Some of you Dems - convince me not to be a nervous wreck if Obama wins

[Anonymous]

I read on a post here that Sept 15th may be the tipping point for Obama, and my gut reaction is I hope we are all still alive when and if his plan for the economy works. Seriously. If we take a couple of dirty bombs or some chem-bio attack on DC or NYC, it won't matter how much of a tax break Americans got or that our rights to reproductive freedom are intact. The only way my home could be worth less is to be radioactive, and I just don't feel safe with a democrat without diplomatic or military experience at the helm.

Aren't the Dems worried about this too?

[Anonymous]

Not a Democrat here (moderate who voted Bush in '00 and Kerry in '04, who initially supported the war but now am aghast at how poorly Republicans managed it and how they bungled it), but planning to vote Obama. Unlike a lot of others, terrorism is my main issue--and I feel less afraid with Obama at the helm than McCain. Republicans have not made us any safer; quite the contrary. Obama will go after the real terrorists. Moreover, he will help our country regain its standing in the eyes of other nations, which will also help stop terrorists. And you know what? If electing someone with the middle name Hussein causes even one would-be-jihadi to reconsider--not because they think he's one of them (as McCain's scurrilous and dishonorable ads want people to think)--but because they see in Obama the promise of America and the reality that someone with the middle name Hussein can be elected--then that is also a good thing and will keep us safer.

[Anonymous]

You're right. The terrorists could never attack while a Republican who has served in the military is President! Oh, wait... I feel like I'm forgetting something...

[Anonymous]

Moreover, he will help our country regain its standing in the eyes of other nations, which will also help stop terrorists.

This makes me wonder exactly what it is you suppose the terrorists hate about us? My sense is that there isn't one single thing Obama - or McCain for that matter - would do that would make them hate us any less.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I read on a post here that Sept 15th may be the tipping point for Obama, and my gut reaction is I hope we are all still alive when and if his plan for the economy works. Seriously. If we take a couple of dirty bombs or some chem-bio attack on DC or NYC, it won't matter how much of a tax break Americans got or that our rights to reproductive freedom are intact. The only way my home could be worth less is to be radioactive, and I just don't feel safe with a democrat without diplomatic or military experience at the helm.

Aren't the Dems worried about this too?

I'm not sure why you would be more concerned about an attack once Obama wins. I'm sure that you remember that the 9/11 attacks occurred during the Bush Administration. Bush's military experience consisted mostly of going AWOL and, true to form, he stayed on vacation after being given a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US".

It was also Bush, with the support of McCain, who got us into this disastrous war in Iraq that has done tremendous harm to US security. Obama, on the other hand, had the foresight to predict the dangers and oppose to the war.

But, most important to your apparent concerns in the fact that Obama co-authored a bill in Congress directly aimed at stopping the smuggling of nuclear weapons and stemming nuclear proliferation generally. Obama's co-author was Republican Senator Richard Lugar. You can learn more about that bill here:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bil/

Also, keep in mind, that even the best plans and ideas cannot be implemented without competent people to carry them out. Bush has endangered all of us by putting politics and loyalty above performance. If you hire the head of a horse association to be head of FEMA, you get the Bush administration response to Katrina. The Department of Homeland Security is a shambles (despite the heroic efforts of many who work there and would like to make things work). Can you imagine that Bush actually nominated Bernard Kerik to lead the DHS originally? The guy subsequently was indicted with 16 federal charges (and pled guilty to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts"), and Bush wanted him to be in charged of DHS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Moreover, he will help our country regain its standing in the eyes of other nations, which will also help stop terrorists.

This makes me wonder exactly what it is you suppose the terrorists hate about us? My sense is that there isn't one single thing Obama - or McCain for that matter - would do that would make them hate us any less.

Well, it seems many of the world leaders and citizens already favor Obama. McCain comes across as militaristic in his talk and wants to maintain a war for a 100 years. He's part of the current administration that voted for war and to stay the course.

Why NOT talk with countries that are closed off? What's the benefit of isolating them? Why NOT talk with terrorists to find out what it is that they want? We don't need to give them everything they want, but at least talk. Maybe we're doing something that's detrimental to their people through the US policies - news that we NEVER hear about. If not, the alternative of isolationism results in generation after generation of hatred toward the US.

[Anonymous]

I don't agree that Obama is a benefit to our relations with Muslim nations. Everything I've read (lots) on Muslims seems to indicate the only thing worse than an infidel is an apostate. The penalty for betraying Islam is death. I can't see where Obama as a Christian helps the US in dealing with Islamic terror groups.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree that Obama is a benefit to our relations with Muslim nations. Everything I've read (lots) on Muslims seems to indicate the only thing worse than an infidel is an apostate. The penalty for betraying Islam is death. I can't see where Obama as a Christian helps the US in dealing with Islamic terror groups.

If you have truly read "lots" about Muslims, you may want to consider focusing on quality rather than quantity. Virtually no Muslims will consider Obama to be an apostate. Indeed, most would not even consider him even to have been a member of the Muslim community. Obama has been practicing Christianity from an early age. To be an apostate, he would have to have knowingly forsaken Islam. Generally, that requires being an adult.

Ironically, those Muslims that would consider Obama to be an apostate -- the bin Ladens of the world -- are exactly those with whom we are not interested in having good relations. The vast majority of Muslims will be thrilled to have someone in the White House who is likely to be understanding of their religion.

[Anonymous]

You know what should make you a nervous wreck? The even remote possibility that on Nov 5 you could be living in a country that would elect such sleazy, unqualified, and outright ridiculous person as Sarah Palin.

[Anonymous]

No, we are not worried. No president can guarantee safety against terrorism. The best chance we have is to make ourselves less of a target.

As for effectiveness, combatting terrorism is not new. In the Clinton years, the FBI took down several terrorist threats timed to Y2K. So there is nothing special about Republicans, except that Republicans keep invading their region, too often ignore the Palestine problem, and generally say inflammatory things about Muslims.

[Anonymous]

OP you should be worried.

I would be worried if Palin OR Obama were president. These are not times for inexperience.

[Anonymous]

"I read on a post here that Sept 15th may be the tipping point for Obama, and my gut reaction is I hope we are all still alive when and if his plan for the economy works. "

I'm a moderate Republican and voting for Obama in part because of national security issues. You really have to set aside all the crazy campaign ads and desperate attempts to "label" candidates.

Obama was against going into Iraq and characterized it as a distraction to the real effort in Afghanistan when it was not popular to do so, even in his own party. Yes, this was in the past but it also showed effective judgement and a willingness to choose clam, rational thought over political popularity. I object to the Iraq war from a national security standpoint not a human rights perspective. It has diluted the strength of our military, resources have been cut from bases to fund this war and most importantly it has fueled a resurgence in AlQaeda. Irag was a strategic error driven by an insulated circle (Cheney) working from the wrong playbook and taking advantage of the general fears of the american public.

Terrorism is not fought or stopped with traditional ground wars or cold war military tactics, It is different and dependent on intelligence and carefully orchestrating actions through and with other governments. Grand standing statements and threats work well against nation state threats but not dispersesd, individual terrorist organizations with no borders or nation state needs. In some ways McCain is much more dangerous when dealing with terrorism. His tendency to act first and think later is not good in this situation. McCain's rhetoric is also too dangerous in being able to craft effective foreign policy interventions.

Palin is dangerous. You really can not compare her in any way to Obama even though this is what the ads and McCain's camp want you to do. Whether you like what Obama has to say or not, you have to admit he is intelligent. There are many different types of intelligence and I by no means hold the Ivy League up above anything. Obama's intelligence is about being able to analyze complex situations and concepts, build coaltions, think strategically, and then act to achieve the outcome he visualizes. His entire campaign has been consistent and on the mark despite the ground constantly shifting.

Palin's intelligence is more about knowing how to communicate with a segment of the voter population. Its really quite impossible though after her interviews and debate to argue that she truly understand the policies she is speaking toward and this is not saying she is dumb. For Palin being a quick study involves learning how to think about these issues not just learning the facts which is much, much steeper than anyone else we have ever seen in this role.

[Anonymous]

I understand your concern, OP, but actually I'm more concerned that McCain or Palin would get us involved in another foolhardy war.

I have no doubt that Obama will not be reluctant to go to war if he thinks it is necessary. In fact, I suspect that he would be more eager to go to war than I would. (Never underestimate a Democrat who is afraid of looking weak.)

But I think that McCain or Palin will be more likely to shoot from the hip and get us involved in something that will be disastrous in the long run, even as it makes most people feel good in the short run.(....hmmm....that sounds vaguely familiar.....) In fact, I'm more concerned about this having seen McCain's lurching about in the campaign (e.g., running off to DC to "help" with the bailout). Will he actually think about what he is doing before he decides to do it?

If nothing else, I find Obama to be very deliberative about his choices and that's who I would want running the country in the event of a war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree that Obama is a benefit to our relations with Muslim nations. Everything I've read (lots) on Muslims seems to indicate the only thing worse than an infidel is an apostate. The penalty for betraying Islam is death. I can't see where Obama as a Christian helps the US in dealing with Islamic terror groups.

Oh puh-lease, do you actually know any Muslims? Guess what -- they worry about putting food on the table, paying the mortgage, who to invite over for Eid al Fitr, pretty mundane stuff, just like anyone else. There's maybe a handful of people who feel the way you've described above. What cartoon world do you live in?

[Anonymous]

September 11th bought us an enormous amount of international goodwill, which the Bush administration proceeded to squander. Even our staunchest allies wanted nothing to do with our new foreign policy by the time he was done promoting his cronies, falsifying information, and putting our and our allies' soliders in harm's way for a very questionable goal.

I can't say that I think McCain will be as bad as Bush, but he definitely has those tendancies. He might call it being a maverick. I call it being reckless and impulsive. No, I think it's time for a true diplomat, and Obama displays the quiet dignity and respect that will restore the faith other nations have accorded the U.S. in the past.

I believe that Obama will listen first, act second. I believe that he won't let his ego get in the way of seriously weighing all the information available. I believe that other leaders and other peoples will feel respected, and be more amenable to alliances and cooperation. And that will make us all safer in the long run.