How can you vote for Obama?

[MagsDem]

I mean seriously, haven't we spent the last 8 yrs bitching about the unqualified GW Bush? I can't even believe this country would even consider voting for a guy for president of the united states who up until 2 years ago was a state senator. Have we lowered the bar so far that all you have to do is speak well, no real experience in federal government or even state executive branch required? All it takes in this country to be elected to the highest office is the ability to tell people what they want to hear? You don't have to have actually done any of it? I thought GWB was an aberation and that the country had gone temporarily insane. Turns out image and flowerly speeches are all we really care about it?

Amazing. We're screwed. Again.

[NYCGirl]

1. I appreciate your concern and will give it all the consideration it deserves. NT

[AtomicKitten]

13. me too

I mean it.


;)

[alteredstate]

20. Me too n/t

[sniffa]

2. .

[marylanddem]

11. I'll vote for whoever Tim Gunn endorses!

[bunnies]

14. Carry on?

:rofl:

btw: I love that show. Its nothing without Santino though!

[Glimmer of Hope]

60. Santino and his Tim Gunn imitations were hilarious.

Make it work!

[ursi]

3. because I haven't forgotten what the Clintons did to us at the end of their reign

[stravu9]

5. What did Edwards do to you?

.

[stravu9]

4. I Agree

Whole-heartedly!

[MH1]

6. I've spent the last 8 yrs bitching about GW, but not being "unqualified" per se.

Incompetent, yes. Clueless, yes. Craven, most definitely.

"Qualifications" never really needed to enter into it.

I think Obama has the qualities to make a great President. Among those is the ability and willingness to surround himself with great advisors and listen to them.

[stravu9]

12. Surround himself with great advisors?

Isn't that what Bush said he'd do?
I how about the qualities of patience and humility?
Does he have those too?

[caligirl]

27. I have felt that to call Bush incompetent actually gives him too

much credit, because it assumes he didn't intentionally do harm to this country and the Constitution. He is capable and this was intentional.

I am dumbfounded at why Edwards isn't running higher poll numbers. I have issues with Hillary(Taking millions from India business interests ,jobs in the Silicon Valley lost to India, etc) and don't wish to see her in the WH. I would vote for Obama if I needed to and I don't buy the experience theory. Bill Clinton had as much experience when he was elected and Hillary can't lay claim to more experience as a leader unless she wants to count 1st Lady of Arkansas and the WH, Bill can't lend her his title for this. Obama is far more capable of finding new solutions to problems and smart enough to listen and think and reason with the intellect of a great leader we haven't seen in decades. He can unite so many people , not just America.

[MagsDem]

45. WHAT????

Clinton was governor of AR for 12 years. Silly to say Obama has the same experience. Just downright silly. Obama has never served in an executive capacity, and was only a state senator for 6 yrs. In fact, Obama does not even have as much experience as Bush had when he was elected. The Clinton's have been a two-fer from day one, so Hillary has plenty of executive level experience, chiefly because Bill has always given her executive level roles in government.

I'm not even a big Clinton supporter, but Obama is just not qualified for this office. It shows in his daily campaigning, and more importantly, he has no track record to vote for. All he has is good speeches. As I said, this country is screwed when all it takes it saying you're going to do something, and you're not held to a standard of demonstrating you can do it.

Watch his campaign. He consistently waits for others to unveil plans, and then spouts off one that one ups them. He doesn't seem to have a single original thought of his own. But hey, as long as he can talk a good game, I guess that's all the requirements we have in this country anymore.

[hezekkia]

50. you sound like Mitt Romney

need. executive. experience. </robotic_voice>

[caligirl]

55. I am enjoying a cup of Tea, and avoiding the rancor. Edwards is the guy.

[MagsDem]

58. I agree

Hillary is too conservative for my taste, Obama JUST NOT QUALIFIED. Edwards is the best choice. I will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is, but I will have to really hold my nose to vote for Obama.

[caligirl]

62. Shall we all make up a bunch of DU nose clips?We all have one we don't like at least.

fund raiser, DU nose clips.

[grantcart]

99. Hillary as Govenor

Exactly what years was she govenor?

[indimuse]

76. do YOU have Obama's records to back you up..because he can't find them..

While in State government here in Illinois, Barack was known as a "nice guy," but has little to show for his years in state government. He was never particularly known

by the public at large as a vocal leader and was rarely out in front of any issue. In fact, few Illinoisans even knew his name at all until he ran for the Senate seat against

Alan Keyes. He was an unknown, a non-entity as far as state politics was concerned.



Yet, the Obama camp has made no effort to assist investigators to look into his state records. In fact, Senator Obama has blithely claimed that his records have been

thrown out. Chicago columnist Lynn Sweet reports that Obama, who has called for "transparency in government" from his rivals, is not much interested in revealing his

own documents.



"I was in the state Senate for eight years," Obama said. "I had one staff person, that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate:nopity:. I don't have

the Barack Obama State Senate Library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years.:wtf: Now, if there are

particular documents that you are interested in, then you should let us know...As I said, I didn't have the resources to ensure that all this stuff was archived in some

way...it could have been thrown out."

Hillary and Edwards have BOTH turned theirs over...even Hillary's records as First Lady have been scrutinized, WHERE are the records for Senator Obama? Lost?


that is the MOST intelligent thing you can say? I am a troll? NOPE sorry, I have been here a LONG LONG time, and am NOT going anywhere! I bet Senator Obama

would be proud of you....

no Carly ALL the RECORDS are MISSING the ENTIRE time he was Senator! NOT just RECENT ones, this came up because Barrack asked for everyone elses :wtf::grr:

records which have been produced look at MSNBC.com for the full reports! ((( This is how he ROLLS)))

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Don't forget evil

And yes, I agree with you.

Besides, truly? Clinton really doesn't have much more, nor does Edwards. They've all got enough, and good life experience beyond their political experience. They've all got good ideas.

So it comes down to the person, the person's character, ideas, etc. Which is fine.

[Bicoastal]

7. What a wonderfully well-though out and articulate post...

...and Go OBAMA!!

[Occam Bandage]

Clean, too.

[OzarkDem]

8. A good speaker, owned by corporations, protected by the news media

not much different.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Dick Cheney has decades of experience.

And that turned out well. :eyes:

[Barack_America]

10. My precinct uses the cool old-school punch system.

So that's how I personally will be voting for Obama.

[spanone]

15. adios

ht

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. I'll be happy to vote for him because he's better than any PUKE and the first black president

would be good for the country.

[bunnies]

19. murkin. Did you hit your head?

:shrug:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. No I've said that from day 1

eom

[Cant trust em]

26. Seriously, did I miss something?

Is he/she being sarcastic?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. I've ALWAYS said the same thing. eom

eom

[Cant trust em]

39. what does EOM stand for?

I'm not hip with online acronym slang.

[Arugula Latte]

44. eom = "end of message."

eom

[intheflow]

52. Here ya go:

DU Glossary

This has most of the acronyms commonly used on DU. :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

31. Undoubtedly, but that's not at issue here.

[napi21]

17. Apples & oranges comparrison!

Obama is a constitutional law scholar.
He was the President of the Harvard Law Revue.
He was a State Senator for 6 years (I think).
He's been a Senator in Wash. for 2 years.
He's intelligent!

Nont ONE SINGLE ONE of those attributes can be applied to "W"!

[ginnyinWI]

56. and more...

He actually taught Constitutional Law for ten years. A professor has to know his stuff inside and out. And he was in the Illinois Legislature for eight years, napi. Got elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

And he's written two books. Contrast that to "W" who burbles, "I'm the book president!", because he reads books at bedtime about salt and other various topics.

[babylonsister]

18. How can you be so ignorant? Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2629656

YOU'RE screwed, especially with that attitude.

[MagsDem]

47. Oh please

I read all that stuff ad nauseum. The State Senate record is laughable. Has no application to running a country. I have worked extensively with state senators in two different legislatures and the fact is that it does absolutely nothing to qualify a person as president of the united states. And frankly, it makes his supporters look desperate.

[quinnox]

21. Obama inexperience is too big a weakness

He doesn't have enough experience to be president. He just was elected to the senate, slow down Obama, get some more experience, you don't need to be president straight out of high school.

[cali]

22. Pathetic OP

I guess you're poorly versed in history, huh? Lincoln had no more experience than Obama. And trying to link him to bushco? As I said, pathetic.

[Occam Bandage]

23. With great joy.

[Cant trust em]

24. 3 reasons

1. He believes in issues that I believe in.
2. He has the most cross aisle ability to get issues solved that would normally break down in business as usual.
3. He is more electable than either of our two other options.

[Critters2]

32. Democrats caving to Repugs has been business as usual

for some time now. Sadly. We need someone to stand up to the other side.

[Cant trust em]

41. Reaching across the aisle also includes bringing people to your side

Let's not try to paint a picture where all republicans are agents of evil and all democrats are the humble saints. Every now and then we can work with moderate republicans to get things done.

[Diane R]

28. I trust Obama much more than I trust Hillary and her attack dog Bill.

[rndmprsn]

30. he's not hillary...

[bunnies]

33. By filling in the circle next to his name.

Which I have already done with great pride. Thanks for asking.

[zulchzulu]

34. Why, thanks for asking! I go to my place of voting and vote for him! It's easy!

You do what you want. Mmmkay?

:crazy:

[peoli]

35. You think George Bush is bad because of his prior experience?

He is bad because he is a fucking idiot. He was an idiot before during and will be after his presidency.

[mopinko]

36. easy. he is #1 on the ballot here.

a guy that taught constitutional law for 10 years at one of the best law schools in the world, and you want to compare him to *?
this place has gone to the dogs.

[dionysus]

37. trolls are sure out in force today....

[Cha]

38. It would nice if you had

fucking clue before you post.

[Joey Liberal]

40. I'll vote for Obama early and often :).... n/t

[Bread and Circus]

42. Is this is a joke or do you not realize that Obama has

more elected time in Government than Hillary or Edwards?

Also, none of the current candidates have executive experience. That type of experience left with Richardson (not that I or many supported him anyway).

Being first lady is not a leadership or executive position.

Do you honestly think Laura Bush is now qualified to be President because of her 8 years in the White House?x

[MagsDem]

46. State senator? LOL!

He has two years, period.

[ginnyinWI]

61. 2005 to 2008 = three years. n/t

[H2O Man]

43. clown

[MagsDem]

48. Yes he is

Previously, the only other candidates that have run with this little bit of experience have not been taken seriously by anyone. The main problem I have with it is that he appears as if he doesn't want to pay his dues and get the experience he needs. Like he is somehow exempt from such basic requirements. It's like the guy in the cubicle next to you applying to be CEO of a company of 50K employees AND thinking he really should get the job.

[H2O Man]

94. nope. not him.

[David Zephyr]

49. I can vote for Obama who opposed the war in Iraq that Bush & Hillary supported.

So much for your "experience" "point".

[MagsDem]

63. He forgot to oppose it in 2004

But luckily he didn't have a recorded vote back then, cuz he wasn't elected to federal office then. You do know that when Obama says he was "always" against the war he's lying, right? That's what happens when you support someone that can say anything, but has no record to back it up.

By the way, GW Bush claimed he was all for the SCHIP program when he was running for president, even though as gov of TX he did not support it. Lazy media makes these types of candidates, and people fall for it everytime.

[David Zephyr]

69. The war had already started. Get a newspaper subscription.

.

[MagsDem]

86. And he keeps on voting for them to fund it....

doesn't he? Edwards is right on the money when he says stop funding it, or stop saying you're against it. It's pure BS from both Clinton and Obama. We hear from both how they WILL lead on this issue and that if elected. Newsflash, you're a US Senator --- Lead NOW or shut the hell up.

[Donna Zen]

71. I have great respect

for those who were with us when those who like to be called leaders were MIA.

Obama was with us all the way.

On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:
"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."


On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:
"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday , then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President. A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.

LINK

Obama understood why this war was wrong, and he was not afraid to stand up.

Sen. Obama is a very brilliant man. While his forte is Constitutional Law, he also holds a degree in foreign policy. I'm becoming very impressed with his ideas and his willingness to listen. I am not thrilled with Sen. Clinton's devotion to DLC policies, nor do I agree with her foreign policy war-centric ideas. You know, she has chosen to surround herself with some questionable advisers like Lee Feinstein, Gen. Jack Keane, and Michael O'Hanlon. Thus, I wonder why anyone who has endured the last 7 years would consider giving these people more power.

Personally, I find it better to thank those who put themselves on the line to act like leaders, especially when it comes to the life and death of war. I don't understand those who would diss good people or believe these campaign generated smears. Well, unless you hated the people who opposed the war because you sided with the neocons.

[ileus]

51. preach it to 'em brother....Hillary 50 states in 2008

[Mass]

53. The pb with Bush is not that he is unqualified. It is that he stands for the wrong values,

in particular cronyism and corruption.

[Bethany Rockafella]

54. If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

And you will too, right?! :hi:

[MagsDem]

59. Yes, because any Dem is better than a rethug

But I will have lost my faith (again) in this country to vote for a candidate of substance over some sort of image created by campaigns and the media.

[tammywammy]

64. Easily.

Thanks for your concern though.

[MagsDem]

65. He loves Joe Lieberman

Went to CT and campaigned hard for him and against Ned Lamont. If Obama wins you're looking at Joe the Bush kiss ass as SecDef. He has, after all, promised to surround us with people that have SOME experience. LOL!

[tammywammy]

67. You're so cute.

The Clintons both campaigned for Lieberman too. And the heavy majority of democrats endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary.

Again, thanks for your concern.

[MagsDem]

79. No, sorry, that's incorrect!

Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Page A02


ALBANY, N.Y., July 4 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, said Tuesday that she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for reelection if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your thinking!

P.S. Wouldn't choose Hillary either, for that matter. But her and Obama aren't the only ones running -- just the worst choices. She too conservative, he, all flash and zero substance / experience for the job.

[tammywammy]

81. Oh, you're still wrong

Obama only supported Lieberman in the primary, he supported Lamont in the general. And Lamont's endorsed Obama for president.

I was correct both the Clintons supported Lieberman in the primary against Lamont, but not in the general.

[MagsDem]

84. He raised over $350K for Lieberman against Lamont

So don't give me that pure baloney. While Ned Lamont may be forgiving of that, it's just another nail in Obama's substance free campaign for me. All I have seen Obama do is parrot other Dem proposals that have made the rounds for years. And I don't put ANY stock in his Iraq war comments since he has voted for every single war funding bill since he took office.

[Mass]

68. Hard. He made one speech at a CT Democratic Party dinner. LOL.

Just he did not work harder than Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and a few other people.

[MagsDem]

78. Incorrect

Let's try facts instead:

Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Page A02


ALBANY, N.Y., July 4 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, said Tuesday that she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for reelection if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

Facts are such troubling thing, aren't they?

[Mass]

102. This was after the primary, and Obama supported Lamont after the primary.

Facts are troubling, is it not. Just that you know, Lamont endorsed Obama, as posted earlier, who helped him in his 06 GE campaign.

[Cha]

73. Ned Lamont is an intelligent man..and

that's why he endorsed Obama..

Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama

Ned Lamont, January 10, 2008

When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics – changes that would make government work for them again.

Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works.

Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well.

Making healthcare affordable for all Americans, rebuilding our aging infrastructure, and ending our dependence on foreign oil are all problems that require more than a tax credit here or an earmark there. Barack is the candidate best able to enact these big changes necessary to getting our country moving again.

We have seen that Sen. Obama has the wisdom and judgment to get the big decisions right – as he did on Iraq more than five years ago. And when President Obama steps out of Air Force One in countries around the world, he will represent a fresh start with friends and allies. He will end the war in Iraq, work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and start investing in America again – and we will be safer and stronger for it.

We Democrats are fortunate to have had many strong candidates running for President. As you may know, I was proud to work hard for Chris Dodd during his campaign. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Sen. Dodd – especially for his powerful calls to defend our constitutional freedoms by restoring habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo, and living up to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. I know that Sen. Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, has been and will continue to be Chris’ ally in fighting to protect our Constitution.

As Barack often says on the campaign trail these days, “with the challenges we face at this moment, the real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”

It’s time to change the game."

http://nedlamont.com/news/2256/why-im-supporting-barack-obama

[ecstatic]

66. Does that eliminate Edwards too, or just Obama? nt

[Alexander]

70. Your post is factually inaccurate and just plain trollish.

Obama's been a US Senator for 3 years, and sponsored over 1500 pieces of legislation.

Before that he was a State Senator for 8 years, sponsoring hundreds more.

Are you going to vote for him if he's the nominee? Or are you just another freeper in disguise?

[indimuse]

77. what anti war resolution did ha sponsor?

before he announced his run for the presidency? and how many war funding bills did he sign since arriving to the senate???

[MagsDem]

80. Oh please, everyone who thinks Obama....

is sorely lacking in any applicable experience for this job (having less than GW Bush, in fact) is not a freeper. There should be a Goodwin's law against that BS here in DU. Soon as you accuse someone of being a freeper you automatically lose the argument. It screams that you cannot defend your position.

He is a media creation, pure and simple. It's ridiculous to even consider someone with such a lack of experience for POTUS.

[lumpy]

90. Sponsored over 1500 pieces of legislation in 3 years ?

uh

[ShadowLiberal]

72. Well look at who's won presidential elections the last 40 years

I don't have the article where I read it months ago, but not counting elections where an incumbent president was seeking reelection, the less experienced candidate has usually won general elections in the last 40 years.

[tandem5]

74. I can't believe one of his top advisors is

Tom Daschle! That guy is going to help institute change? We talking about the same guy??

[MagsDem]

85. Exactly!

Obama is all hat and no cattle, just like Bush. Now he would be better than Bush, but he's just about the worst dem candidate we have as far as I'm concerned.

[LWolf]

75. I can't. n/t

[Marrah_G]

82. You compare Obama to Bush?????

If you cannot see the difference between the histories of these two men then I just don't know what to tell you.

[union_maid]

83. I haven't decided yet, but these are just talking points

I might vote for any one of the three. All that you're saying is just the Clinton line against Obama. Doesn't mean I won't vote for Clinton, but it's just campaign propaganda, the same way that assuming that she's totally invested in the status quo is on the other side.

Fact is that GWB's lack of qualifications had more to do with the fact that he showed no signs that he could accomplish squat without his family's backing than the positions he'd held. Obama's shown that he is very, very smart. I think we've seen how important that is in a president. That doesn't distinguish him from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards either, for that matter. Or from most of the candidates who were running at the start. Democratic candidates tend to be kind of brilliant.

Clinton, Edwards and Obama all have the potential to make excellent presidents. I just hope one of them gets the chance. In the meantime, I'd rather that we voters pick the best rather than trash the rest.

[Colobo]

87. Thanks for your concern. I'll vote for him in your name.

[THUNDER HANDS]

88. you know, there was once another democrat who was a state senator

for a few years, then got elected to state-wide office for four years before he ran for president.

His name was FDR, maybe you've heard of him.

[ozone_man]

98. That state wide office was governor of NY.

That's a large difference from being a state senator. Most presidents have gained important executive experience as governors. Few have had only experience in Congress.

We really need an FDR this time with our deteriorating economy, but don't have a candidate with executive experience like that, experience with balancing budgets, etc. We do have a populist in the race though. Edwards. :)

[vee]

89. __X__ Obama. It's that easy!

[CyberPieHole]

91. Well his pandering to gay hating bigots puts him over the top for me...

I mean, what more can one ask for in a candidate? No experience, murky background, and a need to read from a tele~prompter...sounds like I'm writing about George W., but I'm not: It's Barack Obama! Obama is the Democratic version of W...just what the doctor ordered.:sarcasm:

[skipos]

92. Yes! We need EXPERIENCE. Rumsfeld perhaps? Cheney? Maybe we should give Bush another go.

Who else in this campaign can claim they have served as President for 7 years? That's right! NO ONE.

Bush 2008: No one has had more experience as President.
This time, he'll get it right.

[MagsDem]

93. Let's examine that logic

Because some people with experience have been bad for the country, all people with experience would be bad for the country?

Doesn't it sound stupid when you take your statement to its logical conclusion?

The problem with Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al is/was not their experience, it was their ideology.

[skipos]

97. I tried to examine the logic of your OP

and I didn't find any.

Good luck with your quest.

[Califooyah Operative]

95. with complete confidence. nt

[Bonobo]

96. Yeah, Bush is an oratory genius along the lines of Cicero.

[Nailzberg]

100. I'm not sure if I use a computer or punch a ballot.

[FrenchieCat]

101. I already did......

via my absentee ballot!

Excellent judgment and vision is what this country need. 35 years of Experience at making bad decision need not apply!