Originally posted by: DomS
I only ask this because whenever I ask someone who vehemently supports him WHY they support him they start getting all riled up about how much 'hilary sucks' or 'we need change' or 'our country is doomed without him'. But no one has come up with a tangible reason why they're voting for him. Here's what I thought back when the primaries were still going on, and what I said then I think still applies now:
Leading up to Massachusetts? primary I wasn?t sure who I was going to vote for, but after a little bit of research I decided I liked Hilary much better. It really has to do with experience, and actual tangible platform issues, and the fact that Obama doesn?t seem to have either. As a democrat, I think one of the worst things that could happen for our party is for him to be elected president.
Like everyone else I was intrigued at first by Obama?s rhetoric; he?s very good at delivering speeches (which his writers give to him), I will give him that. He generally carries an uplifting message of ?change? and a ?yes we can? attitude. He also has massive support from the college-aged generation, as the younger generation can identify with him. Bill Clinton filled this role in the early 90s. Now it?s Barack?s. Someone in their mid 40?s is a candidate for the youth. Politics is funny like that.
The problem is that when you peel away the layers in the early campaigning there really isn?t anything behind his words. He will talk about change incessantly, and about making a difference, but he never articulated how he was going to do this. Saying, ?It is time for change, I will bring change? etc. is nice and all, but what does that even mean?? Anyone can say they?re going to ?change? things. People continued whip themselves into a frenzy over him however, and he ripped off a double digit streak of wins in the primaries; and the whole time, myself, my roommates, my parents, no one, could figure out why. My roommate said it best, ?He?s sprinkling fairy dust all over. He?s making all these vague promises and there?s nothing behind it. He has next to no experience with adversity, and if he gets elected, as soon as he meets any resistance from Republicans he?s going to crumble. Then we get to have another sweeping Republican victory in midterm elections, and then a republican president in four years.?
I couldn?t agree more. I dug up old articles on Obama from when he was a lawyer and starting his political career in Chicago. I couldn?t find a single negative thing written about him. Most articles sounded like everyone was afraid to say anything negative about him for fear of being called a racist by ignorant Obama supporters. Recently he has been facing more adversity as even mainstream media (FINALLY) is pointing out some flaws in his campaign. One of them involves a campaign senior official of his meeting with a Canadian politician regarding NAFTA. Essentially Obama has had some tough words for the agreement. Then his economic adviser meets with a Canadian politician and reassures him that Obama wouldn?t do anything to NAFTA. The problem is that Obama never even knew the meeting occurred. Next his camp denied the meeting had even taken place, or that if it did the adviser reiterated Obama?s stance. A quote from The Huffington Post, from their March 4th edition:
?For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama's economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat's tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete - and sometimes misleading - explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.?
That?s where experience comes in. Bill Clinton was a philanderer and even he still kept his image relatively intact after Gennifer Flowers and all that, mainly because he had experience in dealing with adversity. Obama can?t keep track of who his senior officials are meeting with, and he?s going to monitor and direct a staff in the white house? The ?golden boy? image finally appears to be fading from him a bit. Then there?s the fact that Obama got a sweetheart deal on some land from a politician who was ALREADY under federal indictment at the time on corruption charges. I see that as worse than whitewater, as David Hale, the man who made the criminal accusations against the Clintons, was a con artist. He was known for setting up dummy companies, pillaging federal funds and SBA loans, and then letting the companies fail. His accusations were in direct conflict with earlier testimony to the FBI, and he only made the allegations after he came under federal indictment for one of these schemes in 1993). It all really just points towards Obama not having the seasoning yet to make smart political decisions, and NOT set his party back about a decade if he gets into office.
I mean he?s a decent senator, nothing spectacular, but really all he has going for him in a presidential race is his charisma, and that?s the problem. Most of the people that vote for Obama hate Hilary, though when I?ve directly asked why every single time all I get is ?Hilary SUCKS?? or ?Hilary sucks?she?s so cold?. Who cares? We elected Bush because Middle America found him to be a likeable guy and now he?s pretty much a unanimous choice for worst or 2nd worst president in history (Andrew Johnson gets my vote). It?s unfortunate that personality matters that much, because even the people that hate Hilary can?t seem to point to something tangible about her platform that they dislike. It?s always her they dislike. I?ve found his supporters to be extremely noxious actually, and their idea of a debate is repeating ?Hilary SUCKS?don?t say anything bad about Obama?.or I will be pissed? Wow?you sure showed me. His supporters seem a little too attached to his vague rhetoric, it makes it even harder to take him seriously.
Plus he's accepted more wall street money than even mitt romney had, when compared on the last day that romney was still in the republican primary. Remember when Bill Clinton was called America's Black President? A lot of people don't realize he cut more aid to minorities than any president before him. Obama will do the same, he's got all these African Americans voting for him, and he's going to do them worse than Clinton, all while wearing his hucksters smile, reading speeches someone else wrote for him, and pocketing more corporate money than even republicans do.
I just can NOT for the life of me understand why someone would vote for this guy.
I do say, you do have a raging case of transference going on there. A rather hysterical one too.
Facebook
Twitter