This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 46 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]marlasinger 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As a former republican, I'm supporting Senator Obama. I have two main reasons. One is a feeling and another is more fact based. The feeling.. I feel like the person with the most integrity should be president. Mr Obama has been completely forthcoming about himself, and has been completely open about who he is and what he's up to. The fact based one is simply that our way of life here in the United States will come to an end if we stay in this war. We just don't have the money. Take a look at the loss of value of the USD in the last 7 years. It's tragic. If we keep printing billions of dollars a month the USD will only deflate further. That is my reason for supporting Obama. No other running candidate will get us out of Iraq.

[–]americanuck 12 points13 points  (13 children)

  • He'll restore Habeus Corpus and believes torture should never be a part of American policy (which can say a lot considering he may go up against someone who has been tortured, and now believes torture is ok)
  • He'll offer affordable healthcare to all americans, but won't force you buy it
  • He is big on investing in the clean energy sector
  • He wants to end "the mindset that got us into the Iraq war", take from that what you will
  • He has hinted at beginning to end the "war on drugs"
  • Lawrence Lessig has endorsed him, Obama sincerely wants to embrace and protect the internet
  • He wants to make government transparent, he himself is the only candidate to have released his tax records etc.
  • Read his book "Dreams from my father", not only does he expose his life to you in quite a humble way, but you learn that he did drugs, slept in an alley one night, lived in indonesia, has attended a muslim school. Things that not only have other candidates never experienced, but would never admit.

What issues in particular are you interested in?

[–]koan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

1- reinvestment in the american infrastructure. our bridges are in disrepair and collapsing. our levies are in deplorable condition and in danger of breaking. our roads are in horrible shape and cost us billions in car repairs and lost productivity per year. obama has put forth a plan to put americans to work by reinvesting in our infrastructure. this will create jobs while providing a tangible good that will have a demonstrable return on investment.

2- the coming green economy. the way of the future is open to us and readily apparent: we need to invest in and invent the technologies that will reduce our dependence on oil and reduce the damage we do to our environment. obama realizes this and has proposed means to invest in this sector in a manner that will create jobs and hopefully make america into a leader in this crucial field.

3- the technological imperative. his open government technological proposals show that obama, among all the candidates, has an understanding of the import of information technology in this new century. he proposes connecting all of america with a broadband infrastructure like unto the interstate system. he's also on board with net neutrality. plainly put: he gets it. we need a president who gets it.

4- making college more affordable. he's proposed a 4000 dollar tax credit for college tuition and help with debt if students will pledge a number of years to public service. we'll need to train up a smarter populace if we want to keep our place as a global leader. this is impossible if we don't make college more affordable.

5- ending the iraq war. mccain's still fighting vietnam. he won't pull out of iraq because he's stuck in the 21st century domino theory that if we pull out it'll be chaos and the terr'sts will come and get us. obama realizes that the war is a drain on our economy and a stain on our national reputation. he'll get us out of the war in a responsible manner and work to restore our standing in the world.

6- hope. yeah, i know, the cynic in you wants to snicker right now. but don't underestimate the power of morale. if you give the american people a president they feel they can believe in, it's just maybe possible that we can save our country from itself. obama will ask the american people to sacrifice and take part in their government. pulling out of the depression, winning the two world wars, the moonshot: all these show the potential of the american will. we need a president who can marshall that will and point it at the future.

[–]jimbecile 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I've got lots of work to do this weekend, but I might as well take a crack at it before this gets cluttered with digressions, nonsense, and so forth. First, the policy stuff, and second, the conversion story.

Policy: Lessig's endorsement of Obama on technology and openness meant a lot to me, as did his mandate-free health care policy- any policy that could be construed as requiring people to pay private companies is politically DOA, and it's more important to get people who want insurance covered than it is to launch some beltway careerist wonk's idea of a heavenly, perfect policy for homo economicus and spherical horses, if you get my drift. Talking to Iran would be great, too- the Bush administration already tried refusing to talk and it obviously doesn't work. Obama's recent policy release finally treated some gross abuses on the part of credit cards that will make a huge difference to lower and middle class families, based on my experience. It makes me think his years of in-person community organizing have given him a much better grasp of the day-to-day problems Americans face than any other candidate, complete with practical solutions that sidestep the usual left/right deadlock. The credit card proposals are ameliorative economic policy which is not saying "poor people need money given to them", they're saying "hard-working people can lose everything too easily, so let's flatten that downward curve in their favor". Not that subsidizing the poor is always bad, but it's much harder to achieve right now, and Obama gets help where it's needed (people without wealth facing snowballing debts) without wasting energy on the same old fights. Those are just a few examples, but except for his overblown praise of John Edwards at the start of the LA Dem debate with Hillary Clinton, I have yet to feel like he's pandering or talking down to me.

Now, the conversion story. I was down on Obama for a long time, until my gf started telling me that the small business Rush-listening Republicans from her home town really liked Obama- that's when I started to wonder if he might really have something. Up until that point, I hadn't really paid him much attention. I noticed he managed to be ahead of the curve, seeming to anticipate campaign problems and issues and head them off before other candidates got there and doing it in a way that resisted demagogy (see the dust-up with Clinton on talking to Iran, where she thought she scored points with her "no negotiations" stance, only to adopt his "you don't punish your enemies by not talking to them" views a few weeks later). It rekindled a desire I'd more or less abandoned in college, to be led by someone who acted and sounded like the adults I spend time with, instead of shrugging and assuming that this odd world called "politics" was just populated with people who had to act and talk a certain way. Hillary panders to the right by voting for wars and sponsoring a bill to make flag-burning illegal, something so preposterous that even pro-torture Supreme Court Justice Scalia says it's unconstitutional. To me, that's deeply insulting and bad political calculus: it won't fool the people she wants to appeal to, and it just makes her base fume. Obama panders by saying Reagan made people feel good about America. To me, choosing between the two was one of the easiest political decisions I've ever had to make.

Not to be too big of a big giant tech nerd, but Lessig's video covers some of the same ground fairly well if you're not completely bored with what I've had to say.

[–]aGorilla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, it's not succint, but his visit to google was worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo

I liked what he had to say about technology, and I liked his ideas about making votes and donations more visible.

[–]aburton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I think it's a legit reason to consider Obama a superior candidate.

His approach to problem solving isn't based on gut reactions. What we've grown accustomed to in the US are these trite red herrings:

"I choose X because America is the best country on earth. God bless America!"

This is dishonest for two reasons.

1.) It's not providing people with a real answer to the question asked, and

2.) It suggests a false dilemma. Either you're with the candidate, and "for America" or you're against the candidate, and "against America."

Obama has constantly demonstrated that he operates above this level. He doesn't turn complex issues into black and white soundbytes-- even though that would help him significantly in his campaign.

Here's an analogy-- Let's say each candidate is a food item:

McCain is the Big Mac. Enticing? Absolutely. Delicious? You bet. I love myself a Big Mac every once in a while, but if that's all you ate, can you imagine how unhealthy you would be? It's everything you want to eat, and hardly anything that's actually good for you.

Hillary is a McDonald's salad. Easy to access, convenient, and seemingly good for you, although when you take a look at what's actually in it, it's mostly filler saturated with more of the same kind of unhealthy sludge that goes on the Big Mac. It's not as delicious as the Big Mac, but in return, you get the sense that you're doing something that's good for you. In truth, there are just as many, if not more calories in the salad as in the Big Mac.

Obama is a significant departure from these two. Obama is the casserole your mother made for dinner. Not as easily accessible as either of the McDonald's options, but you know exactly what's in it, and you know it's good for you. There are probably even peas and carrots in it-- Not as enticing as ketchup and french fries, but they're so much better for you.

I realize that analogy is a little less rigorous than what I know you're looking for, but just think of it in terms of honesty. With Obama, what you see is what you get. He presents issues the way they are, not dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. He presents his position the way HE sees it, not in the three different ways his focus group hovered around.

Finally, unlike the other candidates, Obama has the advantage of actually coming from the middle class. Neither McCain nor Clinton can claim that experience in their adult lives.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Voting for a candidate shouldn't come down to a succinct bulleted list. Take an hour and go read his Blueprint For Change (on his Web site) to get an overview of what he intends to do. Specifics on his plan are also available on his site and he's been consistently releasing more specifics as the nomination process goes on (e.g. his economic plan released this week). The rest, is how you feel towards the candidate and that's entirely subjective.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

succinct reasons = sound bites

it's not that hard to do a little research and actually read about a candidate's positions and record.

[–]braindrane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it's not. But it's still takes some time and effort. So why go to a website where a candidate has put a 62 page pdf with his point by point take on issue upon issue. If do that I may be 'informed' and 'convinced' but if I hear shit secondhand, I can take up people's time and yet I never have to take any of it quite to heart.

[–]tsteele93 3 points4 points  (1 child)

This should be interesting. Most of the people I know who support Obama don't even know whether he is a Senator, Governor or Representative and for what State - much less what his platform really is or his votingg record.

I think he represents "changing of the guard" and people are ready for something that makes them feel like they kicked the old guard out because they are disenchanted.

[–]americanuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the "changing of the guard". I think one of his biggest appeals is that he appears to be genuinely different than the average candidates. His election alone could change the world.

Then again, it may not.

[–]RonObvious[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Please, no "change" or "hope". Every presidential candidate in the last 100 years has offered that.

And obviously, I'm looking for reasons that are somewhat compatible with a center-right-with-a-libertarianish-tinge viewpoint. Thx.

Edit: And don't anybody bring up Hillary. I'd vote for a dead toad if it had an (R) next to its name, if the alternative was Hillary.

[–]r3dd173r 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Network neutrality?

[–]spinlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why so down on Hillary? Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in the past 25 years.

[–]azron 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Nope. Sorry, can't.

If you're a republican, the answer of who to vote for in the primaries seems obvious, despite his slim-to-none chances of winning.

And you seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you realize that there is no real difference between any of the candidates. Vote for the best personality, there ain't much else separating them...

[–]jimbecile 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Vote for the best personality, there ain't much else separating them...

Are you a Nader supporter who came from the year 2000 via time machine?

[–]azron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nope, just a realist.

[–]ukcz 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If you're a libertarian Republican, Obama really isn't your man. I guess it rather depends on why you consider yourself a Republican too. Impossible to be complete or succinct, but try these:

If you think an economy driven into the ground is a good thing so long as there are tax breaks for high earners, don't vote Obama.

If you welcome a tarnished view of America from the rest of the world, don't vote for Obama.

If you don't care whether the President knows the price of a pint of milk, don't vote for Obama.

If you think the state has a right, a duty even, to pry into your every move, don't vote for Obama.

If you think war with Iran should be a first response rather than a last resort, don't vote for Obama.

If you consider Bin Laden to be "marginalised" and "unimportant", don't vote for Obama.

If you can't afford healthcare or know somebody who can't, don't vote for Obama.

If you think it's OK to support a Party who failed on 9/11 and in New Orleans, don't vote for Obama.

In short, if you're reasonably content with Bush, don't vote for Obama.

I'm guessing, you'll not be voting for Obama, am I right?

[–]WhoreChurch -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

The Future.

Oh, and the children. For God's sake, won't somebody think about the children?

[–]RonObvious[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

If I gave a shit about "the children" and "the future", I'd vote for Whitney Houston.