Obama and Defendants' Rights: Progressive Or Not?

Where does Obama stand on criminal justice issues? Is he really a progressive? Will he stand up for the rights of the criminally accused ... or just those of the wrongfully charged or convicted?

He's been quick to point out his admirable work in Illinois getting legislation passed to require mandatory taping of police interrogations and enact some death penalty and racial profiling reforms. He has complained about the racial disparity in crack-powder cocaine sentences and once advocated abolishing mandatory minimums. (For Obama in 2004 on abolishing mandatory minimums, see this video clip at 1:00 minute in.)

More recently, he has retreated to promising a review of mandatory minimum sentences.

Since the mainstream media seems incapable of presenting anything but his words promising change, hope, optimism and a "working majority" (meaning compromise with Republicans) I took an afternoon to research his record going back to 1998.

The results, some progressive and laudatory, others decidedly not, as well as my prior posts on his crime record and statements as U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, are detailed below:

Obama on Crime, from his Senate website

Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act, which provides more money for fighting methamphetamine (meth), tightens controls on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to the children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate and became law in the 109th Congress.

...Senator Obama has supported greater funding to fight meth through the use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants.

The website then touts his support of sex offender notification laws and penalties

Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate in July of 2005. This legislation was incorporated into a larger bill, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which Senator Obama supported and which has been signed into law.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12 and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill would also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.

Senator Obama is a cosponsor of the KIDS Act, which requires convicted sex offenders to provide their Internet identifiers, such as e-mail addresses and instant message addresses, for inclusion into the national sex offender registry.

From news articles in the Lexis/Nexis database:

Obama's record a plus, a minus; Votes in Senate defy easy labels Chicago Tribune October 8, 2004

"I voted for, or co-sponsored myself, over 100 bills that strengthened criminal penalties for everything ranging from sex offenders to drug dealers to domestic violence abusers," he said. "It would be very hard to argue, if you look at the totality of my record, that I somehow have been soft on crime. ... Those who have tried to paint me recently as being too liberal are some of the colleagues I worked most closely with. They never held that view until election season."

Barack Obama Seeks To Shape National Debate For Illinois N'DIGO, March 6, 2003 - March 12, 2003

Obama is also pushing for, at the state and federal level, additional funding for early childhood educational programs. He adds that lawmakers must re-examine drug laws. Federal mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent offenses has been a mistake, Obama said, at both the state and federal levels. He explained that the harsh sentencing guidelines do not take into account the potential for rehabilitation for young people who are involved in non-violent crimes.

Senate sends ecstasy legislation to governor Copley News Service May 10, 2001, Thursday,

The Illinois Senate sent legislation to the governor Thursday that would significantly increase penalties for dealing the drug ecstasy, as well as make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute people for drug-induced homicide.

....The other aspect of the bill makes a technical change to Illinois' criminal code that broadens the definition of drug-induced homicide. Under the proposal, if a person died after being sold just one hit of ecstasy, the dealer could be changed with drug-induced homicide. It would currently require selling a very large amount of the drug before a person could be charged with such a crime. Drug-induced homicide is a Class X felony with a minimum mandatory sentence of six years in prison.

House Bill 126 would make it a Class X felony if a person is convicted of possession with the intent to distribute 15 to 200 doses of ecstasy, which equates to a mandatory minimum sentence of six years in prison.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, questioned whether Illinois' drug penalties are appropriate considering that a person convicted of raping a woman at knifepoint would be charged with the same level of offense as someone convicted of selling 15 doses of ecstasy.

Obama's record a plus, a minus; Votes in Senate defy easy labels Chicago Tribune October 8, 2004 Friday,

In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity. Obama said the law did not clearly define a gang member and he questioned why lawmakers were targeting Hispanics and blacks for stiffer sentences.

Two years earlier, after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Obama voted "present" on a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a firearm on or near school property.

Obama also voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns. Obama said municipalities should control local gun regulations, not the state.

"That law eviscerated anti-handgun ordinances in some communities," Obama said. "The way I feel, Wilmette should not determine Mattoon's firearms ordinances and Mattoon should not determine Wilmette's."

Gov. signs ephedra ban with jail time Chicago Defender May 27, 2003

In signing the only legislation of its kind in America, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich Sunday signed a bill banning the sale of ephedra, a weight loss and body-building pill which he likened to playing "Russian Roulette."

To make sure users know the consequences of their choices, the legislation, which becomes effective immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to sell ephedra supplements in the state of Illinois and is punishable by up to a year in jail, along with a 5,000 fine. However, repeat offenders could face up to five years in jail and a 20,000 fine.

....Joining the governor at the press conference were co-sponsors of the legislation Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th); Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), Chicago Bears All-Pro linebacker Brian Urlacher, DePaul University director of Athletics Jean Lenti Ponsetto who also chairs the NCAA Championship Committee, and Debbie and Kevin Riggins of Lincoln.

Legislative record puts Obama at heart of philosophical debate The Associated Press State & Local Wire September 11, 2004

The statistics on bill introductions paint an even clearer picture of Obama's rise from rank-and-file lawmaker under Republican rule to a favored sponsor under Democratic control.

...Obama has sponsored more than 780 bills, and more than 280 have been signed into law.

But Obama was the lead sponsor - the person who introduces the legislation and guides it through - on only about 30 bills that became law. More than 20 of those bills were approved after Democrats took control of the governor's office and Legislature in January 2003.

A look at some key votes by state Sen. Barack Obama The Associated Press State & Local Wire September 11, 2004,

-Voted 'No' on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)

-Voted 'Yes' on letting retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (SB2188, 2004)

-Successfully sponsored requirement that law enforcement videotape interrogations of suspects in some serious crimes. (SB15, 2003)

Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (SB30, 2003)

Voted 'No' on making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (HB1812, 2001) MISCELLANEOUS

Cops give Obama subdued reception Chicago Tribune August 20, 2004 Friday,

Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP.

Obama unveils federal gun bill Chicago Defender December 13, 1999,

Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms

Senate approves Edgar's changes to juvenile justice bill Copley News Service May 05, 1998, Tuesday,

The Illinois Senate on Tuesday approved Gov. Jim Edgar's suggested changes to a bill that imposes adult penalties to some youthful offenders.

The governor's recommendations to the measure, which came down Friday, primarily give judges more discretion in sentencing to consider the ''best interests of the minor.''

''I do think the governor's suggestions are sound ones, and we'll be supporting the bill,'' said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago. The Senate voted 57-0 to approve the alterations to Illinois' Juvenile Justice Act.

For Obama as U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, see my prior posts:

[Note: This is not a law review article. It's a blog post resulting from an afternoon of research through Lexis and a review of my prior posts and the material sourced in them. It's intended to give readers a sense of where he stands, not as an authoritative or complete work. If there is anything that needs correction, let me know and if I agree, I'll make the change.]

< Paths To the Nomination | Supreme Court Hearing Oral Arguments in Baze Lethal Injection Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    more on Federal Mandatory Minimums (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:27:32 AM EST
    Spring of '04, I'd extracted an on the record commitment from Feingold (wispolitics.com's lunch lecture series) to work on repeal of Mandatory Sentences in his current term. A few weeks into '05 Russ told me he was waiting in the hope Obama would take the lead role, and he, Feingold, would be the first co-sponsor.

    We picked up the disciussion in June, day after the Howard U debate whgere all the Senator/Candidates had, to one degree or another, called for reform of MM Sentences. Russ: "Even Hillary?" At the end of our conversation, he seemed pumped to move a bill right away. That he hasn't suggests the others were just playing to the Howard audience.

    More on Obama when in Illinois (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Pete Guither on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:50:28 AM EST
    In an August 19, 2004 entry on Obama's website he bragged about being tough on drugs:

    During 8 years in the state senate, Senator Obama has repeatedly voted for tougher penalties for drug offenders. [HB 3387, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0546; SB 1793, 3/21/03; P.A. 93-0223; HB 2347, 5/6/99; P.A. 91-0336; HB 3170, 5/7/98; P.A. 90-0674; HB 1278, 5/14/99; P.A. 91-0403; SB 0105, 3/23/99; P.A. 91-0263; HB 2843, 5/20/03; P.A. 93-0596; 93rd GA, SB 2447, 3/25/04; P.A. 93-0884; SB 1578, 3/24/03; P.A. 93-0297; SB1028, 4/2/98; SB 1028, 5/19/98, SC HA1,4; P.A. 90-0775; HB 0070, 5/16/97; P.A. 90-0382; HB 2844, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0340; HB 3073, 4/4/00; P.A. 91-0802; HB 0252, 5/7/99; P.A. 91-0366; HB 5652, 5/9/02; SB 1332, 2/24/00; P.A. 91-0899; HB 4245, 5/7/02; P.A. 92-0698; SB 0014, 5/20/97, SC HA1; P.A. 90-0397; SB 0003, 4/6/01; HB 2015, 5/9/97; P.A. 90-0164; SB 1011, 4/5/01; SB 1224, 3/24/98; HB 2030, 5/15/97; P.A. 90-0557]

    The website is no longer around, but I had copied the information onto a blog post back then.

    The "Do the crime do the time" signs (none / 0) (#9)
    by JSN on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    are in neighborhoods with serious drug trafficking problems with
    high percentages of Blacks. They want drug dealers locked up to protect their kids.

    Obama was representing his constituents. The problem is that the low level drug vendors are expendable and are promptly replaced if they are convicted and sent to prison. The "War on drugs" is a flop and all of the candidates need to face up to that fact.

    As a drugs court judge said "If it does not work try something else."


    after reviewing all that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    (and it's a great post, btw), my sense is that sen. obama tends to wave whichever way the wind happens to be blowing that day, with respect to his record on criminal legislation.

    i doubt he materially differs from the other candidates in this regard, but to label him some kind of wild-eyed, flaming liberal is a mistake.

    Obama on criminal issues (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lonet on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST
    Obama's line on criminal justice has been a lot less encouraging. His running mate selection of Joe Biden, long one of the Senate's most strident crime hawks and staunchest drug warriors, was telling. Since the vice-presidential pick, Obama and Biden have embraced criminal justice policies geared toward a larger federal presence in law enforcement, a trend that started in the Nixon administration and that has skewed local police priorities toward the slogan-based crime policies of Congress, like more arrests and stop coddling criminals.

    pennsylvania drug rehab

    Great post (none / 0) (#1)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:28:02 AM EST
    Thank you for doing the research in the Lexis/Nexis database for people without that kind of access. This is a great resource.

    Somebody should design a plug-in or add-on for Lexis/Nexis to cross reference the ACTUAL legislation, legal rulings, opinions, etc. that is discussed in news articles.

    One of the best things about this site is when you offer your views alongside the actual documents of a court ruling, filing or a law. It would be nice if the kind of blogging, journalism, commentary that you find here, at Balkanization, by Emptywheel, by Christy Hardin-Smith, by Adam B -- remarks on the actual texts -- became more commonplace but it's hard to do when old legislation (like from the IL Senate in the 90s) is hard to access. It seems like something that can be fixed with search technology online.

    You can get old Illinois legislation (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:14:45 AM EST
    from the Legislatiure's site. Crap interface though.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#2)
    by illissius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:40:06 AM EST

    more fantastic work (none / 0) (#3)
    by along on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:07:03 AM EST
    Many thanks for doing all that research.

    This is a bit off topic, for which I apologize.

    On the "working majority" concept, I've got to disagree that it means "compromise with Republicans". I believe he's only talking about public support--both electorally and then as a mandate to enact his policy programs. (I agree with Big Tent that he must run more on his own platform; if he doesn't, he will risk serious erosion of his support as the months wear on.)

    But the "working majority" part of his new stump speech is specifically in the context of the campaign:

    "If you stand with me and work like you you've never worked before ... then I'm absolutely sure we will win in New Hampshire and then Nevada and South Carolina and on February 5th, and we will go on to Denver and unify our party and gather Republicans and Independents and create a new working  majority and we will win in November," he hoarsely shouted.

    The "working majority" appeared regularly towards the end in Iowa, but he had used it as early as the November MTP appearance:

       RUSSERT: Do you believe that Hillary Clinton could win a November election?

        OBAMA: Yes. You know, I'm not somebody who believes that she can't win. I believe that it's going to be harder for her to win, because I think a lot of voters go in with some preconceptions about her that are going to be very over -- very difficult to overcome. And I also believe, more importantly, I don't -- it's not just a matter of winning, it's: Can you create a new working majority for change? I want to provide health insurance to every single American. We can't do that with a 50-plus-one majority. I want to get serious about climate change. We can't do that with a 50-plus-one majority. I believe I've got a better chance of any of the other Democratic candidates to transform the political landscape in a way that has been done in the past.

    Finally, this speech is where it got some notice in Iowa (the clip BTD posted several days ago).

    I read his argument in that speech this way: If he wins in November with significantly more than 51% of the popular vote, that will be an effective mandate for change. This electoral support will be the nation's "Working Majority." And it will come with Dem gains in both houses of Congress.

    As the leader of this working majority, he can then "afford to be polite. you can afford to be courteous. Because you've got the numbers," as in popular support for his programs, and "you've got the votes," meaning Congressional support for his programs. He will still have to reach across the aisle to get some things done. With his working majority behind him, and his determination to work with those Republicans who will reciprocate his good faith, he will be able to do that--from a position of strength.

    He can then be polite to his adversaries, and "you can sit across the table from people you don't agree with, you can reach across the aisle..." But if , say, "the insurance companies get in my way," i.e., they don't play ball, then he'll "just push them aside, very politely, and go ahead and do what's right for the American people..."

    Especially given our pickup prospects in the Senate--and the prospect of electing new Senate blood in both parties in 2010--I think Obama would be playing a very strong hand.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#10)
    by burnedoutdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    And with a working majority you can be a little tougher on members of your own party who might withhold their support in exchange for favors (eg: pork).  

    Looking at the immobility of the current Congress a true working majority would mean that we could actually get things done.  A guy who has fought for transparency, credibility and civil rights in government makes me confident that he could do good things with that majority.


    Can you please copy this to another thread? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    This topic is reserved for Obama's record on crime. I'll leave it up for a while to give you a chance to repost it on a more topical thread.

    totally (none / 0) (#23)
    by along on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST

    2000 Illinois Agricultural hemp bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:05 AM EST
    Obama voted for. No leading role, as he represented an urban district.

    others (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:04:20 AM EST
    I take it that Hillary opposes sex crime notification bills and ephedra bans?

    stay on topic please (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    this thread is about Obama's record and whether he  is the liberal on crime some are portraying him to be.

    true (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    except this isn't in a  vacuum, is your post to prove that he isn't perfect? how does this compare to other dems?

    follow the links (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    provided to my prior posts for a comparison.

    It's a Straight Up Informational Post (none / 0) (#24)
    by archpundit on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    Proof that one is damned if they do or don't in that it's a straight up post about his record--information.  It's a pretty good run down on his background on criminal defense laws and in itself should be useful  

    the other candidates (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    The links to other candidates list their stated positions on crime but do not include a vote by vote detailed analysis on every bill as was done for Obama.  This post is useful information about Obama, but the links lack enough detailed vote analysis to say whether any of the others are better or worse.    Maybe NO major Democrat is very progressive when you look at their votes, but Obama is the best (or worst) of a bad lot.  Who can tell?  Running the same analysis on the same day for all three big candidates would be much more user friendly.

    very useful (none / 0) (#11)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    as were the comments.

    Looks like he has an outstanding record (none / 0) (#12)
    by tommyg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    He seems committed to pushing common-sense legislation while maintaining his strong progressive values.  No one else has a better record than him on this.

    from a defense lawyer's point of view (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    it's a very mixed record. Given his push on meth laws, will he advocate eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for first-time non-violent meth offenders who may have participated in a lab cook? How about non-violent offenders convicted of possessing kiddie p*rn?

    Released sex offenders need to be able to work and live -- will he restrict them to violent predators or continue the one-size fits all trend to lump them all together?

    And he still supports the death penalty for offenses he subjectively views as heinous.

    Not so progressive.  To be sure, the other Dems are about where he is -- none of them are really progressive on defendants' rights. The point being it's wrong to say any one of them is better than the other on these issues.


    the reason (none / 0) (#14)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    I read you is contained in that post.  Very useful.

    should read (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    "will he restrict them to violent predators or continue the one-size fits all trend to lump them all together?"

    the "them" is sex offender notification laws.

    Also, will he advocate ending life-time registration and possible life sentences for sex offenders who are not violent predators?


    Sometimes it's hard to be... (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    ... "progressive" on crime. Especially for sex offenders.  

    And, 'non-violent' kiddie porn creates a market for the very violent production of kiddie porn.  Your arguments are important, but they're a tough sell.


    He appears to be more of a follower than a leader (none / 0) (#21)
    by JSN on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    on drug issues.

    "Mandatory Minimum Sentences" has been boiled down to a sound byte  as has "crack/powder cocaine disparity" so it is difficult to tell what the candidates position is when they use those terms. Obama is being cautious when he says he will review MMS (if he does not do so soon he will be accused of stalling or worse).

    Hillary did say she thought MMS were appropriate for some types of violent crimes. Some claim that up to 20% of those convicted of drug trafficking have a history of violent criminal activity. My view is that if you only include prior convictions for violent crimes that 10% would be an upper limit.

    A very big problem for candidates is that many people believe that the majority of the persons in prison are first time nonviolent offenders. Persons who are not a threat to public safety do not belong in prison but a lot of them are there because they repeatedly violated probation, parole and work release. This a major source of frustration for everyone in the criminal justice system.


    It's odd though to say that (none / 0) (#27)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    any one person is much of a leader on every issue or any one issue even. There are not that many specialist legislators in the Congress, so there's less opportunity, I would think, for one person or another to be a leader on a particular issue.

    He's very mixed on crime (none / 0) (#28)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    And you're right to say that's quite Democratic of him (big D) too. It's disappointing to be sure. The juvenile justice part at the end really pissed me off.

    Still, he is strong on gun control and I remember VERY CLEARLY his opposition to the bill about tougher penalties for "gang members". I liked him at that moment.

    I think he's caught up in national politics for sure and that's part of why he's become less progressive in the Senate than he was in Illinois, where the state may seem blue but all the issues are really framed in a conservative mindset. I believe that looking at the whole record, it's stronger (slightly) for progressive values than the whole record on crime for the other leading candidates, from what little I know.


    poor black neighborhoods (none / 0) (#25)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    Although it makes sense to loosen up on some low-level drug crimes, on the whole what makes sense for a criminal defense lawyer may not make so much sense for people who live in poor neighborhoods and are victims of all sorts of crimes, drug-related or not.  

    Obama and The Kids Act (none / 0) (#29)
    by jjoe on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:58:32 AM EST
    Senator Obama is a cosponsor of the KIDS Act, which requires convicted sex offenders to provide their Internet identifiers, such as e-mail addresses and instant message addresses, for inclusion into the national sex offender registry.

    It's telling that Obama is promoting this as an example of his leadership qualities while stumping that he is an agent of change and hope.

    The genesis of the legislation came from Rupurt Murdoch, whose MySpace was under attack for allowing minors to access adult material, adult groups, and adults to access minors as documented by the Connecticut AGs office.

    Murdoch refused to implement design changes to MySpace, and during a Congressional hearing, a legal rep blamed the problems on registered sex offenders.

    Knowing McCain was going to run for president, Murdoch approached him with a quid pro quo deal.  Sponsor legislation that protects MySpace business interests, and supports their claim that RSOs are the root cause of MySpace problems, and MySpace will provide a fund raising platform for his presidential bid.  McCain bit, the bill died, but was resurrected in 2007 by McCain and Schumer and quickly signed on to by Obama (and Clinton), who got word of the MySpace fund raising platform.  The detailed background of the bill can be found here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/142742/315

    The bill applies to all RSOs, not just those on conditional release.  Beyond the fact that it is technically impossible to be effective, it allows federal non-public private info on a citizen to be used by designated third parties, who in turn use the info to deny citizens free speech.

    This is a recent analysis of the bill from the Center for Democracy and Technology:http://www.cdt.org/speech/20071210FreeSpchBillsSen.pdf

    Thus, Obama's position on defendant's rights appear to be based, in part, on interested third parties, and a well known secret that politicians want to regulate the Internet.  

    re: Obama progressive or not? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peacewarrior on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    Obama is not progressive in my book. Senator Hillary Clinton is progressive. She has concrete plans for our country. Obama does not. He just talks of "change". Change to what?I will proudly vote for Senator Clinton in the North Carolina primary May 6th.

    Hi (none / 0) (#32)
    by NashG on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:42:24 AM EST
    Thanks for the information.
     georgia drug rehab