**Breaking** Obama is a liberal & progressive, DU Shocked!

I am so sick of posters here calling Barack centrist or DLC. He is a freshman senator, currently 98th in senority who has a solid 7 year progressive track record in the Illinois State Senate before he was elected by a landslide in 2004. Dick Durbin has been encouraging Barack to run, the late, GREAT Sen. Paul Simon is who Obama's true mentor, as he has said often. The "Lieberman is my mentor" crap was not his choice, it's a Senate, or at least a Dem policy to assign freshmen senators to veterans to be their mentors, Obama was assigned to Lieberman, not his choice...

I have not agreed with every vote Obama has made but as far as a liberal or progressive candidate that may just have a chance to win, I'll hook onto his wagon any day!

From Progressive Punch: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=38&y=5

He is rated the 8th most Liberal senator, more than Feingold...

From the National Journal he is 18th: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Either way, Barack Obama is rated somewhere in between the 8th and 18th most liberal Dem senator....

The denigration I see here disgusts me... How much experience did Bobby Kennedy have in 1968 and how do you think he would have been as prez? You all know that Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, right? He was also the very first afro-american to hold said post. The President of Harvard Law is THE elite recruite, THE TOP law recruit in the nation, if not the world. Six and probably seven figure slaries had to have been offered from the highest powered firms and corporations in the world... Barack decided to go back to Chicago and try to organize a voter registration drive in Chicago in the projects in 1992... After that he took a job with a nondescript civil rights law firm to help peeps in the hoods.....

You all can tell me he's centrist and/or all hype... I may just ignore what you say and see what happens.... I think he may just be perfect for the times....

so much disinfo here

So he's a liberal and we're all supposed to get divided and weird about it?

Wow.

Wouldn't you rather go bowling or something?

So many that say he is DLC and centrist and a sell out... I personally believe a good portion of them are trolls trying to dim what may be our brightest star

Who really cares what those assholes say, anyway?

Obama is great. So is Hillary. They'd make a hell of a ticket in 2008.

I'm sick of the division in our party. It is high time some people woke up to
who the real enemy is.

I just can't stand all the Obama detractors... He be good for us, he be good for the USA, he be good for the world.....

Gore/Obama sounds nice

Unless he tones down the religion a lot of us won't vote for him.

someone who disagrees with you about Obama and his record means they're a troll? Wow I hope I don't come across and disagree with you (well I am now) and you call me one. And here I thought dissent among the democratic party was a good thing..... I guess you get called a troll even if you have a DNC membership card.

religion shoved down your throat with a different spoon is good.

n/t

Or something.

:eyes:

thanks for posting this

There are two surveys that I have found, and in the worst case Obama is more Liberal/Progressive than 29 nSens and in the best 37...

I don't get it....

:shrug:

Some folks have already made up their minds about a lot of things and information just gets in the way.

You can only do what you are doing and hope for the best. :)

thinks that or not because I doubt that most of DU actually does.

Sometimes a vocal minority can seem like a majority.

and I agree, tis a vocal minority...

from? I used to see that a lot. I'm not sure if that keeps getting thrown out there or if that urban legend has finally gotten beaten down.

Where the hell does it come from? I have no idea. There has to be some web site out there spreading it as fact.

All anybody has to do is go to senate.gov. There is a search engine for any bill, any vote. And there is his big honkin' **NAY** plain as day, right where it's always been. I wish there was a way to make it flashing red neon for the really slow children.

I just bought it at Costco today.

So far I like Obama, partly because of his progressive record but also undeniably partly because of his charisma -- I know I will get flamed by those who think Kerry, Clark, etc. have appeal but the Dems haven't had a candidate who excites people in a long, long time.

I desperately want a candidate I can really care about who I also believe can win.

I am not in the least saying that the most charismatic candidate deserves to win (good lord, I'd rather have a beer with Barack than shrubby) But as Durbin told Barack, there is a time...

But it's on the list to buy next.

I also really like Obama. I do find him really appealing. I've found that a my friends that are centrist also really like him because he does have great charisma.

I think of him as someone that will get you with his personality, even if you don't agree with him 100% on the issues.

:patriot:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0610230204oct23,1,7046690.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Obama was not clear when he would make the decision, but it is likely that it would come late this year or early next year. Obama is wrestling with whether his time is now or in the future. Many friends, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have counseled him that he should not pass up the opportunity when he enjoys such a high and positive national political profile.

I do trust Durbin....

Yes, they were both senators for four years. But the rest of the comparison depends on us equating three and half years as Attorney General in the hottest days of the Cold War and during some of the worst violence against the Civil Rights movement. Three of those years RFK was the president's top advisor on all domestic and international relations. I don't think seven years in the Illinois Senate quite matches up to that level of experience.

That said, it is ludicrous to say Obama is "not qualified" to be president. Compare his experience to Abraham Lincoln's--a railroad lawyer, one term US Representative, and a failed US Senate candidate. A man is more than his resume. I'd vote for Obama if he's nominated and there's several candidates I'd choose him over in the Democratic field. But I think we have several more qualified candidates than him, and I'll wait until they're eliminated before looking at him again.

As far as I know RFK had hos AG experience and that's it, did he ever hole elective office? Nothing against Bobby, I was 14 at the time and was crushed, he was gonna win it and lead the US, and the world to a higher plane....

Obama has more experienca than the current idiot in chief... Clinton had alot more... GHWB more... ronnie raygun, i confess i was not real political at the time, what did raygun have, 8 years as guv? jimmie carter is a saint, i don't care what experience he had because it was in the area of politics and media preception... as a leader who did the right thing, carter rocked!

As I recall he only served one term and before that he was a state senator. I'd say that's a better comparison.

their potential contributions, and, even knowing the misery that comes with trying to do the right thing, still want to do the right thing. MKJ

The Progressivepunch list is not very significative by itself, because it compares 1 year of Obama to 4 years of any other senators, but all you have to do is to look at his record.

Of course, just as any other senators, there are votes I would disagree with, but he is not a conservative senator.

That does not mean I feel compelled to endorse him for president. That some of us consider that experience is important (and Bobby Kennedy had experience when he started to run for president) does not mean we denigrate him.

And if somebody disagrees with him on the issues, why should he be blamed? Some people disagree on others for a lot less than their positions on the issues or their experience. We are all allowed to have our opinion on somebody.

I'm not a big fan of either Obama or or Hillary not because of what they've said, but because what they haven't said. Neither of them has put forth the kind of clear agenda as people like Al Gore, or had the kind of media presence speaking their minds as Wes Clark. They've been in the background taking the safe path. I am critical because I think they need to get out there. Our advice and issues with them should not be taken as denigration at all.

Maybe Feingold or Boxer or Howard as veep... OR CONYERS!!!!

Tain't gonna happen tho... I hate the 2 party system and wish we had a parlimentary system where all parties had some say... but we don't..

Working with what we have, and who may realistically be elected... couldn't do much better than Obama, IMHO.

I REALLY back all those people who have been out on the front lines fighting for us, laying down their agendas and taking action. Conyers, Clark, Dean, Boxer etc. These are the people I will be fighting for in the primaries, you can bet. I have no interested in smearing great people like Obama and Hillary, because I'll be fighting for their election in 2008 if the fine people of this party choose them...But I honestly don't see any reason why we can't get at least one of these fighters on the ticket.

I know we have a lot of devil's advocates here, myself included, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE! This man has more charisma than any candidate we've seen in decades AND he is far more progressive than Clinton(either one). I think Obama/Clark might make a mighty fine ticket! ;-)

Though I would prefer Clark Obama. But Obama's got to get out there and make himself known, like Clark. Charisma is not a real selling point, I want more substance as far as agenda and values.

But Obama resonates with the average person, whereas Clark comes across as a bit stiff.

Obama has a great vision for this country and he articulates it well. Clark has a great strategy for achieving many of the same goals, but he seems to have difficulty getting through to the average voter. I think that if we put them both together, with Obama out front, it could be a winner.

I'd like to see him as Sec of Defense. He's smart and experienced and seems to have a heart and soul (both lacking in the current admin).

And I know there are some very loyal Clark people here, but I agree with you that he doesn't quite resonate with the public. I'm not sure why, he is handsome and well-spoken, but maybe he is a bit stiff.

Imagine the combination... Obama's vision and constitutional law background combined with Clark's foriegn policy expertise and military experience....
wow, wow, wow......

Could also have Gore/Obama with Clark as SOS......

I had it out with a lot of Kerry people in the last primary (I was for Clark), and their arguments for Kerry were similar, that he was more statesman like, charismatic, classy, and really looked more like a president. (in the eyes of the average voter) But at the same time, the conservatives used that really successfully to paint him as aloof, effeminate and metrosexual, a wealthy limosene liberal out of touch with the people. Then they successfully ran Bush who came across as the type of simple good hearted cowboy you would like to have a beer with.

I like Clark because he's worked hard to get out there, make himself very visible and lay down his thinking on national TV. He is not the most liberal guy in the party, but he knows how to stay his ground on issues, draw lines and defend them. He doesn't seem weak at all, which is what conservative leaning independants respect..As well as myself.

If Obama wants to get the same respect from me, he needs to get out and start really advancing his ideas on TV interviews. I won't support a candidate in the primaries who hid in the background to avoid contraversy while people like Clark and Dean take the hits. That just tells me they'll probably do the same thing when elected president.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE!

:puke:

Try again after November 7. Shiny object lookey here.

I am in the Chicago burbs and it seems the Tribune has one or two weekly Obama articles (odd fofr a paper that has not endorsed a dem for prez since like, um, er... nope, never have) Anyway, lotsa nice long complimentary articles and until sunday, all had Barack saying we need to concentrate on Nov. 7th, Even with Timmy he mentioned it Sunday...

:shrug:

with Nov seventh in a way where as all the "so and so for president!" is about 2008.

asks us to surrender the separation of church and state to the benefit of his ridiculous political aspirations. I'm one of them.

I can't be led by such a person. Hell no. Never. I'm far better than that. Next please.

C'mon now, give me a quote because I can give you 10 where he said how precious it was to preserve the separation beteween church and state....

Facts get in your way?

ALL great American leaders of the last fifty years -- King, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton -- understood that one's deeds, not one's religion, effectively carry one's political message. Obama despises this standard. He is literally emulating Bush in this regard, and makes no bones about it. And he wants me to pander to evangelicals, not through my deeds, but according to their religious insanity. He uses Bush as his standard.

I never, ever want such a person to represent me.

You can have your Obama, but please, please, please keep his nonsense out of my White House. No more of this crap for me. Keep these godawful people to yourself.

Have your read the whole speech??? Have you???

The entire speech emphasized the separation of church and state... Are you gonna believe 3 or 4 paras quoted in a paper or read/listen to the entire 20-30 min speech to progressive evangelicals in context?

Too late for me to find it and link it but believe me, Obama is VERY much for separation of church and state... He taught constitutional law at the Univ. of Chic ferchrissakes...

Why do people like you do things like this? Can't you just read it?

What the speech calls for is a compromise between "secularists" and evangelicals. Yes, the nutjob refers to true Americans as "secularists," just like Bill O'Reilly.

What you are claiming is precisely contrary to the reality.

Go here and read it:

http://blackvoices.aol.com/black_news/canvas_directory_headlines_features/_a/transcript-of-senator-obamas-speech/20060629092609990002

Some excerpts:

For me, this need was illustrated during my 2004 face for the U.S. Senate. My opponent, Alan Keyes, was well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord,” or King’s I Have a Dream speech without reference to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who’s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

:applause:

We should resist being trapped by the "2-second soundbite = truth". Thanks for putting Obama's comments in context.

All you have to do is read the speech. It's that simple.

He WAS speaking at a religious conference.

Call to Renewal (www.calltorenewal.org) is a national network of churches, faith-based organizations, and individuals working to overcome poverty in America. Through local and national partnerships with groups from across the theological and political spectrum, we convene the broadest table of Christians focused on anti-poverty efforts. Together we work to influence local and national public policies and priorities, while growing and developing a movement of Christians committed to overcoming poverty.

But I think it would do this conversation some good if you were to explain why it makes a difference to you.

If he gave a speech to a group of doctors the subject would have been health care. He's not going to go in front of a religious conference and tell them their view have no place in the Dem party.

I would assume that he was speaking out against abortion.

He is firmly pro-choice.

Let me ask you, how would you approach the fact and the problem that much of the RW base is evangelical and that the Dems have been painted by rove, robertson, falwell et al as godless. Do you have a plan to bring back the many, many religious citizens to where the party many had traditionally voted?

Screaming and bringing lawsuits when a student group wants to borrow a classroom for an after school religious discussion only reinforces the myths the RW has painted about us. I'd much rather fight for universal health care or a sane foreign policy and with those added votes we could make some progress.

It's largely in thanks to Rove, Robertson, Falwell, etc. And it's largely in thanks to good people walking the walk while standing up for the Constitution.

And if you don't want to see screaming and lawsuits, the likes of Obama are certainly not for you, for I and others will expose them for what they are.

And, though Obama doesn't understand it, all good Americans are "secularists." To believe in a secular government is not to reject religion. That, apparently, is a lesson that Obama never learned. And it's that unlearned lesson that Obama now carries for George W. Bush, the father of faith-based American governance.

you said:

"all good Americans are "secularists." To believe in a secular government is not to reject religion."

That is a main theme of Obama's speech.

"religious" people to be two different groups.

I don't see your point. I thought Obama's speech was thoughtful and didn't suggest any of the concerns you seem to have.

You have even convinced me more that Obama is not on the right track. Let's look here (snip from your post)

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord,” or King’s I Have a Dream speech without reference to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

He is saying that the religious people hold all the cards and we must pander to them or all is lost. WRONG! He confuses morality with religion. WRONG! He discusses MLK when MLK was never elected and came to the table as a person of the cloth and was not disguised as a politician. Why do religious people feel that most people feel the same way they do? It is crazy! HE should recognize that a lot of people are turned off by his pandering and will not vote for him. If he wants to do progressive work as a clergyman....so be it. Don't expect me or anyone I know to vote him into office.

Is he pro-choice or pro-life? Seems pro-life but you can correct me.

This is the full-text of the part of the speech you've excerpted:



The text in bold is what you posted, but you snipped out everything in between without any indication there was text missing. You are therefore implying that the final statement regarding how religious leaders should act in politics is following from the initial paragraphs. Your conclusion that Obama is saying we should "pander" to the religious right is so far wrong, it's truly laughable.

Read the WHOLE excerpt from the beginning paragraph that you chose to the end statement about religious leaders. I'm going to highlight the main tenets of Obama's thesis throughout the text in italics. The whole second half of this part of the speech is illustrating and expanding the statement that "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. " THIS is the wisdom that Obama is saying that religious leaders need not accept in counseling their flocks but must respect if they enter the world of politics and policy making. How, on earth, is this pandering to the religious right?

Did you honestly not follow Obama's argument? I read it as follows:

-there is overlap between the goals of progressives committed to social justice and people of faith who are committed to social justice

-progressives should not pretend that faith plays no role in addressing social justice issues

-in a pluralistic society, separation of church and state is critical

-religious leaders and/or other people of faith who enter the policy-making arena must acknowledge that policies cannot be based on values specific to one religion.

other sources that say that? I'm sure he has done plenty of interview's or you can find the speech online.

Also from the link you provided.

will require some minimal adherence to that silly Constitution of ours.

(But that didn't stop him from calling for faith-based initiatives, just like his religio-political mentor, George W. Bush.)

Please back up Obama calling for faith based initiatives OR that shrubbie is his religio-political mentor...

Have any links or quotes?

I thought not......

Is it really such a chore for you to read it? How many times to I have to prove you wrong?

As far as Bush being Obama's religio-political mentor, that's the theme of his entire speech. He wants us to be like them. This debate does not exist without people like Obama who want to play the faith-based game that Bush created. I don't want to play this game. Keep your Obama to yourself.

It must be hard for you to read as well, or keep things in context.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God;” I certainly didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

"one can envision certain" does NOT mean calling for.

I take back the comment about your reading ability, but reading and understanding are two different things.

Some more excerpts:

Unwilling to go there, I answered with the typically liberal response in some debates – namely, that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
--------

In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Robertson’s will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord,” or King’s I Have a Dream speech without reference to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness – in the imperfections of man.

He is trying to explain, it is clear to me, is that many of the values of the religious match the policies of the Dems and we need to let them know that so they stop being led to the right by the wingnuts.

Actually, the reason he tied his faith-based programs to public schools is because he's saying that he envisions ways of getting away with this nonsense. If you see it some other way, I'd like to know the way.



And the set-up is just another call for compromise:



No objective person would disagree that the values of the religious (the sane ones) complement the policies of the Dems, but compromising the Constitution, or wearing a crucifix on one's sleeve, is not an appropriate way for a true Dem politician to get that message across. Leave that for the Bushes.

Dems and the Dem-like can get the message across through our deeds. Look to the Kennedys and Kings of the world. They were highly religious people who got it right. And they explained it better than I.

of using "faith-based programs" to help ex-offenders or substance abusers. Those people don't need faith. They need professional help from people who aren't trying to put the fear of God into them. If they want to find religion on their own or help on their own with religion that's fine but not to help them cure a problem like this.

:hi:

The thing about ex-offenders and substance abusers is that they are the trojan horses of the whole faith-based movement. You feed a few people who can't get work, and the government builds you a new temple (and a new diamond-mining facility). Fantastic.

You spin is worthy of Rush.

so I can expose you just like the others. But you're afraid to do that, aren't you?

Wow. Sling that bullshit, chief. Makes the caliber of debate around here a lot better.

Barf.

You may not like it, but Bush is Obama's religio-political mentor.

Obama might not be my first choice, but you're really being unfair to him here.

the likes of Bush on the separation of church and state. I don't like to compromise my rights. Do you?

Before the Bush Regime, such nonsense would not be entertained at all. Why now? Have so many Dems given up?

It doesn't sound to me like he's compromising any of our rights. You seem only to hear what you want to hear. There is plenty of evidence presented in this thread alone that Obama's speech is not about surrender of any kind. As for giving up, well, you have your perspective on that and I have mine. I'd rather see five Senators like Obama than one Trent Lott or Bill Frist.

I'd rather see eleven people murdered than twelve, but I don't support murder at all. And I'd take Hillary over Obama, but I don't support Hillary at all.

And I sure as hell don't support Obama's use of my party to find compromises to my Constitution. I despise such nonsense. I really do. Why can't we just be what we were before Bush came along? Can we go back?

The RW is still gonna push the anti-gay, anti-life, dems are satanists meme. bush or no, it is not all him. It has happened and you're not gonna tell 20% of the country to just forget about it. It is a current reality that the Dems have been demonized and the Dems need a way to address it. That is what Obama was trying to address, imho.

I have read the entire speech numerous times, btw.

And if we manage to step over the likes of Obama, we take an even bigger step back.

Call me old fashioned.

I call insanity insanity I don't try to reason with it. Let the crazies live in crazyville and let us get on with having a society.

We can't stand the religious crap. Government need not be pandering to any religion. The religion in government is what has us in the shithole we're in now.

Geez, I miss DSA from my youth.

Before Bush, or really maybe a decade earlier, the RW did try to make religion a political issue, and they were very successful at it. They carried that base to take over the house in '94 and the white house in 2000. Obama is trying to DEpolarize that debate and welcome the deeply religious back to our party.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.

Even though I'm a religious person I know when my religion is seperate and when it's appropriate. If I was a Senator or worked for some public office my religion shouldn't matter because you would be representing so many people of all types of faiths and even people without faith. Obama needs to learn that. One time I saw on CMT they did a special a couple of years ago with Jimmy Carter and Willie Nelson on growing up in small town's and Carter said he used his faith to help him make decisions if he needed guidance but he didn't use his faith as his reason's for doing something. So Carter, in my opinion, knows to seperate those beliefs but still hold onto them.

He practices what he doesn't preach. How's that for a slogan?

from his policy decisions- in fact, he has said that faith, by definition, is fictional and should not be construed as fact when it comes to decision-making that impacts others. He's also making the point that like it or not, faith is an integral part many people's lives and it shapes many of the decisions people make. To completely ignore that is to basically throw a hell of a lot of votes away.

Many of the same decisions that are made on the basis of morality, could also be justified by believers as having a religious basis. Some of these would be opposition murder, greed, and, violence. Similarly, for both moral and faith-based reasons, many people embrace the ideas of protecting the environment, providing free or affordable health care to those who need it, and alleviating poverty and hunger.

We need to stop talking beyond each other and realize that both religious and secular people share many of the same goals, even if the paths to reaching those goals have been starkly different.

Personally, I'm agnostic and a secularist, but I appreciate Obama's point, as it boils down to tolerance and common ground more than anything else.

You have better summarized Obama's speech, and point, in 4 short paragraphs than I have in mabye 20 posts here.

:yourock:

The usual ideological purists started going into a hissy-fit, as if being an evengelical automatically makes you a fundy. :eyes:

What is he gonne say? Do you decline? Personally I think he handled it very well...

I apologize for it being late at night and forgetting who the other senator was that tried to stop the confirmation of Ohio'd electoral votes... But I also seem to remember that there were only 2, and that Obama had been sworn in mere days prior, and the Sen, Kerry, who had the most to lose votted the same way... SO< what is your point, re:Obama?

on edit: DUH... sorry I missed it the first time... It's hell gettin old...lol..

I'm not saying that I think Obama did anything wrong. I'm saying that DU's dislike of him goes back that far. And I hope that you could detect the sarcasm in my subject line.

As i said above and for the last 2 years now on DU I cannot comprehend the Obama bashing... It all seems like it should be sarcasm to me so maybe I am innure to real sarcasm on the subject.

Just to be accurate.

that he did not sponsor, endorse nor vote for?

:shrug:

"To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent."

NAY.


Class action fairness act, he was one of 18 senators to vote with the Republicans.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009#position

Mind you, I think he is an exciting candidate. I think it is crucial we run an African-American for President or VP nad soon. I just need to hear more of his progressive stances. My ears are open.

The proposal was a cap at 30%. His home state of Illinois already had a cap lower than that and the amendment would have overridden it.

I am glad to know more about this man, thank you!

:yourock:

Kennedy had spent four years as a senator (that's what, two more than Obama, right?) as well as four years as Attorney General of the United States. that is actually a lot more experience than Obama has on the national stage. eight years of national experience versus two? only four times as much.

and actually, most presidents of the Review go on to academic or juducial careers, not corporate ones. and a first year Harvard law graduate would probably make about $135 before bonus, not seven figures. but hey, who cares when there's some good exagerration to deal with? Obama may be the best thing since sliced bread, but what the heck is he doing with it? posing in Vanity Fair?

He did not have the perk of a bro in the whitehouse but he made it on his own as a state senator for 7 years... still 3 more years serving the people than bobby, unless my math is wrong and i doubt it is....

You may be right about where the prez of the law review go, clerk for a supreme and or the fast track to be one... That does not mean that they do not get offers for other positions... A first year harvard law grad gets $135K? PLUS BONUS... What does a magna cum laude Harvard Grad get, president of the law review and a minority demand? $250K? PLUS BONUS... Maybe a 3 or 4 year deal? PLUS BONUS... well into 7 figures very quickly, if he wanted it...

$150 plus bonus is about the top, maybe a bit higher. and no one gets guaranteed deals. and they work like dogs for that money. Almost everyone graduates from Harvard Law cum laude, probably 25% are magna. and 19-15 are summa.

and in case you are wondering, my college roomate was summa, law review (not president, just editor) and he's making LESS than I am as a lawyer at State. don't be too impressed with Harvard Law. it may be where the most ambitious lawyers go, but that doesn't make them the smartest, or the best lawyers, the best legal analysts, or even the best people. in fact you probably woudn't like most of them.

I went to Illinois-Chicago, Architecture... we called it Harvard on Halsted... My point being, however, that after being the 1st afro-american president of Harvard Law, Obama chose to be a community organizer for the 1992 election and after took a relatively low key/low paying job with a rather non-descript civil rights law firm... Certainly somethiong few Law review Presidents have done, or am I wrong? If he was after fortune, he had many other shorter avenues available... If he was after power, ditto, clerkship leads to appointments, no? He came back to the hood and wanted to help people. You have to admit for a lawyer that is abnormal...

Why do we here at DU always overreact to the opinions of a few ?

There's only a few people who over-react. They make so much noise they start their own myths, like the myths of the Steve Irwin bashing. Some of us cannot stand to see heretical deviation from truths which should be unquestioned. Plus, it is against the rules to call people out, so they have to make the thread about a bunch of people instead of naming a few specifically.

It floors me when we put so many requirements on the brilliant and the best of the best!

They don't come any better than this rising star and who wants to knock him out of the race ~ progressive Democrats!

If America could buy into the Chimp, that is the bottom of the barrel for intelligence and awareness of space, time and information.

OBAMA ROCKS and so does HILLIARY.

Why do we destroy our own people and ask so much of them? Why!

If America could buy into the Chimp, that is the bottom of the barrel for intelligence and awareness of space, time and information.

Good Lord... Mr. Magoo for prez!!!

If the current occupant can get even 1% of the vote MaGoo has a chance for a landslide....

party to set our standards so low that we will vote for anybody who looks good in a suit and has a D behind his name.

don't carry much weight here. This isn't freerepublic.com

can tell by the way he talks that he is calculating and parsing everything, so as not to 'misspeak,' and tell the truth. Saw on Meet the Press last weekend where he had promised not to run for pres in 2008, and he basically just says that that statement is no longer operative, but with our standards being so low these days, nobody even expects politicians to keep their promises. The people we put into office to run this country need to be strong principled leaders, not timid self-promoting followers.

and the way he wears his suits.

The man is brilliant and after reading his book last Spring ,he has a WORLD VIEW that is lacking, to say the least, in this Administration.


I heard someone say that he "Doesn't have experience in international politics."

I laughed because our current RESIDENT had no idea of the names of any of the leaders, never traveled to any of the countries and only wants to fall off of his tricycle.

Bring on a MAN for the 21st Century that is in touch with a TRUE world view.

Bring on Obama!
:yourock:

You might want to rephrase that. Are we just trying to outdo the GOP or are we trying to do the right thing?

:sarcasm:

:shrug:

don't get me wrong, I like the guy but it just seems like the 2 year senator is getting hypred up and there has been a great deal of media hype lately. I don't like it. Makes me feel tin foilish all over.

However, I guess as with any candidate, any hype- where as people are feeling good about a candidate is a good thing for the candidate as it makes him more electable. I like the guy but it's going to take a bit more convincing for me

Dap

about what heros so many potential candidates are, and sick of hearing about how sick people are of hearing things, but I don't expect those things to go away, lol.

My comment, and suggestion, is this: the remarks you are sick of hearing are usually responses to someone trying to promote Obama for '08. If no one was pushing him, there would be no need to push back. That's the way it works. If people are campaigning someone I don't want to vote for, I'm going to give reasons why I don't like their choice.

Don't want to hear it? Don't campaign him. Feel determined to campaign for an '08 run? Get used to the criticism. It's not going to go away.

That reality is not specific to Obama; it applies to any and all potential candidates.

If he were to get the nod, I would absolutely vote for him and be proud to have him as President.

So far, he hasn't shown that he's interested in opening the books on BushInc.

CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports the fruits of Obama's legal labor will be found on the Internet.

The new law provides Americans with a new website, what Obama calls a "Google for government." Eventually, anyone will be able to type in a few key words and learn details of where federal tax dollars go, and perhaps whether those trillions are being spent wisely or foolishly.

While he was the last legislator President George W. Bush saluted, it was still a big day for a freshman who's joked about how tough it is when you're almost dead last in seniority.

"I finally got a bill passed," Obama said.

It's a good-government measure designed to give journalists and average citizens access to budget secrets Washington insiders now try to hide, like that notorious "earmark" done late at night authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars for a bridge to a virtually uninhabited island up in Alaska, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere.

"All of us have an interest in making sure that our tax money is spent wisely. If it's going to bridges to nowhere in Alaska, if it's going to some fat cat contractor who has a relationship with a legislator, that's money that could've gone to teacher salaries," Obama said.

Sounds pretty anti-corruption, open government to me.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_law_known_as_google_for_government/index.html

He had an opportunity to show he's anti-corruption, open government when the DSM investigation letter showed up on his desk.

And he preaches the same bipartisanship pablum that Clinton preached as he closed the books on Bush1 so he could have a "peaceful retirement" - worked out well for the 9-11 families, didn't it? I won't buy it a second time.

When the Downing Street Minutes memo's came out John KERRY wrote a letter trying to get an investigation into the DSM memo's and I don't recall seeing Obama's name on the list. Not even Feingold signed that. So when Obama joins Kerry on taking Iraq seriously than perhaps I'll give him a second glance. And yes we can't let the Bush's go away to Paraguay and retire nicely there and never be tried for his crimes.

Pat Roberts would have opened an investigation? It takes 11 senators from the minority to get the majority chairman to open an investigation? If all 45 dem sens would have signed would Roberts have done a thing? I doubt that Roberts would have done anything even if Kerry got 51 signatures.

It was a nice idea that had no practical chance in hell of having any effect whatsoever. One could make an argument is was Kerry grandstanding to his base. He's been around the block and knew the letter would have no effect.

Now, if the Dems take the majority and a similar letter is written and Obama backs off I'll join you, but I seriously doubt that he would back off.

You asked about anti-corruption and open government and I provided an example of that from Obama. An example of the 98th ranked in senority senator in the minority party getting a bill passed that allows a light to be shined on the corrupt repukes in congress. He got it passed through a Rep Senate and a Rep house. He actually did something that WILL have an effect. (I know, Kerry has too and I like him, it's not about Obama vs. Kerry.)

I despise bushco as much as you but they are a sympton of the problem that will not go away simply because bunnypants leaves office.

That's my prerogative.

p.s. A long winded, outraged reply to my post isn't gonna change my mind. Because the bottom line is that in my book, Obama is a DINO. I want Gore or someone like him like Conyers or RFK Jr. who is unafraid to go up against the powers that be instead of playing politics and kissing ass. Simple as that.

That is just not realistic.

for not agreeing with everyone everytime....we'd have all three branches of government and enact some serious progressive changes. yeah, I wish. :eyes:

What's more likely is that we'll splinter off into about 13 different parties...just like Rove wants us to do.

Barack Obama on the issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

During the '04 election, the freepers in my neighborhood (I'm SURROUNDED by them :() had Bush signs in their yards. What was right next to the Bush sign? AN OBAMA SIGN. Obama could win. No doubt about it.

Has he done so much for the people of Illinois that even the misguided Bush supporters like him? Does he have so much charisma that they prefer him even though he's a Dem?

I am not surprised to hear what you say, my tiny sample of 2 Republicans (one who knows Bush is an idiot, and another who is a major Limbaugh type) tells me that Republicans like something about Obama, but I'm trying to understand exactly what they like so much.

I know he wouldn't need much crossover support from fence-sitting Repubs to win the WH, but if he could broadly appeal to even the Bush supporters, I'd say that's a strong case for hoping he runs.

environment.

"Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in," Obama shouted. "And if I can do anything to make sure that not just my daughter but every child in America has green pastures to run in and clean air to breathe and clean water to swim in, then that is something I'm going to work my hardest to make happen."


Stirring up the convention crowd.
Photo: David Katz/Obama for Illinois.The crowd went bananas in response to this call for unity across ethnic and socio-economic lines, as though they'd been waiting for exactly this kind of dynamic leader to free environmentalism from the perception that it's predominately a white upper-middle-class issue.

Obama's environmental activism stretches back to his undergrad days at Columbia University, during which he did a three-month stint with a Ralph Nader offshoot organization trying to convince minority students at City College in Harlem to recycle. Later, when he worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he fought for lead abatement in the Altgeld Gardens neighborhood.

After getting a law degree from Harvard, Obama became a civil-rights lawyer and then in 1996 was elected to the Illinois state senate, representing the 13th district on Chicago's South Side, where he distinguished himself as a leader on environmental and public-health issues. In 2003, Obama was one of six state senators to receive a 100 Percent Environmental Voting Record Award from the Illinois Environmental Council.

His efforts on behalf of the environment have been so consistent and comprehensive, in fact, that LCV and the Sierra Club endorsed Obama in his bid for Congress this year over half a dozen other Democrats competing in the primary. Last month, the LCV named him a 2004 Environmental Champion, one of 18 sitting and prospective members of Congress to receive the award.<snip>

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/04/griscom-obama/


Environment
Friday, August 11, 2006
Printable FormatAs a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Obama has worked to ensure our nation's environmental laws and policies balance America's needs for a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth.

Lead
Since coming to Washington, Senator Obama has made the elimination of childhood lead poisoning one of his top priorities.

Over 400,000 children in the U.S. suffer from lead poisoning. Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children including IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity, and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. The most common source of lead exposure is lead paint in older housing.

During his first year in office, Senator Obama successfully fought to get the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish long-overdue rules for how contractors involved in the renovation and remodeling of homes should deal with lead paint hazards. To force EPA to issue the rules, Senator Obama threatened to block the confirmation of an EPA official and passed an amendment to stop EPA from delaying the rulemaking process. When the rules are eventually finalized, they will prevent 28,000 lead-related illnesses each year, resulting in an annual net economic benefit of more than $4 billion.

Lead is also present in many children's products. In 2003 and 2004, nearly 150 million pieces of toy jewelry were recalled because of toxic levels of lead. To address this problem, Senator Obama introduced the Lead-Free Toys Act (S. 2048) to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban any children's product containing lead.

Senator Obama is also an original cosponsor of the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act (S. 2053), which would provide tax credits to property owners who eliminate or contain paint hazards in homes where low-income young children or women of child-bearing age live.

Great Lakes
The Great Lakes store one-fifth of the world's surface water, and Lake Michigan alone provides drinking water for an estimated six million residents in Illinois. The Great Lakes are also important for recreation, transportation, and economic development. To preserve this national treasure, Senator Obama has been a strong supporter of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and is a cosponsor of the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act (S. 508).

One of the greatest threats facing the Great Lakes is aquatic invasive species. Senator Obama was successful in ensuring that Illinois receives adequate federal funding to operate a barrier to prevent Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan and disrupting the balance of the lake's ecosystem.

Global Climate Change
In addition to protecting the quality of the air we breathe, Senator Obama believes the U.S. needs to do more to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. He is a cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), which was introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman.

More info: Senator Obama's speech to the Associated Press in April 2006 on climate change.

Mercury
In December 2005, the Chicago Tribune published an in-depth report on the extent of mercury contamination in the fish eaten by Americans. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related to mercury. In adults, mercury can cause major neurological problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility.

Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased in the Chicago area. The Tribune series also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and EPA have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish.

To address this problem, Senator Obama introduced two bills - the Mercury Market Minimization Act (S. 3627) and the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act (S. 3631). These bills would significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.





On the Issues
To find out more about specific issues, use the links below. You will find Senator Obama's positions, actions, and links to legislation
Crime
Senator Obama is a strong proponent of tougher measures to fight crime, in particular the growing problem of methamphetamines, which has ravaged many communities in Illinois. He has also advocated providing more resources to local law enforcement officers.

Environment
As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Obama has worked to ensure our nation's environmental laws and policies balance America's needs for a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth.

Homeland Security
Senator Obama believes that greater attention needs to be paid to the nation’s homeland security. To that end, he has supported efforts to distribute more funds to cities like Chicago most at risk of a terrorist attack. He has also introduced legislation to strength chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.

Immigration
Senator Obama shares the growing public concern about illegal immigration in the United States. The challenge facing President Bush and Congress is how to effectively stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, better manage immigration flows going forward, and deal with illegal aliens who are already living and working in this country.

Education
Senator Obama is committed to providing every American with the opportunity to receive a quality education, from pre-kindergarten to college or vocational school to job retraining programs.

Health Care
Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care was a priority for Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate and is a priority for him in the United States Senate. He believes firmly that health care should be a right for everyone, not a privilege for the few.

Veterans
As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama is committed to helping the heroes who defend our nation today and the veterans who fought in years past.

Ethics and Lobbying Reform
Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. During his first year as an Illinois State Senator, he helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.


<snip>
Senator Obama is focused on promoting economic growth and bringing good paying jobs to Illinois. Obama serves on the important Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees legislation and funding for the environment and public works projects throughout the country, including the national transportation bill. He also serves on the Veterans ’ Affairs Committee where he is focused on investigating the disability pay discrepancies that have left thousands of Illinois veterans without the benefits they earned. Senator Obama also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.

During his seven years in the Illinois state Senate, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. Obama also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

Obama is especially proud of being a husband and father of two daughters, Malia, 8 and Sasha, 4. Obama and his wife, Michelle, married in 1992 and live on Chicago ’s South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.

Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Hawaii to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham. Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983, and moved to Chicago in 1985 to work for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.<snip>


http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

I had dug up more things for you to read, but my computer CRASHED and I lost it all.:( Here's some of it. Just so you know...Obama is way more 'moderate' than I am, but he's better than ANY repuke could ever hope to be. If Obama was my only choice, I'd vote for him. He's always been against the invasion of Iraq and THAT is an important issue. The repukes won't be able to throw that in his face during the campaign. That's a plus.

All great stuff. I knew his stand on many issues, but not so much about his environmental record, which is excellent. If this is a top priority for him, all the more reason to like him. No reason to save the economy if we aren't planning to save the planet.

I am still curious however why the Bush-supporting Repubs like him. I realize that environmental protection is somewhat of a bipartisan issue, but I am just pleasantly surprised and slightly puzzled that someone willing to put a Bush sign up in their yard (meaning willing to advertise their support of that moron) is also smart enough to put up an Obama sign.

Civil rights, pro-choice, and pro environment aren't necessarily issues I would equate with someone with a Bush sign in their yard.

I'll stop by and ask them WHY they like him. I just figured Alan Keyes was so damn bad...they opted for the lesser of 2 evils? Just a guess on my part though. :)

He does preach unity and I think EVERYONE is sick of the cess pool politics has become in recent years.

He certainly does have charisma and speaking ability.

I also think another possibility is simply that he is a good looking mullato who dresses well and does not sound "black" and has the rep as a rising star. Kinda like the country club circuit latching onto Tiger Woods. Republicans are nothing if not shallow. You know, the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with.

will say he is a DINO.

you are also right to compare with RFK, when RFK ran in '68 he had been a US Senator only three years! Yes he was his brother's Atty Gen as well, but as you point out Barak has a great deal of other experience as well--in state govt. to boot. He is as qualified as RFK if he did run in 2008.

RFK was his own man and he wasn't a wus in the Senate. Obama hasn't taken a controversial stand in the Senate yet where as Kennedy had more balls. Please don't compare him to any of the Kennedy's.

and I'll compare him to RFK if I like. Actually if he is a mediocre senator he would be compared to JFK.

He is still a newbie to the big boy politics. Being a state rep is one thing but this is the big boy game's. When he is going to be a leader in the Senate? He needs to do that before he can prove to me he's worthy of my vote for president. Until then I stick with people who deserve it.

and we were not permitted to have him.

The nation wanted Kerry as president in 2004, and we were not permitted to have him.

And this was even after the Corporate Media did its best to skew our perception of those men.

Even Dean was often recreated in the Media to be that which he is not. And his campaign was eventually put to bed overnight by a media onslaught.

All of those men were either lied about, or had inconsequential elements to their personalities, or events in their campaigns inflated and (most-likely) purposefully misconstrued by the majority of the media. George Bush, who proudly nurtures one or three personality disorders, was somehow made to be the pal you'd choose to hang out with over your own best friend.

Now I see Obama as being in some ways groomed by the media. He is almost a fictional character of seamless perfection and acceptability, emotionally speaking. And voting emotionally is very common.

I have almost no doubt that Obama is a good and honorable man. But I also feel that way about Gore, Dean, and even Kerry.

Even though the press appeared to wish me to believe otherwise, I went with my own deeper reading and observations, as well as the record each man created before finally coming to any "emotionally-based" part in my decisions.

My point here is that I can't help but feel that the decision of who is acceptable presidential material is ultimately not ours to make. This is not by any means a new idea, but the Obama coverage has me dwelling on that once again.

Gore, a man driven by the urgency of a planet in real peril, would be a disaster for those who gain enormous benefit and hold power and sway over the actions that have brought us to where we now are.

Obama? I'm not so sure. But I think somebody who watches very closely from the top is pretty certain.

Obama is soothing. It's as if we're in the post-war Eisenhower period. (has Obama made anything like Eisenhower's farewell "military-industrial complex" speech yet?) Obama is comforting and reassuring, and that is very nice.

So I would finally vote for Obama. But at this point I can't help but feel that it would be because I was allowed to.

We would feel good with a President Obama. Good things would be done.

But some other things, the huge money-makers such as war, oil, health--and whatnot--will likely continue on pretty much as decreed by the money-makers themselves.

In the midst of feeling good, We will petition and cajole, wonder why something is not being done and complain as the house falls down around our ears, and the process will continue.

Perhaps change will just come a bit more slowly with a corporate approved "good-man" president, and perhaps that is the best we can do in America today.

While I don't like or trust Obama and don't agree with your support of him, I do agree that Obama is being packaged and marketed to the people. Not unlike how everything is hyped from "blockbuster" movies to the "hottest" movie stars to the "latest" trends.

Time to look behind the curtain and take note of the manipulation.

Because Obama is THEIR choice-NOT the peoples choice and they are pushing him for all it's worth. The media and the powers that be don't want Gore or Kerry or Dean or Conyers or RFK Jr. or anyone who will change the status quo and keep them from their shady and greedy "business" deals.

That the majority of people of the United States really want Gore-which has been evident on every damn poll here on DU and elsewhere-doesn't matter one iota! It's all so very obvious, so very devious and so very despicable. :puke:

We should NOT let em get away with it! :grr:

I would never support Obama in any real meaning of the word, but merely accept him as the only choice left to me. I gladly voted for Obama to be senator in Illinois. And that is where he can continue to be helpful.

I wouldn't trust him as president, not because I believe he's a dishonest man, but because I do not trust that he's up to the work that needs to be done by the next American president.

We need to work to achieve real reform in the system, by way of the system of contributions and the elections themselves before Americans can actually get what they want and need in a president. But that is merely my opinion at this juncture.

We could certainly benefit from having an operational Constitution as well.

Some things are basic essentials before we can actually boast about freedom and democracy, or others can make assumptions about how to protect what essentially does not actually exist to any practical degree.

Hillary is the one the MSM is pushing on us, not Obama. get a grip on yourself.

things that Barack Obama are not. (not sure about the suburban one) People usually like themselves a lot, and are often suspicious of people who are not like them, end of story.

For my part, I think it's too early to tell, but a look at his state record would help. He would need a popular, red state running mate like Warner if he were to run, but I think he would have better odds than Kerry of winning the general election.

even of the democratic party. We are one faction--a more left wing faction of the party--and activists--where many democrats are not activists and are more to the center.

work for some of your local candidates please!

That makes him moderately conservative. Real progressives are not allowed in either house.

... while crossing the country to campaign for other candidates, and after a trip to Africa for some reason.

Obama has not distinguished himself as a US Senator, to date, with any specific legislation or position. He is largely riding media acclaim to popularity, and, as we know, media stardom doesn't equate to ultimate victory.

There are 467 people running and Obama supports Lamont:

3. Sen. Hillary Clinton tried to call Lamont last night and didn't get through. The two spoke today. Clinton's HillPAC contributed $5000 to Lamont this morning, as did Sen. Barack Obama's HopeFund PAC. And moments before the Dem unity rally, Sen. Russ Feingold had a nice chat with Lamont. Why is Jonathan Tasini blasting Lamont? HRC tomorrow attends a NORPAC fundraiser. Ben Smith tells you why that matters to the Lamont race.

----------------


# Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama both didn't wait for the ink to dry on the Lieberman Party petitions before donating through their respective PACs to Ned Lamont (D-CT).

Cash can come from anywhere.

That's the problem, people are so anxious for a real leader with the courage of progressive convicions. But right now its not fair to paint Obama as a centrist or anything else. He is a freshman, and I'm sure he has a lot of influences trying to pull him in different directions. It remains to be seen what kind of politician he will be.

But at the same time, its also a little too soon to be swearing up and down he is a libral and progressive. It's just too soon.

That's part of the reason I don't want him to run in 2008. I don't feel like I know enough about him, and I don't feel like the country will even be able to know enough about him to elect him president before he has a chance to prove himself with his stances and his extended (i.e. long term) record.

That might seem true.

Critical thinkers who analyze what he's done since he's been in the Senate may well come to different conclusions- for good reason.

Those ranking of 8th and 18th most liberal from two different sites are based upon how the senators voted, they are based upon his actions.

The ultimate vote on an issue may not be the decisive vote- and they don't take criticism that hurts the cause into account (such as Obama disrespecting the filibuster process during the Alito confirmation hearings).

What I have observed through certain votes- on the bankruptcy bill for example, shows me a pattern of enabling far right policies (even where he ultimtely records a vote against them).

I think the jury's still out on whether he'll actually be progresive leader or a so called "centrist" who sticks his finger up and sees which way the wind is blowing. Thus far, I've not been terribly impressed.

So smart, well educated, committed to public service and with charisma and charm by the bucket full. The gorgeous, accomplished wife and cute kids are a bonus. I am not sure that he should run in 08, but honestly, I have been watching him promoting his book, and he is looking presidential to me.

I am really impressed that he went from Harvard Law Review President to a job as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. He had school loans to pay, too. That to me says so much about the man's character.

He wants a Federal ban on semi-automatics reinstated. Say goodbye to the electoral votes in the Western and Southern states...

:D

I like Obama BTW.

has really floored me. Thanks for setting things straight.

I can't believe how some people dislike one aspect of a person and blow it totally out of proportion. You're never going to get the perfect candidate in everybody's mind.

I only see one flaw with Obama, he doesn't stress enough about how the government needs to be fiscally responsible. But I still voted for him and will again.

I think his greatest strength (and why people call him charismatic) is because he educates as he challenges. He doesn't just attack other people with flippant remarks (like many members of both sides of congress).