Fighting Ignorance; What are the REASONS to support Obama?

I'm just going to be Frank;

I'm pretty damn fed up with the Clinton people on this board telling themselves that Obama supporters are "Blind followers" with no reason for giving him their support. Over and over I've demonstrated that position to be simply ignorant. No matter how many times I offer the real, valid, serious reasons I, and others, have for supporting him, they don't want to hear it.

Oh, I know why that is. It's pretty simple, actually.

How can they be right unless their opposition is wrong? The best way to remain assured that the opposition is wrong, is not to accept anything that may be right about them.

Now, as I've said before, there are good reasons to support a Clinton candidacy.

How do I know this?

Because I choose not to be ignorant of one candidate in favor of another. It is for this very same reason that I am more in favor of an Obama candidacy... because I choose not to be ignorant all the way around. By now, long-time DUers know that I like to be empirical about things... with the few occasional misconceptions that come up and get fixed, rare though they may be. Because of this I've even been accused of extreme insensitivity. I like reality because I believe that embracing the cold, empirical universe will be one of the things humanity finally does to save humanity from itself. If that makes me 'insensitive', then so be it.

So, here we are with people yelling and screaming all kinds of stuff. I'm not above all of that myself, in fact I find it cathartic to be a condescending jerk when someone deserves it. But there is a place above the fray where emotions can no longer shape opinions. There is a place where reality cares very little how much anyone feels they are in the right, and anyone can visit it.

The Clinton supporters, not all of them, of course, but even some who I have always respected and appreciated, aren't interested in knowing there are very good reasons to support Obama, otherwise they wouldn't characterize his supporters as 'blind followers'. Well, I'm saying that 'someone refusing to see a thing doesn't make everyone else blind'.


I have very good reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, and anyone that tells me I don't is insulting my intelligence, and demonstrating their own ignorance.

Now, I'm asking you, if you are an Obama supporter, to explain your reasons for supporting Barack Obama's nomination. Not your reasons for opposing Clinton, those aren't material to point of this thread. "I like him" may be a reason, but again... not the point.

I'll start with three of my many reasons;


1) He pledged to instruct his AG to investigate torture. No other candidate has done that, and no one on DU can possibly be against his doing so unless they are a troll. He's not lying when he says that, it must be his intention to do so because it is too serious, and potentially dangerous for anyone to announce that they will be a threat of any kind to anyone in this current administration. To say such a thing without meaning it is to align and focus his enemies upon him and make his own course more difficult with no benefit. From there, it is my well-founded opinion that since he has been a seeker of social justice, he intends to follow through.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041508B.shtml
That's huge.

2) He has a more fundamental and comprehensive plan for the gas/energy crisis than a 'gas tax break'. It involves making the oil companies more responsible and involved, as well as making them part of the solution instead of the problem. If gas companies want to stay under a 'windfall profit' ceiling to avoid higher taxes, it's in their best interest to increase refining capacity and seek innovations to bring down market speculation. If they don't avoid that ceiling, the tax goes toward innovation anyway. It's a win/win, and it addresses long-term energy issues that will otherwise plague our economy if not dealt with. Clinton's plan is ttemporary, and doesn't address those long-term issues as thoroughly.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080425/ts_alt_afp/usvotedemocratsenergy_080425211322

3) Money. LOADS of it. His ability to raise money has dwarfed his opponents, and it will continue to do so into the GE. A candidate with a big money advantage will crush Grandpa McCain in the GE. As of March 31st, McCain has 11 million cash on hand.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=n00006424

Clinton has 31 million cash on hand, and 15 million in debts;
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Obama has 51 million cash on hand and less than a million in debts.

That roughly works out to;

McCain; 11 million.
Clinton; 16 million.
Obama; 50 million.

Now, if it wasn't for the fact that Obama has been consistently raising these levels of cash, it could be argued that this is just a 'snapshot', but in reality, it's a trend.


Those are very good reasons to support any candidate, They are why I support Obama.


Let us, once and for all, put away this bullshit about Obama supporters being 'blind'. Please give your good reasons for supporting him, not opposing Clinton.

Then K+R the hell out of this so they can't ignore it.


Cheers.

nd although I don't agree with all of his energy policy, his policy is by far the most comprehensive of the candidates. That's why I back Barack.

:think:

O.K. by me.

:thumbsup:

I think we need that right now. Our constitution needs defending and mending.

And K & R for the OP!!!

:kick:

It really does seem to me if the primary objective of the plan is to cover everyone, cost efficiencies will be secondary and, though I'd PREFER universal coverage, the cost efficiencies MUST come first, otherwise any cost efficiencies you do manage are going to be warped by the mandate to covery everyone. This is not the position I started out in, but I've been thinking about it and have had to change my mind.

And why are the big boys in the Health Industry backing her so much? You really think it will change with her again?

Just asking - :shrug:

I wanted to and Paul Krugman's opinion is important to me, but I had to change my mind.

Affordable won't happen until universal does. Healthcare is expensive because of the uninsured.

The uninsured is only one of them.

Both have previously stated their opinions that single payer is the best plan (Clinton in 1993, accompanied by a statement of its political impossibility, and Obama more recently when he said that's what he would do if he could start from scratch). Now tell me that if we could get organized enough to actually get HR 676 through Congress that either would veto it--no way!

Getting real universal health CARE (not "coverage") must be done from the bottom up. We are the ones we have been waiting for!

1. Senator Clinton has been wrong from the start on the invasion of Iraq, too slow to change her position and still unable (from arrogance or calculation) to acknowledge it fully. She was also wrong last year in giving Bush a green light to invade Iran, despite the Administration's imperialism, duplicity and ineptitude. She seems still to be a proponent of American hegemony, chronically willing to operate from a we/they dynamic.

2. She is personally expedient, and a calculating opportunist, consistently willing to say and do whatever seems marketable or negotiable, rather than operating from a solid core of intrinsic values.

3. I am deeply doubtful about her electability, due to her strong and intractable negatives, which she and her campaign are currently exacerbating in their unseemly efforts to discredit Obama. I think that she is likely to lose to McCain (independents going his way, disgruntled progressives and
young people opting out) and, in the process, harm the bottom of the ticket, reversing the Democrats' legislative momentum.

4. I'm apprehensive as well about the kind of President she would be, if she were elected -- a different gender but the same old my way or the highway. Transactional not transformative. micromanagement and clannishness. Mouthing change, but constitutionally inclined to politics as usual. Flawed judgment as in her assumption that the race would be over on Super Tuesday.

5. She is only recently able to manage her husband. We have been witness to his unsavory return from statesman-philanthropist to politics and self-indulgence as usual. I have deep skepticism about the prospect of the Presidency as a two-headed monstrosity and I dread the aftermath of another Clinton incumbency.

6. Hillary Clinton wants to stop the flow of jobs to other countries, however she does not acknowledge that it was her own husbands policies that was the impetus for such a tidle wave of job loss ie. NAFTA.

7. The Senator has been disingenuous about her experience. Five years as a legislator vs. ten for Obama; partner in a regional law firm in a small third-tier city. First Lady: largely ceremonial, except for the healthcare debacle. There is no hands-on management experience of any consequence, a shortcoming exacerbated by her arrogance and inability to acknowledge mistakes and her absence of a dependable internal guidance system.

8. I have the sense that Hillary Rodham Clinton no longer knows who she genuinely is, perhaps has not known since her work on the Watergate investigation. Support for her would be support for whom, and for what

9. I am appalled by her patterns of personal presumption, her ruthlessness and vindictiveness, as early as the gratuitous Travelgate firings and as recently as her surrogates' smears against Obama on a woman's right to choose and their (including President Clinton's) abhorrent scare-tactic
misrepresentations and innuendoes with regard to race and religion leading up to South Carolina and continuing to this day.

10. Finally, circumstantially, she stands as an obstacle to a rare and extraordinary opportunity for an authentic revitalization of our national journey -- the election in Barack Obama of a brilliant and inspiring, multiracial, multicultural candidate who would provide an antidote and
corrective to the dark corrosive abominations of the Bush regime and who holds the promise of designing and building bold and necessary new strategies and practices, internationally and domestically, for the early years of this perilous century.

Why I am voting for Obama:

1. I feel he can truly bring people together from both sides of the aisle to effect change. He has done so in Illinois as well as Washington.

2. He does not take Federal Lobbyists or Pac money, rather he has an enormous grass roots effort taking place that has sustained his candidacy. He has said on numerous occasions that he will sit down with Lobbyists and listen to them, yet he will not be bound by them, or owe them favors.

3. He is interested in not just talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq, but actually doing it. He was opposed to the war from the start, showing good judgment and sound principals.

4. He is interested in restoring to the middle class what has been lost over the last seven years, and moving them forward, moving education forward, and he knows that it can be done, and has a plan to do it.

5. Obama is not running due to his own ambition, but due to what he calls quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King "the fierce urgency of now". We have all witnessed this, he knows it, we know it.

6. As he says we are not the red states, we are not the blue states, we are the United States, he's not the status quo, change is coming.

I would rather have Obama win because he is up to the challenge of changing politics, not just going along with them. It is that time.

the Clinton negatives;

1. I feel he can truly bring people together from both sides of the aisle to effect change. He has done so in Illinois as well as Washington. That's more than a 'feeling', it's a demonstrable fact that he's proven he can win support. I don't consider that the most materially compelling reason though.

2. He does not take Federal Lobbyists or Pac money, rather he has an enormous grass roots effort taking place that has sustained his candidacy. He has said on numerous occasions that he will sit down with Lobbyists and listen to them, yet he will not be bound by them, or owe them favors. Grass roots; true. Lobbyist/PAC money; fuzzy. Even I haven't confirmed that one way or the other yet.

3. He is interested in not just talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq, but actually doing it. He was opposed to the war from the start, showing good judgment and sound principals. While this is true, it is supposition. Sound supposition for sure.

4. He is interested in restoring to the middle class what has been lost over the last seven years, and moving them forward, moving education forward, and he knows that it can be done, and has a plan to do it. Got a link?

5. Obama is not running due to his own ambition, but due to what he calls quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King "the fierce urgency of now". We have all witnessed this, he knows it, we know it. I believe this because of his account of his first day in Washington DC as a junior Senator. He was basically told 'just stay low and play by the rules and everything will work out for you'. He went home and told his wife; 'There's no way I'm going to be able to change much as a Senator... I have to go to the White House.'

6. As he says we are not the red states, we are not the blue states, we are the United States, he's not the status quo, change is coming. Flowery feel-good stuff. Can't hurt at all, and if he means it, then it means something important.

People say "He wasn't in Congress for the vote, so we don't know how he would have voted." On the principle of Grassroots' activism upon which BHO has founded his campaign, the question of what a candidate has done since the will of the people has made itself known is more important than questions about past events in which he had no role. We can only speculate indeterminently about the latter, while we KNOW about the former and what we know is that he has been listening to us.

It also makes more sense for us, above and beyond the War, that, if we wish to make our will in regards to those who use our welfare as the price of candidacy for anything, including the pResidency, we need to make the consequences of using us that way perfectly clear, otherwise our intentions as citizen activists are under-cut from the git go. We can't say in effect, "We're here. We're active. Listen to us or lose our support." and then demonstrate that it doesn't matter that someone has gone against our interests for his/her own benefit. Regardless of our indeterminent suppositions about what anyone might have done with the IWR, we NEED a viable candidate who allows us to establish who WE are and what role WE are going to play in future processes and that role ***MUST*** be that our will matters and is not negotiable in someone's plans for his/her political ambitions.

Much to think about, K & R!

I'll add a couple of points to the list, or maybe they're supplements to what was said.

I am much more confident with Obama than most Democratic politicians (save Kucinich) that he's not a true believer in the War on Terror or Drug War. In my opinion, the Clintons support these policy frameworks when it suits them (I'm not sure how to separate out Hillary and Bill on these questions). Based on his campaign statements, his book _Dreams of My Father_, and his biography, I believe that Obama is a genuine opponent of neoliberal/neoconservative policies ranging from the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, three strikes and you're out, to support for the death penalty and tacit assent to the human rights travesties of Guantanamo, secret prisons abroad, and domestic surveillance.

I also appreciate Obama's insistence that only collective action, not executive action, can solve our problems. Even to describe himself as a flawed candidate as he does is refreshing to me. In the rhetorical approach Obama uses, the use of "we" is distinctive compared to the use of "me" in Clinton's rhetoric. As much as Obama is criticized by his opponents for being arrogant, I see a degree of humility in his speeches and a recognition that only the people have the power to make change. _Only the people_ - I don't think that point can be emphasized enough. It's too easy for us ordinary folk to get so caught up in the horse race and expecting the next person to do the job that we do not work for change. I hope not to fall into that trap myself; at times in life I have.

One more point - Obama has the best chance of reducing the alienation that is a part of the political system right now. I scratch my head when Obama's opponents do not recognize how exciting it is that the party has expanded its financial base and its range of voters, going down to many people who are too young to vote who are talking about this election (like my daughter, who is 8). I think that many conservative Democrats who are, frankly, more comfortable with conventional preparation for high office (if we describe Clinton's 35 years of experience that way), do not recognize the social costs of exclusion and alienation among so many people in American society. Many of those voices have come out for Obama, including the African American voters as a core segment of the Dem. base but never given due respect for their political views, which lean left on fiscal issues and slightly right at times on some social issues (reproductive rights, gay and lesbian rights). So it seems divisive to have that standpoint emerge, but it needs to emerge for Democrats to expand their base to an elective majority.

OK - this is really the last point: teaching constitutional law, working as a community organizer, and serving in the state legislature is great preparation for the presidency, particularly the necessity of building relationships behind the scenes that can help you succeed. A long tenure in Washington in the midst of a neoconservative wilding is a strike against a candidate, in my opinion, unless your voice has been raised in prominent and spirited opposition, and I just can't say that about HC. The implosion of HC's favored candidacy, including the steady erosion of superdelegate support, also demonstrates Obama's greater strength in working behind the scenes to build a base of support and creating a wide tent though your public rhetoric.

HC supporters - don't stand in front of the bus, get on the bus! We will never throw you under!

GREAT, NotThisTime! Well said! I agree, wholeheartedly.

Yes, we can!

The last third was entirely subjective. Aspirations at best, projection at worst.

Foreign policy: Talk to foes as well as friends. I was originally a Richardson supporter and Obama's foreign policy is close to Richardson's. Use diplomacy and abandon the failed cold war policy. One of the most important issue of this election if not the most important.

Telcom policy: He supports net neutrality and wants to limit media consolidation

New Folks to Our Party: Obama attracts a huge amount of younger voters to our party. That is strength that we can build our party with for the future.

His Oratory Skills: His abilities would really enhance the bully pulpit of the president. When it comes to difficult to pass policy like reducing green house gas emissions or reforming health care, he'll be better at taking it to the masses and encouraging support for his plan.

His Ethics Reform Record: He'll be less beholden to and work to limit the influence of lobbyists and other forms of big money influence.

I don't agree with him on all issues but he's best on most and has talent that can aid in governance.

I'll have to look into it.

However, she doesn't list it on her site under issues. She's received a good bit of support from telecoms which has made net neutrality advocates a little anxious.

It's a very serious issue.

Tackle Concentrated Poverty

* Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods: Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation. The Promise Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college.
* Ensure Community-Based Investment Resources in Every Urban Community: Obama will work with community and business leaders to identify and address the unique economic development barriers of every major metropolitan area. Obama will provide additional resources to the federal Community Development Financial Institution Fund, the Small Business Administration and other federal agencies, especially to their local branch offices, to address community needs.
* Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/

I am a former social worker turned teacher who has young children just starting out or entering school. Education is a very important issue for me. These are just some of the things that stood out for me on the education part of the issues page.

Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels.

Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.

# Retain Teachers: To support our teachers, Obama's plan will expand mentoring programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits. He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices.
# Reward Teachers: Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Service into learning is important because we learn by doing. Students will be able to get job skills by doing community service while in school. Also there will be college tax credits given in exchange for public service hours.

Integrate Service into Learning

* Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. He will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience. Green Job Corps: Obama will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to provide disadvantaged youth with service opportunities weatherizing buildings and getting practical experience in fast-growing career fields.
* Expand YouthBuild Program: Obama will expand the YouthBuild program, which gives disadvantaged young people the chance to complete their high school education, learn valuable skills and build affordable housing in their communities. He will grow the program so that 50,000 low-income young people a year a chance to learn construction job skills and complete high school.
* Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
* Promote College Serve-Study: Obama will ensure that at least 25 percent of College Work-Study funds are used to support public service opportunities instead of jobs in dining halls and libraries.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

about poverty.

All the more reason for former Edwards supporters to support Obama.

All your points are very valid and are certainly heavy points in his favor.

But for me his approach towards the War on Iraq, his insistence that we should ENGAGE with our enemies and friends, and that we should be more inclusive in the world really really draws me to him.

I am sick of people selling HATE to us packaged as Republican or Democratic variations abd telling us that we need to live in FEAR of the Moslem bogeyman. In the end they are all the same HATE-MONGERERS. Barack counters that with Hope and says that it is better to talk, to engage, to go after the right enemies and to get out of an area where we are only spreading more hate.

Great post about the issues that matter to all of us... K&R

"He wants to TALK to the terrists!"

"Where has not talking to other countries put us? There are more terrorists now than ever, all because we chose conflict. They love conflict, and we gave it to them. Take away the conflict, and they have less to live for."

... or something like that.

I just hope that the American people wake up and realize where terrorism actually comes from.

No one has clean hands around here, and its time we have a president who is willing to address the Problem rather than the Symptom!!!

Judge Him by His Laws
By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008; A21

...Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. <>

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
<>
The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
---------
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor

and 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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html
Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. During his first year as an Illinois State Senator, he helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Senator Obama is one of the authors of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180). The bill would lengthen the cooling off period to two years for lawmakers and staff who seek to become lobbyists, and it would require immediate disclosure as soon as any job negotiations begin.

The bill would open conference committee meetings to the public and require that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before they can be voted on by the Senate. Finally, the bill would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel and strengthen the Senate office that monitors lobbyist disclosure forms.

In addition, Senator Obama has sponsored three other ethics-related bills:

The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259) The bill would create an outside ethics commission to receive complaints from the public on alleged ethics violations by members of Congress, staff, and lobbyists. The commission would have the authority to investigate complaints and present public findings of fact about possible violations to the House and Senate Ethics Committee and Justice Department. By taking the initial fact finding out of the hands of members of Congress, who are often reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the bill ensures prompt and fair disposition of public complaints.

To avoid manipulation of the commission for political purposes, any person filing a complaint that they knew to be false would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. No complaints could be filed against a member of Congress for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The bill has been widely endorsed by reform groups. According to Common Cause, "this legislation would do more to reform ethics and lobbying than any other piece of legislation introduced thus far because it goes to the heart of the problem: enforcement."

Public Citizen praised Senator Obama "for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated: "This is the first bill that deals seriously with the lack of oversight and enforcement in the existing congressional ethics process. . . . This bill will help restore Americans' confidence in the integrity of Congress.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S. 2179)
The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.


Destroying Surplus and Unguarded Conventional Weapons

After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar and Obama introduced S. 2566, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

Sex Offenders


Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.


Violence Against Women Act

Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.


The Senate Immigration Bill

Senator Obama played a key role in the crafting of the immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in May 2006. The bill, which President Bush supports, would provide more funds and technology for border security and prevent employers from skirting our laws by hiring illegal immigrants. The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing and responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship. But not all illegal immigrants would be guaranteed the right to remain in the U.S. under this proposal; they would first have to pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a criminal background check.

Senator Obama offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. The first amendment strengthens the requirement that a job be offered at a prevailing wage to American workers before it is offered to a guestworker. The second amendment makes it simple, but mandatory, for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. And the third amendment authorizes $3 million a year for the FBI to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks required for immigrants seeking to become citizens.



Drinking Water Security

Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005. The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.


Greater Funding for Veterans Health Care

As early as February 2005, Senator Obama warned of a shortfall in the VA budget. Four months later, the VA reported that in fact it had more than a $1 billion shortfall. Senator Obama cosponsored a bill that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans' medical care. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama cosponsored measures that would have provided additional funding increases for veterans.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.

Homeless Veterans
Every year, 400,000 veterans across the country, including an estimated 38,000 in Chicago, spend some time living on the streets. Senator Obama has been a leader in fighting homelessness among veterans. He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.

In June 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475), which would expand access to long-term affordable housing for homeless veterans by setting aside $225 million to purchase, build or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. The legislation would also greatly expand existing veterans rental assistance programs and create a new office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to coordinate services to homeless veterans.

Food for Recovering Soldiers

Senator Obama introduced an amendment that became law providing food services to wounded veterans receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services at military hospitals. Previously, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and TBI
Senator Obama fought a VA proposal that would have required a reexamination of all PTSD cases in which full benefits were granted. He and Senator Durbin passed an amendment that has become law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review.

Senator Obama passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). TBI is being called the signature injury of the Iraq war. The blast from improvised explosive devices can jar the brain, causing bruising or permanent damage. Concussions can have huge health effects including slowed thinking, headaches, memory loss, sleep disturbance, attention and concentration deficits, and irritability.

Easing the Transition to the VA Senator Obama passed an amendment that became law requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the delayed development of an electronic medical records system compatible with the VA's electronic medical records system. DOD's delay in developing such a system has created obstacles for service members transitioning into the VA health care system.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) which would help veterans transition from the DOD health system to the VA system by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years. The Lane Evans bill also would improve transition services for members of the National Guard and Reserves.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Global Poverty Act of 2007 (just passed out of committee)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
http://obama.senate.gov /



Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."

"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1 / ---------------------

This compliments this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4678548

versus, The Clinton legacy....

Hence the DLC via Bill Clinton's Presidency gave us among other things.......



















"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillary-clinton-on-w...

(ACTUAL LINKS AVAILABLE HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5587196
------------------------------------------

and there's also this

And let the youth who will inherit this country pick a president for once.

You set a lot of stake in Obama's ability to raise money. You even say it's a prime reason you support him. But I have sent small ($50) amounts of money to several Democratic candidates: Gravel, Kucinich and Clinton, and never once was I asked to identify myself politically in any way. I could have been a Republican sending them money and they wouldn't have known or cared.

So I was thinking. What is to stop people who hate Democrats from contributing to the one Democrat they have correctly deduced: (A) CAN take the primary away from Hillary (with the right mojo), but is also (B) sure to LOSE to the GOP nominee, once the contest is down to the two of them and the REAL dirty campaigning begins?

Remember the little old lady McCain supporter who asked, "How do we beat the bitch?"

If I were the GOP, I would answer, 'We puff up and enrich one challenger to Hillary -- the one we can best use to cut into her support with blacks and young people. Then we use our friends in the media to start portraying HRC as, say, a racist. Then we fan the flames to make sure the resulting primary fight is so nasty and divisive that -- no matter who survives it -- the Democratic Party will be fractured and vulnerable.

THAT'S how we beat the bitch.

And THAT'S how the GOP can win in 2008: GOP secretly funds BO. BO knocks off HRC, then GOP knocks off BO.

So, are you SURE that Obama's money-raising ability is a good thing?

:eyes:




Here's the link to Obama's contribution breakdown;
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Do some research.

You didn't say "That's how we would beat the bitch", You say "That's how we beat the bitch."

That ain't quite right for an hypothetical.

Love the post though, you really kill 2600 kittens while on DU?

BTW, Barack never "cut into her support with blacks and young people." She never had the young people to begin with and she and Bill squandered their goodwill in the black community by running their big fat mouths.

Bonus TRUTH score!

That's really the only reason you need.

(1) He has run the most competent, scary-smart campaign.

(2) The Philadelphia speech of March 18, 2008 ("A More Perfect Union") shows that he has the wherewithal and intelligent awareness of history to SEIZE HISTORICAL MOMENTS and AIM FOR A MORE SUBLIME GREATNESS

(3) Over and over, he has turned a disadvantage into an advantage.

(4) The 28 year Bush/Clinton dynastic deadlock has become a self-inflicting, self-perpetuating poisonous wedge in the American body politic (although after the tone of Hillary's current campaign, it will be harder for the Clintons to benefit from the "silly attacks" of the Right-Wing freakshow, as they have simply on the basis of their victim status). Obama has introduced a tone that is not a reactionary reflex against this Bush/Clinton deadlock, but nevertheless that tone is an antidote of restoring our democratic journey, and may heal segments of both parties.

(5) Obama's background as a Constitutional scholar in the aftermath of a most anti-Constitutional Junta could forestall or overturn an upcoming Pentagon/Cheney Sleeper-Cell Neocon fascist military coup, because the Neocon fascists aren't going away, even if they pretend to leave quietly in January.

will respect it and uphold it, and restore it wherever necessary. He has pledged to review every one of W's executive orders for constitutionality. I trust him to do that. He has good ideas to create transparency in government.

Every one of his policies that I have studied has sound thinking behind it.

On a more personal level, he has weathered recent attacks and betrayal with level-headedness and dignity, which are refreshing qualities.

I'm going to keep this on hand so I can call bullshit the next time someone posts a "blind followers" statement.

Indies and moderate republicans too.

Several people I work with caucused for the first time to support Barack. One republican I work with caucused as a democrat, and will vote for Barack (first time voting for a democrat) in November.

Two other staunch republicans I work with would vote for Barack over McCain, but swear they would NEVER vote for Clinton.

and I believe in him. So once in my adult life I'd like to vote for a candidate that isn't "the lesser of two evils."

On more time;

I have very good reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, and anyone that tells me I don't is insulting my intelligence, and demonstrating their own ignorance.

His closing argument! It is genius!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf8N1Ucfb7E&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x127355


Superdelegates were probably sent this one!

It resonates, and no one saying that 'it's just a speech' can change the fact that he speaks the truth.

He'll wipe the floor with Grandpa McCain.

Thanks for posting it!

:patriot:

They've been doing just fine under Bush, while I'm at it.

1) Opposition to the war from the beginning. Makes it much easier to debate McCain on the war issue.

2) Fundraising ability.

3) Exciting guy, inspiring message that can attract independents and new voters.

4) He shows leadership. A lot of times he declines to go the easy route, such as the gas tax holiday, and instead put a stake in the ground and explain why his position is right. He attempts to LEAD people to the right path, instead of just looking at what's already popular and taking a position accordingly.

These are off the top of my head. There are a lot more,

But mostly...

He "gets it." If you read The Audacity of Hope, he perfectly sums up how we got to where we are right now, the reason Republicans have been able to get elected, etc.

"He shows leadership. A lot of times he declines to go the easy route, such as the gas tax holiday, and instead put a stake in the ground and explain why his position is right. He attempts to LEAD people to the right path, instead of just looking at what's already popular and taking a position accordingly."

Obama's supporters appear to be much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Clinton supporters are about theirs. Enthusiasm can be contagious.

A strong candidate with enthusiastic supporters will be hard if not impossible for John McCain to beat. Republicans know this and would prefer to run against a more subdued Clinton campaign.

Under the guise of complaining about Clinton supporters insulting you, you take the liberty to insult other people repeatedly. That is what people mean by "blind" - ignoring your own flaws and those of your candidate while magnifying those of your opposition.

Those reasons you give for supporting Obama are reasonable and well supported and well argued. Thank you for that. I don't find them compelling - which doesn't make you wrong or invalidate you, but simply means that we have a different opinion. Can that be tolerated?

However, any neutral observer can easily see that at the very least the insults and attacks are not coming solely from the Clinton camp. To claim otherwise is, again, a type of "blindness" to the flaws of your own candidate's supporters, is it not?

It seems to me that you could have posted your reasons for supporting the Obama candidacy without going out of your way to take a bunch of mean-spirited swipes at those who disagree with you. It is especially ironic that you do that, while complaining about the same thing from your opponents. That is precisely the type of argumentation from many Obama supporters that people are taking exception to.

I am not a Clinton supporter either, by the way.

"I'm not above all of that myself, in fact I find it cathartic to be a condescending jerk when someone deserves it."

Keep that in mind. :evilgrin:

Now, let's visit your "concerns";



That's some very clever phrasing ya' got there. In other words you're saying that it's wrong to call someone ignorant for being ignorant? You're saying that when someone willfully ignores any potential legitimacy to your position, that it's an 'insult' to point that out?

Did I say something else about the Clinton folks?

In case it was lost on you, which apparently it was, I was referring specifically to, well... specific Clinton people.

Let me clue you in on who those were;

The ones who are deliberately ignorant of the legitimate reasons for supporting Obama.

I know, I know... it's a little hard to work through the complexity of this particular perspective... but mull it over a bit and it may just sink in.




What a great question!

My answer; Well of course it can be tolerated. You see... if you had legitimate reasons for your opinion, and I said said your opinion was invalid without investigating or even considering it, but instead just assumed that you were "blindly following", you might find that insulting mightn't you?

But of course you wouldn't want to point out that my out-of-hand dismissal of what might otherwise be very legitimate reasons for your 'different opinion' was insulting at all... because then you would be insulting me.

God forbid you'd tell me I wasn't being fair. :smoke:


Hmmm... lemme think... 'when did I suggest that the insults and attacks are coming solely from the Clinton camp?'

Hmmm... Uh, now that I think about it... I didn't. Fancy That!

At this point, I'd hate to "insult" you by pointing out that you either didn't read the OP, or you're just making shit up. Gosh... You've shown me the error of my ways by now, so I'll refrain from doing so.



Well then that would have defeated the purpose of the thread, which was to point out in contrast that there are good reasons to support Obama despite a number of Clinton supporters deluding themselves to the contrary. In fact, I never would have started this thread if Clinton supporters weren't consistently making such a ridiculous charge in spite of all facts to the contrary. At least that way, maybe a few of them would realize they were being ignorant, read the reasons listed herein, grow up, and stop saying stupid shit thereby earning my respect and bringing a higher level of discourse to DU. I like to think that, in that, I'm serving the greater good with my well-targeted "insulting" thread.

That, and if I hadn't grabbed your attention, I may not have had this splendid opportunity to converse with you on the matter.

So nice to chat.

Dr. E

Once again, your post is laced with mean-spirited and uncalled for abuse and sarcasm, now directed at me as well as "Clinton supporters." My crime? Failing to be persuaded by your arguments, and calling you on your inflammatory language.

You said "I'm not above all of that myself, in fact I find it cathartic to be a condescending jerk when someone deserves it."

I object to this stance - that it is OK to be abusive if the target of your abuse "deserves it" or "had it coming," in your opinion. That is the excuse of every bully, tyrant and abuser, used to justify their behavior.

I'm pretty consistent like that.

Telling me it's insulting to point out that someone is being insulting is insulting... so enjoy the insults.

You earned 'em.






Hmmmm.... you know what? I'll play along just to point something out;


Tell me, exactly what I said that was 'insulting'.

You are saying - putting everyone on notice - that your behavior and moral standards will depend upon what others do. If they "deserve it," all bets are off. Should they contradict or disagree with you, they therefore "deserve it."

For that to be true, your opinion would have to have some merits to it, then yes, I would be wrong to 'insult' you merely for disagreeing with me.

No dumbass, I insult you because you say stupid shit.

Let's review;
"My answer; Well of course it can be tolerated. You see... if you had legitimate reasons for your opinion, and I said said your opinion was invalid without investigating or even considering it, but instead just assumed that you were "blindly following", you might find that insulting mightn't you?

But of course you wouldn't want to point out that my out-of-hand dismissal of what might otherwise be very legitimate reasons for your 'different opinion' was insulting at all... because then you would be insulting me."

That was apparently lost on you.

I also noticed you're not interested in answering me;

"Hmmmm.... you know what? I'll play along just to point something out;


Tell me, exactly what I said that was 'insulting'."
(In the OP, of course)

Then we can find explore whether those were 'insults' or merely 'harsh observations.

"No dumbass, I insult you because you say stupid shit."

But you deny being insulting, and then accuse me of insulting you when I object to the things you are saying.

Go for it, I don't care. You assume, apparently, that I am a "dumbass" and some sort of enemy that needs to be smacked down.

My opinion is this - you are behaving in an extremely obnoxious and counter-productive way. You say that opinion is without merit, but then say that it is OK for you to be obnoxious, because "they" - and no me as well - "deserve it." Which is it?

The hypocrisy is also pretty stunning - you are accusing Clinton supporters of doing exactly what you are doing right here - making false accusations against Obama supporters. Can't you see how silly that is? You are proving the charges made against Obama supporters in any case - that they are so caught up in contentious partisan bickering and in a zealous effort to promote and defend their hero that they are "blind" to certain things, and are slashing and burning their way through these discussions, alienating people, and causing much ill will and resentment. In this case you are blind to what I am saying, and are assuming that I am one of those "Clintonistas" that needs to be smacked down by whatever means possible.

You assume that I am trying to win some argument with you here about something. There would be no way for you to know whether or not that were true so long as you are in all out attack mode.

Again: I am not a Clinton supporter, and I am not criticizing Obama. I am criticizing the methods being used by some Obama supporters in the promotion of their cause. I have no expectation of persuading you to anything and I can't stop you from getting your hatred whipped up and expressing it toward anyone you think is standing in your way. But I can speak out about what I see, and object to it, and that is what I am doing.

I never claimed I wasn't. But my aren't you trying to play games with this.

Here's why you deserve the insults I am so lavishly heaping upon you;

You called my OP 'insulting' and refused to say exactly why or how beyond vague reference to 'tone'.


Let's look at some quick facts;

1) My reasons for supporting Obama have been dismissed out of hand by Clinton supporters.
2) In utter ignorance, they claim I must be 'blind'.
3) I pointed out that they are being ignorant.

Then, Mr. Highhorse rides in and says "That's rude!"


Excuse me?

No dumbass, my contention with you has nothing to do with the candidates or my support thereof. It has to do with you. You are pretty delusional to take my criticism of your idiocy and pretend that it's about being an Obama supporter. It's not, it's about you being a shithead. In case you didn't read the OP, what's rude is being ignored and dismissed out of hand, not turning around, pointing it out, and then clearly spelling those reasons out.

I am calling you a dumbass because of;

a) Your misplaced self-righteousness.
b) Your ignorance of the purpose of the OP.
c) The 10' pole up your ass.
d) You deserve it for walking in here and roundly claiming I'm the one whose being rude by pointing out the rudeness of others.
e) That means you're being at least as rude as I am. (Oh, and don't pretend that refraining from epithets makes your insults academic)

Now, I asked you a question, but apparently in the interest of maintaining your delusion of righteousness, you're really not at all interested in addressing it;

"Hmmmm.... you know what? I'll play along just to point something out;


Tell me, exactly what I said that was 'insulting'."
(In the OP, of course)

You see, that's the point. You made the claim that I was "being insulting" without even thinking that the issue described in the OP was best described in the language I used. The issue is that

"Clinton supporters dismiss reasons for supporting Obama out of ignorance."

That's it cheesecake, if you've got a problem with that, tell the Clinton supporters to stop dismissing my support for Obama out-of-hand. Because until they cut the shit, I'm going to point it out... whether you 'think' it's 'insulting' or not.

You don't like it?

Stuff it.



Oh, and one more time in case the irony has escaped you;

You are here calling me rude and ignorant for calling others rude and ignorant. -That makes you one big circle-jerker.


By all means, keep riding around on your high horse pretending you're all-so-holy. It's amusing.

Endlessly insulting me to prove that you aren't insulting anyone... or no, wait - to prove that you only insult people who "deserve" it.

So all I need to do to get back into your good graces is to admit that I am a dumbass and deserve to be insulted.

I'm glad you realize that the intent of the OP wasn't to insult anyone who wasn't doing anything insulting.

If you say your intention was not to insult anyone, I accept that.

My intention is to encourage people to tamp down their passions and stop ripping each other apart.

I'd give it at least two weeks after the nomination before that even begins to happen around here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5800373&mesg_id=5812984


Just think... that could have been more the sort of conversation we might have had.

How's that pole doin'?

and even worse when you look at his website. Cap and trade schemes are a scam, at best, and do little to alleviate the problem, carbon sequestration is economically expensive, and isn't a solution, but a stop-gap measure. Most of the "clean energy" shit is just that, shit, the problem isn't research, but implementation, and clean coal isn't clean. I really wish Obama got some scientific experts on the subject. Which is worse? Dumping all these heavy metal and chemical pollutants from coal into the air, where it eventually enters the water table, or "wash" the coal into "clean coal" and have it directly flow into the water table?

These aren't solutions, these are propaganda, and in the WRONG direction. If he actually wants to lead, he needs to talk, seriously, about conservation and reducing energy usage in this country.

The only thing I agree with is increase CAFE standards and building energy efficient homes. The rest of it is a bunch of bullshit, and don't get me started on the biofuel shit.

Got it!


Uhhh... can you tell me who that is and why?

I'm all ears, err... eyes. :think:

None of you are interested in solutions to problems, but would rather mindlessly cheer on your chosen candidates, and can't even criticize their own bad ideas. Fucking pathetic.

If it were me who was so supportive of any candidate, I would criticize them as often as possible to pressure them to do the right thing, rather than just supporting anything they say.

standards?

It occured to me to suggest that you send your points to his campaign. I'd also like to review what you have... you may find me a staunch ally if what you say has merit, and so far I suspect it does. But for the moment it seemed poignant that you were criticising the candidate most likely to take real action on these issues.

Perspective my friend. I wanted Kucinich, but I'm not going to abandon the most progressive candidate available just because he hasn't dedicated himself to my ideal course of action.

Now, drop your broad-brush-bullshit and try a constructive attitude on for a change.

Fair enough?

If you don't want to go there, then let's hear about Clinton's or McCain's solutions and why they're better than Obama's.

K?

But that isn't the point. The fact is that this primary "my candidate ra ra ra!" bullshit is counterproductive in the extreme. I just find it stupid, I don't give a shit about Obama's ideas, Clinton's ideas, or McCain's lack of ideas, I give a shit about workable ideas, not only on a political but a practical level. The fact is that none of these idiots have a fucking clue what they are talking about when it comes to energy or the environment. One thing I do know though, that all have in common, is this, none will listen to what needs to be done because what needs to be done, if they advocate for it, will be political suicide. There is one thing all politicians of all parties have in common, it is this, a sense of self preservation to keep themselves in office.

Saying "They all suck, nothing will ever change" serves one of two purposes; Pointless bitching, and relinquishing any sense of responsibility.

That I happen to agree that we need a real American with the balls to do what has to be done is irrelevant right now. What is relevant is supporting the candidate that is most likely to do as much as possible. Right now, I'm still of the opinion that BHO will take a serious stab at doing the right things.

At least moreso than the others.


The question then is "where to go from there".


If you have no other solutions, and you're quite certain that it's hopeless, just take up fishing. If you've run out of ideas and you are open to new ones, then say so.


There's always a way... even if it sucks.

Obama is willing to admit when he is wrong. Let that sink in a little. Hillary has shown herself to be just as stubborn and pig-headed as Bush. But I'd be willing to bet that if you were to make a reasoned argument to Obama that he may have flaws in his plan, he will at the very least consider alternatives, and perhaps be persuaded to consider other options.

If you lower the amount of allowances to a certain level then you can get the same overall effect as regulating pollution overall. It is just more concentrated in the industries where it is cheaper to pollute.

He was emphatically endorsed by several attorneys representing the detainees in Gitmo. He came out unequivocally against torture and rendition while Hillary hemmed and hawed.

Kerry pledged to close Guantanamo and end secret detentions, and that was enough for me.

Beyond that, I would say the main reason is "he can win". Demonstrated over and over again.

:kick:

or whatever the insult du jour is. There are a myriad of great reasons to support Obama and they have been discussed in depth on this board and in the media. There are also many reasons to support Clinton and I respect people who choose to do that. People who don't understand the arguments of the other side have chosen not to.

The people who persist in categorizing the supporters of other candidates in a uniform and negative light are incredibly short sighted. Will I come on board with a group that has insulted me personally after the primary? Who have called the candidate I love a bitch or an empty suit? Not bloody likely.

So here's the deal. I have chosen a candidate, Barack Obama. I am a strong supporter and not persuadable to Clinton at this time. If you think Clinton has a shot at the nom, great, but if you insult me personally, I will not be working with you in the general.

I would strongly advise Obama supporters to take the same advice. Engaging strong Clinton supporters in discussion is not productive. They are not persuadable and will not be switching to our side at this time. It is never OK to insult them personally, or make ad hominem attacks on their candidate.

I don't expect anyone to take this post seriously.

For what it is worth, I post pro-Obama threads regularly and have very little disruption from Clinton supporters. The key seems to be to keep it positive.

:loveya: from the Hillary camp

:hi:

:hug:

favorites list

:pals:

It's scary in here, but I can't help myself. Can't wait for this to be over so we can start kickin' some pub ass!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5793971&mesg_id=5820371

But you're right, folks like that have little hope of respecting another POV much less listening to it.

We're pretty much on the same page. Thanks for your thoughtful words.

I would be more than happy to tell them. I don't want to come off like I am not open to intelligent discussion. But it does not seem likely to happen on this board until possibly mid-June.

And I understand why people blow their stacks on both sides. I opened a thread yesterday that made the top of my head blow off. But I put the guy on ignore really fast and then when I wanted to go back later and flame, I couldn't remember who it was who posted the crap so I could take them off ignore so I could reply to the thread :) Probably better that way.

But I do like coming here and chatting with other Obama supporters. And I can't wait to start kickin' some pub ass soon. I am so tired of fighting with other dems :(

and I'm waiting for differences of opinion from Clinton supporters to be stated thoughtfully so that we can have a productive discussion. Where are you all?

I have a little different take from the previous poster in that I think the exchange of ideas between strong supporters is educational - it informs me about the candidates themselves and about the electorate, however limited a sample DU is. It also would help me in the unlikely event that I have to vote for Clinton in the GE. I need for my enthusiasm to be encouraged so that I will spend some volunteer hours working for Clinton as a candidate were she selected. So, thoughtful views that are counter to my own can help me in that way.

If I had to pick the single most important issue, it would be open government. We have seen how the Bush Administration operates, and I expect a Clinton administration to take all of the worst aspects of the past few administrations in terms of government secrecy. We know that Bill Clinton squashed any investigations into the Reagan and Bush administrations. If Clinton was in the White House, I'd expect that most of the stuff that we don't even know about that occurred during the past seven and a half years will never see the light of day.

It's one of the things I really worry about. If he gets in there and actually starts doing the job of enforcing the law, I fear the big criminals will not tolerate that.

i was reading downthread to see if anyone had said "Transparency in Government". I have heard he is willing to institute "open Meeting Laws" for non-Classified stuff. Can you imagine having every Committee Meeting open to the Public and broadcast on C-Span?

:)

In Illinois in 2000, Sen. Obama voted for a six-month, five-percentage point break on the state’s 6.25% gas sales tax. The reduction of the tax, which goes into a general revenue fund, passed on a 55-1 vote and included measures designed to ensure that the benefits of the tax break reached consumers. At one point, Sen. Obama jokingly asked on the Senate floor whether it would be possible to install placards on gas-station pumps telling motorists he had helped win temporary price relief.

When he makes a mistake he admits it, true in Illinois he voted for a reduction in gas tax...they had safeguards inplace to assure motorists would benefit...After a few months they saw only the oil companies benefiting...Always tell my kids..."learn from your mistakes" Obama learned, it's not my way or the highway, Bush never admits mistakes on policy or war...

When I read the first couple of paragraphs, I had high hopes for some tangible policy reasons.

1) Hillary's healthcare plan is 100% better than Obama's. It has some chance of assuring universal access to health care at affordable prices. Obama's is a head-fake.
2) Hillary has promised to draft Iraq redeployment plans beginning on day one. Obama hasn't promised anything. The closest thing to a promise ("16 months best case scenario") got his adviser fired.
3) Hillary intends to replace the gas sales tax with a windfall profits tax. Obama intends to tack the windfall profits tax on top of the sales tax. Obama supporters deride the Clinton plan as being ineffective in lowering fuel prices in the short term, but don't seem to mind the fact that the Obama tax will increase prices even further. Additionally,Obama fans have dismissed the way that Hillary has marketed her plan as superficial and pandering, yet they themselves obviously can't see past the phrase 'tax holiday'.
4) Hillary has a proven record of advocating for children. I find her promises to fully fund IDEA to be both more specific, and more believable than Obama's.

These are all substantive policy reasons for supporting Hillary. If you consider Obama's ability to raise cash as one of the top three determinants then it's fair to talk about electability. Poll after poll shows Hillary beating McCain and Obama losing to him.

1) Hillary's healthcare plan is 100% better than Obama's. It has some chance of assuring universal access to health care at affordable prices. Obama's is a head-fake.

Well, that sure does demonstrate a clear understanding of Obama's policy... it's a "head fake". Well, that does it for me. :eyes: Seriously, why is it a 'head fake'?

2) Hillary has promised to draft Iraq redeployment plans beginning on day one. Obama hasn't promised anything. The closest thing to a promise ("16 months best case scenario") got his adviser fired.
Well, that's only 10 months later Than Obama has already proposed.

"In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

And what part of "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." is fuzzy to you?

3) Hillary intends to replace the gas sales tax with a windfall profits tax. Obama intends to tack the windfall profits tax on top of the sales tax. Obama supporters deride the Clinton plan as being ineffective in lowering fuel prices in the short term, but don't seem to mind the fact that the Obama tax will increase prices even further. Additionally,Obama fans have dismissed the way that Hillary has marketed her plan as superficial and pandering, yet they themselves obviously can't see past the phrase 'tax holiday'.

Well, that one doesn't work that way. You see, first of all, the gas tax has proven that it doesn't work because then retailers jack prices. Not by the whole tax difference, of course, but by enough. Second; Oil companies don't set prices, so there's no way they can pass on the windfall tax to the consumer. Third; Clinton's plan spends the money on the tax break and on alternatives... that means one of them has to suffer.

All in all, I've listened to both candidates, and it's rather plain that his is the more comprehensive and realistic approach.
But of course there's room for debate there.

4) Hillary has a proven record of advocating for children. I find her promises to fully fund IDEA to be both more specific, and more believable than Obama's.
Obama also has a proven record of advocating for children as another poster upthread has posted. As for 'believable', that's a matter of opinion even though I'm sure it's a fair one.

As for the money thing; That really is important, because it says more about his base of support in November. Simply put, it's a huge advantage to have four to five times the money going into the GE. Clinton would be lucky to even be on par with McCain. Take that with the shady PaC milking, and her candidacy could be shot out of the water by the FEC investigations. Sure, there might be 'nothing' there, but since when has that stopped the media from turning something that juicy into a major scandal?

Well, Obama has no such vulnerabilities there.


Either way, whether you appreciate my reasons or not, and though I can certainly respect yours, I hope you can clearly see that support for Barack Obama is anything but "blind".

Fair enough?

It can't be all three because,
A) I know that they have dictionaries at Columbia and Yale.
B) cheap doesn't happen before universal.

It would be no less a head-fake if he'd promised universal, optional, cheap and including the free pony - just somewhat more obvious.

Iraq. From the Barack Obama website ("Powered by hope!"):
Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

From Samantha Power
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html
Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

"It’s a best-case scenario," she said again.

I guess that's two head fakes.

On energy, you have confused me. You argue that the gas tax has proven to not work, and use this argument to criticize the candidate who intends to eliminate it in lieu of the windfall profits tax that her opponent already supports.

Money is important but votes are too. My preferences are dictated by policy differences, but even if they were simply an attempt to bet on the winner (the argument that 90% of the "drop out now" faction uses) it wouldn't change my mind. Obama will have a much steeper hill to climb against McCain than Hillary does, and gives every indication of not being prepared to deal with the campaign that the RNC will deploy against him.

While I'd like to go into the particulars over Iraq and Health Care, I'm a little tied up right now to get into it, hopefully we can go over it later because you seem to have important points I'd like to investigate.


I would, however, like to hear what kind of 'indication' he gives that it will be a 'much steeper climb' for him than for Clinton against McCain. It hasn't escaped me that the right wing is interested in helping Clinton win the primary... I hardly think they share your particular sentiment.

As a segue into a criticism of Hillary's proposal, (in which she suggests replacing the gas tax with a windfall profits tax similar to the additional one Obama has proposed) you said that the gas tax was a failure. If the gas tax is a failure and Obama's WPT is a good idea, I don't understand why replacing the bad one with the good one is bad.

RE: politics
The right wing has been doing everything it can to mess with our nomination process.

Early, this worked to Obama's advantage. Later, (admittedly) to Clinton's.

The stuff with Wright is not a bad example. This should not still be an issue, yet it is. You doubtless see this as Clinton's fault, but it is not, and it is half as vitriolic as that which will be brought to bear by the RNC.

Even when y'all try to get dirty, you're not very good at it. "Hmm... that "God bless us" clip didn't work out so well, but I have an even better idea! Let's take some 15 year old campaign footage and subtitle it with racial smears! Yeah, the footage is older than I am, but I'll bet I get an "A" in my media class! GoBama? Chah!

Some shithead puts a you tube video up and that's "Y'all"?

Oh pleeze. Seeing as how you're not 15 years old yet, I'll give you the BOTD though. ;) (you forgot the close quotes)


What you're saying is that the WPT will go towards a gas tax break. That's her plan, and it will do very little towards providing relief or stimulating the economy. In fact, the '$600 tax rebate' will be many times more valuable to the vast majority of American families than a 'gas tax holiday' that will be lucky to save most people more than $100.

For the moment, If you have an explanation of just what her plan is, I'd appreciate it.

A $600 tax rebate is meaningful to commuters, but it does very little to correct the cascade failures caused by transportation fuel inflation that are affecting the whole economy.

I'm not going to defend the marketing of Hillary's short term plan (tax holiday). There's a very good argument to be made that it is gimmicky.

However, the short term plan as extrapolated into a longer term solution (shift from reliance on a fixed per-gallon sales tax on fuel to a profit-based one) has a lot of merit. As profits increase, the tax increases and so do revenues for alternative fuel R&D. Unlike Obama's plan, this tax need not be huge, nor does it need to be in addition to the sales tax.

15? I wish. My kids thought that was a fun age too, but I'm not eager for grandkids.

"Y'all" might not have made the video, but you sure the heck pushed it through the intertubes. And when it was found out to be a fraud, the most common reaction (apart from "Nuh-uh! It was real! I heard it with my own ears!") was that it was obviously planted by Hillary and her winged monkeys simply to make the nutroots look silly.

:thumbsup:

And, tangentially, coal isn't an optimal solution, and clean coal isn't terribly clean--at least not yet.

But on to that GAS TAX hypocrisy.

No shooting the messenger, now, but let's get REAL:

"Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.

"The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

"During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, ‘Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.‘” ..... When legislation was introduced to eliminate the tax permanently, Obama voted “no.” The effort failed, and the sales tax was allowed to take effect again.

Responding to Obama's criticism, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Illinois senator “does not understand the effect of gas prices on the economy. Senator Obama voted for a gas tax reduction before he opposed it.”


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/politics/main4056059.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4056059

the same thing knowing it won't work is insanity. (See Hillary Clinton)

like this since JFK.

Him over her because there's soon going to be people that vote that have never lived under a POTUS with a last name other than "Clinton" or "Bush".

Seriously though, all the reasons you mentioned (plus the things Frenchie added) and I'd add that as soon as he's elected the world opinion of the USA will change dramatically. That, and I think he's the only candidate that will actually end the war in Iraq, and my neice's husband is in special forces training as we speak to head over there.

dang, I may have to switch sides :rofl:

(guess I'm one of those "soft supporters" )

I'm series!!11!! Also a secret decoder ring :D

:rofl: