Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

Will you be getting the unorthodox positions of all the other viable candidates, too?

No I won't, because I agree with Dys that all "viable" candidates tend to be streamlined, scripted, and boring. Hence my support for the candidates I like, whether they are perceived viable or not. My point was that Obama's program (as opposed to Obama's personality) isn't much of an exception.

Sozobe wrote:

- Against the death penalty -- that almost qualifies for your "majority" definition, hard to call.

Yes, that's the kind of unorthodox I had in mind. Thanks!

Sozobe wrote:

- Outspokenly religious (at odds with his party)

The United Church of Christ is a denomination Democrats can like. You may remember a thread about it back in our days at LAA -- the United Church of Christ was the one that ran this TV commercial advertizing how welcoming they were of all couples, gay or straight. So they're definitely not the kind of church Democrats are at odds with. Moreover, Obama's conclusions about gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and other hot-button issues for America's organized Christianity are not at odds with his party. I wouldn't count his religious temperament as unorthodox.

Sozobe wrote:

Overall, one of the things I like best about him is his appreciation of nuance and subtleties, which doesn't really go with extreme stands of any kind.

Point taken.

Sozobe wrote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Since I always mess up these things (Tico gave me a tip then I promptly forgot it), the bolded part is that the majority of Democrats in this poll supported legal marriage for gays and lesbians.

"Majority" is a shaky indicator with this kind of poll. By choosing what answers are possible, pollsters decide the breadth of the categories they classify respondents into. This, in turn, affects the majorities they get. For example, if CBS had created a category "civil union or no recognition", you get an anti-gay marriage majority -- as substantial one among Democrats, a sweeping one among all adults. If CBS had created a "full marriage or civil unions", it would have found a pro-recognition majority from the same responses to the same poll.

One way around this problem is to sort respondents by their answers. In this case, you would them sort from "legal marriage" to "no legal recognition" and look what the middle respondent answered. Among "all adults" as well as "Democrats", the middle respondent wanted civil unions. Hence, that's the stand a Democratic candiate would choose for electability.

0 Replies

Obama has an ethics/corruption op ed in WP... it sets a high bar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301620.html

0 Replies

This is my favorite part of that piece:

I have long proposed a nonpartisan, independent ethics commission that would act as the American people's public watchdog over Congress. The commission would be staffed with former judges and former members of Congress from both parties, and it would allow any citizen to report possible ethics violations by lawmakers, staff members or lobbyists. Once a potential violation is reported, the commission would have the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, gather records, call witnesses, and provide a report to the Justice Department or the House and Senate ethics committees that -- unlike current ethics committee reports -- is available for all citizens to read.

0 Replies

CNN disaster a mistake? calls Obama, Osama Bin Laden in major news story about whereabouts of al-Qaeda leader carries caption "Where's Obama?"over images of Bin Laden. Critic's-" "Anybody can see a "b" or an "s on the key board." CNN pre-mediated this.

Senator Barack Obama is a rising star of US politics
US broadcaster CNN has apologised after mistakenly putting the name of US Senator Barack Obama as a caption on a story about Osama Bin Laden.
An advertisement for a feature about the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leader carried the caption "Where's Obama?" over images of Bin Laden.

CNN has apologised for "a very bad typographical error".

A spokesman for Mr Obama, a potential presidential hopeful, said he accepted that it was an innocent error.

"Though I'd note that the 's' and 'b' keys aren't all that close to each other, I assume it was just an unfortunate mistake," his spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

The error happened on Monday night during presenter Wolf Blitzer's news programme "The Situation Room".

Mr Blitzer apologised on air for the slip. "I'm going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology," he said.

Mr Obama, tipped by some to become the country's first black president, admitted in October that he was considering a White House run in 2008.

He has always been ready to deal with questions about his unusual name.

"When I first started to work in public life... people would ask: 'Hey brother, what's with your name? You called Alabama or Yo' Mama?'"

He has also acknowledged that his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, is not ideal for someone involved in politics.

0 Replies

snood

Yup, that's the key part for me too.

There appears to be an ugly strategy coming down the pike. We are starting to see an increase from the typical sources (Novak, last night, for example) expressing their concerns and sympathies for Obama...because the Clinton machine is so power-hungry, so amoral/immoral that it will do "anything" to bring Obama down if he is in the way.

This does two things:
1) least important, it suggests Obama is a bit of a weakling needing help from kindly knowledgeable political people like Novak.

2) any ugly PR tricks that now arrive with Obama as target can be, and definitely will be, assigned to Clinton's evil-witchness. These uglies will come and they'll be well-disguised with sources hard or impossible to track but always disconnected from the RNC.

Two birds with one stone. It doesn't matter who succeeds in the primaries, they'll now have a negative narrative to throw out.

0 Replies

It is perhaps a sad comment on my reasoning but, if it came down to the real nitty gritty, I would vote for Obama simply because he is african american. It's time this watermellon was busted open.
Vote early
vote often
vote Kucinich.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Almost all the insecure white men (many of them closet cases) already vote straight REPUBLICAN so Obama won't lose any measurable votes due to race.

In 2004, John Kerry got 37% of the vote of white men, according to the exit polls. A clear minority, but it does mean they still provided over a quarter of the total of Kerry votes.

Roxxxanne wrote:

And he will gain immensely. I do not think the Dems have ever lost a Presidential contest in which blacks came out in huge numbers. (Except maybe 2000 and in that case their vote was supressed)

Blacks came out en masse in 2004 too, to no avail. If I remember correctly, they came out massively for the Dems in 1984 as well, mobilised by Jesse Jackson's primary campaign and Reagan's economic policies that had hit the lower end of the wage scale hard. We know how that ended.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
For anyone wishing to learn more about Obama on various issues, here's a great website:

The substance is there. There's a lot more to him than charisma if you're willing to do some reading.

There is indeed. Thanks, Butrflynet, for posting this link.

As I expected, I largely agree with Obama about civil rights, but largely disagree with him about economic, labor, and environmental regulations. Where the two areas conflict, I disagree with him (for example, he "strongly favors `require companies to hire women and minorities'", whereas I disagree with it; I believe in freedom of contract in this matter).

So far I see two notable exceptions to this rule. (1) I agree with Obama that the Bush tax cuts aren't doing much good for the economy in general and for the middle class in particular. They shouldn't be made permanent; indeed, they ought to be reversed, and then some. (2) In terms of civil rights, Obama lost points with me for his position on gay marriage: "Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006). Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)" To be clear, the parts I object to are "opposes gay marriage" and "marriage not a human right".

snood wrote:
Yeah, but who'd want to cloud the real issues - that Obama is all fluff and pretty face so far, and no one knows what he thinks - with facts like his views on issues?

Snood, what do you think of Obama's views on the issues listed in Buttrflynet's link?

I don't get the same impression as you do on Obama's stance on gay marriage. Am I misreading something?

Reading his quotes at that link, he opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Was he opposing gay marriage or the use of a constitutional ban for that purpose?

He doesn't think marriage is a civil right, he doesn't specify a flavor of marriage.

When asked in 1998, if Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages he was undecided.

This quote from his book is too vague to know what it refers to. Don't know if the header applied to it is from his book or the website's header.

Quote:
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 Oct 1, 2006

Does anyone have Obama's book? Can you check on the pages referenced and tell me if the header and quote from that website "Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality" is accurate? What's missing from the start of the quote?

I'm on a waiting list at the library to read the book so have to rely on others for now to verify things.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Will you be getting the unorthodox positions of all the other viable candidates, too?

No I won't, because I agree with Dys that all "viable" candidates tend to be streamlined, scripted, and boring. Hence my support for the candidates I like, whether they are perceived viable or not. My point was that Obama's program (as opposed to Obama's personality) isn't much of an exception.

I'm not sure if we disagree with anything here except whether it is irresponsible to support a non-viable candidate. My use of "not mayonnaise-y" merely meant that I thought he was not boring.

And I think it's irresponsible to support (in the sense of vote for or leach resources from other viable candidates) a non-viable candidate, unless there is nothing in particular at stake. Like, if the Republican candidate was Pat Robertson and the Democratic candidate was Obama, and polls were 80% Obama to 10% Robertson (and an additional 10% undecided), I wouldn't particularly care about someone supporting or voting for a third, non-viable candidate. If the Republican candidate was McCain and the Democratic candidate was Hillary and polls showed them running neck-and-neck, I'd care a great deal.

I would prefer a system in which a protest vote was a responsible option, but we do not currently have that system.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Almost all the insecure white men (many of them closet cases) already vote straight REPUBLICAN so Obama won't lose any measurable votes due to race.

In 2004, John Kerry got 37% of the vote of white men, according to the exit polls. A clear minority, but it does mean they still provided over a quarter of the total of Kerry votes.

Not ALL white men are insecure. Or closet cases, for that matter.

0 Replies

I haven't read Obama's book but it is a fact that he opposes same sex marriage but supports civil unions.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

And I think it's irresponsible to support (in the sense of vote for or leach resources from other viable candidates) a non-viable candidate, unless there is nothing in particular at stake.

Are you sure you think that as a matter of principle? For example, suppose Phoenix showed up in a political thread. Suppose she announced that she didn't like any Republican candidate so she'd vote for a Libertarian guy instead. Would you post a response saying "But Phoenix, that's so irresponsible -- the Libertarian candidate just isn't viable! By all means, do hold your nose and vote for the Republican candidate, Rudjon McGiuliani instead!" I would bet against you posting such a response.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Hmm. I see what you're saying, but I think the general principle can apply. I think it is more responsible to be careful with money than to withdraw ones' life savings and anonymously gift total strangers, but if I came home one day and found a packet of $100 bills had been put through my mail slot and inquiries to the police didn't turn up anything, I'd be plenty happy.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

<The funny thing is that I think most liebral/libartarian candidates -here- are viable - but I wouldn't vote for them as a matter of principle (besides, Hirsch, for instance).>

That's fine, Walter! And thanks for the expression of sympathy in your Freudian typo "liebral". (For Americans "lieb" is German for "nice".)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thomas wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Will you be getting the unorthodox positions of all the other viable candidates, too?

No I won't, because I agree with Dys that all "viable" candidates tend to be streamlined, scripted, and boring. Hence my support for the candidates I like, whether they are perceived viable or not. My point was that Obama's program (as opposed to Obama's personality) isn't much of an exception.

I'm not sure if we disagree with anything here except whether it is irresponsible to support a non-viable candidate. My use of "not mayonnaise-y" merely meant that I thought he was not boring.

And I think it's irresponsible to support (in the sense of vote for or leach resources from other viable candidates) a non-viable candidate, unless there is nothing in particular at stake. Like, if the Republican candidate was Pat Robertson and the Democratic candidate was Obama, and polls were 80% Obama to 10% Robertson (and an additional 10% undecided), I wouldn't particularly care about someone supporting or voting for a third, non-viable candidate. If the Republican candidate was McCain and the Democratic candidate was Hillary and polls showed them running neck-and-neck, I'd care a great deal.

I would prefer a system in which a protest vote was a responsible option, but we do not currently have that system.

Not all third party votes are protest votes, they are oftentimes the vote of choice. In fact, most times when I've voted for someone in either major party it was a protest vote for the candidate in the other major party. I had to seriously hold my nose and vote for Kerry in 2004 and did so only as a protest vote against Bush.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I would prefer a system in which a protest vote was a responsible option, but we do not currently have that system.

I suppose, our system allows to do such - with up to 10, 15 possibilties sometimes.

And I further think that a lot of voters are doing so.

But when someone really votes with responsibilty like I see it, she/he would vote according to her/his conscience/political belief/conviction ...

On the other hand, we vote parties and lawmakers and not the chancellor.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 Oct 1, 2006

Does anyone have Obama's book? Can you check on the pages referenced and tell me if the header and quote from that website "Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality" is accurate? What's missing from the start of the quote?

I'm on a waiting list at the library to read the book so have to rely on others for now to verify things.[/quote]

"For many practicing Christians, the same inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. All too often I have sat in a church and heard a pastor use gay bashing as a cheap parlor trick -- 'It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!' he will shout, usually when the sermon is not going so well. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hosptial visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex -- nor am I willing to accept a..." continues as referenced.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

JPB wrote:
I would prefer a system in which a protest vote was a responsible option, but we do not currently have that system.

That was me, I think.

Quote:

I suppose, our system allows to do such - with up to 10, 15 possibilties sometimes.

And I further think that a lot of voters are doing so.

That's cool. Again, I wish we had that, or something more like that.

I'll explain further.

This started with the idea of "non-viable" candidates. Inherent in that definition is that they are candidates who can't and won't win. I think that in an election where the two major party candidates are close, throwing away your vote is irresponsible and a perversion of the (current, flawed) process. I don't consider it to be much different than not voting at all, which I also consider irresponsible.

Now, there are two different aspects of this. One is that I think someone should vote for who they think will make the best president, period. Throwing one's vote away is not voting for who you think will be the best president, because that person won't become president.

Separately from that, I will argue (and as Phoenix knows, have argued) vociferously about who I think will be the best president. If I think that out of three candidates, the Democratic candidate will be best, I will argue for any vote (or lack thereof) that gives that candidate the best chance. If the vote is for the Democratic candidate, fine. If the vote is for the non-viable candidate (and is therefore a throwaway), fine. If the person can't bear to vote for the Democrat but doesn't want to vote for anyone else either and so doesn't vote, fine. (Better than a vote for the Republican.)

I understand the "message" idea, but in our current system I don't think that means anything. I had way too many people telling me that a vote for Nader in 2000 was a message -- what did that accomplish?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know