home

Obama's Liberal Survey: Did He or Didn't, Does He or Doesn't He?

One of the complaints I've had with Barack Obama is the difficulty trying to pin him down on issues. His positions too often seem to shift over time.

Politico has a doozy today. Remember the questionnaire that Obama submitted -- the one where he later said he didn't mean some of the answers, but a staffer had filled it out incorrectly?

Turns out, the questionnaire has turned up, with his handwriting on it. There's the issue of parental notification for abortions. But to me, its the ones on the death penalty and gun control that stand out.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

More...

After being confronted with the handwritten version, the aides say:

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.”

Politico writes that the new questionnaires cast doubt on Obama's "ideological consistency and electability. " Even more,

Taken together — and combined with later policy pronouncements — the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues.

Regarding the death penalty and gun control:

Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.

But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws.

On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

No one should confuse Obama's admirable work in Illinois for death penalty reform with opposition to the death penalty. His goal was to reduce the number of innocent people sentenced to death. That's great and very important. But it's also wrong to execute anyone, and Obama has never opposed the death penalty. He's even voted to create more death penalty eligible crimes as a state senator -- in cases of brutal murders of the elderly and mentally disabled.

AS to gun control, now he's a supporter of the Second Amendment. But, he seems to find that every newly proposed gun control law is a reasonable regulation on the Amendment's protections.

He was once for abolishing all mandatory minimums. Then he promised a review of them. And now couches his support for ending them in terms of non-violent, first time offenders.

He was for decriminalization of pot, now he's not.

He was the last Democratic candidate to support medical use of marijuana, and then said while he'd end federal raids on drug providers in states where it was legal, he'd have to study whether marijuana really had a medical benefit.

For sources, see my earlier post, Obama and Defendants' Rights, Progressive or Not? AS well as these:

  • 12/14/07: The Democratic Candidates Discuss Their Crime Agendas
  • 12/3/07: Hillary Comes Out Against Crack-Powder Retroactivity (includes Obama's views)
  • 11/25/07: Obama and Medical Pot: More Research Needed
  • 11/12/07: Obama Touts His Death Penalty Reform Role (Also see this comment to the post)
  • O8/28/07: Obama Wants to Strengthen Drug War in New Orleans
  • 8/15/07: Obama Wavers on Crack-Powder Sentencing (includes his position on death penalty)
  • 7/1/07: Dems Debate Sentencing Reforms and Mandatory Minimums

    It seems Obama changes his views to fit his particular audience. And he has a "penchant" for blaming staffers for his mistakes.

    They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

    The Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO) which provided the questionnaires with Obama's handwriting to Politico, is troubled:

    “One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

    “I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

    Who can know for sure? Who wants to take a chance? Hillary's positions aren't much different than Obama's but at least we know where she stands. As I've said many times, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't and why should we buy a pig in a poke?

    Is Obama better than McCain? Of course. But there's another choice right now, one who is a straight shooter. Much as the media and Democratic party leaders wish it weren't so, the nomination race is not over. There are ten states with 12 million voters yet to weigh in -- as well as hundreds of superdelegates who can decide at the last minute. We should let them all have their say.

< More Support for Hillary | Hillary in PA: Rocky Wouldn't Quit, Neither Will She >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for this (5.00 / 17) (#3)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:32:54 PM EST
    I have found it really disturbing how many times Obama has pleaded ignorance on a variety of issues, both in terms of policy and in terms of personal stuff.

    I have started a running list, and these are just some issues that have stuck with me off the top of my head:

    He didn't realize Rezko was under investigation when he entered into the shady house deal, even though it was well established in the local Chicago papers.

    He didn't know about the 11 low-income housing units going under in his small state senate district that were owned by Rezko even as he asked for funds for these buildings.

    He didn't know the difference between a yea vote and a nay vote, so he "pressed the wrong button" six times...at least two of those times the votes were hotly contested and the vote was very close.

    He didn't know the Kyl-Lieberman vote was taking place, but somehow every other candidate knew about it.

    He didn't realize that his spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years was saying very controversial things in church (er..but now maybe he says he did know...).

    He didn't know his top economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, met with the Canadian government and suggested that his position on NAFTA was just political posturing.

    He was for the decriminalization of pot before he was against it because he, as a Harvard educated lawyer, did not know what decriminalization meant.

    He never saw a survey that he says misrepresents his views, despite the fact that his handwriting is on the survey.

    And this is just what I am thinking of off the top of my head! I am sure there are more.

    I get that politicians stretch the truth, sometimes they lie, sometimes they pander. I don't mind that, really. Hillary does this too.

    But what I see here is a really disturbing pattern of him pleading ignorance or blaming others and it seems that he is never held accountable for this pattern of ignorance. I mean we are either to believe that 1) he lies all the time, or 2) he really is ignorant...if it is the first, well, he needs to stop lying because he is losing credibility...if it is the second, he does NOT belong in the White House...

    I also think this pattern is very, very problematic for the general election...


    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by stevenb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:20:45 AM EST
    I can't tell you how many articles the general online media has written about that shows Obama dancing around issues, dodging questions and having few convictions on any issues.  Sure, I'm biased towards Senator Clinton, but that is because she ISN'T playing with voters minds over Hope and Change when all Obama does is Hope we'll believe him and constantly change his answers.

    That people have swallowed his and Axelrod's "story of glory" hook, line and sinker is pathetic.

    -------------------------------------------
    Questions Surround Obama's Candidacy:
    http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com

    [ Parent ]

    To those of you (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:47:18 AM EST
    who keep warning us ladies that we have to vote for Obama should he make it into the ge because of the Supreme Court, I wonder if you still believe he will be a staunch supporter of Choice?  I have no confidence that he will do anything but make compromise after compromise, and women's reproductive rights does not seem to be something he holds as a core value (unless by value we mean, "present.")

    I choose Clinton because I know she will fight tooth and nail for reproductive freedom and myriad other core dem values.

    With Obama, who knows?

    [ Parent ]

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST
    It brings a sickening feeling that the public does not really know this guy and the more I know the more I now question. I use to think he was the future of the Democratic Party. I now believe he is like a silicone rubber man. Pliable and nothing sticks. And the nothing sticks is not just referring to media dirt. I mean, he says what people want to hear. All politicians do. Know your audience. But one needs core beliefs and they can not all be "Whatever 'she' said".

    My war cry about Obama has always been 'What did he just say?'.  

    [ Parent ]

    Each time I hear (none / 0) (#118)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:25:37 AM EST
    a surrogate imply that I, as a Clinton supporter, am a racist, I feel less inclined to support Obama in the GE. I have been infuriated by this insidious pattern over the last several weeks.

    I have always said that I would support the Dem candidate in the GE, but there are two actions by the Obama campaign that might make me reconsider, continued charges of racism and the selection of a female running mate.

    [ Parent ]

    With McCain we know. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    Your choices as I see it:
    1. HRC - you know and are comfortable with her position
    2. Obama- you believe you know his position, but are not sure
    3. MCain- you know and are uncomfortable with his position.

    To be sure, with McCain, you know according to previous statements, he is pro choice as far as his own daughter is concerned. You also know as far as the conservative base is concerned, the rest of us do not get a choice.

    If it comes down to it, I'll take my chances with Obama over McCain.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    My option is (none / 0) (#169)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    voting Green Party on the presidential field to keep them on the ballot for the next election.

    Don't normally do a cross over, but it's been a long time since I have been so unsure of a major Dem candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Ralph (none / 0) (#182)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    We really appreciate your work in 2000.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Not in a close state (none / 0) (#198)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    my vote won't count because I'm in a true blue state, and the electoral college will go for the Dem nominee.

    As for my work in 2000, I logged an s_ load of get out the vote calls for Mr. Gore.

    Did the same for Kerry in 2004 even though I didn't feel strongly about him. Did fundraising too.

    This time, I am unsure.

    Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]

    If enough people in California (none / 0) (#214)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    take the same position, then the GOP will win the state.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    The president can do nothing without the (none / 0) (#208)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    congress. Vote Dem for House and Senate. Aren't you tired of being threatened? This whole you must vote Dem, because McCain is whatever, is just BS. Stop, isn't it time they worked for your vote? Stop being a hostage. Are they serving your interest or theirs?

    [ Parent ]
    YOU TRUST THE CONGRESS?!!!! (none / 0) (#213)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    I got news,  If McCain is president, he will get whatever SCOTUS nominee he wants.

    I am tired of being threatened. I say take the weapon from the GOP/Conservatives' hands.  I am tired of being threatened by partisans of both camps (HRC and OBAMA) that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee, if they don't get their way.   I will vote the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    And you trust the President? (none / 0) (#215)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:29 PM EST
    If you elect worthy leders, you have nothing to fear, but as far as I can see, Obama has no position he wouldn't give up to get elected again.

    [ Parent ]
    A Democratic President and a Democratic (none / 0) (#216)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    congress are less likely to have an anti-choice SCOTUS nominee.

    Sometimes it really is that simple.

    To answer your question explicitly, I am not in the tank for either candidate. I plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. You clearly are in the tank for HRC. That's fine. You are entitled to be. However, If you think Obama is secretly anti choice, I would have to conclude you suffer from ODS.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Obama's "punishment with a baby" (none / 0) (#218)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    remark has convinced me he is pro-choice.  Had some questions before.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks, I missed that remark (none / 0) (#219)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    I am sure between taxes, moving my office and work I have missed a lot.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Late to this party, (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:23:04 AM EST
     but I echo what a lot of others have said here: Barack Obama is a chameleon when he thinks there is no one to question what he says have always been his positions, so he can shift and nuance and outright contradict himself as the views of his audience dictate, and people lap it up; when the truth emerges, he blames others, and sends out surrogates and campaign officials to explain what he really meant.

    I'm not saying I want someone like Bush, who digs into a position even  - or especially - in the face of new information and changing circumstances, but I do not want someone who says he has "always" been for or against something when the record indicates otherwise - and that record is easily obtainable.  His inability to be accountable for the discrepancies in his statements and positions does not bode well after almost 8 years of a president who sees himself as being accountable to no one, least of all the American people.

    There's a difference between being adaptable to changing times and circumstances, and trying to be all things to all people; I fear that Obama wants to be the latter, and I think that is a risk we cannot afford.  

    What I find ironic is that for all the talk about how Obama is going to unite us and Hillary just polarizes us, I see her as being more likely to try to bring people together around core Democratic positions and policies because she believes they are the right policies and positions, while he is so busy compromising and giving in to the positions of others that no one really knows or understands what the goal is - and the end result is something no one really likes.

    This latest flap is just another bullet-point on a growing list of things that should have people asking questions and looking ahead to which one of these candidates will really make the best president, which one is more likely to fight for positions that Democrats believe in, which one will be able to stand up to non-stop conflict and crisis and not be paralyzed out of an inability to pick a position.


    [ Parent ]

    I'd like to think he's liberal (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:36:56 PM EST
    and has views that I like. But given this history I have to admit I'm not sure. He's a politician of course. But does he really have any deeply held beliefs at all. I can't be completely sure.

    Which reminds me, what was the big argument that dubya won over many voters in 2000 and in 2004, oh yea, many voters voted for him whether he agreed with them or not mostly because they at least knew he had deeply held beliefs and stuck by them. Yea, that was it. But I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem this time.

    The deeply held belief (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:05:25 AM EST
    in Obama's case is his right to change positions on the issues, depending on the current career objective.  Looks like another of his deeply held beliefs must be that there's nothing wrong with acting like a weathervane.

    And blaming his discrepancies on his staff ... I think that is low. You can tell a lot about someone when you see how he treats his employees.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you've hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    He was for his deeply held beliefs before he was against them. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Consistency=Overrated (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by brad12345 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    Really, I hope whoever gets elected changes their minds now and again over the course of a dozen years.  Honestly: Do we really want a leader who says, "This doesn't seem to be working, but by God, we're going to keep doing it to be consistent"? I'd hope not. Any business or other organization would fail with that philosophy--and, yeah, no small part of the mess we're in stems from having a president who can't face overwhelming evidence that contradicts his previously held beliefs.

    I don't mean that you simply want someone who is willing to do whatever happens to be popular at any given moment.  But I don't think it's terribly helpful to contribute to the idea that one's opinions must remain static.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing wrong with changing positions (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:01:10 AM EST
    over time. But there is a problem with lying about who filled out the questionaire.

    [ Parent ]
    sure (4.75 / 4) (#94)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:30:02 AM EST
    There's nothing wrong with having evolving views - it can be admirable.

    But that's not what's happening here.  What we have here is someone claiming he never actually held those views - it was an overzealous staffer.  So either he had no control over staff or he's blaiming staff for positions he now finds embarassing.  That's not particularly admirable in my view.

    [ Parent ]

    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Just another person on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:10:43 AM EST
    Let's not forget the most deeply held belief of all - the democratic nomination is his and no one has the right to take it away from him, even if it's won fair and square.

    [ Parent ]
    Commitment (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    From what I've read he seems to have few actual progressive commitments. He's really uncomfortable talking about issues.  He wanted to vote to confirm Roberts but changed when told that the vote could be a political liability.  Here we have a Harvard Law grad not realizing what damage a man with Roberts' Federalist Society ideology could do, but given his Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team I wonder if he either cared or perhaps even agreed with Roberts' ideology. What could we expect from him in the way of court appointments? What could we expect of appointments to federal agencies?  Would he leave some of the Bush appointees in place? Would he appoint Republicans to those agencies? Would his White House staff be larded up with Republicans and DLCers like the DLC people on his campaign staff?

    I first saw him as simply having no deeply held beliefs as DandyTiger suggests. That was bad enough because even at my age I still believe that a President (or any office holder) should have some fire in the belly beyond mere ambition. It's what makes a person willing to do battle and maybe even get a little mussed up in the process. The willingness to spill blood to ram a policy home.  I thought that Obama's unity, reconciliation, compromise with Republicans was just schtick.  Now I think he may actually mean it.  What a tragedy that would be to have both houses of Congress, the opposing party on the run and big majority public support for progressive action and then squander it by compromising. The compromise, blunting progressive projects may be what he's after. His neoliberal economics (free trade, free markets, spotty regulations) are a tip I believe that an Obama Presidency would be a severe disappointment. His support for Blackwater and other contractors makes me both nervous and angry.

    This statement "And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois' death penalty laws." reminds me that his legislative record as an Illinois State Senator was created for him in his last two years when Emil Jones, the Senate President, gifted him the hard work of other legislators. Accepting that kind of credit, credit for the hard work of others, is deeply troubling.

    And constantly blaming subordinates is so Bush, so Republican.  I still remember when JFK took the whole public responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco in response to a reporter's question during a televised news conference.  As I remember, the way the question was phrased, he could have spread blame with impunity.  He did not.

    And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois' death penalty laws.


    [ Parent ]

    He's running for national office against 30 yrs (4.50 / 2) (#16)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
    of liberalism being demonized and he's running to win. I think it's obvious that he's trying to moderate some of his views and cloak them in new language that is liable to get him past some of the normal knee jerk pitfalls of public opinion.

    From what I can tell researching his history he's made a career of doing so he's a student of power relationships and is going for the biggest one in the world to try and enact change.

    You have to be able to read between the lines to get it. It's like I've tried to explain to people again and again here he's the progressive candidate he's just being smart about it.

    You aren't going to get to be president coming out and saying that you support Unions over Capital, that you support gun control are anti-death penalty and want to be smart (read soft) on crime.

    Best I can tell he's doing exactly the opposite of what Bill Clinton did he's running centrist but it looks like he's going to govern right.

    I remember back to 92 I was in the Marines at the time and everyone was all up in arms about gays in the military (my comment at the time to all my homophobic squaddies was who'd ever know the difference with all the butt kissing going on all the time) but I digress the point is he ran on some really good liberal left rhetoric that he was going to let gays serve openly and that crap evaporated in about a nano second into that "don't ask don't tell" abomination.  

    Clinton was a mixed bag imo, He could have been great but he spent too much time pandering to the very people who despised him.

    And I'm very much afraid that Hillary seems to be following right in his footsteps which is disappointing I had really hoped that she'd be willing to distance herself from the DLC triangulation folks.

    I don't know how Obama will actually govern but I do know this. A victory for Obama will break the back of the conventional Washington wisdom that you have to pander to big business to get financing. No matter how you slice it and no matter what his policies are beyond that just the reality that a candidate was able to win the presidency primarily through the financial support of small grassroots donors and activists is significant.

    I've said it here before and if I'm not banned I'l say it again. A huge part of why people are supporting Obama is because it's a bottom up organization. That the movement predated his candidacy and will out last it as well.

    Every indication I can find however including his time listening to rev Wright tells me that he really is progressive at heart and that we can count on him once he gets into office to redeem the word liberal. What I can't figure out is why so many people who profess to be liberals can't see that.


    [ Parent ]

    this is just too good (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    So you have to read between the lines to see what he's really saying. Sort of like you make your own interpretation of what you think he's all about and what he really stands for. Because he won't really say it, because he wants to get elected. And you don't understand why people just don't get that.

    [ Parent ]
    Before Open Left (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:36:58 AM EST
    fell completely into the pit of the dark side, it was both amusing and horrifying to watch Obama supporters arguing with each other about what Obama really means or what he would do about X, Y or Z.

    It's really quite an achievement.  What I can't figure out is how he thinks he's going to be able to balance all those contradictory expectations of his devotees if he actually manages to get elected.  Watching him try to thrash his way out of the trap he's built for himself over a glass of bourbon will be one of the very small consolations of an Obama presidency.

    I wonder what the diaries on Orange Satan are going to look like then.

    [ Parent ]

    Kind of like the 30% that still support Bush (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:39:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The 30% (none / 0) (#112)
    by Skex on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Supporting Bush are hardcore authoritarians they are people who want a daddy figure to tell them what to do. They can't stand ambiguity they care more about certainty than accuracy.

    The people supporting Obama are a different flavor, in fact at least in my case I'm exactly the oposite I hate authoritarians.

    [ Parent ]

    um, believing whatever Obama says, today, (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM EST
    regardless of what he said yesterday is a rather authoritarian orientation, if you ask me.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not (none / 0) (#220)
    by Skex on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    concerned with what he says from day to day it's the over all record that counts. Besides I'm counting on those millions of people who are putting him in place to keep him under scrutiny.

    I think a lot of people are mistaking grudging optimism with blind obidience.

    I tend to agree with Cornel West in the idea of Critical support.

    He is willing to use the language I recognize as being quite radical and leftist in root and meaning.

    Further his message has resonance with people who are able to look past narrow sound bite labels of socialism/liberalism.

    But all that rhetoric to the side no single person even a president can bring about the changes this country needs, Real change has never come from the top in this country it has never been freely embraced by those in power (at least not change that's good for the bulk of us)

    Obama doesn't represent change he represents and oportunity he's the candidate that can be influenced who's waiting and ready to do the will of the people. McCain knows what he wants to do and how to do it. Clinton knows what she wants to do and how to do it.

    Obama is willing to give us what we want and to provide us the oportunity to find a way to do it.

    But once he's there we are ready to hold his feet to the fires to make sure that the change he speaks of happens that the promises are not forgotten.

    I know that McCain won't listen to us. I know that Hillary won't either. Obama might though and that's the best we got for now.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is the 'blank page' (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by 1horseNag on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    upon which people project not only their own hopes, but their own political positions. He is the ultimate mirror and that is how he hopes to get enough votes to be elected. As a result of this ploy we don't actually know what Obama believes in until he actually gets elected. That is what is so frightening to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Question: (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:21 AM EST
    A huge part of why people are supporting Obama is because it's a bottom up organization. That the movement predated his candidacy and will out last it as well

    Bottom up?  Who is the bottom? Indies? Lefties? Republicans? To date all these people think they are the bottom or as you say, the top.  Well, I guess transparency is not important.  My head reels.  


    [ Parent ]

    I've had to not post about 100 (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    additional responses to this. Every time I try one, I seem to cross some line or another. Darn. And some were so funny too. My head is reeling too. Maybe we just don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    Damage (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:19:21 AM EST
    I think that the political gamesmanship has destroyed any notion of ethical values or sense of truth.  We will lose cause now the alleged maverick who tells it like it is, will be facing the "bottom up" guess who is on the bottom leader.  

    So frustrating.  

    [ Parent ]

    If you had seen the light, you would understand! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    There is "before seeing the light," and "after seeing the light"--how you understand Obama's words depends in many cases on whether you are BSTL or ASTL.

    Corrente's Lambert came up with WORM--What Obama Really Meant. There is no need for WORM once the light has been seen, you have your epiphany, and you know you must vote for Obama. All becomes clear.

    It is only those who are "unenlightened" who still need to find rationale and factbased reasons for their choice.

    BTW, has Obama stopped using those lines about seeing the light or shaft of light coming down, the epiphany happening, and then The Great Knowing coming upon his followers?

    I had seen Obama as a fairly benign alternative to Clinton and Edwards until commenters who had usually been pretty rational and fact based began to attack any other commenters who dared to criticize Obama. The change was so marked, I felt I needed to learn more and googled a lot, went to sites which were taking a side (one way or another), and found my need to be able to know what a candidate stood for was met more by Hillary.  

    Paul Krugman's analysis of the differences between Hillary's healthcare plan and Obama's was very persuasive for me, as I see universal healthcare as the strongest underpinning we can give to the economy and to our citizens, along with maintaining SocSec as it is now constituted (with necessary small changes, if and when required).

    So, somewhat slowly, I became a Hillary partisan. I still am trying to learn what Obama intends to do as president--and I feel more strongly now than previously, back when I just casually knew about his stands on issues (the MCM said and says they are virtually the same as Hillary's), now that I'm learning more about how he came to power, what he's said in the past, how he trims and measures his responses, now I'm becoming much more firmly for Hillary--and now feel Obama is too much of a gamble to be given the party's nomination.

    I do not think he has built up enough political capital with the public, he has not become well enough known by the public to withstand what the Repubs will do with information we do know--and info we probably have no idea about. Plus the usual stuff they just make up.

    Mark Halperin last Friday warned Hillary that the press wants Obama to win and she'll have to deal with that every single day she stays in the race. What he doesn't say is whether the press (MCM or Mainstream Corporate Media) will stick with Obama in the general election or revert to its usual Repub favoritism. Will the MCM decide to destroy Obama in favor of McCain...?

    We know Hillary can withstand MCM attacks (altho they do decidedly hurt her--as in making an issue of a perfectly sane reponse to Timmeh's question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, a reply which Obama essentially echoed the following week! But the press declaredd it a terrible misstep and beat it like a drum. As in what they're doing now to dampen enthusiasm for her among her followers and potential voters by repeatedly telling them she has no chance of winning the nomination. It's all the MCMers are talking about--issues? Forget about those. The MCM doens't do issues or windows on reality.).

    Can Obama withstand MCM attacks? Some say the way he handled the Wright scandal says he can. But the MCM chose to worship his speech, not really discuss the facts. What happens when it's rediscovered during the general election?

    So, this post by Jeralyn is very good in that it brings together in one place many of the discrepancies in Obama's "stands" (deliberate quotes).

    Hillary must stay in the primary race--and she very well may win. But it be against both Obama and the MCM.

     

    [ Parent ]

    nothing bannable there (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    you're entitled to your opinion and you expressed it civilly and rationally. It's appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    once he gets into office ... (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:24:04 AM EST
    Every indication I can find however including his time listening to rev Wright tells me that he really is progressive at heart and that we can count on him once he gets into office to redeem the word liberal. What I can't figure out is why so many people who profess to be liberals can't see that.

    What I can see is that voting for Obama is like buying a pig in a poke. If you have to read between the lines to get what Obama's really saying, then what does he mean by "Unity?"

    And another thing: I don't think it's progressive to hump pulpits, express scorn and hate for those different from you, and scream about death and punishment. If you need to talk about Christian values, how about charity and forgiveness, brotherhood and compassion, and let you without sin cast the first stone?


    [ Parent ]

    more info needed (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:44:46 AM EST
    If the movement predated his candidacy, why did the movement pick him to be "their" candidate?  What about his life or record stood out and made the movement choose him?  Why not Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich?  Maybe I am reading it wrong but it sounds like you are saying the great thing is if he wins is that it will be because of grassroots funding, but that funding base existed before him, it seems circular or I am missing something maybe?  if the movement had chosen Edwards would he be the one winning right now?  Did you just choose the blankest slate?  I am not being snarky, I am new here so I don't really understand who the movement is exactly?  

    [ Parent ]
    Wondering the same thing (none / 0) (#210)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    I have heard this other places too, and have wondered when exactly a 'movement' picked Obama, becaus I sure missed it, and I thought I was pretty plugged in to all the political organizations.  I too amserious about asking.  I've heard it started from FaceBook?  Is that true?  How does that work exactly?

    [ Parent ]
    But when will he stop fudging his position? (5.00 / 9) (#78)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:41:25 AM EST
    Skex, I understand your argument. But if someone has to fudge their real principles and sidestep public conflicts just to become popular enough to get elected, and this stratagem is successful in getting him elected, what makes you believe he will suddenly develop a different personality afterwards?

    It seems far more likely to me that he would continue to value popularity over principles, and to seek to deflect conflict by adopting the same stratagems that got him elected. And you can bet that anyone who opposes the liberal principles which you obviously value will recognize this tendency, and take full advantage of it. And your principles, and mine, will be the casualty.

    That's why I'd much rather have a candidate like Hillary who is willing to fight and who is not in the least bit surprised when some people don't like her. Because if you stand up for what you believe in, you will never be universally loved. We've just had eight years of a president who tricked a lot of people into voting for him by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider." That should be enough to demonstrate that political differences are real, and cannot be glossed over by smooth-talking candidates.

    Though I hate to think of this, when the Republicans so deserve to pay for the last 8 years, it would even be better to nominate a principled candidate who loses to McCain, and wait another 4 years to reap the electoral benefits, than to elect a Democratic President who doesn't have the courage of his convictions when confronted by the inevitable Republican opposition.

    [ Parent ]

    Well said (none / 0) (#107)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    I would add, too, that if Obama were to win the presidency, he would be up for re-election in four years.  So it would be likely he would continue his "winning" strategy into office to keep that office.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush was very good at "fudging" (none / 0) (#173)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    his actual stands. He was presented as a carefully crafted "compassionate conservative," and people could attach to him their own values. The only thing he was absolutely clear about was cutting taxes and appointing non-activist judges to the Supreme Court. For him, saving SocSec was getting his hands on the "lockbox" funds to give to his uberwealthy base.

    Remember those kind of weird things he said in debates? Which turned out to be dog whistle phrases to assure his conservative base that he wasn't really what he was presenting himself as?

    How well that worked out! Not.

    [ Parent ]

    Skex...your comments were indeed thought provoking (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    But I do take some issues with it...

    Bill Clinton ran as centrist and your assessment that "he spent too much time pandering to the very people who despised him" and about Obama, that "it looks like he's going to govern right" starts with a premise that I don't agree with and ends with conjecture that I feel it's likely we will never know. It's simply not possible to know how he would govern but Clinton had to deal with an active, aggressive Republican majority in the House after 1994.

    Not to worry though, after you suggested that it looks like he's going to govern right, you came back a few paragraphs later and stated that you don't know how he will govern.

    My issue though is with your conclusion...

    we can count on him once he gets into office to redeem the word liberal. What I can't figure out is why so many people who profess to be liberals can't see that.

    Considering that he has already run as far as he can from the term 'liberal', it's almost silly to expect him to do otherwise if he were to be elected.

    As for why 'liberals' can't see his being liberal, I think you can chalk that up to the fact that he lacks candor, genuine-ness and is so clearly demonstrating a candidacy borne almost entirely out of political calculation. Hillary is cast as being entirely politically ambitious which I would submit is preferable to being entirely politically calculated since it's not hard to anticipate how she would govern whereas figuring out how Obama would govern is akin to nailing Jello to the wall.

    That you would prefer the choice of Obama at the risk of not knowing how he would govern is yours to make and I am not going to fault that, but recognize that it requires a leap of faith that many 'liberals' do not necessarily wish to make unless there is no other choice.

    [ Parent ]

    I mistyped (none / 0) (#221)
    by Skex on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    What I meant to say was that every indication seems to suggest that Obama is campaigning as a centrist but will govern to the left.

    I base that on what I see in his actual plan and what I've read about his legislative history and what I've heard in his speaches.

    It's not like its some deeply hidden agenda it's right there on his website for the whole world to see.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama doesn't get financing from (4.00 / 1) (#115)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    big business?? What planet do you live on? Read this article from Harper's and see exactly how plugged into the system Obama already is. And as for Clinton's stand on gays, at least he tried. Unfortunately, the ingrained bigotry in this country didn't allow him to do what he tried to do, so he had to compromise. That is what politics is all about. Not being all things to all people as Obama tries to do, but in governing in a way that makes most people happy and not too many of them unhappy about the way they are being governed. If Obama thinks that he can get into office, which is unlikely, and then do as he pleases, he needs to reread the Constitution. The President has to get everything past Congress. Unless Obama is going to govern by using Executive Orders. He hasn't been in Congress long enough, or attending enough, to realize that not all bills get passed because the President thinks they are a good idea. Of course, when his ideas are presented as bills, he will give a speech and the entire Congress will swoon at his Obamaness and pass everything he wants passed. Yeah right..

    [ Parent ]
    How do you know... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    ... that the deeply-held positions he adopted to get elected in inner-city Chicago are any more sincere than the ones he's adopting now to try to become President? The only thing I'm sure he believes is that he deserves to win. Granted, more than a few people have said the same thing over the years about Hillary, and there's some merit to it. But she's not supposed to be some magical new kind of candidate, and she's got more of a record to keep her honest.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not that hard actually (none / 0) (#184)
    by Skex on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST
    Molly Ivin's said it best.

    If you want to know about a politician you look at their record that's it simple. Look at the things they've fought for what they've been willing to expend political capital for.

    Obama's not perfect ideally I'd like someone who was more direct and more forceful in defending liberal ideals but Kucinich isn't in the race anymore and never really got a shot anyway.

    I wonder how many people here who keep saying Obama's and empty suit have actually taken the time to read his platform?

    Have bothered to investigate his voting records have bothered to scratch the surface of what the media has put forth to try and see what lies beneath.

    A consistent pattern I've noticed with all the attacks on Obama is that they tend to follow the republican strategy of being inflamatory and seem damning at first glance but once dug into turn out to be much ado about nothing.

    Even the Wright flap that everyone harps on for the most part I just don't see it gaining traction with people as a reason to vote against him.

    Resko, a politician knew and got support from a shady businessman, yawn not on peoples list of concerns.

    He voted present on some bills in a strategic way often as a part of a overall strategy worked out with the groups supporting the bills. Don't see the big deal.

    The overriding narative I see from people who are opposed is this idea that we don't know and can't know what he is that he's an empty suit and I read this and I'm womperjawed because I look at him and I see a hell of lot of substance I see concrete plans I see an understanding of the fundamental problems facing us as a nation and a civilization.

    I see people asking how I can see it I wonder how they can not.

    He's not perfect by a long shot but he's definitely better than the available alternatives.


    [ Parent ]

    You're not dealing with electrability issues (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    arising from this questionnaire.  That's the point.  Yeh, he's a pol who pretends he isn't a pol but really is a pol, and his fans will find out, etc.  And those of us who aren't fans aren't surprised by this as yet more evidence of Obama being a pol.

    It's what the Republicans will do with this that is the concern.  But you're not concerned about more nails in the coffin of what would be the general election campaign?  I am.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#192)
    by Skex on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    with your assesment of the electability question.

    For one I don't think he's pretending not to be a politician obviously he's a politician.

    I think most people aren't going to concern themselves with the minutia that is being brought up. They simply aren't wonky enough to care about these points.

    I'm also unwilling to back down from some of these fights because some people are afraid of the big bad republican 527s. It's that kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I say bring em on lets have that conversation. Lets compare ideals.

    What I see Obama doing is changing the frames when he lays out his values one after another in a way that people hear the idea seperate from the liberal tie in.

    Yeah he's a pol but he is a new kind who's trying to shift the way politics works however while he is pushing towards the world that we want he's got to operate in the world that is.

    Its just like all the accusations that Obama went negative and played the race card first. Maybe he did but he did it in such a way that his oponents came out with egg on their faces because they went for the bait.

    That's the political Jujitsu people talk about he turns his opponents attacks back on them. And he seems to be a master of it too.

    I look at how much he frutrates the Clintons and think wait til he starts doing this to the Republicans and their 527s.

    [ Parent ]

    Reading between the lines (none / 0) (#195)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    The problem is that reading between the lines is like a bunch of preachers interpreting scripture - you can make it mean anything you want.

    And frankly, I don't care whether his campaign is top-down or bottom-up.  I care what policy positions he holds, what he's done in the past, what he plans to do in the future, whether he keeps his word, whether he accepts responsibility for his inevitable screw-ups, and whether he can get anything done.  The rest is just theology.

    [ Parent ]

    It would sure be the first time someone (none / 0) (#211)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    ran as a centrist in the primaries and the GE, then governed as a liberal.  There is no liberal alter-ego that is going to take over as soon as he is sworn in. He is going to govern in the center, exactly the way he ran. That is who he is - a concensus builder.

    So what will all of you "liberal" Obamaphiles do at that point?  Will your 'movement' produce another candidate to challenge him in 2012?

    [ Parent ]

    He didn't start the state senate until 1996?!? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    Wow, I didn't realized that.  Geez... 1996, then he running for Bobby Rush's House seat from 1999 -2000 then running for Senate seat from 2002-04, then running for Prez since he got to the Senate.

    and we wonder why (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:42:20 PM EST
    he's never really done anything. He's just a professional office campaigner. Kind of makes everything make sense. Oh that's really sad. And scary.

    [ Parent ]
    now I'm feeling sorry for him (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    as it looks like he's pushed (or more likely been pushed) too fast. Precisely because he's never done anything and has no record. And because of this, he can't possibly win the general. So I think if he gets the nomination, his political career is over. Really before it got started. That's so nice of Kennedy and Kerry and others to have done this. Can the democratic party stop shooting itself in the foot please.

    [ Parent ]
    Who were the people who came to him (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:22:11 AM EST
    and asked him to run?  I want to know.  

    [ Parent ]
    I've read that Kerry and Kennedy (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:30:13 AM EST
    and perhaps others were behind him pretty early. The theory being that it was a perfect time to run because he hadn't done anything yet and so would be more electable. And of course some have speculated that these and others got behind him thinking they would have more power whereas they would have little if Clinton were president. I can't find the links now, but I'll add them if I can track them down. I'm not sure this was a reliable story either since I don't remember where I read it. So take it with a grain of salt right now.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm really dubious` (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:43:18 AM EST
    about this story-- not that Obama was basically recruited into doing this, but that Kerry and especially Kennedy had anything to do with it, and particularly with the motivations you cite.  Who knows waht Kerry thinks he's up to, but that's just not ever been the way Kennedy has operated.

    Democrats in Congress have never felt the slightest need to succumb to pressure from a Democratic White House, so the idea that a strong president like Hillary would be would somehow diminish either man's power (and truthfully, Kerry has precious little, and Kennedy not a whole lot more) makes no logical sense to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:43:42 AM EST
    Kennedy vs. Carter in the primary for Carter's reelection?  You missed that?

    [ Parent ]
    Not comparable (none / 0) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    Lots of people with no power in the Senate run for president.  And that was, what, 25 or 30 years ago or something?  We could go into Ted Kennedy family psychology for a while, but the bottom line is he tried that once and his heart clearly wasn't in it.

    Neither Kennedy nor Kerry are any kind of power brokers in the Senate.  And I say again, that's not Kennedy's style of working.  (Kerry would like to be, but he doesn't have the right stuff for it.)  Despite his extremely long tenure in the Senate, Kennedy's sole major chairmanship is Health and Education.  Important to you and me, for sure, but not what you'd call a power center.

    [ Parent ]

    You have missed the point (none / 0) (#217)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    entirely....but let me say this to your convoluted response of "Lots of people with no power in the Senate run for president"...but lots of people don't run in a primary against a sitting Democratic president up for reelection.  No.  They don't.

    And it has nothing to do with who has power in the senate or what committee they are on.

    Here's the bottom line:  the Dem-guy establishment who couldn't get themselves elected president (and who despise the Clintons, who did get elected) went looking for a candidate to beat Hillary and they found the perfect standin.  They drafted him, backed him, gave him their staff for both his senate office and his campaign, fundraisers, lists, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Why Obama besides his 'ready/willing/able ambitions?'  Because only a black could split the AA vote away from the Clintons and you couldn't beat them any other way.

     Who did this?  Well, those who went public so far are Daschle (and his lobbyist DC wife), Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin and the Daley machine.

    Politics 101.  Don't believe it?

    Never mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh? Read the story of Kerry picking BO (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    to give the 2004 convention speech that catapulted BO to stardom.  (Sorry I don't have the link, but it has been here many times and can be googled up.)  

    [ Parent ]
    What's that got to do with it? (none / 0) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Obama was a pretty obvious choice for a Dem. convention speech under any circumstances.

    And once Kerry flubbed the campaign and lost the election to Bush, he sank back into persona non grata status, well deserved, in the party.  He is not even a little bit powerful within the party or the senate and never will be, no matter who's president.

    Look, I'm not saying he didn't encourage Obama to run.  He probably did.  But it's not because, as the comment said, he (and Kennedy) are fearful that a Clinton presidency would make him less powerful.

    Kerry is resentful of the Clintons because they're successful and widely loved, and he's a putz.  Teddy hasn't given up the fantasy of Camelot II: The Sequel, and the Clintons didn't get there the first time around.  Etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, no, not at all obvious (none / 0) (#224)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    as Obama still was a nobody then in national politics.  Put the timing together with when he got to Congress, etc. -- and find and read the story, as it's quite revealing about the power play to get Obama to run . . . and to run this year.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting Hypothesis (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:48:52 AM EST
    Two guys who ran unsuccessfully for president, frustrated by 28 yrs. of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, add to that a few more Senators, Leahy and Dodd, etc. who see an opportunity to have a President that they can manipulate and don't forget Pelosi who is at this moment the most powerful woman in this country and Voila!....Obama for President. Not bad for a conspiracy theory if you believe in that stuff. ;-)
    But they forgot to calculate in the Clinton Factor. She is tenacious and very smart and has a better resume than Obama. And they forgot the electorate, who will be pissed in November if their choice isn't there fairly and will not vote the party line. Good Luck to Kennedy and Kerry.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    And here I've been thinking (4.00 / 1) (#82)
    by alsace on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:06:21 AM EST
    that it was Oprah, expanding her horizons from picking her fans' books to picking their president.

    [ Parent ]
    I was lambasted (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:32:00 AM EST
    at the Orange (back when I used to go there) for having the audacity to say that Oprah would make no difference and might even cost him a few votes. Some people don't actually like her!

    And a poll came out stating that more people would vote AGAINST a candidate with an Oprah endorsement than would vote for a candidate for that reason.  Still made no difference at the Orange.

    Where is Oprah now?  Must not be around because she made no difference -- or was a negative.

    [ Parent ]

    Oprah (none / 0) (#106)
    by Just another person on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:47 AM EST
    is the reason I won't read many books - and it annoys me when she "endorses" a classic because it makes it difficult for me to get a book without the "as seen on Oprah's Bookclub" sticker.

    But yes, Oprah's endorsement actually turned me off a little.

    [ Parent ]

    Oprah's endorsement didn't bother me.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    ...I saw it as due to her Chicago ties as much as anything else. But speaking of Oprah I wonder if she is laying a little low now because she realized early on that Obama was starting to irritate her base...i.e., white women.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not white (none / 0) (#209)
    by Just another person on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    and I'm a woman - and yes he's irrtated me no end. But then I'm not black either...

    [ Parent ]
    obama's enablers (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by teachermom on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:24:08 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure Daschle was a major influence.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes...and (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:44:44 AM EST
    Daschle's lobbyist wife and Dick Durbin and the Daley machine...

    [ Parent ]
    A couple of names (none / 0) (#108)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    I've heard Durbin and Daschle - Durbin being his senate "mentor" and most of Obama's senate staff used to work for Daschle.  Both were early endorsers.  (And Daschle, for one, doesn't really love the Clintons.  I believe Bill backed another candidate when Daschle initially ran for minority leader.)

    [ Parent ]
    His Senate mentor (none / 0) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    was none other than Joe Lieberman.  Obama campaigned for JL against Ned Lamont in the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    BINGO (none / 0) (#111)
    by suisser on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    Finally, the question that has been pestering me for a few weeks now.  So, who? When? and WHY him?


    [ Parent ]
    He graduated from law school (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    in 1991 and ran for State senate and won in 1996. He was re-elected in 1998. He ran for Congress in 2000 but lost in the primary.  He was re-elected to the state senate in 2002 and in 2003, decided to run for U.S. Senate. He was elected in 2004, and began serving as Senator in January, 2005. In Feb. 2007, he announced his run for President.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not to quibble, but the published (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
    Audacity of Hope in 2006 in started campaigning in Iowa in 2006, so I would say 2006-- I want to give him adequate credit for his campaigning; ) Also, remember, his big speech about the Iraq war was in 2002. Also, when did Dreams of My Father come out?

    [ Parent ]
    Dreams *from* My Father (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:12:50 AM EST

    came out in 1994, I believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Dreams From My Father--1995 (none / 0) (#176)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    Just checked in copy I just got from the libary.

    [ Parent ]
    Now, don't you go saying 2006 (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    was when he started his prez campaign, since he still was pr