I hear how Obama is going to change the world and peace will reign. Ok well maybe I haven't heard that directly but there are many who shower him with the accolades that sound almost that sweeping. I haven't felt entirely comfortable with him possibly being the next President of the United States. I keep hearing "change" in his speeches but just hearing "change" hasn't allayed my concerns about him. One I have is that while it's quite evident that he will try to negotiate with our enemies I haven't seen anything yet to make me feel as if he would be able to "pull the trigger"(sadly sometimes there isn't another option) and commit troops to combat if necessary. And there are other domestic areas I'm not comfortable with his stance.
So I'm asking those of you who are convinced that he is the right person for the job tell me why. Allay my concerns that he isn't the right person for the job.
BTW I'm not convinced McCain is either.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
I can provide my opinion of what change means under a Barack Obama presidency. I believe the goal is to change the demeanor under which we interact is key. I believe that listening to all sides before making decisions, and then communicating the rationale for those decisions to the public is key.
The recent book by former press secretary Scott McClellan's apparently shows that the White House was deceitful in how it presented the run up to the Iraq war. Frankly, most people have already determined that they lied and the book just confirms that contention. Meanwhile, over 4000 US soldiers are dead. And there are many other instances where the Administration was deceitful. One could argue that there was some of the same in the Bill Clinton Administration, though certainly we didn't go to war.
The bottom line is that we don't trust our government. And the international community doesn't trust our government. In a land built on democracy it is critical that the people trust its leaders. In a world fraught with conflict it is critical that the world trust the United States. Currently neither is true for the majority.
The promise of Barack Obama, in my mind, is that he brings in a different attitude toward openness. Under an Obama presidency, we will provide leadership where currently we provide bullying. Under his presidency, we will focus on dealing with the important issues that face us all (and our grandchildren) rather than on pushing an ideologicaly agenda.
Everything that he has said confirms that he would "pull the trigger" if necessary. And everything he has said confirms that he would deal with all countries as an adult, with all the tools in our arsenal (military, economic, diplomatic) rather than deal with them as if we were the biggest child in the sandlot with the biggest toys. This is not a game. This is real life. Both within the United States and within the international community there are many differences and viewpoints. Forcing our way of doing things on everyone else is rarely the way to garner their confidence and trust. Think how the US was after 9/11 - we banded together to go after the common enemy. Right now, the US is the common enemy for much of the world. Consider that Gulliver was hugely bigger and stronger than the tiny Lilliputians, but hundreds of them were able to control one of him - until Gulliver decided to learn and respect his neighbors. Then they worked together toward common goals.
The change is the attitude. The change is being honest with us. The change is the chance to do things differently in Washington, with we, the people, in mind rather than a simple partisan agena.
Will it be easy? Of course not. And no one in the Obama campaign has ever said it would. The old school Washington politicians are clearly still in force. But yet, Obama has garnered more support than the established candidates. And the fact that the superdelegates (party elders, party leaders, governors, congressman, etc.) are overwhelmingly now supporting Obama shows that he has the ability to inspire people. Many in Washington wish they could do the right thing, but get bogged down in the old ways because the leadership constrains their abilities. An Obama presidency will empower those leaders to plot a new path forward, which will release the enthusiasm for the other congressional members to make decisions. We have already seen this happening. An Obama presidency will encourage and facilitate it further.
As I said, no one thinks this will be easy. The "change the world and peace will reign" is a canard, a strawman, that is offered by the opposition to rationalize their opposition. This is the point. If people don't like an Obama policy, they should present their case honestly and with support, and he will listen. But it starts with honesty, integrity, and transparency. I for one will work after the election to ensure that an Obama presidency follows these precepts. It is our responsibility as citizens to hold our officials accountable. We rarely do. It is easier to whine about whomever is in office, and then go ahead and reelect them again and again.
In the end, we all must take responsibility for our government. Obama will give us an opportunity to do just that.
The "colony of the world" stuff is not supportable by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, it's just silly. We give up our sovereignty only if we choose not to exercise our responsibilities to participate in global affairs.
You also Terry
David I hear and see many places the mantra One World so I think that there are those who do look toward that goal. Is it Obama? I don't know. I think we do need participate in global affairs but I think we have to be wary of allowing others dictate what our country does and the direction it goes. Shouldn't we be more concerned with how we feel about ourselves more than what other feel about us? It's great to get along with all the kids in the sand box as long as we don't have stop being who we are just to get along. I saw when I was in the service and went to other countries the when soldiers expected the host country to behave more like America there was resentment but when they respected that host countries way everyone got along. We can get along with other countries without trying to be like them and just be ourselves.
Yes, we are different from others, and they are different from us. We don't all have to homogenize to interact with each other.
There are always people who take things to extreme. On both (all) sides. They don't define the candidates.
And I might remind you that the personas that the media build aren't a good indicator of who the people are either. Most of the information most of us base our decisions on comes from sound bites on TV or elsewhere. That's like saying you understand the Bible based on one line taken out of context. That's like saying you understand Lincoln based on one line taken from his Emancipation Proclamation. We need to garner information from multiple sources, including those with differing viewpoints. Listen to the entire speeches of Obama, Clinton, McCain, not just the pre-rehearsed sound bite with their talking points or their un-rehearsed occasional misstatements. Listen to what they don't say as well as what they do say. Listen for the thought pattern behind what they say. This is what we base our decisions on - listening, an honest evaluation of the facts, and then our best judgment.
I'll admit that prior to 9/11 I didn't follow politics to much but I think now we need to know as much as we can about who is going to be running the country. And sometimes the dry facts aren't enough to fill in all the blanks. Or again I could be wrong and the facts are all we need to know.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
The problem is not that topics are off limits, but that some people don't like the answers (or don't even listen to the answers). And frankly, we focus on trivialities that don't mean a whole lot.
I just thought this was kind of funny...
It's easy to accuse the other side of being disrespectful when you want an excuse for your position. And it's easy to overlook the same sort of disrespect with your own group of supporters. And too many people take the easy route because it means they don't have to take responsibility for their positions.
And it's easy to pick some canard as an excuse for your decisions.
The ideal is for all of us to be honest about the candidates and with ourselves. We have some work to do on that, but again it is a small percentage that causes the problems. The rest are very respectful. And again it is both sides that have been this way...it is disingeneous to accuse one side and overlook the other.
In the end, the differences between the two Democratic candidates are minor. The differences between the Democrats and the Republican nominee are vast.
I have never accused you of writing disparaging articles about WV or the south, nor stalking people or pinging them or threatening them or of making fun of people. I have never put you down. I have never accused you of being a liar. I don't understand your extreme reaction and can only assume that someone out there has been doing those things. If this is the case, you have every right to report the person, and I would highly encourage it.
I do ask that not everyone be painted with the same brush as those few who are disrespectful. It is a small minority and not reflective of the vast majority of Obama or Clinton (or even McCain) supporters.
I know about McCain/Kennedy, don't lecture me on that. However McCain will, has changed position on that. That is the only way he could secure the nomination but making deals with the GOP. Same with the justices. Even George Bush could not get the justices he wanted without the GOP signing on it. If Obama is president, with the dems controlling the house and senate, can you imagine why kind of supreme court justice he will have? Liberals, far lefties. Hillary or Bill Clinton. Think I am crazy? Just watch. The talking heads will start talking about this soon. Obama will need to cut a deal with the devil. That is the Clintons in order to unify his party if he wants to win. If he does not pick her for VP, he will promise them the first appointment on the supreme court. Now just picture that on your dream. Hillary or Bill on the bench. We will never get rid of these two. They will be there until they die. Voting on racial preference, abortion,....
On taxes, Obama is Che Guevarra without the bandana. A far left guy who will take your money and put it on programs.
On the other issues, his desire to talk to those countries and everything else is the right one. We've tried everything else. Why not try this? Direct talk does not mean without preparation and having an agenda to discuss. Obama's initial response was wrong and showed his lack of experience. He backed off and is rectifying his position. With guys like Biden talking to him combined with his ideas, he will move the right direction.
Taxes, immigration, the bench are more important to me. On those, Obama is not to be trusted.
He is a decent fellow, the more honest of the three. I won't name call McCain but the guy has major issues. I don't trust him. I trust my party to have some sense of control of McCain.
An appointee for the Supreme Court doesn't even have to be a lawyer. I would go for both, but ladies first.
It is true that the next President will likely have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two. So if you like the kind of justices that Bush has appointed, then by all means vote for McCain, because it's pretty likely Obama would be less ideological in his picks. As for Hillary or Bill, not even the Democrats want that and Obama wouldn't even consider it. But even if for some reason he were to do so, neither of them would take it. Neither would ever be confirmed, especially with Hillary's antics in the primaries.
On taxes, he's said that he would refocus taxes. As an Independent I'm not in favor of tax and spend, but I'm also not in favor of the borrow and spend that the Republicans have done. If I had a choice I'd do the pay-as-you-go then the go now and charge it to your kids and grandkids. Sorry, but that's exactly what the Republicans did under Bush and also under Reagan. But that deflects from the point. There will be a lot of supporters who will work hard for more transparent government, which means no tax without a good reason and and emphasis on fiscal responsibility. There is lots of money being spent on Republican pet projects that can be reallocated. You gotta be careful believing your own propaganda on the Democrats and taxes stuff.
He will talk to other countries, which is what we should have been doing all along. That doesn't mean he'll be giving away the store. Again, don't believe your own propoganda. As for his position, it hasn't changed. He says a few words in a debate and everyone else takes them and creates their own storylines. Thus he isn't rectifying, he's fleshing out. That's what you do. The fact that the others jumped and drew all sorts of false conclusions shows just how used to Washington speak they all were. It shows just how good a judgment Obama has, that he can see the nuances where all others see opportunities for politicking and pandering.
So, your conclusion is faulty. Obama is to be trusted. He may not do what you want him to do, and that is a valid and logical reason for not voting for him. But it's because you disagree on the issues, not that he can't be trusted with the issues.
1. He will favor renewables/alternatives over fossil fuels.
2. He understands the economic advantages of building a new industry, and appropriately refers to "green collar jobs".
3. He understands the relationship between our dependency on foreign oil and mideast resource wars.
4. We will never successfully deal with the terrorism threat until we deal with our oil dependency. I think Obama understands this.
*Whether he understands the core/central position that energy occupies relative to about every other issue - I don't know. And I'm not entirely comfortable with his unwillingness to "take nuclear energy off the table". But I'm comfortable enough with him to prefer him to McCain - without a doubt.
**I have favored Clinton, slightly, but will enthusiastically support Obama. I think he will be the nominee.
The tax issue has been distorted since Reagan's "government is the problem," taxes are bad formulation. I'd like to see a return to the JFK orientation, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" framework.
I'd like to see CITIZENS (including corporations) stop bitching about taxes. Yes, fiscal responsibility - absolutely. No excessive spending (pork), but adequate spending - and included in the definition of fiscal responsibility, proudly (patriotically) paying your share of the national debt - not leaving it for your kids to pick up.
I can agree that we need to find alternatives but I don't support cutting off the fossil fuels before there is a viable alternative with the infrastructure to support it(without subsidies. Why have to pay for it twice).
Earmarks are being abused and should be cut out. Yes those abusing them are "within the rules for earmarks" but that doesn't make it right.
I also question Obamas stance on taxes where he is willing to take a cut in revenue in the name of "being fair".
Cap and trade makes me crazy. We're expecting the government to kill off businesses then find new jobs for those who will lose their jobs because of this policy. I see major problems ahead with this plus from what I've been reading this will add even more government agencies that will control our lives. And Obama supports more government bureaucracy through cap and trade.
And I'd like him to smack the Sierra club upside the head because they are stopping progress. Here in MN we have a new bridge that needs to be built to replace one that is old and breaks down(lift bridge) all the time and the next closest bridge is about 20-30 miles down river. And the Sierra club is blocking the construction of the new bridge. You'd think with what happened here they would support replacing old worn out bridges.
Plus local power companies are trying to build a new clean coal power plant here and guess who's stopping it. And Obama say's he supports clean coal so I'd like while he's here to tell them to back off.
There are viable alternatives. The problem is that they have to compete with subsidized, established fossils/nuclear industries. The issue is deploying infrastructure - not technology.
Charles: "...with the infrastructure to support it(without subsidies. Why have to pay for it twice)."
What do you think you've been doing? I would be more in favor of eliminating all energy subsidies and tax breaks than the present system. But even with that, fossils/nuclear industries would have a huge advantage, since they have a long history of such "incentives". Of course, that includes the $Billions sqandered in the mideast "to protect our vital national interests in the region."
Charles: "Cap and trade makes me crazy."
I don't favor cap and trade, but it's better than nothing. I think replacing income taxes with carbon taxes is a better way to go.
Charles: "I'd like him to smack the Sierra club upside the head because they are stopping progress."
"Progress" is a relative term. My very conservative uncle in S. Texas hated the Sierra Club also, except the time when they helped preserve the wildlife refuge which bordered his property. Then he liked them. Same with a number of very conservative communities in rural Mississippi, when CAFOs want to expand their operations in those communities. Perhaps you could be fair and present the issues the Sierra Club has with the new bridge. Do you know what they are? Or are you just content to "negatively brand" the Sierra Club?
Charles: "...power companies are trying to build a new clean coal power plant here and guess who's stopping it."
"Clean coal" is a sound-byte, far from the reality. First, there's nothing "clean" about coal mining, and you can ask even the evangelicals in W. Va. about that. Second, IF coal is going to be used until solar and wind are more widely deployed, then the best use for the carbon is to grow algae for biofuel - not "sequestering" it underground. There is nothing "clean" about burying carbon. Burying.... tell me why we always want to bury our refuse - garbage, nuclear waste, carbon. That, in itself, betrays something of a psychopathology. Buried things never "go away". They always come back in some form or other.
Charles: "I don't support cutting off the fossil fuels before there is a viable alternative...."
I don't think anyone suggested that. But tell me, why can't there be incentives for gas stations to install a hydrogen pump? Honda already has a hydrogen car, which it is leasing in CA, where hydrogen stations already exist. A transition to hydrogen could be fairly rapid (by 2040). Of course, that eventuality is more likely with Obama than McCain - but especially more likely with a democratic congress than a republican one. BTW, I'm not a democrat.
Charles: "...with the infrastructure to support it(without subsidies. Why have to pay for it twice)."
You are aware of the link between our involvement in the mideast and their oil reserves - aren't you? What have we spent on the Iraq war alone, to date? Something like $525 billion?
Actually, Terry - regarding the global economy - have you by any chance heard the on-line speech by Fareed Zackaria? (I believe he is the editor of Newsweek International) One of the NPR stations ran it.
I just read an article yesterday on the front page here on gather discussing his new book. It was an eye opener beyond what I already knew about global economy, but I liked his positive outlook for the U.S.
Steve, the interview also addressed clean coal mining and discussed that even though we might stop here if it goes on in China - it will negate any progress for green we may have just made here in the U.S.
I always knew we were becoming interdependent as has been recognized and practiced by our corporation for years, but he painted a much clearer picture.
I haven't picked up the book yet, but I will.
Obama, well - sigh, I feel like Charles.
Excellent points and I know from your previous posts that you've done your homework on this so we can rely on your facts and opinions.
I'll add one further point to drive the idea home. Alternative energy is not a choice. We have to do it. The choice we have is how to do it. McCain has been giving lip service to climate change lately, but his proposals are not particularly different from the laissez faire attitude of the past (with a little Cap and Trade thrown in for good measure). Obama has seriously been talking about alternative energy sources from the beginning. Furthermore, while McCain's base (the conservatives) won't allow him to propose anything significant, Obama's base (especially the young) will not only support it, but help make it happen. Add to this his obvious pragmatism and we have a path forward to finding and implementing alternative energy strategies while helping companies and individuals make the needed transition. The answer is a wide variety of renewable energy sources, not some off the shelf fits-all easy answer. Obama understands this.
Another book along those lines is that of Thomas Friedman, called The World is Flat.
I think the two best choices for the Supreme Court would be Bill, and Hillary Clinton. For that to be propaganda, some pundit would have had to express that belief.
I belong to the Independence party, a centrist since my vote for John Anderson in 1980. I have to make my own propaganda, because no one will do it for me.
"It is true that the next President will likely have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two. So if you like the kind of justices that Bush has appointed, then by all means vote for McCain, because it's pretty likely Obama would be less ideological in his picks. As for Hillary or Bill, not even the Democrats want that and Obama wouldn't even consider it. But even if for some reason he were to do so, neither of them would take it. Neither would ever be confirmed, especially with Hillary's antics in the primaries."
I have a feeling that before to long I won't be able to just get up and go geocacheing because of carbon taxes. I like the freedom to just get in my car and go for a ride with the only concern being is the tank full. And you might say that it's a far fetched but every day I hear about more and more ideas to restrict peoples movements and those that don't use the authorized transportation ie. busses/trains you might get to pay a bonus for using too much. Just this week in england they were proposing caps on every individual. In CA they want to control the thermostats and adjust them if they feel you're using too much heat or air. To me that sounds like a serious loss of freedom. I do believe that having the government control our energy is to much control of the country and would be a major loss of freedom. Unless I'm just being paranoid.
And thanks for posting to "News, Politics and the Economy"...
You are ignoring Obama's lack of a non-partisan track record, as well as half of the Democratic party. It is a condition called "progressive over-reach", which is characterized by overestimating the popularity of the progressive agenda.
There is a reason Bill Clinton created the big tent. Now there are two tents, and a river runs between them.
China has been one of our excuses for not cleaning up our own act. Actually, China's position has been that since the West has created the problem, the West should take the lead in solving it. They have also indicated (more strongly since the latest IPCC report) that they are willing to be part of the solution. China has committed $265 billion to renewable energy through 2020. Would you want the Chinese to become the world's chief producer of renewable energy products, or would you prefer the U.S. taking the lead and economic benefits from the new industries?
David: "Alternative energy is not a choice. We have to do it. The choice we have is how to do it."
Very well said.
David: "McCain has been giving lip service to climate change lately, but his proposals are not particularly different from the laissez faire attitude of the past...."
To be fair, McCain has acknowledged global warming for years, and with Lieberman, proposed one of the first senate bills to address it. He is sincere about it (as opposed to lip service). However, his solutions are far from acceptable. Primarily, he and most republicans are proposing a massive expansion of nuclear energy. That is not only a dangerous choice, but an unnecessarily expensive distraction from renewables.
Charles: "...have you ever noticed that despite the amount of fossil fuels we burn here in the US I think we're still cleaner than any other industrialized country in the world."
Until earlier this year, the U.S. was the leader in greenhouse gas emissions. By some reports, China is now emitting more CO2 than the U.S.
Charles: "...there are those who just complain at how bad we are but never recognize how much we've done."
Nice sound-byte, but "progress" isn't fixing the problem. Science has said that an adequate response is to reduce emissions 80% (below 1990 levels) by 2050. I suggest we pay attention. Obama, IMO, understands this.
Charles: "I have a feeling that before to long I won't be able to just get up and go geocacheing because of carbon taxes. I like the freedom to just get in my car and go for a ride with the only concern being is the tank full."
That's not the issue. You could still go for your ride on a full tank of hydrogen - and no one would be dying in Iraq to ensure that you have access to that full tank.
Charles: "To me that sounds like a serious loss of freedom. I do believe that having the government control our energy is to much control of the country and would be a major loss of freedom. Unless I'm just being paranoid."
Well, there's nothing in the Constitution about "rights to gasoline". So, the "freedom" issue is a red herring. Now, let's talk about what will enable us to grow economically, creating new jobs and new industries. Oil is what is being constricted, whether by diminishing supply, expanding demand, geopolitical chaos, etc. We are spending $hundreds-of-billions$ to ensure a "share" of the remaining oil supply. I don't know if paranoia is your problem, but I can see from your comments that you don't understand this problem in its full context. I don't have that concern about Mr. Obama.
Steve hits the nail on the head by saying simply our rights are emphatic and do not include being taken care of by the government in every way. Obama/Clinton represents (as does McCain in a lesser manner) the belief that we are due what ever we feel we need to be happy. That this involves taxing and regulating society in ways that the Founding Fathers would have been horrified to see (for that matter, so would most of our grandparents) is of no concern. "I have a right to happiness and the government should make it happen" is not the same as warrenting the opportunity to SEEK happiness which is the belief that powered this nation for over 125 years....
This is where leadership comes in. It takes a President who is willing to listen to all sides, make the hard decisions (not just the easy partisan ones), and communicate the rationale for those decisions honestly with the public. We have had a dearth of leadership in this country for quite some time.
And we as a people have a responsibility to hold them accountable. It's not as easy as simply whining about it and reelecting the same people (most because we saw them on TV), but it's part of our obligation in a democratic society. It's about time we all starting holding ourselves and our elected officials accountable.
Please don't attribute sound-bytes to me. What I said is that the Constitution says nothing about "rights to gas", as Charles M. implies.
We make decisions as a society (or we leave it to lobbyists, corporations and politicians to decide for us), and those decisions have consequences - not just for us, but for other nations and other generations. We are responsible for those decisions - or we are responsible for not deciding (which is a decision).
Responsibility is not an infringement on freedom. Let me repeat that: responsibility is not an infringement on freedom. Just the opposite - there is no freedom without responsibility.
As a society, we face an energy crisis. We have avoided facing this crisis for 40 years now, and things have gotten progressively worse. As a society, we face a climate issue, as scientists have been warning for a generation. Avoiding it has made thing worse - just ask the people of California, facing wildfires, or Texas, Ohio and Missouri, facing floods, or the people of Florida, who are very anxious about the dawning of another hurricane season, or the people of Georgia, Alabama and S. Carolina, who are coming out of one of the worst droughts in their histories. We have now surpassed the total number of tornadoes of the previous record year, and there are several months left in the tornado season.
As a society, we will begin to assume our responsibility for addressing these problems - or things will get worse. I think that McCain understands this. I think Obama understands this. I think Clinton understands this. I disagree with McCain's solutions, because I think they create more problems than they solve - so I don't support him. Clinton and Obama have a different approach, which seems to solve many problems at the same time - economic, climate, foreign relations, public health, etc. I would have preferred Clinton, but Obama is certainly acceptable to me on these grounds.
Now, this article says "Allay My Concerns", and I have tried to do that. What I have been met with in response is a bunch of sound-bytes and talking points. I don't have anything else to say on this topic - unless there is a demonstrated effort to address the points I have raised - instead of hurling talking points.
Steve sound bytes can contain concerns as well. I don't think concerns should have a certain word count in order to be a valid concern.