Obama endorsed by Milwaukee, Houston papers

Obama - would be the first Constitutional Law Professor (in the most conservative Law schools in the country-Chicago) and civil rights lawyer to become president.

Thats awesome.

Hillary seems to delight on attack ads. I'm happy to see that This only makes Obama tougher for McCain
Does she really expect us to believe that her health care plan is any better than Barack's.
I know that Barack has to be very carefully in attacking Hillary because she is a female. But, when Oh When, is someone going to remind her of her last two years in the White House and how their immoral and unethical behavior held the whole country hostage

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama herald a new stage in American politics.

Yet between the two, Senator Obama seems to be a face of the future while Senator Clinton echos the past.

We need fresh new ideas and leaders to face the problems of our country.

Senator Obama is the epitmoe of the new face of politics, diverse and multi-faceted.

Americans need a president who speaks of hope and promise and will work to change this nation.

The Pied Piper plays a tune and the children follow.

"...Yet between the two, Senator Obama seems to be a face of the future while Senator Clinton echos the past...."

To me, regretfully, Sen. Obama's rhetoric is a frightening face of the past. As a Soviet Russia escapee 30 year ago i still remember the demagogic speeches that we were forced to listen to and a pseudo-enthusiastic crowd. Now it seems a deja vu to me. Except that the crowd is genially enthusiastic as they buy into to the demagogic speeches. I just hope that I am wrong and you are all right, but careful what you buy into.

Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at all to be president. The only reason he's a senator is because he ran against a bigger no name loser then himself, in Alan Keyes.

He's missed 200 senate votes since last september. He shouldn't even be a senator, let alone a president. What a joke as his followers are too. They talk about change, yet they have know clue about what Barack Hussein Obama plans!

Senator Clinton is once again showing why she is so unpopular among the people with a very high negative rating. She keeps going on attacks, showing her usual arrogance by stating she is experienced and vetted. What experience? Experience of arrogance that she displayed during the ill-fated health care debacle in 1993-94 that set back the cause of health care reform 15 years? Experience that cost the Democrats both houses of congress in 1994? It is clear that she wants to be the President of the Gutter rather than the United States. Keep it up Hillary and lose big in the fall. There is a very good reason why people do not like her-it is her arrogance and run-over-the-opposition at any cost philosophy.

obama for the future.

"Penny" claims: "Obama would be the first Constitutional Law Professor ... to become president.

Thats awesome."

Except it's neither true nor "awesome". Obama isn't a professor there. At most he's an adjunct professor. To be precise, Obama is a "Senior Lecturer (on leave of absence)" at the University of Chicago Law School.

Obama is the New Messiah.

And John McCormick is His John the Baptist.

The driveby media which includes the Milwaukee and Houston newspapers have run amok with their endorsements for liberal socialists. The DEMS plan $2.4 trillion in new taxes and magic Obama, the invention of Dickie Durbin, wants to give money to pay off credit cards for low income Americans and give them a $1,000 a year back as a tax rebate.The money will be confiscated from poeple with modest to higher means just like Hugo Chavez will do.
Obama talks about hope and change when he's threw with America that's all we'll have left is change. I'm glad the Old Gray Lady the NY Times is laying off 100 socialist reporters they deserve from their out of here opinions to get the ax. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at all to be president. The only reason he's a senator is because he ran against a bigger no name loser then himself, in Alan Keyes.

He's missed 200 senate votes since last september. He shouldn't even be a senator, let alone a president. What a joke as his followers are too. They talk about change, yet they have know clue about what Barack Hussein Obama plans!

- Is this the posting area for 3 year olds?

Well, it seems that the Hillary supporters are beginning a rather not-so-subtle smear campaign against Obama. I have heard her supporters on radio call-in programs recently raising the Muslum rumor as though it's fact and using racially coded language to attempt to suppress his support among conservative whites. Does she deserve to win through open race baiting?

Let me say that as a lifelong loyal Democrat, if she gets the nomination, I would rather see Hillary lose to McCain in the general. I will not vote for her under any circumstances and will vote for the Republican. I will not support a candidate who would rather rip apart the Democratic Party in hopes of getting the nomination, than doing what is best for the nation.

Also, I find Hillary's "big state-only" campaign offensive to me as a voter in a rather small state. Someone running for the Presidency should attempt to compete everywhere, especially during the primary season. The way she insults states that vote for Obama through her openly dismissive comments is simply ridiculous and small. Even sports stars show respect for their opponents after a loss.

The time has come for Hillary to drop out. She seems to be running the risk of establishing as a legacy the fracturing of the Democratic party.

God, I'm sick of all of the soap-opera filth the Clintons drag around with then. Hillary, please just go, and take Chelsea and Bill with you.

Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at all to be president. The only reason he's a senator is because he ran against a bigger no name loser then himself, in Alan Keyes.

He's missed 200 senate votes since last september. He shouldn't even be a senator, let alone a president. What a joke as his followers are too. They talk about change, yet they have know clue about what Barack Hussein Obama plans!

Posted by: mike | February 16, 2008 1:41 PM

I'm glad someone can see through this do nothing talker who along with Mayor Daley and Tony Rezko screwed his own people out of forty three million dollars of affordable housing in his own district.

Dear Mike:

Re the attempted smear by saying "Barrack Hussein Obama": please go back and read the Constitution.

In old tyme England, the king terrorized his enemies by invoking "corruption of blood." Under "corruption of blood," if you, a noble, displeased the king, not only would you lose your right to own land, but your children and their grandchildren would also lose their land. This begat the concept of "corruption of blood."

The Founding Fathers turned their backs on this idea of "corruption of blood." The Founding Fathers believed that in America, the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the sons. Senator Obama's father is irrelevant in America. I beg you to please judge Senator Obama, who is a committed Christian, on his own greatness.

Peace.

To the Pied Piper poster -- Senator Clinton's problem is that she can be taught the lyrics but is tone deaf -- her whole campaign is missing the beat -- So now they get nasty -- the Clintons nearly destroyed the Democratic Party -- I voted twice for him -- The behavior we expereinced then from these connected spinners is the same as we are getting now -- I feel weary thinking of what 8 years of the Clintons might bring to an already demoralized country.

RNC Gadfly Bruce & the rest of the nattering nabobs of negativism...

...stay tuned America!

Mr. Hughes: According to Wikipedia, Obama lectured on constitutional law for the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004. If his competence or skills as a teacher were ever in question, it would be reasonable to doubt that U of C would have retained him for 11 years.

To Concerned: Equating Obama to a demagogue is like comparing you to a person who has mastered the nuances of the Enlish language. Give it another 30 years.

Hillary baby, it is over. You did the best you can and now it is time to move on.

The Milwaukee J-S was pretty pointed:
"The Obama campaign has been derisively and incorrectly described as more rock tour than political campaign and his supporters as more starry-eyed groupies than thoughtful voters. If detractors in either party want to continue characterizing the Obama campaign this way, they will have seriously underestimated both the electorate's hunger for meaningful change in how the nation is governed and the candidate himself. In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive."

'Wisconsin for Obama'

'We love you Barack'!!!

The Houston Chronicle said about the same thing, in different words:
"Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party...However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.

"WE are the ones we've been waiting for." -- Barack Obama 2.5.08

" Is this the posting area for 3 year olds?"

No, now run along and play with the other children.

Pied Piper?!

Yes, let's just keep following the Right into more war, more debt, more fear, more hate.

If people are joining Obama's march, it is one of self-preservation and the reclaiming of America's soul.

Better to look to Obama than follow the suicidal tendencies prefered by the bunker monkeys and their king, Dick Cheney.

Barack just keep on message keep on track and all will come out in the wash.
Obama 08 & 12

To me, regretfully, Sen. Obama's rhetoric is a frightening face of the past. As a Soviet Russia escapee 30 year ago i still remember the demagogic speeches that we were forced to listen to and a pseudo-enthusiastic crowd. Now it seems a deja vu to me. Except that the crowd is genially enthusiastic as they buy into to the demagogic speeches. I just hope that I am wrong and you are all right, but careful what you buy into.

Posted by: Concerned | February 16, 2008 1:20 PM

Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at all to be president. The only reason he's a senator is because he ran against a bigger no name loser then himself, in Alan Keyes.

He's missed 200 senate votes since last september. He shouldn't even be a senator, let alone a president. What a joke as his followers are too. They talk about change, yet they have know clue about what Barack Hussein Obama plans!

Posted by: mike | February 16, 2008 1:41 PM
---------------------------

cj aka "joe",

Your Republican nominee, Yosemite McCain, missed 65% of the votes in the Senate this past year second only to Tim Johnson who was recovering from brain surgery.

Your racism and hatred is only going to make President Obama's victory this fall all the more sweet....

Attention Swamp Posters!!

3/4 of the anti-Obama posts are coming from one anti-Obama racist sicko who hates himself, pay close attention, you can tell which one's they are.
How pathetic and desperate of him...BwaHAHAHAHAHA!!!

OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT
Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

I am delighted that the right-wing conservatives are so disgruntled with their two likely choices for President this year: Barack O'Bama or John McCain. Both men are champions for the middle class and the poor. Thank GOD we will no longer suffer under the Bush Administration's voodoo economics and its ridiculous claim that when you hand billions of dollars to the already-rich, they won't hoarde their money, but instead will "reinvest" it in American jobs. You can shovel that on your garden, friends. The reality is that the richest 1 percent of Americans now own 38 percent of the wealth. They are enjoying their Mercedes and their second and third vacation homes, while elderly people in Chicago cannot buy their medications and are dying from heatstroke in the summer because they lack a basic air conditioner.

And here's the kicker: the rich are not only hoarding multimillion-dollar salaries and stock options, they're paying their workers -- the people who MADE them rich -- $7 an hour, plus outsourcing as many jobs as possible to Third World countries. Anything to put more money in their pockets. They really don't care if the rest of us serfs are losing our homes.

Thank God most Americans have gotten smart and are nominating candidates who are friendly to the middle class. It is about time we had a President who will stand up for the majority of us.

I will be voting for Barack O'Bama, but I will not be displeased if John McCain wins. I trust him far more than George Bush and his jewel-encrusted cronies.

Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at all to be president. The only reason he's a senator is because he ran against a bigger no name loser then himself, in Alan Keyes.
He's missed 200 senate votes since last september. He shouldn't even be a senator, let alone a president. What a joke as his followers are too. They talk about change, yet they have know clue about what Barack Hussein Obama plans!
- Is this the posting area for 3 year olds?

Posted by: Wong of Strength | February 16, 2008 2:27 PM

Let me make this easy for you, Wingnut "wong":

No amount of racism and hatred from goofballs like you is going to stop this train and certainly not your candidate, the nearly 100 year old Insane McCain the crazy old man.

Say it with me slowly, Republic Party minion puppet:

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

President Obama

There, you see, even clowns like you will get the hang of it sooner or later!!!

If the Obama detracters made sound arguments instead of pure hate-speak maybe sombody would take their concerns seriously.

Before casting your vote may I politely ask you to read Obama's speech "The war we need to win" on August 01, 2007, given to the Wilson Center in Washington D.C. It demonstrates good judgement and vision.
Others may be good at details but you have to have someone who can command the heights.
Brigitte

thesilenceoftrees.com

Dear Editor,
There is always a lot of bashing between the candidates.& realizing that if Hillary were a man she would be commended on her strategy for her campaign. I too was mesmerized at first with The new candidate & his speeches. Then I did some research. So after all of that. And listening to the Ads. I will leave you with a few links to go to and let you form your own opinion. And then I want you to let the people of your town and your state where the primary is going to be held what you know. One of the web sights has over 250,000 people who have made statements. I have personal quotes. & a weblink where you can here what his minister from his church has to say on Sundays. Knowing that we do not have much time, I think the American people have the right to know before the other party embarrasses him.. Which they will and are starting to.

Thank you for your time.

S.M.

PR,Ca.

A middle working class with 2 jobs working to pay that bad subprime mortgage.

I think the American people need to read the fine print before they vote...

www.freedomsenemies.com

(scroll down to where it says Barrack Obama) and then Click on that) over 250,000people have spoken

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-message-of-hate-from-obamas-pastor-via-youtube

Make sure you listen to all of this and read this ..

HERE ARE SOME DIRECT QUOTES FROM BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASISVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE". (Barack Hussein Obama)

From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race (WHITE) would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." (Barack Hussein Obama)

From Dreams Of My Father: "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, BLAMING "WHITE PEOPLE — some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives." (Barack Hussein Obama )

My shirts are wrinkled. Hillary IRON MY SHIRTS! DO IT NOW!

I want to talk to you about two very simple stories today. I think they illustrate something key about the primary choice facing the Democratic party.

In August of 2006, thousands of people gathered in the village of Kisumu in Western Kenya to welcome Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama to the nation where Senator Obama's father was born and died and where his grandmother still lives.

In addition to visiting relatives and spreading goodwill, the Obamas had come to Africa with something in mind. They had a mobile HIV testing lab brought with them to Kisumu and, there, before the assembled thousands, Barack and Michelle were tested for HIV.

700 people die of AIDS-related illnesses in Kenya every day. 1.2 million of Kenya's 32 million people are infected with HIV. In Kisumu that ratio is one in five.

That is real.

And on that August day in 2006 Michelle and Barack decided to show those gathered in Kisumu that being tested is the right thing to do. As Senator Obama said that day:

"If you know your status, you can prevent illness," Obama, the only African-American in the Senate, told the crowd. "You can avoid passing it to your children and your wives."

Obama and his wife did not make public the results of their instant tests, but the senator said "we probably wouldn't be smiling" if the results were positive. Obama said the country's government has done a better job than many others in Africa of acknowledging the problem and discussing solutions. But people's reluctance to be tested has slowed progress.
That is leadership. That simple gesture will save lives.

That tells us something about what we can expect from Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle if we elect him President of the United States.

::

I want to tell you one more story.

On May 1st, 2006 millions of Latino immigrants and their allies marched all over this nation in support of comprehensive immigration reform. 400,000 marched in Chicago alone. Only two sitting United States Senators stood with them that day. One was Senator Ted Kennedy. The other was Senator Barack Obama. He said later that week in a statement:

I think we need to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants, than we are going to have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion.

The House of Representatives passed a bill that was extraordinarily punitive. It talked about border security and it made any undocumented worker in this country a felon; it also made people who potentially helped undocumented workers, for example, providing housing assistance or providing a domestic violence shelter potentially subject to a felony conviction.

It's that draconian measure that passed in the House that prompted these marches, but what started as a march of fear on the part of many undocumented workers, I think, has become a march for hope. People are hoping that they have an opportunity to legalize themselves in some fashion.

In the United States Senate there has been a bipartisan group, including myself, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, Lindsey Graham and a number of others who've been trying to negotiate a comprehensive package that would include stronger border security, making sure that employers actually verify employment status through a tamper-proof employee-verification card, and creation of a pathway to citizenship - earned citizenship - for the 11 to 12 million people that are already here. The idea would be that those people, over the course of eleven years could earn their way to citizenship by paying a fine, paying their back taxes (if they owe any), staying out of trouble, learning English and so on.
Senator Barack Obama has pledged to take up this reform in his first year as President. Senator Clinton has not. In fact, Senator Clinton, representing New York, did not participate in the events of May 1st, 2006.

::

I've tried to stay positive in the most egregious battles of the candidate wars because I have known that the more people learn about Barack Obama, as a man and a politician, about his policies, the more they respect his integrity (even where they disagree with him). And the more people know about Barack Obama the more they are willing not simply to vote for him, but, as I saw once again today, the more they are willing to go out and convince their neighbors to vote for him.

That is a powerful argument for Barack Obama in and of itself.

Today I met two couples with families (among dozens at an event) out canvassing their neighborhood with their children for Barack. (One of them is a kossack, copithorne, who wrote a diary about canvassing today.) Couples with children are busy people. Pushing strollers and leading four year olds is not the easiest thing to do when trying to Get Out the Vote.

But, given that, a couple with children knocking on your door to convince you to vote for Barack Obama is very persuasive.

Barack and Michelle Obama have a young family, too. Michelle and Barack speak eloquently about that. In fact, if we Democrats had won a small percentage more of the votes of families with children in 2004, John Kerry would be President today.

What I'd like to convey to you today is a very simple message.

Don't knock hope.

It's powerful. It's persuasive. It's pragmatic. It moves people to take action.

::

To be frank, I have been shocked by the deep cynicism of the campaign run by Senator Clinton. I don't want to belabor this point, but let me say this, I'm a student of political rhetoric. I am deeply invested in how we persuade people to take action...how we change hearts and minds.

I recognize in the rhetoric of Senator Clinton a skill, a succinct incisiveness that reflects a brilliant mind and years serving as a corporate lawyer reading and preparing briefs.

However, let me offer an example of what I consider to be cynicism on Senator Clinton's part. At the last debate a 38-year old online questioner submitted a question to Senator Clinton noting that for her entire voting life there had always been either a Clinton or a Bush on her Presidential ballot and serving in the White House.

That's true for me, too. I'm 39.

In 1988 we elected George H.W. Bush.
In 1992 we elected Bill Clinton
In 1996 we elected Bill Clinton
In 2000 we elected George W. Bush
In 2004 we elected George W. Bush
How is it a good thing for our nation that the same two immediate families should hold sway over our political lives and the office of the president for so many years? How does Senator Clinton answer that question in the minds of voters?

Clinton's answer was brilliant, pithy and the "take away line" of the debate:

Clinton absolutely nailed it with her quip that "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it may take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

-Chicago Sun Times
The only problem with that answer is that, like so many Clinton answers including those on the war in Iraq it's not really an answer at all. In fact, it exudes a cynicism that has emanated from the Clinton campaign from day one. It's a messy world, lower your expectations, don't expect your questions to get answered, don't look behind the curtain, don't buy anything from a guy 'selling hope', leave politics to the monied professionals, we know what we are doing.

If that's the rationale for your candidacy, if you think that's a sufficient answer to the complexities of the reservations we voters have about sending Bill and Hillary Clinton back to the White House, and what that would mean for those of us who want a fundamental change in our nation then you are not simply deeply cynical about the expectations Americans have of our leaders and our government but also unaware of the depths of our aspirations for a new day.

::

Listen to what Michelle Obama said today in Los Angeles. She talked about hope, yes, but she also talked about how we citizens must ourselves come together and do the hard work that comes with hope, work on policy and persuasion, work in our communities. She talked about how we choose to come together not because of some rhetorical trick but because Barack Obama is willing to take a stand that makes him worth standing up for.

Now, that stand could be a simple gesture like getting an HIV test in a nation riven with AIDS.

Or that stand could involve the political courage to stand with immigrants calling out for justice and forge a complex legislative solution across the aisle...and to pledge to do so sooner rather than later.

On these, and so many other issues that confront us as a nation and a world, Barack Obama invites us to stand for change.

It's about time.

::

Today I worked at the Obama offices downtown Oakland. I met so many great people.

You are needed.

If you are anywhere near a Tsunami Tuesday state, you are needed. Trust me. Whether it's putting stickers on door hangers, making calls, canvassing, doing visibility or taking up magic markers and, like a 5th grader, making home made signs, this campaign needs you until the last poll closes on Tuesday night. You will move votes and impact this election, guaranteed, and that's good for all of us, as Democrats.

What IF Senator McCain is the Manchurian Candidate? Maybe he is programmed to destroy America. What happened in those Vietnamese prison camps? What did the KGB do to him? His father was an Admiral in the Navy, and they knew it! I think he's a ticking time bomb. If you spent 5 and 1/2 years being tortured, would you be right in the head?

When I looked at Obama's Technology positions and Health Care proposals, key innovative figures took center stage. In the case of technology, Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, and on Health Care, Harvard Economist David Cutler who stands at the center of a team of innovative and outside-the-box thinkers on domestic policy. When it comes to foreign policy that theme is expanded. As James Traub wrote, in his must-read, but mixed, review of Obama's foreign policy bona fides in his November 2007 piece in the New York Times magazine:

The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a "post-post-9/11 strategy," in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like "a Swiss Army knife," offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to "how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions"; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be "grounded in hope, not fear." A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing "perception of unfairness" around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but "a world of liberty under law"; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living," as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. "The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama." Hillary Clinton’s inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband’s second term in office — the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington’s foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you’re bound to hit Obama supporters. Most of them served in the Clinton administration, too, and thus might be expected to support Hillary Clinton. But many of these younger and generally more liberal figures have decamped to Obama. And they are ardent. As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, "There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world." Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary.[Emphasis mine.]
-NYT

There's an ongoing theme here across the policy spectrum. Younger, more innovative, more cutting-edge policy analysts have flocked to the campaign of Senator Obama. That does not mean that his foreign policy team lacks gravitas. Heavyweights like Anthony Lake, Richard Clarke, Lawrence Korb, Gen. Tony McPeak and...Zbigniew Brzezinski can be counted among Senator Obama's advisors. But the operative name that writers have begun to pay attention to, is Senator Obama's work with foreign policy and human rights expert Samantha Power. (More articles: Berkeley Interview and this Commencement Address at Santa Clara University Law School) Samantha Power is, for those of us who've come of age in the era of Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush, one of us. She speaks with a moral clarity on human rights and foreign policy. Here's a sample from the commencement speech linked above:

In politics this refusal to face inconvenient truths carries life-and-death stakes. And yet only after 3,000 American lives were lost on 9/11 did it become evident that FBI agents had warned of the danger that terrorists would hijack American planes and fly them into tall buildings. Only after more than 800 Americans died in New Orleans and tens of thousands of lives were ruined did we go back and read the stellar reporting in the Times-Picayune and see that people had been yelling and screaming about the vulnerability of the levees for years. And only after gas prices hit $3 did George Bush begin talking about freeing the United States of its oil dependence and speeding up the production of hybrid cars. We have known about our energy crisis since the OPEC crunch of the 1970s. Why are we only now, suddenly, talking about rushing to mass-produce hybrid cars?

Samuel Johnson was most certainly right when he said, "Nothing focuses the mind quite like a hanging." But we can't afford to wait until we stand at the gallows to change the way we govern our country and live our lives. As individuals, as citizens, we have the power to focus our government's mind, to get resources allocated, to save lives. We have the power to concentrate the powers of the American imagination. This power comes through politics. It is the rare politician who thinks more about the collective good than he does his or her individual fortune. I believe that Senator Obama is one who does. But politics is too important to be left to the politicians. It is up to the rest of us to demand that our representatives are attentive to the human consequences of their decision-making. And that means making ourselves heard. It means, according to Lesson Number Three, not turning our noses up at politics. It means using politics to trigger the imagination and to face inconvenient truths before a crisis strikes.

That could be the summary of the mindset that those of us under fifty understand cold. It's our preference. We must focus on a new pro-active approach to the "human consequences of decision-making"...we must use "politics to trigger the imagination and face inconvenient truths before a crisis strikes." Power, pulitzer-prize winning author of A Problem from Hell: American and the Age of Genocide is not one to leave the discussion in vague generalities most suited to a commencement address. She knows what she's talking about first hand:

Let's take a look at two key topics that offer a politics of distinction for the Obama campaign: Cuba and foreign aid.

::

Cuba:

Barack Obama has taken a bold, fearless, innovative stance on Cuban policy. The United States should break down walls with Cuba and as a first step, we should ease travel to Cuba for Americans with relatives there and ease the transfer of funds between Americans and their Cuban relatives. (Herald Tribune.) This may seem like a minor policy difference, but it exemplifies Obama's ability to take a bold, new stance that actually makes whole lot of sense:

Now most Cubans in the U.S. can only visit the island once every three years and can only send quarterly remittances of up to $300 (€223) per household to immediate family members. Previously, they could visit once a year and send up to $3,000 (€2,226). The U.S. also tightened restrictions on travel for educational and religious groups. The Cuban-exile vote is considered key to winning Florida, and top presidential candidates have generally followed the recommendations of the community's most hard-line and vocal leaders, who support a full embargo against Fidel Castro's government. Castro, 80, is in poor health and turned over temporary power last year to his brother Raul.

But sentiment in the Cuban-American community is changing. Unlike the early waves of immigrants who brought their entire family, often by plane, to the U.S., most Cubans now flee by boat and are forced to leave relatives behind. Fewer of these immigrants were overt political opponents of the government, and they want to be able to visit loved ones and to send money home. Many Cuban exiles are also frustrated with the U.S. embargo, which has failed to yield fruit after nearly 45 years. And with the specter of an ailing Castro and a possible change in leadership, they are more open to changing U.S. policy.

Last week, the Miami-Dade Democratic Party came out against the restrictions. Obama will speak at a fundraiser for the chapter Saturday at the Miami-Dade Auditorium, the same Little Havana site where Ronald Reagan won over many in the Cuban-exile community more than two decades ago. Joe Garcia, the group's chairman, praised Obama's proposal.

-International Herald Tribune

Senator Clinton cannot take this bold stance. The very same "tried and true" approaches that her supporters claim she will bring to government and foreign policy happen to represent "tried and true" failures of conventional wisdom. Sure, there is a political risk in refusing to take a "hard line" Cuba stance that politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken for decades mainly out of consideration of their political fate in Florida. But, as Obama well knows, that stance hasn't worked. Obama is willing to say that. A new generation of Cuban-Americans are ready for something new. Barack Obama can give a fresh start to U.S. Cuba policy. Clinton can't and won't.

:

Foreign Aid

There was a telling moment in the last Democratic debate. Senator Clinton absolutely refused to support Senator Obama's commitment to raise U.S. foreign aid by $25 Billion per year by 2012 and pointedly questioned how he would pay for it. (Obama's proposal to double our foreign aid to $50 Billion per year dwarfs, as it should, all private efforts. Bill Clinton's foundation, to just name one contrast, has raised a grand total of $500 million, much of it tied to the Clinton's own politics.)

Putting aside the fact that Obama would pay for this increase in foreign aid out of the windfall gained by winding down the war in Iraq, the contrast couldn't be clearer. Obama is committed to proactive foreign policy solutions. He fights conservatism on the right fronts to fight. He spells this out:

"I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid," Mr. Obama said then. But he added, "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly, both in lives and treasure, down the road."

-NYT

This position has found wide-spread support both on the blogs and in policy circles. Why? Because, for those of us in Democratic politics tired of the "same old" answers based on the fear of conservative backlash, an increase in foreign aid is a sane investment that sends the right message about America. We are committed to an America that uses our resources and strength on the front end of problems. We are active in seeking to build the American reputation in the world day in and day out and not simply as a response to a crisis. We seek partners, not enemies.

This simple commitment, more than anything, represents a true Democratic "post 9/11" foreign policy: engagement, the projection of power through the building of allies. Not only will Seantor Clinton not commit to doing this, but she attacks Barack Obama on his foreign aid proposals through a GOP lens; she raises the specter of "profligate spending."

The money Senator Obama is talking about spending will go to make every American more safe. Those of us not blinded by the "old ways" of partisan politics know this to our bones. Compared to Iraq, $25 Billion additional per year on foreign aid is cheap. It's proactive. It's the right thing to do and sends the right message about America.

I can think of no greater contrast that spells a clearer difference between Clinton and Obama than this one.

::

Soft Power

Per the James Traub piece I linked above, "Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor who popularized the term "soft power" to describe the capacity to gain support through attraction rather than force" states:

A President Obama would do more for America’s soft power around the world than anything else we could do.

Nye, it should be noted (another member of the "fear of Iran" camp), does not support Barack Obama; but, in my mind, that's an even more powerful statement given that reality. Clinton, with Madame Albright and Sandy Berger and General Clark and Richard Holbrooke at her side will not send a new message to the world. Not even close. Isn't that something to think about?

What Nye is saying is that electing Barack Obama President and sending him around the world on Air Force One would fundamentally reconfigure the possibilities of American Foreign Policy. (For an example, look at what Barack Obama accomplished with this one gesture regarding HIV Testing in Kenya.) The question isn't even what Clinton could do if she chose. The stark question facing American voters is to realize all that Clinton simply won't do.

There's a reason that innovative, liberal foreign policy experts are flocking to Obama and would form, if Obama is elected, a new wave of policy experts in the manner of the administrations of Roosevelt or Kennedy: that is because Barack Obama represents the coincidence of the fresh possibilities (embodied in his identity and history and perspective) with fresh approaches (embodied in his willingness to push for innovation and pathbreaking ideas.)

Clinton simply can't and won't embrace bold approaches to anything. Clinton is a foreign policy hawk who cannot and will not embody a fresh approach to the use of American military or diplomatic power. There is nothing that embodies this more than her vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment.

::

the crux of the matter

At the crux then, are some core questions that imply a great deal about a broader and essential contrast in foreign policy philosophies of the two leading Democratic contenders.

Do you think America has more to fear from sticking with the same tired Cuba policy...or from embracing a new approach?

Do you think America has more to fear from Iran...or from the risks of investing too little in reaching out the rest of the world with foreign aid and the promise of a new relationship with the United States as a global partner?

When supporters talk of the "sure hand" of Clinton foreign policy they mean the exact same team that gave us American foreign policy in the 90s. (Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia) Think about that and then consider those no-bullshit, very focused words that Samantha Power had about Darfur and human rights in general.

Is 2008 a year of fear? Is now a time to go backwards in search of a sense of security from the 1990s that we discovered never existed?

Why is Hillary Clinton attacking Obama's proposal to spend more on foreign aid? Doesn't that get to the very core of a policy difference? And why are young, innovative thinkers going with Obama? The two things are, in my view, essentially linked.

Finally, why haven't all those folks talking and debating and rehashing the same old ideas during the Democratic primaries all over the blogosphere shown us more of the voice of this eminently sensible and persuasive woman?

A lot of people are saying, "Obama, I think he'd be a great president, but why does he have to be president now? He's a fine young man, he'll make a great president someday." And my point is we don't have...we cannot afford to lose, the Democrats cannot afford to lose in November 2008 and we cannot afford to wait eight years to deal with restoring America's reputation in the world, to deal with getting out of Iraq, to deal with 46 million uninsured, to deal with melting ice caps.

We need somebody to pull the country together to face these challenges. These challenges are monumental.

-Samantha Power, Charlie Rose Interview

Strength of word up:

Wong agrees with you, he was quoting someone else named 'Mike' and his contribution was to wonder if that poster was 3 years old.

Wong:

Basic HTML tags would have helped you there. As for your question about the age of the poster, I have nieces younger than 3 who seem to have more sense than 'Mike' so I am deeply insulted by your rampant ageism.

'Mike':

Isn't it time for your bottle, little boy?

I am EXTREMELY tired of constantly reading on these blogs and others the regurgitation of the totally invalid Clinton argument that Obama has accomplished nothing in his political career, let alone the U.S. Senate. If you have the time to blog here, you can take a few moments and go to the (for this purpose) neutral U.S. Senate site. Look at the achievements in the bios of both Clinton and Obama, and you'll see that Obama has introduced more substantial legislation in his one term than Clinton has in her two terms.

It's fine to support your candidate, but stop mindlessly parroting back the campaign's propaganda -- which for the most part is falling on deaf ears anyway. After seven years of experiencing that with the current occupant of the White House, most people are not going to blithely assume that what they hear is 100% factual.

Negative campaign against Barack Obama is necessary because the press is patronizing and coddling him and Obama refuses to debate. Some people are angry at Hillary for belittling some states, but Obama has belittled Wisconsin by refusing to debate his challenger in Wisconsin. Is Wisconsin not important enough for him? Or does he want to take advantage of the boy's club's (including wisconsin governor) uncritical coddling of his candidacy?

Obama has double standards:
1. He engages in negative campaign; but if his opponents do it he does not like it. So, he can dish it out but he can't take it?
2. He speaks for the environment, yet one of his lobbyist is exelon a nuclear plant operator;
3. When he was not expecting to be the nominee for the general election, he was committed to public financing with the republican nominee; but now as his chances of being the nominee grows stronger, he is backpeddling on that commitment (read: washingtonpost)
4. He claims not to take money from lobbyist but his funding is coming from lobbyist and PAC. The problem is he does not say it.

5. He claims to support gay rights but includes homophobics in his gatherings.

6. He claims to provide universal health care coverage; yet his plan covers only 95% (Yes, hillary's plan is better.....read and then judge).

Media and uncritical supporters gave us George W Bush. We should not let uncritical supporters and the media "dupe" us again.

To respond to the most senseless post, only an incumbent president has presidential experience .. and the incumbent president is afforded two terms max, so this rave will not have one (thank the heavens for that). Obama proved what he can do in IL, whose health care system is absolutely amazing.

Anyone talking about his inexperience is simply repeating propaganda and baseless rhetoric spouted by the whacky extreme right and mud-slinging Clinton(s).

Think for yourselves and do your homework (even use Google) and you may find that the popular man is not popular as a man, but as a movement, and one that is rock solid.

To any Clinton supporters, do your research and follow what you believe is best. Just please be sure to give this movement a chance if your preference isn't elected. You won't be disappointed.

To the extreme right, I can't console you, for you have destroyed so many aspects of U.S. policy and standing that this movement is actually a revolt against the anti-constitutional tyranny you've forged for the last 8 years. There will always be extremists, but they should never be empowered.

Now any of you can think it's a popularity swing, but his are the visions and POLICIES of generations that are sick and tired of being ashamed of our own country. We are fed up with watching our Constitutional rights being picked off one by one by a myopic and ignorant madman who seems to think his presidency makes him a king. There has not been so much scheming and secrecy in a government since the Noxon administration, and we all know what happened to "Tricky Dick".

Obama all the way!

I am absolutely amazed at the bloggers who blindly refer to Hillary's "experience" and Obama's lack thereof. In truth, HIllary-supporters know very little about her rather skimpy experience and know even less about Obama's. It seems this nominating process is being controlled by "buzz words" rather than real knowledge.

If Hillarys experience as first lady counts,then she should be prepared to accept responsibility for the failed policies of Bill's Administration. By the way, where was she when Lewinsky got busy?

Let's hope that the nomination is decided by the voice of the people--and not by a handful of superdelegates.

We all agree that this election should be about unity, progress, and change--something the nation has lacked for this past 7 years. We should carry this message of unity into the general election.

Obama is a man of substance and conviction. Merely the fact that we would nominate and elect such a man after the past 8 years cannot fail to have positive effects on a world made cynical and disillusioned by the choices and acts of the Administration during that period.

The enthusiasm we see at rallies is more than ephemeral excitement. For many, Obama represents the desire for a transformation towards a politics grounded in truth, genuine compassion, and substantive efforts to benefit the many, rather than the few.

If you haven't been to a rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the entire Obama rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=273868596&s=143441&v0=575

H. Clinton worked for Wal-Mart
as an Arkansas lawyer for 10 years. Wal-Mart bashed Unions and drove Mom&Pop stores out of business all over the USA.
Union bashing & ruining small business is Hillary's "experience". She grew up a Republican & doesn't give a fig for the struggling people of America.

dear: Editor

I have have two questions for the presidential candidates?

1. Have you ever cheated on your spouse, if so why? if not why?

2. why a or an American president should never cry?
Mrs. Clinton has done this twice.
Even if I do not like Bush Jr. and like Bush Sr.,j Carter, JFK, R. Kennedy, Bill Clinton first 4yrs, FDR, Truman, and various other presidents. through all the tragedies America has been through and overcame. the people we see strength from is the president whether you like them or not. BUT ONE THEY CAN NOT DO IS CRY FOR SYMPATHY OR CRY IN THE FACE OF TRAGEDIES. NEVER NEVER NEVER FROM THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

I'm so glad to see two recent changes in the Presidential spin finally bring out truth:

1. A conservative poster finally admitting that his party's last Illinois standard-bearer Alan Keyes is a "no name loser." Well said.

2. Hillary finally admitting what her message has been all along - "I WANTED" to be a voice of the people all my life." So I deserve the job. Reminds me of Richard Nixon.

I look forward to the day when we elect a president that would convene with leaders of the Muslim world, with the credibility of having lived in a Muslim country for four years. A president that would inspire interest in young voters, instead of pushing them into swamps of apathy. We should never underestimate the power of grassroots movements in standing up to special interests, and that is what the Obama campaign is: a real movement for change. America is at a crossroads, and if we play our cards right - we can elect someone that will bring about the transformations we have all been yearning for. Anything else guarantees the same dysfunctional status quo.

Hilary is an actress-----I taught drama for 21 years-----she scares the hell out of me. She can't be trusted. Yes, I am a woman, but I am 71 years old-------I LOVE Obama, he is what we need, just like JFK was. God help us, if Hilary is the one to go against Mc Cain. We will lose, and have another four years of Bush. Oh, my goodness-------that would really be enough to gag a Maggot. Jo Yanda

Advice to All of My Democratic Friends!

Vote your interests and nobody else's. Don't be confused or influenced by those (candidates included) who try to their impose their will(s) upon you!

Vote your interests and nobody else's. This way the nominee will be the candidate who represents the greatest number of shared interests.

A democracy should, should it not, represent the greatest good for the greatest number of its people?

My personal bet is this: History will show Obama to have been the greatest leader of this country since FDR. That is, if he's elected.

Think about this for a moment. I am the Chief Operations Officer for a Multi-National Corporation that has interest in most parts of the world. I am getting old and need a successor. This is no easy decision to make, as there are hundreds of millions of people on payroll and our income is in the trillions. How do I decide who should succeed me? I have a contest. I select the best four candidates and give them their own department and 100 million each, and come back in a year to see what they have done with their investment. I can see now, just by going by the simple, published, undisputed facts, who exactly is the one I would want running the Corporation. Can you?

I beg to take exception to the comment "vote your own interests and nobody else's". I think that is the type of attitude that has gotten our country into the mess it is in today.

I would like to think we could for just a moment think about the greater good, think about acting on the principle of being our brother's keeper. If I think about my own interests and no one else's, I would be all in favor of those Bush tax cuts. But knowing a little something about budgets, finance, and economics, I know how irresponsible and utterly insane those tax cuts are to the long-term economic viability of our country.

Having no kids, why should I care if the US is bankrupt in 50 years? And, why should I care if the planet is uninhabitable in 100 years? Not my problem, I won't be around. Sorry, not nearly that selfish. Love my country, love my fellow man a bit too much for that.

We are all Americans, we are all human beings living together on this single planet and we only have one planet to work with. I would like to see respect for others and and their viewpoints brought back into the political arena.

This should not be about me or us vs. them, it should be about all of us... coming together to find solutions to our country's and our world's problems. There are so many.

We are at a turning point in this country, possible a point of no return. Our country can't take much more of this partisanship. What path shall we choose to walk? Shall we continue down the road of tje 50% plus 1 mentality or shall we actually allow a bit of hope, a bit of optimism, a bit of willingness to work with others creep into our collective conscious?

I'm ready. I love my country too much to continue allowing partisan hacks to continue ripping out our souls and turning brother against brother. No, I choose to cast my vote for the greater good, I choose to cast my vote hope.

Can Obama catch Osama? How can Mr. Obama be a good candidate for the presidency with zero foreign policy experience? Remember we elected one before without a clue? I feel this whole Obama thing is mostly without substance and lot of it ─media hype. Every political event that Mr. Obama attends is such a media savvy, scripted and orchestrated affair. His arrival, getting on the stage, the background faces, all of it done on cue with the help of consultants and managers like in a movie production, with perfect pitch and timing for the newscast footage, for the maximum effect—reminiscent of Hitler’s big frenzied rallies in Berlin─ using all the elements of the stagecraft. Although he’s extremely short on substance, in these days of slick marketing, Mr. Obama has so far proven that he’s great at running campaigns. Remember we’ve tried that one before? What we need right now is substance, substance and more substance to deal with worsening problems in the country, rather than all the foolish talk, and Obama style phantasmagoria. US is now 40th in the world in infant mortality, in longevity 41st! We are quickly on our way to becoming a third world country! Someone said that US has become “the richest third world country in the world!” What we need now is a person like Hillary Clinton who has a sober manner and a practical head on her shoulders. Mr. Obama is so dependent on media to prop him up, and Mr. Obama’s image seemed so well manufactured for the consumption and the manipulation of the public, his politics looking more and more like a Hollywood production than a real life political event. While Mr. Obama’s message is about change, what Mr. Obama really does seemed to be steeped in corporate media that cheered us along in a very big way to the quagmire in Iraq. Mr. Obama also claims to be MLK and even JFK, without having done tiniest fraction of the vast accomplishments of MLK or JFK. Do you really want to go back to those tragic times of American history? Mr. Obama even lacks a sustentative legislative record. But for American media, deeds have little value if you have the right image. I watch Mr. Obama’s rise in alarm for the sake of America’s future. His hubris is unsurpassed in American politics. I find him and his message without a clear political logic or details, more suited for TV audience, no discussion of issues, programs or policies, rather his speeches are full of name dropping and all sorts of claims, rich in platitudes and slogans. How come Mr. Obama’s embracing the Kennedy Camelot of the 60’s is considered going forward by the media, and if Hillary Clinton looks back to the 90’s for guidance─ now that’s considered going backwards?

Is Hillary becoming less AND less confident of her gender? Why is she at this stage always dressing in a man's clothes?

I am including this note to express my opinion that John Mc Cain would be an excellent presidential choice. My first meeting with john was on the CVA-59 USS Forrestal which at that time was experiencing a fire. He had been injured and looked pretty beat up to me. We had to transfer some of our A6 aircraft and pilots including John to the Enterprize. That same day he was launched to provide grund support for our troops in Vietnam. Unfortunately his plane crashed and he was taken prisioner. He was then and continues to be a patriot dedicated to the best interests of our country.