True that Obama and Hillary would raise taxes and propose national healthcare (a disaster waiting to happen), but the republicans do so much other damage to the economy – through fiscal deficit irresponsibility and pork barrel projects and corporate welfare, the next effect is the same. I really cannot distinguish among the candidates or parties on ultimate economic results of their policies, whatever they may be. Hopefully, congress with reign them in.

So, I choose basically on social issues/political rights and on leadership. Obama was right on Iraq, worked tirelessly on Ethics reform, has run a grassroots – non-establishment campaign, does not take lobbyist money, wants a more transparent government, preserves an element of choice in his healthcare plan, and appears to be smart and open minded, i.e., not ideological. If someone showed him a better way to achieve a particular end, I think he would listen. Also, he really does not like negative campaigning, though he has to do some just to deal with the Clinton-spin machine.

I really wish we had someone with a more consistent freedom philosophy who had a chance at winning. In the meantime, I’m for Obama.

You made your case as far as I’m concerned. As for his media star I suspect it’s because he’s an eloquent speaker and an attractive guy (and a minority who doesn’t scare the hell out of voters) so that may have something to do with it. He’s also a new face without an obvious track record in the Senate so that probably helps (nobody’s more popular on the football team than the backup QB). Obama’s definitely led a charmed life considering what a walk in the park his campaign was (with Jack Ryan pulling out to be replaced by Alan Keyes).

I hadn’t really looked at his gun control record but he’s voted the wrong way on that everything that’s been presented to him as far as I can see:

http://www.ontheissues.org/states/IL_Gun_Control.htm

Combine that with his health care position (I’ll never vote for a candidate that’s for socialized medicine)…well, so much for him being least-worst.

I will disagree somewhat and say that although Jesse Jackson’s an absolute con artist, I’m not so sure that should be held against Obama for having ties to him. Jackson’s a big name in the area so it’s unlikely that any prominent black politician isn’t going to have connections to him somehow. The real question is, how do those ties affect his vote? If there isn’t really any effect and Obama isn’t involved with the other crap Jackson pulls (like the shakedowns of white-owned businesses), then I’d say it’s not all that damning…it’s almost impossible to be a politician and not occasionally rub elbows with shady people. Is their involvement anything more than communication?

1) Favors the Daly – Blagojavich gun control policies.

2) Favors some kind of national “Hillary” care program.

3) Is an eloquent speaker, but when you analyze his speeches, he isn’t really saying anything of substance.

4) Claims to believes in tax reform, but voted for tax increases in Illinois and still believes everyone should pay a substantial part of their incomes in various taxes.

5)Is another true believer in the global warming hoax, the cause that is.

6) Kept close ties with Jesse Jackson as still does for all I know.

If you read his platform, he says he wants to change a lot of things, but any specific plan or even an outline is suspiciously missing.

While he was a minor league State Senator, he did as he was told by Daly and the Democratic machine, which means he voted for socialism and any anti – gun measure that came down the pike. We are all wondering how he became such a national media star in such a short time as his record here as a State senator is really quite abysmal. He was hardly known outside of the democratic machine political circles and most people here never heard of him until he ran for US Senator. I only knew of him and his agenda because of my activity in the Illinois pro gun movement. Also, he claims to have mistakenly voted on several issues, saying he thought he voted yes when he actually voted no or vise versa. How can anyone trust this mental dufus with the office of president?

Nice, I like how you guys aren’t above swearing at people who even mention Ron Paul

There are actually a lot of Paul supporters we don’t swear at for sharing their views on the candidate. They’re the ones who bring up good arguments, debate policy, etc. and we can come to rational and civil agreements or disagreements. If Paul supporters bring up issues first instead of starting out with ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, or comments that are completely unintelligible they’re generally treated with the same respect as anyone else. There are, however, a good number of trolls who support Ron Paul and frankly I don’t think trolls deserve much respect.

Obama is a vacuous empty suit, how any of you can respect him is beyond the pale, but then I have had to live in Illinois with him for a long time. He is just another lying politician, I have no respect for any of them.

I don’t personally so much respect him as think he might be the least-worst of all the likely winners in the race (or maybe not). That said I’m still not voting for the guy…he’s just too far apart from me on key issues (health care being the prime example). I can’t speak for anyone else here on this, of course, and they each have their own opinions.

If you’ve got specific instances where you think Obama falls short would you mind sharing them? You say you’re from Illinois, so I’m curious what the perspective is there and why…it would probably be useful to the discussion.

Obama is a vacuous empty suit, how any of you can respect him is beyond the pale, but then I have had to live in Illinois with him for a long time. He is just another lying politician, I have no respect for any of them.

That said, I can’t imagine Hillary or Edwards giving libertarians the time of day. I can imagine Obama doing that, though.

Of course, it’s always possible that I’m lying to myself, and that I just like Obama because he has a chance to stop Satan….err, Hillary.

One thing about the socialized medicine point. My understanding of his health care proposal is that it’s the least socialized of just about every major candidate except McCain and (obviously) Paul. Certainly, his health care plan has repeatedly raised the ire of the Krug-Man for being insufficiently socialized. But I could be wrong about the extent to which his proposal is socialized.

Then again- our current system of employer-based health insurance has major problems, representing a totally screwed up set of incentives, and not really allowing for much individual choice of insurance plans. I’m not in favor of any kind of socialized medicine, but I also think that the current system is much more representative of fascist (in the non-perjorative sense) corporatism than of capitalism.

Again, though, my support of Obama has less to do with his positions on specific issues than it has to do with what I perceive to be a fairly liberal (in the classical sense) vision, combined with a more considered, less hasty approach to that vision. By which I mean that he seems less susceptible (though by no means immune) to the “somebody do something” state of mind that causes so many problems of government intervention.

I also think that a President’s agenda on domestic policy is overrated in terms of importance except for when his party is in lockstep with him and has big majorities in both houses of Congress, or when the President wants to make sure he has built an overwhelming coalition in support of his policy before he implements it (which Obama seems to practice by most accounts). After all, we’re electing a President not a dictator; as long as that President understands separation of powers and the limits of executive authority (which Obama does far more than anyone else except for Paul), then his views on foreign policy are more important than his views on domestic policy.

I guess the thing with Obama is that he seems (emphasize “seems”) willing to give just about every group a seat at the table on a given policy as long as they share ends that could be deemed roughly “liberal” in the classical sense. I could very well be wrong about that, but I don’t get that impression from any other candidate in either party (except maybe the now-departed Richardson).

…If the above was relatively incoherent, I apologize, as I’m home sick today.

I’ll never cast a vote for McCain, which is a policy I’ve long adhered to. That being said, I’ll never vote for Obama either. I could come up with a list of anti-Obama points (such as his support for some sort of socialized/mandated health care) that would likely be up there with McCain’s.

As it stands, I don’t like either of them, but I find both McCain and Obama to be better than Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton and Edwards. If I had to pick between McCain and Obama, I’d probably pick McCain, since he’s most likely going to be our best shot at stopping whatever the Democrats in Congress try to push through. Gridlock is good.

Obama vs. McCain? McCain.

1) Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform
2) 2006 Military Commissions Act
3) Continued involvement in Iraq

There’s no way in hell I’ll ever cast a vote for McCain. He had a key role in creating two of the worst pieces of legislation during the Bush administration (limiting free speech and allowing the torture of prisoners). Combine that with the fact that he wants to continue this generation’s Vietnam for no other discernable reason than personal political advantage and I don’t really see any difference between him and Bush.

At this point, I think it is in our interest to support the LP nominee and be prepared to endure the eventual winner the same way we endure Bush.

I’d say that’s about right. None of the probable winners out of the GOP or Democrats are going to be very libertarian. Obama’s probably least-worst but socialized medicine’s pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I can’t ever see myself voting for a candidate who supports it.

There’s a history with my disdain for “Paulestinians”. Most of them are just sycophants, crazy people, or idiots (e.g. “truthers”, racists, anti-Semites) who don’t actually know anything about the pro-freedom aspects of Ron Paul’s platform. They don’t make arguments about policy, they just whine about people who won’t unconditionally support their candidate or blame conspiracies for Paul’s poor showings. Every once in awhile I just get sick of their bitching and feel a need to tell them to go fuck themselves. A bit childish, perhaps, but we’re all human.

I wasn’t referring to you in particular or all Paul supporters, if that’s what you’re wondering…my comments were addressed at “getUP”. You’ve generally been okay by me and I’ve met quite a few Ron Paul supporters who back him for good reasons. Heck, I used to be a Paul supporter until I got fed up with how incompetent his campaign has been run and his rather disingenuous handling of the newsletter scandal.

If you were referring to my comments about Obama, I was just saying that he seems to be the least-worst candidate out of all the potential winners. He’s still not least-worst enough for me to vote for him though. I’d rather throw my vote away on a third party.

Obama vs. McCain? McCain.
Obama vs. Romney? Undecided.

Any of the above vs. Paul? Paul.

All that being said, I believe (note: I don’t want this) that the president elected in 2008 will be a Democrat. If that is true, I would prefer that Obama be that Democrat.