1. Obama has consistently said he’s for intervening in a substantive, boots on the ground way in Darfur. That would suggest that while Rice may be a policy advisor, she doesn’t hold sway over his opinions concerning mass genocide. What he will do once he’s in office is anybody guess, as it is with every other candidate.

2. Health care reform is indeed a complicated issue. As such I don’t agree that it boils down to only the two options you mention. Because what you’re basically proposing is a) complete government control of healthcare or b) a system that penalizes people for not buying health care coverage via the government’s program.

The first idea is obviously dead as disco, but the second one (which is Hillary’s) is full of political landmines. Can you imagine trying to convince Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans we’ll need to pass this thing that we should force people to buy health care or levy a fine against them? And while it’s true that Obama’s could end up not driving down the costs because there could be people left uninsured, I think we’ll ultimately find that the people who need to be covered most (those who get sick and have to have other people pay for them) will be covered by this program. In short, they won’t refuse health care because they desperately need it. And the people who don’t want to be in the system will most likely be people who are relatively healthy and don’t think they need it.

I think Hillary has characterized this stance as naive, but I think what we’re ultimately talking about is a difference in the perceived appearance of one philosophy (mandatory) over another philosophy (optional). And if American politics have taught me anything, people HATE the word mandatory. They want to have choices, even if they’ll all buy into the same system anyway. That’s why I think Obama’s plan ultimately has a better chance of passing and covering the majority of the population and thus driving down the costs as a result.

3. No, Obama is not going to play bare knuckle politics. His entire campaign has been about taking a different approach. But I think there’s genius in that idea because it automatically paints the other side as adversarial if they don’t come to the table with a spirit of some amount of cooperation. The American people will see one side saying, “Hey, we just want to talk about how we can solve problems,” while the other side is saying, “They’re wrong. This will never work.” Obviously this is very simplistic way of describing it, but it boils down to changing the tone of politics, which many in America are currently clamoring for. After all, more voters want “Change” than anything else when polled.

On the other hand, I think Hillary would play bare knuckle and it would be the same old stuff we’ve had for the past 16 years. And ultimately she would ruin liberalism best chance for gaining the type of foothold in the American psyche as Reagan’s conservatism did. This is obviously a philosophical difference, and I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I really think bare knuckle politics will not serve the next President well in either party.

4. I’m going to have to take you to task for that broad generalization. Because if you’re looking just to commentors in blog posts as your gauge of what Barack’s supporters think, well, you need to find other sources. Specifically, you need to start looking at the exit polls from the early primary states that show Barack’s support spans many different age groups and political philosophies. As such, I think if Barack is presented with some compelling facts on the ground, he could take that case to the American people and present them with a new solution. But make no mistake, what he does want to do is get those troops out ASAP so no more of them die and the Iraqi government is forced to stand up on their own.

Jammer, hope these helped clear up a few things about Obama and explains a little more why I’m supporting him. And do know that all of this is out there on his site or in debate transcripts, but it does require a level of attention that most people just don’t have the time for. Since I’m a blogger it’s just part of what I do, but I understand why it’s not a nationwide trend. :-)

One of Obama’s primary foreign policy advisors is Dr Susan Rice, along with other old Clintonistas. She and the others in Obama’s camp, I understand, were dead set against any intervention in Rawanda to stop genocide. This was a biog point of criticism of Bill Clinton by liberals. He says Hillary urged him to intervene, and he believes his failure to do that, by listening to the advisors who said dont, was his greatest error as President. I want my next President to be someone who would intervene in a Rawanda the next time around. Would Obama or wouldnt he, given his advisors of the day.

A position that matters deeply to me is health care reform. I have studied it in depth. I am firmly convinced that whatever reforms are coming, ALL people must participate in the system. There are two ways to do that: single payor, which isnt going to happen, and mandatory insurance. Mandatory insurance is HRC’s plan. I believe, although I stand to be corrected if wrong, that Obama is against mandatory insurance, and wants to get people to buy voluntarily by making insurance more affordable. Laudable in the abstract, but a recipe for not getting everyone into the system. Without getting everyone into the system, the insured end up paying for the uninsured, and the rates for insureds go up and the costs at hospitals go up when they cannot recoup their expenses from someone with no money or insurance.

Is Obama for mandatory insurance and 100% participation of all persons in the health cost system, or is he not?

Is Obama prepared to play ruthless hardball to achieve great goals? All presidents who have achieved great goals have played ruthless hardball. I think what Michael and others mean by experience, in part, is that HRC is well schooled in how to exercise every conceivable lever of power at her disposal to achieve great goals. Is Obama so schooled? Is he prepared to abandon Mr Nice guy when (as I fully expect) the Republicans refuse to play along?

Finally, I see from commentators that many Obama supporters are one issue ponies: did you support or oppose the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and that to them, anyone who voted yes is a conservative. I couldnt disagree more. I know many liberals who were conflicted over the resolution, and who believed Tony Blair if not Bush, that the UN and inspectors was the goal. Some supported it. The Public supported it. The number of people saying they were against it from the start, I believe, is way more than the number who actually vocalized anything against it at the beginning. I surely wish we could progress beyond the, were you for it or agin it 4 years ago, and begin talking in real terms about what to do now. The Repubs are going to be screaming about surrender because the Dems want out. HRC has left herself the room to leave some troops there if the military tells her its needed. What will Obama do if when he gets into office his military tells him it would be a huge mistake to just pull everyone out in 12 months without exception.

So, there are a few substantive issues to chew on and maybe you will respond to them.

I love Obama’s rhetoric, but the devil’s in the details.

Thanks.

No experience? That’s not an opinion Justin, that’s a fact.

Foreign policy: That’s an opinion.

No, that’s not enough of an explanation. You’re again offering few, if any, actual facts as to why Obama is not acceptable and yet Hillary is. All you’ve done is reiterate the opinions you made in your previous post. If that’s all you’re comfortable doing, then that’s how it is, but I wish you’d back it up with something weightier.

Justin, I get a bit tired of this. The problem is that Obama’s all talk, all moderate talk, yet his record – especially as senator in Illinois – is liberal to very liberal. Talking friendly yet pushing through liberal policies isn’t even almost centrist.

Aside from that he has no experience on a national level and, also very important, he’s not good at foreign policy, and even if he showed that he truly understands the issues, he’s too dovish for my taste.

So why am I not supporting Obama? Because I don’t agree with him on the issues and because he lacks experience. Is that enough of an explanation?