View Story | 194 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
...the concerns that I and others have about Senator Obama - even though we're planning to work our butts off to get him elected - will be allayed in his first term, and that in his second term, not only will all those new mostly younger voters he's attracted will be joined by older cohorts who gave up voting over the years out of cynicism and despair. That would prove to me that politics had really been transformed.
I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain
by Meteor Blades on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM PDT
about Obama's intentions and ability to lead us in a progressive direction.
John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:50 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
have you diaried those? I was just wondering what they were...specifically. I mean, I'm on the phone all day with folks as I phone bank, so I've pretty much covered every issue at some point...
Know the Facts about Barack Obama.
by Elise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM PDT
...me. But other areas, too.
What we've got right now is FDR c. June 1932. Or even March 1933. It was unclear where he was going to go SPECIFICALLY until he actually got into office. Within 100 days, the famous 100 days, in crisis mode and with a mandate to take action, he had rammed 15 pieces of major legislation through Congress, all of it having originated in his office, put together by his "Brain Trust."
Now, that was 75 years ago, and things have changed. But there is, and I understand why, some considerable fuzziness in Obama's "platform." He has many obstacles to overcome in being elected, and being pinned down now on specifics will not do him that much good in November. But the day after he's elected, as I very much hope he will be, he's going to have to start making specific decisions and specific plans. The window of opportunity, as they say, is not long. The tempo and tenor is set in the first six months of the first term.
by Meteor Blades on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM PDT
well, I see several plans and enough specifics to get a basic idea of what will be done. I guess I also just have some faith in what he'll do because he has proven himself to me...in other ways.
For instance - he ran for State Senate here in IL and talked about the importance of ethics reform and campaign finance reform...and worked hard to pass both in IL - despite the fact that the Chicago machine would have preferred he not do either. Ran for Senate talking about how we needed to clean up Washington DC and focus on ethics - and did exactly that.
There are obviously other examples like this -
I guess I look at what he's campaigned on in the past and what he did when he got into office...he's followed through on his promises. And no...not always in a perfect way, but in a way that makes some positive changes for people. I am hopeful that he'll have enough of a majority to work with in both houses - and that he won't have any Democrats standing in his way - and if those things happen, I have faith that he'll do what he's promised to do.
His work on the Death Penalty in IL is a great example of what he's able to accomplish when he's given the floor.
I don't know what your concerns are with foreign policy...specifically, so I can't address those. I think this is an area where he can't be too specific though - because he's simply not in a position...he can't look like he's undermining Bush (no matter how hard I wish he could).
by Elise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM PDT
that would give me more confidence in his foreign-policy potential.
When Obama says publicly that he'll pull our troops out of Iraq in 16 months, then doesn't fire the head of his Iraq working group after that guy advocates leaving 60K to 80K US troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010, it reinforces my skepticism.
Here is a link on Colin Kahl. A tepid statement from the Obama campaign that Kahl doesn't represent their views is not enough. Fire this guy.
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM PDT
...has ever gotten the nomination - not even George McGovern - has made me happy in the foreign policy arena and its modern companion, the military-industrial-congressional complex.
But, specifically, I don't like what Senator Obama has said about the possibility of "surgical strikes" to take out Iranian nukes. Yes, I know he's spoken vigorously in favor of diplomacy with Iran, tough face-to-face diplomacy (excellent, of course), and of working toward reducing all nuclear stockpiles, not just trying to prevent non-nuclear countries from getting the Bomb (to condense what I think is a very good stance on his part). The idea of a pre-emptive strike, however, is very, very bad, and since he has not rejected that statement since he made it, I presume he stands by it.
by Meteor Blades on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM PDT
But I guess where I am is that his approach to running is sufficiently different that I am willing to wait and see. The idea of focusing on bringing voters in rather than kicking them out is a seachange. Not settling for the voters we have.
And of course, fundraising. My paranoia will be showing here, but I wonder what the lobbyists are thinking about having their power diluted by so many ordinary Americans. I worry because I know they won't go down without a fight, and I'm wondering what exactly they're likely to do.
I like his emphasis on diplomacy, and he's been sufficiently vague on it that I imagine that a lot can be fit into a new and vigorous diplomacy. But the paeans he offers to exercising military options don't sit that well with me.
So it all gets down to this: On balance, is it better or worse than what we've had before? I say better. But we have to remain vigilant.
Why does John McCain hate kids?
by Fasaha on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:41:15 AM PDT
Even though Obama has attracted many younger people to the polls, the older cohorts still vote at higher percentages. Politics will be transformed if younger people vote at percentages anything like older voters. I would see that as the first challenge.
Will overall voting percentages be altered? It depends on what can be done between 2009 and 2012. The present Congress gives me pause, though. Obama can't do it alone.
by johnnygunn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:37:45 PM PDT
...young voters went to the polls in 1972, 52%. Then it was all downhill (with a blip in 1992 for Clinton) until the nadir was reached in '96 and '00 at 36%. In 2004, 47% of young voters turned out. This year, I would not be at all surprised to see the 1972 record eclipsed, quite possibly by a substantial percentage, maybe 58%-60%.
But the older cohort I am talking about are those people of all ages who have abandoned voting. If Obama achieves some modest transformation, maybe many of them will vote again, or for the first time.
by Meteor Blades on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 194 comments