Marilou Johanek on Obamamania
As expected earlier in the week and promoted on their website ever since, the Blade endorsed Barack Obama for the primary. Yet today this piece by Marilou Johanek, Obama must face political reality before November caught my attention.
Part of the reason is she expresses some of the same feelings I have and that I have heard others state:
But as I sat listening to Candidate Obama – who, I hate to admit, was younger than everyone present, save his dutiful aide – I couldn’t get my head around why his candidacy was being so widely embraced as the Second Coming. He was intelligent and well-spoken and had a good grasp of the issues he addressed. But I knew that before he walked in the door.
For someone who burst on the national scene out of nowhere more than three years ago, the seemingly unstoppable Obama bandwagon is astounding.
It’s also a bit unsettling for some voters who wonder if the spreading Obamamania is grounded in more than contagious infatuation.
Are the throngs flocking to experience the rock-star fascination of his campaign events more enamored of the idea of youthful difference than with its practical application at the highest pinnacle of power?
We’ll know for sure on Tuesday…
That is exactly the conundrum and I for one have been writing about that since last Feb. when I saw him at a Tri-C rally. This is a salient issue and no one should be badgered into thinking that it isn’t. Saying it’s salient also does not undermine the value in what Obama has and is achieving. It is merely saying that when you’re analyzing for decision-making, it has relevance.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pmThe difference between Barack and Hilllary is so blatantly obvious, that the support given Obama is both eerie and scarey to me. What is the hidden agenda? There is a reason for this maniacal behavior, and I am sure it will prove not to be for the good of the country.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:38 pmI know, it’s why I took my oldest daughter and my husband with me when I went to see him. None of us felt it but the 13 year old who basically admitted for her it came down to “he’s cuter”. Well duh…
Then again as Tim would say, Marilou is in the same age group I am.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm5 years ago, an even younger Barack was speaking out against going to war in Iraq. I believe Hillary was also 13 years older than Barack at the time. It’s a shame more people didn’t listen the young whipper-snapper back then.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pmPlease stop with the concern trolling. What will be, will be.
Yet, he voted to fund the war once he was in Congress, just like Clinton and so many others including our last Democratic Presidential candidate who lost to George Bush…
To you it maybe concern trolling, yet to many others I’ve spoken with it’s to them a valid concern.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pmThank you, Lisa. The Senator from Texas, who is backing Barack Obama, said when he was asked what Obama’s accomplishments are, “I can’t tell you tonight.,” I’ve been watching Hillary for many years, and got so interested I researched her political activities while in college. As president of the Young Republicans Club (her dad was Republican) she was, even then, on the liberal side. When asked why she left the Republican Party, she said, “I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.” Her cause then was the poor, civil rights, education, and all she stands for today. I also researched Obama’s background — not what his image and smooth talk projects. I’ve done my homework. How about you, Craig – The Original?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pmI find the radio ads the Obama campaign to be running troublesome, it’s stated that his health care plan covers everyone, yet anyone who has watched any of the debates realizes that even he states his plan for health care will not cover everyone.
I know it’s common for candidates to “stretch” the truth but this is being repeated over and over again full well knowing it’s not true.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pmObama is a communist.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pmNot Again, you are consistent.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pmC’mon ask any Obama supporter a policy question. You get the parrot-like “hope and change…hope and change!” and little else.
I find it odd that a lot of liberal posters used to get upset when Clinton was criticized. Now they bash her harder than the GOP does! Pretty loyal crowd.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pmNot Again, I don’t believe Communist; try Islamic. I don’t mean to bash any religious faith, but why is has he skirted over it — oh I know, he belongs to a Christian church. Of course he does, part of the “organizing” he did in Chicago; that program was through churches. And thank you, again, Lisa, for mentioning the lie I also find disturbing. He states his health care plan will mandate (my word) parents to have health coverage for all “children.” Do they think we forget what we hear? Obama has no plan on anything, except what he can garner from Hillary. She should have spoke up much earlier about always getting the questions first.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:09 amFor months, I was a Hilary supporter, and I still think that her health care plan is superior (significantly supperior). But in the last four weeks I been swinging towards Obama. Some of it is the war — Hilary supported what may be the greatest foreign policy error in American history, she should not get a free pass. It’s not his personality, it’s his overall approach to the issues (and he has specific polilcy ideas — go to his website) and he promising that his administration will be different. Washington is broken, it’s not fully responsible to the rest of us. Hilary would be a good president and a good Democratic president, but I don’t believe that the fundamental nature of Washington will change. At least with Obama, there is a slight hope.
That’s my reasoning, and I have no idea if it is shared by many of his followers, but remember this: Gerorge Bush appealed to many because of his “regular guy” persona as opposed to both Gore and Kerry (remember the video footage of Bush clearing brush on his ranch?). Personality always counts for a lot in political races, especially ones with wall-to-wall media coverage. This isn’t new to 2008.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:23 amMy problem with this crop of politicians is they are promising a lot of pie-in-the-sky without any details on how to make them happen, what costs will be and long term impact on our jobs, economy and monetary system.
Try going to a bank for a business loan armed only rhetoric and no detailed business plan.
The bank will want to know everything right down to the nuts and bolts before entrusting you with their money.
It seems that you can get elected into the whitehouse with less questions asked than you can when trying to borrow money.
Nobody is looking at the nuts and bolts of these political plans.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:38 amDouglas, even with Obama the fundamental aspects of Washington is not going to change. We have congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle who have become lifelong politicians. Many of them don’t represent us as much as they represent those who have made the largest financial contributions to them. As president he has very little control over what Congress does as far as lobbyists, that particular platform would be more realistic if he was running for Congress, still difficult to accomplish but more realistic.
While I understand your position, for me personally it’s the health care and the college tuition programs that I think Clinton is better on. Obama’s plan of $4,000 per student with volunteer hours needed will not only not help our children go to college for more than a semester without being in debt, but it ignores a huge portion of those who go to college, the non-traditional student who is holding down a full time job and many times is a parent, they don’t have the time to be able to volunteer. Clinton’s program of opening up more Pell Grant dollars and holding the interest rate of federal student loans to 2% would enable many more people to afford college for not only more than one semester but to graduate…
March 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am“My problem with this crop of politicians is they are promising a lot of pie-in-the-sky without any details on how to make them happen,”
This crop is any different than any of the others that have run for office?
March 1st, 2008 at 11:17 amI agree that it is very (very, very) unlikely that Obama will change the fundamental nature of Washington. I’m not naive, but sometimes, fundamental, radical change comes to political culture. I believe that a fundamental change in 2009 is more likely (though very unliklely in any case) with Obama in the Whitehouse. Hilary Clinton is her self a life-long political animal.
Though, as a Democrat, I’m mover-the-moon-happy that both my choices on Tuesday are great — Hilary wins, I’m happy, Obama wins, I’m happy.
On health care, Hilary is better, in my mind, without question (I lost my job in October and I, my wife and child are without insurance), and for months I was a supporter of hers. But the war issue and her support of the disasterous bankruptcy reform legislation — reform she opposed (in fact, changed President Clinton’s position on) in the 1990s — are two huge issues for me and they outweigh the others.
But, if Hilary wins Tuesday and she’s on the ballot in November, I’ll _very_ happily vote for her.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:31 amHonestly, is Hilliary really better on heathcare or, better at selling it? Both of their healthcare plans have some real voodoo involved when it comes down to brass tacks.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:58 amHonestly, Hilary’s is better. It covers more people.
And it isn’t voodoo — plans similar to hers work well in nearly all of the indusrialized Western world.
And yes, I’ve lived in Greece and used its health care system. I’ve had insurance from a Fortune 500 employer and all things considered, I prefered the Greek system (and it may be the least well-run of all the European health systems). Variations of Hilary’s plan exsist today, and they work.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pmBut, look at the income taxes on all the socialized health nations. Greece is 40% plus an interest tax and 19% VAT (sales tax). Norway 55%, Germany 55% both with 19% sales tax rates on top of it. The list goes on.
Gasoline costs 1 EUR 48 for a LITER which is $6.04 a gallon for the “cheap” stuff and the taxes involved are used to feed the welfare state.
I lived in Germany and my daughter was born in a German hospital. The bill was close to being 20,000 marks but, since the government was picking up the tab, the hospital could charge whatever for it and still maintain 2nd world conditions.
Those “free” healthcare plans are far from being free.
Both candidates are promising to cut middle class taxes while installing socialized heathcare.
Their plan to tax corperations and the rich? Do you honestly see those corperations simply coughing up all that extra cash for the common good? NO! Any costs sustained will be offset by increasing prices on…drumroll…the middle class consumer! Just about every commodity people use will have to see a price increase to cover the cost spilldown.
They also promise to save jobs! Increase that corp tax and watch business flock to a cheaper tax rate.
Taxing the rich more? Who do you think opens businesses and employs the middle class? The Poor?
The US business tax rate is 35% right now. In order for those healthcare plans to be paid for by raising the corperate tax it would have to be over 40%+!
Does that sound competitive in a global marketplace? Prices will be jacked up or, people will have to be layed off.
Layed off means not paying into the system which equals less money for the government which calls for a higher tax burden…on the middle class!
EVERY country with “free” healthcare schemes taxes the living crap out of it’s citizens. One look at the prices on everything right now tells me that I couldn’t afford to be taxed into an $7 an hour takehome pay. Could you?
What about all the folks who bought homes? Do you think the banks will shed a tear for them when their payments are raised and their income is slashed almost in half?
There is far more to these programs than Obama or, Hillary waving a magic wand and declaring free healthcare. You can’t create something from nothing. As nice as it may sound to escape those insurance premiums and co-pays, you will be paying for it! Whether you use it or, not.
I agree that the healthcare system in this country needs a lot of work but, simply socializing it is a mistake with far reaching consequences.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pmThose politicians use the words “free” and “universal” as a selling point. Nothing more.
You’re likely to be buying something you don’t want.
TANSTAAFL, that’s true in health care like every where else.
But the current system is expensive, and it hurts the productivity of US companies — GM carries some of the costsof insurance for its workers, while Toyota benefits from the Japanese system for its employees based in Japan. Foreign carmakers are now giving weight to putting assembly plants in Canada as opposed to the US in part because of health care costs.
Everyone pays for insurance, but single-payer systems are more efficient because they insure everyone (the larger the pool, the lower the costs; no sales costs) and because there are no investors to reward and no highly-paid (multi-million dollar salaries) executives.
When I had a job, I paid more for insurance that I did on my mortgage, or more than I paid for my son’s education or more than I paid to own two (admittedly small) cars. Then my company down-sized, costing me my job, in part because of the cost of benefits. That too has a cost, one paid by the companies I would have patronized in the last six months, and the ripple effects go out from there.
Single-payer is more efficient. Even if it wasn’t, for many of us, expanding healthcare is a moral imparative.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pmNothing is free. Universal health care would cost only a fraction of what we are paying for the war. I believe Hillary has a plan to start getting the troops home. Yes, she voted for the war on the first go-round, but so did a lot of them that had flawed information. Of course Obama did not vote ‘yes” on that occasion — he wasn’t even there. Who knows what he would have done. As far as his website is concerned, I doubt strongly that he himself contributes. Listen closely, and you will hear Hillary mirrored in almost everything he says. But, on his side. he has all that training in how to speak to raise money, and now the tactic is working for the big one. I’ll take a proven track record over honey-coated, sweet-flowing rhetoric any day.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pmHillary has a proven track record of failure and mistakes. She lost to the insurance companies before so therefore I’m sure she’ll get it right this time. Carty was an insane, racist, egomaniac before, I’m glad he’s so much better this time around.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 amOh, wait…
Look at the stuff Hillary is going with now. I saw a clip of her interview with Conklin on Friday night. She’s playing the fear card in a typical Rovian manner:
“Has he been in the Whitehouse at 3:00 AM when the phone rang? I have.”
Big deal, so was Chelsea. Does that make Chelsea more qualified to be president? She’s a little young…
craig said: “Has he been in the Whitehouse at 3:00 AM when the phone rang? I have.” Big deal, so was Chelsea. Does that make Chelsea more qualified to be president? She’s a little young…
I say: hilarious.
Yeah I’m sure Hillary was the one answering the phone at 3 a.m.
sorry, but being First Lady does not equal “experience”.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 amI disagree, Hillary lived in the White House for 8 years, no matter what type of a role she had, she knows what to expect. She watched it first hand, there will be no learning curve, no debate as to what you need to to first, second, third and she does have a prior relationship with some of the foreign leaders due to those years in the White House. That is real life experience, and I really think trying to diminish her role in during those days when she worked pretty hard as well, as all First Ladies have demeans the commitment that they make to their spouses when their spouses are elected.
I’d also suggest Chelsea was not in the Clinton bedroom at 3:00 a.m. when the phone rang…
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 amSepp, that’s why you never hear Clinton and Obama talk about funding their socialized medicine scheme. They would have to raise the taxes accordingly like in Greece, Norway and Germany to take care of the entire country’s health. It’s another scam from those who want a nanny state form of the federal government. You won’t get national health care for nothing. We all will pay for it big time. Think of the tax hike as one big pay cut for the whole country.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmIt’s funny you should mention Norway, Greece and Germany. They ALL have better healthcare systems than the US. The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pmCurrent estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP, the world’s highest. Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation.
So it looks like we already are paying for the most expensive, least efficient healthcare system in the industrialized world. Why not kick greedy-ass private insurers to the curb and save money by cutting out the middle man?
LR,
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pmCan a policeman’s or fireman’s wife claim to be ready to do their husband’s job because they heard the phone ring at 3:00 AM when they were called into work to deal with an emergency?
Also, how do you know they were sleeping in the same bedroom? Enquiring minds want to know.
So Craig, does money spent equal better health care quality? Where’s your facts?
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm“So Craig, does money spent equal better health care quality?”
More money SHOULD equal better health care, but in the US, it clearly doesn’t. The US leads the world in health care costs but ranks 37th in the world. That’s worse than pathetic.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pmCraig said: “Can a policeman’s or fireman’s wife claim to be ready to do their husband’s job because they heard the phone ring at 3:00 AM when they were called into work to deal with an emergency?
Also, how do you know they were sleeping in the same bedroom? Enquiring minds want to know.”
Pretty stupid craig
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 amHere is a screw up by obama that illustrates his utter incompetence. The guy is a rank amateur. His only qualifications for office are looks and bs.
Quote from story linked below:
Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and after a brief pause said the then-chairman had voted against the war resolution.
However, Rockefeller was not the chair at the time and voted in favor of the war authorization. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was the intelligence committee chair in 2002 and voted against the resolution. Obama did not mention Graham’s name in the passage.
“She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimates. Jay Rockefeller read it. But she didn’t read it. (And after a 13-second pause) I don’t know what all that experience got her because I have enough experience to know that if you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the chairman of the national…umm…Senate Intelligence Committee says you should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war, that you should probably read it. I don’t know how much experience you need for that.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/03/obama-tries-to-shake-off-questions-about-his-foreign-policy-credentials/
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 amHere’s an article from yesterday’s Washington Post that says women are dumber than men:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992.html
Should I base my choice for President on this worthless MSM article?
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 amHere is a story that says women are better liars than men.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334381,00.html
Does this make them better qualified as a politician?
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am37th in what, Craig?
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm