Mental Health Vote for Obama

Parent Cafe
81

<p>Christcorp, As recently as a month ago I was in the camp of preferring a “seasoned” politician like McCain or Hillary. I had already read Obama’s book and heard some of his speeches. Like you, I “liked” Obama but I was trying to let my head overrule my heart. My reasoning was similar to yours. In addition I also figured there was no way Obama could actually win in November. </p>

<p>But then I looked into Obama a bit more and allowed myself to actually listen to what he was saying and see what he has done, see what others have had to say about him. I see a genuine person. I see someone who has tremendous potential and who has done the best you could expect of someone with his background. </p>

<p>To say that Obama has not acheived much is to ignore the fact that he was born and raised in humble surroundings. Through strength of character, brilliance and hard work he ended up at Columbia and then Harvard Law school. He went on to do some very unglamorous but important work on the streets of Chicago. His legislative record in the IL senate and US Senate may not impress you, but has earned him the respect of many of his colleagues.</p>

<p>If you just compare the absolute number of accomplishments then of course McCain has more. He has been around longer. Employers don’t always hire the most experienced or even the most accomplished applicant. They sometimes hire the most talented and less experienced applicant who nevertheless shows great promise. </p>

<p>You correctly stated in a prior post that Presidents don’t really have that much power. That is true. They don’t make laws. They don’t even need to have too much specific knowledge about issues. What they do need to have though, is the capacity to show leadership. Bring people together. Use the bully pulpit. Explain things to the American people. Coax and cajole lawmakers and foreign leaders to do the right thing. Use good judgement in deciding when to go to war and when to make peace. “Likeability” is far more important for performing these functions than experience or past accomplishments. </p>

<p>There is a reason the Founding Fathers set a minimum age of 35 for the Presidency and not an age of 50. They expected a President to possess leadership skills and to be well-liked but not necessarily have a lifetime of accomplishments to show on their resume. I think they were right.</p>

82

<p>I’d like to turn Christcorp’s refrain about Obama’s accomplishments around for a second. </p>

<p>What significant failure has Obama demonstrated since graduating from college some 25 years ago?</p>

83

<p>Lot of good questions here. However, asking what Obama’s failures are I find totally irrelevant. Everyone screws up. So what. We’re also not talking about not having ANY accomplishments, we’re talking about accomplishments significant and relative to running for president. Sorry, but I don’t find any significance to turning around that question. </p>

<p>Obviously we are going to disagree with what we consider a significant accomplishment. But to be honest, I think that this is the WORST selection for president, in my opinion, as long as I have been alive. Even geraldine and mondale and Dole weren’t this bad. It’s sad to be voting for the best of 3 when you don’t consider any of them that good.</p>

<p>The age of 35 also had significance to the longevity of people 200+ years ago. Not too many lived to be 70-90 years old. If they did, they weren’t very functional. Also, in that time, they didn’t have “Career” politicians. You had a business, landowner, etc… you went away from that and did public service. After your time as senator, rep, pres, etc… you went back to your private life. Not any longer. There are people, Bill Clinton’s a prime example, that have only been in Politics. Many of the politicians like Teddy Kennedy have spent their whole life in politics. They get degrees in law, many of them, and spend very little time doing anything with it. That is another issue all together. </p>

<p>Right now, I just feel that if I vote on the left, it will probably be Hillary over Obama. If I vote on the right, it’s obviously McCain. I can honestly say that I am not too enthusiastic about any of those choices. But I have never Not voted, so it will be one of them.</p>

84

<p>Good for you, Christcorp, that you will vote even though you do not like any of the 3 choices. </p>

<p>I am in the diametrically opposite place- I like all 3 choices a lot. Obama is just the best of the 3.</p>

85

<p>Christcorp:</p>

<p>I would still like to know what you think are the pros and cons of each candidate. This is meant seriously as you have obviously given each of them serious thought.</p>

86

<p>My support of Obama over Clinton has nothing to do with being smitten by his charisma or speaking abilities or anything like that. It’s based almost solely on my best judgment of who can win in November. </p>

<p>The fundamental fact is that the country simply must not repeat the mistakes it made in 2000 and 2004. We just can’t afford another four years of Republicans in the White House. We’re stuck in a war we didn’t need to wage. The economy is shaky and sliding downhill fast. Our own government is curtailing our civil liberties left and right. Our government is actively suppressing and subverting science to support its political ends. And nearly the whole world hates us; we have completely squandered all the international support we had after 9/11. This has got to stop! </p>

<p>So the calculus I made is who has the best chance of taking down the Republican candidate - the white woman with lots of baggage and high negatives or the black man who is an inspiring speaker but has a thin resume?</p>

<p>I thought it over for a while and decided the answer was Obama. Clinton’s and Obama’s policies are similar enough that either would make a good president. I just want the one who will WIN.</p>

<p>Obama’s got the momentum. He’s got the programs and policies. He’s got the smarts. Except for a few racists, people don’t hate him in advance. And he IS inspiring. Looks like a winner to me.</p>

87

<p>marite. You ask a fair question. I am normally a bit long winded, this answer can’t be much different. But you did ask. I’ll comment on areas that I think are important. I do find however that Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same position on most concerns. Because of that, I think Hillary is more experienced and therefor a better choice. But, here are some pros and cons I believe of each candidate. Sorry for it being long.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: These are my opinions. What I consider a PRO, some may consider a con and the other way around. Also; I didn’t list everything I believe. Also; many of Obama is similar to Hillary and sited. Therefor not necessary to restate. (Doesn’t mean I am biased against Obama). Again, I think Hillary and Obama have many of the same positions. I just think Hillary has more experience and can get more things done than Obama. I think McCain is probably the better of the 3 candidates, but there are many things he stands for that I don’t like either. That’s why this election is such a difficult one. </p>

<p>1st; CON: All 3 have views totally against what I and many experts have concerning energy for our country. They all seem to be against nuclear power and/or drilling in Alaska. Nuclear power is clean and safe. This isn’t the 1970’s. Europe, especially France, has done wonders with nuclear. If we want to become energy independent, that is what needs to be done. All 3 are a con on that one. Also, all 3 are for closing Guantanamo Bay. That is wrong. “Prisoners” are one thing, but “Terrorists” are another. To not have Guantanamo Bay means bringing terrorists inside our borders. Once here they pose a security threat and they automatically receive constitutional protection which some lawyer looking to become famous will use loop holes to get them freed. I believe in fixing problems that may have occurred at Guantanamo Bay, but closing it and bringing terrorists here is not the answer.</p>

<p>McCain:
Pro Positions: Strong Military. History of leaning left (Some say this is bad as a republican, but it makes good for getting Rep and Dems working together.) Doesn’t believe in universal health care. Supports individual rights such as 2nd amendment. Doesn’t think we need more laws; enforce what we have. For privatizing social security.</p>

<p>Pro Attributes: 1st hand experience in the military. Knows what is needed and is important. Years of experience as a senator. Involved in many bills being approved. He’s been on numerous committees and panels covering national security, native americans, environmental, energy, etc… he has a lot of experience in areas important to our country. Proven track record of working side by side with democrats.</p>

<p>Con: Weak on illegal immigration and border security. Not a good speaker. Not a lot of experience in international affairs.</p>

<p>Clinton:
Pro Positions: Has a good position on illegal immigration. (However, her stand on existing illegal immigrants is weak). Believes that openly gay people should be able to serve in the military. (McCain is against this). Believes that federal funds should also be given to organizations even if they are faith based or religious. (Many local orgs can help their people better than state and federal). Believes the answer to a woman’s choice isn’t to make abortions illegal, but make abortions unnecessary through not getting pregnant in the first place.</p>

<p>Pro Attributes: Excellent voting attendance in congress. Co-founder, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. Armed services committee. Board member on many businesses such as Wal-Mart and TCBY. Knows economics. Law partner with years of experience. While 1st lady doesn’t make her a good president, it has given her a lot of political experience and insight. </p>

<p>Cons: Wants to set a timetable to pull out of Iraq. Openly wants more taxes, more gun laws, wants universal health care. doesn’t support helping to stop genocide in Darfur. Has ****ed off too many Republicans. Will be difficult for her to get both sides working together.</p>

<p>Obama:
Pro Positions: Many positions similar to Clinton. Nothing really different. However, he has an official “No Comment” on too many positions. But he is open to gays in the military. No need to reiterate the positions. The ones he does have a positive position on are in line with Clinton.</p>

<p>Pro Attributes: Likeable. Enthusiastic. veterans affairs committee. foreign affairs committee. Private sector teacher of law, community organizer. Lawyer. (That’s about it). </p>

<p>cons: Similar to Clinton on wanting to pull out military, not help end genocide, and force USA into international environmental treaties without holding other countries responsible for at least getting to our higher levels. Putting USA at the mercy of the UN and other country’s laws and rulings. Not much experience. Voted most liberal member in the senate. (Need more of a centrist to be president). Missed more votes in senate compared to Clinton or McCain.</p>