To those who don't want to "sell" us Obama. Why come to GD-P?

[readmoreoften]

Do you just come here to cheerlead? Why bother being here? For what purpose?

I'd love to tell people why I've finally decided on Edwards after a long engagement to Kucinich. I'd love to change their minds or maybe clarify some things.

I accept that people distrust Edwards because of his $400 haircut and his big house. I think it's reaching but I understand.
I accept that people can't forgive him for the IWR vote, although I'd ask that they listen to his present ideas on the matter.
I accept that people distrust him because of his hedge fund investment. That also really concerns me.

But I can tell you 100 reasons why I like his POSITIONS on ISSUES. Yet no one in the Obama campaign wants to talk about positions and issues.

You can say that you don't want to promote Obama. And I will continue to move towards possibly not voting for him in the general. You can say I will be the cause of America's downfall. But I can also say-- well blame yourself--arrogant followers who won't even discuss their candidate don't do their candidates any favors.

I'm on the fence on whether or not I'll vote for him. Right now the only reason I have is because I know how much it would mean symbolically to African Americans. And because he's not Huckabee. On the other hand, I will be betraying myself to vote for someone who I believe cynically used hatred of my kind to gain conservative votes. No matter what I do, I'm biting off my nose to spite my face.

So why should I vote for your candidate after he caused my community pain and division? Instead of trying to prove that my feelings are wrong and invalid, why not try to tell us WHY and HOW you think he's going to bring important change?

[Buzz Clik]

1. When did it become the responsibility of all posters to sell you on some candidate?

If you want to acquaint yourself with a given candidate, do so. If you don't like that candidate, so be it.

No one is obligated to do your intellectual leg work.

[Colobo]

5. Thanks. That's exactly right.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. When you ask them 'why?' and they have no answer, Buzz..

This is a discussion board, not a cheerleading board.

[Buzz Clik]

19. I will grant you that those who simply dance around applauding a candidate....

... and never give a reason deserve to be questioned. They aren't necessarily obligated to give a response, but one has to wonder why they can't verbalize their support.

However, even that is not nearly as annoying as the endless trashing of the candidates that's been going on.

[readmoreoften]

10. It's not intellectual leg work. It's called human connection and it wins votes.

The only reason why I'm even considering voting for the man is because the sheer joy of some African American DUers made me remember how important it is to even have symbolic victories (which is what I believe it would be.)

Conversation is a powerful tool. The fact that few Obama followers are willing to use that tool has somewhat disturbed me and made me suspicious about his campaign. And that's just honest.

[patrice]

2. It's NOT about issues. It's about who has the best machine. nt

[Colobo]

3. I come to GD-P to talk politics and to hang out with other Democrats.

[readmoreoften]

8. Come on. Let's be serious now.

And I mean that in a friendly way.

[Colobo]

9. Yea, sure. This is a message board. A Democratic message board.

I feel like home over here.

[papau]

4. I grant you O is more conservative that Hill and Edwards, less pro-union/pro poor and more into

compromise with corporations and the GOP - I still see him as a good president and a whole lot better than any GOPer out there.

[readmoreoften]

16. Agreed.

But the McClurkin fiasco makes it very difficult to pull the lever because I (and many others) feel used and betrayed. I'm not sure if he made a stupid mistake or if he made a calculated choice to win try to win the Christian vote. If it's the former, I wish he'd apologize so I could vote for him in good conscience. I would accept a heartfelt: I had no idea how hurtful this would be to your community. If it's the latter, I find it truly frightening--especially when he also speaks about uniting with Republicans.

I know he'll be a better union president than any Republican. But then again Huckabee won a major union endorsement as well--which I find utterly terrifying.

[Dawgs]

18. "compromise with corporations"

He, more than anyone besides Edwards, has come out against lobbyists. He has also fought heavily for finance reform.

Also, there is no candidate more qualified than Obama on working with the poor. I take it you've never been to South Chicago; especially at the time Obama worked there as a community organizer.

[papau]

23. O takes money directly from state lobbyists and indirectly via families of employees of

federal lobbyists.

I was poor and know poor and have poor in the family. A housing advocate tends to be a chapter 8 investor or a helper of such (which is not a bad thing - but it doesn't get you Sainthood). Indeed see corrupt neighbor friend and real estate investment roles of O.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Then why did most self-described "conservatives" in Iowa go with Edwards over Obama or Hillary?

I think you're working with a myth there.

[readmoreoften]

29. Because many so-called conservatives are those damn joe-six packs who've been

looking for working-class representation and, finding none in either party, have opted to vote for "who they'd like to have a beer with."

On the other hand, many young people who call themselves "progressive" are college students who are social hippies and fiscal libertarians--largely because they've never worked before and have no concept of work and "free market" contains the word "free" so they think it's a good thing.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. It speaks to the shallowness of their candidate.

When there's nothing there, there's nothing there.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. I don't get all the Obama mania either.

He was pretty much just another run of the mill DLC'er as a senator. He talks about change out of one side of his mouth then says he wants to solve problems without confrontation out of the other. I see him as a black male version of Hillary. I think people who expect change are going to be real disappointed by him.

[cali]

13. What a gross misrepresentation or bald ignorance

His Senate record is overwhelmingly liberal. He's actually walked the walk; as a community organizer and attorney for the disenfranchised. His record in the Illinois Senate is also overwhelmingly liberal/progressive. He's an expert in Constitutional law.

You are full of it.

[ruggerson]

15. You could have written the exact same post

without the "you are full of it."

[Dawgs]

20. Well, I have to say that I understand cali's anger here.

As an Obama supporter, I am sick of Edwards and Hillary supporters acting like Obama is a moderate/republican lite with no plans or experience.

All of those things have been debunked many times. So, I can understand why an Obama supporter would get frustrated.

[here_is_to_hope]

21. I think you are asking too much....n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

27. Oh really.

Obama Changed Position on War Funding
Democratic Presidential Contender Opposed War Funding in 2003 but Has Voted Four Times for Funding in Senate
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2970930&page=1

And his patriot act vote I suppose that was liberal right down the line too.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029

Then there are the times he didn’t vote DLC because he didn’t vote at all.

Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Obama Skip Mukasey Confirmation Vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/09/clinton-dodd-biden-oba_n_71903.html

And if you don’t believe me about his bipartisanship read what Paul Krugman has to say about him in this article. The man triangulates with the best of them.
Obama: Played for a Sucker
by Paul Krugman

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/16/5276/


(on edit) One last thing, did you know who his mentor is in the Senate? Obama's choice for mentor was none other than Holy Joe Lieberman himself.

[midnight]

12. The best argument that I have at this point is that Edwards will

fight the powerful to provide progress for all of us. Obama will negotiate, and hopefully all sides will move towards an agreement. Unfortunately if you have been reading D.U. it has become clear that the powerful do not negotiate. They destroy whatever they want, and take whatever they want. Now think about how that impacts your day to day life. Groceries, gas, education, health care. Now if those basics are taken care of you are one of the lucky ones. They real lucky ones are those who get to take a vacation. Now think about travel. Arizona x-rays your body. Airports are killing people who freak them out. Serice is down, and unpredictable abuse is up. Think about negotiating for help during a Natural disasters. Fresh on everyone's mind should be the bridges that collapesed because the Republicans wanted to save tax dollars. Do you really want a president who will negotiate with the folks who place money over peace. We all should imbrace hope, but let's not negotiate are rights.

[Dawgs]

22. I think you're taking what Edwards says and ignoring his record to make him look better, and...

doing the same with Obama to make him look worse.

Just do me a favor and don't forget how Edwards voted just 4 years ago.

[rucky]

14. Similar can be said of some supporters of all the candidates.

The 2nd most popular candidate on DU just dropped out. I'm undecided - so I'm reading the posts a bit differently now. I'm okay with either of the top-three - any of them would win the General, so that's not an issue to me. I will be looking at their plans more closely. With Biden, I could examine his achievements instead, which made it an easy decision for me.

None of the three have as strong of record in that department, so I have to look at other qualities - including the intangibles. So cheerleading has some effect - the ability to inspire. But it must be backed by substance.

As for the McClurkin thing. He fucked up. He knows he fucked up, but politically he can't do what the gay community expects him to do to make up for it. He put himself in a box, then tried to get out of it with a weak appeal for tolerance. He suggested a plausible solution, by getting the Black church leaders to sit at the table with the gay community and work out their differences. I hope he follows through with that, but I think he's hoping it'll all blow over. Now that he's front-and-center, maybe more pressure will make him follow through - but I guarantee you he will not denounce the Black churches. If this is a sticking point, he's probably lost your vote. If the GLBT pressures him to follow through with his proposal - and that proposal would be satisfactory - then what?

[readmoreoften]

25. There are no differences to be worked out.

LGBT leaders and anti-gay Black church leaders can't sit down with each other and work out their differences any more than pagans and Christian fundamentalists can. The pagans would say "we both have spiritual belief systems, let's accept one another." The fundamentalists would say "you are murderous demonic monsters and we want you away from our children."

The idea that LGBT leaders and anti-gay Black church leaders have "differences" presupposes the idea that LGBT folks have a beef with Black folk! Heck, some LGBT folks ARE members of Black churches. There are no "differences". They think we are sick, satanic, and full of sin. We want them to love us and protect Black LGBTs.

If Obama stepped in it, I can accept that. I also agree that there's no way out of that situation. But the fact that 4 homophobic singers were there and the fact that he gave McClurkin the stage along with the fact that he hired a white gay pastor to speak while folks were filing into the concert (when many Black LGBT pastors were begging for the job) makes me think that it was an intentional message to Christian voters. It's either the perfect storm resulting from total ignorance of LGBT issues (including Black LGBT issues) or it was a calculated effort. It could be either.

In the end, I might vote for him this time but I am uncertain. My partner will not under any circumstances and she doesn't even really follow politics.

There's really nothing more Machiavellian than two minority groups pitted against one another. It sickens me.

[Dawgs]

17. As an Obama supporter, I agree with you.

"Yet no one in the Obama campaign wants to talk about positions and issues."

I think that is an unfair statment. Many of us have talked about Obama's positions on various issues. We've talked about how he was right about the Iraq war, how his healthcare position is as good as the other front-runners, and how he's been right about finance reform and keeping corporations out of policy decisions. We've had to defend him with his voting record on GLBT rights, and his positions on climate change and immigration.

And,

I'll gladly explain why Obama is worth selling.

I don't have much time, but here's a quick list.

1) His judgement in 2002/2003 regarding the Iraq war.
2) His decision to become a community organizer and his experience as a politician.
3) His wanting to keep lobbyists out of government.
4) His wanting an open government.
5) His understanding of what needs to be fixed in the world (climate change, healthcare, restoring America's image)
6) His wanting to talk with our enemies, instead of fighting them in war.
7) His electability. Last night showed us that he can bring out the youth vote in huge numbers. He can also bring out African Americans to vote in the GE. Both of these groups typically don't vote.
8) His age. I like the fact that he comes from a different(not better) generation.
9) His position on gay marriage is better than Edwards and Hillary, IMO. I don't have a link, but I have seen where he has spoken to various gay advocate groups about getting civil unions first, and then work towards gay marriage.
10) I like his position on Social Security; not that there is a problem, but that it's unfair for the top 6% not to pay its fair share.

I also accept that people are mad about how he handled the McClurkin fiasco. I thought he handled it terribly.
I also don't like some of his positions on immigration and climate change.
I also have a problem with him not voting on Kyl/Lieberman.

I also think it's unfair of you to paint all Obama supporters as being the same. We don't all agree, just like Edwards or Hillary supporters don't all agree.

[readmoreoften]

28. Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don't want to paint all Obama supporters that way.

It seems that this has been the message of the loudest ones as of late. I also thank you for acknowledging the seriousness of the McClurkin fiasco.

1) I am skeptical of his position on the war because he wasn't in a position to vote, especially since he has voted to fund it since. I am also bothered by his 2004 statement that his position is "pretty much the same as GWB" on Iraq. Obama loses me when he tries to overstate his credit on issues. For example, I was really irritated when he attacked Clinton for voting on Kyl-Lieberman when he didn't even show up. I thought that was tacky. I was also kind of irritated that it made me have to stand up for Clinton, who's vote was clearly (in my opinion) insane.

2) I also like that Obama was a community organizer.

3) It seems that he and Edwards want to keep lobbyists out of government, but I think Edwards is doing a little better on this one, IMHO.

4) This is good. In this, he has the edge over Hillary (but still not Edwards for me.) Yet his reluctance to explain his positions makes me worried about his openness. He doesn't seem open to me. Of course he will be 1000 light years better than Bush. But not Edwards, in my opinion.

5) I feel like all candidates have a sense of this. In fact, I think anyone with an IQ over 50 can see the problems. Once again, I think Edwards cuts to the root of the problem by identifying it as corporatism.

6) I definitely like the idea of diplomacy, of course--but only internationally. I think this is the real meat of the difference between Edwards and Obama. I don't think we can "talk" our problems with the right-wing away any more than gay people can "talk" their differences away with religious folks who think they're possessed by demons or pro-choice folks can sit down and talk with anti-choice folks. Six long months on the picket line taught me that you can't talk to people with power and an agenda. A negotiating isn't two sides talking and no one giving up ground. My problem with Obama here is that I think he thinks of himself as a sort of "mediator" who will bring people together and "let them work it out." This is a *pastoral* notion of governance, not a political one. If I had a union president who wanted to "mediate" with the management I'd be extremely concerned. The management have all the power. Does Obama think that the rich will just "talk it out" with the poor? That the rabid homophobes who profit off fear and ignorance will sit down and talk with gay people? Does he think Stormfront can work it out with the NAACP? I comes down to that old folk song: which side are you on? Diplomacy means concessions. What will his concessions to the rich, powerful, heterosexuals be?

7) I agree. He is highly electable. I think Edwards is even more electable because his campaign reaches out to the majority of Americans in very practical ways that they understand. That's why Edwards got the conservative vote in Iowa. That's why the Republican at the Townhall debate said she was supporting Thompson but now she's considering Edwards. When they asked why she said "I don't know, he stands for something."

8) I think that is a really shallow reason to vote for a president. I think it's terribly wrong. In fact I think it's discriminatory. There are brilliant imaginative people of all ages. He's only 9 years younger than Edwards. This is his job interview. If we were on a hiring committee it'd be against the law. This notion of throwing out the old (and sometimes the wise) in favor of the hot new idea is uniquely American. Why do we need to slough off the past? I'd rather us have pasts that we're proud of. I'm proud of the old Wobblies, the labor movement of the 30s, the new left of the 60s, the union solidarity of the 70s, the antiwar movement. Why turn from this proud heritage?

9) That is also John Edwards' position on gay marriage. I think all the candidates platforms are the same to neutralize the issue. I simply cannot believe Obama will stand up for us once elected if he won't stand up for us now. Edwards has also addressed transgender equality, which has left me and quite a few others HIGHLY impressed. If Obama wants to keep the Christian vote that is central to his campaign, he will always have to keep us at arm's length.

10) I'm unclear on Obama's position on SS because of his comments in the last debate about "the looming crisis." Frankly, I think if we prosecuted companies that illegally hire their employees as independent contractors to get out of paying SS taxes, we'd start making a dent in this problem.

Thank you for the civilized discussion. :toast:

[Rockholm]

26. THANK YOU.

[RoadRage]

30. I don't think there is anything I can say that would change..

your mind. You like John Edwards, and you've decided that.. perfect!

I really don't think MY reasons for liking Obama would convince you to support him.. but frankly, they're good enough for me.

I like Obama, because he was against the war from the start

I like Obama because he has an honest willingness to work with republicans & independents. A lot of people on this board DISLIKE him for that same reason.. but to me, it's a plus

I like Obama, because he didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. Because up until a couple of years ago, he knew what it was like to make car payments & house payments... and to not have enough left over for his daughters college funds

I like Obama because he's BLACK.. because he has an international background that can bring some possible respect back to the US that the current administration has not done.

I like Obama because of his Charisma, his personality, and the fact that when I see him speak I don't feel like i'm listening to a politician.

I do not care if you like or do not like any of these reason.. because they're MY reasons for liking Obama. If you want to like the guy.. do some research and figure out if you agree with him, his principals.. and then vote for him. If you do all of that and still like Edwards - then vote for John Edwards. A candidate should be personal to everyone. No one can convince me to switch to another candidate.. and i'm not conceited enough to think that I can convince someone else to jump on Obama's bandwagon.