Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Barack Obama for President: Pragmatic, Inspirational, Courageous

By

Humbly offered for your comments: the first BMG Editor’s Presidential endorsement; reprinted here on the national Barack Obama blog. When David and Charley make up their minds, they’ll post. In the meantime, click here for the Barack Obama Massachusetts online headquarters.

Barack Obama is the best choice for President.

He speaks with reason and wisdom and walks with the energy of youth. He has succeeded in some of our most testing crucibles: our top universities, our poorest neighborhoods, and the rough politics of one of our largest states. His background, from nature to nurture, is living proof of the power of diversity.

The 20th century taught us, at terrible cost, that all of us live better when opportunities are opened for each of us. United, we stand, divided we fall, from the stock market to the battlefield, the emergency room to the classroom, houses of worship to the houses we call home, and everywhere in between.

Because Obama approaches problems, first, with reason, second, with practicality, and third, with empathy, he is able to find common ground where his rivals too often deepen differences. His positions on the war in Iraq, education, health care, energy, the environment, marriage, and a host of other issues offer enormous improvements on the status quo. More significantly for present purposes, they stand in sharp contrast, particularly on the subject of Iraq, to the deceptively nuanced positions of his chief rival Hillary Clinton (compare, for example, his actual plan for withdrawal from Iraq, with her, promise to make a plan for withdrawal.) They offer the hand of opportunity to the 62 million citizens who voted for George W. Bush, millions of whom will have to vote Democratic next year if we are to win, in contrast to the bitterly polarizing invective of his other main rival, John Edwards (consider, for example, the claim yesterday by Edwards on NBC that there is no need to compromise with drug companies, oil companies, and insurance companies in any discussions about reform, or indeed even include them at the discussion table — a position, he said, that distinguishes him from Obama).

Finally, Obama has the decisive courage required to seize the day. From his decision to forsake the riches of corporate law to teach at the University of Chicago and organize in Chicago’s poor communities, to his later rebound from an election defeat in 2000 to win the 2004 Illinois Democratic Senate primary by 29%, and the general election 70-29 (the largest electoral victory in Illinois history), to his present well-organized, well-funded headline-grabbing national campaign, Obama has displayed a remarkable ability to weave the warp and weft of his fortune with the bright colors of victory.

Reason, pragmatism, empathy, ability and decisive courage: Barack Obama is the best candidate for President.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Supporting Obama over the last few months. Glad to see one of the eds. come aboard.  

  3. i’ll toss out to any obama supporters here.

    <

    p>1.  who would you like to see as his running mate?
    2.  as a gay atheist who’s gotten hammered long and hard by religious people on both counts, the content and quantity of obama’s religious talk worries me.  why shouldn’t it?

    • Us being progressive Christians. If Bush speaks in the code language of conservative evangelicals, Obama speaks the equivalent for liberal mainline denominations, Christian-leaning UUs, and social justice Catholics. The kind of Christians who supported gay people and gay rights before it was cool. It’s hard to quantify, but I know this to be true. Obama’s way of talking about God is what I hear in church every week.  

      • i don’t know the liberal mainline code you’re talking about.  so i’m stuck with evidence, like his choosing outspokenly anti-gay mcclurkin to mc for him, apparently without forethought that this could cause major friction.  and even once reasonable solutions were put forth by lgbt supporters, he decided to stick by mcclurkin and threw the most insulting of crumbs at the queers (an opening prayer by a white gay clergyman before the venue was even filled…and anti-gay remarks by mcclurkin during the heart of the event – super!).  i wish your impressions of his code speak could convince me that this incident is not going to be symptomatic of an obama presidency for lgbts, but i see no evidence yet to counter that view.

        • What, if any, specific policies that Obama has espoused do you take issue with?

          <

          p>Is it his his stance on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

          <

          p>Is it his stance in favor of civil unions that provide the same legal benefits of marriage?

          <

          p>Where are your policy disagreements with Sen. Obama? Or is it just his rhetoric, infused as it is with religious language, that sets you ill at ease?

          <

          p>

          • as for his specific gay-related policies, i forget where he stands on most of them because they’re not anywhere on his issues web page that i can see.  for example, under “strengthening families” he misses an opportunity to call for strengthening ALL american famililes through calling for marriage equality.  or even for civil unions.  under “fighting poverty” he doesn’t call for banning employment discrimination for lgbt people.  under “honering our veterans” there is no mention of dumping DADT.  obama hides his putative pro-gay stances, but broadcasts his religious rhetoric far and wide.  this to me is a signal that he will not be a leader in lgbt civil rights, but will put people’s tender religious sensibilities first. well, same ole same ole.

            • From Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Candidate, in the “Lesbian Life” section on About.com

              <

              p>Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois: Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

              <

              p>Barack Obama in the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:

              <

              p>Barack Obama on Hate Crimes: Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

              <

              p>Employment Non-Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
              Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military: Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.”

              <

              p>Gay & Lesbian Adoption: Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

              <

              p>Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

              <

              p>Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

              <

              p>He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

              <

              p>”Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”
              Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

              • tell me, why should i have to go to an about.com website to find out the nature of obama’s dedication to lgbt civil rights?  and that whole part about marriage and his religious sensibilities.  honest to gek, it makes me sick.  do you think i should be satisfied with that as a fair trade?  as my president he’ll put his religious beliefs above my civil rights.  sign me up!

                <

                p>funny how on another diary someone has a video of obama telling kennedy to grow a spine.  when is obama going to grow a spine and speak directly about civil rights?

                • that any politician who refuses to support full marriage equality is doing something despicable.

                  <

                  p>However, when I watched the HRC-sponsored Democratic primary debate a few months back, it seemed that every single one of our candidates, excluding Kucinich and Gravel, hold the same position on marriage equality/civil unions as Sen. Obama.

                  <

                  p>Do you feel the same way about the other major candidates? If not, why?

                • well first of all, i’m glad i’m not in your shoes and having nothing better to say for my candidate than “he’s no worse than the others”. đŸ˜‰

                  <

                  p>i think you are correct about clinton, edwards, richardson and obama all being civil union people.  dodd and biden i don’t know.  where they differ on marriage is on DOMA.  for example, edwards supports a full repeal, clinton supports a repeal of the part that denies federal benefits, and obama is wishy washy.  i can’t remember richardson’s stance off-hand.  so, they are similar but there are differences. and clearly, some have through their positions through far more thoroughly than others.  your guy turned in the sloppiest homework, i’m sorry to report.

            • Everyone needs to remember that while we here in Massachusetts are getting used to the idea that marriage equality is the status quo, I dare say most of the country finds this anathema.  I don’t like it either, but I’m pretty sure that a nominee who favors full marriage equality would have no chance of winning a general election.  As for Obama using Christian rhetoric I believe it is appropriate.  We can’t yield it all to the right and Clinton has been the only successful nominee in a generation in part because he knew when to invoke Biblical imagery.  It would also be wrong to swear off all religious talk just because one side has so abused it.  Ironically, Barack Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ which DOES endorse marriage equality.  For myself I became a fan at his DNC address in 2004 and my favorite line from that was “We worship an awesome God in the blue states!”

                • but that is perfectly fine.  I for one subscribe to Jefferson’s statement that “I care not whether my neighbor worships no god or twenty gods – it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

                  <

                  p>Some people think that morality and values must be grounded strongly in religion, then proceed to claim Christianity has a monopoly on same.  I strongly disagree.  Any comparative study of religions will reveal that the core teachings basically all come down to the same thing.  Those who wish not to use a religious context simply know this teaching as the Golden Rule.

              • …if S/He endorsed same-sex marriage.

                <

                p>I also find it interesting that he says he can’t condone SSM because he is a Christian, yet his church, the United Church of Christ enthusiastically endorses SSM.  

                • A big pet peeve of mine is when people convey absolute certainty in knowing God’s will.  We can’t be completely surprised that most people who cite Christianity are opposed since the Bible after all condemns homosexuality quite strongly.  Those of us who are more tolerant either realize how old the Bible is, that imperfect humans had a hand in its writing, or rely on the more generally inclusive message of Jesus and draw conclusions.  That being said the Bible should never be cited as a primary reason for public policy, but I stand by my earlier comments to the effect that endorsing same-sex marriage would kill a candidacy.

            • The Obama website has a link off the top menu on the front page under “People” for “LGBT”.  Obama’s not a homophobe, and it bothers me that you are slinging hash like “I can’t find glbt positions on his website” that have already been discussed with you here before.

              <

              p>For example, this statement on DADT is there:

              Senator Obama’s Statement on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
              November 29, 2007
              Fourteen years ago, the Democratic Party faced a test of leadership, and our party failed that test. We had an opportunity to be leaders on the World stage in eliminating discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, to recognize the patriotism and heroism of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian citizens who have served our country. Instead, we bowed to fear and prejudice. We were told that American soldiers weren’t ready to serve next to gay and lesbian comrades. We were told that our airmen, sailors and Marines would lose their “unit cohesion” if we implemented a policy of equality. And so, rather than embracing leadership and principle, we embraced Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — a policy that is antithetical to the values of honor and integrity that our military holds most dear. Patriotic gay and lesbian Americans are now told that they may serve their country only if they hide their true identities. They are forced to live a lie as the price of risking their lives for their country. Fourteen years later, the United States of America lags far behind. We lag behind our military allies, who are repudiating discrimination against lesbian and gay soldiers in ever increasing numbers — in Great Britain, Canada, Israel, nearly every NATO member in Europe — all with no impact upon military readiness and performance. And our politicians lag behind the American people, who now call for the repeal of Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell in super-majority numbers. It is time for a change.

              As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office.

              America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership.

              <

              p>Obama’s a Christian, no question, and if you can’t support that, I understand, although I’m not sure where you go with your vote instead – there aren’t many admitted atheists out there in political life.  Even my own lesbo lapsed-Catholic hostility to organized religion is mellowing in my middle age into a more tolerant agnosticism and desire for common cause with the religiously motivated.  Christian convictions can motivate people towards social justice rather than creepy moralism.  Remember that great pro-marriage banner the UU’s flew off their building near the state house during the early concons?  And the 1000 religious leaders who signed the pro-marriage petition? If you can’t buy it, OK, but don’t make stuff up about the candidate as a result.

              • Laurel, that’s a pretty fair comment, don’t you think? I imagine that, fair minded and reasonable as you always are, you will be delighted to learn from Bean’s helpful observations. đŸ™‚

              • rather i was not well informed.  i had forgotten about that link. my bad.  still i get an insincere vibe from him.

                <

                p>no more responses from me – i had surgery yesterday and unable to type w/2 hands.

                <

                p>best wishes.

                • Probably not fair to try to take advantage of your weakened condition.  Hope you are recovered and typing up a storm (directed at other commenters and their candidates, of course!) soon.

        • Well, code is a bit strong. It’s an emphasis on good works and the beloved community rather than articles of dogma, rules of morality, personal salvation. He’s also made it very explicit, as in his keynote  at the 2006 Call to Renewal conference, a progressive evangelical group.

          <

          p> One blogger said “He’s not talking about ceding ground to the Christian Right on policy issues, he’s talking about transforming the nature of politicized Christianity itself. … In other words: he wants to teach the other side how to compromise.”

          <

          p>As for the McClurkin affair, I can’t justify it, other than to speculate it was part of a longer term strategy to engage the large majority of black protestants who oppose even civil unions. If he can get them behind his presidential campaign, he will be in position to influence them, and his record on gay rights is strong.

          • c’mon!  here is a quote from your link.  it is clear as day – obama puts his religious beliefs ahead of my civil rights.  Emphasis added.

            Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

            You see?  my rights end where his religious beliefs begin. He tries not to let his religious beliefs influence his policy decisions.  Oh, but gosh sorry – gonna make this exception! Let us continue

            [Barack Obama] said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

            This means that he is satisfied with the fact that gay couples living in the vast majority of states will not have access to marriage or any inferior institution like civil unions.  

            “Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”

            Okaaaayy.  So how does he propose to give “them” rights if he just said he’ll leave it up to the states, and we know that the majority of states forbid marriage and similar agreements?  If he has any brilliant ideas, he’s keeping them to himself.

            <

            p>Can you show me an lgbt-related achievement anywhere in his resume that can possibly mitigate the double-speak above?  Supporting a few bills just doesn’t cut it.  Did he even take the opportunity to speak supportively on the Senate floor when ENDA and the Matthew Shepard act were being debated?  Remember that old phrase?  SHOW ME THE MONEY!

            • Alll I can say is you won’t get much better from any other Dem candidate outside Kucinich. And Obama, for the reasons Bob explains, will be most likely to set a national tone that could lead to civil unions in states that as of now wouldn’t even go that far.  

              • i am astonished.  honestly.  after reading the above, what national tone do you think he is going to set?  to me, it sounds like a hands off, let ’em do it if they want to because i’m a christian heterosexual kind of tone.  there is no support there – just permission for anti-gay states to keep doing their states rights thing.  has he given any indication that he’s going to get active in state-level politics to support the passage of civil unions?  at the federal level, will he push for the repeal of DOMA?  that last question isn’t rhetorical, because i’ve heard him be both pro-and anti-DOMA in the past, so i surely don’t know.  the national tone…it’s a bit muffled…

                • It’ll be coming from all sides, soon enough.  The fact is that Obama is terrible on GLBT issues both in practice and in rhetoric.  He can’t have it both ways.  He can’t pander to the socially conservative black community and then appeal to the socially liberal community in the next breath.  Another spineless Dem when it comes to these issues.  Makes me concerned that he’s similarly spineless when it comes to other issues, as well.    

                • your candidate has exactly the same position as Sen. Obama on equal marriage/civil unions: in favor of civil unions that are the legal equivalent of marriage, but against equal marriage itself.

                  <

                  p>Seriously, if Sen. Clinton or Edwards are so much better on LGBT issues than Sen. Obama, please show me how/where. I’m missing it thus far.

                  <

                  p>

                • For some reason, I thought I’d read something by you to the effect of you were supporting Hillary. Sorry!

                • Than Clinton.  She is on the record for supporting a repeal only of the DOMA provision that denies federal benefits to same sex couples, Obama supports repeal of the whole wretched law.  See previous discussion on BMG here.

              • I am not gay, but my perception was that he was taking positions much more friendly to the gay community.

            • Though I agree Obama’s been weak on pushing equality issues, I think you’re misreading his support of civil unions:

              <

              p>

                 

              [Barack Obama] said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

              This means that he is satisfied with the fact that gay couples living in the vast majority of states will not have access to marriage or any inferior institution like civil unions.  

              <

              p>I believe he’s supporting federal recognition of civil unions, recognized by the federal government as having the same rights of marriages with regard to federal taxes, federal benefits, etc. and that couples who enter in civil unions in any state or get married here would be recognized by the federal government even if the state they live in doesn’t recognize their union. Leave it up to states (for now) whether to have equal marriage rights or to have a second category of unions, but have them all be recognized federally. Federal recognition would be a huge step even if half the states don’t.

              <

              p>The stupid comments about religion show that he must be out of touch with his own church, but I think his comments about federal reconition of civil unions has been pretty clear.

  4. “He speaks with reason and wisdom and walks with the energy of youth.” Huh?

    <

    p>I find it hard to support him when his resume is so thin. I am a supporter of Govenor Patrick but I am worried that now is not the time to vote for a President because of his “energy of youth” or uplifting rhetoric. So please tell me why I should make this leap of faith?

    • I think this is one of those things you’ll have to decide for yourself, because by now all of the information is out there:

      • Is 3 years in the Senate (4 years by November 2008) backed by a decade in the state senate enough political experience for you?
      • Is a Columbia/Harvard education followed by a decade teaching constitutional law enough grounding in the fundamental principles and laws of our country?
      • Does registering 140,000 voters and expanding health care to 150,000 more Illinois residents give you confidence that he can make things happen?
      • Does Barack Obama’s track record on issues like Iraq, Ethics & Reform, and Health Care show that his values align with yours?

      <

      p>Another way to think about it is, “What else would he need to have in order for you to be convinced?”

      <

      p>If you’re looking for decades in Congress, go for Biden or Kucinich or Dodd. If you want executive experience, then Richardson is your only choice. If you want military service, try Mike Gravel. If you want a count of days spent in the white house, write in Executive Chef Walter Scheib.

      <

      p>To me, it’s a balance. Pragmatism versus Idealism. Experience versus Entrenchment. I believe Barack Obama has done enough to prove that he has what it takes to achieve results — including working across party lines in a state not exactly known for patty-cake politics. I believe he has a vision for this country that matches mine, the ability to articulate that vision in a way more eloquent than we’ve had in my lifetime, and the leadership to take us towards that vision by accomplishing tangible results.

      <

      p>No candidate is perfect, nor is any human being. In my view Senator Obama is the best candidate I’ve seen, by far, in my two and a half decades of voting for Presidents.

      • I gave this comment a 6 for rare displays of common sense. But I do wonder, Delegator, how many times has this been said?

        <

        p>

        No candidate is perfect, nor is any human being. In my view Senator Obama is the best candidate I’ve seen, by far, in my two and a half decades of voting for Presidents.

        <

        p>Please take this slightly tongue in cheek. I have no specific reason to  suspect your conviction. But you must admit that this is the sort of statement that can easily be repeated every four years.

      • I think that your bullets make my point. That’s good stuff but President of the United States, I don’t know.

        <

        p>Don’t get me wrong I am impressed with him as an indivdual and as a politican but President. I’m having a tough time and I know that Richardson probably can’t win the primary but I just might go that way.

        <

        p>This is a tough choice.

        <

        p>Hillary is still in play too but…    

        • There is no experience that can prepare someone for that job.  None.  Well, there are maybe three people alive that have the necessary experience, but I doubt they want the job again (then again, maybe one does, but he is the only one bared by the Constitution from doing so).  Every other person does not have the exeprience for the job.  Every other person is underqualified.  We need to pick one of them anyway, and hope they learn well on the job.

          <

          p>The real question is whether one has the capacity to grow into the job and learn from his or her inevitable screwups along the way.  W’s problem is that he lacked experience, but that he lacks the wisdom to be able to grow into the job.

  5. Your comments on Edwards help me put away lingering doubt about whether he is a better choice. I don’t see how he can come through on his populism once faced with the realities of governing.

    <

    p>I think it’ll be important though, for Obama to distinguish his conciliatory rhetoric from the pundit class’s insistence that we forego “politics” (ie, democracy) in favor of center-right dealmaking. I’m confident this is not what Obama portends, b/c he has core principles and independent judgment (see his history w/Iraq).  

  6. Bob says, “in contrast to the bitterly polarizing invective of his other main rival, John Edwards (consider, for example, the claim yesterday by Edwards on NBC that there is no need to compromise with drug companies, oil companies, and insurance companies in any discussions about reform, or indeed even include them at the discussion table — a position, he said, that distinguishes him from Obama).”

    <

    p>Have you listened to the Republican debate? “Bitterly polarizing invective” is what you hear in their discussion of immigration. Or perhaps their discussion of Gay and Lesbian rights. Or perhaps their discussion of the place of relision in society. Not the role of giant multinational corporations in our country and world.

    <

    p>The idea that the oil companies are going to give away their power because Obama asks nice is just silly and the reason many people feel that he is light on substance. The way to get some of the Bush votes is to give them an explanation of the anxiety they experience…why they are working so hard and getting so little…why they are one medical calamity away from disaster…why their home isn’t worth what they paid…while luxury stores are filled with shoppers.

    <

    p>You haven’t convinced me at all.

    • It’s silly to think that anybody believes the oil, pharmaceutical, or insurance companies are going to give up power just because we ask. Coincidentally, nobody does believe that, nor are they saying it.

      <

      p>If you really believe that going to Washington with the idea that you’re going to forcibly take power from entrenched lobbies on the basis of a populist upswell will work, then you’re probably already firmly in the Edwards camp. I personally think that’s a naive view of the way that Washington works.

      <

      p>Or, perhaps it’s a self-fulfilling (or self-destroying) prophecy. If Edwards gets elected, then maybe that will be indicative of a popular movement powerful enough to overcome a century of case law on corporate rights, 5 decades of the status quo in medicine, and gosh knows how long entrenched interests have been affecting politics with money.

      <

      p>But, there is a middle ground between slash and burn and business as usual. There are ways to get things done using both public opinion and political will, with solid negotiating thrown in.

      <

      p>Personally, I think Edwards’ rhetoric is perfectly suited for the courtroom, and it may even play well in some corners of toe courtroom of public opinion. I just don’t see it actually working in the office of the President. We’ve seen enough of ultimatums and “my way or the highway” over the past 7 years to know that doesn’t work — even when your party controls both houses of congress.

  7. Listening to Obama, really listening, is exhausting work for the discerning mind.  Here we have an orator with nothing much to say, but it all sounds quite nice.  Inspiring.  Just nothing there.

    <

    p>I would suggest we hitch ourselves to a less verbally perfect star who will actually do something.

    <

    p>As a US Senator, qualification for higher office should be measured by current accomplishments.  ANY of our senators could put a stop to the wars, right now.  NONE have the balls.

    <

    p>Meanwhile, Obama chatters on.

    • I wouldve pegged you as an Edwards man Bob, happy to see you’ve come around. I think Edwards’ heart is in the right place, but he is a liberal Bush, the base+1% is who he will govern too. Now more than ever we need a President who can unite and bring together all the different factions in this country so we can roll up our sleeves and get the hard work done. I appreciate this in Obama.

      <

      p>Stuff about inexperience, percieved weakness on liberal issues, at the end of the day thats all hogwash. He and Clinton are fairly similar on the issues, he has more experience than Edwards, and frankly he has a unique outsiders perspective in his experience that makes him truly fresh and unique on the political stage. He doesnt speak Washingtonese he speaks the language of the heartland and I also think to boot he is the best general election candidate.  

  8. I really like him…but President?  Now?  Seriously?

    <

    p>Four short years ago, he was a state Senator, and he spent one year in the United States Senate before starting his Presidential run.  For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone thinks that this man has the resume or the qualifications to be the leader of the free world in times like these.    

    • Was Strom Thurmond “qualified” to be President? Ted Stevens? Robert Byrd?

      <

      p>”Qualified”, I’m sure you’ll agree, is different from “well-suited.” I think that’s the limitation of the resume/experience argument.

  9. Obama’s promises to compromise with the oil companies, insurance companies, etc., promise to be completely ineffective.  It’s like the current crop of Democrats capitulating to the Republicans on every important vote (Iraq war funding, telecom wire-tapping immunity (almost), etc.).  

    <

    p>You can’t negotiate with jackals.  Like what we have seen in congress since the last election, the Republicans/companies will just push for everything they want and act like it’s compromise.  And, if Obama’s “compromises” follow what we’ve seen in congress, the jackals will get everything they want.

  11. made you a good holder of executive power, we wouldn’t have so many posts about “what the hell is deval patrick doing!?!?!”

  12. Poverty, homelessness, jobs, education… these are all issues that do not require the national government. These are all issues that I believe are better handled the more local a solution is to the problem. It’s important to you that the POTUS cares about people. That’s fine. Obama seems like a nice person. The last time I let niceness influence my presidential pick was in the 2nd grade when I told my teacher I’d vote for Carter because he had a nice smile.

    <

    p>One thing that local governments, charities, or “community organizers” cannot solve is national security. There have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. I don’t think anyone can say why that is exactly, but I also don’t think you can argue that at least some of this administration’s strategy has been effective in its goal of keeping this country safe.

    <

    p>As for Obama and Iraq. In 2002, he gave a speech at anti-war rally. Some say he made predictions about the war’s outcome, and they give him a lot of credit for that. I don’t doubt his position on the war. But in 2002, I see a state legislator who already had his eye on federal office. This was an opportunity he used to distinguish himself from the pack. If public opinion hadn’t grown to favor the position he picked, would his anti-war stance stayed the course? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    <

    p>His actions in the U.S. Senate paled to — if not contradicted — his election rhetoric. Is that because he was then privy to more information than when he was a state legislator? I don’t know. The only record we have is a statements made against the war and votes for continued funding. As they say, talk is cheap.

    <

    p>As for the future of Iraq, all we have is Iraq. I read Obama’s plan for withdrawal. I have no expertise in war, but I do have a brother-in-law who is a Marine and who has beethere.So, here are my concerns, for what their worth:

    <

    p>Obama says:
    Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas.
    When you talk about removing troops from secure areas, you’re talking about those that carry out intelligence. This is our defense. It seems to me this strategy would leave those last remaining troops as sitting ducks. Also, the more volatile areas have changed overtime. How do you effectively withdraw troops when the criteria for withdrawal is a moving target?

    <

    p>Obama says:
    To combat terrorism, Obama would press Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to stem the flow of foreign fighters, arms, and financial resources into Iraq. Obama also would be a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.
    What does it mean to “press” these countries? How? Carter wasn’t effective at getting the Iran hostages released. Reagan was effective, but some didn’t like his means. There are no magic beans here. Either Obama won’t be effective, or he will make some deal that some won’t like. Before declaring this a good plan, don’t you think you should know to what limits he’s willing to negotiate?

    <

    p>As for the stop meddling message, I found this statement interesting as it follows steps to “encourage the Iraqi
    government to adopt policies…”, “work to ensure local communities can protect themselves without threatening other groups”, and the mother of all meddling “Barack Obama would have the United Nations convene a constitutional convention in Iraq that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society”. The first two are platitudes. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around that last one.

    <

    p>Obama says:
    He would increase American investments in Iraq’s refugees and internally displaced people and to the neighboring countries that house them to at least $2 billion.
    Countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not need our money. Countries like Syria and Iran shouldn’t get it. We’ve already seen what happens to US dollars when given to corrupt foreign powers for humanitarian purposes. What makes you believe these dollars would be used any differently?

    <

    p>I’d prefer to see Obama stay in the senate where he can continue to bring forward legislation from the 9/11 commission. I don’t yet see evidence that he is shrewd enough to be commander in chief. He seems to forgiving, too eager to reach consensus, and I fear too likely to be fooled.

    <

    p>

    • This has to be one of the worst arguments people make.

      <

      p>There were no attacks prior to 9/11 on US soil except the first WTC bombing in ’93.  Before that, US soil had not been attacked since what? December 7, 1941? If the fact that the US has not been attacked since 9/11 is the best evidence one can produce “that at least some of this administration’s strategy has been effective”, then that argument rests on a logical fallacy.

      <

      p>I mean the Yankees haven’t won the World Series since the 9/11 attacks, perhaps America’s safety is in direct correlation with the Yankees’ playoff failures?  Or perhaps the danger of the terrorists executing wide spread attacks in America have been greatly over-sold to the public to gain support for a specific military agenda?  

      • In the period between 1941 and 1993, to the extent that there were, the policies carried out during those 50 years contributed to our national security. The same is true for the period after the 1993 attack and after the 2001 attack.

        <

        p>This is not at all like saying national security is related to the Yankees. On the one hand, we have a government that is everyday taking some action that directly contributes to national security. Some of this is seen. Much of it is not.

        <

        p>On the other hand we have a baseball team… need I go on or do you see the error in your thinking?

        <

        p>I don’t need to be “sold” an idea that Al-Qaeda wants to attack the U.S. again. Nor do I need to be “sold” the idea that they want to do so here, on U.S. soil. Their own words and actions which prove that point.

        <

        p>I don’t know that you are I or anyone on this side of the media and political filters can ascertain what the threat level is. The one certain measure that we have is that there have been no additional attacks. So, the policies in place have either:

        <

        p>1. contributed to that outcome
        2. detracted from that outcome
        3. had no impact on that outcome

        <

        p>If none of this administration’s policies have been effective — which is what you assert by disagreeing my statement that some have been — then what do you attribute the absence of attacks on? Luck? Or do you believe that regardless of what we did we wouldn’t have had any further attacks in these last six years? Or something else?

        <

        p>I believe U.S. policy always has an impact on our security at home and peace around the world, regardless of how the Yankees are doing.

        <

        p>

        • And the rest to successful removal of the Taliban and disruption of terrorist operations in Afghanistan.  Successes that are close to being squandered.

          <

          p>Also, I suspect that on 9/11, al Quaida threw its best punch.

        • …but their ability to attack the US, and our ability to stop such attacks, has been greatly over-sold.

          <

          p>The “we’re fighting them in Iraq so we don’t fight them here” rhetoric/lie has been thoroughly debunked.  The phony terror alerts, the phony, conveniently-timed “non-specific” threats, the phony so-called “terror cells” disrupted in the US, etc, etc, shows that it was to Bush & Cos political advantage to over sell the phony war on terror.  

          <

          p>And I agree with Central Mass Dad that between the invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11, AQ threw it’s best punch.  

      • …terrorist attacks on US soil before and after 1993.  The fact is, however, that they were carried out by home-grown Christian terrorists, a point that more than a few people in the US want to ignore.

  13. “He has succeeded in some of our most testing crucibles: our top universities, our poorest neighborhoods, and the rough politics of one of our largest states.”

    <

    p>Please spare us this nonsense. Crucible? This is childs play.

    <

    p>The only thing that is for real is when bullets are snapping by your head. Everything else can be administratively adjusted.

    <

    p>If your frame of reference is so askew that you consider what you stated to be some “test” then God help the USA.

Archives