[youtube2]http://youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCch-JEo[/youtube2]

He didn't come to anything late. Hillary did. The other Democrats who voted FOR the war did. Obama has been Nostradamus on the war compared to the other Congressional Democrats.

Which, I want to be clear. I don't necessarily mind. I'm just staying, people gotta stop with this holier-than-though attitude. He could be just as manipulative as any other candidate, and I personally get the feeling that is why he has pushed the legislation and avoided certain topics that he has in the past two or so years. To keep his record good looking for the typical voter who tends to get disillusioned by the senatorial, national, political landscape.



I agree.



Hi Mike!

Again, I don't personally find that to be the same thing, and that is the problem I have had with conflation of talk and voting record. He didn't vote. He might have opposed it, but we'll never know how he would have voted. The war was not liked in Chicago. I lived there back then and went door-knocking to get out the vote for Obama. But making a speech against the war in Chicago is not the same thing, because it wouldn't have lost him the race. Large parts of the place already strongly opposed it. It was, in fact, part of his platform for getting elected there. Who knows what he would have said if the war had been popular amongst the people he needed to get him elected. He might have been less vocal, or shifted attention away from it onto other issues. This is all hypothetical. Now, he very well may have voted against it, but that is not the same thing to me. It is still hypothetical. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, though, because I know where you are coming from...I just don't like how the media frames it.



C'mon. You're better than that.

I never said I was for the war. I was saying senators that were working in the early 2000's all have blotchy voter records on the point of the war, and that I think both Obama and Clinton have, as part of their campaign platforms, much better (exit)plans for the war than someone like McCain. McCain, true, has been more consistent with his support for the war. He voted for it then, and would vote to even strengthen it now. But, I want a speedy withdrawel, so I'm not voting for him.

Admittedly, however, he does not have to deal with the 'flip-flop' attack Kerry, Edwards (last time around) or Clinton need to deal with. Since all of those candidates do, in fact, want to end this thing quickly.



I know. That is why I sad ideological and practical. Even those who ideologically agree with it (which I don't) understand on a practical level that it only gets used against certain people, is highly racialized, biased, and makes worse the already existing inconsistencies of our legal system.



I admit he can work with people, but what is this myth people have that Hillary doesn't? She's worked with plenty of people. Not my fault that certain social positions she has (especially support of gay rights) just don't make for as easy bi-partisan hugging as anti-corruption packages (which might even appear to 'small governent' libertarians or evangelicals). Now, I'm still trying to say he's doing fine, I'm just trying to deconstruct the character-foil media image that Clinton/Obama have been shoved into. Where one is so ideological and a martyr to moralism while the other is some nefarious politicker.

His choices since he was key-note speaker at the DNC convention could be just as self-serving to his presidential bid as Hillary's. Who knows! I just hate this alter-ego construction. If she wins the primaries the stories will accuse her of only acheiving it through dirty politics. If he does, it'll be some self-made man with high morals come-from-behind to end corruption story. In reality, as I've pointed out, his last three years could have been just as 'self-invested' as hers. Every candidate who thinks about the national public makes decisions that aren't that selfless. In fact, one could argue that the uglier your record the more likely it is you didn't make votes just based on how you thought they would be received in Utah, South Carolina, and Massachusettes all at once!



Of course they are! And as I said below, I don't think the abs comments (or my cult of the personality comments) are geared towards someone like you. Its more aimed toward the remarkably high amount of loonies (predominantly under 25, but some older people who act like they are under 25) that seem to be coming out of the woodworks in this election.



Nope. My voting is on several other concerns and they are as well thought-out as yours. I'm not particularly swayed about the recent noise around Obama, and this is coming from someone who likes him and thinks he's a good dtaunch democrat.

But, I won't associate with these rabid people. This has nothing to do with the candidates. I already said I'd have no problem voting for Obama in the general election, and also that I volunteered to help with his campaign in Illinois. I have to disassociate from these people though because they are not creating a healthy environment for the democrats or for under-represented voices in this country in general.

When people felt strongly against Kerry, lets say, or even people who hate Bush, it never falls into identity politics because, well, all the candidates are White, straight, protestant, men. But because of the nature of this election, when someone villifies one of the democratic candidates so incredibly violently (critiquing their stance on the issues is different of course), there is an inevitable association with a communal identity in this country ('women,' or 'African-Americans').

That is sad but true. I'm not interested in making this primary seem like a cat-fight between two groups that have already been left fighting for table scraps for the past few centuries. Just makes them look petty as an entire population rather than an individual (Bush and Co. never stood for 'White Men'). Hence stuff like the article makeshift posted in the other thread. That's the sad truth. These candidates are under extreme stress and have both wethered it well (admittedly, Hillary has had much more bashing in the media). Discussions about them far transcend the specifics of them as individuals and they have both had to handle that this entire campaign for good or bad.

This country isn't ready yet to distance these candidates from what they represent, and nor should they have to. The problem, then, is this 10% of the democratic voters (and the media) that has just flipped out. That woman the other night wouldn't have even been able to tell me why she thought Hillary was going to ruin her life (its not like she would have suddenly had to arrange for dates with coat hangers in back alleys or something like she would have to with McCain or Romney), she just flipped out and started cussing the candidate out like crazy. Same with half the media today, and these people that make blanket claims that Hillary will "kill the democratic party in this country forever" while Obama will "be its savoir and lead it to the bright new future of post-resurrection 2008." That's cult of the personality, not politics. Its dreadful because it suvives only through narrative archs that must have a hero and a villain. I'm not looking to villify any of the candidates this time around and I'm pissed at people who are.

What a speech, even by just reading the text, and in retrospect, every point he made looks so valid.

OK, but we DO know how Hillary voted, and she was wrong. So you have a choice between someone who spoke out against the war but MIGHT have voted for it for all you know, and someone who spoke in favor of the war and definitely voted for it.

I'm not sure why you see this as a defining issue. If he were running against someone who had indeed voted against it, you may have a point, but between the two, we know Hillary was wrong.



(Referring to McCain being in the Senate for 20 years and therefore why didn't she support him). I was just trying to make a point -- experience isn't everything. You seem to be saying that more years in the Senate make one a better leader, and I was using McCain as an example that this isn't true.




I am just looking at how the Republicans hate hate hate the Clintons. I am also looking at the polls which say that if Obama is the candidate, there are Republicans who will vote for him who will never vote for Hillary. And how many Republicans are hoping and praying that Hillary is the candidate because nothing will rile up their base and bring them out on election day than the chance to vote against a Clinton.

So if she wins, do you think that all the republicans will ignore their constituents who tell them to fight Hillary tooth and nail and not give her an inch? Hell, they'll probably try to impeach her for no reason like they did her husband. A Hillary election will just give us another 4 - 8 years of division.



Oh, absolutely. No candidate gets to be President without being self-serving. Let's not be naive here. Remember, I am not one of those dewy-eyed idealists supporting Obama because I think he's (as one commentator put it recently) half black and half unicorn.




And as I said, if Clinton is the nominee, I will definitely be voting for her. But, for the reasons I have given, I think Obama is the better choice both for President and as someone who can better beat the Republicans.

What also tilts me to Obama is he's endorsed by people I respect. Heavyweights I admire like these guys.

He's been a senator for 12 years, while Hillary has been for only 7. You've been drinking her kool-aid, it seems. What a shame for a man of your experience. A shame, really. Her claim to "35 years" of experience is one of the most pathetic lies I have ever heard. By that measure, Obama has 25 years of experience.

There is no such thing as too young, but there is such a thing as too corrupt. Clinton folks that piss on optimism as a degenerate emotion are a real drag for American democracy.

Here's an interesting quote I read over at the talkback at AICN which is amazingly true to an extent:

Hilarious segment on one of the news channels last night. One of those political focus groups had just been waxing lyrical about Barack Obama for several minutes, saying how much they loved him, when one of the studio anchors asked them collectively to name something they respect him for accomplishing. Cue the sound of the focus groups' jaws all dropping through the floor as it dawned on them that they couldn't think of a single answer, and that they knew next to nothing about the guy they had just been fellating and wanted to elect president, apart from the vague notion that they kind of like the idea of him personally. This is why Clinton absolutely demolishes him during substantive debates, yet nobody appears to notice. This election is AT LEAST four years too early for him. He should be vice president.

This poster does have a point.. It really does baffle me how the media creams in their pants over Obama but can't give this guy 1 solid bit of criticism at all while they bash Clinton like it's a sport..

Why are you sitting on that poor girl with the ugly, fat, furry feet?

Hot pic.

Which one is the femnazi loyal?

I'm allowed to say that btw because my ex was/is which in turn made me one.

what means more? hillary getting the nomination or getting a democrat in the white house because its one or the other.

Jesus, say something else please.

what is there to say?

clinton suporters are the soul reason we wont be in the white house next year.

I will be happy with either Obama or Clinton as president. I am unsure of how well Obama can run an actual campaign and handle crazy allegations something ironically Clinton has more experience with. In Illinois Obama ran a pretty much uncontested campaign against Allen Keyes who was more or less imported last second. He has done some things in Illinois but he also has a reputation there as a bit of an empty suit meaning he has talked more than he has delivered.
Obama is very good speaker, very intelligent politician but for the most part he hasn't run a challenging campaign on a large scale. When the fall comes around I know that both McCain and Clinton will both have experience both dishing out and being the targets of mud slinging but how Obama will deal with it I have no idea and I would hope he doesn't flounder.

Note that the poster doesn't mention a single-thing that Hillary has accomplished as a counter-point to the media criticism of her, which is a laugh anyway since it was the media that anointed her the frontrunner at the very beginning.

*cough**cough* uh 3 years in the Senate 2005-2008.

Bill Clinton was 46 when he won. He was born in August 1946 and won in Nov. of 1992, do the math.

Actually, he makes sense in that the media is against Clinton and is Pro-Obama at the moment.

You know Daschle is Obama's mentor right?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063289.php



http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Dy ... lled.shtml

Okay, so he's the same age. That doesn't change the point. How can you defend the comment that Obama is too young and that Clinton somehow wasn't.

Also, while you felt the need to correct jujubee on Obama's years in the Senate, I notice you didn't find it necessary to correct BKB, who said that Obama had only been in the Senate for 1 year. Jujubee was actually closer.

I hadn't gotten to your post, when I responded. I would not have posted, since you got the Senate service number right.

Look at Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama.

Roosevelt is the youngest President to take office. However, he was not elected to the office, but took the reigns when McKinley was shot. Roosevelt's resume at 41 was Governor of New York, Asst. Secy. of the Navy, and a war hero of the Spanish-American War. He had written numerous historical books. He was considered a first-class historian and progressive reformer working with both sides (he worked for Democrat Grover Cleveland to reform the civil service).

Kennedy was also a war hero, had served 6 years as a US Representative and 8 years in the US Senate, upsetting Henrey Cabot Lodge who had served two terms and was part of the family that defined Massachusetts at the time the way the Kennedys would later.

William J. Clinton had been Atty. General of Arkansas for 2 years, and Govenor for 12 years. He was also a Rhodes Scholar. I didn't support Clinton in 1992 either, I supported Jerry Brown, because I thought Clinton was not ready.

Obama has never run against a credible Republican for statewide office. Alan Keyes had to replace Jack Ryan who had to pull out after his sex scandal broke during the campaign. I just think there is too much unrealistic optimism coming from his campaign.

Hindsight being what it is, I would say you were wrong about that, just as I think you are wrong about Obama now. As groucho says, if age and experience are your criteria, then McCain is your candidate. If being a governor is your criteria, then Romney is your candidate.



If it's about the optimism that he can win, I hardly think it's unrealistic. He and Hillary are virtually deadlocked in delegates - and Obama has more than held his own against the Clinton campaign's attacks. He polls ahead of her against McCain. Her negatives are much higher than Obama's.

If it's optimism about what he can get done as president, then I don't think anyone can be that certain about either of them, with neither of them having held executive office before. I do know that Hillary was astonishingly wrong on Iraq while Obama was right. I know that Hillary will face a much more hostile Congress than Obama will, as the Republicans will be much more united against her - although it's possible that could work in her favor.

I must also admit that I'm against the dynasty thing. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I just don't like it. I 'm glad that Dubya has completely obliterated Jeb's chances of ever becoming president.

That wasn't exactly a counter-argument. The poster said that Obama had never accomplished anything but then failed to list Clinton's accomplishment as a counter-point. Your post doesn't even address that. I do agree with Bill about the trivial matters - which is why his Rovian tactics last month were so distasteful and disheartening, along with the media's harping on Clinton's cleavage and Edwards's hair.

But I think we are discussing issues and that's a good thing.

In terms of credentials and experience, I'd have to call it a draw. I think guys like BKB are wholly dishonest both about Clinton's years of experience and Obama's lack of it (reducing Obama's Senate term to just 1 year but while adding 1 year to Clinton's AND counting her years as first lady).

The fact is that both have served in elected office or in some capacity as public servants for a number of years.