Barack Obama, easily. From this bunch.

If Obama gets elected, I’m hoping that he can do everything for the White House that he did for the Illinois state legislature 2 short years ago.

Barak Obama is after the order of Nehors you silly Mormon liberals. Barak Obama is the biggest media driven nothing to come along since the actor Paul Reiser. I can’t wait for Obama to be exposed as the Marxist shill that he is. I don’t mean to get all up in your grill my brothers and sisters, but you all need to get a clue.

This makes no sense to me. Say you’re a Romney supporter for any reason OUTSIDE the Mormon factor. Why in the heck then would you support Barack Obama? Policy-wise, philosophy-wise, they are about as far apart as you can get. It makes absolutely no sense..

I’m voting for Romney, one way or the other. He’s the only candidate whose record I like.

Spelling check: Barack Obama

He has been my choice since I was first introduced in 2003. But, you know, I am a socialist.

I think the whole thing is a train wreck. I worry that Obama would make Iraq a worse mess than it already is, but no one else seems to be successfully wooing me a different direction either. I may just vote for Pedro…

McCain. No contest.

There’s a good chance I’ll end up voting for Obama, though it depends in part on who the VP picks are. I’ve already posted my full explanation here. ..bruce..

Agreed, Bookslinger. That’s my approach here in Texas.

Honestly, I’d vote for Obama just to get these crummy baby-boomers out of the driver’s seat. I’m fed up, ya hear?

Yeah, you guys marched against Vietnam, burnt some draft cards, wore funny clothes, civil rights… yadda, yadda… And ever since, it’s been all about you guys.

Well, you’re done. OK? Enough of your angst, your identity quest, your politics. Time to move over.

Shoo. Shoo.

Yeah, you guys marched against Vietnam, burnt some draft cards, wore funny clothes, civil rights… yadda, yadda… And ever since, it’s been all about you guys.

The worst sin of the “greatest generation” is that they parented the Boomers.

Ron Paul. Despite the rhetoric of others, Paul is the only true candidate of change. Everyone agrees upon that; they differ, however, on if that change would be good.

Justine, I’ve sent you a couple of e-mails, but gotten no response, would you e-mail me? gardnera@netutah.com It’s about that blog post you did. Or maybe it was a comment. About Lamictal.

Bill has decided we’re supporting Obama. I tend to lean on him for these decisions because he’s a much better judge of people than I, which is so weird since I notice people and watch them and figure them out, but I tend to be foolish about my decisions.

Although if I could go back, I would so take back my vote for Ross Perot and vote for Clinton. Just to be true to myself. I would regret it, but for my own reasons.

The other thing is this: At age 35, I have only ever had a Clinton or a Bush be my president since I STARTED VOTING at 18- I’m seriously not intersted in continuing that dynastic movement. Hillary is just more of the same, and I don’t trust her socialistic tendencies.

Annegb,

Bill has decided we’re supporting Obama. I tend to lean on him for these decisions because he’s a much better judge of people than I, which is so weird since I notice people and watch them and figure them out, but I tend to be foolish about my decisions.

Bill rocks!

If you are a Romney supporter, and Romney is now a McCain supporter, then are you still a Romney supporter if you don’t support McCain ?

Hillary is a socialist and Obama is not? Seriously?

Kyle M,

You make a good point, but I think supporting abortion is a pretty big issue.

“I think supporting abortion is a pretty big issue.”

I don’t. For me, it’s pretty-much a non-issue. Big political waste of time.

Wow, on this poll Obama is beating out McCain very solidly.

I would have expected it to be more of a competition.

KyleM: Obama has a lot of support from young voters, educated voters, and wealthy voters (at least in comparison to Clinton). Those demographics might explain his support within the bloggernaccle.

43. I know the demographic data. I guess don’t understand the educated voter support across the board, let alone the bloggernacle. I understand the young, naive support. I understand he guilty, white, rich liberal support. I understand the african american support. I just don’t understand how educated people can believe Obama when he says if we vote for him, all our wildest dreams will come true (except for coorpoarate America, which he plans on pillaging). In the ‘nacle, it’s the same people who castigated Romney for “saying anything to get elected.”

KyleM: Why Obama is the darling of the bloggernacle:
1) Nice haircut–and he didn’t pay $400. for it
2) He looks really good in his pantsuits.
3) He looks like he might actually survive four years in the White House.
4) His wife (STILL his wife, with no scandals clouding the marriage) is regal-looking and obviously extremely bright. (Sorry, but McCain’s wife looks like she stepped off a Barbie commercial. Does she talk? I’ve never heard her. I’m afraid I can picture her giggling, but it’s hard to imagine her talking.)
5) As Michelle Obama told Larry King, Barack took time off from campaigning to attend parent/teacher conferences. That goes a long ways for people who post the Family Proclamation on their walls.
6) He took Valentine’s Day off campaigning to be with his wife and family. (Collective sigh.) WHOLESOME RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
7) Some of us actually agree with him on the issues. I doubt anyone agrees with him 100% (I know I don’t), but on the big issues, we agree. (Iraq is the big issue for me.)
Mormons are used to boring talks. Obama does not give boring talks. That’s five points right there.
9) He has the coolest you-tube campaign of all the candidates. (”Yes we can!”)
10) He believes in “the audacity of hope.” How Mormon is that?

Margaret, McCain’s wife travels with a stylist, who obviously isn’t doing her job in a way that appeals to you. Or me. She looks a lot different from the way I remember her 8 years ago. Not necessarily better, just different.

KyleM, most high school student body presidents aren’t married, with kids, so you’ll need to work on the comeback a bit.

You sure are right, Paula. How does Student Body President at BYU sound?

CC,

I think Margaret was joking with me a little bit. Number seven on her list is her actual response.

Well, if Iraq is such a big deal, then compare the number of babies that have been aborted since 2003 to the number of people killed in Iraq. At least people in the Iraq War were fighting for something.

From the Wikipedia entry for Uday Hussein:

As head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, Uday oversaw the imprisonment and torture of Iraqi athletes who were deemed not to have performed to expectations. According to widespread reports, torturers beat and caned the soles of the soccer players’ feet — inflicting intense pain without leaving visible marks on the rest of their bodies. Uday reportedly kept scorecards with written instructions on how many times each player should be beaten after a poor showing.[6] One defector reported that jailed soccer players were forced to kick a concrete ball after failing to reach the 1994 World Cup finals. Another defector claimed that athletes were dragged through a gravel pit and subsequently immersed in a sewage tank to induce infection in the victims’ wounds.[7]
Uday used devices of torture deriving from the Middle Ages. One of them was a 20 kg (50 lb) black iron mask in which his players were to stand up straight with in the sun for the entire day after having performed poorly in a game (the players would faint after less than an hour and be awakened by kicks of Uday’s guards). Another was a pear-shaped iron tool with two handles, similar to a car jack, which he would use to tear a man’s anus open.[8]
A former Uday body double look-alike, Latif Yahia, now living in the West, asserts that Uday was unable to perform sexually without causing pain and drawing blood from his sexual partners. Yahia asserts that Uday had raped numerous women, including a visiting Russian ballerina. Yahia has since released a book, co-authored with Karl Wendl, entitled I Was Saddam’s Son.
Other allegations include:

Kidnapping young Iraqi women from the streets in order to rape them. Uday was known to intrude on parties and otherwise “discover” women whom he would later rape. Time published an article in 2003 detailing his sexual brutality.[9] In one such instance, he ordered a young woman who was walking with her husband, where Uday said her husband was a nobody, despite him wearing a uniform showing him to be a captain in the Iraqi Army. Uday then ordered his men to grab the girl, to which her husband struck Uday in defense of his wife, and was apprehended by Uday’s bodyguards. The wife was raped and later murdered, and the husband was sentenced to death for “high treason against Saddam”.
Profligate self-indulgence in an era of widespread privation. When U.S. troops captured his mansion in Baghdad, they found a personal zoo stocked with lions and cheetahs; an underground parking garage for his collection of luxury cars; Cuban cigars inscribed with his name; and millions of dollars worth of fine wines, liquor and heroin. An HIV testing kit was also found among his personal effects.[10]
Uday’s mansion was littered with sexual paraphernalia and decorated with images depicting naked women and prostitutes obtained from Internet web pages.[11]
Usage of an iron maiden on persons running foul of him.[12]
Uday beat an army officer unconscious when the man refused to allow him to dance with his wife; the man later died of his injuries. Uday also shot and killed an army officer who did not salute him.[13]
Uday purchased or stole approximately 1,200 luxury vehicles, including a Rolls-Royce Corniche valued at over $200,000. Uday is reported to have arrived at a polling station during a referendum on his father’s regime in a pink Rolls-Royce.[14]

I suspect LDS people like Obama for many of the same reasons that non-LDS like him. He is young, has charisma, is intelligent, etc.

However, many LDS voters bring one additional factor – in that they feel GOP candidates (McCain, but particularly Huckabee) were unusually and unfairly abusive of Mitt Romney. Many of us do feel it was a slap in the face and when it comes to voting, perhaps many aren’t exactly in a turn-the-other-cheek mood.

I wonder to what degree that uniquely-LDS +1 factor is playing a significant role.

However, many LDS voters bring one additional factor – in that they feel GOP candidates (McCain, but particularly Huckabee) were unusually and unfairly abusive of Mitt Romney. Many of us do feel it was a slap in the face and when it comes to voting, perhaps many aren’t exactly in a turn-the-other-cheek mood.

If *this* is the reason for his popularity amongst Mormons, it makes Mormons look like absolute idiots. As I’ve pointed out before, if someone was a legitimate Romney fan (because of his politics) and now you’re switching to Obama because of how Romney was “treated”, then that someone needs their head examined.

(I’m not questioning Margaret’s support for Obama, even though I disagree with it, obviously. Her support is well thought-out.)

Unfortunately, democracy is better than the present-day alternatives. Which drives me nuts.

Cindy McCain is a fairly well-respected business woman and philanthropist. She’s got more executive experience at actually running things than either Obama or Clinton. She’s not without her own scandals, but I wouldn’t dismiss her.

Okay, here’s the other thing about Cindy. Don’t you think of the Brady Bunch? Doesn’t she look like Cindy Brady all grown up and posing beautifully? Think of the other candidates’ wives.
Ann Romney–a classic name. Queens and princesses have had that name.
Elizabeth Edwards–also regal
Michelle Obama–even the Beatles wrote about that name (prophetically?) and rhymed it with “ma belle” (”my beauty”).
And what on earth shall we do with BILL? There’s William the Conqueror, of course, but that might just be too appropriate and suggestive.

And then there’s the Conqueror’s first title, William the Bastard, which for many Republicans (and some Democrats), also fits.

“I think Obama is more well-meaning, perhaps more altruistic, but he and his team will be incompetent at running things.”

This nonsense is pretty well refuted by the campaigns so far. Managing a national campaign is an extremely complicated task, one at which Obama and his team have excelled, preparing for every eventuality. The Clinton campaign, however, has been remarkably prone to errors and incorrect assumptions, as well as poor planning.

I don’t think I’d vote for McCain even if Romney was his running mate.

Bookslinger–I realize there is much more to smarts than college degrees, but seriously, attending Columbia and Harvard law is meaningless? What about being editor of Harvard Law Review? Luck? How about teaching at University of Chicago Law School? Let me guess…affirmative action?

Have you read his books? Have you read extensive interviews? I don’t think you can dismiss Obama’s intelligence so easily.

Bookslinger, you obviously haven’t been paying much attention to Obama in order to have swallowed and perpetuated these simplistic slurs.

But die-hard conservatives such as yourself probably wouldn’t blame Republicans for any problems in four years even if McCain is elected and unable to stop the bleeding of our national treasure and prestige. Some 30% of you still support Bush, after all.

Bill and ESO, it wasn’t that long ago that Hillary was touted as being so intelligent that she was claimed to be the smartest woman in America.

ESO, being an academic does not equate to being smart. A lot of professors are “not smart”, and tons of idiots have college degrees, even from Harvard. The things you mentioned are accomplishments, but not necessarily indicative of intelligence.

Seriously, if you want intelligence and political competence, and someone who has a team that has a track record of getting things done, vote for Hillary. However, I seriously disagree with what she wants to implement: socialism and statism.

Obama has proven himself to be a demagogue, much like Jimmy Carter, saying things that people want to hear, and getting them emotionally worked up with a well-crafted turn of a phrase.

His theme of regime change even harkens back to Jimmy Carter’s message at the time Gerald Ford finished out Nixon’s second term. Obama is essentially recycling the political playbook of Jimmy Carter. It sounds all too familiar. (I voted in the 1976 presidential election.)

Bill, if McCain is elected, I’ll blame republicans, but not conservatives for the 4 years of screw-ups. But I’ll especially blame McCain for collaborating with liberals. Republicans and conservatives are no longer synonymous.

In the end, I’ll probably vote for the well-meaning idiot over the smart evil one. So relax, it looks like I’ll vote for your guy.

If all LDS on this thread were to vote again based on what Obama will most likely *DO* while in office, would the results be different ? For example, it is likely that he will appoint two Supreme Court justices that believe the Constitution is a “living” document that can be manipulated by judges – with no need for Congress and the States to ratify !

ESO – I have met over the years probably 50 Harvard graduates. Sadly, your theories about that reputation are unfounded. If you’re going to trot out Ivy League degrees, then you can’t dismiss Bush’s Harvard MBA.

In my experience, all judges are activist.

Exactly. You don’t think Christian activists aren’t trying to stack the deck with justices who will strike down RvW? That’s all well and fine … but you can’t complain about activist judges when your strategy calls for it.

I do not understand people who are a one issue voter on something like abortion.

It’s legal. Get over it.

Particularly mormons, especially considering our church’s viewpoint that, although rare, it’s ocassionaly accepted as an option. We also do not treat it as murder from a church discipline standpoint. Serious, certainly, but not murder.

I think some mormons have become confused about where to focus their energy. There are so many issues we should concern ourselves with, this should be FAR down on the list in my opinion.

CC, 74: My question in 72 was not meant to be combative; I’m really interested to know how ethics figures in your voting—and nothing I said questioned your view of abortion as an ethical problem. To show my good faith, I’ll answer your question: No.

re 88

I should say in fairness that Democrats may not “want” to damage employers or take away their incentives, but these are these consequences of Democratic policies. Perhaps Democrats don’t understand the damage that comes from their socialist policies.

CC, I don’t consider a fetus to even be a full person until it’s viable outside the womb. Based on statements of various old prophets and the answer to Nephi’s prayer, I don’t believe that the spirit is fully invested in a developing fetus to begin with. Which makes the issue less a moral issue and more of a medical issue.

Sorry, but when the fetus is at VERY early development stages, it’s not “a person.” It’s a tadpole. And I’m just not going to get overly outraged about aborting it. I frankly consider the position that aborting a tadpole, or a clump of cells, is “murder” to be rather ridiculous. To equate such “deaths” to dead soldiers in Iraq is misguided and silly.

Late term abortion is another matter for me. But then again, Roe v. Wade makes that distinction too (however clumsily). So, I just don’t see there being much at stake on the abortion issue really.

If I had my druthers, I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and thrown back to the states to fight over. But… I don’t really care THAT much. Not as much as I care about the housing crisis, for instance.

I oppose partial birth abortion, but then again, so did just about everyone in Congress – on both sides of the aisle. So again, I just don’t see a “Democrat danger.”

This is why abortion is, as a practical matter, a non-issue for me in the voting booth.

CC: thanks. That also means that you can understand that many ethical people (Mormons or not) could be faced with competing policies within the same presidential candidate: “I agree with him on X, for ethical reasons, but I disagree with him on Y, also for ethical reasons.” You clearly place much more weight on the issue of abortion than other Mormons, which is fine, but I think that you come across as insisting that it must be the #1 issue for all Mormons or else they lack morals altogether. In other words, it’s wrong to assume that when Mormons vote for a “pro-choice” candidate that they are “turning a blind eye to abortion”—or even that they see abortion as an all-or-nothing issue the way you seem to.

I’m willing to bet the majority of our Presidents drank alcohol (Bush was s drunk and coke head). If it was s deal breaker we wouldn’t have anyone to vote for.

jjohnsen: But was it accidental or on purpose? And if on purpose, did the person need killin’?

After Mitt dropped out, I bought a Mitt campaign button at a gas station. I figured it was going to be a collectors’ item. I bought a “Fred ‘08″ button too. Should have bought a dozen each.

Anyone here ever accidentally run a stop sign or a red light?

Let me know so I can make sure not to vote for you or your spouse.

Hi, my name is Bookslinger (Hi Bookslinger!)

Just a minor point. Our current pres was not a drug addict. He was (or is, depending on how your define it) an alcoholic. Let’s get that straight.

He was a cokehead Bookslinger. Or he enjoyed taking cocaine. I guess you could say that instead of calling him a drug addict.

Dan, 102

Yes, if you are liberal Obama is a reasonable choice.

If you are conservative, McCain is the only choice.

Where it gets interesting is if you are a moderate, then McCain will be a much better choice than Obama.

Bill wrote: “Bookslinger, I don’t think the Obama campaign is the first thing the phrase “regime change” brings to mind.”

In terms of US politics during this campaign season, Obama and his campaigners are sure trying hard to make sure that those two things are synonymous. His main theme in the primary seems to be “I’m not the Clintons, I’m an ‘outsider’.” And it appears that his theme in the general will be “I’m not the Bushes, I’m an ‘outsider’.”

Gee, just like Jimmy Carter’s theme, “I’m a Washington-outsider.”

Oh, and by the way, any slurs I either specified or implied towards Obama were my own analysis/conclusions based on listening to him and his ads, and comparing them to the politics I’ve observed over the last 32 years; and did not come from listening to any other common-tators.

He’s slicker than Slick Willie, but not as bright.

He’s about as clueless on economics and international politics as Carter, and also not as bright as Carter, either.

But I’ll probably vote for him, because I prefer stupid over evil.

Also, note that any slurs specified or implied toward Obama are no where near as “mean spirited” as what the left wing has heaved at Bush.

I would rather have a liberal president who campaigned as a liberal, than a liberal president who kept calling himself a conservative.

It may be a moot point. It could come down to the super-delegates to determine who gets the dem nomination. there is the possibility that even though if Obama wins the majority of the pledged delegates, that Hillary will put the super-delegates into play in order to claim the nomination. I don’t know how that’s going to work out.

But I do expect real fireworks in the dem convention. Wowza, it’s going to be history-making! Make sure you videotape (or record on DVD) as many hours of the dem convention as you can. Fireworks, I tell ya.

Yes, if you are liberal Obama is a reasonable choice.

If you are conservative, McCain is the only choice.

Not necessarily. There is a reasonable view among conservatives that the leadership of the Republican party have sold out so badly that the only thing to do after a series of non-conservatives of the Reagan mold is to let the Democrats win. Given Iraq (improved, but still a disaster) and the economy let a Democrat have to deal with the current problems and its aftermath. Further let Clinton or Obama try and pass their liberal agenda. There will be a blowback which can allow conservativism to be reborn.

I’m not saying I agree with this, mind you. I think the issue of judicial appointments if nothing else would make me hesitate. But it’s a reasonable opinion.

Love the comments here, from a first time visitor.

I recently wrote a post on my blog called “Why Mormons Should Consider Backing Obama,” at http://denniswendt.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-mormons-should-back-obama.html

Sorry for my messed up comments. 111 has the link, 112 the full message.

Also Margaret, I love your comments. Couldn’t agree more.

Bookslinger, once again you missed the point of my little joke. But to respond to your earnestness in kind, it really is a little irresponsible to throw around terms like “regime change” where they don’t belong.

From Wikipedia:

“Regime change can occur through conquest by a foreign power, revolution, coup d’état or reconstruction following the failure of a state. Regime change may replace all or part of the state’s existing institutions, administrative apparatus, bureaucracy and other elements.”

As you can see, “regime change” usually refers to some kind of violent overthrow of the existing order. If Obama takes power it will be through a peaceful election. And Obama is campaigning, among other things, on the promise to restore to their previous condition many of our constitutional and legal traditions, that have been willfully ignored or trampled on by the radicals now in power.

Bookslinger,

#107,

Gee, just like Jimmy Carter’s theme, “I’m a Washington-outsider.”

Uh, it was also George W. Bush’s theme. Just FYI.

I know Mark. It was a sad time for our country. These past 18 years have seen some pretty poor foreign policy policies towards the Middle East.

But Seth, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. He paved the way for the regime change in Iraq.

Seth, the Clinton administration had a written, stated policy of regime change in Iraq. They had a written policy promoting extraordinary rendition, and they tortured those they extradited and interrogated, sometimes to death. As for their stand on civil liberties, the Patriot Act is child’s play compared to the authority given to the DEA, IRS, and ATF bureaucracies, which violate the rights of innocent citizens every day of the week.

I guess we’re pretty much screwed as a country. Better start preparing for the end, you guys, because you know, the eastern part of the United States is going to be history. You can camp in my yard if you’re quiet at night.

Dan wrote: It was a sad time for our country. These past 18 years have seen some pretty poor foreign policy policies towards the Middle East.

We’ve seen a variety of approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – everywhere on a span from a full-court press interaction to basically ignoring what is going on in that arena. It doesn’t really seem that being interactive or not made much difference, one way or the other.

The Carter peace agreement was a true achievement, because Egypt is absolutely key to maintaining the cold peace that exists between Israel and other Arab countries. Without Egypt’s participation, other countries are not willing to take on Israel in conventional warfare.

Honestly, I think the Middle East system of almost across-the-board authoritarian/totalitarian republics and monarchies is the biggest problem we face over there. As long as those governments continue to run as they do, we really aren’t going to get very far.

I know I’m wildly crazy to say so – but overthrowing Saddam in Iraq wasn’t enough. My main regret with the war in Iraq is not torture, body counts, expended billions, etc., but rather that the neighboring Syrian Ba’athist regime remains.

Better start preparing for the end, you guys, because you know, the eastern part of the United States is going to be history. You can camp in my yard if you’re quiet at night.

Speaking as a sports fan, if it means the eternal demise of the Red Sox, Yankees, Patriots, Jets, Giants, Knicks, Nets, or Celtics … I’m intrigued. Tell me more.

MAC,

#124,

Thanks for the chuckle Dan. Obama’s socialism may be “moderate” in France or Burlington, VT but not in the US as whole.

hell, I’m surprised you don’t call John McCain a socialist for his moderate policies! I guess you are more forgiving because of his little “R” next to his name, eh?

Mac, I’m relying on prophecy when the US will be divided. Or maybe that’s a psychic’s announcement.

MAC, Dan is so entrenched in Democratic doublespeak that he thinks he’s a moderate because he’s to the right of me about homos. Dan doesn’t seem to have a consistent political outlook as much as a disposition to defend until his dying breath each successive moral hoola-hoop of the Democratic party. For Dan, this is the only sensible position. Thus, Dan not only supports the most liberal candidate to ever run for president, but Dan also calls him a moderate based on the fact that Dan believes everything that he says.

DKL,

That’s okay. On most days I consider “moderates” and “undecided voters” a bunch of saps anyway.

I am just having fun making work for the grammar nazis.

MAC,

#134,

Heh, it’s oddly funny to see that very scientific survey by the National Journal. Truly scientific I tell you. Note that, coincidentally, John Kerry just happened to be the most liberal Senator in 2003! Huh! How ’bout that! Yeah, that’s a really good gauge of the Senator’s position.

Obama, more liberal than Russ Feingold. Yeah, that’s reality alright. Please, MAC, do better than this.

And as for DKL,

MAC, DKL is so entrenched in Republican doublespeak that he thinks he’s a moderate because he’s to the left of me about homos. DKL doesn’t seem to have a consistent political outlook as much as a disposition to defend until his dying breath each successive moral hoola-hoop of the Republican party. For DKL, this is the only sensible position. Thus, DKL not only supports the most conservative candidate to ever run for president, but DKL also calls him a moderate based on the fact that DKL believes everything that he says.

DKL, thanks for the response. For no specific reason or intention, I haven’t been following your views on the subject of Obama. So it makes for a good read and something to think about.

DKL–you fear monger. Let me remind you, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
JUST WORDS?????
If you’re going to churn up negatives over Michelle Obama’s WORDS (without even crediting them to her), then how on earth are we to proceed? Bombs?
(I’m afraid you might answer that seriously. The problem is, I really like you. And you are such a hawk. How can I possibly like a hawk? Life is so full of contradictions.)

MAC,

Might be time for you to swear off the Koolaid.

Me? Drinking Koolaid? I’m not the one mischaracterizing Mr. Obama’s positions. That would be you and DKL. Clearly conservatives are frightened by Obama’s quite good chances of winning and will do everything in their power to tear him down.

This is from a recent speech by Michelle Obama:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

and

“You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.”

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of Eva Peron? I remember the lines from the musical. Eva is giving a speech:

(Eva:)
Now I am a worker, I’ve suffered the way that you do
I’ve been unemployed, and I’ve starved and I’ve hated it too
But I found my salvation in Peron, may the nation
Let him save them as he saved me

(All:)
A new Argentina, a new age about to begin
A new Argentina, we face the world together
And no dissent within

(Eva:)
Peron has resigned from the army and this we avow
The descamisados are those he is marching with now
He supports you, for he loves you
Understands you, is one of you
If not, how could he love me?

(All:)
A new Argentina, the chains of the masses untied
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Cannot be, and must not be denied

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better.

Sounds more like Hugo Chaves to me. “You will no longer resist the populist message, we know what is best for you!”

Now Dan sounds like Cartman –

“Screw you guys, I’m going home.”

Jota,

You don’t seem to realize how afraid you guys sound by continually attempting to tie Barack Obama to the “monster of the week.” This week it is Hugo Chaves. Next week it will be Ahmadinejad. And so it goes. You use the “liberal” label as if it is a cuss word, a curse upon a candidate. Frankly, that’s pretty pathetic. You call him a “socialist,” though I am impressed that conservatives have finally retired the “communist” label, realizing that communism is a dead horse. These labels and these attempts to tie particular candidates to this or that “bad guy” are quite childish and do nothing to add to a real debate on the issues at hand. Stop being afraid of those who will do things differently in this nation. Liberals aren’t afraid of conservatives ruling this nation. Why are conservatives afraid of liberals ruling this nation?

Cast out your fear boys. It is time to be men.

Don’t cry for me, Dan. What’s pretty pathetic is that you can’t understand why someone thinks your candidate is an idiot unless you posit that they fear him. Last night on MSNBC, an Obama supporter couldn’t name one thing that Obama accomplished in his service to the US Senate or the Illinois State Legislature. Can you?

Margaret, whether someone is a hawk or not is beside the point. Everybody wants the war in Iraq to end. The question is on what terms. I want victory. Obama wants defeat.

The only thing that makes me more nervous about Obama becoming president is John McCain becoming president.

The only thing that makes me more nervous about Obama becoming president is John McCain becoming president.

Actually, AnneGB, I think McCain would be a decent president. I like his policies.

Jota G: I don’t see Michelle as anything like Eva Peron, though I do believe that Obama marches with the “descamisados”–and has a very young age. Remember that Obama taught constitutional law and actually does honor the constitution. Peron was an opportunist. However, the music to _Evita_ is pretty good. Does Cindy McCain sing? I can imagine her singing, “They need to adore me/ so Christian Dior me…”

Margaret -

That was a pretty good cindy McCain line. She certainly has the closer Eva hairdoo.

Just because Obama taught Constitutional law does not mean he “honors” the Constituion. Many of the constitutional scholars who taught me the subject had nothing close to what we would call “honor” for the constitution. Liberal jurists believe in a “living” constitution that changes and adapts for the time, without the need for pesky and time-consuming amendments or action by the body politic.

The problem with the way that Constitutional Law is taught at most universities is that the secondary sources are treated as a primary source, and the one primary source appropriate for the class (the actual Constitution) isn’t even required reading. Saying that someone taught Constitutional Law is practically proof that they do not honor the constitution.

nasamomdele, 168

Unfortunately I think that a percentage of the “Bring them home NOW!” crowd know what it would mean to the Iraqis and are willing to accept because they are so emotionally wed to repudiating GWB and the neocons.

Margaret, the hawks in Vietnam did win the war. Hence, the Paris Peace Accords. Congress lost the war by unilaterally pulling funding from our security investment in Vietnam. This communicated to North Vietnam that it could invade without reprise, which it opportunistically did (communism is nothing if not opportunistic).

Victory in an undeclared war is no harder to define now than it was back when Thomas Jefferson embarked on America’s first undeclared war by attacking Libya. Victory, in the case of Iraq, means a reduction in violence to 1st world levels and a reasonable measure of political stability. This is, to be sure, a tall order. Get used to it. Victory is hard. Defeat is easy — anyone can lose, because (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell) there are infinite possibilities of failure, but few paths to success. Obama wants to take the easy way out: defeat.

This is part and parcel of Obama’s message: He will make everything easy. But this belies his rhetoric about “hope.” Genuine hope inspires us to achieve the impossible. Obama’s counterfeit hope is, ultimately, the currency of losers.

DKL/Margaret,

It is good to keep in mind that in Venezuela, which has a population comparable in size to that of Iraq, violent deaths occur at twice the rate they do in Iraq. See here, for instance.

It is still touch and go, and much remains to be done, but it simply amazes me how the Che types will drool all over Hugo while speaking of Iraq as a failed state.

DKL, I’m a bit awed by your contempt for Obama. Maybe you ought to write a post about it, just because I think it might create some good discussion … especially considering the number of ‘Naclites who think they will be voting for him.

DKL,

#157,

Margaret, whether someone is a hawk or not is beside the point. Everybody wants the war in Iraq to end. The question is on what terms. I want victory. Obama wants defeat.

Heh, you couldn’t take victory when it was handed to you in 2003. You had to stick around and mess things up. No, you don’t want victory. You want occupation. If things improve, you’ll argue that we should stay just so that things don’t get bad again. If things do not improve, you’ll argue that we should stay because things are bad and we should try to improve them. You don’t seem to realize that WE are the problem in Iraq. WE are the reason for the violence. If we leave, the violence leaves with us.

But see, war supporters know this. They know that the violence goes wherever we go. So why bring the violence here? It doesn’t make sense to bring the violence home. Let’s take the violence to others. So, in the words of Thomas Friedman, you go around in Iraq, and later in Iran, because you can. “Suck on this.” you will say to them. Break that bubble of theirs. Because you can. Not because we should. Not because it is prudent, or a wise foreign policy, but because we want to flex those muscles of ours. After all, a “weapon unused is a useless weapon.” Silly ideology I tell you.

DKL,

#167,

The problem with the way that Constitutional Law is taught at most universities is that the secondary sources are treated as a primary source,

What is your evidence for this, please.

Dan, I’ve educated enough of your ignorant opinions that I no longer provide evidence to you on request.

By Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal (February 14th, 2008):

Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It’s a downer.

Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama’s physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!” Can what?

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928.

Here is the edited version, stripped of the flying surfboard:

“Our road will not be easy . . . the cynics. . . where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits . . . That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda. . . It’s a game where trade deals like Nafta ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart . . . It’s a game . . . CEO bonuses . . . while another mother goes without health care for her sick child . . . We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace . . . even if they’re not rich . . .”

Here’s his America: “lies awake at night wondering how he’s going to pay the bills . . . she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill . . . the senior I met who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt . . . the teacher who works at Dunkin’ Donuts after school just to make ends meet . . . I was not born into money or status . . . I’ve fought to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant . . . to make sure people weren’t denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from . . . Now we carry our message to farms and factories.”

Mark IV: Thank you for the link. I lived in Venezuela for three yearsin the late 1970s. (I was the district RS president in Ciudad Bolivar and Unare.) I saw the seeds of what that link describes. There were two times when the government suddenly announced that the bolivar (the monetary unit) was devalued–drastically. I remember seeing signs for the Socialist candidate–Teodoro. I was certainly aware of the government corruption there. Everybody was. It was a joke back then. And we were reading all about Argentina’s “desaparecidos”–just one country away. I was not surprised when things began falling apart in Venezuela.

It is a beautiful country. How terribly sad that it faces such tragedy now. I really do believe that tragedy anywhere must be seen as tragedy everywhere. The gospel of peace always transcends borders.

Anyone who can watch this commercial and not vote for Hillary is, I believe, beyond redemption:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no&NR=1

Hillary for You and Me, baby! Take that Barrack Yomama!

Ben There,

Thanks for the link to the Hillary video. The funniest part was that it was rated one star.

I believe McCain claims he was an innocent bystander in the Keating Five affair.

From Dan’s comments I think the flaws of the liberal camp as it is now are exposed. Social Justice is no longer a guiding issue/platform- it’s “change” or basically “Republicans did a bad job”. And although I agree with both sentiments to a certain extent, that is a pathetic standard to rally behind for a presidential voter. Thus, I remain independent.

However, in order to save the lives of people who don’t want Al-Qaeda or any other terrorists dictating by blood and terror ow they should live (unless you’ve been living in a cave you know that’s what is being fought), I will probably vote McCain, hoping he will stick to his guns on Iraq. I am not so foolish as to think that if Americans pack up and leave, so will terrorism.

CC – you really are beating a dead horse with the abortion thing, you seem a little obsessed.

But, you are preaching to the wrong person here – that citation your provide just reinforces my support of Obama:

“his consistent voting in favor of legalized abortion, family planning services, and having female contraceptives covered by health insurance”

You don’t think contraceptives should be covered by insurance? Wouldn’t better use of contraceptives and family planning reduce the amount of Abortions being performed? Even the churches stance supports legal abortion. And he was right about the wording – you cannot define an unborn fetus as a child without opening a huge legal can of worms.

And the Wall Street Journal article isn’t any huge revelation either, I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make with that.

Sigh…I don’t know how I got sucked into this conversation.

The church supports legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. It is depressing. And it is part of why I feel the church is in apostasy. The church has taken this approach since the 1970s. Prior to that, the church opposed birth control and abortion as related evils, in all their forms.

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to include something in my comment about the church’s stance on abortion. The saddest part of the official handbook statement on abortion is the statement that a member considering abortion should pray and that a possible answer to that prayer is God telling that person to abort their baby. I do not believe God would ever tell someone to abort their baby. The very idea that one should pray whether or not to abort their baby is deeply disturbing and so contrary to the God I know.

Ben There,

You wrote:

McCain claims a lot of things, but the truth is uncontrovertible. The man is… a liberal on abortion

But McCain’s website states:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

“Health of the mother” is a wide open grey area that can mean anything from compromising the woman’s life or future fertility to bad headaches. The reality of the church’s position on abortion is that it is only nominally pro-life. I have always found it interesting that the church takes up campaigning for state laws regarding homosexual marriage and lotteries and gambling, but has never once supported a state law regarding such topics as partial birth abortion, which it seems like it ought to be completely within the realm of the church’s area of interest.

Condor,

My feeling is that Huck and Ron Paul are the only pro-life candidates in the race right now. Romney was marginal; I didn’t trust him. No one has a sudden, sincere change of heart on every issue important to conservatives just in time to run for president. McCain waffles, tending to sit on the fence, voting one way sometimes, and the other way other times.

Ron Paul has introduced legislation to define human life as beginning at conception, and to remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the federal courts, thereby nullifying Roe without the need to appoint justices, pass a constitutional amendment, etc. One simple law passed by Congress, removing the issue from the jurisdiction of federal courts (including SCOTUS) would solve the pro-life question once and for all. Then all the states could enact their partial birth abortion bans and other restrictions on abortion and never fear being stricken down by SCOTUS again.

Rep. Paul’s legislation is indicative of a true pro-life leader. But for a man who has personally delivered 4,000 babies, I guess it’s pretty much what one should expect.

Ben There wrote: “Abortion is never necessary.”

I disagree. The LDS Church’s official position on the topic of abortion leaves room for abortions in certain exceptional circumstances (rape, incest, etc.).

In other words, sometimes (even if rarely) abortion is necessary.

danithew,

I don’t understand why, when the Church leaves us at least a small amount of room for flexibility (on the issue of abortion), some Mormons want to take a completely inflexible stance.

That’s because some Mormons have the Republican party as a greater priority than the church.

To argue that the debate over national abortion is about flexibility over the small number performed in the instance of rape, incest or maternal health is ingenuine. I think that these absolutionists are a minority.

I am much more concerned about the people who consider abortion, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, an expression of personal liberty or treat abortion as routine birth control.

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Dan,

John McCain was friends with a female lobbyist. Why is that a problem?

The long-winded article The New York Times dropped on McCain Wednesday night falls between an impeccable investigative project and the “hit-and-run” smear job his campaign calls it. It is a meringue of tantalizing hints and innuendo about the steamy nexus of sex and power. It’s all there – except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.

It suggests McCain had an affair with an attractive young lobbyist and used his Senate office to do favors for her clients. But it never actually says either of those things directly, relying instead on the worries of his aides that he was risking his reputation and career by being so close to the lobbyist and her clients. Said aides are, unfortunately, mostly anonymous in the article.

Dan, Dan, Dan .. you are really starting to validate what DKL said about “defending until his dying breath each successive moral hoola-hoop of the Democratic party.”

You want a to discuss an ethical lapse than can be proven, try discussing Mr. Harvard Law Reviews penchant for plagiarism. And this is coming from your very own party.

Dan,

When McCain gets sued for sexual harrassment and, during the course of his deposition, says he didn’t have any sexual relationship with a named intern under his supervision, then his semen shows up on a dress owned by that intern, we can start comparing McCain’s behavior to Clinton’s.

The only evidence is that some people on McCain’s staff thought there might be the APPEARANCE of impropriety, not that there was anything actually improper going on.

Again, there’s no there there.

Dan,

I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit for signing NAFTA into law and reforming welfare. I’m really not that interested in what he did in his free time despite the fact that his pastimes violate LDS standards.

CC,

reforming welfare was definitely one of Bill Clinton’s best actions in office.

Don’t cry for me, Dan. What’s pretty pathetic is that you can’t understand why someone thinks your candidate is an idiot unless you posit that they fear him. Last night on MSNBC, an Obama supporter couldn’t name one thing that Obama accomplished in his service to the US Senate or the Illinois State Legislature. Can you?

Heh, you wouldn’t believe how many Mormons I know that were voting for Romney but didn’t have a clue where he stood on the issues. One even told me he was voting for Romney because “he’d bring the troops home safely”. I’d love to have seen MSNBC come to Utah if Romney had the ability to make it to the Candidacy.

It’s fun to watch conservatives circle their wagons around a man they don’t even like.

I think the problem is, social conservatives haven’t yet realized their party doesn’t care about their issues unless they’re trying to get their vote. The Republican party is becoming more moderate as a whole on social issues. If McCain gets elected it will just reinforce this, and candidates will stop pandering to them. Maybe Romney could even run as the real Romney in the next election.

J Johnsen, here is what that article says:

1. Barack Obama is black.

2. So if he became president, it would end affirmative action.

3. The end of affirmative action would be good for conservatives, so it might be okay for conservatives if Obama became president.

I am a conservative who supports affirmative action. I don’t support Barack Obama but I think his election would be good for black people. I think too many blacks are raised in a culture that accepts failure so I think it would be good for them to have an example in a black president. But I do not think that Obama’s election would (or should) end affirmative action. I also don’t think that Conservatism needs affirmative action to be abolished.

Dan, 218

Because Dan it is the mature political decision and the alternative is really that bad. No one with any sense would want to hand the keys of the free world to neophyte Obama because he “hopes” that thing will get better.

Hence, a much better question is why would anyone vote for Obama? Apparently a whole lot of people are starting to ask that question …

I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like Moonies, or Hare Krishnas, or the Hale-Bopp-Is-Coming-To-Get-Me nuts.
These true believers “Obama-ize” everything. They speak Obama-ese. Knit for Obama. Run for Obama. Gamble – Hold ’Em Barack! – for Obama. They make Obama cakes, underwear, jewelry. They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack your world!”
At campaign rallies people scream, cry, even faint as Obama calmly calls for the EMTs. When supporters pant en masse, “I love you!” (like The Beatles, circa 1964), Barack says, “I love you back” with that deliciously charming, almost cocky smile.
Oh – I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet.
I’m nervous because it’s gone to a lot of other people’s heads as well. Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings introduced Obama last week in Baltimore and said, “This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.”
“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney.
“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”
I’m nervous because nobody’s quite sure what Obama stands for, even his supporters. (“I can’t wait to see,” said actress/activist Susan Sarandon, declaring full support nonetheless).
I’m nervous because even his biggest fans can’t name Obama’s accomplishments, including Texas state Sen. Kirk Watson, an Obama-man who humiliated himself when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked him about five times to name something, anything, Obama’s done. Watson hemmed. Watson hawed. Watson gave up.
I’m nervous because John McCain says Obama’s is “an eloquent but empty call for change” and in the wee, wee hours, a nagging voice whispers, suppose McCain’s right, too? Then what?

Ben There,

I’m not a rape victim – but it seems obvious to me that there are a number of factors that might make “abortion” necessary from the potential mother’s perspective. I’m certainly not saying there should be an abortion every time in those situations – but it should remain an option.

No woman impregnated via rape should be obligated to walk around with the rapist’s seed for nine months.

I did in fact once know a woman who chose to bear the child that resulted from a rape. I never learned the details of that rape – whether she knew the rapist or not, etc. I certainly respect her choice. But I’m grateful she was able to make that decision for herself. It makes a world of difference in such cases when the woman can make her own decision.

Dan,

I was probably being euphemistic when I used the words “No one with any sense”

In the same way that you consider that all non-Democrats are either hoodwinked idiots or stormtroopers in the evil industrial-military complex, I have my own ideas about Democrats.

For the most part they are either motivated by entitlement programs, identity politics or are simply loopy head-in-the-cloud dingbats who get distracted by substance lacking blather about air force bake sales. I might add, not one of them could wrap their mind around the most basic of economic principles.

Mark IV:(#123) As for their stand on civil liberties, the Patriot Act is child’s play compared to the authority given to the DEA, IRS, and ATF bureaucracies, which violate the rights of innocent citizens every day of the week.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. In the great scheme of scandalous government expansion over civil rights the computerized taping of Americans on foreign calls to suspected terrorists is way down the line. The militarization of the police (how often are SWAT teams used to handle warrants with no-knock raids?) is vastly worse and arguably affects many people – including innocent people killed. Then there is the confiscation of property during drug charges – often before the trial. Then there are all the other civil rights violations associated with the ‘drug war.’ And let’s not forget ‘campaign finance reform.’ Then there were the huge discrepancies in how punishment for cocaine was metted out depending upon whether it was meant for snorting or smoking. Then there was the expanding of discovery laws for sexual harassment which the guy who got them passed then didn’t like when applied to him. (So he lied under oath about it) Ugh. Better stop before I get mad.

danithew (#127) We’ve seen a variety of approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – everywhere on a span from a full-court press interaction to basically ignoring what is going on in that arena. It doesn’t really seem that being interactive or not made much difference, one way or the other.

Yup. I think far too many people delude themselves that’s there is an easy answer here. The problem is that the people on both sides have to be prepared to accept peace. They aren’t. At least the Israelis are finally starting to realize that the settlements may not have been the best idea. But the Palestinians are basically having a civil war amongst themselves anyway with no indication that enough want a real peace.

The other big problem in the middle-east is that I just don’t think most governments there want peace. It provides too much opportunity to point the masses at something other than their own situation.

queuno (3129) the sooner we ostracize the nutjobs on the extreme right and extreme left, the better off we’ll be.

Someone quick explain to me how Obama came to be seen by so many as a centrist rather than on the left wing of the Democratic party? He’s a great speaker and avoids too much controversial. It’s made easier by his being in the Senate for basically no time. But look at his policies. He’s not a centrist. I’ll at least admit that on many, many things McCain is a centrist. Heck, I’ll even concede Clinton as being far more of a centrist than most Democrats who have run. But Obama?

Dan (216) reforming welfare was definitely one of Bill Clinton’s best actions in office.

This we agree with. I’ll give him credit for NAFTA although blame for the way small farmers in Mexico were handled which (in part) created the immigration problem we now face.

I agree that the refusal to torture is actually a quite moderate position.

Ben There – the argument I’m making is that victims of rape or incest should have the option to abort.