Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama

When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics - changes that would make government work for them again.

Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works.

Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well.

Making healthcare affordable for all Americans, rebuilding our aging infrastructure, and ending our dependence on foreign oil are all problems that require more than a tax credit here or an earmark there. Barack is the candidate best able to enact these big changes necessary to getting our country moving again.

We have seen that Sen. Obama has the wisdom and judgment to get the big decisions right - as he did on Iraq more than five years ago. And when President Obama steps out of Air Force One in countries around the world, he will represent a fresh start with friends and allies. He will end the war in Iraq, work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and start investing in America again - and we will be safer and stronger for it.

We Democrats are fortunate to have had many strong candidates running for President. As you may know, I was proud to work hard for Chris Dodd during his campaign. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Sen. Dodd - especially for his powerful calls to defend our constitutional freedoms by restoring habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo, and living up to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. I know that Sen. Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, has been and will continue to be Chris' ally in fighting to protect our Constitution.

As Barack often says on the campaign trail these days, "with the challenges we face at this moment, the real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."

It's time to change the game.

(Cross-posted at NedLamont.com.)

---

P.S. For all of you who were so supportive of our campaign, and especially our ads, we thought you might appreciate this short video message:

Comments

[HanFeiTzu]

Ned, there isn't a day that goes by that I wish you had won the Senate race. Both Clinton and Obama deserve credit for your loss with only a few Democratic leaders being the exception.

Here in Illinois I recall phoning the Obama office and asking when Obama would visit to endorse you. Response "He has no plans!" How can anybody support either of them when they allowed a traitor to reenter the Senate? Not me! Not ever!

[darcy]

Well, Ned Lamont, that's the last dollar you'll receive from this CT resident!

[wrabbitt]

When an endorsement comes from an insider to an insider you know its to protect the status quo. I'm not backing any of the usual suspects, but i am against any that has shown their true colors. Taking lobbyists money for anything is taking a bribe! Free elections need to include no money from lobbyists,plain and simple! If you take money from lobbyists you are breaking the law, selling your vote. Lobbyists should not have ex elected officials, thats a conflict of interest, also illegal. Can we have an election thats not won or lost by lobbyists money?

[clarkbp]

I think this comes down to the qualities that we need in our next President. Are we looking for a leader, or are we looking for an expert?

Barack will develop his expertise, but his leadership is undeniable.

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/07/leader-or-expert-choosing-a-president/

[echoesohio]

Once again I see no specifics in comments of support for Obama. You could write the exact same thing and put Hillary's name at the top, or Edwards', or even mine. I'd rather have specifics than platitudes, but see none. Sorry.

[Komodo]

I'm at a loss to understand this endorsement. If you want real change, we are better off with Edwards.
1) Obama voted consistently with the Republicans until the beginning of 2007, when the country declared itself liberal and not conservative.
2) Obama stated, "as long as I am president, we will stay in the war."
3) It won't make any difference how "affordable" health care is if corporations aren't put back in the Pandora's
Box that they got out of and he reinforces the Sherman Anti-trust laws. We need to be under Medicare as a country.
4) When Obama was in the Illinois state legislature he was put in charge of getting a health care package through for the people. Instead, he invited in the corporates who derailed it by re-writing it as a for-profit monolith.
5) In the Congress, he has shown up for rollcall but then left so as not to have to vote on certain critical issues, thereby keeping the waters calm for his presidential run.
6) Obama is for unregulated capitalism and as long as that is the case, America will NEVER have a chance to rise up out of the ashes created by BushCo.

Vote for Clinton or Obama at your own peril.

[tkk]

This truly shows the vacuousness of liberals. Barack Obama endorsed Joe Lieberman, for god's sake!

Oh dear, the fix is in.

[marcialosangeles]

Did I miss something? I thought Obama supported Lieberman? Boy am I in need of a correction. I always think of his support of Lieberman as one more example of how he never distinquished himself as an anti-war Senator. That and the fact that he voted to confirm Condi Rice as Sec of State--she being the biggest salesperson for the invasion.

[Spoons]

Obama represents the "Audacity of False Hope" on health care. As small business owners whose very lives depend upon real (not fake) health care reform, we have done our research. Specifically, his plan says health insurers would have to "JUSTIFY" charging large premium difference­s...as if financial discrimination against people when they are sick and at their most vulnerable is justifiable at all. That's all the insurers need to keep us at their mercy, and THEY HAVE NONE. With friends like this who needs enemies? Other legislation he supports says we will have access to the same health care plan as he and other members of Congress do "except for the way (we) are rated" (sigh). He leaves that part out, but I'm pretty sure he knows it's in there, and neglects to mention that federal employee plans cost more than the $12,100/year national average in a country with median household income of $48,200. Hillary's plan says insurance companies will be prohibited from charging "large" premium differences based on "modified" community rating. Again that is the only loophole health insurance companies need. SHAME on both Obama and Clinton for caring more about health insurers than people when health insureres are killing at least 101,000 innocent Americans every year and wasting $600 Billions (with a "B") of our health care dollars. Physicians for a National Health Program conclude we could cover everyone more reliably and comprehensively, and save $350 Billion (with a "B") each year. HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART: Edwards is the only one of the top three (and all Republicans running) who even wants to create a level playing field with REAL (not fake) community rating and guaranteed issue. The difference is Edwards "gets" what needs to be done while Obama and Clinton don't. Both (and all the Republicans running) want us to believe that the problem is the solution when it isn't. American lives and the future of our economy depend upon voters not being too busy to notice or care about the devil in their details.

[CookieWrites]

Obama has all the charm but none of the substance. Edwards has real positions on real issues and a plan to deal with them plus the experience to make them pay. If Obama thinks he can bring business and government together to change our economy, then I challenge him to show me a single instance in which he has gotten a megacorporation to change their stand on anything muchless surrender some of their ill gotten gain.

[amhcw]

But what will he do if elected? A change to what? His website has NO positions on site. If you give them your name and address, they will send you something--but about what, they don't say. The media doesn't press him to delineate anything but his "change" concept. Any new president is a "change." I've developed a great distrust of anyone who gives us absolutely no assurance of what changes he will elicit. Scary!

[Heartwants]

Obama certainly has brought buzz to this election.

http://www.cafepress.com/heartwants.212435772

[Dansden]

And those lining up behind Obama are NOT FAT CATS...giv­e us a break!!!!!

Kerry is wealthy elite-husband to his wife's fortune!

$$$Billionaire Bloomberg said he WON'T run on Independent ticket if Obama is Democratic nominee!

Tell me that they don't look out for their friends more than they help out average American families!!!!!

[Janelynne]

Ned, I read this carefully and I don't know why you are supporting Barach Obama. How do you know how Obama would have voted? The 9/11 environment and the desire to be a unified government made the decision uncertain at the time. The Senate, including all the Democratic leadership tried to make the best decision at the time, based on what it knew at the time.

Obama can retrofit his ideas onto 9/11 now, but it is disingenuous. If Obama knows anything about politics, he wouldn't have had any greater knowledge or courage, and would have, in all likeihood, voted the same way. I have seen Obama in debates and he still demonstates less knowledge and less courage when asked about very tricky subjects. He isn't a maverick. The construct that presumes that Obama, who hasn't any record to measure, will act in a certain way in the future is simply uneducated guessing. While hope may be audatious, it is even more audatious to act. He is too green.

[gardenbookie]

No wonder we can't get anything accomplished in government. Politics stand in the way.