LampCord

Everyone I talk to who is an Obama supporter uses some vague terms like hope, change, and unity. But I'm a policy guy. I mean, I admire him, I find him very inspiring, but once you get past that, what does he actually PLAN to do for us?

When I look at his policies, they seem to be a mirror of Hillary Clintons.

Change? Its the same policies Democrats have been trying to shove down the throats of mainstream America for 20 years. How is that change? Sure, having a black guy be president would be a change. But to me, its strictly a symbolic one. Just like having a woman as president. Its great if its a symbolic victory for your personal struggle but doesn't really affect anyone's life in a meaningful way.

Unity? Sure, unity within the Left wing of the Democratic Party but I don't see how his policies are going to reach out to those of us who don't want nationalized HC, high taxes, and cut and run foreign policy. As usual, its a case of everyone agree with me and then we'll be unified. Lets face it, the only candidate left in the race that actually has shown a willingness to reach over to the other side is John McCain. He represents Unity more than any other candidate. That's why conservatives don't want him.

Hope? Well again, it depends what you hope for. Since I don't believe in his policy positions, it doesn't represent hope for me in any way. Maybe hope for insurgents in Iraq that America will finally retreat and hand them the biggest moral victory they could ever hope for.

If I were a supporter of his I'd remember this: Hillary can't really go after his policy positions because they are just like hers. That won't be the case when he faces McCain. Once his policies are shown to be the same Democratic positions they have been pushing for 2 decades its going to be clear that once you get past the beautiful rhetoric, its just the same policies that John Kerry, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were pushing. Same story, different cover.

pedex

council for foreign relations members all have fundamentally the same policies

LampCord

Great. Fortunately, they don't get to decide who our president is and they don't represent mainstream America in any way, shape or form. And no one cares what they think. I can't think of a single person I've talked to who says, "I'm voting for X because the council for foreign relations members agree with him."

pedex

the candidates don't represent mainstream america either, but most of them ARE CFR members including Obama and Hillary is Bilderberg, you don't get elected President without being affiliated and onboard with CFR policies, look it up, been quite awhile since the US has had a President that isn't affiliated with the CFR, the candidates that aren't are gone already cept for Ron Paul and Huckabee and Huckabee likes some prominent CFR people, just one of the major reasons why the candidates are all so tightly matched policy wise and why the serious issues don't even get discussed

if your not sympathetic to AIPAC and the CFR and other elite ruling groups you have no shot at getting elected

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Answered: Wow dude, Obama's fiscal plans are pretty radical

His healthcare plan is probably the same as Hillary's, although it's more practical. Healthcare will need bi-partisan support and Hillary's "mandate" that everyone MUST have it (or presumably they garnish your wages) is just so extreme and polarizing that it makes her plan politically unachievable.

Well if you look at the Congress of the United States, then mainstream America is "liberal". So you don't try to shove something down your own throat. Maybe you do, but that seems like a schizophrenic thing to do.

In any case, those liberal changes are change. The fact that something is a liberal change, does not disqualify it from being change. Also, I do not think Obama's plans are what liberals have been attempting in the past 20 years. Obama's plans are different, most of them being tax cuts for working families. Show me how liberals have been trying that in the past 20 years, Mr. Policy Guy. Also, Obama has plans to do massive government spending on environmental research. Please also show me how liberals have tried that for the last 20 years.

The other aspects of change include Obama's emphasis on American unity. Maybe it will fail, maybe not, but neither you nor I know that at this point.

Well unity within the left wing of the Democratic Party, unity within the whole Democratic Party and unity within the United States as a whole. 64% of Americans want us out of Iraq, so you conveniently misrepresented this as something only liberals think. If your comments were actually based on facts, as they pretend to be, then you would see that people disagree with you more often than Senator Obama.

Well your policy positions give hope to Al Qaeda, Iran and big oil companies. Obama's policy positions favor giving hope to working American families and the poor. So that's the difference in what we hope for.

Maybe so, but about 55% of Americans favor universal healthcare and about 65% oppose the war in Iraq, so the same story, different cover helps Obama as far as policy positions are concerned.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

francois60

Obama wants to do for liberalism what Reagan did for conservatism. He doesn't want to unify us by giving us all what we want, he wants to do it by using soaring rhetoric and optimism to get us all wanting liberal fixes to national problems. And it can work on a political level. I just don't see how most of it can work on a policy level.

__________________
chicken butt

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

This depends in large part if conservatives try to filibuster Obama's fiscal plans. Then we will have to see how good at compromise and negotiation Obama is. Also, it will depend on the state of the economy. It will be a tough sell to try to invest in the environmental technologies if unemployment is soaring.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

superdude17*

any democrat who is president will have an extremely hard time getting any major sort of legislation passed. therefore, i am not stressing that much if a democrat is president. they just don't have the majority to do diddly.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Several errors in your comment here.

(1) Your idea is based upon the present deadlock in the government, but fails to take into account that the present Democratic congress cannot get anything done because a Republican is in the White House. Taking a Republican out of the White House, replacing him with a Democrat and leaving the Democratic Congress intact changes things a lot.

(2) There will also be a vote on the entire house of representatives (where about 30 Republicans have announced their retirement thus far) and 1/3 of the Senate (held disproportionately in states where Republicans are vulnerable this year).

Pretty big facts that you left out of your conclusions.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

superdude17*

\

but you forgot to mention that almost all of the republican seats in the house will have an incumbent republican. congressional districts are formed that way. its called gerrymandering.

you make it seem as if the democrats rule the country, which in fact, you are wrong. republicans still are about 50% of the country. not every seat open is going to be contested.

in fact, i expect some democrats to lose their seats considering that they have a favorable rating of 22%....