Ok Obama folks, make the case...

[liberalcommontater]

What qualifies Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States?

[Sulawesi]

1. how about you educate yourself and decide for yourself...

[CaptJasHook]

47. No kidding.

Here:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

[liberalcommontater]

73. I want to know what you think, not him.

[CaptJasHook]

98. Ok. Here it goes

I was fairly ambivalent toward Barack or Hillary, they were both too conservative for me. I didn't like Obama's religousity or lack of experience nor Hillary's Corporate, pro-war, old school politics.

I am a Progressive first, an Environmentalist second, a union supporter third. Kucinich spoke the truth for me but I knew he was unelectable. Edwards had a chance, until the race became a media fairy tale story between the first Woman and the first African-American candidate.

At that time I decided to vote for whoever would positively effect the down-ticket races for the Progressive movement. Obama delivered. I also grew to like his diplomatic style, his smooth running of his campaign, his inspirational speeches and focus on the positive.

Then, Hillary started going all Rove on his ass. It started with the "Shame on you, Barack" statement. She started pulling out lousy negative campaign tactic after negative campaign tactic. I became an Obama fan when I started seeing him handle her bile. He was calm, collected and didn't return fire. According to the Hillbots, his campaign started jumping on her gaffes, but in public, he did not.
The final straw came when a friend of mine who lives in Germany emailed me for the first time in 3 years to tell me about the effect Obama was having in Europe. This is a man who may possibly be one of the greatest Diplomatic assets this country has had since Roosevelt. And we are in desperate need of international repair.

Finally, there is the anti-Hillary component. She has crossed the line at least half a dozen times. Publicly praising McCain over Obama. Lying about snipers. Race-baiting. Trying to alienate poor white voters from Obama. Assassination gaffes. Bill's numerous unPresidential remarks. Republican, 80s/90s negative campaigning.

Bottom line for me. Every day Hillary is still in the race, another Democratic voter either becomes a non-voter or goes back to Independent. Obama will turnout an energized, youthful, united voice amongst down-ticket voters through positivity. Hillary is a drag.

[JoFerret]

306. Not a very positive set of reasons then

.

[CaptJasHook]

319. Positive? Is that like "Good". You are assigning value to it not me.

I admit to being very pragmatic about my presidential choice.

That said, I become less pragmatic about who I don't want as president.

[JoFerret]

323. Whatever

.

[Voice for Peace]

139. What I think: teamwork.

I think Obama has a good understanding of what teamwork is, and is an outstanding team leader.

There is a particular dynamic in teamwork which translates, simplistically speaking, as 1 + 1 = 11, or the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I have wished for some time that instead of a unitary presidency there would be a team presidency, because I've seen first hand how amazing good teamwork can be. I think that's close to what we're going to get with an Obama presidency. I think he's going to have an outstanding administration, with the best and brightest. I think he's going to seek out wise counsel without hesitation and will always consider & learn from opposing viewpoints. I think he understands the value of good teamwork, and the power in that approach to problem solving.

I expect he will make mistakes but I am confident he is going to keep learning from them, and that he's going to be be accountable to the people who are electing him.

[cantgetfooldagin]

159. and what team has he actually participated in?

[Voice for Peace]

175. Well... his campaign, for one.

That's been a fantastic example of good teamwork.

[liberalcommontater]

179. His quick replies to issues remind me of "The War Room" about

the 92 Clinton campaign. He is good at that. Do you think that will translate into effective communication from the White House against the republicans? They will be after him.

[Voice for Peace]

187. I'm not exactly sure what your question means...

... 'effective communication from the White House'?
Isn't that an oxymoron?

But yes, I think he's quite brilliant, actually, as a politician. And I think he's got a really great team working with him.

But that wouldn't be enough in my book. I think he's also a thinking person with an active conscience, and a genuinely good heart. I think he's got some important allies too: Hope, Integrity, Inspiration, Truth. These are great gods and I believe their time may have come on earth.

Many people who want to dislike him end up liking him a lot.

[liberalcommontater]

195. I find this much more encouraging for our prospects in November. Thanks for you opinion.

[Tinksrival]

269. Thanks for asking. This is what I posted when I decided........from my journal

I came into this election cycle a major Clarkie. General Clark's testimony to congress in the run up to the Iraq war inspired me to the draft Clark movement. I was disappointed he decided not to attempt a second run. I was left with no real connection to the committed candidates. So I just sat on the side lines for a while.

Being from the Chicago suburbs with all Republican relatives and in-laws I have spent over a decade defending President Clinton. I did it proudly with no regret.I have always referred to the Clinton-Gore Administration as the "salad days". My husband and I made our way in the nineties with our young family after the Regan years had forced my husband to join the military to find work. If it wasn't for those "salad days" we would not be where we are today. I wish my children had the same opportunity :( (G-DAMN George Bush). So I have a soft spot for the Clinton's and the Gore family. I was able to see the Clinton Library in '04 and left in tears at how much they accomplished and how much the current resident destroyed.(G-DAMN George Bush)

Well I had heard a bit about Obama being my State Senator and then my new Senator, loved the speech at the convention. Appreciated the speech before the war, but other than that I didn't know too much. I never payed to much attention to local politics coming from moving about as an Army wife. Then Wes Clark endorsed Hillary so I figured that's where I would concentrate my attention. I studied her positions and accomplishments and admire her for being so tough. I decided to commit to advocating for her as our nominee. This put me on the defensive 95% of the time. I felt it was really unfair. I would just mention her and people would immediately have a negative reaction. Republican and Democrat alike. "Why..what is your reason for feeling this way?" I would ask. The majority of the time there would be no substantial reason. Most of it had to do with Bill and the clenis if I was speaking to a Republican and Democrats and those in between really had no good reason for the negativity. I thought Hillary was getting a really bad rap for no reason. Frustrating....she didn't deserve it.

I am a huge fan of Senator Durbin. He really is the best. He is a true public servant. He has personally helped my husband and I in a battle with the military which had my husband career and freedom at stake (long crazy story). We had contacted all our elected officials and Senator Durbin was not only the only one to respond but personally saw through the whole matter till it was quickly resolved. So when Senator Durbin has something to say he has my attention. I listened to what he had to say about Senator Obama. I didn't realize Senator Durbin was instrumental in convincing Barak to run until I saw this:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/sen-durbin-urges-bara...

Here was one of the most liberal politicians and a much loved political hero, how could I not listen. Then I was floored to hear that one of our most popular Republican State Senators, Kirk Dillard, was being raked over the right wing coals for endorsing Obama in the primaries and even appearing in spots for Obama in Iowa:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/0...

Being so sick and tired of the blinding divisions in our country this peaked my interest. While still defending Hillary and trying to be true to my other hero, General Clark, I started to listen to the message of Barak Obama.

My family and in-laws are from the south side of Chicago. I was raised in a racially charged environment. My relatives migrated here from Norway and Sweden, in-laws are Eastern Europe and england by way of Kansas. Many settled in the Roseland community on the South Side. The civil rights movement found deepening divisions in Chicago and politicians answer to these divides made things worse. The expansion of Caprini Green and other "projects" on the south side cemented the anger and bitterness for generations. My relatives began the "white flight" south suburb migration as the housing towers went up, the business closed and the grass disappeared. The blame was misplaced. The loss of community was wrongly blamed on the black families forced into these concrete prisons that where anything but "green". Then to compound these issues for the next generation and cement the divisions and bad feelings between the communities, politicians decided to force desegregation by mandatory busing. There was no building understanding between the two worlds. Hearts and minds were not opened...just slammed shut. My relatives felt communities they built again, the brand new high school they just opened up would all be taken over again by poverty, crime and concrete. It was wrong to feel that way but that's all they knew, it happened before. That is why they are Republicans. Racism makes them republicans. No communication and no understanding makes them republicans. Fear makes them republicans.

I've given up on some and some I just pity. My mother-in-law sits in her south suburban kitchen and counts the increasing number of black people who walk by. Her husband just retired and with the fixed income refuses her requests to move from the house they have long paid off. The fear she holds onto is deep seeded from her parents who moved her from Roseland. The fear is not a result from the problem but one of the root causes.
And in the bigger picture of what our beloved country has become under republican rule is the fear and bigotry. This country can never prosper again until it heals. This country can never address the atrocities perpetrated by these republicans with any credibility until we address the fear and bigotry that divides us on our own soil. Whether it's race, gender or social or religious, until the people of the United States of America can stop seeing the world through this divided prism of bigotry, hate, and fear, we will destroy ourselves from within. I feel the next generation is ready. I am ready.
But how did it all go so wrong, so fast? Bush could not have done it alone. Dividing the country for them was easy because of the fear and bigotry had already been there and as bad as Bush has been for ALL of us, it has not been a cure for republican rule. People in this country will continue to vote against their best interest because of fear and bigotry. You can see it all around us. I feel as though the time is right to unite but we need that communication. We need a new message to pass on to the next generation. The current political climate must change.
I listened to Senator Clinton as she spoke of horrible policies of the Bush administration and the need for change. That is a message we democrats are way past waiting for. It feels like forever. I think she could help our image in the world community because of the regard for Bill Clinton. Though, I have to ask myself how long that would last if we don't address the issues of division and fear that keep the republicans in power.
The reality is the Clintons are divisive and polarizing and I am saddened by this because I don't believe it to be their fault. I defended her. I really feel the attacks on her (and Bill) in the past are disgusting. But it is what it is. Then her message changed and I knew it had to be. She was behind and had to attack on whatever weak points her campaign perceived. But the politics used to win were those of division and fear, the 3:00 am call, cozying up to McCain, "as far as I know" comment, ect..and in the desperation to be seen as experienced, the Bosnia embellishments. Well it was then I knew the inspiration I was looking for to unite us was not going to come from her.
Then Reverend Wright. What a true lesson that was for me. Senator Obama's speech addressed the very issue that I felt was one of the core issues facing this country. The fear and bigotry I grew up with. The reasons that reasonable people would act so unreasonable as to vote in fear against their best interest. Communication and leadership is what we crave. Inspiration to see things from both sides. I can understand where Reverend Wright is coming from but we have to move beyond. I can understand where my mother-in-law is coming from but we have to move beyond. Senator Obama said this so eloquently. I was inspired. Can my liberal Senator Dick Durbin and my Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard be right? Can a President Obama inspire us to move beyond the fear and bigotry and unite as a country again? How can I not be inspired to hope!

[Tinksrival]

270. Also from Penn.blog...Robert65......

Bill and Hillary Clinton began the presidential primary campaign by trying to characterize Barack Obama's position against the Iraq war as "a fairy tale". But the record clearly shows that on October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech against the US starting a war in Iraq, while later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for the funds requested by President Bush to authorize the beginning of US military action in Iraq.
After being severely criticized for totally misrepresenting Obama's position on the Iraq war, the Clintons dropped that accusation and instead began saying that Barack Obama was simply too young and inexperienced to be president. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have tried to convince voters that because Barack Obama is younger than they are that he therefore must be too young and inexperienced to be president. But the facts suggest otherwise.
Senator John McCain is 71 years old, Senator Hillary Clinton is age 60 and Senator Barak Obama is 46 years of age. Previously America has had both younger and older individuals who have become president and served with great distinction such as Theodore Roosevelt who became president at age 42, John Kennedy who assumed the presidency at age 43, and Ronald Regan who was sworn in as the Commander in Chief on January 20, 1981 at age 69.
Before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860 to become our 16th president he had previously served 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Congress, which happens to be precisely Barack Obama's experience. Bill Clinton became president at age 46 after having served 12 years as the governor of Arkansas, but without having had any prior experience whatsoever in Washington or as a state legislator.
How do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually compare in terms of their individual experience?
Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials he could have joined any number of prestigious law firms but instead felt compelled to give back to his local community, so he returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights and civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his landslide election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator, 46 year old Senator Barack Obama is currently is serving his 12th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale law school in 1973 and subsequently worked as a lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas and has been a very active spouse, first as the wife of the governor of Arkansas and then as the First lady of the United States. In her own right she was elected to the US Senate from her adopted state of New York in 2000, and she is currently serving her 8th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.
The latest charges being leveled against Barack Obama by Bill and Hillary Clinton are that Barack Obama is unpatriotic and doesn't love America and is not qualified to be commander in chief of our military forces, despite Barack Obama's latest book published in 2006, The Audacity of Hope, which clearly and unmistakably shows how much Senator Barack Obama deeply loves, appreciates, and respects our great country.
Barack Obama's opponents are trying to pretend that his former pastor's anger and bitterness and sometimes over the top 1960's type radical incendiary rhetoric that Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced and has totally rejected are actually the feelings and words of Barack Obama himself rather than those of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
But again the facts don't support such erroneous conclusions and the current tactics being used by the Clinton's to denigrate Barack Obama are not working any better than previous ones because on March 12, 2008 10 distinguished retired Generals and Admirals of the United States Army, Air Force and Navy unconditionally endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States and to become the Commander in Chief of all United States Military Forces.
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama's judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary, later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war.
When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama's judgment that it would be preferable if the next President of the United States were elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else.
Barack Obama's belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things has been ridiculed by his opponents as "just high sounding words" and "big talk from a pied piper". But when 1 million ordinary Americans use their credit cards and each gives $25-50 dollars with the click of a mouse to raise $25-50 million dollars for Obama's campaign without the help of special interests, political action committees, lobbyists, $1000 a plate dinners, or huge contributions from American billionaires most of us think that's pretty extraordinary.
Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose on November 4, 2008 the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.
Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America?
That's the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who aren't very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of money peddlers, individuals who currently make arrangements to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning and whom they can then "work with" later on.
Don't let fear and hate mongers, talk radio hosts, smooth talking politicians, or anyone else do your thinking for you. We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. knows this and has recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama's integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president. It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in the remaining states that will soon vote in the presidential primary election to stand up and be counted. It's time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming America.

[liberalcommontater]

279. Thanks for the details. There is much food for thought in your words.

[cantgetfooldagin]

271. that is NOT a team.

[Butch350]

277. 73. I want to know what you think, not him.

What makes you damn special. Vote for who you want to. People shouldn't have to explain anything to you - are you an SD?

[liberalcommontater]

280. You don't have to explain anything. Just asking. As the name says, I am just common.

I do enjoy a civil conversation over what people really believe as opposed to shouting from their fortified positions. Whether I like or vote for or believe in or trust Obama is irrelevant to this thread. There has been a lot of ugly on this board and it occurred to me to ask a question that could be answered in the affirmative by those who felt like it.

Cheers.

[Tinksrival]

297. A lot of people have their backs up against the wall.

Suspicious of everything. I can't wait till we all come together. :toast:

[LWolf]

69. I have; I did so a long time ago.

My conclusion: he doesn't meet my qualifications.

"Make your case." That's campaigning. If you aren't willing to campaign for your candidate, if you will only preach to the choir, what does that say about your level of support?

When someone asks you to put forth qualifications, they are opening a door. You don't have to step up to meet them there, but I hope you won't be blaming others if your candidate doesn't win.

I'm going to read down thread to see if any Obama supporters offer up anything that I don't already know, that would make a difference in my evaluation of him.

[liberalcommontater]

78. That is why I asked. Glad you got it.

[The Doctor.]

132. Do you two have anything else to talk to each-other about?

Other than that, there are great reasons to elect either candidate. Anyone who hasn't figured out what those are on either 'side' is just being an ignorant shithead.

Honestly... if you don't know by now, you haven't been paying much attention... so put a sock on it.

:evilgrin:

[CaptJasHook]

127. No Presidential Candidate is going to meet our qualifications.

You do the best you can and hope it effects local candidates and issues.

As a Kucinich voter, I would expect that you would be hungry (like I am) for an energized base of young party activists. Obama delivers on that score. I would also expect that you would be disappointed in Hillary and the DLCs attempts to crush the left wing of the party.

[LWolf]

240. Frankly,

I don't see Obama exactly reaching out to the left wing of the party.

I see him to be just as centrist/corporatist/3rd way/new dem/neo liberal as HRC. Moreso, in some areas, even without the dlc membership.

He doesn't meet my qualifications.

There are plenty of candidates who could meet many of them. He's just not one of them.

The young, energized base of party activists would be thrilling if they were acting on behalf of the left. It's not that rosy of a picture when their activism is all about electing another neoliberal.

[EstimatedProphet]

184. That's a good point, and one that's lost on a lot of people here

Ask an Obama supporter to explain their position, and often you will get insulted, and then they will brag about insulting you. Great way to campaign...

[Shae]

250. Do you really think . . .

that telling someone to educate himself and decide for himself is an insult?

[EstimatedProphet]

253. I think a lot of responses on this thread have been insulting

"Educate yourself" isn't in and of itself insulting, but if someone is trying to get opinions from other people - as the OP clearly is - in order to help form their own opinion, then it isn't helpful. And frankly being able to state opinions when asked patiently and succinctly is a big part of campaign work. Simply saying "Go to this website" is going to turn people off, and we as Democrats can't afford to turn people off. There's also been worse than that in this thread too; several of the responses have given the opinion that if someone doesn't know about Obama by now, it is because they are simply not informed or won't try to be informed. That attitude is going to lose a lot of people that in actuality really are earnest in asking questions. And I've had personal run-ins with posters who are blatantly rude towards any questioning at all, and take a very arrogant approach to any questions - as if no one has the right to have questions about Obama or the Obama campaign at all!

So, it may not be rude in and of itself, but there are better approaches.

[Shae]

258. . . .

Things you work for are more valuable than things given to you.

LWolf says "Give me answers," the responding poster essentially said, "look for the answers yourself."

This is fair because the question of qualification is somewhat subjective. It is not an absolute. While there are countless people who are clearly unqualified, how do you measure qualified?

What qualifies Hillary Clinton to be President?

For that matter, what qualified Bill Clinton to be President? He lacked foreign policy and military experience. Nonetheless, he did a much better job of it than the President who preceded him who had tons of experience and therefore should have been MORE qualified.

George W. Bush has 8 years of on-the-job experience, yet very few here would consider him qualified.

Since I've gone this far, I'll tell you why I think Obama is qualified: He has great leadership and organizational skills. He is intelligent. He is quick on his feet. He has a knack for picking good people. When I look at the two candidates, I see Obama has run a much better campaign: He is flush with money while Clinton is deeply in debt even after lending herself huge amounts of money; he's almost always energized while Clinton often seems exhausted; he has been more gracious to Clinton than she has been to him; most of his people are still with him while many of her top people have bailed.
I'm sure that running a country is different than running a campaign, but if someone can't even run a good campaign, is it reasonable to expect they can run this country?

[EstimatedProphet]

261. I'm not saying that he should resent looking for the information himself

I'm saying that, at times, the answer "go look for the information yourself" can get high-handed. It may end up a missed opportunity to win the argument of ideas.

Ultimately everyone who does vote will have to make the decision themselves. Nevertheless, there is always also a certain amount of opinion that can carry over from one person to another. If the automatic reaction to asking for information is to say "go here", then that becomes a missed opportunity.

[Shae]

263. You contend that . . .

Obama supporters here should be happy to list his qualifications over and over again any and every time they are asked all in the name of good campaigning.

However:

The question of Obama's qualification has been asked and answered here ad nauseum. The poster asking now has been at DU for almost 3 years, so it's likely that he would have run across a discussion on this at some point if he had been looking. Since, according to the poster's profile, he does not live in MT, SD, or PR, the 3 places that have yet to cast ballots, why is he asking this question now? -- the OP doesn't have a horse in this race. It's a little late in the game to be seriously considering the qualifications of the Democratic candidates so you can make a decision on which to vote for unless you live in one of the 3 locations that haven't yet voted.
In addition,, Obama has the Democratic nomination virtually sewn up, so it makes me wonder, is the poster trying to compare the qualifications of Obama compared to those of McCain? Why would he be comparing Obama and Hillary at this point since, mathematically, Hillary is no longer a serious contender? And if he IS trying to compare the qualifications of Obama vs. McCain, what criteria are essential to him? If it is experience in elected office, McCain wins that one hands down. If he values good judgment and leadership, these qualities are more subjective and harder to convey -- it may be better if he does a little research and draws his own conclusions.

[EstimatedProphet]

264. I agree that people should research and draw their own conclusions...

I look at it this way though: we're going to have a general election soon, and we're going to be arguing our side versus McCain. This particular instance is practice. All of us need to be able to argue the case at the drop of a hat, even if we're tired of doing so. That's simply the nature of an election.

Certainly Obama's case has been made time and time again. But that's part of politics. The case has to be made ad nauseum or else the race goes to the opponent who makes their case ad nauseum. Besides, all of a candidate's supporters do not necessarily agree on why they support a particular candidate. I backed Edwards based on what I heard him say about student loan debt during a speech. I've never heard any other Edwards supporters mention it, but it resonated with me. When I am asked why I liked Edwards, that is one point I bring up, and no one else ever brings it up. When people start to lay out their particular points of interest, the sum total makes a compelling argument - and one that often will be more complex than is found on a candidate's fact sheet.

[liberalcommontater]

285. Exactly...Exactly...

you got it, Toyota. I wanted to know what people see. It is not about my ignorance or laziness, but seeing their candidate through their eyes. Thanks so much for putting it so well.

[liberalcommontater]

283. I am fine with research, etc...

You know how you ask someone what they think about someone...my dad taught for 34 years in the district I teach in. When I started he was retired, but many of his colleagues were still teaching. I always formed my own opinion about these people, but I would also often ask him for his take based on his experience. I always learned some things I did not know, often subtle and interesting and even alarming things. I immediately gravitated to Edwards. I heard Obama and Clinton, but Edwards message really resonated with me. When he dropped out I experienced a lull, but never warmed to Obama.

I loved Bill Clinton, not always agreed with him, but loved him. I loathed what the republicans tried to do and did do to him and the country in the 90's. Remember the house banking scandal...lost congress in 94. Remember Monica, returning honor and integrity to the White House, lost the White House in 2000. What a bunch of jackals. One of the veins of belief that runs deep for me is the need for justice, (coupled with a little vengence and retribution), I would love to see Hillary shame the republicans into submission for their sins against our country and against us and against the world.

This is only a small part of the picture for me, but it is the kind of personal reasoning I was looking for when I asked the question.

[liberalcommontater]

282. Well put, I agree completely. It is a long time until...

Nov and we need to increase the chances for our nominee.

[liberalcommontater]

281. Hi, thanks for responding...

I meant the qualifications question to be subjective. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but I thought folks would either answer what they thought (what I was looking for) or they would just pass because they didn't want to say or couldn't say.

I agree that what we work for holds more value, but I am not looking to be convinced of anything. I know what I think. I would not choose Obama, but he looks to be the nominee and he has connected with many of my fellow democrats. We need to win in the fall, so the subtext of the question for me is...will he be able to connect with the general public like he has during the primaries with democrats? I hope he can and if what people have said here is true and can be conveyed well, I think he will do fine in November.

[liberalcommontater]

196. Did you find anything you did not know?

[LWolf]

241. No.

I found a lot of non-answers.

I found a lot of defensive people.

I found a lot of opinions.

I found some sincere, serious answers, but nothing was new, and in most cases I did not agree with the statements or the evaluations made.

[liberalcommontater]

243. Do you support Clinton?

And if so what do you see as her main advantages over Obama?

[LWolf]

247. I guess it depends on your definition of "support."

I voted for her this month in my primary, but not because I want her to be the nominee, or to be POTUS. I don't.

I don't support either. I want a brokered convention that will offer a compromise candidate that can unify the party and win in November. If Obama had been behind on May 20th, my vote would have gone to him.

Unlikely? Yes. But as long as there is a chance, I don't support either of the current candidates.

She has a few advantages over Obama:

She's better on education: is now willing to take NCLB apart, and doesn't support right-wing goals like merit pay and charter schools like Obama does. As a teacher, this issue is near the top of my list.

She's better on health care. In my opinion.

She's at least open about her record with Iraq, not pretending to "be against the war from the beginning" based on a speech in 2002, burying the other statements later that he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR, and then, when he got to the senate, not walking that talk: voting to fund the war every damned time until he jumped into the primaries. I'd rather be faced with an unappetizing truth than deal with misleading propaganda.

She doesn't have homophobes campaigning for her.

All of the above are advantages. They don't subtract from her long list of flaws, and I don't support her for POTUS.

[liberalcommontater]

248. It is not so clear cut is it?

I am a teacher too and agree on NCLB and charter schools. Who would you support at a brokered convention?

Gore/Clark?
Gore/Webb?

Earlier I thought Edwards/Clark might be good too.

[LWolf]

260. Gore is the obvious choice.

I can see several options for vp. My preferences are for Edwards or Richardson, but I'm open to many others, as well.

[IndependentDem]

292. can you explain something for me...

i would like to better understand your opposition to merit pay and charter schools... we can agree that nclb is a sham but i have seen what appear to be good results from offering professional development stipends and other forms of performance/involvement based pay, especially for newer teachers.

Thanks for your time and opinion.



fyi, I am not a teacher but have worked as a classified school employee for some time so i have some understanding of how it works (or doesn't work).

[liberalcommontater]

293. For my part I see..

two objectives. One is to say that a different kind of school should be tried because public schools are failing. The reality is that the teachers I know in Michigan work very hard and very patiently with a very difficult population. The charter schools work as well in some cases and worse in other. The notion that we take our checks and do little for them is a sham. Are we perfect, no. There is a dynamic between teacher and students that works better some times and with some kids and not so well at other times with other kids. We each bring our own strengths and weaknesses, as do the students. A significant minority of students bring baggage with them that is so significant that learning seems secondary to them...drugs, parents in prison, broken homes, violence... Many students are fine and learn much. So, Charter schools, with their charters, in my view, are a means to the end of anti-Unionism.

PD stipends sound good, we have tuition reimbursement, one of the few districts to have it and the admin want to eliminate it to reduce costs. Involvement based pay...we have a pay schedule for all non-teaching activities and an hourly amount for any other extras.

Performance based pay...last year was my best ever. Difficult, but victorious. The year before was hell. I taught as diligently both years, but with different students and different chemistry. I probably would have lost money two years ago and received a huge bonus last year. My "performance" was not dependent on pay. My performance, to the degree that it is based on pay, is because it is my job.

Different pay based on things other than seniority appear to me to be saying 1) I would do more if I were paid more, and 2)I deserve more than my colleague because I have a better chemistry with my class...

I think teacher education and administrative quality are the two key factors. Not pay.

[IndependentDem]

295. thanks for your reply...

i always enjoy hearing other people's opinions/perspectives. :hi:

[LWolf]

300. Okay.

Merit pay:

Stipends are pay for extra duties, whether it is for coaching, for being on a committee, attending trainings and meetings to pilot something new...that's not merit pay. It's completely voluntary. The district announces an opening, just like any other job, and teachers apply for it.

Merit pay pays bonuses for "performance." Here's where it gets troublesome.

First of all, it sets up teachers to be in competition with each other. The whole point of public education is to offer equal educational opportunity to all. It's not about rewarding some teachers for offering better opportunities than others. If you want the best service reaching the most students, teachers don't compete. They collaborate. We are partners on the same team, and none of us "win" when a single student, anywhere, doesn't.

With that in mind, setting teachers in competition with each other is counter productive.

Merit pay also opens the door to corruption and abuse. Why? Because
what schools do, and what teachers do, are not the only factors, or even the most influential factors, affecting student performance. We've known all along that the greatest predictor of student performance is not schools or teachers, but SES, which schools do not control.

When you hear "merit pay," you know that means "test scores." Even when the person promoting the merit pay denies it. What objective measure are you going to use, that cannot be corrupted, to determine "merit?" Merit pay opens the door to administrative manipulation, awarding "merit pay" to those who are compliant, not necessarily to those who are the strongest.

I can see people being set up to earn "merit pay," or not, when admins create class rosters.

Merit pay is a right wing goal. It allows more manipulation of what is taught, how it's taught, and who is doing the teaching. Using standardized test scores to determine, not the students' achievement, but the teachers' merit, provides so many tools to standardize classrooms, making sure that every public school classroom, like every mainstream media outlet, is aligned with right wing goals.

I'm tired, after 9 hours in my classroom today, and that doesn't sound as coherent as I'd like. I've left a lot of detail and explanation out. Ask me if you need clarification.

"Charter Schools:"

Are privately run schools with public tax money. They get to use tax money, and they are free from most public school regulations. It's privatization, pure and simple. Many charter schools are run by private corporations. Some are well-meaning, but the whole concept leaves the door wide open for privatization and inequalities.

Both merit pay and charter schools serve the right wing agenda.

[IndependentDem]

302. thanks for your opinion...

now go get some well deserved sleep. and thanks for being one of the good teachers that care about our children and their future. :)

[liberalcommontater]

307. Absolutely agree.

I did not feel completely coherent either, long day.

[Butch350]

276. 69. I have; I did so a long time ago.

Well hells bells...brag about you candidates experience at being president or their qualifications for the job.

I want to hear about this great american!

Come on?

[LWolf]

333. I haven't had a candidate since last January.

At least, not for POTUS.

I have no candidate to "brag on," because I don't find anything worth bragging about in the current two offerings.

Would you like me to pick one of the many Democrats that would have been a better choice, and point out his or her strengths to you?

[DarkTirade]

268. ... so asking fellow progressives to share their opinions isn't educational?

[Critters2]

308. There it is. The Obama talking point. And in record time! nt

[mudesi]

2. He is the Democratic nominee

Is that not enough?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[K Gardner]

16. Where's the freaking pizza already.

[liberalcommontater]

23. Cute.

[Richard Steele]

130. He got the door...

It was Dominos.

[Catherina]

37. Here's a really good TV Ad

[unpossibles]

63. 8 years ago, I would have agreed

now, I think anyone who is not affiliated with the GOP has a shot - they and their ardent supporters have lowered the bar considerably.

That said, I think Obama has a lot more going for him than "I'm not John McCain" but again, perhaps you should do some research and decide if he is who you want, or if you would be happy with 8 more years of the same. I'm not trying to be mean here, so I will apologize in advance if it came out that way.

[liberalcommontater]

No meanness taken...

it was a sincere question and as a Clinton supporter who thinks our country has been hijacked I want a dem in November.

Personally I want Hillary to pin the republicans to the wall by the neck and make them pay for every sweatshop, corrupt oil deal, death in Iraq, environmental disaster, Abramoff pay to play, crap shit....you get the idea.

I feel better...I don't want bipartisanship with the bastards. I want the fairness doctrine, I want elections with integrity...can Obama deliver?

[patrice]

84. Pardon me for getting upset, but I'm tired: SHE DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE IN MY STATE!!

WHY AM I IRRELEVANT???

It's been the same DAMN thing ever since I started helping Democrats and I'M SICK OF IT.

I talk to everyone; Obama has a chance here and they WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN IF WE RUN HER.

[unpossibles]

86. please stop that

I am so sick of hearing people say "I'm going to vote for McCain if ______ is not our candidate"

Seriously. Do you cut off your leg if you need to go to the doctor? Do you push your car into a river if it needs a repair? Then why vote for an anti-choice Republican hypocrite if our country needs fixing?

If this does not apply to you, please pass it on to your friends - friends don't let friends vote for torturing incompetent liars.

[patrice]

99. I can't make people vote the way I want them to. I'm talking about Independents and Republicans

who WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT NOT HILLARY.

[unpossibles]

106. well, if it helps, I agree that Obama will pull in more crossover voters

as I said, people and republicans have been hearing anti-Clinton crap for over a decade.

[patrice]

121. If you're really going to deal with people, you have to start where they are, give them credit for

their own reasons, even if you disagree. They ARE who they are.

[patrice]

102. They aren't my friends. They are my business acquaintences.

And various branches of my large and somewhat estranged family and their friends and in-laws.

[unpossibles]

85. I sure hope so

To be honest, while neither was my first (or even second) choice, I was excited about both of them, but favored Obama a little more. Part of it was I thought he managed a smart campaign and showed a well balanced person - someone who was interested in the issues at hand, yet also had personality and charisma so as to avoid the "wooden" crap charges from the past two Presidential elections. Part of it was also being sick to death of the rightwing hate machine spewing crap about the Clintons, the vast majority of which was completely false.

Now, yes they will spew false crap about anyone we nominate, but I just was a little afraid that the damage to potential crossover voters was already done with Clinton.

[liberalcommontater]

90. My wife feels the same way about the false yet effective crap they shovel! Thanks.

[Andy823]

88. Is that you Bill?

What makes you think Hillary will "pin" them to the wall? I more or less see her as the candidate most likely to keep the war going, invade Iran, and tell do very little at all the help with gas prices. She voted for the Iraq war, voted to allow Bush and Cheney to invade Iran, and the only solution she has had for the gas prices was a joke!

Hillary is the same old BS we have had in D.C. for years, and things won't be any different. Some of her biggest allies are making millions off the war, others are making millions off of high drug prices, and insurance costs so high we can't afford it, now do you think she will be doing anything about that if by some miracle she did become president? I don't!

I don't want another president who will lie to the people over and over again, and Hillary has proven during the primaries that she can lie with the best of them! Nope not my kind of president at all!

[liberalcommontater]

92. So in answering the question you are saying...

that Obama's qualities are the opposite of these? If he is our next president, I hope so.

[Andy823]

135. I hope so too.

I was behind Edwards till he dropped out. At that time I didn't figure I would support either of the remaining two. After awhile I went to their web sites and read what they each had to say. I watched every debate, and listened to any speech that I could. I started to lean towards Obama because he seemed to be more believable. For the life of me I just can't seem to believe the things Hillary says. She started out talking in circles and never really answering the questions she was asked. Then she started to use what the other candidates had already come up with. She avoid the real issues, and then started to address them, but even though she was talking about them, I just couldn't seem to believe she was being honest, just more "promises" by a skilled politician!

Now Obama has grown since the race started. He has taken on many of the issues that as an Edwards support I wanted to hear about. Poverty, lobbyists, politics as usual in D.C., new ideas for going green and creating jobs, and I like that. He does have a message of hope, and I really do think that he would give this country the best chance for change. He may not be able to do everything, but I really think he will give it a hell of a try. I don't see that in Hillary at all! She has shown be that she will do and say anything to get elected, and she crossed the line as far as I am concerned some time ago, and just keeps getting herself deeper and deeper in hot water!

To me Obama has shown more tolerance with the attacks by Hillary than I would have had I been in his shoes, and I admire that.

[ieoeja]

174. Why in the world would you think she would do that?

Hillary has spoken out over and over against activists. Read her books, and you will see she held the Vietnam War and Civil Rights protestors in nothing but contempt. She was still a Republican in 1968 precisely for that reason. She only switched parties because her candidate (Rockefeller) lost the nomination (sounding like some DUers this year).

"It took LBJ to pass the law," wasn't an off-hand comment. It goes to the very core of her personal politics. Out of every Democratic candidate in this year's election, none was less likely to hold this administration accountable than Hillary.

I don't expect Obama to either. Democracy has failed in more countries than it has worked. The reason it fails is because, in most cases, the winners claim the spoils and use the power of the government against their political enemies.

The next President of the United States, whomever he may be, is not going on a witch hunt. If it is Obama, the Attorney General he appoints will concentrate more on enforcing civil rights, labor laws, and environmental laws. If McCain, the Attorney General will concentrate on drug enforcement and whatever else it is the rightwing hates so much.

Had Hillary won the election, her AG would have gone after pretty much the same things as Obama's. Though less enforcement concerning corporate violations.

To the specific examples you came up with:

Sweatshop
- Obama's activism makes me think he will work against offshoring, etc
- McCain is a Republican
- Hillary has defended offshoring several times

Corrupt oil deal
- Obama probably won't go there
- McCain is a Republican
- Hillary isn't in bed with Big Oil as far as I know. But she is one of the top DLCers which is decisively pro-corporate. And she has been pro-corporate 100% of the time so far. So why would you think she would change?

Death in Iraq
- Obama came out early and often against the Iraq war
- McCain is a Republican
- Hillary still defends her vote in favor of the war

Environmental Disaster (have there been any?)
- Obama is a Democrat
- McCain is a Republican
- Hillary is a Democrat (on this issue)

Abramoff Pay to Play
- Obama won't stop the prosecution's already underway
- McCain won't stop the prosecution's already underway
- Hillary won't stop the prosecution's already underway

[liberalcommontater]

180. You don't think Obama or Hillary will change some once they are President

and have to deal with Congress and the issues at hand? We always hear campaign promises and then what happens is somewhat less. Who would have thought in 2000 that Bush would be the war president? Oops...he really has not managed that has he, except to start them.

[ieoeja]

193. Sure I do.

Obama is a community activist who got into politics. As a legislator he has largely supported issues to improve our world, but has had to compromise on occasion. As president I expect his community activist roots to show stronger than they did as a mere legislator.

McCain is a military officer who got into politics. As a legislator he has largely supported issues to maintain the status quo. As president I expect his military roots to show in strong defense of the status quo domestically and an aggressive, shortsighted foreign policy.

Hillary is a corporate lawyer who got into politics. As a legislator she has largely supported corporations with what appear to be a few genuine exceptions (environmentalism). As president I would have expected her to champion the corporations at the expense of the working class even more than she has while positioning herself for this election.

[liberalcommontater]

199. Interesting analysis. You don't think having to answer to the voters...

in four years would modify any of Hillary's positions?

Does Obama have a strong position regarding unions? I have not heard or seen anything specific or powerful about this.

[K Gardner]

3. Oh for pity's sake. Get a grip. Enough flamebait here today and at this late stage in the game

that is OVER.. we don't have to convince you.

[liberalcommontater]

17. I am not looking to be convinced...I have not seen any reason to support Obama...

except that he will probably be the nominee. What qualifications do you find most important?

[customerserviceguy]

He's not McCain

That's more than good enough for me, and I suspect a lot of my fellow Americans will agree. McCain is just Bush term three, and I figure plenty of Americans have had enough.

It would be nice if Barack Obama were fifteen years older, with a lengthy legislative resume, but Hillary doesn't have one of those, either. Sometimes great leaders just appear, in our society, voters have the privilege of being part of those who recognize that.

[cantgetfooldagin]

161. not good enough for me & not good enough for a lot of voters. try again.

[bhikkhu]

53. (Assuming you have an open mind) First, think through your priorities.

What are the issues that drive you, what is most important, what are the details.

Then, go to http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Look under the "issues" tab and read. Barack is right on track with everything that is important to me. That he is a good speaker and charismatic and so forth is a bonus, but essentially a side issue. I think anyone who has been bugged enough by the last 8 years to be here should be able to read through the issues and see someone who is absolutely on our side, and we should all be able to look forward to this GE.

[liberalcommontater]

61. I want to know what you think...

I could say go read Hillary's site, it says good stuff too. I don't mean to be rude, I want to know what someone it thinking about their candidate who a year or two ago would have been in sync with me about the 2000 election, Ohio in 2004, healthcare, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. No you don't.

Obama's qualifications are clear. Obama's supporters like him for his qualifications, as well as his charisma and intelligence.

And, on the other side, his primary opponent is a joke. You've got you 'union' avatar, but your candidate hired union-buster Penn to run her campaign. WTF??

Obama is not Clinton, and Obama is not McBush. That alone is enough to recommend him.

[liberalcommontater]

82. Maybe you should read my other comments...

[bhikkhu]

93. Ok...the war is my number one issue -

ending this one and not starting another. Obama has said that it is his number one priority, and his first order of business will be to sit down with the joint chiefs and work out a plan of orderly withdrawal.

Second, I don't support torture, secret prisons, imprisonment without charge, etc. All the basic human rights that went into the toilet here, by presidential directive.Obama promises to close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus.

Having two kids in school I know more about the failings of the NCLB act than I would like to. Obama has a solid plan to address the improvement of our schools which is long overdue.

I could go on, but those are the main things. I would like to think economic plans were of more value, but I have no expectations there considering the mess we are in. Ending the war will have a huge economic impact, and be the first step to other goals.

I like Barack, but I would support him even if I didn't, because of the value of his ideas. I don't like Hillary and don't trust her on war issues, but I would have supported her because of the value of some of her ideas.

[liberalcommontater]

100. Thanks...

I teach school so I know about NCLB too. Speaking of school reform...do you know where he stands on working with teachers unions? A couple of things I read did not sound to good. I did read his web site, but that part was not very specific.

[bhikkhu]

133. I'd have to agree, there is nothing specific

and nothing very reassuring. I am pro-union myself in principle, but it is hard to say how things might be best in practice. Charter schools, for instance...in one sense they are an end-run around the teacher's unions; NCLB allows that under-performing public schools may be closed, to the benefit of competing charter schools. The result would be union teachers out of work, and the only work might be non-union charter schools.

The playing field would be a bit more level if under-performing schools were first rated more fairly, and then given every opportunity and assistance to perform. Obama's plan seems to be along these lines, though he talks also about the value of choice in educational opportunities (charter schools). Its hard to say how things will work out, but I think it will have to be better.

[patrice]

95. I knocked on several hundred doors made a few hundred phone calls for Kerry, even though I knew he

was the wrong choice.

Someone was telling us here the other day that HC leaned on Edwards to get Kerry to drop his challenge of the vote in Ohio. That's in Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial

[liberalcommontater]

104. Why would she do that?

Can you believe the Lieberman thing in "Recount" when he said count all the overseas ballots!!! Now there is a traitor to the Dem cause if I ever saw one.

[patrice]

119. I don't know why. Looks damn bad though.

I'll admit I already don't trust her for her vote on the IWR.

What do you think just everything in HC's life has been about for lo these several years now?

[K Gardner]

54. Then don't support him. We're not your mama or your conscience.

[liberalcommontater]

62. Why so hostile? If you don't what to discuss this why even answer at all.

[K Gardner]

55. dupe

[cliffordu]

60. Look - If you know so little about him at this late date, maybe you

shouldn't get all your information from television.

[liberalcommontater]

65. Hi Cliff...

I supported Edwards and am currently supporting Clinton. I will readily admit that I have my Clinton lens on. I just thought you might tell me and other Clinton supporters what you see in him. Not what he says about himself or others say about him, but you right here on DU.

[cliffordu]

108. Ok.

He brings minimal baggage off of K street to the table. This is key.

Just today a story broke about Phil Graham lobbying for the bank at the base of the mortgage scandal WHILE he was helping McCain write his policy on the mortgage crisis. Oddly enough this included further deregulation and lower taxes for lenders...(!!!???!!!).

A president doesn't need to have the vast experience that Hill claims and that McCain wants us to believe he has.

However:

A president MUST make sound decisions about staff and cabinet. The way he has run this campaign and the people he has working for him reflects his ability to do this perfectly. His ability to pick the smartest, most driven people in the room and galvanize them into a single purpose is EXACTLY what we have been watching.

Hillary has let go of her 15 million dollar brain - Penn - a lobbyist - and McCain has had to let go of just about everyone associated with his campaign. Lobbyists one and all.

Obama came in with a 20 point deficit and defeated the odds on favorite Democratic candidate AND her ex-president chief campaigner handily. They had a formidable machine and loads of $$. He did it by relying on the people he picked, Dean's fifty state strategy and the internet. Ah, the innernet. The tubes:

He understands the speed and power of the internet - He understands this is how we might take back the government, it is how we will know what is going on in real time with him and his cabinet.

If he does this right, there will be no more smoke filled rooms, no more special interests clogging up access to the rooms of power. It is the ONLY way he will stay in office. If he cuts off the grassroots, he is a one term president.

The single biggest problem Hill and McCain have had is the lack of understanding how "e-grassroots" works.

The Tuzla thing NEVER would have been brought to light without the internet, and unfortunately, the Wright thingy would never have seen daylight either. This is a new playing field and he understands exactly what it means.

Back to my original point - the K street effect-

He just MIGHT be able to begin to break the vise grip of big business on Washington. He MIGHT be able to push through legislation that will clean up the fucking soft money floating around, and the whores in the special interest pockets that are supposed to represent you and I. Maybe.

He stands a better chance, I think, than Hillary or McCain.

[liberalcommontater]

113. Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply...

I think when we gravitate towards a candidate we make an investment. One that is hard to give up on. If he is our next president I hope he is everything you believe him to be. :)

[patrice]

118. Do you notice how paternalistic you are? "everything you believe him to be"??????????

We are not children. We expect imperfection. To many of us, this is more about us and what we do than it is about him, maybe something like 60:40.

[liberalcommontater]

317. I don't see the paternalism...

even imperfect by any standard, we are going to need quality leadership. Many folks on this thread see the potential for that. If he is elected I hope they are right.

[cliffordu]

123. I have my doubts. NO president gets to do too much, too many fingers

in any legislation they try to enact....The health care trinkets both he AND Hillary have won't look ANYTHING like they do on the stump by the time the hacks in Congress get their hands on them.

I believe that this will be true for anything either of them do.

It comes down to honesty, style and international appeal. Please don't dismiss this last item: The days of American dominance is waning. Unless we want to kill major portions of the world population through war, directly, or starving them for ethanol, we have to work directly with them as one among many instead of the big fish dictating the terms.

I think he can do a better job of this than her, as he lived major portions of his life outside the white middle class, and outside the country.

Oddly enough, I believe his NAME and his race will be an asset in the international arena: If he gets elected we show the entire world that we walk the talk, that we are NOT just a malevolent infomercial for "Freedom, inc".

I can no longer think of Hillary as Presidential material, after the Tuzla episode, the constant goalpost manipulation, the claims of racism/sexism/victimization by the press...it all reminds me too much of every other political operation out there.

I didn't drink the Kool-aid. She had my vote a year ago. Lock stock and hanging chad.

Not any more. My vote was hers to lose and she did.

Then Edwards was my guy. Obama is a third more recent choice. About the time I started barking at people here.


:patriot:

edit for speling (sic) Second edit for the maths (sic)

[pnwmom]

31. Why is this flamebait? Why not just answer why you feel

the case is compelling?

I assume you do.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Youphemism]

4. My endorsement

What, that isn't good enough for you?

(Try doing some reading at www.barackobama.com. It's all there.)

[LakeSamish706]

6. Why does he need any special qualifications? What does George Bush have or...

John McCain or Hillary that qualifies them?

[liberalcommontater]

30. Well...

The question is about Obama.

We know what a lack of cerebral function got us with Bush so I won't go there.

I guess it would be easy to say McCain has military experience. Experience in the legislative branch. bla bla

Folks are going to be concerned about Obama's "experience" in the fall.

I think post #11 is in the spirit.

[democracy1st]

7. freakazoid what a lousy post

[pnwmom]

27. I'm surprised people aren't just giving their reasons, instead of

ripping the OP for asking.

[slinkerwink]

35. people are just angry with each other at this point. I've reached that anger stage a few times, but

whenever someone really tries to reach out, I try to stop, listen, and give an answer to the best of my ability.

[pnwmom]

44. And that is a smart thing to do, because there are still quite a few Dems

who started out supporting one of the other candidates (not the remaining two), and don't see all that much reason to prefer Obama over Clinton, or the reverse.

And I'm one of them. I would have been happy to support either of them, or almost any of the Dems for that matter. Any one of them would be infinitely preferable to the Bushies and the neocons.

[liberalcommontater]

49. I really wanted Edwards.

[pnwmom]

70. Then it makes perfect sense that you're still trying to make up your mind.

Because Edwards and Clinton are closer on some issues (for example, health care) and Edwards and Obama are closer on others.

[Liberal Veteran]

80. If the decision is really so difficult to make, why not trust your first choice?

I don't say that by way of being snide. There must be SOMETHING Edwards saw in Obama that made him throw his endorsement to Obama.

So trust your preferred candidate.

[liberalcommontater]

87. I plan to vote for the Dem nominee...

but I feel voting makes you responsible. I don't feel responsible for Bush since I voted for Gore and Kerry. If I feel I cannot vote for Obama, I may just stay home since I can't vote for McCain. There is really little chance that I will not vote, but we cannot afford for this election to be close, at all.

[cantgetfooldagin]

165. not good enough. i don't trust anyone else with my vote

[patrice]

111. So did I. He would have done well in my state. nt

[liberalcommontater]

50. I really wanted Edwards.

[Liberal Veteran]

46. It might have something to do with the fact that this primary has lasted 8000 years.

It's hard to imagine when there have been like 50 contests already between Clinton and Obama and lord knows how many speeches and debates that there are people out there who need to have it all distilled down.

[liberalcommontater]

52. I am more interested in what you think...say we were at the bar and I said...

I've been supporting Clinton. Why do you support Obama?

That was the thought behind the question.

[pnwmom]

83. I know it's hard for strong Obama supporters to believe this, but there

are quite a few former backers of other candidates who don't see a big reason to choose either Obama or Clinton over the other candidate. They each have their plusses and minuses.

[liberalcommontater]

94. I am really afraid that McCain will seem the safer candidate to too many people.

[Liberal Veteran]

110. We've played the "safe" candidates before.

It rarely works out for us.

And you know, this country is ripe for change. As the saying goes, "nothing ventured, nothing gained". We already know what a Clinton White House looks like. Quite honestly, I see the 90's a period of squandered opportunity for progressive change in America. Health care was derailed, media was allowed to consolidate, the financial markets were deregulated, we got NAFTA, WTO, DADT, DOMA, lost congress.

The Clintons had their chance and they kinda blew it.

[liberalcommontater]

114. Lots of good happened too, but with the Republicans in Congress...

Bill had to play ball. There I go into auto-Clinton mode. We are ripe for change, no doubt. I was really thinking that the public may believe and I think McCain will try to play it, that he is the "safe" candidate. Even with Bill's compromises, I think we would have been in much better shape with Gore than with Bush.

[Liberal Veteran]

116. True, but we lost a few of the important battles in the first two years when we had congress.

Health care, NAFTA, and DADT.

And we didn't even get a principled stand from Clinton on DOMA. He didn't HAVE to sign it. It still would have been law.

[pnwmom]

137. Not to me! The difference between him and either Obama or Clinton is

quite clear to me.

[Liberal Veteran]

103. That's because other than personality and leadership shown in the primaries.....

...there isn't a hare's breath of difference between the two with regards to policy positions.

And back before the "kitchen sink" and "woe is me, caucuses are mean" stuff, I stood up for BOTH candidates and really at the time, the only thing that gave Obama the edge was that he didn't have that list of negatives that had become a part of the popular mythology.

Hillary lost me because she really hasn't carried herself with the dignity I expect.

[patrice]

107. me too.

Doesn't necessarily mean they don't have reasons, just inarticulate, perhaps.

[Ioo]

8. He is the Democrat that has won, Our case is made...

Face it.

[liberalcommontater]

34. I want to win in November. The case is far from made with the American people. McCain and...

the Republicans should be at about 30% right along with Bush.

[liberalcommontater]

9. I read every day why Hillary is so bad...

and I can read his web site and watch You Tube videos, but these are not qualities or qualifications. What does he have in his life experience that should tell me he is qualified?

[Liberal Veteran]

10. His main qualification isn't "I was sleeping with a former president".

[slinkerwink]

14. not helpful.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. I don't give a damn anymore. That whole "experience" by marriage thing is bullshit.

[liberalcommontater]

41. But, what does Obama offer. Screw Hillary. This is not about her...

What is your affirmative case?

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Okay here goes.

Better speaker.
Inspires people.
Came up on his own and didn't ride someone else's coattails.
Is not a long time Washington insider.
Did not vote for the war in Iraq.
Believes in the 50 state strategy.
Out-campaigned his competition.
Isn't whining that primaries are unfair.
Isn't trying to change the rules halfway between.
Isn't calling people Judas.
Isn't playing the pity card.
Holds himself up very well when criticized.
Doesn't demean his primary opponent's supporters.
Isn't tainted with nearly 20 years of character assassination.
Is gracious toward his primary opponent when she makes a mistake and doesn't pounce on verbal gaffes (like his opponent did on the bitter thing).
Has managed to stay in the black with his campaign financing and reached out to the people instead of insisting on playing the old "max from the few elites" thing.
Is very well-traveled.
Is very well-educated.
Seems to have a solid grasp of the issues.
Knows what it is like to be poor and worked for his community instead of taking a high paying job.
Is fairly young.
Is quick on his feet to answer questions.

[liberalcommontater]

75. Wow...I see why you support him...

I could be tempted to argue with some, but that is not what this post is about. I really wanted to know what you think and I can't argue with that. Thanks.

[cantgetfooldagin]

167. i can see how when you were writing your list

you suspended all reality.

[liberalcommontater]

171. Some agreement here, but that is not why I asked. What...

do you think about Obama's qualifications?

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[liberalcommontater]

177. What has he lied about? Can you be specific?

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[liberalcommontater]

286. I don't support him, but...

don't you think this is a rather common occurence even among politicians who mean it when they say it? Things change.

[slinkerwink]

11. For me, personally, he is qualified because he has demonstrated better judgement than any of the

remaining candidates, and he has demonstrated a commitment to running an open, transparent government, which is what I would like to see out of a political leader. And he also would present a new, fresh face on our foreign policy approach to the world, and address the issues of environmental dangers and economic dangers here at home.

[liberalcommontater]

21. Thank you. These are things we might disagree upon, but...

I did not post to be disagreeable.

[slinkerwink]

I know. That's why I took you seriously. When you ask questions like that, you're basically asking

for re-affirmation of why Obama would a far better alternative in the general election if he was nominated, and that's a good sign for the Democratic Party.

[liberalcommontater]

43. Thanks...as Frank Burns once famously said...

its nice to be nice to the nice.

[pnwmom]

33. Good, thoughtful answer. n/t

[Gore1FL]

12. several things

Strong legislative record (see congressional record at http://thomas.loc.gov/ )
14 years in elected office.
Worked at a grassroots level before that
Highly intelligent
Amazing Leadership Skills
Acts Presidential
Visionary
Ran a campaign own by the people.

[liberalcommontater]

48. Now there is an answer...

I didn't know he was in office for 14 years.

I saw something troublesome on CannonFire about his legislative record, but that is for another post.

I read all of Saul Alinsky's books on organizing when I was in college so I was initally inclined to like him, but have never warmed to him.

Thanks for the encouraging answer. If he is elected we need all of this to be true.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. No doubt that troubling thing is his "present" votes.

129 times out of more than 4000 votes.

[liberalcommontater]

81. I didn't know it was 4000 votes...

Do you know how this compares to his peers?

Actually the troubling thing involves Chicago corruption and his possible involvement. I hope it's not true.

[Liberal Veteran]

91. All I can tell you is that is voting present isn't all that uncommon in the Illinois legislature.

As far as corruption goes, there has been rumors swirling for quite some time (the better part of a year) and still nothing has come of it except some "guilt by association" and to be honest, the Clintons have there own issue with regards to that.

[liberalcommontater]

96. So tired of the guilt by association and especially the false accusations that leave the impression

that there must be something there. What a way to govern.

[patrice]

124. Please see my post #115 below re Present Vote. nt

[patrice]

115. The Present Vote is a positive negotiating skill. It's used to tell BOTH parties that you

have technical issues with the bill that may change your vote one way or another later, depending upon whether the bill succeeds or not, and whether your technical issues are dealt with when/if it goes back to committee.

It's a sophisticated tactic the requires that the person voting Present have a damn clear idea of how everyone else is going to vote, because you don't want to waste a Present vote on something that gets passed, because that would leave you holding the bag and your technical issues are lost.

[cantgetfooldagin]

170. but those "present" votes were on bills that HE SPONSORED

that's why its so troubling.

[liberalcommontater]

172. Really?

That casts them in a different light.

[scarletwoman]

225. It's no where near as simple as that. There could be a very good "technical" reason -- as the post

above explained -- to vote "present" in the floor vote on a bill that has come out of committee as a complete hashwork of the original bill. And if it was a bill YOU sponsored, you might be particularly concerned if you saw something attached to your bill in committee that altered what you had hoped the bill would do.

Just reading some numbers and statistics like: "voted x out of xxxx bills" doesn't really tell us anything when we know nothing about the details of those votes.

Legislation is an incredibly arcane and complex process. Before we reflexively "tut tut" when someone quotes us a statistic, we really ought to be honest with ourselves about whether or not we actually have a clue about what it actually means.

Just sayin...

Peace,
sw

[liberalcommontater]

234. Logical...nt

[cantgetfooldagin]

272. there are news articles & old threads on DU about it. use the search feature to find them

[damonm]

183. A link for substantiation, please?

[cantgetfooldagin]

273. use the search feature on DU to find the threads that talked about them

[jenmito]

13. He beat the seemingly unbeatable Clinton machine.

[liberalcommontater]

56. So he beat Clinton...Bush beat Gore and Kerry (kind of)...

Say McCain and Clinton had a fist fight on the floor of the senate and both died and Obama won by default...what would you say he brings to the office except the ability to stay out of fights with women and old men?

[jenmito]

72. No-he beat the entire Clinton ESTABLISHMENT! That in itself speaks of how good an

organizer and planner he is and how good his judgement is. Besides that, he was against the war from the beginning and had the guts to speak out against it when it was very popular. He has class (disagrees without being disagreeable), isn't afraid to say he'll talk to our enemies without preconditions, is inspirational like nobody else, and is FAST to hit back when attacked (with a great dry sense of humor to boot).

[whatchamacallit]

15. He's not Hillary

That's enough for me.

[liberalcommontater]

57. Really?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

154. He's not McBatshit.

That's enough for me.

[ClassWarrior]

18. He's already made the case. Pay attention...

...or catch up: http://barackobama.com

NGU.

[indimuse]

36. no... he has NOT

Hillary KICKED his "Whine to the MSM" ASS!

[liberalcommontater]

105. Now come on...

I support Hillary too, but the question was what qualities does he bring. I hope Hillary pulls it out. I think she is more electable and tougher and better versed on the issues, but that is for another thread.

[Whalestoe]

20. Hi. I'm Barack Obama and I will END the war in Iraq and won't start one in Iran.

The end. Vote the O.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. P.S.: I didn't vote to start the war in Iraq

....unlike my competition.

[Whalestoe]

32. Now that's teamwork! n/t

[patrice]

131. P.P.S. "I didn't vote for the chance of War so I could run for pResident like a certain lady we know

[AllentownJake]

22. He's more qualified

Than Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Carter were I digress however.

However if you need evidence of what kind of a leader he would be. Look at his campaign. He's effectively implemented a strategy against someone who was way ahead of him in the polls and endorsements. Picked intelligent people to delegate to and changed course when he felt it needed to be changed.

[liberalcommontater]

109. I agree that he has run an effective campaign, but

don't you think running the federal government and effectively using the levers of power requires a different skill set than campaigning? Hate him, but Dick Cheney knows how to use the levers of power.

[Indenturedebtor]

142. Heres some "levers of power" action for you in case you missed it

Senate Passes Kerry-Obama Legislation to Close KBR Tax Loophole, Provide Tax Relief for Troops

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080522-senate_passes_k/

It doesn't get much better than that - close KBR tax loopholes (and set a precedent for keeping pillaged money HERE IN THE US), use the money to help veterans, and show the world who's side McBoosh and Shrubya are really on.

Pure unadulterated genius :bounce:

[liberalcommontater]

145. Bravo!

[99th_Monkey]

25. I think it's called "winning the Democratic Primaries" by running a stellar campaign. ~nt~

[Liberal Veteran]

28. What a shocking concept? Our candidate should be the person who wins the most delegates?

But I thought being the nominee was something one was granted by virtue of one's closeness to the party insiders and pundits!

[mcctatas]

26. Here's a few...

He has held elected office for 10+ years (more than Hillary)
He has taught Constitutional Law (therefore might be less apt to wipe his ass with it than W)
He started out as a community organizer, he learned politics from the grassroots level to the National level
He can run a mult-million dollar organization effectively and without going into debt or borrowing from his own substantial (but much less so than Hillary's or Mccain'S) personal fortunes
He has not been in Washington long enough to become bogged down in the pay for play way of doing things
He is not divisive and bitter
He is willing to take political risks when he believes the people's interests will be served (instead of pandering about gas tax)
He has never threatened to "Anihalate Iran"
He has never retooled a beach boys song to sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
It is more likely than not that he is the party's nominee....

I'm sure I can come up with many more, but this is a start :hi:

[indimuse]

29. Be careful!

I can smell the smoke.....


Big K&R! Thanks for the questio..I'm curious how many will reply with Honest...ACCURATE answers..?

[Catherina]

40. Quit farting then n/t

[dailykoff]

38. One more for the road...

"Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War"

Senator Barack Obama (D-Il), then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago:

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

"I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

"I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

from full speech at link: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm?rd=1

............

CLINTON:

- NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

- YES on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.

- YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take military action against Iran.

- YES on the Iraq War Resolution.

- Refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.


OBAMA:

- YES on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

- NO on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.

- Drafted legislation stating that Congress did not grant President Bush the authority to attack Iran, either through the Kyl-Lieberman amendment or any resolution previously adopted.

- Vigorously opposed the Iraq War and took a public stand against the Iraq War Resolution

- Signed the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.


McCain:
- NO on Amendment No. 4882 that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
- YES on Bankruptcy bill (S.256) which stripped protections for people in debt.
- YES on Kyle/Lieberman bill that sets the stage for the US to take military action against Iran.
- YES on the Iraq War Resolution.
- McCain refused to sign the AFC Anti-Torture Pledge.

original post by grassfed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4990975&mesg_id=4990975

............................

[unpossibles]

76. great answer!

I also want to add that I think as a young candidate who has not formerly lived in the WH, he could really do what so many have wanted to do - bring back some disenfranchised voters into the fold.

I personally feel he could help heal the divide which the rightwing noise machine has successfully widened over the last decade and a half, or at least start the process.

I also greatly admire the campaign he is running so far, and think that since so many Americans express disgust at what our political process has become - all mud, no substance - like I mentioned in the first sentence, I think he represents a big change as opposed to a meaningless branding about "change ou deserve" from the same-old same-old.

[dailykoff]

122. Thanks, there are a lot here

more than enough I'd say! :hi:

[patrice]

136. Thanks dailykoff!! nt

[DeeDeeNY]

262. Wow. Great post. Funny how Hillary supporters didn't acknowledge this

That's why it's useless to respond when they say "convince me why I should vote for him".

[liberalcommontater]

287. Hi, I am a Hillary supporter...

I do think many responses on this thread have gone beyond what is on Obama's web site and have gotten to what they personally see. That is the message that will be most contagious by November, or not. When he is the nominee, I hope that these things are very contagious. We need to win big in Nov.

[DeeDeeNY]

298. You make a lot of sense. We do need to win big.

:hi:

[pinkpops]

39. Natural born, at least 35 yrs old, >= 14 years resident

And of course he/she has to be elected.
Some of those with the least "experience" have been the best presidents.
Some with the most "experience" have been the worst.

[WillyT]

42. He's Really Cute... Don't Ya Think ???

:wow:

:rofl:

[GoesTo11]

45. First leader in my lifetime with a powerful vision for America

[Lerrad]

59. He is just as qualified as Hillary in my opinion....

.. and probably more qualified.

I support Obama, but will also vote for Hillary if by a miracle she became the nominee.

The biggest argument I see against Obama from those that support Hillary is that they claim that Obama does not have the experience. That is what I see posted here time and time again.

Hillary claims to have many years of experience on things like foreign policy, but she is claiming the years as first lady under Bill. She has no hands on experience as first lady, although I'm sure Bill talked to her on occasion when he was not preoccupied with other matters. In my opinion she does not have anymore experience than Obama. But Hillary is very experienced at telling good war stories, which is precisely why I think she should no be President.

As far as the issues are concerned there is not much difference between the two candidates, I think Health care is probably the only difference, and as I recall Hillary had a health care plan a while back that failed.

So to me it is not what qualifies Obama to be President, but rather what does not qualify Hillary to be President. I feel that a President should be trust worthy and honest. I think Obama has the qualities, and to me it is very obvious that Hillary does not. In fact she reminds me of our current President, pig headed and stubborn. They are not willing to listen to anyone else once they have an idea in their heads, and they will not change course no matter what.

[ecstatic]

64. Character, judgment, integrity, class

I don't think he would ever send troops to die to score cheap political points. That is evident from the way he didn't jump on the Gas Tax scam. There are many other reasons but I don't have time to explain them to you. http://barackobama.com

[boobooday]

66. He was a constitutional law professor

Given the oath he will take, I think he is the best qualified to defend our constitution.

His opposition to the war supports this.

Reason number two: he is a real leader, who has run an incredibly successful campaign and inspired many people. He will go far in restoring our reputation in the world.

[CaptJasHook]

67. Try http:// www.barackobama.com

[Blue_Roses]

71. post #12 highlights some of Obama's

"qualifications" but if you were to look at qualifications alone, then we could omit George Bush since he had basically none. I think people look at qualifications, but leadership speaks volumes too. (no, Bush didn't have leadership skills, but the gift of gabb) From the beginning of this race I was on the fence, but as I watched the stellar campaign and the way Obama handled himself with some the controversy, I see strong leadership as well as even temperament. That along with vision and basic common sense have made me convinced he would make a great President.

[patrice]

74. His life amply demonstrates the basic raw intelligence needed.

His legislative career (partyly in the form of his fabled Present votes) shows us that he rejects the conventional gridlock of power struggles manifested in the false dichotomies that have taken precedence over the will of the People for far too long. His political campaign is a manifestation of that same intelligent negotiation strategy.

I like most of his policy statements on the Issues, which you may read at his website.

Fearless commitment to Social Justice: After his college days, rather than rejecting previously held ideals associated with a certain social theorist (Saul Alinsky) thought too politically risky by another notable candidate in this race, and sacrificed his immediate ambitions to Grassroots organizing, rather than going off to law school in preparation for whatever position that would be available to him in extent power dynasties. When he did finish law school, he found his own way in his professional world.

He could have played it safe, like others, regarding the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and in so doing would have made himself quite attractive to the powerful factions supporting his major primary opponent. But apparently he felt War supporters, Neo-Cons, and their Slaves have adequate represenation, so he chose to stand against the politics that created the IWR and the subsequent murder of tens of thousands of innocent people. He isn't just inconvenienced by this war, like some, he is morally offended by it like millions of other Americans. He wanted to represent those who are NOT represented by politics as usual, Us.

[MR. ELECTABLE]

77. He's an honest to God civil libertarian

One of the biggest offenses of the past eight years is the curtailment of our civil liberties.

So far, we've seen attacks against:
Habeas Corpus
Free Speech
Right to Privacy
Right to Free Assembly
Unlawful Search and Seizure
Torture

I believe Obama is the only candidate running who cares about our rights, having worked for several years as a Civil Rights Attorney.
He's the only one who got the endorsement of the Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay Detainees, who worked from his office when they were testifying to Congress.
I think he is the only one of the three candidates that will close Guantanamo Bay and end the horrific practices there.

[RBInMaine]

89. As much "experience" as Abe Lincoln. What made Bush qualified? What makes Hillary qualified? etc...

[Jersey Devil]

97. Too late - It's over, Hillary lost - Join us for the general election

Be a part of a historic move into the future.

[stillcool]

101. what do you want a dissertation?

You've read his books. You know all about his work in Chicago, both in the Senate and when he did community organizing, taught Constitutional Law, and was a civil rights lawyer. You know all the legislation he sponsored and wrote as an Illinois Senator. You know all the legislation he sponsored and wrote as a United States Senator. You know all his policy positions. What else do you want to know?

[RBInMaine]

112. James Buchanan = Tons of "experience" = SHITTY President Anyhow. You tell me.

[rurallib]

117. No offense but this is really late in the process to ask that question.

[Liberal Veteran]

120. I tried to make that point once also.

There is SD, Montana, and PR to vote and it's over.

Hell, it feels like this campaign has been between HRC and BHO for a decade now.

[jefferson_dem]

125. Wow. Have you been asleep for the past year or something?

This post could have been dated May 27, 2007.

WAKE UP! He's our party's nominee! Educate yourself and get on board.

[mckeown1128]

126. My case:

[Richard Steele]

128. He's the Democratic Party candidate for the office. nm

[stevietheman]

129. www.barackobama.com -- make up your own mind n/t

n/t

[zulchzulu]

134. Here's some endorsements, including one that mirrors my view

"Barack Obama is a 21st century candidate who will express the aspirations and hopes of so many."
—Chris Dodd


“Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, Independents, and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics..."
—Bill Bradley

“Who better than Barack Obama to bring new credibility to America’s role in the world and restore our moral authority?”
—John Kerry

"Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama."
—Caroline Kennedy,

---

Senator Obama has ten years of senate experience: eight years in Springfield, and two years in Washington, D.C. In reviewing Senator Obama's 10 years of senate experience, two themes are prominent: when his party was in the minority for 8 of those 10 years, Senator Obama seemed focused on looking for pragmatic, nonpartisan ways to pass bills while working with the Republican majority. In the only 2 years in which his party was in the majority, and he had the votes to pass the bills he wanted, Senator Obama was a champion of the powerless - while still considering Republican concerns and treating them with respect.

Barack Obama is a progressive. He has an 82.5 liberal rating in 2005 by the National Journal. On votes in the U.S. Senate that were decided largely along party lines, Senator Obama sided with the Democrats 97% of the time. And he had a liberal voting record in the Illinois State Senate. In 2006, he received 100% approval rating from: The League of Conservation Voters (he opposed drilling in ANWR, and in parts of Gulf of Mexico); AFL-CIO (he sponsored legislation blocking overtime restrictions by the Bush administration); Planned Parenthood. The National Education Association gives him an "A" on their most recent scorecard.

His eight years in Springfield are important for many reasons. It demonstrated: his political courage (e.g. to oppose bills he believes are unconstitutional); the ease with which he interacted with Republicans (socially, and in political negotiations); his work ethic, as he drafted many bills that became law; his ability to quickly absorb complex issues; his desire to carefully consider all opinions; his efforts to incorporate into his bills the ideas of both Democrats and Republicans; and, most importantly, it gave him the opportunity to handle many of the same political issues and bills that face U.S. senators and presidential candidates. I will elaborate on each of these below.

In an interview, Senator Obama stated that his signature bills while in Springfield, the ones he's most proud of, were: expanding Kidcare (health insurance for an additional 20,000 Illinois children); welfare reform (a bipartisan bill passed in Republican controlled senate, generating major headlines); earned income tax credit (tax relief for working poor families); and death penalty reform. (He supports the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, but wanted all interrogations to be videotaped. Initially viewed as a highly controversial proposal, Senator Obama listened to all sides of the debate, incorporated ideas from many individuals, and the result was a bill that passed the Senate 58-0, and was signed into law by a governor who originally opposed Senator Obama's bill.)

Though not cited by Senator Obama in the same interview, I would add to his major achievements in Springfield: campaign finance reform; and ethics reform. These were considered major accomplishments in Illinois. When Senator Obama entered the Illinois Senate, he told Emil Jones, the Democratic majority leader in the Illinois Senate, that he wanted to work hard. He asked Senator Jones to send him any difficult assignments. On the issue of campaign finance reform, he was handpicked by Mr. Jones to lead the Democrats' senate efforts at campaign finance reform. (Senator Obama wanted to limit individual contributions, but nipped and tucked seeking consensus. Obama was pragmatic. The result was the most ambitious campaign finance reform in nearly 25 years, according to good government groups.)

Senator Obama demonstrated political courage in opposing bills he believed were unconstitutional or poorly written, even if the vote could later be used in misleading 30 second commercials against him. He opposed a bill to toughen penalties for violent crimes committed by gang activity, because the bill didn't clearly define a gang member, and seemed targeted at Hispanics and Blacks. (This does not mean he is soft on crime. He also voted for, or sponsored, over 100 bills to strengthen criminal penalties (e.g. against sex offenders, domestic violence, drug dealers)). He opposed a bill that allowed home owners to use a gun in self defense in their homes. (He opposed that bill because it only applied to towns that already prohibited any private citizen from possessing a handgun. He opposed it because the law could lead to homeowners using guns in the street. He also wanted to defer to local governments.) He also opposed a measure which proponents claimed was designed to protect "live babies born during abortion procedures." (He felt the measure would define a fetus as a person and criminalize every abortion.) His death penalty reform bill was also given little chance of being passed into law, yet was eventually passed by unanimous consent of the Senate. (Audacity of Hope, pp 58-59)

The clearest example of Senator Obama's political courage was his vocal opposition to war in Iraq in 2002. At the time, many Democrats with national ambition were supporting George W Bush's posture on Iraq. At the time, Bush and the war still had public support.

The ease with which Senator Obama works with Republicans is demonstrated, not only in Springfield, but both before and after. There were several reasons he was elected President of Harvard Law Review: his grades (graduating magna cum laude); his writing ability; and his friendships with many of the conservatives on the Law Review who felt he would always consider their opinions. In Springfield, he played very low stakes poker with both Democratic and Republican friends. He also played basketball with them. He was liked and/or respected by every Republican state senator whose interview I have encountered thus far. When he spoke on the floor of the state senate, people listened; and even if they disagreed with him, they knew he spoke with conviction. And in the U.S. Senate, his closest friend is Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), a conservative Republican. They entered the Senate at the same time, and they and their wives immediately hit it off and became close friends. As a result, they were able to work together to pass the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.

In Springfield, Senator Obama demonstrated a remarkable work ethic. Not only did he tell Senator Jones he was ready to work hard, he followed through. When Democrats finally achieved a majority in the state senate, Senator Obama was elevated to Chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee; 2003-2004 were the only two years Barack Obama has ever been in a political majority in either Illinois or (until recently) Washington, D.C. During those two years, he sponsored 780 bills, and 280 of those were signed into law.

He sponsored laws against discrimination of gays in employment and housing. (It passed after he left Springfield.) He work on a ban on assault weapons. He supported a bill to allow retired officers can carry concealed weapons. He worked worked for legislation to expand health insurance coverage. (He proposed a study on how to provide universal health care to everyone in Illinois backed by a single payer health care plan run by the state.) He helped pass bills to increase aids funding. He sponsored a bill to investigate racial profiling by police, essentially second guessing police officers. (By incorporating the best ideas from all sides on this and other bills, he even managed to win the endorsement of the state police officers union when he ran for U.S. Senate.)

Senator Obama has a reputation of being a quick study on complex political issues. Many in Springfield commented on this - so has Senator Lugar in Washington, D.C. (Together, they sponsored the Lugar-Obama Bill. It's an anti-proliferation bill that expands on existing efforts to locate and destroy WMDs, e.g. shoulder fired missiles and antipersonnel mines.)

Senator Obama had a desire to consider all opinions, and to incorporate the views of both Democrats and Republicans. He led the fight to require that all police interrogations be videotaped in death penalty cases. (This was a controversial bill which cited as an example of Obama considering all sides on an issue.)

Eight years in Springfield gave Senator Obama many opportunities to work on the political issues that face all active senators at both the state and federal level, as well as the president: ethics reform; campaign finance reform; welfare reform; considering universal health care, and expanding health care for children; laws banning discrimination against gays and lesbians; overhauled the capital punishment system; funded a systematic investigation of racial profiling; voted to increase the minimum wage (from $5.15 to 6.50); helped pass earned income credit for working poor families; voted for embryonic stem cell research; voted to end $300 million in tax breaks for businesses.

Some dismiss Obama's victory in the U.S. Senate campaign because he had only nominal competition in the general election. However, he soundly defeated a crowded field of better known, better financed Democrats in the primaries. He defeated Blair Hull. Hull had sold his trading business to Goldman Saches for $531 million, and during the primaries outspent Obama 6:1. (Hull wasn't a charismatic candidate, and was further sunk by an allegation of ugly run-ins with ex wife.) (Audacity of Hope, pp 111-113) But Obama also defeated Dan Hynes, Illinois state comptroller, in the same primaries. Hynes had been endorsed by 85 of 102 Democratic county chairmen, and by the AFL CIO. (But Obama was endorsed by the state teachers union, and unions representing the textile, hotel and food service employees, as well as the state police union.) (Audacity of Hope, pp 117-118)

Some say that Obama lost touch with Illinois after being elected to the U.S. Senate. They argue that Obama was too busy flying around the country, campaigning and fundraising for other Democratic candidates. But in his first first year as U.S. Senator, Senator Obama held 39 town hall meetings throughout Illinois. (Audacity of Hope, p 101)

In his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama was back in his familiar role as member of the minority party. Republicans tightly controlled the U.S. Senate, and it was very difficult for any Democratic Senator to get a bill passed. During that time, Senator Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more.

Senator Obama thus far has two bills which became law, that have his name on them. The Lugar-Obama bill which I've already discussed, expands efforts to destroy WMDs (e.g. in the former Soviet states). And the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. The Transparency Act created a website managed by OMB for ensuring transparency of funds allocated to government agencies. It tracks all federal spending, and allows Google-type searches based on agency, types of funding, etc.

One of his first bills after being elected to the U.S. Senate was a proposal to increased Pell Grants, thereby fulfilling a campaign promise. Unfortunately, in the tightly controlled Republican Senate, this bill didn't make it out of committee.

Perhaps his most impressive accomplishment in the U.S. Senate happened on January 18, 2007. That is when the Senate passed a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. (Senator Obama had voted against a prior ethics reform bill that he said wasn't tough enough.) Newspapers give Senators Obama and Russ Feingold significant credit for insisting that this latest ethics bill included tough measures. Obama risked some political capital to get this bill passed. The bill bans gifts/meals from lobbyists; puts an end to subsidized corporate jets; requires full disclosure of earmarks (who are the earmarks for, and for what purpose); places restrictions on retiring members of Congress going immediately into lobbying; requires lobbyists to disclose bundling of contributions to Congress, candidates or committees. This was a HUGE victory for Senator Obama. It still needs to be reconciled with a House version of the bill, and then signed by the president.

Senator Democratic leader Harry Reid has designated Barack Obama as the Democrats' point man on ethics, citing three reasons for his selection: whenever Obama walks into a room, everyone stops talking and listens to what he has to say; Obama is known for having unquestionable ethics and integrity; Obama's expertise on ethics and campaign reform while in Springfield made him a leading expert on those same issues in the U.S. Senate. This last point can't be emphasized enough. The fact that Obama mastered, and led the fight, on so many complex political issues in eight years in Springfield gave him a huge head start in addressing the same complex issues at the federal level.

Senator Obama has also sponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. It would cap troops at January 10, 2007 levels, begin withdrawal by May 1, 2007, and call for complete withdrawal of combat brigades by March 31 of 2008. Withdrawal would be postponed if Iraq meets certain benchmarks. This is consistent with the Iraq Study Group. (Solely from memory, I believe this study group was chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker III.) Bill Richardson wants complete withdrawal by end of 2007. Hillary Clinton has called for a phased withdrawal of troops starting in 90 days. John Edwards 40,000-50,000 troops withdrawn immediately, and the remainder withdrawn within 12-18 months.

Senator Obama also has experience and judgment on foreign policy. He is on the senate committees for foreign relations; homeland security; veterans affairs; health, education, labor and pensions. He studied political science with an emphasis on international relations and Columbia. And he's gone on three major trips overseas as part of an official Senate delegation, meeting with U.S. generals, and/or foreign leaders. He and Senator Lugar travelled to the former Soviet states to inspect the destruction of WMDs; he traveled to Iraq and met with U.S. generals, and also toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories (he told Palestinian Authority President MahMoud Abbas that US would never recognize Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to eliminate Israel.); he visited various African countries, including Kenya (his father's homeland), and publicly took an AIDS test to show people in Africa that it was ok and even socially responsible to have an AIDS test.

He has backed various plans for lessening reliance on Middle East oil. He has offered the big three domestic automakers a deal: the federal government pays 10% of health care costs of their retired employees, if the automakers will commit to building more fuel efficient cars. He has also called for increased fuel efficiency standards (3 percent every year for 15 years). He's encouraged use of ethnanol as an alternative fuel.

He embraces religion, and invokes his Christian faith in public discourse. But he writes repeatedly in Audacity of Hope that he also believes in separation of church and state. "Contrary to the claims of many on the Christian right who rail against the separation of church and state, their argument is not with a handful of liberal sixties judges. It is with the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the forebears of today's evangelical church." (Audacity of Hope, pp 216-7) He notes that neither his mother nor step-father were religious. (Audacity of Hope, pp 202-205) His maternal grandfather was raised Baptist, and his maternal grandmother's family was Methodists, but neither was very religious. (Audacity of Hope, pp 202-203) Barack Obama's father was raised a Muslim, but was a confirmed atheist by the time he met Barack Obama's mother. (Audacity, p 204)

At least in theory, Senator Obama opposes the use of filibusters to stop judicial nominations. He recalls how this practice was abused by white southern politicians to stall civil rights legislation for many years. (Audacity of Hope, p 80-83) Instead, he believes in the democratic process to bring about justice.

In Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama anticipates nearly every argument that will later be used against his presidential campaign. He notes what many of us already knew: after the civil rights and voting rights acts of 1964 and 1965, LBJ predicted that the South would vote Republican thereafter. (Audacity of Hope, p 27) The people who will vote against him because of his skin color will already be voting against him because of his politics. (My own observation: Bill Clinton is sometimes referred to as America's first Black president because he appointed many people of color to government posts. How many racists could have been cheering when Bill Clinton said we should mend affirmative action, not end it?)

Senator Obama believes the debate between "free trade" and "fair trade" doesn't address the underlying issues that need to be resolved in order for America to be competitive in a global economy. Fair trade would force other countries to enforce minimum wage laws, environmental laws, child labor laws, and address artificially low currency exchange rates, etc. But fair trade can't address the oversupply of cheap labor in other countries, automation of factories, increased efficiencies in production that require fewer workers (and outsourcing). (Audacity of Hope, pp 172-174) Senator Obama believes the answer is in better K-12 education, especially in math and science, and better job training and retraining for displaced American workers. Teachers should be paid more, especially in math and science, as should teachers in certain inner-city schools; they should be given more autonomy, but also be held accountable for showing their students are learning; he would adjust performance reviews to factor for higher scores in more affluent neighborhoods, and supplement teacher evaluations with peer review. He would reform the teacher certification process so people with certain skills could obtain teaching certificates after taking fewer classes. (Audacity of Hope, 161-163) He favors having some charter schools. He would increase government assistance for access to post secondary education, through Pell grants, low interest loans, tax free educational savings accounts, and/or make tuition and costs fully tax deductible. (Audacity of Hope, 164-165) He cites Robert Rubin's conclusion that open trade, if combined with government support for top quality education, will be a net gain for our country. (Audacity of Hope, p 175) (Obama doesn't refer to either free or fair trade at this point.) But he voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), because he felt that Bush hadn't done enough to show American workers that its government was on their side. (Audacity of Hope, pp 172-176) (By that, I assume Obama means Bush hasn't done enough to prepare American workers to compete in a global economy.) In contrast, he has backed a free trade agreement with the Middle East country of Oman. He reasoned that the financial impact to the U.S. was small, and worth it to expand engagement with the region.

Here are a few major bills Senator Obama has voted on the U.S. Senate that undecided voters may ask you about.

Senator Obama cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, S-2611, sponsored by John McCain. It passed the Senate on May 25, 2006, by a vote of 62-36. Republicans largely opposed the bill, Democrats largely supported the bill. (Curiously, George W Bush, having been governor of a border state, has a fairly sophisticated understanding of this issue.) Under this bill, undocumented persons (my phrasing) who have been in the country five or more years would be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, provided they pay back taxes, learn English and have no serious criminal records. Undocumented persons who have been in the United States between 2-5 years would eventually have to return to a point of entry in Mexico or Canada and apply for a green card, which could allow their immediate return. The roughly 2 million undocumented persons who have been in the United States for less than two years would be ordered home.

Senator Obama opposed S-256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The title of the bill is misleading. The most significant change in bankruptcy law in 25 years, it would require many people filing for bankruptcy to repay a portion of their debt under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code rather than allowing them to erase it almost entirely under the more commonly used Chapter 7. Those opposing the bill said the bill didn't take into account dire situations faced by those who face divorce, disease, job loss, and other crises. Curiously, Hillary Clinton did not vote on this historic bill. (I would just note that many of the creditors and banks who benefit from this bill have strong ties to New York.)

On June 22, 2006, the Senate voted on two amendments regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq. John Kerry offered an amendment to S-2766 for withdrawal of nearly all American troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. All 55 Republicans joined 31 Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) in voting "no" on the measure. However, on the same day, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted "yes" on the Levin-Reed amendment to S-2766, a nonbinding proposal urging President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq this year.

Senator Obama also voted "yes" on: stem cell research (H R 810); modified Patriot Act (H R 3199); curtailing ability of plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits against corporations (Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill).

He voted "no" on: constitutional amendment banning flag burning (S J Res 12); gay marriage amendment (vote 163 on a cloture of debate motion, effectively killing the amendment); extending Bush's tax cuts (H R 4297); confirmation of Samuel Alito; $40 bilion in cuts from welfare, child support and student lending programs (vote 363); confirmation of John Roberts, Jr. (vote 245); confirmation of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador (vote 142 on cloture motion, blocking the confirmation for a second time); CAFTA (S 1307).

Daewoo Kim
Seattle, Washington

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/1000AmericansforObama/CHjY

[derby378]

294. His work on anti-gun legislation is a stumbling block

Other than that, it's all good, I think...

[SwampG8r]

138. the constitution says he is qualified

over 35 native born is all it calls for

[harun]

186. After GW I think the bar is considerably low as far as just being "qualified"

but I don't think Obama is just qualified. I think he has had a life that will make him a real visionary President on many levels.

We have such crisis now in Foreign Policy, Health Care and Energy Policy that we simply cannot afford to have another professional propaganda minister. We need someone with real ideas, like Obama.

[liberalcommontater]

200. I have always felt that Bill would have easily won a third term...

if it were allowed and he would have trounced Bush in the process. If Obama is everything you believe, too bad it can only last for 8 years.

Any thoughts on his successor other than whom he chooses for VP?

[harun]

236. By that time I will be old enough to run. So 2 Terms of Obama then

2 of me.

God willing.

[SwampG8r]

255. harun in 2016

i endorse him now to get the jump on ALL you chumps!!!

[SwampG8r]

254. all i believe is he is a good man who will try his

hardest to make america a better place
and i bet we can agree thats true

as for after his terms
who knows
politics comes at you fast and as we have all learned its unpredictable

[Chulanowa]

140. He understands basic math?

He has a foreign policy beyond "fuck 'em / nuke 'em"?
He hasn't been lurking around the White House for the last 28 years?
It's his turn!
He won't sexually molest the German Prime Minister.
He was against the war before Hillary Clinton was for the war, and way before she was against it, and way way before she was for it again
He knows more states than you. Or me. Or any atlas. Such as Newest Jersey, South by Southwest Dakota, and the Semiautonomous Commonwealth of Fred Carner on 26th Street. Damn he's good.
He's actually been to 49 of them, and believes we need at least 50 to be a viable party
Because his wife will kick our asses if he's not.
Most importantly...

He doesn't imagine he's entitled by divine mandate.

[mkultra]

141. this feels like an attempt to start some crap

but ill bite anyway

I think he has good judgment which was demonstrated in his stand against the Iraqi war.
I think he is honest and decent.
I think he will not play the political game but rather be realistic.
I think he is a uniter who is willing to be inclusive.
I think he is level headed and patient.
I think his policies are exactly what im looking for in terms of progressive with a dash of moderate.
i think he represents a historic opportunity for minorities in America.

[liberalcommontater]

149. Thanks for biting...

I supported Edwards and now support Clinton. I was probably as tight with Bill in the 90's are you are with Obama today. There is such a mess to clean up and thrashing the republicans to the point where they are a permanent minority would make me very happy. I think Clinton is a good enough political operator to do it. I also think she, Bill, many democrats and most of the country are tired of the gatcha games. Innuendo means something happened. You are bad in some way and if not the way we think, then something else.

I want the republicans to suffer not just blow back for the past 8 years, but the 2000 election and for what they tried to do all through the 90's.

If Hillary is not the nominee, I am interested in what those who like Obama think and feel about him. We can quote and reference and characterize all day - ie Obama's uncle was not in the Army, but the Navy! - so what...so what I asked was, as an Obama supporter what is it about him that speaks to you?

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Many replies will give me much to think about. I wish there were more folks actually talking to each other.

[hokies4ever]

151. He will put this country back on the right track

on everything from energy policy to health care to the Iraq War.

[liberalcommontater]

157. The devil is always in the details...

I felt that way about Bill in '92. Not to be negative, just I hope he and the democrats are up to the task. They should have been from 92-94.

[hokies4ever]

164. He's been giving details for over a year now

I am a believer in people educating themselves. Use 'The Google' to find out his positions and plans for whatever issues you think are most important (I can't read your mind). Then ask yourself if you prefer Obama's or McCain's plan and position.

[purji]

143. hes winning the primary

and Mclame sucks

[Crunchy Frog]

144. So, vote for McCain if you think he's better qualified.

:shrug:

[liberalcommontater]

150. I asked you a question. Can you answer it? Please.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

146. dude, there were like 20 debates and 9876 town halls

[liberalcommontater]

153. Yes and I have never warmed to him...

obviously others have. I am not interested in his web site or anything like that. When I looked at him I saw less experience, Chicago politics, very liberal - which does not bother me personally, but may cause us problems in the fall, a certain glibness that I personally did not like, bla bla bla. I am not saying this is accurate, just that this has been my perception. I am not posting to argue with anyone about what they say either. If it is what you really think, then it just is what it is.

So, if Hillary does not prevail, what I am interested in is finding traction with him. Traction that you have that I lack. So I asked.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

158. I can't give it to you at this point, though. if you've been following all along,

are progressive, involved in politics--all of which you likely are, or you wouldn't be here--then Obama supporters aren't going to sway you. Nor should we. The most you can hope for in a democracy is that an informed voter will make an informed decision, which you obviously will. Peace.

[liberalcommontater]

166. Fair enough.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

147. He's not a DLClinton.

[liberalcommontater]

155. So, McCain is not a DLClinton either...

seriously though is that all that reccommends him to you, Tierra_y_Libertad?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

163. Nope. But, it's one of the best reasons I'll vote for him.

I'm not all that big a fan of another "moderate" being president, but Obama, at least has the potential of paying some attention to the left rather than the standard "triangulation" to the right that the Clintons progress.

[liberalcommontater]

168. Your reasons, that is what I asked for, thanks.

[Bright Eyes]

148. All you have to remember is

If you can't tell that Obama is better then McCain, you don't belong here.

[liberalcommontater]

156. Sounds like 2000 on the other side...

all you have to know is that Bush is not Clinton or Gore.

You are right of course as far as you go. If you could boil it down to two or three things about him, what would they be?

[hokies4ever]

169. Ending the Iraq War and coming back from the brink of WWIII

And WWIII it will be with a President McCain. You do realize that Bush is gearing up for air strikes on Iran right now, right? It'll be USA, Israel, and Britain on one side with Iran, Syria, and Russia on the other side. China will take the opportunity to put the smack down on Tibet and will openly threaten Taiwan. And don't think that none of the peace-loving countries in the Middle East will not look for an opportunity for some retribution against their enemies either.

[liberalcommontater]

176. Do you remember the movie War Games?

Near the end the computer played out many simulations, they all had names and started differently, but ended the same. Both sides lost. The only way to win was not to play. Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?

A very serious situation and answer you have provided, thanks.

[hokies4ever]

182. Reminds me of Denzel Washington's quote in Crimson Tide

Excellent movie in case you haven't seen it. Denzel's quote went something like, "In nuclear war, the true enemy is war itself." I think that Obama understands the faulty foreign policy of preemptive war. Preemptive war doctrine should have died when Hitler committed suicide.

On a slightly different topic to get your mind thinking, let me relate a scenario my father shared with me not too long ago. He's a retired Marine Corps officer; served for about 26 years and loves war theory. The scenario is kind of disturbing however, but you seem to enjoy expanding your mind politically:

A likely scenario for a future President is to attack Iran to try to prevent nuclear war. The thinking goes as follows. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor back in the 80s, the one that Saddam Hussein purchased from France. It was above ground, so they just used their F-16s. This follows Israel's preemptive war doctrine. Now Iran's nuclear facilities are below ground, well-protected by many layers of concrete. Israel does not have the capability of destroying these underground facilities with a conventional strike. Key word: conventional. They would need to use a low-yield nuclear weapon to take them out. Keep in mind that we probably don't know where all of these facilities are located. The US however does have the capability to take out these facilities with conventional weapons, particularly using the $2 billion B2 bomber with the huge bunker-busting bombs the military just ordered over the past couple of years.

So a potential and even likely scenario for the next President goes as follows: Israel tells the US that it is planning on attacking an Iranian nuclear facility it has identified with a low-yield nuclear weapon, unless the US uses it's Air Force to take out the facility with its huge bunker-busting conventional weapon bomb. What does the President do? I think this is a debatable issue. However, I prefer Obama's emphasis on moving away from the preemptive war doctrine, because in nuclear war, the true enemy can't be killed, because it is war itself.

[liberalcommontater]

202. Thanks for the scenerio. I read The Art of War last summer getting

ready for union negotiations. Thinking strategically is a good thing.

Also, I just came across this recently. You might be interested.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[hokies4ever]

203. Thanks for the link

Very interesting animation. I think it further makes the point that preemptive war is a bad strategy. Particularly with Iran since we don't know for sure where all of their nuclear facilities are located.

[liberalcommontater]

206. A picture is worth...

[Bright Eyes]

190. Ok.

He'll end the War In Iraq.

He's pro-choice (Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.)

He'll change the course of foreign policy, while McCain is more of the same.

Despite what some say, he has 12 years of legislative experience. (8 in the Illinois State Senate, 4 in the U.S Senate)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

These are some the things most important to me. You may care about other things, but this is what makes him qualified to me.

[liberalcommontater]

205. Hi, thanks for the link...

I see he is in favor of Charter Schools. I definately am not, but the info is dated as 10 years old. I hope he has seen the data that shows they do not perform any better than public schools and in some cases worse.

[Bright Eyes]

223. Obama isn't perfect.

I wish he'd take on a more progressive position on health care, for example. However, he is light-years ahead of McCain.

[liberalcommontater]

235. Support for charter schools concerns me and healthcare. Agreed.

[reflection]

152. He's 35 and a citizen. Next! n/t

[Blue-Jay]

160. No. Make your own fucking case for voting for McCumstain.

[liberalcommontater]

178. Why even bother posting if you are unwilling to answer the question?

[yodermon]

162. Because he has hinted he will prosecute Bushco.

in response to the question "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

answer:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigatedt. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

I would love to see a similar statement by HRC. Judging by her husband's history of declining to prosecute wrongdoing in previous administrations, I am not too optimistic.

[liberalcommontater]

181. I would love to see it too...

Did you see the video of RFK Jr. on election fraud? I wish the candidates would talk like that about all of the issues.

[yodermon]

191. was that his "see you on the barricades" speech?

if so, yes. If not, then i'd love a link.

[WilliamPitt]

185. A mind at work, a solid team around him, and a party with actual experienced elders to lean on.

The Senate is going to govern, anyway, so.

Nobody really knows how to be president, and nobody gets good at it until the day before their term expires. Democracy = tossing parachute out of plane and jumping after it.

"I do not control events, but must plainly admit that events control me." - Lincoln, speaking for every executive to follow him.

And it beats the fuck out of the alternative.

[liberalcommontater]

207. Do we know the degree to which the vote counting systems are vunerable to manipulation...

it is not enough for us the have a great nominee. Clinton or Obama. I immersed myself for a year and a half after Kerry lost in the election fraud sites. I burned out on it. My currently uninformed take is that we must win by a margin that cannot be manipulated away. And, if such manipulation was tried it would be obvious to all, ie exit polls that show our candidate with a 10 point or greater margin.

[Occam Bandage]

188. 1. He's over the age of 35. 2. He's a natural-born citizen. 3. He has lived in the US for 14 years.

[liberalcommontater]

208. Hi Occam! glad to see you again.

Can you relate what affects you about him?

[Occam Bandage]

220. Yes.

[liberalcommontater]

244. Such as...?

[Bensthename]

189. His resume is out, his millions of to be bosses have interviewed him and gave him the job.

Easy

[liberalcommontater]

209. But what grabs you personally about him?

[Bensthename]

215. First

Like many I like that he did not support the Iraq war when other politicians were for it because it was polling well at the time. I was totally against going into Iraq also. So he caught my eye early.

He shows great leadership in campaigning.

IMO is the best to beat McCain

He seems very smart and willing to listen to others around him.

He has been endorsed by people I have great respect for.

His legislative career is impressive for the time he has served

His plans for America from Obama.com are good.

These were just a few.

[liberalcommontater]

217. I see why you support him. Thanks.

[Perry Logan]

192. They've had months to tell us. All they've done is call everybody nasty names.

[liberalcommontater]

210. Some here are sincerely sharing...

I was starting to get caught up in it a little too. I agree with those who wonder at their outrage when they are winning. If Hillary were in Obama's seat, I would feel quite comfortable and be looking ahead to bringing the other side along, not arrogantly dismissing them.

I can't understand the intense Clinton hatred. When she is gone can they hate McCain this much and will it alienate the general voting public?

I asked the question both to find out what people personally find appealing and to see if his supporters would actually answer. Some success.

By the way, thanks again for the huge list of Bill's accomplishments on another thread...it helped me remember many specifics I knew, but could not remember.

[Bleacher Creature]

194. Umm, what have you been doing the past six months??

That's the point of the primary -- unless, of course, you need someone to convince you that he is more qualified than McSame. If that's your question, please go away.

[liberalcommontater]

211. I supported Edwards and currently support Hillary, I think she would make a great president...

but the question is what is it that qualifies him in your mind? Why do you support him? Your personal take?

[Perry Logan]

197. Hey! We've FINALLY found a way to make the Bammers shut up!

[Exilednight]

198. According to the rules: 2025 delegates. n/t

[liberalcommontater]

212. Bush got nominated, he's done poorly. Gore and Kerry got nominated....

they had it pulled out from under them. What is it that the country will buy, as you do, about him?

[whistler162]

201. A little used/read document called the U.S. Constitution....

the same one that qualifies Senator Clinton and McCain.

Now what qualifies him to recieve my vote is a totally differnt question.

1 - Of the three current candidates he is the only one I feel can be a good President.

2 - A well run and executed campaign.

3 - While concerned about promises and policies a candidate may promise or vocalize I want a President who can do the job and isn't scared sh*tless like the current resident of 1600! Sadly Senator Clinton has demonstrated that while she might not be scared sh*tless she can't hand the job.

[liberalcommontater]

213. Do you really think George is scared shitless? Or just does not give a shit?

I think the latter.

[whistler162]

221. scared sh*tless!

his action are that of a scared individual.

[onenote]

214. excellent response

:toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

204. Barack Obama is a very impressive individual

Hillary Clinton has stronger obvious credentials than does Obama, but Dick Cheney has stronger obvious credentials than Hillary Clinton, if obvious credentials are all that you look at. Obama didn't get into Yale coasting on family ties the way Bush Jr. did, and once there no one rolled out a red carpet for him to excel on. Barack Obama achieved what he did at Yale due to raw talent, and extraordinary personal discipline.

No one, at least no one without inherited family credentials or a previous high profile career in media or sports, gets to become a United States Senator who does not possess significant leadership skills. U.S. Senator is a highly competitive position to seek, and many high caliber individuals must be out maneuvered in order to attain it. Barack Obama showed exceptional skill at coalition building inside the high octane environment of Chicago Democratic politics in order to get where he got.

The U.S. Senate is a den full of 100 men and women with very large egos, most of whom have significant accomplishments in their own lives to gloat over. None of them owed Obama anything, yet he won the personal endorsement of more U.S. Senators than did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards or Chris Dodd Jr., virtually all of whom personally know each other. Say whatever you want to say about the game of politics, Obama would not have gotten that degree of support in the Senate if the consensus in the U.S. Senate was that Barack Obama was an empty suit.

Had this year been a more conventional presidential primary season; a relatively short sprint to the finish between candidates with roughly equal footing going into it, I would be less confident about Obama's abilities now than I am. This year was anything but that conventional season. No one wins a presidential nomination without a combination of skill and good fortune, and Obama certainly was blessed with his share of both. His early burst of favorable publicity gave him an opening, but not every opening is skillfully exploited. I kept expecting the gloss to wear off the shiny surface of Obama's bandwagon, I expected his appeal to wilt in the heavy cross fire of intense political combat conducted at the highest levels of Presidential politics. Obama got scuffed, certainly, but he showed an ability to weather storms well inside a pressure cooker. I wanted to see Obama go through some rough waters, had he coasted to a victory in New Hampshire and beyond my doubts about him would never have been tested. But he didn't, and they were. Was he perfect? Of course not. Can he take a hard punch? Yes.

Building a national presidential campaign organization essentially from scratch, as the new kid on the block, is a real test of raw management and leadership skills. Who gets hired, who is given which responsibilities, how internal conflicts get managed, how a consistent message gets transmitted, how nimble one is in adapting to changing circumstances, all under the bright lights of international media, all of these are important real tests. Say whatever else one may, but Barack Obama's presidential campaign was extremely effective at implementing its game plan. That is a formidable accomplishment.

Barack Obama was tested over 15 months to see if his message for America had legs, or whether it was the equivalent of a gimmick ad campaign that grew tinny to the ear after several repetitions. The greatest message, the greatest music, will fall tinny on the ears of some, but Obama's appeal clearly continued to resonate with broad swaths of the public. That is a test of leadership also; the ability to connect, the ability to inspire, the ability to communicate and to win confidence. Clearly different people with leadership skills will connect best with different people. John McCain connects with some people also, so did Huckabee for that matter. I am not trying to compare Barack Obama directly with Hillary Clinton. I am not trying to convince you that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than Hillary Clinton. That is for each of us to decide. Both of them connect well with people, it's just that they don't always connect best with the same people.

Barack Obama is running on a sensible Democratic platform, and he is articulate enough to explain and defend it in person on the fly in debates and in interviews. He shows a real grasp of the important issues. For the question you ask, it isn't necessary for me to prove to you or anyone else that Obama's grasp on the issues is as good or better than Clinton's, just that it is better than the man who the Republican Party has chosen as their nominee. Clearly in my mind it is. Clearly in my mind Barack Obama has the qualities needed to make a good President. No one can be sure how well he will blossom if given the chance, but he has shown me what I need to see in order to feel good about giving him that chance.

I would gladly support Hillary Clinton over John McCain for President. And I would gladly support Barack Obama over John McCain for President also.

[liberalcommontater]

216. Thanks for sharing your logic about this race...

I agree about the credentials to a degree, but it depends even more on their priorities and political skills.

I've thought all along that I did not want it to get nasty, but I also wanted it to be contested. They have both done well and connected. I do think Hillary bloomed late.

Wearing thin. Tinny? Not really. I just never warmed to him, still haven't. I am a dem through and through, but he has not connected with me as you said. I think the primaries will be seen to have laid the groundwork for a good run in November.

You really seem to get the idea that we are in this together. The republicans will reject both of our candidates!

[DevonRex]

218. Obviously you don't give a shit. nt

[liberalcommontater]

219. Parrrrdooonnne meeee?

If you mean that my support for Clinton means that I do not give a ---- for Obama, you've missed the point of this thread. There are many people here who support Obama, enthusiastically. I can see reason for the attraction, but do not feel it myself. Instead of having a flame war over issues that will soon be moot, why not discuss what matters to each of us about the candidate we are for? Not the reasons why we dislike the other.

Why do you like the Senator from IL?

[Honeycombe8]

222. If you have to ask, then no explanation will suffice for you. nt

[liberalcommontater]

227. How do you know this? Look at my comments throughout this thread...

I am truly interested in what you think. Not what Obama's website says or the pundits or anybody else but you. Why do you support him?

[FlyingSquirrel]

224. Not George W. Bush. Not a Republican.

You need more?

[liberalcommontater]

230. Good question...

In the end I probably do not need more, but I want more and I think to ensure not just victory, but a victory of a magnitude that would rip Prescott Bush's head off...would be nice.

And may be necessary. A close election can be stolen.

[Buzz Clik]

226. The major criterion is getting the nomination and then winning the GE.

[liberalcommontater]

228. An end to republican misrule. Agreed.

[Edgewater_Joe]

229. NO, Hillbot - YOU Make The Case

YOU tell us why Hillary should be allowed to STEAL the nomination.

YOU tell us why Hillbots like you continue to deny the reality that she has LOST.

YOU tell us why you would prefer McSameAsBush by continuing a lost fight that will do nothing except divide us more.

YOU tell us how Hillary can actually win the election.

Obama has proved his case and he's WON - so unless you have something constructive to say, YOU need to STFU and do some soul-searching, or just jump to the Republican Party since everything YOU do is helping McSameAsBush into the White House.

[liberalcommontater]

231. Nice.

[DarkTirade]

267. So asking fellow progressives what they think their candidate's good points are...

is helping the republican party now?

Wow... you learn new things every day.

[liberalcommontater]

288. Amen. nt

[doc03]

232. Auh, hope and change?

[liberalcommontater]

233. I just read a commentary on Recount. The author commented on...

something interesting. He said that the film made life seem normal, as in 2000 we were still normal. I am with you on hope for a return to a change to a more normal existence. Any dem will bring change from the current course, can you be more specific?

[quaker bill]

237. Well

Just like Hillary, he got a PhD in Presidential Studies from correspondence school. Then they both started out Presiding over small countries on the Democratic Party farm team. After years of progressively moving up to Preside over larger countries, they got called up to the big leagues.

It is not the resume' and it never has been. It is the sum of political judgement and skill to organize a successful campaign, and the ability to inspire people to support you. Political judgement and the ability to inspire support are the only relevant qualifications. The rest is distraction.

[liberalcommontater]

239. Thanks. The second half of your response what what I intended...

in the question. What qualities are important to you. Not the web site or pundits, but people who have listened and judged favorably.

[nemo137]

238. The things that really drew me to him after Edwards dropped out were

1.) Experience working as a community organizer, as opposed to getting a company or two handed to him like the current president. Obama's experience on the ground gives me confidence that he'll understand the effects of policy, and work from that, rather than how it will play on the news.
2.) Lecturer in Constitutional law/ president of the Harvard Law Review. It will be nice to have someone with a working knowledge of the Constitution in the White House again, especially after the past 8 years of (depending on how charitable you want to be) embarrassingly loose interpretation of or outright disdain for our founding document.
3.) I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but he's not a Bush or a Clinton. I don't think that 20-odd years of the same two families in power is good for the country. That's not what a healthy republic looks like. That's what a Renaissance city-state or, say, Pakistan looks like. I'd support Sen. Clinton if she were the nominee, because she's also qualified and much better than Grandpa Scary, but I'd have reservations.

Those are the big ones, really. He was also against the war from the start, and has spoken about transparency in government and the divide between the rich and everyone else.

There you have it. Thank you for asking, this has been a good, mostly civil, thread.

[liberalcommontater]

242. You are welcome. I've enjoyed it much more than...

some other threads with Obama supporters.

I especially relate to the void after Edwards dropped out, we went different directions, but started in the same place. Your idea that he understands the effects of policy is a substantial one, if true. I think Bush couldn't care less about the effects of policy, damn the detractors, full speed ahead. Moron. Interesting that a Dem will respect the constitution and limit his own power while the small government republicans will ignore it. We need to set up some kind of constitutionally viable trip-wire that at least calls into question such abuses of power. My wife agrees with too much Bush, Clinton, but I disagree.

Cheers.

[nemo137]

246. I have an inkling that that's part of the reason he has the youth vote

I have only the fuzziest memories of Reagan, and my roommate's girlfriend has never known a president whose last name wasn't Bush or Clinton. I've not seen anything to bear that idea out, but it's a workable theory.

[scarletwoman]

256. I love how you've said this: "I don't think that 20-odd years of the same two families in power

...is good for the country. That's not what a healthy republic looks like. That's what a Renaissance city-state or, say, Pakistan looks like."

That is SO right on!

I don't understand why so few DUers get that what we'd get with the Clintons back in the White House is just the thickening and tightening of the strands that the Owner Class has been weaving for generations. They have control of virtually everything, all our institutions, our elected officials, our policy making, our economy, our food and water.

The whole power structure in Washington is just one giant web of interrelated families, generational sinecures, Wall Street, K Street, the MIC (defense deals! HUGE profits!), and corporate boards, and hedge funds, etc. etc. etc. Our Republic is dying for lack of new blood.

Good Lawd Awmighty! Why WOULDN'T you want to grab at the chance to get some really high quality NEW BLOOD in there?!?! Is everyone nuts? They just can't bear to take the risk of getting those boots off their necks?

I just can't think of ANY good reason for so-called progressives to NOT want to take a shot at sending an insurgent into a system that's been destroying a lot of the world over the past many decades. Why would anyone want to keep abetting the weaving of this web instead of looking for a chance to break out?

Peace,
sw

[oxbow]

245. this quote says it all to me:

"One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln," said Obama. "And a while back there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' which talked about Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever . . . personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis."

"And I think," he added, "that has to be the approach that one takes, whether it's vice president or Cabinet, whoever, and by the way that does not exclude Republicans either."


Finally, someone who gets it! We're in CRISIS MODE here. As a country, as a planet, whatever. No time for screwing around! Get the best people on the job and just MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[liberalcommontater]

249. Impressive sentiment.

[roseBudd]

251. I agree with what eveeryone has said above regarding what about Obama has caused us

to line up behind him.

But I also want to add I work in a Web 2.0 rapidly changing digital information capacity and I took one look at Obama as he gave a victory speech immediately before McCain gave his and I knew.

We hit the big time. He has got the juice.

As Democrats we mull and parse, decide, change our minds, support candidates with zero chance of winning, and ultimately nominate people who don't have that thing, that no one can teach you. McGovern referred to it a month or so ago, saying Obama had what our losing candidates didn't.

Some call it charisma. For it to be ours and not theirs, is fantastic for us, bad for them.

[scarletwoman]

257. "Some call it charisma. For it to be ours and not theirs, is fantastic for us, bad for them."

Great line! It needed to be in a subject line.

I was just thinking about that earlier. It really does count that Obama has that kinda *star* quality. Why would anyone think that's a BAD thing? It's like, What? Are you NUTS?!?!

In the most shallow, looks-obsessed, youth-obsessed, celebrity-obsessed culture in the world you're worried that putting up a young handsome, charismatic, intelligent man with a ton of mojo against a slightly creepy-looking old man saying "My friends" over and over and over is a RISK?

People really ought to think this through. Just on visual impact ALONE, we've got a goldmine here! This is consumerland, my friends. The voters are trained to be consumers, they vote on stuff like "looks", they like a little novelty from time to time, and good packaging is appreciated. And that's not even mentioning the American fondness for revival meetings.

Democrats, we have absolutely NOTHING to be afraid of! Embrace your bad ol' selves and shake your booty at those ugly old repugs with a great big smile!

Peace,
sw

[roseBudd]

265. Obama is the Democrat's Ronald Reagan, McCain is likeable enough...

we need Obama juice in November.

There is huge potential increased turnout among African Americans. We have already seen it in special election in MS

[Indenturedebtor]

284. "Obama juice"???

Ewwwwwwww

Freudian? :hide:

[scarletwoman]

252. I'd like to answer this, too. I appreciate your asking.

I actually don't have anything to add on the question of his "qualifications", I think there are several excellent and substative posts on this thread that pretty well cover it; like zulchzulu's post at #134, and several of patrice's -- I just hope you've been able to read all the good ones.

I came very late to appreciate Obama; in fact, after Edwards dropped out I didn't much care about the election anymore. I assumed Obama was just a shiny bauble that would soon get blown away by the Clinton juggernaut. And I know you like Hillary, but for me the thought of having to vote for her in November made me want to scream and tear my hair out.

I started begging my fellow DUers back in 2002 to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't get behind a Hillary Clinton run for the White House! I absolutely could NOT believe that any informed and intelligent progressive could possibly want to reinstall another regime of DLC/Third Way/New Democrats/neoliberal-globalist-imperialists in the White House.

Life under another Clinton administration would only differ from life under the neocons and corporatists we've had with the bushies in a few details -- basically just enough sop thrown to liberals to keep the con going. Other than that, we'd be looking at the very same corrupt tangle of big money interests, militarist foreign policy, and continued corporate encroachment on the Commons that we have now.

Poppy Bush and Bill Clinton don't traipse around the world arm and arm because they're such marvelous humanitarians, they are partners in the lucrative venture of keeping multinational capital happy. The sheer naivite exhibited on DU about the nature of the con game the Ruling Class is playing on the rest of us simply astounds me.

The Clintons don't work for us. They work for the people who screw us, they always have and they always will.

Sorry for the harsh words about people you like, but I wanted you to know where I'm coming from.

Anyway, so there's Iowa -- surprise! And then a string of other primary wins for Obama, and little by little a few things about him began to penetrate my shield of cynicism. So I started paying more attention.

Still, the BIG thing for me was that Obama wasn't Clinton (that will always be his #1 "qualification" in my book). It began to dawn on me that maybe I wasn't going to have make the agonizing choice in November of whether to vote for Clinton, or throw up my hands and say "to hell with it, a pox on both houses" and not vote. The latter was were I had been leaning for a long time -- I started posting "If Clinton is the Dem nominee I will not vote" rants in 2006.

So, ironically enough, it was "hope" that got me behind Obama. It was the "hope" that it might be possible that Clinton would NOT be the nominee! (...and the sky opened up and the celestial choirs started singing... ;) )

He misses in a lot of areas for me, but I accept that he's no Dennis Kucinich and I'm realistic enough to know that NO genuine progressive is going to get into the White House until this country has gone through some substantial transformation. (if/when)

However, based on just his resume alone -- so ably listed in post #134 -- he's obviously a damn good candidate. I'm impressed with the quality of his campaign organization, his personal grace under pressure, his intelligence AND his cold hard political smarts. I'm not looking for a saint or a savior, I just want someone skillful, and he looks very skillful to me.

I also really like the fact that he's not just another Beltway insider. He's not just the same old same old DC Dem apparatchik trotted out every four years so we can either lose again and/or maintain the DC status quo with a minimum of fuss. At the very least, he's coming from outside the DC machine. If he's coming FROM a Chicago machine, so what, at least it's something new, at least it shakes things up a bit.

Finally, I've simply come to really like him. I like his spirit, I like his sense of humor, I like his intelligence, and he seems to me to be an honorable man. I think he's got good mojo, I really do. He's got that kind of inner spark that makes certain people stand out in the world. There's a genuine soul there.

I think the whole world would breathe a sigh of grateful relief if Obama wins the White House. I think we would feel better about ourselves, too.

Hope this helps.

Peace,
sw

[shockra]

259. He reminds me of Keanu Reeves.

The shape of his face, his nose...






Because they're both from Hawaii? :P

[roseBudd]

266. He may remind you of Neo, but I say he is Morpheus, he shows us the door

like Neo we must decide to walk through it

[shockra]

301. Whoa!

I had the pictures ready. :)

[Cronus Protagonist]

275. He's the first FUCKABLE presidential candidate ever

Althogh Bill was BLOWABLE, he was not FUCKABLE.... apparently. :P

[DinahMoeHum]

278. McCain and Clinton represent the past. Obama represents the future.

And at this point in time for our nation, right now we need more pioneers and fewer historians around.

:kick::kick:

[liberalcommontater]

290. The future will not be what we expect...

I will agree with you that far. History is full of lessons though.

[Faygo Kid]

289. He has clinched the nomination. Give it up.

[liberalcommontater]

291. What do you find most appealing about Obama? The issue, perhaps?

[theboss]

296. He is older than 35 and a native-born citizen

Thanks.

[ecdab]

299. IS a poster on DU actually asking for people to make the case for the Democratic

nominee against Johnny "four more years of Bush" McCain? Hmmmmmmmm.......

[TeamsterDem]

303. Yes. And he's done it before. Just flame bait. n/t

[liberalcommontater]

309. He's done it before?

First, there is a part of our party that has not warmed to Obama. If they do not warm to him by November they may stay home. You may be excited about him, you may not care about the votes of those who supported other candidates, you may assume that they will all come on board...you cannot know this and you may be wrong. How many dems simply cannot vote for McCain, but will stay home...how many of these will it take to lose the election or even make it close so it can be stolen? Are you willing to take that risk?

The question is what is it that has you personally turned on about Obama? What is it that you might have experienced that others, who do not currently support him, might relate to?

I think this line of conversation is much more productive than the daily overdose of:
She lost, get over it.
Shillary, bla, bla, bla.
Trolls.
etc.

Second, it is clear you have not read any of my other posts or comments. While I support Clinton, I have consistently used the phrase "Win in November." In fact it was the title of my first post on DU.

You, my friend sound like someone who wants to sound in the know about what is going on around here. We are having a civil discussion, mostly. It will help us win in November.

If you don't believe me, look at the other comments and my replies.

[TeamsterDem]

327. That's my mistake. I thought you were someone else

I apologize.

[liberalcommontater]

328. Thanks...online does have its disadvantages.

[TeamsterDem]

330. lol. Yes it does! n/t

[liberalcommontater]

313. Basically, yes...

There are more voters out there than those who have voted in primaries. There are many Clinton supporters. There are also independents and some republicans who might be won over.

Let me rephrase the question...Obama has ignited excitement within the party and during the primaries. Do you think it will grow during the GE? If so, what makes you think so?

Why are you personally excited about him?

[ecdab]

324. Yes I think the excitement will grow

just as I think the popularity of McCain will decline. Why? Policy. Obama kicks his butt on every front. Plus McCain has largely been able to run away from Bush - but once Obama and the DNC kick into high GE gear that will change.

[CreekDog]

304. go research it, if you won't vote for him because *we* haven't convinced you

then i don't know what to do with you.

[liberalcommontater]

311. I am not looking to be convinced...

Let me rephrase...Obama has ignited some excitement within the party and during the primaries. Do you think it will grow during the GE? If so, what makes you think so?

[k8conant]

305. Born in Hawaii and over 35 years old and lived in the US for 14 years

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

[wileedog]

310. Leadership

A President is not just about policies (although they certainly help - We're looking at you Chimp), but in getting people to act on them. To inspire people to rally around them. To manage an organization to execute them, and to make people believe they are more than stump speech rhetoric. And the courage to admit when yours are wrong.

It is the fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama IMO. There is really not that much policy-wise that seperates them, and most of what does would get lost in Congressional wrangling anyway.

But Hillary has show us how she attempts to lead. The first time around with HealthCare it was secret meetings, a close inner circle that handled and knew everything and a refusal to listen to new ideas or admit flawed ones. It flopped.

Her campaign has been the same way. An over-reliance on loyalists and high-priced consultants, no inclusion, no grass-roots, no vision, no forethought beyond Super-Tuesday. No attention to details like how many hundreds of thousands were being spent on donuts.

Contrast that with Obama, who has led a nearly flawless campaign. Behind the "Hope and Change" idealism is a incredibly well organized and structured campaign machine. A sound management style that takes ideas wherever it finds them and puts them to good use. An ability to not rely on the stupid political soundbites that treat us like children, but instead to take a horrible circumstance like Rev Wright and turn it into an opportunity to discuss race. The ability to say "Boy, that bitter comment was kinda stupid" without worry that his poll points might go down by 2 if he does.

And he did that all while insiring MILLIONS of new voters to take part in a historic primary. Contrary to the talking points, 75,000 people in Oregon did not come out to see a B list band.

Charisma without ideas, management and execution is worthless. But I think what Clinton learned the hard way is that just having good ideas and policy papers will only take you so far as well, and she does not have the ability in my mind to do all of those are things that Obama does well. To truly lead, not just call herself the leader.

My 2 cents anyway

[liberalcommontater]

312. Thanks...leadership is important.

Bush rode the war. Obama will need the real thing. If he wins in Nov I hope he is the real thing.

[wileedog]

314. Hey, me too

FOr all that I said there is a big difference between running an election and running a country :P

I just think he brings a more complete package to the table than her, but again that is my opinion. I respect those who rationally disagree.

[liberalcommontater]

315. Me also.

In Political Science we always were told that there was a world of difference between running a revolution and governing...I think the same thing is at work here. Obama or Clinton would be a huge change from the Bush years.

Thought about in these terms...we should not have needed a revolution. Gore had it stolen and Kerry probably did too in Ohio. That is why this election cannot even be close. I am truly concerned that McCain will seem the safe choice to many who are not paying close enough attention and that even a small number of dems staying home could make it close enough to steal...again.

Cheers.

[shadowknows69]

316. John McCain

That's enough for me because guess what? He's our nominee. He'll have to be qualified.

[Fox Mulder]

318. Do some reading.

It'll do you some good.

From WikiAnswers:

1)The United States constitution says be a "natural born citizen". This is generally interpreted to mean that a person can be president if they have been an American citizen since birth, their parents were both American citizens at the time of the person's birth, and the person has lived in the United States for fourteen years (this last point is debatable). Although there is a lot of heated discussion over this (because of the 14th Amendment), generally these are the rules adopted within US presidential elections. The same requirements apply to the Vice President.


2) You must be 35 years of age or older to be eligible for the Presidency.

[izzybeans]

320. He's over the age of 35 and a citizen of this country.

Next question.

[Wapsie B]

321. Aside from all the reasons posted above, the fact that the rwing talking heads love Hillary

is enough for me to take the opposite position.

[Barrymores Ghost]

322. I'm your Huckleberry...

America doesn't need a candidate with endless, inside-the-Beltway political experience.

Barack Obama has an intrinsic and sober knowledge of where we are as a nation and how we got here; he knows what our weaknesses and illnesses are, and he has a plan to fix them. In all that he has taken on, he has constantly proven himself to be a superior intellect, communicator, teacher and leader. He has a deep Christian faith that is rooted in humility, not bound by intolerance and absolutism.

He was right from the very start on Iraq and voted to end the occupation. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and an Ivy-League law graduate, who earned his degrees on scholarship, and was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. In other words, he is a brilliant mind. Obama was smart enough and tenacious enough to rise to the top of Chicago politics -- so he's no neophyte. Obama has years of experience as an anti-poverty organizer in Chicago, which puts him in direct, familiar touch with one of the biggest problems our nation faces in this century.

He has lived abroad, speaks an economically key foreign language fluently, and has a profound grasp of the importance of mutual respect over mindless nationalism. He is against nuclear proliferation and pro-gun control. He emphasizes promotion of public health and public education development, not just here, but worldwide -- and not just for economic or humanitarian reasons, but for national and international security reasons. He recognizes that measured diplomacy is the first line of national defense -- not threats. He opposed Kyle-Lieberman.

He inspires people like no other in this race. He turns out the vote like no other. He is the one candidate who can restore our nation's status in the eyes of the world.

He's also, obviously, the candidate the Repugnicunts fear the most (See: "Rush and Operation Chaos").

He's also over 35 years old, was born in the U.S., and has lived in the U.S. for the past 14 years. Hence, ergo, thusly, he's qualified to run for President.

I can go on, but it's happy hour.

But, then again, your question was only a rhetorical chum-job, anyway.

[liberalcommontater]

329. I was with you...

and clearly see why you support him so strongly. This is the case that will need to be made to the rest of the country.

Your last sentence lost me though. Several folks like yourself have taken the time to sincerely say what impresses or moves them about him.

"your question was only a rhetorical chum-job"

I guess I take this to mean that it was pointless since he is going to be the nominee and he is going to win in November so why waste the keystrokes even talking about it at this point. My reasoning is that he could lose. Given all the bad things that have happened over the last eight years this election should be relatively easy for us.

TIMO, the republicans will try to paint Obama as inexperienced compared to McCain, especially in foreign affairs, more liberal than the country as a whole and if they can get away with it they will paint him as a radical black nationalist based on his associations with Wright, Pfluger and others. Given this choice they will vote McCain. McCain will be positioned as the safer choice. Making the best case and defining him before the republicans do will matter. This is not rhetorical.

[Yotun]

325. Dude that's a question to ask a year ago. Right now, the thing is finished. He's the nominee.

You either vote for him or you don't.

[liberalcommontater]

331. Please read comment 329, I am thinking bigger picture...

Many of our candidates have won the nomination, had a big lead in the polls (Obama does not), and lost in the fall.

[Zomby Woof]

326. HE' S NOT JOHN MCFUCKINGCAIN

That is more than enough reason for me. I would vote for a pile of snot if it could beat that insane motherfucker.

We're near the end of the occupation by the most unqualified asshat to ever soil the White House walls, and you have the audacity to ask if Obama is qualified?

For all my considerable reservations about him - Obama has the intelligence, drive, and combativeness necessary to make him qualified by default because he is not Bush, McCain, or any other walking corpse the Republicans want to prop up.

[liberalcommontater]

332. Good morning...I thought audacity was a good thing?

Thanks for your insight. I want combativeness.

[JoFerret]

334. Self knowledge

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views....As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”

[GoldieAZ49]

335. He was an unsuccessful community organizer

we have 2 wars going on and a teetering economy

He comes from 20 years of mentorship of a racially divisive pastor and church that misrepresents America and the government

He wants to meet with foreign leaders that want the destruction of Israel and America, without preconditions

He wants to increase capital gains taxes to insure a recession

He wants to withdraw troops from Iraq, but then doesn't want to

He thinks it would be cool to be in the Oval office



Thats the short list

What more could America want??????????

on edit: Experience maybe?