Obama broke from the pack when he voted against the war in Iraq. Do you think he did that because he interpreted the situation better than everyone else (i.e. made a good decision for the right reasons), or just to be a pain-in-the arse contrarian in the senate? If he really has the guts to go against the pack then he might turn out ok despite some of the crazy stuff he is saying to get elected.
That is a good question. I’ve often wondered that too, was his decision principled, political (as there was big void with virtually every Dem in the country being pro-Iraq) or was he just plain smart enough to see some of the eventual misgivings of the Iraq war.
I just picked up this article from the economist that has some pretty good thoughts. ttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766009
maybe i’m missing something, but when did obama “brake from the pack” and “vote against the war in Iraq”? he was elected a us senator in 2004 and assumed office in 2005, well after any breaking-from-thepack type vote (it was in 2002) could’ve been made. are you guys talking about something else?
Thanks for that. I havent picked up the latest economist yet.
SHeeeesh… you’re right mlh97! He spoke out against the war before he was elected but he wasn’t in office and didn’t share the same information (thus the same basis for his decision to not support the war) as the acting senators. Thus, you really can’t give him any credit for seeing what a boondogle it would turn out to be.