Well, thats a good point, but its not exactly true. To be fair to Obama, you were talking to your friends. I'm assuming that means they were under 24? They aren't Groucho, or many of the adult supporters of Obama. They really are the instable young ones. If you lose them, its not a biggie. They haven't voted in any previous election anyways, even when they were needed the last time around for Kerry.

The youngest voting block is notoriously undependable to begin with, and Obama knows that. Its great that he has them as a cushion, but he's a smart enough guy that he is not going to build his general election campaign based on the voting group that has never turned up to vote in general elections ever. Even MTV hasn't been successful in getting them to rock the vote.

You're right, but I would disagree and say that it IS a big problem. My friends are all 24-25, out of college, and all did vote last election, so there on the tail end of the demo we're discussing.

Kerry lost because he couldn't drive out their vote, among a variety of other things, and I think if they stay home on Obama, the same could happen to him.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think he is the best candidate.

Also, I love how if I were to support Obama but give no reasoning, based on this board I'd be A-ok with the likes of Grouche and Angela etc. But the moment I say I'm voting for Hilary (or did in the case of the primary) I'm told I'm making the wrong choice, argued, etc. etc.

Crazy. Heh.

It's interesting that you bring those two issues up.

Fiscal policy:

Obama wants to "tax and spend," as the cliche goes. I vehemently oppose raising the capital gains tax. That would cause a lot of trouble. I also strongly oppose doubling the Social Security tax cap. Raising top-bracket income taxes by reasonable amounts is okay in my book, as well as payroll tax credits for the working poor. For forty years, the top tax bracket was north of 70 percent. It's not as if Obama would raise it above 45, or even 40.

McCain's policy is to run up an even larger deficit. He proposes paying for taxcuts by eliminating earmarks, but eliminating earmarks doesn't even cover Iraq, much less top-line taxcuts. There is no sneaking voodoo accounting past a finance guy like me. There are only two ways to appreciably reduce spending:
1. Cut defense spending. Getting out of Iraq would help, but there is a baseline for defense expenditure given our commitments worldwide.
2. Cut entitlement spending. If drastic action is to be taken, raise the Social Security age cap. From a purist standpoint, there is nothing inhumane about that. 65 was the life expectancy back in 1936, and Social Security was what you got if you lived past when you're statistically supposed to die. Roosevelt assumed Americans had the sense to plan for retirement, and the federal government's job wasn't to piss out free money, but to give a hand to those lucky enough to outlive their sense.
2A. Partially privatizing Social Security is a great idea, but I doubt McCain even understands how that works. I doubt he understands anything I have written thus far. McCain ain't no Steve Forbes. I have not forgotten that his entire economic "agenda" right now is a flip-flop from his previous positions.

Foreign policy:

Obama is not a surrender monkey, which comes as a relief. He intends to pull out of Iraq because Iraq is a dumb war. The dumb war part I agree with. While I disagree with withdrawal on an emotional basis, there is no clear and sensible exit strategy on either side. A timetable could create chaos, and could be like selling a stock in its trough; on the other hand, McCain's strategy reeks of holding a bad investment praying it would go back up.

For other countries, Obama definitely is not a leftist, the kind that naps while the UN plays Solitaire. More of a Nixonian pragmatist, if you ask me. He is definitely hawkish on Pakistan/Afghanistan, and was vindicated on his prediction of Musharraf's slipperiness and lack of democratic commitment. It speaks volumes that the current strategy in the region is exactly what Obama called for in his Pakistan "gaffe" last spring. Meeting with our enemies is really a non-issue. It's refreshing to have a president whose top priority is not his own ego. Considering those rogue governments despise us, refusing to talk to them is hardly a punishment. It's laughable we have preconditions for talks when they don't even to talk to us. Nixon met with Mao, and there was nothing wrong with that either. If a certain talk fails, so what? A propaganda victory on the widely influential North Korean media market? Again, forget the ego.

Moreover, I sense that Obama has a better grasp of the intricacies of diplomatic psychology, as well as the tactical nuances of foreign opinion. Being respected by a majority of the world's citizens is a tremendous soft power advantage. Power projection is all about nuance. McCain's us-versus-them, good-against-evil philosophy is profoundly incorrect in this day and age. Such a naive worldview is a tremendous threat to our national security in these troubled times. I cannot repeat that enough times. I cannot feel safe at home with a president whose foreign policy makes chess seem complex. Case in point, he could not even distinguish between AQI (Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq -- which most Americans, and worrying, possibly McCain, don't know is a local guerrilla force and not "Al Qaeda" proper) and Shia militias. This is a level of ignorance equivalent to Bill Clinton going to Northern Ireland not understanding the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

***

In summary, I find fiscal policy, and especially foreign policy, to be McCain's weakest points. John ain't no Ike. His simplicity only shows what a commander in chief understands that a simple soldier doesn't.

I'd be A-ok because you'd be on my side. If you're a Houston Rockets fan, I'd be A-ok too with that too, in the exact same way. I don't mind Clinton supporters, only ones that spend the entire time poking fun at the very reason Obama gets his supporters. Maybe we should return fire about Clinton supporters' lack of knowledge of their candidate's experience, and how her most substantive qualification are from her Senate days? Or how inflated first lady experience is even more vapid than "change"?

But Hell, most of this board spends time poking at Hillary if they can't take it back they shouldn't do it. I do know several very informed people who support Obama but most of the people that I know support him can't list reasons or give very vague reasons like he will be bipartisan and not list examples. Groucho will talk about Obama getting death penalty reprives through a republican governor and I will talk about republicans who worked with Obama in the senate and start off with the republican giving him praise and then coming out 2 months later to say the guy is all rhetoric. It comes down to which emphasis you place on what.

Earlier on the board Munk-E said that he was shocked that people think that Clinton should still be described as a human being. I didn't see any fuss over that.

BTW the RNC is planning on running an ad in NC saying Obama is too extreme for NC and showing Wright clips.

So let me ask you guys now what are Obama's flaws that you don't like? I know Clinton has more than a few for me and would have no qualms talking about them now if half the board wouldn't exxagerate them. Obama just has a few more than Clinton does.

Heh, you could do that.

I actually can at least appreciate your opinion because you are informed. I may not agree, but I can appreciate your opinion. I'm more concerned about the MTV generation's lack of knowledge and lack of concern to acquire knowledge about their candidate.

Or maybe we can talk about Clintons full history about how she started off as congresional legal consuel or has some corporate experience on the board of Wal-Mart in the 80's(A big minus in my book). Her actions in the Civil Rigths movements or about how she started off campaigning for republicans before the civil rights movement turned her to become a democrat. Maybe we can talk about her failure to puch an unpopular healthcare plan through congress as first lady(which was a failure but I like failure if I think someone learned from it). Maybe we could talk about here being one of the first female partner in a law firm in the nation or perhaps we could talk about how she has pushed more bipartisan bills through congress than Obama during the same time period and almost twice as many bills during the same time period. Maybe we can talk about how she has voted for more bills in congress during the same time frame as Obama in general or about how she even voted against party lines more than a few times?

There is a lot to talk about and both candidates have a bit going for them but so does McCain and how this stuff balances out. I am definitely concerned about Obama because as I have always said it is easier to see smears on a new surface than one that has been roughed up a bit and too many supporters of Obama it is the newness that attracts them and the mud slinging will be more noticeable.

Maybe we should talk about McCain and how he has done more bipartisan work than either candidate.

A lot of Obama supporters, myself included, find endless amusement in the Clinton campaign's travails and incompetencies. It really is unfair to take that out on her supporters, but as any sports fan knows, there's no line separating the two.

That's because Chipmunky is cool in an entirely unique way.

Fair enough. I'm sure the DNC will have plenty of incendiary ads to run against McCain, most of them featuring Bush. It's debatable whether Wright or Bush has the worse approval rating.

I don't like his stammering. It's freaking maniacal, and like a particularly large mole between one's eyes, it irritates me at a subconscious level. Obama is a great orator, but a terrible interviewee. Whoever conveyed the notion this man is eloquent in conversation was dead wrong. I am infinitely more perturbed by Obama's stammering than Clinton's "cackle."

He is fairly poor at defending himself outside the context of speeches; his Teflon coating has more to do with his generic appeal than any direct ability of his. Not every charge needs to be deflected with nuance. Obama will need to figure out a good defense against William Ayers in the foreseeable future.

He sucks at bowling. 37 is a good score for mini-golf.

Combined!

Ah Ayers yes the man behind the Willie Horton ads. I have little respect for that man but he does know how to make insinduary negative ads like nobodies business. It is one of the reasons I am glad that Clinton is going negative because I think it is fairly likely Obama will be nominated and I want either Clinton or Obama to be elected. The ads Clinton airs now will be nothing compared to what this guy concocts apparantely he is working on ad that has to do with some of Obamas campaign contributers that are more than shady and splicing it with statements about how Obama watches who donates to his campaign.

This is very true. TBH if McCain were to move a little more left than I would proabably support him. Hell I was an Edwards fan until he dropped out.

I am sure he will. He already is with his "forgotten America" tour.

So they were average young voters who don't always have a good reason for their candidates?

I think had you asked a bunch of young Hillary supporters the same question, you would have received similar answers, with perhaps the "need a woman President" part thrown in.

I am hardly a "youth" and don't like being told that I am a misogynist or have a defecit in mental acuity.

You'd have to be a flaming asshole to think that anyone who disagrees with you in your political views is stupid. So I stand by my comment.

Who would?

Notice he says nothing about the post you responded too.

Oh, the one that insults Hillary as opposed to real people who post on this board? Oh yeah, really comparable.

It makes me giggle that you people still think that she deserves to be talked about as a human.


Yeah the one that insults Hillary. Whatever

What I don't get is why the fuck we can;t just think that maybe both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are using their brains.

I don'tt hink you or Jeff are stupid for choosing Hillary, I just personally disagree. I started this election being a Hillary supporter and changed my mind.

If I have to read one more post by Jeff suggesting I am voting for Obama because he's cool I am going to drive down to Atlanta to smack him myself.

Just because every Obama supporter you spoke to might be vapid means nothing, you spoke to what 50 people out the 100+ million people of voting age.

I know lots of intelligent people who voting for Clinton and lots who of intelligent people who are voting for Obama.

It comes down what things you value as most important.

I;m tired of it being assumed I am voting for Obama because he's cool or because I'm black. If I were voting for HIllary I;d be pissed if anyone thought it was because she's a woman.

I don't hate HIllary, I actually like her, but I have hated her campaign, and that's made a big difference for me. If I were voting based on bloody cool, Samuel L Jackson would be the dictator by now.

Bleh. I refuse to vote for anyone who is anti-choice. That is probably the most prominent, untouchable, unchanging opinion I hold.

I will add Gore too.

If you look at where Gore and Kerry won in states like OH and PA, they are exactly where Obama won. While Clinton has won almost every single area Bush has won in. This is a huge advanatage for her, because it's not like Phili will end up voting for McCain, a DEM stronghold. They voted for Obama over Hillary because he very comparable to Gore and Kerry based on his wins in the swing states (the more liberal candidate). And I'm sure he'd perform almost indentical to Gore and Kerry again'st McCain, because he's basically running against a REP based on how the voting has gone in these states.

Agreed, there are just some things that are not debatable, and that is one of them.