Democrats & Liberals Archives

Cross-Ideological Appeal

Obama’s appeal to voters across the ideological spectrum is positively the best thing about his candidacy. It certainly arouses suspicion among a fraction of liberals and progressives, and exasperation among a fraction of conservatives, but it makes perfect sense. Liberalism and conservatism coexist within every decent thinking human being.

We have been taught to think of ideology as a linear continuum between left and right. It has been my song and dance since I started writing here to point to the fallacy of that notion, even though I occasionally fall victim to it myself. There was a kernel of truth in that famous quote of Churchill's, but unfortunately he framed it in such a way as to reinforce a false dichotomy.

Churchill wrote “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” Today I counter that any mature adult who lacks all conservative values has no brain, and any who lacks all liberal values has no heart.

Watchblog's conservative editor Dana Tuszke has come out for Obama. This does not mean that she has abandoned her deeply felt conservative values. My wholehearted support for the same candidate does not mean I'm not still the champion of liberal and progressive causes that I've always been. It's not that either one of us is compromising on some mushy middle, though some will insist that's exactly what we're doing. We both see in one human being a principled man who can understand and empathize with both sides of an issue, but still take a position and defend it. As Paul Siegel points out, we don't have to agree on every point.

Obama has a demonstrated ability to work across the aisle to create substantive legislation. He did so in the Illinois legislature on a regular basis, including getting Republican support for the requirement that all police interrogations in homicide investigations be recorded. You can see in that single July, 2003 press release from Illinois' Republican Governor Blagojevich, that Obama's name is mentioned prominently in connection with three different pieces of legislation. Concern about police misconduct is typically labeled as a liberal cause, but when the solution addresses the concern directly without tying law enforcements hands too severely, reasonable conservatives can get behind it, because after all it serves no one for hidden misconduct to result in prosecutions of the wrong people. By having the concern of a liberal while understanding the legitimate concerns of conservatives, Obama was able to broker a deal which worked and satisfied a working majority from both sides.

In his short tenure in the United States Senate, Obama has crafted major legislation in concert with Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana to address nuclear proliferation, and significant reform legislation with the very conservative Tom Coburn of Oklahoma enforcing greater transparency in federal spending. Both these bills have passed. Perhaps neither is perfect, but both address real and pressing concerns that people across the political spectrum may share.

Three years ago I wrote of the need for cross-ideological alliances. In Obama, Americans of different stripes are seeing a bridge to span those differences and seek solutions that acknowledge the legitimate concerns of differing perspectives. It's not that every solution Obama suggests will be the magic bullet that solves some problem once and for all. He is certainly not that delusional, even if some of his supporters may be. But an approach to problem solving that lays off of vilification, concentrating instead on cooperation is sorely needed. To have such an approach be at the core of a presidency bodes well for our future.

Americans, there is no need for you to stop being liberal or conservative or moderate. Even radically liberal or radically conservative ideas should be gladly put on the table and debated. Radical thinking has helped humankind on more than one occasion. When people rail against extremism, they should instead be attacking orthodoxy. It is the inflexible thinking which insists that ideas coming from outside one's own perspective are therefore worthless which paralyzes us. Talk to people who disagree with you. LISTEN to people who disagree with you. My great hope for an Obama presidency comes not from a naive belief that his message of hope will translate into a perfect set of policies. My great hope comes from a belief that he can be a catalyst for us to move beyond our differences and slowly replace the attitudes of "my way or the highway" with a genuine concern for our future and our descendants' future.

Yes We Can!

Posted by Walker Willingham at February 22, 2008 1:30 PM
Comment #246118

I hope the legislative achievements in Springfield being claimed by Obama supporters are not just resume inflation. People who support him better look into that closer, rather than have his opponents find out later that he really didn’t invent the wheel.
What exactly is the appeal of BS?
When can we get out of Iraq?
What happens if the MidEast oil gets shut off when the oil companies no longer run our government?
Who is going to pay for all the debt racked up by Bush?
Will profiteers and criminals connected to the current administration be prosecuted in the next?

Yes we can? Where is the object in that sentence?
The implication is that we can do anything, so how about saying something detailed instead of nothing.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #246120

Walker, I could list the accomplishment of John McCain in working with Democrats but the list would be far to long. Obama may have a good start but is still in the learning curve. I’ll take the experienced hand of John McCain and invite you to his table of ideas. He is a great listener and has worked well with some of the most vicious and drooling members of the Senate liberals. His willingness to work with the Democrats is one reason he is having trouble with his conservative base. You should be cautious about listing Obama’s short history of compromise as you may very well cause some of your liberals to drift away in revulsion.

Posted by: Jim M at February 22, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #246121


Obama is the most liberal senator we have. It’s only a matter of time before toto moves the curtain and Obama says “don’t mind that man behind the curtain.”

Behind the curtain, change and hope are simply a return to liberal policies of the 60’s and 70’s. Liberals must run on something other than their accomplishments and records to win. The nation is not liberal.

Obama is one of the best illusionists I have ever scene in politics. Hillary didn’t have a toto to pull back the curtain. (She is not dorothy).

Here is a toto pulling back the curtain:

When that happens the wizard of “jaws” or “oz” will be seen as a plain old liberal who puts on a good show. He really has us going right now!!!

Think about this, especially those on the left. No accomplishments and you are rushing to make him head of our country. A man with NO major accomplishments, except great speeches and winning the award for most liberal senator.

The wizard of “jaws”.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #246127


The problem with electing McCain is that he would be obliged to side with the conservatives in congress. That is unless the party has dropped the lockstep march that has been in action for the last seven years. In case you haven’t noticed the last seven years have not been entirely kind to our country. No conscientious person in their right mind can honestly feel good about placing a vote for a continuance of past practice.

No candidate for president if elected will ever be able to satisfy the ideals of all members of their respective party. I have no qualms about Obama’s ability to lead. And I have no qualms with abandoning him should he if elected disappoint us.

To put it as simply as possible: Taking a chance on any republican after the last seven years is simply too large a risk for our country at this point in time. The republican party shows no signs of accepting accountability for the mess they have created. Nor do they show any signs that they are willing to take new approaches to repairing those problems.

Past practice is the crux of our problems. That is the past practice of the last seven years. Do you really think the party that has dodged accountability for that long is ready to lead us into new and better times? McCain is not the answer, he is simply more of the problem.

Posted by: RickIL at February 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #246129

The longer version of that Chris Matthews video is actually much more interesting, and a little less scary:

People need to get a lot more serious about getting details from Obama rather than just BS. We are about to nominate a one night stand as our candidate for POTUS, and wake up the next morning to tell a joke about an elephant making love to a pig.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #246134


I like “The Wizard of Jaws”. I think it’s exactly correct. An illusionist uses mis direction in order to keep the audience’s attention while they perform their “magic”.

The misdirection is simple. It is playing into the deep hopes for change. hope and change, hope and change. While keeping America fixated on those two words, Obama is keeping hidden that he is simply an inexperienced liberal extremist.

Todo McCain is just about to pull back the curtain. Clinton can’t because she needs the support of the left. McCain does not need the left.

If I am right, we are about to watch a fall that will make Howard Dean look respectable.

“The Wizard of Jaws”.

The best political illusionist of our time.

I think I’m right.

We will see!!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2008 5:26 PM
Comment #246137

People are being too patronizing and politically correct when dealing with Obama. He has an Ivy League education, probably more honestly earned than legacy Bush. He should be able to take tougher questioning. He is actually weakened by the lack of tough questions. If people are not fawning over him, he gets testy, and his character is revealed. Hillary was actually booed when she talked about Obama using Patrick’s speech, and she let Obama interrupt her to bloviate some more. She is not going to get any tougher with him. He will avoid any serious interviews and end up sailing through the nominating process as the most unvetted candidate ever.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #246141


I hope the legislative achievements in Springfield being claimed by Obama supporters are not just resume inflation. People who support him better look into that closer
A diarist over at Daily Kos, who was herself skeptical of the “hype” did some fairly rigorous research at the Library of Congress and other websites, and came away convinced that “Obama is the superior choice in every way.” It’s a long diary, but if you’re looking for the meat, that’s what you want. You call it “BS”, and I’m sure you’re talking about the rhetoric of hope. To be honest, I went to an Obama stump speech last summer and was myself a little disappointed that it wasn’t more substantive. But his record in Congress IS substantive, and his speeches are designed to inspire, not get into wonky details. Obama is after all a politician as well as a public policy analyst, constitutional scholar, and legislator. Mock the starry eyed crowds if you wish, but the crowds are what is needed to carry him into office. I think he’s playing it just right.

And sure, the “Yes We Can!” at the end of my article is only a slogan, but it is also a nod to actual possibility - in my view the possibility that a different rhetoric accompanying the policies of a new administration really will make a difference - over time - in supplanting some of the partisan bickering with working toward solutions. Some of his supporters may be naive, but most of us recognize that change will not happen overnight.

And while Jim suggests that pointing out Obama’s work across the aisle may drive away liberals, I’d say that it already has - but they have been more than replaced by Independents sick of the status quo. Many liberals will ultimately vote for Obama in spite of the suspicions which I alluded to in my first paragraph when it comes to the general election anyway. Craig, it would be interesting to investigate how the National Journal came to that “most liberal” rating - it seems puzzling in light of his collaboration with Republicans - but here is how Obama answered that question:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, not to grouse against the National Journal, but let me give you an example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn’t know that it was a liberal or Democratic issue. I thought that was a good government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see. So that’s the problem with some of these ratings — how they score things. It uses categories that I think don’t make sense to a lot of Americans.
The falseness of how such things are measured is exactly what THIS article is about - so thank you Jim and Craig for in concert making my point.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at February 22, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #246143


After completing my last response I went back and looked at the video you posted and have to ask why it matters much at all that Kirk Watson of Texas was unprepared for Chris Matthews question. Sure it’s disappointing that someone working on the Obama campaign in Texas is unfamiliar with Obama’s legislative work, but he wasn’t hired to debate but to do political ground work which calls for a different skill set. I already gave you three links to follow to look at substantive legislation that Obama authored and pushed through to pass in both the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. And that is not his full record. If you follow the link in my last response, you will benefit from the research of an Obama doubter into his record.

Obama’s record exists. It is substantive. It demonstrates his ability to work with Republicans, but also his ability to find effective solutions that address problems. Follow the links please, Craig and ohrealy - then come back and tell me he’s just hot air. I agree with you ohrealy that Obama should be able to take tough questions, but see no reason to believe that he cannot. What testiness have you noticed?

I’ve been watching McCain for years, and for most of that time he’s had my respect, but he’s been backed into an awful corner by Bush’s atrocious decisions, and McCain’s seeming obligation to defend Bush. I still believe McCain is at heart a decent man, and can’t help but believe he would have made far, far better decisions than Bush. McCain is a true conservative who understands that liberals are not evil, and who understands that torture and waterboarding are unacceptable, but he’s trapped in a party where blind loyalty has been required for so long that finding new ways forward is problematic. Eight years ago he may have made a good President - today he cannot inspire a nation which has been torn apart by foolishness, to remain in a war which was ill-conceived from the start.

Crying the L-word will not work this time. You should be happy that Obama will make a President that will not demonize conservatism in the way that the Limbaugh, Nordquist, DeLay, the Republican leadership, and Fox News have been systematically demonizing liberalism for the last 20 plus years.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at February 22, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #246144

W W, Thank you for the real information in that link, but if you are an Obama supporter, I would stay away from anything to do with Illinois or Blagojevich. He will be appointing Obama’s succesor if elected, and may appoint himself. Obama will be better off claiming he’s from Kansas.

I voted for Obama twice in 2006, but this year I voted for Hillary. In most offices, I voted for the female candidates. Obama is too green to be POTUS, and I think that will become clear as the year progresses. He is a fine academic scholar, but I do not think he will be any more successful than Adlai Stevenson.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #246146

Walker, good article.
This election is looking really good for Obama.
I thought he sounded very confident and did well against Hillary in yesterdays debate. He’s closing the gap in Texas according to the latest polls, just as he has in so many of the other states. Currently his string of wins stands at 11.

Meanwhile, Hillary is making everyone angry because she came out today and said she intends to fight like hell for Michigan and Florida - and we all know she cheated on that score. Her campaign keeps talking about how the super delegates can flip the nomination for her. At this point we might say that Hillary is running on the audacity of hope!

Also, McCain just keeps melting down. Not only have we heard about his lobbyist girlfriend, Vicki Iseman (who strangely enough is a dead ringer for his Beer Heiress wife, Cindy), but we learned that McCain’s campaign is chock-full of lobbyists. Maverick, indeed. Today saw the indictment of one of the co-chairs of McCain’s Arizona campaign. His name is Rick Renzi and he’s been indicted for wire fraud, extortion, money laundering.
Additionally, today McCain received a letter today from the FEC Commissioner telling him that he can’t opt out of the public financing system without their approval. McCain’s response:
“It’s not a decision. It’s an opinion, according to our people.”
In other words, he thinks he can do as he pleases. Straight Talkin’ McCain is already sounding far too similar to our current Disaster in Chief, and he hasn’t even won the nomination yet!

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 22, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #246147

W W, condescending, arrogant, vain, and testy at 3:30, and the questioner is a lot more polite than Chris Matthews will ever be.

They are not yet done with Rezko, who has a list of names of suggested political appointees, a “clout list”, which will be matched up with a list of political contributors, set to explode on Obama after he has locked the nomination. Obama can’t pretend he never heard of Blagojevich. Hillary hinted at this, but no one followed up. She loses when she goes negative, and has ceded the popularity contest to Obama.

The local media here has been concentrating on the NIU Dekalb murders and funerals, and another local high profile case. Gun control could become a big issue again, and is considered to be a problem for Obama with conservatives of both parties.

The Sun Times, which supports Obama, had a cover on Wednesday with a very large unfortunate angry looking picture of Obama with his mouth open, after the victory in Wisconsin. He can easily become the caricature of a windbag. In his speeches, after a while, I just hear blah blah blah blah blah. He should hire a professional speechwriter, who can get him to make a point in a specific period of time.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #246148


Obama’s record exists. It is substantive. It demonstrates his ability to work with Republicans, but also his ability to find effective solutions that address problems. Follow the links please, Craig and ohrealy - then come back and tell me he’s just hot air. I agree with you ohrealy that Obama should be able to take tough questions, but see no reason to believe that he cannot. What testiness have you noticed?

I appreciate your good intentions. But I’m really ringing a bell here. You are using a bill that is for $48 million dollars, to argue your point. I was a school board member here where we have 12,000 students. Our budget was $80 million at the time. Ok, so he sponsered a bill that is about the size of a school district that has about 6,000 students in it. I’m so sorry because you obvioulsy have placed your hopes in Obama, but that very fact that you use a bill that is in the millions when the budget is in the trillions makes tha point that Obama was small potatoes.

He is just a junior first term senator. Show me some leadership in major legislation.

Crying the L-word will not work this time. You should be happy that Obama will make a President that will not demonize conservatism in the way that the Limbaugh, Nordquist, DeLay, the Republican leadership, and Fox News have been systematically demonizing liberalism for the last 20 plus years.

No actually I think it will and for good reason. Obama is vey short on specifics. The American people don’t know that he is the most liberal senator in the US Senate. He is a liberals liberal. What is wrong is the bait and switch. Moderate talk, liberal voting. When someone is an extremist, (most liberal or most conservative) and running as something they are not (moderate), then that makes the L word stick.

I may be coming across here as a right wing conservative. I’m not. I’m a moderate. What I am saying is Obama looks to me like he is headed for a huge fall because of the extraordinarly wide gap between his talk and his voting record.

The problem with being on the left, is that it is smaller than the conservative base. Conservatives can win while being conservative as they need a smaller proportion of moderates to win than liberals do. Liberals have a very hard time winning national elections because of their fewer numbers. That is why Clinton was able to win as a moderate/liberal.

The only way I see Obama winning is if there is a three way race. A liberal can win a three way race.

So Obama is using is great skill as an orator, to keep our attention on process. And he is right on process. We do need to behave better. I agree 100%. Where he is flat wrong, is that he is the most extreme liberal we have in the US Senate, and as of yet the American people haven’t been confronted with that reality.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #246150


Here is the legislative achievement of Obama that I think will sell this November:


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #246151

Obama proposed a $4000 college tuition grant for national service to be completed later. That is a little more than my college tuition was 35 years ago, but it now costs 10 times as much. Small program, big talk. I agree that a 3way race would be very good for Obama.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2008 10:44 PM
Comment #246155


He definitely plays in the shallow end of the pool.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2008 11:25 PM
Comment #246158

It is about time we get a president that at least “tries” to reach across the isle and bring the left and right together on the things we agree upon (and there are many). I also look forward to once again having a president that is a statesman. A president that inspires. A president that will unify us around the red, white, and blue (not divide us into red and blue).

Posted by: Tom L at February 22, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #246171

Today I read that Obama is skipping the black forum in New Orleans, says he is too busy campaigning to go. Hillary is going. McCain isn’t. Now that Tavis Smiley has criticized Obama for this, Tavis is now receiving angry e-mails and death threats from Obama supporters-so much for CHANGE. Where is OBama on this why has he not spoken out and asked his followers to behave. Granted he can not control what other people will do but he can speak out and put his words into action.

I think Obama will make a better president than any repub. but this anointing him as the savior of the United States and the inability of many of his followers to even consider that he may not be perfect is scary.

The media has done a wonderful job of promoting him. They report nothing negative about him but gleefully report negative things about Hillary and McCain (I am not a McCain supporter). They will even take a postive about Hillary and turn it into a negative.

I think that Barack would make a good president. I think Hillary would make a good president. I will support either but I refuse to wear blinders and fall in line behind the pied piper of Illinois without looking at him realistically and without discarding much of what he says as political rhetoric. I want change just like anyone else. I believe that we can bring change to Washington even Hillary can make things better than they currently are but do I believe that anyone can make substantial change in the way Washington does business-NO.

I have said these things here in other posts and have been berated by Barack supporters who have gotten angry with me. That to me doesn’t fit with his message of reaching across the aisle and joining hands with those who don’t agree with you.

Barack is a politican. I won’t forget that.

Posted by: Carolina at February 23, 2008 8:51 AM
Comment #246181

Carolina, Obama will suffer from the excesses of his supporters. One of the main reasons that I do not support him is that I don’t want to go through the rest of the year with that kind of nonsense. If the campaign were much shorter, it would not be that much of a problem.

Last night, on our local public TV station, they were asking why nobody told the audience members to shut up at the UofTexas debate. Obama could have said something to them when they booed Hillary, and would have come off looking like a nice guy.

The Rpblcns, once they are sure that Obama is the nominee, will use his supporters against him, and force Obama to either comment on them, or avoid comment and look evasive. People who support Obama seem to think that new rules are in play this year, but I don’t think they bothered to ask the Rpblcns about that.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 23, 2008 10:14 AM
Comment #246182


Well said.

It is a long way yet to the presidency. The dirt is just now starting to spew forth. I have read the views of the Obama cynics in this thread and can not deny that his accomplishments are probably minor compared to those who have been around forever. Never the less he does have accomplishments and they are probably equal to or more than any of his peers at that stage of their individual careers. The problem with his peers is that anyone who has been around for a decade or two can probably be easily tied to the influences of special interests and the corruptive money that tags along with applied favors.

A resume of McCains advisers while not necessarily testament to corruption, certainly causes one in these days of awareness to lift an eyebrow in suspicion of character. I imagine that we would be very hard pressed to find a legislator of tenure who has not been improperly influenced on occasion throughout their career. Unfortunately for them these old timers bring their baggage with them which in todays age lends an enormous amount of distrust among voters.

That distrust of veteran politicians bides well for Obama who has not had enough time roaming the halls of corruption to sign over his right to decide to special interest groups. He does have great oratory and inspirational skills and is obviously a very intelligent highly educated man. The latter is very refreshing in itself. But for me the main attraction is that he does not appear to be owned by anyone other than us small donors who represent the larger portion of this populace. The last time I looked I believe those donors were approaching the one million mark.

I do agree that it looks very good for him. The people of this country are to say the least, fed up with the diseased politics of past practice. He preaches a desire to work beyond such failed practice. It is what people want and expect of a candidate.

Posted by: RickIL at February 23, 2008 10:18 AM
Comment #246207


I agree with much about what you said above. If I shut Obama’s voice off and look at his accomplishments, they look rather average and orginary. That is why I think there is a huge danger to his campaign. It is the absolutely extreme wide gap between his campaign rhetoric and his achievement that I think sets him up for a huge fall.

Obama certainly is made up of presidential material. Even as a McCain supporter, it is so obvious that he is a man of great talent.

I think you on the left have a pretty big problem. It’s beyond partisenship. The hopes and dreams of our young people have been swept away by the speeches of this man. Wow the danger to our country for decades to come if these are not well founded!!!

We have lived through a stock market bubble and a housing bubble. Now we are in the middle of an Obama bubble.

As a moderate republican who actually has worked with democrats all me adult life, (Very involved in Public education up to being a school board member), it’s not something to relish to be the ones to pop the bubble. It does need to be popped. And it will be popped one way or another.

So if you accpet the premise that the Obama bubble is going to be popped, who should pop it? I think it’s best for the country and for the Democratic party if you on the left do.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #246220

Why is it that all the Obama antagonists fail, or refuse to accept that he, like anyone else filling our top office, will have a mulititude of advisors at his beck and call?!!??
Yes, he is young, unproven and unfinished, but he is very intelligent, with a desire and drive to make things better! With the fiasco of the Bush years to clean up, nobody could step into that office…in that position and not encounter stumbling blocks.
What are you all so fiercely afraid of?? God forbid, he just may make a difference in a positive way……………

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 23, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #246228

In this corner we have the Obama Antagonists, and in that corner we have the Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers?

Wrong, in this corner we have lightweight inexperienced Obama, his unnamed advisers and experts, and hope(the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best), change, and a slogan, yes, we can (fill in the blank).

In that corner we have veteran war hero experienced senator John McCain, who doesn’t need advisers and experts to help him find waldo, and wants to continue a war in a country that was just invaded by one of our allies, against our own interests.

What, me worry?

Posted by: ohrealy at February 23, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #246229

Jane Doe:

Think about what you just wrote. You are admiting that the person you are supporting for President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, is not qualified. That is what you are saying!!! You are rationalizing that fact that Obama is not qualified!!

I support McCain. But that asside, it’s going to be ugly because OBVIOUSLY that is going to be a huge issue going forward.

So here are the big issues as I see them going forward.

1. The unbelievable gap between word and deed. (talking moderate, voting liberal).

2. The fact that he is an exteme liberal. (scored most liberal senator in 2007).

3. The fact that he has almost no major experience on a national stage. (he did give a good speech in 04 for Kerry).

I am just saying that if the Democrats are not going to look into this effectively and give Obama a pass the Republicans are going to clearly talk about these issues. There is no need for McCain to swift boat here. This is ALL FAIR GAME.

You are the ones nominating a candidate with a weak resume’.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2008 7:56 PM
Comment #246242

Craig Holmes…….READ again! Nowhere did I say that Obama was unqulified. That is only your own interpretation. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And you’re supporting a quasi-senile VietNam veteran with axes to grind and is looking for his own lands to conquer….I like my odds much better.

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 23, 2008 10:21 PM
Comment #246244

Jane Doe:

Ok here are his qualifications:

Yes, he is young, unproven and unfinished but he is very intelligent, with a desire and drive to make things better!

This is also true of my 20 year old son. He is serving as an Intern in our state legislature.

You are right, you did not say he was unqualified. I am sorry. But what you didn’t do was tell me why he is qualified. So, what makes Obama qualified to be president?

Let me give you a criteria. Look at other Democatic Nominees in the last 100 years and lets compare.

For instance many are comparing Obama to JFK. JFK was a war hero with I think 14 years in Congress. 1947 to 1961. He also came from a strong political family. That’s 11 more years in Congress than Obama.

Johnson had been in Congress for ever, and had been elected VP.

Truman was VP.

Rosevelt had been assistant Secretary of the Navy, was a vice presidential candidate and had been govenor of New York.

Jimmy Carter was the two term govenor of Georgia. (That’s 8 years).

There just are no examples to my knowledge of a man with this weak of a resume’ EVER being nominated by either political party. I don’t think it has happened.

So here is what I know about Obama’s accomplishments so far.

1. (this one is good). He will probably be the first minority ever nominated by either party for president.

2. He is not worthy in that he is the least qualified candidate ever nominated in modern times (maybe ever) by a political party.

3. He is the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2008 11:17 PM
Comment #246323

Truman was a senator for 10 years when FDR picked him for the VPOTUS, and a judge before that.

JFK had international experience even before WW2, when his father sent him to Germany and Czechoslovakia to report back on events there, just before the war.

Posted by: ohrelay at February 24, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #246341

I’m not buying it.

I haven’t seen him get a balanced budget bill passed or even worked on. No fix for Medicare passed or worked on. He hasn’t been able to get a working group going for national health care.

You can pick his record over and try to make him as the great uniter…but he’s running on the fact that Washington is BROKEN. And of course, he is a PART of BROKEN WASHINGTON. Why is he REFUSING to let us know where all his Pork Barrel spending is going???

I believe that if Obama does by some miracle make it all the way, he may well be the next Jimmy Carter…run out of office after 4 years of not really getting much accomplished.

His supporters will blame others for his failure to be able to do, what he’s telling the voters he can do. But in the end, the voting public will hold the man accountable for making things happen….or not.

Posted by: Stephen at February 24, 2008 9:34 PM
Comment #246382

Balanced budget? You mean like in the Clinton administration? Which Bush unbalanced?

Posted by: ohrealy at February 25, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #246500

Just a question.

Are any of the candidates to your knowledge who want to let the Bush taxcuts lapse planning on spending these dollars on reducing the deficit?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 26, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #246531

It is not such a bad thing for a leader to be charismatic to the point of being able to move people with empathy and warmth. This is his appeal, I believe, right now when the ever hanging “substance” is not clarified. It’s the antithesis of the ignorance and brutality Bush presents in his public appearances.

I also find it appealing that he isn’t part of the mire and muck, affixed to the giant political system. Contrast that to John Edwards, with basically the same political experience, who has accomplished little of worth and came up through the ranks as a litigating wealth monger totally lacking in substance. (…I’m from NC)

Intelligence, warmth, charm and his expressive calmness are pluses in my book.

BUT, I’m still for RON PAUL.

Posted by: LN Shapely at February 27, 2008 3:56 AM
Comment #246542

I never understood why NC elected Edwards. He seems the opposite of his predecessors. I guessed that people were impressed by the cases that he won which were most publicized.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 27, 2008 9:41 AM
Post a comment