I'm For Obama
Jeff Alworth
Democrats enjoy an embarrassment of riches right now. We have three front-running candidates who enjoy broad support, and many people find themselves actively excited about more than one. I remain somewhat lukewarm about Hillary Clinton, but I'm enthusiastic about John Edwards. But one of the front-runners does something no other candidate in my lifetime has done: inspire me. That's why I'm backing Barack Obama.
He's Qualified
The big knock against Obama is his scant experience in national elective politics. But his political experience is both broad and deep, if mostly unknown to national voters. Before becoming a US Senator, he was an Illinois State Senator for eight years. He was an active leader in the legislature, chairing the Public Health and Welfare Committee, and working to pass legislation aimed at helping the working poor, increasing AIDS prevention spending, and banning racial profiling. He also worked on a health insurance bill that didn't pass. After college, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago and then went on to Harvard where he graduated magna cum laude and became the president of the Harvard Law Review. At the University of Chicago (in Hyde Park, the district he represented), he was a Constitutional law professor and worked for a civil rights firm.
All of this happened outside the flashing lights of the national press, but the truth remains that he was teaching law before George W. Bush became governor of Texas. He's got more experience in politics than either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, neither of whom are regularly criticized for being underqualified.
He's Right on the Issues
On a series of votes as US Senator, Obama demonstrated that he wouldn't rubber-stamp bad GOP legislation or nominees. For Dems tired of equivocating candidates, this is a refreshing change. He voted against both Alito and Roberts for the Supreme Court and opposed the bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Act's wiretap provision. His record on poverty and government corruption have been hallmarks of his career, going back to Illinois. Even on the environment--that sticky corn-state issue--he's been subtly trying to shift the debate to cellulosic ethanol (though he still supports corn ethanol); he's also pushing proposals to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. He famously opposed the Iraq invasion, yet his foreign policy is more nuanced, balancing strength and international engagement. Across the issues, he demonstrates fidelity to progressive politics, but won't be labeled a traditional weak-on-defense liberal.
He's Right on Tone
Obama's unique strength among Democratic candidates is his crossover
appeal. Despite being excoriated by movement conservatives as a
liberal's liberal, his appeal transcends politics. Here's a paragraph
from last week's New Yorker profile ("The Conciliator"):
After Obama’s Convention speech, Republican bloggers rushed to claim him, under headings such as “Right Speech, Wrong Convention” and “Barack Obama: A Republican Soul Trapped Inside a Democrat’s Body....” Republicans continue to find him congenial, especially those who opposed the war on much the same conservative grounds that he did. Some of Bush’s top fund-raisers are contributing to Obama’s campaign. In his election to the U.S. Senate, Obama won forty per cent of the Republican vote; now there is a group called Republicans for Obama, founded by John Martin, a law student and Navy reservist shortly to be posted to Afghanistan, which has chapters in six states.
The moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic Party have spent
fifteen years in a war about how to establish a governing coalition.
Looking at the candidates currently in the race, none has the capacity
to lead with progressive policies and a moderate's uniting voice. As
the party seeks to create a governing coalition, it needs a leader like
Obama who will bring together disparate voices.
He'll Be Strong in the General Election
After running two strong candidates in 2000 and 2004, Democrats are understandably gun-shy about running a candidate who will fold when the fight inevitably gets ugly. Two concerns about Obama rise to the surface--his foreign-policy experience and his race. To the former, he has a single advantage no other candidate has: he opposed the war. Yet he's not a peacenik; a recent foreign policy speech was received well by international realists as well as anti-war lefties. The question of race deserves its own post, but a recent Pew report indicated it is no longer a serious factor among voters. Finally, as an Illinois politician, he has inroads into key Midwest states like Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio that Edwards and Clinton lack.
He's Inspiring
I was born in 1968, the year Richard Nixon was first elected. It marked the moment when America abandoned its commitment to FDR liberalism and began regressing into me-first conservative politics that have led, inexorably, to the most corrupt, most incompetent Presidency since Warren G. Harding's. This is the progressive year, when we abandon--like a bad dream--the conservative era. I have no doubt that we will elect a Democrat--the real question is which one.
The two other front-runners would both make fine presidents (I've donated to John Edwards, as well). But Barack Obama can bring more than able, competent leadership. When FDR stepped into the White House, he was more than able--he galvanized a nation suffering under the depression. Following the psychic catastrophe of the Rove-Cheney-Bush era, we need a president who will unite and galvanize the country.
With his inclusive approach and personal charisma, Obama has already begun inspiring people. More than 100,000 people have already donated to his campaign, and he attracts thousands of people when he appears publicly. I get it. I haven't been inspired by a presidential candidate since I became politically aware in 1980. Obama strikes me as an antidote to the politics of slickness--he's warm, honest, and personable. We need reality now, not bromides, and Obama seems uniquely trustworthy. And as with earlier candidates, there's no compromise with Obama--he's liberal, smart, charismatic, and electable.
Next Steps
For some reason, we Oregonians have been a little slow to reach out to Barack. Let's change that. Join me by going to Facebook and signing up with the "Bring Barack Obama to Portland" group (registration required). It gives you instructions about what to do from there. You could also sign up at his official site and join the 50-state canvass. And of course, small donations are important for demonstrating the breadth of support.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 14, '07
See also: Obama retakes web traffic lead from Ron Paul Paul still leads Clinton, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani and McCain - Mainstream media fails to report http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_retakes_web_traffic_lead_from_Ron_Paul/blog
May 14, '07
Well, when you say such blatant mistruths as this - how are we supposed to take your word on any of the other things?
Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich, just to name two of the other candidates, both opposed the war. Kucinich actually voted against it, and Richardson has campaigned against it as a governor.
Perhaps because we might not be so easily bought?
Support for Obama would be a mistake, as would support for Clinton.
Neither Clinton nor Obama can win the main election.
9:39 a.m.
May 14, '07
I don't like his equivocation on the war, speaking wholly in Republican terms of "not playing games with the troops." He's said it before and said it again this weekend--he hopes to find compromise to continue the war so money isn't cut off.
He may have opposed the war first among the big candidates, but he's been left in the dust by Edwards as far as who is opposed to the war NOW.
May 14, '07
He has perfect packaging. Hope beats details every time, and he can win.
May 14, '07
Torridjoe is right. Edwards has become the top tier candidate with the bona fides in opposing the war. I found Obama's comments over the weekend with Stephanapolis to be troublesome. When the concesus building comments he made were praised by George Will I knew that there was a problem. Consensus building requires negotiation and consessions to an opposition that neither negotiates or consedes - willingly. BY the time you get to the consession point the repubs have you already negotiated against yourself.
I remain intrigued by Obama but found myself more and more inclined to the candidate that recognizes the absolute comming colapse of the middleclass and wants to do something about it. At this point that appears to be Edwards to me.
May 14, '07
The last I heard from Obama was that going to war against Iran was still an option which he may support because he let AIPAC know he would play ball with them. The prime factor in favor of Obama is that he is a very good communicator. So was Reagan. We don't need another motivational speaker in the White House if he or she lacks substance. If Hillary loses, as I hope she will, the winner had better watch his or her back from the knives coming out of the DLC scabbards. In the run-up to the primary, the lead rival to Hillary would do well to keep an eye on Biden and Dodd who will probably play hatchet men for the DLC oligarchy the way Lieberman and Gephart attacked Dean.
May 14, '07
Obama has the greatest potential. Because of who he is and because of his great gifts he could be a healer and transformative leader for this country if he lives up to his potential. That's a big "if."
11:46 a.m.
May 14, '07
In the run-up to the primary, the lead rival to Hillary would do well to keep an eye on Biden and Dodd who will probably play hatchet men for the DLC oligarchy the way Lieberman and Gephart attacked Dean.
Bill B, that's one of the most astute comments I've seen on the Presidential election.
The only caveat is that I think we'll only see the long knives if the lead rival to Hillary is not Obama.
I suspect that the oligarchs fully expect us to have Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton as the Democratic ticket in 2008.
Fortunately, unlike 2004, this is a year where I like at least one of the establishment candidates as much as I like the "insurgents".
I totally agree with Torrid Joe that Edwards is the best of the "big 3" with regard to opposition to the war. Obama appears to be trying to play both sides of the fence on this, and the credibility he started with pales in comparison to Edwards' definitive action.
Bill R. mentioned the term "transformative leader" with respect to Obama's gifts and potential. I agree with hin on both counts.
Obama is the candidate in this race whom I believe can do the most to heal many of the divisions in this country, and that's what I'm looking for in a leader, but I need to be convinced that he has not been co-opted by the D.C. establishment. His campaign to this point leaves me with more questions than answers on that score.
12:00 p.m.
May 14, '07
He's got more experience in politics than either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, neither of whom are regularly criticized for being underqualified.
If by "in politics" you mean "elected to public office", then you'd have to include Hillary Clinton and John Edwards there too.
Obama: 10 years (1997-2007) Giuliani: 8 years (1994-2001) Hillary: 7 years (2001-2007) Edwards: 6 years (1999-2005) Romney: 4 years (2003-2007)
Some might argue that executive offices count more, or that federal offices count more... but you can't say he's not qualified.
And don't forget: George W. Bush: 6 years (1995-2000)
May 14, '07
For those involved in this Obama debate, I suggest you check out Larissa MacFarqhuar's profile in the May 7th issue of the New Yorker, if you haven't already done so. I'm still undecided about which Dem to support, but after reading this piece, I now at least believe Obama is "qualified".
12:43 p.m.
May 14, '07
o goodie. Edwards is against the war now. that he was able to vote for the war in the first place when so many people understood BushCo was selling a pack of lies simply makes trusting him incredibly hard -- especially when there's a candidate who showed sufficient wisdom and insight at the time. same goes for Hillary. if we're talking track record at all, those two have huge deficits to make up.
12:48 p.m.
May 14, '07
Obama never had to put his money where his mouth was--he didn't vote on the AUMF. He made clear he was opposed, but it's easier when you're not part of a caucus and not already representing a block of constituents who are tracking your position on the subject.
I really like the guy, and I could definitely support him--but his advantage on the war is rapidly slipping away IMO.
12:55 p.m.
May 14, '07
The Chair of the Jackson County Democrats Campaign committee is tracking (and posting) meetings around Jackson County in support of Democratic presidential candidates. Several groups have formed for Edwards and Obama, none...yet...for Clinton.
1:02 p.m.
May 14, '07
Obama's wrong on CAFE standards. For those who missed Sunday's paper, Obama wants to increase fuel economy standards, but with so many loopholes, says Dodd, "you could drive a Hummer through".
He allows companies off the hook if it's "too difficult" -- despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
He wants to reward Detroit for dragging its heels by giving them $3 billion for doing the right thing. And he wants to further split the industry average into types of vehicles -- a step backwards.
Sorry, this sort of non-progress for the sake of getting a deal done is an example of where Obama's just wrong, and all major enviro groups think it's a step back.
Thus, on a major issue - global warming via fuel standards - Obama swings and misses.
Where's Gore when you need him?
1:31 p.m.
May 14, '07
VR, I could have added "major candidate," as I did in places throughout, but my anti-war comment referred to Clinton and Edwards. Kucinich is running to bring attention to peace. Richardson's candidacy is the strongest dark horse, and I'd like to see him get some attention. Again, my support for Obama doesn't come at the cost of my support for other candidates. At the moment the only one I'm concerned about is Hillary. A circular firing squad benefits the GOP; whatsay we avoid that?
1:39 p.m.
May 14, '07
On the war. I am leery about taking shots at anyone on the Democratic side for this. Everyone's in a different situation, and almost without exception, I think the candidates are honestly trying to figure out 21st Century foreign policy. I'm willing to give them some time and space to figure it out.
Obama, as the one candidate to have lived overseas, brings some interesting perspective to all this. His opposition to the war wasn't a peacenik impulse (full disclosure: I'm a Buddhist pacifist), but one informed about the complexity of foreign policy.
Hillary is essentially a hawk who would govern like her husband--since she couldn't foresee the way Iraq would be mishandled and played for cynical political gain, she now regrets the vote. However, I think interventionism is essentially her mode.
Edwards has the luxury of not having to cast votes now. It is, ironically, the same advantage Obama had in '02. It frees him up to take a clear position because he doesn't have to negotiate with the GOP. I think foreign policy is just mainly not Edwards' passion, but I expect he would look to have a more involved, diplomatic administration and would be leery about future engagements.
Elections are purely about positions. Everything has a context. War is the easiest thing to demagogue, but smart lefties like us shouldn't fall into black and white thinking on it.
1:44 p.m.
May 14, '07
Of course, if we're talking "qualified" as a resume thing, well, nobody beats Bill Richardson. His first ad is one of the funniest spots I've seen in a long time.
May 14, '07
It was encouraging to hear Obama state his opposition to Affirmative Action policies as currently defined. Haven’t heard Edwards or Hillary make that progressive a statement.
Hopefully it’s a sign he won’t be catering to the tired old Democrat Party thinking and leaders who have played the “racial inequality” card for far too many years.
May 14, '07
Bill Richardson was an early supporter of the war. Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel are the only Democrats in the field who opposed the war from the start.
I think it is to Obama's credit that he hasn't resorted to pandering to the uninformed base and taken some ridiculous position that has no chance of actually bringing the troops home. Instead, he has taken a reasoned approach that may not be as flashy as Kucinich or even Edwards, but gives us the best chance of ending this war.
Overall, I think that's the most impressive thing about Obama. He doesn't pander to anyone. He doesn't take all the expected positions, the ones that would benefit him most politically. He studies the issues and comes up with positions and policies that have a chance of actually effecting change, rather than just pleasing his target voters. His positions on Iraq, fuel standards, and affirmative action that have been cited here in the comments all show that. He's a different kind of politician and I think that may scare some journalists and voters. But I also think more and more people are realizing that he's just what we need.
May 14, '07
It's fine to pick apart a candidates record or lack there of, but to say how one votes I think is a little more important don't you think? I like Barack Obama and I think he would be a much better choice to run because he has better judgement than some of the other candidates in our own party.
Some candidates while in the U.S. Senate in our own party who voted yes on these bills and now say they were all mistakes.
Free trade with China Dumping nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada Bankruptcy Reform No Child left behind Giving the president authorization to go to war in Iraq The Patriot Act
"said in 2004 going to war was not a mistake after knowing Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Because we cannot show the Republicans weakness and that would be a sign of weakness."
Critisized Dick Cheney for using tax shelter offshore when he was the CEO of Halliburton. But whose hedge fund was doing the same thing, when that person worked for it
May 14, '07
For people curious of that Republican group coming out in favor of Obama, I've found the site: Republicans for Obama
I'm sure people will start to say that this is just a bunch of Democrat insiders, but these people seem real to me. It's encouraging. I don't remember the last time a Democrat got so many people from the other party so fired up.
May 14, '07
I visited Southern Illinois in the fall of 2004, and the drive from St. Louis to Carbondale traverses what looked like pretty solid republican territory. What was truly striking was the number of times I saw huge signs (the big ones farmers post) supporting republicans for every other election, but Obama for Senate. At first I thought it was an abberation until I saw it again and again and again...
He has something special. If he can get died in the wool rural repubicans to support him in Illinois, he can win the general election.
3:52 p.m.
May 14, '07
For people curious of that Republican group coming out in favor of Obama, I've found the site: Republicans for Obama
On a totally unrelated note, that site includes one of the worst implementations of a gmaps mashup in the history of the free world as the primary interface to their membership list:
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=members
Good on them for creating the site, but golly!
Kevin Mannix could be a founding member of the Oregon chapter and we'd never know it.
4:42 p.m.
May 14, '07
Off topic, but FYI: the adjectival form of "Democrat" is Democratic, not Democrat. The GOP started using the adjective Democrat to demean Dems, and I now recoil every time I hear someone use it that way.
5:27 p.m.
May 14, '07
About Richardson being "against the war" from the get-go, I have some serious doubts about the veracity of that claim. I have done some reading and digging on it, and Richardson was not as much against the invasion of Iraq as he now presents himself as. In fact he was more than open to the idea of it.
From a December 6, 2002 interview on CNN:
And from February 18, 2003 on CNN, a month before the invasion:
I was backing Richardson at first and even raised some money for him, but after looking deeper at his record and his pathetic performance in the debate a few weeks ago where he said he backed Bryan White (one of two dissenters in Roe as his model for the SCOTUS) coupled with his feeble attempts at walking that back and his lame spin at saying he goofed, made me realize this guy is not legit.
I am now undecided about who I am supporting in the primaries. I have some serious reservations about Clinton, and some lingering doubts about Edwards. I am looking at Obama but he is still a bit of a cypher to me.
5:29 p.m.
May 14, '07
Critisized Dick Cheney for using tax shelter offshore when he was the CEO of Halliburton. But whose hedge fund was doing the same thing, when that person worked for it
There's a big difference between holding the CEO of a company responsible for its actions and holding a minor, part-time, barely-there consultant responsible for its actions.
Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. John Edwards was involved with the hedge fund as a consultant on particular matters. Unless you can prove he was their "offshore tax shelters" consultant, or somesuchthing, he can hardly be to blame.
As someone who works with clients on a very narrow scope of work (their websites and internet strategies), I'm always amused when someone tries to suggest that I'm responsible, aware of, or even agree with some other part of my clients' universe.
As John Edwards has said, he didn't become aware of the offshore tax shelter that the hedge fund used until well after his relationship with them terminated. But we're supposed to blame him for it?
May 14, '07
On the war. I am leery about taking shots at anyone on the Democratic side for this.
I couldn't disagree more. The senators and representatives who voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war did so for political reasons and in the process sold tens of thousands of American servicemen and women down the Potomac and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis down the Tigris and Euphrates - a craven act of moral bankruptcy. Their current excuses for their votes are contemptible hogwash. Before the vote Robert Byrd lectured the senators that they would not be living up to their oaths to defend the Constitution if they gave Bush authority to wage war. All members of the intelligence committees knew the truth and that the Bush adminstration was lying to get a war going, but some still voted for war. The odds are they shared this information with colleagues not on the committees. Ordinary citizens who did their homework knew, or at least figured it was a good bet, that Bush and his accomplices were lying. And, if their knowledge of history extended beyond the average American's two-week limit to Vietnam, they knew what horrors would evolve - and have evolved.
6:24 p.m.
May 14, '07
To anyone who claims Obama couldn't win...
I was watching World News this morning when they had a story on a new Newsweek poll.
The poll showed every one of the Dem front runners for president beating out every one of the Repub front runners for president.
So definitely don't count Edwards, Clinton, or Obama out.
I would really like to see Richardson up there in the front runners, though.
May 14, '07
You feel he is qualified? You may be right, but did you ever stop to think that even though he says he is a Christian, he WAS brought up by his parents to be Muslim, initially. How would you feel if Obama becomes president, and then becomes a Muslim again? The United States would have a Muslim president, and he would most likely swing the doors wide open to all Muslims to enter the country, friend or foe! There wouldn't be a thing we, as Americans, could do to stop this. How would you feel then? He may be qualified, but I, for one, don't want a Muslim as THE president of the United States! And I am pretty sure that there are many other Americans who feel the same way I do: No Muslim in the White House! Whether Democrat or Republican, NO MUSLIMS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
6:57 p.m.
May 14, '07
I get really tired of people playing the religion card. I thought we got over that back with Kennedy.
There's a huge difference between being a Muslim and being a terrorist sympathizer. Most Muslims do not agree with the terrorists, do not support them, etc. It's a small group within that community that have caused the problems.
Obama obviously cares too much about this country to ever just open the doors "wide" to anyone, let alone "foes."
Such comments are nothing but propaganda and shouldn't even have a place in today's society.
May 14, '07
Barbara Powers, Stop spreading false stories. Obama was never "brought up by his parents to be Muslim". That's a complete lie. You have no evidence to back it up and are just here to attack a man who you disagree with politically. Please realize your actions will backfire. We're not as stupid as you.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
May 14, '07
Well said,Jenni. Obama may have been exposed to the Muslim religion when he was a child, but it would take something close to paranoia to visualize him bringing Muslim fanatics into the White House. On the other hand, who would have thought Bush would have brought the Christian Taliban into his administration?
8:32 p.m.
May 14, '07
I am a supporter of Obama. Having lived overseas for the past three and a half years and seen some of the hatred that is targeted at the country I am from due to the poor choice to go to war has been disheartening. I'm sure one of the responses to that will be,"screw'em" which I think is ignorant.
For many months I had been wavering between Obama and Edwards, however I can no longer support Edwards due to his opposition to the KFTA (Korean Free Trade Agreement). I believe to turn our back on free trade is a huge mistake. If a candidate feels protectionism is in the best interest of our nation, then he is not someone I will support.
May 14, '07
Barbara,
Besides spreading lies and paranoia you seem unaquainted with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a fellow American I suggest you study it.
May 14, '07
I for one would like to congratulate "Barbara Powers" for his insightful parody of an empty-headed ignorant right-wing doofus who can't quite comprehend anything more complicated than a bumper-sticker slogan.
I mean, c'mon, nobody's really THAT stupid.
Bravo, "Barbara," you are a regular Stephen Colbert.
9:08 p.m.
May 14, '07
Thanks, Pat. That should put a wrap on that troll.
May 14, '07
I've been on the Obama bandwagon for quite a while now, even before I discovered he's my sixth cousin, once removed. The family resemblance is, well, non-existant. (-;
DM
May 14, '07
How can Obama be the crusader against poverty when he has some like huge 28,000 square foot estate in the country or somethin'?.....oh wait.....that's the other guy.
9:42 p.m.
May 14, '07
Unfortunately, I've already heard those comments from people I've talked with about the presidency. It's not just something trolls are spouting.
9:47 p.m.
May 14, '07
and can we please recognize that "major" candidate -- ie, those with any chance to win -- is pretty much Obama, Clinton and Edwards. the "second tier" candidates -- Biden, Richardson, Dodd -- have no realistic chance at this point, but they could surge (ugh, that word) although of the three, only Richardson has that potential. i know that loads of lefty Oregonians love Kucinich, and his progressives bona fides are pretty kickass, but he can't even raise money. he is a candidate in name only, not in reality. maybe he'll hang around like 2004, but he made his point then. in 2008, he moves into kook territory. better he support issues and work for the best candidate who can actually get the nomination.
May 15, '07
Some questions for Obama
9:13 a.m.
May 15, '07
Nice job, Pat. We probably shouldn't reward racism (creedism?; bigotry, anyway) with serious consideration. On the other hand, the phenomenon Barbara represents is an interesting one. Obama, more than other candidates in the race (including the uniformly snowy white GOP field), may precipitate a conversation that we have repressed for too long. In Barbara's case, she is speaking exclusively about her own fear and hatred--all the more obvious because she affixes to Obama a projection that bears no connection to reality. Is America ready for the discussion? I believe it is. We're getting less bigoted, and the more the Barbaras expose their ugly motivations, the more tolerant the country will grow.
May 15, '07
I personally have been trying to get a large fundraiser off the ground (our goal is to raise $20,000 for Obama's campaign) for a month or so. It's in danger of being cancelled due to low registration (which surprises and disappoints me). Yes, $100 is steep, but 100% OF DONATIONS GO TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING.
<h2>So please consider registering soon. Oregon is way behind the ball, given how close we're getting to the Feb Primaries. I am personally not willing to sit by and let someone else decide who wins the democratic primary.</h2>Oregon Wants Obama! Campaign Fundraiser and Networking Party (Fundraising) Don't let the rest of the country decide who will lead the Democratic Party into the 2008 elections. Now is the time to contribute your energy, resources and enthusiasm!
Join us for a lively evening of fundraising, networking and music at this Barack Obama ’08 Fundraising event held on the beautiful grounds of McMenamins Edgefield. Event includes guest speakers (see below), live music, raffle, appetizers, no-host bar. A donation of $100/person is requested. 20 slots are available at a student rate of $20 (student ID required). 100% OF YOUR DONATIONS go directly to Barack Obama’s campaign! Donate online now, and you'll receive 5 free tickets for our raffle! (donations can also be paid at the door - make checks payable to “Obama for America”.)
Guest Speakers: - Washington State Senator Ken Jacobsen
Debby Pattin: Thurston County for Obama; State Committeewoman, Thurston County Democrats; Vice-chair, 22nd Legislative Democrats, WA State
Richard May: Obama Grass Roots Volunteer Coordinator
Kevin Kouns: Oregon Wants Obama! Steering Committee Member
Live Music: Bryan Flannery Band
May 15, '07
Forgot to include the URL to register:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4jtlc
May 15, '07
To Barbara Powers,
Your post just serves to highlight your ignorance. I suggest you read "Dreams From My Father", Barack's first book, before making statements about his childhood and religious upbringing. He was not raised Muslim. Even if he was, the person he is today is tolerant, fair-minded and pragmatic (something your post does not reflect about you.)
May 15, '07
Obama, more than other candidates in the race (including the uniformly snowy white GOP field), may precipitate a conversation that we have repressed for too long.
Maybe that conversation can begin with an explanation as to why “snowy white” is any less bigoted than a description like “inky black” would be.
If the country is getting less bigoted it lets hope Blue Oregon bloggers can catch up to it.
May 15, '07
"As Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported, by the end of March 2007, at least 280,000 American citizens had already contributed some $113.6 million to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, or John McCain.
"If these people actually believe a presidential election a year-and-a-half from now will significantly alter how the country is run, they have almost surely wasted their money." Chalmers Johnson from Evil Empire: Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?
5:39 p.m.
May 15, '07
I see I am not the only one who visits Tomdispatch
May 16, '07
What is the alternative to early fundraising for our candidates? Even if the presidential electiion is "1 1/2 years away" the primaries will be pretty much decided this February. If you don't take action now to support your preferred candidate via fundraising, canvassing, etc you can't complain about who you end up with. While Barack Obama is still in the running, I'm personally going to do everything I can to help him win the democratic primar
-Patricia
May 19, '07
I think that many of you who are jumping on the Edwards bandwagon are placing too much emphasis about the various legislative efforts that are going on right now to pressure Bush. The fact is that Barack Obama has been pushing for 16 more votes to override Bush's veto. The other fact is that whatever Dem candidate gets elected, the Iraq war will come to an end in his or her term.
But the critical point many of you are overlooking is that we are looking to nominate a President with foresight and sound judgment. Edwards and Clinton showed they didn't have that when they voted in favor of the war in 2002. Barack Obama showed that he had "it" when he came out against the war in 2002 before the invasion and foretold many of the problems we are seeing today.
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Why would we want to nominate a candidate like Edwards or Clinton that have showed us with their vote giving Bush authorization to invade that they lack this critical judgment and foresight?
May 19, '07
I also wanted to respond to a couple of the other comments above on other issues:
Iran. Obama has not said that he is going to war with Iran. He has indicated a willingness to use force to prevent them from using nuclear weapons. Would any Dem be able to win the general election without making that statement? Of course not. No candidate can take that "off the table" without handing the Republicans the general election.
Poverty/Loss of Middle Class. Obama dedicated the early part of his professional life to working as a community organizer in the south side of Chicago helping people who were experiencing major problems in poverty, housing, loss of jobs, etc. As he explained in a town hall meeting in Iowa, he "gets it" about the dissappearing middle class and intends to take action, including reinstating the tax schedule on the top 1% to what it was pre-Bush.