It might just be you, but as someone who only recently left the Republican party, Obama and Clinton seem to have much in common with the Republican party of the Pre-Reagan Days. They appeal to me as they are both centrist. Hell, I voted for Bill the second time, once I got to see what he really was. The biggest difference for me is that I don’t particularly like the Clintons, I actually like Obama so far. I like Rudy to, but he has been scaring me during the election. I realized he really likes the Patriot act and seems to have no problem authorizing torture and illegal imprisonment. I like McCain quite a bit, but the Supreme court has move so far to the right, that I am fearful of his appointments and a few other issues.
Obama and Clinton are both most in line with where I stand today and I like Obama and the way he handles himself better than Hillary. Policy-wise, I don’t see a lot of difference between the two.
As far as the comparison to Bush, did you ever get the impression he was smart or a good speaker? I find Obama to be both.
That’s not true. You have always been able to just click a button to skip the first page, and now it just goes straight to the page anyway. Hillary’s site did the same thing.
That’s a little hyperbolic. He has decades of tangible accomplishments. What you mean is something like “tangible accomplishments in the US Senate in addition to what he has already accomplished in his time there.” To that, the real argument, I’m much more meh. I’d rather have an expert on the constitution who has a demonstrable record of fighting for civil rights instead of making big bucks than a Senator or Governor who passed some bills. If you don’t doubt his commitment, then what are you really looking for evidence of? Political skill?
Okay then, what are *your * favorite highlights from the “decades of accomplishment” in Obama’s resume? What has he actually done for anyone but himself? And let’s skip past the “gave us hope” and “transcended party division” stuff, please. For what purposes has he gotten his hands dirty?
I’ll happily give you my highlights, though I very much doubt your sincerity in asking since all of this is well-known to anyone who follows politics like yourself.
Graduating from Columbia, instead of taking a plum job on Wall Street, he decided to become a community organizer. Living below the poverty line, he registered 150,000 African Americans to vote in the Chicago area. Graduating from Harvard Law, instead of clerking for the Supreme Court or taking a corporate law job, he passed them up to work for civil rights. This resonates especially with me as a law student. I understand the attractiveness of taking the corporate firm job making nearly $200,000 a year and it takes IMHO moral courage not to do so. (This same praise is owed to Clinton as well, at least for the beginning of her legal career.) He had a number of accomplishments in his role as civil rights lawyer including preventing racial gerrymandering, defending whistleblowers, and teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
In his eight years in the Illinois Senate, he sponsored 780 bills, 280 of which passed. Among the highlights: serious ethics reform, reform of capital criminal procedure, limiting racial profiling, combating predatory lending, creating the Early Learning Council, passing an earned income tax credit for poor families, and although he could not vote against it, advocating strongly against the Iraq War when it was not popular to do so.
In the US Senate, he has sponsored 152 bills. Among the highlights: the toughest ethics reform in history, continuing the Nunn-Luger legacy of fighting nuclear proliferation, tax credits for the use of alternative fuels, and additional funding for veterans.
There is room for debate about whether he is more accomplished than Sen. Clinton or the Republicans he may eventually face. But saying he has no record of tangible accomplishment is just objectively false.
I also don’t get the “required donation” jibe. I had no problem getting to that page.
There are criticisms to make, but being afraid to get his hands dirty and being “a punk” aren’t among them. As to those criticisms … I don’t find people afraid to make them, I find that people are finding them hard to find, and harder to make in ways that don’t make them look the worse their pettiness. (HRC’s team having scoured for his Kindergarten essay and early drug use attack leap to mind.)
BTW, I find it interesting that after having jumped all over him for having earlier stated that he would pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan even without Pakistan’s permission if that’s what it took as evidence for foreign policy inexperience, everyone now says that his position is correct.
I think the other things you listed are pretty good examples of accomplishments, but lets not get carried away with calling the sponsoring of a bill an accomplishment. That can mean anything from writing the actual legislation to just putting your signature on it at the last minute (so that you can claim it as an accomplishment when you’re running for office later).
True enough; bills that look they’re going to pass typically get virtually every member who plans to vote in favor listed as a co-sponsor. Which efforts has he led?
Compare that list to, well, Richardson’s during a similar time frame, if you will (sourced from the inevitable Wikipedia):
Bachelor’s and Masters from Tufts
Staffer, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Congressional liason, State Department
Elected to US House, served 14 years
Numerous foreign visits
Chairman, House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Led a number of Indian civil rights bills to passage
Negotiated hostage release directly with Saddam Hussein
UN Ambassador
US Secretary of Energy
Led effort to return federal lands to Indian tribes, other Indian-relations programs
Professor at Harvard Kennedy School
Senior Fellow, US Institute of Peace, worked on North Korea relations
Elected Governor of New Mexico
Led broad tax cut program
Established life insurance coverage for NM Guardsmen, first state to do so
Created infrastructure investment partnership program
Added sexual orientation to NM civil rights categories
While still governor, continued direct North Korea negotionations at WH request
While still governor, negotiated hostage release with Sudan (that’s under the *Bush * WH)
While still governor, negotiated cease-fire in Darfur (still at Bush’s request)
By comparison, what you offer in your Obama list that can count as accomplishments involving the dirtying of one’s hands amount to voter registration work and some local civil rights cases.
Do you still “doubt my sincerity” in asking? :dubious:
Well I certainly don’t doubt your sincerity. But I’m still looking for what you think makes Obama any less fit than Richardson or Hillary? If you are only talking experience then I don’t need to listen anymore. When Kennedy was elected he had a little more experience than Obama -but people really liked him and that does make a difference. Granted Kennedy’s dad bought him some votes in Chicago [cook county] and that certainly helped. Obama is close to JFK’s age and his personal accomplishments amount to enough in my mind to vote for the man.
It wasn’t you doubting my sincerity, it was Richard Parker.
Obama may well prove as capable as anyone, may accomplish as much, and may well live up to the hype. I don’t deny that at all. What he hasn’t done is *demonstrate * his preparation or his willingness to do what it takes. I don’t care much for words; show me deeds.
You’re right about likeability mattering, but only for a brief time. Once an executive tries to actually get things done, he makes enemies, and if he doesn’t succeed at first, he looks feckless in the bargain. Dubya started out by having people “really like” hiim too, and, as we say around here, “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”
(The Kennedy-Chicago story doesn’t hold up well under examination, btw).
All of the ones I mentioned specifically were efforts he led.
Yes, I still doubt your sincerity. Are you telling us now that you were unaware of Obama’s accomplishments?
The rest of your post is irrelevant. Your opinion that Richardson’s resume shows more accomplishments is entirely inapposite to the question of whether Obama has any tangible accomplishments. If you want me to show you why Obama is a much more competent candidate than Richardson, I would be happy to do so in a thread on that topic.
I said your comment was hyperbolic, and I stand by that. If you want to ratchet it back now, that’s fine, and I might even agree with whatever your new position is.
This goes for any POTUS. I remember shaking my head many times when Bill Clinton would sign something bogus, but at least I liked Bill, and overall think he was a much more positive influence on our country than the Bush Twins [that’s son and pop].
At the brass tacks of it all, Obama in my opinion is smart enough to make programs that work for the American people and I believe his programs will sting, but not as much as his opponants’ would. Long term experience on the hill aside.
Richardson will like do very well as Vice-President!
Seriously. Whether Obama or Clinton wins he’d be a good choice. A great choice.
But the fact that he is in no way a viable candidate proves that the Presidency isn’t won on the basis of your cv alone.
In terms of actual accomplishments HRC does not shine above Obama. In point of fact she spent her years in the Senate (short of pandering on a flag burning amendment and sponsoring some legislation against videogames) doing as little as possible as much as possible so as not to have a record that could be held against her when she inevitably ran for President. And even in her attempt to build a record that pandered to the middle she failed as that had her supporting the war. Something Obama had the spine and intelligence to be against even when to be against it was politically anathema.
Did anyone see Hillary almost lose it in the debate last night? [towards the end of the article] this is not a position she want’s to reflect right now. In my opinion she’s treading a very thin line, that she may well already be off of.
I saw the whole thing, but nothing that could be described as “losing it”. Please elaborate.
DSeid, I agree, and I’d be happy to see it. Apparently there’s scuttlebutt out of Iowa that Richardson was steering people from his below-15% groups to Obama (and that Clinton is ripped about it, too, naturally). Could there be a running-mate deal already in place?
Richard, how many of those hundreds of bills do you really claim Obama “led”? :dubious: When would he have had the time?
Do you really not think that a proper consideration of a candidate’s record *requires * comparison with the others’ records’? :dubious:
“Anathema” is a great exaggeration. Anti-war sentiment was quite widespread, no less in Illinois than anywhere else in the US.
It took no spine, and little intelligence, to avoid voting for the AUMF when he never even had the opportunity to do so, and had no political price to pay for it as a *state * senator. The average Doper did just as much.
He is claiming it as an example of judgment superior to Clinton’s, and that’s a very solid point in light of her neglect to even read the intelligence documents Graham did. But few other Senators did that, either.
On further revew, btw, let me change that last comment to Richard to a mere :rolleyes:, m’kay?
How many of us still believe that the Republicans and Democrats have different goals?