Obama's Hope

[autiger4life 3]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If he's not promoting his so called platform, there's a reason for it.

[autiger4life 3]

If he's not promoting his so called platform, there's a reason for it

Aaaand once again AURaptor busts in with something that was already said. Remember this part of my post?

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear

You see, people really seem to want to hear more about change and hope than they do a platform. Now this will probably change, but as you so smartly pointed out there is a reason and it is because he is trying to get elected.

Do you even read posts AURaptor?

[AURaptor 1,126]

No genius, if he tells folks what he REALLY has in store for them, instead of fluffing up the audience w/ empty rhetoric, they'd be jumping ship faster than , well.....rats that jump off a ship when it's skinking. And that's pretty darn fast!

[pensacola tiger 0]

autiger4life....I went to the Obama web site in order to read his platform. And guess what? You have to sign up for their emails, etc. before they will let you past the home page. Now this was BarackObama.com so I'm thinking this is the official site. And guess what else, I don't want to give them my name, email address and whatever else they want. Only the people who want to join the lemmings can read his platform I guess. Geez....what's up with that?

[arnaldoabru 11]

No genius, if he tells folks what he REALLY has in store for them, instead of fluffing up the audience w/ empty rhetoric, they'd be jumping ship faster than , well.....rats that jump off a ship when it's skinking. And that's pretty darn fast!

What does he "really have in store"Do tell

[AUHonors 0]

autiger4life....I went to the Obama web site in order to read his platform. And guess what? You have to sign up for their emails, etc. before they will let you past the home page. Now this was BarackObama.com so I'm thinking this is the official site. And guess what else, I don't want to give them my name, email address and whatever else they want. Only the people who want to join the lemmings can read his platform I guess. Geez....what's up with that?

Actually, you can simply click the link below the main graphic on Barack's website to enter without providing any information whatsoever - unless you're really feeling motivated to donate. How's the Republican fundraising going?

[Tigermike 3,054]

autiger4life....I went to the Obama web site in order to read his platform. And guess what? You have to sign up for their emails, etc. before they will let you past the home page. Now this was BarackObama.com so I'm thinking this is the official site. And guess what else, I don't want to give them my name, email address and whatever else they want. Only the people who want to join the lemmings can read his platform I guess. Geez....what's up with that?

Actually, you can simply click the link below the main graphic on Barack's website to enter without providing any information whatsoever - unless you're really feeling motivated to donate. How's the Republican fundraising going?

Well I don't think George Soros has given 200 - 300 million for the Republicans like he has for the dims if that is what you are asking.

[pensacola tiger 0]

AUHonors....I tried that and what I got was a larger form with "required" information that had to be filled in before I could go further. But maybe that's just me. Whatever, I didn't really care about reading it that badly. I pay attention to what I see and read and to previous records and actions. I don't need to read the canned propaganda.

[otterinbham 0]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

Thank you for that. At the same time, I point to the inviolable rule of politics, marketing, and almost everything else--Perception is reality. If all you talk about is Hope and Change on the stump, then that's how you'll be perceived.

That being said, his message about Hope isn't really directed towards change on a national level. Instead, it's a code word for change within the Democratic Party exhausted from having to deal with the Clintons for the past 16 years. I'll be interested to see how he changes his message when he locks down the nomination on Tuesday (Assuming that he carries Ohio and Texas).

I've read the high points of his platform and I'm not really impressed. It seems to be a rehash of Johnson's disastrous Great Society programs, with a dash of pragmatism thrown in for effect. Personally, I think No Change is better than that kind of change.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

Thank you for that. At the same time, I point to the inviolable rule of politics, marketing, and almost everything else--Perception is reality. If all you talk about is Hope and Change on the stump, then that's how you'll be perceived.

That being said, his message about Hope isn't really directed towards change on a national level. Instead, it's a code word for change within the Democratic Party exhausted from having to deal with the Clintons for the past 16 years. I'll be interested to see how he changes his message when he locks down the nomination on Tuesday (Assuming that he carries Ohio and Texas).

I've read the high points of his platform and I'm not really impressed. It seems to be a rehash of Johnson's disastrous Great Society programs, with a dash of pragmatism thrown in for effect. Personally, I think No Change is better than that kind of change.

If you watch his stump speech, you know that he doesn't just talk about hope and change. That's what his opponents say he does. I don't expect many Republicans to be big supporters of all his points-- some maybe. Many "Reagan Democrats" when polled on Reagan's positions disagreed with many of them.

His message of "change" will remain, although I expect him to refine it. Much of his proposed "change" is change in approach, tone and philosophy of dealing with other countries.

[otterinbham 0]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

Thank you for that. At the same time, I point to the inviolable rule of politics, marketing, and almost everything else--Perception is reality. If all you talk about is Hope and Change on the stump, then that's how you'll be perceived.

That being said, his message about Hope isn't really directed towards change on a national level. Instead, it's a code word for change within the Democratic Party exhausted from having to deal with the Clintons for the past 16 years. I'll be interested to see how he changes his message when he locks down the nomination on Tuesday (Assuming that he carries Ohio and Texas).

I've read the high points of his platform and I'm not really impressed. It seems to be a rehash of Johnson's disastrous Great Society programs, with a dash of pragmatism thrown in for effect. Personally, I think No Change is better than that kind of change.

If you watch his stump speech, you know that he doesn't just talk about hope and change. That's what his opponents say he does. I don't expect many Republicans to be big supporters of all his points-- some maybe. Many "Reagan Democrats" when polled on Reagan's positions disagreed with many of them.

His message of "change" will remain, although I expect him to refine it. Much of his proposed "change" is change in approach, tone and philosophy of dealing with other countries.

I don't disagree, open-minded soul that I am. That being said, I don't think the Reagan Democrat analogy holds, chiefly because the country was in the hands of a raging incompetent in Carter, and their votes were as much a vote against the incumbent as a vote for Reagan. In this situation, Obama will not be running against an incumbent, but a respect centrist Republican who consistently had the political courage put distance between himself and a lot of Bush's more egregious policies. I'm not saying I agree with McCain on any number of things. But, the American people will see him as a comfortable, competent level-headed candidate with a great deal of service to his country--and competence is really want the American people crave after eight years of W.

I also don't think people are wanting a massive restructuring of the country's economic system. A tweak here and there perhaps. A lot more rigor in checking spending would be the first priority. But I'm afraid that Obama, a Keynsian at heart, will want to do much more, and the American people will see that as well.

[AFTiger 282]

speech and actions are two different worlds

Reformer: Trial Will Reveal 'Cesspool' of Obama's Allies

Trial for Indicted Fundraiser Tony Rezko Set for Monday

By BRIAN ROSS, RHONDA SCHWARTZ and AVNI PATEL

Feb. 29, 2008—

With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the "cesspool" of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president.

"We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from."

Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign.

The trial Monday involves federal charges of bribery and extortion against Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who became known in Illinois politics as a behind-the-scenes operator and fixer.

While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama's political career.

"This wasn't just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it's someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time," Stewart said.

Indeed, even after he was elected to the United States Senate, Obama involved Rezko in a land deal that enabled the senator to buy his current home on Chicago's South Side.

Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

"Tony Rezko is all that is wrong with the old kind of politics or any kind of politics," said the Better Government Association's Stewart.

The Rezko trial will focus on Rezko's alleged role in steering Illinois state contracts in exchange for kickbacks and political contributions to Rezko friends.

The most damning examples cited by prosecutors involve Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, but several of the contributions were directed to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

A motion filed by federal prosecutors identifies two instances when Rezko directed contributions to an unnamed "political candidate" who has since been identified by Chicago newspapers as Obama.

The Obama campaign says it has donated to charity some $160,000 that can be traced to Rezko or others involved in the corruption investigation.

In his campaign for president, Obama has railed against people like Rezko.

"If you are ready for change, then we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists and the fat cats that their days are over," he said in a speech last month in Akron, Ohio.

The Better Government Association's Stewart says Illinois politics is the opposite of the sentiments Obama now praises.

"That's a noble version he is describing. He is not talking about Illinois when he does that," said Stewart, who acknowledges Obama was "a cut above" most state legislators and reliably supported ethics legislation.

"I don't begrudge him for speaking out on it (corruption) in Washington or Kenya. If it's appropriate, you should say it. To say it's appropriate in Illinois is a huge understatement," Stewart said.

ABC News

[TexasTiger 13,026]

In this situation, Obama will not be running against an incumbent, but a respect centrist Republican who consistently had the political courage put distance between himself and a lot of Bush's more egregious policies.

Such as...?

[AURaptor 1,126]

No genius, if he tells folks what he REALLY has in store for them, instead of fluffing up the audience w/ empty rhetoric, they'd be jumping ship faster than , well.....rats that jump off a ship when it's skinking. And that's pretty darn fast!

What does he "really have in store"Do tell

Glad you asked!

He wants MORE $$ for school buildings and teacher. We already spend more for educating our kids, and are getting the least in return. He's for MORE Federal programs, like 'Step Up'. What ever happened to ' Head Start ' ? Oh, that's right..he's for expanding Head Start also ! He's also against school vouchers ( big shocker )

Energy/Environmental Issues: Obama pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a goal of 80 percent by 2050, ( ridiculous and completely unworkable ) and make the U.S. a leader in the effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership. Supports implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pledges to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop and implement “climate-friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.” ( More higher taxes and empty goals ) Pledges to double federal clean energy research spending. ( Not a proper function of Gov't ) Supports efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to reduce oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. Would require that 25 percent of electricitycome from renewable sources by 2025. (www.barackobama.com) ( Reduce foreign oil dependency ? What about drilling in ANWR ? What about drilling off the coast of FL ? I'm guessing he opposes THOSE measures )

The war in Iraq: Supports a plan to immediately begin troop withdrawal from Iraq (which most everoyone agrees would lead to disaster and internal civil war ) at a pace of one or two brigades a month, to be completed by the end of 2008. Has called for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, to be convened with the United Nations. (www.barackobama.com)

Social Security: Obama opposes privatization of Social Security. Has pledged to take steps to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. ( Not possible, with out MASSIVE tax increases and cuts in benefits. The SSI program is a Fed funded Ponzi scheme, nothing more. It needs to be ELIMINATED ! ) (www.barackobama.com)

Stem Cell Research: Obama supports expansion of federally-funded stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research . ( WHY ? All the benefits from stem cells are coming from adult stem cells, NOT Embryonic! And why is it the job of the Fed Gov't to fund something which has the potential to pay back the private sector ? )

Taxes and Budget issues: Obama supports repeal of tax cuts for upper income earners to pay for health care. Opposes repeal of the estate tax. ( Class warfare, through and through. Estate tax is unfair too, as the deceased has paid taxes already through out their entire life. Why double dip ? That's unconscionable ! )

[OldNewby 27]

Change? Government takes our dollars. We're left with change.

[GalensGhost 0]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

And his plan would be?

I've already posed this question to other people having Obamasms on this board. IF he has a plan, what is it and how does he intend to fund it.

You SAY he has a platform and some concrete ideas (as opposed to nebulous ideals) and yet you fail (as do all Obamies) to be able to disclose or detail even the smallest portion of it.

For the record, I've done my research. He offers nothing specific or concrete, everything he's said has been broad, vast generalities with no even remote vision of how it would be accomplished or who would pay. The majority of the things he proposes to achieve aren't even under the president's control.

The challenge remains. PROVE that he's more than hot air. You won't because you can't.

**Cue attacks on the messenger, diversionary screeds about Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and Oprah, dismissive "you don't want to hear it anyway" obfuscation and other assorted ducks and dodges **

[rexbo 104]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama. It seems that people think he has no real policies and instead is just a feel good candidate.

I agree that what he mostly speaks on is hope and change and all of that, but that is because that is what people want to hear, and as you learn in Poli Science 101 the first goal is to get elected, because if you don't get elected, what you want doesn't matter.

Even people like Glenn Beck admit he has just as much a platform as McCain or Hillary, he just doesn't talk about it. It is on his website, and on other websites.

Now you may completely disagree with what he says, but to say he has no platform is a little ridiculous in my mind. Anyone who believes that does no more research than listening to Clinton, one speech, and a few bloggers.

My problem is that his platform is based on socialism, not capitalism. The last 50 years of history has proven that capitalism is far, far superior to socialism...

[Tiger in Spain 0]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

[TexasTiger 13,026]

My problem is that his platform is based on socialism, not capitalism. The last 50 years of history has proven that capitalism is far, far superior to socialism...

You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

[Ranger12 46]

AuRaptor,

I agree with you on Obama on most things. As I have said, I think he is the least qualified for the job between himself, Hilary, and McCain.

However, I do have a question for you in regards to your comment about Social Security. You say it should be eliminated altogether. My question to you is how would you go about doing that?

1) What do you do with all the retired elderly people that rely on it for the current income? Most of them are too old to go back to work.

2) What do you do about those on Social Security Disability? Those people are on it because they worked at one time and paid their Social Security taxes just like everybody else, but had an unfortunate medical problem(s) to arise that keeps them from being able to work, so they had to start using their benefits much earlier then planned (which means they would not get as much in monthly benefits as they would have if they could have worked until retirement age).

3) Then what about all those that have been working all their lives and paid their SS taxes, but have not retired yet and taken advantage of their benefits? They have paid into the system, so what do you do with the money they have put into it? Do you give it back to them? If you don't, that is kind of like paying on a 30 year mortgage for 20 years and the mortgage company all of a sudden telling you that you have to start all over with your payments, because the first 20 years did not count and you can't have your money back either.

Now, granted, relying on Social Security only as your retirement is not very good financial decisions making. However, a lot of people don't make enough money to make other investments into their retirement.

Before we say get rid of Social Security, we need to get rid of a lot of welfare programs first. At least with Social Security, the people using those benefits earned them, it was not given to them.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Easy. Start off by allowing folks to put some of their SS $ into private accounts. Over time, increase the amount folks can put into their accounts, and SS will simply dry up. Obviously this can't be done overnight, it would take decades. The great lie today is that we're putting $$ away into a SS "lockbox " somewhere in D.C. , and that box has our $$ in it , earning a measly interest rate for our retirement. Problem is, that box is empty, and the $$ we sent do D.C. now is being sent right out for OTHER people's benefits. It's not an issue of what to do when the SS system breaks, it's broken NOW! The problem is that the politicians are too scared and we the people are too stubborn or too deluded to want to face reality. I credit Bush , some , for attempting to fix the problem. He took an unpopular issue and tried to get us to see what's coming. I think he could have tried harder, but that's besides the point.

[rexbo 104]

My problem is that his platform is based on socialism, not capitalism. The last 50 years of history has proven that capitalism is far, far superior to socialism...

You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

I made an A in Economics at the highly touted educational institution Auburn University; so now you are bashing your own University?

But since you doubt my credentials, you cannot doubt Larry Kudlow's.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.”

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. (Sounds like Socialism to me.) It’s an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Larry

[TexasTiger 13,026]

My problem is that his platform is based on socialism, not capitalism. The last 50 years of history has proven that capitalism is far, far superior to socialism...

You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

I made an A in Economics at the highly touted educational institution Auburn University; so now you are bashing your own University?

It's not like you're the first person to embarass my university. Capitalism isn't replaced in America everytime a Democrat gets elected. It won't be replaced with socialism if Obama gets elected either. Warren Buffet and George Soros are capitalists. A lot of idiots throw the term "socialism" around when it doesn't apply. Educate yourself and stop blaming Auburn University for your willful ignorance.

[jw 4 au 526]

It's not like you're the first person to embarass my university. Capitalism isn't replaced in America everytime a Democrat gets elected. It won't be replaced with socialism if Obama gets elected either. Warren Buffet and George Soros are capitalists. A lot of idiots throw the term "socialism" around when it doesn't apply. Educate yourself and stop blaming Auburn University for your willful ignorance.

Man, when did you turn into such a jerk? You are letting this forum get to your head WAY too much. You have now officially turned into the exact opposite of the far right conservative zealots that you so despise.

Seriously, and don't get me wrong, I think most of your posts are intelligent and full of information (I just don't happen to agree with the view point most of the times), but I enjoy reading the democratic viewpoint to further educate myself. You haven't offered much lately but short, curt, insulting responses to people with different opinions. Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't think this guy deserved that type of response.

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.