News What Drives Support for Obama Despite Concerns Over His Record?

[Trakar]

In Europe, generally we don't give a crap which democrat gets in, as long as it is a democrat. So to answer your question, I don't think it will make a difference (to us Europeans) which Democrat gets in, as long as it is one.

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

 

[Evo]

Is project Vote Smart a legitimate site?: http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

Here is a great link, it allows you to see how he voted and you can actually read the bill so you know what it was.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess I don't count! (s'alright I'm 60 years old and pretty much used to that!)

Being that this is a science forum, posts made in GD and P&WA don't go towards the post count.

 

[ShawnD]

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

In general yeah that's how it works. A quick look at the republican candidates and you can say "I honestly don't want any of them to win."
Some of them, like Giuliani, actually scare the rest of the world. Let's go Nation Building!

 

[Trakar]

In general yeah that's how it works. A quick look at the republican candidates and you can say "I honestly don't want any of them to win."
Some of them, like Giuliani, actually scare the rest of the world. Let's go Nation Building!

But if you actually look at the Obama/Clinton (thus far rather elusively stated) foriegn policies, they really aren't that much different from any of the moderate Republican nominees or the current administration's.

 

[Trakar]

Being that this is a science forum, posts made in GD and P&WA don't go towards the post count.

Thanks for that, I'm not sure why it was causing anyone concern, but its always nice to know there is a reasonable, rational explanation for the workings of the world! :)

 

[OmCheeto]

Here is a great link, it allows you to see how he voted and you can actually read the bill so you know what it was.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Thank you Evo.

According to that site, Obama has voted along party lines 96.4% of the time.

So according to Trakar:

Because his voting record, reflects that of a moderate Bush-supporting Republican/Lieberman "Democrat"

Most all of the democrats are MBSRLD's.

hmmm... No further comment.

 

[falc39]

The one thing that i am completely out of step with obama (or the rest of the democratic candidates) is fiscal responsibility. For instance, watch this, a grim video about our long term economic future by a very credible person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs"

So can someone tell me how obama will afford everything that he is talking about now? on stuff like education, medical, etc? It's great when you can woo crowds over with charisma and big promises... but with the way our economy has been and where it's headed, how is what he says even feasible?

Also, did anyone see his recent economic stimulus plan. I mean, seriously, was that a joke?

 

[Trakar]

Thank you Evo.

According to that site, Obama has voted along party lines 96.4% of the time.

So according to Trakar:



Most all of the democrats are MBSRLD's.

hmmm... No further comment.

Unfortunately, if you go by this current congress's record, that is accurate. Almost w/o except this Democratic congress has bowed low to the administration's wishes, and the Republican congressional leadership's wishes. Its really been quite the spectacle to see.

 

[Trakar]

I would suggest that instead of using "party line" as an accurate measurement you use something like traditional liberal/democratic perspective (or even just what you as a reasonable person approve or disapprove of). And please note that I consider his "novotes" and confirmation votes are generally as important as which defense supplemental budgets he approved (voted yes on) and which student loan subsidies he voted to disapprove (voted no on).

 

[ShawnD]

The one thing that i am completely out of step with obama (or the rest of the democratic candidates) is fiscal responsibility. For instance, watch this, a grim video about our long term economic future by a very credible person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs"

I was poking around and that guy put another video on youtube about the US budget situation. Very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ&feature=related

(this doesn't relate to the topic)

 

[W3pcq]

Obama is the best at giving speeches. He has much more experience than Bush. He is good at simplifying complex issues and communicating it clearly which gives the impression that he truly understands what he is talking about.

I would vote for Hillary though. She has the most experience of all and has shown courage in standing up for what is right. She has stood up to the privitised health crooks who are one of our nations biggest flaws. It's about getting crooks like Nixon out of the White House and restoring a government working for the people and not against the people.

 

[Integral]

Actually, I think a vote for Hillary(or Obama) is a vote to largely continue business as usual, as it has been for the last 8-16(36) years. More largess and leeway to corporate America, more narrowing of individual rights and liberties, more power accumulation at the top, less freedom at the bottom.

This is a rather pointless point. Can't the same be said for virtually EVERY candiate, both parties. How can you use it to exclude these two?

 

[W3pcq]

I would say the opposite about Hillary. I don't know about Obama. I would say that there is much more reason to think that about the republican candidate since the current administration has been instrumental in doing such things.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would vote for Hillary though. ... She has stood up to the privitised health crooks who are one of our nations biggest flaws. It's about getting crooks like Nixon out of the White House and restoring a government working for the people and not against the people.

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

 

[W3pcq]

But if you actually look at the Obama/Clinton (thus far rather elusively stated) foriegn policies, they really aren't that much different from any of the moderate Republican nominees or the current administration's.

This is because the average voter is too simple minded to actually understand the complexities of the worlds true situation. To get voting points all candidates must use the same tactics or else they would have disadvantages. We are voting on foreign policy based on our mortal weakness of fear and ignorance which will naturally be exploited. If the republicans create such a strong notion of fear and use it as their instrument, then all that can be done on the other side is to operate under the same criterion which has been established by them in there tactics or else they will lose reguardless of truth of matters and intelligence. One word sums it up balls. Balls over intelligence. How do you think we re-elected such an idiot. Intelligence and truth is a disadvantage in this reguard and leaves the intelligent voter to watch the idiot points be fought over.

 

[mjsd]

Comes from owning and running my own business,...I expect my employees to actually do the job they are hired to do, and I tend to think of elected officials as my employees. Unfortunately, I can't fire them on my own (its a board call, and the rest of the board seems more interested in quarterly profits and stuffing their pockets than the long-term health and well being of the Company/Country).
Obama and Hillary are applying for the job and have an inside track to replace the current head when he is fired or arrested, but other than new suits and pretty words they really aren't showing me that they have a record or the abilities to lead the company in the direction I would like to see it go.

I guess you realize that you can ask the same question about all those candidates:
why support Clinton? Edwards? Kucinich? Huckabee? Romney? McCain? Giuliani?
in the end, you must choose one... or throw away your vote
it is not the person, it is the system that letting us down.

no perfect world pal.

 

[W3pcq]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

This is confusing. Are you sure this site is trustworthy?

Note Hillary isn't at the top of the list for Insurance company contributions.
She is at the top of the list for Pharmasutical Companies. But you must realize that the insurance companies lose profit when they need to pay for medicine. When patients are declined coverage, they don't get meds. Hence Pharmesutical companies lose.

Private insurance is the greater evil.

 

[OmCheeto]

Unfortunately, if you go by this current congress's record, that is accurate. Almost w/o except this Democratic congress has bowed low to the administration's wishes, and the Republican congressional leadership's wishes. Its really been quite the spectacle to see.

Well, I didn't have time to look at all 12 million votes in the house and senate so I googled "voting on party lines 110th congress" and came up with Evo's website again: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/

I ran through the 11 key votes in the senate and here is what I came up with:
There were only 4 times when both parties agreed:
1. (S1) provide greater transparency in the legislative process
2. (HR2) increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years.
3. (HR1591) primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.(Obama voted against his party on this one)
4. (HR1) implement the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

I wouldn't describe the above as being particularly Republican, or partisan at all.

The other 7 votes either passed or failed and were slightly more political, and being such, pretty much everyone voted with their party.

So I guess I've gone to the record and found that your statements are not correct.

 

[Trakar]

Obama is the best at giving speeches. He has much more experience than Bush. He is good at simplifying complex issues and communicating it clearly which gives the impression that he truly understands what he is talking about. .

Personally, the ability to deliver a speech is pretty low on my list of things a president must be able to do. A genuine understanding of where this country needs to be headed and the ability to lead us in that direction through making the right decisions and choosing the proper plans to get us there are things that would top such a list.

I would vote for Hillary though. She has the most experience of all and has shown courage in standing up for what is right. She has stood up to the privitised health crooks who are one of our nations biggest flaws. It's about getting crooks like Nixon out of the White House and restoring a government working for the people and not against the people.

Exactly what experience does Hillary have at leadership? How has she stood up to Healthcare? The Health Insurance industry is one of her main campaign financers, and her healthcare plans have them intimately involved in the process.

and "Nixon"? are you serious?

 

[Trakar]

This is a rather pointless point. Can't the same be said for virtually EVERY candiate, both parties. How can you use it to exclude these two?

I disagree, but don't use it to exclude just Hillary and Obama, I use it to exclude most candidates from both parties, whom I feel represent that point of view. I will not support any candidate who represents more of the same.

 

[Trakar]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Exactly my point!
Thankyou for the links!

 

[Trakar]

This is because the average voter is too simple minded to actually understand the complexities of the worlds true situation. To get voting points all candidates must use the same tactics or else they would have disadvantages. We are voting on foreign policy based on our mortal weakness of fear and ignorance which will naturally be exploited. If the republicans create such a strong notion of fear and use it as their instrument, then all that can be done on the other side is to operate under the same criterion which has been established by them in there tactics or else they will lose reguardless of truth of matters and intelligence. One word sums it up balls. Balls over intelligence. How do you think we re-elected such an idiot. Intelligence and truth is a disadvantage in this reguard and leaves the intelligent voter to watch the idiot points be fought over.

I disagree, though this does seem to be the premise that some operate on.

 

[Trakar]

I guess you realize that you can ask the same question about all those candidates:
why support Clinton? Edwards? Kucinich? Huckabee? Romney? McCain? Giuliani?
in the end, you must choose one... or throw away your vote
it is not the person, it is the system that letting us down.

no perfect world pal.

Agreed, but the more we go along with such, the more our candidates and representatives feel that we are approving of such. I don't think that this is necessarily true of all the candidates but it definitiely seems to predominate among Many of the front-runners on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps it is time to "throw away" my vote, I know that even though I'd prefer any of the Democrats to any of the Republicans in the upcoming elections, I will not vote for either Hillary or Obama if they win the Democratic nomination, and just a casual discussion of this issue among many of my peers IRL reveal that these are common and growing feelings.

 

[Trakar]

Well, I didn't have time to look at all 12 million votes in the house and senate so I googled "voting on party lines 110th congress" and came up with Evo's website again: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/

I ran through the 11 key votes in the senate and here is what I came up with:
There were only 4 times when both parties agreed:
1. (S1) provide greater transparency in the legislative process
2. (HR2) increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years.
3. (HR1591) primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.(Obama voted against his party on this one)
4. (HR1) implement the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

I wouldn't describe the above as being particularly Republican, or partisan at all..

No, you've cherry-picked a few examples under a very convoluted set of circumstances. Why not do exactly as I asked?

Go back to the first site http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

Once there simply look at the issues upon which he chose not to vote, how he voted on the individual bills he did vote on, and which confirmations he cleared. Now compare those to a truly progressive/liberal stance and contrast them with a conservative/pro-administration stance and tell me which side of that ideological split you see his record grouping him into.

 

[Anttech]

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

Neither, I can't talk for everyone obviously, but the reasoning is based on historical trends, not an assumption. Democrats typically don’t warmonger, republicans do. The Liberal policy is usually multilateral engagement, as a last resort. Not unilateral engagement on assumptions (Iraq)

 

[BobG]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Why those four industries. Biggest campaign contributions by industry (from opensecrets.org):

1. Lawyers and law firms
2. Securities and Investment firms
3. Retirees (AARP, etc)
4. Real Estate
5. Entertainment Industry (Movies, TV, etc)
6. Insurance companies

Below that, it starts to get hard to tell. My analysis was was a quick view rather than actually adding up the numbers.

Proposing to mess with Social Security would do more damage to a candidate's campaign funds than proposing to reduce pharmaceutical companies profits.

 

[OmCheeto]

No, you've cherry-picked a few examples under a very convoluted set of circumstances. Why not do exactly as I asked?

It was the Washington Post that cherry picked them.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/
washingtonpost.com tracks key Congressional votes on the most important bills, nominations, and resolutions to come before the House and Senate. The following are the key votes of the 110th Congress, based on an analysis of their potential impact on policy and politics.

And what "convoluted set of circumstances" are you referring to?

Go back to the first site http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

I mentioned that site! (pat on back, pat on back)

Once there simply look at the issues upon which he chose not to vote, how he voted on the individual bills he did vote on, and which confirmations he cleared. Now compare those to a truly progressive/liberal stance and contrast them with a conservative/pro-administration stance and tell me which side of that ideological split you see his record grouping him into.

Well, there appear to be well over a hundred. Perhaps we can divvy them out in a mechanical turk kind of fashion so I don't have to spend all my time figuring this out. About time PF started handing out homework questions rather than just taking them.

Cherry picking his environmental voting record, he appears to be on my side 100%.
And skimming over the entire list for the second time, I still don't see how he thinks much differently than I do.

Are there any bills or confirmations in particular that make you think he's a Bush hugger?

 

[mheslep]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Great find Gokul, thanks.

Wow, I note that by far the biggest spread between dems and repubs donations percentage wise is http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W04"

EDIT: scratch that. Should have known, looks like http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B02" is even more lopsided

 

[OmCheeto]

Great find Gokul, thanks.

Wow, I note that by far the biggest spread between dems and repubs donations percentage wise is http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W04"

EDIT: scratch that. Should have known, looks like http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B02" is even more lopsided

Ah hahahaha! I never knew "http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W06" " was an industry! I wish they'd told me that when I was a kid:

"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to be retired."