“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”
The article points out that Clinton spoke out against the bill, too. The detainee lawyers don’t mention Clinton, but they go out of their way to argue that Obama took a leadership role in that legislative debate, in a way that counters the charge that he is all talk and no action.
The lawyers’ description of Obama’s assistance suggests to me that his early community organizing work has carried over into how he conducts politics. In that kind of role he is a quintessential behind-the-scenes get-things-done kind of person. When you combine this with his obvious ability to be the inspirational front man — no small part of the presidency — and I don’t see where the “all talk” rap makes any sense.
John Hutson backs you up on this point.
From wiki
<
p>A previous diary:
Obama: Restore America’s Standing
<
p>People like John Hutson, Samantha Power and
Marshal Ganz stand with Obama, waging an inspired
effort towards social justice and economic equality.
I don’t see how anyone can deny there is a real difference here.
Obama today:
<
p>
The Constitution is the basis of our country. Obama actually believes in the thing – a refreshing change.
that the Pope has given the Obama candidancy a papal blessing and his endorsement.
…seems largely irrelevant to me personally since there isn’t one shred of evidence that Obama and Clinton differ on this issue.
They base the endorsement on the work Obama did to fight the bill, not on the mere fact of his position or his public articulation of it.
…snarky (really) I can read so that point is fairly obvious in the text of the main post.
<
p>Any group can endorse any candidate for any reason. What I am saying is that this endorsement does not sway me in any way because ultimately their positions are the same.
<
p>Not every politician can be a leader on every issues.
<
p>They applaude his commitment.
<
p>Great.
<
p>It doesn’t influence my feelings about Obama or Clinton in any way.
when it serves his personal beliefs or political ambitions. Check out this quote from Iowa, just before the caucuses.
Obama surely is familiar with the 1st Amendment. He is also surely familiar with the fact that civil marriage is a civil contract, not a sacred one. I find it terrifying that a presidential candidate would fudge the meaning on the 1st Amendment in this way. It tells me he will uphold and defend the Constitution only where and when it doesn’t offend his religious sensibilities or his political ambitions.
<
p>and p.s. it’s all well and good to separate civil marriage/unions from sacred marriage as he wants to do, but only if you are willing to do it for the entire populace. You know, 14th Amendment… Until he and Michelle are willing to replace their civil marriage with a civil union, he’s full of crap with this line of reasoning, and undermining 2 Constitutional amendments to support it. Shameful.
…in support of civil unions which no doubt others will seek to point out.
<
p>We all need to accept that at this point all viable candidates will kowtow to the civil union crap because the issue is still sufficiently divisive and being in favor of full marriage equality would sink the election and that is not likely to shift for another ten to twenty years.
<
p>But we can’t be sure who is authentically in favor of civil unions and who is just playing it safe. How an argument is framed however may indicate something.
<
p>Obama invokes the Federal Constitution and religious dominance while Hillary talks about allowing the States to continue working out marriage issues as they always have and advocating for removing impeding access to federal benefits. She can be seen talking about it here:
<
p>
<
p>It should be noted however that, to my knowledge, she has not called to revoke the full faith and credit part of DOMA, which I definitely view as a political choice not to enflame the right.