Tell me why you like Obama...

[pinkmomagain]

OK, so I'll be vocal and say I was hoping that Hillary would be the dem nominee. I'm an independent who votes democrat most of the tme. I want to get behind Obama, but the whole inexperience thing really gets me. Also, I feel like he's a good "big-picture" orator, but I have my doubts about him getting actually the job done. I see there are alot of Obama supporters on the board, so I was hoping you could share why you'd like him for president.

[Tracey]

I am really hoping that someone will convince me as well. Please tell me why someone with this level of experience should be president.

Here is a good website with factual information....biographical info, voting record, etc.
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490

[citymama]

These are just a few of my thoughts, since you asked!

In terms of policies and experience:

His position on the war
His experience as a community organizer
His position on healthcare and many social justice and environmental issues that are important to me
His willingness and ability to reach across the aisle and work with others with different views
His nuanced and flexible thinking and approach - he does not seem to be an inflexible ideologue or one who digs his heels in
The respect he would be able to earn back for the US in the world and ways in which he would be able to work with the intl community
His overall progressive positions and approach
And on an emotional level:

The incredible significance of electing a biracial President - I think it would help heal many old wounds and promote more unity as a nation
The role-model he would serve for young people of all races, especially African-Americans.
His fresh, new thinking and charisma could be what we collectively need to get over the last 8 years!

[kayte]

For me it's his view on a few (personal) key issues (which is how I tend to vote) but for my husband it's a general agreement with the policy changes he wants to make.

And I think it's important that a candidate in any election have something that connects them individually with each voter.

I think the first step to get to know his goals, opinions, and general outlook on where he feels our country should be headed is to read his "Blueprint for CHange" which is available on his website. Here is the link

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Perhaps in his own words is where you can find something to connect him to you as Hillary obviously did.

Also on his main website is a drop down menu entitles 'Issues' and you can read his stand and his plan on the 20 or so issues listed.

[pinkmomagain]

Thanks to those who answered so far! I'm glad citymama brought up "electing a biracial President." I've found it puzzling that the media keeps refering to Obama as African-American rather than biracial. I wonder how Obama himself views this distinction. I'll have to do more reading....

Would love more opinions from those willing to share........

[kayte]

Please tell me why someone with this level of experience should be president.



Tracey--

While it may not be the best example, please consider the prior experience of our current President. Before becoming President, he worked in his family's oil business, was part owner of baseball team, unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives and was governor of Texas for for 5 years -winning a very close race that was decided- which W even joked about at the time - because of concealed gun issue he supported and Ann Richard's vetoed. Yet I don't really recall people throwing him under the bus for lack of experience when he ran in 2000?

Obama served 3 terms in the Illinois State Legislature before running for Congress in 2004.

Other examples of recent Presidents who did gain experience as as Vice President first are Ronald Reagan - who's resume included actor and 7 years as CA governor and Jimmy Carter who was governor of of Georigia for one term and one term in their state legislature.

I hear the 'lack of experience' label a lot about Obama---but I don't think it adds up when you compare him to others. I also doesn't do him justice when you consider in his short term in Congress how often he wasn't afraid to vote against the party line or the 'old Gentleman's club' which is prevalent with younger politicians.

[Tracey]

Tracey--

While it may not be the best example, please consider the prior experience of our current President. Before becoming President, he worked in his family's oil business, was part owner of baseball team, unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives and was governor of Texas for for 5 years -winning a very close race that was decided- which W even joked about at the time - because of concealed gun issue he supported and Ann Richard's vetoed. Yet I don't really recall people throwing him under the bus for lack of experience when he ran in 2000?

Obama served a term in the Illinois State Legislature before running for Congress in 2004.


A governor of a state is executive experience; which is why many presidents are past governors. I didn't vote for Bush, though :). I'm leaning towards Obama, but I feel like it's a crap shoot and I'm not a gambler.

[Laurel]

Actually, at this point Obama's lack of political experience makes me more into him- usually those running for national office have been corrupted by years in politics.

He's a very intelligent man who I agree with on the issues that are important to me. I trust him to make thoughtful decisions based on the information available (something I don't think our current "inexperienced" President does very well). Bottom line, what I have seen of his character and judgement makes me ok with his short political career. As a feminist, I did not take lightly my choice of Obama over Clinton.

In any case, McCain is so far from me on the issues, that I can't see voting for anyone but Obama. I'd be supporting any democrat right now. I encourage you to think about the issues that are most important to you and then chose a candidate. This election is too important to sit out.

[mommy111]

A couple of things about Obama speak to me: one, I agree with his whole 'change' thing where we're in a mess right now and we really really need someone to get us out of it. Quite frankly, I don't think there is any kind of experience that prepares you for the Presidency. But I think it helps that Obama is a natural organizer, a formidable intellect and has his heart in the right place. And the final thing that convinced me about him was how well his campaign was organized and run, from registering voters to the funds that a relative political novice managed to get. He obviously instinctively gets some things that way more experienced people (like Hillary) just don't get.

[maestramommy]

But I think it helps that Obama is a natural organizer, a formidable intellect and has his heart in the right place. And the final thing that convinced me about him was how well his campaign was organized and run, from registering voters to the funds that a relative political novice managed to get. He obviously instinctively gets some things that way more experienced people (like Hillary) just don't get.
There's a very interesting article in the June issue of Atlantic called "Obama Files" that talks about his very powerful method of fundraising. The gist that I got from it was that while Hilary depended on the stalwarts of the moneyed dems, Obama got people everywhere to contribute just a few dollars here and there, and it just added up. Also, because of the newer rules of fundraising, The moneyed dems were locked into making only one contribution. In Obama's case people not only contributed, they spread the word and got others to contribute, and all through the internet.

I am very glad that he is the nominee. At the same time I remember the demographic that he just couldn't reach during the primaries, and will be very interested to see how he is going to attract them now that we are in the general.

[lisams]

Actually, at this point Obama's lack of political experience makes me more into him- usually those running for national office have been corrupted by years in politics.


Yes, that!!

It's kind of like first time teachers - they have this energy and positive attitude and willingness to learn more. Not saying veteran teachers don't, but I see that sparkle in a new teacher's eyes and think it's very refreshing and encouraging especially when so many get burned out (or in the case of politicians, a little too full of themselves).

Plus, I think that if he builds his staff well there will be plenty of experience between all of them.

[Lolabee]

Obama got people everywhere to contribute just a few dollars here and there, and it just added up. Also, because of the newer rules of fundraising, The moneyed dems were locked into making only one contribution. In Obama's case people not only contributed, they spread the word and got others to contribute, and all through the internet.


I think Obama's approach to fundraising has been pure genius. Not only has he eliminated a lot of the issues that arise when taking money from large individual contributors (e.g. becoming beholden to those contributors for their support) he has also found an ingenious way to make even the little guy feel invested in his campaign by contributing his or her nominal contribution of $25. A huge part of Obama's campaign message is that everyone counts regardless of her station in life, and I really think his fundraising strategy is a very powerful way to reinforce that message.

I also agree that Obama has plenty of leadership experience to qualify him for the office of President. His work as a community organizer helped him become very adept at bringing diverse interests to the table and forging compromise among those parties. As Senator he has always been very responsive to his constituency, and I can say that every time I have emailed him as my representative I received a prompt response via email that actually addressed my concerns instead of being some fill in the blank nonsense-type correspondence.

[kijip]

Thanks to those who answered so far! I'm glad citymama brought up "electing a biracial President." I've found it puzzling that the media keeps refering to Obama as African-American rather than biracial. I wonder how Obama himself views this distinction. I'll have to do more reading....

Would love more opinions from those willing to share........
I am white. My brother and I have the same mother. He is "biracial". I will say plain and simple that in this country those of mixed ethnicities are generally seen and treated as being whatever non-white ethnicity that they have. My brother is seen as a black man, treated as a black man and judged first by those he meets as a black man. It is not right, but the truth is that his experiences more closely match African Americans even though every one of his siblings and both his parents (my mother and father) are white. He is never, ever treated by new people as white or perceived as biracial. He is perceived, even by the most progressive and least racist people I know as being black before all else. He never gets the privelges that whites (unfairly) get. It is a fallacy to say that because someone has a white parent they are also white. In practice it plays out MUCH differently than that- I have seen it up close my entire life. To say that a person with a black parent and a white parent in this country is not black or African American is to pretend that race matters a whole heck of a lot less than it really does in practice.

[brittone2]

Yes, that!!

It's kind of like first time teachers - they have this energy and positive attitude and willingness to learn more. Not saying veteran teachers don't, but I see that sparkle in a new teacher's eyes and think it's very refreshing and encouraging especially when so many get burned out (or in the case of politicians, a little too full of themselves).

Plus, I think that if he builds his staff well there will be plenty of experience between all of them.


Ack. I lost my post.

Well, I'd agree w/ the above. I think his not being a long-time Washington insider is an asset. I like his work w/ the poor, his experiences w/ living abroad, and the fact that he seems willing and able to be fluid and evolve his viewpoints on issues. He seems as though he's going to surround himself with a great cabinet and advisers if the rumor mill turns out to be putting out accurate information. He seems humble enough to listen to the advice of others and to know when he's out of his own zone in terms of expertise.

There was an article in Newsweek or similar publication about his current staff. He really likes to hear from everyone. He's known for his even temper, even when things are kind of rocky (and he's said before he just doesn't get really high or low with how things unfold for him usually). The article really said a lot to me about how I think he'll function in office...being able to listen, to be humble, to surround yourself with bright people and glean from them what you can and then make the best decision possible.

When this primary season started I really was concerned about his lack of experience. But the more and more I weighed his "lack of experience" as compared to Hillary, the more I realized I personally am not all that convinced that her experience is as substantial (outside of healthcare) as she leads everyone to believe. From the reports I've read, a lot of her memoirs, etc. were beefed up and she overstated some of her role in influencing events as a first lady. I also see Hillary as a little less humble and willing to listen to others, but that's just my personal impression. I'd rather have a more humble person that can take the advice of others, mull it over, and reach the best decision possible over someone that insists upon a certain viewpoint.

I don't think he walks on water. I don't think he can fix all that is wrong w/ America currently. Most experts seem to suggest that for a president to have 3-4 big accomplishments while in office is about the max that they can really do. However, I think he may revolutionize the face of politics for a long time to come. I think it is a movement. I think he has made the average American feel empowered to get involved, to become invested, to vote, to believe that we can demand and expect change from our leaders. His campaign has been run brilliantly and will revolutionize campaigning for years to come with the grass roots nature of things. I've never been personally involved w/ politics but I plan to volunteer for his campaign because I feel moved to do so (I wanted to help w/ the primary but most of the events locally didn't work w/ my schedule this year). No matter what happens w/ him as President, I think he's already had a huge impact.

Deciding between he and John McCain is easy for me, personally. I have respected John McCain for a long time, but his positions do not align with my beliefs. I feel as though he's thrown out a lot of his more appealing moderate viewpoints to appease the party (since he now advocates maintaining the Bush tax cuts that were "against his conscience" originally, his statements that he'd like to appoint Justices that would consider overturning Roe v. Wade, etc.). I feel he's running as a different candidate for president than the person he was as a senator.

eta: in terms of the above discussion about race, I agree w/ Katie that it seems like most biracial people tend to be treated more often by others as an African American vs. caucasian. I also think in some ways being biracial must be more difficult for some people than being able to self-identify with one group over the other. I haven't read Obama's first book (have listened to The Audacity of Hope on CD though), but I think he talks about how his biracial background was part of the reason he got involved w/ drugs, etc. In school it was hard for him to "pick" a group to hang out w/ since the students tended to self-segregate. I don't claim to know what it is like to be biracial, but in a society that still tends to self-segregate, I can see where being biracial might be even more difficult for some people than being clearly able to identify w/ one race vs. the other. I'm trying to type quickly...I hope that came out okay ;)

[kijip]

I don't think he lacks anymore experience than a lot of other presidents. In fact the most qualified canidates for president in recent years have lost (no one could say Gore lacked experience esp compared to a short term gov from a state with a weak governorship, no one could claim Bush Sr. was not more qualified on paper that Clinton.) For that matter, I TOTALLY dismiss the idea that being first lady is experience that counts all that much more than community organizing, state legislature and teaching. Seriously, has any one here realized that Obama has about the same amount of international experience that Bill Clinton had when he was running in 1992?

The fact of the matter is that being president is not a civil service post you are entitled to because you spent the requiste number of years in a good mix of legislative and executive experience. If that was the case, there are HUNDREDS of well qualified on paper peeps that should be entitled to be president but who once in office might very well be rotten terrible presidents.

Sometimes talent trumps experience. There is a factor here of enthusiasm and excitement. Raising money from many instead of a few. I know people giving money to Obama's effort who have never written a check for a canidate in their lives.

Obama represents an untainted stance against an abhorent war to me. He and Clinton are mostly similar on MOST of the issues, but I think he has a better shot of working with large, different groups to get things done for a chance. I am not as taken with him as some are, but I did caucus for him and truly see him as the best canidate. Clinton was not, IMO, the right person for the job.

[kijip]

Deciding between he and John McCain is easy for me, personally. I have respected John McCain for a long time, but his positions do not align with my beliefs. I feel as though he's thrown out a lot of his more appealing moderate viewpoints to appease the party (since he now advocates maintaining the Bush tax cuts that were "against his conscience" originally, his statements that he'd like to appoint Justices that would consider overturning Roe v. Wade, etc.). I feel he's running as a different candidate for president than the person he was as a senator.



His maverick Senate record I think was always more style than substance. Besides the torture thing (clearly he has MORE exp with that than any other Senator) and the campaign finance thing he is very much, and has always been, in line with a more conservative Republican than he is given credit for. I have an old Nation from 1999 from the lead up to the 2000 primary campaign. It details his decades of conservatism that really would surprize most of the moderates that he appeals to. Just my two cents, I wish I could link the article here but I don't think it is online. :)

[brittone2]

His maverick Senate record I think was always more style than substance. Besides the torture thing (clearly he has MORE exp with that than any other Senator) and the campaign finance thing he is very much, and has always been, in line with a more conservative Republican than he is given credit for. I have an old Nation from 1999 from the lead up to the 2000 primary campaign. It details his decades of conservatism that really would surprize most of the moderates that he appeals to. Just my two cents, I wish I could link the article here but I don't think it is online. :)

Interesting.

DH and I have discussed for a while now that we think that once more moderate/independent voters find out his stance on a lot of issues, they may move away from him. I saw a poll a few months ago saying a large portion of women polled did not know his stance on abortion, for example. I think a lot of people perceive him as more moderate than he really is.

I've never loved the guy and knew he voted relatively conservatively, but I haven't really been up to speed w/ politics in the past, at least to the degree I should have been. (this primary cycle has been such a learning experience for me and has really awakened more interest in me in terms of truly educating myself more).

THanks for sharing, Katie. You know so much about politics. I need a tutorial ;) This is the first time in my life I've wanted to get *really* involved.

Oh, and wow, that speech he gave on Tuesday night was p-a-i-n-f-u-l to watch and I only saw the highlights LOL. I knew his public speaking skills weren't the best, but ouch, that was bad!!

[kijip]

A governor of a state is executive experience; which is why many presidents are past governors. I didn't vote for Bush, though :). I'm leaning towards Obama, but I feel like it's a crap shoot and I'm not a gambler.

The Gov of Texas has VERY little responsibility and power relative to say the gov of California or any other state. It is the least powerful gov. position in the country, the product of mistrust in Texas of a legacy of corruption dating back to the 1800s and early 1900s...so they stripped the job of many of the powers normally given to the Gov of a state.

[buddyleebaby]

McCain is my candidate. His politics are closer to mine, I think he's very smart and very experienced. I didn't think he had a chance when I voted for him in the primary and I don't think he really has much of a chance in the general election, but my vote will be for him.
That being said, I personally like Obama. He is charasmatic, intelligent, and an excellent speaker. I watched a town meeting of his and a town meeting of Clinton's and even though they were very close on the issues, the difference was astounding. And the primaries were more exciting for me than I have ever remembered them being. He won't get my vote but I would love to have dinner with him.

[pinkmomagain]

Thanks, kijip for addressing the biracial thing based on you/your family's experience. You brought up a perspective I hadn't thought about.

I am in an interfaith marriage and our children identify themselves as both catholic & jewish. I guess I was thinking *naively* of a similar view in regards to multiracial families....but I can see how race is a completely different ball of wax than religion.

[kijip]

Thanks, kijip for addressing the biracial thing based on you/your family's experience. You brought up a perspective I hadn't thought about.

I am in an interfaith marriage and our children identify themselves as both catholic & jewish. I guess I was thinking *naively* of a similar view in regards to multiracial families....but I can see how race is a completely different ball of wax than religion.

Interesting. I have thought about the religion thing and I think the difference is that with most religions, people find out what you are based either on what you tell them (I am Catholic or I am a Reform Jew) or on things you choose to wear or display (a cross, a head scarf). Whereas people's race is perceived entirely by the viewer, with little (if any) input/choice of the person being perceived. (Though there are some exceptions here, in the case of people whose background is hard to figure out visually). That is the best explaination for the difference that I can see. I think it changes with sucessive generations as well. My nephew, the offsping of my brother and a white woman is perceived mostly as white- because his hair is medium brown and stick straight and he lives is a warm state where being tan is the norm. My brother's other children, who have a Latina mother of PR descent are perceived as black- because their skin is darker and their hair is dark and very tightly curled.

[alexsmommy]

I don't have time for an intricate response, but I agree with everything others have said. I feel that his lack of "experience" means he is not indoctrinated with politics as usual. I think if he wins, he will shake up the heck out of Washington - in a good way. I truly believe it is time for a "paradigm shift" with regards to how our county sees itself in relation to the wider world and how we address our plethora of problems right here at home. My impression is that he's not concerned about what Washington insiders think, but will act according to what he truly thinks is best - after getting many different points of view. I also like that he will admit when he has made a mistake and doesn't shy away from tough issues. He seems to have a genuine sense of humility and does not feel like he is in any way on a power trip.
On a personal level, as a Chicagoan, I like what I've heard about him and Michelle on a more personal level. Everyone I know who has historically worked with them in any capacity has said they are genuine, sincere, kind, concerned, hardworking and wonderfully intelligent, flexible people - and remained so after they were "famous." I like that he decided to keep his family base here because he felt that was the best way to keep his family grounded and focused.

[kayte]

I just received an email from the DNC.. here is a portion

"As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution."

I think it exemplifies the kind of change that is needed and that Obama will bring to Washington.

Barack Obama in Bristol, VA, today: "They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party."

[DrSally]

I feel he he is very bright, positive/uniting, and not entrenched in "owing" people in the political machine, so he is open to new approaches. He seems to have a lot of integrity too. Remember how much experience JFK had when he became president.

[marit]

I used to be a Hillary girl and switched to Obama during the race. Here is why:

I was impressed by the things he DIDN"T do:

1. He didn't trash his pasteur, even though it would have been the more popular thing to do.
2. He doesn't support the summer oil tax break even though it would have been the more popular thing to do.
3. He didn't wear a flag pin even though it would have been the more popular thing to do.
etc.

Hillary on the other hand said and did whatever would get her more votes.

That tells me that the man is not selling himself out, but will stand behind what he truly believes in. He does not choose the quick tricks for popularity (such as flag pins) but rather insists on focusing on what really matters. There is substance there, real substance.

[DrSally]

I am white. My brother and I have the same mother. He is "biracial". I will say plain and simple that in this country those of mixed ethnicities are generally seen and treated as being whatever non-white ethnicity that they have. My brother is seen as a black man, treated as a black man and judged first by those he meets as a black man. It is not right, but the truth is that his experiences more closely match African Americans even though every one of his siblings and both his parents (my mother and father) are white. He is never, ever treated by new people as white or perceived as biracial. He is perceived, even by the most progressive and least racist people I know as being black before all else. He never gets the privelges that whites (unfairly) get. It is a fallacy to say that because someone has a white parent they are also white. In practice it plays out MUCH differently than that- I have seen it up close my entire life. To say that a person with a black parent and a white parent in this country is not black or African American is to pretend that race matters a whole heck of a lot less than it really does in practice.

I agree with everyting you say. In this country if you are biracial or multiracial, you are considered to be whatever minority ethnicity you are composed of. In other countries, however, it is the exact opposite. I thought it was interesting though that they put "caucasian" on my son's birth certificate when DH is white and I'm Asian.

[niccig]

I wish I could vote. My citizenship won't be processed in time. This is one election I wanted to participate in. I'll have to do that through DH.

[kijip]

Also, I don't think his speaking skills are anything to dismiss as empty words or meaningless talk. Not to get all Dead Poet's Society on you but words and ideas CAN change the world. "We are the ones we've been waiting for" sums it up well for me. Getting peoole active and excited is a big step towards empowerment of those individuals to bring about change in their own lives and their community and by extension our entire country. It is certainly an ask what you can do for your country sort of tone to me and I think we can use that community mindedness just now. We are facing serious economic issues both individually and as a nation. To say we need to buckle our belts and change our habits is an understatment. I don't think Obama offers easy answers to these issues but he is up to the challenge of addressing them in a well reasoned, intelligent fashion all while insipiring people...not a bad thing in my book. I think Obama could also do a lot to improve our relationships with countries around the globe that we should be working with on international issues. We lost a lot of working capital with much of the world these last 8 years. Obama excites me with the possibility of solutions. I won't be gritting my teeth while I vote for him in November (which is a first for me after Kerry and Gore/Lieberman!) That is a good feeling. I feel like I am voting for someone here and not against the other ticket.

[Ceepa]

I don't think it's realistic to expect Obama or any other candidate to go into Washington and shake everything up and change, change, change.

I spent a long time reading Obama's platform on his site. I cannot find concrete examples about how he plans to bring about the dozens and dozens of overreaching modifications to America he proposes.

And can someone tell me where all the money is coming from for these programs? Because he is suggesting one large, expensive federal government.

[kijip]

I don't think it's realistic to expect Obama or any other candidate to go into Washington and shake everything up and change, change, change.

I spent a long time reading Obama's platform on his site. I cannot find concrete examples about how he plans to bring about the dozens and dozens of overreaching modifications to America he proposes.

And can someone tell me where all the money is coming from for these programs? Because he is suggesting one large, expensive federal government.
Dozens and dozens? I don't get that from reading the same information. One hing to consider is that federal goverment is big and is expensive and has been that way for a long time and aguably for a reason. It has in fact become more expensive and larger in the last 8 years. Shifting money from faith based grants, marriage promoting programs (funding for which is i know from first hand exp more readily availbale than it can be responsibly spent), expensive and confusing drug benefits, tax cuts and the like would go a long way to pay for some of the things he is suggesting like early childhood education grants. It is an issue of priorities. I don't think, like you, that any canidate will be able to make a huge number of changes (people vote for change but we are actually change resistant!) but I also don't think that some change is impossible or that any canidate will make the federal government smaller in a real way. NCLB was a huge change to federal education policy, a faith based a approach to social services was a change- I don't think either party is free of big ideas. It just boils down to what set of big ideas you think is better :).

[pinkmomagain]

Marit brought up Obama's (former) pastor....I would be very interested to know how Obama supporters reconcile that whole Obama connection to Rev. Wright?

[Papa Joe]

All of the candidates are faulty and harmful to the country. If nothing else in Obama's case, he shows poor judgement in terms of the people he has surrounded himself with, he lacks experience, and his patriotism is quite definitely questionable.

Although I feel that all three of the flawed candidates are bad for this country, Obama will bring a lefl-leaning, socialistic bent to the country which will further harm our country. He is also the one that is most likely to massively increase the government's size and bring about even more taxes on our already overtaxed, overburdened society.

Out of all the candidates, he is the one that is least like the founding fathers and their views in establishing a country by and for the people.

What saddens me is that I think our country would be ready for an African American president, but he is clearly not the choice for America.

Neither are the other two! They are all bordering on very dangerous ideas with their cap and trade idea towards global warming, and any of the candidates that support universal health care will completely destroy this country's health care system, that although it has problems, is the best in the world.

The country would do well to ax all three of the candidates and find a true conservative.

I am really scared for our children. We are changing the very fiber of our country, and although it is not perfect, it is a beacon for the rest of the world. You and I are losing freedoms everyday as the clowns in Washington line their pockets and the foolish practice of legislating from the bench continues.

What we should all be insisting on is less government, less government involvement in ALL aspects of life, free trade, and less taxation so that our system of capitalism can actually thrive and benefit us all. All of Washington seems to want us dependent on the government, and a people dependent on the government are not and cannot be free. The government cannot even run the US Postal service and you want to let them run our health care?

I wish people understood the economy, and understood that the socialists have hijacked the democratic party.

I ask you all to get involved and consider some of the things that I am saying.
Why don't we have any real leaders?

[kijip]

Marit brought up Obama's (former) pastor....I would be very interested to know how Obama supporters reconcile that whole Obama connection to Rev. Wright?
I believe the whole Rev Wright thing was a total distraction. I am quite sure that not everyone on the planet agrees with every word I have heard from the pulpit, and it is a fallacy to claim that I believe every word that I have heard from the pulpit. Yet I went back to that church time and time again. Why? Because they baptised my baby, because they soothed my husband as we buried his abusive father. Things tie us to our faith communities besides 100% agreement with the minister/priest/rabbi etc. When I left, I left for reasons quite apart from the sermons. And the new church we attend is the same, I feel connected regardless of if I agree 100%. Why? Because they started a Sunday school for my 1 kid. Because they comforted me through illness and worry over pregnancy loss. Because they embrace my family and show love to my son. Can no one see why someone would stay in a church that they did not 100% agree with the leadership on non-religious matters? And a church where all agree 100% with everything the leader EVER says and think alike sounds less like a church to me. :)

Jerry Wright is from a different time than many of us can remember. I may agree or disagree with some of the things he has said, but I believe that some of the things he has said must be taken in the context of the generation he grew up in. For some whites, even the idea that we live in a racist society (which seems so undeniably obvious looking at wealth, power, poverty, incarceration rates, history) is somehow anti-white. I totally disagree with some of his ideas but i don't hold Obama accountable for his pastor and I don't think that some of the things Wright has been raked over the coals for are as bad as has been made out.

I also was impressed with Obama's reaction after Wright denounced him. I think it is one reason- that speech on race- that he is the nominee.

[Wife_and_mommy]

All of the candidates are faulty and harmful to the country. If nothing else in Obama's case, he shows poor judgement in terms of the people he has surrounded himself with, he lacks experience, and his patriotism is quite definitely questionable.

Although I feel that all three of the flawed candidates are bad for this country, Obama will bring a lefl-leaning, socialistic bent to the country which will further harm our country. He is also the one that is most likely to massively increase the government's size and bring about even more taxes on our already overtaxed, overburdened society.

Out of all the candidates, he is the one that is least like the founding fathers and their views in establishing a country by and for the people.

What saddens me is that I think our country would be ready for an African American president, but he is clearly not the choice for America.

Neither are the other two! They are all bordering on very dangerous ideas with their cap and trade idea towards global warming, and any of the candidates that support universal health care will completely destroy this country's health care system, that although it has problems, is the best in the world.

The country would do well to ax all three of the candidates and find a true conservative.

I am really scared for our children. We are changing the very fiber of our country, and although it is not perfect, it is a beacon for the rest of the world. You and I are losing freedoms everyday as the clowns in Washington line their pockets and the foolish practice of legislating from the bench continues.

What we should all be insisting on is less government, less government involvement in ALL aspects of life, free trade, and less taxation so that our system of capitalism can actually thrive and benefit us all. All of Washington seems to want us dependent on the government, and a people dependent on the government are not and cannot be free. The government cannot even run the US Postal service and you want to let them run our health care?

I wish people understood the economy, and understood that the socialists have hijacked the democratic party.

I ask you all to get involved and consider some of the things that I am saying.
Why don't we have any real leaders?

Two words: :yeahthat:

Welcome to the BBB, Papa Joe.:)

[traciann]

I believe the whole Rev Wright thing was a total distraction. I am quite sure that not everyone on the planet agrees with every word I have heard from the pulpit, and it is a fallacy to claim that I believe every word that I have heard from the pulpit.

I go to my church because I believe in the message I am receiving from the pastor and that it lines up with God's word on the matter. If the two don't agree, I would find myself a new church. I attend a baptist church, and I have never heard them endorse non religious activities such as politics which is why I am so baffled at why Rev Wright would discuss them.

I am bothered that he would sit under a pastor for 20 years and not question what I have heard Rev Wright speak about. I do think this speaks negatively for me on his judgement of character.

[Wife_and_mommy]

I believe the whole Rev Wright thing was a total distraction. I am quite sure that not everyone on the planet agrees with every word I have heard from the pulpit, and it is a fallacy to claim that I believe every word that I have heard from the pulpit. Yet I went back to that church time and time again. Why? Because they baptised my baby, because they soothed my husband as we buried his abusive father. Things tie us to our faith communities besides 100% agreement with the minister/priest/rabbi etc. When I left, I left for reasons quite apart from the sermons. And the new church we attend is the same, I feel connected regardless of if I agree 100%. Why? Because they started a Sunday school for my 1 kid. Because they comforted me through illness and worry over pregnancy loss. Because they embrace my family and show love to my son. Can no one see why someone would stay in a church that they did not 100% agree with the leadership on non-religious matters? And a church where all agree 100% with everything the leader EVER says and think alike sounds less like a church to me. :)

Jerry Wright is from a different time than many of us can remember. I may agree or disagree with some of the things he has said, but I believe that some of the things he has said must be taken in the context of the generation he grew up in. For some whites, even the idea that we live in a racist society (which seems so undeniably obvious looking at wealth, power, poverty, incarceration rates, history) is somehow anti-white. I totally disagree with some of his ideas but i don't hold Obama accountable for his pastor and I don't think that some of the things Wright has been raked over the coals for are as bad as has been made out.

I also was impressed with Obama's reaction after Wright denounced him. I think it is one reason- that speech on race- that he is the nominee.

You know, I get that some might think it was a smear campaign. I think it's one thing to disagree with an inconsequential spiritual belief or how a church is being run. IMO, it's a completely different animal to be spouting the *racist* comments he did. I am quite sure that if Rev. W was white and his comments were re: blacks, this story would have been perceived differently. I find it amazing that those who would be up in arms if the situation were reversed see nothing wrong with his statements.

And FTR, I'm one who believes that there are racists in our society. That doesn't mean, though that our society is racist. We all have opp'ties even if some more than others. I don't begrudge others having parents who were able to give them opportunities I didn't have because mine were illiterate immigrants. IMO, just thinking about what my life would be like if I were in Cuba with outhouses and little food to feed my children is enough for me to count myself immensely privileged compared to those in other countries.

[Sugar Magnolia]

All of the candidates are faulty and harmful to the country. If nothing else in Obama's case, he shows poor judgement in terms of the people he has surrounded himself with, he lacks experience, and his patriotism is quite definitely questionable.

Although I feel that all three of the flawed candidates are bad for this country, Obama will bring a lefl-leaning, socialistic bent to the country which will further harm our country. He is also the one that is most likely to massively increase the government's size and bring about even more taxes on our already overtaxed, overburdened society.

Out of all the candidates, he is the one that is least like the founding fathers and their views in establishing a country by and for the people.

What saddens me is that I think our country would be ready for an African American president, but he is clearly not the choice for America.

Neither are the other two! They are all bordering on very dangerous ideas with their cap and trade idea towards global warming, and any of the candidates that support universal health care will completely destroy this country's health care system, that although it has problems, is the best in the world.

The country would do well to ax all three of the candidates and find a true conservative.

I am really scared for our children. We are changing the very fiber of our country, and although it is not perfect, it is a beacon for the rest of the world. You and I are losing freedoms everyday as the clowns in Washington line their pockets and the foolish practice of legislating from the bench continues.

What we should all be insisting on is less government, less government involvement in ALL aspects of life, free trade, and less taxation so that our system of capitalism can actually thrive and benefit us all. All of Washington seems to want us dependent on the government, and a people dependent on the government are not and cannot be free. The government cannot even run the US Postal service and you want to let them run our health care?

I wish people understood the economy, and understood that the socialists have hijacked the democratic party.

I ask you all to get involved and consider some of the things that I am saying.
Why don't we have any real leaders?

Another Yeah That! And...are you my dh?

[DrSally]

I don't think it's realistic to expect Obama or any other candidate to go into Washington and shake everything up and change, change, change.

I spent a long time reading Obama's platform on his site. I cannot find concrete examples about how he plans to bring about the dozens and dozens of overreaching modifications to America he proposes.

And can someone tell me where all the money is coming from for these programs? Because he is suggesting one large, expensive federal government.

I do agree change can be slow, but if you want to look at the difference a president can make, look at 7 years of Bush has done to this country.

[KBecks]

Marit brought up Obama's (former) pastor....I would be very interested to know how Obama supporters reconcile that whole Obama connection to Rev. Wright?

The Tony Rezko connection is another, perhaps more relevant, concern.

[MelissaTC]

All of the candidates are faulty and harmful to the country. If nothing else in Obama's case, he shows poor judgement in terms of the people he has surrounded himself with, he lacks experience, and his patriotism is quite definitely questionable.

Although I feel that all three of the flawed candidates are bad for this country, Obama will bring a lefl-leaning, socialistic bent to the country which will further harm our country. He is also the one that is most likely to massively increase the government's size and bring about even more taxes on our already overtaxed, overburdened society.

Out of all the candidates, he is the one that is least like the founding fathers and their views in establishing a country by and for the people.

What saddens me is that I think our country would be ready for an African American president, but he is clearly not the choice for America.

Neither are the other two! They are all bordering on very dangerous ideas with their cap and trade idea towards global warming, and any of the candidates that support universal health care will completely destroy this country's health care system, that although it has problems, is the best in the world.

The country would do well to ax all three of the candidates and find a true conservative.

I am really scared for our children. We are changing the very fiber of our country, and although it is not perfect, it is a beacon for the rest of the world. You and I are losing freedoms everyday as the clowns in Washington line their pockets and the foolish practice of legislating from the bench continues.

What we should all be insisting on is less government, less government involvement in ALL aspects of life, free trade, and less taxation so that our system of capitalism can actually thrive and benefit us all. All of Washington seems to want us dependent on the government, and a people dependent on the government are not and cannot be free. The government cannot even run the US Postal service and you want to let them run our health care?

I wish people understood the economy, and understood that the socialists have hijacked the democratic party.

I ask you all to get involved and consider some of the things that I am saying.
Why don't we have any real leaders?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Us socialists will vote for Obama. ;)

[Laurel]

Ditto to that, Melissa. :)

As for Rev. Wright, I'm sure I am in the minority, but his statements (in context of the larger sermon, not as mere soundbites) did not bother me at all.

I could care less about who wears flag pins, who was proud of America when, etc., but I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. That does not mean that I am always proud of every thing we do here. Patriotism comes in many forms and expressions, which is one of the greatest things about the United States. I have no doubt that Obama, McCain and Clinton are all true patriots. They have all devoted their lives to serving this country (albeit combined with the pursuit of personal power).

Is the BBB purple project group still active?

[elliput]

Unfortunately for you, Papa Joe, no sufficient candidate stepped up to the plate this time around. And at this point, the political process has run its course, so what you are saying we should do amounts to anachary and a complete disregard for the traditions of this country.

I suggest since you feel so strongly about how things have played out that you put your money and actions where your mouth and start looking either for the ideal conversative candidate for 2012 or become that person yourself.

[KBecks]

Is the BBB purple project group still active?

No it's not. It was closed for lack of activity about a year ago, I think?

It was very difficult to have neutral political discussions online with participation from both camps. Online communication is difficult to begin with, there were misunderstandings and misinterpretations at times on issues that people felt very strongly about and it was challenging to make connections. As much as everyone wanted to find conversations where people could come together, it was very difficult and we weren't totally successful at giving up our own personal hot button topics and strongly held beliefs on what are often divisive issues.

I'm glad we tried it, I enjoyed talking to a lot of the people there and miss that part of it. But it clear that it didn't really work out as hoped.

ETA: As far as I know BBB Progressives is still active.

[kijip]

Is the BBB purple project group still active?

No, it is not. We did not have enough conservatives to keep it going.

[kijip]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Us socialists will vote for Obama. ;)

And us free market sorta Keynesian liberals will too! :)

[Ceepa]

And at this point, the political process has run its course, so what you are saying we should do amounts to anachary and a complete disregard for the traditions of this country.


Curious what this means. If you're talking about Papa Joe saying we should ax all three candidates and find another at this point in the process I think he was being facetious.

[maestramommy]

Marit brought up Obama's (former) pastor....I would be very interested to know how Obama supporters reconcile that whole Obama connection to Rev. Wright?

I think in the beginning it was quite interesting, and I think Obama's great speech in Philly left me in no doubt that he is the right one for president. After that it was just a silly distraction. I mean, could he make it any clearer how he felt about the remarks? Of course, then Rev. Wright had to go make things even messier, so at that point I think it was correct of Obama to leave his church. When you've invested so many years in a faith community, you don't make the decision to leave lightly. It's very hard, and even when you do, you leave behind broken relationships. I think people who couldn't understand why he didn't just denounce the Rev. from the beginning don't understand the complexity of emotional ties in a church, esp. an ethnic church.

[kijip]

I go to my church because I believe in the message I am receiving from the pastor and that it lines up with God's word on the matter. If the two don't agree, I would find myself a new church. I attend a baptist church, and I have never heard them endorse non religious activities such as politics which is why I am so baffled at why Rev Wright would discuss them.

I am bothered that he would sit under a pastor for 20 years and not question what I have heard Rev Wright speak about. I do think this speaks negatively for me on his judgement of character.
So then what of Dr. King? Seriously, churches in this country comprised of Black parishioners have always addressed social issues, which are both spiritual (God is not racist and loves you regardless of what the laws or actions around you say) and political (you should be allowed to live in peace and freedom). I am quite sure that King's sermons were political at times. :) At one point he said that America was founded on genocide and he also said that America was the largest source of violence in the world.

[elliput]

He states that all three are harmful to the country (I am guessing Mrs. Clinton is included in this as she has not officially stepped aside), and that all three should be axed (figuratively is how I read this). However, all of the states have had the opportunity to participate in a primary or caucus (unfortunately, MI and FL democratic primaries were flawed, but that has been resolved by the DNC). Our country has a long standing traditional political process, and to "ax" the potential candidates at this point is nothing short of a government coup (in my opinion of course). The very idea shows a complete disrespect for the Constitution.

[kijip]

As for Rev. Wright, I'm sure I am in the minority, but his statements (in context of the larger sermon, not as mere soundbites) did not bother me at all.

I could care less about who wears flag pins, who was proud of America when, etc., but I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. That does not mean that I am always proud of every thing we do here. Patriotism comes in many forms and expressions, which is one of the greatest things about the United States. I have no doubt that Obama, McCain and Clinton are all true patriots. They have all devoted their lives to serving this country (albeit combined with the pursuit of personal power).



:yeahthat:

[maestramommy]

So then what of Dr. King? Seriously, churches in this country comprised of Black parishioners have always addressed social issues, which are both spiritual (God is not racist and loves you regardless of what the laws or actions around you say) and political (you should be allowed to live in peace and freedom). I am quite sure that King's sermons were political at times. :)

Amen to that! (no pun intended). Dh and I were talking about this last night. People have different ideas on what you're supposed to go to church for. Some people in my congregation feel that it's a comfortable place to go to worship, be fed spritually, and be encouraged. The idea of bringing controversial ideas to the pulpilt makes them very uncomfy, they feel it doesn't belong. Sorry, I think you go to church to worship God, and to be convicted/exhorted to live more like Jesus. And that means sometimes you will be feeling uncomfortable. And sometimes you might think the pastor has gone nuts. But it forces you to think, to search inside yourself, and to discuss. Growth of any kind, including spiritual growth, isn't possible without it.

It's important to remember that ethnic churches, particularly with congregations of formerly oppressed peoples, have a big component of "liberation theology." It is impossible to separate the spiritual from the political. It's not right or wrong, just different.

[kijip]

You know, I get that some might think it was a smear campaign. I think it's one thing to disagree with an inconsequential spiritual belief or how a church is being run. IMO, it's a completely different animal to be spouting the *racist* comments he did. I am quite sure that if Rev. W was white and his comments were re: blacks, this story would have been perceived differently. I find it amazing that those who would be up in arms if the situation were reversed see nothing wrong with his statements.



Much of what he has said that has been called racist is really just critical of America. I don't consider it racist to disagree with American policies abroad. Rev. Wright is a veteran, a man that served this country for 6 years. A man that made a tremendous impact on his community and grew a very large church and is a deeply religious man. He has a right to agree or disagree with Obama, with current or past American policy or anything else of his choosing. What I find objectionable is that instead of disagreeing with someone like Wright here and there, we find it necessary to villify them and their entire life's work.

[Puddy73]

I believe the whole Rev Wright thing was a total distraction. I am quite sure that not everyone on the planet agrees with every word I have heard from the pulpit, and it is a fallacy to claim that I believe every word that I have heard from the pulpit. Yet I went back to that church time and time again. Why? Because they baptised my baby, because they soothed my husband as we buried his abusive father. Things tie us to our faith communities besides 100% agreement with the minister/priest/rabbi etc. When I left, I left for reasons quite apart from the sermons. And the new church we attend is the same, I feel connected regardless of if I agree 100%. Why? Because they started a Sunday school for my 1 kid. Because they comforted me through illness and worry over pregnancy loss. Because they embrace my family and show love to my son. Can no one see why someone would stay in a church that they did not 100% agree with the leadership on non-religious matters? And a church where all agree 100% with everything the leader EVER says and think alike sounds less like a church to me. :)

I usually avoid the political discussions, but wanted to chime in and agree with Katie on this point. The pastor's weekly 20 minute sermon is actually a very small portion of the reason that I love our church. I love the support that our family receives, the wonderful community outreach programs that the church sponsors, the wonderful youth group and the music program. There are many, many aspects to worship and a spiritual community. We've had pastors come and go, and I've liked (and agreed with) some more than others, but the bottom line is that I'm a member of the CHURCH, not a disciple of the current pastor. I was very impressed with Obama's handling of the situation.

[Ceepa]

He states that all three are harmful to the country (I am guessing Mrs. Clinton is included in this as she has not officially stepped aside), and that all three should be axed (figuratively is how I read this). However, all of the states have had the opportunity to participate in a primary or caucus (unfortunately, MI and FL democratic primaries were flawed, but that has been resolved by the DNC). Our country has a long standing traditional political process, and to "ax" the potential candidates at this point is nothing short of a government coup (in my opinion of course). The very idea shows a complete disrespect for the Constitution.

Again, I'm don't mean to speak for another poster, but my interpretation of the post was he doesn't feel strong advocacy for any of the candidates or their positions. I don't think he was suggesting a "coup" nor was he being disrespectful of the Constitution.

[maestramommy]

All of the candidates are faulty and harmful to the country. If nothing else in Obama's case, he shows poor judgement in terms of the people he has surrounded himself with, he lacks experience, and his patriotism is quite definitely questionable.


Neither are the other two! They are all bordering on very dangerous ideas with their cap and trade idea towards global warming, and any of the candidates that support universal health care will completely destroy this country's health care system, that although it has problems, is the best in the world.

The country would do well to ax all three of the candidates and find a true conservative.

Ceepa, Reading the above statements, I think it's a serious understatement to say he doesn't feel strong advocacy for any of the candidates.

[brittone2]

I usually avoid the political discussions, but wanted to chime in and agree with Katie on this point. The pastor's weekly 20 minute sermon is actually a very small portion of the reason that I love our church. I love the support that our family receives, the wonderful community outreach programs that the church sponsors, the wonderful youth group and the music program. There are many, many aspects to worship and a spiritual community. We've had pastors come and go, and I've liked (and agreed with) some more than others, but the bottom line is that I'm a member of the CHURCH, not a disciple of the current pastor. I was very impressed with Obama's handling of the situation.


I'm not actively attending a specific church right now, but I think the point above is well said.

Trinity (the Church Obama attended) was known for tremendous outreach efforts in feeding the homeless, setting up after school programs for disadvantaged youth, etc. It is a highly active church and really seems to have served that community well. I think the social programs and involvement at that church were part of Obama's attraction to it.

In terms of Rev. Wright, while controversial, frankly I think the man made some good points in the greater context of his sermons vs. soundbites. (now the Press Club appearance, etc. was a whole different ballgame IMO). I also do not pretend to know what it is like to be an African American in America. DH and I often discuss how people's memories are really quite short. It wasn't that long ago that segregation was a day to day reality. Yes, there may be anger and charged remarks from Rev. Wright, but honestly, unless I lived it personally, I"m not sure I am qualified to comment on whether African Americans should or shouldn't be preaching Liberation Theology.

I personally think Obama handled the situation the best he possibly could. No church on this earth is without flaws, and no pastor is either IMO.

[ellies mom]

The Tony Rezko connection is another, perhaps more relevant, concern.

Rezko didn't just limit himself to Democrats, he also co-chaired a multi-megamillion dollar fundraiser for George Bush. Barack Obama donated the money to charity. What did the the other people do?

I think you would be hard pressed to find a politician that doesn't have a "friend" with a few skeletons. Why are you holding him to a higher standard?

[pinkmomagain]

Just wanted to say hank you all for responding so far....especially the Rev. Wright issue. I am not a church goer or worshiper at all, so all of your perspectives really help get some understanding of what you get out of church and Obama's relationship with that particular church/pastor.

This thread is opening my mind up to alot of different ideas and I appreciate everyone's viewpoint.

[KBecks]

Rezko didn't just limit himself to Democrats, he also co-chaired a multi-megamillion dollar fundraiser for George Bush. Barack Obama donated the money to charity. What did the the other people do?

I think you would be hard pressed to find a politician that doesn't have a "friend" with a few skeletons. Why are you holding him to a higher standard?

I am on the fence as to whether this is a big concern or a little one. If it weren't for buying the land next to Obama's house and then selling the land back to Obama, I'd have no issue with it. It's that he was involved in Obama's personal property purchase, right after Obama was elected to US Senate, that gives the impression they might have been quite cozy, indeed. Obama says it was a mistake. Of course he'll say that now that it doesn't look very pretty. I hope he learned something from it about getting too close to the wrong sorts of people, people who might like to influence, aka, buy him. I think it was a real dumb move on his part, for such a smart man.

I think it may speak to his integrity. Obama has this pure as snow image. He's a real human like everyone else and this is a fairly concerning blemish on his record.

If he were the perfect candidate, I think he wouldn't have felt he needed to buy a fancy house after being elected to US Senate. Or he would have bought a house that he could easily afford without that kind of help / favor from a person who is a real skank. I'm sure Obama knew that Rezko was a bit of a skank. I don't think he's that naive. (And if he is naive, that's a potential problem too. He's going to have a lot, a lot of people who want to push him around in the presidency, even members of his own party in congress.)

It's just part of the whole picture, and I think it's notable enough for people to be aware of as they evaluate the candidates.

[kijip]

I am on the fence as to whether this is a big concern or a little one. If it weren't for buying the land next to Obama's house and then selling the land back to Obama, I'd have no issue with it.

IIRC, he sold Obama back ten feet and then Rezko's wife sold the rest of the property for a profit. And he did not get a deal on the house itself- it had been on the market for months and months.

[KBecks]

IIRC, he sold Obama back ten feet and then Rezko's wife sold the rest of the property for a profit. And he did not get a deal on the house itself- it had been on the market for months and months.

Still, he got into bed with Rezko by having Rezko's purchase the land at the same time so that he could get the house he wanted, because the owner wouldn't sell them separately. That's getting very close and personal when you mix your personal financial dealings with a campaign contributor. (And a man who is now a convicted felon for buying and selling influence with other politicians.)

I wish he hadn't done that, and I do think it says something about Obama that he would use the Rezkos money to swing his home purchase.

For reference, here's a link to an article that has lots of detail about the facts and an interview w/Obama about it.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article#

[ellies mom]

Still, he got into bed with Rezko by having Rezko's purchase the land at the same time so that he could get the house he wanted, because the owner wouldn't sell them separately. That's getting very close and personal when you mix your personal financial dealings with a campaign contributor. (And a man who is now a convicted felon for buying and selling influence with other politicians.)

I wish he hadn't done that, and I do think it says something about Obama that he would use the Rezkos money to swing his home purchase.

For reference, here's a link to an article that has lots of detail about the facts and an interview w/Obama about it.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article#

I read the same article and I'm really not seeing the same thing you did. How did Obama use Reskos money to swing his house purchase?

[KBecks]

Obama wouldn't have been able to buy the house without getting someone else to buy the land at the same time, and he approached the Reskos about doing the deal. I see this as asking a friend who is a political contributor (and now convicted felon) to do your family a favor. It's mixing up what should be a purely personal transaction with a political "friend".

It may not be a big deal for some people. I wish he had not mixed his personal finances with Tony Rezko. Ideally, he would have bought a house without needing to go out and get a favor from someone. And, it's not like asking your mom or dad or family member to help you out with a down payment. It's about Obama, a newly elected United States Senator soliciting assistance from a wealthy political wheeler-dealer type to get the house he wanted.

I can understand Obama wanting to move to a new house in order to have privacy for his family. But he should have bought a house totally on his own without getting mixed-up with Tony Rezko.

[kijip]

But I think what is key with the house issue is that he admits buying the 10 feet was a mistake AND that he has in fact never done anything as an elected official to advance Rezko's interests (in fact he opposed a casino Rezko was interested in investing in).

Also, Rezko is a real estate developer. Him purchasing an empty lot in a desirable area of a major city makes sense for him rather than merely ONLY being a favor. The fact that the lot alone had another bid makes it clear that the Obamas could have swung the purchase alone. I suppose that is why I don't see a *huge* issue here.

[ellies mom]

Obama wouldn't have been able to buy the house without getting someone else to buy the land at the same time.

How do you figure?

[KBecks]

But I think what is key with the house issue is that he admits it was a mistake AND that he has in fact never done anything as an elected official to advance Rezko's interests (in fact he opposed a casino Rezko was interested in investing in).

Also, Rezko is a real estate developer. Him purchasing an empty lot in a desirable area of a major city makes sense for him rather than merely ONLY being a favor. The fact that the lot alone had another bid makes it clear that the Obamas could have swung the purchase alone. I suppose that is why I don't see a *huge* issue here.

Now that Rezko is going to jail Obama probably doesn't have to worry about returning any favors. Rezko's influence with Obama may not be as obvious as getting a certain legislation acted upon as much as other little things.

I think Rezko only did the deal because Obama solicited his help. Sure he's a developer, but Obama actively asked for this favor.

Good point about another bid on the land. I don't think we know if that bid was a bid that would have been accepted or not. It's unclear whether Obama would have gotten the house w/o the Rezko help.

It's not the greatest politician behavior. Goodness knows it's not the most offensive politician behavior we've ever seen, but it's definitely not good. I would be disappointed if someone I was supporting did something similar.

Straying off topic, I heard this commentary the other day about politicians going to Washington earning $100k something a year, and leaving Washington multi-millionaires, because... well, they get things from people. The comment had nothing to do with Obama but this Rezko deal kind of fits that in my opinion. Obama has this perception of being fresh and perfect and so different from the typical politician, that to see this back-patting from a crony is a bummer.

[kijip]

Now that Rezko is going to jail Obama probably doesn't have to worry about returning any favors. Rezko's influence with Obama may not be as obvious as getting a certain legislation acted upon as much as other little things.



Well, Rezko was one of his first political contributors in 1995 and in all those years in the IL legislature, Obama was not found to be doing Rezko favors. And as all of Rezko's actual crimes went on, Rezko was busy raising money on both sides of the aisle.

I don't think it is a great thing to do, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it is as bad as some have made it out to be. Especially since the lot was actually bid on at the same price Rezko paid and was in fact listed separately by the seller, laying to rest any issues that the house was ONLY in his reach because of Rezko. I would hope that Obama has learned his lesson here, in fact I am quite sure he has.

And if the McCain campaign wants to make an issue of this I have two words: Keating Five. To which I would also say McCain rightfully learned a lesson. Politicians are not perfect, in fact I think most consider them to generally be less perfect than many. :ROTFLMAO:

[StantonHyde]

ummm, a small plot of property is NOT a big deal. Giving your buddies at Halliburton uncontested government contracts for billions of dollars is a big deal.

What is truly awesome about this election is that more people are getting involved. There was a good article in our paper about people who were going to vote for the first time in a long time because this election will not be "more of the same". I have deep respect for John McCain, but his views are not in line with mine. I can live/work/worship with people who have different views, but I will vote for a President who can represent me.

The biracial is interesting. Look at Tiger Woods. His mother is not black and I think his dad is biracial, too (??). He has really had to make a POINT out of telling the media that he does not consider himself to be African American, that he respects all aspects of his heritage, and he wasn't raised by JUST his dad.

As for faith. Well, I'm a good example. I was raised Episcopalian. While living in Pennsylvania I found it very difficult to handle the conservative nature of that diocese. I went to a Quaker college and switched to attending Quaker meeting (and eventually becoming a member). I am not a complete pacifist--but I agree with the peace message. When I moved to Utah the Quaker meeting I found was small (gee, who would have thunk :p ) and dominated by a few individuals. I stopped going because they did not have a good youth program (it was all older adults) and went back to the Episcopal Church here because it is a very liberal change agent in Utah. But I still have difficulty attending services and having to read prayers from a book. I still feel much more spiritual in a setting where God is welcomed to speak through anyone, not just a clergy member. Some religions are more pastor based and others are more institution based.

I have an MA in Latin American/International Political Economy. Latin America is a very good example of a religious institution working for the wealthy. Liberation Theology was needed there. I truly believe that churches should be a forum for social change. And, in fact, most religious institutions are--Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, other Protestants etc etc issue their views on political issues or fund certain programs.

I am very happy to live in a country where we can have these discussions and where, even in the 2000 mess, we have orderly government transitions.

[KBecks]

I don't think it is a great thing to do, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it is as bad as some have made it out to be. Especially since the lot was actually bid on at the same price Rezko paid and was in fact listed separately by the seller, laying to rest any issues that the house was ONLY in his reach because of Rezko. I would hope that Obama has learned his lesson here, in fact I am quite sure he has.


If he could have done the deal anyway, I wonder why Obama bothered to get Rezko involved at all? I don't get why he would ask for that.

I hope Obama has learned from the experience as well. I think it was a dumb thing to do. I mean, isn't political integrity 101 keeping your transactions corruption-free? It just looks bad, and he should have had the foresight to understand that.

[kijip]

If he could have done the deal anyway, I wonder why Obama bothered to get Rezko involved at all? I don't get why he would ask for that.


I don't think we specifically know that he did ask him to buy it. All we know for certain is that he mentioned the property to Rezko. This is a guy he had a relationship with for years- having dinner a couple times a year etc. Mentioning his real estate plans does not seem so out of line, especially if he was approaching a friend that was a developer to seek an opinion. Who at the time was not under as big a cloud. What I think was more of a mistake than the original purchase was buying back the 10 feet, well after the indictment of Rezko- that looks like a favor because why the hell would a developer sell a section of a plot making it less suitable for development? I see plausible explanations for the house purchase, not so much the 10 feet. Anyhoo, I have to agree with StantonHyde and say this misconduct seems very small. Besides if it were illegal, it seems Obama would have been made a target of the investigation, something that did not happen at any point in time. Also at what point in time does a person's vote get swayed by an issue like this? If I don't vote for Obama because of this, I can vote for...McCain. Let's just say the sun would have to fall from the sky before that would happen. Would you vote for Obama instead of McCain if you found out something about McCain that was greatly distressing? Unless it was something that was truly terrible like stealing great sums of public money or shooting a man in reno just to watch him die, I don't really think so.

[StantonHyde]

[quote] "shooting a man in reno just to watch him die" [quote]

Spoken like a true Johnny Cash fan! :applause:

[Lana_G]

I was trying to stay away from it but I can't, sorry. This is not the forum where I wanted to discuss this but some of the postings made me crazy :)

I think we must leave the race question out of this all together. We are not voting as black or white, we are voting as American Citizens. Please don't forget that!

Obama is no role model, sorry. A role model wouldn't lie about his uncle liberating Auschwitz. That's outrageous and disgraceful to millions that died and all of us - the living. If Obama was an idiot making a claim like this, I'd say ok, he doesn't know history, but O is no idiot. He's very intelligent. Then he's a liar who is treating all of us as idiots who don't know history. Yes, they all lie (some more than others), but I will take a true hero who did fight for this country over someone who not only lies about his uncle liberating a death camp but also has the balls to ctitisize those who DO defend my country with their lives.

Also, a role model would not belong to a church (for over 20 years) where the leader of the church hates the country that gave all of us everything we have and everything we are. Black or white, doesn't matter to me - but please don't tell me he didn't know about this.

I'm not a republican but I can't force myself to vote for someone who I know is 1) is a liar and 2) does not care about what's good for this country because, let's face it, a President can not change economy all on his own, but he can try to make sure we live in a safe environment, and he can't do that - he's not interested. Please don't forget to consider whom he's bringing into the office with him. It's not just about experience or lack of it, it's about the entire cabinet that will make important decisions. So far his selection is very poor.

Nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Trust your gut people and don't wait for someone to CONVINCE you that Obama is the right way to go. He may be for some but not for others, and that's perfectly OK.

[MelissaTC]

I was trying to stay away from it but I can't, sorry. This is not the forum where I wanted to discuss this but some of the postings made me crazy :)

I think we must leave the race question out of this all together. We are not voting as black or white, we are voting as American Citizens. Please don't forget that!

Obama is no role model, sorry. A role model wouldn't lie about his uncle liberating Auschwitz. That's outrageous and disgraceful to millions that died and all of us - the living. If Obama was an idiot making a claim like this, I'd say ok, he doesn't know history, but O is no idiot. He's very intelligent. Then he's a liar who is treating all of us as idiots who don't know history. Yes, they all lie (some more than others), but I will take a true hero who did fight for this country over someone who not only lies about his uncle liberating a death camp but also has the balls to ctitisize those who DO defend my country with their lives.

Also, a role model would not belong to a church (for over 20 years) where the leader of the church hates the country that gave all of us everything we have and everything we are. Black or white, doesn't matter to me - but please don't tell me he didn't know about this.

I'm not a republican but I can't force myself to vote for someone who I know is 1) is a liar and 2) does not care about what's good for this country because, let's face it, a President can not change economy all on his own, but he can try to make sure we live in a safe environment, and he can't do that - he's not interested. Please don't forget to consider whom he's bringing into the office with him. It's not just about experience or lack of it, it's about the entire cabinet that will make important decisions. So far his selection is very poor.

Nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Trust your gut people and don't wait for someone to CONVINCE you that Obama is the right way to go. He may be for some but not for others, and that's perfectly OK.

Apparently he misspoke in that his Uncle was not at Auschwitz but DID help liberate a Nazi work camp and witnessed atrocities there that affected him deeply. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/501/ My Uncle has served in various missions through the military and while I do know that he flew several missions into Kuwait to pickup shot down airplanes during Desert Storm, I couldn't tell you more than that. I know what he did was brave and that he lived in a tent in Turkey and was sick the entire time. My details are fuzzy. But I am not running for President. ;)

As far as his church goes, well, the thing I love about our country is you can feel however you want to- even at church. Political freedom is a very powerful thing and I for one am glad to have it.

[MontrealMum]

I go to my church because I believe in the message I am receiving from the pastor and that it lines up with God's word on the matter. If the two don't agree, I would find myself a new church. I attend a baptist church, and I have never heard them endorse non religious activities such as politics which is why I am so baffled at why Rev Wright would discuss them.


No judgement here about what church is and isn't for, and not wanting to discuss the Rev. Wright situation further, but I think a little lesson in American History is needed here...our country was, in great part, founded by political activists, religious dissenters, and people that often spoke about political topics from the pulpit. It was commonplace (little historian pun there, sorry :) ) for the political and religious to intersect in the early years of our country. Revolutionaries and Loyalists alike have had their say, as well as anti-slavery advocates. The US has a long tradition of activism in houses of religion.

[Clarity]

I tried too, but here I am. I want to preface by saying that I struggled between choosing Hilary or Obama. I eventually went with Obama, but I'll admit to having moments of "buyers remorse". (I worry about his electability, about some of his poor debate performances, about the ability of some to let go of their perceptions, etc.) But, I digress....

I need to say that I absolutely do not believe that Obama is a liar...and I just don't think it's fair to determine he's a liar because he MISPOKE. I imagine it's easy enough to do that. Each one of these candidates deserve a small bit of leeway to make mispeak on occassion...can you just imagine how many speeches they must give? I often have to give a set of instructions to students...and sometimes....I give it so often that I forget where I was in the instructions...and yesterday's speech mingles with today's and I find myself wondering just where the heck I am in the flow of things.
And, as for the church, Rev. Wright is not the man that Obama thought he was....I believe that. Obama would not have stood behind that man so solidly if he'd known how fast Wright would throw him under the bus. '

Finally, I've always respected John McCain...he IS a war hero and deserves to be treated as such. He got a railroad job by Bush in 2000 but he's been making his bed lately with some pretty inflammatory religious leaders himself. So he doesn't get a free pass. And, let's not forget that he was one of the Keating 5. I'm not sure honesty and integrity is his strongest suit either.
For those that don't recall… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

[KBecks]

He got a railroad job by Bush in 2000 but he's been making his bed lately with some pretty inflammatory religious leaders himself. So he doesn't get a free pass. And, let's not forget that he was one of the Keating 5. I'm not sure honesty and integrity is his strongest suit either.
For those that don't recall… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five


I looked up the Keating 5 thing after Katie mentioned it and found it amusing that the other four were *cough* Democrats. ;) These scandals are kind of hard to understand with all the picky details -- it's hard to sort out exactly what occurred with Obama/Rezko, and there seem to be few details about McCain/Keating. It looks like others were disciplined more harshly than McCain, and he was not censured as others were, but it's certainly a concern. I think / hope Katie is right when she said Obama and McCain have both learned lessons about how to conduct themselves because of those incidents. The Keating 5 thing was years and years ago..... (1989) so if there is no evidence of McCain in scandal after that, I hope that means the lesson in ethics made it's mark on him.

Just as Rezko isn't going to cause Obama supporters to lose sleep, it's the same with McCain/Keating. Both are disappointing, but these are the candidates we've got to work with.

ETA: I also admire McCain for his military service and very difficult experience as a POW. It's not something that wins my vote, but I think McCain's military service is something to respect. I do think it gives him a very unique perspective on military leadership, if he would become commander in chief. It's not why I'm supporting him, but it goes in the plus column.

[Sillygirl]

ETA: I also admire McCain for his military service and very difficult experience as a POW. It's not something that wins my vote, but I think McCain's military service is something to respect. I do think it gives him a very unique perspective on military leadership, if he would become commander in chief. It's not why I'm supporting him, but it goes in the plus column.

I respect McCain's actions while he was a POW enormously. He was truly heroic to refuse to be let go due to his family ties. That took personal courage on a level I can't imagine.
For me, however, while I admire that decision, it is actually a big negative when it comes to voting him President. Because I don't think you can spend years in a POW camp and not have some psychological damage. I just don't and nothing can convince me otherwise. In most jobs, it wouldn't matter, but as President, it could make all the difference in the world. JMO.

[crayonblue]

I respect McCain's actions while he was a POW enormously. He was truly heroic to refuse to be let go due to his family ties. That took personal courage on a level I can't imagine.
For me, however, while I admire that decision, it is actually a big negative when it comes to voting him President. Because I don't think you can spend years in a POW camp and not have some psychological damage. I just don't and nothing can convince me otherwise. In most jobs, it wouldn't matter, but as President, it could make all the difference in the world. JMO.

Do you feel the same way about Nelson Mandela?

Strength of character is often built by adversity.

[kijip]

I looked up the Keating 5 thing after Katie mentioned it and found it amusing that the other four were *cough* Democrats. ;) These scandals are kind of hard to understand with all the picky details -- it's hard to sort out exactly what occurred with Obama/Rezko, and there seem to be few details about McCain/Keating.

The Charles Keating scandal was tied to the S and L scandals with Lincoln Savings. The details are not all that fuzzy and they are pretty darn shocking. Donations had passed hands to the Keating 5 and they in turn worked to ensure favorable conditions for Keating's business interest, including encouraging regulators to drop the subject. Over 20,000 investors lost their life savings due to Lincoln Savings and Loan, which was purchased by Keating's company. Most of these, like the others hurt in the 80s in similar issues following the S and L deregulation were elderly. We are talking Aunt Dottie's nest egg here. It was a huge blow to many, which directly impacted many already very modest retirements. Some actually committed sucide. I don't think McCain was in as deep as the other Senators. Only 1 of the 5 was actually censured to the greatest degree if I recall correctly. It took a very long time to bring Keating to any sort of justice, and in all he only served less than 5 years or something. I only know this because I majored in Economics, and we of course studied the S and L issues. I don't care if someone was a Democrat or Republican, there is literally no excuse for this sort of thing IMO. That said, I think Mccain learned a lesson. However, when you compare a piece of property worth less than 2 million dollars with a S and L that cost people everything, perhaps you can understand why the former would be seen as pretty darn small.

[Lana_G]

Apparently he misspoke in that his Uncle was not at Auschwitz but DID help liberate a Nazi work camp and witnessed atrocities there that affected him deeply. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/501/ My Uncle has served in various missions through the military and while I do know that he flew several missions into Kuwait to pickup shot down airplanes during Desert Storm, I couldn't tell you more than that. I know what he did was brave and that he lived in a tent in Turkey and was sick the entire time. My details are fuzzy. But I am not running for President. ;)

As far as his church goes, well, the thing I love about our country is you can feel however you want to- even at church. Political freedom is a very powerful thing and I for one am glad to have it.
Misspoke? Come on! A lie is a lie. It sounded all good and important but thank g-d there are still intelligent people in this country.... His uncle could not HELP liberate camps (hate to be stuck on this but there are no grey areas there). One either did or did not - again, history...

Don't get me wrong please, I appreciate what your uncle did and all the others who fought for and defended this and many other countries. I come from a family of many brave people as well, and I have very solid details. I am also not running for President though and that IS the point - he IS and he should know better.

As far as church goes, I don't think I was understood. Political freedom is great and I love our country for that as well, but this is totally different. It's not like Obama set through services for 20 years where this country was praised for offering political freedom. He set through services where this country was called evil and we were called murderers and terrorists. And he didn't disagree with it - he kept on coming back.
I will pray for all of us if he gets elected. That's the only thing that MAY help.

[citymama]

BTW as I recall the title of this thread is "Tell me why you like Obama" not "Tell me why you will never vote for Obama" or "Tell me why you like McCain." Since there seem to be strong views on those topics, maybe someone needs to start a seperate thread.

[kijip]

Don't get me wrong please, I appreciate what your uncle did and all the others who fought for and defended this and many other countries. I come from a family of many brave people as well, and I have very solid details. I am also not running for President though and that IS the point - he IS and he should know better.

As far as church goes, I don't think I was understood. Political freedom is great and I love our country for that as well, but this is totally different. It's not like Obama set through services for 20 years where this country was praised for offering political freedom. He set through services where this country was called evil and we were called murderers and terrorists. And he didn't disagree with it - he kept on coming back.
I will pray for all of us if he gets elected. That's the only thing that MAY help.
I am wondering if you then also appriciate Rev. Jeremiah Wright's service to this country? He served 6 years and recieved a personal thanks for caring for the President as a medical aide. Rhetoric and the comparsion of some of the outrageous things this country has done to the outrageous things others has done does not mean unmitigated hate for America. While I don't agree with everything Rev. Wright has ever said, or everything Obama has ever said for that matter, I truly think that when taken in the context many of the points he made were valid and no more inflammatory than some of what Dr. King said. Heck I think many here would have a hard time picking out a list of quotes from King and Wright on the topic of America and violence as being from one or the other. King gave speeches that literally could have been given in 2003 without any serious changes about our foreign policy that were *anything* but positive towards America. I wonder had King lived if all here that think Wright is one step this side of evil would think the same of King? As a man of religion he has a great call to support the suffering, even and especially if it is his own country that helped cause the suffering so that it can be stopped or fixed in some way.

Just because I love America does not make me proud that we tolerated slavery or used the atom bomb on Japan or used napalm that burned little kids or pulled $$ support out of Afganistan and let the Taliban come to power or supported dictatorships around the world when it supported our interests economically. My belief/opinion, based on personal experience, that we live in a racist country and daily are impacted by instiututionalized racism does not make me racist or a someone that hates America. If anything, I love America because I want to see us live up to the ideals we were founded on once and for all.

[Lolabee]

Misspoke? Come on! A lie is a lie. It sounded all good and important but thank g-d there are still intelligent people in this country.... His uncle could not HELP liberate camps (hate to be stuck on this but there are no grey areas there). One either did or did not - again, history...
I will pray for all of us if he gets elected. That's the only thing that MAY help.


Wow.

Barack Obama did not "lie" about his uncle's service during WWII. His (great) Uncle did in fact serve in a unit that liberated a concentration camp called Ohrdruf, which was a subcamp of Buchenwald in Germany. For Obama's statement to be a actual lie then either the uncle never existed (he did), or the uncle never served in the U.S. Armed Forces during WWII (he did), or never helped liberate a concentration camp very similar to Aushwitz (but he did.)

And I truly don't get your "he couldn't have helped" point either. If he is part of that unit liberating the camp, he was definitely helping, or he would have been kicked out of the military. I'm frankly shocked by your post, because it sure sounds like you are denigrating the service Obama's uncle during WWII when it is truly unwarranted.

[JTsMom]

I am wondering if you then also appriciate Rev. Jeremiah Wright's service to this country? He served 6 years and recieved a personal thanks for caring for the President as a medical aide. Rhetoric and the comparsion of some of the outrageous things this country has done to the outrageous things others has done does not mean unmitigated hate for America. While I don't agree with everything Rev. Wright has ever said, or everything Obama has ever said for that matter, I truly think that when taken in the context many of the points he made were valid and no more inflammatory than some of what Dr. King said. Heck I think many here would have a hard time picking out a list of quotes from King and Wright on the topic of America and violence as being from one or the other. King gave speeches that literally could have been given in 2003 without any serious changes about our foreign policy that were *anything* but positive towards America. I wonder had King lived if all here that think Wright is one step this side of evil would think the same of King? As a man of religion he has a great call to support the suffering, even and especially if it is his own country that helped cause the suffering so that it can be stopped or fixed in some way.

Just because I love America does not make me proud that we tolerated slavery or used the atom bomb on Japan or used napalm that burned little kids or pulled $$ support out of Afganistan and let the Taliban come to power or supported dictatorships around the world when it supported our interests economically. My belief/opinion, based on personal experience, that we live in a racist country and daily are impacted by instiututionalized racism does not make me racist or a someone that hates America. If anything, I love America because I want to see us live up to the ideals we were founded on once and for all.

:bighand: I've stayed out of this one b/c you all have made every point I would, and are doing a much better job of it, but I just had to jump in and say I have loved all of your posts, Katie.

[citymama]

:bighand: I've stayed out of this one b/c you all have made every point I would, and are doing a much better job of it, but I just had to jump in and say I have loved all of your posts, Katie.

:yeahthat:

[brittone2]

:bighand: I've stayed out of this one b/c you all have made every point I would, and are doing a much better job of it, but I just had to jump in and say I have loved all of your posts, Katie.

I agree!!

On the Ohrdruf vs. Auschwitz situation, I don't fault Obama one bit! Maybe my family is the only one that doesn't always get the details of family stories exactly right, but I always thought that was kind of common ;) It isn't as if it was an entirely made up story. I personally don't consider it a lie whatsoever.

[SnuggleBuggles]

:bighand: I've stayed out of this one b/c you all have made every point I would, and are doing a much better job of it, but I just had to jump in and say I have loved all of your posts, Katie.

Another one chiming in to say thanks to Katie for articulating what I would like to say.

Beth

[DrSally]

I agree!!

On the Ohrdruf vs. Auschwitz situation, I don't fault Obama one bit! Maybe my family is the only one that doesn't always get the details of family stories exactly right, but I always thought that was kind of common ;) It isn't as if it was an entirely made up story. I personally don't consider it a lie whatsoever.

ITA. It wasn't a lie at all. He got the name of the camp wrong, all other facts were accurate. It would be like saying your grandfather graduated as valedictorian from X highschool, when he actually graduated as valedictorian from Y high school, but you confused the 2 high schools.