Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

RE: Regulation

I agree, but I think the sweet spot is way lower than we are at now. Of course, that is mostly a philosophical view that can't really back up.

RE: Preemptive war

I totally don't blame Russia, Iran or even North Korea for their reactions to our foreign affairs. But that doesn't mean we aren't replying to legitimate threats. Like the video Daniel posted of the censorship of the Iran prez... it is complete bs propaganda do to that, but that doesn't mean that Iran ISN'T really interested in developing nuclear weapons (which I would if I were them). And when anybody gets nuclear weapons who we don't have close political ties with, that is a danger to us and our allies.

I don't blame a guy for getting pissed off when I have to cut him off on the highway. But if he starts retaliating by tailing me, I have no qualms about slamming my brakes. The arms-race is a tricky political maneuver.

@shane

I believe that giving up our ability to tell other countries that they can't play the "preemptive" war card because of a perceived threat would require a level of threat that I can't even imagine. Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an axis of evil and then attacked Iraq in a preemptive way. Can anyone really blame Iran and North Korea for wondering if they're next? Can anyone blame them for perceiving a threat and attempting to shore up their military capabilities in preparation for the preemptive attack that logic would imply is coming? The "strategy" of declaring an axis of evil consisting of three countries and then attacking the weakest of those countries in a preemptive way ... I just can't think of ANY scenario in which that makes sense.

As for deregulation, I would agree that OVERregulation is a problem. But, so is under-regulation. It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. There's too much, there's too little, and there's just right. Finding the right level isn't trivial (it isn't zero).

@Carl
On another post, you agreed that much information is held from the public. I think the Iraq war is one of those cases where the "pre-emptive war" premise was made to get the public's support, not that it was the real reason. I think most liberals and conspiracy theorists could agree with that too. The difference is that I don't think the real reasons are evil ones. World opinion matters, and when Obama becomes president he gets to be good cop to Bush's bad cop. The bad cop still has an important role to play.

However the current financial crisis is too complicated for me to acknowledge that. I think maybe regulation may fix the problems that other regulations caused. But I will admit to my bias for deregulation.

@shane

"The major foreign policy and economic problems were set in motion long ago." To an extent, that's true. But, I believe that setting the precedent of a "pre-emptive war" was a dangerous one and that there is more importance to world opinion than Bush's administration has seemed to believe. Also, at some point people need to acknowledge that deregulation is not always the answer (consider the current financial crisis).

Carl M,
I like your points even though I am leaning toward McCain.

McCain probably has the advantage in the debates because the bar is set so low for him. As long as he doesn't make any major goofs, Obama will really have to turn his charm to high gear to meet his expectations. Everyone know Obama is the better debater but if McCain at least surprises people then McCain could probably turn people around.

I am torn. I like Obama. I think he is a great inspirational leader and his heart is in the right place. I think he is plenty experienced enough and so is Palin. I worry about having a Democratic president with a Democratic congress. I worry that Obama's policies are going to have excellent short-term results but not long-term results.

To answer your questions: (1) I don't think Bush was a particularly great president, but I don't think he was that bad either. I think he dealt with the big issues as any ordinary president would do. His major gaffes are all with the media. The major foreign policy and economic problems were set in motion long ago. (2) I think after four years after a McCain presidency, very few will think the country is in any better shape which is too bad because I think the policies he would push (deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich, ...) would actually bring about progress AFTER he leaves office.

I wish we had Obama with McCain's policies, or Obama with a Republican congress.

BTW, I think most Clinton supporters that go to McCain are either mistaken about Obama's policies, are worried about his race, or are just bitter.

If you are in California and support Obama, go to Nevada or Arizona to campaign. Both states are swing states this election.

Personally, I am headed up to NH.

Thanks for posting the video.

One question of course is whether or not he can accomplish what he wishes to accomplish. Naysayers claim that he's all talk. I think that they miss the fact that he inspires people. He may well have the power to be convincing enough to get a large portion of these ideas enacted. This may well be a defining moment in our history. I think it's clear that if he is elected (as I hope he will be), then he'll not get a free pass to a second term in office. But, I don't think that he will waste the opportunity. I think that he WILL accomplish great things -- not because he is the second coming .. but because he does inspire. A leader who can inspire is one who has the potential to quickly bring about some needed changes.

If you don't agree with Obama on specific policy issues AND agree more strongly with McCain on those issues, then by all means vote for McCain.

It seems though that there are many people who agree with Obama's policy ideas (or at least are closer to Obama than McCain on policy) but who would rather cast a vote for McCain because he has more experience in Washington. This doesn't make sense to me. To those people, I'd ask two questions: (1) Do you think that the country is better off now than before Bush was elected? and (2) Do you honestly think that in four years the country would be better off after a McCain presidency than under an Obama presidency?

The voters who puzzle me the most are the Clinton supporters who would select McCain over Obama. I understand that they are upset that Clinton didn't win the nomination, but are they REALLY more aligned with McCain than Obama? REALLY? Were they Clinton supporters because of her policy positions? LIke I said .. I'm puzzled.

... all that said. Yes, I think that Obama is something special, but that wasn't his best speech (content was fine .. but he stumbled over the words in a couple places -- nitpicky to be sure).

Let's see how the debates go. If he stumbles over any sentences there, the press will jump all over it. He'll need to be crisp. (I've no fear that he'll be well prepared.)

see what he's saying is, if we're expected to cook we should be allowed to audit the list & buy the groceries. considering he is in football country, packer country that is, I think that is apropos.

...he may not be special, but he specializes in using his mind.

Obama isn't something special.