Ok, Barack Obama Supporters, Tell Me What You Like About Him  

LOL,

You cracked me up with that post, as far as what I like about Barack, is well the only good thing is I can think of is that.........

He's not Hillary

I think what we are facing with the Democratic candidates is that Hillary has too much experience, Obama has too little, and well Edwards falls in the middle and hes no more desireable than the others.

Mooch

With more experience, Obama might be okay. The thing of it is, the man is exceptionally brillant. He just suffers from a lack of being able to be objective enough in analysis of complex events. I've found that many really high IQ people have this problem. My guess is that they get use to being right so much they forget that unless they seriously analyze something rigoursly they are just as likely to wrong as anyone else. I think their brillance lures them into the laziness of thinking they are always right from a sort of circular reasoning. You know, something like this,"I'm really smart, I know this from experience, so I must be right!". Unfortunately, in matters of a somewhat subjective nature, this kind of thinking produces bad results.

Careful, RYB, you've underestimated Obama before, right?

I'm not sure that record and experience matter so much, nor specific policies.. How else could Bush have ever become president? Obama has general policies in line with the Democrats, and no doubt would surround himself with experienced people if he were president.

He's appealing because of his charisma, but also because he seems sincere and unphoney. His talk of change obviously resonates, in particular being anti-lobbyist. He would clearly bring new energy and ideas to the presidency.

I think he's also an inspirational speaker, which would be an important asset (sorely lacking in Bush).

Yes, I have underestimated Obama in the past.

If you think Barack Hussein Obama is uncalled for, you need to take that up with his parents. That is his full name.

I don't think many Democrats are picking a candidate just to get Republicans out of the White House. I think they are picking a candidate to get a Democrat in the White House.

I think it's hilarious that you say that you twist a simple question into a shot at me. ;~D

All I asked was what Obama supporters like about his stand on the issues.

Thank you for being issue specific.

I'd have to say I'd be against any federalization of state programs.

Just curious, why?

Because every situation should be handled by the smallest level of government possible. That is the way our system is set up. The federal government is bound by the U.S. Constitution, which states that any authority or power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belongs to the States and We the People.

Our nation was set up so that each community could set it's own standard (within the confines of the U.S. and State Constitutions).

If one state can dictate the terms of this PCA to another, then the people of the other state lose their right to run the PCA the way they feel is best.

But this bill would give individual PCA users and their family if they are children. The power to determine where they live and what services they need on an individualized basis. It would just allow PCA users to be like every other American and live and work where we choose with fear of losing needed services, which are sometimes survival orientated (like going to the bathroom, eating, and washing yourself).

Then if you choose to move, learn what the PCAs are like where you want to move, then decide if the PCAs in the area are what you want or need.

What you (and Obama) are proposing would be just the opposite. You would impose requirements on areas just in case you might want to move there.

It's not up to you (or me, or anyone else) to decide what is best for areas we don't live in. No matter how convenient it might be.

"I'd have to say I'd be against any federalization of state programs."

Me too!

Another point often overlooked is that the federal government being in charge limits, stunts, inhibits, and stiffles growth in learning and innovation as to the methods of government which work best.

Imagine 50 states all trying to do things their own way. Some succeed, some don't. But what works and what doesn't becomes obvious to all and the better method is adapted more widely.

Now, imagine an egotistical, power hungry, centralized government, arrogant with self determined belief in its own superiority forcing its will on 50 states. When they really are right, that's fine, but often they are not. When they are not right they impose their stupidity on 50 states.

Additionally, whether they are right concerning a specific policy or not, practically all innovation and experimentation STOPS!

For government to become better, it must be as decentralized as possible. Otherwise, it becomes stagnet, arrogrant, and elitist. In short, just like a dictatorship even when it is a democracy!

I guess I'm not going to have agree to disagree with you. I'm for the most part a federalist, especially when it comes to civil rights issues.

Take the civil rihts movement. States (like Alabama, Missippi, Louisiana, for example) would've never respected the civil rights of black Americans had the feds not stepped in (look at the Emmitt Till murder). And why should the free movement of disabled people be restricted, just because we need a little, or a lot of help.

As far as I'm concerned wider rights issues of any group are a federal matter. No state ought to be able to say, "we don't allow interracial marriages" or "we allow people to get beaten because their sexual orientation or gender indentity because we don't prosocute those who hurt them" or "we exclude disabled people because we don't provide them what they need to live here."

I don't think that exspecting your civil rights to be protected shouldn't depend on what state you live in.

I agree that Consitutional Rights are a federal issue... but what you are talking about isn't a "right" at all.

Programs that are set up to help people with special needs are not a right. Moving from one place to another is a right, but imposing your ideas of how people with special needs should be taken care of isn't.

But yes, we can disagree on this without animosity.

What an excellent exchange of ideas here! thanks guys, I appreciate it!
thought filled and earnest!

Yes, apparently abstract thought is his strong suit... unfortunately concrete ideas seem to escape his abilities.

Abstract thoughts are great, but I'm still wondering why people who back him can't seem to tell me how his stance on issues best matches their own.

Dear Parated....One could ask the same for Mitt Romney could they not?
It's about Positive energy.
Barack brings a new element to the Big-Picture.
People see hope in this Candidate. A hope which doesn't exist in many of the Candidates. ( Admittedly....I'm still pulling for Ron Paul ) He has Moxy.

Except for the fact that Romney answers direct questions with factual answers, instead of abstract ideals like "hope".

That's kind of ironic since I see Obama and Ron Paul supporters pretty much the same. Both have a tendency to recreate Obama and Paul in their own image... no matter what the candidates themselves have to say. ;~D

Don't worry about piping in even if you aren't eligible to vote. The question was put out to the world, so I have no problem with "outsiders" putting in their two cents.

Besides, you added one of the best, most complete synopsis of the Obama campaign I've read so far.

I agree, I'd be a lot more willing to support him if I had any idea what he stood for. He makes it a point to not answer direct questions with a direct answer. So he wouldn't get my vote.

I do think that Obama will win the presidency though. If he does, I think like Bill Clinton, he will do wonders for the American International relations because Obama is an amazing speaker. But I don't know what good he would do for your country internally. I fear he may do what the Canadian Liberal party did back in the 80s and spend spend spend on social programs and things that really really need the money but end up almost bankrupting your economics and sending your country spiralling into a recession like what Canada had.

So you think he will win, but he'll be a disaster for the US?

Given that he won Iowa and basically New Hampshire (who I've believed to think like me and be more libertarian than liberal or in the US case democratic) But yes, I think Obama is riding a tide of winning. I think he will beat Hilary and probably pick her as his Vice./running mate. Those 2 together with the support that they each have individually will kick some Republican Ar@e. There are just too many Rep. people and then the independents. Too many wide spread single Rep. votes will be swallowed but the united Democratic mass vote.
I think as stated before Obama will be great in repairing any international damage done to your countries reputation. But I think his ideas for you internally will be about spending too much money and not have any clear valid steps to putting these social programs in place and retaining a strong economy. I think the democrats will drain your coffers with ideas that mean well but aren't fiscally responsible but isn't that what all liberal groups are about?

ps:
The "darling" was to punky, not you ted, sorry, she's just cuter and, well, does "things" to me you just cant, lol.

Fair enough... and I agree, I'm not into liberalism either.