digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at media.www.dailyiowan.com

Barack Obama Op-Ed: Change We Can Believe In

media.www.dailyiowan.com — This is a defining moment for America and for your generation. I've met students in Iowa and across this country who are wondering whether the college education they're receiving will lead to good jobs that can pay off all those loans. I've met others who are tired of watching our planet polluted and our climate changed forever, ...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -63/+7Anyone stupid enough to fall for the global warming crap should not be allowed in the White House without a visitor pass.
    There are no global warming computer models that work without deleting all data from volcanic activity.
    Basically you can believe in global warming or volcanoes and Obama believes in global warming.
    • wheninva1, on 12/15/2007, -3/+30"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
      Those crazy scientists!
      • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -19/+3Show me a computer model that shows global warming and includes data from volcanic activity.
        If you can't, you should be curious as to why they left that data out.
        So, prove me wrong and link me to any computer model that uses volcanic data and still shows global warming.
        • pintomp3, on 12/15/2007, -1/+21you sound like an evolution denier "i don't care what almost all the other scientists say, prove it to my personally despite my lack of scientific understanding. and i get to make up the rules of what proof is.".
        • tbydal, on 12/15/2007, -2/+14Sorry buddy, CO2 emissions from volcanoes are dwarfed when compared to humans.
        • br0ck, on 12/15/2007, -0/+16I take it you didn't read all my links to models that include volcanic activity last time we talked about this? http://digg.com/political_opinion/John_Stossel_Exp ...
          • takamalak, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8His failure to reply to this shows how ***** owned he gets at every encounter with the facts.
        • Nougat, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Hmmm ... let's see. When I make any random assertion, other people must prove it false to my satisfaction, else it must be considered to be concrete fact? Nice.
        • busket, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0There's more to science than computer models....
    • ssn697, on 12/15/2007, -2/+28Just like any candidate who is stupid enough to say they don't believe in evolution should not be allowed in the White House.

      Oh, sorry cashman. Did I just use your own logic against you? Naturally, it will make no difference to you that YOUR candidate is a complete idiot, saying he doesn't believe in evolution. THAT is just fine, right?
      • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -18/+1My candidate said he does not believe evolution exists?
        Link to it!!
        While you are looking, perhaps you could show me a computer model that shows global warming and includes data from volcanic activity.
        • ssn697, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3When I give you the link, will you tell the whole world you no longer support Ron Paul?
        • ssn697, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

          Wanted to make sure you couldn't claim you didn't see it. So, you going to hold your candidate to the same standard as the others? He doesn't believe in evolution. That disqualifies him, right?
      • ssn697, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

        There you go, cashman57. Now, let's see how TRULY honest you are. Are you going to support a candidate that denies evolution?
    • onetimer, on 12/15/2007, -8/+25But it's ok ssn because Paul would never let his personal/moral beliefs influence his politics!

      Err, the Sanctity of Life bills paul introduced were uh...uh...to preserve the constitution by subverting a supreme court ruling! I mean, what do those SCOTUS guys think they're doing? Upholding the 14th amendment is un-constitutional! Same reason paul advocates they shouldn't be allowed to hear cases on gay marriage or including "god" in the pledge of allegiance!

      Marriage protection act you say? uh... Freedom is popular RONPAUL '08!

      Umm, Err,
      • Ajajadude, on 12/15/2007, -3/+10Good points. Too bad you're gonna be dugg down to oblivion.
      • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -15/+2I see the only defense you have is to change the subject because you know that the only way a global warming computer model works is by pretending volcanoes don't exist.
        • hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+9Too bad your checkbook is not balanced. You obviously ignored volcanoes.
      • EditorResponse, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7Ron Paul sucks.
    • danmk, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7How about this?
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/01112 ...
    • forgiste, on 12/15/2007, -0/+12YOU call it stupid, but people with degrees that spend a large portion of their lives studying this phenomenon happen to know that it's happening.
    • Bamont, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6It's stupid to assume that we, as human beings, don't have an effect on our climate. All animals in every ecosystem have an effect on their surroundings. It's simple nature. However - the point you SHOULD be arguing is that we can't know if the cause of global warming solely rests on our shoulders. We can't scientifically prove the existence of certain elements in our solar system, still haven't completely explored this planet, and still have a multitude of questions about our world. To assume that we've got the global warming part figured out without in-depth study into the rest of our planet and into other planets, we can't make definitive statements about the causes of it.
    • hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+14Barack must be a complete idiot to believe scientist on science.
  • fusuke31, on 12/15/2007, -41/+48Unfortunately, Barack Obama isn't going to change anything. He makes you want to believe and share in his optimism, but there's nothing really groundbreaking in his campaign platform.

    America's problems are deeply structural. The fact that a president can spend trillions of BORROWED money on an unnecessary war is really the epitome of America's profligacy.

    Is Barack Obama going to chastise people for having a net negative savings rate? Or is he going to advise people to spend themselves silly to better the economy?

    Is he going to be honest enough to admit that Universal Health Care coverage is impossible under a system-for-profit? That companies will always find a way to avoid paying for your medical services as their bottom lines depend on it. That the only viable option involves a government-run, single payer system where preventative medicine is practiced?

    Ever so often, citizens cynical of the establishment become enthralled by a newcomer's vision of change. It also helps when they feel like they are making history (first African-American president, (a welcome change btw) ). This is all and good. However, they should not feel deluded when 5 years later, things remain the same if not worse. Perhaps they can keep a look-out for the next outsider promising 'change'.


    • ObamaPwnHillary, on 12/15/2007, -14/+3http://www.ObamaPwnsHillary.com
    • modularsky, on 12/15/2007, -4/+13Of course, people don't see that the current era is the twilight years of the first American republic. What you say is true but what you neglect to say is that we need a president who will give the masses that warm, fuzzy feeling in a time of radical change. Obama may not be the best but in the end, it won't matter who is elected president, because their office will see the downfall of the American political establishment (as it currently stands). The economic dominoes set in motion during this current administration has made any president's platform (even Ron Pauls) impotent. The future of our republic will be determined by whether there will be a president (Obama) who has the rhetoric to convince Americans to place their faith in the re-creation of a republic.
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2So we shouldn't care about the platform but whether or not a person can make us feel good about ourselves? That's ridiculous and why we are in our current situation. We have lived beyond our means for FAR too long, we have to stop depending on the government to fix our problems and start depending on ourselves and our local community.
    • eryximachus, on 12/15/2007, -11/+1Universal health coverage is impossible with an exponentially increasing population primarily composed of third world immigrants, as well as a society that does not penalize unhealthy behavior and encourages the reproduction of the physically and mentally inferior.

      Universal health care can only work with a stable population with easy access to high quality food (increasingly difficult in these resource constrained days) and that regulates reproduction and behavior.

      There must be minimum health and intelligence standards for people who wish to have children, and immigration must be halted. Barak Obama will never support such laws, and thus any health system he proposes will bankrupt the country.
      • skav, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5Seig Heil!
      • thedaylights, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Eryximachus you talk like a nazi and therefore a fool. I assume you are angry at "the system" but somehow you think that the least empowered people are to blame. Guess what? The people who have power are the ones who make our system what it is. And those powerful people are not "third world" immigrants. Also, we are all immigrants you idiot!!!
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/15/2007, -10/+4That was an amazing pile of ***** words thrown together. First of all, Congress finances the projects the execute branch sets forth, not the president himself. Secondly, are you ***** retarded? You think the majority of people buy more than they earn? Spending is always good for the economy to an extent. Anything that keeps the money flowing is excellent. Thirdly, are you ***** me? Of course universal health care coverage will be socialized and run by the government. That's what the point is. And that's what Obama's position is.
      • kingkilr, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Well technically Obama's position is that first we need to get everyone covered in some way, and then we move to a single payer government run system.
        • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2It should be my choice if I want health care insurance or not. Stop looking to the government on how to live your life.
    • pinchduck, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3He would have to try real, real hard to do a worse job than Bush, so I don't think things will be as bad in 5 years. Universal healthcare will always have some rationing, either hidden or overt. All you will be doing is changing who gets screwed, and how. If he balances the budget and starts paying down our idiotic debt, I will be happy. I also support him instead of Clinton. We have had either Bush or Clinton family members in the White House since 80. There is no denying that Obama would be a change at that level
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1He won't pledge to leave Iraq before 2013, he wants to enact Universal Healthcare, he wants to subsidize higher education (this is comparatively small and wise decision but it is still spending). I don't see him balancing our budget or paying off the debt unless he dramatically increases taxes. Which raises the question why not just cut the size of the federal government and respectively cut taxes and allow people to spend money as they see fit?
    • addictist, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2John Edwards has the real message of change because he is going after the very reason nothing changes which is "special interest" and corporations padding to pockets of elected officials. Barack is certainly my second choice but nothing makes me think he is anything but a politician who preaches change and gives the status quo. John Edwards has been fighting the very people that all you diggers bitch about for the past 20 years of his life!
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul wants to eliminate the reason why there are special interest, that is an all powerful central government. Eliminate the government's ability to control our lives you eliminate special interests.
    • UltraDavid, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Exactly. Chris Dodd could start filibustering at any time in defense of our Constitutional rights, and where's Obama? On the campaign trail.

      Obama is about politics, not the Constitution. I think we need the latter more than the former right now.
      • microbreak, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Sometimes you must give up a battle to win the war.
    • andburn1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Read Zinn's "Coming Revolt of the Guards." Change can happen.
  • Frostman3D, on 12/15/2007, -50/+22Voting for Obama would be a bad thing. Vote Ron Paul instead.
    • vault, on 12/15/2007, -18/+14I would take Michael Jackson over Paul in a heartbeat.
      • Pilot85, on 12/15/2007, -6/+4thas, thas ignorant. I'd rather slit my wrists.
      • gotlogic, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4I guess you would tell Ron Paul to 'Beat it'
        /end horrible 80's reference
      • EditorResponse, on 12/15/2007, -4/+1Barak Obama and Ron Paul would be devastating for the American economy and foreign policy. The country would be unrecognizable. They would ruin the country.
  • markvand, on 12/15/2007, -33/+14Go ahead and vote for Obama if you want more war, he's backed by Brzezinski and calls Brzezinski one of his foreign policy advisors. If you want 4 more years of Brzezinski's divide and conquer politics that have helped create Al-Qaeda vote for Obama. If you don't want another hawk but someone who has seriously worked to achieve peace and will continue to in the white house there are 3 candidates you should consider: Kuchinich, Paul, and Gravel.
    • thedaylights, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2Heartily agreed. People, if you are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, why would you support people who voted to go in? Why would you support a candidate that toes the Democratic line, when we can all see that the Dems have done nothing, absolutely nothing to stem the tide of criminal acts Bush and gang have unleashed on us all? Kucinich, Paul and Gravel do not toe the line. Personally I think we need a strong social system, so I wouldn't vote Paul as he plans to dismantle it, but he is at least a man of principle!!!
      • Ajajadude, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Because, this day-and-age, anyone who can sit there and say they made a mistake is a-ok in my book.
        • thedaylights, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Then why isn't he taking action against Bush? Bush has lied to the American people and stolen their rights. Obama is passively supporting this farce by his inaction. Kucinich, Gravel, Paul actually call for impeachment. That's action.
          • andburn1, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Vengeance will not bring justice. Bush got away with it, get over it.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -23/+12"The Democratic Party has made the most difference in people's lives when we've led not by polls but by principle; not by triangulation and calculation but by conviction; when we've had leaders who could summon the entire nation to a common purpose."

    Which is why we consistently vote in favor of an illegal war and the continuation of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We've also consistently voted against any impeachment resolution and we've even voted against talking about it.
    http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=1287 ...

    His statement means they didn't do ***** but thought really hard about it.

    Obama is more of the same. Look out for people who say meaningless phrases that are packed with key words. They're the worst. They wouldn't even dare saying what they really think.

    Also, the only one who had the balls to present an impeachment resolution was Kucinich. Ron Paul voted against the impeachment.
    http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/11/07/why-did- ...
    • Ajajadude, on 12/15/2007, -2/+9I think he's referring to a time prior to this century when the Democratic leadership actually had testicles.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -11/+2You mean like when they defended slavery? When they fought for segregation? Do you have a specific time frame?
        • txtphile, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Things like the New Deal (beneficial or not, it was audacious and popular at the time), WWII (arguably a Illuminati-Zionista-CFR plot, but hey), the Moon shot (ended under a Republican but shepherded by two Dems), Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (finally ended slavery)...prior to this century means the 1900's now. Weird, huh?
  • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -37/+3So here we are at the same place we have been. The anti-Paul diggers are trying to excuse the fact that there are no computer models that show global warming without pretending volcanoes do not exist.
    You have a choice, you can believe in global warming like Obama does or you can believe volcanoes do exist.
    • dagnabbit, on 12/15/2007, -1/+17You must have forgotten that you made the exact same comment earlier in this thread. An easy mistake, since it's been dugg down to death. Thanks for the reminder though!
    • wendelgee2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+11wow. you are a complete lunatic.
    • andburn1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Hahahahahahahah, please, people, do not listen to this maniac. The Climate Crisis is not "business as usual," it is not "natural." Don't let an idiot tell you things that aren't true.
  • danmk, on 12/15/2007, -16/+8How about this?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/01112 ...

    it actually says that volcanoes are masking the effects of global warming!
  • ObamaPwnHillary, on 12/15/2007, -18/+0http://www.ObamaPwnsHillary.com
  • vervalsing, on 12/15/2007, -13/+3I think he's making a mistake by promising the troops home in 16 months.
    • SiNN4R, on 12/15/2007, -1/+14You're right. He should make it sooner.
  • darkhero, on 12/15/2007, -16/+9Dugg for having Barack Obama and change in the title.
  • jf518, on 12/15/2007, -20/+4Like him or not, Obama just doesn't have the experience or connections that the other candidates have. He seems too idealist to make the compromises needed to effect the changes he wants.
    • nblsavage, on 12/15/2007, -1/+12meaning he isn't as much a part of the system. Thats a plus not a negative. I don't want the same old, same old.
    • streak, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1You'll get both the old and the new with Obama, along with insufficient wisdom, experience and fortitude to select the best of each. He's about as weak in character as I've seen in a presidential candidate.
  • jtq1, on 12/15/2007, -14/+6I agree with a lot of what Obama says, but I still don't see universal health care as a viable option. Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if it did, but I just don't think it will work out.
    • wendelgee2, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6Way to think big and reach for the stars!
      • EditorResponse, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3So lets see, we are currently at war and that total cost is going to be an additional 1/2 trillion dollars. Then there is the retirement of the baby boomer's which is going to cost another ten to twenty trillion dollars. Then you want FREE LIBERAL health care system for another 300 billion a year at least....until all the Mexicans come here from Mexico for their free health care along with every other foreigner. So my question is where are you going to get the money for your LIBERAL F*KING PROGRAMS! Go hang yourself!
        • scottc, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2"So my question is where are you going to get the money for your LIBERAL F*KING PROGRAMS!"

          I'm guessing from the same place the money is coming from for the conservative programs - and yes, the Iraq war is just another conservative program. It had nothing to do with protecting us.
        • andburn1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Lulz, ***** idiot.
      • streak, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Stars like Oprah? Pfft.
    • jstone, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Just like how it doesn't work out in Europe and Canada!
      Oh, wait, they have better medical care than we do, and at a lower cost.
      • jtq1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0i'm not trying to knock universal healthcare, it was merely a prediction from someone who's really cynical about his country.
  • animus, on 12/15/2007, -17/+3empty platitudes from an empty suit
  • skews13, on 12/15/2007, -18/+29i'm taking a serious look at this guy for 3 main reasons; 1) he's not a republican 2)he seems to have the ability to think for himself (which really means he's not a republican)3)he can get things done with a new democratic congress
    • MrFunions, on 12/15/2007, -10/+6Dugg down for reason #1. Bigotry should not be tolerated.
      • nblsavage, on 12/15/2007, -4/+3not liking the political leanings of republicans is not bigotry.
        • MrFunions, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Do you know what bigotry means?

          big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
          –noun, plural -ries.
          1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

          I think not liking someone because they are "Republican" constitutes bigotry.
    • Pssdoff, on 12/15/2007, -6/+2"he's not a republican" - its POLICY that matters
      "seems to have" - How could you come to this assertion? You imply that Ron Paul is lacking the ability to think for himself, which quite frankly is ridiculous.
      "get things done" - What specifically would you like to see the next president actually accomplish? If its leave Iraq, Obama will not be any different from Bush. He refuses to withdraw from Iraq by 2013. He supports the Patriot Act and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, so he's not going to fight to preserve your privacy or liberties.

      Is it his health care and education plan? I don't think spending nearly $100 billion dollars to throw more money at our problems is viable solution. We already spend more money on education than other countries who have far more successful systems in place, so do you really think that giving more money to the Department of Education will help? As for health care, look at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., or any of the other military hospitals which are run by the government and the state they are in... Is this really the model you want to base your health care system on?

      Obama is just like Bill Clinton, they are both charismatic CFR members, but Obama is not going to bring any meaningful change. We will still have war in Iraq, still have an income tax, and we will still be waging a pointless and expensive 'war on drugs.'
      • nblsavage, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2I have more of a chance of being elected than Paul does. Get over it.
      • ZPWeeks, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4The world isn't about Ron Paul, stop assuming that a comment that has almost nothing to do with him is a direct attack against him. And even if you like Paul, you should still know that Paul is a RINO- Republican in Name Only.
        I want to see a Barack Obama white house. I don't want a Republican in the White House. While Paul is a Republican by name himself, I will still consider voting for him as I have MUCH more respect for Libertarians than I do for today's twisted idea of "Republican".
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -0/+41. Party affiliation shouldn't be a factor in who you vote for. Democrats and republicans are equally susceptible to corruption, I look at Hillary and Pelosi.
        2. There are plenty of smart republicans, though relatively few of them are at the national level, however I feel this is equally true for democrats. Let's not forget they lied to us in '06. They (as a party) have done NOTHING to end the war in Iraq.
        3. I personally find our government performs best when it's divided. One party in in control of both major branches leads to groups think, just look at 2001-2007.

        Bottom line: Pick the best overall candidate not the best candidate in your party.
        I voted Bush in 2004
        I voted democrat in 2006
        I have been quite pissed with the results of both my votes.
  • Loyaleagle, on 12/15/2007, -8/+29I feel like his lack of direct national experience is really good because it makes him less tainted than other candidates. Also, I think that what we need more than anything else is someone to depolarize this country. The direct split has really caused the majority of our problems. I think that with a lot more unification on things as Americans, we will really get a lot more, good things done.
  • Loyaleagle, on 12/15/2007, -12/+6I think his lack of experience could be a good thing with all the political tainting out there.
    Also, I feel that if we get the kind of unification of the two sides that I feel is one of Obama's main points, our country will really just heal itself. I think everyone wants the same kinds of things, we just need to not feel we have to hate each other all the time!
    • Loyaleagle, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6crap, digg this second post down....digg system really lagged on me so I thought my comment was lost....
    • streak, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Lack of experience is never a good thing.
  • hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -3/+20Obama is OK. He talks about saying things we may not want to hear, but I have not heard anything all that offensive to anyone. One solution to Global warming would be to use more nuclear energy. Obama has that in his plan, along with clean coal technology. Despite saying that he will give us straight truth without sugar coating, he chooses not to say more disagreeable parts of his plan. So he to does some calculating and crowd pandering. But that is OK. On my last job interview I wore a suit and I said I was "Goal Oriented". Yeah right.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/15/2007, -7/+4then what do you do with the nuclear waste?
      • hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Waste can be recycled into fuel. When you are all done recycling, the remaining waste will be less radioactive than the original Uranium ore in less than 500 years. Plus with more research we may figure out how to use the remaining waste. After all, radiation is just energy that we have not figured out how to use yet.
      • DementedWallaby, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Safely disposing nuclear waste has never been a problem. The only problem has been lobbying past hysterical environmentalists who would prefer to continue using inefficient fossil fuels because "nuclear" has a negative connotation.
      • NeonDion9, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Yucca Mountain is a good storage place. One of the issues is that people do not want to invest in building nuclear plants because of the fear of a new source of energy becoming popular. It takes around 35 years for a nuclear power plant to pay off itself. There hasn't been a new plant built in years.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4What does Sweden do with it? Many countries in Europe get 50% or more of their power from nuclear, and they seem able to deal with the waste.
      • streak, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Yeah, they simply bury it in the polar ice cap.
  • MrFunions, on 12/15/2007, -5/+5I've met people who are sick and tired of the government trying to tell us what we can and can't do.
  • tierpinho, on 12/15/2007, -13/+8Obama's wife is part of the CFR, same folks who brought us the Vietnam War, Iraq Wars and maybe the soon-to-be Iran War (via Israel of course). Others members include Cheney, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Soros, Greenspan, Wolfowitz... well, u get the picture! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Re ...
    Wake up America, the candidates have been chosen for us!! Except the outsiders like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich
    • nblsavage, on 12/15/2007, -5/+8shaddap nutjob.
      • Pssdoff, on 12/15/2007, -5/+5Calling him a "nutjob" doesn't make it any less true. Obama IS a CFR member, although I'm certain that you don't know why the NAU and NAFTA should be opposed.
        • nblsavage, on 12/15/2007, -4/+5your tinfoil has a hole in it...better go patch it.
      • markvand, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Shut up! I just wanna keep my head in the ground and pretend that voting for the good cop will make a difference!
    • johnnyb3, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3Wake up sheeple!
  • riseabove, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12the question of obama's experience to me seems a moot point, because his rivals may have some political experience but what have they really accomplished with that experience?
  • dagamer34, on 12/15/2007, -1/+23Anyone arguing about "lack of experience" only needs to look and see what happens in an administration that has the most experience you can get from Cheney and Rumsfeld (both have been White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense before the current Bush administration).

    It's not that he will get everything that he asks for. Politics never works that way. What America needs in a president right now will not come from policies at home but the basic thinking to adjust to an ever-changing world and the common sense to think ahead (far ahead). Everything else will stem from that.

    Plus, I like someone who wants to give back to the people and root out some of the ugliness in politics. That's what we really need right now. WAY too many scandals this year alone have made people totally distrust government more than they ever have before.
  • Slipkey, on 12/15/2007, -3/+18Speaking as a child of the baby boom generation, Obama represents many of those things that our idealistic parents championed before pessimism, partisanship, and negativity evolved into bitterness and political infighting. It's his pragmatic idealism that I like.

    I, for one, would welcome a President who view of of the country isn't skewed from four decades of divisiveness and the bitter feuding.
    • jf518, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1that's a good point but his idealism will lessen with each attempt to make the changes he wants. He will soon become just like all other politicians. I would rather have a candidate that already knows how to work realistically.
  • JointVenture, on 12/15/2007, -9/+10How can OBAMA say hes going to CHANGE things when 4 of his top advisers were in BILL CLINTONS cabinet of advisers.
    • dagamer34, on 12/15/2007, -6/+7Just because you listen to them doesn't mean you have to do what they say.
      • streak, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1It does if you're inexperienced and don't know any better.
    • gianttoolbox11, on 12/15/2007, -2/+15Well, JointVenture, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well.
    • scottc, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6This is a bit of a generalization, but I'll say it anyway: Clinton's advisers were open to opposing opinions, at least enough to negotiate and get things done. Bush advisers stuck their heads in the sand and insisted they were right while their policies led to destruction all around them, until they finally got run out of office. Additionally, and this is not a generalization, Obama is a leader and Bush is a follower. Obama will not be puppet of his VP or advisers the way Bush is.
    • warrenterr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0He's going to change the ***** bush admin., IDK bout you but i'll gladly go back to clinton's era.
    • microbreak, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Well short of cloning himself who do you suppose he appoints as his advisors?
  • tardigrade, on 12/15/2007, -8/+1This whole carbon thing is starting to piss me off.
    "I'm running to save our generation from global catastrophe by putting a cap on carbon emissions "
    So does this mean women can't have babies? isn't that a carbon based emission? Will Obama put an end to organic chemistry? No more diamonds emitted from mines? No more graphite from the tip of my mechanical pencil?
    Saying carbon in place of carbon dioxide is worse than Bush's nuclear pronunciation.
  • txtphile, on 12/15/2007, -2/+13Mos Def said it the best (on Bill Maher's show): "They passin’ the presidency around like a party joint. It goes from the Bushes, the Clintons to the Bushes and back to the... ***** that. No. That’s some Papa Doc, Junior Doc *****. No."

    No.
  • anath47, on 12/15/2007, -11/+5I think Obama has a lot of ideas that sound real nice, but he doesn't sound like he's got a clue how they'll all work. It sounds like he's feeding everyone what they want to hear from someone with his "optimistic viewpoint." I'm not buying it. I'm voting for Ron Paul as he is the only candidate that will attack the source of our economic downturn, the Federal Reserve.

    In case you didn't catch it, I said RON PAUL. That seems to be all you need to say to get dugg down around here. Bring it.
    • txtphile, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Putting ""optimistic viewpoint"" in Increduliquotes makes me sad. Anyway...

      The fact is no one, including Paul, Obama, or anyone else knows how it will all work. However, we voters have to base our opinions on something. Personal conviction and eloquence goes a long way after watching Commander Cuckoo-Bananas stammer and shifty-eye his way through another embarrassing press conference. If you don't buy it now, fine. But please, try a little optimism next November. Considering the state of the nation today, it's one of the few sane options left.
    • warrenterr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6ahahaha, Ron Paul is 10X more optimistic. Abolish income tax?... yeah... pretty idealistic right there.
    • anselm83, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5"...all you need to get dugg down around here" -- how have you failed to notice that Ron Paul is the most popular candidate on Digg? It's a bunch of Linux geeks who think dismantling the Department of Education is somehow a great idea.
  • aliceinreality, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2mostly, i just don't like how slick his campaigning is. it's so....geared to this generation's way of understanding things. i'm not saying that he shouldn't be up on current issues at all, i am just saying that he seems to be selling an image harder than anything else, including actually meaning what he says.

    but then again, i'm a total skeptic with almost all politicians. i support ron paul, and the only reason that i give him the benefit of a doubt is because he has a solid voting record to back what he says he wants to do. obama just has more empty promises, in my mind. =/
  • amightywind, on 12/15/2007, -10/+1Mr. B. Hussein Obama is all hot air. He'd be better as a game show host than a President. He has a history of drug abuse. Do you want a 'Marion Barry' in the Whitehouse. Who did he buy from? Did he traffic? Should he be in jail? Don't vote for him because he is sure to sell us all out to his muslim masters.
    • Bamborzled, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Wow, "B. Hussein Obama". OMG, HUSSEIN! HE MUST BE A TOURIST!
    • wendelgee2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1You are so full of anger. What happened to you?
  • robert21, on 12/15/2007, -4/+2Can't even commit to removing troops by the end of 2013, for heaven's sake?
    • rbalik, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5"I'll end this war in Iraq, bring our troops home within 16 months, and open a new era of diplomacy for America."
    • anselm83, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5May of 2010 appears to be before 2013. Think about it.
  • microskomp, on 12/15/2007, -11/+1barack HUSSEIN obama. 'nuff said...
    • there, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2What exactly do you think the word BIGOT means bub?
    • wendelgee2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2So, these are the incisive critical thinking skills our public schools are teaching. Sad.
  • Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Obama would be my second (viable) choice for President. But that still doesn't change my mind that like his support, his platform is a mile wide and an inch deep.
  • WSPanic201, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1http://whyiowa2008.blogspot.com/
  • Hallonsylt, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Most candidats receive donations from several Fortune 100 billionaires. These same billionaires also sponsor other candidates to cover their bases. A good number support both Rudy and Barack; or Rudy and Hillary for example. Barack, Hillary,Mitt, and Rudy are leading among those type of candidates. Paul, Kucinich and Gravel are sponsored by none of these billionaires. You draw your own conclusions.
  • timro, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2anyone else notice the "http://media.www.dailyiowan.com"? i hate it when websites purposely put their website on the www subdomain, just because they feel like being back in the 90's. having a subdomain within a www subdomain is even more obvious than just going to the website and getting a 404 because you didn't type www.
    • jf518, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1thanks for the completely irrelevant comment, I look forward to more of your insight
  • wasikat, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0great, Barrock will make the race: http://www.digg.com/politics/Mr_Obama_wishes_Equal ...

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.