Give a legitimate argument for Obama

[2861U2]

This, obviously, is similar to the other thread.

I want all you Obama supporters to discuss issues and why you support Obama.

The rules: No mentioning "change" or "hope" or "experience doesn't mean judgment" or "McCain is old."

Talk about issues.

What I don't want in this campaign is for the Obama people to be complaining and wanting McCain to talk about issues, while their candidate gets away with just talking about "change" and "hope." I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I have a feeling.

I mean, who cares about ideas and issues when you can have HOPE?!

Go.

 

[BVS]

He understands our healthcare sucks and is screwing over the poor.

He understands the importance of diplomacy and not an attack first mentality.

He understands the importance of reducing our dependence on oil.

He wants to make marriage and civil unions completely equal.

Just a few...

 

[Irvine511]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

 

[U2isthebest]

I'm going to just start with this issue right now. The war in Iraq: It has been one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in U.S. history. WE HAVE to leave as soon as possible. There was no terrorist presence in Iraq before our invasion, just as there were no WMDs. We know both of these things. These articles will give a fuller description.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html?hpid=topnews

People were not getting blown up every day in Iraq until we went there. It did not become a terrorist breeding ground until we went there. How can people not understand that we've created the very thing we set out to destroy? You're correct in saying that Iraq is full of people who want to destroy us. That's because we invaded them, a sovereign nation, and proceeded to cause the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent Iraquis through completely barbaric attacks on villages and homes with no more intelligence than a suspicion. We've created a system that forces them to go through checkpoints to drive through their own cities, or enter their own homes. We're violating their rights, so understandably many of them are angry and bitter towards our country. That makes them perfect prey for terrorist groups who have now come into their country to use bloated rhetoric and fear tactics (much like the Bush administration) to get the Iraquis to support their hatred. None of this would've happened if we hadn't gone to war. Here is a link to a site from Iraq veterans on why they're now against the war. http://ivaw.org/faq
There are numerous articles and books from experts that have shown this. They're readily avaliable on the Internet besides the links I provided. In short, we need to begin pulling the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and allow the Iraqi government to take over control of it's own country. I support Obama's plan to ask and encourage Iraq's leaders to come to a new agreement on their Constitution and addressing of the important issues that affect them. The most important part of Obama's plan is the humanitarian initiative he wants to put in place to help the huge numbers of Iraqi refugees that have been displaced from their homes and lives because of this war. They're being denied food, shelter, medical care and basic human rights. Obama has a $2 billion plan to help bring these services to the refugees both in Iraq and in neighboring countries. If we want to stop the terrorists who are in Iraq because of this war we started, this is the way to do it. By fighting them we create more of them, by denying and destroying their human rights we feed their anger and desire for venegance. By treating them like the independent nation they should be, and by beginning to provide basic services to the people we caused to lose nearly everything, we can show them that we think they're as deserving of equality and human rights as we are. That is what will stop the conditions that are breeding terrorism there.

Obviously you and I have fundamental disagreements about the causes and results about the Iraq war. That comes from how we see the world. Neither of us are going to change that. I'm not going to argue with you or any other person who supports the war and/or McCain's candidacy. I'm simply presenting my point of view, just as you did in the McCain thread. Although, I completely disagree with your statements, I can respect them, so I hope you can respect mine, which in turn, line up with Senator Obama's.

 

[anitram]

His healthcare plan is an actual plan, unlike McCain who has absolutely nothing. I have said here before that I prefer Hillary's plan to Obama's, because I find that it is more comprehensive. At the same time, it is also considerably more costly (something like $50-60 billion) and she's never really explained to me in a way that made sense how she'd get this extra money. Particularly in light of the usual right wing opposition to health care.

I like his quid pro quo plan of $4K for students in exchange for volunteerism. While I don't love the notion of mandatory volunteering (what an oxymoron), I do think there can be value in this. Some of the greatest experiences I had as a young person was to volunteer and give of my time and money, both locally and abroad. It is also a way of bringing young people into the public sector and that is in a way empowering. It's important to recognize the differences in how the public and private sectors operate, and it wasn't until I worked somewhere that was strapped for cash and funding that a lot of the broader policy issues started making sense. I certainly began framing things in a different way.

And I do agree with his policy on Pakistan. The place is a cesspool and I think the American policy towards that country has been abysmal. Nevermind the huge sums of money being advanced there for little in return. Not sure who woke up and decided that one Saudi Arabia hanging around our necks wasn't enough, we better get a second anvil.

The Iraq stuff is too long to get into right now, but needless to say, his position is far preferable to that of McCain.

 

[kellyahern]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

That was a really interesting article.

 

[Diemen]

This is quite an interesting contrast to the McCain thread.

 

[Dreadsox]

I like Obama for the following reasons -

*Energizing the youth - Historically I believe that it is the youth of this country who bring about real meaningful and lasting change.

* He has not been in the system long enough to be corrupted by it.

* I believe he will treat teachers and educators better than McCain.

* I believe he will be more inclined to be supportive of civil marriage rights for gay couples.

There is my starting list.

 

[melon]

http://forum.interference.com/t183095.html

I think reading this thread should answer your questions, since it pretty much asks the exact same questions.

 

[U2isthebest]

I was working on trying to decipher McCain's healthcare plan earlier, so I could compare and contrast it with Obama's, but it's incredibly confusing. I don't even understand what he wants to do that would really make the system any different than what we have now.

 

[deep]

the conclusions were not what was expected.

 

[U2isthebest]

the conclusions were not what was expected.

The conclusions of what?

 

[deep]

"Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."

the conclusions were not what was expected.

"I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

 

[U2isthebest]

^Thanks! What does that have to do with this thread, though?

 

[deep]

Because he is married to someone that has insights on the black / white race divide.

 

[U2isthebest]

Because he is married to someone that has insights on the black / white race divide.

I'm confused. Is the the last little article you posted something Michelle Obama wrote, then? I still don't see how that would have anything to do with this thread.

 

[deep]

yes


Q. Give a legitimate argument for Obama?

A. Because he is married to someone that has insights on the black / white race divide.

 

[U2isthebest]

yes


Q. Give a legitimate argument for Obama?

A. Because he is married to someone that has insights on the black / white race divide.

Ah, ok. I understand what you were saying now.

 

[melon]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.

Admittedly, that, alone, would make me very thankful for an Obama presidency.

 

[Irvine511]

Admittedly, that, alone, would make me very thankful for an Obama presidency.

and that's the overriding theme of my support for his candidacy, and precisely why i can't support Hillary.

 

[Utoo]

Because he is married to someone that has insights on the black / white race divide.

I think Barack himself is quite 'insightful' on this matter, as well. You know, being half black and half white, and having written a book that deals primarily with race ("Dreams From My Father").

p.s.--it's a great book and well worth reading

 

[melon]

and that's the overriding theme of my support for his candidacy, and precisely why i can't support Hillary.

I am still cynical that Obama will be unable to enact what he's promised. At the same time, I realize that I'm pretty damn sure that neither Hillary nor McCain will do anything that they've promised either. So, just for the hope that we can get beyond the decades-long nonsense that has been the "Baby Boomers" and start a whole new national paradigm, Obama has become my first choice pick. Yes, I guess it really has come down to "hope" now.

On a different, but related tangent, I think you might find this interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/

Hillary Clinton is a Guardian, and her specific type is an ESTJ, what Keirsey calls "the Supervisor." Supervisors are, Keirsey says, steadfast, cautious, methodical. They are the reliable, detail-oriented people without whom organizations and society fall apart—which is something ESTJs won't hesitate to point out. "[T]heir first instinct is to take charge and tell others what to do," says Keirsey. They are "devoted public servants, seeing their role in government … in almost sacred terms of self-sacrifice and service to others." This service is an obligation, not given "freely and joyously." As columnist Richard Cohen observed about Hillary, "Whether she meant to or not, she has presented herself as a model of caution, of experience hard-earned and not enjoyed. …"

...

ESTJs are most comfortable in the world of the specific. Keirsey says they will listen politely to "theoretical or fanciful" conversation—what an ESTJ surely thinks of as a certain other candidate's gasbaggery—then "shift to more concrete things to talk about, more solid and sensible topics" using their ability to call up at will "an enormous fund of facts." (Ever heard a Hillary speech?)

Barack Obama—no one will be surprised to learn—is an Idealist. His specific type is an ENFP, what Keirsey calls "the Champion." ENFPs, says Keirsey, are "filled with conviction that they can easily motivate those around them." Champions work to "kindle, to rouse, to encourage, even to inspire those close to them with their enthusiasm." Idealists "usually have a tongue of silver" and are "gifted in seeing the possibilities" of institutions and people. Here's Obama on leadership: "[W]e need leaders to inspire us. Some are thinking about our constraints, and others are thinking about limitless possibility."

...

Idealists are deeply introspective. According to Keirsey, their "self-confidence rests on their authenticity," which makes them "highly aware of themselves as objects of moral scrutiny." Idealists, such as Thomas Paine, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., tend to be leaders of movements, not office-holders. If Obama is elected, not only would he be the first black president, but according to Keirsey, he'd be the first Idealist president. (Kroeger speculates that Lincoln may have been an Idealist.) Idealists are rare in any executive position. In a survey Kroeger did of the personality types who make it to top management, less than 1 percent were ENFPs—while almost 30 percent were Hillary's type, the ESTJ. But the 16 types are not evenly distributed in the population and ENFPs themselves are rare—Keirsey estimates only about 2 percent of people are ENFPs. Kroeger says the ENFP can be an effective boss. "At their best they bring a refreshing alternative style to top management and decision making."

John McCain is an Artisan, and his specific type is an ESTP, what Keirsey calls the Promoter. The ESTP is, according to Keirsey, "practical, optimistic, cynical, and focused on the here and now." If the ESTP portrait gives you a feeling of déjà vu, it's because George W. Bush is an ESTP, too. They are a common presidential type: Both Roosevelts, JFK, and LBJ were ESTPs. "Artisans need to be potent, to be felt as a strong presence and they want to affect the course of events," writes Keirsey. They hunger to "have a piece of the action," "to make something happen" whether "on the battlefield" or "in the political arena." So many politicians are Artisans because "politics allows not only for maneuvering, excitement, and risk—but for powerful social impact."

...

Grand theories are not for the ESTP. "No high-flown speculation for the Artisan, no deep meaning or introspection. [They] focus on what actually happens in the real world, on what works, on what pays off, and not on whose toes get stepped on." This is how you get labeled a "maverick" and "Sen. Hothead." This is why the Wall Street Journal writes, "Mr. McCain's great political strength has also been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological."

Keirsey says Artisans "are the world's great risk-takers. They delight in putting themselves in jeopardy, taking chances, facing hazards." (Does this sound familiar? See: Iraq.) When times call for careful planning, or consistent, long-term management, you don't call on the ESTP. Keirsey writes that they "may be careless about details" or "they can be unprepared at times when preparation is called for, and can spring the unexpected on colleagues." "They are like firemen who, having nothing to do set fires so that they can put them out."

One thing that might interest people is that McCain, Bush II, and JFK are listed as ESTPs. Some people might be surprised by JFK's inclusion, but there's two historical notes to that:

1) Beyond the JFK romanticism, his foreign policy initiatives were certainly not dovish, while the CIA was noted to hate him, because they feared that his foreign policy was poor in execution. Hence, some assassination conspiracy theories center around the CIA "eliminating" him for the "best of the country." And we certainly don't have to forget that our current President Bush has a rather hated foreign policy execution too. So that tends to tell me that McCain will just be more of the same.

2) JFK's eloquence, on par with Obama, may have very much to do with his legendary speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, whom JFK referred to as his "intellectual blood bank." Sorensen, who has endorsed Obama, might have been the "ENFP" behind the man, leading to the JFK/Obama image comparisons.

Interestingly, I'm a borderline INFP/ENFP. We're quite a rare bunch!

 

[Dreadsox]

One thing that might interest people is that McCain, Bush II, and JFK are listed as ESTPs. Some people might be surprised by JFK's inclusion, but there's two historical notes to that:

1) Beyond the JFK romanticism, his foreign policy initiatives were certainly not dovish, while the CIA was noted to hate him, because they feared that his foreign policy was poor in execution. Hence, some assassination conspiracy theories center around the CIA "eliminating" him for the "best of the country." And we certainly don't have to forget that our current President Bush has a rather hated foreign policy execution too. So that tends to tell me that McCain will just be more of the same.

Loved the article. My senior year in college I lived at the Kennedy Libarary pouring over documents. Kennedy was a shrewd, crafty politician. I would not describe him as a dove in any sense of the word.
[Q]

2) JFK's eloquence, on par with Obama, may have very much to do with his legendary speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, whom JFK referred to as his "intellectual blood bank." Sorensen, who has endorsed Obama, might have been the "ENFP" behind the man, leading to the JFK/Obama image comparisons.[/Q]

Nice to see someone else pick up on Sorenson. I mentioned him in here months ago as being the great AHA moment for me when I was scratching my head saying, Obama reminds me of Kennedy. I am wondering if Richard Goodwin is involved as well. He and Sorenson were the voice of Kennedy.



Interestingly, I'm a borderline INFP/ENFP. We're quite a rare bunch! [/QUOTE]

 

[BonosSaint]

INFP

Apparently, we have a healthy representation of this rare bunch here. Borderline INTP

 

[anitram]

I am an INTP. Got tested several years ago.

 

[U2democrat]

INFP here too

 

[Dreadsox]

I came out the following:

[Q]The Portait of the Teacher (ENFJ)

The Idealists called Teachers are abstract in their thought and speech, cooperative in their style of achieving goals, and directive and extraverted in their interpersonal relations. Learning in the young has to be beckoned forth, teased out from its hiding place, or, as suggested by the word "education," it has to be "educed." by an individual with educative capabilities. Such a one is the eNFj, thus rightly called the educative mentor or Teacher for short. The Teacher is especially capable of educing or calling forth those inner potentials each learner possesses. Even as children the Teachers may attract a gathering of other children ready to follow their lead in play or work. And they lead without seeming to do so.

Teachers expect the very best of those around them, and this expectation, usually expressed as enthusiastic encouragement, motivates action in others and the desire to live up to their expectations. Teachers have the charming characteristic of taking for granted that their expectations will be met, their implicit commands obeyed, never doubting that people will want to do what they suggest. And, more often than not, people do, because this type has extraordinary charisma.

The Teachers are found in no more than 2 or 3 percent of the population. They like to have things settled and arranged. They prefer to plan both work and social engagements ahead of time and tend to be absolutely reliable in honoring these commitments. At the same time, Teachers are very much at home in complex situations which require the juggling of much data with little pre-planning. An experienced Teacher group leader can dream up, effortlessly, and almost endlessly, activities for groups to engage in, and stimulating roles for members of the group to play. In some Teachers, inspired by the responsiveness of their students or followers, this can amount to genius which other types find hard to emulate. Such ability to preside without planning reminds us somewhat of an Provider, but the latter acts more as a master of ceremonies than as a leader of groups. Providers are natural hosts and hostesses, making sure that each guest is well looked after at social gatherings, or that the right things are expressed on traditional occasions, such as weddings, funerals, graduations, and the like. In much the same way, Teachers value harmonious human relations about all else, can handle people with charm and concern, and are usually popular wherever they are. But Teachers are not so much social as educational leaders, interested primarily in the personal growth and development of others, and less in attending to their social needs.

Mikhail Gorbachev, Oprah Winfrey, Pope John Paul II, Ralph Nader, John Wooden, and Margaret Mead are examples of Teacher Idealists.

[/Q]

LOL - A teacher? Me?

 

[Utoo]

LOL - A teacher? Me?

I'm the same---ENFJ