I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype

[NoStateofMind]

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.

Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope ? more targeted and more careful.

For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing. And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards."

Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting the interstate transport of children's products containing lead. (S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.

In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.

The difference is in the scope and the approach.

Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.

How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.

Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy. Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin, Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I didn't quote the whole article. If you take the time to read it you come to find out what they truly support. In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote, but he does get some more respect.

 

[Rainsford]

Interesting read...but it pretty much confirms why I liked Obama already. More than any particular view he holds of policy he supports, I like him and I trust him because he seems like the kind of guy who actually believes in his ideas and is willing to stand behind them. It's called character when it works, and stubbornness when it doesn't, but the fact is that Obama has it...and Clinton and (especially) McCain do not. I really respected McCain for having (I thought) the same character traits, but it turns out that when he decided he wanted to be President, that was more important than standing up for what he believed in. Clinton, on the other hand, NEVER gave me that impression. For all the talk of her experience being an asset when she's compared to Obama, I really think SHE'S more about "hype" than he is.

 

[nageov3t]

the one thing that really concerns me about Obama is that he lauds change and post partisanship, but when has he ever challenged his senate colleagues or differed from the democratic voting block?

it's easy to preach about being "post-partisan" when you're idea of non-partisanship is "do exactly what I want, unconditionally." at least McCain has shown a clear willingness to work out compromises that stray from his party to get the job done.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

 

[ProfJohn]

I suspect that we will hear the term ?most liberal senator? over and over for the next few months.

Of course that might not work since it has been so long since a liberal was in office that many people may not remember what a disaster their polices bring.

If he is elected and then governs as a liberal though I expect that Americans will re-learn why everyone in the Democratic Party runs from the term ?liberal? and instead calls themselves ?progressive.?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

State primary over (SC) and in November, I'll write in Ron Paul before I vote for any of these clowns.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that we will hear the term ?most liberal senator? over and over for the next few months.

Of course that might not work since it has been so long since a liberal was in office that many people may not remember what a disaster their polices bring.

If he is elected and then governs as a liberal though I expect that Americans will re-learn why everyone in the Democratic Party runs from the term ?liberal? and instead calls themselves ?progressive.?

ProJo... give me a break. It's like there are two different ProfJohns that post here. One of them actually tries to make reasonable arguments (albeit hard right wing ones), and the other craps on threads with stupid posts like: "liberal policies are a disaster". That point is obviously false and you know it.

I know you get a hard time on here from a lot of people, and at least some of it is undeserved. You're just giving them more ammo when you say things like that though.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that we will hear the term ?most liberal senator? over and over for the next few months.

Of course that might not work since it has been so long since a liberal was in office that many people may not remember what a disaster their polices bring.

If he is elected and then governs as a liberal though I expect that Americans will re-learn why everyone in the Democratic Party runs from the term ?liberal? and instead calls themselves ?progressive.?

The whole "anti-liberal" thing has been pretty much nothing but really good marketing from the Republicans. There's nothing there, especially since there are a lot of issues where a lot of people are liberal...it's just become a bad word. The only reason it works is because not enough people on the left have the stones to stand up and say "You're damn right I'm a liberal" when a conservative flings that "insult" at them. Conservatives using it as an insult, and liberals scrambling away from it, has created an impression despite the complete absence of a concrete argument.

You better hope we DON'T get a really liberal President in office...there is every possibility the terms would flip. Not so long ago, nobody wanted to own up to being a conservative and everybody wanted to be liberal...the way things are now isn't carved into stone, you know.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

State primary over (SC) and in November, I'll write in Ron Paul before I vote for any of these clowns.

Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

State primary over (SC) and in November, I'll write in Ron Paul before I vote for any of these clowns.

Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

State primary over (SC) and in November, I'll write in Ron Paul before I vote for any of these clowns.

Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

Of course not, but I got the (possibly incorrect) impression that PC Surgeon doesn't like the "personality cult" or "hype" surrounding Obama, in which case Ron Paul would not be an obvious alternative.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course not, but I got the (possibly incorrect) impression that PC Surgeon doesn't like the "personality cult" or "hype" surrounding Obama, in which case Ron Paul would not be an obvious alternative.

I don't think it's the same, and I surely don't see "Obamarama" as cult-like. He's intelligent, a good speaker, seems to have good leadership skills, which actually is something that Paul lacks. I don't think there is anything wrong with supporting Obama. I can't speak for PC Surgeon, but in regards to the issues I think Paul is a better choice. Of course, he has no chance, but I think he still deserves my vote.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

Not at all. But masquerading threads under the guise of neutrality all the while pimping Ron Paul doesn't fool anyone around here...

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
"...In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote..."

Chee, PC Surgeon, I'm shocked. Stunned! :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

Not at all. But masquerading threads under the guise of neutrality all the while pimping Ron Paul doesn't fool anyone around here...

I don't think that was his intention. Certainly here at P&N, by now, no minds are going to change. And even if so, certainly not enough. :laugh:

 

[Noobtastic]

Sounds balanced.


Not.


Typical two-sided propaganda.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Sounds balanced.


Not.


Typical two-sided propaganda.

yes, because Kos presents itself as an unbiased source of journalistic integrity.

 

[irishScott]

My only issue with Obama is his national security ideas, and I'm not talking about Iraq. Personally, I think Iraq is a lost cause. We can stay there for decades and it'll still degrade into what it was before we came after we leave. At best, we end up with an unstable ally ala Pakistan. But I digress..

My issue is that he says he going to hold the most aggressive Diplomatic Efforts in history with the rulers of the Middle East. While I'm all for diplomacy, I somehow doubt that "talking" to Akmadinajhad (sp?) is going to have any effect. Same story with most of the Middle East. Bill Clinton "talked" with North Korea forever. Now they have a nuke. I see Iran going the same way.

It's for this reason that I'm going with McCain. McCain is clearly the Republican Nominee at this point (I liked Romney (sp) for a while, but he's out, and Huckabee has issues), and I hate Hillary (Obama has character. Hillary is a calculating political cutthroat snake of a woman) I agree more with Obama than I do with McCain, but McCain has just as much character as Obama, if not as much charisma. And he's strong on National Security, which is close to the top of my list.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: irishScott
My only issue with Obama is his national security ideas, and I'm not talking about Iraq. Personally, I think Iraq is a lost cause. We can stay there for decades and it'll still degrade into what it was before we came after we leave. At best, we end up with an unstable ally ala Pakistan. But I digress..

My issue is that he says he going to hold the most aggressive Diplomatic Efforts in history with the rulers of the Middle East. While I'm all for diplomacy, I somehow doubt that "talking" to Akmadinajhad (sp?) is going to have any effect. Same story with most of the Middle East. Bill Clinton "talked" with North Korea forever. Now they have a nuke. I see Iran going the same way.

It's for this reason that I'm going with McCain. McCain is clearly the Republican Nominee at this point (I liked Romney (sp) for a while, but he's out, and Huckabee has issues), and I hate Hillary (Obama has character. Hillary is a calculating political cutthroat snake of a woman) I agree more with Obama than I do with McCain, but McCain has just as much character as Obama, if not as much charisma. And he's strong on National Security, which is close to the top of my list.

Why do you find talking so threatening? Obviously if talking doesn't bring the desired progress or results, the conversation would end. Obama has made it very clear that if action is required, he's prepared for that too. But if you're not in a state of war with someone, why should you be doing anything other than talking? The only alternatives are not talking, and shooting first and then asking questions. We see how well that worked with Cuba and Iraq respectively.

 

[Siddhartha]

This Presidential election is about George Bush and his policies. Basically, except for Mr Paul, all the other Republicans running for the nomination sound like George Bush. Considering the Republican base, being close to Bush makes sense.

After reviewing Mr Bush's performance throughout his years in the White House, I have concluded that the US and the world can not afford 4 to 8 more years of the policies of Mr Bush and the Republicans. George Bush's incompetence in foreign and domestic policies is unacceptable.

The Republicans are saying they intend to stay the course.

I am not sure if I will vote for Mr Obama but I am sure as hell not going to vote for a Republican. If you are considering voting Republican in Nov 2008, review Mr Bush and the Republican's performance over the last seven years and ask yourself do you really want more of the same.

I know this message will not reach the 30% who think Mr Bush is doing a good job but hopefully the other 60 to 70% will consider.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: irishScott
My only issue with Obama is his national security ideas, and I'm not talking about Iraq. Personally, I think Iraq is a lost cause. We can stay there for decades and it'll still degrade into what it was before we came after we leave. At best, we end up with an unstable ally ala Pakistan. But I digress..

My issue is that he says he going to hold the most aggressive Diplomatic Efforts in history with the rulers of the Middle East. While I'm all for diplomacy, I somehow doubt that "talking" to Akmadinajhad (sp?) is going to have any effect. Same story with most of the Middle East. Bill Clinton "talked" with North Korea forever. Now they have a nuke. I see Iran going the same way.

It's for this reason that I'm going with McCain. McCain is clearly the Republican Nominee at this point (I liked Romney (sp) for a while, but he's out, and Huckabee has issues), and I hate Hillary (Obama has character. Hillary is a calculating political cutthroat snake of a woman) I agree more with Obama than I do with McCain, but McCain has just as much character as Obama, if not as much charisma. And he's strong on National Security, which is close to the top of my list.

Why do you find talking so threatening? Obviously if talking doesn't bring the desired progress or results, the conversation would end. Obama has made it very clear that if action is required, he's prepared for that too. But if you're not in a state of war with someone, why should you be doing anything other than talking? The only alternatives are not talking, and shooting first and then asking questions. We see how well that worked with Cuba and Iraq respectively.

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face. All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

In any case, Obama strikes me as a very reactionary person, and this isn't anything unusual. People don't care about threats until they're right up in their faces. We didn't even respond to the fricken Japanese until it was too late, and they were a huge militaristic empire. Let alone some terrorist orgnization hiding in the shadows. McCain seems to take more initiative. In addition, McCain has simply been in Washington longer. He had connections and networks that Obama doesn't have, and thus he can probably get more things done.

Obama has mostly nice ideas, but I doubt his ability to implement them effectively.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote

you mean in November or is your state's primary still to come?

State primary over (SC) and in November, I'll write in Ron Paul before I vote for any of these clowns.

Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

Of course not, but I got the (possibly incorrect) impression that PC Surgeon doesn't like the "personality cult" or "hype" surrounding Obama, in which case Ron Paul would not be an obvious alternative.

No I wasn't trying to make that impression. I thought it was an interesting article about someone who did their research. Obama won in her mind and I would agree. The thing that gets me about Obama is the damned Patriot Act vote gives him a black eye IMO. That alone flies in the face of my beliefs. Obama may be the lesser of the 3 evils, but since when did we start compromising to evil? I won't do that. Vote Obama, be happy, be a winner, but remember, the next four years will be filled with "You voted for it, stop bitching".

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong?

Not at all. But masquerading threads under the guise of neutrality all the while pimping Ron Paul doesn't fool anyone around here...

I wouldn't even have brought up Ron Paul if I hadn't been asked why I wouldn't/couldn't vote. So no deception was involved, look somewhere else for your conspiracy.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
"...In the end, Obama doesn't get my vote..."

Chee, PC Surgeon, I'm shocked. Stunned! :laugh:

OH garsh, I jus' couldn't fool pabby, sheesh <kicks dirt>

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Sounds balanced.


Not.


Typical two-sided propaganda.

yes, because Kos presents itself as an unbiased source of journalistic integrity.

Everything is biased my zealot friend.

Why is delusion most prevalent during election year? How can people who are given the vast opportunity of public education continue to fall for this nonsense???

Some of qualities clearly seen in the article are:

A) Selective reasoning. Emphasis everything Obama has done and omitting all that is Hillary. Rationalizing and reductionism was an awesome addition..

B) Poorly constructed counter. Author attempted to bring the impression that this is an non-partisan article, by discussing both Hillary and Obama. However, it is more than clear that the writer edged in his agenda which was demonstrated by the Hillary set up. Then she refuted that and ended with a some nice Obama masturbatory fantasy.

Look, I loathe politics and dislike Obama and Hillary equally. But when people start treating politicians like they are the Messiah something is obviously wrong.

Seek help.

Your dependency on illusion is frightening.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that we will hear the term ?most liberal senator? over and over for the next few months.

Of course that might not work since it has been so long since a liberal was in office that many people may not remember what a disaster their polices bring.

If he is elected and then governs as a liberal though I expect that Americans will re-learn why everyone in the Democratic Party runs from the term ?liberal? and instead calls themselves ?progressive.?

I love idiots like you. Here we are in the midst of catastrophic conservative Presidency and you have the unmitigated gall to criticize liberals. Hehe, your head is so far up your ass you've turned inside out, upside down, and backwards. You are a colossal fool. Sorry. You could survive a brick traveling 100 MPH so long as it hits you in the head. Have you no shame?