Why Obama?

I was a very interesting article. Thank-you for taking the time to share..........

Hear, hear. Good points.

I agree. I watched Obama and Clinton being interviewed on the Today Show this morning (I don't usually watch, but the channel came up when I turned the TV on this morning to listen to C-Span). The interviewer was asking Clinton about the last debate and her attack ads on TV. Clinton defended her position saying that SHE could stand up to the same type of Republican attacks during the general election....that this was how the Republicans would handle HER and that's just how politics is.

THIS is the type of thinking and talk that turns people away from Clinton and McCain and towards Obama. We are definitely sick of "politics as usual" and need someone who recognizes that this is very, very wrong. Clinton may not personally like it, but is more than willing to play the game. Obama has the guts to stand up and say, "Stop." That takes courage and intelligence - just the kind of person who will also be willing to say "Stop" to a lot of the things that are ruining our country right now.

I'm for Obama....:) Thanks for sharing.

My only concern is,
Who are the people that will be advising him?
Will there be a Henry Kissinger type?
a Bob Haldeman type?
a John R. Steelman type?
a Alexander Haig type?
a A.J. McInnerney type (Martin Sheen in The American President)
or will it be a Dick Cheney?

Something to think about.
Let's ask him.

I don't believe he has a new way of thinking. I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is all pitch and so substance. What has he ever done to demonstrate his new view besides give speeches? His voting record does not reflect change, his association with soon-to-be-felons is not a change, his ego and million dollar income are just as big as any other politician. Look at Deval Patrick, same deal, change, new way of thinking. Now Massachusetts is in a bigger mess, he can't get along with legistaure that his controlled by his own party. His big idea for change? bring in casino gambling, sponsored by lobbyist!, that failed now we are in deep debt and have to raise taxes. That is what will happen with Obama.

Fred - It is valid to ask who his advisers will be, just as it is valid to ask who Clinton and McCain's advisers will be. To assume whom any of them will pick as advisers once they become President would be mere speculation at this point. At best we can only see who their campaign advisers are and extrapolate.

My Yorkie could do a better job than the current admin.

Great article, thanks for pointing it out!

Linda - all we can do is speculate what will happen. I have listened to his words, and more importantly, tried listening between his words for some insight into how he thinks. Granted this is by necessity uncertain. I have done the same with Clinton and McCain (as I did for other candidates who have since dropped out of the race). I see substance; I realize others do not. But all I can do is try to get all the information I can - from multiple sources and viewpoints - and then trust my gut.

Sher l - This is my read as well. With policy differences being minimal and inconsequential between Obama and Clinton, we turn to thinking and vision. As you note, Clinton has taken great pride in stating that she has been vetted and all her dirty laundry is out already and that she is best equipped to fight with the Republicans.

But isn't that what we've had during the last 8 years (and, in fact, the 8 years of the Bill Clinton administration before that)? Fighting the Republicans. Do we want another 4 years of divisive politics? Do we want another President whose we already know we can't trust. Or do we want a chance at a greater vision?

I said the exact same thing Ron did to a friend a couple of days ago... but it was MY Yorkie I was talking about!

The thing that impresses me about Obama is the fact that I do NOT hear "I will do this" and "I will do that" and "I promise..."

What I hear is "WE can." Seems to me he is the only politician who realizes that he is dependent on US to accomplish anything. And I believe his heart is in the right place, and these changes CAN happen. You're right, David. We can't cast our vote and then sit back and wait. We have to do our part, too.

Interesting but sadly it will never happen...the secret socities will see to that as well as the "good Ol' Boy's " clubs that run politics.

I am ready to choose vision and judgement over experience.

The Bush administration is over run with experience. It has not served us well!

Interesting, but no sell to me. I will never vote to put Obama in the White House

Delores - that certainly is your right. Best wishes.

Julie - I believe you are right. The vision is there. The implementation is the unknown. But it strikes me that too often we stick with the known - even when we don't like it - because we are fearful of the unknown. This is a natural inclination. The Obama campaign likes to talk about hope. I personally prefer hope over a known negative, and will work toward helping hope reach implementation. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton - the man from Hope - who ran on a platform of hope for the future. I think he was right then. And I think Obama is right now.

WM H - Experience is a double-edged sword. It helps provide the insight to deal with new situations as they come up. But it also ties you down to the actions (and connections) of the past. As you note, Cheney/Rumsfeld et al had many years of Washington experience. Yet it blinded them into misunderstanding how their ideologically driven policies could back fire. They were so experienced with the past that they failed to appreciate the future.

While we must learn from the lessons of the past, we cannot always apply the same methods in the future. It takes a new way of thinking.

Go Obama

Kitty - I don't doubt that the old boy network of Washington politics will resist change. But also don't doubt the fact that if we give up on the future without even trying to change then we are lost...and we deserve what we get. We must take the chance of thinking differently so we can remind Washington that the populace elects them to represent us, not their respective political parties.

Congress will count the votes, after that they will move on a compromise version of 20-30% of a change agenda. Obama will use his bully pulpit to light a fire under Congress. Congress will inform him that the process he doesn't like, is still the process. Life goes on.

Even in the Great Depression we got almost no change. Then people were quite frightened and people were literally starving to death. With the best will in the world Obama cannot bring about change unless he has major help. Bringing about a change which will actually have good effects requires understanding of the nature of the problems we face and I see no indication that any of the candidates understand. None of the pundits understand. Their minds are oriented to "solutions" of the past which all have failed.

I will vote and hope for the best while expecting the same old same old.

For understanding and a real solution please read Invisible Hand.

Tim - that's probably true. No one expects an epiphany out of Congress (or the White House). But you have to start somewhere.

Larry - Actually, I would have said there was major change in the Great Depression. Though not all of it good, and some of it still the subject of contention today (think, welfare/social security).

Either way, I think you're right about Obama (or Clinton or McCain) needed lots of help. The President only has so much power. But he or she does have the bully pulpit from which to lead and to inspire.

I agree that the public needs to play a more active role in putting the pressure on Congress and the White House to act in the best interests of us as a country, which isn't always the same as the best interests of the party. And it will take a view looking forward rather than looking backward.

Well put, David!

Cris Satullo may be giving Obama credit where credit is not due, as are so many Obama fans. I see nothing in what he says or does that indicates he will bring change any more than the other candidates. He's a good speaker, presents himself well. But does that indicate he'll be the best president? I don't think so.

It looks so me like Obama is a typical politician: lots of nice words. I prefer to base my opinion of politicians not on their words but on their actions. What has he done?

Both Obama, and Clinton have shown the ability to do more than just inspire. The way they are running their campagnes shows that they are doing things, in a very different way to actually connect with, and engage people, especially the young, to participate, in change.

Whichever one wins will do well to use the newest technologies available today, (which the young are very savvy with) to stay connected and keep the people engaged.

One difference I see in Obama, and Clinton. I get the impression from Obama that should he win, and take the office, and truly gets a close look at the mess he has inhereted to try and handle, he will come out with it, and tell-all.

Even though I think Clinton will honestly try to deal with the mess, should she win, I think her tactic will be to not disclose fully, to the people, what she has found.

I could be wrong, but I get these impressions.

The president can mobilize the people against congress. Play ball or lose your seat. those guys go up for elections too.

First off, some of these reckless Hillary backers who don't give a damn about how their districts went, will be voted out. Just watch. The republicans will clean house. All those who rolled with Bush will be ousted and replaced by forward thinking, smarter republicans. Change will happen whether it is president Obama or McCain. People are tired and they are voting.

Are we going to start with what has he done again? Geez, get informed!

Elizabeth - I guess my question is who do we believe? Should be give up on trying to change because "all politicians are alike?" Or should we try to do something meaningful. I concede that there are Obama groupies (just like there are Hillary groupies and yes, even McCain groupies). But there are also lots of people who see real promise and will be willing to encourage its implementation in the real world. The alternative is business as usual.

Jaren, my question wasn't to learn what he has done; it was to say, think about what he has done. I'm sorry I didn't spell that out. And I should have added, think about what the other candidates have done.

Oh, one more thing Elizabeth. I agree that we should base our views on what politicians do. Which is why Clinton is so unacceptable for the future. And McCain is a little too multiple-personality for me at the moment (trying to cater to the conservatives while maintaining his aura of Independence).

Obama feb 5, 2008

"We can do this. It will not be easy. It will require struggle and sacrifice. There will setbacks and we will make mistakes. And that is why we need all the help we can get. "

What nice words?

Don't know where you got the impression of a rosy picture. Listen to his words. I am not hearing nice words. I hear a difficult path laid out, echoed with words like sacrifice, setback, and mistake. He never said he is perfect despite many people's attempt to paint him like this guy who pretended that he does not make mistakes. He's been saying all along that he will make mistakes.

After all, I know where people got the impression: Regurgitating Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and/or listen with cynicism. Listen with an open mind. The man has a vision. His work experience is in perfect agreement with the vision.

Dorothy - As you say, no one can deny the enthusiasm on the Democratic side this year. Some of it is clearly Obama - as evidenced by the sheer numbers of campaign contributors and dollars he has accumulated for the campaign. But some of it also could be that no incumbent President or Vice-President is running (thus leaving the field wide open), or the historical nature of this election (1st Senator as President since 1960; 1st African American; 1st woman; oldest to take office; etc.), or simply the huge distaste the electorate has for the current Administration (due to the war, the pretense, the ideology, Dick Cheney's hunting, etc.).

The second part of your comment goes to the trust issue. Most feel Obama will tell the truth; most feel Clinton will not. A new way of thinking will be to be to have honest communication with the populace.

I agree, David, about the other candidates. That's why, during the Michigan primaries, I didn't vote for McCain. But if I had to pick from those three candidates, I'd be inclined to pick the one who has proven he has character.

Jared - you hit the key to the campaign. So many anti-Obama people have set up a strawman that he says he is perfect, that his supporters idolize him irrationally, that he claims all will be peaches and cream.

As you point out, he isn't saying that at all. Those are the spin-points of the opposition. And they have to spin. Who can fight the idea of a new way of thinking supported by hard work?

What the other candidates have done: spend a lifetime in Washington voting yes or no. Making speeches everyonce in a while, cruising the world on the tax payers dime sipping tea in exotic countries.

None of the 3 candidates has EXECUTIVE experience where the last decision rests on their shoulders, where their actions have direct consequences on people well-being. That would be a governor or even an executive in the private sector. The only thing they have more than he does is grey hair: more years spent in Washington.

Leadership is not measured in years, is not taught, is not acquired in Washington. He has shown great leadership at a very young age. Everything he said about the war came out true. He is poised and listens. He has demonstrated in this campaign that he has a better ability to run a large organization. His methods were innovative, if they were not, he would not be competing today. Clinton was up 30 back in November if every poll you look. It takes someone like him to take the Clinton machine to the abyss!

Elizabeth - I think from what you said that you would pick McCain in the general election. I actually have a high regard for McCain and may have voted for him in 2000 if he hadn't been maltreated by Karl Rove (ironically, Karl Rove has been advising McCain in this election). Overall, while I would agree that McCain has character (though certainly also has his flaws, like all of us), I don't believe his policies are supportable as we move forward. While I think he might push certain of his principles through Congress, I don't think he would be able to accomplish much of substance o the real issues. And while I think his "100 year" statement has been vastly misconstrued by the Democrats, it does reveal his old world mentality. We really do need a new way of thinking and unfortunately I don't see McCain being its standard bearer.

Exactly David,

I read his speeches and the language is just the opposite. Quotes after quote he is talking about the difficulties ahead if we want real change.

On the second point, Obama supporters don't know what he is about. That's complete fallacy. To all those running with that proposition, may I remind you that by measurables, Obama supporters, who happen to be more educated are actually less susceptible to be swayed by campaign absurdities.

Why don't you, for the sake of argument, entertain the idea that Clinton supporters are more likely not see through her inconsistencies, by virtue of what we know of them? Why is it acceptable that the college graduate is the stupid one, and the high school drop out are suddenly better at picking a presidential candidate?

Think it through before you run with the typically regurgitated 'his supporters don't have a clue'

"Nice words" doesn't necessarily mean, gee, golly, we're going to have a great four years; everyone will be able to afford to see a doctor, no one will have to work, and we'll all be rich. Nice words are the words that impress and make people believe in you, words that get the vote.

Nothing wrong with nice words.

Jared said, "Why don't you, for the sake of argument, entertain the idea that Clinton supporters are more likely not see through her inconsistencies, by virtue of what we know of them? Why is it acceptable that the college graduate is the stupid one, and the high school drop out are suddenly better at picking a presidential candidate? "

I don't understand. Did I miss something? Did someone defend Clinton over Obama?

"don't have a clue' " are Jared's words, not mine. I said that many Obama fans give him credit where credit is not due, which, I think, is true. That is something that is always true whenever anyone runs for president. They always have their fans, or groupies, and their fans always think what they want to think about what he or she will do.

That is not to say that every voter thinks only what they want to think. I think the fans do, though. They want to hear only what will support their opinion.

Elizabeth - I think you are correct that many Obama fans give him credit where credit is due, which is also true for Clinton, McCain, Bush, the Pope, and all of us. We do tend to overreach when handing out credit, but also overreach when we're looking for someone to blame. As you say, there are groupies for everyone. I wish it weren't so, but it's a fact of life.

I don't know what percentage of the 1.5 million individual contributors to Obama's campaign are hangers-on, but I would guess that the vast majority are people who have listened and evaluated and considered alternatives, then chosen to support him.

Very quick to characterize the other candidate's supporters. They know what motivates Obama supporters.

was a very interesting article

Oh Jared love you left an opening and didn't expect me. hehehehehehheeh. May I point out to you that it wasn't the uneducated that were swayed in the 1920;s and 30s in Germany. dont fall into trap love. Being swayed has nothing to do with the amt. of or lack of education... Now that was elitist. You were raised better than that. Goerge Bush thinks he knows what good for the rest of us. We dont need that kind of thinking again.

If he wins I hope he does well. Just because he can campaign super doesn't mean he'll have a successful Presidency. I'm worried - but then I'm always worried about that stuff. Look what happened to Carter. Yikes.

Carol - You're right that even the highly educated can get caught up in the excitement of the situation. I don't think Jared was suggesting otherwise, but I'll leave that to him to comment.

As for George W. Bush and the idea of him thinking he knows what is best for us, I don't think that is a valid comparison in the Obama case. Obama has never said that he knows best for us. In fact, his theme is that we must work together to detemine, and then implement, what's best for us. It's a partnership to some extent, that relies more on the process than it does micromanagement. This is what is so appealing - the concept that everyone's ideas count and we'll find a path forward.

David, Excellent...
We do need change in a 'Paradigm' sense...
It's the transition and the interfacing with current conditions (inertia) that becomes a challenge... but not un-doable...
It does take more than a President to make a successful presidency...
There are enough democrats in office aware of the need and willing to make it happen...

Peter - So true. Which is why it is incumbent on all of us to participate and hold our elected officials accountable, no matter who we elect as President and members of Congress. If we reward pork barrel politics with reelection, we will continue to get port-barrel politics. If we reward inclusionary and visionary thinking, we will get more inclusionary and visionary thinking. If we sit by the wayside and leave it solely up to the politicians, we get the same old same old. [a phrase I promise not to ever use again :)]

David - I believe you are right that there are others that are willing to facilitate change (both Democrats and some Republicans). The 2006 election swept the Democrats back into control of both houses of Congress. It seems likely that they will pick up additional seats this year. Assuming that the Democratic nominee wins the Presidency (which is by no means a given), the Democrats will have to choose whether they ram through their ideology just as the Republicans did under Bush, or whether they will take a more responsible and inclusionary tack and actually try to build concensus for action that benefits Americans as a whole and not just the half that voted their way. The President will play a leadership role in how they interact with the Congressional leadership, both majority and minority.

"Who can fight the idea of a new way of thinking supported by hard work? "

I think that his message of "hard work" is going to resonate with many people out there, both young and old. We used to be a country that respected work, that saw the honor in it, the success of a hard job well done. Now, we seem to denigrate it, to bask in the "somthing for nothing" attitude, whether you are poor looking for a handout or the richest CEO in the country looking to do a mediocre (or terrible) job for a few years, then receiving an obscenely large golden parachute. The value and rewards of "hard work" have been lost to us.

When my Federal Congressman was home during Easter break, he had a number of forums around the district. I went to one. He kept coming back to that theme of "hard work", especially the way it worked after WWII when everyone came together to build the country back up - roads projects, volunteerism, the strengthening of our manufacturing base. We need to get that back. I believe that much of our "bad behavior" as citizens stems from the fact that we really have very little self-respect for ourselves or our country.

Today Gallup announced Duyba has the worst ratings of any Pres in the 70 years of Gallup polling. 70 years. Worse than Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter. That's hand writing on the wall. Anybody who even looks like they represent the status quo is done for. That's why the smear does not stick. That's why Obama will win in November. I earnestly look forward to the day when Bush is in the single digits.

Consider this: As soon as Obama achieves the nomination McCain goes on the attack, not on Obama, but on the Bush Admin. What do the Dems run against then? McCain can preach the gospel of "true" conservatism and chuck the whole neo-con movement down the toilet.

You're right David....we should try for the best in change and quite sticking to the tried and true since it hasn't worked for so long.

David, here's an excerpt from a comment I posted to Ruth McGill's story earlier this evening. While I wait for the Pennsylvania results to roll in, thought I'd stop by and contribute to the conversation here.

I was proud to cast my vote for Barack Obama in today's Pennsylvania primary. What an exciting day it is for all of us! With this election, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make our country live up to its highest ideals. Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to unite our country and restore our reputation in the world. I did not arrive at my decision lightly. After careful review of all the candidates, I am impressed most with:

*His respect for the U.S. Constitution
*His willingness to tell people what they don't want to hear, even if it's not politically expedient
*His own working-class background and upbringing by a single Mom
*His tenacity in overcoming obstacles to earn a Harvard education and law degree
*His proven experience helping poor and working class people on the streets of Chicago, when he could have earned a big salary practicing corporate law
*His leadership in the Illinois state legislature, and U.S. Senate
*His commitment to change politics as usual in Washington
*His refusal to take money from lobbyists or PACs
*His strength of conviction when it comes to ending the war responsibly and working to resolve humanitarian crises all over the world
*His position papers on health care, education, and the economy
*His respect for and regular communication with Al Gore on critical issues affecting our planet
*the caliber of people he has advising him
*his call to action for all Americans to join him in making our nation, and the world, a better place, knowing that as President he can't go it alone

Here's hoping my fellow Pennsylvanians agree!

A lot of excellent comments. I am with Fred R. I would very much like to hear his picks for his cabinet, also McCain picks, too. Still hopefully want to here the words President Obama someday.

"His respect for the US constitution?" The 14th amendment does not say children of illegal aliens should be citizens, yet bammy wants to grant them citizenship. He is to the far left of soft on illegal immigration.

"His willingness to tell people what they don't want to hear?
He screws up and tries to spin it. Most people see through it.

*His leadership in the Illinois state legislature, and U.S. Senate
What leadership, he has done NOTHING as a senator, unless you count missing votes as something.

*His refusal to take money from lobbyists or PACs*
He has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyist. He took several hundred thousand dollars from oil company execs, where do you suppose that came from.

He has NO experience. He has NO plan.


*the caliber of people he has advising him*
Who might that be? Jereimiah Wright, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan or maybe you mean one of his thieving real estate friends.

Satullo's article was a good read.

Down here in Australia we've already had our "vote for change" and while things are just getting started, I have to say it's refreshing to see things happening that are above and beyond "politics as usual."

One of the bonuses of dual citizenship is that I get try to help make it happen again in November.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Don, what part of "born OR naturalized" is confusing?

Sam,
It's obvious you know little of the 14th amendment.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means just that. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are citizens of another, foreign, country and subject to the jurisdiction of that country. They therefore cannot legally become US citizens. It is only through the 1965 immigration act, intended as a civil rights move, that these illegal aliens are becoming citizens. There is a bill, H.R.1940, that is going to change that.

The distinction between what I know and you know is my knowledge does not rely upon partisan spin:

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

is born in the United States of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power; whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States; whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

Under your logic the Repubs should resurrect Tancredo because old Johhny is citizen of Panama.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I've been offline because my home computer is packed for shipment to Brussels and my work computer isn't far behind.

As I write this both sides are spinning yesterday's Pennsylvania results. In the end, however, the nominee will be Obama and Clinton will have to choose how she will support party as we move forward.

I'm also hopeful that John Edwards will issue his endorsement in the next week or so. His endorsement must come far enough ahead of North Carolina to have an impact there, but more importantly, to have an impact on Indiana.

I was wondering why he is popular, i still don't like him though

Sam,
Think again. Your line of thought is flawed.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

I'll be the first one to admit that at first I was not in favor of Obama. But after listening to him. I firmly believe that his vision for change is exactly what we need right now.

"Your line of thought is flawed."

No, your line of thought is flawed. You're calling children born in those circumstances illegal aliens, claiming that they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and saying that Obama wants to grant these children US citizenship.

But Obama doesn't need to grant them citizenship, because they already have it, by virtue of having been born in the US. None of the candidates are going to do anything to change that.

Don that is logical nonsense. Under your logic Wong was a non-starter since as an alien he had no possiblity to obtain legal domicile. Therefore SCOTUS had no position to rule. Baloney. There is not now nor has there ever been a citizenship test to obtain an address. According to the law at the time Wong was an illegal alien, even though born in the US. SCOTUS determined his birth on US soil granted him citizenship. You're interpretation is thinly based opinion and not valid review of law.

Thanks for sharing.

One of the things I like about Gather is that we're able to debate issues such as some of the ones being discussed above. Thanks all for enlightening me.

You're welcome Selene. My online time will be sporadic the next few days, but I'll be back to Gather once I arrive in Brussels.

Thanks for the link

 

None of us can predict the future. Beware the pretty rhetoric. When someone tells you to stand tall, duck for cover.

1) True, no one can predict the future...so we should fear it?
2) They all spew rhetoric, so we should choose the one we know best despite the fact that we already know them?

To change, we need to change. If we don't, they don't.

I agree, but does he have all the experience that is required of him to do that? That's one of the things that concerns me the most about him...

Cheryl - that is a valid question. But then, what "experience" constitutes enough? What experience counts as experience. There has been much debate over whether being First Lady constitutes experience. I personally believe that in Hillary Clinton's case it constitutes more than most other First Ladies. She may not get enough credit for what she did as First Lady. But then it clearly wasn't the level of experience she claims - a co-Presidency is patently ridiculous even for her. By overinflating her experience she diminishes the value of any real experience. And of course, it's easy to claim being an integral part of the things people liked about Bill's Presidency yet disown all the negative parts. That's politics.

Which gets to the heart of what experience is the right experience and how much is needed. I read recently (but unfortunately don't have the cite) that some of our worst Presidents were men with lots of Washington experience. And some of our best had very little experience.

I'm obviously a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, and he had less political "experience" than Obama when he took office during the most difficult time in our nation's history. He was a breath of fresh air to the normal Washington politics of the time (which was pretty much like it is today - the good old boy/girl network, patronization, political fear mongering, etc.). He came into office with a different way of looking at things than the politicos that controlled Washington, and that different way of thinking served him well as the Civil War raged.

Today, we have another man coming from Illinois who offers a change in thinking. Although it would be audacious for Obama to consider himself another Lincoln (and he doesn't - I've never seen anything from the campaign ever suggesting it), I do see it. Like Lincoln, Obama is able to see from multiple viewpoints. He is able to inspire people to follow a path forward rather than get mired in the politics of the past. He is willing to take on one of the most difficult periods of our history. Lincoln had the Civil War - with brother fighting brother, north vs south, friend vs friend. Obama will need to take on our current political system - with Democrat fighting Democrat, Democrat fighting Republican, the US fighting the world.

Who better to chart a new direction than someone not contaminated with the Washington politics? McCain and Clinton exemplify the politics of the past. Obama gives us a chance at making the politics of the future more conducive to actually accomplishing the goals of the American people (rather than the goals of the two parties). The choice is clear...the future or the past. I've been to the past, I welcome the future.

I'm with you David, I've dealt with the past long enough. It has been discouraging for years. It is time that we look to the future. And in doing so, that we seek what it takes to make it a bright one. A future with a fresh pair of eye's. I personally believe that Obama has that to offer, and I hope he is given that opportunity!

Bwa hahahaha bunch of mindless dupes.

This from someone whose comment is Bwa hahahaha...? Perhaps you could provide something a little more coherent to support whatever opinion you are trying to express.

That's true - be the change you want. Thanks for spreading the word.

Ron B. you make me laugh. :D

Thanks for coming by Denise. Welcome.

Oh!!! How I love this site. I love to see minds less gifted than my own, make a fool of themselves, for the rest of us to laugh about and pity. I love to see how others use their minds; those who have discovered that they have one; but, are not quite sure about how to use it. LOL If all they can think about is a lapel pin; how empty and desperate their lives must be.

About his not wearing a lapel flag pin, Obama, showed how sharp and clear his mind can be about an issue. Others, bring their petty biases and self-discontent to this issue. They are unhappy people, looking for satisfaction over some issue in their own lives. I love to see these kind of people show how ignorant and uneducated they really are.

If anyone looks at MCBush campaign from 2000 you will see he is an obvious flip flopper or suffering from alzheimers.
It's known that the Viet Cong broke MCcain mentally, and as a result, he seems suffering from serious mental deficit knowns as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
aside from PTS, one has to wonder what effect the torture had on his mind.
It's not that his temper gets the best of him, he's mentally disturbed and time after time, has made
statements that suggest he's either confused, unaware of the reality of the situation, or true lier.
If McCain's experience could not help him vote against the Iraq war, how will it help him make America safer and better by conytinuing failed Bush policy?
These are serious troubling issues for a president
No MCBush = No more War
McClueless, MCold, MC stupid, gotta love McFlipFlopper, This guy is true lier and clueless about Iraq war.
American people are not stupid, to give MCBush failed policy & US occupation of Iraq another four years to let him
figure out that Iran and Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, Alquida in Iraq is outcome of US occupation.
MCstupid has to listen to Irqi lawmakers that are saying US occupation is fueling insurgency and they can take care of their country.
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN04304912

To all those experience counts folks....There are good experiences and bad. What counts is judgement and the ability to think. So far Obama seems to be the only candidate in a long while who actually uses his brain and uses his experiences to broaden his thoughts. One would think that a POW like McCain would be against torture, he's recently changed his mind, one would think that his experiences withe the SNL scandals of the 80's and more recently ENRON would have given him second thoughts about surrounding himself with lobbyists. His chief advisor Mr Grahm was kind enough to give us the Enron Loophole.....So I will vote for change. As it's going to change regardless, we may as well HOPE for the best.

"So far Obama seems to be the only candidate in a long while who actually uses his brain and uses his experiences to broaden his thoughts." (Louis, above)

This is exactly why I think he is the right person to move us forward. The man thinks.

As I first suggested two years ago, Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States and I am ecstatic. It's time, it's my time, it's our time. Not to delve too deep philosophically here, but heed my words: "I cannot carry the world on my shoulders, but on my shoulders, it is my world that must carry me."


Ricky’s Teaser Tees & Things - Inspirations