Barack Obama for President

[The Dog]

is he anti-gay marriage?

hes against the term "gay marriage", but is pro civil union/benefits if I'm not mistaken.

the "term"

so the answer to my question is YES.

I guess it is.  Did he just lose your vote?

[The Dog]

McCain has done a good job distancing himself from Bush but still being labled a Republican.

 

Yes, in 2000.  Hes been a staunch Bush ally for the past three years, except for one or two issues, and his media-peddled maverick status has suffered a bit. 

Hes also been very vocal about sending MORE troops to Iraq and has pandered to the religious right.  I used to be a big McCain fan until that - talk about a sell out.  Still, as one person has said, I view 2008 as a win/win.  The next pres will likely be fairly moderate.

[Surfrider]

So what do the democrats in here think about Obama's view on gay marriage?  I have been called a biggot in this forum for expressing the same view.

[Guns N RockMusic]

He was my second choice after Alan Keyes in the 2000 election.

I recall you saying something about aligning with extremists...

I was 18 at the time and the flat tax was (and still is) very appealing.? I just remembered him being very well spoken at the first debates.? I wouldn't vote for him now, but at the time I thought he was great.? When he went the way of the dodo I supported McCain.? And for the first 5 years Bush as well, but you can only give someone so many chances and so much leadway.? Kind of how I feel right now with Axl Rose and Chinese Democracy.

[The Dog]

So what do the democrats in here think about Obama's view on gay marriage?? I have been called a biggot in this forum for expressing the same view.

personally i feel there should be gay marriage, but is it a hot issue for me? far, far from it.  in the big picture of things, for me, this is about as important an issue as flag burning and abortion - its just not really that important at the moment given everything else going on in our country and abroad.  Issues like the economy, Iraq, terrorism, healthcare and the environment to name a few are what I'll look at when I decide who I'm voting for in 08. 

I THINK Rudy G. is in favor of gay marriage, does that change Repubs views of him???

As for Obama, I really don't know a ton about him - I have read a few interviews and exceprts of his book and he strikes me as someone who could be a great leader, very intelligent and a great speaker - but it'll take more then that to lead America into the next decade so, we'll see.

[The Dog]

I don't think Obama will be able to handle the scrutiny that the Clintons and most Dems will put him under once the primaries get serious.

From all accounts, the guy has no skeletons.? That's what makes him such a good choice to be at the forefront of the party.? He's not a far left wing liberal, he's kept his nose clean, and there's not much, reportedly, for the Repubs to scrutinize.

I don't think hes kept his nose clean...literally.? I think it was his first book where he mentioned he experimented with pot and coke.? But we already have two presidents who have dabbled in both so I don't think it will effect him too much.

[Vicious Wishes]

Every election it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. So what's it going to be?






A little secret...(It doesn't really matter that much).

[sandman]

is he anti-gay marriage?

hes against the term "gay marriage", but is pro civil union/benefits if I'm not mistaken.

the "term"

so the answer to my question is YES.

I guess it is.? Did he just lose your vote?

nice attempt at spinning your original reply.

actually, i like obama even more now.

i don't recall guliani ever saying he is for gay marriage. was this a recent change on his stance? because i remember hearing him state his support for civil unions. but he's a politician so nothing would surprise me. ?

[Booker Floyd]

I don't understand the popularity of this man, personally. I still know very little about him, and am not sure why he appeals to some people - but to each their own

I attribute most of his popularity to being a relatively young, handsome, exciting speaker with an inspiring story and equally inspiring rhetoric.  Personality obviously goes a long way, and hes easily one of the most likable politcians there is.  As Ive said before, I dont know of any conservatives that genuinely dislike him beyond the fact that hes a Democrat.  It seems that theyre currently begin to train themselves to dislike him as his candidacy becomes a reality.
eve

I think the Democrats are scared of having to nominate Hillary, so they're starting the buzz about Obama

Why would they be scared to nominate Hillary?  If they didnt want to nominate her, they wouldnt have to, theyd simply nominate someone else. 

If youre referring to the grassroots whod rather not see her nominated, I propose that Obamas buzz is independent of Hillary.  Hed be getting this buzz if she wasnt running simply because they genuinely like him. 

I beli McCain is going to be the next president of the United States and don't be surprised to see either Guiliani or even Lieberman get the VP nod, once the primaries are through and sorted out.

I have a hard time seeing Giuliani on any national Republican ticket.  I also doubt Republicans will look outside the party for the VP nomination - Lieberman might have a place on the dopey Unity '08 ticket if one actually comes to fruition.  McCain may be the nominee, but like I said, hes not guaranteed anything.  He might have been unbeatable a few years back, but I dont believe thats the case now.

[nycangel]

i choose republican as the less of two evils, therefore i dont like this guy. however i am a former supporter of Bush and he has let me down greatly, as he has with most other republicans. I will however vote for republicans my whole life because that its the way i sway, and the party i prefer. i dont find this guy handsome At all and just wish someone could point out to me what part of him is handsome exactly? which by the way should NOT determine who you vote for, unless you dont give a shit and your just voting to say you voted, and then you vote based on things like looks, and so forth.


and now let the bashing on me begin...

[Booker Floyd]

i am a former supporter of Bush and he has let me down greatly

Im sure the 109th Congress made things better for you...maybe youd like to share some of its merits with us?

The Democratic 110th has yet to begin, but the improvements have already begun:

Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
Leaders Want Lobbying Changes Enacted


By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; A03

Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

Congress adjourned early Saturday, having completed work on two of the 11 spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year that began Oct. 1. As a short-term fix, lawmakers extended current funding levels until Feb. 15. But the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees announced yesterday that they would extend current levels until the 2008 fiscal year begins next Oct. 1.

The alternative was to attempt to finish work on the spending bills when the Democratic-led Congress convenes in January, a dreaded prospect that could have derailed Democratic legislative efforts and stirred up policy battles around the same time that President Bush is due to submit his fiscal 2008 budget to the Hill, along with a large supplemental spending request for the Iraq war.

The new chairmen, Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), said in a statement: "While the results will be far from ideal, this path provides the best way to dispose of the unfinished business quickly, and allow governors, state and local officials, and families to finally plan for the coming year with some knowledge of what the federal government is funding."

They also said they would place a moratorium on all earmarks until lobbying changes are enacted. Those special spending provisions included in the unfinished fiscal 2007 bills will be eligible for consideration next year, the chairmen said, subject to new standards.

"We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress," the chairmen said.

The unfinished bills account for about $463 billion in annual spending and include just about every domestic program other than defense and homeland security.

The announcement appears to be a victory for conservative budget reformers, such as Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.), who circulated a petition last week calling for a resolution that would extend funding through the rest of the year, but without earmarks. That petition, however, called for all domestic programs to be funded at the lowest levels called for in either the House or Senate versions.

In contrast, Obey and Byrd indicated that they would seek adjustments in spending levels to satisfy Democrats and moderate Republicans who were upset by the austere funding bills passed by the House Appropriations Committee. In particular, the measure to fund labor, health and education programs fell billions of dollars short of the Senate-approved levels, and the levels that even many House Republicans said were acceptable.

The biggest victory would be for those lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks, or home-district pet projects. Virtually all of the bills that pass the Senate and House appropriations committees contain such projects. For the fiscal year that began in October and will end Sept. 30, the slate will be wiped clean.

Obey and Byrd noted that the last time Congress passed all appropriation bills separately and on schedule, and got them signed by the president in time for the next fiscal year, was in 1994, the last year they both served as chairmen. In November 1994, a month after the 1995 fiscal year began, Republicans won control of Congress.

For more or less every year since the takeover, the GOP has struggled to produce a smooth succession of spending bills, creating strained relations between the more ideologically minded Republican leadership in both chambers and their more practical-minded appropriations colleagues. Most recently, the Senate has been the stubborn obstacle, with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refusing to advance spending bills during a hard-fought election year.

Those tensions bubbled to the surface on the House floor as lawmakers wrapped up their business early Saturday. "The breakdown of regular order this cycle, indeed the failure to get our bills done, should be fairly placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the outgoing House Appropriations Committee chairman.

Lewis noted that his panel passed each of the 11 subcommittee bills out of the full committee by June 30, and, with the exception of a giant bill that funds health and education programs, all of the bills off the House floor by the July 4 break. The Senate also passed each of its bills out of the full committee, only to see them run aground on the Senate floor.

[Booker Floyd]

Obamas latest statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WJsuM19-8c&eurl=

[Booker Floyd]

At the conservative blog Redstate.com, blogger Rick Moran writes:

Obama: The Empty Vessel

I have not written about my home state Senator Barak Obama previously to this. Generally speaking, I don't write about obscure left wing politicians much anyway unless they do or say something hilariously stupid. But this recent boomlet for Senator Obama seems to have taken everyone by surprise. And still more than a year away from the first Presidential primaries and caucuses, it amazes me so little information has been disseminated about this likable, thoughtful man.

First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004. You might recall that the Republican nominee Jack Ryan was forced to withdraw 4 months before the election following revelations contained in child custody documents relating to Ryan's divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the sexiest Borg in the Star Trek Universe) that he forced the comely actress to go to sex clubs with him. The court records were retrieved by the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station in one of the most shameless examples of yellow journalism this city has seen in a while. As it turns out, Jeri Ryan released a statement saying that she still supported her ex-husbands candidacy while Jack Ryan was summarily dropped by the state party.

Casting about for a replacement, the desperate Republicans turned to "Da Coach" Mike Ditka, former Bears coach, restaurateur, motivational speaker, and the biggest loose cannon of a mouth this side of Howard Dean. Striking out with Ditka, the party considered everyone from former Senate candidate John Cox to the weird and wonderful Ted Nugent; former Amboy Duke, solo rocker, bow hunter extraordinaire, and second amendment absolutist.

In the end, they settled on Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and at the time, a major spokesman for the hard right. Keyes, an extremely articulate and passionate speaker, began to put his foot into it immediately by saying that a vote for Obama would be a "mortal sin." He compared abortion doctors to terrorists, he said that "Christ would not vote for Barak Obama," and homosexuality was "selfish hedonism."

Obama was so far ahead by October 1st that he campaigned for other Democrats across the country, contributing millions to their campaigns. On election day, John Kerry polled 55 percent of the vote while Obama destroyed Keyes by winning more than 70%.

In the last two years. Obama has proved himself a typical freshman Senator, mainly keeping his nose to the Senate grindstone while maintaining a relative quiet demeanor. However, glancing at his votes on key pieces of legislation, one sees a cautious, thoughtful approach to a wide variety of issues from the economy to homeland security to the War in Iraq.

Is Obama really a new "New Democrat?" Tough on our enemies, tender hearted to those less fortunate, more protectionist without throwing free trade to the dogs, welcoming of immigrants, and on liberal touchstone issues like health care, taxes, and poverty programs someone capable of embracing new ideas and new solutions?

Or is he just a typical lefty who has been running for President since he stepped foot in the Senate and has deliberately positioned himself with his pronouncements and votes as a centrist candidate?

Obama is an empty vessel. Not a Clintonesque figure in that he tries to appeal to all voters in some way but rather a welcoming icon who invites the voter to take something away and make it their own as far as how they view the man. Is this dishonest? Or is it great politics?

At this point, it would be hard for Americans to say. That's because we have no real sense of the man's character. His personal story is among the most compelling in American political history. A man proud of his black African heritage but who grew up with his mother's white family, if there was ever a more likely candidate to bridge the racial divide in America he has not emerged as of yet.

His state Senate voting record was decidedly liberal. He was perhaps best known for his stand against the death penalty in Illinois - an issue that was to prove him prescient when it was discovered several Illinois death row inmates were actually innocent. Governor Ryan took the extraordinary step of ordering a moratorium on executions until a review of every death row inmate's case was completed. Obama has also fought to eliminate racial profiling which has not endeared him to homeland security advocates who believe that profiling passengers at airports is absolutely vital in protecting civil aviation.

Obama opposed the War in Iraq, giving a rousing speech to a downtown Chicago rally in late 2002 that many observers believed was the most inspiring anti-war message they had ever heard. But Obama is no knee jerk pacifist:

    ?I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ?War Is Not an Option,? ? he said. ?And I thought, I don?t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two. So I got up and said that, among other things.? What he said, among other things, was ?I am not opposed to all wars. I?m opposed to dumb wars.? Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be ?a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.?

And indeed, Obama supported the War in Afghanistan. And he voted against establishing a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, believing that we can't leave Iraq until the situation is stable:

    Q: You're in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?

    A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.

Clearly not a typical liberal on the war.

Nor on homeland security. He voted yes on re-authorizing the Patriot Act but nay on extending the Act's wiretap provision. But he is not a civil liberties absolutist, believing we should balance intelligence reform with Bill of Rights protections. He is for increased military spending and expanding the army.

In short, an interesting (or calculated) mix of hawk and dove. Again, an empty vessel that we, the voter, can fill up with whatever we wish to see in him. Do his positions on these issues denote thoughtfulness? Or a singular ability to sniff out the center and adhere to it like glue?

On other issues important to Democratic interest groups such as labor, teachers, blacks, Hispanics, and bureaucrats, he has a pretty standard liberal voting record. But there are interesting exceptions, such as his more balanced view of free trade. While voting against CAFTA, he also advocates "fair trade" practices, requiring other countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws that many nation's like China and Mexico honor in the breach. While this may seem typical liberal pablum, he makes a point when speaking to labor groups to say that he knows that all of them support free trade - a brave pronouncement before the most protectionist group in America. He explains it this way:

[Booker Floyd]

    He mostly told the union men what they wanted to hear. Then he said, ?There?s nobody in this room who doesn?t believe in free trade,? which provoked a small recoil. These men were ardent protectionists. A little later, he said, with conviction, ?I want India and China to succeed??a sentiment not much heard in the outsourcing-battered heartland. He went on, however, to criticize Washington and Wall Street for not looking after American workers.

    Later, I asked him if he wasn?t waving a red flag in front of labor by talking about free trade. ?Look, those guys are all wearing Nike shoes and buying Pioneer stereos,? he said. ?They don?t want the borders closed. They just don?t want their communities destroyed.?

Straddling? Or "triangulation? Or is it a position born of thoughtful reflection and heartfelt belief? Obama invites you to choose.

Is this what makes him such a threat to a run by Hillary? My good friend Richard Baehr, National Political Correspondent for The American Thinker hits the nail on the head:

    Edwards, Clinton, and perhaps Al Gore are the likely candidates standing in the way of Obama's next coronation, should he make his candidacy official. For now, he is being drafted to run by a liberal national media, hungry for a fresh face, weary and wary of the old demons that a Clinton candidacy will dredge up.

    Obama would be a huge threat to Hillary, since African Americans, along with single women, are her two biggest support groups. I think it is a safe assumption that some of that huge haul of tens of millions that Ms Clinton has raised for her non?competitive Senate race this year is now going to pay for opposition researchers trolling for 'material' on Obama going back to his State Senate days in Illinois.

We see this dance by the media every four years. Bored with writing and talking about the same old faces, the media seeks out a darkhorse candidate and elevates him for a short while to prominence - only to then amuse themselves by tearing him apart piece by piece once they've decided he is not worthy of all the glowing coverage.

In Obama's case, there is the added significance of race to be considered. Will the Senator's blackness protect him from the usual smear tactics practiced by politicians from both parties? This is a fascinating question and one that won't be answered unless or until Obama runs. Being able to ignore the criticism of his GOP rival during his one statewide campaign, Obama never had to develop a strategy to deal with political attack dogs. And since Alan Keyes himself was black, no one could accuse him generating attacks that were racially motivated.

My own sense is that Obama would be crazy not to employ his race as a shield in any campaign he undertakes. Just about any criticism that comes his way can be twisted and manipulated into the appearance of an attack on the candidate's racial heritage. Perhaps not figuratively. But a clever campaigner can always bring the subject around to race. Will such a tactic appeal to the American sense of fair play? Or will it backfire and look like pandering?

And what of the media frenzy that would surround an Obama candidacy? The first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House is a storyline too compelling not to have the media do everything in their power to see that it comes true. We will be treated to daily features about racists who are opposed to his candidacy as well as the hope generated by his run in the inner cities. It certainly would make great copy and would be irresistible in the end. No wonder Hillary is worried. Even she would be diminished in the media shadow boxing that would accompany an Obama candidacy.

At age 42 and still just a first term Senator (who sailed to electoral victory with nary a rough spot to challenge him), Obama's decision on whether or not to run is not the issue for him. In an already crowded Democratic field, he would emerge as a likely alternative to Hillary - someone who many Democrats believe cannot win the general election. Will the empty vessel Obama be able to entice enough voters to place their faith in whatever they want to see and believe about this man?

We're going to find out sooner rather than later, I'm sure.

---


And some of the replies confirm what I said earlier:

I've had a chance to meet him several times, and he is by far the best chance that the Dims have to pick up the Presidency in 2008.

What he does have is the ability to have people listen to him. He's not strident nor does he appear to be ideological.

Though I disagree with Obama on most things he is very likable. If the choice ends up being between McCain and Obama my vote would be up in the air.... and Obama is very likable.

The press has obviously built Obama's potential to be a major player in the primaries. What makes Obama dangerous to the GOP is the same that makes him a danger to the elite Dems... he lives up to the cult of personality not by being effective, but by being likeable.

He has more charm in his index finger than Romney and McCain put together, and even I like him. Does not mean I would vote for him, it just makes me all the more fearful of him as a candidate.

IMHO- if the GOP did not mount an extremely strong candidate then Obama could win depending on the security environment of the US in 2008.

Given the right circumstances, it would only be the Dem elite that could knock off Obama. And I believe they would... by highlighting his middle name, lack of experience, and the ole Clintonian standard politics of personal destruction.

I really, really want to like this guy--I admit, I'm a sucker for American Dream stories, and I do have my feet firmly planted in the center, which he's aiming for better than most other Dems--but I can't get shake the idea that I know too little about him, and that his appeal is mainly based on timing and emotions. Even the Chicago Tribune is urging this guy to run, though the editorial that recently did so was heavy on the PR factors, light on ideas and potential policies.

[flicknn]

if obama is such a good speaker and brings love to everybody , let's send hime to hezbollah , when he is done with that we can send him t tehran , or we can send him to iraq , to squash the sunni shite fight , or we could send him to speak with kimg jong il .


Hell a 1 term senator portraying himself as commander in chief ...... absurd

[Booker Floyd]

hes not even been in the senate 1 term, what makes him qualified to be president of the United Sates??? a good orater is all that he is..

This criticism of experience is a specious one to me.  Only governers and vice presidents have experience comparable to a president (the exception, as Randall Flagg noted, is Hillary Clinton).  I dont see what edge two or three terms in the senate provides a candidate.  It doesnt have much to do with the job of a president.  In fact, one might argue that congressional experience could be a negative quality, as a candidate is more likely to be disillusioned and entrenched in a "politics-as-usual" environment where loyalties to political players and special interests thrive.  Then theres historical considerations:

Hell a 1 term senator portraying himself as commander in chief ...... absurd

As absurd as a one-term congressman?



Ulysses Grant, like Zachary Taylor and Dwight Eisenhower, had no real government experience.  John F. Kennedy had little more than one term in 1960 when he was elected.

[pilferk]

I don't think Obama will be able to handle the scrutiny that the Clintons and most Dems will put him under once the primaries get serious.

From all accounts, the guy has no skeletons.  That's what makes him such a good choice to be at the forefront of the party.  He's not a far left wing liberal, he's kept his nose clean, and there's not much, reportedly, for the Repubs to scrutinize.

I don't think hes kept his nose clean...literally.  I think it was his first book where he mentioned he experimented with pot and coke.  But we already have two presidents who have dabbled in both so I don't think it will effect him too much.

What I meant by "keeping his nose clean" is he's not caught up in any "hidden" scandals.  The 2 or 3 different "things" that have been discussed about him (his drug experimentation, a real estate deal that looked bad, as examples) he's copped to immediately or brought them to light himself.  It makes them much harder "fodder" for Repub attacks.
 

[pilferk]

Booker,

Loved the article (though I'm not crazy about the author's "empty vessel" spin) and it's factual presentation of Obama's history and portrayal of his beliefs are one reason I like the guy (NOT just because he's likeable).  The author wonders about Obama's motivations....and that's where my disagreement with his "spin" stems.  I don't think Obama is playing politics.  I think he's being honest and earnest when he espouses his beliefs and I don't think his voting is "calculated", in the sense that it's solely done to base a run at the presidency.

I agree..before I'd vote for him I'd need to hear more from him.  I don't think the vessel is empty, per se, I just think no one has really looked DEEP inside to see exactly what it's full of.  The top layers seem to look good, IMHO.  We'll have to see whats in the sediment at the bottom.

[T_Roxie]

A british perspective:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6173373.stm
Hopefully interesting to you guys.? He sounds good to me (i've given up on british politics )

[Bodhi]

I'd love to see this man run. He's well-spoken, articulate and I agree with a lot of his positions. Plus, he's the first politician in a long time that inspires people. To me, he's not the "lesser of two evils" but someone that I actually would like to see as President. Come the primary in early '08, he gets my vote.

you forget to mention the man has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER...lets face facts, with a name like Barack Hussein Obama...thats right Hussein is his middle name,,,can you imagine people down south or in the midwest driving around with "Obama 08" stickers??? get real....he will never win in this country.....not yet anyway...mabye in 2016 or something like that....