I never believed he had a chance until now, but Obama might will be our next president. If he is, what can we expect? His positions are here.
Will Obama govern more as a DLC neoliberal like the Clintons, or as a progressive left-liberal, or something in between?
What will be his foreign/military/MENA policy?
Will he give us UHC, and if so in what form?
How will an Obama presidency affect racial, specifically black/white, politics in the U.S.? I see nothing in the above link about Obama’s position on affirmative action or any other relevant issue. (Seems to me African-American leaders could have it both ways – if they like what President Obama says they can say the president himself is speaking for their community, and if they don’t, they can distance themselves from him by pointing out Obama is not “African-American” in the usual sense, i.e., not a descendant of American slaves and not raised in that community and culture. OTOH, he has married into it.)
How, if at all, will Obama’s Kenyan roots affect U.S. policy towards African states?
I don’t think he’ll be a progressive left liberal. He’s shockingly, boringly moderate on most issues (other than Iraq) which means we’re probably not in for a major shakeup of the political system.
I don’t think the government can do any more to improve racial tensions in America. Racism isn’t really an institution anymore, but rather something more personal and much harder to legislate against.
We can’t expect universal health care from him. I don’t think he’s even addressed it, actually. That’s Hillary’s thing, and I think he’s very wise to let her have it. He can’t take votes away from her on that subject, but he could lose a few votes from moderates by trying to compete on the issue.
I think we can expect him to present a much softer stance in his foreign policy. He’s actually come out and said as much, even to some criticism. He’s willing to meet with the leaders of America’s biggest rivals, which is a huge step in the right direction. I think the executive branch will come across as much less arrogant than the Bush admin does, or the Hillary one would. I’m not sure if he could actually do good with this softer stance, but I’m more than willing to see any change from the kickin’ ass and takin’ names attitude we’ve had for 8 years.
I don’t think Obama’s heritage will affect policy toward African nations. I think we will see a big change in policy, but toward almost everyone, not just Africa. I don’t know whether he even considers himself African, any more than I consider myself German. He’s an American, raised in an American household with American friends and American schooling. I’d say his “roots” are right here, actually.
is easy. We can have all the policy statements we want, but not much is going to change in Africa any time soon. Kenya is a great example of this, IMHO. Check out their current election disaster. What policy of ours is going to change that?
is pretty easy too. We vote our pocketbooks and our power. I think you summarized it well for the A-A “leaders” but the same summary applies to any all color/group/constituency “leaders.” If they like what he says, he’s one of us and understands us. If they don’t, he’s not one of us. Hey, what else is new? His color is irrelevant, as your statement suggests.
and 2. depend on Congress. You cannot pass legislation that does not show up on your desk. He will be a much better ambassador for the US than Mr. Bush.
I think Mr. Obama will be very like Mr. Clinton, which is why I like him ( I don’t know if he’ll be like Mrs. Clinton b/c I don’t know what kind of President she’d be). I hope he will be fiscally sound, unlike Mr. Bush. I don’t care what what he espouses verbally; I only care about what budgets he actually signs.
The biggest position Obama supporters like me need to bring to light [and we don’t need to tread too far, he’s doing a good job of it himself] is his electability and the fact that voting for him is not as big a risk as voting for Hillary already is. As I said this is not a tough battle he’s doing well on his own.
Really? I was under the impression he was doing a “bring health care coverage to everybody, like I did in Illinois” thing. Which is kinda-sorta true - the State expanded their All Kids coverage quite a bit, and also pregnant mother coverage and even state provided insurance and rebates for privately held policies for us working poor.
How much Obama had to do with it, I honestly don’t know. It has Blagojevich’s name all over it, and *he *claims credit for it, but EVERYTHING in this state has Blagojevich’s name on it, whether he was for or against it in legislature.
It looks like he would seriously address Global Warming. He listed it as one of his three priorities. This is making me lean towards him over the last few days.
I have been really studying all the major candidates and a few of the minor candidates. Of the majors, I like Obama the best, it looks like he will be much more of a centrist than Edwards.
[ol]
[li]In general- agree- remarkably middle of the road. Very similar to Bill Clinton probably, a conclusion supported by the fact that so many of his advisors come from Bill’s White House - arguably more than are part of HRC’s team![/li][li]Foreign Policy ME and Iraq in particular: No one will magic us out of Iraq on day one. Obama will be more aggressive in moving in that direction and more engaging with other area powers as potentially stabilizing forces. He will be less dictatorial in his approach to dealing with other nations and thereeby actually accomplish more. I do expect that he’ll be engaged in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and probably put more pressure on Israel to make some positive moves even in the face of Hamas attacks. [/li][li]Healthcare. As pointed out he does indeed have a proposal. Mainly it differs from Edwards’ and HRC’s by not having a personal universal mandate. I think it suffers from that loss. As much as I blame HRC’s bungling of healthcare reform for the lack of progress over the last decade, I like her plan better. [/li][li]Race relations: No real difference from Bill Clinton except that his being who he is helps redefine what role race has in our personal psyches.[/li][li]Africa. He’ll be more engaged and more effective. [/li][li]Other issues - pretty much no matter who is in other than Bush will be more engaged in Climate Change issues. Expect to see cap and trade pass quickly, hopefully auctioned off. Expect tax credits to be substantial for PHEVs and EREVs whether its Obama or HRC that gets in.[/li][/ol]
Yea, this is the main reason I’d prefer Hillary. I both like her healthcare proposal better and, due to her bad experience with the issue last time she was in the WH, think she will actually be more likely to get something done this time around.
Beyond that, I’m not sure they really differ heavily on any issues. The foreign policy stuff seems to have more to do with the words they use then on any substatiave difference between them.
That’s an interesting conclusion: “I trust her to succeed because she’s failed before.”
HRC is much more hawkish than Obama. In foreign policy matters she really is a Bush lite. Or perhaps a Lieberman with more hair and less spine.
But this is an Obama thread …
I certainly don’t agree with all of his positions but I respect both his qualifications for the office and his overall vision for America’s future. He hasn’t lost my vote yet.
I simply wish he had some record of tangible accomplishment to point to, not just oratorical ability. I put a great deal more weight on doing than talking - we’re not choosing a preacher here, but a chief executive whose job will be to lead a large organization. After seeing enough campaigns over the years, I’m especially leery of candidates who (at least seem to) put forward the cleanliness of their hands as a sign of being a superior life-form of some kind, when ISTM it usually means they haven’t actually accomplished anything. You *do * have to get your hands dirty in that business, you *do * have to make compromises, you do have to do some things you’d rather not have to explain, and I just don’t see where Obama has shown even the willingness to try.
Obama seems more like the latest political Shmoo - he allows anyone to read their own hopes and expectations and beliefs onto him, and convince themselves that’s who he is and how he would act. It’s a proven way to get elected, sure, but once he actually tries to get something done he’s going to look a lot more human.
So what kind of POTUS would he be? The first word that comes to mind is Ineffective.
Hillaryhijack/I like what she has to say for the most part, but she strikes me as a someone who’ll blow with the winds of political expediency–discuss/hillaryhijack
You know, that royally ticked me off too. The site is set up so that you have to register an email to get past the first page and then you have to get past the donation page (you can actually just click up at the top to do that).
I assume their assumption is that serious potential supporters won’t mind and those that do mind ain’t gonna vote for him. I haven’t tried other sites to see if that’s a trend. In any case I was pleased that the link inside the site held without passing the link back to that donation page.
Is it just me, or is everybody trying so hard not to criticize Obama? I have no dog in the fight, not being American, but I always felt Obama was just a few grades higher than Bush. He has very limited experience and he tends to BS a lot. He has relatively conservative views and has attacked a lot on the left from a Republican standpoint. I really don’t understand the allure. He strikes me as a punk, to be perfectly honest.
From his public statements (a dangerous game, I realize) we know he wishes to siphon troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. He wishes to keep a contingent of U.S. troops garrisoned in various strategic locations in Iraq for the foreseeable future for a variety of reasons. He has stated he would invade northern Pakistan given certain conditions.
No. Neither will Mrs. Clinton, BTW. Literally because Congress would have to do it. More so because of the euphemistic “political environment” (read: lobbyists). That’s not to say we may never get a twisted, misshapen “UHC” which is worse than what we have now.
Kenya has been having a lot of problems recently, hasn’t it? Maybe we can send a few thousand marines to show them how to run a democracy correctly. Who could object to spreading liberty?
Going from GWB to Obama would be the largest jump in Presidential public speaking skill in U.S. history, right?
When Bush gives you BS it’s raw, unfiltered, and it makes your eyes water. You can’t help but notice. Obama is much more sophisticated. He relies more on abstraction, as far as I can note. You have to go back and read what he said before you understand your wallet is missing. Or what ElvisL1ves said.
