Letters to the Editor
-
Barack Obama vs. the LGBT Community
He not only continues the Republican strategy of destroying the separation of church and state, he's also openly opposed to marriage equality.
Is it asking too much of a politician of his background, supposed progressiveness, and popularity -- and one who really has nothing to lose -- to be a leader on the facts that the US is not a theocracy and that all people are created equal?
As long as he panders to the worst of this country, he doesn't get my vote.
-
Thanks to hs for making my argument
"Am I supposed to vote for someone with a lack of experience simply because he's black..."
Are you going to tell me next that some of the smartest (or nicest) people you work with are Black?
-
nice try, kistockman
"Am I supposed to vote for someone with a lack of experience simply because he's black..."
Are you going to tell me next that some of the smartest (or nicest) people you work with are Black?
I know nice, not-so-nice, intelligent, and idiotic blacks, asians, latinos, and caucasians. How is this "making your argument?" Evidently you choose not to believe me. Since you're obviously an Obama supporter, I'll assume you're somewhat liberal, yet how is your stubbornness any different from typical right-wing rants?
I noticed you declined to answer any of my questions, so I assume you think I ought to give preferential treatment to people of a particular race...even if that is only HALF of their heritage.
-
We don't need a star at the white house, because...
stars simply die and fade away at the sight of a black hole, which in this instance could be a "Rovian" counter attack on Ossama, I meant Obama!
You see, Salon, CNN and many more news outlets are excited about Obama's run for president, and they all forget that the Republicans may have many tricks under their hats.
Make no mistake, the 2000 and 2004 elections were power dispalys by Rove and Co. and needeless to mention that during those times, the country was ready to make a change, but the Dems couldn't outsmart Rove's tactics and lost.
The Dems and their supporters have the right to be excited, but they need to remember that the voters have short memories and won't remeber Obama's torso or Hillary's trip to Iraq, but when the time is right they will be remembered, by the Republicans, of Edward's attacks on his fellow Dems, of Obama's Islam family roots, of Kerry's flip flopping, of Hilarry's lack of experience etc etc etc.
So instead of this useless frenzie, let's get down to business and brainstorm about the Republicans' attacks and HOW TO shield the voters especially Red America from believing them.
-
Preferencial treatment?
Actually, that is my point. No one is asking you to give him or anyone such treatment because of race. You are the one who asked if you should vote for someone because of race. I never suggested that you do.
My argument is that while you claim "inexperience," you continue to tangle yourself up in his race.
Perhaps instead you should tell me what kind of experience you expect a.....THIS candidate to have if it is not experience being a president.
He's a senator, was a professor, a lawyer, a father...etc.
What experience do you want him, Obama to haved?
-
Presidential Experience
Doesn't exist unless you're an incumbent, first of all, and really there is nothing- not even state Governorship- that can prepare you to be POTUS. A Governor may have more experience as an executive, sure, but that usually comes at the expense of legislative experience- something very crucial in working well with Congress. People say that 'the Senate is where presidential candidates go to die', but that has less to do with administrative experience than it does having a voting record. A Governor can always blame failures on the state legilature, but a US Senator can always be attacked for the compromises the must make to get things done. And, as another LW mentioned, experience isn't best measured by the position, but by the production. (He also majored in Foreign Relations in undergrad- you can't tell me that's worse than our current guy)
Another argument out there has to do with his perceived lack of policy positions- I'll squash that right away: READ HIS BOOK OR VISIT HIS WEBSITE. Just because you haven't heard of it from our illustrious mainstream media doesn't mean the information isn't out there. 'Well, what about his relatively minimal voting record while he was in Congress?' Well, what about the fact that ANY Democrat- with the possible exception of JoeLieb- who got too close to the Republican Policy Combine in the last 6 years would've had their arm taken off at the shoulder and their proposal shredded into confetti? I know this may shock you, but Obama really can be a good person AND a good politician at the same time.
What else? Oh, right, he's *gasp* BLACK! No one knows and no poll is trustworthy when it comes to race in this country, but I for one would like to believe that race doesn't automatically exclude you from the highest office. My generation (b.1981) doesn't give a crap- we're the post-politically-correct generation. We're the Carlos Mencia/Chris Rock/Dave Chappelle generation- we go out of our way to be politically incorrect. We were brought up by our civil-rights-movement-era parents while schools were still pushing the PC propaganda- and we thought it was hilarious. And now we're pissed off, because we're also the Bush generation- we grew up laughing about Clinton's BJ scandal(and not giving a damn)- and came of age during Bush's World Rape Fest. We're really pissed off. So yes, race may be a problem in, say, the South and Midwest, but who there votes Democratic anyways? What true racists anywhere would vote Democratic anyways?
The final one is 'outsider'. This word means alot of things when it comes to Barack Obama. On the surface it means that he is relatively free of political and/or financial obligations- to the party elites(DLC, DCC, etc.), corporate donors, or lobbyists. The coal issue may not look good(and probably spurred his earlier-than-planned entry into the race to control the news-cycle) but the merits of the bill and the reasoning behind it is not all bad. Environmentally it is progress, even if it isn't the progress we wish we could see, and from a national security standpoint it relieves some of our dependancy on foreign energy- coal might not be what we want, but its what we've got. If there is evidence for some financial motivations on Obama's part, well, he won when he was out-spent 6:1 and he still had to play the game. If you have a problem with it, push for campaign finance reform but don't make it to be more than it's not (don't hate the player, hate the game).
Here's what's interesting: he was against Iraq from the start. He's a good decision maker, which is what the job is all about- judgement. The President doesn't administer anything, his Chief of Staff does. Just look at Bush, the prototypical figurehead and you will see that in the office of the POTUS it is the people you surround yourself with, not your resume, that makes all the difference. He will take council from experts, not friends. He will listen to science, not theology (and for the guy who wants a 'reasoning and thinkging' candidate, think about this: ~40% of the population is Christian, so isn't it reasonable to play up your shared faith?) Meh, too much cynicism and negativity- try putting that energy into change.