So what has Mr. Change changed in the past 10 years?

[Seeker30]

Obama, the one who constantly preaches change has been in public office since 1997, so what has he done to change a thing? He voted to keep the Patriot Act alive, he's voted to keep funding the war, what has he changed??

[Seen the light]

1. delete

[Hutzpa]

5. And its past his bed time too

Gomama is waiting to tuck you in....


bwahahahahaha! !

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[mac2]

23. How many elections are Dems going to promise "change"

when we get no change but the same ole corporate rule? Seems we can now say both parties lie to voters.

[ellisonz]

26. Ralph? Ralph Nader?

Is it really you?

[mikekohr]

38. OVERTIME PAY, REFORM

I'm from Illinois. While the rest of the nation rolled over and let Bush threaten the overtime pay of millions of Americans, Illinois State Senator Obama wrote and passed a bill in the Illinois legislature which was signed into law. The bill kept in place protections for Illinois workers that allowed us to to retain our rights to overtime pay. Obama also helped reform our state legislature, regarded as one of the nation's most nortorious, and he accomplished this by getting across the board support from both sides of the aisle, much like his similar accomplishment in helping pass the recent reforms enacted by the US Senate.

Both of our candidates are accomplished and ready to serve as president from day one. Saying otherwise is petty, partisan, and pathetic.

mike kohr

[x-g.o.p.er]

3. And just what the hell has Hillary done...

in 35 years of being the first lady of Arkansas and of the US?

Other than looking the other way and playing the victim rather well...

[mac2]

15. I'm not voting for either but Hillary did more than Obama

in her long years of public service.

[davsand]

29. Yep. She managed to set Universal Health Care back by what--a decade?

She also claims to have voted to go into Iraq without even knowing she was doing it. Hasn't she has done enough already?


:puke:


Lura

[okoboji]

4. I heard.....

that he gave a speech in 2002.

[blogslut]

9. 2004, dear

If you're going to insult my candidate, get your facts straight.

[blogslut]

6. For one

He changed the "common" wisdom about a black man winning the presidency. Yes He Can!

[Birthmark]

7. His image.

Doesn't cut it with me, but it seems to impress some. Welcome to representative government. :)

[mac2]

16. His image was created by the DLC and media

There is no there...there.

[Bongo Prophet]

32. You are far from home.

False
Reality.

[WillyT]

8. ...

[sandnsea]

10. The death penalty system in Ilinois

Expanded health care to children in Illinois. Created a hospital report card system to measure quality health care in Illinois. Created a commission to develop universal health care in Illinois. Reformed the ethics system in both Illinois and the US Senate. Created a summer school program for underserved communities. Created new funding for underserved black community colleges.

Why don't you spend just 10% of the time learning something as you do blowing hot air.

[mac2]

Gov. Ryan ended the death sentence in Illinois

The new governor did the rest.

[sandnsea]

18. Read More

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+illinois+death+penalty

[October]

14. In the Senate...

How does Obama answer for the Patriot Act votes and funding the war?

I'm serious.

[sandnsea]

19. And you can read more too

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+patriot+act+statement

And the war funding has been explained almost as often as Donny McClurkin.

[donheld]

37. Some people don't get it, because they don't want to. n/t

[mac2]

20. And why hasn't anyone asked about them?

[nonconformist]

31. I for one am not looking for legislative accomplishments.

I already know those.

What I wonder about is the deeper, new-consciousness-of-thinking type change that he talks about.

[mac2]

11. Na Da

[Proud2BAmurkin]

12. his votes after he pushed the button and it's too late and his mind

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. His position on funding the Iraq war. Campaigned against funding, flip flopped once elected

[mac2]

17. He betrayed us in Illinois by voting with Republican Nazi

appointments, terrorism laws, etc.

[Straight Shooter]

21. Good question. n/t

[Hill_YesWeWill]

22. YAWN! As a hillary supporter: Obama's done a lot, especially in bringing in NEW dem. voters

or would you rather have the youth voting with the republicans?

[mac2]

24. What about he being a globalist and for "free trade"?

Open borders? Amnesty? Anyone going to ask?

[Hill_YesWeWill]

25. Still Yawning, and by the way, some democrats like the idea of

amnesty! Are you not aware of this?

[Bongo Prophet]

33. Are you for these things or against? I can't tell.

And what do you mean by globalist?

[anamandujano]

35. Have you ever made a positive post about Hillary?

If so, could you please link us to it?

[Hill_YesWeWill]

39. I don't need to, there's enough already out there, besides I

don't spend a lot of time on here,

look, I just don't like the unfair, shameless, character attacks I see my fellow clinton supporters engaging in, it embarrasses me as a democrat and I think we can do better

[Hill_YesWeWill]

40. ok, also, I dont know how to send you a link, but I would if I could, because a number of my posts

are pro-Hillary

but, I'm no Fanatic, I'll be the first to tell you that

[Hill_YesWeWill]

42. Also, I wasn't aware that I am expected to "campaign" or spam here on DU for the

democrat of my choice, and I did not join this site to do anything like that,

please show me the rule that states that.

I will be pro democrat always, no matter who the democratic candidate is and I suggest you look at the DU rules because they do in fact state that members are expected to support democratic candidates for office.

[Sapphocrat]

27. I think his hair is shorter than it was 10 years ago. n/t

[candice]

28. His job...state legislator to Senator to Presidential candidate?

[nonconformist]

30. Nothing... but he brings a fresh charisma to all the same things.

Which is, apparently, enough. World-changing, even.

[Bongo Prophet]

34. If you are sincere, then do your own research. Good to get fresh air and exercise.

Always glad to give some tips on how to get some info.
Google rule - google is NOT always your friend. Lies and disinfo abound in the links, along with facts. If new to a subject, it is best to go with more official sources first. Gov't sites for votes, c-span for videos of congressional sessions and committee hearings, the National Rachives, etc.. These are great sources.
Stay away from opinion and forum sites for the real info - this filters out some of the noise.

Speeches, interviews, appearances at think tanks and seminars - all very informative.
The candidates web site is a must, as it reveals more than you would think.

Here you can see history, intent, message and style.

History: check out the facts of their backgrounds, both personal and career.
You can fact check them if anything looks fishy.

Intent: You may or may not believe them, based on what you learn of their history and you intuitions of their character. What they say about what they plan to do tells you what they will be running on, not necessarily what will happen if they get in office. Think about how they sell their ideas, and whether it will appeal to the electorate. More importantly perhaps, how it appeals to you. Since Congress actually has to pass laws, you should know that the final product may not look like it did at the conceptual stage. That's the system. The executive cabinet level changes are a different story. Many changes can be made there, and quickly. Overturning many presidential signing statements, whether they renew respect for the National Archives and open records - such a long list.

Message: There are often more than one message being woven through a campaign's public and private face. The exoteric messages of hope and change are the immediate hooks, but there are others that certain groups see while others do not - an esoteric set of signals there for those who can read them. There are often policy hints that can't be dealt with in detail during a speech or as a bullet point in the bigger agenda. People won't get motivated to vote based on reading a long list, or an extended explanation of a policy. (see style). Sometimes it is something that, if said overtly, it would lose votes from some part of their support base.( see dog whistle) Usually, when someone says they don't see substance, they are not looking hard enough.

Style: How that information is packaged, how convincing it is, whether the candidate is a policy dealer in the LBJ style, or inspirational big picture person is instructive to how things will get done. Each style has strengths and weaknesses, and each has adherents. Much of this is determined by personality traits, then massaged by PR and other consultants.

Yes, they are always euphemised and group tested. That is a given.
Regardless, it can give you an idea of the intentions put forward, what they will be running on. What they say they will intend to do. Never think they will do them all on their own - it involves Congress, the Courts and activist citizenry to move things forward.

when these things work together for the common good, it is a wonderful thing.
After centuries of rule by pharoahs and priests and popes and royalty - and the ocassional fascist oil cabal - government by and for the people is a pretty good thing, imperfect as it is.

[Bongo Prophet]

36. If you are sincere, then do your own research. Good to get fresh air and exercise.

Always glad to give some tips on how to get some info.
Google rule - google is NOT always your friend. Lies and disinfo abound in the links, along with facts. If new to a subject, it is best to go with more official sources first. Gov't sites for votes, c-span for videos of congressional sessions and committee hearings, the National Rachives, etc.. These are great sources.
Stay away from opinion and forum sites for the real info - this filters out some of the noise.

Speeches, interviews, appearances at think tanks and seminars - all very informative.
The candidates web site is a must, as it reveals more than you would think.

Here you can see history, intent, message and style.

History: check out the facts of their backgrounds, both personal and career.
You can fact check them if anything looks fishy.

Intent: You may or may not believe them, based on what you learn of their history and you intuitions of their character. What they say about what they plan to do tells you what they will be running on, not necessarily what will happen if they get in office. Think about how they sell their ideas, and whether it will appeal to the electorate. More importantly perhaps, how it appeals to you. Since Congress actually has to pass laws, you should know that the final product may not look like it did at the conceptual stage. That's the system. The executive cabinet level changes are a different story. Many changes can be made there, and quickly. Overturning many presidential signing statements, whether they renew respect for the National Archives and open records - such a long list.

Message: There are often more than one message being woven through a campaign's public and private face. The exoteric messages of hope and change are the immediate hooks, but there are others that certain groups see while others do not - an esoteric set of signals there for those who can read them. There are often policy hints that can't be dealt with in detail during a speech or as a bullet point in the bigger agenda. People won't get motivated to vote based on reading a long list, or an extended explanation of a policy. (see style). Sometimes it is something that, if said overtly, it would lose votes from some part of their support base.( see dog whistle) Usually, when someone says they don't see substance, they are not looking hard enough.

Style: How that information is packaged, how convincing it is, whether the candidate is a policy dealer in the LBJ style, or inspirational big picture person is instructive to how things will get done. Each style has strengths and weaknesses, and each has adherents. Much of this is determined by personality traits, then massaged by PR and other consultants.

Yes, they are always euphemised and group tested. That is a given.
Regardless, it can give you an idea of the intentions put forward, what they will be running on. What they say they will intend to do. Never think they will do them all on their own - it involves Congress, the Courts and activist citizenry to move things forward.

when these things work together for the common good, it is a wonderful thing.
After centuries of rule by pharoahs and priests and popes and royalty - and the ocassional fascist oil cabal - government by and for the people is a pretty good thing, imperfect as it is.

[Dob Bole]

41. We prefer "Captain Change."

It really lightens the mood here in the General Discussion: Attacks on Democrats forum.