Inside Obama’s Dream Machine

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Click Broker @ 01/06/2008 10:28:14 PM

    Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have very similar healthcare plans, but they are not equally passionate about implementing their plans. My question for Obama is what is his timetable for healthcare reform? Will I get guaranteed issue health insurance by 2010? (My blog clickbroker.blogspot.com)

    • Posted By: Cazador72 @ 01/06/2008 11:59:25 PM

      This is just not true. Hillary and Obama are getting more money from the healthcare insurance companies than any republicans running, and that is for a reason. Hillary's plan is actually better than Obama's, who is only offering to lower premiums (check his website). That is why his claims of "change" sound very hollow to me. The only one offering a re-hauling of the system is Edwards.

  • Posted By: col55 @ 01/06/2008 6:31:08 PM

    I think those harping on Obama's experience need to ask themselves one question - do you think that the problem in Washington is a lack of good ideas and experience OR do you think the problem in Washington is an absence of a coalition of people who are willing to listen to the person on the other side and push forward together? I would argue that there have been plenty of very intelligent people in DC over the last 7-14 years with great policy ideas and plenty of experience but the issue has been crippling partisanship which then results in division and nothing significant getting accomplished. Hillary Clinton has been campaigning on payback time for the Dems, that she is going to "fight" the Republicans when she gets there. How does that in any way move us forward? To me policies come and go, issues rise and fall in importance but the tone of a leader is what produces positive results no matter what the issue. Obama has proven that he is someone of extraordinary intelligence and even if he does not have a long track record, he has shown the courage to stand for the unpopular. He opposed the Iraq war years before that became a popular thing to do. He angered the powerful pro-Israeli AIPAC group when he talked about the suffering of the Palestinian people. During this campaign season, he has gone before the groups of people to tell them what kind of corrective action they need to engage in. e.g. telling auto makers about the need to stop making gas guzzlers and make fuel efficient cars.

    I am not so naive to think that he is completely above the fray but I do think he understands that a growing group of people in this country across the political spectrum are giving him the mandate to question the way things have been done, to question the entrenched power players and that is giving him an increasing position of strength to affect some significant and positive change. Obama has stuck to his message and tone throughout this campaign even when it looked like he was on his way out this fall. People respect that. Even the Republican candidates in last night's debate could not muster up enough gusto to go after him when given the specific opportunity to attack him.

    I want to see things get done. So although I am a Republican , I am supporting Obama all the way.

    • Posted By: graesan @ 01/06/2008 7:00:15 PM

      To those "posers" who claim to be Republicans crossing over to Obama - that is an old ploy, we smoke you out every time. Your are a Liberal posing as a Republican trying to convince others that there will be mass droves of conservatives voting for Obama. Aint going to happen. No Republican believes in higher taxes, government health care, multi-culturalism, blah blah blah. Obama is a FULL ON liberal. The thought that he will bring change to Washington is rediculous. Republicans in congress will stop any liberal agenda Obama tries to push on this conservative country.

      • Posted By: col55 @ 01/06/2008 7:13:41 PM

        Fool yourself if you want...if that is what makes it easier for you to swallow the fact that yes, many of us MODERATE Republicans, who would normally vote for a Republican, who are feeling betrayed by our party(teeming with neo-cons trying to play chess in the middle east while the guy who actually attacked this country is probably sipping tea somewhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan), would prefer to vote for a reasonable man over the rest of the anger laden, same old song and dance, mediocre candidates. Guess you will find out in November if we are all "posers".

        • Posted By: graesan @ 01/06/2008 7:38:53 PM

          Yep, I smoked you out. That was easy. No Republican would use the word "neo-con" only Libs use that term. Still a "poser". Listen, we hear this all the time, you posers did it in the 2004 election. Claiming you voted for Bush in 2000 but were going to vote Dem in 2004, trying to convince others that some new wave of anti-war liberalism was coming to town. We know how that turned out. You posers played that hand already.

          • Posted By: col55 @ 01/06/2008 11:58:00 PM

            Welcome to 2008 - your stereotypes need an update. Ever heard of the magazine "The American Conservative"? You should check it out. Fabulous magazine. We are faithful subscribers. The word "neo-con" is all over it. It is also staunchly anti-war. Anyway, I must be making you nervous that I really am a Republican for Obama. BTW, no response to the actual points I asked you HRC supporters to consider in my original post?

  • Posted By: medwreck @ 01/06/2008 10:44:05 PM

    Thanks to all for your comments, which prove exactly why we need someone that believes in bipartisanship. Whether you like it or not, none of you would have talked to your fellow Americans this way on 9/12/2001. Also, which GOP candidate can promise bipartisan govt.? Oh yeah, your least viable (read that 2 way s) candidate...John McCain is the only one. Truthfully, you deserve everything you get for parroting all the BS MSM rhetoric on immigration. Good luck finding your candidate GOP, but if the fact that the most intelligent GOP commentator (political reality online) sees his savior in the recently embalmed Fred Thompson is any indication of the state of your party, you might want to start shopping for some bandages for your bruised ego next nov. Did he actually use the word "exhiliarating" to describe Thompson.

    • Posted By: Cazador72 @ 01/06/2008 11:54:32 PM

      You need to keep in mind that while Obama wants bipartisanship, there are many who don't. It's gonna take more than pretty rhetoric to get us there. If he runs against anyone but Huckabee in the general election, we are VERY likely to lose.
      I can tell you the last republican was to offer bipartisanship, he was inexperienced, naive and beholden to big business. It didn't turn out too good, did it?

  • Posted By: an obama girl @ 01/06/2008 7:25:23 PM

    MSNBC Hilary backers? Do you watch Hardball? Odviously....NOT! PoliticalRealityonline.....Please join us in the land of reality....Aside from age and citizenship there are no requirements to be President of the US. Sanitation workers are hardworking individuals who contribute significantly to our society and if Senator Obama was a sanitation worker he would still make a fine President! The days of name calling and personal attacks are over! Bless you and your ignorance!

    • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 11:50:08 PM

      Yeah, the US presidency is the most important job in the world, but, to justify an Obama candidacy, it has now become the only executive position in the world that should have no qualification requirements. Sanitation workers are great people, but they have no business leading the free world, and no amount of charismatic obfuscation will ever change that reality. Newsflash: Criticizing a politician's job qualifications is not name calling or a personal attack.

  • Posted By: wiseup @ 01/06/2008 11:48:20 PM

    the next JFK??? Maybe... but remember is brother RFK?? and 1968??

  • Posted By: crj2002 @ 01/06/2008 6:46:08 PM

    Wow, funny how the conservative attack machine is in full force. Idealism, imagery, all of the democratic candidates have roughly the same views and policies save some minor differences. And the scare tactics that describe Independents and Republicans being scared into going out against Obama because of his inexperience, um, did anyone really watch Iowa?! They did come out - FOR him.

    • Posted By: col55 @ 01/06/2008 7:01:06 PM

      I frankly think it is a bunch of HRC supporters on these posts pretending to be conservatives or independents - guess what - he will get the Independent vote, he will get the moderate Republican vote.
      Check out the Iowa breakdown in the Democratic caucus.
      Independents 41% for Obama, 23% Edwards, 17% Clinton
      Republicans(yes, 3% of the Iowa Democratic caucus goers!) 44% Obama, 32 % Edwards, 10% Clinton

      To even suggest HRC is electable requires one to stick one's head deep into a sandy dune.

      • Posted By: graesan @ 01/06/2008 7:43:47 PM

        How funny, you think that Obama got the Independent vote over Republicans? The Iowa Republican party does NOT allow Independents to caucus for Republicans. Only dems allow this. That is true in most states, including my state of California. So, by definition, Republicans got 0% of Independent votes! Also, you don't have to be a registered voter or even an Iowa resident to caucus there - additionally, their delegates are not bound to any candidate regardless of who wins! Take a civics lesson.

        • Posted By: col55 @ 01/06/2008 11:45:56 PM

          My friend - you don't seem to have grapsed my point - I was not trying to make the argument that "Obama got the Independent vote over the Republicans". I was trying to make the point that when Independents in Iowa voted in the DEMOCRATIC caucuses, they overwhelmingly chose Obama over Clinton and Edwards -those are the numbers I provided. Thus as far as the electability argument goes when comparing Clinton and Obama, given this only example so far of votes actually cast, Obama is more electable than Clinton. Also even if Independents could not vote in the Republican caucuses in Iowa, the fact that they did show up in huge numbers to vote in the Dem caucuses shows that Obama has strong support among Independents. Unless you are trying to suggest that they felt that they just had to use up a few hours of their time that night, go out in the cold and vote for Obama even though they would have preferred to vote for a Republican.

  • Posted By: Cazador72 @ 01/06/2008 11:45:23 PM

    "But Obama is also a streetwise Chicago pol who put together a campaign machine formidable enough to take on the Clintons and win."

    Mr. Wolffe, please! Why not hand him the nomination right now?! Obama has won a formidable victory in Iowa, but that is but ONE battle of MANY to come (Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in '92). There nothing "streetwise" about your campaign when Oprah Winfrey stomps for you. Obama is giving liberals the warm-fuzzies but he's lacking in substance, and his claims for "change" are for naught since nothing in his website suggests an overhaul of any agency, especially healthcare (he will merely "lower your premiums").

    But the most critical point for me is this: If he couldn't go against Hillary, how is he going to fight the vicious attacks the right wing is sharpening as we speak? After Kerry in '04, I can't stand another eunuch Democrat campaign.



  • Posted By: Cazador72 @ 01/06/2008 11:43:29 PM

    "But Obama is also a streetwise Chicago pol who put together a campaign machine formidable enough to take on the Clintons and win."

    Mr. Wolffe, please! Why not hand him the nomination right now?! Obama has won a formidable victory in Iowa, but that is but ONE battle of MANY to come (Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in '92). There nothing "streetwise" about your campaign when Oprah Winfrey stomps for you. Obama is giving liberals the warm-fuzzies but he's lacking in substance, and his claims for "change" are for naught since nothing in his website suggests an overhaul of any agency, especially healthcare (he will merely "lower your premiums").

    But the most critical point for me is this: If he couldn't go against Hillary, how is he going to fight the vicious attacks the right wing is sharpening as we speak? After Kerry in '04, I can't stand another eunuch Democrat campaign.



  • Posted By: wiseup @ 01/06/2008 11:42:47 PM

    Inexperienced .... a flash in the pan ...that will lose race after race once he leaves the Midwest and Northeast

  • Posted By: HANS100 @ 01/06/2008 11:21:32 PM

    My friend and I were at the supermarket today and here is what we heard someone say to his friend.

    "I hate Hillary..I just hate her...I like Obama... he is fun..." I swear to God that is what we heard. We could not believe it.

    If this is the level of debate by which Americans are deciding who to vote for president, then maybe they deserve inept governance by the likes of George Bush (2000's most beerworthy) and Barack Obama (2008's "most fun"). Good grief.

    I pick my candidates logically. Who has the experience to lead? Who understands policy? Who has the gravitas to be president?

    My answer is not who is the most "fun." My answer is who is most qualified. In 2008 that is Hillary Clinton. And by the way, I like her too.

  • Posted By: danielgouldman @ 01/06/2008 6:44:55 PM

    A message to PoliticalRealityOnline:At least there is a person out there who is asking real questions. Alright - so...I googled it to make sure that I gave you the right info. I'm no expert on bills that have been passed etc.

    Co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act . Its a bi-partisian bill designed to track and PUBLISH ONLINE PUBLICLY all companies and persons receiving federal grants or contracts for the past 10 years and moving forward. Why wouldn't we want that?
    http://pogo.org/p/government/gl-060601-federalgrants.html

    He sponsored a bill to provide aid to Sudan where there is genocide and a growing Islamist Militant Threat:
    http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264129

    Obama and Clinton partnered to eliminate lead out of childcare facilities:
    http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=264314

    Obama legislation to force the military to provide notice to our troops:
    http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!1402.entry

    An article from the Washington Post on Obama's experience:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    And you say that you wanted me to "direct you to ANY substantive, credible policy positions on the economy or national security" on his website:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/

    I had not taken the time to go through his website on all of the specifics but I found it quite informative. You sound way to articulate to be gullible; moreover, all I had to do was google "Obama legislation" to find these articles/evidence. I could keep proving my point but then it would just be an impossibly long post (it already is). Its pretty clear to me that he puts his money where his mouth is and if you take the time to really look at it instead of just thinking you're right - we may be able to make some progress as Americans. You said that indepedents would rally against him...now - I'm assuming you work for someone in politics because no rational person has ever said that. Look at who has voted for him. That's just ostentatious. So - once again...you're trying to poke holes but you're not really being straightforward. Who are you supporting? Why do you support them? If you're not able to be as specific as I am - how can I take you seriously (or anyone else for that matter)? I'm looking forward to an honest, straightforward conversation. THINK ABOUT IT!

    • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 11:21:15 PM

      Daniel: I have never worked for a politician. A few independents voting for Obama in a low turnout primary in a liberal state like Iowa is not evidence he will draw independents in huge numbers in a high turnout general election after he has been forced through the much more intense scrutiny of a general election that will expose his socialism, and the fallacies of his foreign policy positions. He will most likely be forced to debate a much more qualified Republican candidate in debates that focus on substance that he does not possess. I could be wrong, but I do not believe serious independents who have kids will be voting for charismatic socialism over capitalism, competence and national security experience in dangerous times like this. God help us all if they do.

  • Posted By: HANS100 @ 01/06/2008 11:19:23 PM

    My friend and I were at the supermarket today and here is what we heard someone say to his friend.

    "I hate Hillary..I just hate her...I like Obama... he is fun..." I swear to God that is what we heard. We could not believe it.

    If this is the level of debate by which Americans are deciding who to vote for president, then maybe they deserve inept governance by the likes of George Bush (2000's most beerworthy) and Barack Obama (2008's "most fun"). Good grief.

    I pick my candidates logically. Who has the experience to lead? Who understands policy? Who has the gravitas to be president?

    My answer is not who is the most "fun." My answer is who is most qualified. In 2008 that is Hillary Clinton. And by the way, I like her too.

  • Posted By: danielgouldman @ 01/06/2008 6:45:47 PM

    A message to PoliticalRealityOnline:At least there is a person out there who is asking real questions. Alright - so...I googled it to make sure that I gave you the right info. I'm no expert on bills that have been passed etc.

    Co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act . Its a bi-partisian bill designed to track and PUBLISH ONLINE PUBLICLY all companies and persons receiving federal grants or contracts for the past 10 years and moving forward. Why wouldn't we want that?
    http://pogo.org/p/government/gl-060601-federalgrants.html

    He sponsored a bill to provide aid to Sudan where there is genocide and a growing Islamist Militant Threat:
    http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264129

    Obama and Clinton partnered to eliminate lead out of childcare facilities:
    http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=264314

    Obama legislation to force the military to provide notice to our troops:
    http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!1402.entry

    An article from the Washington Post on Obama's experience:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    And you say that you wanted me to "direct you to ANY substantive, credible policy positions on the economy or national security" on his website:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/

    I had not taken the time to go through his website on all of the specifics but I found it quite informative. You sound way to articulate to be gullible; moreover, all I had to do was google "Obama legislation" to find these articles/evidence. I could keep proving my point but then it would just be an impossibly long post (it already is). Its pretty clear to me that he puts his money where his mouth is and if you take the time to really look at it instead of just thinking you're right - we may be able to make some progress as Americans. You said that indepedents would rally against him...now - I'm assuming you work for someone in politics because no rational person has ever said that. Look at who has voted for him. That's just ostentatious. So - once again...you're trying to poke holes but you're not really being straightforward. Who are you supporting? Why do you support them? If you're not able to be as specific as I am - how can I take you seriously (or anyone else for that matter)? I'm looking forward to an honest, straightforward conversation. THINK ABOUT IT!

    • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 11:09:37 PM

      Daniel: I never said that Obama had not been involved in some international issues in the senate or that he did not have some information on his website. What I strongly oppose is his advocacy of an early withdrawal from Iraq with no serious consideration of the devastating consequences and no plan to defend America's vital access to Middle Esat oil. I watched Obama on C=Span the night he voted against funding our troops in Iraq last summer unless the bill contained specific requirements for a reckless withdrawal date in less than a year. Any serious and informed person knows that America cannot abandon Iraq to chaos and control by Iran, Syria and al Qaeda right nest door to Saudi Arabia. About 30+ other dems ultimately voted for the legislation, but Obama joined Hillary and waited to the last minute and voted no to avoid being crucified by Moveon.org, and the moving of their support to John Edwards. That was a defining moment in which
      Obama made the conscious decision to place his personal political ambitions above our troops in a war zone and America's national interest. What made it worse is that he knew it was wrong based on his previous statements. I could never vote for any politician who chooses his ambition over doing the right thing.

      Obama has a few position papers on his website but they are sophomoric, shallow, politically tainted and designed to avoid taking any serious positions that might upset anti-war constituencies along with advocating socialist and economic class warfare positions.

  • Posted By: wilsan @ 01/06/2008 3:57:21 PM

    This long time Republican is somewhat surprised at the Democratic Party turn-of-events. I never thought that MS Clinton's campaign would be caught sleeping, as it evidently has. It is troubling though, that Obama actually could become President. This man (to my knowledge) has no Executive experience whatsoever; No State Governor, no Corporate experience... And he may end up running the largest and most powerful organization in the world?

    If that comes about, pity the next American generation. The Russians, the Chinese, and the radical Muslims will eat us alive.

    • Posted By: danielgouldman @ 01/06/2008 4:16:47 PM

      Don't buy into this concept of not having "executive experience". JFK didn't....Abraham Linoln didn't. I remember reading something and it so true....there really is no way to predict a successful president. For example - Bush was the governor of a very large border state (my state of TX). In my opinion - he is probably the worst president we have ever had. If having this executive experience is so important - then why wouldn't have have been more successful?

      I think the way that these candidates run their campaigns is a good indicator of how they may run their White House and thus far - Obama has put run a very good campaign that reaches out to all types of Americans....he consults with so many people on the issues that matter to us. He is simply not a divisive person but he seems to be able to be decisive in his decision making and I think that matters. When you say "they" will eat us alive - that's just fear mongering. Besides - if you're a Republican - why aren't you a litle more specific about who you support? I don't want to vote for someone who spends most of their time talking about why you shouldn't vote for the other guy....at least talk about what you stand for and why "your candidate" is a better choice than Obama.

      If you're going to bring a problem to the table - offer a solution. I don't hear you talking about substantive issues that matter. Try that for once, let's be constructive. Think about it.

      • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 6:10:39 PM

        Okay, Daniel. Sorry if I find humor in an Obama advocate talking about substance, but the idea that Obama has anything to do with substance is hilarious on its face. Why don't you visit Obama's website and direct us to ANY substantive, credible policy positions on the economy or national security. You can't , so that is unfair, so why don't you explain how Obama is a better qualified candidate as Commander in Chief, guardian of the American economy, and leader of the free world than any of the Republican candidates other than Huckabee?

        Fred Thompson would blow Obama's doors off in a general election debate that focuses on substance rather than imagery, and the result would be an electoral disaster for your beloved party. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of politically mature, rational people who believe in the path to peace through strength and economic prosperity through proven, conservative economic policies. We also recognize a phony, social and charismatic image candidate like Obama when we see one. Mature adults also understand that we live in a very dangerous world and have a very fragile economy that cannot be entrusted to a neophyte who cannot articulate a credible economic or national security policy. I look forward to the day when Obama has to debate any of the Republican candidates. Obama's outrageous inexperience will motivate every Republican and rational independent to turn out to vote against him in the interest of their kid's future. Bring him on!

        • Posted By: danielgouldman @ 01/06/2008 6:44:28 PM

          A message to PoliticalRealityOnline:At least there is a person out there who is asking real questions. Alright - so...I googled it to make sure that I gave you the right info. I'm no expert on bills that have been passed etc.

          Co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act . Its a bi-partisian bill designed to track and PUBLISH ONLINE PUBLICLY all companies and persons receiving federal grants or contracts for the past 10 years and moving forward. Why wouldn't we want that?
          http://pogo.org/p/government/gl-060601-federalgrants.html

          He sponsored a bill to provide aid to Sudan where there is genocide and a growing Islamist Militant Threat:
          http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264129

          Obama and Clinton partnered to eliminate lead out of childcare facilities:
          http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=264314

          Obama legislation to force the military to provide notice to our troops:
          http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!1402.entry

          An article from the Washington Post on Obama's experience:
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

          And you say that you wanted me to "direct you to ANY substantive, credible policy positions on the economy or national security" on his website:
          http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
          http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/

          I had not taken the time to go through his website on all of the specifics but I found it quite informative. You sound way to articulate to be gullible; moreover, all I had to do was google "Obama legislation" to find these articles/evidence. I could keep proving my point but then it would just be an impossibly long post (it already is). Its pretty clear to me that he puts his money where his mouth is and if you take the time to really look at it instead of just thinking you're right - we may be able to make some progress as Americans. You said that indepedents would rally against him...now - I'm assuming you work for someone in politics because no rational person has ever said that. Look at who has voted for him. That's just ostentatious. So - once again...you're trying to poke holes but you're not really being straightforward. Who are you supporting? Why do you support them? If you're not able to be as specific as I am - how can I take you seriously (or anyone else for that matter)? I'm looking forward to an honest, straightforward conversation. THINK ABOUT IT!

          • Posted By: gettingitright @ 01/06/2008 10:34:55 PM

            There are two Patriot Acts. The second is a reauthorization - he voted for it. Get YOUR facts straight. Geesh.

  • Posted By: Click Broker @ 01/06/2008 10:27:36 PM

    Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have very similar healthcare plans, but they are not equally passionate about implementing their plans. My question for Obama is what is his timetable for healthcare reform? Will I get guaranteed issue health insurance by 2010? (My blog clickbroker.blogspot.com)

  • Posted By: adam in iowa city @ 01/06/2008 10:19:21 PM

    It looks like the good, independent people of N.H. are coming to the same conclusion as we independent Iowans did: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html. A ten point lead on Hillary, and growing... Two of the whitest states in the U.S. are rejecting the politics of fear, of xenophobia and racism that have propped up the GOP for so long.

  • Posted By: Allen Finklea @ 01/06/2008 7:26:27 PM

    Pt1

    PoliticalRealityOnline, most of what you wrote is filled with hyperbole which, if you truly believe it, is downright scary. It's been proven there was no relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, yet conservatives still trot out the lie, I presume, hoping if it's said often enough it'll be taken as fact. Saddam was a secularist. He limited religious expression in Iraq, and had no affinity with the religious idealists in Al-Qaeda...but let's not let the truth get in the way of our indignation, right PoliticalRealityOnline? There also were no WMD to send to Al-Qaeda, even if Saddam had wanted to do so.

    You talk about the "possibilities" of where we'd be if Bush had not invated Iraq. That's your argument? A possibility? There's a possibility for anything to happen...or nothing at all. If people made all their decisions based on the "possible" actions of others, with no facts upon which to base their contentions, the world would be in worse shape than it is now. There's a "possibility" George Bush wants to rule the world. It's not likely, but there's a higher-than-zero percent probability. So, should we have George Bush arrested or, better yet his whole family? See where acting on possibilities can take you?

    As far as Middle-East oil is concerned, that's not our oil. Contrary to what you and many other conservatives seem to want to make everyone believe, the US does not own the world. And just because we want the oil, and have allowed ourselves to become dependent upon it, does not give us the right to go in and take it, or have undue influence upon its distribution. And to your contention that the price of oil would skyrocket because of Mr. Obama???s socialist solutions and retreating from Iraq I have to laugh. Did you know that the price of oil was a little over 30 dollars a barrel with Bill Clinton left office? Or that it???s been rising precipitously since George Bush took office? Oil hit one-hundred dollars a barrel the other day for the first time ever.

    Your criticism of Obama's national security experience is spurious. What experience did Bush have? What national security experience have any of our recent presidents had, with the exception of GHWB, before they were elected? Stop trotting out that old saw. It weakens your case against Obama when you???re hypocritical. Just be honest and say you don't like him. I could at least respect that.

    Yes, Obama is charismatic...and that's a negative, because?? Do you have any idea of any of Obama's positions, or is it not important for you to waste your time getting actual facts? Obama has a position paper on his website for everyone whose interested to see. Have you read it? I also haven't heard Mr. Obama "refuse" to answer any question posed to him. maybe he doesn't always give the answer everyone is expecting, but he does answer the questions.

    • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 8:00:17 PM

      Allen: 2003 was in the wake of 9/11 and Al Qaeda was known to be scouring the world for WMDs to attack the USA. Saddam was the most likely source and very intelligence agency in the world believed he had chemical weapons and he had used them to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians. He refused inspector access to his 100 presidential sites and he had the means, the opportunity and the motive to use Al Qaeda as a conduit to attack the USA. You might feel okay with that, but 65% of the American people, 77 senators and the President did not. We are a democracy. Get over it.

      Whether Middle East oil is ours or not is beside the point. It is absolutely necessary for the global economy and 2/3 of the world's oil reserves reside in the Middle East. We are not "taking it", we are are ensuring that it flows freely on the world market control of it does not fall into the hands of our worst enemies. If you would bother to read my other post on this thread you will get the truth about why oil prices have gone to $100 and it is directly related to the commodity market's fear that the dems will gain full power and abandon Iraq and the Middle East to chaos that will threaten global access to Middle East oil. Your dems irresolution on Iraq is the direct cause of the price rise which will get exponentially higher if the dems abandon Iraq. You can whine all you want about oil, but the American economy and your lifestyle would collapse if your point of view prevails. This is not hyperbole, they are facts that all your fantasies about cutting and running from Iraq without severe consequences cannot erase. You can ignore the economic reality of oil and wreck your lifestyle, but no sane person would.

      If you have not noticed, the world is a much more dangerous place since Bush was elected, and he at least had the benefit of a lifetime of exposure to the issues through his father. Obama is a total novice, a socialist and a written invitation for every tyrant and terrorist in the world to attack his resolve if he were elected. Obviously you are willing to take security and economic risks for your family that no rational person would, but that adds no credibility to your arguments.

      Does Obama have any idea of his own positions? There is nothing but sophomoric fluff on his website, and he avoids talking about the specifics of national security and economics like the plague because he knows he does not have the qualifications to respond in a credible way. You can enjoy your Obama fantasy all you want, but some of us take our country's and our children's future seriously, and no politically mature adult could vote for a neophyte like Obama.

      • Posted By: oallen @ 01/06/2008 9:48:19 PM

        Political realityonline: I'm sorry to say but you seem to have your facts wrong on the issues of Saddam and the issue of oil. The premise of your argument is faulty because your facts are wrong. Its well known that Saddam did not and does not have WMD.
        Also, the occupation of Iraq and the instability of the occupation has caused has skyrocketed the price of oil at the international market.
        You obviously are ignorant of the foreign policy you deride other presidential candidates as not having. Get informed my brother! Stop twisting facts.!!No matter how many posts of falsehood you post ,, it will never make it the truth!!!

        • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 10:18:24 PM

          Yeah, the world just imagined that Saddam killed hundred's of thousands of Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds and other citizens with chemical weapons. If you knew anything about the chemical components, you would understand that they could have been easily hidden and produced on short notice with Saddam's existing chemical and refining plant capabilities. Destruction, concealment or removal of stockpiles to Syria means nothing in terms of his ability to produce chemical weapons on short notice.

      • Posted By: Allen Finklea @ 01/06/2008 8:44:13 PM

        PoliticalRealityOnline: cite where it was known that Al Qaeda was scoring the world for WMD to attack America. It???s more hyperbole on your part that Saddam was thought by every intelligence agency to have used chemical weapons on hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians, and an outright lie that he had a motive to use Al Qaeda for anything. Operatives for Al Qaeda had approached Saddam in the past and he rebuffed them. He wanted nothing to do with them, and again, just because you repeat a lie doesn???t make it the truth, no matter how many times you do so.

        Again, Middle-East oil is not ours to ensure anything. Whether it flows freely or not is not up to us, but those who own it. As far as worst enemies are concerned, the US has a terrible tendency to define an enemy as someone who doesn???t give us what we want. Your assertion of why oil has risen to $100 a barrel is patently false. First of all, oil didn???t suddenly jump to an all time high within that past few weeks, or months, or even the past two years. It???s been a steady, but precipitous rise since Bush took office. Second, there was a push in the markets last week to get oil over that $100 milestone. Traders were competing to see who would be the one to do it. Your contention holds no water. It???s funny. The Bush administration commits this terrible war on Iraq, destroys its infrastructure and distribution ability, and somehow it???s the democrats fault that the price of oil rose. The mind boggles. Combine that with the fact that the price of oil began its inexorable creep up as soon as George Bush took office almost a year before 9/11 and, once again, your argument is proved false. Cutting and running, PoliticalRealityOnline? Really? I thought we were having an intelligent discussion. Can you dispense with the republican talking points and slogans? I don???t ignore or deny the economic reality of oil. I do say, however, that it???s a problem we got ourselves into, and the world shouldn???t have to suffer because of something we did to ourselves.

        The world is a much more dangerous place since Bush was elected BECAUSE of Bush. Whatever benefit he should have derived from being the son of GHWB he didn???t. Bush the senior would not have made the same mistakes his son did, not would he have let ideology trump reason and facts. George Bush has been a disaster as a president. The world hates and fears us because of him and his policies.

        Continue to play of Obama???s lack of experience all you want. It???s ceasing to be a negative for him. Look at where all the experience has gotten us. If the mess this country and, by extension, the world is in right now is because of all the experience out there, you???ve given me another reason to vote for Obama.

        • Posted By: PoliticalRealityOnline @ 01/06/2008 10:11:11 PM

          Allen: What planet were you living on when America was attacked on 9/11, and evidence was found of their attempts to obtain crop dusters to attack us with airborne chemical agents. Or when we found evidence of Al Qaeda's attempts to acquire chemical weapons all over Afghanistan just to name two? Does anyone seriously believe Al Qaeda has not tried to get WMD's for years and would use them on us in a heartbeat? If you do, then I have to question whether you are trying to enhance your credibility or destroy it.

          You can ignore the geostrategic and global economic realities of oil if you want to, but you are in an extreme minority of people who would be willing to wreck the global economy and their personal financial well being to prove some inane point about who's oil it is. This sort of absurdity on your partt only highlights the extremes that deluded liberals will go to to hold onto your heartfelt misperceptions. America has 2% of the world's oil reserves and we consume 26% of the world's daily production. Oil is absolutely necessary to our economy and 2/3 of the world's oil is in the Middle East. We have two choices A) preserve access to Middle East oil or B) Leave Iraq and allow our worst enemies to threaten access to that oil and watch the oil price skyrocket and the American economy collapse. However we got to our oil dependency is irrelevant. If we immediately pursued every screwy fuel alternative, and aggressively pursued nuclear and coal projects that the libs have resisted for years, the American way of life will still be dependent on foreign oil for decades. Those are inescapable facts, and no sane person would support your point of view.

          I hate to bore you with facts, but the average price of oil in February 2002 after Bush took office was $26.72. It fell to an average of $23.61 in May 2003 after we confirmed our willingness to defend access to Middle East oil by taking out Saddam, and the promise of higher Iraqi oil exports loomed. It averaged $50.63 in October 2006 before the dems took congress. It was $52.64 in March 2007 before Harry Reid said the Iraq war was lost, and vowed to force an American exit from Iraq. It has almost doubled since then as the dem Presidential candidates have reinforced their intention to leave Iraq in chaos, and expectations have grown for a dem President and congress. There are other minor investor factors in the price rise, but they have not been unusual to previous times and the demand supply balance has not shifted in any significant way vs prior years. The simple fact is that the commodity markets are rightfully concerned that the dems will make good on their threats to leave Iraq and plunge the Middle East into chaos thus threatening access to Middle East oil. Spin it any way you want, but that is the reality.

      • Posted By: oallen @ 01/06/2008 9:44:07 PM

        Political realityonline: I'm sorry to say but you seem to have your facts wrong on the issues of Saddam and the issue of oil. The premise of your argument is faulty because your facts are wrong. Its well know that Saddam did not and does not have WMD.
        Also, the occupation of Iraq and the instability that the occupation has caused has skyrocketed the price of oil in the international market.
        My friend stop twisting facts.!!No matter the number of times you post falsehood .... fortunately, it will never make it the truth!!!

  • Posted By: denmantblue @ 01/06/2008 9:51:54 PM

    MARVINRZGIBSON: When you make comments about "prejudice (sic) 'White America' " you only show that you have totally missed the message that Senator Obama is running his campaign on. I suggest you start over. You obviously don't have a clue as to what white America is thinking, and being a white American, I'm actually annoyed that in responding to your comments I have to even use the word "white" or "black" or purple for that matter. It is time to stop playing the white/black card and get on board this colorless train.

  • Posted By: willwes @ 01/06/2008 9:45:06 PM

    I think Obama understands the possible danger of being a BLACK man in a WHITE house. But we all must commit to something. I applaud his sacrifice. And we WILL overcome!

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/06/2008 9:40:39 PM

    THE ONLY THING TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF. IF YOU ARE SCARED OF THE RACISISTS THEY WILL WIN EVERY TIME. THIS IS WHY I SAY OBAMA HAS THE COURAGE TO BE OUR PRESIDENT.YOU ARE RIGHT OBAMA NEEDS TO PAY ATTENTION TO HIS SECURTIY EVERYDAY BECAUSE HE LEADS A MOVEMENT THAT CANNOT BE STOPPED. OBAMA HAS OPENED UP A DOUBLE DIGIT LEAD IN NEW HAMPHIRE. THIS IS NO SURPRISE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE WANT CHANGE AND THEY WANT TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT OBAMA WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse