Sincere questions about Obama

[venable]

serious, non-vitriolic replies only please:

1) if he is a uniter, does he have any responsibility for the fact that our party has not been so bitterly divided in a long time?

2) if you believe that corporate control of our government is a serious issue, can Obama actually change this sad reality?

3) how will he sit down with republicans, and expect that they will actually, constructively engage. how does that work?

3 B) does this dreamed-of bipartisanship include allowing republican goals for our country?

4) what states can he win that were lost in 04. for instance, how can he win SC? look at SC in a general, not a dem primary to answer, please.

5) how will he respond to vicious attacks from republicans, in light of his, in my opinion, slightly rattled response to Bill's rough play.

6) he is not a terrific debater, not bad, but not great, so how will he do against a tough nut like McCain - remember that half the audience will be republican.

7) is it possible, not certain, but is it possible, that he is more a projection of our desires than a figure who has it in him to reshape the country?

[Justice Is Comin]

1. I give you props

for all those excellent observations and direct hits right to the target.

You should have plenty of not much comfort here shortly

[Critters2]

17. I'm diggin' your squirrel!

Very cool!

[sfam]

2. Answers to 6 of the 7 questions...

Here's my answers as best as I can provide...

1. The MSM has the right of it that Clinton is responsible for the most recent divisions. Blaming Obama would be strange, considering the number of varied attacks by Clinton's Surrogates prior to Obama responding. Obama certainly responded eventually at times though.

2. Hopefully, yes. Not totally though, no. Hopefully he can make this work in health care and energy.

3. It will work the same way it used to - you can disagree without being disagreeable. Imagine conversations where someone who disagrees with you isn't either a fascist or a terrorist sympathizer.

3B. Any policy position going before congress is currently dead on arrival. Unless there is a 60 vote majority in the Senate, this will still be the case. The goal is (1) to get a mandate from the american people for needed action on clear goals, and then (2) invite ideas from everyone to make this happen.

4. I don't have a solid analysis on each state by state primary. But clearly he's counting on a significant turnout from people who have never participated previously.

5. Hopefully he'll respond wonderfully. Bill is in essence training him for the general election (if he gets there).

6. He's getting better. More importantly, his message appeals to the long lost middle of the country.

7. Sure. But some of us have the audacity to hope.

[Nitrogenica]

3. Perfect

[keep_it_real]

4. When JFK got into office and saw what was going on

He turned on everybody that got him elected, the mob, Jewish supporters, big business, he did not care; JFK was determined to CHANGE America for the better; but that determination got him murdered.

If Obama wants to make a CHANGE in America than he better be ready and willing to do a JFK and the same goes for Edwards or any body else who wants to be president and make a CHANGE in America.

[venable]

6. thanks for your reply..nt

[ProSense]

5. Read

this (watch the speech too)

[cbayer]

7. Great questions for all of the candidates, don't you think?

[Barack_America]

8. I'll try.

serious, non-vitriolic replies only please:

1) if he is a uniter, does he have any responsibility for the fact that our party has not been so bitterly divided in a long time?
-Most of the arguments thus far have originated in the Clinton camp. IMO, the only thing he can be accused of is fighting back against accusations and false information coming from the Clintons. You might have to do more reading on this subject to understand the background of this division, but it is the opinion of most of the media that the Clintons have driven this divide.

2) if you believe that corporate control of our government is a serious issue, can Obama actually change this sad reality?
-Obama worked hard in the Senate to successfully pass a strong ethics bill that is aimed at this very issue. He speaks out regularly against corporate control of government. It is a very real issue to him.

3) how will he sit down with republicans, and expect that they will actually, constructively engage. how does that work?
-The hope is that he will get enough Independent and Republican votes in the general election that existing congressmen and women will find it in their best interests, re-election speaking, to work with Obama and compromise on his policies.

3 B) does this dreamed-of bipartisanship include allowing republican goals for our country?
-Compromise is needed to pass just about anything in congress, but the greater support you have from the citizens of this country, the less compromise will be necessary. It's that idea of a mandate and the "democratic majority" that Obama speaks of.

4) what states can he win that were lost in 04. for instance, how can he win SC? look at SC in a general, not a dem primary to answer, please.
-Obama won SC by more votes than McCain did. Far more people voted Dem in the primaries than voted Rep. If this holds for the general election, SC will go blue. Another thing to consider are the states that are just barely able to hang onto blue status. Obama's ability to draw independents and Republicans, thus far, suggests that these states would stay blue in the general election.

5) how will he respond to vicious attacks from republicans, in light of his, in my opinion, slightly rattled response to Bill's rough play.
-Obama is stronger against Republicans than he is against fellow Democrats. This is because the Democrats are very close on most issues, but they are very different than the positions of the Republicans. Notable is Iraq, where McCain wants to stay in. And the economy, where the Republicans are in agreement on maintaining Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Democrats are much more in line with American sentiment on these issues.

6) he is not a terrific debater, not bad, but not great, so how will he do against a tough nut like McCain - remember that half the audience will be republican.
-McCain is a horrible speaker and the issues are against him. Obama will do just fine against McCain (Hillary is a much tougher opponent)

7) is it possible, not certain, but is it possible, that he is more a projection of our desires than a figure who has it in him to reshape the country?
-You cannot separate the two. If he has the support of a strong majority of Americans, that alone gives him the power to reshape the country. But yes, he has the intelligence and drive to change this country profoundly.

I hope this helps. But really, there's no better source than the candidate himself.
www.barackobama.com

[venable]

9. thanks for your reply, however..

while I agree, without a doubt, that the Clintons have initiated this horrible diviseness, it is still the case that we are bitterly and dangerously divided, even while Obama the uniter is center stage. (I am not too naive to recognize that this is a race, so rules are a bit different)

yes, the clintons began it, and so will the republicans...and they will do it in much the same way, and with even more self-righteousness than have the clintons.

how will he handle this differently - ie how will he get these people to stop behaving this way?

my biggest fear is that the dream of bipartisanship depends on a constructive opponent - not destructive ones like the clintons or the republicans.

which makes me think that this hope is just that, hope and no more. it's hard to argue against the word 'hope', but i believe we need much more...we need a fighter. is Obama a fighter? and if he is a fighter, how is he also a uniter.

this is not empty questioning, but goes, I believe, to the very heart of what he is meant to be.

[Barack_America]

10. The attacks were aimed...

...at baiting Obama to reply, at his own peril. They were said in order to get him discussing race and, thus, peg himself as "the black candidate". He was in a no-win situation. If he speaks out against the questionable statements of the Clintons, he's perceived as an "uppity black man" by the white community. If he jumps to the defense of the Clintons, then he risks losing the support of the black community.

The best thing for him to do was to say nothing, let the battle wage between the Clintons and the media, and have his campaign try to calm the fire behind the scenes. When it got out of control, he did speak out and defend the Clintons (who really didn't deserve to be defended, IMO).

I don't think this tactic can be used again by the Republicans. The country is now sick of hearing about it and have had a quick education in the politics or race-baiting. And, from the exit polls from SC, they will punish those who use it.

Is Obama a fighter by nature? No. There's nothing in his history that even remotely suggests this. Will he fight to defend himself or his principles? Absolutely.

[venable]

11. please explain

""Is Obama a fighter by nature? No. There's nothing in his history that even remotely suggests this. Will he fight to defend himself or his principles? Absolutely.""


Please explain this. Either he is a fighter, or he isn't.

If you say there is nothing in his history that says he is a fighter, then why would you assume he will fight?

The reason I'm pushing on this, is that I believe this either makes him a great candidate and president, or a complete waste of our nomination/presidency. Don't you agree?

[Barack_America]

21. It's a simple difference.

Offense versus defense.

He does not use anger, dramatics or dirty politics to achieve his aims. He does not look for fights. He is widely known to be a great listener and is widely praised for his understanding of all sides of an issue. He has also been praised for knowing how to present his views in ways that will be persuasive to his listener. This is also something that Bill Clinton had been praised for (although we know that Bill also likes to start fights).

But, his actions from this past week have shown that he is tough and he can fight back. He was fighting both Clintons and appears to have won.

[madrchsod]

14. "speak softly and carry a big stick"

he does`t need to be a "fighter" if he has the american people, a united democratic house and senate behind him.
people will unite behind obama if he treats people with respect and trust.

[venable]

22. do you believe, really believe this?

do you believe that he can show the republicans that the people are behind him and they will behave?

are you aware of Bill's popularity when they impeached him?

they don't give a hoot about united people treated with trust and respect.

this, i have to tell you, is what i fear may be the fallacy of the obama movement. it could not sound better, and it could not be based less in reality.

and also - the poster said he there was nothing in his past that said he was a fighter - so where is the big stick? please show me the big stick.

it's a nice phrase, but what does it have to do with Obama? Serious, honest question.

[madrchsod]

12. number three b

republican goals-a road to balance budget,limited foreign engagements,america first. i`d say that would be excellent starting points to engage the republicans on reigning in bush`s neo liberal/conservative disaster.

number 2-the only thing barrack can do is "jaw bone" the senate,house ,and take the direct appeal to the american people. he will have to have the house and senate willing to pass the needed reforms. that is why number three b is important

[cooolandrew]

13. I think we will see a vastly differeent debater once up against a republican...

...You can see in his speeches that there is a side to him he is taming in te debates in the cause of remaining as diplomatic as he can within his party. That won't be as necessary once in the GE.

[Tulkas]

15. answers

1) Clintons divided it
2)yes
3)with a strong majority, if he holds the power repugs will deal. Think about 2012 also, it is possible he could have a "landslide" victory, that can be turned into a "mandate" Clinton will never break 52% no matter what, to many people hate the Clintons
3b) no
4)Ohio, (maybe florida) or the new mexico, colorado, nevada, arizona block if Richardson is on the ticket and McCain is not. This was addressed by Tim Russert after S.C. the numbers back it up if Obama increases the turn out of voters under 30 and/or african americans.
5)the same way he has to the Clintons
6)McCain falls apart in debates, that one isn't even close
7)anything is possible, but we can be certain that the Clintons will make divisions deeper and will be fought at every turn by Clinton haters. Obama is the best bet.




Also, what state can Billary deliver that we did not win in '04?

[venable]

18. i also don't think billary can deliver any new states

bill probably could, but billary can't.

i'm asking these questions as a devout edwards supporter who is very tentatively practicing becoming more comfortable with obama, just in case. i still hold surprisingly realistic (in my mind) hope for edwards, but if he doesn't pull something out of the hat, I need to do some work to come around to Obama.

i really do believe Edwards has a real shot, in the long game, to end up with the nomination - and this is predicated on a three way race to a brokered convention, and delegates taking a good hard look at all three candidates, and outsiders as well. I still think Edwards is the next president of the United States.

anyway... no reason not to consider others, in case my scenario doesn't play out.

there is no amount of work i can do to come around to hillary. i can't get there from here.

i have asked these questions to see if obama supporters can help me believe more in the guy.

the responses have been good and thoughtful. thanks.

[XemaSab]

20. Just to play devil's advocate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png

Dammit, usually wikipedia lets you link images.

If you hit "properties," then cut and paste you might be able to see it. It's the electoral map for 1992, showing Clinton carrying Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and a few other surprise states.

[XemaSab]

16. Here's my shot at it

1) I don't think he's dividing the party so much as the fact that there is legitimate disagreement over which direction to go, and our party has gotten more divided over the past 20+ years. This disagreement is, of course, whether it's better to stick to your guns or "triangulate."

2) Obama's sure as hell going to be better about it than Clinton, and sure as hell better than any Republican.

3a and 3b) Of all the candidates, Clinton will capitulate the MOST, yet receive the LEAST respect from the other side.

4) Obama's a firm believer in a 50-state strategy. It will be our first time out of the gate with this strategy in place for a presidential race. It won us the house and senate, and we'll see if it can win us the White House. Part of this will depend on who the other side is putting forward, of course, and also whether Obama can take it to the trenches.

5 and 6) I think he's holding his own so far, and I think he's got a gift for keeping cool without sounding "wooden," like (cough cough) some of our previous candidates. After the whipping we've taken in the last two elections with repeated republican vollies not countered effectively by our candidates, if we put up someone not willing to fight back, I'm just going to go shoot myself. I can't promise that Obama's a fighter like that, but I can't promise that about any of our other candidates now either.

7) Sure it's possible. It's a good question, and I think you could ask the same question about Al Gore, Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, HR Clinton, Kucinich, or any other of our candidates from the last several elections. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

19. I'll just take number 4-

4) what states can he win that were lost in 04. for instance, how can he win SC? look at SC in a general, not a dem primary to answer, please

New Mexico - Dems lost by 8,000+ votes
Iowa - Dem lost this state in 2004 by 0.67%
New Hampshire had a slim lead toward Dems (but by only 8,000+ votes)--He'll make that much larger
Ohio - He can energize more of the Black vote and Youth giving us Ohio
Nevada - Bush won by 2.6%
Virginia - With a Dem Governor and Dem Senator, this one is doable - Indies make up 26% of the electorate (Bush won indies 54 to 44 kerry)
This is a conservative estimate


Also, He is adept at fighting Voter fraud and knows how to get out the vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4225484