Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

Why would you assume that just because young people are behind Obama that we are uninformed. The masses are generally uninformed and uneducated but I can assure you that the young people I associate with are not part of that demographic. Most of us are independent and do not tow a party line. However, we are informed about our decisions and take voting very seriously. We are tired of the status quo and see Obama as a catalyst for change. You may not agree but that doesn't mean that we are ignorant and uninformed.

Certainly, a lot of young people have been caught up in the idea of a candidate who says he will change things, a candidate who seems to express much of what they have been feeling for years. But that does not mean they don't sit down and read through his policies after they go home. Being excited does not equate to being ignorant, and to suggest that it does is a terribly cynical point of view.

Are you out of your mind?

Kimberlee is a very good example of what is going on with Obama support. Obama has been able to generate the illusion that he is a different kind of politician and an agent of "change" (to what is another question). The reality is that he is no different than any other politician over the last hundred years. Of course, he is also a socialist of the first order.

As these young voters go through the election process, they will see him to be a typical politician, become disillusioned and then stay home at the usual rate.

If he were a socialist, he would be promoting a single-payer system for health care coverage. Which he's not. Just mentioning it.

Now, as to Kimberlee (and the rest of those pesky young people), why do you persist in believing that just because they support Obama, they must be deluded? Yes, he is a great orater and a fantastic marketer. He also has extensive policy proposals written out at his website. He markets himself as the candidate of change; on his website he spells out precisely what he would like to change and how: greater transparency in government through video accessibility in Congress (and Congressional committees), availability of legislation to the public on a website -- with the option for any citizen to easily offer feedback -- for a week before voting occurs, greater strictures on lobbyist activities, etc. etc. You who criticize the bloody kids supporting him, have you been to his website and read his platform? You may not agree with the direction he wants to take this country, but he's not all-talk and he's not a socialist and it's surprising to me that you would belittle those who have actually taken the time to research what he is all about.

Re: Posted by: Joel | March 8, 2008 7:45 AM
Joel, I have to assume that you, too, are 'one of those pesky young people' as has been said previously.....You insist that Obama is not a Socialist? If you've listened to him/read his policies, you cannot come to any other conclusion....His policies ARE socialist! Take from the 'rich' and give to the poor? what is that? it's NOT American! THAT is not what made America great!
There are TOO MANY (young and old) who think the government (or someone!) owes them a living...and they should be able to lie around and party and just "live it up" without having to work hard.....THAT is not how it works! A college professor, I've seen the majority of students coming through math classes who DON'T want to do the work...but come crying to me at grade time begging for a higher grade....I've seen and talked to previously successful folks who got 'fed up' with the grind of every day work and want to live on the streets....so WHY should I work hard to pay for them? Faith-based adn other private charitable groups used to help even more than they do today with the truly needy...but we have subsidized drug addicts/alcoholics, and others who are just plain lazy - and wonder why our economy is going down?
I suggest, Joel, that you read EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY - and NOT that which is taught in schools today - which has been censored by the liberal secularists and is NOT what really happened! Go back - research....learn how people REALLY lived, WORKED HARD - and helped each other when crisis occurred.
Obama is a pied piper - you who follow him are young and have no idea of what real life is all about....he has even lied about his own living situation...his wife tells stories of her impoverished youth? she grew up in a nice, albeit not rich neighborhood...she was given the advantage of top-notch education - and has the audacity to complain that Americans are lazy, greedy - and has NEVER been proud of her country? Are you NUTS following these two? I recommend rehab.....maybe go to a Christian retreat....learn to examine some truth!

First off, I never used the word ignorant. Uninformed and ignorant have different meanings; I believe young voters are the former, not the latter.

Taking the position that the "masses are uninformed" is a very cynical point of view. I don't believe that about the "masses;" and I think it is one of the reasons why why Obama's support drops off once you get off a college campus and away from the "elite." After all, Clinton won among working class and union voters.

Going to a candidate's website and reading their platform IS NOT becoming informed about them. That's like going straight to the spin. It's the equivalent of going to a campaign event and listening to speech. Politicians will say whatever it takes to win; actually following through on it is an entirely different task. Young people are the embodiment of that last point...

Becoming informed is looking at a candidate's record; what he's said versus what he's done. When you do this to Obama you find him parsing words and taking multiple positions (Iraq withdrawal, NAFTA), being vague, and generally not really saying anything at all (read his speeches).

Just like any other politician.

The larger point here is that Obama has not really been vetted. The press has been as mesmerized as everyone else with his rhetoric and hadn't taken the time to vet him (though they are starting to now). And it's not just young people who are uninformed about his record, a Texas State Senator who supported him didn't even know much about him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/chris-matthews-humiliates_n_87493.html

And Anonymous, I don't think that comment was supposed to be directed at Joel...

No, anonymous's comments shouldn't have been directed at me. I'm the one that leveled the accusation that Obama is a socialist. At least I didn't say he was a Marxist.

I've been around long enough to have meaningful memories of President Reagan. I've also been around long enough to have talked with and had understand a bit about the last three batches of young people who have been released on American democracy. Every one from the time I was a teen until today believe that they are more educated and informed than either the last generation or every adult.

Sometimes they are well-informed. But I have never seen a generation of 18 to 22 year olds that have an appreciation for history to understand that something the deem as "new" is actually old with a different package. They do not realize that "change" is a mantra in every election for all candidates with the occasional incumbent. Sometimes even incumbents run against themselves. They also have not developed the skepticism of a candidate's platform that causes them to look to that candidate's history to determine what they REALLY believe. That is a characteristic shared by a lot of voters.

(There is also a wisdom issue, that I won't get into now).

I was reading back through these comments and read a bit closer what Celistina said regarding Obama's "platform".

She says that he is for: "greater transparency in government through video accessibility in Congress (and Congressional committees), availability of legislation to the public on a website -- with the option for any citizen to easily offer feedback -- for a week before voting occurs, greater strictures on lobbyist activities, etc. etc."

This being the case, he should stay in the Senate. All of these items are things that are solely in the purview of Congress. These do not require Presidential signature as they ALL regard the Legislature making their own rules (that is a Constitutional thing).