<p>How about, “My friends…Straight Talk…REALITY”.</p>
<p>Thank goodness there is someone running who actually KNOWS what he’s talking about - and it ain’t Obama!</p>
<p>There’s been a cult around Ronald Reagan for some time, although the process of naming every physical object after him seem to have slowed down some.</p>
<p>The cult of Obama is the classic cult of personality as he has absolutely nothing substantive to offer the American people. That he would have (presumably, with hindsight being 20/20) voted against the war is not reason in and of itself for his legitimacy as a presidential candidate. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul both voted against the war, and in fact they both have longer and more distinguished legislative records than the junior senator from Illinois. Obama’s candidacy is entirely predicated on the most vacuous rhetoric this side of Mike Huckabee; “change we can believe in” and “Yes We Can!” hardly amount to serious political platforms or ideas. There is a reason that Hillary always benefits in the polls from debates with Obama; he really lacks a comprehensive understanding of the issues in a way that she does not. On a purely substantive and Meritocratic basis, one can not legitimately support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Granted, I would rather vote for Gus Hall then either, but still, as an outside observer of Democratic politics, I think the choice is pretty clear. Oh well, maybe that’s the change Obama has been talking about; no more substantive debates or policies. Just symbolism and sloganeering.</p>
<p>Obama=Jimmy Carter II. He’d probably have us boycott the Olympics in China for selling us some bad toys if he could.</p>
<p>The role of the President is first and foremost to inspire and exercise good judgement. Ronald Reagan is remembered so fondly because he could do that (at least the first part). The Presidential bully pulpit is a very important asset and s/he needs to be able to use it well. It is important for the treasury secretary to understand the details of the economy. Same goes for other cabinet members. The President needs to understand everything at some level but should not waste time micromanaging the administration.</p>
<p>Those of you who attack Obama for not having anything substantive to offer, have you bothered to look up his website for details of his positions on issues? Do you realize that no matter what Hillary or Obama or McCain propose to do, it is Congress that will decide what final shape the legislation takes? What matters perhaps is what the President is willing to veto. Will Hillary veto an otherwise effective health care bill without mandates? Or Obama one with mandates? I doubt it.</p>
<p>Maybe Hillary could become secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that you can drink Hillary’s koolAid, and yet question those that prefer another flavor:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think debates are the right way to learn the details of complex issues such as health care reform, how to fix Social Security, reduce the deficit, and so on. There’s an element of gotcha in debates as well as time limitations that interfere with a rational and thorough exposition of the issues and the range of approaches for addressing these issues, the pros and cons of each approach. If debates are not a good forum, much less so are speeches designed to mobilize and rally the troops.<br>
Clinton got lots of support from Democrats for advocating a “bolder” health care package than Obama. How many had second thoughts after she acknowledged (but not during debates, although she was asked twice by Obama) that garnishing people’s wages might be necessary to pay for her bold plan? Such, er, detail would have to be part of a multi-page proposal. Try reading it in its entirety during a debate.</p>
<p>You do realize that we have been in Germany and Japan for over 60 years right?</p>
<p>From the NYTimes two days ago…</p>
<hr>
<p>February 5, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Cooper Concerns
By DAVID BROOKS
I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her. </p>
<p>But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.</p>
<p>Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.</p>
<p>But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage. </p>
<p>On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.” </p>
<p>Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”</p>
<p>In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know. </p>
<p>But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy. </p>
<p>At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”</p>
<p>Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot. </p>
<p>The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she’s learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.</p>
<p>Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system. </p>
<p>They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.</p>
<p>Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”</p>
<p>He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there. </p>
<p>Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but it does show how the candidate reacts to the opposition</p>
<p>And what does that reaction tell us? If the details provided by David Brooks (as in post 29) are correct, would we learn them in a debate?</p>
<p>What does it tell us about Obama’s health plan or Iraq policy that he said “You’re likable enough”? What does it tell us about Hillary’s own plans and policies that she said “I’d love to hear that” about Obama’s possible answer to a question about the number of former Clinton appointees in his camp? It tells us plenty about their character. So we’re back to character rather than policy substance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The nice thing about voting in America is that I can vote for the candidate who I think will offer me something. If I feel the most important thing for me is building a city on the moon, and a presidential candidate promises to make that kind of funding happen, then who is anyone else to criticize what I value or want from a president? You’re making broad generalizations about an issue that most posters in the parent’s cafe have spent decades contemplating; substantiative is a relative term… what’s substantiative to you may not be what someone else is looking for in a candidate. Thankfully we don’t have a government that tells us whether we should vote on issues/policies or the candidate’s ability to inspire us to become more involved in our government. </p>
<p>I suspect you’re too young to realize what a different electricity is being emitted with the possibility that the days of the good ole boys club could be in jeapordy. Many of us who have posted here have been following Obama’s trajectory long before the last ten months, and base our opinions and beliefs on what kind of legislator he was in Illinois, and what he accomplished here.</p>
<p>Many of the debates held in certain states had the candidates often focus on what was important to that particular state, and sometimes including the surrounding region. For those of us who live in states that haven’t yet had a primary (and, like my own, the primary won’t come up until May), we’d really like to have a chance to see a debate between the two of them in our areas, too-- perhaps focusing on what’s important to our own states/regions-- not solely global issues. </p>
<p>More importantly, Clinton and Obama really have had only one debate where it was just the two of them. While I do think one a week until March 2 (which is what Clinton wanted) is unnecessary and would be overkill, I certainly hope they have more. </p>
<p>Obama’s strengths are definitely not in those debates, and he and his handlers know this. I don’t think he’s going to be able to refuse these debates for the long haul. That’s gonna look mighty suspicious if he keeps refusing to engage her in a debate. It will simply make him look like he’s afraid of her (and don’t think the Clintons won’t use that to their full advantage-- and I wouldn’t blame them if they did).</p>
<p>The one issue about which I am thrilled, is that they are so close, that maybe (just maybe) my state’s votes might actually mean something this go round. I’m sure folks in these other states who have yet to vote feel the same way. Not all of us want Iowa, SC, NH, and the states that voted this past Tuesday, to make that decision for us just yet.</p>
<p>
Thank you, teri. As someone who started learning about Obama in 2004, I appreciate that.</p>
<p>I agree that Obama’s strength is not in debates. Hillary has definitely more experience in that area. But I don’t recall the debates touching on issues that were particularly important in one region rather than another. And frankly, if I really want to know the pros and cons of a particular plan, I’d rather read the fine print.</p>
<p>I used to get phone calls offering me various kinds of credit cards in which the caller would read at top speed the details of the offer, the sort that are labeled fine print. I used to say I can’t digest all this, send some literature to me. That was invariably the last time I heard from those particular offers.
So it is not enough to be told in a debate what would be covered in a health plan–I want to know about costs, coverage and about mechanisms for making it happen (including garnishing wages and salaries). It’s not enough to have a plan for getting out of Iraq in a specific period of time. I want to know what the consequences might be for Irag and Iraqi and the whole region. So many credit card offers, and so much fine print…</p>
<p>But I expect that Obama will agree to some debates. But not on Hillary’s terms and timetable. Why should he give her free publicity?</p>
<p>Looks like Obama has agree to have two more debates.</p>
<p>“The nice thing about voting in America is that I can vote for the candidate who I think will offer me something. If I feel the most important thing for me is building a city on the moon, and a presidential candidate promises to make that kind of funding happen, then who is anyone else to criticize what I value or want from a president? You’re making broad generalizations about an issue that most posters in the parent’s cafe have spent decades contemplating; substantiative is a relative term… what’s substantiative to you may not be what someone else is looking for in a candidate. Thankfully we don’t have a government that tells us whether we should vote on issues/policies or the candidate’s ability to inspire us to become more involved in our government.” </p>
<p>You’re confusing perception and reality; it may be that you feel Obama resonates with some innate distrust in the Good old boys club that you feel needs to take a shellacking. Fine. That’s your opinion and you’re certainly allowed to hold it. But that does not give it any credence beyond what you’ve already said. Who am I to criticize whom you vote for? Someone whose opinion differs from yours, that’s all. I am equally justified in finding Obama’s rhetoric of change and hope repulsive as you find it uplifting. Obama and his ilk all talk of transcending ideology and moving beyond politics to just get things done. This damnable oversimplification dismisses legitimate ideological and philosophical differences as merely playing politics and not getting anything done. Change is neither a good nor a bad thing; it is inherently about the state of being different, not being better or worse. I don’t favor some change but I do other; I don’t want the change that Mao or Mussolini was offering but at the same time, I would like the changes that Jefferson and Madison were talking about. Obama cleverly smudges the lines between substantive change and mere rhetorical devices; socializing medicine is a substantive change that he is proposing, yet at the same time, his own plan (admittedly) would not cover everyone. Hillary’s plan is far more in the spirit of the plans used in Europe and would be somewhat more radical than Barack’s plan. Does that not make her suggested change greater? </p>
<p>Oh, and to those who have reminded me that the President does not make the laws but just signs them, I will remind them that he/she is the de-facto leader of their political party and therefore does indeed have legislative influence. Policy differences are important when appointments are taken into account (the prerogative of the president), judicial nominations, and the issues of commanding a standing army, making treaties, etc. because the president is the first arbiter of these powers. A president is not merely a figurehead that is subject to the will of the Congress; he is the leader of the United States of America and therefore represents a de-facto mandate from the American people.</p>
<p>I just don’t feel the Obama candidacy has anything beyond platitudes and symbols. </p>
<p>Oh, and FTR, I have followed and opposed Senator Obama for four years now and was a tacit supporter of Alan Keyes in his 2004 run for the Senate against Obama. So don’t act as if I’m merely a political neophyte whose cynicism runs from reading too much Mencken. I dislike Obama because I love ideological debates and I feel his candidacy is a direct attack on that form of discussion. It’s the same reason I hate Mike Huckabee (and why the media loves both, even with their incongruous views).</p>
<p>I unfortuneatly was one of the few passionate Rudy Giuliani supporters in America. Oh well; McCain isn’t looking (gulp) too bad right now.</p>
<p>Well, if he’s too inspiring, people call him a cult leader. If he were as dull as Hillary, people would say (as they do about her) that he is cold and/or uninspiring. The media, which has been going for the horse race and no longer covers any policy substance, has no credibility to criticize in these regards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As much as I believe Keyes would have been a disaster in Illinois, you chose your reasons for supporting him, and you do not have to justify that to anyone. My response to you was that you were completely dismissive of anyone who votes for Obama, because if we vote for him, we’re voting for someone who has nothing to offer. Returning to my Keyes reference, had he been elected (thank God he wasn’t), I could say he had nothing substantiative to offer me, but I wouldn’t deny that he didn’t offer something to those who voted for him, even if I disagree with it. You have a right to choose what moves you to vote for a candidate, but do not dismiss my right to do so on my terms; your post suggests that all those Americans have no idea what they’re doing by voting for Obama because he has nothing substantiative to offer, according to you.</p>
<p>Since it’s been decades since I’ve had any kind of history or political science classes, you probably are much more current on the political process. But you do not have the experience of living through and being financially responsible for a family, as well as being concerned about how our government’s actions may or may not impact your family and your ability to make choices for your family. It’s experience that informs your decisions (and most parents here have decades of that over you), and by saying Obama has nothing to offer Americans, you’re saying our experiences are wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not found this to be true. Example: the town flattened by tornados Tuesday. Good change or bad change? Acceptance to U of Chicago, good change or bad change? Only the most detached human would not place a value on changes that impact him.</p>