Positive Obama thread

Little-G

RM..I understand your point on the popular vote and electoral votes.  I don't however believe that 1/2 the country is not on board with Obama.  I think it's a much smaller base, but I have no figures I can give you on that.  I suppose my point is what is to be gained by hashing over the topic of the birth certificate?  And other non-issues when there are such losses going on all around us.  I have to some what agree with the thought of "shut up and get over it" at this point in time.  We are not under ordinary circumstances where we may otherwise have the luxury to debate each and every move that is made.  We do need to rally together and get this machine up and running, better than it ever has. And to do that, it takes a collective effort. Not nit picking at irrelevant issues.  Or what should be irrelevant. 

Little-G

I have to add...a key item repubs seem to be forgetting is that W is still in the white house!! It is under his reign that your assets are disappearing in front of your eyes. Let's keep that in check.  

mke

I'm finding it interesting how much disagreement there appears to be over what a natural born US citizen is. I'm sure the framers of the Constitution did not envision all the possibilities that exist today. My guess is that they were more worried about European dominance. And the rules for citizenship through parentage have, I believe, changed through the years. They certain;y vary by country.



This has the potential to be so much more complicated. If a surrogate baby is born in Canada of a Canadian mother and a US father - is that a natural born US citizen? What if the gestational surrogate mother is Mexican and the father is US and the genetic mother is French and the baby is born in Canada?



All these things may be unlikely, put they are possible and I'm not sure that our rules for dealing with parentage and citizenship are quite up to dealing with them. Our technologies, such as reproductive and transnational travel, are outstipping our definitions.



I find this particularly interesting as I gather my kids, born in Canada of US parents are natural born US citizens (and I'm sure they were naturally born), but what if they were never registered until they were 40?


My attempt at an citizenship story


During WW II a single room in Ottawa was ceded to the Netherlands
Photo by uOttawa. Ottawa, Ontario - In 1943 Princess Margriet Francisca (younger sister of Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard, the current Queen of the Netherlands) was born at the Ottawa Civic Hospital - the only royal ever to be born in North America. The Dutch Royal Family had fled to Canada in 1940 after the WWII invasion of their country. Among their problems - the expected royal child needed to be delivered on Dutch territory to be a Dutch citizen. So, Canada ceded this one hospital maternity room temporarily to the Netherlands. Each year Ottawa receives 20,000 tulip bulbs from the Royal Family and the Dutch Bulb Growers, as a thank you for sheltering the Royal Family, and for Canada's help with liberation of the Netherlands during WWII. As a result, now the gardens of Ottawa burst into bloom each year in early May as the city celebrates the world's largest tulip festival. About three million flowers blossom throughout the region.
Where: There is a 15 km (nine mile) scenic drive called the Tulip Route, which follows the historic Rideau Canal to the Parliament buildings and major's Hill Park and then across the Ottawa River to the Outaouais. Quick Tips: Known as the 'festival without fences' all tulip events along the Tulip Route are free. You can see about 300,000 blossoms at Commissioners Park near Dows Lake.

Anonymous

I have to add...a key item repubs seem to be forgetting is that W is still in the white house!! It is under his reign that your assets are disappearing in front of your eyes. Let's keep that in check.  

I don't think ANYONE has forgotten that he is in the WH now.  For me, it's too bad that he is still there.  I am all for moving forward with BO ... lets get in and start moving forward.  But am I going to watch what he says and does? Yes. Am I going to criticize if I find fault?  Yes.  Just because I can't do the job doesn't mean I cannot criticize.  He's made a lot of promises and just like politicians of the good old USA ... most of the promises are not kept.  I don't think Obama is going to be any different.  Do I hope I am wrong?  Yes. 

Watchdogs are helpful, it helps to know that someone is watching so the foxes don't eat the chicken and steal the eggs.  Last term, the Dems were watchdogs, this time its' the Republicans turn. We live here in the USA where it's allowed to talk about what's wrong with government. 

Little g .. you are also forgetting that I said I was not a believer in this birth certificate thing. I am not hashing it out ... maybe you skim my posts, so let me clarify:   I was just asking as to WHY he didn't just shut the naysayers down with the proof.  I was also asking why grace called it racism.  I also asked in a respectful way.  I am not here to lead or pressure you all to be Republican.   But this thread knows more about Obama than I do, so I come here to ask a question and I do it politely. 

Regarding people pitcing in together, I don't think that will ever happen ... especially if taxes are raised and more gov't programs come into being.  Republican leaders won't vote for that. Nor will they want to see Federal laws as to how to govern/run the state ... republicans want less government and more states deciding.

I don't know who supports regulation?  Reps or Dems ... but I would hope that whichever party doesn't like it needs to learn to love it because our banking, investment and stock markets need regulation.  I think regulation keeps honest people honest and the dishonest ones are forced to be honest.  It seems that when deregulation happened on the mortgage industry and they were allowed to trade mortgages on the stock market, the *** hit the fan!!!

Anyway, thanks Amy for understanding what I was asking.

djd

Regarding stats about what percentage of people voted for whom, any single statistic can be cherry picked to make an argument to support their assertion, but I don't think that it is accurate to cherry pick and draw any broad conclusions (like our buddies Sean and Rush who make a living from it!)

Here's a great article from Bloomberg today that shows all the slices of groups by education, geography, party, age, etc., and how they voted.   It's very interesting, and does a good job of laying out all the reasons for the final results:

******************

Obama Won Without Voter-Turnout Surge Experts Had Predicted 

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama bet on an unprecedented surge of new voters to carry him to victory last month. He won without the record turnout.

About 130 million Americans voted, up from 122 million four years ago. Still, turnout fell short of the 140 million voters many experts had forecast. With a little more than 61 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, the 2008 results also didn't match the record 63.8 percent turnout rate that helped propel President John F. Kennedy to victory in 1960.

"I was very surprised on election night as I was seeing the totals as they were mounting," said Rhodes Cook, a turnout and voting-behavior expert in Virginia.

Experts attribute the shortfall to a combination of reasons: Many disaffected Republicans stayed home. Young voters, particularly those without college degrees, didn't turn out in the numbers that the Obama campaign projected. In states where the presidential race wasn't in doubt -- such as Obama strongholds in California and New York, or reliably Republican outposts such as Oklahoma and Utah -- turnout was lower than in 2004.

An exception was fiercely contested Ohio, where turnout fell from 2004 even after the state was targeted as a top priority by both parties.

Obama, 47, did benefit from unprecedented support among black voters and from increased turnout in demographic groups that backed the Democrat, exit polls show. Seven of the eight states with the biggest increases in turnout have large African- American populations. That dynamic probably helped Obama win in North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, according to experts.

Increased Support

Compared with the 2004 Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Obama increased support by 14 percentage points among Latinos, by 3 points with suburban residents, and by 17 points from voters earning $200,000 a year or more.

Among various age groups, only voters 65 and older favored the Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain.

McCain, 72, and Obama only fully competed in about a third of the states, where both sides expended enormous resources. In most of them, turnout soared, jumping 12 percent in Virginia, 18 percent in North Carolina, and 10 percent in Indiana, according to data compiled by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University in Washington.

In contrast, there was a 3 percent decline from 2004 in California and a 6 percent drop-off in New York. There also were declines in heavily Republican states such as Utah.

Fewer Republicans

A depressed Republican vote probably accounts for a large measure of the smaller-than-forecast turnout numbers.

In 2004, both parties "did a great job" in turning out their voters, Cook said. This time, Democrats mobilized 9 million more voters than in the previous election, while the Republican support dropped by 3 million votes.

"The Democrats did their job in terms of voter turnout, but the Republicans did not do their job," Cook said.

That particularly may have helped Obama in Ohio. McCain received 275,000 fewer votes than President George W. Bush did in 2004, while Obama topped Kerry's total by 43,000 votes.

A chart compiled by Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, shows that Ohio's turnout fell by more than 4 percent from 2004. In Republican precincts across Franklin County, which includes Columbus, there was a fairly uniform 6-to-7 percent decline in turnout.

TV Advertising

Nationally, the McCain campaign diverted funds from its get- out-the-vote effort for a television advertising blitz in the final week of the presidential campaign in battlegrounds such as Virginia and North Carolina.

Participation by young voters, who showed enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy during the campaign, rose by only 1 percent from 2004.

National exit polls showed Obama winning 66 percent of voters under age 30, a larger share than President Ronald Reagan garnered in 1984. Among those between the ages of 30 and 44, 52 percent voted for Obama.

Gans attributes the smaller-than-expected turnout to a disparity in participation between college-educated young people and those who didn't attend college.

"If you limit young people to the college-educated, turnout was quite high," he said.

Getting Out the Vote

A major contribution to Obama's victory was an effective get-out-the-vote operation.

Given Obama's across-the-board gains and the depressed Republican vote, many experts say the election probably doesn't signal a major realignment of voter loyalties. It will take another four years to determine whether Obama can redraw the political map and cement his party's gains in former Republican states such as Virginia and North Carolina.

"In four years do we look back and say, ‘It's morning again in America,' in which Obama is a Reagan for the 21st century?" said Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and co-developer of the Pollster.com Web site. "Or do we look back and say, ‘another Jimmy Carter -- full of promise but no delivery.'"

To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 2, 2008 00:01 EST

Little-G

RM...I didn't mean it to sound aimed at you.  Repub's in general.  I have been hearing alot of this bad economy aimed at the President Elect, which seems crazy.  However, we are in crazy times. I appreciate your point of views.  Many times we can learn from each other, even if we don't always agree.

g

Anonymous

Poll:Obama rides tide of public approval of cabinet choices

Barack Obama is riding a tide of public approval over his performance so far as US president-elect, as well as strong support for his top cabinet picks, a new poll showed Tuesday.

Nearly a month after his historic November 4 election, and in the midst of the devastating downturn in the US economy, more than three out of four Americans approve of how Obama has handled his transition so far, according to the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

Of his high-profile cabinet appointments, 69 percent to 25 percent approve Obama's pick of his former Democratic nomination rival Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his secretary of state.

By an overwhelming margin, 80 percent to 14 percent of Americans endorse Obama's decision to ask President George W. Bush's defense secretary Robert Gates to keep his post, said the poll.

As negative economic news continues to batter American confidence in the country's financial security, 58 percent to 33 percent said they support Obama's plan for huge spending packages to stimulate the crumbling economy.

By a more than three-to-one margin Americans said they trust Obama to handle the economy better than Bush, who will hand over control to the Democrats on January 20.

Hoping to hit the ground running to stem the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama has opted for many experienced Democratic operatives who last worked in government in the 1990s.

But by a margin of nearly four to one, Americans are not worrying that many of Obama's administration picks worked under president Bill Clinton, with most of them thinking that the appointees will help the incoming team lead more effectively.

The poll, which surveyed 1,010 adults on Monday, has margin of error of three percent.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_rides_tide_of_public_approval_12022008.html

Anonymous

Amy -- here is an article from the SF newspaper:

Is gay the new black? Marriage ban spurs debate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/30/national/a091740S16.DTL

Little-G

Laura...right on for that article!!  I have no doubt Barack will turn this around.  None at all.  It just can't come fast enough for me.  The ever declining economy is spiraling out of control.  I know he is going to hit the ground running, really, he dosn't have much of a choice.  It just seems as W has checked out and I don't think that's helping the spiral.  I don't remember in my life when the President Elect had so much put on him and everyone looking to him, while the existing Pres. is still here!  W must be putting up decorations for the holidays.  I don't know.  But..times have never been as wacky as they have either with W behind the wheel for 8 years.  Onward and upward!!!  Another subject, did you see Barack and Michelle on the cover of Essence?  They look fantastic!!  Here's Barak on Ebony....he always looks fantastic!! :-)

Anonymous

little g - i am with you, the obamas move to  the white house, can't come soon enough.

saw this and thought of the Obama Ladies here...:)

NoH8

Thanks for the article RM. I've heard so many different opinions on whether or not this is the new civil rights movement.  I wish we had a few strong leaders like the black civil rights movement did and still does-- I think that would help a lot. I'm reading the Mayor of Castro Street and it's teaching me a lot about just had bad things were for the LGBT community back then. We've come far, but not far enough.  I always feel conflicted between being grateful how much better things are and being angry that I have to feel grateful for what heterosexuals take for granted.

Little-G

Laura.........LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!  No sh**!!  Barack would have won anyway, but probably not with the numbers he did.  THAT is good stuff! 

NoH8

laura that's hysterical because it's so true. I wonder if McCain has allowed himself to "go there" and admit his catastrophoc failure.

Anonymous

obama ladies...this is not so funny:(

New Bush rule could hit poor, rural women the hardest

12/03/2008 @ 8:38 am

Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Advertisement
The Bush administration is reportedly planning as one of its final actions to announce a "right of conscience" rule that could further limit access to abortion, particularly for poor and rural women, and might even impact a much broader range of medical procedures.

"We should call this the 'Amish bus-driver rule,'" fumed MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "If you're Amish and your values and your beliefs will not allow you to operate an automobile, then surely that's your inalienable right -- but consequently, you will not be hired to drive a bus."

The rule would apply to over 500,000 facilities nationwide and would allow all healthcare workers -- not just doctors and pharmacists but potentially even janitors -- to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable.

Maddow turned for comment to Princeton professor and reproductive rights activist Melissa Harris-Lacewell, asking, "Do you see this as a major setback for reproductive rights?"

"Absolutely," Harris-Lacewell agreed, although she emphasized that "this right to conscience is not just about reproductive rights" because it could potentially affect everyone.

"This could have a huge impact," she stated. "You want your doctor to be making choices based on medical needs, based on the health of the patient ... not on these moral 'conscience' questions. ... We want to make sure that as a nation these kinds of decisions are not being legislated out by these broad opt-out rules."

Harris-Lacewell explained that regulations like this "right of conscience" rule have "been the new strategy of those who have been opposed to women's reproductive rights. ... Rather than fight this out in the courts ... what you do is limit access. You limit the education that doctors are getting in medical school. You limit the ability of these doctors to practice in various states and localities. You just keep reducing, reducing, reducing."

"That has a disproportionate effect on poor women, on rural women," Harris-Lacewell stated. "Women who have private health insurance, women who have private physicians, tend to have plenty of access to a variety of reproductive rights options. Poor women and women with less access are the ones hit hardest."

Anonymous

Rasmussen: Obama has 67% approval

Since Election Day, there has been a significant decrease in the number who Strongly Disapprove of Obama-that number fell from 32% the night after the election to 15% today. There has also been a significant increase in the number who Somewhat Approve-from 12% to 25%. The number who Strongly Approve of Obama has remained constant, generally in the 40% to 42% range.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_approval_index

Little-G

Wow...so, based on the Bush theory, I would have to interview my doctor regarding his moral and religious beliefs before I hire him as my physician.  Because if his conflict with mine, well then, I have some real problems going on.  Interesting.  I hope my life does not depend on it one day.  Right of Conscious Rule.  WTH is that?  I'm not sure of a doctors oath, but I'm guessing it dosn't state "only if I feel its the right thing to do."  Then why did they put Kevorkian in jail?  Can W just move on already and quit shoving his beliefs down everyone's throat!! 

NoH8

Bush's actions are dispicable. Listening to the snippets of the Nixon tapes that have been released reminds me so much of Bush it's frightening.Both believe the president is above the law,hate the media, hate the educated and think they can do whatever the hell they want. Personally I think I like Nixon better. At least he wasn't as much of a holy roller.

Anonymous

.............Mission Accomplished......................................

NoH8

You guys have got to see this, Prop 8 the musical-- make sure you use the bathroom before you watch http://www.tvguide.com/News/Prop-Musical-Funny-1000522.aspx

NoH8

Here's my favorite story of the day.

WASHINGTON - The White House now says it won't display a Christmas tree ornament by a Seattle artist that includes a message supporting President Bush's impeachment.

Artist Deborah Lawrence says she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.

The nine-inch ball, is covered with swirly red and white stripes and features a picture of McDermott. Tiny glued-on text salutes the impeachment resolution.

First lady Laura Bush had asked members of Congress to pick artists to decorate ornaments for the White House Christmas tree. Her spokeswoman, Sally McDonough, originally said there were no plans to pull Lawrence's artwork. But McDonough said Tuesday that the ornament is inappropriate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON - The White House now says it won't display a Christmas tree ornament by a Seattle artist that includes a message supporting President Bush's impeachment.

Artist Deborah Lawrence says she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.

The nine-inch ball, is covered with swirly red and white stripes and features a picture of McDermott. Tiny glued-on text salutes the impeachment resolution.

First lady Laura Bush had asked members of Congress to pick artists to decorate ornaments for the White House Christmas tree. Her spokeswoman, Sally McDonough, originally said there were no plans to pull Lawrence's artwork. But McDonough said Tuesday that the ornament is inappropriate.

Anonymous

Amy, President Bush is not a "holy roller."  He's a Methodist and they're far from being "holy rollers."  I hope you know that you may be insulting some people who may come and read YOUR thread when calling someone's choice of worship as "holy rollers."  No, I'm a Baptist (if you want to know). 

President Bush has done nothing illegal so there's no reason to impeach him.  Please read the 9/11 Commission.  You can google and find it.

Respectfully,

Shirley

ijl

Well I've got to admit that although I am a republican who voted for McCain , I am pleasantly surprised by Obama pragmatism and middle of the road choices. I was worried that he actully was an idealist with his "hope and change" mantra but he actually turned out to be a practical man.  So now I have a "hope"

His selections from Clinton era are pretty good.So perhaps it would not be as bad as I thought. Besides my husband just lost his job so now we can actually benefit from his tax cuts

Anonymous

Shirley,

You crack me up!  You are not a troll in my opinion. You are a drama queen big time, sister!

You did post this on another board?

And, I'm not "allowed" to post over <----------- because I'm toxic so I'll post it here. .  And if I post something "disrespectful" according to them that's a no-no.  And then since Amy won't respond to me her buddies do it for her and she tells them to ignore the ignorant, toxic troll.  But I don't mind.  I got really, really thick skin!

Insulting some people?  Tooo funny.... You are one wacky sister!  Now shoooo!

ya_moe

Please tell President-elect Obama's transition team that Cancer treatment/research/funding should be at the top of his list.  I did.  http://bangzoom.info.   We can't get even with Cancer, but we can get Angry and do something about it!  Thanks.

LAphoenix

Boy, George just can't buy a break, can he?  Even the Xmas ornaments are against him. 

Laura, love the cartoon.  Interesting, icky story on Rachel tonight about the Bush Legacy Project and how they're already busy in the WH trying to rewrite history so Bush can pretend he was the Great Liberator.  Yup, right alongside Lincoln, that's where he thinks he should be.  As RacheI said, though, the problem with that is "the Google" and YouTube.     

ijl: I think Obama's always presented himself as a pragmatist and a concensus builder.  His voting record in the Senate was almost identical to Clinton's.  As far as economics and foreign policy are concerned, I believe he's going to be solidly centrist.  On domestic social policy, he might turn out to be more traditionally liberal.  I hope his "bold moves" are on the environment and healthcare.  I'd say his "hope and change" mantra is more about how he will govern--openly and intelligently--than any specific policy. 

Did anyone hear about the GOP Congresswoman from Florida who hung up on Obama twice, thinking he was a prank caller?  And she hung up on Emanuel when Obama told him to call her and tell her it really was Obama.  Obama wanted to talk to her about Cuba.  I guess the thought of a president-elect calling a member of Congress from the opposing party was just too strange for her to comprehend.  

   

Anonymous

Laura, did you find my post disrespectful?  What was so dramatic about the post?  Oh, do you mean the one that you C&Ped from the other thread.  Nah, I was just havin' a little fun!  And besides, what I said on that other thread is true.

Wacky?  YEP, YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!  But you've put a smile on my face.  And, that "shoooo" belongs to me.  I kept telling the REAL troll to shoo - shoo..go away and even posted a pic of a little bug buzzing around. LOL

NoH8

lap-I wonder why all bush's shenanagins are getting such little press from the mainstream media. I just love the story  about even the christmas ornaments are against him. The artist is one of my new heros, LOL.

ijl- I'm glad to hear you're giving Obama a chance. I think all rational republicans are. I agree with LAP said about "hope and change" being more about post partisian politics than what the right deemed to be idealism.

laura- You say tomato, I say tom-ah-to  the two aren't mutually exclusive.

NoH8

This is depressing:

 The Catholic Church a body that has been staunchly opposed to the death penalty does not want to include international protections by the United Nations for gay people who face death penalty charges in countries where homosexuality is illegal. The Vatican is voicing opposition and plan to go against the French proposal that is introducing this piece of human rights resolution.

"This week the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations, said the Holy See would oppose a resolution that would protect gays from being killed, just because they are gay because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

The French resolution, scheduled to be proposed this week, recommends protecting Gays and Lesbians from being jailed or killed because of their sexual orientation and is being introduced to the UN on behalf of the European Union.

But Archbishop Celestino Migliore said, if adopted, the resolution would create "new and implacable discriminations," and also said that states which do not recognize same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an objects of pressure.

However, the French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, says absolutely nothing about gay marriage; it is about ending jail and death penalty sentences gays yet face in more than 85 countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen where you can still be killed for being gay."

They are against the death penalty but don't want to be on the record opposing it for gays and lesbians?  WTF?

TorchSong

Well, it fits with Catholic doctrine. Gays, lesbians and bisexual people are "morally disordered," and therefore, apparently, not quite human and worthy of protection, from this story.

THat's the official Church positiion--"morally disordered." Individual Catholics may have different opinions, but unfortunately, they aren't running the Vatican!

Martha

NoH8

I think the Pope is "morally disordered" martha.  I know that most catholics would find not opposing the death penalty for gays to be morally reprehensible.