I think the editorial from The New Yorker linked below is a very thoughtful endorsement of Obama. ("Thoughtful" = I agree with most of it! )

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/20...lk_editors

I wonder if the people who wrote it also approved the Obamas-as-terrorists cover? I know, I know, it was "ironic." I consistently find something of interest in the New Yorker. Also the WSJ. (Unlike Sara P I do not claim to read the Economist).

Well written and comprehensive.

I can't vote for either Obama or McCain.

I think Obama will be an unmitigated disaster. I believe that his plans for the economy are exactly the wrong medicine for our current situation. I believe he is a reasonable man, and democrats have a history of abandoning their more ridiculous campaign promises when they realize they are untenable (one reason why I think the economy has tended to do better under democrats, except of course Carter, who did not abandon his more ridiculous plans). Unfortunately, if Obama does this I worry (1) that he won't be strong enough to stand up to Pelosi and Reid, whom I consider both to be out of touch ideological loons who may well be backed by enormous majorities in both houses, or (2) that if he does prevail, he's made too many promises to too many people who will become very angry and we could look at a return of the "burn, baby, burn" days.

I think of McCain as more likely to be a mitigated disaster. I would see pretty much what has happened for the last two years, with a republican president blaming democrats in congress and democrats in congress blaming a republican president, while the country goes to h*ll in a handbasket. I could see the same "burn, baby, burn" scenario playing out here.

So in terms of the economy, I see Obama as likely to bring about a quck crash, whereas McCain will be more like getting nibbled to death by ducks. Obama might be better in that regard, for as my friend Jim Rogers has been pointing out on the talking head TV shows, we're probably better off to have the crash and get it over with than to implode slowly over the next 10 years. Obviously, if extreme civil unrest manifests itself under either, that could be very bad.

Either way, I see the US for the next five to ten years as a much better place to be FROM than to be IN.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Unfortunately, if Obama does this I worry (1) that he won't be strong enough to stand up to Pelosi and Reid, whom I consider both to be out of touch ideological loons who may well be backed by enormous majorities in both houses,

I wouldn't go so far as "loons," but I agree with the idea that Reid and Pelosi clearly are both well left-of-center among the Democratic Caucus. However, I'm much more optimistic about Congress, because the seats they're picking up are held by Blue Dogs/DLC types. So while the Democrats will have a stronger majority, that majority will be less liberal than it is now (and indeed, likely less liberal than Obama). The lobbyists I've talked to seem to think that Pelosi is a pretty typical pol, in that she's more likely to tack to the right than she is to stay true to her ideological leaning and risk pissing off the Blue Dogs and facing a vote for the Speakership.

amber34 Wrote:I wouldn't go so far as "loons," but I agree with the idea that Reid and Pelosi clearly are both well left-of-center among the Democratic Caucus. However, I'm much more optimistic about Congress, because the seats they're picking up are held by Blue Dogs/DLC types. So while the Democrats will have a stronger majority, that majority will be less liberal than it is now (and indeed, likely less liberal than Obama). The lobbyists I've talked to seem to think that Pelosi is a pretty typical pol, in that she's more likely to tack to the right than she is to stay true to her ideological leaning and risk pissing off the Blue Dogs and facing a vote for the Speakership.

Overall, I think the Blue Dog/DLC types are probably closest to my current thinking of anyone. They were really the ones who pushed the dems over the top in 2006, and I thought they'd be more demonstrative, but so far they seem to have just fallen in line behind Reid and Pelosi. That may be in part uniting against the common enemy--Bush.

I could see a scenario where Obama steps off into the deep end, prodded by Pelosi and Reid, and the Blue Dogs join with the centrist republicans. That's probalby my best possible outcome.

I would have supported Hillary over Obama or McCain, because I think she is the one who had sufficient backbone to stand up to Pelosi and Reid. Of course, I think that is why they promoted Obama in the primaries and pushed the superdelegates toward Obama as hard as they did. I think there's a certain element of the far left that really resented having to go for a centrist like Bill to get the white house. I think they see in Obama someone they can mahipulate just as Cheney and Rumsfeld have manipulated Bush. Clearly, that shoe did not fit Hillary. I hope it doesn't fit Obama either, but at this point I'm not optimistic.

I find it really troubling that the strongest argument I can make in favor of Obama is that he may not actually be able to do what he says he's going to do.

1. Based on the people Obama has gathered around him, I have trouble thinking of him as far-left.

2. If Pelosi and Reid are at all sensitive to polls, they have to know that the Dem Congress has nothing like a mandate. (I know that won't necessarily stop them.)

3. Uh...haven't we already experienced a crash? Worst-ever Dow one-week percentage loss? 40% off the peak? Scarce credit? I know the economic effects aren't yet widespread, but they're certainly already on their way.

69/70/75: I think Obama has plenty of backbone and is about as level-headed as a politico can be. Any president inheriting the present multiple disasters will have his hands full. Obama is more reasoned, more pragmatic than the "liberal" label he has inherited would indicate. What you don't want the next president to do is make more shoot-from-the-hip decisions. Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

S.A. Owl Wrote:1. Based on the people Obama has gathered around him, I have trouble thinking of him as far-left.

2. If Pelosi and Reid are at all sensitive to polls, they have to know that the Dem Congress has nothing like a mandate. (I know that won't necessarily stop them.)

3. Uh...haven't we already experienced a crash? Worst-ever Dow one-week percentage loss? 40% off the peak? Scarce credit? I know the economic effects aren't yet widespread, but they're certainly already on their way.

Based on the way Obama has voted in the past, I have trouble thinking of him as anything but far left.

I agree that it won't necessarily stop Pelosi and Reid. That is what concerns me.

As for the "crash" we've already experienced, we ain't seen nothing yet. Not like what's to come if we don't correct the problems. I'm thinking 50 million unemployed simultaneously with 50 percent inflation. What we've seen so far is pretty small compared to that.

grol Wrote:69/70/75: I think Obama has plenty of backbone and is about as level-headed as a politico can be. Any president inheriting the present multiple disasters will have his hands full. Obama is more reasoned, more pragmatic than the "liberal" label he has inherited would indicate. What you don't want the next president to do is make more shoot-from-the-hip decisions. Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

I would say that you have way more confidence in Obama than I do. I can't think of one thing he has done that shows backbone. If you can, please share.

As for your last sentence, I would restate it as "Obama is liberal in that he panders to the same people that liberal demagogues always pander to." I can't see what he is proposing to do benefitting anyone. Nobody. Period.

Face it. If there were anything good about Obama, it seems to me that his supporters would be telling us what it is, instead of simply attacking McCain 24/7/365. Just as if there were anything good about McCain, it seems to me that his supporters would be telling us what it is, instead of simply attacking Obama 24/7/365. I don't think there's enough good between the two of them to elect either one dog catcher, much less president.

I think we will have a repeat of the 1970s. The Democrats will have their way for a while.
It will be so bad that they wind up being voted back out when people get tired of America held hostage-Day XXX.

grol Wrote:Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

When you say privileged, do you mean rich? When I think of privileged I think of someone who has inherited their wealth. The majority of the rich got that way through some combination of having a good upbringing, going to school, working hard, sacrificing, investing wisely, and maybe getting a little bit lucky. Being a liberal democrat, Obama wants to redistribute this wealth to the less deserving, even though these people, in most cases, have proven to be less likely to use in a positive way the money they have in their pockets. The welfare state that is created takes away incentive for the rich OR the poor to work hard.

As for the privileged, at some point in the past one of their ancestors (unless they were thieves or lottery winners) did what the rich do (which I described above). When the ancestor that earned that wealth died, is it your contention that said wealth should be kicked back to the government for redistribution? If so, Obama is no doubt your man. Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him. It's the liberal way of staying in power. Hopefully in four years someone like Jindal (sp?) can articulate the fact that it is the conservatives that are on the side of the poor. A smaller class of poor people (through family values and proper schooling) means less crime and less handouts, which means less government and smaller taxes - that is what Republicans want and Democrats want to keep secret from their base, the undereducated voters.

wrysal Wrote:

grol Wrote:Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

When you say privileged, do you mean rich? When I think of privileged I think of someone who has inherited their wealth. The majority of the rich got that way through some combination of having a good upbringing, going to school, working hard, sacrificing, investing wisely, and maybe getting a little bit lucky. Being a liberal democrat, Obama wants to redistribute this wealth to the less deserving, even though these people, in most cases, have proven to be less likely to use in a positive way the money they have in their pockets. The welfare state that is created takes away incentive for the rich OR the poor to work hard.

As for the privileged, at some point in the past one of their ancestors (unless they were thieves or lottery winners) did what the rich do (which I described above). When the ancestor that earned that wealth died, is it your contention that said wealth should be kicked back to the government for redistribution? If so, Obama is no doubt your man. Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him. It's the liberal way of staying in power. Hopefully in four years someone like Jindal (sp?) can articulate the fact that it is the conservatives that are on the side of the poor. A smaller class of poor people (through family values and proper schooling) means less crime and less handouts, which means less government and smaller taxes - that is what Republicans want and Democrats want to keep secret from their base, the undereducated voters.

I should have used "well-to-do" or similar instead of privileged. Wasn't my intention clear? From what Obama has written and said he's not into handouts to the poor.

grol Wrote:From what Obama has written and said he's not into handouts to the poor.

Yes, so far he's only promised them to 95% of the population in what is obviously a blatant--and successful--attempt to buy votes.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

grol Wrote:From what Obama has written and said he's not into handouts to the poor.

Yes, so far he's only promised them to 95% of the population in what is obviously a blatant--and successful--attempt to buy votes.

I see he is still advertising the same tax plan even the financial situation has obviously changed. Do you think he realizes the game has changed, and if so, is it ethical to still be making the same promises as six months ago?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

grol Wrote:From what Obama has written and said he's not into handouts to the poor.

Yes, so far he's only promised them to 95% of the population in what is obviously a blatant--and successful--attempt to buy votes.

I see he is still advertising the same tax plan even the financial situation has obviously changed. Do you think he realizes the game has changed, and if so, is it ethical to still be making the same promises as six months ago?

To be fair to him, I believe he has now said that he will holding off on tax changes so long as the economy is in a funk. But last time I checked, his web site still has the tax plan on it. That gives him the advantage of simultaneously being able to say that he is in favor of and opposed to the changes. One of those positions is obviously a lie. Which one?

Like everything else with Obama, we'll probably find out some day. Meanwhile, so long as nobody calls him on it, no reason for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth.

wrysal Wrote:

grol Wrote:Obama is liberal in the respect that he works for every American, not just the privileged class, something I believe benefits us all.

When you say privileged, do you mean rich? When I think of privileged I think of someone who has inherited their wealth. The majority of the rich got that way through some combination of having a good upbringing, going to school, working hard, sacrificing, investing wisely, and maybe getting a little bit lucky. Being a liberal democrat, Obama wants to redistribute this wealth to the less deserving, even though these people, in most cases, have proven to be less likely to use in a positive way the money they have in their pockets. The welfare state that is created takes away incentive for the rich OR the poor to work hard.

As for the privileged, at some point in the past one of their ancestors (unless they were thieves or lottery winners) did what the rich do (which I described above). When the ancestor that earned that wealth died, is it your contention that said wealth should be kicked back to the government for redistribution? If so, Obama is no doubt your man. Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him. It's the liberal way of staying in power. Hopefully in four years someone like Jindal (sp?) can articulate the fact that it is the conservatives that are on the side of the poor. A smaller class of poor people (through family values and proper schooling) means less crime and less handouts, which means less government and smaller taxes - that is what Republicans want and Democrats want to keep secret from their base, the undereducated voters.

That seems awfully cynical on two points.

One, liberals aren't out to "redistribute this wealth to the less deserving," they're just trying to shift the tax burden a little more towards those who can afford it. As someone who is looking at a tax increase (barely) under Obama's administration, I'm happy to vote for him because I know that, despite all of our nation's efforts to the contrary, everyone isn't born under equal circumstances. I hade a few advantages along the way. On average, it takes more effort to "make it" in this country if you start out poor than if you don't, so a progressive tax system just makes sense. Liberals aren't trying to take all the fun out of being rich -- the incentive will still be there, at 25% or 35% or 45% tax rates -- they're just trying to give more people that opportunity.

Two, do you really believe "Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him"? I'm no big fan of McCain's policy proposals, but I don't doubt that in his heart he's trying to do what's best for the country. He hasn't demonstrated otherwise, that I've seen. In your opinion, has Obama?

erice Wrote:Two, do you really believe "Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him"?

I do.

I'm not really aware of any evidence to support a different conclusion.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

erice Wrote:Two, do you really believe "Obama will give the handouts to the poor, knowing they will always stay poor and indebted to him"?

I do.

Really? Wow. I've been pretty disillusioned many times over the direction our country's leaders have taken us in the past, but if I really believed that at the core they're really that selfish, I think I'd be looking hard for another place to live.

That's NOT a shot at you, 69/70/75 -- I'm not saying "love it or leave it". That just sounds pretty... hopeless.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that you've already gone down that road and decided the rest of the world isn't any better.

erice Wrote:if I really believed that at the core they're really that selfish, I think I'd be looking hard for another place to live.

I am.
I am at a point in life where I am able to move on, and I've seen enough.
One point of clarification. By no means do I think that Obama is the only politician that I'd put in that class. For several reasons he appears to me to be one of the more egregious examples, but only marginally so. Most--but not all--of the politicians that I would put in that category are democrats, particularly two named Pelosi and Reid.
And I didn't take your "love it or leave it" comment as a shot.