Thank you! I have been listening to Senator Obama for quite awhile and have yet to get out of him what exactly he stands for, how he's going to change Washington or how he will unify the country.

I've really tried to like him and jump on that Obama Train everyone seems to be a part of but I need facts and figures not hope and dreams.

How does this horrible writing get on the front of BlueOregon? Sounds like the typical Clinton garbage machine to me.

Wilson analysis is worth paying attention to. It's right on the nail.

Joe Wilson has no neutral observer of this race and it is sloppy of you to simply label him as a "longtime diplomat" and vouch for his credibility without mentioning that he has endorsed Clinton and has acted as a Clinton campaign surrogate.

Obviously the writer has a close-mind already when it comes to Obama. To my surprise, Obama, being the youngest of the three, displayed the strongest in the Iraq hearing. McCain was playing safe, Clinton was subdued-trying to be "sober" not to destroy her reputation again by bursting into a warfreak. But Obama was the most respectful, composed, strongest,direct to the point candidate. Obama wants to tackle the war differently, wanting to urge the neigboring countries to help in - which I find very helpful than using all our funds for the rehabilitation of Iraq and sacrificing our economy. Iran is posing a threat to our troops, and Obama wants to lure Iran to our advantage, solving one less problem as well. I will be surprised if Clinton would be copying these strategies and incorporate Obama's visions into her speeches. Another one of Hilary's Oscar Award moments.

Shame on you Barack Obama for misleading the good people of Oregon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Really? Is this really supposed to be a well thought out article?

Unfortunately, most young readers may not remeber the first Bush's war in Iraq BUT I clearly remember that the elder Bush and Powell contemplated the concept of going into the Iraq capital but made a calculated decision that such a move would be counterproductive. By the way, this decision was not reached because we didn't have the capability of defeating Sadam but because it was not worth it.

Senator Obama, without urging and against what would have been politically smart at the time for a man aspiring to be a United States Senator, took the initiative to stand up and voice his opposition.

As a moderate republican, I have been frustrated at the argument being made by both Republicans and Democrats that it was easy for Senator Obama to do what he did because he was not in a position of decision making. That has to be one of the most elitist comment I have heard in recent times. EVERY American has the right and the RESPONSIBILITY to voice his or her voice when such a historical blunder is about to be committed with the blood of our kids and our hard earned treasures.

In my view, Citizen Obama's public and vocal opposition means a whole lot more than a politician's poll tested, politically calculated articulation of a position.

I hope more Citizens will take their right and responsibility as seriously as Citizen Obama took his.

I have been listening to Obama's Audacity of Hope on audio book. I heard a discussion he had with Charlie Rose right after he was elected to the US Senate. I have heard some of his speeches.

One measure of judgement is how the candidates react under pressure. I think Obama has passed that test.

I understand that supporters of Hillary Clinton are suspicious of generational change, but as someone who graduated from college in the late 1960s, I am disgusted at how many in my age group seem just as resistant to the ideas of the younger generation as our parents' generation was.

The reality is that we have no way of knowing what will greet the new president. FDR in April of 1932, JFK in April of 1960, Jimmy Carter in April of 1976, Bill Clinton in April of 1992 could not know exactly what would greet them after they finished their last inaugural event and got down to work.

Nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton, but it seems to me she passes up opportunities to give really clear answers to tough questions sometimes. It seems that when faced with a tough decision, Obama reacts well. I know the Hillary folks don't want to hear that, but that is the way I see it. Just because I have seen Joe Wilson speak and admire him, that doesn't mean I let him do my thinking for me.

Or we could make the cynical assumption: he (Obama) will go where the money and power lead him,

Obama probably will do as almost all politicians do when elected to Congress and the White House and "go where the money and power lead him," but the last people in a position to criticize him are the Clintons and their supporters.

But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

On the other hand, Obama might have agreed with the 23 senators who didn't buy into that BS. If Obama really wishes to emulate Colin Powell, the most over-rated man in Washington, then my limited confidence in him will be considerably reduced.

Wilson knew Colin Powell was misleading the world on Feb 05 2003. This wasn't worth going public till early July 2003? Anybody watching then knew that the rising insurgency in Iraq was about to make our President the dumbest looking man in the history of these United States. Washington needs a major shaking. The Democrats need a major shaking. I guess Joe was trying to be a good American and a good republican in the wake of 9/11, keeping quiet, going along, just like Senator Clinton. Why would I have confidence is her going forward?

Thanks Chris, I wouldn't have welcomed this post until the "Clinton Misleads Oregon" posts started appearing. It's interesting that the Obama campaign claims to be the postive campaign but all I've heard lately (only on BO, supporters out in the world seem to be much more positive and excited about the campaign) from his supporters are negative attacks on Senator Clinton. Well, I guess her supporters have had about enough?

He read the Intelligence Report in 2002- Hillary didn't. Enough said? No? OK, how's this? He KNEW in 2002 that this war was "made-up" along with 23 other US Senators who voted against it. Don't believe me- read his famous speech if you dare:

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq Chicago, Illinois – October 2, 2002

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...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 U.S. 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. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Chris, thanks for the article.

I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.

Lisa,

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.

‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

Chris, too bad you drank that Kool-Aid.

Last weekend, you asserted that Obama was obstructing a second vote in Michigan and Florida. I asked for some sort of proof, a link to any news story. You have previously ignored this request three times over three days. I conclude, as did several others, that either you made this claim up out of whole cloth, or that you believe others that made up this claim out of whole cloth.

Now you use destructive language asserting that Obama is "faking it". Really? You construct two artificial divisions in your thought process that are only loosely based upon reality, then you take your artificial way of looking at Obama, and in this fake world he fails to be consistent, and therefore you conclude he is the one "faking it"!!

Really Chris, put down the Kool-Aid cup, you've had too much.

Did it ever once happen in your thought process that you considered that Obama might just be for real. Yes, he might be idealistic. Yes, he might not have the life experience of 40 people. Yes, he was never under fire from snipers in Bosnia. But maybe, just maybe, consider that his judgement is good, he is very smart, he learns quickly, and that as all Presidents generally are (current one is the exception that makes the rule) he would be surrounded by good advisors that know all the details of every situation we the United States might encounter that he would have to deal with. One of those advisors just might be Joe Wilson.

And maybe above all else, he has a good heart, and he will work for a better American, a better future, and a better world. It just could be real.

Please Chris, get a grip on reality.

Chris, there are so many flaws in your argument, I'll just briefly focus on your most telling mistakes, starting with your assumptions about Hillary.

I also voted for [John] Kerry without hesitation even though he's further right than Clinton on overall war and peace record.

This is where it first became difficult to take you seriously. John Kerry, who voted against the first Iraq War, spoke eloquently against the second war (even as he voted for it to further his run for the presidency), and who refused to saber-rattle Iran. John Kerry, vs. Clinton, the war's most prominent Democratic proponent besides Bill, who waited to criticize the war's prosecution until 2005?! Clinton, who's closest aide Maggie Williams said openly that Hillary was even more willing to use military force than her husband?!

I know we've been living with an Orwellian presidency for the past seven years. Just because the Republicans have said up is down since 2001 doesn't mean they are America's only problem. When it comes to Obama's so-called effusive praise of Republican presidents, you need to look for context. Look to Republican Lincoln Chafee, who's endorsed Obama and unlike the insecure Clinton (who is ready to allow bloodshed to prove her armed forces bona fides) voted and worked to stop the war in 2003. He wrote in President Bush I as a protest vote in 2004. Republicans can do good things as presidents! I know it has rarely happened since 1992 (AIDS in Africa and the exposure of cultural conservatism as a bankrupt ideology come to mind), but when Nixon talked to China, and Reagan talked to Gorbachev, and when Bush I refused to invade Iraq, these were good things. The Oregon GOP wouldn't recognize the great Mark Hatfield if he ran in the GOP today. The sooner we recognize the good things that Republicans do, the sooner we can start winning them over to vote for Obama in November.

And Joe Wilson. (!!!) Others have pointed out that he's a public Clinton surrogate somewhere in the Clinton surrogate reasonability range between Roseanne Barr and Elton John, but may I humbly say that Joe Wilson is an opportunistic hack who may back a Democrat but is not by any means a respectable foreign policy voice. Wilson's greatest hour was his martyrdom at State, and he does himself a disservice while trying to link Obama's anti-war position in 2002 with Tony Rezko.

Ultimately, though I think it's funny though that you mention Joe Wilson, because Joe Wilson kinda sums up exactly what's wrong with Clinton's presidential ambitions. No, she's not George Bush. She was different from him the past seven years. But not enough. Not on Iraq, Iran. Not enough to carry out the foreign policy needs of the post-Clinton-Bush dynastic stretch in American politics. Sam Power, who you link to, however is a brilliant woman who would be perfect for a national security advisor.

I'm impressed that you say you went to anti-war rallies, Chris- I guess I'm frankly bewildered anyone who attended those rallies in Portland would ever vocally support the Clintons in a Democratic primary where the other choices weren't, say, Zell Miller and Ed Koch.

Lastly, Kari I think you're half correct in saying this writing is any good: the semi-colons and commas seem to be in the right places, and as far as I can tell the links all work. However, Chris's writing suffers from a poverty of ideas and an excess of partisanship that makes me wonder if Blue Oregon's not thinking of adding a sympathetic, explicitly DLC-Mark Penn column. (Try that next time Chris!)

Joe Wilson is a Clinton supporter and has a real ax to grind. It's pitiful. See his recent writings at the Huffington Post.

Posted by: Lori | Apr 9, 2008 10:17:33 PM

Chris, thanks for the article.

I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.

"That uppity Barack Obama! Who does he think he really is, so arrogant to be our President!"

Way to drag them out of the woodwork, Chris. And by the way, this reminds me of my babysitter's husband in 1992 trying to convince me that my hero, the upstart Governor of Arkansas, was unqualified to be president because it was such a poor, backwater place. Untested. Inexperienced. Too young. And according to Lori, too uppity!

My goodness. This is so weak I don't even know where to begin. Why don't you post a direct quote from Obama's speech against the war and we'll help you figure out what it means? There are several YouTube videos that you can check out as well. Very clear statements against the war before the war began. And guess what? He is still against the war. And this is breaking news to you? Oh, dear.

Tell me again, who has been pushing for talks with Iran to pursue peace in Iraq? Hillary Clinton? No. John McCain? No.

Take some time to reflect on how many times a day for the past few years you have heard talk of "bombing" Iran, "attacking" Iran, going to "war" with Iran. It's the third war that we will be paying for too.

But yet, you come up with this puff piece about diplomacy? Are you counting on people knowing so little? Do you think we are that stupid? No doubt journalism is long overdue for an overhaul itself. It's another thing to look forward to.

Let's let the people read something thoughtful:

Iran's benign influence Stephen Kinzer April 8, 2008 7:30 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_kinzer/2008/04/irans_benign_influence.html

[Copied and pasted entire copyrighted article removed. Next time, excerpt and link. -editor.]

Yep, Chris I re-read it- this is still weak. Voting for Kerry was centrist? Maybe if you're Ward Churchill. And Joe Wilson a "staunchly anti-Bush/Cheney Democrat?" Do we inhabit the same universe? Joe Wilson is a staunch centrist who happily Bush and Cheney until the latter went nutzo on him. Mark Penn and Michael O'Hanlon are staunch Democrats too, but that doesn't mean they don't walk, talk, start wars and bust unions like Republicans.

Chris,

I think you are right to look at the foreign policy credentials of the two candidates, but you fail to compare their advisors. It becomes clear the Clinton is the candidate of the tired Washington establishment, and Obama is the candidate of the new establishment.

Hillary Clinton has a tired staff of 60 somethings: Wes Clark, Joe Wilson, Madeline Albright.

Barack Obama has the next generation of smart hotshots: Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Samantha Power (until her unfortunate blowup). The only "old hand" on Obama's team is Zbig. Brzenski (sp).

You may consider them arrogant, but they are whip smart, and I feel a lot more confident in their ability to clean up the mess of the past 8 years than another Albright / Wilson / Clark troika.

I swear, Robert Kennedy could've risen from his grave and continued his crusade to end the war in Vietnam and heal poverty, and some people would still write letters to the editor saying Hubert Humphrey is the real peace candidate with the smarts to get us out of Vietnam, Kennedy once worked for a Republican 20 years ago and so we don't really know where he stands, etc.

Paul, I think you touch on an important point when comparing experience. There are only a handful of offices that offer real power in making foreign policy and national security, and no candidate has held any of these offices (not even McCain). In fact, almost no President has ever had relevant foreign policy experience (the first Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, the Roosevelts, and the founding generation are the exceptions). As such, the important characteristics are a candidate’s temperament, stated policy goals, and advisors. In latter category, there is a real generational gap. One of the things that excited me about Obama was that he was willing to reach beyond the Beltway, with Samantha Powers being exhibit A. Clinton has more life experience, but that is a result of her being a generation older than Obama. However, in terms of relevant experience in foreign affairs, she has exactly the same amount as Obama and McCain: none.

P.S. A small correction, Lake is not part of the new generation, he is among the oldest members of the team.

So much Clinton bashing on here, and again not one of you can say how or what Senator Obama will be changing in Washington nor how he plans to unify the country if he is elected.

When people resort to namecalling and bashing it's because they have nothing else.

How I wish that I could have the boundless faith in earnestly pitched promises that Obama supporters do. That I could open my eyes wide and (blink,blink) believe that the "change" was coming. Ohhhh, the "hope!" This sort of blind-sided optimism would actually make me feel a lot better about my fellow Americans if I wasn't so terrified about the future of not only our country, but of the world at large. How do we have time to waste? How can we gamble everything we have earned, and everything we are on the precipice of losing, or even allow the current trends of destruction to trickle through our civilization for another day, much less another presidency. The economy, freedom of choice, healthcare, education, immigration, much less human rights issues here and abroad, these all require PLANS, not "hope", CONCRETE STEPS, not "change". Are we all so comfortable, so satisfied, that we just want to roll the dice and put all our chips on the guy with "the good heart"? Well, I am impressed, at the goodness and trust that you all have, in America, and in our government. Thank you Chris, for addressing the difference in these two candidates directly, without malice or negativity. I wish there was more of that within this democratic party. "Unity"...I heard that somewhere.

I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.

Yeah I totally had those same reservations about Abraham Lincoln. He had been beat a bunch in elections and only did some local politics and a little national stuff and just served in the US House. I had those same reservations about James K. Polk, JFK and Harry Truman. I mean those guys totally came out of nowhere. I mean who would have thought they would have been leaders. Let's be fair here...Nixon was a jerk but I could totally tell that he was going to be great with foreign policy (yeah ahem China and that's the only thing I'm not being sarcastic about with this).

Corbell you are really being such a whiny person and you are the exact reason I am so sick of Hillary. It's over. She isn't going to win. She's done...would you like me to mail you black flowers so you know for sure? The gap is closing in Penn. Where else is she going to win? Where? I don't want HER experience. I want something that isn't George Bush's policies (John McCain) and I don't want to go back to the divisiveness of Clinton's tenure. Hillary would do nothing more than serve as a lightening rod for right wingers to circle around. Plus her experience mostly consists of her going to state dinners and not dodging sniper fire from what I can tell.

Corbell what you need to realize is that I like Hillary. I think she's an incredible woman who has put up with so much crap and couldn't put up with that if she didn't really think she could make a difference. I realize this. I'm just sick and tired of the politics she practices and I want to wash my hands of it and remember the Clinton years as good ones. I'm going to look forward to the Obama years and do my best to forget the Bush years. Hillary doesn't ring a notion of hope because there isn't any with her. She's John Kerry all over again. Yeah I'll vote for him but I sure as hell aren't going to be jumping out of my seat to campaign for the guy even though I know he's better than Bush. I know Hillary is better than McCain but I really don't care. Her crocodile tears don't phase me. I want a young energetic guy I can relate to who shares my beliefs. I want to talk to Hugo Chavez and Iran. I want to tell them we aren't going to bomb them and I want to improve relations. Hillary just wants to shut her cackling ass and not talk to them. That is old politics. That's why Barack is winning and will win.

And you call yourself a writer? What rumbis!!! lol....So closeminded you are....lol....

What shallow outrage. "He doesn't call all Republicans evil!" "He criticizes it when Hillary tries mandate health insurance rather than health care!" (which, by the way, is what actually "amuses the private health insurance industry"). And you say Obama is too centrist on foreign policy, but, ahem, Hillary's the one who authorized military force against Iraq, called Iran's Revolutionary Guard "global terrorists" (during a so-called global war on terror, no less), and attacked Obama for taking the war crime of first-strike nuclear weapons off the table.

THE MEDIA LIKE AP-CNN AND MSNBC ARE SELLING OUT AMERICANS http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-covers-obama-avoiding-churchs-pastors-essence Associated Press: Playing defense for Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press quilty of Wright-wash! In their articles Hawkins and Wills avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology that form the foundation and belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ. AP pair purposely avoided any mention of inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.

Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20: Obama’s church pushes controversial doctrines. Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation. Those are some of the doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Obama’s church.

Wright said basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power. Cone wrote that the U.S. was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by “Hamas TERRORIST Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers: A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."

A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb. Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins but supports as does Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA Oprah TCC member and Obama supporter Exposed on New Age and denies that Jesus is the way to heaven.Please Listen Now Quickly – This is being pulled off the website quickly so you must hear it quickly.Oprah is misleading many. Please view this video and pass along to other believers so that they may be aware.This is frightening to Christian everywhere! It's 6 minutes but well worth the entire viewing.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html

Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Article by Citizen Wells 3/08, Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.

Also marxist Nicaragian President Daniel Ortega is on the front line supporting Obama for the revolution of changes and then there is hard core anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO Enforcer Rashid Khalid, (Obama was on Kalidi's Woods Fund. Obama was a memb er of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol among other things and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs and then there is especially Kenya - where in August 2007, Obama went to Kenya to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan Presidential election, who claims coincidentally to also be a Christian who signed NAMLEF and other pacts wutg radical muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MUO.

all of Obama's mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships and all of his hard core militant muslim family members, like his brother Abongo (Roy" Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and Obama's endorsement by the Black Panthers. Obama titled his book "Audacity of Hope," after Pastor Wright's sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of the rich white people and the west.

Chris,

I love your enthusiasm and ultimately respect your discipline (I swear I am not trying to sound condescending)... but Good God! These just keep coming! I hope you are open to what is almost inevitable at this point... Either way it's been a great contest and I pledge to support the Democratic candidate.

We are all on the same team here folks, let's not forget that no matter who wins the primary, we all have a lot of the same goals and we need to keep working together. We are stronger together as a tribe than as nomads crossing the wilderness separately. We might lose a couple friends on the way but our strength is and always has been in each other.

"Live together or hang alone."

As a veteran of the Ops/Intel community in the military I was very concerned about the buildup to the war (I was active duty overseas until the end of 2002).

I had access to some significant intelligence due to my position but my beliefs and logical position on the war were cemented almost universally by public information. The Intel community has a saying to the effect of '90% of a decision is based on unclassified info'. That essentially means, do your research and make sure it makes sense, even after you factor in "intelligence" (which takes into account more ratings of information reliability, or confidence factors, as you do of everyone that you know).

Virtually all information analysis suggested that there was no AQ connection with the Iraqi Gov't, nor was there any reason there would be (Saddam and Osama are on the complete opposite ends of the Arabic Power Spectrum) and the stuff that didn't had terrible reliability ratings.

I remember a conversation I had with another NCO that I worked with 7-8 months before we were scheduled to get out. We talked about how weird it was that all of this seemingly unconnected Iraq stuff was coming out (this about the time the Afghanistan plan failed in Torah Borah). We were both kind of creeped out and unnerved. It didn't make any sense. We both decided if it came to that we would both be leaving ASAP (...end story here is that I did and he didn't).

Eventually I got out and told everyone who would listen how truly bad and basically evil I though that the Bush/Cheney/Cronies really are. I called the outcome of the war almost exactly (I think it's safe to say we all see where this is going) along with about a 100,000,000 other people and I've been fighting like hell ever since.

The thing is, what I've been waiting for is an authentic, progressive "National Security Candidate". Someone who can find a smarter, more systematic way to deal with our many problems abroad, as well as handling any more potentially devastating acts at home. A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between safety and security.

That candidate is here. His name is Barack Obama.

I could give many reasons for my support but this aspect alone is one of the most appealing to me. We can begin to reframe the national security debate with Senator Obama, due to simply the revision of the process.

Obama is a much better candidate than I ever anticipated and I have been a supporter from the beginning.

Correction: "A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between safety and security."

Should read: "A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between liberty and security."

Chris: Whats cares me is in this post is the reaction that make pro-Obama supporters have to any doubts or reservations raised about their candidate. It is as if they are so emotionally invested that they can't step back and discuss some very real concerns real people have about Obama. "Drinking Kool-Aid"? That is the response an Obama supporters have to this piece? This was not a hit piece. It was a well-writted, articulate and thoughtful piece that raises some legtimiate questions about the man who might just be the next president of the United States. Obama supporters don't think you should raise them? And if you do, you get insulted? The fact is Obama is all over the place when it comes to his foreign policy. Concerns raised about his foreign policy is just part of the bigger debate about who he is and what he believes in. More than anything else, I think the Wright episode raised this concern for many people. Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists? Will he pull out of Iraq or leave a "strike force" there and what does a "strike force" mean anyway? If attacking anyone who raises legimitate concerns about Obama is "drinking kool-aid" I have to say that Obama fans are drinking it, not Chris.

Good lord, Chris. Yes we know- you love Hillary! How many more of these propaganda pieces are we going to have to endure? Jesus. I'm going to stop reading BlueOregon if we keep seeing the same thing day after day, with no acknowledgment from you of Hillary's many serious flaws and malicious, damaging campaign. There must be some link to reality instead of this virtually daily delusional rant. Kari, take the wheel.

Kari, I'm with "anonymous." Take the wheel, sweet Kari.

I, too, cannot read BlueOregon another day if the Obama worship:Hillary bashing ratio on BlueOregon drops below 5:1.

I do not care about Obama's Church, I care about what he has said and done publicly through is votes in the IL Senate and the US Senate, I care about what he has said.

I am so sick of the self-righteousness from people about Rev. Wright. I am bi-racial I have had family members say inapproriate things (over the top things) and in my church sometimes there is sterotyping that is inapproriate, but I feel zero need to separate myself from my family or my church. What I have found is most of this stupid stuff is generational and I accept that people from different generations see the world differently. We all see the world and life based on our personal life experiences.

It doesn't take a college degree to understand that.

People want to imply Barack is a racist or not patriotic. Give me a break. Are you saying he hates 1/2 of himself, that he hates his mother and grandparents that raised him? Can we use a little common sense?

What un-American person dedicates his life to public service? How many of you have done that?

Now to the article: As many have said Joe Wilson is a HRC supporter, who appears to be unable to deal with just facts.

The bottom line is HRC and Barack only have plans at this point, and either would be an idiot to say no matter what they are sticking with that plan. Neither can predict what will be going on in Iraq next January and that will have to be taken into consideration.

I think Camllle Paglia says all that needs to be said about Clinton and the Chris Corbell's who support this embarrassing and wretched excuse for a Democrat. She also takes on the Obama experience question:

Hillary's slick willies Does Hillary surround herself with girly men? Obama and the experience question. Plus: Lincoln, Madonna's new face and a Bush with real authority http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/04/09/girly_men/

BTW: Before the rightwing took over this country with the help of Cinton Democrats and Wyden/Merkley style wusses, Joe Wilson like Paul Krugman spent his time denying he was even a moderate Democrat, much less a liberal/progressive. It's fitting then, slithering bottom-dwelling Clinton supporters, after not repudiating her for her campaign's evil and disgusting race-baiting, have decided that the best chance to win is spend their time repeating Republican talking points.

Joe Wilson is not neutral. He is Clinton partisan. No matter how he tries to twist the facts, facts are still facts. Hilary voted to authorize war, and supported the war throughout its early years and still not not apologize for the vote. Obama did not support authorizing war. He was planning on running for Senate, so no matter how advantageous it was in his district to vote against the war, one can't say the same as a Senate Candidate.

Lastly, we all knew that the vote in the Senate was to authorize war and Bush had no intention of using diplomacy. If Hilary did not recognize this fact, when rational people all across this country recognized what was going on without the benefit of Washington insider information, then I have to question her judgment.

Mrs. Clinton indeed may have more experience, but that does you no good when your judgement is suspect. Mrs. Clinton bends whichever way the political wind blows. That is not what I want in a President.

Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists?

This is just getting a little ridiculous.

Clinton supporters are just grasping to anything they can now. She's done and cooked. Obama is closing the gap in Penn. and this race is all but over. Clinton supporters are bordering on delusional at this point and doing nothing more than taking wild stabs at Obama.

I know she's a fighter. I believe that about her. It still doesn't change the fact that I want to step away from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and move our country past their brand of partisan politics. Comparing Obama to Bush is exactly the type of delusional things that are coming out of the Clinton camp right now. They can't poke holes in his campaign anymore so they might as well make something up.

This thread is not only like so many others in its partisanship, but it is also similar to speeches in Congress and rants on talk radio, Faux News and other media. People stake out a position then tailor their arguments to fit their agenda not only without regard to the facts but also injecting "facts" that have nothing to do with reality. That practice is fine if you're writing fiction, but it is squalidly hypocritical for anyone posing as a serious commentator. This last remark should be taken in a general sense and not seen as directed at anyone in particular. Commentators should consider this to be one of several possible rules to determine whether they are being phony or hypocritical: If you are challenged on a point and you can't defend it and won't admit to being wrong, then you should consider the probability that you are a hypocrite or other form of wretch. If you dodge the challenge and try another tack by changing the subject, then you are probably incorrigible.

Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists?

Welcome to the Clinton neo-Democractic racism. When Republicans previously, and Clinton-style Democrats of late, and Republicans in general realized society was rejecting them for their essential racism, they set out in a propagandistic way to strip the word of it's real meaning so they could start using it to actually advance their essential racism.

Emily, you're obviously a dull person in a very white state, so you, like most of the dull and selfish Clinton supporters who speak up here can't be solely blamed for your ignorance. However, you and Clinton supporters cannot be allowed to dishonestly block any debate about Clinton's evilness through word games.

"Racism" in the correct and historical use of the word can only be applied to describe the attitudes of a privileged group --- whites and white women in this case --- towards a (much) less privileged minority group to justify that position of privilege. What outraged slimy Republicans, and what makes Clinton and her supporters so beyond the pale in what should be acceptable in our party, is that in the last 40 years those they acted in a racist fashion towards increasingly stood up against them.

Those who espoused racist views had no morally acceptable or emotionally powerful language to defend what was not morally acceptable, so they instead set out to deflect justifiable repudiation by abusing the meaning of words, and then propagandizing poor whites to blame not the very racists who also abused them, but instead blame those who had also been abused. That was the start of Nixon's Southern strategy and it is what Clinton has knowingly and intentionally tapped into in an affront to decency and our society to advance her own selfish power goals.

Clinton has gone beyond the pale of what should be acceptable as a Democrat. Any of you who support her for any reason, much less because of you misrepresent her positions on the war, health care, etc, are also beyond the pale of what should be acceptable as a Democrat. The DPO's failure to take a stand here leaves the DPO without moral authority, or deserving any respect as a voice for Democrats in our state.

Former Oregon Governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber both endorse Obama! Let's see a story with some pictures, if for no better reason than to confirm that Kitz did his press conference in jeans.

I find it amazing that Obama supporters go into a frenzy when someone poses questions of judgment and demands detail about their candidate's positions. Throwing out terms like hope and change may make us feel good. But if words truly matter then we need Senator Obama to make it abundantly clear what this new political world is that he so grandly envisions. What will the "post-Obama" world look like? Or are we to fill in the blanks with our own needs and yearnings and simply hope for the best.

God is in the detail [or the devil, depending on your favorite version]. Until Senator Obama climbs off the pulpit, talks about real-world policy/programs and stops trying to pretend that inexperience, a thin legislative record and troublesome friends are at best no big deal or at worst, a conspiracy, he will remain an unknown quantity.

I cannot and will not vote for that. There's too much at stake.

After seeing several Blue Oregon posts take a blatantly negative tone against Hillary Clinton during her visit to Oregon, and since politics is nothing without debate, today I post my first article addressing some of the concerns I have about Senator Barack Obama. I welcome discussion from all in the Blue Oregon community. - CC

Actually, Mr. Corbell, you have been posting vigorous criticisms of Barack Obama in your various articles written in support of Hillary Clinton.

...the Obama who claims to be able to get things done with Republicans, who speaks glowingly of former Republican Presidents...Take Obama's speech in Pennsylvania of a March 27, when in continuation of his veneration of past Republican Presidents he claimed that his foreign policy "is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father..." as well as JFK and Ronald Reagan.

Uh, context is everything, as always. Obama commented about Reagan in the context of saying that at the time Reagan was running for president, the conservative movement was intellectually vital and that Reagan did a good job of putting across the conservative message. Obama was not approving of that message. And in remarking about GHW Bush, Obama was referring to Pappy's diplomatic initiatives to form a coalition opposing the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Pappy, after all, served as a diplomat prior to his VP and presidential service. Dubya obviously has mooned Pappy's approach, but is it perhaps too much to expect Pappy to mon his son in turn? Might blood be thicker than water?

In fact, the non-partisan values and parallels he conjures up by referring to the first Bush are precisely the values that would have led any centrist to vote for the [war powers] authorization in 2002.

This is, of course, pure conjecture and a rather bald post facto attempt to justify Hillary Clinton's vote. And for the record, here is a list of the senators who voted against the war powers authorization:

Boxer, Barbara [D] Graham, Bob [D] Akaka, Daniel [D] Inouye, Daniel [D] Durbin, Richard [D] Mikulski, Barbara [D] Sarbanes, Paul [D] Kennedy, Edward [D] Levin, Carl [D] Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D] Dayton, Mark [D] Wellstone, Paul [D] Corzine, Jon [D] Conrad, Kent [D] Wyden, Ron [D] Chafee, Lincoln [R] Reed, John [D] Jeffords, James [I] Leahy, Patrick [D] Feingold, Russell [D]

Obama is faking it. While driving the convenience of his own brief service and a single pandering speech as a wedge against Clinton.....

The "single pandering speech" that Corbell alludes to was given at an anti-war rally, I believe. In what way exactly does it qualify as "pandering"? Here's part of that "pandering" speech:

"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale, without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the 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."

Joe Wilson....

The way that Joe Wilson is now being touted by anti-Obama forces is...forgive me...bullshit. Wilson's "courageous" essay published all over the blogosphere a few weeks ago put forward exactly the same argument, or rather excuse, for HRC's war-powers vote that Corbell has put forward here: that somehow reasonable people hearing the evidence [sic]being flogged by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell could have voted in favor of war powers with a clear conscience. Yet millions of Americans saw through the deception. Barack Obama saw through the deception. Hillary Clinton either did not or decided it was more politically pragmatic to vote in favor of war powers.

I'm sorry, Mr. Corbell: I think highly of Hillary Clinton in many ways, and I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but she is the one who made the "pandering" speech--on the floor of the US Senate--about authorizing war powers. And she--unlike John Edwards--is the candidate who has refused, not just to retract her vote, but even to acknowledge her blunder.

But it is the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of Obama's duplicitous approach which offends me and makes me realize that I really don't know -what- he believes.

I've heard a similar sort of criticism from other Democrats who are nervous about Obama. OK, fair enough, I think you're stretching things, but that's your prerogative. But when I read your sorry rationalizations for Hillary Clinton's war-powers vote, the only cognitize dissonance and hypocrisy I see is coming from another direction: it's coming from you.

But if words truly matter then we need Senator Obama to make it abundantly clear what this new political world is that he so grandly envisions.

This is from the book jacket of Richard Reeves' biography of Ronald Reagan: "He is a man of ideas who changed the world for better or for worse, a man who understands that words are often more important than deeds."

Obama has an opportunity and the oratorical skills to inspire this nation to be much better than it is. Whether he will do so remains to be seen, but the responsibility is not entirely his. That will be shared by the politicians we elect to Congress and, ultimately, the people who elect these politicians and voice their opinions after the elections.

Hillary and John McCain could also inspire the American people if they remain as credulous and as ill-informed as they have been in the past.

LT- change of what, the biggest change that could ever happen is electing the first woman who happens to be the most qualified to run our country. obama says change and you fall for it, LOL he has't done anything in his career to ever make you think he can promote or induce change....in D.C. talking is not doing and he never has done.

Hillary has always done what she says she is going to do and works with every ounce of energy to succeed, she has "changed" the lives of millions across our country, she has devoted her life to our country and our people. obama hasn't. Joe Wilson is so right on obama and his other articles are so telling. Though many of you don't care that foreign policy is a major factor nor do you seem to care that obama always wants to use the past to reflect who he is and how he will govern but has all along demeaned and criticized one of our greatest Presidents WJC. go figure, wants to go into the future with a clean slate, but will act as Reagan and GB. obama is a fraud.

CENTRIST does not mean agreement with hegemonists, corporatists and warmongers. It means, at the very least, agreement with the majority or a plurality. Therefore, the following are CENTRIST positions:

(1.) Impeach Cheney and Bush.

(2.) Begin to bring all U.S. personnel home from Iraq NOW and finish the withdrawal within one year.

(3.) Adopt single payer national health insurance.

(4.) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget and invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.

(5.) No to nuclear power, solar energy first.

(6.) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.

(7.) Withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA.

Failure to agree with these CENTRIST positions is evidence of a profound contempt for democracy. Clinton and Obama supporters are very good at recognizing the flaws of the other, and very bad at recognizing their own flaws.

Thanks for this comment, Chris.

Apparently there are plenty of people here who would like you to be purged from BO and from the Democratic Party. They (facetiously?) claim that their one-liners and insults are "debate" and your cogent, thoughtful comments are "propaganda." They can't take the heat and neither can their candidate.

One story in the news lately has been that the candidates have been openly debating which which would be most effective at ending the war. Sen. Obama says that he welcomes that debate. Well, I do too, and it would be nice to have it finally.

I would love to see an hour between the two of them solely about ending the war. Obama has only one thing to say: I'm better because she was wrong in 2003 (and I wasn't, sort of). But when it came to articulating a real plan, she'd run circles around him.

John

I tend to get into some things early on, I got pretty thoroughly shat upon for opposing Iraq War from the time it was brought up, I didn't miss either. I have stated from the time Hillary's shills started making noise that she was 'it' that I didn't care if NY wanted her as Senator but that I absolutely didn't want her. I do not.

She was at the bottom of my list of candidates and from the time she actively campaigned I made clear that I didn't see her as inevitable, at least partly because exposure to her dulls the shine. Clintonista's cannot face the idea that Hillary is something more than the the victim of a right wing smear, in fact they did her huge favors then in regard to now. The Republicans discredited the actual facts of Whitewater, Travel Office, Health Care, etc with their nasty over reaching. The actual smelly little facts themselves would off-put many of her most ardent supporters, simply because they smell and her problems with truth are legion - well previous to this campaign.

Hillary's short term near advantage thinking has caused her difficulties over decades, the Feb 5th thinking is only a recent example. Hillary could easily have avoided being smeared in Whitewater by staying more narrowly inside the intent of the law rather than the pushing up against the limits. The Travel Office only required some thoughfulness in the replacement of staff. Trying to reform health care requires building a base of support rather than secrecy and autocracy. Voting for a Flag Burning restriction is only short term politics, not long term rights protection, AUMF was propagandistically popular at the time.

Hillary has time and again demonstrated that her ethics are conditional and that long term thinking is beyond her. That Barack Obama is a lightly written on slate that many fill with their own asperations may be true and ideas of getting along with what is left of Republicans after this election may be very optimistic, but whatever that may amount to, he has shown regard for the long term and public cohesion.

No candidate in today's political world can live up to some of the things opponents demand nor do any of them fill the messiah complex some of their ardent supporters have. Hillary is more flawed than most who ran, but she is not the devil, Barack may not be the best of those who ran, but he is less flawed than his current opponent. Either is a giant step up from McSame.

There are ways to disagree clearly but politely. There are also ways to disagree clearly but impolitely. Mr. Corbell has done the former, and I appreciate that. Let him fire away at Obama. Frankly, I shared some of his concerns until a couple of months ago.

What I have a harder time with (and Corbell has not done this, at least on Blue Oregon) is the absurd labelling or Obama supporters as cultists, airheads, and so on.

Very well said above, Harry K.

John M: Obama has only one thing to say: I'm better because she was wrong in 2003 (and I wasn't, sort of). But when it came to articulating a real plan, she'd run circles around him.

Point 1: The Iraq war vote, which I presume you were referring to, was in October 2002, not 2003. And what were you trying to prove with "I (Obama) wasn't, sort of"? He was right in opposing the war and his position was well thought out and articulated.

Point 2: Hillary can articulate all kinds of plans, but it takes a lot of gullibility to believe everything she says.

Jeremy: Lots of luck with this one: I ask this question and will keep asking it of the Chris Corbell's of the world until I get a damn answer.

Several of us have challenged Chris, Josh, Katy and other Clinton supporters on "facts" and other lame attempts at advocacy for Hillary and those challenges have gone unanswered. Kind of says something about them but nothing to be proud of.

Disclaimer: I'll probably be voting for Obama, but I'll do so with reservations and mainly because I have many more problems with Hillary and McCain.

I'm curious, who are the "big players" backing Obama, and why would he be beholden to them?

In the predictions post for Iowa, there was a lot of discussion over Edwards' chances, and if Clinton was really a presumptive nominee. I had argued that Clinton was the most likely nominee because she had the most ways to win, including loosing Iowa. In contrast, Edwards and Obama had a much harder path because both had to win Iowa in order to survive, and even than, Edwards did not have good odds. In all honesty, I want to know from Clinton supporters how she can realistically win the nomination. I can only see two ways, and nether is very realistic. One, Obama is no longer able to run for office (he is assassinated, it turns out he really is an agent of Osama, he is actually Avon Barksdale, etc.) and Clinton steps in. Two, Clinton somehow runs the board on super delegates and wins at the convention (why the super delegates do this, I do do not know). Nether of these situations are likely. In all honesty, I want to know how Clinton can still win.

Firstly, Senator Clinton has the same right, to keep this race going, as Senator Oabama does.

Secondly, neither have enough delegates to win the nomination.

Thirdly, the way the rules are written is that with this close of an election they will end up at the August convention where it will be settled.

It seems to me that Democrats don't want the process tht they set up to run its course. I guess it was great until the possiblity of it being utilized came up.

I for one am looking forward to this ending at the convention. I will support Senator Clinton as long as she is in this race. Though I have been following her public life and accomplishments for nearly 16 years I became a firm supporter when I heard her say that if we "fought for her she would fight for us as long as we wanted her to". I'm keeping my end of the agreement and she is keeping her's.

I'm not here to try to change anyones mind or recruit anyone to my way of thinking. I do however want people to really think about what is important to them and this country when they place their vote for a candidate. Will they proudly stand behind that person for their 4 years in office or will they have buyers remorse?

Nether of these situations are likely. In all honesty, I want to know how Clinton can still win.

This is a valid question. And I think the answer is this: The Clintons, the DLC (of which Hillary is a member) and many of her supporters here don't care if she can't win in 2008. In fact, at this point, the goal is to not help a Democrat win in 2008 if she doesn't get the nomination because she would have another chance in 2012. Particularly since the odds are political conditions and his age would make McCain as vulnerable as he is now in a race with no incumbent.

Some of us who were not thrilled with Kerry in 2004 much more noticed how Hillary and her camp did absolutely nothing to help Kerry because we saw she would rather he lose to give her a shot in 2008. (You can believe what you want, I have friends who defended her when I talked about this in 2004 based on my experience with politics and who are now Obama supporters asking how they could have missed this.) You may also have forgotten that forget Bill had a heart attack and for all intents and purposes sat out the 2004 campaign, so we cannot say anything one way or the other about his support for Kerry. He simply was a non-factor and fate conveniently stepped in to spare him from having to make his true goals known.

There is no reason to believe Clinton would be a good president at this point given the venality she has shown, even if it could turn out that she would be no worse than Obama. But there is serious reason to believe Obama could be an good president just because he represents change that I don't believe he even fully embraces and can forestall, and even though he almost certainly will not be a great president based on the actual facts we know now. (What we don't know is extremely unlikely to make him a worse president than Clinton.)

The people we should hold accountable are failed leaders of the DPO like Woods, who in her letter arrogantly claimed to speak for US as Democrats:

But most of all, I know our Democrats are coming to hear your visions for America and support your cause in Oregon. ...

And no matter who wins the nomination, we will unite behind our nominee to make sure John McCain’s promise of a third Bush term goes unfulfilled.

while not rebuking these candidates, and especially Clinton, for failing to fully and enthusiastically represent what we stand for as Democrats.

obama supportors, take some valium, drink a bottle of wine and wipe that foam from your mouth before someone calls the dogcatcher. Your tirades say more about YOU,than they do about your candidate or Hillary or Chris. You take up alot of space with your Rants and Namecalling and lack of facts. No sane person would swing over to Obama and join this group of les miserbrels. You and your ilk is what turned me off of Obama. You can't civilly discuss any issue---but guess what--that does'nt mean we are going away anytime soon....we are your worst nightmare.LOL i think you are hillarious...Hillary 08, join the sane

No sane person would swing over to Obama and join this group of les miserbrels. You and your ilk is (sic) what turned me off of (redundancy) Obama. You can't civilly (sic) discuss any issue---but guess what--that does'nt (sic) mean we are going away anytime soon..

Before you question the sanity of others, you would do well to take care of your own literary defects. Note the "sics" above. And if you plan to impress people with your French there is a lot to be said for learning how to spell French words properly. I presume by "les miserbrels" you meant "les miserables." At least you got the "les" right. Quelle merde de taureau.

I'm still waiting for one of them to tell me what and how this "change" in Washington will be and how Senator Obama plans to unify the country.

Mind you I have asked this of hundreds of Obama followers online and not one of them can or will answer the question. I have watched the debates, the rallies and the interviews and can't get the answer so maybe one of them can explain it to me.

Rants! Namecalling! A les miserbrels (miseral liberals?) worst nightmare- personally that was my favorite. And thanks for dropping by sandra, feel free to namecall about namecalling even when the server at NW Republican isn't busy.

by the way Chris nice article, well put, well written,and some very thoughtful and factual material. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the good work, democracy is about many voices, voices silenced are never a good thing. I don't think Obamas message of "hope and change" is catching on as reflected here. I hope to see more from you....and don't take it to heart--they bad-mouthed the ore. democratic partys welcome message too....I think they have issues...

You proved my POINT! thanks, think i just heard the sound of 10 more people signing up for Hillary,are you sure you are not working for me, starting wage for apprentice is a bit low...but hey, i'm willing to train...you really need to work on your sense of humor tho, I don't hire sour grapes.

Chris, I ask you and all of Clinton's rock-solid supporters in all honesty because I would like to know: how can Clinton win at this point? As I wrote above, realistically, it is impossible for Clinton to go into the convention leading in votes or delegates. Therefore, she ether needs Obama to drop out of the race, or the super delegates to overrule a plurality of the voters. Nether of these outcomes appears to be likely. I would really like to know how she can win the nomination given the facts of the race.

Chris, you are sidestepping my question. The gap between the candidates is narrow, but significant enough that it will not close in a measurable extent. Further, in terms of delegates, the PR system has ensured that the ratio between Obama and Clinton is essentially fixed. The fact that Obama's leads are small is not relevant because they are solid and the votes of the next 9 political units will not change the dynamic that is already in place. Therefore, I ask again, how can Clinton win the nomination without the super delegates overturning the choice of the plurality of voters or Obama dropping out of the race? If Clinton cannot win, she should drop out because McCain has already started running in the general election, and every day we lack a nominee, we fall farther behind.

Therefore, I ask again, how can Senator Obama win the nomination without the super delegates overturning the choice of the plurality of voters or Clinton dropping out of the race? If Obama cannot win, he should drop out because McCain has already started running in the general election, and every day we lack a nominee, we fall farther behind.

Sounds pretty good, why doesn't he drop out?

Though I support Senator Clinton the thought of Senator Obama facing the Republican machine makes me giddy. I would gladly sit back and watch them chew him up and spit him out. The Republicans are so good at it, though they were never able take Hillary down in all these years....I don't think Senator Obama has the fortitude to withstand it.

BDAnna- YOu're giddy at the thought of Republicans attacking the likely Democratic nominee? Giddy!? Michelle Malkin has a blog, maybe you should check it out, you might find some friends in the comment sections.

Chris,

Thank you for post. I am too; want to hear from Obama supporters how is he going to bring “Change”.

There are approximately 28 Million Registered Voters yet to cast their ballots in the last 10 elections.

Clinton & Obama are Tied in all Primary Elections 15 to 15, including Red States Hillary won the Popular Vote by 106,594 votes in all 30 Primaries even though they tied in states won (-516,487 w/o MI & FL)

Hillary Clinton is ahead in Swing State Primaries 7 States to 2 She won the Popular Vote 55% to 45% / (54% to 46% w/o FL) Clinton 78% to Obama 22% in winning those states

Out of the 13 Blue states Primary elections, Obama has won +1 more But Clinton has won more Popular Votes in those 13 Blue states 51% to 49% / (-0.76% w/o MI)

Hillary Clinton is ahead in the Blue & Swing State Primaries 13 States to 9 She won the Popular Vote 52% to 48% / (51% to 49% w/o MI FL) Clinton 59% to Obama 41% in winning those states

Reality check for DF

"A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between safety and security.

That candidate is here. His name is Barack Obama."

Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. Good luck with getting your civil liberties restored!

I'm not sure why someone would think he would restore their civil liberties, nothing in his voting history could lead one to that conclusion.

In case someone wants to debate the numbers they came from http://www.diversityj.com/Statistics2008Primary.html

where they analyzed facts and figures from this site

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/tally.phtml

Chris, it is not ungracious, it is simply being realistic about how the race will end. It is essentially impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in votes or delegates. Unless Clinton can perform as well as she did in her best state from here on out, she cannot catch Obama in votes, and the PR system means that she will not catch him in delegates without margins of victory so far unprecedented by her campaign. Given this reality, it is not particularly likely that the dynamic currently in place (Obama has a small but significant lead) is not going to change before the convention – regardless of how we vote next month. This is just a fact, just as it was a fact that Edwards had no realistic ability to win after loosing Iowa. I would like to know how she can capture the nomination given the dynamic that is now set. The continued nomination fight is not cost free for the party, and if the situation were reversed Obama would have to consider permanently suspending his campaign.

Why won't Senator Obama drop out? Is it because he feels entitled to it? Why is Senator Obama tearing the party apart? Maybe because he is too polarizing and devisive?

Chris, your post demonstrates your seemingly poor understanding of progressive politics. If you understood the philosophy and pragmatic aspects of progressivism you would understand Obama's approach in his campaign as well as his actions as a senator both at state and federal levels. You would also be able to demonstrate an understanding of his willingness to work across party lines. Wikipedia has a good explanation of progressivism here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Clinton is more of a centrist type liberal. Although many progressives may have similarities in belief and action to those that are liberals, the two political philosophies are not exactly the same.

Colin Powell has made it very clear that he was deceived into presenting what was ultimately bogus information about Iraq in front of the UN. Here is a link to a good article in the U.K. Guardian about him "seeking revenge"- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/usa.comment

If you were truly interested in understanding Obama's foreign policy, you'd have gone to his web site for clarity. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Personally, I have yet to hear him veer from what he has laid out for all to read at that link.

I am old enough to remember every president since Eisenhower. I really haven't liked any of the Republican presidents and there are three in particular that I've abhorred. However, I do know that a couple of them were very, very good in their ability to talk with foreign leaders. Even certain leaders of countries that were considered "enemies" of the US. Thus, I can completely understand Obama's comments regarding those past presidents. However, I certainly wouldn't describe him as speaking "glowingly" of them.

Joe Wilson is only one diplomat sharing his own opinion. The fact that he doesn't acknowledge that Colin Powell was duped into giving misleading testimony seems odd to me since the very same political machine that duped Powell also outed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.

Obama has a unique multinational background. In addition his majors in college were Constitutional Law and International Relations. Clinton on the other hand majored in political science.

Ofcourse, I suppose we should all be duly impressed with Clinton's dangerous trip to Bosnia. You know the one during which she had to duck sniper fire?

Speaking of Clinton's duplicity, she may have fired her advisor Penn, but looks like there is even worse news being revealed about her possible connections to those who would push for a trade treaty with Columbia.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/what-a-story-candidate-pe_b_96052.html

Is this anything like Clinton's claims to have not supported NAFTA despite having aided her husband in its passing?

My take on Obama is that he really is exactly who he says he is. The problem is in us, not him. It is in us because we are so unaccustomed to a politician who is honest and straight forward, that we are not sure we can believe our eyes and ears when someone like Obama comes on the scene.

Don't make the mistake of thinking of liberal and progressive as synonyms. Progressive movements were around a century ago, and were at one point a 3rd party movement. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Some look at Woodrow Wilson as a progressive, but his AG Palmer had a lot in common with Ashcroft.

Liberalism is more along the lines of FDR and Hubert Humphrey. There were once liberal Republicans. 1968 was a turning point because old style liberals couldn't understand why young people were so angry about the Vietnam War. And there was a real domestic policy/foreign policy debate going on 4 decades ago.

We may well be at another turning point this year.

If someone doesn't like Obama or is devoted to Hillary Clinton, that is more about the individuals than about ideology. Obama attracts young people like he was Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy combined.

In answer to the question, How can Hillary win: Obama just GAVE it to her: NYT, april 10, Obama gives speech on his superior foreign policy exp. REVEALING, as he had NOT in his book,his time spent in PAKISTAN among muslim friends, and assoc---maybe this is why someone was trying to get a look at his passport-CIA-???the article said the news was sweeping across the web...perhaps he knew this was going to break and wanted to get the news out first, to try and blunt it----he is toast...oh yeah-same article-Hillary picks up 3 more superdelegates-

Since this is a thread about Clinton, it is a good place to correct a set of misleading statements about Clinton's health care plan in a discussion between an SEIU representative made on Hartmann's show this morning.

First, Clinton does NOT support allowing individual's under-65 to buy into Medicare. Her website discussion of the plan, which is reflective of other position papers one get's from her campaign if one cares to ask (and I have), has a single sentence about this and I quote:

"In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare. "

She offers no serious analysis or details of such a plan and it's widely recognized this is simply a sop in keeping with the rest of her "plan". Her health care plan is really just telling everybody they can have whatever option they want to forestall opposition to the main feature of her plan: Forcing everyone by law to pump money into the coffer of private health insurance companies.

Second, despite the seeming impression created by the SEIU representative this morning, the SEIU is NOT on record supporting a single-payer public health insurance system in the U.S. or at the state level. In fact, the SEIU even in Oregon is opposed in all their efforts around SB-329 (which they played a key role in bringing about and defeating SB-27), to a single-payer solution. The OHFB has such a plan on the table and at least publicly the SEIU has refused to endorse it.

Reasons I can't support Hillary:

1. Her vote for allowing the war and constant support of that war and occupation until the campaign started is one. If I, stuck away in the coast hills of Oregon, could see how we were being propagandized and lied into war with Iraq, how could Hillary not have? Either she cared more about political expediency than she did about the welfare of our people and country, or she was too blind and uninformed to see. I believe either possibility disqualifies her for high office.

2. I believe she is way too corporately controlled. I believe it is too late for her to try to distance herself from NAFTA and the other so-called “free trade” agreements that have helped to kill our middle class. She is the one who has the backing of the big power boys like Rupert Murdoch of faux news fame. Even when she was pushing her health care initiative as first lady, her plan was to have a select few insurance companies cover everyone.

3. I don’t believe she can be elected. The right wing talk nuts are pushing their listeners to cross over and vote for her so she will be the one to face McCain. Though she has rabid supporters and many who would vote for her just because she is a woman, there are many out there who really don’t like her. My republican mother-in-law, who can’t stand Bush, will not vote for Hillary because she is so “shrill”.

In short, I see hardly any hope for change with Hillary and little hope for our country and my kids if things don’t change.

Reasons I can support Barak:

1. He stated clearly why he couldn’t authorize the war and why it would be a “dumb” war. He could see the BS and he called it out.

2. He is getting most of his campaign money from people like me. He is not taking money from PACs or lobbyists. He will be beholden to the people, not the corporations.

3. The man can speak and think. We haven’t had anyone as eloquent and inspiring since JFK. I don’t believe I’m easy, but I believe he often speaks straight from his heart. He has a brilliant mind, a lack of pettiness and forgiving and encompassing attitude that often makes me feel that he is a better man than I am.

4. His experience of growing up in the white world and the Indonesian world and then going to live in and know the black world in Chicago has given him a perspective that is almost beyond value and SO needed at this time.

5. His appeal crosses party lines. I know republicans who would vote for him.

In short, I believe that Barak will fight for what he believes in and what he believes is best for us all and that will bring change and that does give me hope.

Colin Powell has made it very clear that he was deceived into presenting what was ultimately bogus information about Iraq in front of the UN. Here is a link to a good article in the U.K. Guardian about him "seeking revenge"-

There are many people with good reason who don't buy Powell's crap (like Hillary's) about being deceived. There was a "60 Minutes" piece on Powell's speech before the U.N. Security Council in which members of the state department's intelligence directorate said they knew that Powell wasn't telling the truth. Robert Fisk, who probably has forgotten more about the Middle East than Powell ever knew, ridiculed Powell's con job the day after the speech and followed a few days later with this.

Christopher Hitchens in one of his more lucid moments referred to Powell as "the most over-rated man in Washington." When the full story of Powell's role in the Iraq war is revealed by an honest author Hitchens' assessment will probably seem like an effusive compliment by comparison.

ABC News: The Note: Err Apparent

Why are you doing this? Spite? Anger?

Probably Chris and others locked themselves into Hillary and can't bring themselves to admitting to her errors and their own. Witness the times they have been challenged on statements and their inability to respond with a legitimate defense.

Chris mentioned this in passing with respect to Clinton, but I want to emphasize that the ageist comments directed at her or McCain are another form of bigotry that should not be tolerated by people who call themselves "liberals".

McCain is a terrible candidate whose record of militarism, corporate cronyism and outright lying should be judged on its own (lack of) merits. That he is older than the other candidates should have no bearing on his fitness for the presidency.

What I suspect is that McCain's actual positions on issues that matter most to progressives are so similar to Clinton's and Obama's, that only bigoted attacks are left to those who want to ignore that similarity. If Obama or Clinton want my vote, they need to convince me that they stand with centrists/progressives (not Joe Wilson, nor Colin Powell, nor John Kerry) who want to:

(1.) Impeach Cheney and Bush.

(2.) Begin to bring all U.S. personnel home from Iraq NOW and finish the withdrawal within one year.

(3.) Adopt single payer national health insurance.

(4.) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget and invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.

(5.) Say No to nuclear power, solar energy first.

(6.) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.

(7.) Withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA.

My candidate of choice is older than McCain, but he is a true progressive, unlike Obama and Clinton, who stand for the same old same old in comparison.

I asked upthread who all these 'big players' are who will supposedly be pulling the strings when he's in office.

Still curious.

To Harry K's list I would add:

(8) Be an honest and enlightened broker in resolving the Israel/Palestine problem.

(9) Make diplomacy the first option is foreign affairs and the military the absolute last.

There is a chance the Obama might, note might, be an improvement over Hillary and McCain on these last two issues but on the others ((1) to (7)) there probably isn't much difference between the three. However, I believe we can fairly say that Obama is much less dishonest than his two opponents.

My preferred president is older than McCain and probably the same as Harry K's, but after almost all of the "progressives" ignored their chances to support and vote for Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich then there isn't much hope for our preference. Real progressives need not apply for the job of president.

Chris, I read that article, and I don't see where the outrage is.

The 27,000 donors who are giving the maximum that these supposed "puppeteers" recruited have accounted, in total, for, at most, a quarter of Obama's overall fundraising. In the one cause the author of the article bothers to cite, Obama was (hold your breath) not swayed by the donor's position on maintaining a tax loophole.

I'm not one to cry to much over campaign finance in any case, but in comparing this to Hilary's financial backers, who in addition to 'bundling' were apparently ready to dump millions of their own money into third party television advertising, I don't see what the beef is.

Hey Chris,

Your fundamental, laughable ignorance is that the winning margin for Obama of critics of your whore'd out candidate AGREE that Obama is also a corporatist candidate, and won't even be that great a president. He's just better than your miserable choice and McCain on other dimensions than his pro-business positions (and no worse on any other). Like having a persona, partially beyond his control, which is likely to help restore our damaged reputation in the world and not playing the race card like Clinton has. Kind of drives you crazy that even the sleaze tactics of Clinton and supporters like you aren't enough, doesn't it?

So thanks for demonstrating once again why Clinton and her supporters offer nothing to anyone except themselves.

From Hillary and Barack.

"He [Obama] is running as a symbol of a new politics, a politics somehow less disgusting and full of shit than the old politics. But if it were to get out that he's not that —that all he is is the same old deal dressed up in black skin and a natty suit —then he quickly morphs into a different kind of symbol, a symbol of how an essentially bankrupt political system can seamlessly repackage itself to a fed-up marketplace by making cosmetic changes, without altering its basic nature."

"Every day, the Clintons come up with some new and brilliantly devious way to color the subliminal background of the electoral canvas, from using comparisons to Jesse Jackson to buttonhole Obama as a "black candidate," to floating rumors of an "unstoppable" Hillary-Obama ticket —despite the fact that Hillary would rather eat a KFC bucket full of her own shit than run with Obama —in order to con on-the-fence voters into thinking that a vote for Hillary might also be a vote for Obama."

Since there are only what? Three of us actively participating in this discussion that support Hillary Clinton; 2 of us are nuts and the other is a poor writer?

I used to think of myself as a progressive Democrat UNTIL the term was used exclusively to describe Senator Obama and his followers. There is nothing he has said or done to lead me to believe that he is the person best suited to represent me if he were POTUS.

As of today I saw on the news where Senator Obama aka The Great Unifier not only thinks that people in small town Pennsylvania ie: small town America “cling” to guns, religion and xenophobia out of bitterness over lost jobs but also that it's not their fault because it was passed onto them throughout the generations.

It is pretty evident that he does not speak for me, a woman from small town America.

Well gosh since I was only 10 years old when Ronald Reagan was elected I really can't say I was all up on politics until 1988 when I was able to vote in my first presidential election. Lucky me, I had an option of George Bush or Michael Dukakis WOOHOO

I have researched and studied both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and with all of the information I have gathered I came to the conclusion that Senator Clinton is the candidate that best represents the things I feel are important to me.

The more Senator Obama opens mouth and inserts foot it just reaffirms my earlier assumption that he does not speak for me as a voter. In the last 16 years I cannot remember ever getting the impression from either President Clinton or Senator Clinton that they were better than or above the people voting for them.

<h2>The more people like you that try to push the ideology of their collective upon me the less inclined I am to ever consider voting for Senator Obama. I'm going to guess that it is that type of behavior that brings about the accusation that Senator Obama's followers exhibit a "cult like mentality".</h2>