Why You Should Vote For Barack Obama

I'm not going to take the time to respond to every one of your individual points because I don't have the time and it isn't going to do much good. We disagree on some fundamental points and I don't think any amount of debating is going to change either of our opinions. But I will say a few things that I think are important.

Ron Paul's views are extreme no matter how you look at it, and for that reason he is not fit to serve as president. You know his positions just as well as I do... they are completely different than virtually anyone else's in Washington. At the core, he is not a Republican, and he is certainly not a Democrat..... he is a Libertarian. How many members of Congress do we have taking these Libertarian positions on any of the important issues? Only a handful of active elected officials support him, so how is he going to make all of these changes that no one agrees with? I don't see how he could possibly compromise any of the goals he's put forth without defeating their purpose altogether. A president who's in constant disagreement with Congress isn't going to have much success with anything.

But even if he could make all of these extreme changes, I'm not so sure they would be a great idea. The United States hasn't grown into a world superpower by making as many mistakes as Ron Paul thinks it has. I'm not saying our government is perfect, but I'd rather take small steps to change it than risk screwing everything up further. One major strength of the U.S. as a nation is its balance of federal and state government.... and Ron Paul wants to make the federal government virtually non-existent. This isn't a Confederacy.

Ron Paul supporters go on and on about how he's ignored by the mass media. Anyone will admit that he hasn't received nearly the attention of the other candidates, but there's a good reason for that. The majority of voters don't agree with his positions, and that's been clear since the beginning. There's a reason the other Republican candidates laugh at him in debates. It's not that he hasn't had the chance to put his message out there.... plenty of people have heard it, but he's not gaining enough of a following to have a shot at the presidency. He hasn't won a single caucus or primary besides Louisiana, which hasn't even been fully decided yet. You say the polls don't matter at all, but they are the best rough estimate we have. They aren't always right, but they're generally right more than they're wrong. And as far as delegates, right now he is only ahead of Giuliani.

Now to address a few specific points:

Obama is one of the only candidates who has refused to receive funds from lobbyists and PAC groups, and has said he would never appoint lobbyists to positions in his administration.

You seem to be using Hillary to bash Obama, but if you look more closely, you'll realize that they're quite different. And Obama hasn't risen to where he is because he's black and had a Muslim father. That doesn't make sense at all, because he isn't a Muslim and never has been. And he won the Iowa caucus, which is known for a very conservative, Evangelical, and mostly white voter base. So to say it's because he's black is also completely wrong. He's gained so much popularity because he has a strong message, that's the bottom line.

Hillary would never have been elected senator if it weren't for her being the president's wife. She seems to be using the title of First Lady as an elected position, but it's not. No matter how much influence she says he had in the Clinton administration, the power was ultimately in Bill's hands... he's the one we elected. During her time in the White House, Obama was working as a lawyer representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

So you're saying it should be left up to the big corporations who are just trying to make money off the American people? The reason private sectors have made more progress with the environment is because our current government has failed to fully address the problem and give it the attention it deserves. And Richard Branson wouldn't have been able to do any of what he's done if it weren't for the technology and discoveries of NASA.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with Canada and Europe's failed health care systems. The Canadian economy surely wouldn't indicate that like you suggest. The Canadian dollar has been rising in value for the past 5 years, even more so during the last year. Their economy is currently quite strong compared to the U.S. In fact, in September 2007, the Canadian dollar met the U.S. greenback at parity for the first time in over 30 years.... so that's quite the opposite of what you said.

Health care is too important to not require government regulation. It is a fact that countries with some type of universal health care have higher average life expectancies, and higher health in general. The current system has failed millions of Americans who aren't covered because they can't afford it, and suffer unnecessarily because of private corporations who just want to make money. I'd rather pay higher taxes to improve the quality of life of my fellow citizens than see people suffer, but I guess that's something we fundamentally disagree on.

I meant centuries of the same arrogant foreign policy and sticking our noses in other people's business.

That's my point... we need to stop nation building and focus on the reason we went over there in the first place: to defeat terrorist organizations that have been plotting against us.

I understand that the Middle East has virtually been in chaos for thousands of years. But completely ignoring the problem when they already hate us isn't going to help our reputation. I agree we shouldn't invest nearly the resources in it that we are now, but at the same time we shouldn't abandon it. We need to focus on having a diplomatic foreign policy like Mr. Obama has suggested, and not doing away with foreign policy altogether like Ron Paul wants. Also, military force shouldn't be a bad thing if it's used only when absolutely necessary to defend the security of our country.

At the time I wrote that, Hillary and Obama were about dead even in SC. Currently, on the eve of the Democratic primary, Obama has a significant lead over Hillary, who has a significant lead over Edwards. I wouldn't mind seeing Edwards get the nomination either, but that's obviously not gonna happen.

I would keep going, but it doesn't really matter... this is an internet message board with little relevance to real world politics. I'm voting for Obama tomorrow in my state's primary and nothing is going to change that at this point. I hope those who agree with the things I've said will do the same. But in the end, I respect everyone's right to vote for who they think is best fit to run the country. Peace.

 

Yes, 50 years ago the Republican party had mostly Libertarian beliefs. But, since that time, and especially during the last 15 years, the Republican party has become dominated by neo-conservatives. The party has undergone drastic changes and no longer stands for small government, non-intervention, etc. That's why Ron Paul is viewed as an outcast in a party full of neo-cons. Most of the people who support him are not considered Republicans in the modern sense. Why do you think the Libertarian party has officially offered to endorse him as their candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nomination?

You're just helping to prove my point.... Bush is in a constant disagreement with congress. They haven't been able to compromise on virtually anything, and it would be even worse if Ron Paul was president. He's more extreme than Bush, and as I said before, you're average Congressman does NOT agree with him on the key issues. At least Bush has a little bit of support among Republicans, Ron Paul has absolutely none.

I'd like to hear about all these active officials who support Ron Paul. There's a small handful, but it's a tiny group compared to any of the other presidential candidates. McCain, Romney, and Obama each have the support of over 50 active members of congress and governors. Clinton has the support of over 100. Ron Paul has the support of about 12 current elected officials. So again, how is he going to be able to work with them and bring about change if their positions are nowhere close to his?

I agree the federal government has taken over... it is FAR from perfect, and corrupt like you said. But that doesn't mean it should be done away with altogether. A weak federal government, like the one described by Ron Paul, is going to have a very hard time making progress. Having a tiny, limited government is much worse than having a big government that does it's best to help the citizens out. It is a balance of federal and state government that works best, and I feel like Obama's plans are best suited for that. Also, as I said before, he would end the medical marijuana raids.

I'd have to disagree with you there.... I know plenty of people who have heard Ron Paul's message but don't want to vote for him. Most modern Republicans don't even want to give him a chance. We're talking about the people who put both of the Bushes into power. He doesn't appeal to your average mainstream voter, and that's clear.

The reason he has outlasted 6 candidates is because those guys realized that they had no shot. Fred Thompson had more campaign funds than Ron Paul, and even he admitted that there was no point in staying in the race. Ron Paul just hasn't come to grips with reality yet... he isn't going to win the nomination and the absolute best he'll get is third place. Tell me... when's the last time we elected a president who failed to win any of the first 6 primaries? I realize most states haven't voted yet, but these first few have always been a good indicator of who's gonna do well.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Anyone who has paid a bit of attention to Obama's campaign would realize that that isn't what it's about. In fact, the Muslim thing didn't even gain national media attention until recently... besides the fact that it isn't even true. Only completely ignorant people see him as a Muslim. And I also haven't heard a single news outlet report that he's a Muslim, so you're wrong about that.... those rumors about being a fundamentalist started through a completely incorrect chain email. The media has done nothing but correct these rumors.

We seem to agree that people in general are stupid, lazy, and immature. It's just human nature.... that's why people need help. It has become obvious that the current system of private health care does not work.... it favors the rich. Health care isn't a right, but it should be in my opinion.

So you're saying we should just force all these people into homelessness, further poverty, and bad health simply because they're poor?

More often than not, people are born into poverty... it's a hard thing to overcome. We should be doing more to help these people out and improve their lives so that they can get on the right track. This includes funding education for those who can't afford it as well as universal health care.... two things that Obama supports. We can't just ignore a problem that is affecting a big chunk of the population and act like only the wealthy people matter.... this is the problem with most Republicans.

Yes but the terrorist organizations are a problem we can easily defeat if we just refocus our efforts and use a new strategy.

Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are things that scientists have been working on for years and still require a lot of research. Suicide is something that can be addressed in part by taking away power from the huge medical corporations who are trying to make money by stuffing us full of over-prescribed pills and failing to give people the help they really need. These are long-term problems that require a much different kind of action.

What are you talking about? The way we reacted to that situation is exactly how a non-interventionist foreign policy should work. The officers in charge decided NOT to take action against that Iranian speedboat, which was a very wise decision they should be commended for. Our military could have easily just blown them to pieces, since the boat was approaching in a chaotic and threatening manner, and ignored our warnings to back off. So calling us trigger happy for properly restraining ourselves is a mistake on your part. It seems to me that the Iranians were the ones trying to start WW3. We did the right thing.

All I'm saying is that in the end, people are going to make this decision for themselves... not based on the opinion of a stranger over the internet. Besides, all they have to do is go look at the campaign websites of the candidates, watch the debates, or do some research to have the exact same knowledge that you and I have. At this point, most people have made their decision anyway.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone was responsible and could take care of themselves, but that is not reality. You and I may be mature and capable enough to make a decent living and provide for ourselves, but obviously not everyone is. It's just the way society works.... some people are too dependent and helpless by their very nature, so they require assistance. You said it yourself, the general population is stupid. It's something they can't help, and that's no reason why they shouldn't be given a decent quality of life and chance to improve themselves.

And this isn't Stalinist Russia we're talking about... this is still the United States of America. I think having a few slightly socialist aspects would not be a bad thing if it helps out the poor and gives everyone a decent shot at living a successful life.

 

I'm glad you made that list... it allows me to address the key issues underneath all the rhetoric and argument. You say that Obama stands for nothing, but really you're just ignoring his message. If you do a little research, you'll find that most of what you said is a drastic oversimplification or entirely false.

The economy? Certainly not. He know's nothing about the economy and markets.

And this opinion is based on what exactly?

Obama wants to provide a tax cut for over 150 million middle-class workers and families. He would reduce taxes for homeowners in order to stimulate the housing market. I could go on and on about the tax cuts he's proposed to stimulate the economy.

He would also strengthen the workforce by expanding early childhood education, improving our schools, and encouraging undergraduates to study math and sciences, and pursue graduate studies.

He would promote American businesses abroad, supporting a policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. He opposes China's munipulation of currency that undercuts US exports.

Fiscal responsbility? No, more spending to cover all his social programs and the war.

For one, he's trying to eliminate the billions of dollars we're spending on the war by bringing our troops home. If you actually listened to him, you would realize he's been talking about reducing our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. Obama believes that spending which cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. He would slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

He will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that don't make financial sense. He has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as subsidies to the private sutdent loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices.

He also voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory federal debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.

Foreign policy? NO, would still be there fully at the end of his first term.

Not quite... Obama will start removing troops immediately, starting with one or two combat brigades each month. All combat troops will be out of Iraq within 16 months, not 4 years. He will keep a very small amount of troops in Iraq ONLY to protect our embassy and diplomats. If al-Quaeda attempts to build a base there, he'll carry out targeted strikes on them only. That's a lot different than keeping combat troops there and continuing the war.

He will make it clear that we're officially leaving, engaging with representatives on all levels of Iraqi society. He will provide about $2 billion dollars to ensure the safety of Iraqi refugees who's lives we've affected with our unjust war. He will allow the U.N. to handle Iraq's governance and Constitution. With diplomacy, and not threat of invasion, he will work to maintain stability of Iraq and the entire Middle East, as well as isolate al-Qaeda.

You mentioned Iran.... Obama has done nothing but oppose the Bush administration's attempt to justify force against Iran. Again, Obama will adress this problem with diplomacy. He will talk to Iran's leaders directly and personally, offering incentives and peaceful political relations in exchange for abandoning a nuclear program and not supporting terrorism.

When's the last time we had a leader who actually talked openly with those countries we've been having a rough relationship with? That's the only way to restore America's reputation and not let everyone think that we're war mongers, preventing further crisis. You talk about non-intervention, which I think is a good thing as long as it isn't taken to the extreme. We don't need to simply isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Obama's plan is the best one I've heard and focuses on diplomacy rather than military force.

Healthcare costs? Doubt it. And if it were to happen it would be like Canada where you may have good treatments, but you have to wait for 6 months or a year to get what you need. X-rays are expensive and very hard to obtain from a doctor. If you go to a veternarian and have an X-ray taken and just pay for it, then you can see a doctor, etc. If you have the best treatments yet so few get them and taxes are incredibley high, what's the use?

Obama's plan for health care would not change anything for people who already have health insurance, other than decreasing the amount of money you'll spend on premiums. What it would do is simply provide health care for the 45 million Americans who don't have insurance, a number that is rising every day due higher costs in the private market. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care, for those that can't afford it.

Two companies dominate a full third of the national health insurance market, with mergers creating more monopolies every day. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent... that's what the problem is. Obama will reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. This is not the same as socialized health care like you make it seem... he's not simply giving money to people who live off welfare, he's focused on reforming and improving the system we already have in place.

Taxes? Raised. Check.

Actually Obama has proposed a tax plan that includes $80 billion in tax cuts for the poor and middle class. See my response about the economy for more details.

He will allow the Treasury Department stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. He will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry. That's only fair.

Gun violence? Raised. More gun control, only giving those who want to break the law guns and taking away peoples right to defend themselves. Yet another swipe taking away "civil liberties" he so claims to be in favor of.

He is not taking away people's right to defend themselves. Gun control is not the same as banning guns. What he would do is require stricter regulations when purchasing a gun. Things like mental health checks, criminal background checks, and limiting the amount of firearms you can purchase during a short period of time. This is only taking guns away from dangerous individuals, not limiting innocent people's rights to legally own a gun. He voted in favor of prohibiting the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or disaster.
National ID Card?Check and mate. Another invasion of privacy and a step on civil liberties.

I haven't been able to find anything about Obama's stance on the National ID Card. The Democratic Party in general is against it, so I would assume he's against the National ID card since it would do nothing to promote the security of our citizens. The card has been rejected in the past, but has now gotten approval because our current president is willing to ignore our constitutional rights.

Obama does oppose warrant-less domestic wiretaps by the U.S., and only supports using resources like this to target individuals who are a risk to national security.

Amnesty? Check, or some form of it. Not a good thing.

You can't just round up twelve million illegal immigrants all over the country and suddenly send them back... that's an impossible task. What he supports is a guest worker program, and an earned path to citizenship for people who have been living here for years and are living otherwise successful and honest lives. He does support the construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants.