Obama - how can he convince people?

Ludo

is_that_so wrote: »

... Not convinced by him and still waiting....

I have seen so many people say things like this about Obama. He hasn't convinced me. He can't close the deal, etc, etc.

My question is this. WHAT can he do to convince people. Can he say something? Do something in particular?

He has given the same if not more policy details than McCain. If people don't know him after the last two years campaigning then they haven't been paying attention.

I believe myself that people who say this simply don't like him for one reason or another as a person...fair enough.

But I cannot understand still HOW people can be convinced if they haven't by now, which is why I get annoyed by seeing statements like the above.
It is as if the people saying it want are waiting for something to convince them, but they never say what.

Black Swan

I would imagine that the polls, both state and national (most surpassing McCain), suggest that there are a few people that are convinced that he might make a good president, plus over $600 million dollars in campaign donations (many from online Howard Dean-like that are small but numerous), almost doubling McCain's $300 plus million.

He apparently has convinced a few more newspapers to endorse his candidacy than McCain. According to Editor & Publisher, daily mainstream newspapers: Obama 240, McCain 114. But the college paper endorsement I found rather interesting (not included as mainstream above): Obama 65, McCain 1.

Source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230

philologos

Ludo wrote: »

I have seen so many people say things like this about Obama. He hasn't convinced me. He can't close the deal, etc, etc.

My question is this. WHAT can he do to convince people. Can he say something? Do something in particular?

He has given the same if not more policy details than McCain. If people don't know him after the last two years campaigning then they haven't been paying attention.

I believe myself that people who say this simply don't like him for one reason or another as a person...fair enough.

But I cannot understand still HOW people can be convinced if they haven't by now, which is why I get annoyed by seeing statements like the above.
It is as if the people saying it want are waiting for something to convince them, but they never say what.

What can he do to convince me? (i.e stop me believing that John McCain is the better candidate).

1. Clarify his tax plan, we've been hearing conflicting reports on it in the last while. He originally said that those who earn under $250,000 a year will not be receiving tax hikes, Joe Biden said those who earn under $150,000. Now another individual Bill Richardson govenor of New Mexico says Obamas tax plan will bring tax cuts to those who earn $120,000 or under. Now who is telling the truth? Whereas John McCain tells us honestly his plan to lower taxes for businesses, and for individuals to encourage more investment in the American economy at a difficult time. Surely this makes more sense?

2. Sort out his plan on Iraq. He had made up his mind before he had even been to Iraq and seen the situation. He has only been to Iraq once, John McCain has visited both Iraq and Afghanistan 8 times in the last year. He has been briefed on the conflict by General Petreus and has warned that if we leave too abruptly (16 months is far too short) it would lead to chaos for the general reason? Why should they patronise the individuals working on the ground instead of using them to determine when is the likely time they will have finished there. Iraq is still very much dependant on coalition troops on the ground for security purposes, and in terms of air traffic control. The recent expulsion of Christians from Najaf, amongst other sectarian violence has echoed the need for the US to stay until the job is done. I never supported the invasion, but I do support the cleanup. The US caused this war, it should have enough of a moral compass to leave the Iraqi people safe.

3. Obama has encouraged incursions into Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government during the Presidential debate. He has constantly attacked McCain for saying that he is just like Bush. Well why is he advocating policies like the current Bush Administration are currently using in Pakistan? McCain reprimanded him on this comment and rightfully so. So it would take an overturning of this to have my support.

4. McCain has committed himself to overturning anti-democratic implementation of the Roe vs Wade decision which was imposed on the American people by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s'. For those of you who don't know this was the abortion legislation that was passed in the USA. McCain has supported this to be passed by state by state decision if at all allowing the people to vote for it instead of having such laws imposed on them. If Obama had offered this solution to this problem, I would have supported him by now (provided other conditions had been met).

5. Meeting with rogue leaders without precondition? In the past Obama has suggested that he would meet with the Iranians and other rogue states without setting conditions for these meetings. If he does not do this he could be encouraging a platform for their views, and he could be putting America in a dangerous situation.

6. Clarify his relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, and Rashid Khalidi.

7. Explain to me why despite his relationship with Rashid Khalidi, he has dismissed any adviser to his campaign with pro-Palestinian views? (Irish Times - today, article on differing Foreign Affairs approaches).

Black Swan

Jakkass wrote: »

4. McCain has committed himself to overturning anti-democratic implementation of the Roe vs Wade decision which was imposed on the American people by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s'.

What are you suggesting here? That the US Supreme Court is "anti-democratic" in terms of its specific decision regarding Roe vs. Wade? This decision has been upheld for decades and not been overturned by a US Supreme Court that has changed in its membership since Roe vs. Wade, suggesting that it has thus far successfully withstood any challenges as to its constitutionality for decades?

Or are you generally against the US Constitutional checks-and-balances between the US Supreme Court, the US Congress, and The Executive, or just against the US Supreme Court as a check on the constitutionality of decisions made by the other two branches of the US government?

Further, I am uncertain what you mean by "anti-democratic." The US is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. In a representative democracy many public officials are elected to represent the interests of its constituency (at least on paper). The public consequently does not directly vote on every piece of legislation by Congress, but rather their elected officials do so on their behalf. The same holds for The Executive branch, where thousands of decisions are made, executive orders issued, etc., without a direct vote by each citizen on each specific issue.

But all public officials are not elected by the population of individual citizens, such as cabinet officers, directors, managers, and supervisors in The Executive Branch of government, for example. These non-elected officials make thousands of decisions that affect their citizens everyday lives, without a direct vote on each and every daily decision they make. It would be logistically unfeasible for each citizen to become expert in all decisions that affect a country of 300 million plus people, consequently a public trust is given to thousands of these non-elected public officials (although some violate that trust).

The members of the US Supreme Court are nominated by an elected official (US President) and confirmed (or not) by the US Senate (also elected). The framers of the US Constitution wanted the members of the US Supreme Court to be distanced from the day-to-day whims of political shifts that occur so often in the course of human affairs, to provide stability, integrity, and to ensure the spirit and intent of the US Constitution. I would suspect that there are biases in the selection of Court members, just as in all things political, but this is the nature of representative democracy. But Roe vs. Wade has seen replacements of the US Supreme Court Justices since the decision had been made, and those Justices were not of the same political orientation, or nominated and confirmed by only elected Democrats or only elected Republicans, hense, the US Supreme Court is a part of the representative democracy that is (or isn't, depending upon your view) the United States of America.

So is your real, ultimate issue with representative democracy, and the thousands of non-elected decision-making officials that are a vital part of that system? If so, how would you replace it? With what and how for a extremely complex nation of 300 million people?

And lastly, McCain's claims that he will overturn Roe vs. Wade are hollow as Halloween! He would have to stack the US Supreme Court with like minded and biased Justices (when vacancies occurred), which would have to be confirmed by a US Senate that will more than likely be dominated by an elected Democratic Party majority that favours the integrity of Roe vs. Wade, as do the constituents that elected them to office.

**Yikes! I've had too much coffee and it now shows! (Someone please pass me a glass of wine so that I can chill out!) **

Manic Moran

I'll just chime in on the Roe v Wade bit, and generally support the good Captain Lagoon. I would just add that the thing about judges is that they're not supposed to care what the majority think. Other than individuals taking matters into their own hands, the judges are the last line of defense against the tyrrany of the majority. As long as the laws say something, it doesn't matter what the majority believes, it's to the judges to figure out what the law says. If the majority wants to change those laws, there's a system in place for them to do it, not to rely on the judges to change it for them.

NTM

Ciaran500

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Clarify his tax plan, we've been hearing conflicting reports on it in the last while. He originally said that those who earn under $250,000 a year will not be receiving tax hikes, Joe Biden said those who earn under $150,000. Now another individual Bill Richardson govenor of New Mexico says Obamas tax plan will bring tax cuts to those who earn $120,000 or under. Now who is telling the truth? Whereas John McCain tells us honestly his plan to lower taxes for businesses, and for individuals to encourage more investment in the American economy at a difficult time. Surely this makes more sense?

philologos

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll just chime in on the Roe v Wade bit, and generally support the good Captain Lagoon. I would just add that the thing about judges is that they're not supposed to care what the majority think. Other than individuals taking matters into their own hands, the judges are the last line of defense against the tyrrany of the majority. As long as the laws say something, it doesn't matter what the majority believes, it's to the judges to figure out what the law says. If the majority wants to change those laws, there's a system in place for them to do it, not to rely on the judges to change it for them.

NTM

Right hang on then. Many could argue that there is a tyranny of the majority on the unborn in the United States also, and that it is a violation of Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I'm not willing to get into a discussion on abortion really however. The point is that this wasn't put to a vote of the people, and it went against the wishes of the vast majority of people, I can't see any reason why I can condone that. It just appears that the US Supreme Court has picked one side of the debate and gone with it, instead of allowing an input of the people in a rather contested issue state by state.

Would anyone like to deal with some of the other points I have listed?

brianthebard

How can you say it went against the will of the people if they didn't vote on it?

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

5. Meeting with rogue leaders without precondition? In the past Obama has suggested that he would meet with the Iranians and other rogue states without setting conditions for these meetings. If he does not do this he could be encouraging a platform for their views, and he could be putting America in a dangerous situation.

How would this encourage a platform? The Iranian president already gives interviews to major news organisations, goes to the UN, etc, how exactly would it be a platform, or more of a platform than they already have? How would it put America in a dangerous situation? More dangerous than a two front war?

6. Clarify his relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, and Rashid Khalidi.

What is unclear?

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

How would this encourage a platform? The Iranian president already gives interviews to major news organisations, goes to the UN, etc, how exactly would it be a platform, or more of a platform than they already have? How would it put America in a dangerous situation? More dangerous than a two front war?


What is unclear?

First point, when you invite people to speak with you you give their views legitimacy especially if you are the most powerful state on Earth. News organisations are rather different than governments it's their job to get the answers from them and put them forward to the people. It's not the job of a country to legitimise unsavoury views which could be possibly dangerous. I think it's best to get some form of agreement before discussions start or you as president wouldn't know what you would be getting into.

What's unclear? He basically when questioned about these people just brushed them off without properly explaining them. Look to his discussion particularly at the AIPAC conference on Rashid Khalidi. The way he could settle my mind about this would be, to tell me exactly his role of Rashid Khalidi. We all know that when Obama refered to Bill Ayers as merely a neighbour, that wasn't entirely the whole truth, they served on committees together etc. However how come it was the media that had to fish this out instead of Obama being full on honest with us. It appears that he isn't as transparent as people want to be.

brianthebard wrote:

How can you say it went against the will of the people if they didn't vote on it?

Good point, perhaps an unfair assumption on my part. However, they never sought the democratic mandate of the people in an issue that would shape their country perhaps forever. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that they decided that the "tyranny of the majority" was in denying a mother a right to choose to terminate a child, whereas there is a far more important right at stake, the right to life. A compromise between the rights of the child, and the rights of the mother would have been a reasonable decision for the US Supreme Court to make if they really cared for the "tyranny of the majority".

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

First point, when you invite people to speak with you you give their views legitimacy especially if you are the most powerful state on Earth. News organisations are rather different than governments it's their job to get the answers from them and put them forward to the people. It's not the job of a country to legitimise unsavoury views which could be possibly dangerous. I think it's best to get some form of agreement before discussions start or you as president wouldn't know what you would be getting into.

So has condi rice legitimised Iran now then?
Or the round table discussions with North Korea made them America's buddies?

What's unclear? He basically when questioned about these people just brushed them off without properly explaining them. Look to his discussion particularly at the AIPAC conference on Rashid Khalidi. The way he could settle my mind about this would be, to tell me exactly his role of Rashid Khalidi. We all know that when Obama refered to Bill Ayers as merely a neighbour, that wasn't entirely the whole truth, they served on committees together etc. However how come it was the media that had to fish this out instead of Obama being full on honest with us. It appears that he isn't as transparent as people want to be.

Personally think that's bull, he's dealt with the wright and ayers thing, I haven't heard of this other chap. From what I see the people who still have problems with his associations are the people who don't want to say the "issue" is closed.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

So has condi rice legitimised Iran now then?
Or the round table discussions with North Korea made them America's buddies?
Personally think that's bull, he's dealt with the wright and ayers thing, I haven't heard of this other chap. From what I see the people who still have problems with his associations are the people who don't want to say the "issue" is closed.

I'm sure the Bush Administration set preconditions with the Iranian government before agreeing to speak with them.

He hasn't dealt with it half. He was quoted as saying that he could never disown Wright as he baptised his children, and he sat in his pews for 20 years. Anyhow, eventually he did disown him. He must have agreed with some of his teachings if he could bring himself to sit there for 20 years. As for Bill Ayers, he wasn't forthright one bit on what his relationship was with Ayers. At first he was just a "neighbour" later we find that he sat on many boards and committees with him. I don't consider it closed, you're right because it isn't. Any views on Rashid Khalidi, and then point number 7?

I'm willing to accept the vote of the American people if they decide Obama, but I won't deny I think it would be a big mistake.

brianthebard

What were the Bush administrations preconditions?

What exactly is the problem with his associations? He worked on a committee with ayers-so what??? Give me one reason why either of these people matter, they aren't running for president. Bush and McCain have had far worse associations (Rumsfeld for instance). This is a non issue, which is precisely why its been allowed run, it can't be denied or confirmed because there is nothing to deny or confirm. So the rumour mill keeps going.

axer

Ludo wrote: »

He hasn't convinced me.

Does he have to?

Otacon

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Clarify his tax plan, we've been hearing conflicting reports on it in the last while. He originally said that those who earn under $250,000 a year will not be receiving tax hikes, Joe Biden said those who earn under $150,000. Now another individual Bill Richardson govenor of New Mexico says Obamas tax plan will bring tax cuts to those who earn $120,000 or under. Now who is telling the truth? Whereas John McCain tells us honestly his plan to lower taxes for businesses, and for individuals to encourage more investment in the American economy at a difficult time. Surely this makes more sense?

I think Ciaran's post clarifies his tax plan. He also will not be raising the Capital Gains Tax on businesses, merely closing loopholes and technicalities, that allow businesses to pay less taxes than they should.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Sort out his plan on Iraq. He had made up his mind before he had even been to Iraq and seen the situation. He has only been to Iraq once, John McCain has visited both Iraq and Afghanistan 8 times in the last year. He has been briefed on the conflict by General Petreus and has warned that if we leave too abruptly (16 months is far too short) it would lead to chaos for the general reason? Why should they patronise the individuals working on the ground instead of using them to determine when is the likely time they will have finished there. Iraq is still very much dependant on coalition troops on the ground for security purposes, and in terms of air traffic control. The recent expulsion of Christians from Najaf, amongst other sectarian violence has echoed the need for the US to stay until the job is done. I never supported the invasion, but I do support the cleanup. The US caused this war, it should have enough of a moral compass to leave the Iraqi people safe.

Obama wants to get out of Iraq. They shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, but that is now history. It is costing the Americans $10 billion a month to stay there, when their economy can't handle that right now. And the war that they should be fighting, against Al Qaeda is being sidelined. At least he is looking into a timeline.

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Obama has encouraged incursions into Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government during the Presidential debate. He has constantly attacked McCain for saying that he is just like Bush. Well why is he advocating policies like the current Bush Administration are currently using in Pakistan? McCain reprimanded him on this comment and rightfully so. So it would take an overturning of this to have my support.

He has said that if the Pakistani government do not act against the terrorist cells in Pakistan, then he will go ahead and do it himself. By the way, it was only after his comments that Bush began his attacks.

Jakkass wrote: »

4. McCain has committed himself to overturning anti-democratic implementation of the Roe vs Wade decision which was imposed on the American people by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s'. For those of you who don't know this was the abortion legislation that was passed in the USA. McCain has supported this to be passed by state by state decision if at all allowing the people to vote for it instead of having such laws imposed on them. If Obama had offered this solution to this problem, I would have supported him by now (provided other conditions had been met).

The Roe v. Wade decision was that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional as they violated the right to privacy specified in the 14th Amendment. This has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

5. Meeting with rogue leaders without precondition? In the past Obama has suggested that he would meet with the Iranians and other rogue states without setting conditions for these meetings. If he does not do this he could be encouraging a platform for their views, and he could be putting America in a dangerous situation.

I can not see an issue here.

Jakkass wrote: »

6. Clarify his relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, and Rashid Khalidi.

He has done so countless times.

Jakkass wrote: »

7. Explain to me why despite his relationship with Rashid Khalidi, he has dismissed any adviser to his campaign with pro-Palestinian views? (Irish Times - today, article on differing Foreign Affairs approaches).

I haven't read the Irish Times article. Link?

is_that_so

Seeing as I was quoted by the OP, my reasons why and many of them have not changed since the last time I listed them way back in January.

Walk the walk?

This is where my biggest doubts lie. So far he is untested. As I maintained quite some time back, this is a councillor going for the Taoiseach's job.
The same case can be cheerfully made for McCain but as McCain has a longer list of screwups and achievements, one might be persuaded that he would be a better candidate.
Even so I suspect Obama is the best of an average to bad bunch. If he gets in I hope he can because we will stuck with him for the next four years at least.

Cheerleading

While it was inevitable that he was going to get a lot of adulation he has not attempted to temper this in any way and to an extent he has, as you would expect a politician to do, exploited it because it will probably win him the election.

Hubris

The messianic association , the world tour and the Miss World like "world peace" notions, in my view are some of the elements that may come back to haunt him, especially when he disappoints the cheerleaders. I also found the attempted cynical "association" with JFK , MLK and Lincoln distasteful. I've always had deep suspicions of people who claim that they are going to fix the world. It suggests that all of the rest of us know no better and it can all end in tears.

Policies

Neither actually has any policies because neither has been elected. What they do have are policy proposals and plans. While one would expect plans to change, his readiness to throw up plan after plan runs the risk of very few of them being implemented. The current state of the US and world economy suggests quite reasonably that some may never see the light of day at all.

Who I am not

Regrettably a lot of the election right through from the primaries has been about one of the worst US presidents of all time. In that respect all the Dems needed to do was mention the name. Obama has quite naturally exploited that but how would he have fared if the appalling ineptitude of the Bush administration had not cast such a shadow?

Decision Making

I haven't seen any beyond all of his plans. But McCain is no great shakes there either. One example that sticks in my mind is the response on the Georgian incident.

Populism

Well this shows up in every election but as our own set of "decision makers" have shown, denial is not the way to go. Recall that even FF added a caveat, "where funds allow", to their last set of election promises. Populist plans that are abandoned tend to be remembered as broken promises.

The Wars

Whoever gets in, is stuck with them and he should have admitted as much. While Iraq appears to be drawing to a close, Afghanistan, as history has shown, has the ability to mire armies for long periods of time.

Although I don't warm to the man I found his earlier performance interesting but the hubris that I have seen in him since has put me right off. That wouldn't necessarily stop me voting for a candidate as I would choose based on how I believed I could trust them to do the job. In this case it would be a concern. I find his approach hectoring, long-winded, calculated, and many of his speeches render me absolutely comatose.

That said if I were American I wouldn't be voting for either.

philologos

Otacon wrote: »

I think Ciaran's post clarifies his tax plan. He also will not be raising the Capital Gains Tax on businesses, merely closing loopholes and technicalities, that allow businesses to pay less taxes than they should.

It's not Capital Gains I'm referring to for a start. I'm referring to Corporation Tax, which in the USA is a ridiculous 35%. Lowering this would prompt a lot more investment in the United States. Obama is adamant that he isn't going to lower this. As far as I'm aware, Ciarans plans do not clarify what Biden and Richardson have suddenly said about this in the last few days.

Otacon wrote: »

Obama wants to get out of Iraq. They shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, but that is now history. It is costing the Americans $10 billion a month to stay there, when their economy can't handle that right now. And the war that they should be fighting, against Al Qaeda is being sidelined. At least he is looking into a timeline.

That's his problem. It's not about the invasion anymore. This president has to deal with the cleanup and restore Iraqi lives to normality. They have a moral duty to do this. If the US leaves in 16 months it's going to cause chaos like I referred to in my original post on the subject, he refuses to listen to the experts on the ground. That only tells me bad news.

Otacon wrote: »

He has said that if the Pakistani government do not act against the terrorist cells in Pakistan, then he will go ahead and do it himself. By the way, it was only after his comments that Bush began his attacks.

Again very Bush like. So much for "change".

Otacon wrote: »

The Roe v. Wade decision was that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional as they violated the right to privacy specified in the 14th Amendment. This has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

Well allowing the killing of the unborn violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, yet I don't see anyone getting into that matter. The US is meant to be a nation that secures the freedoms of all. It has everything to do with right and wrong with a global state condones it.

Otacon wrote: »

He has done so countless times.

All he's done is wish them away. He hasn't explained it fully in any sense. A one liner doesn't give us much insight into how much or how little he had in common ground with these people. I just want answers, Obama seems to be hiding a lot.

Otacon wrote: »

I haven't read the Irish Times article. Link?

Was in yesterdays paper.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1101/1225321622360.html

Memnoch

You seem to be suffering from Fox news syndrome. Most of the stuff you've brought up has been answered. You can agree or disagree with Obama's stance on this but there is more than enough information out to answer all these questions.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not Capital Gains I'm referring to for a start. I'm referring to Corporation Tax, which in the USA is a ridiculous 35%. Lowering this would prompt a lot more investment in the United States. Obama is adamant that he isn't going to lower this. As far as I'm aware, Ciarans plans do not clarify what Biden and Richardson have suddenly said about this in the last few days.

Obama doesn't have a plan to change these. He has other plans to stimulate business growth in the US. 1) By giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans he will allow them to have a lot more disposable income. This means people will be able to afford things and spend more money, which means that businesses will sell more stuff, and so on and so forth. 2) Lower taxes on small businesses (which Obama defines as making less than 250K a year. THat's 250k PROFIT btw not GROSS. 3) Offer a 50% tax credit to anone who creates a new job in the US for the next 2 years. There are other details and if you want to look at the HIS tax plan in more detail why don't you just go to his website?

That's his problem. It's not about the invasion anymore. This president has to deal with the cleanup and restore Iraqi lives to normality. They have a moral duty to do this. If the US leaves in 16 months it's going to cause chaos like I referred to in my original post on the subject, he refuses to listen to the experts on the ground. That only tells me bad news.

Well his stance on Iraq is clear. ANd a lot of us disagree that it IS about the invasion. The current "democratically elected" Iraqi leader has SAID that he wants the US troops out of his country. If you believe Iraq is a soverign nation then that request should be honored. I'm not going to get into a debate/arguement about his Iraq policy. Except to say that his policy is clear. If you disagree with it then you don't have to vote for him, but it's not going to change.

Again very Bush like. So much for "change".

I love this. Mccain wants to continue Bush's policies in every facet (including his current stance on Iraq) yet you argue that Obama doing something ENTIRELY different is like Bush. Brilliant fox news spin.

Well allowing the killing of the unborn violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, yet I don't see anyone getting into that matter. The US is meant to be a nation that secures the freedoms of all.

Again seems like you are clear on what Obama's policy is here, you just don't ilike it. For the record, I believe that Obama's policy is more pragmatic, practical and likely to REDUCE abortions.

All he's done is wish them away. He hasn't explained it fully in any sense. A one liner doesn't give us much insight into how much or how little he had in common ground with these people. I just want answers, Obama seems to be hiding a lot.

I'm not even going to comment on this associations nonsense.

TBH it does not seem to me at all as if you have any real questions about Obama or his policies. These questions are merely insidious ways of framing the GOP/Fox news attack lines against him that have been already repeated ad infinatum.

It's Joe the plumber - I'm a neutral just asking questions when really I made up my mind long ago and am just trying to gain artificial credibility for my statements by pretending that they come from an inquisitive and non-partisan standpoint - all over again.

Memnoch

Who I am not

Regrettably a lot of the election right through from the primaries has been about one of the worst US presidents of all time. In that respect all the Dems needed to do was mention the name. Obama has quite naturally exploited that but how would he have fared if the appalling ineptitude of the Bush administration had not cast such a shadow?

It's not about the ineptitude of the Bush administration. It's a philosophy. The right-wing/GOP philosophy that is espoused by Mccain and the Republican party and that has been implemented by Bush the past 8 years.

A policy of severe, repeated, unwarrented, uniliateral military agression
A policy of complete and utter deregulation of financial systems and businesses
A policy of concerted social injustice
A policy of 'backward,' social moralities derived from religious ignorance (not including the genuinly grey area of abortion)
A policy that completely disregards basic and international human rights

Everything Bush has done over the last 8 years has proven just how damaging a philosophy it is.

Mccain, with the help of the GOP party has shown that he will continue more of the same...

He seems to also believe in a Hawkish/agressive kill 'em all foreign policy
He's gone back on his opposition to torture despite his incarceration in Vietnam
He supports the kind of unbridled capitalism without any checks or balances that has caused the current global financial crises.

I could go on...

It's not about competency or ineptitude. It's about philosophy.

philologos

Memnoch, do you not agree that when 3 different people involved (Obama, Biden and Richardson) claim different amounts for Obamas tax plan, that it causes confusion? A yes or no answer will suffice.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Memnoch, do you not agree that when 3 different people involved (Obama, Biden and Richardson) claim different amounts for Obamas tax plan, that it causes confusion? A yes or no answer will suffice.

They are talking about different aspects of the same tax policy.

$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

$150K is less than $226k thus Biden is correct - that person would get a tax cut. He gave that example after talking about someone earning $1.4m.

Earning under $250k will not get a tax increase as per Obama.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Clarify his tax plan, we've been hearing conflicting reports on it in the last while. He originally said that those who earn under $250,000 a year will not be receiving tax hikes, Joe Biden said those who earn under $150,000. Now another individual Bill Richardson govenor of New Mexico says Obamas tax plan will bring tax cuts to those who earn $120,000 or under. Now who is telling the truth? Whereas John McCain tells us honestly his plan to lower taxes for businesses, and for individuals to encourage more investment in the American economy at a difficult time. Surely this makes more sense?

Answered. It is not Obama's fault if Richardson makes a gaffe.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Sort out his plan on Iraq. He had made up his mind before he had even been to Iraq and seen the situation. He has only been to Iraq once, John McCain has visited both Iraq and Afghanistan 8 times in the last year. He has been briefed on the conflict by General Petreus and has warned that if we leave too abruptly (16 months is far too short) it would lead to chaos for the general reason? Why should they patronise the individuals working on the ground instead of using them to determine when is the likely time they will have finished there. Iraq is still very much dependant on coalition troops on the ground for security purposes, and in terms of air traffic control. The recent expulsion of Christians from Najaf, amongst other sectarian violence has echoed the need for the US to stay until the job is done. I never supported the invasion, but I do support the cleanup. The US caused this war, it should have enough of a moral compass to leave the Iraqi people safe.

Obama has repeatedly answered that. He is aiming for 16 months - even John McCain agreed that that timeline was a fair amount of time and Obama has always said he would adjust that timeline if necessary to ensure they exit Iraq responsibly. What more do you need?

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Obama has encouraged incursions into Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government during the Presidential debate. He has constantly attacked McCain for saying that he is just like Bush. Well why is he advocating policies like the current Bush Administration are currently using in Pakistan? McCain reprimanded him on this comment and rightfully so. So it would take an overturning of this to have my support.

He was asked a question and he answered it. If he had good intelligence on the location of high ranking Al-Qaeda leaders or Osama Bin Laden and IF pakistan were not willing to strike then he would send people after them - it is the only way to get those leaders and to try and bring peace to the region otherwise it would drag on even longer. He is not encouraging incursions into Pakistan - he is telling how he would act in given circumstances.

Jakkass wrote: »

4. McCain has committed himself to overturning anti-democratic implementation of the Roe vs Wade decision which was imposed on the American people by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s'. For those of you who don't know this was the abortion legislation that was passed in the USA. McCain has supported this to be passed by state by state decision if at all allowing the people to vote for it instead of having such laws imposed on them. If Obama had offered this solution to this problem, I would have supported him by now (provided other conditions had been met).

As said earlier - it is not about abortion but about the interpretation of the constitution. McCain has no right to overturn the decision - that is for the Supreme court to decide.

Jakkass wrote: »

5. Meeting with rogue leaders without precondition? In the past Obama has suggested that he would meet with the Iranians and other rogue states without setting conditions for these meetings. If he does not do this he could be encouraging a platform for their views, and he could be putting America in a dangerous situation.

If they had done some listening earlier maybe things wouldn't be as bad as they were. Do you think the way things were handled i.e. attack first has worked out well?

Jakkass wrote: »

6. Clarify his relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, and Rashid Khalidi.

Have been explained countless times but some refuse to listen. Do remember that McCain was chairman of a board that oversaw $500,000 being given to an organisation that Rashid Khalidi co-founded but I don't see Obama saying that McCain pals around with anti-israel people.

Jakkass wrote: »

7. Explain to me why despite his relationship with Rashid Khalidi, he has dismissed any adviser to his campaign with pro-Palestinian views? (Irish Times - today, article on differing Foreign Affairs approaches).

Maybe Obama is pro-israel like he said he is? Who did he fire? There does not seem to be any references as to where that information came from.

Memnoch

Jakkass wrote: »

Memnoch, do you not agree that when 3 different people involved (Obama, Biden and Richardson) claim different amounts for Obamas tax plan, that it causes confusion? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Biden's 150k remark was a gaffe/mistake. Obama has been very clear what he means. It was a silly mistake by Biden yes, but it's been jumped on by the GOP to try and paint Obama as a liar which is not the case.

It's already been clarified by the Obama campaign, which if you aren't getting your news exclusively from Fox/Mccain camp you would know about.

Ludo

axer wrote: »

Does he have to?

No Axer...he does not have to convince me. I am as convinced as I can be about any candidate that he can handle the job. You never actually know until they do it.

I just wanted to get some reasons from people as to what will convince them. And thank you everyone who gave answers.

I do believe from seeing the answers given though that people who say they are "still not convinced" are not actually paying attention. Or they are only getting one side of the story from Drudge or Fox. If people wanted to be convinced they can very easily find out the answers to the questions asked by looking them up for themselves but I guess people just rely on their news providers to do that.
OR they will never actually vote for a democrat or Obama which is perfectly fair enough.

is_that_so

Ludo wrote: »

No Axer...he does not have to convince me. I am as convinced as I can be about any candidate that he can handle the job. You never actually know until they do it.

I just wanted to get some reasons from people as to what will convince them. And thank you everyone who gave answers.

I do believe from seeing the answers given though that people who say they are "still not convinced" are not actually paying attention. Or they are only getting one side of the story from Drudge or Fox. If people wanted to be convinced they can very easily find out the answers to the questions asked by looking them up for themselves but I guess people just rely on their news providers to do that.
OR they will never actually vote for a democrat or Obama which is perfectly fair enough.

Actually it just means that some people are not convinced. There is nothing wrong or shocking about it. This type of comment however suggests a nudge towards that right-thinking/wrong-thinking type of perception.

A bit of Hamlet here methinks

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Ludo

is_that_so wrote: »

Actually it just means that some people are not convinced. There is nothing wrong or shocking about it. This type of comment however suggests a nudge towards that right-thinking/wrong-thinking type of perception.

A bit of Hamlet here methinks

Didn't say there was anything wrong or shocking about it. Just that if people haven't been convinced by now they never will be as it has been going on for 2 years. People may say they haven't been convinced yet but in fact they never will be no matter what. Nothing wrong with not being convinced but saying it like they can be convinced if he says/does something is incorrect.

The Raven.

Ludo wrote: »

No Axer...he does not have to convince me. I am as convinced as I can be about any candidate that he can handle the job. You never actually know until they do it.

As they said about Palin and Obama, the presidency doesn’t lend itself to on the job training.

I just wanted to get some reasons from people as to what will convince them.

I think it is up to Obama to come up with the answers to that. If a percentage of people are not convinced, then it it is his failure, not theirs.

I do believe from seeing the answers given though that people who say they are "still not convinced" are not actually paying attention.

Oops! Thought I was back at school there for a minute :eek:!!

Or they are only getting one side of the story from Drudge or Fox. If people wanted to be convinced they can very easily find out the answers to the questions asked by looking them up for themselves but I guess people just rely on their news providers to do that.

That would seem to imply that all people have to do is read all the media, which is mostly left-leaning, and they will be convinced that Obama should be President. I think that is underestimating peoples' intelligence, and assuming that those who don't approve of Obama are not capable of reading all sides, and making up their own minds.

OR they will never actually vote for a democrat or Obama which is perfectly fair enough.

It might be fair if it was accurate. I for one have never been impressed by Obama, but I would have voted for Hillary. The way she has been treated within her own party speaks volumes about the Democrats of today.

Ludo

I guess from the replies I am getting, that I am not making myself clear.

I have no problem with people who will not vote for Obama for whatever reason.
I can fully understand why people will not vote for him for whatever reason they have.

It is only when people say they are "still not convinced" I cannot understand. Saying this implies that you can be convinced by a statement or action and would be prepared to vote for him "if convinced".
My point is that at this stage there is nothing that can convince people like this.

His policies are pretty clear and people will not ever vote for him if they disagree with the majority of his positions (and rightfully so) and don't and therefore don't need convincing. So if they are not an issue to prevent someone voting for him, then the convincing needed must be character based.
How do you convince like this when he has been quizzed for 2 years?

And is_that_so...I know I quoted you but I wasn't having a go or anything. Your post just set me thinking that I had heard that a lot and was curious what it meant. Thanks for replying.

Ludo

The Raven. wrote: »

As they said about Palin and Obama, the presidency doesn’t lend itself to on the job training.

No one has training for the presidency. Does a state govenor? erm...not necessarily...look at bush.
Does a senator? Not necessarily.
It generally depends on character.

The Raven. wrote: »

I think it is up to Obama to come up with the answers to that. If a percentage of people are not convinced, then it it is his failure, not theirs.

I disagree. He has been campaigning for 2 years now. What more can he do?

The Raven. wrote: »

That would seem to imply that all people have to do is read all the media, which is mostly left-leaning, and they will be convinced that Obama should be President. I think that is underestimating peoples' intelligence, and assuming that those who don't approve of Obama are not capable of reading all sides, and making up their own minds.

I never mentioned people who don't approve of Obama. This is about people who need convincing...see my last post.

The Raven. wrote: »

It might be fair if it was accurate. I for one have never been impressed by Obama, but I would have voted for Hillary. The way she has been treated within her own party speaks volumes about the Democrats of today.

Again, you are not the type of person I asked this question to. You will not vote for Obama and fair enough. Some say they can be convinced and I am curious as to how. You do not fit that group.

Overheal

2 days to go. Frankly, if you are unconvinced of who to vote for, odds are, you aren't going to go out and vote.

Ruskie4Rent

The Raven. wrote: »

It might be fair if it was accurate. I for one have never been impressed by Obama, but I would have voted for Hillary. The way she has been treated within her own party speaks volumes about the Democrats of today.

What was it about Hilary that made her so appealing to you?

The Raven.

Ludo wrote: »

No one has training for the presidency. Does a state govenor? erm...not necessarily...look at bush.
Does a senator? Not necessarily.
It generally depends on character.

I don’t know quite what you mean here. It looks like you are saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t need training and that Bush has done all right without it. If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

I disagree. He has been campaigning for 2 years now. What more can he do?

If he has tried and failed for two years, then there is nothing he can do.

I never mentioned people who don't approve of Obama. This is about people who need convincing...see my last post.

I never said you did. If people are not ‘convinced’ by Obama it is tantamount to saying they don’t fully approve of him or his policies. It’s just semantics. I saw your last post after I posted my last one.

Again, you are not the type of person I asked this question to. You will not vote for Obama and fair enough. Some say they can be convinced and I am curious as to how. You do not fit that group.

Are you suggesting that I should not post on this thread?

Black Swan

The Raven. wrote: »

If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

If Obama is to be held guilty by association, should not McCain also be guilty by association?

McCain's Criminal Associations

G. Gordon Liddy, convicted criminal of Watergate, advocate of killing Federal agents in 1994 during his radio talk show covering the Branch Davidian tragedy in Texas, and presidential primaries financial contributor and supporter of McCain, who appeared on Liddy's November 2007 radio show to a warm welcome.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of b*tches."

In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year... Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column


Charles Keating, the convicted criminal of the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal, where taxpayers lost $3 billion, some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, and many elderly investors lost their life savings. McCain was labeled and investigated on corruption charges as one of the Keating Five, and was ruled to have exercised "bad judgment" by the House Ethics Committee. During the time that McCain was representing the interests of his wealthy campaign contributor and friend Keating, when was he also representing the interests of those constituents that lost their life savings?

"McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981, and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating. Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

It would appear that McCain's associations with these convicted criminals continues? It was noted that McCain received a 2008 presidential campaign contribution from G. Gordon Liddy (above), and now from a firm started by Charles Keating.

July of 2008, The John McCain for President campaign received over $50,000 in contributions from 41 partners of the Cincinnati law firm Keating Muething & Klekamp. Source: http://www.themansfieldherald.com/2008/10/mccain-took-contributions-from-law-firm-founded-by-charles-keating/

Ludo

The Raven. wrote: »

I don’t know quite what you mean here. It looks like you are saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t need training and that Bush has done all right without it. If it ‘generally depends on character’ then Obama has more explaining to do as more skeletons continue to fall out of his cupboard.

No I am saying there is no such thing as training for president. Bush has proved that being a govenor is NOT necessarily good training as he SUCKED.

And every politician has skeletons. For every skeleton that has fallen out of Obamas cupboard, there is an equivalent one for McCain (and every other politician) but they do not need to be explained apparently. Obamas do..different standards?

The Raven. wrote: »

I never said you did. If people are not ‘convinced’ by Obama it is tantamount to saying they don’t fully approve of him or his policies. It’s just semantics. I saw your last post after I posted my last one.

Are you suggesting that I should not post on this thread?

Nope not at all...just that you are not the target audience for this thread. i.e. you will never be convinced by Obama as you appear to disagree with him fundamentally. Therefore nothing he can say or do will sway you from what I have read of your replies. If I have mistaken your position I apologise.

cooker3

Seeing as it's highly likely Obama will win, the question should be what should McCain do to convince people seeing as he has clearly failed pretty miserably to do that.

Unfortunately for Obama the views of the US population don't wholly reflect the utter lovefest that tends to happen on forums such as these so you can't win them all but he will win enough

Ludo

cooker3 wrote: »

Seeing as it's highly likely Obama will win, the question should be what should McCain do to convince people seeing as he has clearly failed pretty miserably to do that.

Good point. I originally (pre-primaries) would have wanted McCain to win as to be honest on policy matters I would be pretty split between dem and rep on different topics. So for me it comes down to who can do the best job and achieve the most.

Unfortunately for McCain the complete mis-management of his campaign, ever-changing policy messages, absolutely pathetic choice of VP, his dramatic swing to the right to please the base, his utterly negative campaigning, his silly (mis)use of people like Joe the plumber (who now thinks he is some kind of expert on foriegn policy also), etc, etc have convinced me that he is unfit to run an ice-cream van, not to mind the most powerful country/military on earth.

I believe his campaign has been hijacked and he has lost all control of it.
Pretty much everything about his campaign which is meant to convince me he is capable of being president has actually convinced me of the opposite. If he can't run a campaign, then he cannot run a country...simple as that really.

Nothing he can do now to change that as it is too late.

bonkey

The Raven. wrote: »

The way she has been treated within her own party speaks volumes about the Democrats of today.

How, exactly, has she been "treated within her own party"?

She ran for the ticket, and was the darling of many.
She lost.
She was given an unprecedented opportunity to have her name put forward despite having lost at the convention.
She herself then said she had no interest in being the running-mate, nor anything else other than the position she currently holds - a stance which has been honoured.

Now, sure...some have argued that she was robbed...beacuse her party enforced their own rules*

Is this is the problem you have with the Democratic party today...that it didn't ignore its own rules?



* Admittedly...they didn't fully enforce the rules. They sought a compromise which ensured that they didn't change the outcome, but allowed some "face saving" to be done...in effect mitigating the punishment, but not to the detriment of the process.

Black Swan

Ludo wrote: »

absolutely pathetic choice of VP

This was the game breaker for most independents that I've talked with during this election, especially after Palin did her first interviews, starting with Charlie Gibson. Her answers were superficial and uninformed, often filled with chatter as if by an unprepared high school student when asked about homework she failed to do by her teacher. When she did answer, they were what you would typically expect from someone isolated in the Arctic state of Alaska, having never traveled beyond North America (and very little within the domestic US). Many now think of her as "Northern Exposure" Palin, with the comic and ironic attitudes attributed to the isolated small town in that old telly series.

The Raven.

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

What was it about Hilary that made her so appealing to you?

I was impressed by Hillary when she came to Ireland. She wasn’t the typical First Lady standing in her husband’s shadow. She came across as a sophisticated, courageous person who spoke out clearly and intelligently, notably on women’s rights. Sadly most of this fell on deaf ears as it distracted from the Bill love fest of the day. She has many years of political experience and significant achievements, too extensive to mention here. In my view she was clearly the most eligible candidate for the presidency.

bonkey wrote: »

She ran for the ticket, and was the darling of many.
She lost.

That’s debatable.

She was given an unprecedented opportunity to have her name put forward despite having lost at the convention.
She herself then said she had no interest in being the running-mate, nor anything else other than the position she currently holds - a stance which has been honoured.

That’s not surprising. Was she asked by Obama? In any case it would have been a bad choice for obvious reasons. It would never have worked.

Now, sure...some have argued that she was robbed...beacuse her party enforced their own rules*

Is this is the problem you have with the Democratic party today...that it didn't ignore its own rules?

· Admittedly...they didn't fully enforce the rules. They sought a compromise which ensured that they didn't change the outcome, but allowed some "face saving" to be done...in effect mitigating the punishment, but not to the detriment of the process.

I’m afraid I don’t understand these ‘Democratic’ rules. Perhaps you would care to explain.

How, exactly, has she been "treated within her own party"?

Here are a few examples. This is not Fox News. I find these people very credible and sincere. Part 3 is especially interesting as it includes a very dignified, elderly, black woman: a civil rights activist, who marched with Martin Luther King. These videos may not relate to what you are talking about but they are a grave cause for concern and clearly demonstrate serious problems within the Democratic Party and why some people won’t be convinced by Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXNqFQmGxDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XFvq5XMk8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnclKiHwatw&NR=1

Manic Moran

I’m afraid I don’t understand these ‘Democratic’ rules. Perhaps you would care to explain.

He means the punishments meted out to Michigan and Florida for shoving their Primaries so far foward.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

I saw, about two months ago, an article in the Irish Times basically saying that the only way that Obama could convince most Republicans was by embracing the policies of the fanatic right.

It would seem now that that was not true.