NationStates Jolt Archive

If I had to make my vote now, I'd vote for him. His new vision for America is fresh, and excites me, and I feel that his attitude and ideals are exactly what America needs to recover from the last five years. And I really do think it's about time we do something historical, as a nation, and elect the first black president.

What do you think?

There's too little of him out there for him to win in '08. The resmuglicans would be able to beat him simply based on his name Barak(Iraq), Hussein(duh), Obama (Osama). Until he's able to distinguish himself that's all he'll be. But, Edwards/Obama '08 is something that people can easily get behind.

I dunno. As a Libertarian I'm not to supportive of the idea of tarrifs on ethanol. A bit of a block to free and open trade if you ask me. If someone wants to sell something and another wants to buy it and they can agree on a trade then let them.

I dunno. As a Libertarian I'm not to supportive of the idea of tarrifs on ethanol. A bit of a block to free and open trade if you ask me. If someone wants to sell something and another wants to buy it and they can agree on a trade then let them.

I support tarrifs on basic principal. I like the idea that americans should be buying american products, and that if you REALLY want an import expect to pay more for it.

I support tarrifs on basic principal. I like the idea that americans should be buying american products, and that if you REALLY want an import expect to pay more for it.
Well you're not a libertarian and I am. See? I oppose them because I am a libertarian and you support them because you're not. I'm all about free (unhindered, not priceless) exchange and you're not.

I think that if we really want to put an end to things like imported ethanol we have to produce everything we're importing at less net cost than simply importing it.

And BTW, if he would get beat by some third party I've never heard of (the resmuglicans) then the republicans would have no trouble beating him. :)

I don't vote democratic and have had no reason to support him. So no, I would rather have Gingrich or Romney.

Wont happen.

Im sad to say that America will not have a black, nor a woman President, until the rich old, racist, mysogynistic, far-right swine who control this country......get old and die.

2020, maybe.

I knew virtually nothing about him, so I've looked him up on Wikipedia. Sounds like the kind of politician I could be willing to support if I were American.

i too, don't know enough about him.
just like almost no one knew anything about jfk before he ran for the nomination!

america really needs something unexpected it hasn't had before.
and i don't mean another damd right-wing loonie like the one we've got either.

we need someone who loves the spirituality of the forrest
more then the fanatacism of human coerciveness.
i'm not real sure how anyone like that could get elected
but that's what i feel we need.
if the should happen to be non-'white' or female, each of those would be
points in their favor in my eyes as the currently dominant mentality is
really messing up both the world and the country, the whole planetary web of life
and everything else.

i like unkonwns and he certainly is that, at least to me.

of course being the dreamer that i am, i'd like to see peter cameo win it for the greens.

what we could get/end up with, really could and maybe not all bad. is a woman who looks libral and still able to garner support of the corporatocracy, and i'm pretty sure everyone knows who that is.

obama might be good too, i'd vote for him if he was running against, well i can't thing of any repscalion i wouldn't vote for him against.
even if i don't know much of anything about him.

=^^=
.../\...

W00t! Black Man For President!

Much as I like the man and his politics, this country is far from progressive enough to elect a black man or a woman as president just yet, silly backwards buggers that we are.

I think he might stand a chance in 2012, though. Get some more experience under his belt, maybe slowly start building up support.

I sure as fuck won't vote for McCain, the lying, backstabbing asshole.

There's too little of him out there for him to win in '08. The resmuglicans would be able to beat him simply based on his name Barak(Iraq), Hussein(duh), Obama (Osama). Until he's able to distinguish himself that's all he'll be. But, Edwards/Obama '08 is something that people can easily get behind.

Edwards has already been hosed last year, Obama would have a better chance as a front runner.

I'm down with an Edwards/Obama ticket, since I don't think Obama can win on his own yet. If Gore came back, I'd want a Gore/Obama ticket. Once Obama is the annointed successor of a President (Gore or Edwards), then he's got a good chance of taking the Presidency.

They would be able to attack Edwards and Obama on that ticket set up and kill both of them.

He has very little experience at this point.

Just being black isnt enough, although he would get a lot of the "spite" vote.

I would vote for him before I voted for Hillary though, as she has already proven herself to be a dangerously single-minded phony, that will say or do anything to reach her goals.

I want to vote for Obama, I really do, but there are just too many things about his voting/speaking history that make me nervous.

His position on tarrifs seems unwise (isolationism in an increasingly global society isn't a very good idea) especially when you consider that the only reason someone would import ethanol was if they could get it significantly cheaper elsewhere. That would happen because either a) the US failed to develop a proper manufacturing system or b) the price of corn continued to be kept artificially high by tax-payer subsidies and price minimums. Either way tarrifs are essentially punishing consumers for policy failures.

Obama is downright extreme when it comes to guns and has made it clear that he supports regional gun bans on the federal level. Now we can disagree about firearm ownership from here to eternity but it makes me very uncomfortable that anyone being considered for president would have the kind of disrespect for the constitution required to support a position like that. Regional bans walk all over the concept of "equal protection under the law." After the damage done to the constitution by Bush we need someone who isn't going to sacrifice civil libertities for policy.

The position Obama takes on the religious right is also slightly disturbing: Democrats, meanwhile, are scrambling to "get religion," even as a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular, and fears that the agenda of an assertively Christian nation may not make room for them or their life choices.
The evangelists' success points to a hunger for the product they are selling, a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them.

Source: The Audacity of Hope pp. 201-2

It might sound nice to reach out to evangelicals, but these are the people who want America to support Israel to push forward the Second Coming of Christ, who fight evolution being taught in schools, who oppose technology, and who want contraceptives taken out of the hands of American women. You cannot make nice with them and you cannot compromise. That quote sounds very much like an offer to throw women and gays from the ship if they Theocrats are willing to jump over. No thanks.

The worst part about Obama, in my eyes, is that he has so little record. We don't really know what he stands for, and he doesn't have a paper trail. That means we have to trust him when he says he supports something. The conservatives had a hopeful candidate with no papertrail who said he stood for all the right things back in 2000 and it bit them in the ass. I don't care how much you like a politician, at the end of the day you can only trust whats on the record.

It might sound nice to reach out to evangelicals, but these are the people who want America to support Israel to push forward the Second Coming of Christ, who fight evolution being taught in schools, who oppose technology, and who want contraceptives taken out of the hands of American women. You cannot make nice with them and you cannot compromise. That quote sounds very much like an offer to throw women and gays from the ship if they Theocrats are willing to jump over. No thanks.
I really don't think that's what he's going for. I think he's talking about the more tolerant, mainstream Christians -- the ones that keep their faith personal, the way it's supposed to be. He sees the faith and spirituality there and respects it, and asks his colleagues not to discount it simply because of the far-right types. The intolerant, pro-war wackos are not representative of all Christians in this country. He's saying that one can be religious without turning into another Pat Robertson.

The worst part about Obama, in my eyes, is that he has so little record. We don't really know what he stands for, and he doesn't have a paper trail. That means we have to trust him when he says he supports something. The conservatives had a hopeful candidate with no papertrail who said he stood for all the right things back in 2000 and it bit them in the ass. I don't care how much you like a politician, at the end of the day you can only trust whats on the record.
I found this (http://www.whereistand.com/BarackObama) quite useful.

Everybody says they "like what he stands for."

Well, what the hell does he stand for? Everybody thinks he's Presidential material because he gave an awesome speech at the DNC convention (which I didn't hear, and I doubt it's that awesome) and defeated an unimportant opponent in a demographically favorable state. I have heard nothing about his legislative accomplishments since then.

Everybody trots out the same stupid one-liners whenever a young guy runs for President. They did with Kennedy, they did in '04 with Edwards, now they're slathering it on Obama.

I really don't think that's what he's going for. I think he's talking about the more tolerant, mainstream Christians -- the ones that keep their faith personal, the way it's supposed to be. He sees the faith and spirituality there and respects it, and asks his colleagues not to discount it simply because of the far-right types. The intolerant, pro-war wackos are not representative of all Christians in this country. He's saying that one can be religious without turning into another Pat Robertson.

But Obama wasn't talking about Christians, he was talking about Evangelicals. There were a dozen ways that passage could have been written that would have pointed to mainstream christianity. Instead, Obama chose to use the word "evangelists" with all the connotations the term has in this country. More illuminating is that it came on the heals of addressing the secular fear of a Christian nation: the exact thing that evangelicals have been agitating for since the late 1800s. When someone talks about reaching out to the people who follow the evangelists they're talking about reaching to the people who liste to Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson, et al.



I found this (http://www.whereistand.com/BarackObama) quite useful.

I use ontheissues.org a lot. Same basic idea.

Would anybody have even heard about this guy if he wasn't black?

Why are so many people so hung up on Obamas skin color? Thats about as relevant as his hair color, the size of his feet , or even his fathers first girlfriend when it comes to leadership qualities.

Obama is a likable straight talker. You can see his passion to do what he feels is the right thing. He speaks about the issues clearly and concisely. He demonstrates that he has a firm grasp of the issues he talks about. He lays out his plans on how to accomplish objectives in a way that anyone should be able to understand, as well.

I believe Obama would make a great President, because his policies make sense to me personally and I feel that he is trustworthy.

Would anybody have even heard about this guy if he wasn't black?
He'd still be an up and coming US Senator, and I doubt people get chosen to make decent keynote speeches at the democrat convention based on the colour of their skin. Personally, I think Gore/Obama sounds better than Edwards/Obama (purely because I don't know Edwards a much). But then, I'm British, so...

*snip*
"Obamba"?

(I agree with you 100%, btw)

"Obamba"?

(I agree with you 100%, btw)

lol

ooops


thats how its spelled in my head no matter how often I see it portrayed otherwise. :p

I feel that he is trustworthy.

I don't know if I'd go that far. He's still a politician, after all. Still, he's less useless than anyone else I've heard of yet.

I don't know if I'd go that far. He's still a politician, after all. Still, he's less useless than anyone else I've heard of yet.

well it's just a gut feeling. It may not play out that way in the future, but for now I'll just go with it. I do avoid trusting politicians generally, but I don't dismiss the chance that they might actually be trustworthy because of it.

My general thoughts?

He is better than Edwards any day of the week.

Wont happen.

Im sad to say that America will not have a black, nor a woman President, until the rich old, racist, mysogynistic, far-right swine who control this country......get old and die.

2020, maybe.
That statement is the typical Leftist attitude slamming a whole group of people and playing the class warfare game no wonder the left can't win elections..they like to talk down to people and tell them what to think:upyours:

W00t! Black Man For President!
Why not Black Woman for president Condi Rice

If I had to make my vote now, I'd vote for him. His new vision for America is fresh, and excites me, and I feel that his attitude and ideals are exactly what America needs to recover from the last five years. And I really do think it's about time we do something historical, as a nation, and elect the first black president.

What do you think?

Won't happen- he's too new, too green- he needs to do more from his current position. I like him, but I want him to get a few more years under his belt before he runs for a very pivotle office.

As a Brit I clearly don't get to vote, but I'd've prefered Evan Bayh before he 'dropped out' or Al Gore if he can be persuaded to run. But failing that Obama seems alright to me. He'll most likely lose though if John McCain gets the nomination.

I have heard nothing about his legislative accomplishments since then.

Well, if you don't keep up with the news you won't hear much about anything now will you?

I think that he offers the American poeple something that they havent seen in a long time, someone that they can actually trust. However I really dont like his position on guns and some other more radical positions of him. As someone said before me- It would be nice to have a president who would devote at least his first term to handing back civil rights instead of taking some more away.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaObama/images/horsey.jpg

*image snip*

That site (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaObama/1.asp) has some great cartoons...

This one sums up my view on him pretty well:

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaObama/images/bok.gif

What has a record done for any candidate but make them names, and some not even that? Their positions on things are practically irrelevant because the executive body doesn't make laws. They have no experience in the office of the executive. Besides, it doesn't matter if the president is experienced, that is what the cabinet is for.

Why are so many people so hung up on Obamas skin color? Thats about as relevant as his hair color, the size of his feet , or even his fathers first girlfriend when it comes to leadership qualities.

Because, in America, skin color still matters. It shouldn't, but it does. Denying the fact that some portion of the population either will or will not vote for him because of his race is ignoring reality. Look at how close the last few presidential elections have been, now imagine how a big black turn out or angry WASPS might push those tiny margins.

It isn't right, but it is the world we live in. You have to engage that.

Obama is a likable straight talker. You can see his passion to do what he feels is the right thing. He speaks about the issues clearly and concisely. He demonstrates that he has a firm grasp of the issues he talks about. He lays out his plans on how to accomplish objectives in a way that anyone should be able to understand, as well.

When has he done that? When has he laid out detailed plans or spoken to the specifics of an issue. I live in Chicago and I have never heard the man take a real stand on much of anything in any of the races I've seen him run. He is a populist legislator who tries very hard to be all things to all people. Sure, he has passion, but he tends to speak in generalities. Worse, he has next to no record. A few terms in a rubber-stamp state legislature and a bit of time as the beaten-down opposition party in the Senate doesn't exactly tell us much about what the man believes.

I believe Obama would make a great President, because his policies make sense to me personally and I feel that he is trustworthy.

What scares the hell out of me is that quite a few intelligent, level-headed conservatives and moderates were saying the same thing about Bush in 1999/2000. They confused liking a man personally with liking him politically. They put their worries and their fears to the side because he seemed like the best candidate in a lean electoral field. Sure, Obama is a good public speaker and he oozes charisma, but he has no executive experiance and no real paper-trail. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what he believes outside of what he has said with an eye towards winning votes on a campaing trail.

And trustworthy...the man is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine, no one comes out of that system clean.

Their positions on things are practically irrelevant because the executive body doesn't make laws.

Talk to someone who is a fan of abortion rights about how little effect Bush's feelings on the issue have had. Or perhaps you could ask someone who is a fan of guns what effect Clinton had when he helmed the ATF. You can look at sex education under Bush, or how AIDS dollars are spent in Africa. You can look at how civil liberties have fared under the War on Terrorism.

The fact of the matter is that the stances of presidents matter because, while they don't make new laws, they have a huge influence on what laws are passed (from working directly with congress to the veto pen) and how those laws work. Google "Bush and signing statements" for a look at just how much influence a president can wield when it comes to legislation. More importantly presidents get to sign executive orders and get to decide how very limited resources are allocated.

Presidential politics matter.

I think that he offers the American poeple something that they havent seen in a long time, someone that they can actually trust.

I find this theme disturbing. Obama comes from the most corrupt city in the most corrupt county of one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation (maybe Louisiana has Illinois beat). He rose to power with the support of the most corrupt political machine the country has every seen backed by some of the dirtiest people it had to offer. What has the man done to prove his trustworthiness other than have a good smile and a silver tongue?

Talk to someone who is a fan of abortion rights about how little effect Bush's feelings on the issue have had.
Let us contemplate the more potent effect of a Republican and conservative dominated Congress.

Because, in America, skin color still matters. It shouldn't, but it does. Denying the fact that some portion of the population either will or will not vote for him because of his race is ignoring reality. Look at how close the last few presidential elections have been, now imagine how a big black turn out or angry WASPS might push those tiny margins.

It isn't right, but it is the world we live in. You have to engage that.

I didn't deny that people will makes decisions based on skin color. I just wanted an explanation as to how that made any difference in his leadership abilities from those who are making a big deal out of it.



When has he done that? When has he laid out detailed plans or spoken to the specifics of an issue. I live in Chicago and I have never heard the man take a real stand on much of anything in any of the races I've seen him run. He is a populist legislator who tries very hard to be all things to all people. Sure, he has passion, but he tends to speak in generalities. Worse, he has next to no record. A few terms in a rubber-stamp state legislature and a bit of time as the beaten-down opposition party in the Senate doesn't exactly tell us much about what the man believes.

He's taken a stand on many issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

He also has a book, in which he explains where he is coming from. It's called The Audacity of Hope. It's gotten many great reviews. Maybe you should check it out and learn a bit about the man before you take a stance against him for no other reason than, you dont know enough about him.

What scares the hell out of me is that quite a few intelligent, level-headed conservatives and moderates were saying the same thing about Bush in 1999/2000. They confused liking a man personally with liking him politically. They put their worries and their fears to the side because he seemed like the best candidate in a lean electoral field. Sure, Obama is a good public speaker and he oozes charisma, but he has no executive experiance and no real paper-trail. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what he believes outside of what he has said with an eye towards winning votes on a campaing trail.

And trustworthy...the man is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine, no one comes out of that system clean.


I didnt say I only liked him personally. I like his politics too. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time, but when I find someone that I agree with on most of the issues, I will support them.

Plus there are plenty of examples of his voting record now:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

EDIT: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017 (better list here)

You can't get an idea of his future votes from this?

I find this theme disturbing. Obama comes from the most corrupt city in the most corrupt county of one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation (maybe Louisiana has Illinois beat). He rose to power with the support of the most corrupt political machine the country has every seen backed by some of the dirtiest people it had to offer. What has the man done to prove his trustworthiness other than have a good smile and a silver tongue?

This is what I found on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama):


Rise to Congress:

In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from Chicago's 13th District in the south-side neighborhood of Hyde Park. In January 2003, when Democrats regained control of the chamber, Obama was named chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Obama helped to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would support residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.

In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, charged that Obama had not "been around the first congressional district long enough to really see what's going on". Rush received 61% of the vote, while Obama received 30%. After the loss, Obama rededicated his efforts to the state Senate. In his 2002 campaign, he ran unopposed. Obama authored a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes punishable by the death penalty. He also pushed through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms. Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois Senate, commentators noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build coalitions. In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises", despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.
Sounds clean to me.


Keynote speech:

Midway through his campaign for U.S. Senator, Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts. After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and GI Bill programs, Obama said:

No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

Questioning the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he is serving us?" He continued:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Finally he spoke for national unity:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
Sounds passionate to me.


Sponsored Legislation:

Education

In April 2005, Obama sponsored his first Senate bill, the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act", S. 697. Entered in fulfillment of a campaign promise to help needy students pay their college tuitions, the bill proposed increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to $5,100. Provision for Pell Grant awards was later incorporated into the "Deficit Reduction Act", S. 1932, signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.

Immigration

Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act", S. 1033, introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on May 12, 2005. Obama also supported a later revision, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", S. 2611, passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006. He offered three amendments that were included in the bill passed by the Senate:

(1) to protect American workers against unfair job competition from guest workers;
(2) require employer verification of their employees' legal immigration status through improved verification systems; and
(3) fund improvements in FBI background checks of immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship.

Obama also voted for a related bill, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border. President Bush signed the bill into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."

Nonproliferation

In November 2005, Obama and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the "Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act" to expand the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. Provisions of the bill, also known as "Lugar-Obama", were included in H.R. 6060 and passed by Congress in December 2006. The legislation requires signature by President Bush to become law.

Transparency

Obama joined with Senators Coburn (R-OK), Carper (D-DE), and McCain (R-AZ) in sponsoring the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act", S. 2590, to provide citizens with a website, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. President Bush signed the bill, also referred to as the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act", into law in September 2006.
Sounds like a record to me.

He also has a book, in which he explains where he is coming from. It's called The Audacity of Hope. It's gotten many great reviews. Maybe you should check it out and learn a bit about the man before you take a stance against him for no other reason than, you dont know enough about him.

As I didn't know much about him I tried to look at his achievements in terms of sponsering bills in the Senate. While searching I found two bills. Putting a tariff on ethanol and Congress congratulating a school for something.

I think JesusChristLooksLikeMe may have a point in saying they haven't heard of him making a stand, or as I interpret taking an active role in drafting a bill.

Of course, the Democrats have been in opposition, which means that less democratic bills would be posted given their very high (Im guessing almost certain) chance to be rejected.

My view is that in part the reason a lot of people do like him is because he has not been bogged down by a long record and hasnt said a laundry list of things he wants to do. A lot of people look more to his personality and enthusiasm (charisma), rather than legislative accomplishment.

I note that George Bush was in part elected because he was "an outsider." He had been a governor and not involved in washington. Many people believed he would "solve the problems of the last 5 years" and such. Remembering this, it is a large reason why I am skeptical about Obama.

Almost forgot:


Political Advocacy

Economy

Speaking before the National Press Club in April 2005, Obama defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, associating Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security with Social Darwinism.

In a May 2006 letter to President Bush, Obama joined fellow midwest farming state Senators Harkin (D-IA), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), and Johnson (D-SD) in calling for the preservation of a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol, saying: "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices. We have sufficient ethanol production here at home, and it is expanding every day." In an article published in the November 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine, journalist Ken Silverstein argued that Obama's support for the tariff "indicates he is at least as interested in protecting domestic producers of ethanol as he is in weaning America from imported petroleum."

In June 2006, Obama spoke out against making recent, temporary estate tax cuts permanent, calling the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses".

In November 2006, Obama participated in a conference call organized by Wake Up Wal-Mart, a union-backed campaign group affiliated with the UFCW. Obama said: "You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement."

Internet

Obama is among the first national politicians to actively engage the public through new Internet communication tools. In late 2005, he began podcasting from his U.S. Senate official web site. It has been reported that Obama responds to and has personally participated in online discussions hosted on politically-oriented blogosphere sites. When Ohio bloggers were refused free passes to a May 2006 Democratic Party event where Obama was the featured speaker, Obama bought seats for them at a specially designated blogger's table.

Obama supports telecommunications legislation to protect network neutrality on the internet: "It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it."

Iraq War

Obama was an early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq. In the fall of 2002, Obama stated: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars...You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings." Speaking before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, he said: "The days of using the war on terror as a political football are over. [...] It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won." He is calling for a phased withdrawal of American troops to begin in 2007.

Elections

During his first year as a U.S. senator, in a move more typically taken after several years of holding high political office, Obama established a leadership political action committee for channeling financial support to Democratic candidates. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama participated in 38 fundraising events in 2005, helping to pull in $6.55 million for political issues and candidates he supports.

In September 2005, Obama introduced concurrent resolution 53 in the Senate, expressing disapproval of mandatory picture identification requirements for voters.

In June 2006, Obama encouraged Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other church-going people, saying, "if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at—to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own—we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."

The New York Times described Obama as "the prize catch of the midterm campaign" because of his campaigning for fellow Democratic Party members running for election in the 2006 midterm elections. Obama's political action committee gave $374,000 to federal candidates in the 2006 election cycle, making it one of the top donors to federal candidates for the year.

AIDS

In December 2006, Obama joined Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) at the "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" organized by church leaders Kay and Rick Warren.Together with Warren and Brownback, Obama took an HIV test, as he had done in Kenya less than four months earlier. Obama encouraged "others in public life to do the same" to show "there is no shame in going for an HIV test". Before the conference, pro-life groups called on Warren to rescind the invitation, saying: "If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis." Warren responded to his critics, saying: "I've got two friends here, a Republican and a Democrat, why? Because you've got to have two wings to fly."

And as for controversy?

On November 1, 2006 the Chicago Tribune reported that on the same day that Obama's home in a South Side neighborhood of Chicago was purchased an adjoining vacant lot was bought by the wife of Antoin Rezko, an Illinois businessman charged with political influence peddling. Obama later bought a ten-foot-wide strip of lawn from Rezko. Two days after the report, the same newspaper ran an editorial calling on Obama to explain why he would "allow himself any connection" to a developer who "notoriously attaches himself to political figures, often parlaying friendships into business dealings that have attracted official suspicions for several years." The following day the Chicago Tribune reported Obama's statement that it was a mistake to have engaged "in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow [Rezko], or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." On December 24, Obama's spokesman confirmed that one of Obama's 2005 summer interns also had ties to Rezko, although he denied any favoritism.

The Tribune's report does not accuse the Senator of any wrongdoing or unethical conduct and no evidence to the contrary has been uncovered. A December 2006 article posted to The New Republic online site criticized follow-up reporting in the Chicago Tribune, Slate, and Washington Post for failing to add value to the story: "The role of the press in all this should be to put perceptions in line with the facts as they stand, not inflate the perceptions and raise the distant possibility that the facts might line up behind them."

Wow, I hope such a sordid past doesn't hurt his chances... :rolleyes:

He's taken a stand on many issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

He also has a book, in which he explains where he is coming from. It's called The Audacity of Hope. It's gotten many great reviews. Maybe you should check it out and learn a bit about the man before you take a stance against him for no other reason than, you dont know enough about him.

Dial down the invective a smidge. Your attack is misplaced, especially considering I quoted his book in a previous post. I bought it, I read it, and I've been paying attention to the man since I first voted for him for the state legislature. I liked some of his plans in Audacity, others not so much. Still, until this point it is mostly just talk.

I'm saying that in the time I've watched him he hasn't had much in the way of leadership. Some of that is that he hasn't been given the chance because the system is loaded against junior congressmen, some of it I suspect comes from the fact that he hasn't wanted to step on anyone's toes. My point was that theres really only two issues I feel I could accurately predict his feelings towards (guns and civil rights).

I find this theme disturbing. Obama comes from the most corrupt city in the most corrupt county of one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation (maybe Louisiana has Illinois beat). He rose to power with the support of the most corrupt political machine the country has every seen backed by some of the dirtiest people it had to offer. What has the man done to prove his trustworthiness other than have a good smile and a silver tongue?

You have a point. Illonois does not have a golden history of progress and virtue. Living near St. Louis and being able to see East St. Louis across the river (the original Eas' side :rolleyes: ) I can see a clear difference. I would ask you though, when was the last time the American people really felt they could actually trust the president? When was the last time they were proud that a president was representing them? My favorite President is Teddy Roosevelt, and we havent seen anyone of his caliber in a long time.

Sounds clean to me.


I'm guessing you don't live in Chicago, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Obama bought land adjoining his home at below market value from Tony Rezko. Rezko is, well, an influence peddler and a mobster. He is currently under indictment for extortion, money laundering, and fraud. Those charges will likely be expanded to bribery in the near future as much of his extortion was aimed at getting contributions to campaign funds. Rezko happens to be the reason a lot of people around here don't think Gov. Blagojevich is going to make it through his latest term without being indicted.

So, Obama bought land at below market value in a seller's market from this Rezko guy. A little while later Obama hired an intern who was referred by Rezko. Is it the crime of the century? No. Honestly its buisness as usual in Chicago. But it ain't clean.

Wow, I hope such a sordid past doesn't hurt his chances... :rolleyes:

Is it that bad? No, not really. Still, I have trouble calling someone who gets in bed with known mobsters to be trustworthy. Obama handled it well, dodged beautifully, and didn't get as deep in as people around him, but he still played ball. He knew who Rezko was, he knew what kind of games Rezko played, and he was part of the same machine Rezko was a part of. The point is that this is how politicians from Chicago act(all of them, or they cannot be elected) and it doesn't exactly inspire trust.

Pardon me. I apologize that I misunderstood you rposition on Mr. Obama.

But again, you should be able to see the direction he would take on many issues based on his voting record no?

The link I gave you (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017) shows how he voted in regards to: Abortion Issues, Appropriations, Budget, Spending and Taxes, Business and Consumers, Civil Liberties, Congressional Affairs, Defense, Education, Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Executive Branch, Family and Children Issues, Foreign Aid and Policy Issues, Gun Issues, Health Issues, Immigration, Labor, Legal Issues, Military Issues, National Security Issues, Science and Medical Research, Senior and Social Security Issues, Social Issues, Trade Issues, Transportation Issues, Veterans Issues.

I would ask you though, when was the last time the American people really felt they could actually trust the president? When was the last time they were proud that a president was representing them?

Ike, perhaps? Maybe Kennedy because of the whole martyr thing? A lot of people can make the claim for FDR and, while I don't agree, I can see their point.

Still, you're right, we don't get people we trust anymore. The fact that Obama is the most trustworthy of the 2008 candidates is kind of a depressing prospect.

Pardon me. I apologize that I misunderstood you rposition on Mr. Obama.

Perfectly OK. I can completely understand the instinct to assume everyone on NSG is looking for a fight and I've made the same mistake with others. No harm, no foul. ;)



But again, you should be able to see the direction he would take on many issues based on his voting record no?

The link I gave you (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017) shows how he voted in regards to: Abortion Issues, Appropriations, Budget, Spending and Taxes, Business and Consumers, Civil Liberties, Congressional Affairs, Defense, Education, Energy Issues, Environmental Issues, Executive Branch, Family and Children Issues, Foreign Aid and Policy Issues, Gun Issues, Health Issues, Immigration, Labor, Legal Issues, Military Issues, National Security Issues, Science and Medical Research, Senior and Social Security Issues, Social Issues, Trade Issues, Transportation Issues, Veterans Issues.

Not really. I look at Obama's record and I see a lot of general bills, but not much in the way of major themes. He had the chance to do real good in Springfield and he just kind sat there and let other people do the heavy lifting. He seems to be a genuinely intelligent man and he is definately a passionate speaker, but he just hasn't really done much legislatively.

I think Obama is struck by bad timing. He is just not getting the chance to stand up in the senate when the election is within two years and he needs to be getting in campaign mode. I would have liked to see him have a chance to spend a term in the majority or do some time as a governor. Not really an option, but then we would have a better idea of what he's willing to fight for rather than mutter yay or nay.

Dial down the invective a smidge. Your attack is misplaced, especially considering I quoted his book in a previous post. I bought it, I read it, and I've been paying attention to the man since I first voted for him for the state legislature. I liked some of his plans in Audacity, others not so much. Still, until this point it is mostly just talk.


You call that invective? You haven't been on NSG very long!

The biggest thing about Obama that makes me like him is that he seems very much to be an impossibility: that is, an Honest Politician.

Maybe I'm just naeive, and the thought of that scares me. But I might also be right, and the thought of that fills me with a hope I haven't had in years.

He seems to be a genuinely intelligent man and he is definately a passionate speaker, but he just hasn't really done much legislatively.

Then it stands to reason we should elect him to the executive branch.

Also, I don't see you addressing the fact the Congress has been Republican dominated for years as having anything to do with Bush's "influence" on legislative matters.

Also, I don't see you addressing the fact the Congress has been Republican dominated for years as having anything to do with Bush's "influence" on legislative matters.

Clinton had quite a policy influence when congress was Republican dominated, too. Reagan did well with a Democratic congress. Sure, the Republicans mean that Bush had an easier time going, but denying the huge amount of power the executive branch wields is...odd. I'm just not sure how else to put it. The beliefs of the president matter because the president is able to do quite a lot of things without congress (up to and including waging war) and is able to influence how exactly congressional decrees are carried out. I'd hoped the whole "United States President unilaterally decideds not to follow the Geneva Conventions without telling anyone" fiasco kinda dragged that power out into the light...

He's black, his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

In a nutshell: no.