"Murphy laughed through the first part of the answer. But the rest wasn't specific enough for her liking – though she acknowledged afterward that it would be hard for Obama to sway her when her recent deliberations have focused on social conservatives like Romney and Mike Huckabee."

She sounds like an idiot!!!

"On a serious note, Obama told Murphy that he differs from the entire Republican field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care."

Most socialists would disagree with the entire Republican field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care.

Irrespective of humor or lack thereof, the fact remains that Democrats have an opportunity to reject the soap opera of Hillary and spouse that tore this country asunder for all too long. Let's see if the Democratic voters have the common sense to make the right choice. Based on past experience with Kerry, Dukasis, Carter, Gore and their ilk, it would be safe to bet that they don't.

Most Americans disagree with the Department of Dubya on just about everything.

In 2008, the Democrats don’t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it’s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.

The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama’s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.

Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages.

Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn’t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

He didn’t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He’s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn’t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There’s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary’s attacks on Barack’s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary’s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.

Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.

I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I’m tired of the old establishment. I don’t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton’s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss’s wife?

Hillary’s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama’s recent surge in the polls, and I’m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child’s play.

Republicans HATE the Clintons. They sought to destroy everything the Clintons stood for during Bill’s administration, and they will stop at nothing to destroy Hillary’s chances at the presidency. If she is elected, she will face the same music Bush did, a Congress unwilling to sign blank checks at the president’s bidding. Even if the Democrats maintain a slight majority, it’s clear that a slight majority in Congress, especially if Joe Lieberman is considered part of that majority, is worth little when it comes to controversial legislation.

Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren’t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he’s saying to you. He’s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn’t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.

I like that he’s young. I like that he’s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.

Simply because I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It’s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.

On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.

P.S. - and far as foreign policy experience goes I give you the George W. Bush administration as exhibit 1A of it not meaning squat.

Another Iowa Newspaper Endorsement......goes to Barack Obama, with a great writeup that hits some solid and salient points on who is best suited to lead America's foreign policy.

Barack was endorsed by the Marshalltown Times-Republican, a daily newspaper serving central Iowa.

The Times-Republican puts some strong commitment behind their choice for the nomination:

"With a philosophy of openness - from education to the economy, government to military actions - Barack Obama has based his message of hope and change on the belief that Americans want to be involved in their government".

"In an age where closed doors, secret military posts and middle-of-the-night pork barrel votes are all too common, Obama believes we can still come together as a country, we can work together to build a better America".

"To many of the candidates already have too much "experience" in our eyes - too much "experience" manipulating the system, too much "experience" bowing to special interests and too much "exp-erience" during a previous White House stint".

"Obama has what we would call more "down to earth" experience: helping in his community working as a civil rights activist, and, of course, his time in the Illinois State Senate".

"The argument has also been made that Obama lacks experience dealing with foreign policy and foreign leaders. Perhaps that "lack of experience" will translate into some bold, decisive actions that actually deal with foreign issues, rather than the typical "nod and smile" philosophy'".

"And while many Democratic candidates have called for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq, Obama understands that such action would be detrimental to foreign relations, the people of Iraq and our own troops. Instead, he proposes a controlled and responsible withdrawal from Iraq that would take a couple of years to properly complete. Obama also understands that a universal healthcare plan must be practical and achievable, not a pipe dream used only to gain momentum on the campaign trail. His plan doesn't ram a national health insurance program down our throats, rather it merely guarantees access to health insurance for all Americans".

"His common sense approach carries through to other issues as well: a sensible energy plan that helps reduce environmental impacts without shutting off everyone's electricity and a teacher pay program that rewards those who work hard to teach our children and doesn't reward those who don't".

"Obama offers a new path, one filled with hope and change. We think it's a path worth traveling down".

Other countries around the world look at our economy and healthcare and seethe with jealousy...that's why Obama gets the nod from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
As far as the war goes, we're destroying Al-qaeda in Iraq and winning the war on terror...soon [the dove] Obama will get the nod fron Osama.

Paulo

Romney is the most fake out of all the candidates out there. He's pretty much a candle in the wind.

"Other countries around the world look at our economy and healthcare and seethe with jealousy...that's why Obama gets the nod from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez."

Paulo=Paula the giggest whack job in The Swamp has weighed in with more of his falsehoods. Lies won't save the GOP.

Paulo, why don't you go back to Hillaryland. She's going to need some help in recovering after she loses the caucus Thursday night to Obama. Third place is going to be hard to take. Remember, she told Katie Couric, that she doesn't plan on losing.

GOP lame,

Ahhhhh, The truth hurts, so instead of a debate, you name call and disregard the fact that Hugo and Fidel both support either Barack or Hillary as president.

And we all know Osama loves [doves] like B.J. and Barack....he gets a chance to kill more Americans.
Hey! Why havn't we been attacked since 9/11/2001...

*** W ***

Paulo

Most socialists would disagree with the entire Republican field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care.

Posted by: Terry | December 30, 2007 4:22 PM

Terry's Repugnant party has spent 5,thats right 5 trillion of our tax dollars that we haven't even given them yet.

How many of our tax dollars has Bush the "Conservative" given to African nations for Aids?

How many of our tax dollars has he given to Socialized prescription drugs?

Paulo, we may have exhausted Al Qaeda in Iraq like we exhausted the Soviet Union by outspending them...but what progress have the Iraqis made? How much longer do we give them to get their sh!# together? I don't think the world is looking at our economy and seething with jealousy. I think they're waiting for the floor to fall out. Bush hs allowed China to hold 25 percent of our debt. If we ever got into a scrape with then they could default on the loans and send our economy into a near depression. So much for your neo-con national security expertise.

Mark Billingsley

You libs are so precious!
Keep on fighting for the enemy!

P.S. Bush didn't [allow] China to hold 25% of our debt, you goofball...China invests their [yuan] in the U.S.A. because, we're the best investment in the world!

Unless, you and another [precious] Jimma Carter come along...

Paulo

Choices this cycle abound and the diversity is awesome -- best showing in my 56-yrs of a broad spectrum of choices.

Yet, among the front-runners, we have significant and clear differences -- from character and competence to issues, policy and positions. BEST among them for POTUS? That's our job as voters - to listen, read, research -- to vet. That's where WE have to be well-qualified - evaluating the credentials and getting beyond the pandering, stuffed suits, 527's, fluff and false accusations. Who really ARE these people? What has been their track record, as adults?

If we could be allowed to pick the cabinet for an OBAMA Administration, here's how I see the candidates best fulfilling their skill set -- to actually get something done in D.C.

Hillary - Sec'y of Education. That 35 years is valuable, yet if you have to have your x-husband president propping you up and you're first love is really working with children, then I say go for it.

John Edwards -- Attorney General. Angry white man always putting down the corporations who made him rich. Biting the hand that feeds him? (He seems VERY well-qualified as a trial lawyer - but that's not the job for which he is applying). Could he actually get something done after spewing all that vitriolic rhetoric against American corporations? Not likely. You don't win friends and influence enemies by telling them they are all greedy, corrupt crooks.

Biden - Sec'y of Defense
Richardson - Sec'y of State
Dodd - Sec'y of HUD
Kacinich - Sec'y of Dept of Peace
Gravel - Chief Archivist

Obama '08 - best-qualified among all Dems AND bests all Republicans. (Zogby)

"On a serious note, Obama told Murphy that he differs from the entire Republican field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care."

Most socialists would disagree with the entire Republican field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care.

Posted by: Terry | December 30, 2007 4:22 PM

Yeah, and most Fascists would disagree with the entire Democratic field on everything from war policy to the economy to health care.

Doesn't mean the Republican are fascists.

Quit with the cheap Strawman tactics man. Leave that kind've crap to John D, Jerry White, and the other brainless sheeple in here.

You're usually better than that.

Other countries around the world look at our economy and healthcare and seethe with jealousy...As far as the war goes, we're destroying Al-qaeda in Iraq and winning the war on terror...soon [the dove] Obama will get the nod fron Osama.

Paulo

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2007 6:18 PM

OK... that entire post is like an excercise in head-in-sand-fairytale-ness.

Paulo, you belong to the "I know everything about people outside this country without knowing anything about people outside this country" crowd that your Republican heroes are from. Your the kind've guy who's never left our country, but somehow knows first hand that our country is comparatively superior (it is.. but not because of Healthcare).

Europeans DEFINATELY do not look at our economy and healthcare and seethe with jealousy. Neither do the Japanese or South Koreans. No matter how much you wish for that statement to be true (and you do), it's not true. It has a ring of truthiness, but is woefully short on truthfulness.

CrappyB,

Most facists would actually like the democratic party and a command and control central gov't overseeing war policy, economic, and health care policy. Facists are for limiting personal freedoms - just the libs.

CrappyB,

Most facists would actually like the democratic party and a command and control central gov't overseeing war policy, economic, and health care policy. Facists are for limiting personal freedoms - just the libs.

Posted by: Terry | December 31, 2007 3:22 PM

Terry... that's sad. you don't know the diffference between communism and fascism. Please reread your sentance above and substitute "communists" for "fascists". Depending on the conversation topic, you'd ignorantly use both within that sentance.

Terry... you need to read up on your history. I thought you were better than this... but it's appartent that your as ignorant as Johnny D, just a little better at disguising it at times.

Fascists are for marriage of corporate and government in an effort to consolidate power into the hands of a privelaged few... using emotional pleas of religious and patriotic bent to bend the people to their political will... military (not civilian) dominated government... playing up (instead of down) fear among the populace in order to restrict civil rights... media consolidation... pro-war...

Sound like someone? Some party?

Hmmmmmmm....