From the VoteSmart page that Lyrhawn linked. It regards a (then) proposed amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have left habeus corpus in place for detainees. I really liked a lot of what he said.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off WoW I could not believe what I heard on the Obama edition of "Meet the Press". I have no doubt now he will be on the ballot and he will be a monster. 2 months ago he was known to people but since then he has become a celebrity. In big thanks to the liberial media everyone nation wide knows and will be singing his name come election time. I'll be the first to say I did not think he was ready for president. It appears not, as stated in the above postings conseratives are even willing to vote for him. I mean seriously people the man goes to take a HIV test in Africa and the whole world watches. He's what Liberals need He's what the U.S needs
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost. Out of 169 (according to my calculations) bills that they voted on in common, here are the discrepances:
code:
HilaryVotes.Vote ObamaVotes.Vote Bill Title
N Y Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Y N Minimum Wage Amendment N Y Minimum Wage Amendment N Y Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge N Y Energy Policy Act of 2005 Y N Tax Reconciliation Bill Y N Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill N Y Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill Y N Tax Reconciliation bill N Y USEMA Amendment Y N Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 N Y Cluster Munitions Amendment
However, I do not think that politicians should be judged just based on their voting records, as important a criterion as they might be. There might be sheep and idiots who vote the same way as the rest of the people in the party. Does it mean that they should be judged similarly?
What matters most in checking voting records is if there is dissonance between what they said and how they said they voted.
But beyond just checking records, it matters what reasons Senators give for the way they voted and *how* they express those reasons. This is not merely about eloquence but figuring out what a person is really about -- the same way as you know someone from your town.
There is really no other way than instinctive judgements we have gained through experience to figure out things like vision, empathy and ability to respond under crisis. Even likeability is important. After all, if a leader is going to interact with leaders from other countries and persuade them she should at least be likeable. In my personal opinion Obama is far superior to Hillary Clinton in all these areas.
Sen. Clinton also rarely gives the impression of someone who understands where her opponents come from. People can say that everyone should work together till they are blue in the face, but it is a rare breed who understands the commonality which makes this meeting necessary and possible. Obama, in my judgement is part of this rare breed. Hillary, on the other hand, is putting on an act (as much as, in my judgement, Bush was) -- her entreaties just come out wrong. This might not matter in the small nitty-gritties of daily Senate decisions but when it comes to leading a country and *persuading* (and not just working along with) opposing politicians I think these qualities are indispensable.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far, Obama has shown himself to have real character (as opposed to the fake "I'm the sort of guy you'd like to have a drink with" character that so many politicians seem to pretend to have), an exceptionally intelligent and reasonable mind, and a conviction to not only follow a given set of beliefs but also to articulate why they are the right beliefs to have. If these turn out to be real traits, rather than political fictions, then I think that would qualify him to be a very strong candidates for the Democrats. It is exactly those qualities that the Democrats were missing in the past election.
I think an Obama/Warner ticket would be excellent. Warner said he is not running for President because he wants to be with his family rather than campaign the next few years, but there has been speculation that he'd consider running as a VP. Warner would compliment Obama's intellectualism with his down-to-earth compromising approach, and it would give a lot of Southern credibility to him.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama also has one more big plus: Some people are going to love whoever can prevent Clinton from running, if only for that reason alone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that last bit is certainly true, Tres. It's also true that Ms. Clinton has not a few skeletons in her closet.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be alone in this, but Lisa disliking a politician isn't exactly a black mark against that person for me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr- It doesn't matter whether people don't have good reasons for disliking Hilary. What does matter is that they dislike her, a national campaign isn't going to change that. People aren't going to vote for her. That might be a illogical choice on their part, but the polls don't care.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Thanks erosomniac. Well, I think I'll trust my gut on this one over Lisa's.
For me there is a slight element of "too good to be true" about him; I keep waiting for the skeletons to start popping out of his closet, or for him to be photographed taking indecent liberties with a wallaby or something. I think that that's just wariness after having gone most of my life without a candidate I could really get behind and believe in, though.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
posted
At times I think I have a somewhat peculiar nature about things like this. I don't care about seeing movies on opening weekend. I don't mind waiting to find out things like sports scores or political results (the idea of needing to call elections as soon as possible mystifies me). I generally prefer a well thought analysis a week or two later rather than instant coverage of a news story.
So, to me, 2006 isn't really a time I'm goign to be making strong predictions about the 2008 presidential elections. We've got two years yet. We haven't even had the mid-term elections.
Besides this, we have two more years of George W. Bush as President. Lord knows what that man is going to do in the next two years, but I'm willing to bet that it's going to have a significant effect on the 2008 elections. It's entirely possible that the only way a Republican could get elected in 2008 would be if, figuratively speaking, they decapitated the current president and rode around with his head mounted on a pike strapped to the campaign bus.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Gasp* You mean he changed his mind? How dare he!
In all seriousness, I would much rather trust a politician that changes his mind based on new data or circumstances than one who keeps doing the same thing no matter what.
That's just my opinion, of course.
(This was in response to the blog that Avatar linked, btw.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an astoundingly poor point against him, Avatar. It's not like he hasn't been publically acknowledging that he's changed his position. Unlike certain other politicians I could name, Obama's not saying, "I never claimed otherwise. No, really! Never ever ever!"
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
I watched a clip of Hilary sitting with Suha Arafat and nodding attentively while Suha explained how the Jews were poisoning Palestinian wells (a libel as old as the Crusades) and intentially giving Palestinian children diseases.
She was also a big supporter of the PLO back when everyone in the world realized the PLO was a terrorist group. Now she's cuddling up to the Jews, just because she needs them in New York. Feh on her.
Though I'd still pick her over Obama, I think.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Hillary is from Chicago which last I heard, was not in Indiana.
Sheesh, I said "I think" afterwards, as I wasn't totally sure if it was Illinois or Indiana, she's from a suburb of Chicago, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. No need to be snarky.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, though judging from their voting records and how they are rated by various organizations, this practically doesn't seperate them by very much.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field. A national campaign is what got her in the position she's in, and it's possible smart campaigning could do the opposite. What do you think national campaigns DO? It's not all about policy and positions on issues, hell, thanks to Republicans, it's NEVER about that anymore.
To anyone else -
Now I've heard an oft heard attack on Clinton, which I can't really disarm or confirm, that she's lying and cheating her way to the White House, doing whatever is popular to win, and that she doesn't care about anything else and can't work well with others.
Yet she has a better record of bipartisan cooperation than any other centrist liberal that comes to mind, or liberal in general (to say nothing of conservatives).
But blacwolve is right about one thing, it's at a point where people who just DON'T LIKE HER, for whatever reason or no reason, don't really care what she says. If she is for the military, she's lying, if she's against the military, she's a liberal traitor, if she's for abortion, she's playing politics, if she's against it, she's pandering to the right. She can't win, so why would she bother falsifying?
Regardless, there is something patently unelectable about her, but there's also something extremely electable about her. Whether or not those balance out is for the voters in the primary to decide. Before I vote for Obama I want to see more about his platform, which I'll see next year if/when he runs.
I really don't think I'll have to choose between them, why? I don't think they'll both run. They saw what happened last election, the nine or whatever democratic candidates beat the crap out of each other, ruined a dozen media cycles, and by the time there was a final front runner, he had to spend a month fending off the attacks from his rivals before he could get close to running against he REAL opponent.
Democrats, I think, are going to unify on 08, and part of that means that there might be 3 main candidates (too many high profile names for it to be anywhere near 8 or 9). But if a frontrunner emerges, I think the others will drop back and support the leader, and will stump for him/her. Hillary might decide that it's better to work her way up the party leadership in the Congress (which I hope to goodness she does), or she might push for the Oval.
I just hope they've all learned their collective lesson.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
I don't think Lisa said that Hillary is an anti-semite -- she just said that Hillary is oppurtunistic. So, if you push the right buttons, she will come around to your side. Obama, on the other hand, might well be an anti-semite (albeit a closet one for now). So, if and when he comes to power, he wouldn't budge from his position because he is an idealist and not an oppurtunist.
If you believe that he is an idealogue and don't know (and can't guess) his actual positions, I can see how you would be really afraid.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
An idealogue for what? As far as I can tell, the two things Obama has been adamant about are his opposition to the war in Iraq (hardly a unique viewpoint these days) and a dedication to reaching across party lines. His voting record thus far is liberal, but he has made a point to work with his opponents in the Senate whenever possible- exactly the opposite of ideologically-driven behavior. Unless you're suggesting that his bipartisan work is some sinister effort to trick folks into liking him, I'm not sure where you're getting your impressions from.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] blacwolve -
Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field.
That means nothing this early in the game. The midterms haven't happened yet, and none of the potential candidates have even announced that they are running for President, much less run any sort of ads. At this point in the '92 elections, nobody had ever heard of Bill Clinton, much less expected him to take the Democratic nomination, to say nothing of actually winning the Presidency. Four years ago, nobody had ever heard of Howard Dean, either, and he ultimately came within spitting distance of the Democratic nomination. Obama was already polling above 8% while still saying flat out that he wasn't going to run. That number's only going to go up now that there's a chance he might.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You gotta admire a guy who went against a gun control bill favored by the Chicago Police Union, and yet the Union still thinks of him as a great politician.
I really think Obama is an inteligent, interesting man, who knows how to bring folks together from both sides and get things done.
I like his criticism of legislation, its always constructive IMO and if you listen to his weekly podcast I think you will see alot in him thats admirable.
posted
I think he's a new politician who hasn't yet really got into the sights of any real mudslingers. From what I can see, politically, he's no better than many, many other Dems.
Characterwise, we'll see. That's where he can really distinguish himself, and that's where he really needs to watch what he promises and what he does.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] blacwolve -
Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field.
That means nothing this early in the game. The midterms haven't happened yet, and none of the potential candidates have even announced that they are running for President, much less run any sort of ads. At this point in the '92 elections, nobody had ever heard of Bill Clinton, much less expected him to take the Democratic nomination, to say nothing of actually winning the Presidency. Four years ago, nobody had ever heard of Howard Dean, either, and he ultimately came within spitting distance of the Democratic nomination. Obama was already polling above 8% while still saying flat out that he wasn't going to run. That number's only going to go up now that there's a chance he might.
I agree, and said as much earlier in the thread. That was just a response to what blacwolve said about polling.
It's a decent idea though to keep an eye on polling data just to see where things are going. What they largely do is tell you who has the best name recognition. Right now, among serious contenders, Hillary wins that battle, which means she has to spend lest money getting her name out (yet sadly, more spent trying to change what is connected TO that name recognition ). When Barack does announce, if he announces, what will be the reaction? If he's still polling low, announcing might not be that big of a bump, especially since a lot of people are calling this past month an unofficial announcement.
The numbers don't mean a ton, but they aren't worthless. We've spent 80 years (at least) perfecting polling data, and trying to figure out what polling data is really telling us. Pollsters know what they are doing and what they are looking for.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
Honestly, I don't know. I get vibes about people sometimes. I have all my life, and I've learned to trust them. Obviously, I can't expect other people to trust the vibes that I get, and I have nothing concrete that I can point to here.
Maybe there's concrete stuff that I'm just not bringing to mind. If you've read Blink, it's kind of like that.
I do think that he's very likely to push a heavy socialist agenda. Hillary tried to ram socialized medicine down our throats when she was only co-president, but I think that Obama will push that much, much harder than Hillary would at this point.
There's something about his body language that makes me not trust him. He's too slick. And people are glomming on to him way too fast.
<shrug> I can't give you more than that. It's a hunch. It's a feeling. But I'm telling you, I expect that it's not going to be that long before there'll be more than just that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be fascinated to see a comparitive study on the gut reactions people have to Obama and Hillary, and Bush and McCain, where they came from, what their religion is, and their political leaning.
I see Hillary and mostly I like what I see (as a whole, despite the icky parts I less than like), and I like Obama with few if any reservations at the moment. Lisa views Hillary as opportunistic (as do many others), and Obama as slick and scary. I see Obama as refreshingly honest.
Lisa, is it possible you have a natural distrust of politicians, and honesty comes off as slickness because you automatically expect all honestly to be faked?
I think Bush is a liar, many people think he is a strong leader. I think McCain is a bit of an opportunist, but people call him honest and bipartisan.
Where do these feelings and inklings come from? How much of it has to do with our personalities and our upbringing?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, is it possible you have a natural distrust of politicians, and honesty comes off as slickness because you automatically expect all honestly to be faked?
Possible, sure. Likely, I don't think so. I'd love to see a non-politician in office. Obama seems very much the politician to me, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). When Barack does announce, if he announces, what will be the reaction? If he's still polling low, announcing might not be that big of a bump, especially since a lot of people are calling this past month an unofficial announcement.
