Obama vs. McCain: All you need to know

[RootSkier]

So, please give me some concrete reasons to support and vote for your candidate. Si, se puede doesn't do it.

Actually, I believe I already posted a fairly long post with my reasons for supporting Obama, and also a post rebutting a few of your arguments.

I'm not really sure what you are looking for?

[YourSupremeExcellency]

Actually, I believe I already posted a fairly long post with my reasons for supporting Obama, and also a post rebutting a few of your arguments.

I'm not really sure what you are looking for?

You think we actually read what OTHERS post??? Dude we don't read anyone elses opinions, we only post our own. I thought you knew that.

[uglymoney]

Easy junior.

If you weren't so quick to judge me as a fox news watcher, and I'm assuming you'd drop your favorite buzzword neocon, you'd see I had an honest question about what he defines his brand of "Change" to be. No where in there did I even come close to mentioning inexperience.

The problem with people like you is that if anyone questions your guy, you instantly lump them in a large, all-encompassing group of people that you perceive hate you and your guy. Breathe, then post.

Tone down the vitriol and maybe then someone can have a "meaningful discussion" with you.

For what its worth I think its awesome that there is finally a word with negative connotations that people can use to try to label right wingers into a corner.

Even better is watching people try to distance themselves from it. This is the second dude in the same number of days who we come to find out isn't a neocon!

Nobody wants to be a liberal or a neocon it seems God bless America!

[Albert Gore]

Gore/Myfootupyourpollutingass or at least Gore/Witherspoon. Geez, when are you fuckers going to get the point?!?!


I am the only option, THAT FUCKERS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!

Man, I need to sit down for a while... WITHERSPOON! you fuck, get in here and carry your weight asshole!

[SchralphMacchio]

For those who say Obama has no substance:

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...m/breakingnews

I watched it and I was impressed. I may be a Bezerkely Librodouche or whatever but I have not been a strong Clinton or Obama supporter ... that video helps a little.

In it, Obama comes off as: motivated and not lazy, intelligent, relaxed, and seems to make an earnest attempt to try to understand the root of problems in our country and figure out how to fix them. Even if he only accomplishes 3% of what he wants to, he comes off as someone who will at least try, and I expect that an Obama administration would be much more proactive than our reactive Bush administration.

[mr_gyptian]

This is a funny talking point. What do you think his students called him, Professor Obama or Part Time Senior Lecturer Obama?

The Rezko thing...if that could stick, the Clintons would be firing it out of a cannon.

You "want" to like him, huh?



All churches (except maybe unitarians and quakers) give me the creeps. But, it seems we still have a Christian litmus test for presidential candidates.



Actually, there were some good reasons, at least some of the time. "Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear to any reporter who asks that Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy that they designed specifically to protect abortion rights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-...e_b_84186.html

clooudpeak, you are entitled to any opinion you want, but I have to say this: your anti-Obama posts come off sounding like little more than concern trolls.

how exactly is that a funny talking point? he wasn't a professor, I don't give a shit what his students called him. He also doesn't deny it when someone says that he was a professor.

Clinton's can't cast stones because they live in a glass house.

Mehmet Celebi

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-producer.html

[RootSkier]

how exactly is that a funny talking point? he wasn't a professor, I don't give a shit what his students called him.

Yawn.


"A Sun-Times review of student evaluations from Obama's 10 years of teaching part-time at the University of Chicago Law School shows that students almost always rated Obama as one of their top instructors -- except for one quarter in 1997.

"Those are tremendous ratings, especially for someone who had a day job," Professor Cass Sunstein said. "We wanted him to join the faculty full-time at various different junctures. That's not a trivial fact. . . . If we want to hire someone, the faculty has to think they're tremendous. But he liked political life."

......

Some Obama critics say because he had the title of "senior lecturer" he should not call himself "professor." U. of C. professors said Obama -- who practiced civil rights law for a time and stopped teaching in 2003 -- could have joined their ranks whenever he wanted.

from http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...prof18.article

So, offered a full time tenured position at one of the top law schools in the country, said no, but still taught part time....I guess technically he WAS NOT a "Professor", but he was a professor, and that's what everyone called him.

Weak, weak talking point.

[Rontele]

My friend from high school had Obama as a prof at U of C and raved about him.

She also is working on his campaign.

[Rontele]

My friend from high school had Obama as a prof at U of C and raved about him.

She also is working on his campaign.

[spindrift]

Weak, weak talking point.

Just because you want it to be. No one said he was a poor instructor. No one said that he was not worthy of appointment a Professor. What was stated was that he was never a Professor. And that representing him as one is misleading.

In the world of academia, the distinction between a Lecturer vs a Professor is huge. About as big as the distinction between an entry level Agent and a Broker in your real estate business. Someone can be a great Agent. Maybe know as much as a Broker - but a broker they are not. And should not represent themselves as such - or allow themselves to be represented as such.

As a guy pitching integrity, change, transparency, etc - I'd expect Obama to be crystal clear on this sort of thing. And I'd expect him to demand the same from his supporters.

Now in the grand scheme of things, this is arguably a somewhat minor point. But added to his initial ducking and dodging on the Rezko thing (which was the equivalent of handing Obama a satchel with a half million bucks in it) and his pattern of voting "present" on certain rather key issues - well that leaves me uncomfortable.

I'm not fan of any of the current candidates. So while you might believe I've "made up my mind" - it is just the opposite. The only thing I've done is make up my mind to be open to the facts despite my hunger for what I once thought Obama was. Seriously, if any of GWBs cronies had pulled the Rezko thing - everyone would be all over them (deservedly IMO) - so why would you give Obama a break? And while you are at it, check out his team of advisors and what their views have been on key issues...

This may end up being the first presidential election in over 3 decades that I choose to sit out...

[RootSkier]

and his pattern of voting "present" on certain rather key issues - well that leaves me uncomfortable.

Actually, there were some good reasons, at least some of the time. "Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear to any reporter who asks that Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy that they designed specifically to protect abortion rights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-...e_b_84186.html

Let's just ignore the facts, though.

[mr_gyptian]

Let's just ignore the facts, though.

atleast he's not tied to any special interest groups.

what else does he do to help interest groups?

What would you be saying about McCain if the NRA publicly stated he voted "present" as part of their strategy to allow more lenient concealed and carry laws?

[RootSkier]

I would say he's a politician.

The ins and outs of creating legislation is complicated...I generally won't judge ANY candidate on a single specific vote. In your scenario with McCain...big deal. If he voted for a specific gun control measure because his constituents felt it would somehow help advance their political goals, I would not cry foul.

edit: my favorite part of this thread is the couple repeating the same weak points.

[mr_gyptian]

It's a weak point to question a politician's non-votes when they are part of not one but two special interest group's strategy to legislate their goals?

[RootSkier]

Well, we could debate that ad nauseum, but spindrift and cloudpeak were inferring that he was voting 'present' to avoid staking out a position, which in this case at least, is patently false.

Honestly, mr gyptian, politicians do shit like this all the time, it's just part of the game. And yes, I DO think it's a weak point when all the info is out there in the open for anyone who is curious.

I have no problem with Obama coordinating with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, just like I have no problem with McCain coordinating with the NRA, or whatever. I certainly have no problem with my senators collaborating with something like the Nature Conservancy. As long as they are open about it, it's up to their own constituents to decide if it's OK or not. Obviously, Obama felt he was working for his Chicago constituents in trying to advance pro choice legislation, or at least limit anti-choice legislation. BFD, it's the whole point of the game.

[spindrift]

Well, we could debate that ad nauseum, but spindrift and cloudpeak were inferring that he was voting 'present' to avoid staking out a position, which in this case at least, is patently false...

You are wrong. The entire point of said "strategy" is to claim support out of one side of your mouth and have a voting record deniability on the other. While this is a standard "game" it is a revolting part of the moral bartering game these guys play. By indulging in this approach, Obama has demonstrated that he is in no way any more transparent or honest than any of the rest of the pack. In both Illinois and DC he's practiced business as usual. Maybe worse than the national standard of usual while in Illinois (back to that Rezko thing). Hardly a model for "hope and change".

And BTW - that "strategy" was by no means unanimous among women's reproductive rights groups in Illinois at the time. More later if I have the time...

[RootSkier]

Either you are lazy or being purposely dense:

from the above quoted link:

Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear to any reporter who asks that Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy that they designed specifically to protect abortion rights. Further, Lorna Brett who was the President of Chicago NOW at the time of the votes has recently withdrawn her support for Senator Clinton and has become a supporter of Obama's campaign saying, "Barack's leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty, and for anyone to intentionally mislead voters about that fact in the days before an election is simply sad. I am disgusted that this tactic is being used against a good man like Senator Obama."

edit: upon further review, I am calling out spindrift as being deceitful if not a liar on this issue:

"Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.

And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...-questionnaire


Put up or shut up.

[mr_gyptian]

maybe Obama and Clinton, for that matter, would like to let us in on why they couldn't make the vote today on protecting the Telephone company's cooperation on wiretapping under FISA. Kind of an important thing to know since it has some teensy weensy importance regarding executive powers.

Or were they part of another special interest group's legislative strategy?

McCain was there. good or bad, he voted Yea.

[spindrift]

edit: upon further review, I am calling out spindrift as being deceitful if not a liar on this issue:

...

Put up or shut up.

I assure you I am neither lazy nor dense nor "a liar" wrt to this topic. Maybe disgruntled and depressed. And cranky. But certainly not what you accuse me of... Every candidate should be honestly challenged on real issues and their voting track records (if they've been legislators) - as well as their relevant non-legislative qualifications and activities. I and others have concerns about real issues that some clearly would like to see downplayed or ignored. And you seem to believe that fact-free op-ed pieces are suitable substitutes for facts. That does not do it for me. It is that simple. So, I submit that it is you who needs to "putup".

Regarding women's reproductive rights, here is what appears to be a reasonably balanced picture: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...on_aborti.html But note that this is not a topic where there is anything resembling the unanimity you claim. Nor is the picture as clear as you claim.

Following up on some of the info in the article cited above, here's a snippet from the Illinois NOW PAC website:

During Senator Obama’s 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As for the article you cited - note that the body is: "Sen. Barack Obama's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below." What do you think she's gonna do - paint him in a bad light? Or highlight any inconsistencies between his claimed positions and voting record?

Regarding your reaction to the things I and others have raised - I assure you that the Rove machine will hardly keep the gloves on should Obama be the nominee. If the Obama camp can't reasonably address questions about reproductive rights, Rezko, etc., etc. from the people on the progressive end of the spectrum - just wait until Rove unleashes the attack dogs. I mean, you don't think he's spending his "retirement" playing golf and fishing do you? It'll be a political bloodbath: Mutant Swiftboater Zombies From Beyond The Grave....

[spindrift]

McCain was there. good or bad, he voted Yea.

On of the many reasons he should not be President... Constitution, we don't need no stinkin constitution...

BTW - in fact Obama was there and voted "the right way" wrt to the telco immunity thing. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=2&vote=00015 Clinton's vote would not have mattered anyway -- but boo to her for skipping out & staying off the record on the immunity thing. Boo to both Clinton and Obama for ducking out on the vote on the overall package. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=2&vote=00015 It never should have passed with that immunity clause. Sure, go conspire to spit on the Constitution - we'll grant you immunity in advance. Cowards...

[3eyedsmiley]

Now in the grand scheme of things, this is arguably a somewhat minor point. But added to his initial ducking and dodging on the Rezko thing (which was the equivalent of handing Obama a satchel with a half million bucks in it) and his pattern of voting "present" on certain rather key issues - well that leaves me uncomfortable.

I'm not fan of any of the current candidates. So while you might believe I've "made up my mind" - it is just the opposite. The only thing I've done is make up my mind to be open to the facts despite my hunger for what I once thought Obama was. Seriously, if any of GWBs cronies had pulled the Rezko thing - everyone would be all over them (deservedly IMO) - so why would you give Obama a break? And while you are at it, check out his team of advisors and what their views have been on key issues...

This may end up being the first presidential election in over 3 decades that I choose to sit out...

Can someone enlighten me on the Rezko thing? I don't see where the statement that Obama got handed half a mil by Rezko came from after reading a couple of news articles related to it. If Obama actually had done such a horrible thing, you would bet that the Clinton campaign would have been all over it and we would still be hearing about it, so frankly, if his main enemy can't make something out of it, I doubt it is that big of a deal.

Also, the extreme views of his advisers on certain issues is inevitable. Just look among the people that you know. I mean, if you choose 10 of them either randomly or intentionally, you are GOING to get quite a few with some very extreme views on at least some subjects. There is NO way that you can get a group of advisers that will all have these straightforward party line ideas.

Anyways I think that his level of politicking is much much lower than the vast majority of the Congress. I just can't see how in the past 3 decades you have found someone in each of them with a higher moral ground/appeal than Obama, that would suddenly cause you to become disenchanted and not vote this year.

[mr_gyptian]

I was referencing the link to the overall vote package, from the nyt article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/wa...hp&oref=slogin


regardless, of where you vote there needs to be a stance taken especially on matters of executive power. I do not agree with quite a few of McCain's positions but atleast I know what I'm dealing with.

[mr_gyptian]

Can someone enlighten me on the Rezko thing? I don't see where the statement that Obama got handed half a mil by Rezko came from after reading a couple of news articles related to it. If Obama actually had done such a horrible thing, you would bet that the Clinton campaign would have been all over it and we would still be hearing about it, so frankly, if his main enemy can't make something out of it, I doubt it is that big of a deal.

Also, the extreme views of his advisers on certain issues is inevitable. Just look among the people that you know. I mean, if you choose 10 of them either randomly or intentionally, you are GOING to get quite a few with some very extreme views on at least some subjects. There is NO way that you can get a group of advisers that will all have these straightforward party line ideas.

Anyways I think that his level of politicking is much much lower than the vast majority of the Congress. I just can't see how in the past 3 decades you have found someone in each of them with a higher moral ground/appeal than Obama, that would suddenly cause you to become disenchanted and not vote this year.

obama/rezko

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3284825.ece

scroll about half way down



clinton/celebi

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-producer.html

enjoy, I particularly love the irony of casting Gary Busey as an organ stealing jewish Doctor. in a nutshell one of the reasons clinton's don't get too fired up about rezko.

[spindrift]

Can someone enlighten me on the Rezko thing? I don't see where the statement that Obama got handed half a mil by Rezko came from after reading a couple of news articles related to it.

Here's a short version. I'm in a rush, so if I blow any facts, I'm sure someone will correct me But seriously, please do so if appropriate.

1) Obama chose to buy a house inside a fenced area.
2) Said house was on one lot & there was an adjacent empty one within the fence.
3) The seller stipulated to the agent that there needed to be one buyer for both properties or that if sold separately, both properties had to close at the same time.
4) Both properties closed concurrently with Obama buying the one with the house & Rezko (or a family member at any rate) buying the other for about 600K.
5) Note that Rezko was publicly under investigation for the usual influence peddling, bribery, etc type stuff at the time
6) Rezko sold a strip of the property to Obama for an amount I forget -- but a small-ish fraction of the purchase price of the whole lot. Something like a hundred K.
7) This resulted in Obama having a much nicer property and the other lot in effect being undevelopable (I've heard everything from very hard to develop to no way it can ever be developed).

Result - Obama ends up with a private parklike attachment to his property and someone else ends up having dropped a cool +/- half mil to make that possible while holding a semi-useless chunk of property in the end. A chunk of property that was tended by Obama's gardener.

I'm bummed - no random people (now convicted for influence peddling - but to be clear not regarding Obama) have ever dropped hundreds of thousands to facilitate me buying a house and having a super nice extra big extra pretty yard. I feel so left out...

Check out the several years of poking the major Chicago papers did to scope this out.

Since visual aids are good -- this is supposedly the property in question (just picked it up via a quick search, but it looks roughly like other credible pics I've seen)



The explanations I've seen/heard from Obama have been, well, unsatisfying...

[timvwcom]

Hmmm...

I guess a late discussion is better than never?