Unstoppable Obama
When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: He's a "rock star," all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the New York Times' Paul Krugman, to a "cult of personality." At best, he's seen as another vague Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a credit card company-supported bankruptcy bill in 2001, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.
Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW ..." and "I BELIEVE ..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.
But I don't think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change." The promise of "change" is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and "change" means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don't much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.
Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise.
Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes - and many of them are admirable ones - but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words - "same old."
Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents "change." A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, "I love you America, but isn't it time to start seeing other people?" As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama's election could mean the re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!
So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.
Dang.
My congressman has written, sponsored, co-written, co-sponsored and introduced over three THOUSAND pieces of legislation during his career. Maybe he ought to be running for POTUS. Point being, such a record as " The Messiahs" really doesn't mean all that much. It is in fact rather paltry when compared with those of others.
Let's talk apples to apples. How many bills has he introduced to the us senate - 129? How many have made it our of committee? 9 How many have been passed? 1. How many has she introduced? 354 How many have made it out of committee? 47 How many have passed? 2 [FYI since 1997 Ted Kennedy as introduced 337 bills, had 86 make it out of committee and only 9 enacted.] Obama has missed 17% of the votes not counting the number of votes he did not place while present. Hillary has missed 6%. Obama has co-sponsored 545 bills while Hillary has co-sponsored 1723.
There is a difference bteween a bill, a proclamation and a resolution. A a member of the state legislature it is much easier to introduce and pass bills as it only impacts and affects your own state. It is a different story in the US Senate. Yes, he is a man who has accomplished things, but don't compare what he has done on a state level to what is done nationally.
Obama introduced and passed in '07: Three resolutions he introduced - no Bills passed.
Passed Senate
Jul 13, 2007 S.Res. 268: A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
Passed Senate
Mar 28, 2007 S.Res. 133: A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. Passed Senate
Jun 26, 2007 S.Con.Res. 25: A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society.
You are doing more of a disservice than a service to Obama's cause by misrepresenting his record. Why is it that you just talk about his "8 years of elected service" without specifying that most of that time was in the Illinois State Senate? And by the way, your arithmetic is off--He served almost 7 years in the Illinois Senate, and now 3 years in the U.S. Senate. At the same time, you claim that Hillary's "elected service" totals only 6 years, and yet she's now competed the first year of her second 6-year Senate term, which amounts to 7 years.
You only list the bills Hillary "authored" and which also were "passed into law." Meanwhile, you note that Obama "sponsored" "over 820" bills, not specifying which, if any, he actually authored, and which actually managed to pass and be signed into law. You also don't specify which were in the Illinois Senate and which were in the US Senate (There IS a significant difference.) As a footnote, you mention that one Obama-"sponsored" bill passed the Senate, and two became law. I would hope that more than two Obama-associated bills became U.S. law, but it's difficult to determine from your post. How many bills did Hillary sponsor (usually more than one legislator co-sponsors a bill, even if it is "authored" by someone else.) that eventually became law? I'll bet more than the 20 you bothered to list. And what about all the years she was involved in State & Federal government, without having been "elected?" Does that not count? How about when she was a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate and drafting Impeachment procedures way back in 1973, when Obama was in the 6th grade? What about all her years as a private litigator, children's rights advocate, education reformer, Carter Administration-appointed commission member, law professor, not to mention all the tireless work she did, pro bono, at the behest of her husband's gubernatorial and presidential administrations?
You want to put a positive spin on Obama's limited legislative experience? Fine. I understand that. I also note that like Hillary, he has other, but again less, experience in non-elective public service. He has a relatively short life as a politician, but perhaps he can parlay that into winning the presidency. His minimal meaningful legislative experience doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a successful or effective president. It only makes it more difficult to judge his qualifications. But don't misrepresent it for what it's not, and especially don't misrepresent his opponents' greater experience to make them out to be relative neophytes. It only makes you look silly.
Wow.
That is a powerful post, and
very informative.
But I do want to check out laws #15-20 written
by Hillary, to be fair (not in your post).
Still, it does seem pretty lopsided.
Hillary, with all of her smarts and vibrance, has obviously used her time & energy more for selling out to Corporations and other big money interests (remember the photo of her smiling next to Rupert Murdoch? Barf!), rather than applying her brilliance to governing.
Obama has apparently used much more of
his time and energy for applying
actual IDEAS to Governance.
What a concept!
Far too many many of our politicians (senators/congresspeople esp) have become seduced by the siren-song of making powerful personal connections rather than doing the real work of legislating, innovating and
solving actual problems for the good of
the Nation and The People.
My biggest fear is the Republicans will win if Obama is the Democratic Nominee. It will be four more years of Bush/McCain. All the dreamers need to understand this becomes a race about Race. The Republicans’ Machine can get very mean spirited and they don’t possess the “sensitivities” of the Liberals. Don’t forget, this Country is made up of a two majority Party system and the Country is divided about 50/50. Regardless of the Bush approval rating, the Republicans want to keep their hold on the White House. There is approximately 20-30% African Americans in this Country and Obama will not get the majority of the other 70-80%. When it comes down to it, the majority of Republicans, no matter how disgusted they are with this Idiot Bush, they will not vote for a Democrat. Obama may get the “dreamers” but he won’t get the numbers he will need when it is all said and done. When the “non-black” voters cast their vote, believing this is the African American’s biggest chance to get their Black President, the momentum we are seeing now will be eroded. There is a reality here that most are too “sensitive” to discuss or recognize. As heinous as the existence of racism is, it’s still prevalent whether we liberals like to admit it or not. Ignorance still abounds in Society; look there’s a majority of People who still believe in a “Supreme Being”, God. We haven’t crawled very far from the cave door. The Democratic Party better take heed and get off the “Hope and Dream Train” and look for the “solution”. Obama won’t win in the National Election…sorry folks, the numbers might be there for these caucuses or Primaries, but not for the National. The Repugs don’t see McCain as Bush, but he is probably every bit as dangerous, if that’s possible.
You lost me at FEAR.
I'm sure that wasn't hard to do.
i'm voting for person my race[which is white]if the black's can say it i can also.
Honesty is the best policy.
If you are correct, please explain why more Virginians voted for Obama in the Democratic primary than for McCain in the GOP race, and why overall Democratic voting there was FAR higher than GOP voting.
Virginia has gone GOP in the past few elections, but it sure looks in play this year.
This voting trend - Democrats turning out in HUGE numbers all over the nation, and tons of new, largely young voters - is directly attributable to Obama.
If anything, McCain should just concede to Obama right now and save his misguided supporters tens of millions of dollars.
The Democrats have a better chance of loosing if Clinton is the nominee. It will be like 2000 and 2004 all over again. See we're just about like the Republicans, you can vote for us, we will keep you safe, we won't upset the "free" market, blah, blah, blah. It's a loosing strategy.
Except for your spelling of "losing," I think you're on target. I would vote for either Clinton or Obama, although I support Obama. But I think McCain is just dying to have Clinton nominated, because that would push more conservative support and antiClinton support his way. Maybe this will change, but the antiClinton contingent is huge right now.
Did anyone watch the news and see the lady deputy dump the man out of the chair - you is speaking up againest that
What are you talking about?
An excellent article--catches the Obama appeal perfectly.
Great post.
great piece--sure echoes my experiences
I spoke yesterday at a Washington State Community College in an area dominated by local military bases. An African American woman said a white Major, whose house she was cleaning, had engaged her in a long conversation on why Obama was the best candidate. An Asian vet who served two tours in Afghanistan said that every soldier he knows is voting for Obama "because they don't want to go back for endless tours of duty," and that Obama is also the rage in his online gaming community. A young woman who attended our caucus for the first time said that at the pizza parlour where she's a server, they're talking about the election to each other, their customers and their friends. Not one person voiced any support for or excitement about Hillary, although there were some students who remained still disengaged from the process and knew only "that when you watch the TV news, mostly all you get is that he's a black man and she's a white woman."
if they don't want to serve they need to get out.oh Obama will not end the war.
Yes, thank you for the excellent article. This is exactly how I feel. I am a 50ish, white female. I am very excited abut Obama. Our country has been slopped in the sewer over and over again. Barack epitomizes what American is all about. I am over the establishment and what it has done to us. I am very excited that our younger Americans are finally participating in the "process." I work at the U of AZ and have seen the apathy that permeates our socity. I think they are experiencing what I experienced with Bobby Kennedy.
"Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state littered with Confederate monuments."
And just why is this relevant? Is it because his father is from Kenya, a state that also enslaved black Africans?
Wow, Barbara! Powerful and persuasive argument! Hard to find fault with anything you say. Thank you for your clarity and your wisdom.
Obama voted AGAINST limiting credit card interest to be capped at 30%. It was a cave in to MBNA
and usurios credit percentages of interesr esc alating on credit cards.
Hillary voted FOR it.
"no fault"?? How about calling Obama "anti-war"?
Obama is NOT anti-war!
Obama supports continuing the war in Afghanistan, he military options are NOT off the table re Iran, and said he supports an invasion of Pakistan... (Google it- it's true). Do those countries not count?
Even IF we believe his campaign rhetoric about bringing troops home from Iraq, just how is Obama "anti-war"?
And this shows Obama is not even "anti-Iraq war":
He says he wants to bring the troops home. But if you check Obama's own campaign website, he is only talking about bringing home "combat troops"- which is only about 20,000 of the 157,000 troops currently in Iraq!
So is it "anti-war" to leave only 137,000 troops or so in Iraq? Of course not!
Then if you look at "Obama's Iraq Fact Sheet", you realize he has no plans to stop the US occupation of Iraq - just lots of charming speeches to mislead Americans:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
p. 2 near bottom:
"Residual Force to Remain. Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at Al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe haven."
I can't believe voters don't do the research to see how Obama is just more of the same, bought & paid for by Special Interests who want perpetual war.
The only "change" he represents is the color of his skin (which doesn't mean he understands the African-American experience) and the sound of his name (which doesn't mean he understands the Arab-American experience).
A vote for Obama is a vote for perpetual war -- but maybe this time with a charismatic a smile.
Maybe if you repeat this crap enough, it'll become the truth.
But I don't think so.
While I usually like Barbara´s take on things, she did say that we don´t check the weather when jumping out of a burnng building. Whiole Obama talks a good game and may have sponsored good legislation in the past, his advisors give one a pause. Brezinski is definitely not my favorite politcal philosopher and he is definitely NOT about change-rather SOS.
But then McCain has decided that torture is OK after all.
It looks like the American citizen is the one who is going to be tortured, no matter who gets elected-if there are even such a thing as fair elections in thie country.
Speaking only for myself and my social circle, I do not agree that Obama's "juggernaut" has nearly as much to do with him (though he is a good debater) than with Clinton.
This election was hers to lose, and she is losing it, primarily by stooping to obviously misleading, petty, hypocritical, opportunistic, vicious attacks on Obama. There are many examples, but a good current one is her campaign's snide comments about his PAC giving money to superdelegates who have pledged to vote for him. His pithy retort is spot on -- "they've revealed that I support Democrats."
Her character is the issue. She is willing to tear down a strong Democrat in a completely unprincipled manner just to win. People don't like that sort of behavior, especially in today's environment, and, increasingly, they don't like her. It's sort of a Greek tragedy, really, with Hillary hoisting herself on her own petard. The more she "fights" Obama, the worse she looks. Does she deserve to lose because of campaigning this way? Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. At this point (and I used to lean her way), good riddance!!!
And while Obama was traveling the country supporting Democratic candidates for the mid-terms? What was Hillary doing -- shoring up her war chest for her eventual presidential run.
Paul Krugman complains that Obama enthusiasm is dangerously akin to the cult of personality around Nixon? I hope I misread that NY Times piece. The cult of personality that I recall (other than Reagan's self-deluding following) was that of JFK. Most of us thought that a pretty good thing, given the alternatives. Krugman also deplores the Hillary "hate" going around. Well, she has shown repeatedly that she will sell anyone out to get a leg up with her career, e.g., all those hapless troops sent to die and be maimed so she could "look" patriotic and strong. She voted against the ban on cluster bombs, which maim mostly children, whom she claims to be an advocate for. Guess that's only for the children in her own "village."
Disappointment in love often leads to hate; many who had great hopes for Clinton have been terribly disillusioned along the way. Call if Hillary hate, if you must, but it's mostly disappointment, on the Dem/feminist side. Can't speak for the hate-driven Repubs, who seem to hate everyone who isn't filthy rich, so vote against themselves generation after generation.
SPEAKING OF "SELLING OUT"....I'M AFRAID THAT IF OBAMA WINS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, MCCAIN WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT. MANY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN..AS MANY BLACK PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR OBAMA "BECAUSE HE IS BLACK" REGARDLESS OF HIS ABILITIES ETC... HILLARY IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT CAN BEAT MCCAIN, IN MY OPINIION...MCCAIN IS TOO DARN OLD...LIKE REAGON BECAME...EVEN USING HE "ROLES" IN FILMS AS "TRUE EVENTS" IN HIS DOTAGE...
Maybe we can transcend "black man" and see an individual who has the ability to tap into new possibility in a way that engages many of us. Hillary Clinton is part of an old way and she apparently cannot break out. Obama can envision new ways and that is why he has my vote.
That was the talking point two days ago.(Or was it three?) Updates are available. Please return to the mothership for further instructions.
Foxy, She can't beat McCain and this country isn't going to put a liberal in the WH. As much as the Obamabots want it. The voters made that mistake before by falling for Bill Clintons charisma. His( Obama's) gun control stance alone will cost him millions of votes. including mine.
I was interested in the comment about how "white people look to Obama for atonement and redemption", and I was thinking how ironic it would be if it were a black man who ended up "saving" America. I have said the same thing myself, in a discussion of problems of anti-intellectualism in inner-city schools and in the black community, and stated that the black community needs to look at itself. I was thinking that in doing so that they could very well end up saving all of us at the same time they were saving themselves....
I am not looking for redemtion, and if I were I would never seek it from someone who belongs on the Billy Graham network. Just wait for Obama's inspirational video.
We will soon enough see that anyone who criticizes or rejects any of Obama's ideas will be treated to a reverse form of racism. We will be labelled "racists". Every Nazi divisive shtick will be used against anyone not thinking like an Obamaite. Or worse, point to one of his slimy Chicago deals with slumlord Tony Rezko, and the race card will be used asap.
We will not save ourselves by voting for ANY politician. I believe he is a practiced pol right out of the 3rd ward of the cesspool of Chicag Daley political machine.
We will save ourselves by protesting about issues we avoided that made cowards of all. Liberals who quietly built up rage that instead of being directed at the issues and themselves, have taken that rage and joined in the national orgy of Hillary Hate so encouraged by messianic Obama cultists. This is the inactive group along with the 18 yr olds who know nothing and have embraced rhetoric and call it a "movement". Obama has been divisive among those of us in the democratic party.
Redemption is not on the way. Anti-intellectualism is a national pastime that has infected our Media and our politics and culture. Our culture has coarsened, and instant gratifcation is the rule along with celebrity adoration that robs of our free will along with the ability to think for ourselves with objectivity and common sense.
My biggest fear is the Republicans will win if Obama is the Democratic Nominee. It will be four more years of Bush/McCain. All the dreamers need to understand this becomes a race about Race. The Republicans’ Machine can get very mean spirited and they don’t possess the “sensitivities” of the Liberals. Don’t forget, this Country is made up of a two majority Party system and the Country is divided about 50/50. Regardless of the Bush approval rating, the Republicans want to keep their hold on the White House. There is approximately 20-30% African Americans in this Country and Obama will not get the majority of the other 70-80%. When it comes down to it, the majority of Republicans, no matter how disgusted they are with this Idiot Bush, they will not vote for a Democrat. Obama may get the “dreamers” but he won’t get the numbers he will need when it is all said and done. When the “non-black” voters cast their vote, believing this is the African American’s biggest chance to get their Black President, the momentum we are seeing now will be eroded. There is a reality here that most are too “sensitive” to discuss or recognize. As heinous as the existence of racism is, it’s still prevalent whether we liberals like to admit it or not. Ignorance still abounds in Society; look there’s a majority of People who still believe in a “Supreme Being”, God. We haven’t crawled very far from the cave door. The Democratic Party better take heed and get off the “Hope and Dream Train” and look for the “solution”. Obama won’t win in the National Election…sorry folks, the numbers might be there for these caucuses or Primaries, but not for the National. The Repugs don’t see McCain as Bush, but he is probably every bit as dangerous, if that’s possible.
The National polls do not support your fears. Obama beats McCain there. The white votes for Obama in his recent primary and caucus wins do not support your conclusions. It is time to give this idea some thought: perhaps this country has moved beyond the blatant racism that you describe.
A minor point, but I believe the actual percentage of African Americans is even lower: around 13 percent.
I agree with your point. I'm not terribly impressed with Obama winning the Virginia Democratic primary (a state that is about 20% African American). Now, if an African American won the Republican primary in Virginia - that would be shocking news. And I'm afraid the same could be said of the general election as well.
By the way, as a liberal white guy from upstate New York (which, if you don't know, is pretty red) who has lived in Georgia (which, as you probably know, is very red) and spent time in other red-shaded parts of this country, I have the same qualms about a woman winning the general election.
All I can say is, if either Clinton or Obama is the nominee - as seems inevitable at this point - I hope I am proven wrong. I will cast my vote and hope for the best. I hope my cynicism will be washed away by a surprising display of enlightenment on the part of my fellow American voters.
You may be right about the 13% nationally, however there are some reports that it is much higher than that. I'll check that out before I mis-speak.
Hillary lost her credibility when she voted to authorize Bush to use force to disarm Saddam regardless of how she tries to justify her vote. Why? Because she exercised bad judgment and isn't willing to admit this. Instead to this day she is defending her judgment which is why she won't admit her vote was a mistake.
And since everyone already knows her judgment was very faulty with this vote and terribly wrong, why should anyone trust her now? What leads us to believe her judgment has improved since she can't acknowledge it ever needed fixing?
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
PLEASE RJCRANE.......HAVE YOU FORGOTTON JUST HOW MANY VOTED FOR THIS WAR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT A PRESIDENT AND HIS COHORTS WOULD LIE AND EXAGGERATE AS THEY DID??? AS FOR OBAMA NOT VOTING FOR THE IRAQI WAR...IF YOU CHECK HIS RECORDS YOU WILL SEE THAT HE DIDN'T VOTE MANY TIMES AT ALL - JUST ANSWERED "PRESENT".....
a hillary machine standard line. get original, don't plagarize her stump speech.
*** FOXYLADY
Obama voted approximately 106 times "present" out of over 4000 votes which is an insignificant amount.
Furthermore the Illinois Senate allows law makers to vote "present" if they support a bill. However if there is something a senator disagrees with or is objectionable, then he or she has the option to vote "present."
Obama didn’t have to face the tough decision in 2002 the rest of the Senators had to make. There are those who will never vote to go to War, regardless of what the outcome might be. I’m a dove, but I listened to the Congressional Hearings in 2002 and was convinced we needed to face the possibility that Hussein had WMD. We had a respected and exemplary General (Colin Powell) who was convinced and I trusted him. (frankly he was spoon fed the bullshit right a long with the rest of us) As much as I distrusted Bush/Cheney, I believed we would have been given the opportunity to hear from the Inspectors before we went to War. It’s real easy to write papers about not going to War, but it’s tough when you have to take a vote against the potential of our Society being destroyed. Saddam admitted, before he was hanged, he had had WMD and had used them against Iraqis. But he had them destroyed before the Inspectors could discover them. Had the WMD been discovered, then Obama would have looked like an Idiot. It’s funny how his Papers on his stance in 2002 were taken off his website later. He still joined in the support of the War once he was in the Senate. Even in the Clinton years the Inspectors had evidence of WMD, maybe Hillary knew that and maybe, just maybe, Hillary didn’t believe Bush/Cheney weren’t the criminals and liars they were.
Obama admits he "made a mistake and I was boneheaded" when he took kickback sweetheart deal from Tony and Rital Rezko who paid $625,000.00 and Obama paid $104,000.00 for it to them. Rita Rezko and Obama closed on same day. This was neighbor Tony's little gifts to Obama's addition for his backyard manse. Oh yes, Obama took this from slumlord Rezko his patron and fundraiser of 17 years while he was under federal investigation by Patrick Fitgerald. Rezko now in jail indicted for fraud,kickbacks,moneylaundering, comes to trial March 5, after March 4 caucuses.
So much for "credibility" and of course there's lots more in Chicago. Read suntimes.com and access Onama archives '06,'07,'08.
Talk about "mistakes"?. Obama has some humdingers. No they aren't racist accusations.
He admits at least one of them about the land deal. There's Exelon lobbyist who gave him $227,000.00 They are country's largest nuclear providers, and his campaign manager, David Axelrod was also a lobbyist and received payments from Exelon.
Obama will only point out what Hillary took, and in fact have lied outright about her bankruptcy vote. Obama voted AGAINST the bill to curb credit card interest and cap interest at 30%.
Hillary voted FOR it. See all congress votes on WashingtonPost online and access their voting record section.
Is that whitewater investigation closed? Have you heard anything about the chinese campaign donation scandal? Did Bill Clinton ever get his law license restored? After lying under oath, is Bill Clinton eligible to vote in the next election? Inquiring minds want to know.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” ranks with “wherever you go, there you are.” Too many people have moved from putting bumper sticker on their cars (they’re too permanent a statement) to a bumper sticker mentality. We can all be saved, really, if someone else will do it. It’s the background of most religions and a great deal of politics. The sad thing is that Obama is a smart man, so I don’t understand why so many of the people voting for him sound so dumb. The first time I heard Obamaism, I thought the person had said Onanism. Listening to some people talk makes me wonder where the difference lies
You are not a republican. But I am sure, you are a surrogate "obaman" campaign supporter.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
