Who is this Obama you all are talking about?

<p>I’m not a Democrat, but I have been following both the Dems and Republicans pretty closely this past 6 months. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is this great attraction to Barack Obama. He seems like he would make a much better motivational speaker than President. All this “politics of hope” stuff is fine, but it is all a bunch of fluff. Can anyone tell me what exactly he would do as President? Would he build a fence? Would he be willing to give amnesty? Would he raise taxes on people making over X number of dollars? Can anyone describe his exit strategy for Iraq? I’ve watched a good number of the debates, and plenty of FOX/CNN, but I still haven’t heard a single idea from him that is ground-breaking, or even a single qualification that makes him deserving of the presidency at such a young age.</p>

<p>In my view, he is just like every other politician. Side-steps tough questions, attacks opponents, etc. Don’t get me wrong, he isn’t a bad guy, but if he is elected, I certainly don’t think we will have world peace and cats and dogs will start to get along. I’m just a teenager, and I think this guy is incredibly naive. Why exactly are adults running around with stars in their eyes?</p>

<p>100% agreed. Whenever I think about Obama, I think “These are not the droids you are looking for”. It’s like he’s using some Jedi mind trick to avoid having to actually hammer out policy - hope isn’t going to solve the world’s problems. ;)</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>From the blog of Harvard Prof. Gregory Mankiw, who was the President of the Council of Economic Advisors for G.W. Bush:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Greg</a> Mankiw’s Blog: The Pigou Club watches the debates](<a href=“http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/01/pigou-club-watches-debates.html]Greg”>Greg Mankiw's Blog: The Pigou Club watches the debates)</p>

<p>From another economist, and apparently a Republican:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Legislative</a> Report » Former Bush economist on Dem debate…](<a href=“http://legislativereport.tenneconomics.com/?p=667]Legislative”>http://legislativereport.tenneconomics.com/?p=667)</p>

<p>Senator Obama is the fellow who is going to defeat Bill Clinton in tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary.</p>

<p>Oops, I meant Hillary Clinton.</p>

<p>He has a good history of working with people on the other side of the aisle, even in the short time that he’s been in the Senate. He introduced two pretty significant initiatives (cooperative threat reduction extended to conventional weapons and a transparency bill) with conservative Republicans (Lugar and Coburn). He sponsored a climate change bill with John McCain. He’s also worked notably with Hagel on terrorism-related issues. He’s currently working with a couple of Republicans to prevent massive sci/tech layoffs in the wake of funding for those entities not coming through.</p>

<p>To me, it’s one of his great appeals that he appears to know how to talk to and work with conservatives.</p>

<p>People worry about his foreign policy clue, but he’s not a complete newbie - he’s on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has talked before about phasing out troops from Iraq gradually and opening diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria - you may or may not agree with this, but it’s a policy position.</p>

<p>I don’t think the sun shines out of his *** or anything, but he’s probably my favorite of the big Dem contenders.</p>

<p>I agree with the original poster here. I’m not a teenager, haven’t seen Obama in person, didn’t hear him speaking at his rallies, but the impression I’ve got so far from his appearances on TV… there’s a lot of talk, very few ideas and what reminds me of another “candidate” of the years past, traces of arrogance.
He’s a good “seller” though, I’ll admit that.</p>

<p>Obama’s big selling point is that he will, unlike Hillary, get us past the 60s–which was really the undercurrent of all the difficulties Bill faced, and also, recalling Vietnam, the displeasure with Bush and Iraq. The 60s are over, or should be, and I think Obama realizes that the only way to get on with the future is to come to terms with the past. Forgive the sins of the decade, even though we should not forget them.</p>

<p>But he is also a man of true substance. This W Post column details that quite well, talking about how in his Illinois legislative days he managed to get through some controversial , and I think much needed, legislation. </p>

<p>[washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines](<a href=“http://washingtonpost.com%5Dwashingtonpost.com”>http://washingtonpost.com)</p>

<p>The author is correct in that the media is so involved with the horse race aspect of the election, and the personalities, that they overlook what’s on the record, and that can be instructive in how a candidate would govern.</p>

<p>I am not a teenager, and I don’t get it either. DH bought his books, thinking he might flip to the dems side, after reading it, he decided he was staying put. I have asked over and over again where is the proof that he can lead a nation, he spent 1 yr in congress b4 starting his campaign, he has no committee leadership in the senate. And what is good for his constituents in Ill. cannot be translated into what is good for the nation. I do not listen to the promises, I look at the character. If we added up all the promises, the financial cost would kill every tax payer. No candidate on either side can promise everything and deliver, remember we are a nation of checks and balances, that being said the MOC’s have a vote, so then finger pointing and excuses will start all over again. What we truly need is a real 3rd party to get rid of the partisonship (sp?)</p>

<p>If the link doesn’t work, here is the story. I hope it gives a fuller picture of Obama to those who say they just “dont get it.” </p>

<p>Judge Him by His Laws</p>

<p>By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008; A21</p>

<p>People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama’s bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.</p>

<p>Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there – and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters’ fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)</p>

<p>I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the “heart and soul” bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person’s character and ability.</p>

<p>Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced – by beating the daylights out of the accused.</p>

<p>Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.</p>

<p>This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.</p>

<p>Obama had his work cut out for him.</p>

<p>He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”</p>

<p>The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought – successfully – to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.</p>

<p>By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.</p>

<p>Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.</p>

<p>Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.</p>

<p>Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.” In other words, Obama’s campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.</p>

<p>I do not think that a candidate’s legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama’s is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama’s, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.</p>

<p>Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.</p>

<p>^^ Well, all this is very nice, but there’s a saying that goes like this: “you can’t bring Spring with a single flower”. Washington is a totally different animal when it comes to legislature and knowing the ropes. How would he perform in this new environment? Does he have a track record in Senate? What I’ve read the other day is that he missed [or didn’t vote] 38% of the votes in Senate. Is that a good record? Not implicating yourself might have some advantages, but I wonder why he didn’t vote?
I understand the generational gap and appreciate the fact that he manages to bring the young generation into the process. At the same time though, the young generation, our children, might be full of good intentions, but in the real life, you can’t manage a nation based upon good intentions only.
The reality is that nobody knows at this point how the next President will govern. All candidates sell hope and the better seller will probably prevail.
What is clear is that if a Dem will be President, change will happen.</p>

<p>Okay and Bush was a governor in a democratic controlled state senate…where did that get him…give me national experience, I know I am ready for change, but I am not sure I willing to go to an extreme, I would rather have someone who has been voting on the nat. level. Before you all place a target on me, I won’t support Romney or Huckabee for that reason also. I bought into the system that a governor had executive experience, I actually now want someone with experience on a national level who knows how the system works. The system might be broken in that regard, but I am hoping that the experience as an experienced senator will help correct the problems we are facing currently</p>

<p>First, a disclaimer: I rarely vote Democratic. I’m not a Republican zealot, but I usually find that I’m more comfortable with the Republican. For what it’s worth, I’ve spent the last nine years or so wandering around saying, “Why George W? Is this the best we can do?”</p>

<p>Bush had a credible reputation in Texas for getting things done on a bipartisan basis. For whatever reason, this skill seems to have disappeared in DC, where nearly every issue seems to have become a philosophical litmus test for – well – something or the other. If Obama’s great skill is working to advance certain ideas in a legislative body, perhaps he should be a Senator and not the President. There’s nothing wrong with that. US history has plenty of examples of great people who reached their political peak in Congress and contributed plenty to the nation. I am sure that success in a legislative body is not necessarily a good indicator of future success as a chief executive.</p>

<p>Second, I’ve been reading Washington Monthly off and on for 20 years or so, and one of my best friends is on their editorial staff. They write thought-provoking stuff, for the most part, but they are resolutely leftish, and Peters is not exactly an unbiased source. You would expect to find an analysis of Obama’s strength in the Monthly, but I wouldn’t look for a big expose on his faults. I’m sure the reported information is accurate, I’m just not sure it is complete.</p>

<p>bulletandpima - I’m sorry but I have to disagree. Someone with experience on a national level not a executive one will do horribly. His experience as a senator will be irrelevant to an executive position. He has never ran a city or state, heck he hasn’t even ran a business. This whole “candidate of change” is nothing but an excuse to cover up the lack of experience. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are reading the propaganda. the fact is that the dems will more than likely lose this election because of the national security issue. The liberals are always insisting the government should have more power through their actions and at the same time complain the government has too much power.</p>

<p>Obama is really smart. He’s a Democrat, with views and plans not all that different from most of the other Democrats. He’s not associated in anybody’s mind with previous administrations or their blunders. He’s young, reasonbly good-looking, and seems like a pretty nice guy.
(Notice that several of the characteristics above also apply to Huckabee, which is why I think he will continue to do better than predicted.)</p>

<p>UriA702,</p>

<p>I have stated that I want someone to tell me Barack has something else to offer besides charisma. I am leaning towards McCain due to his personal character and that he has proven on a national level he can cross the line. I know he has never lead a city or state, but I am sure any man who can survive being a POW can lead us through the worse scenarios that we may face… He understands the worse things that can happen and faced it with true moralistic character. He has the respect of Senators from the other side of the aisle. He does not put his family up for show and tell and will not lower himself to that level. I am proud of America, and I can’t think of someone else who will stop pork barreling, understand military conflicts, stop political 527’s and understand a line veto better than him!</p>

<p>to bulletandpima</p>

<p>Just for the record, U.S. senators have done miserably in recent presidential races. No senator has been elected to the presidency since JFK .in 1960. (LBJ was a senator, but got the top spot only after JFK was shot.) I think a lot of Americans see Congress as a hotbed of special interest favoritism where members rarely have the nation’s best interest at heart. Which is why they don’t get elected or don’t often do well if they do. Two recent presidents with House experience, Bush I and Gerald Ford, were arguably less than stellar, and about Nixon…well, ‘nuff said. Governors and later presidents Reagen, Clinton, Carter, Bush II have a mixed record—the first two with relatively strong and popular presidencies, the second two not. </p>

<p>Experience on the national level is way overplayed. It’s said that you can tell an ethical man by what he’s doing when no one is looking. Same is true of politicians. Look at their early stuff, low-level stuff, behind-the-scenes stuff. It will give a fuller picture of the candidate than everything that gets played out on the national stage. I think this is especially true with candidate we THINK we know.</p>

<p>Wash Dad – the Washington Monthly may indeed lean left, as does the Washington Post. But the facts of his Illinois accomplishments are not made up and can’t be dismissed as ideological grandstanding. </p>

<p>Just for the record, for those harping on experience–U.S. senators have done miserably in recent presidential races. No senator has been elected to the presidency since JFK .in 1960. (LBJ was a senator, but got the top spot only after JFK was shot.) I think a lot of Americans see Congress as a hotbed of special interest favoritism where members rarely have the nation’s best interest at heart. Which is why they don’t get elected or don’t often do well if they do. Two recent presidents with House experience, Bush I and Gerald Ford, were arguably less than stellar, and about Nixon…well, ‘nuff said. Governors and later presidents Reagen, Clinton, Carter, Bush II have a mixed record—the first two with relatively strong and popular presidencies, the second two not. </p>

<p>Experience on the national level is way overplayed. It’s said that you can tell an ethical man by what he’s doing when no one is looking. Same is true of politicians. Look at their early stuff, low-level stuff, behind-the-scenes stuff. It will give a fuller picture of the candidate than everything that gets played out on the national stage. I think this is especially true with candidate we THINK we know.</p>

<p>I don’t expect much of Presidents. I would like one who lies well. Other than that, I’ll go with symbolism.</p>

<p>Compared with what the other candidates symbolize, Obama is a no-brainer, or so it seems to be. I have daughters of two different races. End of story for me.</p>

<p>sorry for the double posts. </p>

<p>and yes, obama’s mixed race heritage will be appealing to many (mini?). The U.S. is not (and hasn’t been for a long timle) the overwhelmingly WASP country it once was. It may never be again. And the old, simplistic black/white dichotomy is also fading. That alone is not a reason for electing Obama, but it is another post-60s reality that Obama may find easier to deal with than some of the anti-immigration hardliners now running.</p>

<p>The Post hasn’t leaned left since the pressmens’ strike and Donald Graham took over. The Washington Monthly has never leaned left.</p>