Comments on: I’m Voting For Barack Obama And Here’s Why

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:57:54 +0000

Hey Nate, good post man. I agree with your reasons for voting obama, but your state let us down man! What’s wrong with you Okies? I’ll be voting Obama in the Texas Demo primary, not because I think he’s less ‘bought’ than Hilary, but because he’s less robotic and less divisive.

By: tish

tish — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:16:14 +0000

you know I like obama…and am wanting him to get nominated. your post is well-reasoned and I am happy you voted. GO nate! Furthermore, way to GO on calling the newspaper on sloppy (or malicious) reporting. So civic of you.

By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:03:20 +0000

Aaron, you make a good point, and the unbridled (and often unreasoned) Republican hatred of Hillary has factored into my vote for her - not because of “electability” (a word I hate because it’s like, “Hey, let’s sacrifice our principles so we can get someone into office!”) but because I remember how hard it was for Bill Clinton to govern because of all the sentiment the Republicans leveled against him.

As to the scandals of the Clinton presidency:

I’m REALLY sick of hearing about those. The scandals of the Bush years have been legion, and far worse, than anything the Clintons ever cooked up. I won’t get into why I vote Democratic (I once was registered independent), but suffice it to say that given the country that the Republicans have handed us since 1994 - and I place the blame of Clinton’s impeachment debacle as much at their feet as at his - I’m not sure how anyone can trust them anymore.

I always tell people to keep in mind that when you’re voting for a president, you’re not just voting for the one person. You’re voting for their cabinet members, their possible Supreme Court appointees, their federal judges, their advisers. Even if there was a Republican candidate I could stomach - there isn’t, but let’s say if - I’m not sure I’m ready to trust this same cloud of people that have surrounded George W. Bush the last 8 years, and if we elect another Republican, that’s going to be largely what we get.

At least with Clinton we had a measure of transparency as to our energy policy, we didn’t have domestic spying, we didn’t have no-bid contracts to companies run by the president’s political contributors, and we didn’t have people telling us not to ask questions lest we give aid to the terrorists.

One last thing and then I’ll shut up. This comment: “If they were genuine, and it was the stress of campaigning that brought her to this, is this the person we want on the nuclear button? When and if another 9/11 hits, will Mrs. Clinton start crying? Will she be able to lead in the way a President needs to lead?”

I hope that, after the tragedy that has been this war, that we would have a president who would hesitate - at least for a MOMENT - before using the military option. Perhaps that makes me weak, and if it does, I absolutely could not care less. That’s another reason I’m supporting Obama, actually, because he expressed that exact hesitation. People may call that weak leadership; I call it sanity.

Okay, I’m not debating in my own comments. Readers, feel free to debate each other - KINDLY - but I’m done.

By: The Dirty Calvinist

The Dirty Calvinist — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:50:32 +0000

I am a conservative(with libertarian leanings), and for the most part a Republican, but I very much want to see Obama win the Democratic nomination. Not out of cynicism, since I do not believe it would be easier for the Republican candidate (Mitt Romney!) to win against Obama over Mrs. Clinton. In fact, the opposite is true. (The Republican base HATES Mrs. Clinton with passion unbridled) The fact is the Clintons (and make no mistake, both of them will be in the White House) were no good for the country and no good for the Democratic party. Bill Clinton presided over one of the most scandal ridden presidencies in American history. He lied under oath. His wife was with him all the way. Sure, neither Clinton has ever been convicted of anything. Normally, if there is no conviction, we should give the accused party the benefit of the doubt. However, that indulgence weakens as the indictments pile up. Sure the Clinton’s may have never been convicted of anything, but there are huge numbers of people around them who have. That should say something about their character. If that doesn’t do it for you, take this argument. It is a testament to Bill Clinton that we have George Bush. There should have been no question as to who won that election in 2000. Al Gore was running as an incumbent, with a roaring economy. Life was pretty good. VP Gore should have taken most states by a hefty majority, including Florida. He didn’t. One reason was the presidency of Bill Clinton.

The final straw for me on being “ok” with a Clinton presidency (c’mon, I was never going to vote for her, but maybe she was a little different from her husband) was when she cried before the New Hampshire primary. Think about it. The crying was either genuine or they were crocodile tears. I’m not going to speculate on which, but if they were crocodile tears, what does that say about Mrs. Clinton’s character? Exactly what the Republicans have been saying for years, that she will do and say anything to win, that she is without scruples. If they were genuine, and it was the stress of campaigning that brought her to this, is this the person we want on the nuclear button? When and if another 9/11 hits, will Mrs. Clinton start crying? Will she be able to lead in the way a President needs to lead?

So if you are a Democrat, do yourself a favor, do the party a favor and do the country a favor. Vote for Obama tomorrow.