Obama is a fighter

And here's the thing: He fights smart. He did it in the Illinois legisature when against big odds he managed to author and pass the first legislation in the country that mandated police video taping of interrogations. He did it again there when he worked to pass comprhensive lobbying reform. His Senate career is only 3 years old but he's been deeply committed to ethics and lobbying reform there. His voting record is one of the most liberal there.

Obama fights smart. He doesn't need to broadcast his toughness or his tactics. In this primary season, he's had to fight smears and innuendo from the Clinton campaign, and he's managed to deftly neuter them.

There's so much bullshit about Obama on DU that it's laughable. He's not DLC. He didn't vote for the Military Commissions Act. He's voted for every get out of Iraq bill that's been put forth. His record on GBLT issues is every bit as strong as Clinton's or Edwards'- despite his weak moment re McClurkin.

There's no indication whatsoever that he's ever folded to special interests.

I'm convinced that Obama is the person who will be most successful fighting for the middle class and those who are disenfranchised.

He's walked the walk for over 2 decades.

So make him out to be a neoliberal, a neocon, a corporate tool, a homophobe, a member of a racist church.

Take your best shot.

He's a fighter, and not you or his dem opponents or the MSM, when they turn on him, or the repukes, will be able to take him down.

He fights smart.

They are all tough. They all want change. They all have not defined what they mean by "change." They all don't have the ability to make change.

.. a president who will actually stand
up to, neuter, and defang corporations.

because this will be the fight of his life, like NOTHING he's experienced before.

he's played this whole campaign really smart, and hasn't demeaned himself in the process. I like that!

Where was this "fighter" during the Alito confirmation hearings?

Was he using his lofty rhetorical skills to rally the troops? Or was he criticizing the process.

Surely, as a Con law professor- and editor of Hrvard Law Review, he knew the role of advise & consent- as well as the importance of the filibuster in keeping extremists off of the court.

His words, as I recall were to the effect that the Dems placed and over reliance on procedural manuevers... to which I thought "huh?"

Not sure I've ever seen anything like that from our side, though the far right sure seems to win a lot of battles that way (even when their policies are profoundly unpopular).

without him?

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/issues_ethicsfacts.html

is not "Can he fight" but " will he fight?" and "who will he fight?" All this talk about unity and compromise sounds ominously like 1992 to me. We can get along with the other side or we can fight for change. We can't do both.

he believes appears to be pretty damned good. I listed some of the things he fought for. You chose to ignore them. And to win a national election, you can't sound angry. It doesn't work. It turns off voters by the million. JE is only one case in point.

are right on the rest as well. If you had a Swift Boat Incident like Kerry did, I don't think Obama would wait to fire back. I

This guy was a civil rights lawyer, involved in organizing various community projects, he is not afraid of the odds or adversity and will fight for what is right. Would make a very good candidate.