What does Obama stand for?

[tinkerbee]

The company I work for funds internet access for public libraries across the country so that people have access to the internet and it's FREE. I used the library often when my budget wasn't rich enough to pay for access myself. Read newspapers and magazines there for free as well. Yes, it was a pain and yes, it required effort but in my mind the effort was worth it.

But is it? The other day Obama was on the Today show. Matt asked him if he thought SuperDelegates should vote for who they thought would be best or who the people of their district wanted them to vote for. He wouldn't even anwser that. He went around and around and around. It's either one or the other.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But is it? The other day Obama was on the Today show. Matt asked him if he thought SuperDelegates should vote for who they thought would be best or who the people of their district wanted them to vote for. He wouldn't even anwser that. He went around and around and around. It's either one or the other.

I don't understand what that has to do with the availability of information without monetary cost.

I think Clinton and Obama are both hedging their bets on the SuperDelegate issue because they don't know how the DNC plans to handle it.

 

[meandtheguys2]

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!! It's not that hard, and there are PLENTY of sources out there, both biased and unbiased. Citizenship is a participatory exercise!

Oh, please. Love and sunshine to you too!

I don't know if there is such a thing as unbiased info. I suspect not. Frankly, until now, there wasn't much purpose in knowing all that much about any of them. We are very involved on a local and state level in the political process, as well as fighting against a local air polluter...it has kept us pretty busy. It is work that shows results.

Now, we know who one candidate will be, and have a pretty good idea on the other. And a full 9 months to learn about them and their good points, bad points, etc. Lecturing people for not being up on candidates one may not even have the opportunity to vote for is rude. Whether or not I like any of the major candidates or agree with any of them is a moot point at this point in the election year.

Acting superior to others doesn't usually motivate anyone towards better behavior. Just for the record. It is divisive and I thought that was what people were trying to change. You know, bring everyone together, red, blue, male, female, rural, city...(I can't remember quite how the speech went...)

 

[tinkerbee]

I don't understand what that has to do with the availability of information without monetary cost.

I think Clinton and Obama are both hedging their bets on the SuperDelegate issue because they don't know how the DNC plans to handle it.

Those people wasted their time in those districts if the Supers are not even going to vote with the people. I just don't get it. I'm not as smart as you with all this political poopoo but I'm trying to understand it.

 

[MassJester]

Those people wasted their time in those districts if the Supers are not even going to vote with the people. I just don't get it. I'm not as smart as you with all this political poopoo but I'm trying to understand it.

The creation of the super delegates was to hedge against the influence of non-democratic voters in open primaries. These were to be the "keepers of the faith" to ensure that the candidate chosen would be the best standard bearer.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Oh, please. Love and sunshine to you too!

I don't know if there is such a thing as unbiased info. I suspect not. Frankly, until now, there wasn't much purpose in knowing all that much about any of them. We are very involved on a local and state level in the political process, as well as fighting against a local air polluter...it has kept us pretty busy. It is work that shows results.

Now, we know who one candidate will be, and have a pretty good idea on the other. And a full 9 months to learn about them and their good points, bad points, etc. Lecturing people for not being up on candidates one may not even have the opportunity to vote for is rude. Whether or not I like any of the major candidates or agree with any of them is a moot point at this point in the election year.

Acting superior to others doesn't usually motivate anyone towards better behavior. Just for the record. It is divisive and I thought that was what people were trying to change. You know, bring everyone together, red, blue, male, female, rural, city...(I can't remember quite how the speech went...)

It's just like anything else in life-exercise, education, family life, work-if it's important to you, you'll put in the time.

 

["Got Disney"]

I dunno, 18 debates so far is enough for me. I don't believe I'm unusual in this. I figure the people that care have already carefully listened to 3 or 6 or 10 or 15.

There are two more to go, though.

You would think ha ....I know what he wants to do....I just want some more answers ...that is fair enough for a man I am going to vote for if he gets the nod...just want to hear substance...as so many others have asked.

I am glad and I am sure he knows that many are asking him of this so I am loking forward to hearing him tell us. I am sure he will. Who knows he could sway me if he does....

or if he comes out and says...I am not the best at economics that is fair also because not all are ..even McCain is week on economics and that is why they need to have a VP that is

 

[lilyv]

Reading a propaganda book benefits what? Reading a website written by the pimps...I mean campaign managers is going to give an honest viewpoint?
It amazes me how many people think they are so far above others...

I figure the more carefully I research, the better informed I am. I don't worry about "propaganda"...because I take the time to look at issues from many sides.

If you enjoy reading, a book and a website are a good starting place where you can begin to learn what the candidate thinks. It gives you a benchmark for what he/she feels the major issues are.

Next step- a little critical thinking.

1. Review candidate's site, as well as other political sites such as ontheissues.org
2. Major periodicals-Time, Newsweek, USNews and World Report
3. Newspapers, local, as well as national like USA Today. Read for content in other areas of the US. Look for newspapers from, say, Illinois, California, Mass.
4. For daily updates...go to google. hit the news button in the upper left hand corner. Use the search on the news page to look for current stories on whatever issue you're interested in learning more about. Sort through the stories. Pay attention to who wrote the article. Look for independent thought.
5. Use the network news sites. ABC, MSNBC, CBS, FOX....Read carefully for content, you'll see bias sometimes, sometimes not. Bias isn't itself bad, you just need to be aware of it and dig a little further for more information.

 

[kydisneyfans]

From what I understand, change refers to the amount of money left in your wallet after your taxes are jacked through the roof.

 

[MassJester]

From what I understand, change refers to the amount of money left in your wallet after your taxes are jacked through the roof.

Good thing you are here then so that your obvious misunderstanding is corrected. Change is going to be what's left in your pocket after we are done paying for George's war, which we've leased on credit.

 

[wvrevy]

Alright smart-alec why do I have to ask you what you think that rate is?

After the digs about semantics, I just couldn't resist. As for why I didn't put down the number...honestly, because I'm not an economist. I don't mean that to be a sarcastic answer, either. I simply don't know what that number would be. I suspect there probably isn't anybody that can answer that without a long explanation guaranteed to put most of us to sleep.

As for the comments from others...We live in an information age. Pretty much whatever you want to know is out there for you to find. Thousands of publications, 24x7x365 "news" channels, and yes, the internet have all made information available to more people, for less money, than ever before. There IS no excuse for not knowing something about one of these candidates, if you are honestly interested in learning. Just because Obama does not weigh down every speech he gives with every intimate detail of every program and plan he has (which would make his speeches average somewhere in the 7 hour range, at a guess), does not mean he doesn't have those details already in mind, and already well documented in other places.

He made a slight change in his stump speech last night, telling people watching that there would be "fewer applause lines" in order to answer the critics that say he doesn't have enough substance. I suspect that will probably continue, if for no other reason than to stop the talking point before it can gain a real foothold.

 

[reeddi]

I find it interesting that in numerous threads about Obama, people have quoted sources of information about the bills he has sponsered or cosponsered, what he hopes to do, have quoted things from his various speechs and debate appearances and yet people still ask for more.
Yes there have been 18 debates but it is the same answers to the same questions just about each time. IF you have a problem with not getting enough info from the debates - write your news organization. Have them stop having PUNDUITS run the debates to create fodder for them the next day. Hold news organizations accountable for the information they give us.
Obama himself realized the American public wanted more substance so he spent 90 minutes talking to GM workers about a specific plan to help workers. The news organizations played about 10 minutes of it and PUNDUITS talked over the rest of it.

For people who REALLY want to know things and REALLY CARE will take the time to TRY to get the info in whatever way possible.

The more interesting thing is that most (not all)of the time the people posting need more info it is because they want to send others into a tizzy. They have no intention of voting for Obama, Hillary or whoever they are asking about. They want it to turn into a battle.

THAT is what I hate about politics. Pick any issue - find out how all of the canadites voted on it or have spoken on it and pick the one that is closest to you. I support your right to pick whoever you want and I hope you support my right to pick whoever I want. We may just have to agree to disagree but with respect and dignity. Enough said.

 

[angwill]

Good thing you are here then so that your obvious misunderstanding is corrected. Change is going to be what's left in your pocket after we are done paying for George's war, which we've leased on credit.

You guys and your change are too funny. What a way to lighten the mood on this board. I wonder which will give us more change taxes or the war?

 

[MassJester]

You guys and your change are too funny. What a way to lighten the mood on this board. I wonder which will give us more change taxes or the war?

It depends on your income bracket. The nice thing about the war debt is that it's something that George has given to all Americans regardless of their situation.

 

[Feralpeg]

It's just like anything else in life-exercise, education, family life, work-if it's important to you, you'll put in the time.

I don't agree. The candidates could each take a half hour and go into some of the high level details of how they intend to handle some of the major issues. In that half hour, they could literally reach millions of people. Instead, those millions of people should each have to go research what each candidate intends to do? What a waste of time.

Most people are so busy with the day to day things they can barely keep their heads above water. If the candidates want the votes of these people it should be their responsibility to give the people what they need to make an informed decision. It should not be put back on the voters.

The candidates need these people. You'd think they'd be doing everything they can to win them over. Sadly, they think they can do it by stating vague promises, most of which will never come to fruition. Of course, if they were to give out too many details, it might just come back to bite them when they don't follow through after the election. Keep it vague and no one can hold you to it.

 

[meandtheguys2]

I find it interesting that in numerous threads about Obama, people have quoted sources of information about the bills he has sponsered or cosponsered, what he hopes to do, have quoted things from his various speechs and debate appearances and yet people still ask for more.
Yes there have been 18 debates but it is the same answers to the same questions just about each time. IF you have a problem with not getting enough info from the debates - write your news organization. Have them stop having PUNDUITS run the debates to create fodder for them the next day. Hold news organizations accountable for the information they give us.
Obama himself realized the American public wanted more substance so he spent 90 minutes talking to GM workers about a specific plan to help workers. The news organizations played about 10 minutes of it and PUNDUITS talked over the rest of it.

For people who REALLY want to know things and REALLY CARE will take the time to TRY to get the info in whatever way possible.

The more interesting thing is that most (not all)of the time the people posting need more info it is because they want to send others into a tizzy. They have no intention of voting for Obama, Hillary or whoever they are asking about. They want it to turn into a battle.

THAT is what I hate about politics. Pick any issue - find out how all of the canadites voted on it or have spoken on it and pick the one that is closest to you. I support your right to pick whoever you want and I hope you support my right to pick whoever I want. We may just have to agree to disagree but with respect and dignity. Enough said.

I would have liked to have heard that 90 minutes. I take the opposite view, though, and believe that most people who ask and participate are interested in the topic. It is only the vocal few that chip in with sarcasm, and little jabs that get attention.

Very few know how to disagree with respect and dignity. People think far too much of themselves to believe that the POV of other's might also be valid.

As I stated earlier, talking down, and looking down on other's only causes issues, and sets those people up to be liars nine months from now when their side has won or lost, and all are calling for unity as a nation.

 

[wvrevy]

I would have liked to have heard that 90 minutes. I take the opposite view, though, and believe that most people who ask and participate are interested in the topic. It is only the vocal few that chip in with sarcasm, and little jabs that get attention.

Very few know how to disagree with respect and dignity. People think far too much of themselves to believe that the POV of other's might also be valid.

As I stated earlier, talking down, and looking down on other's only causes issues, and sets those people up to be liars nine months from now when their side has won or lost, and all are calling for unity as a nation.

Here's an article about the speech: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/METRO/802130437

However...your post brought up a good point. Barack spent 90 minutes on that speech...and probably received less than 5 minutes on the news for it, most of which was pundits talking about what he said. News programs won't show 90 minute, policy-heavy speeches. Blame it on our short attention spans.