What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

adonis

adonis

Footballguy
UPDATE: Since we have a pretty good group of FBG's who are Obama supporters, I got a suggestion that we start an FBG campaign donation group that is hosted on Obama's website. Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today and show our support!

Obama's Speech on Race: Here is a link to the video and transcript of Obama's speech on race. Many consider it to be one of the best speeches on race given in quite some time. Here is a link to many newspaper editorials reviewing the speech.

3-20-08 - The Cost of the War - transcript (scroll down some)

3-19-08 - The World Beyond Iraq - Given on the 5th anniversary of the war. Here is a link to an internal copy of the transcript. I'll change it later whenever it's posted to his official site.

Reverend Wright Comment Controversy Update: In light of recent events regarding Obama's former pastor (who is now retired), Obama has

Scandals, Gossip, and Rebuttals - pertaining to Obama campaign
Anatomy of an anti-Obama smear campaign
Article rebutts the following claims:
Within months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama received a pay increase of $195,000 from the not-for-profit hospital where she works!
Sen. Obama says he wants to make health care more affordable, but "he didn’t tell us that his wife is one of 13 vice presidents at a not-for-profit hospital that in 2005 reported earnings of over $100 million -- in part by charging uninsured minorities three and a half times as much as whites with insurance for the exact same care!"
After encouraging college students to pursue public service over "the big house and the large salary," Sen. Obama was the subject of an "embarrassing investigation into the purchase of his stately $1.65 million mansion" and now regrets purchasing land from indicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko.
Though Sen. Obama has spoken about worker’s rights to groups critical of Wal-Mart, he didn’t mention that the CEO of TreeHouse Foods received $26 million in compensation in 2005, while Wal-Mart’s CEO received $10.5 million, despite being a much smaller company -- "maybe because he's embarrassed his wife sits on the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, a company that shut a plant in 2006 that was staffed primarily with low-paid Hispanics!"
January 23, 2007 - Debunked Insight Magazine and Fox News Smear CampaignIn the past week, many of you have read a now thoroughly-debunked story by Insight Magazine, owned by the Washington Times, which cites unnamed sources close to a political campaign that claim Senator Obama was enrolled for “at least four years” in an Indonesian “Madrassa”. The article says the “sources” believe the Madrassa was “espousing Wahhabism,” a form of radical Islam.Insight Magazine published these allegations without a single named source, and without doing any independent reporting to confirm or deny the allegations. Fox News quickly parroted the charges, and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy went so far as to ask, “Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a Madrassa?”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Open to suggestions for other categories, different presentation, or whatever. This is mainly to serve as a point of factual information regarding Obama, at least the first post in this thread, so if there are other categories not mentioned that you'd like to know about, I'll try to get info on them. Just post a request.

 
adonis said:
Open to suggestions for other categories, different presentation, or whatever. This is mainly to serve as a point of factual information regarding Obama, at least the first post in this thread, so if there are other categories not mentioned that you'd like to know about, I'll try to get info on them. Just post a request.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Nice work. :scared: (Now I just need to take the time to read all of this - outstanding effort)
 
Not about to read all that...All I know about him is that he is a black guy from Illinois with a funny name.

Is he considered a moderate liberal?

 
Nice work, here's some more info taken from Wikipedia: Of his religious affiliation, Obama has written:

I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. [...] In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. [...] It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

He's also a good family man, and he seems to be a genuinely nice guy, one of the last few in politics today.

 
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.

Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
I think I remember hearing they had something to do with coal that they crush it, and it burns cleaner. For the life of me, I can't remember where, though.
 
Kal El said:
Nice work, here's some more info taken from Wikipedia: Of his religious affiliation, Obama has written: I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. [...] In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. [...] It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.He's also a good family man, and he seems to be a genuinely nice guy, one of the last few in politics today.
Click to expand...
Updated with a religious affiliation section.
 
Kal El said:
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
I think I remember hearing they had something to do with coal that they crush it, and it burns cleaner. For the life of me, I can't remember where, though.
Click to expand...
Would still rather see us go straight to renewables than invest billions in a transition to another fossil fuel which will just slow the move away from fossil fuels.
 
New speech/statement from Obama regarding the Iraqi war troop surge option. It's updated in the OP, but thought it was worthy of mention here as it's pretty good stuff.

Linky

Floor Statement on President's Decision to Increase Troops in Iraq

Friday, January 19, 2007

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on what is a roiling debate not only in the Senate but across the country, and that is the President's policy with respect to Iraq. There are countless reasons the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that do not appear to be grounded in the reality of the facts. We have been told we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we are making progress and that the Iraqis would soon stand up so we could stand down and our brave sons and daughters could start coming home. We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient, and we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government 6 more months, and then 6 more months after that, and then 6 more months after that.

Now, after the loss of more than 3,000 American lives, after spending almost $400 billion, after Iraq has descended into civil war, we have been promised, once again, that the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will, this time, be well planned, well coordinated, and well supported by the Iraqi Government. This time, we didn't have to wait to find out that none of this seems to be the case. Already, American military officials have told the New York Times that there is no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership. Yesterday, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the person whom the President said had brought this plan to us, the man who is supposed to be our partner-in-chief for this new plan, told foreign journalists that if the United States would only give his Army better weapons and equipment, our soldiers could go home.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war back in 2002. Over 4 years later, we can't revisit that decision or reverse some of the tragic outcomes, but what we can do is make sure we provide the kind of oversight and constraints on the President this time that we failed to do the last time.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress.

The fact is that we have tried this road before. In the end, no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It is even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The President has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary political settlement, and he has attached no consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress. In fact, just last week, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi Government failed to meet the benchmarks the President has called for and says are an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she couldn't give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she could not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many more lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows has not succeeded, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past 4 years, we have given this administration every chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us many times. But ultimately it is our brave men and women in uniform and their families who bear the greatest burden for these mistakes. They have performed in an exemplary fashion. At no stage have they faltered in the mission that has been presented to them.

Unfortunately, the strategy, the tactics, and the mission itself have been flawed. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. If we truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people that within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home. The forces redeployed elsewhere in the region could then help to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, something that every international observer is beginning to worry about. It will also reassure our allies in the Gulf. It will allow our troops to strike directly at al-Qaida wherever it may exist and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

My plan would couple this phased redeployment with an enhanced effort to train Iraqi security forces and would expand the number of our personnel--especially special forces--who are deployed with Iraqis as unit advisers and would finally link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence of tangible progress toward reducing sectarian violence and reaching a political settlement.

One final aspect of this plan that I believe is critical is it would call for engagement by the United States in a regional conference with other countries that are involved in the Middle East--particularly our allies, but including Syria and Iran--to find a solution to the war in Iraq. We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see the security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region and within their own countries. So as odious as the behavior of those regimes may be at times, it is important that we include them in a broader conversation about how we can stabilize Iraq.

In closing, let me say this: I have been a consistent and strong opponent of this war. I have also tried to act responsibly in that opposition to ensure that, having made the decision to go into Iraq, we provide our troops, who perform valiantly, the support they need to complete their mission. I have also stated publicly that I think we have both strategic interests and humanitarian responsibilities in ensuring that Iraq is as stable as possible under the circumstances.

Finally, I said publicly that it is my preference not to micromanage the Commander-in-Chief in the prosecution of war. Ultimately, I do not believe that is the ideal role for Congress to play. But at a certain point, we have to draw a line. At a certain point, the American people have to have some confidence that we are not simply going down this blind alley in perpetuity.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.
Click to expand...
 
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
good post the guy is a heck of a public speaker and i think that when things get closer it will only increase his popularity. i know what you mean about the coal thing...what the heck is that? i guess if we stopped using oil it would be a good way to let the middle east burn themselves down. i still cant figure out why we havent explored using the f-ing sun as a resource for energy...it seems like a pretty decent option to me. :goodposting: i guess no solar energy companies are funding any campaigns
 
is this all your work? hot damn, if it is, NICELY done.

i recently scored 100% with this guy in a recent 'who would be your president'-type survey so i'm definitely going to take some time to read this at some pt.

 
blenderfrog said:
I didn't have time to read the whole post, but will get back to it. One question, is he a Muslim?
Click to expand...
Nope. Christian (United Church of Christ - attends a big one in Chicago)He was agnostic for most of his life but while he was doing community service work in Chicago, he found a great church headed by a guy he really liked. He started going there, and has been a member for a long time.He was never a muslim, but did go to a muslim school when in Indonesia (i think) and also went to a catholic school. His mom remarried an indonesian guy after getting divorced from his real dad (a kenyan). He only stayed with the new dad a few years, while young, and religion didn't seem to be that big a deal then.
 
nase said:
is this all your work? hot damn, if it is, NICELY done.i recently scored 100% with this guy in a recent 'who would be your president'-type survey so i'm definitely going to take some time to read this at some pt.
Click to expand...
link to survey
 
Thanks for all the hard work. I've been wanting to know more about him and it looks like you covered it all. Now I just have to make the time to read it all. :thumbup:

Thank you!

 
Comming from the Right side I am very happy to see him as a possible canidate for the left.

He has a 0% chance of winning. Jeb Bush could run and win vs him so any other Republican canidate will run away with it.

 
Billy Ball Thorton said:
Comming from the Right side I am very happy to see him as a possible canidate for the left.He has a 0% chance of winning. Jeb Bush could run and win vs him so any other Republican canidate will run away with it.
Click to expand...
He might as well quit now. Billy Ball Thorton says he has a 0% shot. I'll send your prediction to him right away. Expect his withdrawl from consideration within the next week or two. :popcorn:
 
Good article here rebutting some claims about Obama (untrue or unfair claims). Link to it was added in OP.

Link to website

A new website, ObamaTruth.org, poses this question at the top of the page: "In his lust for personal wealth has Barack Obama sold his moral compass?"

The centerpiece of the site is a nearly three-minute video called "The Audacity of Barack Obama," which divides its claims into four chapters. It should come as no surprise that the video -- and the website generally -- relies on discredited sources and innuendo to tar Sen. Obama.

This is exactly the sort of site the media would include in a "Not everybody loves Obama" story. Which is why it's so important to address its specious arguments now.

What follows is a chapter-by-chapter debunking of the video (originally published at Obamarama.org, which also provides the video):

Chapter 1

The Video’s Claim: "Within months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama received a pay increase of $195,000 from the not-for-profit hospital where she works!"

The Truth: Michelle Obama did receive a raise two months after Sen. Obama was sworn in. Why? Because she was promoted to Vice President of University of Chicago Hospitals -- a position she had been in line for since joining the hospital in 2002.

As the Chicago Tribune reported in 2006, Michelle Obama was brought on as Executive Director of Community Affairs, a new position that was intended to grow into a Vice President’s post, according to then-president of the hospital Michael Riordan. "I knew where I wanted to go with this position," he told the paper. "I wanted to identify someone to grow into it."

In fact, Riordan had discussed the promotion with Michelle Obama before the election, but "she had been reluctant to undertake the commitment until her husband's Senate campaign was finished," according to the report. She wanted to be sure they would maintain their primary residence in Illinois.

A hospital spokesman also listed the achievements of Michelle Obama that warranted her promotion:

They included expansion of the institution's women and minority vendor purchases, rejuvenation of its volunteer program and work she did to help set up a collaborative effort with South Side clinics and doctors' offices to provide primary care for low-income residents who otherwise would seek treatment at the emergency room.
Click to expand...
Her new salary is right on par with that earned by other Vice Presidents at the hospital, too, and actually falls towards the lower end of the spectrum. "She is worth her weight in gold, and she is just terrific," Riordan said.Shockingly, the video failed to note these facts.

Chapter 2

The Video’s Claim: Sen. Obama says he wants to make health care more affordable, but "he didn’t tell us that his wife is one of 13 vice presidents at a not-for-profit hospital that in 2005 reported earnings of over $100 million -- in part by charging uninsured minorities three and a half times as much as whites with insurance for the exact same care!"

The Truth: People without medical insurance are charged more than people with insurance in virtually every hospital in the country. Because of negotiations in the 1980s that kept prices lower for people with HMO plans or Medicare, hospitals raised their charges for many normal procedures in the 1990s, a reality that resulted in higher costs for PPOs and the uninsured.

According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, the state with the highest cost-to-charge ratio (which reflects how much more people without insurance are charged than people with insurance) is Nevada, which charges...wait for it...three and a half times more. Following Nevada is California, Alabama, Florida and Arizona. Illinois doesn’t make the top five.

Without question, rising health care costs for the uninsured is a major problem. Blaming Michelle Obama for a flawed system that is in effect in every hospital in the country just because she works at a hospital, however -- not to mention insinuating that such a disparity is based on racial prejudice -- is as irresponsible as it is absurd.

Chapter 3

The Video’s Claim: After encouraging college students to pursue public service over "the big house and the large salary," Sen. Obama was the subject of an "embarrassing investigation into the purchase of his stately $1.65 million mansion" and now regrets purchasing land from indicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko.

The Truth: Sen. Obama bought his home on Chicago’s South Side at a price on par for the neighborhood, using advance money from his bestselling book. Seven months later, he purchased an adjacent sliver of land from the wife of Tony Rezko, who had bought the bordering land on the same day Sen. Obama closed on his home (the seller required the sales be closed on the same day, as the New Republic points out). Tony Rezko is a well-connected Chicago fundraiser who is currently involved in two unrelated criminal cases.

Contrary to the video’s claim, there was no investigation into the purchase. The Washington Post reported

that "There have been no allegations that Obama...broke the law or committed any ethics violations." Still, Sen. Obama said he regretted the purchase, which he called "boneheaded," because of how it could be perceived.

As the New Republic notes, "No one is seriously accusing Obama of any wrongdoing" in this situation. In addition, Sen. Obama has since that time opposed gambling interests that Rezko supports, and has donated $11,500 in campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.

Chapter 4

The Video’s Claim: Though Sen. Obama has spoken about worker’s rights to groups critical of Wal-Mart, he didn’t mention that the CEO of TreeHouse Foods received $26 million in compensation in 2005, while Wal-Mart’s CEO received $10.5 million, despite being a much smaller company -- "maybe because he's embarrassed his wife sits on the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, a company that shut a plant in 2006 that was staffed primarily with low-paid Hispanics!"

The Truth: Michelle Obama joined the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods in June 2005, shortly after the company was spun off its parent company, Dean Foods. TreeHouse CEO Sam Reed was reportedly paid $26.2 million in 2005, much of which was in the form of stock options stemming from the company’s spin-off and contingent on the company’s level of performance, according to Crain’s

Business. In other words, the company must do well for Reed to receive that money.

TreeHouse has an Executive Compensation Committee to determine the salaries of its executives. Michelle Obama does not sit on this committee. When asked, she pointed out that Reed’s compensation is "benchmarked to that of other food firms." She also noted to a reporter that her income "is pretty low compared to my peers," adding, "You wouldn't ask that question if, like some people in politics, we had trust funds and were rich."

As for the claim about the plant that was shut down in 2006, it’s true. It was a pickle plant in La Junta, Colorado, and employed 153 people. It was not closed by TreeHouse directly, however, but by Bay Valley Foods, a division of the larger TreeHouse company. The video’s attempt to link Michelle Obama to the plant’s closure -- and to once again inject racial overtones into its specious

claim -- is like saying the Secretary of Agriculture should be held responsible for the unfortunate closing of a military base.

A press release from Bay Valley Foods regretfully attributes the closure to "a reduction in our pickle business and a significant increase in overhead costs, making it necessary to consolidate our manufacturing network. The La Junta facility is a high-cost plant with the lowest utilization among Bay Valley Foods’ pickle plants. Production at La Junta will be reallocated among our five remaining pickle production facilities."
Click to expand...
 
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - The hair, now closely cropped, was a short Afro. He dressed in a leather coat and high-ankle boots, not the conservative business suits and power ties that fill his wardrobe today.

Yet , , ) displayed the traits _ and attracted the same kind of following and accolades _ that have made him a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

In 1990, Obama became the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position that usually falls to the student with the sharpest elbows. Obama won by convincing liberals and conservatives alike of the strength of his intellect, the soundness of his judgment and the merit of his vision.

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein‘s theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

Obama, now 45, came to Harvard in 1988 after graduating from Columbia University and spending four years as a community organizer in Chicago. While most of the 550 students admitted each fall are on a trajectory toward high-paying corporate law firms or the judicial bench, Obama aimed for public-interest law from the outset.

Christina Bryan, a Houston attorney who shared first year classes with Obama and considered herself a conservative at the time, said, "I felt that he always took the time to listen to opposing points of view and address it in a thoughtful way. That‘s not always the case in that setting."

Midway through his second year, Obama was elected president, the top editing job. He beat out 17 others, including four fellow black students.

Obama, however, did not want the achievement to be misperceived.

The eight issues that Obama presided over included articles on Martin Luther King Jr., and gender and racial discrimination in retail car negotiations, as well as an anonymous, student-written "Note" arguing the legal system had not provided adequate protections against discrimination for those who are both black and men.

For all his success, Obama did suffer one defeat at the Law School: He was rejected by a screening committee of female students for a pinup calendar of black students created as both a fundraiser and a source of black pride
Click to expand...
Harvard experiences sculpt obama appeal
 
His voting record looks at least middle of the road, if not slightly left-leaning, which I can understand. Still, he seems to be the best candidate for bringing this nation back under one roof so to speak, and at least to get people to talk about ideas, instead of simply calling the other side stupid and refusing to talk, as both hyper-liberal Democrats and the hyper-con Republicans do.

Out of all the candidates out there, I'd vote for Obama before anyone else, unless he does something foolish, like change his name to Clinton or something.

 
His voting record looks at least middle of the road, if not slightly left-leaning, which I can understand. Still, he seems to be the best candidate for bringing this nation back under one roof so to speak, and at least to get people to talk about ideas, instead of simply calling the other side stupid and refusing to talk, as both hyper-liberal Democrats and the hyper-con Republicans do.

Out of all the candidates out there, I'd vote for Obama before anyone else, unless he does something foolish, like change his name to Clinton or something.

 
NCCommish said:
Kal El said:
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
I think I remember hearing they had something to do with coal that they crush it, and it burns cleaner. For the life of me, I can't remember where, though.
Click to expand...
Would still rather see us go straight to renewables than invest billions in a transition to another fossil fuel which will just slow the move away from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
:wub: let's look into other forms of energy that eliminate or nearly eliminate co2 emmissions, not a patchwork solution.
 
I started a thread with this article, but maybe it should also be in here ? What the hell....

Barack Obama has built a solid liberal record

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama appeals to a cross-section of America as an eloquent speaker with the potential to bridge a political battlefield bloodied by years of fighting.

But underlying the Chicago Democrat's sudden rise to fame over the past two years is a solid liberal record built over 10 years in Springfield, Ill., and Washington, D.C.

It's the kind of record that, no doubt, will help him in such places as Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses should he run for the presidency. But it could leave some people questioning his ability to narrow the partisan divide.

Obama, who objects to ideological labels, wins high marks from progressives on environment, abortion and labor issues, as well as on civil liberties and education, all of which are vital to winning the Democratic Party's presidential nominating process.

He also clearly spoke out against going to war in Iraq in 2002. And just last week he took a hard line on President Bush's plan to boost troop levels in that war-torn country, proposing a cap and a phased withdrawal.

Last year, Obama got 100 percent scores from the AFL-CIO, League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood and an "A" rating from the National Education Association on their most recent scorecards.

"He's really been a champion on a number of environmental issues," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

Obama won praise from the group by opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and parts of the Gulf of Mexico.

National Journal, the Washington, D.C., magazine, gave Obama an 82.5 liberal rating in 2005, ranking him 16th out of 44 Democratic senators. Potential presidential rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Joe Biden, D-Del., ranked slightly less liberal in the publication's rankings.

The 2006 rankings aren't available yet.

Obama has, on occasion, leveled criticism in his party, such as when he urged a greater embrace of faith and argued against overuse of such tactics as the filibuster to stop judicial nominations.

That willingness to step out, as well as a sense that he represents a break from the old-style politics, is something the senator tapped into when he announced that he had formed a presidential exploratory committee, calling the "smallness of our politics" his greatest concern.

"We have to change our politics and come together around our common interests," Obama said on his Web site.

One challenge he will face is fleshing that out, said former Iowa Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer.

"When he talks about a new kind of politics, what does he mean by that?" asked Fischer, who's backing former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for the party's nomination. "He's going to have to put some meat on those bones."

Obama's chief spokesman, however, said there are plenty of examples over the past 10 years that point to the senator as a person capable of changing the political culture.

"Look at what he's introduced, who he's introduced it with and how he's introduced it, and you'll see he's capable, throughout his time in public life, of bringing people together," said Robert Gibbs, his communications director.

One example is Obama's partnership with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., one of the Senate's most conservative members.

The two introduced legislation last year to make it easier to find the identities of recipients of federal funding and financial assistance.

When a hold was put on the bill, bloggers and editorial writers took up the cause to get it lifted. The measure was eventually signed into law.

"That's a feather in their cap," said Steve Ellis, vice president of programs at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog based in Washington, D.C. "He's certainly been willing to reach across the aisle, and you could say far across the aisle."

Obama votes mostly with majority Democrats, but there are exceptions.

He backed a free trade agreement last year with the Middle East country of Oman, saying the financial impact was small and it was worth it to expand engagement in the region.

He also has pushed for the creation of an outside agency to investigate ethics abuses in the Senate.

Obama's eight-year legislative record in Springfield is lengthier than his Washington resumé, and it may be a place where critics look for ammunition should he launch a presidential bid.

But, as in Washington, Obama's votes there are likely to be well-received by voters choosing a Democratic nominee.

As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama supported a single-payer health care plan run by the state and voted for an increase in the minimum wage. He also endorsed embryonic stem cell research and, in 2003, co-sponsored legislation that would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He voted against allowing people to claim self-defense if they used a gun in their home. The measure would have affected only residents of towns where local handgun bans were in effect.

But he also voted in favor of allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons. Gibbs said that would be his only exception to a prohibition against the right to carry a concealed weapon.

On abortion, Obama voted against a measure designed to protect what supporters termed live babies born during abortion procedures.

Senate opponent Alan Keyes criticized Obama for the vote during their 2004 campaign. Gibbs said the legislation, which was defeated, defined a fetus as a person and "would have criminalized every abortion."

In 1998, when Democrats were in the minority in the state Senate, he made headlines as the co-sponsor of a bipartisan-backed package of legislation that overhauled state ethics laws.

His dealings with lawmakers on that ethics bill helped him build his image as someone who can work effectively on both sides of the political aisle.

State Sen. Gary Forby, a Democrat from the coal fields of southern Illinois whose constituency includes a lot of Reagan Democrats, said Obama is a person who has wide appeal.

"Barack Obama is a person who will sit down and talk with you," Forby said.

State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville, Ill., also had high marks for Obama's gifts as a communicator but said he shouldn't be confused as a centrist.

"He is what he is -- a liberal Democrat," Luechtefeld said. "I'm not saying that's all bad. It's just what he is."

Another Republican who served with Obama in the state Senate said he's been fielding requests for his insight on Obama from residents in his district.

"I tell people he's charismatic and likeable," said state Rep. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. "But he's relatively new on the statewide scene and very new on the national scene. What we're talking about here is someone who wants to be the leader of the free world."

Obama's voting record

A sampling of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's votes during his two years in the U.S. Senate and his eight-year career as a state senator in Springfield:

U.S. Senate

ETHICS: Voted for an ethics bill that would ban lobbyist gifts and corporate-paid travel, as well as strengthen disclosure of earmarks and campaign donations. Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., pushed to strengthen the bill, according to watchdog groups backing reform.

WEAPONS PROLIFERATION: Teamed with U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to sponsor a bill last year expanding efforts to locate and destroy weapons of mass destruction. It was signed into law about two weeks ago.

TAX CUTS: Voted last year against extending $70 billion in cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes. The bill passed and was signed into law.

JUDGES: Voted against Samuel Alito to be a justice on the Supreme Court and John Roberts to be chief justice of the court.

LABOR ISSUES: Voted against the Central American Free Trade Act but for a trade deal with the Middle East country of Oman.

ENVIRONMENT: Voted in 2005 against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Illinois Senate

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE: In 2004, sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, which called for a study of a single-payer health care system for the state.

MINIMUM WAGE: In 2004, voted in favor of raising the minimum wage in Illinois to $6.50 an hour, up from $5.15 an hour.

STEM CELL: In 2004, backed legislation endorsing embryonic stem cell research.

GAY RIGHTS: In 2003, co-sponsored legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

ABORTION: In 2001, voted against a bill designed to protect what backers termed live babies born during abortion procedures. The bill did not become law.

ETHICS: In 1998, co-sponsored a bipartisan-backed package of legislation that overhauled state ethics laws.

What's next

The next step will come on Feb. 10 in Springfield, when U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is expected to say whether he is definitely in the race for president of the United States in 2008.

 
bagger said:
NCCommish said:
Kal El said:
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.

Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
I think I remember hearing they had something to do with coal that they crush it, and it burns cleaner. For the life of me, I can't remember where, though.
Click to expand...
Would still rather see us go straight to renewables than invest billions in a transition to another fossil fuel which will just slow the move away from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: let's look into other forms of energy that eliminate or nearly eliminate co2 emmissions, not a patchwork solution.
Click to expand...
Here's a possible idea. This guy is sitting on a very near literal gold mine.

 
Honestly...if you'd had seen this scene in a movie...would you believe it?

America goes to war with a number of Middle East countries...during this time, someone with a Muslim name runs for president.

It's just too ridiculous to even believe.

Not disparaging the guy at all...I know little about him...I'm just pointing out the glaring and obvious irony.

 
NCCommish said:
One of my complaints with him is his energy policy. He is big on coal liquification as a substitute for oil. Replacing one fossil fuel with another doesn't seem like a win to me. Just to nitpick a bit.Oh yeah and nice job. That's a great post.
Click to expand...
As I recall, Illinois is a big coal state. I would hazard to guess that has something to do with his stance.
 
Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops

Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have preformed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

"The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home."

Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama's November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

In short, the Obama plan halts the escalation and requires a responsible, phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush's own statements and Administration documents and include:

Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.
Click to expand...
Press releaseSeemed like the right place for it.

 
NCCommish said:
Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops

Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have preformed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

"The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home."

Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama's November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

In short, the Obama plan halts the escalation and requires a responsible, phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush's own statements and Administration documents and include:

Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.
Click to expand...
Press releaseSeemed like the right place for it.
Click to expand...
:bs:
 
Nothing special, just a news story about Obama as a person for those interested:

"At Harvard Law, a unifying voice" - The Boston Globe

Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

The Boston Globe

At Harvard Law, a unifying voice

Classmates recall Obama as even-handed leader

By Michael Levenson and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | January 28, 2007

CAMBRIDGE -- It was just a five-on-five game between some law students at a Harvard gym, until someone jabbed a hard foul. An argument broke out, and pretty soon players were in one another's faces.

To the players who were on the court that day, it seemed punches were about to be thrown.

Then a skinny, soft-spoken forward with tight shorts and high socks named Barack Obama raced out from the sideline and put himself between two of the warring players.

"He said, 'Guys, this is not serious -- it's just a pickup game,' " recalled one of the players, Earl Martin Phalen, Harvard Law Class of 1993. Laughing, he added: "There was all this testosterone exploding, and he just kind of had perspective. . . . We ended up chilling it out."

These days, Obama is the hot new candidate for the White House, trying to end the warring in Washington with a warm message of unity and optimism. But years before taking that message to the national political stage, he was defusing battles large and small from the sharp-elbowed basketball games to the cutthroat classrooms at Harvard Law School.

Standing apart from others

Right from the start, when he arrived in the fall of 1988 at the age of 27, Obama seemed different. With his leather bomber jacket, tattered jeans, and pack of cigarettes, he was older and appeared less starchy than many of his fresh-faced classmates newly arrived from the Ivy League. He was also one of the small minority of black students on the campus of about 1,500 of the nation's most ambitious future lawyers, judges, and corporate executives.

Beyond his appearance, what set him apart was his approach to argument, the lifeblood of the law school and the constant occupation of the young lawyers-in-training. While other students were determined to prove the merits of their beliefs through logic and determination, Obama preferred to listen, seek others' views, and find a middle way.

"A lot of people at the time were just talking past each other, very committed to their opinions, their point of view, and not particularly interested in what other people had to say," said Crystal Nix Hines, a classmate who is now a television writer. "Barack transcended that."

He confronted his most charged debates as president of the Harvard Law Review, the exclusive club of 80 student editors and future Supreme Court justices who publish a regular journal of legal writings. Classmates recall an especially emotional debate in the spring of 1990 over affirmative action, which conservative students wanted to abolish.

Presiding over an assembly of 60 mostly white editors in a law school classroom, Obama listened to impassioned pleas and pressed conservatives to explain their reasoning and liberals to sharpen their thinking. But he never spoke about his own point of view or mentioned that he believed he had benefit ed from affirmative action.

"If anybody had walked by, they would have assumed he was a professor," said Thomas J. Perrelli, a classmate and former counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. "He was leading the discussion but he wasn't trying to impose his own perspective on it. He was much more mediating."

Obama was so evenhanded and solicitous in his interactions that fellow students would do impressions of his Socratic chin-stroking approach to everything, even seeking a consensus on popcorn preferences at the movies. "Do you want salt on your popcorn?" one classmate, Nancy L. McCullough, recalled, mimicking his sensitive bass voice. "Do you even want popcorn?"

Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this story, lived all three years in the same basement apartment on Broadway in Somerville, near Winter Hill. He kept the place spotless and decorated it with second hand furniture.

"He was a model tenant," said John K. Holmes of Arlington, his landlord. "I can remember when he told me he was leaving, I can remember being disappointed."

He skipped most parties and made his friends in class, including one good buddy, Rob Fisher, a first-year student from Maryland, whom he met on the first day of classes. Obama called Fisher, who is white, "brother," and teased him about his raggedy clothes. They watched Bulls games . Both idolized Michael Jordan.

Even in his first year, students saw Obama as a peacemaker. When his class needed someone to present an end-of-the-year gift to one stuffy contracts professor, the students chose Obama, who delivered a brief, gracious tribute.

"It was a moment of diffused tension and levity," said Kenneth W. Mack, a Harvard Law School professor who was in Obama's class. "He pulled it off."

At the end of his first year, Obama joined the Law Review. He nearly missed the deadline to apply when his 1984 Toyota Tercel broke down, and beg ged Fisher for a ride and sweet - talk ed his way to the front of a line at the post office to have his envelope postmarked before noon.

"That's the one modest contribution I've made to his success," Fisher, now a Washington lawyer, said in a recent interview.

Obama won a slot on the review. He was growing more serious in his personal life, too. After casually dating women at the law school, he flew back to Chicago after his first year and met Michelle Robinson, a 1988 Harvard Law graduate, whom he later married.

Law review prestige

In the fall of 1989, when Obama returned to campus for his second year, students were protesting the lack of minority law school faculty. They staged sit-ins in the law library, camped outside the office of Dean Robert C. Clark, and carried signs that read "Diversity Now" and "Homogeneity Feeds Hatred." The tensions continued the following spring, reaching a high when Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first tenured black professor at the school, resigned in protest. Obama was a member of the Black Law Students Association, which organized many demonstrations that spring. But he was less confrontational than some of his peers.

"Barack was a stabilizing influence in that he would absolutely support those efforts, but was also someone who could discuss and debate them with students or faculty who had different views," said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who became Harvard's seventh tenured black professor in 1993.

In February 1990, when the time came to elect a new president of the law review, Obama was initially reluctant, said Nix Hines. The presidency seemed better suited for careerist types who were aiming for positions at top-flight law firms, Obama told her at the time. The son of a black Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas, he wanted to return to his work in Chicago as a community organizer.

"I was surprised because I knew he was very popular and well-regarded and obviously had the ability to do the job," Nix Hines said.

But at a dinner at Obama's apartment, an older black student challenged Obama and other black students to compete for the job. "And I do remember Barack saying that was the moment he finally decided, 'I'm going to do this,' " said Mack.

The law review president's election is a fussy affair, part intellectual debate, part frat house ritual. Obama was one of 19 candidates. As the 61 editors not running for the job debated the merits of the candidates behind closed doors on a Sunday morning in late February, the hopefuls cooked them breakfast, lunch, and dinner . Every few hours, the editors winnowed the list further, until just after midnight, when only Obama and a 24-year-old Harvard graduate named David Goldberg remained contenders .

At about 12:30 a.m., the editors called Obama into the room, told him he had won, and broke into applause. Mack, another black editor, pulled Obama in for a hug.

"It was a hard hug, and it lasted a while," Obama told the Harvard Law Record, the school newspaper, at the time. "At that point, I realized this was not just an individual thing. . . but something much bigger."

Obama gained instant fame, was profiled glowingly in newspapers across the country, and landed a contract for a book that would become "Dreams from My Father," his best-selling memoir.

There was buzz on campus, too. Blair Underwood, the actor who played a black lawyer on L.A. Law, one of the campus' s favorite shows, came to visit Obama at the Law Review and took him out for a Chinese food banquet. People who had helped pave the way were also moved.

"You should not underestimate the significance of him being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review because that was and remains a very elite group," said Bell, now a law professor at New York University. "These were some tough folks. . . . It's almost as impressive that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review as him being elected senator of Illinois."

As editor for two semesters, Obama spent 50 to 60 hours a week holed up in a second-floor office of Gannett House, a 19th century building overlooking Cambridge Common. He reviewed hundreds of articles, on topics ranging from corporate law to racial bias in auto pricing, and presided over long, heated debates in the cluttered first-floor lounge.

"Even though he was clearly a liberal, he didn't appear to the conservatives in the review to be taking sides in the tribal warfare," said Bradford A. Berenson, a former Bush administration lawyer who was an editor at the review.

"The politics of the Harvard Law Review were incredibly petty and incredibly vicious," Berenson said. "The editors of the review were constantly at each other's throats. And Barack tended to treat those disputes with a certain air of detachment and amusement. The feeling was almost, come on kids, can't we just behave here?"

A polished leader

Sometimes he sounded like he was already running for public office, giving studied, measured responses in interviews with The Harvard Law Record. Asked in 1991 if he could do one thing differently in his last year at the Review, Obama said, "I don't know that it was possible to do it any other way than I did it, but I would have liked to have had the luxury of being more strategic about my tenure."

Basketball was his outlet. He played often at Hemenway, the law school gymnasium, just off Harvard Square. Hill Harper, a classmate and frequent defender, said Obama, who stands about 6 feet 1 inch tall, had a quick first step and could easily sink midrange jump shots. "If there was any knock against Barack, he pulled his socks up a little too high and his shorts were a little too small," Harper said, laughing. "We were just at the beginning of the Michael Jordan era. He more harkened back to the Julius Erving era."

Some students got their first glimpse of Obama, the orator, in the spring of 1991, when the Black Law Students Association broke with tradition and asked him, rather than a renowned judge or professor, to deliver the keynote address at the association's annual conference. Standing before hundreds , Obama gave what classmates recall as a stirring call to action.

"It was a clarion call," recalled Randall L. Kennedy, a law school professor who attended the conference. "We've gotten this education, we've gotten this great halo, this great career-enhancing benefit. Let's not just feather our nests. Let's go forward and address the many ills that confront our society."

Now that he's traveling the country as a full-fledged presidential candidate, Obama is clearly proud of his training at Harvard, and he is remembered proudly here.

From the landlord who showed him his $700 a month apartment to the learned professors who mentored him, everyone seems to recall him as an exceptionally conscientious young man.

But in some ways, he was just a typical, forgetful grad uate student. Records from Somerville show that he still owes the city $72.63 in excise taxes and $45 in late penalties on two parking violations.

The bright, young law student parked illegally in a bus stop in 1990 and illegally in a street-sweeping zone in 1991.

"I kind of kidded with the mayor and said, "If he comes to Somerville, he might get booted,' " said Walter Pero, a city alderman.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe, Jonathan Saltzman at jsaltzman@globe.com

© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Click to expand...
 
Good read on one of Obama's campaign stategists and his background...

link

Obama's Media Maven

by CHRISTOPHER HAYES

[from the February 19, 2007 issue]

Given his rhetorical skills, Harvard Law pedigree, up-by-the-bootstraps bio and, well, his race, it is hard not to compare recently elected Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to his friend Barack Obama. Both men entered crowded primaries in which they were definitively not favored. They both inspired a kind of personal pride among supporters that is rare in politics. On the evening of Obama's convincing primary victory, the crowd and the candidate joined in chanting, "Yes We Can!" and if you listen closely to video of Patrick rallies, you'll hear the crowd chanting the very same thing. When Patrick looked into the camera in one ad and said the state's problem wasn't a "deficit of dollars but a deficit of leadership," it was hard not to hear echoes of Obama's oft-used line that the country's biggest problem isn't a budget deficit but an "empathy deficit." And in Patrick's most effective ad, he stands on a stage delivering an impassioned speech to a crescendo of applause as Obama sits on a stool just behind him, nodding approvingly, his head perfectly framed in the shot.

Which brings us to something else the two men share: David Axelrod, the 51-year-old reporter turned media consultant who was the key media strategist for both men's campaigns. He's the one who wrote those ads, framed that shot and came up with the "Yes We Can" tag line. "I don't bring these messages to candidates," Axelrod says when I point out the similarities. "I look for candidates who exemplify and reflect those messages." In the cases of Obama and Patrick, he says, the work is a collaboration. "They take and improve on what you bring them; they deliver it well because they believe in it. It's like riffing with great musicians."

Even though he lives 1,000 miles from the notoriously clubby world of political consulting, Axelrod has become one of its most successful and respected practitioners. Mark McKinnon, who produced George W. Bush's ads in the last cycle and now works for John McCain, calls Axelrod "the best media guy out there who doesn't have a ring." With his quick wit and knack for soundbites ("The Icon gets hoisted," Axelrod said of the media's treatment of star candidates, "and then it becomes a piñata"), the onetime Chicago Tribune political writer is a favorite of reporters seeking quotes. Charming as he can be with journalists, those who have worked with him say, he can be "aggressive" and "extremely difficult" in the trenches of a campaign. Colleagues point out that he's uncommonly idealistic for someone in his line of work, though a veteran Chicago reporter noted that this has its limits: "He's a principled guy, but he's not a philanthropist. The candidates he's worked for have been well funded, and he's made very good money doing what he does."

Axelrod is known for becoming close to his candidates, and indeed, he has become Obama's closest political adviser, talking strategy daily and producing the two videos recently posted to Obama's website. Reclining in a chair in his Chicago office the week before Obama announced the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, Axelrod was subdued, seemingly exhausted, but intense and hyperarticulate. Like Obama he speaks with what can seem a refreshing frankness, though just a few hours later, going over my notes, it was clear that he had remained scrupulously on message.

Axelrod's firm, AKP Media, which he runs with his partners John Kupper and David Plouffe, has handled a series of high-profile national and state campaigns, from John Edwards's 2004 presidential run to Tom Vilsack's and Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial races; but for much of its two decades the firm's bread and butter has been mayoral races, with a particularly strong track record in electing black candidates. Indeed, ever since working on the re-election campaign of Chicago's Harold Washington in 1987, Axelrod has developed something of a novel niche for a political consultant: helping black politicians convince white voters to support them. With Obama's bid for the presidency, Axelrod's skill in this area will face the ultimate test.

Born on New York's Lower East Side, Axelrod grew up in a middle-class Jewish household and showed a passion for politics early: At age 10 he was shuffling around his housing complex with a cardboard box filled with John Lindsay-for-mayor literature. He enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1972, lured by Chicago's storied politics, and resolved to become a "newspaperman." Upon graduating he was hired by the Tribune, and having just lost his father to suicide, he turned to the paper as a surrogate family. "I was a young kid," he says, "just making my way in the world, and the Tribune adopted me."

Axelrod was something of a journalistic prodigy, rising to become city hall bureau chief and political columnist at the ripe old age of 27. Then in 1984, he left it behind to join the campaign of Paul Simon, the bow-tied intellectual mounting an improbable run for US Senate. Though he joined the campaign as communications director, within weeks Axelrod was promoted to co-campaign manager. "We were too dumb to quit," says David Wilhelm, who co-piloted the campaign and would go on to become DNC head in Clinton's first year in office. "It helped that we were so idealistic. One of the things about David Axelrod--I have certainly talked to clients about this--one of the reasons he's so successful is that he is a believer. At the end of the day, he's an idealist. He actually cares about his candidates and their positions on issues. While he can be caustic, he is not a cynic."

When the campaign was done, Axelrod and Forest Claypool, one of his deputies from the campaign, opened their own consulting shop, handling mostly long-shot candidates until 1987, when Chicago Mayor Harold Washington hired the firm to help with his re-election. Four years earlier, Washington had won a historic victory, defeating the machine-backed incumbent, Jane Byrne, to become the city's first black mayor. As the Tribune's city hall bureau chief, Axelrod had ringside seats. "Nineteen eighty-three, that was a phenomenal election. Harold Washington--extraordinary guy. I mean, he was the most kinetic campaigner and politician that I've ever met. It was inspiring the way the African-American community came alive around the prospect of electing Harold. There were those who mistook that for a negative [campaign], but it was one of the most positive campaigns I've ever seen, because people felt empowered."

But if the campaign was positive, the reaction from white Chicago was not. In 1966, when Martin Luther King Jr. came to Chicago to campaign for housing desegregation, he was met with jeers of "Martin Luther Coon" and bricks thrown at his head. It prompted King to observe that people from Mississippi should move to Chicago to "learn how to hate." Seventeen years later, during the Washington campaign, that same ugly side of the city was on full display. Washington was heckled and threatened. Opponents passed out buttons with pictures of watermelons, and Bernard Epton, Washington's white Republican opponent, adopted the slogan "Before It's Too Late." After Washington won, it arguably got worse. The white machine alderman who opposed the Mayor formed a bloc in the City Council that did everything it could to undercut and humiliate him. The "council wars," as the ongoing battle became known, came to embody city politics at its worst: racial civil war fought by parliamentary means. "The city was paralyzed," Axelrod says. "The media called it 'Beirut on the lake.'"

But Mayor Washington was extremely popular among the city's African-American population, and the pettiness of the council wars cemented his support among white liberals, paving the way for his re-election in 1987. "I remember sitting with Harold on the morning after he won the primary," Axelrod recalls with a wistful smile. "He turned to us and asked, 'What percentage of the white vote did I get?' We told him it was 20 percent, and we were happy, because four years earlier he'd gotten only 8 percent." But Washington pointed out that he'd spent 70 to 80 percent of his time during the campaign in white neighborhoods. "He kind of smiled wanly," says Axelrod, "and said, 'Ain't it a ##### to be a black man in the land of the free and the home of the brave,' and then he went out to give one of the most joyous and rollicking and brilliant press conferences I'd ever seen."

While Axelrod would work on Paul Simon's presidential campaign a year later and branch out from Chicago to state and federal races across the country, he developed a specialty in black mayoral races, working for candidates like Dennis Archer in Detroit, Michael White in Cleveland, Anthony Williams in DC, Lee Brown in Houston and John Street in Philadelphia. Now, as Axelrod prepares to try to persuade nonblack Americans to elect a black man President, it's clear the experience of Harold Washington was a defining moment in the formation of his political consciousness. When he talks about the brutally negative race run by Deval Patrick's opponent, he says offhandedly, "We haven't seen anything like it since Bernie Epton."

Axelrod sees Obama, who was working in Chicago as a community organizer during the Washington years, as a marker of progress, writing the second act of a story that Washington started. "In 1983, after Harold won the primary, he went to the northwest side of Chicago with Walter Mondale. They went to a place called St. Pascal's Catholic Church. And what ensued there was so ugly--the protests--that it became a national story. Twenty-one years later, when Barack ran for the US Senate in the primary against six very strong candidates, he carried every ward on the northwest side except one, and carried the ward that St. Pascal's is in, and I think even the precinct. That's what he was thinking about on primary night. I was thinking, and I told Barack, that Harold Washington is smiling down on us."

What Obama and Washington shared, Axelrod points out--a trait common to many of the successful black candidates he has worked for--is the direct, lived experience of the effects of injustice with a simultaneous faith that the injustice wasn't permanent, that it could be overcome. "In many cases their personal stories are symbolic of the kinds of values that we as a society hold dear even if we haven't always honored them historically," Axelrod says. "The notion that you can overcome great obstacles--[they're] very hopeful figures, and I think that made them very potent politically. They've seen the obstacles and the barriers and they've also overcome them: It shows the work we have to do and the possibility that that work can get done, that you can work for a better future." In other words: They make people feel good about how far we've come.

If the Obama message can be distilled to a single word, it is "hope." It's in the title of his new book (The Audacity of Hope) and the name of his PAC (Hopefund). If you page back through Axelrod's work, it's a word that shows up a lot. All politics traffics in clichés, and hope certainly isn't a new one (Bill Clinton: The Man From Hope), but there's a specific resonance to the concept in post-9/11, mid-Iraq War America. The experience of 9/11 gave Americans a feeling of national solidarity that the country probably hadn't experienced since World War II. Those melancholy days served as a kind of time warp, or glimpse, perhaps, of a future public life without the culture wars: one without wedge issues and the quasi-tribal red-blue divisions. Of course, that unity was all too quickly leveraged to pursue a radically militaristic course of action, but that brief taste has left many Americans wanting more. This is what the Axelrod-Obama brain trust has intuited, and what the Obama campaign holds out as its promise: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats," Obama said during his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote. "But I've got news for them, too: We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Obama, having grown up stretched across the trenches of the culture wars--black and white, secular and religious, poor neighborhoods and the Ivy League, heartland and the coasts--seems to feel at a gut level the discomfort many Americans have with the culture wars' rituals. In The Audacity of Hope he writes about how the political battles of today can seem rooted in "old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago." And Axelrod, veteran of Chicago's ugly racialized battles, also seems to have a profound understanding of people's yearning for a politics that is somehow less petty and rancorous. Together they have crafted a potent message that speaks to this.

The question is whether a politics free of acrimony can deliver the promise of progress. When I asked Axelrod how he went from working for Washington to working for his erstwhile foe, Mayor Daley, just two years later, he defended it this way: "He reduced the acrimony and became a unifying force, and that was really significant." Of course, in that case the "acrimony" came from the fierce resistance to change, and a return to a more placid politics only came with the monarchical restoration of the king's eldest son.

The hope for a politics of consensus is hardly new. It is the hope embodied in the plaintive, exasperated question asked by Rodney King during America's last spasm of racialized violence: "Can't we all get along?" Axelrod and Obama call it "a new kind of politics," and in their imagining it is a rerun of the Washington race, but this time the empowerment can be shared across the racial divide. This time, there won't be epithets or spit hurled at the candidate. Politics without division; progress without anyone's interests being threatened.

But consensus is a tricky business. Recently the website obamatruth.org mysteriously appeared, featuring a slick three-minute video hit-piece intended to make Obama out to be a money-grubbing, uppity sellout. "In his lust for personal wealth," the site asks, "has Barack Obama sold his moral compass?" Though the site doesn't offer any clues as to its provenance, it is registered to one Joe Novak, a Republican opposition researcher and dirty trickster who during the last election cycle produced a series of notorious negative ads aired on black commercial radio. Axelrod knows Novak well. Back in the 1980s, Novak got his start as a hatchet man for none other than Ed Vrdolyak, the white alderman who was Harold Washington's chief nemesis. Vrdolyak affectionately referred to him as "Low Blow Joe." As Washington learned, as interested as you might be in unity, your enemies get a vote, too.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. If you read Obama's first book, you know he had an interest and a fascination with the Harold Washington days in Chicago.
 
A few new links:

Barack Obama TV

- Here are a few, and likely ever increasing number of, videos of Obama. The most recent being his announcement that he's running for the presidency. There are also interviews with his wife and other very interesting segments.

I recommend the video with Michelle, and his announcement that he's running for president. I have firefox and had to load the webpage with IE to get the embedded software to work.

www.Barack Obama.com Official Candidate's Website

A new, very nice website dedicated to his candidacy.

 
I enjoyed his campaign spokemans smackdown of the Australian PM. Essentially PM said Obama was wrong with his deescalation plan and added in all the usual conservative blather. The campaign spokesman came back with if Australia thought it was so important maybe they should have more than 1400 soldiers there and maybe they should be in combat roles so some Amreicans could come home.

I like the fight I see in this campaign.

 
NCCommish said:
I enjoyed his campaign spokemans smackdown of the Australian PM. Essentially PM said Obama was wrong with his deescalation plan and added in all the usual conservative blather. The campaign spokesman came back with if Australia thought it was so important maybe they should have more than 1400 soldiers there and maybe they should be in combat roles so some Amreicans could come home.I like the fight I see in this campaign.
Click to expand...
:tumbleweed: Didn't see or hear anything about that, but I like it.
 
adonis said:
NCCommish said:
I enjoyed his campaign spokemans smackdown of the Australian PM. Essentially PM said Obama was wrong with his deescalation plan and added in all the usual conservative blather. The campaign spokesman came back with if Australia thought it was so important maybe they should have more than 1400 soldiers there and maybe they should be in combat roles so some Amreicans could come home.

I like the fight I see in this campaign.
Click to expand...
:tumbleweed: Didn't see or hear anything about that, but I like it.
Click to expand...
Here you go:
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australia's conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after Obama announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.

Obama said the country's first priority should be to end the war in Iraq.

He has also introduced a bill to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq, and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008. (Watch as Obama outlines his plans for Iraq )

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who will face his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposed deadline would spell disaster for the Middle East.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." (Watch Obama call for a new generation of leadership )

Howard, a staunch supporter and personal friend of Bush, has defied widespread domestic opposition to the war, keeping about 1,400 Australian troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non-combat roles.

He is seeking a fifth term later this year, and recent polls suggest voters are increasingly unhappy about his refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing Australian troops.

"You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally," he said. "If it's all right for us to go, it's all right for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes, Iraq will descend into total civil war and there'll be a lot of bloodshed."

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, traveling with the senator in Iowa, said Howard's words were misguided.

"The United States has sacrificed more than 3,000 brave young men and women and $400 billion, only to find ourselves mired in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Even Republicans ... know that more of the same is only going to attract more terrorists to Iraq and make our country less safe."

Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Click to expand...
Article
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Click to expand...
:tumbleweed: :ph34r:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
NCCommish said:
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Click to expand...
:bag: :lmao:
Click to expand...
I dont consider myself a Rep or a Dem and am, in fact i am fairly turned off by the US political scene...but that was probably the best quote uttered by a politician in my lifetime.
 
NCCommish said:
I like the fight I see in this campaign.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:
Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war."Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JB Breakfast Club
FBG Music League
2 3
Replies
103
Views
2K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
Peak
TaxGuys: Anyone ever experience an employer not update a W4?
Replies
5
Views
322
Rattle and Hum
Rattle and Hum
KarmaPolice
FBG Movie Club: DotM: Billy Wilder
2 3 4
Replies
189
Views
4K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top