I have decided to support Obama. I hope this will be read by supporters of all candidates.

I have been leaning towards Obama for awhile. And then few days ago, I heard that he was supporting merit pay for teachers. Merit pay is a politically loaded term, and my immediate response was to cross Obama off my list. I still don't dislike any politician focusing the blame on teachers, and I'm still not completely O.K. with what Obama said. On a more positive note, however, he did say:

that he would not use "arbitrary tests" to link pay to performance. "I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success," Obama told a crowd of about 9,000 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it too you, I'm going to do it with you."

He promised more pay "across the board" for teachers and extra incentives for those willing to work in lower-performing schools in urban and rural areas, though he noted that he would release the details of those goals and other education policies at a later date.

Obama was firm in his denunciation of the No Child Left Behind law, saying he would not support its reauthorization, an issue now pending before Congress, unless the reliance on standardized test scores was softened and more federal funding was poured into compliance.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/8335627.html

All of those are good things, but he needs to do away with the term "merit pay," because it suggests that teachers who do not get "merit pay" have no merit. Incentive pay would be a far better term, and I'm going to suggest it to his campaign.

Obama was against the war from the beginning. That's important to me. He has a broad world view, a degree in international relations and has taught constitutional law. He's done community organizing in the inner city. Those are the kinds of experiences, education, and values we need in our next President.


And now, let me tell you about the walk I took today, because it's the most important reason. (You'll see how it relates in a moment, and thank you for reading this far).

I went on a walk this afternoon in the eastbay hills of the San Francisco bay. I was soon walking along a trail I had been on before I like because it has a great, panoramic view from the South bay all the way to the Bay Bridge, the golden gate, and the San Francisco and Oakland skylines. I walked a little farther down the trail than I had before, and soon came to a grove of trees that had obviously been planted recently along the trail. I wondered about this...was this private property, some sort of an orchard? I did not think so. The trees were all carefully planted, and did not appear to be fruit or nut trees. Perhaps, I thought, the trees were put there by the regional parks service, but why? Where did the tree lined trail go? It must go somewhere special I thought. Perhaps an even better view? So, I followed the trail.

Eventually, I was walking up knoll towards a large, circular cement object about 30 feet across and three feet high. A gigantic well of some sort, I thought? When I got to the top of the knoll I saw there was an opening and plaques around the circumference. Ah, it must be plaques pointing out various landmarks, surely. I walked inside. It wasn't.

There was a series of plaques, each with a year and the names of children in the county who had died as a result of violent crime. I stayed there awhile reading the names on the plaques. Most were from Oakland, a few were from the suburbs. Their ages were all listed. Some were babies, some were teenagers, some somewhere in between. There were lots of names. I started to wonder if a tree had been planted for each one. I don't know, but I thought about that as I walked through the trees.

Then late this evening (no it's morning now) I came across this video clip. Please watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQTtEXiGuE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkonthesethings%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F

What he said. That's the most important reason. Obama is our most prepared candidate, and he's the only one who can truly help begin to heal this nation's soul. With his election, it truly would be a new America for all the world to see.

An America that values eveyone, equally.

He will be a great President.

This next election is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift the entire debate in our country to the left by electing a true progressive to the presidency. Conservatives did something similar -in reverse-with Ronald Reagan, and now we can do it back.

for being a great one. I don't see the same degree of potential with the others.

So it is with him I am casting my lot.

Even if perhaps he has a lesser ceiling, I think John Edwards is likelier to make full use of the considerable potential he does have. He'll need it, to fulfill what I have in mind.

one student's likelihood of greatness and deny the potential for same in the rest of the class?

That seems a bit lopsided to me.

Who's to say, today or next week, whether Chris Dodd wouldn't be a great president? I don't think there are crystal balls geared for that kind of data. Which casts suspicion on predictions of greatness.

I'm arguing for the potential of any candidate, not criticising your choice in the primaries.

in American history, as much as the man himself. It would be a new dawn in America to elect a person of color.

exclusivity in your post.

Just as there was no guarantee that 1980 would be a re-aligning election. If Operation Eagle Claw had succeeded, the political landscape might look very different than it does today. Raygun would've been told by the party machinery to go back to California and the next Republican President would've been a moderate like Poppy or Bob Dole.

In short, Reagan was the right guy for re-alignment but he had to capitalize on every piece of bad luck that plagued Jimmy Carter's presidency in order to make it happen.

What other option is there? Pack our guts back into storage, continue building that mound of "dry powder," waiting for an opportunity that might never come, if it isn't now? No thanks.

;-)

What made me finally decide on Obama was his willingness to say things that may not be popular, more than any of the other candidates. Agree or disagree with his position on merit pay, the fact is that Obama could have just as easily gone to the NEA and given a speech without talking about merit pay and probably would've gotten more teachers to vote for him in the primary. But he believes in merit pay and was willing to speak his mind even if his audience didn't agree with him. He also demonstrated that he didn't want to do it the way Republicans have, particularly with his proposal to give incentives to teachers who teach in underprivileged schools.

He also did this when he gave the same environmental speech in Detroit that he did in California. He easily could've given a speech about the environment in California then gone to Detroit and given a speech about outsourcing of jobs, but he believes that people in Detroit need to hear about the environment just as much as people in California do.

He's not perfect and inevitably he will do some pandering, but he's more willing to tell people what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear than any candidate I've seen in my lifetime (admittedly I'm only 20).

His initial opposition to the Iraq War also drew me to him. One thing about the Senators who were there is that it amazes me how many of them didn't seem to take into account statements of like those like Robert Byrd who said that this was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution all over again, powerful words consider that Byrd voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Ted Kennedy, who also voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, says that voting against the IWR was the best vote that he ever cast. When Obama said in the 2002 interview that he would've voted against it, like Illinois' Senior Senator Dick Durbin did, it showed me that he was listening very carefully to the dissenting voices, not just the Bush Administration.

That belongs to another candidate that you take every opportunity to slam.But whatever,I haven't totally decided yet on who I will support for various reasons but I will NOT support anyone for trivial reasons such as race or sex.I want qualifications and experience I can believe in.So I am waiting to see who wins my vote!

That ideal belongs to ALL of us. How dare you suggest it is owned by one candidate!

suggested there is another candidate who campaigns on that theme.

and when I go through that process I end up with Kucinich as someone I trust and whose platform I like. But I don't think the Party will ever give him the nomination, and if it did, the MSM would slice and dice him. So in the end, I will probably cast my primary vote for whichever Democrat appears to be most electable. That leaves me with an unsatisfied feeling, but we can't afford to lose the next election.

He is not running a successful campaign. It's as simple as that. We can like his policies all we want, but the job qualification process includes building an effective organization, building trust among potential supporters, and thriving under an intense media spotlight. He is not succeeding in those areas. We're not going to be voting for a 3-ring binder full of position statements.

credit for articulate persistence in presenting positions with which I largely do agree (e.g his position on NAFTA.) I don't blame the Party for wanting to select an electable candidate - on the contrary, that's what I want too.

As for the MSM, I don't think they will make or break the next election, but they certainly have the power to poison the atmosphere. They can create a lot of negative baggage, and whoever our candidate is will probably get swift boated like Kerry or made an object of ridicule like Gore. I can imagine what they would do to Kucinich, but I can also image what they will try to do to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards - none of it pleasant.

If Dennis Kucinich wasn't running for president, who would tell America that:

*Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by subsidizing the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the USA SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.(Hillary/Obama)

*that the "Oil Law Benchmark" supported by the Democratic Party is a War Crime (Hillary/Obama)

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living


Thank God Dennis Kucinich is pointing this out to America, because none of the so called top tier Corporate Candidates are.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

if you start out by accusing your potential audience of war crimes.

I merely read the fine print.
Neither Clinton nor Obama will be bringing our troops home.
Take it, leave it, or do the work yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501112.html

You've chosen a very good one.

But I hope instead of being negative about the other candidates you will only post the good points of yours. I think it is wrong to try to bring down the other candidates.

:applause:

On having decided. :toast:

I also like your idea of using the term "incentive" pay rather than "merit" pay. I hope Obama's campaign adopts it immediately.

Last time I looked, he was right up there with Lieberman and Hillary. You think he gives IOUs?

Obama gets no money from lobbyists, unlike the other candidates. In truth, his biggest donors are ex-lobbyists, but I fear that is a reality of Presidential politics. follow the link for more info, or google around.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-04-19.html

welcome aboard.

If you go to 'opencongress.org', and click on 'senators', then 'industries', and you will see the big prize winners. Just from Lawyers/lobbyist, and the insurance/finance businesses, I see over 5 million. Of course he's small change to Hillary, who tops everyone. I guess I'll be backing another 'lesser-of-two evils', if Obama gets the nomination, but he's surely not my answer.

That candidates can be bought like this?

It's not dirty or illegal, but when the bill comes up in congress that the corporation does or does not want, the candidiates are expected to reciprocate. This is our big problem, with the regular voters not having a voice.

I know he is not perfect, and far from it. But he is the only candidate offering the hope to heal this nation.

I know I got a little testy with you on that merit pay issue and I'm sorry for that, but I'm glad you were able to come to the right conclusion in the end. Obama realizes the problems with merit pay and I'm confident he won't push for it until all those problems have been addressed, if they ever can be, which is obviously debateable.

Spread the word.

People will look to people like you to help decipher and explain all the Dems positions on education, the details behind the headlines and all that. It will be good to have someone here like you to help keep the record straight when it comes to education issues.

Obama seems like the kind of man who really listens to the people when they talk, and genuinely considers what they say. If there's anything we disagree with, it's important that we communicate to him, as his supporters, what we want.

I guess you could say I'm a single issue voter when it comes to whether or not my daughter should have a clean environment in which to live. :shrug:

I don't think he could deal with the fact that Congress and the American People aren't yet ready to take the draconian steps needed to solve the climate crisis. The recent energy bill in Congress has shown that America isn't nearly as serious as we need to be about investing in Green energy. That means we need to get it from coal liquefaction, nuclear energy, or offshore drilling.

Even an extremely pro-environmental President like Al Gore would be unable to change peoples' minds overnight on this. He has made great progress in that direction with the work he is doing and could do more in the White House. But even with President Gore, the energy policy that we need will take years to get, not days.

My point is that as a long term energy solution, Coal Liquefaction is not the answer. As an interim solution while we try and make up for the 28 years of not investing in Green energy that started with Reagan, it may be necessary.

I guess my daughter won't be needing an environment then?

:eyes: