Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
February 9, 2008 04:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 1

OK, first, the implication that the only reason somsone would choose Obama over Clinton is because of racism is ridiculous. That's no different than saying the only reason to choose Clinton over Obama is sexism. Both are obviously not true (and, by that logic, one must be either a racist or a sexist to have any preference in the Democratic nomination). Second, it appears you've essentially outed yourself as a Republican supporter seeking to make negative comments on Obama's page, in which case I have no interest to continue discussion here beyond this comment. Calling either of their health care plans "socialist" is clearly not something a supporter of *either* would do. (It's also further from the truth in the case of Obama, since he is opposed to mandates for adults). Lastly, suggesting that I may not have a job - and the implication that you consider me to be an ignorant youth - is quite insulting to me. I'll admit to being in the 18-29 demographic (though I won't bother describing where), but I most certainly have not only a full time job, but I spent my years in college earning my degree in political science. I know plenty about the role of the president and the different variations in leadership style it has gone through over the years, and I have no interest in accepting being insulted by someone whose only purpose here appears to be criticizing Obama in hopes of helping Clinton gain the nomination, so that your own candidate can have a better shot at the presidency. (For those who are unaware, recent polls indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton and McCain would be very close, where Obama would win by about 7%.) Seriously..."socialist ideas?" Give me a break.

Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
February 9, 2008 03:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

weasel: It's valid to say he should quite his job in order to campaign, but if you're going to lay that criticism on Obama, be sure to lay it equally on Senators Clinton and McCain (and all the other past and present senators and representatives that end up in the same situation when campaigning for president). It's a valid criticism, but Obama is in no way special in that regard. (Obama abstained in 25 of the last 30 votes, Clinton in 26 of the last 30, and McCain in 24 of the last 30) I also agree it's important to be choosing the right decision, which is yet another reason I prefer Obama. A great deal of economists, for example, are against the idea of health insurance mandates. Obama's health insurance plan is more solidly rooted in behavioral economics, which I think is a huge plus. The presidency has recently been only about making decisions, this is true. But originally the presidency was more about leadership and statesmanship. For a very long time, presidential vetoes were extremely rare, because if Congress - the elected representatives of the people - wanted to make a law, then the president signed it, unless he thought it was absolutely detrimental to the country as a whole. In recent decades, it has been that the president vetoes anything he disagrees with, which may or may not be a good thing. What is clear, though, is that the president has a very important role to play now in guiding Congress to decisions, which means working with people and inspiring them to work with each other. I have no doubt that even if Clinton's ideas are better (which I don't think they are, but even if they are), Obama would make far more progress towards implementing what are ultimately very similar ideas than Clinton would make in getting hers implemented. We'll likely just have to agree to disagree, because it's unlikely anyone is going to change their mind over the internet. And I'm OK with that: I support Obama, but I'm certainly willing to support Clinton if she gets the nomination. I'd like to encourage you to check out the two links I posted though. Anonymous: Heh, yes, there are clearly some issues with that. I didn't say I knew how they should do it, just that it's something which should be discussed. The trick is finding the right balance so that there is still incentive to actually be in DC for the vote. Perhaps something like counting votes from somewhere else as only half a vote, I don't know. It's just that the way the system is set up right now, it's absolutely prohibitive to anyone who would be a senator and presidential candidate simultaneously. As one of Obama's constituents, I understand this and don't hold it against him, but I do wish that he, and Senators Clinton and McCain were more able to do their jobs while also doing the rigorous work of campaigning. I certainly would have liked Obama and Clinton to have voted on the recent FISA amendments, but neither were able to.

Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
February 9, 2008 01:02 AM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 6.8 | Replies: 1

Not exactly on the topic of Obama, but I think there's an interesting question to be asked here: Why isn't there an accepted way for senators and representatives to vote while away from Washington? There are clearly important benefits to being in Washington for debating as well as voting, but there must be some way to find a balance here.

Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
February 9, 2008 01:02 AM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 7.0 | Replies: 2

The reason for so many "abstain" votes is because he's out on the campaign trail. The records for Clinton and McCain aren't much different.

Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
February 9, 2008 01:02 AM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 2

There are a couple main reasons I support Obama for president (along with some links which enumerate the points better than I could): 1) technology issues http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/ 2) ability to inspire/lead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo The presidency isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about making all the decisions. The president is a leader. Someone who surrounds him or herself with intelligent and trustworthy people, and who inspires those people (and others in Congress) to come up with ideas and work together to achieve them. I'd like to return to the president being the leader of government rather than the boss of government. Plus, for as similar as Obama and Clinton are on most issues, their differences are extremely important to me. Obama has consulted Lawrence Lessig on a number of technological issues, which in and of itself is an indication that he's on the right path. Aside for that, he's expressed an interest in opening up government to make it far more transparent, which is also a critical issue IMO.