ya, that speech was well written, well delivered, full of potent quotables (like the one above)...the only part that truly gave me chills was the shout out that ended, "give it up for Michelle Obama." just something about that message and how he seemed to really mean it...says a lot about a man.
gotta keep in mind this is just one state among many. i'm sure we'll hear Hillary's version of this speech in the coming weeks, and probably the John Edwards version too. it's a long row to hoe, as they say.
quilian, i hope you're right. i hope this is the first strong sign of a movement
archtopus, while i like your dem ticket, as a hatchling new yorker i can't see Bloomberg's presence helping Obama if he became the dem candidate. Bloomy seems somewhat suspect when it comes to giving in to developers (special interest) and making decisions that may be financially intelligent but not perhaps in the best interest of the city and the citizens at large.
i would love to see Obama/Richardson or Obama/Kucinich.
or maybe Barack with VP Ron Paul :-)...
Iowa was a huge victory. If you volunteered at the Chicago HQ you knew that there was a tremendous surge of support for Obama in the last month. All of the phones were full of volunteers and, unless you arrived early, your only opportunity was to stuff envelopes. It is an exciting place to be. Come on down if your so inclined.
I think he'll win New Hampshire. Our political climate has changed and people want new leadership. It was interesting to watch Hillary's concession speech last night because 1. She wasn't conciliatory 2. For all of this talk of the future, the stage was full of faces, or dare I say dinosaurs, from the past like Bill and Madeleine Albright. 3. She was very flat and monotone
Obama's speech was uplifting and the enthusiasm is contagious.
I don't support Hillary but it does have to be kind of hard for her watching the job she's been running for since the day she was born slowly slip away. If she doesn't get the nomination this year I don't think she'll ever have a clear shot at it again. Not only that, if Obama wins the nomination, she almost certainly won't even get the consolation prize (VP). It would likely go to Edwards or Richardson.
this is off topic, but did anyone see chuck norris behind huckabee? or was it really too early this morning when i turned on the tv? will obama voters fear for their life?
i'm an Obama supporter, and I think this win gives him a lot more credibility. I'm glad he has caught on so well. This is probably the first time I've ever really supported a candidate. Hell, I may need to register and vote for the guy. It was funny to hear my entire family talking at the Christmas party about supporting Obama as the are mostly conservative.
This is indicative of a ground swelling of generational support for Obama and I believe somewhat against the boomer generation. According to the research done in the book "Generations" 4 cohort types continuously cycle throught the ages - Silent, civic, Activist, Reactionary.
The boomers are an activist generation, typicaly in the population cycle they are generous in number, and assert radical shifts of subjective thought into politics of the day. Theyre numbers typically mean radical shifts in religion and culture and have a heavy influence from young adulthood through death. They typicaly produce 5 presidents in their cycle. Only 2 boomer presidents have made it to the white house. I think the X'rs and the first of the Y group who are concidered reactionaries, and caractorized traditionaly as extremely uneffective in politics, have finally realized they have some say in this country and are finally shaking off the Bart Simspson to cool to vote or care image, and are shaking the Boomer power base at the zenith of it's acendancy to power. Its a facinating sociological game. The only question is if the X'rs ( which Obama may or may not be the first wave of but is reresentative of) get it, what will they do with it? Will they live up to their slacker uneffective stereotype?
heres a link to that book - its actualy facinating they go through every decade of the country since the colonists and unravel a repeating cycle where the places and names change but the pattern is unmistakable. You could actualy predict the future climate years in advance by the mix of generations acive at the time.
not so - reactionary means a response to a stimulous, the idealist or activist generations are the ones that create religous zeal that must be reacted to by the next group. So really the Republican phenomenon of fiscal conservatives of the WW2 era Civic genration, has morphed into the Religous Evangelical Boomer version. Woodstock to evangelicalism are classic spiritual pursuits and not to differant from each other at all.
I like Obama. I'm conservative to Libertarian, so I'd never vote for him, but I think he is a good man. I like the way he seems to handle himself around his family. I liked seeing him carry his little girl around the stage.
Beta -- conservative TO libertarian does describe a niche along a spectrum, and it's not contradictory...actually describes Ron Paul, as an example.
As for Obama getting those votes -- they generally would not vote for him because of very, very different philsophies/world views -- it's those who favor big goverment v. those who favor small government.
I'm sick of boomer politicians, they are so self centered and a product of the 'me' culture of their generation. Boomers invented the SUV and botox, need I say anymore?
I'm for obama kicking some flabby boomer butt!
especially if he teams up with one of my preferred candidates, richardson or kucinich (ok, you caught my hypocracy, they are boomers).
sand...i get ya, but i think it's still odd, i mean less government except in cases of health reasons - choice - the idea of marriage - same sex - and then this idea of interfering in states rights?? odd.
i talked to a moderate republican voting for thompson in iowa, and his second choice was Obama. in fact our calling of iowa moderates had us make special note of Ron Paul supporters, so that might be something to consider....
killa, kucinich married a hottie, so he jumped back a bit, and is no longer a boomer....
Now that's fiction! The Republican President to balance a budget was Eisenhower.
Now are you talking about 1950s Republicans? They were pro-civil rights and a decent bunch.
But the truth is that both when Eisenhower and Clinton balanced the budget, the legislative branch was in the hands of the opposition party.
Fiscal Conservatism is used as double-speak to justify cutting programs for people who do not give your campaigns money all the while dumping cash into the company you used to work for like Halliburton or sending hundreds of millions of dollars to your "pioneer" supporters like Black Water.
I agree with Ron Paul that a lot of relief money should have gone to private non-profits and it's a belief shared by others including Obama.
Our government is in really bad shape. And Bush-Clinton-Bush with its cronyism, war profiteering and scandals needs to be left in the past.
Obama passed some good legislation as State Senator.
1. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. HUGE!
2. The first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure" (Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.)
3. The state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor
And there's more if you do some digging but the videotaped confessions was something no one else would back and Obama brought a reluctant governor and legislature together on that one.
Dubs, I don't come in here often but now I know why you feel as strongly about this cat as you do. In fairness his speeches give me a warm fuzzy feeling too. I support you Obamaheads, like I support Obama, so here's to hoping I'm wrong because I sure as hell hope I am.
warm fuzzy feeling.....when i was listening to that speech i had a lot more than warm feelings. my problems, the problems in the world seemed to pale in significance to the promise of what i was seeing and hearing. not that i expect when Obama takes the oath on 01.20.09, because i expect we as country are going to have to roll up our sleeves and get busy working. what he said is what i have been saying to people that ask me why him, and i tell people he is not about making easy promises, he is about telling us the hard truth. at the end of the day i don't want to hear that by electing a clinton, all of the sudden we are going to have puppies, cake and everything will be taken care of, i want to hear that if Obama, then i will have a chance to get dirty and effect change, and become a citizen in the world. i want to hear that i matter, that i am part of the village, and a Barack Obama presidency does that for me.
The more I learn about Obama the more I really like him. I'm not saying I didn't like him before, but my main concern was his relative inexperience in global relations. It wasn't until someone pointed out to me that Clinton and Jr didn't really have global experience either going into their presidencies that I began re-evaluating everything. In the past 8 years I have become ever more jaded and disenchanted with the political system, realizing more and more that special interests pretty much run our government. Listening to Obama's speech, I am hoping that Obama can/will be the one to finally bring the change, the one that finally brings actual debate/dialogue back to the chamber and not this petty bullshit power struggle we've experienced since... I don't know... Nixon?
I also pray that there are enough people out there that have gotten as worked up about our broken system as I have and vote for what I feel is the one flicker of hope we have in an attempt to fix it.
does anyone know if/how i can watch a stream of the fox/abc presidential debates happening tonight?
is it part of the abc channel you can grab via P2P on TVU?
or does anyone know ways of viewing an abc stream somewhere on the web?
the "abc news now" is not what i need - and that's what most feeds carry.
possibly staying up late anyway...and obviously not geographically near a US network or TV...
Make architecture -- unfortunately those types of issues don't have much to do with taking over the nation and it's current context.
Obama does not have the military experience necessary to take over a nation at war. Again, i think he is a decent man, but he has never run a private sector business, he's never run a city or a state. His first line of action to solve any problem is centered upon looking to governement programs.
My other main -- and ongoing -- criticism of Obama is that he has gotten an awfully long way on generalities. He delivers them very charismatically to be sure, but I believe he will crash and burn when pressed for specifics on most issues.
makeArchitecture raised those issues as examples of Obama's ability to get much-needed legislation passed despite strong political squabbling in a very divided and dysfunctional state government. I think that's exactly the sort of ability the next president needs to have.
As for being in the military or running a company, he's too young to have served in Vietnam, and he apparently has a higher sense of civic duty than sitting in a corporate office somewhere.
Compared to somebody who used his family connections to get a cushy stateside assignment in the National Guard during Vietnam -- and not even bother to show up for that -- and then use those same family connections to run several businesses into the ground, I'd gladly take somebody who started with nothing and followed a lifelong vocation to community activism and public service.
But then, serving the common good isn't a concept I'd expect a conservative to ever comprehend.
Don't you get it, beta? Our prez must be the living incarnation of John Wayne, the white, masculine ass-kicker-in-chief. That's the only qualification for the job.
no one actually needs to have experienced war or business ownership to be president. they just have to surround themselves with the right people. makearchitecture's link above shows that obama at least has that capacity as much as anyone else.
the last president with military experience was bush sr and his running of a war wasn't stellar either.
the proclimation(sp) made by barack about actionable intelligence regarding osama ie bombing pakistan was not very intelligent. nothing like bombing a nuclear power to ruin your day. also, al quaida has declared war on the pakistani government. i'd be interested to see what kind of casualties the pakistani army is taking up in those lawless provinces. wouldnt doubt if they are as high as ours are in afghanistan.
As far as I know the casualties arent actually that high, because the actual soldiers arent all that thrilled about being there and generally refuse to enter pitched battles. It would be like sending the national guard to kill people in Maine, their hearts arent in it.
And as far as the air-strikes comment, frankly there isnt a viable foreign policy expert or a sane candidate for president who doesnt agree with it.
Remember neither the government of Pakistan nor the vast majority of pakistani people have any love for Osama Bin Laden. They just dont like that they have to slaughter their own people to get to him. If we could solve that problem with a quick strike I dont think very many people would be upset about that. This whole 'destabilizing the pakistani government' argument is really disingenuous.
Also that cnn poll is actually an outlier. We are feeling pretty good about our chances here, especially after the debate last night.
if you think people in any country would not be upset by a missile strike/air raid in their country. think again. the muslim world would see it as another slap in the face. hire some freakin warlords to take him out.
Pakistan is really something out of an old Western. It really isn't a modern nation state. It doesn't have secure borders, large areas of the country are not controlled by the central government and many in the country identify more strongly with their ethnic group and/or tribe than with Pakistan. It's more like pre-1870s Germany. Bin Laden is hiding out in the lawless regions and special forces would be needed to go in and take him out. Bombing hasn't worked. Hiring mercenaries hasn't worked so you're left with sending in boots on the ground.
It's not a great option but Bin Laden has isolated and up until our invasion of Iraq, marginalized.
I like Vado's idea - hire a warlord to take people out. We used to be the best at covert assassinations, hell i bet I could of taken out Sadam for about 500k.
isn't that the case in many of the countries that make up that region?
I cannot think of one. The old Soviet Republics to the north rule with an iron fist. India is a democracy. Iran has control over their territory.
The former GOP congressman from Rockford endorsed Obama today:
"If I were in New Hampshire, I would very definitely be casting my ballot for (Illinois Democratic Senator Barack) Obama," said John B. Anderson, the Rockford native who ran for president himself in 1980, first as a Republican and then as an independent. "There is a freshness to his appeal that is really unparalleled in the many years that I’ve been following presidential elections."
I reached Anderson, now 85, by phone Sunday afternoon in Fort Lauderdale, where he lives half the year and teaches seminars in constitutional law and electoral process as a visiting professor at the Shepard Broad Law Center at Nova Southeastern University.
He said he had not formally endorsed a presidential candidate since his own ill-fated run for the White House (he won 7 percent of the popular vote in 1980), though he did make several public appearances with Bill Clinton in 1992.
But this year, he said, he believes we are "at a unique moment in history, when we need to reach beyond narrow partisanship....All of the other Democratic candidates for the nomination and the Republican candidates for the nomination as well are still wedded to the old partisan way of judging issues and cannot rise above that to give us the new approaches that we need."
Anderson represented the Rockford area in Washington from 1961-1981. Since leaving the Republican party he has fashioned himself as a spokesman for independent voters who are disenchanted with the two-party system.
Anderson said Obama's lack of executive experience doesn't dim his enthusiasm for the candidate: "In the relatively short time he's been the public sphere...[Obama] has shown an ability to parse problems in new and different ways and come up with new ideas and new approaches. Whereas the other candidates go down pretty much the same old trails they have traveled in the past."
He added, "There is an almost indefinably unique quality to his kind of leadership that would help us not only here at home, but also help us capture respect abroad."
is it the way he delivers the message or the content of his message that you like?
so which is barak's statement on climate change?
A- Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. ... As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. ... Getting our own house in order is only a first step. ... We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.
B- I am one of those Democrats who sees the world as being interconnected and interdependent. America has a moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change since we create so many greenhouse gases here and have a very large carbon footprint. ... We need to work with the world community to lower greenhouse gases, reduce the carbon footprint, to bring forth new energy technologies. The world is ready for this. America needs to be ready for it and they are waiting for leaders who are ready to do it.
C- I believe America has to lead the way in dealing with the crisis of climate change and global warming. We are four percent of the world's population, but we emit as much as 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We're the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. ... We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries -- including developing nations -- to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
D- The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: we are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences. We need to take immediate steps to address this problem. Critics contend that action will be too costly, but I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity. By putting the right incentives in place, we will drive American businesses to innovate, creating new products and new jobs. Failing to act is the riskier course to both our environment and our economy.
E- This planet is revolting against the use of fossil fuels and against manmade pollution. And we have to fight global climate change. And we have to have an international effort to do it. And it means mandating the reduction of carbons and caps and emissions and the pollution that comes from fossil fuels and vehicles. It has to happen. ... The first thing a president does on the global climate change is say we are going to follow the Kyoto Treaty, but we are going to exceed the limits because we've lost six years.
F- You're seeing the climate get warmer or climate change is occurring and I believe that human activity is contributing to that. I don't know what proportion of the change is due to human activity but my policy is to adopt what I refer to as a 'no regrets policy' -- to take action that allows us to become more energy efficient and ultimately become energy independent as a nation. ... I would like to see us work on a global basis on this effort. I really don't think it's productive for us to act solely on a unilateral basis to reduce our greenhouse gases if we have developing nations like China and India continue to increase their output of greenhouse gases and not be party to a greenhouse gas effort.
answers are in the nytimes' side-by-side comparison of the candidates.
I personally like the way he delivers the message, but want more out of his policies (and I think it's very cool for a man of color to shake up the status quo).
U.S. MUST LEAD GLOBAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS; WOULD INSTITUTE CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM
Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. ... As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. ... Getting our own house in order is only a first step. ... We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.
Also:
If Elected, They Say They Would ...
Establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Require industries to pay for allowances to emit greenhouse gases; allowances would be sold through auctions.
Would require all transportation fuels in the United States to contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020.
Would establish targets for annual fuel economy increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets.
Would give automakers health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Support alternative fuels.
mA- you gave away the answer too quickly, thats no fun.
so who wants to guess the rest of who said what, before looking up (and posting) the answers????
the bottom line is most of the dems are rather tepidly the same, aka institute kyoto/cut emission by 80% by 2050 (and 40mpg by 2020).
Where is the vision or leadership to go beyond the safely plausible scenarios? Why won't they go further? it would only get them more votes from gen-y and pissed off gore supporters. their proposed solutions won't fix the mess caused by bush.
and Romney is losing in NH, I like McCain, always have, but I disagree with his current Iraq position. Regardless, his courage and forthrightness makes him one of the few that truly deserve to serve in that office. I hope that this win changes things for him and he can get the support of 'mainstream' republicans nationally. I would love to see the McCain - Obama contest, I don't think the country can really lose on that one.
I still fantasize - in a very geeky political way - about Obama becoming the nominee and then crossing the aisle for his VP selection. I have a lot of respect for McCain and wonder what kind of tizzy the country would go into if McCain lost the nomination only to get selected as Obama's VP. We couldn't lose if that were the case.
(Although Bloomberg would be a great VP as well. As would Richardson, but I like him for Secretary of State more. Oooh, this is a fun game....)
untill the us and the rest of the world support a position different that econimic growth as usual position -- you guys are really being fooled by all this %reduction in carbon crap bs - thats not going to do it -
just look at our growth in consumption - thats they problem
Well obama does include carter-like grants and tax-breaks for people to make their homes and buildings more efficient, as well as a national smart-grid to encourage people to put in solar cells and windmills on an individual level.
QR are you talking about the Intrade quotes? Ive actually be Amazed by the accuracy of that over the last few weeks. I guess its just a futures market on the nomination process.
I would expect Hillary to attack Obama very heavily on the "experience" issue. She has "35 years of experience" after all. Mondale's successful "Where's the beef?" campaign redone. Without the
The latest in Hillary's distort and attack on Obama is the lobbyist thing where she says he has some who has done freelance work as a state lobbyist as his state co-chairman. Obama takes no federal lobbyist or PAC money. Hillary takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from federal lobbyists. State lobbyists do not contribute to federal campaigns.
But how much federal lobbyist money has Hillary accepted? I'll look it up but...
How does this affect her positions on health care? Who has bought her? It's like the people who bought the current President Bush. THey all made out very well--look at Blackwater.
the reason Hillary's in trouble is people are just throwing her out. Obama represents the "new" as undefined. It doesnt matter any more, theyre getting booted. She's making the mistake of using her own logic, as in Im Hillary, Im and agent of change, leaving out the caveat, "in this particular syatem". Fuck it, lets elect elect a black dude, under 50 with a Kenyan daddy and a corn fed mom. You cant touch that. No incumbant politico can ever go back to work with same comfort in reliability in their base anymore. The lilly white state of Iowa just picked a black dude. Welcome to the future people. Everythings on notice.
Obama '08
Well done, Obama. I sincerely hope this is the beginning of something very big.
every time I hear Obama speak... of all the candidates, he actually _sounds_ like a great leader.
"we are not a collection of red states and blue states - We are the United States."
amen.
-to
ya, that speech was well written, well delivered, full of potent quotables (like the one above)...the only part that truly gave me chills was the shout out that ended, "give it up for Michelle Obama." just something about that message and how he seemed to really mean it...says a lot about a man.
gotta keep in mind this is just one state among many. i'm sure we'll hear Hillary's version of this speech in the coming weeks, and probably the John Edwards version too. it's a long row to hoe, as they say.
quilian, i hope you're right. i hope this is the first strong sign of a movement
archtopus, while i like your dem ticket, as a hatchling new yorker i can't see Bloomberg's presence helping Obama if he became the dem candidate. Bloomy seems somewhat suspect when it comes to giving in to developers (special interest) and making decisions that may be financially intelligent but not perhaps in the best interest of the city and the citizens at large.
i would love to see Obama/Richardson or Obama/Kucinich.
or maybe Barack with VP Ron Paul :-)...
AP
I love the idea of Barack and Ron Paul...
Don't think it would ever happen..
But can you imagine?
Iowa was a huge victory. If you volunteered at the Chicago HQ you knew that there was a tremendous surge of support for Obama in the last month. All of the phones were full of volunteers and, unless you arrived early, your only opportunity was to stuff envelopes. It is an exciting place to be. Come on down if your so inclined.
I think he'll win New Hampshire. Our political climate has changed and people want new leadership. It was interesting to watch Hillary's concession speech last night because 1. She wasn't conciliatory 2. For all of this talk of the future, the stage was full of faces, or dare I say dinosaurs, from the past like Bill and Madeleine Albright. 3. She was very flat and monotone
Obama's speech was uplifting and the enthusiasm is contagious.
Fired up and ready to go!
I don't support Hillary but it does have to be kind of hard for her watching the job she's been running for since the day she was born slowly slip away. If she doesn't get the nomination this year I don't think she'll ever have a clear shot at it again. Not only that, if Obama wins the nomination, she almost certainly won't even get the consolation prize (VP). It would likely go to Edwards or Richardson.
this is off topic, but did anyone see chuck norris behind huckabee? or was it really too early this morning when i turned on the tv? will obama voters fear for their life?
i'm an Obama supporter, and I think this win gives him a lot more credibility. I'm glad he has caught on so well. This is probably the first time I've ever really supported a candidate. Hell, I may need to register and vote for the guy. It was funny to hear my entire family talking at the Christmas party about supporting Obama as the are mostly conservative.
This is indicative of a ground swelling of generational support for Obama and I believe somewhat against the boomer generation. According to the research done in the book "Generations" 4 cohort types continuously cycle throught the ages - Silent, civic, Activist, Reactionary.
The boomers are an activist generation, typicaly in the population cycle they are generous in number, and assert radical shifts of subjective thought into politics of the day. Theyre numbers typically mean radical shifts in religion and culture and have a heavy influence from young adulthood through death. They typicaly produce 5 presidents in their cycle. Only 2 boomer presidents have made it to the white house. I think the X'rs and the first of the Y group who are concidered reactionaries, and caractorized traditionaly as extremely uneffective in politics, have finally realized they have some say in this country and are finally shaking off the Bart Simspson to cool to vote or care image, and are shaking the Boomer power base at the zenith of it's acendancy to power. Its a facinating sociological game. The only question is if the X'rs ( which Obama may or may not be the first wave of but is reresentative of) get it, what will they do with it? Will they live up to their slacker uneffective stereotype?
heres a link to that book - its actualy facinating they go through every decade of the country since the colonists and unravel a repeating cycle where the places and names change but the pattern is unmistakable. You could actualy predict the future climate years in advance by the mix of generations acive at the time.
generations
I'd say a lot of the republicans currently representing us are clearly in the "reactionary" group.
not so - reactionary means a response to a stimulous, the idealist or activist generations are the ones that create religous zeal that must be reacted to by the next group. So really the Republican phenomenon of fiscal conservatives of the WW2 era Civic genration, has morphed into the Religous Evangelical Boomer version. Woodstock to evangelicalism are classic spiritual pursuits and not to differant from each other at all.
[b]this is off topic, but did anyone see chuck norris behind huckabee?[b]
I only saw his teeth! BLINDING WHITE!!!!!!!!!!!
I like Obama. I'm conservative to Libertarian, so I'd never vote for him, but I think he is a good man. I like the way he seems to handle himself around his family. I liked seeing him carry his little girl around the stage.
why wouldn't a conservative or libertarian vote for him? by the way how could you be a "conservative or libertarian" it's seemingly contradictory?
Beta -- conservative TO libertarian does describe a niche along a spectrum, and it's not contradictory...actually describes Ron Paul, as an example.
As for Obama getting those votes -- they generally would not vote for him because of very, very different philsophies/world views -- it's those who favor big goverment v. those who favor small government.
I'm sick of boomer politicians, they are so self centered and a product of the 'me' culture of their generation. Boomers invented the SUV and botox, need I say anymore?
I'm for obama kicking some flabby boomer butt!
especially if he teams up with one of my preferred candidates, richardson or kucinich (ok, you caught my hypocracy, they are boomers).
sand...i get ya, but i think it's still odd, i mean less government except in cases of health reasons - choice - the idea of marriage - same sex - and then this idea of interfering in states rights?? odd.
i talked to a moderate republican voting for thompson in iowa, and his second choice was Obama. in fact our calling of iowa moderates had us make special note of Ron Paul supporters, so that might be something to consider....
killa, kucinich married a hottie, so he jumped back a bit, and is no longer a boomer....
Republicans as Fiscal Conservatives?
Now that's fiction! The Republican President to balance a budget was Eisenhower.
Now are you talking about 1950s Republicans? They were pro-civil rights and a decent bunch.
But the truth is that both when Eisenhower and Clinton balanced the budget, the legislative branch was in the hands of the opposition party.
Fiscal Conservatism is used as double-speak to justify cutting programs for people who do not give your campaigns money all the while dumping cash into the company you used to work for like Halliburton or sending hundreds of millions of dollars to your "pioneer" supporters like Black Water.
I agree with Ron Paul that a lot of relief money should have gone to private non-profits and it's a belief shared by others including Obama.
Our government is in really bad shape. And Bush-Clinton-Bush with its cronyism, war profiteering and scandals needs to be left in the past.
Obama passed some good legislation as State Senator.
1. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. HUGE!
2. The first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure" (Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.)
3. The state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor
And there's more if you do some digging but the videotaped confessions was something no one else would back and Obama brought a reluctant governor and legislature together on that one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
He can bring people from both sides of the aisle together and that's the only way change is going to happen.
Dubs, I don't come in here often but now I know why you feel as strongly about this cat as you do. In fairness his speeches give me a warm fuzzy feeling too. I support you Obamaheads, like I support Obama, so here's to hoping I'm wrong because I sure as hell hope I am.
Hell, I was wrong about Bush, twice.
warm fuzzy feeling.....when i was listening to that speech i had a lot more than warm feelings. my problems, the problems in the world seemed to pale in significance to the promise of what i was seeing and hearing. not that i expect when Obama takes the oath on 01.20.09, because i expect we as country are going to have to roll up our sleeves and get busy working. what he said is what i have been saying to people that ask me why him, and i tell people he is not about making easy promises, he is about telling us the hard truth. at the end of the day i don't want to hear that by electing a clinton, all of the sudden we are going to have puppies, cake and everything will be taken care of, i want to hear that if Obama, then i will have a chance to get dirty and effect change, and become a citizen in the world. i want to hear that i matter, that i am part of the village, and a Barack Obama presidency does that for me.
I just signed up on Obama's email list and donated some money. First time in my life I've done that for any candidate.
The more I learn about Obama the more I really like him. I'm not saying I didn't like him before, but my main concern was his relative inexperience in global relations. It wasn't until someone pointed out to me that Clinton and Jr didn't really have global experience either going into their presidencies that I began re-evaluating everything. In the past 8 years I have become ever more jaded and disenchanted with the political system, realizing more and more that special interests pretty much run our government. Listening to Obama's speech, I am hoping that Obama can/will be the one to finally bring the change, the one that finally brings actual debate/dialogue back to the chamber and not this petty bullshit power struggle we've experienced since... I don't know... Nixon?
I also pray that there are enough people out there that have gotten as worked up about our broken system as I have and vote for what I feel is the one flicker of hope we have in an attempt to fix it.
I'm definitely fired up and ready to go!!!!
didn't want to call up a new thread for this:
does anyone know if/how i can watch a stream of the fox/abc presidential debates happening tonight?
is it part of the abc channel you can grab via P2P on TVU?
or does anyone know ways of viewing an abc stream somewhere on the web?
the "abc news now" is not what i need - and that's what most feeds carry.
possibly staying up late anyway...and obviously not geographically near a US network or TV...
thanks.
Make architecture -- unfortunately those types of issues don't have much to do with taking over the nation and it's current context.
Obama does not have the military experience necessary to take over a nation at war. Again, i think he is a decent man, but he has never run a private sector business, he's never run a city or a state. His first line of action to solve any problem is centered upon looking to governement programs.
My other main -- and ongoing -- criticism of Obama is that he has gotten an awfully long way on generalities. He delivers them very charismatically to be sure, but I believe he will crash and burn when pressed for specifics on most issues.
makeArchitecture raised those issues as examples of Obama's ability to get much-needed legislation passed despite strong political squabbling in a very divided and dysfunctional state government. I think that's exactly the sort of ability the next president needs to have.
As for being in the military or running a company, he's too young to have served in Vietnam, and he apparently has a higher sense of civic duty than sitting in a corporate office somewhere.
Compared to somebody who used his family connections to get a cushy stateside assignment in the National Guard during Vietnam -- and not even bother to show up for that -- and then use those same family connections to run several businesses into the ground, I'd gladly take somebody who started with nothing and followed a lifelong vocation to community activism and public service.
But then, serving the common good isn't a concept I'd expect a conservative to ever comprehend.
why does a President need military experience? GHWB was the last one with any credible experience in foreign affairs, and look where that got us..
what candidate, name one, does not get by on generalities?
Don't you get it, beta? Our prez must be the living incarnation of John Wayne, the white, masculine ass-kicker-in-chief. That's the only qualification for the job.
War is diplomacy by other means.
And if you want to see specifics on Iraq, these two contributors to the Pentagon's Counterinsurgency Manual are Obama advisors.
There's more substance to this discussion on Iraq than any I have seen:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/24/2/a-discussion-about-counterinsurgency
Obama and Clinton are tied in NH (a big change from just a couple of days ago when Clinton led).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/05/nh.poll/index.html
McCain is leading in NH too, anything that keeps Romney out is good news in my book.
no one actually needs to have experienced war or business ownership to be president. they just have to surround themselves with the right people. makearchitecture's link above shows that obama at least has that capacity as much as anyone else.
the last president with military experience was bush sr and his running of a war wasn't stellar either.
the proclimation(sp) made by barack about actionable intelligence regarding osama ie bombing pakistan was not very intelligent. nothing like bombing a nuclear power to ruin your day. also, al quaida has declared war on the pakistani government. i'd be interested to see what kind of casualties the pakistani army is taking up in those lawless provinces. wouldnt doubt if they are as high as ours are in afghanistan.
As far as I know the casualties arent actually that high, because the actual soldiers arent all that thrilled about being there and generally refuse to enter pitched battles. It would be like sending the national guard to kill people in Maine, their hearts arent in it.
And as far as the air-strikes comment, frankly there isnt a viable foreign policy expert or a sane candidate for president who doesnt agree with it.
Remember neither the government of Pakistan nor the vast majority of pakistani people have any love for Osama Bin Laden. They just dont like that they have to slaughter their own people to get to him. If we could solve that problem with a quick strike I dont think very many people would be upset about that. This whole 'destabilizing the pakistani government' argument is really disingenuous.
Also that cnn poll is actually an outlier. We are feeling pretty good about our chances here, especially after the debate last night.
if you think people in any country would not be upset by a missile strike/air raid in their country. think again. the muslim world would see it as another slap in the face. hire some freakin warlords to take him out.
Pakistan is really something out of an old Western. It really isn't a modern nation state. It doesn't have secure borders, large areas of the country are not controlled by the central government and many in the country identify more strongly with their ethnic group and/or tribe than with Pakistan. It's more like pre-1870s Germany. Bin Laden is hiding out in the lawless regions and special forces would be needed to go in and take him out. Bombing hasn't worked. Hiring mercenaries hasn't worked so you're left with sending in boots on the ground.
It's not a great option but Bin Laden has isolated and up until our invasion of Iraq, marginalized.
I like Vado's idea - hire a warlord to take people out. We used to be the best at covert assassinations, hell i bet I could of taken out Sadam for about 500k.
makeArchitecture - isn't that the case in many of the countries that make up that region?
I cannot think of one. The old Soviet Republics to the north rule with an iron fist. India is a democracy. Iran has control over their territory.
The former GOP congressman from Rockford endorsed Obama today:
"If I were in New Hampshire, I would very definitely be casting my ballot for (Illinois Democratic Senator Barack) Obama," said John B. Anderson, the Rockford native who ran for president himself in 1980, first as a Republican and then as an independent. "There is a freshness to his appeal that is really unparalleled in the many years that I’ve been following presidential elections."
I reached Anderson, now 85, by phone Sunday afternoon in Fort Lauderdale, where he lives half the year and teaches seminars in constitutional law and electoral process as a visiting professor at the Shepard Broad Law Center at Nova Southeastern University.
He said he had not formally endorsed a presidential candidate since his own ill-fated run for the White House (he won 7 percent of the popular vote in 1980), though he did make several public appearances with Bill Clinton in 1992.
But this year, he said, he believes we are "at a unique moment in history, when we need to reach beyond narrow partisanship....All of the other Democratic candidates for the nomination and the Republican candidates for the nomination as well are still wedded to the old partisan way of judging issues and cannot rise above that to give us the new approaches that we need."
Anderson represented the Rockford area in Washington from 1961-1981. Since leaving the Republican party he has fashioned himself as a spokesman for independent voters who are disenchanted with the two-party system.
Anderson said Obama's lack of executive experience doesn't dim his enthusiasm for the candidate: "In the relatively short time he's been the public sphere...[Obama] has shown an ability to parse problems in new and different ways and come up with new ideas and new approaches. Whereas the other candidates go down pretty much the same old trails they have traveled in the past."
He added, "There is an almost indefinably unique quality to his kind of leadership that would help us not only here at home, but also help us capture respect abroad."
for all those barak-ites:
is it the way he delivers the message or the content of his message that you like?
so which is barak's statement on climate change?
A-
Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. ... As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. ... Getting our own house in order is only a first step. ... We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.
B-
I am one of those Democrats who sees the world as being interconnected and interdependent. America has a moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change since we create so many greenhouse gases here and have a very large carbon footprint. ... We need to work with the world community to lower greenhouse gases, reduce the carbon footprint, to bring forth new energy technologies. The world is ready for this. America needs to be ready for it and they are waiting for leaders who are ready to do it.
C-
I believe America has to lead the way in dealing with the crisis of climate change and global warming. We are four percent of the world's population, but we emit as much as 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We're the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. ... We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries -- including developing nations -- to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
D-
The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: we are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences. We need to take immediate steps to address this problem. Critics contend that action will be too costly, but I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity. By putting the right incentives in place, we will drive American businesses to innovate, creating new products and new jobs. Failing to act is the riskier course to both our environment and our economy.
E-
This planet is revolting against the use of fossil fuels and against manmade pollution. And we have to fight global climate change. And we have to have an international effort to do it. And it means mandating the reduction of carbons and caps and emissions and the pollution that comes from fossil fuels and vehicles. It has to happen. ... The first thing a president does on the global climate change is say we are going to follow the Kyoto Treaty, but we are going to exceed the limits because we've lost six years.
F-
You're seeing the climate get warmer or climate change is occurring and I believe that human activity is contributing to that. I don't know what proportion of the change is due to human activity but my policy is to adopt what I refer to as a 'no regrets policy' -- to take action that allows us to become more energy efficient and ultimately become energy independent as a nation. ... I would like to see us work on a global basis on this effort. I really don't think it's productive for us to act solely on a unilateral basis to reduce our greenhouse gases if we have developing nations like China and India continue to increase their output of greenhouse gases and not be party to a greenhouse gas effort.
answers are in the nytimes' side-by-side comparison of the candidates.
I personally like the way he delivers the message, but want more out of his policies (and I think it's very cool for a man of color to shake up the status quo).
I think Obama/Powell is an unbeatable ticket for 2008.
treekiller - i think obama is crap on climate change its really babble - no worse than anyone else
i still will work for him
T
i guessed B but it was A:
U.S. MUST LEAD GLOBAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS; WOULD INSTITUTE CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM
Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. ... As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. ... Getting our own house in order is only a first step. ... We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.
Also:
If Elected, They Say They Would ...
Establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Require industries to pay for allowances to emit greenhouse gases; allowances would be sold through auctions.
Would require all transportation fuels in the United States to contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020.
Would establish targets for annual fuel economy increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets.
Would give automakers health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Support alternative fuels.
mA- you gave away the answer too quickly, thats no fun.
so who wants to guess the rest of who said what, before looking up (and posting) the answers????
the bottom line is most of the dems are rather tepidly the same, aka institute kyoto/cut emission by 80% by 2050 (and 40mpg by 2020).
Where is the vision or leadership to go beyond the safely plausible scenarios? Why won't they go further? it would only get them more votes from gen-y and pissed off gore supporters. their proposed solutions won't fix the mess caused by bush.
Obama opens double digit leads over Clinton...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html
and Romney is losing in NH, I like McCain, always have, but I disagree with his current Iraq position. Regardless, his courage and forthrightness makes him one of the few that truly deserve to serve in that office. I hope that this win changes things for him and he can get the support of 'mainstream' republicans nationally. I would love to see the McCain - Obama contest, I don't think the country can really lose on that one.
oe, i really like the stock-like odds in the realclearpolitics link you posted. they predict an Obama-McCain (maybe Giuliani) race.
I still fantasize - in a very geeky political way - about Obama becoming the nominee and then crossing the aisle for his VP selection. I have a lot of respect for McCain and wonder what kind of tizzy the country would go into if McCain lost the nomination only to get selected as Obama's VP. We couldn't lose if that were the case.
(Although Bloomberg would be a great VP as well. As would Richardson, but I like him for Secretary of State more. Oooh, this is a fun game....)
untill the us and the rest of the world support a position different that econimic growth as usual position -- you guys are really being fooled by all this %reduction in carbon crap bs - thats not going to do it -
just look at our growth in consumption - thats they problem
Well obama does include carter-like grants and tax-breaks for people to make their homes and buildings more efficient, as well as a national smart-grid to encourage people to put in solar cells and windmills on an individual level.
QR are you talking about the Intrade quotes? Ive actually be Amazed by the accuracy of that over the last few weeks. I guess its just a futures market on the nomination process.
Has anyone here read Blind Mans Bluff?
I would expect Hillary to attack Obama very heavily on the "experience" issue. She has "35 years of experience" after all. Mondale's successful "Where's the beef?" campaign redone. Without the
The latest in Hillary's distort and attack on Obama is the lobbyist thing where she says he has some who has done freelance work as a state lobbyist as his state co-chairman. Obama takes no federal lobbyist or PAC money. Hillary takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from federal lobbyists. State lobbyists do not contribute to federal campaigns.
But how much federal lobbyist money has Hillary accepted? I'll look it up but...
How does this affect her positions on health care? Who has bought her? It's like the people who bought the current President Bush. THey all made out very well--look at Blackwater.
the reason Hillary's in trouble is people are just throwing her out. Obama represents the "new" as undefined. It doesnt matter any more, theyre getting booted. She's making the mistake of using her own logic, as in Im Hillary, Im and agent of change, leaving out the caveat, "in this particular syatem". Fuck it, lets elect elect a black dude, under 50 with a Kenyan daddy and a corn fed mom. You cant touch that. No incumbant politico can ever go back to work with same comfort in reliability in their base anymore. The lilly white state of Iowa just picked a black dude. Welcome to the future people. Everythings on notice.
Yahoo News: Fading in polls, teary-eyed Clinton vows to fight on
"Waaa! They told me I could move back into the White House when Bush was done. This isn't the way it was supposed to happen!"
I hope it's not too early to say that this might be the dawning of a new day in American, after a long and dark night.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.