The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Primula Baggins]

So, you don't see any important policy differences between them, Maria?

(There is nothing wrong with supporting McCain, of course, but I have trouble thinking he and Obama are anything alike, or that the decisions they'd make wouldn't be radically different on some pretty vital issues.)

[Maria]

Of course there are policy differences- but neither one is a complete fit with my views and so their policies aren't as important as the person, and I find McCain a much more impressive person than Obama.

In fact, Obama worries me a tad,with his love of crowd worship- but maybe he'll grow out of that.

Hillary Clinton does not figure into my calculations, because I do not want her embarassing husband in the White House again under any circumstances.

[Cerin]

If you're perfectly happy with current government policies and the way the country is heading, then there is no reason not to vote for McCain, as he is promising to continue on our present course.

And don't forget the Supreme Court nominations that will undoubtedly be made in the next term. There are a whole host of issues the course of which will be decided for decades to come, depending on who nominates the next justices to the court.

[tinwë]

Here’s an interesting article on Obama’s relationship with indicted ...er ... whatever he is ... Tony Rezko. It describes them as “friends” and suggests that their relationship goes well beyond what Voronwë described in his earlier post (Obama says he met Rezko while at Harvard, not after he went to work). There does not seem to be anything particularly damning about the house deal though. I do agree with Cerin that the same thing would have resulted in an all out assault if it had been Hillary instead of Obama, although I’d point out that it’s still early in the game for Obama .

Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

I’m really surprised Romney dropped out. Didn’t see that coming.

Maria, all of McCain’s qualifications don’t mean a hill of beans to me if I disagree with him on the issues, and I do disagree on just about everything.

[Primula Baggins]

Roe v. Wade, for example: McCain intends to get it overturned.

And the economy will chug along just as it has been, too. But, of course, it's been a really great economy for some people.

[Cerin]

McCain may be very impressive on paper, but the country will now get to know the person. I guess we'll see if people's favorable impressions hold up in the months to come.

[solicitr]

What's more worrisome to be is apparently a lot of emails circulating that Obama is a Muslim, that Obama is in league with Osama and getting Obama to the presidency is all an Al-Qaida plot..... I've seen copies of this trash. I console myself these people would never vote for a Democrat anyways, but still......

At least some of these emanate from the Clinton camp, not the GOP, or at least that was the case last month when The Washington Post reported on it.


In one most important economic respect McCain would be *very* different from Bush: an old-line budget hawk, he has virulently criticized Bush's spendthrift ways and record deficits.

More generally, it's at least my impression of the man's character that he's above all a pragmatist (and fundamentally decent): ultimately he will do what he believes will *work,* not isolate himself in an ideological reality-distortion bubble like the Shrubbies.

[Maria]

How else are you going to learn about how someone has performed in the past other than by reading? Getting to know anyone by campaign speeches is pretty inconclusive. Reading about past performance is a much better indicator of character, and from what I've read, he's both quite a character (as they say) and an honorable man. I'm more impressed by him than any presidential candidate I've seen since I started voting.

[Primula Baggins]

Soli, what could McCain do about the deficits if he does as he's declared he will and continues the war, and maybe opens a third front? I'd seriously like to know. Our infrastructure is on the edge of crumbling as it is, and social programs can't bleed much more without dying; we also may just have officially entered a recession. There's not a lot of blood left in any of the stones, if we take tax increases on the wealthy off the table, as McCain certainly would.

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m really surprised Romney dropped out. Didn’t see that coming.

He’s a shrewd businessman, and his financing his campaign mostly with his own money. No point sinking it into a contest he can’t win, either in the primary or the general.

[Ellienor]

In one most important economic respect McCain would be *very* different from Bush: an old-line budget hawk, he has virulently criticized Bush's spendthrift ways and record deficits.

More generally, it's at least my impression of the man's character that he's above all a pragmatist (and fundamentally decent): ultimately he will do what he believes will *work,* not isolate himself in an ideological reality-distortion bubble like the Shrubbies.

Now I'm a Dem from way back, but McCain in the White House upsets me less than some of the others. With Iraq, I hate his "100 years" comment, but I sure haven't heard a viable strategy for withdrawing and not letting the place turn into Western Iran from the Dems.....although it will probably happen, whether we pour in hundreds of billions more or just walk away now.

[axordil]

not letting the place turn into Western Iran

Hey, the Ottomans did pretty well at stopping that. But they were there a lot longer than 100 years...and Sykes-Picot lives on.

[yovargas]

As far as solicitr's examples, I regard him as a propagandist with an agenda, based on my perception of his posting history here, and so am distrustful of anything he offers as proof of what I consider to be his highly biased point of view.

Considering how extreme and constant your attacks on Bush and co have been for years - far eclipsing anything sol has said about anybody - I find this...ironic. But anyways, whether or not you trust sol, that you so easily dismiss some very serious allegations made against Hillary is disturbing to me. Since, from the remaining candidates, you seem to be favoring her, isn't it imperative that you see what merit charges of her ruthlessness, crony-ism, ect have? Or are you not as appalled by behaviors you would likely be very quick to condemn in Bush and Republicans if those behaviors are coming from a Democrat?

[Cerin]

Since, from the remaining candidates, you seem to be favoring her, isn't it imperative that you see what merit charges of her ruthlessness, crony-ism, ect have?

No, it is not imperative that I apply my limited time and energy researching the veracity of solicitr's anti-Clinton propaganda.

I have been a close watcher of the Clintons over the years, consider myself a fairly well-informed person and have reached my conclusions about them in real time, just as the rest of you have reached your conclusions about them through your various means of assessment. I have not wakened from a decades long sleep so that I need to be spoonfed unsavory tidbits about someone who performance in public life has been more thoroughly vetted, examined and drooled over by the press than perhaps any other person living today.

[solicitr]

Prim, on Roe v. Wade.

It's intersting that among the regular posters here there are three lawyers; all three of us are pro-choice; and yet all three of us are more or less agreed that from a jurisprudential standpoint Roe was a very bad decision. It doesn't matter how ardently you may believe in a perceived right, you can't just have judges write it into the Constitution. Sooner or later Roe will go down, and put this very divisive issue back before the elected branches.

There are lots of good reasons for liberals (and libertarians and a certain sort of conservative) to get upset about what conservative jurists might do, but Roe shouldn't be one of them. It's ultimately a lost cause.

[Primula Baggins]

I defer to your better understanding of the matter, soli, but I'm sure you understand that I am not eager to see my country fight that whole bitter battle again.

[Faramond]

Obama has just called Romney "an ineffective candidate".

Ouch!

There is a context to the remark that explains why he said it but in my post I will just leave it at the sound-bite. The idea of the frontrunner on one side taking shots at also-rans on the other side is rather amusing to me. It's soo --- gratuitous! I think McCain needs to aim some zingers at Richardson, and Hillary can take on fellow New Yorker Rudy Giuliani.

[axordil]

Well--it's true, if you're going by bucks per delegate. But Giuliani would be the champ in that area...

[Faramond]

I think Giuliani beats Romney in ineffectiveness in a landslide! It seemed like when he campaigned somewhere he lost votes.

Yeah, Romney was pretty ineffective himself.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I responded to the comments about Roe in the thread that we have about Roe.