Lukas wrote:your a obama supporter, can you explain his voting record for me? i can't understand why he was voting that way
He can probably explain it better than I can, and if you've already decided he's not okay with you, then there's not much either of us can say.
However, I'll rise to the challenge...
I'm assuming you're referring to the article you linked to in your last post. I'll address that:
he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
Barack is <i>not</i> anti-war. He's pro <i>wise</i> war. He didn't oppose the war in Afghanistan, and in the Iraq pullout he'd send a detachment there, where he (and I) believe we have a legitimate purpose. Inasmuch as that, he has a similar stance to that which President Bush <i>initially</i> appeared to have struck. Unfortunately Bush did the "take a shot at Saddam because he wanted to kill my Daddy" and took most of our forces into a war of choice in Iraq.
he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
So long as GWB stays in office, U.S. forces <i>will not</i> leave Iraq. No timeline, no withdrawal, stay the course. There's not enough of a Democratic majority to override any vetoes. In that light, we're in Iraq until January 20, 2009, and that's the long and short of it.
In the absence of a withdrawal, we have to make sure the troops are well-equipped, have medical care for their wounds, fed, and sheltered. I oppose the Iraq war but I <i>do not</i> support abandoning them and leaving them to their own devices. Senator Obama cares about the people, even the troops in harm's way — I'd say especially, since they didn't have a say, they were told the leave Afghanistan for Iraq and there it is.
By the way, my biggest outrage against the Iraq War is the incompetence and arrogance shown by the civilian contractors, aka mercs, who are not accountable to either the President nor the citizenry of the United States of America. They're stirring up more s*** than our troops are and wildcatting.
Universal healthcare:
Here's the big difference: Hillary wants to mandate health insurance — to the point of garnishing your wages, and she hasn't said a thing about how she'll lower health costs. Barack is working to use the numbers of our citizenry to negotiate <i>lower</i> costs of medicine, treatments, insurance, et al. In short, not a handout, but making them within the reach of every American <i>to get it themselves</i>. The practical difference: you can pay $400 a month for health insurance with exclusions of prior medical history and/or limitations of certain areas, or pay $175 a month for health insurance that covers <b>everything</b>, nobody turned away.
Onto the voting record...
It's been a long day and I'm starting to go cross-eyed with all this cutting and pasting, so forgive if I just give you a couple of the best links in terms of his voting record. There's some good stuff in there, rounding up stray nuclear devices and reforming campaign finance at the Illinois State and Federal levels being just two.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factch ... accomp.php
The Daily Kos has his legislative record on their blog but for some reason the page won't load on my computer. Here's a link to a page off Digg that goes to that blog:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/I_fou ... ate_Record
Summation: someone else asked me about his experience over Hillary's tonight. I said that Barack's introduced and passed legislation was of a higher quality ad effectiveness than that of Hillary's.
Another point I'd like to make...I talked with some people at a rally. They'd gone to the Senate chambre on the hill in Washington DC and sat in the gallery. When Hillary came into the room, they said, "It was like the parting of the Red Sea — nobody wanted to be near her. They all avoided her." When Barack came in, it was like a wolf pack rallying to the alpha: everyone wanted to shake his hand, talk with him. This is why I'm supporting him: he's a leader. People like him. The U.S. Presidential race is indeed a popularity contest: that's not going to change, so we might as well play the game.
Is there really an accurate test of what a Presidential candidate, who's not an incumbent, before he takes office? I've voted in six Presidential elections since I came of age and this is the first time the frontrunners have all been Senators. All the rest that got elected have been Governors: Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and the tendency is for the American people to choose a Governor for President. Going back over my lifetime, practically every President has been a Governor.
That aside...look at the man: he's young, intelligent, well-spoken, and people LIKE him. Can he lead? No doubt. The other thing is, Barack Obama is a uniter. There are moderate Republicans (Whigs?), there are Independents, as well as Democrats that are lending their support to his coalition. I said to a friend the other day, "The Cold War didn't end, it came here and divided Left against Right...the wall came down in Berlin but we dug a trench along the Idaho/Nevada/Arizona border, the borders of the Great Lake states, and New England." This, I think, is the "Change" this campaign is talking about. And frankly, I'm tired of this United States of Canada versus Jesusland dichotomy going on.
For that, if for no other reason, I believe that our best course is to elect Senator Barack Obama to be the 44th President of the <i><b>United</i></b> States of America.
[taking a breath]
Good night. I'm off to melatonin.
Just goes to show those people who think this country is worse for black men than for women that they're wrong. All a black man has to do is dress nice and be well-spoken and educated; a woman can do all of that and still not be treated the same. 
— but if I had a choice, I'd go to MSNBC. 
