From the examiner:

That Obama attracts support from some in the military is evident in dollars and cents: Among people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by The Associated Press.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering if that “over $200″ bit is skewing the results, it does — but in McCain’s favor. Over 90% of Obama’s donations are less than $100 dollars, so if we were to factor in sub-$200 donations the rift would likely be far larger.

Besides, if McCain had anything like the military support he claims to have, the numbers would massively slanted in his favor — like by 10/1. The fact that it’s in Obama’s favor at all — to whatever degree — tells you there’s something very wrong with his message of being on the side of the military.

You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Some pro-war types might be eager to say that the military just wants Obama in office because he’s said he’ll bring them home. But that would mean these Military donors aren’t truly evaluating the situation logically and strategically; in other words, they’re putting their own desires above those of the U.S.

So which is it? Either a) the military knows what’s going on over there and still thinks it’s best that we leave (which supports Obama’s plan), or b) they know it’s best to stay but they’re voting for Obama because they want to go home anyway (which is, in effect, calling these donors poor soldiers).

I think it’s a, and if the neocons want to say it’s b then let them do so. I just think it’s amusing that they are going to be forced to call our troops cowards if they insist on clinging to their position of “everything’s fine”.:

My support for Obama has been wavering somewhat in recent weeks. He seems to have sacrificed his positions on the FISA bill, public financing, and a few other issues. The most important of these is his tough talk on Iran when he’s around a crowd that wants to hear it. In short, he’s looking more and more like a standard politician.

He covers this very topic in his book, however, and I’m quite aware of the fact that every political decision involves some sort of compromise, but I still don’t like it. The problem is, I am unsure of how important it is. In other words, I know that without him playing this game the way he is he would not be where he is now.

But those compromises aren’t the only problem. It’s also the policies I disagree with him on that he hasn’t waffled on. Gun control. Immigration. And I’m not sure how I feel about socialized medicine. I know there is value to socializing certain things, but I’m not sure how much of this is good for us at this stage in our development.

For

So let’s do it this way: let me tell you why I like Obama. And these are going to be “feelings” I have, which are subject to all sorts of biases and media trickery. So keep that in mind.

1. Honesty. He speaks the most from the heart of any candidate that I’ve ever watched closely, with Paul and Kucinich being his only peers.
2. He listens to people. I like Presidents who surround themselves with smart people and actually listen to them.
3. His technology position. He’s supposedly for net neutrality, which is great, and transparent government is even more important to me. I also like his concept of a CTO for America.
4. I like his energy policy, i.e. one that’s focused on alternative engery and doesn’t dismiss safe Nuclear as part of the portfolio.
5. I think he can help us regain respect for our country on the world stage. The world senses his honesty and his willingness to talk through problems (even with his “enemies”), and this regaining of our respect will help all aspects of our country’s health.

Against

1. If he’s too extreme he’ll get marginalized just like Ron Paul would.
2. If enough of the country is bigoted they’ll hate him just for not being white, and that lens of dislike will be used to distort any good he will do. But this is a problem with America, not with him.
3. I want to see harsh penalties placed on businesses that hire and support illegal immigrants. I want to raise wages for blue collar jobs by changing the labor market to include more Americans. This means fewer illegal Mexicans. I don’t think Obama agrees.
4. I haven’t seen him do anything courageous with respect to immigration or national identity, e.g. supporting English as the official language. This bothers me. He seems more likely to embrace unification of Mexico through a slow, gentle legalization process. And this is consistent with CFR goals. I see this as an ideal, perhaps decades or centuries in the future, but I think it’d be guaranteed disaster in the world we live in now.
5. I think American citizens should be allowed to carry handguns to protect themselves. I don’t think the forefathers envisioned a society where Americans’ only defenses against an assailant using deadly force would be to call the police (see government). In fact, I think they had precisely the opposite idea. The government is there to help in a limited fashion, not to nanny us. If we are attacked we should have the right to defend ourselves. That’s the entire basis of personal freedom and responsibility.

Conclusions

These are just a few thoughts on the matter. The basic idea here is that I’m not sure Obama, for all his strengths, is going to be the right guy. I still think he’s likely the best guy (and he’s way better than McCain for sure), but the options of Bob Bar (Libertarian) or writing in Ron Paul are starting to become more attractive to me.

I hate to go back and forth on this crucial issue of who to vote for in such a public manner. I was for Ron Paul at first, and now I’m for Obama — but I’m having second thoughts. I considered not posting this for fear of appearing shallow.

But fuck that. I’m not going to apologize for being thoughtful and willing to change my mind when I deem it appropriate to do so. I will continue to do this — even at the expense of looking shallow.

Most anyone who’s thoughtful and has views that anything like my own is facing a tough choice this election. Obama could do a massive amount of good on the foreign front, but will his immigration and health care policies harm us more? Voting for Barr or Paul is a good option as well, but is it better to put your vote where it has the most chance of countering McCain?

These are not easy questions, and I look forward to hearing what your thoughts are on the matter.:

I think this video shows why Obama could very well lose. At the end of the day there is no Obama or McCain, there is only Black guy and White guy. That’s not true for politically aware people, of course, but what percentage of America are we really talking about there? 10%? 25%?

Doesn’t matter…it’s small compared to those who will vote by race. Ah, but what about the polls that are showing Obama doing well against McCain at this point? Good question.

[ The Bradley Effect Will Probably Get McCain Elected ]

Through all this talk about whether McCain or Obama is a better candidate on foreign policy we’ve forgotten a key piece of information.

McCain thinks Bush was right about Iraq. Obama thinks he was wrong about Iraq. So who’s the tie-breaker? How about Military voters?

From the AirForceTimes:

During the reporting period, Paul — a former Air Force surgeon who broke with his party to vote against the Iraq war — received the most military contributions, with $201,271.

That’s significantly more than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain from Arizona, who received $132,133 from military donors, according to CRP.

Think about that. A non-interventionist, anti-war candidate received the most support in the election from the Military. Keep that in mind when evaluating Obama vs. McCain on foreign policy.:

–
Edit: A commenter noted something interesting. The candidate who got the second largest share of campaign contributions from the Military was also anti-war. It was Obama.

A friend of mine has asked me to explain why I support Obama and not Clinton. Or, to put it another way, he wants to know specifically what I feel makes Clinton undesirable as a candidate. Fair enough. Good question.

1. Foreign policy. Her Iraq and Iran policies are much closer to Bush’s and McCain’s than to Obama’s. I think she has a far higher chance of maintaining the current status quo in Iraq, and allowing a war with Iran, than most realize.

2. I don’t trust her. She’s a shapeshifter. She becomes different things to different people. She’s from Arkansas and won in New York by being a New Yorker through and through. I respect her adaptability but I don’t trust it.

3. She’s ambitious to the point of selfishness. She’s shown herself willing to sacrifice democratic chances at the whitehouse this year for her own benefit. It seems obvious to me that she has the, “If I can’t have it no democrat will” mentality, and most professional observers of her campaign seem to agree.

Bottom line: I think she’s a soulless genius willing to do anything to get elected and stay in power. While some of her policies such as universal health care are very similar to Obama just by virtue of them both being democrats I find Obama to be completely different as a candidate.

It comes down to honesty and a genuine desire to do the right thing. I think Obama has these things to a degree that is rarely seen in a presidential candidate, and I don’t think Clinton has much of them at all. And even if she does have these things in little spurts (which I don’t doubt), they are secondary to her own ambition.

Obama is the best choice with a chance of winning, uniting our country, and healing our reputation throughout the world.:

Chris Matthews had an interesting observation: Obama’s honest approach to topics like past drug use is highly refreshing to young people, while old people seem to be somehow immune.

Obama said he did inhale — many times. “That was the point”, he said. That resonates with me because of its honesty and openness. With old people, however, who are more aligned with ancient moral codes, this is essentially admitting to being some sort of criminal (above and beyond the breaking of the marijuana law).

That’s what I like about Obama, even if you disagree with his policies at least you know where he stands on them. He won’t lie to you about his positions. And at this stage of the game that’s a major plus.

Not only do we in the United States need that kind of transparency and honesty from our President, but it’s also precisely what we need to be presenting to the world as well.

If you have not yet heard Obama’s views on the openness and auditability of the government, the neutrality of the Internet, and other key issues, you really need to check out this talk he gave at Google recently.

Obama has many negatives in my mind, but his stances on transparent government and open Internet are some of his overwhelming positives. Check it out even if you’re a McCain or Paul supporter.

Start watching at 5:00.

This video addresses some pretty lame anti-Obama propoganda that is circulating. It astounds me that with all the legitimate reasons to attack Obama’s policies and beliefs, this is all his opponents can come up with.

As a follow-up to a previous post, I’d like to note that Buffet has now supported Obama officially. It was done in the vein of supporting the presumptive nominee, but still.

There’s nothing more to write; it’s all there in the title.

[ Obama and McCain With Different Voter Education Levels | gallup.com ]