and doppelgangers to the extreme right wing zealots.

When we choose the personality style and resume that we like - which is what we do, with Gore, Kerry and now Obama having the professorial nuanced style we admrie - we should not be surprised when the general public rejects our candidates upon the same shallow and superficial basis. Most people are supporting Obama because they like his personality, and that is "American Idol" no matter how much we argue that we are using the "right" criteria for judging the personality.

[Steely_Dan]

70. Better Get That...

criticism out now before he is the "official" nominee. After that, it won't be allowed.

-P

[crankychatter]

84. That's the point Dan... I've never said a negative thing about Obama until now AND

I won't again in here...

I'll defend him with flame throwers...

this is therapy, eh?

we're ALL on the same team... the scrimmage is over... it's time for the game

[seaglass]

85. Constructive criticism most definitely is allowed of the nominee

and Democrats already in office. Even not so constructive criticism is allowed - certainly you've seen our Democratic Senators and Reps called spineless on this site many times?

[BigBearJohn]

72. My goodness. There IS hope for this world yet.

[Apollo11]

76. What bothers me most about Obama is his speaking style

Obama is great in front of a friendly crowd consisting almost entirely of Born Again Obama supporters, when he can fall back on his pre-prepared stump speech which has plenty of applause lines.

But when you see him trying to deal with tricky questions on complex issues in the context of a debate or in front of reporters - he looks and sounds hesitant and lacking in self-confidence.

I had hoped that he would get over this phase but again this weekend we saw the timid "Obambi" talking to the press about the delegate math and his latest change of position regarding his religious beliefs.

I honestly don't feel it is disloyal in any way to share my concerns about Obama's weakness in some crucial aspects of public speaking, because it is plain for everyone (who watches TV) to see.

PS - For the record, I have for many months been a strong supporter of a CLINTON-OBAMA ticket in 2008. If that makes me anti-Obama or pro-McCain then all I can say is ... "whatever" ... :eyes:

[Prophet 451]

88. I see your point but disagree in part

From what I see, the problem is less with falling back to a stump speech as with an inability to improvise. When Obama's making a prepared speech (such as his memorable one on race relations), he's quite superb, one of the best orators it's been my pleasure to witness. It's only when he's forced to speak off the cuff, to improvise a response, that he starts stuttering and losing his nerve.

Since he is the nominee, all we can hope is that he attends some improv classes between now and November!

[maryf]

92. Just a megaphone

Yes I've always seen Obama as a voice piece, a wonderful orator. He's a lighthouse, a beacon, who needs to have some keeper light his fire and he shines brightly. He's Laurence Olivier reading Hamlet, brilliant in his role, but not the creator of the words, not the playright. If they are his words they are so plotted and studied the spontaneity can't exist. My sole hope for him in regards to this is that he does have some part in creating his words, but is intelligent but not quick, may well be ponderous or overly analytical. However, I really believe he is analytical when considering questions, but not in regards to seeking what he truly believes about the answer, but in regards to how it will sound, how it will reflect back on him. I think he had potential, I think he was blinded by his own light and is lost.

[Two Americas]

90. one important point

I watch a candidate to see what subject areas they are comfortable with and which they stumble upon. Obama is at his beat talking about himself, and weak when talking about others and policy and the country. His candidacy is about him - as a personality as a talented individual, not about politics or the people. Some Obama supporters may be resistant to this analysis, but on another thread many of them are trumpeting the fact that he is a superior personality in better ways, and therefore the better choice for the job. As with so many things in the Obama movement, the same idea is either rejected or embraced depending upon the context. We can say that he is a superior personality ion the context of why he is better and why we like him, but not in the context of discussing potential weakness in the general election. Things are true or not true depending upon whether or not they advance, or actually edify rather than advance in any meaningful way, the Obama fan base. That nuanced and subtle approach will fall on deaf ears with the general public, though it does resonate extremely well with the small segment of the population that dominates the narrative of the party. Unfortunately for all of us, what resonates best with that small segment -the most vocal and dominant among the liberal activist base - happens to be that which is most thoroughly rejected by the general public. Again, that can be seen as "true" or "not true" by Obama supporters, depending. If it is in the cause of saying "who needs 'em! They are all racists!" or otherwise helping to define membership in the group and exclude those who do not fit in, it is "true," but if it is in the context of a self-defeating approach, then it becomes "not true."

[VotesForWomen]

79. answer is: O's a politician just like the rest of them, and he's going to have serious trouble winni

winning in the GE. the reason is not racism. it is not allowed on this board to post the actual reasons many dems and indies do not like him. (outside of the misbehavior of his supporters). whether it is allowed to post those reasons here or not, they will continue to be a problem for O, and make it almost impossible to win in nov.