Obama has no substance and he's inexperienced.

Not true, but a meme that gets repeated here dozens of times a day. Here are some of the reasons I support Obama.

Obama has walked the walk, and not just talked the talk.

It's not just that he was against the war, or that he had a strong list of solid progressive accomplishments in the State Senate. It's not just his liberal/progressive voting record in the U.S. Senate. I really admire that upon graduating from Columbia he went to work in one of the most deprived and gritty neighborhoods in the country as a community organizer. And he spent almost 4 years doing that before law school. I admire his brains: He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and was the first black editor of the Law Review. Instead of going for big bucks upon graduation from Harvard, he returned to Chicago and practiced law for the disenfranchised. He taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

I like the down to earth quality I sense about him, and his clearly fantastic managerial/organizational skills. He's running a top notch campaign.

I like his ability to inspire and motivate. You can't be an effective president without having the American people backing you up. The changes that need to be made require the active participation of as many Americans as possible. He knows that.

Most of all, I like that he's a canny fighter. He doesn't broadcast that he's coming. He seems to have internalized Roosevelt's "talk softly..." maxim. When the Clinton came after him, he swiftly neutralized them. And he's done that with criticism from other sources as well.

I don't believe he's owned by corporations. Nothing in his voting record supports that contention. The vast majority of his funding comes from small donors.

I think he has judgment, intelligence, maturity, humor and a rare ability to reach out to people and get them to follow.

Hope this helps you understand why I'm supporting Barack Obama.

Oh yeah, I think he's absolutely electable.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst

the inconsistencies that run through his Senate career and into his post Senate career trouble me. Like his talk, there just hasn't been enough walk for me. And his errors in judgment haven't been minor ones.

If he has walked the walk, where and when did this occur?

Maybe he is just dreaming!

Specific details are given about where and when the walk was walked--across several decades.

Your comment is interesting to me: you conflate walking the walk with talking the talk. The OP says Obama has done the walking, not just talking. You seem to be implying that only talking counts (that the talk IS the walk). I totally and passionately disagree: talk is cheap; looking at what a candidate has accomplished in various areas tells you about what they will do--not what they say.

You evidently prefer parroting mindless and stupid memes to actually learning anything. Pathetic. I detail what he did in my OP.

:shrug:

eom

The "walk" is easily seen by anyone with a remotely open mind. Something you obviously don't have. I addressed some of in my OP. Kind of cowardly of you not to address it.

The reality of a Democratic party that has laid down on the job.

Obama's platitudes give me no hope that he will be anything different.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Should I report you for insinuating that I am stupid and contemptuous?

Obama seems too lightweight to me.

Nice guy. Good looking. Charismatic. Youthful.

But where is the smoldering anger and desire for retribution that MY Democratic candidate needs?

Your post therefore shows you to be a reactionary screamer who simply enjoys a good smackdown as opposed to moving forward in a positive manner with the least amount of blowback possible.

The reality is that no Dem President would ever abuse the Constitution like Bush did...and that's the crux of the problem. NO DEM would EVER USURP POWER like BUSH/CHENEY! But, our experience with them is that they will not USE THE POWER of BUSH/CHENY TO HELP US...and they won't ROLL BACK the Stuff Bush/CHENEY DID...they will just "cover it over in the interests of 'getting along' and not EVER ROOT OUT THE EVIL THAT'S GONE ON FOR DECADES!

They will get assassinated or driving out of OFFICE if they touch the POWERS THAT BE!

Or maybe you prefer making an absolute fool out of yourself.

why Obama was voting present on those votes..it's been explained and it has to do with the way Illinois State politics are. Don't just repeat a meme you've read without making sure it's true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

embedded int this post.

LOL

I'm waiting for the hoards to come screaming in to tell you why you are wrong. Care to hazard a guess which of the usual suspects will show up first?


:popcorn:



Laura

Who knew? :eyes:

I won't edit because it would mess with your post.

:hi:

Yep, you got me on it.


Laura

:D

No insult intended, just trying for constructive criticism. :P

Not sure how I managed to do it, but I surely did. I really DO know better when I'm not being a wise-ass on DU.


Peas two ewe.

:hi:


Laura :evilgrin:

Note well, fellow progressives, that Obama's resume speaks to precisely some of the things we are most worried about with the Bush administration.

Voter rights? Check

Erosion of the constitution? Check

Collapse of the inner cities? Check

Poverty? Check

Rise of the police state? Check

As a Dean supporter 4 years ago I talked to a lot of Iowans, and the ones who were supporting Edwards said they were supporting him because of his message of hope and unity (which I thought was shallow and unrealistic). It's awful hard to campaign against hope and unity, and people who said that I usually thanked them for their time and said I hoped they'd reconsider. It's funny to me now that Obama's running on a message of hope and unity, and it's the Edwards supporters who are saying that Obama's message is unrealistic. :rofl:

Now I'm really scared.

You think Obama's going to support election-stealing and torture? :shrug:

(I'd say that our other big issues are the environment and the war. Obama's got the most solid environmental platform of the big three, and he didn't vote for the war. 'Nuff said.)

He didn't vote for the WAR, because he WASN'T a US Senator at the TIME.

'Nuff said.

:shrug:

:eyes:

just parroting stuff. He voted for funding with withdrawal dates. He voted for Feingolds legislation to withdraw all troops. He voted like the majority of the other most liberal Senators. He explained his vote for the Patriot Act renewal with amendments to my satisfaction.

And his record in the Senate is light years better than JE's. Not even close.

They just want to regurgitate what has been said by their respective candidate

:eyes:

Try sticking your head where the sun.....

c'mon. try harder. that's so lame.

kisses,

cali

:hi:

He's still not my first choice, though. I'll be flipping a coin on 5 Feb, I guess...

and Obama ranked with Hillary in every Big Corporate Donor category. So, I don't think it's true that he gets "vast majority of funding from small donors." Edwards and Kucinich ranked the lowest with Dodd and Biden above both.

Unless you have a chart refuting the one that was posted here...:shrug:

:shrug:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S

Edit: grammar.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008



could Obama be getting 3X as much money from lobbyists? WOW!

:P

Obama has raised $80,256,427.

He's gotten $76,859 from lobbyists.

That's what, slightly less than a tenth of a percent? :shrug:

Edwards has raised $30,329,152.

He's gotten $18,900 from lobbyists.

This is like 2/3 of a tenth of a percent.

So as a percent of total money, Obama's taken half again as much as Edwards has from lobbyists, but it's still not a lot at all.

And if you look at their top corporate contributers, it's a lot of lawyers, banks, and investment brokers for both of them. :shrug:

not sure how that works. people expect to get ehat they pay for dollar for dollar. they really don't give a rats ass about much else.
and Obama's not exactly "walking the anit-corporatist" walk now, is he?
lawyers banks ec, don;t concern me like big pharma and the lobbyist do, but thanks!

I'm saying that proportionally Edwards and Obama aren't all that different when it comes to lobbyist money. :shrug:

And, I think expecting a politician not to be beholden is naive. :(

oft told here, but still a lie.
as far as relationships with lobbyists and corporations, it is a concern of many with Obama, and rightfully so. I also know many who belive Edwards is unelectable because he's shunned corporatism- so for them, Obama is a pragmatic choice. :shrug:
It is what it is. But Barack's hand is in some very ugly little pies.

:shrug:

Personally, I think Edwards is a shyster. It's not something I can back up with facts, so don't ask me to. It's just a gut feeling. So that precludes me from considering him for the presidency. Once Edwards is eliminated from consideration, Obama is the obvious choice. :)

Not perfect, but the best choice given the options. :)

to a large extent when a business throws 4- 6X as much $$ at one candidate, %'s are bullshit. and you see them quoted here as if they're meanigful all the tme.
JE vowed not to and did not accept a lot of money, and he;s paying for it, dearly. I totally understand the "gut" thing- for better or worse, I think a lot of people vote that way. I am so cynical, there ain;t any candidate I don;t have big problems with. There is a certain "way" about JE I'm not crazy about myself, but I think Barack is delierately vague in order to make the most amount people comfy with him. That rubs me the wrong way, same as it did wil Bill Clinton. I'm not going to deny it's working for him though, he's got that magic.

:pals:

and trying so hard to only see the substance, you know? LOL... it's hard to escape the influence because the rhetoric and personal magnetism partly determine what we are willing to believe.... I am so darn cynical, I don;t say half the negative stufff I think here, LOL. i am trying ot keep a personal detachment. LOL.
But I'm going to work for whoever gets the nomination. same as I always have.
:hug:
good to see you!

that "leadership" is an intangible quality that nevertheless gets things done. Supporting the candidate who you like the most is an expression of the person's leadership abilities.

Good to see you too! :)

is really a subconcious way of taking a tally of all the signs you see and filtering them through your life experience to help make a complicated decison. Not a bad thing at all, Xema! But my cynical side says- I'm only seeing what they want me to. I am just a wary person.
Wish I could have a beer with all of them, then decide.
:smile:

:rofl:

I'll push it further: I'd like to go on a pub crawl with all of them. :D

that would be something, huh?

:dreams:

you'd have one hell of a hangover, my friend. but that would be a story to tell.

You can come too. :toast:

In one year- DC for the next inaugural when we take the WH back, with you know, whoever,
Maybe I will see you there!
:beer: :toast: :beer:

:party:

a lot of great DUers got together in DC, one was live blogging me texts from the protest @ the inaugural parade. it would have been a great comfort. :cry: they had a fecking great time, without me. next year, i'm going to be in dc for sure, to celebrate and mr scorpio is going to be my first dance.
you should totally go, it'll be a very happy place to be for Duers.

I was just over at Opensecrets which confirms that he has hundreds of thousands of small donors, and there are hundreds of articles about his success raising funds through small donations if you search on google.

Here's one of them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/us/politics/17obama.html

In addition, I noted on OpenSecrets that nearly a third of what JE has raised comes from one special interest group- lawyers.

from October: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Edwards_7_million_22_million_in_effective_cash_on_hand.html

70 percent of the contributions came from grassroots fundraising.

- More than 150,000 contributors from across the country this year.

- 93 percent of contributions were in amounts of $100 or less.

- 97 percent of contributions were in amounts of $250 or less.

- Less than 1 percent of contributions were in amounts of $1000 or more.

- Almost half the donors this quarter were first time Edwards contributors.


from August: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701424.html?tid=informbox

Edwards Bars Lobbyists' Contributions

Edwards has raised $23 million. While eschewing lobbyists and PAC money, Edwards, a former trial lawyer, has benefited more than any other candidate from money from attorneys.

His campaign on Thursday, however, drew a distinction between money from lobbyists and that of other donors with possible special interests.

"There is one group of people whose job it is to influence government and that is lobbyists," deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said. "The lobbyist are at the core of the way the system is rigged against regular folks. What we're saying is let's take the money out of the equation."


from January: http://iowansforedwards.blogspot.com/2008/01/edwards-campaign-reports-record.html

- Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign

- More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today’s online contributions are for amounts less than $100

John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate in the race who has never accepted a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists.

edwards is squeaky clean compared to everyone else in terms of where his money is coming from.
comparing the two is a fool's errand

and, the LAST thing we need is someone who 'talks softly' to these entrenched republicans and their corporate partners who obstruct or water-down the changes folks say they want.

think JE doesn't do bundling. Go to Open secrets. The last thing we need is someone who's that heavily beholden to one interest group. Most of Obama's funding is from small donations.

In any case, your post like those of almost all Edwards supporters is non-responsive. I can understand why you wouldn't want to compare JE's Senate record and history to Obama's.

or are unaware of.

I posted some above: "Edwards is the only Democratic candidate in the race who has never accepted a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists."

Lawyers/Law Firms $10,536,629

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00009638

lawyers bad- big pharma + lobbyists: good!

it takes a lot of parsing to make anyone but edwards look good when it comes to campaign contributions, doesn't it?

He IS inexperienced and his campaign seems smooth because the media has left him alone. Doesn't that make you wonder at all about why the media has left him virtually untouched?

But, he could get elected if the American people continue to be sheeple, buy into his sound good promises for a new dawn and let the media choose their candidate for them.

I don't support Obama, but I think the smear attacks on the candidates hurt all of us so I want to support posts like yours whenever I can.

Your post makes the case for your support of Obama well. Thanks.

Barrack stands head and shoulders (and knees and toes too) above the Bushit. And almost in every aspect.

I dunno, maybe * knows how to throw 'em down faster and maybe where to cop... the best country clubs, stuff like that.

for your insight into Obama, I would not have done a better job than this,

great post.

:thumbsup:

He is a great talker with little substance. I listened to callers on C-span from his home state, and they said the same thing. He is all talk and no action. He has done nothing for Illinois.

And he cannot bring about the change we need--he is inexperienced and has nothing to offer but eloquent speech.

Goes for Edwards, (Who I like) too, to be fair. The difference is Edwards retracted and was humble & seemingly sincere about it.

they both showed bad judgment on their part, sound decisions are whats needed to be a President,

yes John Edwards regrets his decision but, also it tells me another thing about them,

they did not read the intelligent report, in another words, did not do their job.

I like Edwards, but like Kucinich, he has been unable to generate to support needed to win. I know, I know, the M$M are against those guys, but that is the nature of the beast. Those are the constraints that we, unfortunately are forced to work in.

Hillary is a no go.

Go Obama!

I wonder if Bill Clinton is aware that Obama actually helped him during that election :)

the first 4 section of the article:

In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

The election, to some degree, turned on these totals: Braun and Clinton had almost unanimous support among blacks. But just as important, if less obvious, are the implications black votership could have for future city and state elections: For the first time in ten years, more than half a million blacks went to the polls in Chicago. And with gubernatorial and mayoral elections coming up in the next two years, it served notice to every¬one from Jim Edgar to Richard M. Daley that an African-American voting bloc would be a force to be reckoned with in those races.

None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. "It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama. The son of a black Kenyan political activist and a white American anthropologist, Obama was born in Hawaii, received a degree in political science and English literature from Columbia University, and, in 1990, became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. In 1984, after Columbia but before Harvard, Obama moved to Chicago. "I came because of Harold Washington," he says. "I wanted to do community organizing, and I couldn't think of a better city than one as energized and hopeful as Chicago was then." He went to work for a South Side church-affiliated development group and "was heartened by the enthusiasm." But barely three years later, Washington died, and Obama, convinced he needed additional skills, enrolled at Harvard Law School. The African-American community he left, rent by political divisions and without a clear leader, went into a steep decline. By 1991, when Obama, law degree in hand, returned to Chicago to work on a book about race relations-having turned his back on the Supreme Court clerkship that is almost a given for the law review's top editor-black voter registration and turnout in the city were at their lowest points since record keeping began.

link to whole article: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

I found it to be an very informative read

:thumbsup:

And I'm more than ready to be convinced that he'll be a great President. He's a great speaker, very intelligent, very inspiring, etc. But his lack of political experience worries me a little. And sometimes he comes off as arrogant or even cocky - and the combination of arrogance and inexperience can be a deadly one, as we've learned with Bush.

IMO the media hasn't done a good enough job of going into Obama's record in the state legislature or his accomplishments in the Senate. Most of the coverage seems to boil down to "Gosh, isn't he inspiring?" Well, yeah, he is. But I want to know more about what he's inspiring us to DO. What has he inspired people to do in the past, what is his vision for the future of this country? In the debate, he seemed to often answer questions w/vague statements about "bipartisanship" "building a coalition" "hope and change." But once he gets this great coalition & popular support behind him, what will he actually DO with it? Why does he want it?

He has people working for him who obviously know what they are doing or he wouldn't be doing as well as he is. I am convinced this country would do just fine with him as president.

Thats my gut feeling.

Don