Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Person, I asked you:
He promises change, he promises new ideas, but where are they? Where are his new, innovative ideas that will bring about this much-advertised change? Is the change just that he is promising change? That's the oldest line in the book.
And you answered, what exactly?
Obama said that inner city unemployment predates the current immigration problem, and the real problems behind it need to be adressed.
Now their policies on illegal immigration are the same, save that Obama supports illegal aliens getting drivers licenses.
Plus, she managed to raise what in any other campaign season would have been a record amount (The amount is second only to Obama) and run into funding problems. By Super Tuesday.
I don't want somebody that bad with managing finances managing the finances of America.
Um, I don't see any new hopeful ideas there, at all.
@Czarina, I asked you
So you think, for example, his healthcare plan is more progressive than Hillary's?
No answer, because you know that the answer is that Hillary's plan is the more progressive one.
I asked you:
Which of his ideas do you think is so progressive?
Which of his ideas is so new and/or hopeful?
The CBS article is long on speechifying, but where are the ideas? Obama is a dove, Clinton is a hawk, even though Obama said he would bomb Paksitan. Um, ok. Obama will bring in new voters. Fair enough. Obama wants to vanquish lobbyists -- lol. Sorry, that's my only reaction. Where are the goddamn ideas?!
@ Persia: It was actually 22% according to the last AP poll; AP/Washington Post has it at 33% last month. (Link at my name.) Which is, you know, a tremendously shitty number and right in the toilet next to Bush's. Which should send a signal that the 'old way' of doing things-- governing with 50% + 1-- doesn't cut it any more, but here you are arguing on behalf of Hillary Clinton, who wasn't present for any FISA votes and seems to think the 50% + 1 strategy is brilliant for both the primaries and the general.
Doesn't cut it anymore? When did it cut it? When was a time when this didn't exist? And, um, what do you think Barack Obama is going to do to change this system? Are we going to give him new powers to appoint congresspeople? is he going to force people to vote in supermajorities into the legislature?
Actually, yes I have, here it is, once again:
"Wake up, people! Obama is a cynical politician like the rest of 'em, his message is a fraud that he himself most likely doesn't believe [and if he does believe it, then we REALLY don't need someone like that as president], what he promises most certainly won't come true, and he's just stroking your liberalism to get you to vote for him with sweet nothings he knows you love. He doesn't really care about the policy, and he hasn't bothered to really learn it. He would be a worse president than Clinton."
Plus, she supports universal healthcare. That's my case for her.
The Slate article addressed the problems with HRC's plan, mainly, how the hell will it get paid for. You're going on and on about how Obama promises the sky and nothing will come out of it, but what about promising universal health care and not providing a specific rationale as to how it will come about.
When I mean explanations, I mean not your rants.
But if you want simple reductionist answers, fine:
He didn't support the war. All the money that went/goes to this stupid debacle could potentially pay for universal health care, education, poverty relief, etc. That's my case for him.
Ronald Reagan, for one, managed to use his landslide victories to get his policies made into political reality. If we have a candidate with crossover appeal-- and Obama has far more than Clinton-- we have a chance to get something done. It really is that simple.
And while I'm here-- if you want a case where Obama's more progressive than Clinton here's one: He supports full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Clinton does not. That's a big one to me.
That is because I posted that before you posted your question (It was actually a reply to you calling Obama the insubstantial candidate of the two.)
Okay, changes he is offering:
First, pretty much everything has got he has got. His healthcare plan is slightly more realistic, his immigration plan is pretty much the same, but on foreign affairs he is actually the stronger of the two.
There policies are so similar that they are almost interchangeable.
Except on the biggest issue of them all. Lobbying reform.
Obama is anti-lobbying firms, Hillary is not. Now Obama's stance is questionable (He doesn't take money from lobbying firms, but he doesn't object to their staff donating) but Hillary's stance is clear as daylight - she won't reduce the power of lobbying interests in America.
And that, though it is a wild hope, though it is a promise he is likely to break, even some progress towards reducing the power of lobbies in America, would be a change for the better.
He didn't support the war. -- he was also not in the senate at the time. True, he spoke out against it, but who knows how he would have acted had he been in a position to vote on the funding of it.
All the money that went/goes to this stupid debacle could potentially pay for universal health care, education, poverty relief, etc. That's my case for him. -- Of course, but that money is gone now, you're not going to get it back. Even Saint Obama can't bring it back.
Why do Obama supporters assume that anyone asking questions about Obama is an upset Clinton supporter. It may be that we want answers not rhetoric. Then when they refer you to web sites it is either Obama's site where he runs off all the press that supports him, or they send you to places like the Huffington Post, CBS news, The Atlantic. Opinion pages that support Obama. Why not go to the actual pages where the bills are at, those that show his vote on bills, where they started and where they (the bills) ended. Call me stupid if that is as far as your thought process goes, but if a read a news article by someone I want to go back and see what their previous articles say, do they show a pattern, do they write glowing pieces on one candidate, and hit pieces on the other or do they give even handed news. That is the only way to know if they are campaigning for one candidate or are actually giving you the facts. Anyone who calls Obama a novice at politics doesn't know the facts. Politics is his game all the way back to his first campaign, even before that what do you think a community organizer does? serve meals to homeless people, help people pay their heating bills, no they use the political system.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
