Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the editor:
Obama is still largely unknown
Thursday, July 31, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.
I have been wrestling with the thought of voting for Barack Obama for president, because the country does need a new direction. This objective is very real for both parties; therefore one has to question the legitimacy of each candidate and whether he would be able to change the country’s direction.
My concern with Obama is that his entire career, including teaching law at the University of Chicago, was marked by one clear fact: He always asked good questions and stimulated debate. Yet there was uncertainty at the law school as to where he stood on the issues. This was documented recently in an article in The New York Times.
Therefore my gut reaction is, I don’t know this fellow at all. Not only don’t I know what he really stands for, but I equate voting for him with the current fiasco in real estate: He is a good talker yet he is attempting to purchase a home (in this case the presidency) with nothing down, no visible assets and an interest-only mortgage. Is this whom we want to elect?
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
In a word, Yes. He is thoughtful and has clear stances on all issues the country faces plus he was never for a war based on lies. Can you say that about McCain?
Obama is the best hopechange / changehope America's enemies have. Too many (Hamas, Qaddafi, Achimini-jihad and the Castros have already endorsed him.
The Second term of Jimmy Carter is MUCH scarier and worse off than anything John McCain would do, especially if he adds Romney to the ticket.
This is very funny. I hear this alot. I guess some people don't read the newspaper or pay attention.
I guess they do not know they can go to the candidate's websites to read about their positions on all of the issues and their biography. And Barack Obama and John McCain have written books aswell. Those are great sources of information.
I do not understand why someone would write a letter to the editor but not visit a website, though. I think vising the website would be much easier!
And you can read the candidates positions, without some of the baloney on the internet from bloggers or people who spread rumors and lies.
Marvin, Barack Obama's website is http://www.barackobama.com and John McCain's website is http://www.johnmccain.com.
Hey, go ahead and vote for McCain. Given that Congress is likely to have significant Democratic majority, all you'll get is 4 years of stalemate.
And McCain is the guy who is going to give him the mortgage. Now who do you want to elect, the guy smart enough to take a good deal when he sees one, or the guy who is stupid enough to make a bad deal because he thinks he can make a buck off it.
PS: Compare the John McCain of 2008 to the John McCain of 2000 and tell me what he really stands for. I got very confused when I tried it.
Teachers shouldn't be ideologues. Asking questions and stimulating debate is what the best teaching and learning are about. It speaks well for Obama that he was that type of professor.
I disagree that he doesn't have substance. My goodness, look where this man is from, where he's been, and where he is now, at his age. What intelligence, grit, and determination. And he must have far more sense of average American life than do many politicians.
He also understands that he is lucky, that just hard work does not mean you can make it. The Republicans promote the Pollyanna attitude that people can do whatever they want, if they just work hard. And it's amazing how many people will buy that. (Guess they never developed a chronic illness, or ended up trapped in an abusive relationship, or were victims of an accident not their fault, or lost their life savings through no fault of their own, or just made one devastating mistake with only good intentions and the best judgment they could muster, or never had their very hard work go unrewarded, for whatever reasons, or...) The reason for the R party to promote that idea seems to be to shirk responsibility for citizens, while greedily holding onto a system that loves the obscenely rich.
I read one of Obama's books. He seems very intelligent, analytical, and wise beyond his years. Good that he is not an ideologue. Enough of that. These issues are very, very complicated. We need someone who understands that, pays attention, and makes decisions only with a lot of information and careful consideration. We need someone willing to compromise, too, or else nothing will get done.
dustman: the John McCain of 2008 vs the John McCain of 2000? It's like invasion of the body snatchers. McCain looks the same, but acts completely different.
I thought I had a pretty good handle on McCain in 2000, but since then he's flip flopped on nearly everything. I made a shortlist once:
The offshore drilling moratorium, windfall-profit tax, his own immigration legislation, his own campaign finance legislation, warrantless wiretapping, privatizing Social Security, protecting abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, the estate tax, indefinite detention of terror suspects, normalizing relations with Cuba, diplomacy with Hamas, diplomacy with Syria, waterboarding, the DREAM act, overturning Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, Bush's tax cuts, ethanol, and the Confederate flag.
Now, I'll accept that any candidate can evolve their position on a few issues, but McCain has to be at least a little dizzy.
Isn't Obama the same guy who spent 20 yrs. attending a church that espouses hatred towards whites - oh and he then claims he 'didn't know'. Seems to me if that's the truth then this man is way too stupid to be president - how can one listen to a preacher preaching hatred towards whites for 20 yrs. and NOT KNOW it's all about race? And let's not forget he's the same guy who denied his 'white' parentage/ancestry for fear of being looked upon as too white - this man is a fraud - plain and simple - and someone to be very afraid of as it pertains to the leadership of this country. And then there's McCrane who, along with Obama, thinks we should reward criminals aka ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, by granting them citizenship - God help this country is all I can say.
Obama has voted for FISA.
He is promising to remove all combat brigades in 16 months, but he is also considering keeping up to 80,000 troops in Iraq.
http://www.prorev.com/2008/07/obama-will...
News flash: Obama voted for FISA!
Oh, wait. We already knew that.
As for Obama "considering" keeping 80,000 troops in Iraq, there was another post today claiming it was 60,000. Which is it?
And let's cut some more words out of context in that article:
"Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign's Iraq position."
"In an interview yesterday, a senior Obama foreign affairs adviser, Susan Rice, said the Iraq working group is not the last word on the campaign's Iraq policy."
"We have experts and scholars with a range of views and Barack appreciates this range of views. They are in think tanks and like me they write in their own voice, they are people who do their independent scholarship. Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for what we all write," she said. Ms. Rice said she had not seen the paper, which is marked as a draft and "not for attribution without author's permission."
"Mr. Obama's policy to date also allows for a residual force for Iraq. In early Iowa debates, the senator would not pledge to remove all soldiers from Iraq, a distinction from his promise to withdraw all combat brigades. Also, Mr. Obama has stipulated that he would be open to having the military train the Iraqi Security Forces if he received guarantees that those forces would not be the shock troops of one side of an Iraqi civil war.
But the Obama campaign has also not said how many troops would make up this residual force. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," Ms. Rice said. She added, "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
Hmmm. Context is a powerful thing.
I guess you have not learn to read.
In one post I said over 60,000 and in another post I said up to 80,000.
80,000 is over 60,000.
I was quoting from the Obama adviser's paper.
You are right that Obama is being extremely vague on how many troops he is planning to keep Iraq. The only number ever mention is the 60,000 to 80,000 number that comes the "confidential" secret memo from Obama key adviser.
LOL...I am sure that a lot of people think he will remove ALL TROOPS. Even theBS says that he will kept some troops.
I agree with Ms. Rice, it would be "worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
We do not know what situation we will face in the future. It could be better, it could be worse. Obama is wisely keeping his options open and has said he will wait to see what the conditions are on the ground and consult with military leaders before he makes his decision.
A leader who can think on his feet and adapt? We should be so lucky.
Voting for FISA....keeping troops in Iraq....wanting to attack Pakistan.....Obama is sounding more and more like Bush everyday!
I am sorry jfnance32. I thought I had explained this to you in the other news article. And you even seemed to understand.
Barack Obama is not going to attack Pakistan. He does not want to kill thier President or their Prime Minister. He is going to attack al quaeda! Pakistan is not al quaeda!
And you agreed with Barack Obama when you said: "You do not have to move all the troops out Iraq if all you going to do is to shoot missiles from drones at terrorist bases in Pakistan. It would be smart to keep a certain level of troops in Iraq to make sure it is a stable country. We can move some troops from Iraq to Pakistan."
But over here you are contradicting yourself. Are you exaggerating again?
I am just pointing out to the folks that Obama is sounding more and more like Bush every day.
Obama did say: "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
I like that statement. I would have sworn that it was something Bush said.
Obama is saying that he will launch an attack on sovereign Pakistani soil even if the Pakistani government forbids it.
Go Bush...I mean Go Obama!!!!
Um, you have that backwards. Bush has finally embraced Obama's positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. He may try to couch it in different words (time horizon?), but Bush is quickly moving in Obama's direction, not the other way around.
It's probably the only way to save his legacy.
I am glad the Pakistani government is letting us take action in northern Pakistan. They are even sending troops in to take care of al quaeda! And they let us bomb some high ranking al quaeda officers. I am glad they agree that al quaeda is a major threat.
You say that Obama is like Bush, but I don't think that's the case. Bush has not been aggressive about attacking al queda. Only when Obama said we should keep our eye on al queada did Bush begin attacking them. I think Bush has finally begun to listen to Obama. Bush thinks we can withdraw some troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. That has been Obama's plan all along. I think he sees Obama's strong leadership and how many people like him and wants to act like Obama so his poll numbers will improve.
I think Bush is sounding more and more like Obama. And now so is McCain. When people see a great leader they tend to follow them.
Good for Obama....looks like he is promising to have those terrorist bases in Pakistan destoryed by the end of this first term.
Way to go, super hero Obama!!!!!
I wish I had more time to respond to some of these ridiculous posts I’m reading on here, but my life is too busy like most Americans. It amazes me how many Obamanites blog on here everyday, trying to persuade the average voter to vote for Obama. Is it just me, but can anyone see how Obama is being described as almost flawless and impeccable? Can anyone see how McCain, McSame, McLame, McIsane, or whatever derogatory name libs come with is being totally demonized? I mean, McCain has crossed over and voted with Dems in the past with the Bush tax cuts and amnesty for illegals. How could he possibly be that bad to liberals? Seriously, read some of these post that pretty much imply that a vote for McCain is a vote for the end of the world and a vote for Obama is a ticket to the Pearly Gates. Oh wait, libs are atheist so that’s a bad analogy, but you get my point.
FOR THE AVERAGE VOTER, these blogs are going to be filled with pro Obama discourse from liberals who dominate the internet blogs to push their propaganda. Our state of Nevada is a swing state so you are going to see the comment sections of our local newspaper blow up with liberal bloggers. Most of them won’t even be from Nevada, but will represent themselves as if they are. It’s all designed to influence you to vote for their almighty Obama. How do you identify these liberal bloggers? 1. They refer you to Obama’s personal website or other liberal websites for “facts”. 2. Here’s a big scam. The blogger will say, “I’ve been a Republican all my life, but now I’m voting for Obama because….” A total fallacy to try to influence the reader, A Jedi mind trick! 3. McCain being portrayed as the demon and Obama the angel. Just some things to consider.
It’s impossible to concern ourselves with every issue in the world. Stick to the ones that hit home. I personally don’t believe in bigger government and higher taxes. I rely on me to support myself and my family. I don’t look for handouts from the government. I don’t believe in paying taxes for social programs that support people who don’t want to work. I support our military which fights for our freedom and I am proud to be a veteran of the Air Force. I don’t support open borders, amnesty for illegal’s, gay marriage, cut & run war tactics, or no domestic drilling for oil. Being that Obama, based on his voting record, is the most liberal in the senate I don’t see how he will benefit our country as president.
In my eyes a vote for McCain is also a vote against the media which I feel is trying to hijack this election from the American people. Their overwhelming coverage of Obama is unfair and there’s a reason for it. The mainstream media is liberal and McCain’s agenda doesn’t fit theirs. The media should report the facts to the American people, but most put their liberal ideology over everything. Anyway, that’s my opinion. I urge the good folks of Nevada to vote. No matter whom you choose to vote for ensure that your voice is heard!
Press 1 for McCain
Press 2 for Obama
Prss 3 for NONE of the Above...
Why does the staff here want to remove a post that suggests that maybe Obama is the racist since he spent 20yrs. affilitated with a preacher who espoused hatred towards the white folks.....and then claims "he didn't know" which, if true, proves my next point - he's too stupid to be president just as Bush was too stupid to NOT let people know that he wasn't aware that price of a gallon of gas was over 4.00. Why in the world would you want to let the very nation you are supposed to be leading know you were that unaware. Of course we know the price of a gallon of gas means nothing to these politicians who are worth millions but at least be smart enough not to advertise the fact. Maybe the Sun staff will yank this comment also.
mwh710: As a white mother I can't wrap myself around anyone who chooses to disavow the very person that gave them life - and apparently all because of the color of her skin -
The old saying about wanting to know how your husband will treat you - just look at how he treats his mother - couldn't be more true - how is he going to treat the people of this country when he has no problem dumping on his own mother. Vote for him if you will and be prepared to live with the consequences when the REAL Obama comes to surface. Buyer beware.....
firedawg, you seem to be reading what you want to read into the posts. Looks to me like you take what people say and skew it to match your beliefs and prejudices. By the way, I've been registered as an Independent all my life- until this past year, when I reregistered Democrat to caucus for Obama. That's a fact. It is not a fallacy or a Jedi mind trick. It is a fact. You could find it in public records.
Obama's pastor did not preach hatred of white people. Obama did not disavow his mother because she is white. Obama was for years not raised by his mother, because she was in no position to raise him. Maybe he was hurt by that situation. Sounds to me like he has reasons to have some issues with his parents. He was raised by his white grandparents. Has he "disavowed" them because they're white? The man is half white, for goodness sake. He does not hate white people. Why must racists believe that all black Americans (or half black Americans) must hate white Americans? Because they know how they feel about blacks?
If people simply believe what they want to believe, without regard for facts, this country will continue going down.
"Why does the staff here want to remove a post that suggests that maybe Obama is the racist since he spent 20yrs. affiliated with a preacher who espoused hatred towards the white folks.....and then claims "he didn't know"
Before Barry O really gained momentum over Hillary (thank god she lost), he explained his lack-of-experience away as claiming he "has better judgment" and thus compensates, if memory serves.
To have sat "in the pews" since his late-20s until two months ago - to have grown up politically in that environment - to have made every important political contact there, to raise a family there and on and on and on....
....and he claims he knew little of what Wright, Pheleger(sp), Dohrn and Ayers, Reszko(sp), Frank Marshall Davis and so on...
His judgments come from there. His proposals come from there. He doesn't have the time away nationally FROM them to escape THEM.
Jerome Corsi just came out with an interesting research project into Obama.
He's not running as the next white POTUS; nor the first Mulatto(sp) - but the first black POTUS. Race isn't off the table, but is not even NEEDED to defeat this Carteresque / McGovernist (D) candidate.
There should be NO inoculation of this guy, for any reason.
I'm an optimist for America's future. The ones talking our world down are the LSDs.
With all due respect, azsk8fan, I read that comment before it was deleted, and you're painting quite a pretty picture of what it said.
Paul Begala said it best: "Every change agent faces these attacks: He's new, he's scary, he's untested, he's dangerous. The Democrats tried them on Reagan — and the Republicans in turn tried them on Clinton. Reagan and Clinton won, in part, because they did not allow the election to be focused on those attacks. Reagan made the election about Carter; Clinton made it about Bush. Obama badly needs this election to be about the failures of Bush and McCain. "
I agree with theBS.
I think only housewives in North Dakota are afraid of Barack Obama. They keep reading those emails that lie about him. It is a shame the republicans have to smear him to win.
I think Barack Obama is doing a really good job so far. He is nothing to be afraid of.
I am an optimist of the future too, and I think a black President is a good sign to the rest of the world that America is back!
John McCain should not say anything about Barack Obama's race. That is below the belt. I don't think most voters care that Barack Obama is black. That is ignorant if they do.
You said that Barack Obama met all of his political contacts at church? That must be a gigantic church. Does Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi go to that church?
I don't think so. I think that is made up. And he does not hate white people, he has many white friends, and his grandparents are white!
Why do so many people lie about him?
Oh, and firedawg2000 I am not an atheist. That is rude.
I am tired of all the lies.
Jerome Corsi? LOL!
You mean the debunked Swift Boat "Veteran for Truth?"
What a source!
http://mediamatters.org/items/2004080600...
I won't even repeat the vile, hate-filled filth that comes from him.
Then again, his particular style of arguing seems... so familiar.
Ksand - And I'm tired of your white guilt! Vote for a guy because he is black? America will be back just because we would have a black president? What kind of bs is that? Look, I know blacks were treated badly in this country for along time, but nor I or my Mexican/Moroccan family had anything to do with. My sympathy only goes so far, but not as far as to hand a blackman the presidency to make up for it. That's insane! Find another way to get over your white quilt.
Judging by how you're so offended by so many words in these comment sections, you're probably a serious liberal who got ridiculed in high school. How else to you explain your little feelings getting hurt by people on here that you don't even know. Some things I say are sarcasm. I'm a man, its natural for me to bust balls. I swear, you libs feverishly search the net, newspapers, and other media outlets looking for something to be offended by so you can request your daily apology. Liberals need a daily apology like I need coffee in the morning. Get over yourself, you're not that important!
Obama is not doing a great job. He just lost 9 points in the general election gallop poll since his "don't I look like a president?" tour in europe. Him and McCain are now tied. If you think polls are insignificant, then why did he today just shift his position on offshore drilling in the gulf? C'mon Ksand, spin some, errrr, I mean throw some facts at me.
Obama is either tied or only 1-2 points in the polls.
Historically, at this point in time, the Democratic nominee is 10 to 15 points ahead of the Republican.
Obama is not the offical winner of the Democratic Party nomination process. He has not offically received a majority of the votes. That will occur in the convention when the super delegates vote.
If the Democrats are smart then they should nominate someone else in the Denver Convention.
Nawwwwww....Democrats are not smart.
They should have nominated a white popular moderate governor from the South (you know another Bill Clinton). If they did that then they would have crushed the Repubican ticket in every tier of government. Thank God, Democrats often shoot themselves in the foot. They would have done 1000x's better if they nominated Hillary.
Obama is going to be a drag on the ticket. By Nov, many Democrats running in red or purple states will say, "Obama who?"
I guess you are upset we did not nominate a white governor? I do not prejudge people, so I don't care that Barack Obama is black.
Barack Obama is a human. I don't understand people who are prejudiced or racist. They only think white people should be nominated? This is 2008. I'm proud we have a black candidate.
I did not say vote for Obama because he is black. You are making up things now. What is "white guilt?" You seem to be very angry. I am sorry if I made you angry.
Who's the prejudiced one here? You implied housewives are scared of black people and therefor wont vote for Obama. You probably feel that whoever doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. Race card is another propaganda tool used by liberals such as yourself to get people to support your candidate. Obama did play the race card by saying he doesn't look like the presidents on dollars bills. What else do you think he was implying? Get real Ksand and stop being such an ideologist and show some love for your fellow American.
If you don't know what "white guilt" is, google it. You'll find plenty of info. Then go seek treatment.
Also, you don't make me angry, you make me laugh! You're such a little cheerleader for Obama that its hiliarious. I haven't seen this many brain-washed followers of a person since Jim Jones. If Obama wants you to participate in a group kool-aid drinking session, DON'T DO IT!
firedawg2000, please reread my comment. I did not say that housewives in North Dakota are afraid of Obama because he is black. I said they are afraid of him because of the lies and smears being spread by email. There is no lie being spread by email saying he is black. I did not imply that. You should read my words more carefully before calling me prejudiced.
I am not playing any race cards. I do not understand why people are saying that only white people should be nominated because they are the only ones who can win. I have said I don't care what race Obama is. I hope no one cares what race Obama is. But you have people on this website who are saying Obama is racist and ashamed of white people and that is not true.
I love America, and my fellow Americans. That is why I think Obama will win, most Americans will not care that he is black. And there is no doubt that a black man as President will send a much different message to the world than the 43 preceeding rich white men.
But I do think Obama represents the dreams and aspirations of many African Americans. That is another thing we can be proud of. That is not a racist thing to say, nor is it your "white guilt." I could also say he represents the hopes and dreams of many citizens of Illinois. Is that also "white guilt?"
I understand that some people do not believe in Obama's platform. They are good voters if they are informed and make informed decisions. I do not think that just because someone does not vote for Obama they are racist. I never said that and I don't think that. I do think some racist people will not vote for Obama, but that is awful.
I am sorry you want to belittle me and call me names like "brain-washed." I did not insult you. I expect the same courtesy.
KSAN - "And there is no doubt that a black man as President will send a much different message to the world than the 43 preceeding rich white men."
Um, could you please tell me what that message is, how that world message is going to help everyday Americans, and why I should concern myself with what the world thinks of America?
"I do think some racist people will not vote for Obama, but that is awful."
Over 90% of black people voted for Obama in the primarys and the same percentage support him for president. Do you think some blacks might not vote for McCain because he's white? If so, would you consider them racist? Or is that astounding lopsided support for Obama just pride being shown for a black candidate by the black community?
If you consider "brain-washed" name calling, then you must go through alot of tissue everyday. You're very sensitive. I'll make you a deal. You stop being so condescending in your post like we're all below your intelect and I'll stop ribbing you. Geez, I swear you liberals are no fun. SO SENSITIVE!
I guess you have not heard that old adage... no man is an island.
It's very simple, really. We need allies and support from the international community. When Bush began his war on Iraq, a major criticism was that we lacked the proper number of troops to get the job done. Had we enlisted the help of more allies, the war on Iraq could've been over much sooner. But his selfish, stubborn "Yippie-ki-yay" cowboy isolationism backfired.
And if you think eradicating al quaeda is going to be easy without allies, then I have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about. And Barack Obama's belief in diplomacy can do nothing but help, whereas John McCain sings dittys about bombing countries. And he doesn't want us to think he's just like Bush?
You hit the nail on the head, pride has a lot to do with it. And I simply don't believe the racism argument, as the vast majority of those black voters have voted in the past... for white men for President.
88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry in 2004. Were they racist? Or were the 11% who voted for Bush, the other white man, racist? Hey, those results are lopsided! Maybe we should cry racism! LOL! That argument is completely bogus.
Yes, I think "brain-washed" is name calling because it lowers the quality of the political dialogue. I just disproved one of your ill-conceived arguments with facts, so who is brain-washed, here? Again, courtesy is all I ask.
Obama = Bush
Bush is for keeping troops in Iraq.
Obama is for keeping troops in Iraq.
Bush is for FISA.
Obama is for FISA.
Bush is for bombing Pakistan without permission from Pakistani permission.
Obama is for bombing Pakistan without permission from Pakistani permission.