Do you really think Obama can deliver on his promises?

[jack24]

Well why don't you share with the class how he's planning on reducing health-care costs?
We just need the government to do everything don't we?
Universal health care for people who can't afford health care     
Universal groceries for people who can't afford groceries         
Universal housing for the homeless

[jack24]

That's pretty good.

It doesn't usually work very well when the government tries to ban things.  The war on drugs isn't really working.

Do you know how much tax revenue the country would lose if we banned smoking?
And how would I cram for finals without fast food?

[BearlyLegal]

I don't know if he'll deliver on what he says, but he has a better chance to do so than Hillary Clinton or John McCain and that's all that matters since they're the only 3 left with a realistic chance at the presidency.

Based on what?

He says he will work with people on the other side of the aisle, but obviously, McCain has been successfully doing that for over a decade (See McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Feingold, MCain-Kennedy acts).

He says that he will fight special interests, but McCain was the original champion of that fight.

He says that he will introduce healthcare reform, but Hillary was the original champion of that fight.

He says that he will increase tax benefits to the poor, but Edwards was the original champion of that fight.

He says that he will work to increase stability in Iraq, in order to be able to withdraw the troops, but Bush has been using the same rhetoric for years to no avail.

Obama says a whole lot of things. But does he have any of his own ideas? Is there any reason to believe that his solutions will be better than the very same solutions that others have tried in the past?

Obama can keep saying everything under the sun; everything you want to hear. But he hasn't done anything, and none of his ideas are new. Why should I believe that he can implement them better than his more experienced opponents?

[gladiator]

Because first of all, he has delivered on promises and had an actual track record of accomplishments between the Illinois State Senate and US Senate and his experienced opponents have a long track record of not getting the job done. Hillary Clinton says she's going to get healthcare passed but thanks to her arrogant secretive strategy, she totally failed in 1993. She says she's going to stop the special interests yet she takes money from lobbyists all the time. She says she's been producing results for 35 years but in 7 years in the Senate she doesn't have her name on any major legislation in the Senate like McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy and is lucky that she's never really asked to discuss her lifetime of accomplishments because it seems that the only thing she ever points to is fighting for children's healthcare. She says she's tested and is ready to answer the phone at 3 AM but when asked for examples, she could only come up with a few questionable ones and since then people have looked into her answers and found she was exaggerating her role or the significance of them. She also has a track record of foreign policy failures from voting for going into Iraq to voting for Kyl/Lieberman to calling Obama naive for being correct about how to handle Pakistan to hitting Obama on the correct policy of negotiating with our enemies like successful presidents, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, did. People talk about Obama as being empty rhetoric, the one who's really exaggerating her track record and resume is Hillary Clinton.

John McCain on the other hand is just wrong on foreign policy, his area of supposed strength. He continues to vehemently support a foreign policy that enflames terrorists and while he laughs off Ron Paul, he doesn't realize that Ron Paul has a much better grasp of the Middle East than he does. McCain was right to call for the Surge but only if you take it as an assumption that being in Iraq is smart in the first place. McCain understands troop movements but he is totally wrong on the general foreign policy philosophy that continues to get us into trouble. That being said, I would probably vote for him over Hillary Clinton because at least he has a pretty good actual record on bipartisanship, getting things done without sandbagging opponents, and ethics and spending which produce the culture of corruption in Congress.

I could probably go on for pages about why I'm Obama>McCain>Clinton but I don't feel like wasting even more of my time since nobody changes their mind anyway.

[BearlyLegal]

I agree that Hillary is the wrong candidate for the job, but as you just pointed out, McCain has a stellar record; and if the only reason you would choose a blank slate over a guy with a stellar record is the fact that McCain had an opportunity to vote for a war that obama didn't have an opportunity to vote for, your rationale is weak.

Sure, the war should have never been started in the first place; but can Barak Obama provide us with a time machine to find out that the CIA was wrong about Iraq, and the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces lied to congress? If not, then maybe it's better to vote for the guy who has actually advocated policy that has helped to dramatically decrease the violence in Iraq, rather than the guy who is lying to you about pulling out.

[gladiator]

Obama is not a blank slate. 11 years in elected office provides a long track record that everyone chooses to ignore. Just because he didn't literally vote against the war doesn't mean it was not an extremely important demonstration of judgment considering he laid out exactly why the war was a bad idea and how it was distracting us from the real threat. It wasn't some shot in the dark where he flipped a coin and then made a 4 word speech, "I'm against the war." Yes, I will take the person who has been right on Iraq, Kyl/Lieberman, Pakistan, and talking to enemies over the person who has found the best way to pursue a bad idea. The fact is that if Obama is right on foreign policy every time an issue comes up, it's likely he'll be right when it comes to getting us out of Iraq and preventing a war with Iran. McCain's record is not stellar, it's just good enough. Despite all of the supposed successes of the surge, Iraq is still a mess. How many years are we going to stay there and let Americans die and Americans blow tax money on this war before we withdraw anyway? There is no chance that Al Qaeda is going to take over Iraq. There may be some problems there, but there's no reason to believe that those problems will be any better if we stay for a while and then leave. As long as we continue the McCain foreign policy philosophy, terrorists will, to borrow a phrase from lunatic Congressman Steve King, be dancing in the streets because they know what a boon it is for suicide bomber recruiting.

McCain is an incremental boost over George W. Bush. The country can't afford any more incrementally better Presidents, there needs to be a fundamental change in the leadership.

[BearlyLegal]

Obama is not a blank slate. 11 years in elected office provides a long track record that everyone chooses to ignore.

Link me three significant pieces of successful legislation that he has passed. Please.

Just because he didn't literally vote against the war doesn't mean it was not an extremely important demonstration of judgment considering he laid out exactly why the war was a bad idea and how it was distracting us from the real threat.

1) The fact that he advocated against the war, thus pandering to his traditionally pacifist base without having to risk actual political status that members of congress would have risked does not make him "right" on the war. It makes him a shameless panderer.

2) The fact that he ignored contemporaneous CIA intelligence (which proved to be wrong, but was actionable enough for even pacifists like Colon Powell to take seriously), and advocated against action tells me that he is irresponsibly pacifistic.

The fact is that if Obama is right on foreign policy every time an issue comes up, it's likely he'll be right when it comes to getting us out of Iraq and preventing a war with Iran.

Pulling out of Iraq with the risk of ethnic cleansing, and the loss of control of the Middle East while China, India, and Russia are clamoring for oil is a disaterously bad idea. Not only is this "policy" wrong, but it is a blatant lie. There will be troops in Iraq long after Obama leaves office.

McCain's record is not stellar, it's just good enough.

You just praised his domestic policy, and said that the only thing he is wrong on is the war. That's pretty stellar.

Despite all of the supposed successes of the surge, Iraq is still a mess.

Indeed. Let's blame the President who lied to Congress about the actionable intelligence about WMD's. Or let's build a time machine. But if we can't, let's vote for the guy who has been advocating a successful strategy all along rather than the guy who is lying to you about pulling out the troops.

How many years are we going to stay there and let Americans die and Americans blow tax money on this war before we withdraw anyway?

How about until our obligations under UN Resolution 1483 are fulfilled? Leaving Iraq in the state it's in would not only be tactically foolhardy (we would lose significant interests in the middle east), immoral (we would be leaving the nation in shambles), but it would also be illegal under international law.

There is no chance that Al Qaeda is going to take over Iraq.

But there is an excellent chance that Turkey will take over the Kurdish regions. There is an absolute certainty that Iran will take over massive regions. There is a certainty that internecine warfare will end in genocide.

There may be some problems there, but there's no reason to believe that those problems will be any better if we stay for a while and then leave.

Staying a while will do nothing but buy time for the Iraqi government to recruit, train, and arm it's own troops, so that when we do leave, they have a backbone to support themselves. Leaving right now will ensure that this will never happen.

As long as we continue the McCain foreign policy philosophy, terrorists will, to borrow a phrase from lunatic Congressman Steve King, be dancing in the streets because they know what a boon it is for suicide bomber recruiting.

We will continue to remain in Iraq regardless of who is president. The difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain isn't lying to you. Obama is. We are not leaving Iraq: We cannot leave Iraq for strategic, ethical, and legal reasons - Obama knows this very well, but it sure makes him sound electable if he promises you the world.

McCain is an incremental boost over George W. Bush. The country can't afford any more incrementally better Presidents, there needs to be a fundamental change in the leadership.

Obama is the same as George Bush. A young, charismatic guy who runs on an idealistic ticket of being a "uniter, not a divider", and promising you the world. Starry-eyed idealists on the right ate this up in 2000, and now, starry-eyed idealists on the left are eating it up. The end result will be more charisma-driven cult of personality politics that will dig America into an even greater pit.

One last time - Mark my words: Obama is lying to you about Iraq. We will have at least some level of troops in Iraq in 2012.

[gladiator]

Some responses...

-I'm not going to waste my time finding his legislation. If you'll just take 3 examples, he's responsible for nuclear non-proliferation with male private part Lugar, ethics reform with Russ Feingold, and ethics reform in the Illinois Senate.
-Why is it that his base is full of pacifists but other Democrats' bases are not? The entire state of Illinois, his desired consistuency while running for office is no more pacifist than Hillary Clinton's.
-He didn't ignore intelligence. Even if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, the war would be wrong. Why is that Saddam can't have them but Kim Jong Il can? Because Kim Jong Il is such a peaceful stable leader? His logic in his opposition to the war was completely sound. Terrorists were not in Iraq, terrorists were the main threat and going into Iraq was a huge distraction. Colin Powell was sandbagged into supporting the war and the terrible strategy.
-Staying in Iraq and allowing all of the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place and being present in Iraq which inspires terrorist attacks which kill Iraqis is a disasterously bad idea. The idea that pulling would cause "losing control of the Middle East" is laughable. We already have virtually no control over the Middle East.
-I didn't praise McCain's domestic policy, I praised a few things he does better than Hillary Clinton and most politicians. He's not just wrong on the war, he's wrong on foreign policy in general, that's a pretty big deal.
-You believe Obama is lying about the war, it's not an objective fact. Don't give me any bull about Samantha Power, just because she said it doesn't make it true. Considering McCain was vehemently anti-torture and now suddenly he's voting against bills that block torture, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
-We're going to start following the UN now?
-Oh now the Iraqis are going to create their own functioning military? They've only been stalling on that for 4 or 5 years now. How long are we going to give them? Another decade, 5 trillion dollars, and 10,000 Americans? Maybe when we start leaving they'll actually get their act together.
-I'll take a chance on someone who says they're going to leave Iraq and might be lying than someone who says he's going to stay in Iraq and continue a failed foreign policy.
-Wow, George W. Bush is Barack Obama, that's a new one. How you could not see an ocean worth of difference is beyond me. There's kind of a problem with that notion...Barack Obama is smart and has demonstrated good judgment and George W. Bush is borderline retarded. George W. Bush demonstrated little if any judgment or intelligence during his campaign or his entire life. Perhaps his failed business ventures and bad reign as Governor could have been used as evidence while those who have worked with Obama heap praise on him and talk about how impressive he is.

[BearlyLegal]

Some responses...

-I'm not going to waste my time finding his legislation. If you'll just take 3 examples, he's responsible for nuclear non-proliferation with male private part Lugar, ethics reform with Russ Feingold, and ethics reform in the Illinois Senate.
-Why is it that his base is full of pacifists but other Democrats' bases are not? The entire state of Illinois, his desired consistuency while running for office is no more pacifist than Hillary Clinton's.
-He didn't ignore intelligence. Even if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, the war would be wrong. Why is that Saddam can't have them but Kim Jong Il can? Because Kim Jong Il is such a peaceful stable leader? His logic in his opposition to the war was completely sound. Terrorists were not in Iraq, terrorists were the main threat and going into Iraq was a huge distraction. Colin Powell was sandbagged into supporting the war and the terrible strategy.
-Staying in Iraq and allowing all of the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place and being present in Iraq which inspires terrorist attacks which kill Iraqis is a disasterously bad idea. The idea that pulling would cause "losing control of the Middle East" is laughable. We already have virtually no control over the Middle East.
-I didn't praise McCain's domestic policy, I praised a few things he does better than Hillary Clinton and most politicians. He's not just wrong on the war, he's wrong on foreign policy in general, that's a pretty big deal.
-You believe Obama is lying about the war, it's not an objective fact. Don't give me any bull about Samantha Power, just because she said it doesn't make it true. Considering McCain was vehemently anti-torture and now suddenly he's voting against bills that block torture, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
-We're going to start following the UN now?
-Oh now the Iraqis are going to create their own functioning military? They've only been stalling on that for 4 or 5 years now. How long are we going to give them? Another decade, 5 trillion dollars, and 10,000 Americans? Maybe when we start leaving they'll actually get their act together.
-I'll take a chance on someone who says they're going to leave Iraq and might be lying than someone who says he's going to stay in Iraq and continue a failed foreign policy.
-Wow, George W. Bush is Barack Obama, that's a new one. How you could not see an ocean worth of difference is beyond me. There's kind of a problem with that notion...Barack Obama is smart and has demonstrated good judgment and George W. Bush is borderline retarded. George W. Bush demonstrated little if any judgment or intelligence during his campaign or his entire life. Perhaps his failed business ventures and bad reign as Governor could have been used as evidence while those who have worked with Obama heap praise on him and talk about how impressive he is.

Busy right now, rebuttals tomorrow.

At the end of the day, I'll vote my guy and you will vote yours. Let's hope I am wrong about your guy. I'd love to see an inspirational African American in office. It's about time for that. But when we are still in Iraq in 2012, it'll prove once again that electing people based on their likability is a horrible way to conduct politics, and America will suffer once again.

[gladiator]

I won't have that problem because my opinion of him has nothing to do with likability. I'm sure some will, but millions of people will vote on things that have nothing to do with merit and they won't all be voting for Obama. I still fail to see your point about Iraq. You're saying he's lying, but what if he is? McCain is already telling you he's staying in Iraq so if we're going to be in Iraq until 2012 either way and you're fine with that, you'd think that would actually be a plus/neutral point for Obama in your mind.

You can't simultaneously argue that McCain is good because he's going to stay in but Obama is awful because he's actually going to do the same thing as McCain. Why waste your time arguing against Obama's withdrawal plan if he's not going to follow through anyway? By your logic, if you convince me that Obama is a liar about Iraq AND we shouldn't be pulling out, then I should still support him because I like him more on everything else and he's not going to pull out of Iraq just like McCain.