Who is Barack Obama? The man I hope to become our next President

I think it's a joke that because a talk show host brought him to her show and told him of her support of him running doesn't make him right for the job. I think Hollywood should stick with entertaining us not leading us.

You really have no clue about the current state of politics and deception, do you, Kelly?

Have to disagree with you on this one, Kelly, if it's matinee idol qualities that are needed...why not George Clooney who could probably give Obama cathedra on world events and the intricacies of global politics...no, but, seriously Russ Feingold is a much better choice...so are about a dozen worthier Democrats who at least know where the bathroom is on Capitol Hill. Kid needs to learn the ropes first and do something...anything. An endorsement by Oprah means nothing to me...I don't even read the junk she tries to pass off as good literature. The Democrats make themselves look pathetic to even consider this neophyte. McCain and/or Giuliani would sail to victory.

I think he is wonderful.

He does seem to de a refreshing alternative to the old faces that never seem to go away.

From what I've seen so far, I like him. I still have to look into more about various issues before condemning or condoning.

Senator Obama is certainly the most interesting of the Democratic possibles. He is a neophyte, and, of course, Oprah's endorsement means nothing. I'm currently reading "Audacity of Hope"; this is a thoughtful man with a vision. Its possible America could do better; its definite we could do a whole lot worse.

Steve Kubby is the only candidate for President I can vote for. He is the only candidate that has never done anything to raise taxes and spending or violate our personal freedoms. In fact he co-wrote prop 215 in California which gave California residents the rights to use marijuana for medical purposes, and he has even taken cases to the supreme court.

www.kubby.com

I like Obama, we'll see how he does closer to '08.

As I said in an article titled, "Does Obama have Bravada", his day will come. In 2008, he has had too much too soon. He needs a few "gray hairs".

I wonder if he's qualified. He's seems more like the "boy" wonder to me. Let's think about it this time before we make the same mistake again.

We need some young blood in power.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Obama is no Jack Kennedy. But for fun, let's just look at age and experience of the two men at similar points in their careers, ok?

John F. Kennedy was 43 when elected President; Obama will be 47 two years from now. Kennedy served in the House for 6 years, and was a second-term Senator when elected President. Obama served in the Illinois state Senate for 7 years and is now a first-term Senator.

According to Obama's Senate website, "Barack Obama has dedicated his life to public service as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and leader in the Illinois state Senate.... In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review."

I'm excited by the prospects of an Obama run. And unlike someone else who is not Jack Kennedy, Obama knows how to spell "potato."

I think those of you who mock Obama as a "matinee idol" and a "political hack" are missing the point. Once in a lifetime a politican comes around who transcends political ideology and partisan bullshit. He is obviously a bright and capable guy, anyone who has heard him speak cannot help but make that observation and his Senate colleauges are unaminous in their praise of his ability to disect difficult policy issues. He may be young and inexperienced, but he is something special and in my opinion exactly what this country needs right now. George Bush and to some extent Bill Clinton really tore this country apart on ideological fault lines, we need someone we can truely unite us and lead us in our fight to retake our position on the global stage. Good article Kelly, see you on the campaign trail.

I think that many of your are discounting Obama without all of the facts. I popint to Dave A. comments above and Andrews. he has spent much of his life in service and As I said in the article he is doing very well in the Senate with much praise and respect of his collegues in both parties. I knew there would be people would say he is too young or unseasoned but not only would you be wrong on his experience but his youth and energy are more of what we need. No more of the same old beltway stuff.
Bill Giltner as for you comment well I actually am sure I have more knowlegde than most on politics today than many people and you do not agree with my views so your answer is to be smug and attempt and insult. No facts, no insight nothing.

Steve Kubby is who I am going to vote for. I am sick of the two Party's and I want someone who is going to protect my freedoms and rights! I vote Libertarian !

Obama says that gay marriage isnt a right!:0

Yeah, and the wunderkind wants to bomb Iran. He'll never get my vote.

Jeff H. I never heard that if that is true then I am hugly disappointed. I will look into it and if you can tell me where he said that I would appreciate it. I would be surprised that he said that but you could be right.

On Obama's attempt to number himself among prominent pro-war Democrats who proclaim their respect for the personal courage of Pennsylvania Congressperson John Murtha, but who lack his guts and honesty.

Great article. I agree with its contents entirely. Yes, Obama is the latest, glitzy packaged example of the crisis in Black leadership. He reminds me of the title of a book currently in print entitled, "We have no Leaders." To hear liberal Whites fawn over him is both comical and revealing. The spineless minions of the Democratic Party will, as you predict, piss away the changing political tide, swim upstream with the Neocon illusionists and ultimately keep the right wingers in power. I have taken the same stance as the editorial staff of The Nation magazine, I will not support any candidate who supports this war and fails to advocate for a swift withdrawal of troops and an abdication of imperial designs on Iraqi oil and natural resources. Keep up the critical analysis. Lord knows we need it.

L. Starks

Martin Luther King used to say that leaders ought to be less like thermometers, reflecting where their constituents are, and more like thermostats that act to set the moral temperature. Senator Obama fails both these test miserably, the former by failing to reflect the views that speak for the large progressive and anti-war constituency that catapulted him to the national stage, and the latter by his refusal to lead the rest of America in that direction.

Obama's emerging strategy seems to be steadfastly to ignore and disparage his prior electoral base in the quest for corporate cash and a hoped-for 2008 vice presidential run with another pro-war Democrat. Inasmuch as US campaign laws virtually prohibit the emergence of viable third parties on the state and national levels, Obama's disappointed former base voters will be left the choice of deluding themselves, of holding their noses while voting for him, or staying home.

Reader Daniel Bell recommends a history lesson for Senator Obama:

Obama and others need to review the history and outcomes of recent attempts to occupy and establish "puppet" governments in Vietnam, Somalia, Algeria, etc. The results in Iraq will be the same - the occupation will end - it can be voluntary or over many years at a tremendous and unnecessary cost in lives and money.

The dynamics have changed since the "colonial days." Now there are organized cultural, religious, and tribal alliances that provide capability for regular communications between people within common borders and geographical areas. Their are no tactics which can make occupations successful anymore - those days are gone - thank goodness.

Daniel Bell
Mr. Bell makes a very good point. You'll look a long time before finding an example of a "successful" occupation or a "successfully" quashed insurgency, regardless of the level of force applied by the occupier. Think Northern Ireland. Think Palestine.

Thank you for your brilliantly incisive dissection of Barack Obama's speech on Iraq… writes reader Chris Lowe.

…What a disappointment that speech was. Your analysis of Obama's manner and mode of rhetoric is particularly important because his mush is a paradigm of a growing type of self-delusory evasion. This self-delusion is already widespread -- Obama himself notes in his speech that the ideas he expresses are not original to him… Such self-delusion of course is an extension of the delusions used to justify the war (apart from the simple lies) and to justify votes for the war powers resolution. Your connection of Obama's new rhetoric to John Kerry is thus especially apt.

What your analysis shows is that Obama's approach relies essentially on Americans bargaining with themselves over what sounds good to them, rather than dealing with Iraqi reality. In helping us see the delusion for what it is, you help us demand better, especially from those who should know better, or do know better but peddle the mush anyway.
We agree with Mr. Lowe that Barack Obama has every reason to know better. Here is the rotten heart of the senator's mush mouthing on the war.

I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.

At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."

How long? When if ever, does Obama's limited drawdown become withdrawal?
We need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs… We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now."

Compare that to the un-spun truth from Congressman Murtha:
"The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. We have become a catalyst for violence."
Murtha, who is widely believed to be a closer confidante of more generals than the good senator from Illinois, suggested on C-SPAN November 30 that a withdrawal can be well underway in under six months and nearly complete in a year "…or sooner if I had my way…". Compare this to Obama's something less than a decade. The divide among Democrats now is between those who think the occupation is a "solution" that they can somehow make "smarter" or "more effective" and those who know the American presence in Iraq is itself the problem.

Reader A. Caesar writes with a question:

Why is this the only place I can get some straightforward, plain talk about this war? OK, Counterpunch will pick apart Kerry and sometimes Obama, but no one does with such a sharp instrument, peeling away the BS and squishy mushy, digusting crap…. Your hardnosedness is the best. And this is one of the best and most timely and accurate depiction of the state of the mainstream of the Democratic party: a bunch of mush-mouthed f'in losers.

Thanks and keep it up.

A Mr. Padnos expresses his disappointment with the junior senator from Illinois thusly:
On your piece on Obama: YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!

Superb piece; thank you SO MUCH for detailing the indictment against this most cruelly disappointing of all new Democratic senators. I hope your piece gets the wide circulation throughout the net and even in the MSM it so richly deserves. Thank you again for taking the time to write this careful, detailed and cosmically damning - piece.

Reader Helen C. weighs in with trenchant observations about costs, courage and leadership

Just read Obama Mouths Mush on War. One with the intellect, just lost moral courage and sold out to the bag men for the corporations and banks who are benefiting from this war while the children are dying.

Obama and Edwards might have made a good ticket, but both might just as well start digging a canal in New Orleans for all the good their leadership is doing for the country.

It is break out time, who has the guts to break out of the pack?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/162/162_bruces_beat.html

and...Obama advocates the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes:

Obama Would Consider Missile Strikes On Iran

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,0,999197.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Has Obama stopped for one second to consider the consequences of such an action?

Here's a more reasoned approach from people without a limelight:

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE)

"I do not expect any kind of military solution on the Iran issue," Hagel told a news conference. … "I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option," he added. … "Iran is a complicated issue. I think that a responsible approach to these challenges is to work closely with our friends and allies, in this case Pakistan, with the United Nations, with the IAEA," he said. "I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement," Hagel said. [4/13/06]

JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION

"'There are no good military options. … When you're trying to stabilise Iraq and you've got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you're trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn't be picking a war with the Iranians,' said Carafano. 'It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint,' he said. Iran is believed to protect its most sensitive facilities by dispersing, burying and hardening them, learning from the 1981 Israeli air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. So the payoff from surgical strikes on suspected nuclear facilities would be uncertain and temporary, Carafano said." [1/24/05]

RET. AIR FORCE LT COL. SAM GARDINER

Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army's National War College, after leading a "war game" on Iran: "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." [12/04]

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT

"[A] military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years." [3/27/06]

RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

"To properly address the complexities of the Iranian challenge, Washington should appreciate that its policy of relentlessly threatening Iran with economic coercion and even military reprisals only empowers reactionaries and validates their pro-nuclear argument." [4/4/06]

DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
"David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, agreed that Iran 'could cause all kinds of disruption clandestinely in Iraq.' For that reason, and several others, he said there are no good military options on the table for confronting Iran. He also said loud external threats, especially from the United States, tend to backfire by sending Iranian moderates and reformers running under the banners of the clerical regime that Washington opposes." [1/13/06]

IAEA DIRECTOR MOHAMED ELBARADEI

"I don't believe there is a military solution to the issue. I think that a military solution would be completely counterproductive." [12/9/05]

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

"'The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable,' says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. 'The question is, what then?' NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, 'The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.'" [9/27/04]

FORMER COUNTERTERROR CHIEF RICHARD CLARKE

"[W]e've thought about military options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years, and they're just not good, because you don't know what the end game is. You know what the first move of the game is, but you don't know what the last move of the game is. … I don't think there's any doubt that the intelligence community and the defense department believe Iran would respond with terrorism. … So they would respond if we hit them militarily, if that was the first move. The second move would them striking back with terrorism, including in the United States. And then what's the third move? What's the end of that process?" [ABC's Good Morning America, 4/3/06]

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA)

"There's no way [President Bush is] going to take military action in Iran. Iran is three times as big geographically, there's 58 million people vs. 26 million people in Iraq and there's no way. A fanatical government — I mean, the, the president of the United States does not have a military option. He can say he has a military option, but, he does not have a military option." [3/19/06]

Obama obviously is not listening to these 'old folks'...why haven't they been carted off to the nursing home anyway? Who's got Obama's ear? Lieberman? Oprah? Obama says, 'surgical strikes'...almost sounds neat and kosher:

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these 'surgical strikes' would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the 'mini-nukes' (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions 'take place under ground'. Each of these 'mini-nukes', nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:

'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)

We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.

"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,

The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).

Barack Obama Goes Over To The Dark Side

Filed under General, Democrats, Election 2006, State and Local by jclifford at 6:36 am
Only a little bit more than a year after Barack Obama began his career in the United States Senate with the promise of becoming the next generation's Paul Wellstone, Obama now seems more likely to become the next generation's wet noodle.

It was bad enough to see Barack Obama defending George W. Bush against the censure resolution from Senator Russ Feingold. Obama sure didn't look like a liberal that day.

Now, Barack Obama seems to be fully in the thrall of the Dark Side. He's rushing to the defense of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was voted Senator Most Likely to Be Mistaken for Emperor Palpatine by progressives last year.

It's hard to believe, but Barack Obama is actually campaigning for Joseph Lieberman, against Lieberman's progressive Democratic rival, Ned Lamont.

On every issue of importance, Joseph Lieberman has spent the last five years being George W. Bush's pet Democrat. Joseph Lieberman has stood against almost every good progressive effort in the US Senate since Bush first occupied the White House.

Barack Obama ought to be ashamed for aligning himself with a politician like Joe Lieberman. It makes one wonder if Barack Obama is really a progressive after all, or if he's just playing us all for a bunch of suckers.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/04/obama-lieberman/

Kelly, I don't dislike Obama...at least not in the way that I dislike, say, Giuliani or McCain, but, I have other people from both Partys whom I would prefer over him...like Gore, Kucinich, Hagel, Murtha, Pataki, Clinton, etc. I respect your backing of Obama and your' efforts in his support. I've merely put forth my reasons for not supporting his candidacy, otherwise, it would appear that I just don't like him personally...that is not the case...my opposition is issue's not his character.

Hi, Kelly.

I appreciate your thoughts on Mr. Obama. I think that he has immense potential too. I don't know if he will be ready to commit to making a run at the Presidency this time around though. He's got a tough decision to make. Right now, he's got enormous "buzz"--a tremendous asset that could carry him far. He does, unfortuantely lack a "track record". Ideally, running for, and hopefully winning, the VP job could set him up for a future shot at the Presidency in his own right.

As for some of the others who have commented in response to your article, may I say this:

Lost Soul: "a political hack"? Your cynicism is underwhelming, sir.

Bill Giltner: "the current state of politics and deception". Who's deceiving whom, Bill? Could you, please, expand on what sort of "deception" you're talking about with regard to Mr. Obama?

Felix: like it or not, man, charisma counts for a LOT in politics. And the man seems to have one thing that most of his colleagues lack: integrity. (Added bonus: he was perceptive enough to see through the B.S. pretext the Bush administration presented to justify involving us in an insanely futile war in Iraq).

As for that jumble of stuff you put up (above), it would be most helpful if you could use some quotation marks, or somehow indicate what part represents your own thoughts/opions. As it stands, it's a confusing mess. Is this something you cut and pasted from some blog somewhere?

Paul,
I understand what you are saying about him committing but you know I do truly believe the nation is ready for a CHANGE. Something completely different from what we are use to and Obama represents that change for me and many others I have spoken with. I am in Manhattan a lot and Last week I swear it seemed like everyone was reading his book in the Subway. I think he culd be exactly what we need in the US after such a devisive govt under the Republicans and Bush. It is really time we set a new direction one that is forward thinking and more progressive for everyone and Obama may just be that man.

Yes, Kelly. His book is the #1 seller on Amazon.com right now. I worked on Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign. I haven't seen another candidate since then who I feel compares to him--until Obama.

I see Paul is avoiding the substance of what I posted and is trying to make it personal. My intent was not to further confuse anyone. I'd like to know how his views on Iraq and Iran are 'something new'. Forget it...I'm outta here.

Paul, interesting what you said I have wonder if people did not feel that way who were around when Bobby Kennedy was alive and running. I have felt there were some similarities.
Felix, You are allowed to have a different point of view on this matter. I do not think Paul was trying to be mean at all. It is very difficult to perceive tone in email or online commentary.

I stand corrected, Kelly.

Felix I just did not want you to think anyone was being mean b/c you see things differently. It is about healthy dialogue..hehehe

it is really wonderful kelly i read it today 3or4 times