how/why did I become such an Obama hack?

[perdedor]

Someone's having a good day.

[Eraserhead]

It's very difficult not to root for the guy, especially when he's against an hp like Clinton.

I wasn't always an Obama guy either. I supported Feingold and was disappointed when he decided not to run. I was undecided for a while after that but it became apparent quickly that this guy was far and away the best that the current field had to offer.

[opebo]

Tweed, I see nothing unreasonable about your devotion to Obama, considering the appalling alternatives.  Hillary really is like suicide for the Democratic Party, and McCain is a horrible joke.  Obama may be unknown, but we know the others are some of the worst that we've had.

Here's one reason I think Obama might bring us back to the better days - he may appear to be the idealist, talking about hope and what not, and his support might be mostly nice well educated people.  But really, under the surface, I think he's a product of the Chicago machine.. well I can fantasize anyway.  I think he might put the unions and the old-time coalitions back in power, and I could see a lot of legislative success pulled off through old fashioned horse-trading.  And I know those old machine politicians realize a Republican is the enemy, unlike the new 'Democrats'.  My fantasy is he looks like JFK, but his administration will be more like LBJ.  We'll see.  Perhaps I just hoped embarrassingly.

[minionofmidas]

I'm almost disappointed in myself for caring so much.  since I know enough to know he can't singlehandedly save us from the depths of Hell.

At least he's not a native of there, that's all really.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm almost disappointed in myself for caring so much.  since I know enough to know he can't singlehandedly save us from the depths of Hell.  but he makes you think that he can, I suppose...

You are part of a demographic group (or subgroup) that he has targetted. That's probably most of it. People can be more vulnerable to that sort of thing than they like to think.

[Gustaf]

I'm almost disappointed in myself for caring so much.  since I know enough to know he can't singlehandedly save us from the depths of Hell.  but he makes you think that he can, I suppose...

You are part of a demographic group (or subgroup) that he has targetted. That's probably most of it. People can be more vulnerable to that sort of thing than they like to think.

Oh, Al! Not in front of the kids!

[afleitch]

Can someone tell me what's wrong with me?  Is there a toothless backwoods evangelical lurking in the recesses of my dark, godless, liberal soul?

No. Huckabee is great to listen too, he's a charmer...on certain topics. When you pin him down he acts like a d-ick (see the HIV furore)

I'm an optimist, ergo I like Obama. Not only is apathy overated, but so too is experience.

[Wakie]

So here is one of those rants where I make you all hate me.


A vast majority of you make me sick.  I've read comments like "I don't really know why I like him.  I disagree with him on most issues but he seems like a nice guy."  PEOPLE!  These are the EXACT SAME COMMENTS PEOPLE MADE ABOUT BUSH IN 2000!  Now I'm not saying that Obama is Bush (I think Obama can watch tv and eat pretzels without almost killing himself), but don't you think we should be selecting our leaders based on something more than "would I like to have a beer with the person"?

Riceowl started a thread yesterday that was a serious attempt to discuss the healthcare plans of the candidates.  The thread went largely ignored by this forum.  Probably because contributing to that thread required actual thought and it couldn't just be "Person X is a doodie head" or "tradesports has Person Y selling at a high dollar value so clearly they will win".

Guys, I don't care who you support but at least have a rational reason for supporting them.  Actually read and understand the plans being put forward by the candidates.  I understand that many of us want a Presidential cheerleader to "inspire us" because we're too lame to inspire ourselves.  But try to get some of the details of their plans too.  And don't irrationally hate (Beet pointed out exactly how ridiculous much of the Hillary hate is).

Blind faith in a leader will get you a lousy economy, an overextended military, and restricted civil rights.

[bgwah]

Wakie is right on. Let's join the hordes of mindless morons supporting Hillary because she WILL BE THE FIRST WOMAN PREZIDENT!!11

Sorry, Wakie, but I'm a decent human being. I have morals. I'm not a worthless piece of crap. Therefore I have trouble supporting a fascist like Hillary Clinton.

Well, people like you make me sick. You are drenched in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and so is Clinton. Sorry for not wanting to join your twisted little cult when we have a much better alternative.

[Wakie]

Wakie is right on. Let's join the hordes of mindless morons supporting Hillary because she WILL BE THE FIRST WOMAN PREZIDENT!!11

Where did I say "vote for Hillary"?  IN FACT I SAID "I don't care who you support but at least have a rational reason for supporting them".  Reading and comprehension .... reading and comprehension.

[bgwah]

Wakie is right on. Let's join the hordes of mindless morons supporting Hillary because she WILL BE THE FIRST WOMAN PREZIDENT!!11

Where did I say "vote for Hillary"?  IN FACT I SAID "I don't care who you support but at least have a rational reason for supporting them".  Reading and comprehension .... reading and comprehension.

Oh my, does the troll have a sense of humor?! Haha, you're hilarious, Wakie.

But don't worry, your real intentions were more than obvious.

[Kalimantan]

So here is one of those rants where I make you all hate me.


A vast majority of you make me sick.  I've read comments like "I don't really know why I like him.  I disagree with him on most issues but he seems like a nice guy."  PEOPLE!  These are the EXACT SAME COMMENTS PEOPLE MADE ABOUT BUSH IN 2000!  Now I'm not saying that Obama is Bush (I think Obama can watch tv and eat pretzels without almost killing himself), but don't you think we should be selecting our leaders based on something more than "would I like to have a beer with the person"?

Check the thread - They were referring to Huckabee, not Obama.

[Nym90]

There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about your candidate. I'm all for Obama, too.

I think it's just important not to lose sight of the overall pretty small difference between the two on the issues. I don't understand people who think Obama is the savior and Clinton is the anti-christ. Ok, Clinton was in favor of the war at the beginning. So were Kerry and Edwards and a lot of Democrats, are they horrible people also? I'm not making excuses for them, they all should've known better, but people make mistakes, and as long as they can admit to them, that's the key distinction between them and Bush.

I feel that the differences between Clinton and Obama on style are important. It's not just superficial, how you do something can affect the ultimate result at least as much if not more than what you do.

[minionofmidas]

Ok, Clinton was in favor of the war at the beginning. So were Kerry and Edwards and a lot of Democrats, are they horrible people also? I'm not making excuses for them, they all should've known better, but people make mistakes, and as long as they can admit to them, that's the key distinction between them and Bush.

It had nothing to do with "not knowing better". 80% of congressional Democrats that voted for the war did so out of personal cowardice, certainly including the three mentioned here. Probably quite a few Republicans too (those with brains. )

[Platypus]

As I am understandably prejudiced to base a large amount of my support on the foreign affects of the US's choice, I support Obama. Whilst I don't agree with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq until there is a reasonable prospect of t not being a failed state, I think he knows that he can't completely withdraw when he assumes office-if he did propose that, I'd jump off the 'bandwagon'.

Obama has African Islamic and European-American Judeo-Christian heritage. He has lived in Asia and the Pacific. He knows the people of the world, and whilst I don't expect him to be an internationalist, I know Clinton wouldn't be, and Obama would at least approach the issues facing the world from a more global perspective.

One example of this is of course his willingness to meet the tosspot known as Amadinejad, but even though I have no sympathy for him or the Iranian regime, I recognise that that is the appropriate thing to do. I find it rather hypocritical that Khrushchev can meet Reagan but Obama can't meet Ahmedinejad, according to Bush's statements.

[Wakie]

Ok, Clinton was in favor of the war at the beginning. So were Kerry and Edwards and a lot of Democrats, are they horrible people also? I'm not making excuses for them, they all should've known better, but people make mistakes, and as long as they can admit to them, that's the key distinction between them and Bush.

It had nothing to do with "not knowing better". 80% of congressional Democrats that voted for the war did so out of personal cowardice, certainly including the three mentioned here. Probably quite a few Republicans too (those with brains. )

I disagree.  The majority of the country was in favor of the war.  The majority of the country was tricked into believing the war rhetoric about WMD's.  I remember at the time saying "we must have undisbutable physical evidence because otherwise this kills the GOP for a generation".  Who knew Bush/Cheney were willing to kill their party for a generation??

Now if you want to talk about personal cowardice lets talk about the Senators who voted against the Kerry bill which called for immediate withdrawal.  Obama was one of them who voted against it.

[minionofmidas]

Ok, Clinton was in favor of the war at the beginning. So were Kerry and Edwards and a lot of Democrats, are they horrible people also? I'm not making excuses for them, they all should've known better, but people make mistakes, and as long as they can admit to them, that's the key distinction between them and Bush.

It had nothing to do with "not knowing better". 80% of congressional Democrats that voted for the war did so out of personal cowardice, certainly including the three mentioned here. Probably quite a few Republicans too (those with brains. )

I disagree.  The majority of the country was in favor of the war.  The majority of the country was tricked into believing the war rhetoric about WMD's.  I remember at the time saying "we must have undisbutable physical evidence because otherwise this kills the GOP for a generation".  Who knew Bush/Cheney were willing to kill their party for a generation??

Anyone who cared enough to check the facts a little. Because there really wasn't any doubt that the Bushie version of Iraq's dangerousness was all cock-and-bull. I know this was harder for Americans than for anyone else, but not that hard. No US Senator, no Representative with foreign politics experience was in a position not to know that, really. But in the US climate then, it took guts to say it, guts they lacked. Now, that's understandable. But it was sickening to watch anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not even remotely aware of what bill that was, although the mention of "immediate withdrawal" is enough to strongly imply it's a completely different kettle of fish. Post-invasion, there really are only wrong options available anyways. The fate of Iraq is not in the US' hands.

[Kalimantan]

Guys, I don't care who you support but at least have a rational reason for supporting them. 

I was actually an Obama supporter out of blind reflexive fuzzy hero-worship for like SIX MONTHS.

then somebody smacked me in the head, made me think for myself. screwed up everything. had to sit down, read about the candidates and their platforms, hear them speak, read commentary, and THINK THINK THINK...then, wouldn't you know it, when I was done, I ended up supporting Obama AGAIN. On the basis of my OWN BEST EFFORTS at forming a REASONED OPINION!

[Wakie]

Anyone who cared enough to check the facts a little. Because there really wasn't any doubt that the Bushie version of Iraq's dangerousness was all cock-and-bull. I know this was harder for Americans than for anyone else, but not that hard. No US Senator, no Representative with foreign politics experience was in a position not to know that, really. But in the US climate then, it took guts to say it, guts they lacked. Now, that's understandable. But it was sickening to watch anyways.

I have to disagree.  While it certainly seemed unlikely that Hussein would have achieved said WMD's, there was the fact that he had simple chemical weapons (sold to him by the US) and that all the way back in 1981 Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Daura, Iraq because (they said) it was intended to produce an atomic bomb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4941424-110875,00.html

As I said, it seemed unlikely and considering the potential long-term damage if it were not true I would have expected our intelligence services to have definite physical evidence in order to get us to act (perhaps the kind of evidence you wouldn't want to share lest it endanger the source).  Several years later no WMD's or evidence of them surfaced and it is clear that they didn't exist and that the White House went off "half-cocked".  But I think the blame should fall on the White House who were the only people with the complete picture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not even remotely aware of what bill that was, although the mention of "immediate withdrawal" is enough to strongly imply it's a completely different kettle of fish. Post-invasion, there really are only wrong options available anyways. The fate of Iraq is not in the US' hands.
[/quote]

Here's the story about the Kerry bill (for your listening pleasure).  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5501755

Obama voted against the bill.

Yes, post-invasion there really are only wrong options.  The fate of Iraq is well out of US hands and the only people who can save Iraq are Iraqi's.  But it strikes me as wrong for Obama to continuously play the "I didn't vote for the war and she did" angle when

(1) He wasn't in Congress at the time.
(2) He has subsequently voted against efforts for withdrawal.
(3) The information available at the time was different from the info available now.

[minionofmidas]

Anyone who cared enough to check the facts a little. Because there really wasn't any doubt that the Bushie version of Iraq's dangerousness was all cock-and-bull. I know this was harder for Americans than for anyone else, but not that hard. No US Senator, no Representative with foreign politics experience was in a position not to know that, really. But in the US climate then, it took guts to say it, guts they lacked. Now, that's understandable. But it was sickening to watch anyways.

I have to disagree.  While it certainly seemed unlikely that Hussein would have achieved said WMD's, there was the fact that he had simple chemical weapons (sold to him by the US)

Destroyed long before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry but. The minute I'll start to seriously listen to Israel about the affairs of other middle eastern countries or vice versa, you're free to slash my aorta.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they knew that. And tried hard to. And didn't produce anything that took more than 5 minutes making more holes in than Minnesota has lakes.

[minionofmidas]

As to it being a little cheap to say "Obama didn't vote for the war", true in a way. But then Russ Feingold is, sadly, not a candidate.

[Platypus]

Isn't it a sign of his foreign policy maturity that he didn't vote for instant withdrawal? I'd like you to respond to my post, btw.

[Eraserhead]

Tweed, I see nothing unreasonable about your devotion to Obama, considering the appalling alternatives.  Hillary really is like suicide for the Democratic Party, and McCain is a horrible joke.  Obama may be unknown, but we know the others are some of the worst that we've had.

Here's one reason I think Obama might bring us back to the better days - he may appear to be the idealist, talking about hope and what not, and his support might be mostly nice well educated people.  But really, under the surface, I think he's a product of the Chicago machine.. well I can fantasize anyway.  I think he might put the unions and the old-time coalitions back in power, and I could see a lot of legislative success pulled off through old fashioned horse-trading.  And I know those old machine politicians realize a Republican is the enemy, unlike the new 'Democrats'.  My fantasy is he looks like JFK, but his administration will be more like LBJ.  We'll see.  Perhaps I just hoped embarrassingly.

Hopefully it won't be like LBJ's when it comes to matters of war and peace.

[NHPolitico]

There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about your candidate. I'm all for Obama, too.

I think it's just important not to lose sight of the overall pretty small difference between the two on the issues. I don't understand people who think Obama is the savior and Clinton is the anti-christ. Ok, Clinton was in favor of the war at the beginning. So were Kerry and Edwards and a lot of Democrats, are they horrible people also? I'm not making excuses for them, they all should've known better, but people make mistakes, and as long as they can admit to them, that's the key distinction between them and Bush.

I feel that the differences between Clinton and Obama on style are important. It's not just superficial, how you do something can affect the ultimate result at least as much if not more than what you do.

It's like "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I don't think Hillary is trustworthy. I don't think she has any character. I think she'd kill my mother if it would get her more power.  It doesn't matter what people like that say or do because none of it is real or reliable.  It's a pretty big difference.  I wouldn't vote for Obama if I thought he was a grade-A dick. Because dicks in this world do things every day that annoy me or worse. 

I heard part of a speech he was giving, yesterday I think, where he was talking about a Republican who came up to him and whispered to him about the fact that he's a Republican for Obama, and this involved a brief back and forth to get to this announcement and at the end of this conversation, Obama said to him, in a whisper, "Why are we whispering?" It was like something in a sitcom or something (in fact, I'm sure I've seen it used as a comedic device in a show or movie before), but it was how I would have wanted him to respond to that. It was a normal, comfortable in his own skin, interaction.   If Obama worked in my office, I think he'd be a great guy to have around. If Hillary worked in my office, I would quit my job and find a new office to work in.

And even if the differences are small between the two policy-wise (and they aren't-- calling Iraq a "dumb war"... a "rash war" in 2002 was a big deal, because he was right. Why shouldn't we reward people who were right on big things? That's what we want in President, right?), that, to me, makes choosing Obama over Hillary a no-brainer. It's like being offered sex with Jessica Alba or Helen Thomas. They both have vaginas. They are both quite similar. Except, they are a hell of a lot different, too.

[angus]

A vast majority of you make me sick. 

...and fill me with the urge to defecate. 

Well, you correctly point out that there are better reasons to vote for a guy than "he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy."  But there are worse reasons as well.  I disagree that looking deeply into the legislative agenda of a candidate will ensure the desired result.  Bush promised a humble foreign policy as a candidate, but once elected made a policy of projection of US power.  Candidate Bush also promised to encourage individual responsibility and support free trade, but once elected pushed for import tariffs on Japanese steel.  So you defeat your own argument when you use George Bush as the central example.  Still, it's always good to remind voters to think long and hard before casting a vote, so I'm not arguing with you.

But the abject hatred of Hillary Clinton isn't irrational.  It is a well-earned cultivated hate.