Some reasons why Obama could be the best choice.
1. He is the most inspiring candidate to come around in some time to many people, including a lot of people who where not into politics. Not unlike Ron Paul and Dean did, though both lost in the end. But the fact they can actually inspire is something I have found lacking for some time in the Highest office in the land. You may like Bush for some reason, but I think few would ever feel inspired by him.
Obama does have charisma "out the butt", nobody can argue that point, unfortunately so does my Secretary, but I don't think she'd be a good POTUS.
Bush, for me it never was a case of me "liking" him so much as it was a case of I really DIDN'T like Gore or Kerry. To be honest I never really cared much for McCain either, even back in 2000, but the odds of getting a "true" Constitutional conservative elected in this day and age of "bread and circus's" is rapidly approaching zero.
2. The need for a radical shift in US oil and energy Policy is needed. Obama have in my view done a much better job coming out in support of trying to shift the US to push for more science and jobs in the field of Renewal's., not just talking about drilling for more oil. Drilling to me is the short fix ( even that short fix would take years to start) and I believe we need a leader who can look at the long term future more as well. To many in other Generations did that, and have left the current ones with a large amount of problems to fix.Overall while I believe McCain would have a far far better Environmental Record then Bush, it does not make it better then Obama's.
OK, so he's a "tree hugger" and he's saying he'll support energy diversification. What bothers me is the way that he's talking about doing it. As I'm sure you noticed, I'm all about alternative energy, BUT, it's got to be done wisely, and efficiently. In the short term, we still have to rely on fossil fuels, at least until a viable alternative is invented, developed, and ready for mass dispersal. The quickest way I know of to do that is nuclear power plants. True they take 3 years to build, and another before they're ready to come on line, BUT there's not another system out there that can come close to being ready in that amount of time.
As far as vehicular transportation, well, frankly, we're hosed. Hybrids aren't going to get it done, at least not any time soon. Sure, they're great for personal vehicles, but those account for a small percentage of our actual fuel usage every year. Big rigs, trains, and aircraft account for the biggest use of fuel in this country, every year, by far. Until someone comes up with a way for a tractor-trailer (articulated lorry to you) to be able to haul 40 tons over 600 miles for less than $500.00, and until someone figures out a way for a 757 to use less than $48,000.00 of fuel to fly from LA to New York, it doesn't matter how many MPG you get in your Prius.
One thing, the "Bush environmental record" is a strawman argument. While the President can submit a Bill to the Congress, it's the Congress that actually writes the laws. Everybody says "Bush did this" or "Bush did that" and they NEVER seem to remember that it was the
535 nim-nods that WE elected to Congress that actually wrote the Bills that the President signs. If Congress didn't want to go along with it, the Bill would have died in committee and NEVER reached the Presidents desk.
3.Iraq. Obama was smart enough to be against the war in the first place. McCain can say he we correct about the surge, that required the bigger screw up in the first place, called the Iraq war. Today Obama called for more troops in Afghanistan and Hinted at moves against west Pakistan...something I think we needed a long long time ago...and to do so, would move some troops from Iraq to those areas. McCain said today something on those lines...but of course had no statement about where these troops will come from. His trying to point out the success of the Surge, and the news of late about the Iraqi military gaining confidence and doing more and more on there own...actually goes in favor of saying, its time to start cutting back and let them really take over. McCain says the Surge works...but what did it do then...it let us stay , draw back down to what we had in the first place.....but then he says nothing about that status changing anytime. The simple fact is that the politics and fighting that is left in Iraq, has very little to do with US, and there is nothing we can do, but stand back and let them learn to deal with it, and offer advice and help at times. We should not need the troop levels we have there, for much longer while they work those issues out. its time to start going home...slowly, but to make a true commitment to being done with Iraq.
Obama can say he was against Iraq from the beginning, but we'll never know for certain since the only record we have is of a speech he made at an anti-war rally, that was populated by his constituents (I remember seeing George Wallace standing on the steps of the University of Alabama too, but I also know that, regardless of what some may think, that he wasn't a racist). It's called PANDERING POLITICS.
As far as any plan he may, or may not have, for our withdrawl from Iraq, I can't say since he's changed his position so many times. The fact that he's voted against funding the troops
in the field, TWICE, leaves me with such a bad taste in my mouth about him that I don't thing 3 bottles of Glenfiddich would begin to touch it. It doesn't matter if you agree with the war or not, you don't even look like you're going leave your men hanging out there, twisting in the wind, especially to make a political point. Specific timetables for withdrawl are a fools errand, and he's made the point time and time again that he supports just that. He hasn't even been to Iraq, he hasn't met with any of the Command Staff, including Gen. Petraeus, which tells me that anything he's saying about Iraq is, somewhat less informed than I would expect from a serious candidate for POTUS.
4. He worked with Chuck Hagel who I respect on the lose nuke program, and is a area I think is vital to US Security.
I've read up on it, and I have a question. Exactly how are we (the US) supposed to ensure that terrorists don't get their hands on nukes from countries that we have no influence over, or presence in? I thought liberals were against us running around all over the place playing the world's Policeman, but here's Hagel and Obama not only talking about it, but EXPANDING it. I guess that they too didn't learn a damned thing from the utter disaster that was Kennedy.
The Bush White House played politics with this area, when they outed Valerie Plame.
Don't take this the wrong way my friend, but that's a BOLD FACED LIE. NOBODY in the Administration "outed" anybody. A very clever journalist took bits and pieces of information from several different sources and with a bit of inference figured out who she was and how she was related to Joe Wilson.
Bin Laden has in fact gone so far as to get the ok from a high Ranking Muslim to declare his use of a Nuke as ok in the view of the Koran and Akhlah...He has since followed many of the rules place on him to attack based on his view of the Koran...meaning he has carefully tried to show the US why it is wrong, warned them, asked them to convert to Islam, and such...shows his real Desire to get a nuke and use it. I think his going into this area, with a Foreign Policy heavy like Hagal, is a great benefit to him and gives him more Experience in this type of security area, then Bush (W, not his dad) or Clinton ever had.
Of course he (UBL) has, and he did that while Clintoon was in office, but again, exactly how are we (the US) supposed to ensure that he doesn't get a nuke from a country that we have absolutely NO diplomatic relations with, or influence over? Are we supposed to invade every country that has, or is suspected of having, nukes, and secure their stockpiles for them? Are we supposed to invade every country in the world that has yellowcake and secure it for them to ensure that UBL, or any other nut job follower of that
"lying, cheating, stealing, bigamist, murdering, pedophile (piss be on him)" doesn't get their hands on it either?
), but is what he's "communicating" anything of substance, or is it the same, tired old political pablum that they ALL feed us every 4 years? Remember, I've seen a LOT of these elections, and I've heard ALL of the rhetoric, and I've watched ALL of the mud-slinging, which is why I'm SOOOO DAMNED TIRED OF IT! What I want to see is someone who can look me in the eye and tell me something without my bullsh!t meter PEGGING OUT!
