Why will Barack Obama be an effective President of The United States

diva's picture

I find it interesting that McCain supporters and endorsers continue to speak of Senator Obama as an unknown risk who's only ability is reading teleprompters. But let's compare the very demonstrable campaigns of the principals:

Senator McCain is running a campaign centered around character attacks of Senator Obama and grass roots appeals to "Joe the plumbers" the country over. Senator McCain's thesis is: Barack Obama is a man of flawed character who will hurt middle America as represented by "Joe the plumber."

Here's the problem...sorry... the problems:

1. Joe the plumber does not exist. The real man whom Senator McCain has made the figurehead of his campaign:

-Confronted Barack Obama in the street, misrepresented his income, his ability to buy a business, the income of that business, and his "independence."

2. Joe AKA Sam has not even paid his taxes under President Bush's tax plan as was his responsibility.

In essence, a flawed premise (Barack's tax plan hurts Joe) based around a less than admirable citizen.

Next problem: The politics of division will not give John McCain the ability to unite the country given the likelihood of a democratic Senate and House.

Now let's look at Senator Obama's campaign:

His opponents (even Sarah Palin lol) have said he is not suited to be CC of the Armed Forces. That argument was neutered by the Obama endorsement by General Colin Powell who has known John McCain for 20+ years.

They have attacked him for being racist, linking him to Trinity Baptist. Problem is, his campaign is run by David Axelrod, with communications directed by
Robert Gibbs. Others, notably The Dobson religious/political machine, have attacked Obama as being bad for Israel. Problem here is Jewish citizens here and in Israel support him by and large. Sara Silverman's "The Great Schlep"(WARNING: LANGUAGE) not withstanding, .Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the first Jewish female representative from Florida, is a capable and enthusiastic Obama supporter. You certainly don't need to sit through these videos in their entireties to draw a couple of conclusions:

These people are talented. These people are white. These people were picked by Barack Obama to represent him because of their abilities and not solely for ideological reasons.

I don't think the same can be said for John McCain's most important pick, Sarah Palin. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been much more reassuring.

In the end, Barack Obama has hired better people, been more positive, stayed on message, reached more people, inspired more donors, and united the nation and the world much more effectively than John McCain. I believe that is why so many life-long conservative loyalists like Scott McClellan and Colin Powell have endorsed him. Hope this wasn't too long, but when explaining why you support someone, you should certainly be able to say more than "because the other guy is a socialist."


diva's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bboomer1's picture
Submitted by bboomer1 on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:52am.

Both McCain and Obama have strengths and weaknesses and each man has much to be proud of in their service to this great country. In many ways both men would be capble of leading the nation. I am an independent and try to research and study the issues. In this election I will vote for Obama -- much for the same reasons as Colin Powell. I am very impressed with Obama's careful attention and consideration of all issues. He does not "shoot first and ask questions later". It does not trouble me that he is willing to talk with and listen to ALL people -- not just those he agrees with on issues. Perhaps the one single thing McMcain did to convince me that he is not the leader our nation needs in the 21st Century was the selection of Palin. The real problem is that no one can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to. As a woman in a leadership position, I know that for women to be "equal" they must succeed based upon their knowledge, skills, and abilties -- Palin could never have been a serious candidate on her own merits -- this was McCain's time to demonstrate incredible judgment and thought; I think he did the opposite. McCain admitted recently on national TV that he “didn’t know her well at all” before he chose Palin. If Mccain does not win this election, he may need to consider this huge mistake.

Submitted by davie on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 2:24am.

Mrs Palin "took on" big oil. So says the McCain campaign. Mrs. Palin demanded a larger royalty from the oil companies. The royalty is a per-barrel tax on oil (the resource) levied on big oil by the state of Alaska. The Alaskan government regards the oil as belonging "collectively" (Palin's word) to the people of Alaska. Alaska has an endowment from the royalties on oil. After raising the tax, she rebated the tax increase to the citizens of Alaska. Now, Mrs. Palin will be the first to tell you that corporations do not pay taxes. They raise the price of the product they produce and pass the tax along to the buyer of the product. That's you and me. For me, this raises several issues. McCain/Palin claim to be against tax increases on business, yet McCain/Palin are most proud of her "taking on the oil companies" (raising their taxes). She/they then redistributed that wealth to certain people while allowing me to pay for it. If the Alaskan resources "collectively" (that's her word, talk about socialism) belong to the people of Alaska, why don't they "collectively" belong to you and me? Isn't Alaska part of the USA?

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:01am.

"Isn't Alaska part of the USA?"

Well, yes it is, unless you ask her hubby Mr. Palin, who is hell bent on Alaska seceding from the U.S.A.

Mrs. Palin TRULY sounds like a socialist and Todd sounds like an anarchist.

Submitted by Bonkers on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 6:19am.

yes, we do pay alaska's royalty on oil for their citizens by using that oil with the built in royalty.

trouble is palin doesn't know what socialism is!

Submitted by loanarranger707 on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 8:58am.

I don't get it.

McCain uses tax money contributed by the U.S. taxpayers to run his campaign. Obama does not. And now McCain says Obama is a socialist?

Explain that to me again. What's a socialist?

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:18am.

A socialist is someone who believes that the government is the best decider of where everyone's money goes. It is a government that decides needs and fulfills it by taking from others. It is "spreading the wealth".

The Tax Payer system was set up after the Watergate scandle to keep nefarious money out of politics. We can debate the utility of such a measure, but it was set up as a measure of transparency. It is not a totally bad system since there appears to be a great deal of foreign money in Obama's campaign coffers, including cash gift cards that are untraceable.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:35am.

Socialist government is a government that "decides needs and fulfills it by taking from others."

So, basically, with the dawn of taxpayer -funded bail outs, you are suggesting we ALREADY are a socialist government, and both presidential candidates voted to make it that way. So what's the point?

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:41am.

Sadly, we are pretty much a socialist government. We can look forward to European style government and problems. We have completely abandoned our constitution.

I much prefer James Madison on this:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:47am.

I must admit, I didn't see it coming Smiling.

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:56am.

I never have checked off on that fund on my taxes. It goes against my grain. Here is the rub in all of this...Obama at one time supported the Public financing of campaigns until it served him better to abandon it. McCain supports it because that was the best way for him to finance his campaign. Nobody is on the side of angels, but all of the untraceable money flowing into Obama's campaign concerns me. As well as endorsements from the majority of the world. The majority that wants to see us fail.

Submitted by Davids mom on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 11:44pm.

Thanks for sharing your research!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.