I was there, he definatly has a great delivery and has some great comeback slogans for some of the criticism against him, but I have met and seen other politicians, he didn't have the "it" factor for the moment for me personally. I like the man, I think he presents some very interesting ideas, I just do not see that he can effectively follow through with what he says he wants to. I would support him as president, and as the nominee, but for now my choice lies with someone else.

The event was inspiring. The Oregon primary campaign starts today!

I've now seen the top three Democratic candidates live. I like them all.

I've been a rabid Edwards supporter, having worked for his campaign in 04, and I attended the event with Elizabeth a few months ago. I like Edwards' campaign rhetoric and I think both he and Elizabeth are really nice people. But I've decided that Edwards lacks good "public leadership" judgement, as evidenced not only by his Senate record, but by the many opportunities he has given the MSM to attack his candidacy, and the weak responses he's given to these attacks. He can't handle it, and I've got inside information about how the Republicans will dispatch with his candidacy should he win the nomination. He'd be destroyed.

I moved on to Hillary. She's a very good candidate, with lots of insider know-how and years of fighting off the wolves. She's no Edwards, she'd win the media fight. I admire her. I respect her. She's got integrity and smarts, and would be a fine president. I'd be happy to vote for her. But her foreign policy commentary worries me. I don't like her close association with Dem neocon Madeline Albright. I know that the Clinton administration considered going into Iraq. I can see us ending up in Iran with Hillary. And certainly, the corporate over-friendliness worries me.

With hesitation, I read up on Obama, the "young" one. I read his books, his biography, his Illinois and DC Senate records, his old and new speeches and all of his website.

It's disconcerting to realize how hard the MSM has worked to keep the real Barack Obama away from the public. Thankfully, the truth is getting out - this guy is really something else. He's no rock star, he's not even an exceptional public speaker in my view. He's quite humble actually, and, like all of us, he's a flawed human being. But he has 21st century vision, free of the many debilitating limitations and prejudices that characterize my own generation. What he has that's so different, that is almost palpable, is a kind of brain that we in this country have not seen on the national political scene in many decades. And it's been shaped by unique life experience that provided big-picture influence, from his youth. It's been shaped not just by small town or urban America, but by the planet. I can trust that brain, not to create nirvana, but to choose the best possible option when things are tough. I want that brain in my White House.

Obama has a unique wisdom that this country is desperate for. He sees bigger than the rest of us. It's like he's been watching from space while the rest of us have been huddled in our little houses. He will make positive change, by virtue of who he is and how he has lived his life. Frankly, we don't deserve him, but if he prevails in the primary, he's a shoo-in for the presidency.

I won't list his policies and positives, I'll let others do that. I just wanted to post my own journey. We have several good candidates, I think all would be adequate presidents. But Barack Obama is an exceptional candidate, the kind that only comes around once every few generations; he will be an exceptional president.

And he's ready right now, before he's thoroughly poisoned by DC. The last thing he needs is more DC experience.

Two notes about the above post, I wrote it last night, but since the comments section was down on Blue Oregon, I posted on my blog and am reposting it here.

Second, in the interview with the Korean media, one of the reasons I said I support Obama was that I felt we (as a country) need to work in cooperation with other countries instead of using intimidation and bullying.

The USA-ROK relationship is resented in Korea by some because we are very dictorial.

I was there last night. My impression of Obama is that he's taking the advice of the Democratic leadership. His campaign promises last night were all about what he can do after he's elected President: ending the war, bringing an "outsider" to the White House, universal health care.

I find it odd that he doesn't talk about what he can do right now; he's got a huge platform and he's a member of the majority party in Congress (and in my opinion, the country as a whole). Campaigning to be a leader is very different from leadership as a whole.

I want a leader now. I don't want to wait for "a good President" to replace the bad one. I want Congress to carry out their duties as required by the Constitution. Where's Senator Obama's sense of duty to his current office?

I'll support him if he's the nominee. But he didn't sway my opinion to support him in the primary.

Obama has a unique wisdom that this country is desperate for. He sees bigger than the rest of us. It's like he's been watching from space while the rest of us have been huddled in our little houses. He will make positive change, by virtue of who he is and how he has lived his life. Frankly, we don't deserve him, but if he prevails in the primary, he's a shoo-in for the presidency.

Wow, that is one scary paragraph. "Unique wisdom"? "Watching from space"? "We don't deserve him"? WTF? Where can I buy what you've been smoking?

I'm a political independent and I personally find most of Obama's political views to be pure poison, not to mention the fact that he's utterly inexperienced when it comes to executive leadership. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for him, even if the GOP ran Satan himself. The hard leftists who claim that he's a uniter, not a divider, are deluding themselves. He combines the worst ideas of the totalitarian left and the corporatist DLC. He'll be even more polarizing than Hillary, assuming of course people start talking about his politics rather than his melanin content or his public speaking skills. I couldn't give a rat's patoot how "charismatic" he is or how black he is. Why is it that Obama supporters focus on such shallow characteristics while almost never talking about his record or his expressed political beliefs?

Here are his political beliefs and voting record, as stated in "On the Issues" and elsewhere on the Web:

--Voted yes on reauthorizing the so-called Patriot Act

--Believes the US Constitution is a "living document," i.e., doesn't actually mean what it says---this suggest that he agrees with GWB that the Constitution is just a "goddamn piece of paper"

--Doesn't seem to have a problem with NAFTA and other corporate trade agreements that are gutting our economy--gives lip service to "fair trade" but hasn't used his position to try to repeal of NAFTA or other globalist agreements

--Strongly supports amnesty for the 12+ million illegal aliens occupying our country

--Voted yes on the so-called "guest worker" program and on allowing these "guests" to get US citizenship

--Supporter of coal industry--thinks "clean coal" is not only possible, but desirable, and that taxpayers should subsidize it

--Has expressed support for new nuclear plants--said in a recent debate that "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix."

--Radically pro-abortion---never saw an abortion regulation he liked

--Radically anti-Second Amendment---never saw any gun control legislation he didn't love---sees the Bill of Rights as a salad bar from he can pick and choose, while leaving the rest (fits in with his view of the Constitution as a "living document")

--Hasn't spoken out against the War Against (Some) Drugs

--Believes in using racial criteria for college admissions and government jobs (i.e., giving advantages to children of rich black law professors over children of poor white janitors)

--Long-time member of a radical racialist church

--Strong supporter of Israel---sees Israel as the cornerstone of our Middle East policy---said in a 2004 speech that "our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel"

--Wants to increase the size of the US military

--Expresses Wilsonian notions about crusading for worldwide democracy, i.e., continuing America's imperialistic role as policeman of the world---told the Council of Foreign Relations that we should "project American values around the globe"

--Has not taken a leadership role in the Senate when it comes to getting us out of the Iraq Quagmire---his Wilsonian imperialist views probably have something to do with this

I'll admit that his record is not entirely negative, particularly on some environmental issues. There are some things he says and that he's voted for that I would support. But the list above is just the tip of the iceberg. The guy does not "see bigger than the rest of us," nor has he been "watching from space." On the contrary, he's just as short-sighted, self-interested, and hypocritical as any of the politicians infesting DC.

Awesome Speech and event!!

More details once I get home.

I agree that the pro-abortion stance makes him sound better, but it doesn't outweigh the negatives. He's just another politician, with charisma...which is dangerous in my mind.

Jack2 wrote: Just so you know, James Madison, the smart dude who actually wrote the Constitution, agreed with the notion that the Constitution should be, to some extent, a living document.

Jack2, Madison and the other signers also laid out a clear path for how to amend the Constitution. It's right there in the Constitution---read it. This is a far cry from the "living document" hypothesis that socialists and neo-cons put forth. And the condescension is misplaced. I have an MA in American History, so I'm not talking out my ass. I've read the primary documents. Have you?

As for the other comments, y'all can pick and choose one or two things out of my list that you disagree with me on (I knew the abortion and illegal alien issues would elicit comments on this board), but look at it as a whole. Is this the person you think should be running this country? Do you think we should "project American values around the globe"? Do you think the Patriot Act is a good thing? Do you think we need to increase the size of the US military? Do you think coal and nukes are solutions to our energy crisis? Do you think the "guest worker" program and mass amnesty will help American workers? Do you think "our first and immutable commitment" should be to Israel's security? Do you think NAFTA is a good thing for the US and Mexico?

Jack one,

MA in History, focus on Constitutional History -- check. Thesis on James Madison -- check. Primary documents read -- check. Understanding of the ENTIRE concept of "living document" -- beyond socialists and and neocons --- check.

As for the rest of the list, do you think you're going to find a Democrat, even a Democrat, who you agree with on everything?

Anti-war leadership?? Congress no longer has the power to declare war, the only power they have left is the power of the purse string. Why have Obama and Clinton continued to vote in favor of further Iraq spending? Neither really wants to make the tough decision to actually stop the war. In fact neither will rule out striking Iran. If you're anti-war, Obama and Clinton aren't your next president.

I went as a member of the media, and I was impressed. I also got the speech on camera in high definition and playing some of it back today, I thought it looked downright historic. Obama is the Elvis of this campaign. I think he would make a great president although 98% of the people in the room could do better than the one we have now. There's a friendly decency about Obama to go along with the smarts.
Wow, what a 24 hours. From the Convention Center to Oprah's 50-million dollar home tonight. How much glamor can one man take?

Re: Obama and NAFTA here's a quote from the Teamster's web page.

"I am opposed to the Bush administration decision to allow cross-border trucking into the interior of the United States. There simply remain too many safety and environmental concerns. Before truck drivers from this or any other country are allowed to crisscross our highways, they should meet minimum standards for vehicle safety, rules on how long drivers can operate a vehicle as well as adequate oversight over those operations, and driver training. We need more time to study whether Mexican trucking firms and drivers can meet those standards across the entirety of their fleets."

Today: http:www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=63061 "BREAKING NEWS: First certified Mexican truck crosses U.S. border By Randy Grider"

If all these people support road safety, why did the Senate stall H.R. 1773: Safe American Roads Act of 2007 after it passed the House by a vote of The totals were 411 Ayes, 3 Nays, 18 Present/Not Voting LAST MAY???

If Clinton, Obama, and other Senators claim to support the US workers, why did they stall this bill in the Senate? Now it's too late to do anything and we're facing pollution, more job dislocation, road safety violations, and no security at our southern borders.

It looks like Obama's another empty suit who's abandoned the middle class, just like Hillary Clinton. They were in the Senate and did not act to prevent this.

t.a. barnhart:

I do my best to do more than whine, I really do. And I push the people I love to do more, too, though whether they do or not is up to them. I've got my state and Federal representatives on speed-dial, and I ain't afraid to call or email them.

But my first response to this thread was what I thought of Sen. Obama after finally getting (paying for) a chance to hear him unfiltered (not much of a view from the back of the room, but it's the words I was listening to). My first impression was that he was campaigning as if he, and the party he's a member of, still doesn't have any power. It saddens me.

All he needs to do is take a look across the aisle and see how much damage the opposition party does with the power they've grabbed. Why can't Democratic Senators and Members of Congress do the same, only, y'know, for the benefit of more than themselves, like they keep talking about?

Meanwhile, men and women are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more dead and wounded by 20 January 2009?

But Barack Obama's observation that the constitution is a living document is an anodyne statement. It is largely meaningless, absent specific information about what he considers open to interpretation. You have no warrant (so to speak) to accuse him of interpretive radicalism like that of the Bushites. ;-)

There are plenty of data regarding Obama's understanding of the "living document" hypothesis. How about his support for the Patriot Act? And even more blatant, his contempt for the Second Amendment? Most of the self-styled progressives that I've met are salad bar civil libertarians, so they don't care about the gutting of the Second Amendment, but take a glance at Obama's record on this issue. His unfailing support for gun prohibitionism is based entirely on ideologically driven opinion, an opinion that is the polar opposite of the original intent of this amendment. As a former law professor at an elite private university, he knows this, but obviously doesn't care.

As I said, Madison and the other framers laid out a very clear path for how to amend the Constitution. It's not done by majority vote in the legislative branch or by simply ignoring inconvenient sections. What many supporters of the "living document" hypothesis really support is sophism in the service of ideology. The Cheney-Bush regime is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this approach represents.

I don't need a lesson on interpreting primary documents, thanks very much. I've been paid to do that for years. There's a world of difference between honest disagreements about the meaning of a document and sophistic, ideologically driven readings that ignore inconvenient data. We'll have had eight full helpings of the latter by the end of 2008. We don't need need another four.

Jack2, I don't give a damn what letter someone has after their name, which is why I'm an independent. I don't do "party loyalty" or "the lesser of two evils." I vote for the best person, and that's clearly Ron Paul, a man who has consistently used his position to fight against the war and to protect civil liberties, no matter how much it pisses off his colleagues. The same cannot be said about Senator Obama, who appears to be going along to get along. That's not leadership.

Check out the money. Isn't Obama (and Clinton) getting big bucks from the investment bankers who serve the big corporations?

<h2>John Edwards is the honest, authentic candidate who will not be beholden to the ruling class!</h2>