What is the real issue with Obama?

Favorite Answer

Great question, and what a slew of answers. Hypocrisy resounds. Sorry Johnny, not to jack your post, but I feel compelled to address many of your answerers as well.

Mr. Krinkle - The UN is hardly an anti-US institution. It is a conglomerate of nations, stationed in the US, mind you, founded by the US as well. You have to give respect to get respect. And Bush just pees on everyone. Besides, we have been the largets funder of the UN since its inception.

Anti-Social - How is k-12 education a socialist failure? Thats called investing in the future of the country. DO you honestly believe that having a public education system is a bad thing? Besides, Socialism does not mean lack of freedom. The Soviet Union meant that, but then they were Socialist in name only.

Hawaiian Hibiscus - tell me how the war in the Middle East is preserving our Freedom? Was Saddam really going to invade us? No. Is there a single country in the world that has the capability to actually invade us, and take the US down. No. Besides you didn't answer the question. Of course you have the right to vote for anyone, Johnny was asking what the problem with Obama is since all you read on YA is baseless name calling.

Knochen Schinken - I think he's pretty assured about who he is, where he comes from, and where he is going, as well as what he believes in. The man has written a book or two expressly about his identity. I have heard this remark before from people about him fumbling for words without the teleprompter. You would be mistaken. Not to mention that the ability to publically speak is hardly a requirement for President, or W Bush would be no where near the White House.

BeKind - Dude, he never gave Hillary the finger, and he didn't appoint anyone ot his administration. He appointed her to his campaign administration. And not for nothing, being a Senator is not a bad thing to be President, regardless of what the past is, merely because if you want to really reach any achievement, then you need to work with the Senate, and you better know damn well how it works. You speak about the bill to give Africa 845 billion in aid to fight pverty and disease. We spend that in a week in Iraq. One week. YOu then ask if he wants to run the world or the US. I do not believe he is the one who invaded a soveriegn country on lies, and then drive the country bankrupt trying to stick it out with an back asswards plan. Fighting poverty is noble goal. And if Africa can catch up to the world, we would have tremendous more allies, and resources as well. Its like the Godfather said, you make allies by giving, not taking.
BUt you do raise an interesting point:

People are upset that he hasn't "paid" dues. They think that Obama is on the affirmative action fast track to the Presidency. I find this laughable.

KZ - best healthcare sytems in the world? We have the best technology, but zero healthcare. over 50% of the country has no coverage, and the biggest cause of bankruptcy and debt in this country is medical bills. You make a frightened accusation that he will rule according to his experience of prejudice and take it out on the white man. That is fear speaking. Not rationality.
Not to mention, no he is not a Muslim for the 8 billionth time. His father was a muslim like I'm a Christian, my family is but not me. He was raised by his mom either way. And, despite what you think, Islam does not hate America. Radical Islam does. But not Islam. You are speaking about a small minute fraction of actual Muslims. BUt also remember, that Bush's policies have inflamed an entire region that was relatively in favor of us for a hundred years....Show more

There are those that feel the issues are the ones that his supporters have said. For me (and I didn't vote for him for Senator), it is all about his experience, his record, and his policies. His record as a State Senator was artificially inflated by the Senate leaders to make him more appealing as a US Senator. His real record shows the majority of his votes were "present". That doesn't exactly show leadership. As a US Senator, he has spent most of his term running for president instead of representing the people that elected him. The votes he has made in both the US senate and the IL senate have been extremely liberal. I have seen his career since he started in politics with the speeches about "giving up law practice to teach because he cares about education and as a politician he can help more people". I didn't agree with his views then and don't see any difference now....Show more

There's no issue. His "leftness" is still "right" of just about any "conservative" outside of the U.S. He's not a perfect candidate for me.

I am for NAFTA and CAFTA, and other free trade agreements, I am against universal healthcare, but at the same time, I just do not think any of these things will happen under Obama (i.e. we will have universal healthcare). Ultimately, decisions like these and on social issues will not experience rapid change from one president.

I will vote for Obama just because he is educated and has attained such positions (such as head of the Harvard Law Review) that only very astute individuals can achieve. I do not his achievements and I do not have the expertise to be a president, and I think the vast majority of us do not. We have to pick a president that we feel will make rational decisions on the international stage (i.e. concerning Israel and Iran, for example) and I think Obama is more likely to make the correct decisions than is John McCain.

I am sorry, but there is no way the Iraq War can be made into an overall positive. Yes, Iraqis will be better off, but so could Somalis, so could the Burmese, so could the Sudanese, yet we cannot start wars all across the world to save these nations, and that was not the purpose of the Iraq war. Republicans talk about little government, yet this war has made the government expenditure higher than it has been for a long while, and that is why they are running a budget deficit... Which HAS to be paid for by future taxpayers. All their talk of small government is completely meaningless. This unnecessary war has made our government bigger than ANY socialist tax system could have made it. With that, I say, I am sorry but I will NOT vote for someone who has an 88% in-step voting record with George W. Bush....Show more

Its amazing how we tend to make things much more difficult that they really are. With Obama what you see is what you get! He would like to take from the rich and give to the poor... sort of a Robin Hood type if that's what you see. Others would call him a socialist or communists [each according to his need and god forgive us whats fair? ]. Myself Obama represents a shift in the American political psychic from independence and self reliance to big government which many believe can solve all our problems.

Well the proof is in the pudding as they say. Government creates a whole bunch more problems than its solves. In fact its hard to find a problem we as a nation are facing that hasn't been created by government, take your pick! As Obama would have it, the answer is more of the same...just more government. After all government works so well, doesn't it? Well that's what I see in Obama what do you think?...Show more

I don’t consider eight years as a state senator to be “training” for the presidency. It’s like a guy who goes to military school and joins the Army when he graduates. He may be commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, but not as a General.

The people don’t seem to regard senators, even those in the U.S. Senate, as good choices for president. The last senator to be elected president was John F. Kennedy. Since then we have elected four governors. The key difference is executive experience. Governors have actually managed a state; senators have been members of a large committee. In a business sense, moving from Governor to President is something like moving from Chief Operating Officer to CEO; moving from Senator to President is more like moving from Chief Financial Officer to CEO.

Both Senators McCain and Obama lack executive management experience (as did Hillary), so IMO the issue is capacity rather than experience: Who is more capable of serving as president? Who has had more training and exposure to the governmental functions for which the president has significant responsibility?

As a practical matter, all good politicians test the political winds almost as often as they deny doing so, and they all shift with the prevailing winds. There is an old saying about atheists: “If they don’t believe there’s a god, they’d better be right when they die.” And if a president goes against the will of the people, he’d better be right before he goes to congress and demands passage of legislation or goes to the people when it’s time to seek reelection. LBJ proved that when he declined to run for a second term. George W. Bush would prove it again if he was eligible to run for another term.

Obama is regarded as something of a visionary; McCain is not. But, as Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana said a couple of years ago, “We don’t react to vision. We only react to crisis.”

I don’t really agree with your statement that “No socialist would ever mistake Obama for a socialist.” I have four friends who are socialists and they favor Obama. I don’t know if he’s “black enough,” but they each say he’s “not socialist enough.” They want government to nationalize the oil, banking and transportation industries and Obama hasn’t even suggested that. My position on that is that if the government can tax and regulate them enough, it doesn’t need to take title to their assets. The problem we have now is partly a perceptual one: Who’s in control? My wife and I have a dog. As a legal matter, we own him; as a practical matter, he owns us.

Woof! :)...Show more