Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I knew I liked him. Good speaker, ten years of teaching constitutional law, great ideas about campaign finance reform, opposed the invasion of Iraq.

But I’ve just been doing more reading on his policy ideas and legislative work, and I’m sold.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

And a post from someone on DailyKos about Obama's work in the Illinois State Legislature:

From Congresspedia:

In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago [...] Regarded as a staunch liberal, but also "respected ... as a bipartisan dealmaker," during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance. He successfully helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs. Obama also passed bills that put limits on racial profiling and put cameras in police interrogation rooms.

Please note, Obama's success in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of homicide investigations is really amazing because he had to gain not just the support of fellow legislators but also the support of police--not easy to do. And yet this legislation passed unanimously in the state senate.

From the Washington Post:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped [...] Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure.")

I don't know, doesn't seem Orky enough for me. I won't know till it gets to the Choppa competition.

The choppa competition goes to Hilllary, as she is the only battle axe in the race.

bat·tle-axe n.

1. A heavy broad-headed ax formerly used as a weapon.
2. Slang. A woman held to be antagonistic or overbearing.

That's as close as we'll get to a choppa in office.

If he becomes President I weep for this nation. We've had sixteen years of amateurs. SIXTEEN YEARS. No more amateurs.
He's a fluff politician with no experience in, well anything, who thinks he can lead a country in three wars, deal with China and Russia, deal with the fact we may have hit the inflection point on oil development, and deal with the fact our borders are an open sieve.

Yea right.

The choppa competition goes to Hilllary, as she is the only battle axe in the race.

I think of her more like a mob consigliari then a battleaxe, but to each his own personal preference. I'd rather the mob chick, at least she has some cojones.

@jfrazell - Hillary fan?

Hmm, hope you don't like making money until August. With all the things Clinton wants to do taxes will be raised significantly. I like the proposal of a universal healthcare system, but if people don't want it they shouldn't be fined by the government for it. The taxes that will be embedded into everything we buy on a daily basis will be enough, there's no need to start taking it straight from their paycheck.

As far as Iraq goes I have been very anti-Iraq and the entire war. It's a war for profit at this point and it's getting very ugly. We've stretched our military to the breaking point and we're loosing this thing politically. It doesn't matter how well our troops are doing over there, if the American people don't support it and politics get in the way then we lose. Now, I just spoke with one of my good friends who is a retired Captain in the Army and he explained to me the reason why we went into Iraq. Not the Right wing spin, not the Left wing spin, the actual reason we went in. It now makes strategical sense to me and I can find myself somewhat supporting what could have been. Unfortunately it has been botched horribly. The execution and planning were poor and now we're just stuck. How is she going to "fix" this situation? Simply leave. This was also something I supported until my friend elaborated to me what will happen if this happens. It's a situation over there and I unfortunately don't think any of the current candidates have a solid solution.

Foreign policy with China and Russia? China is going to become a serious threat very soon. The next generation to run China will be predominately male. History has shown that when a society becomes predominately male they go to war. China will be no exception. They will need natural resources which means they can either go north into Mongolia or Russia or the can go west into Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan. Chinese in the middle east is a scary proposition. Chinese picking a fight with a nuclear country like Russia is an even scarier proposition. How is Hilary going to deal with this? Most likely she won't and it will spiral out of control.

I could go on about Hilary and how she's a terrifying prospect for Presidency, but what would I fall back on? McCain? Eh, I'd prefer if we could get out of this super secret government stuff and having these fat cats at the top being paid off by lobbyists. McCain is a vet though which does earn him some serious points in my book. Obama is most likely where my vote goes. Now I'm not lying to myself believing that if he gets the big seat our streets will be paved with gold and none of us will have to work anymore. I'm not naive enough to believe that our current standings with other foreign powers will instantly improve and they'll be building statues of Mickey Mouse in Tiananmen Square. I don't buy that hope alone will provide a chance for the poor to get medical help and the retired to continue to get the Social Security they so rightly deserve. But damnit, you have to start somewhere and I honestly think Obama can get the ball rolling.


This is in no way a personal attack on you jfrazell and I apologize if it seems that way. I'm just trying to point out why I think Hilary is a bad candidite in my opinion. And I'm sure you have many reasons why you think she is great which I would love to hear.

The only people who have experience in this office are former Presidents and VPs. Since that criminal scumbag Cheney isn’t running, and neither is Gore, a non-amateur isn’t an option.

McCain has more foreign policy experience, and I’m glad his personal experiences and military knowledge allow him to take the principled stand on torture that his rivals wouldn’t. But when your most recent 8 years of experience are supporting bad people engaging in policies that sometimes actuallly do evil in the world, that’s not the experience we need.

Obama is the only candidate who said right up front that going into Iraq was a bad idea.

Obama taught constitutional, election, and civil rights law at arguably the best law school in the country. This is someone who will actually respect the Constutition, and the concept of checks and balances, as opposed to abusing and expanding his powers, and claiming new ones, like Bush and Cheney.

He has 11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.

Successes include...

Support for military personnel and their families (S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585, S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585, S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976)...

Controls and limititions on lobbyists and PACs (S.AMDT.41 to S.1)...

Transparency and accountability in military contracting (S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585)...

Several education amendments (S.AMDT.924 to S.761, S.AMDT.923 to S.761, S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21)...

Carbon capture and sequestration (S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21)...

And pushing for a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan (S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764).

Bills authored by him include:

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On voting (Passed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008)
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work. Which is, admittedly, what the TV media are encouraging. What next? Is someone going to repeat a Fox News lie about him being a Muslim, attending a Madrassa, or swearing into office on a Koran?

I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.

Doesnt matter to me really. While everyone who cares, or wants to appear to do so, is out voting, I'll be using my alloted time off from work to be doing something that will actually give me some satisfaction, namely, having an ice cold beer or two on someone else's dime.

Thank you Mannahnin for the link and the examples of Obama's accomplishments. Unfortunately I don't think Obama should get to sit back and say "I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning and I still am today". He wasn't in the Senate when the war in Iraq started, so he didn't get to vote. So therefore he has nothing to lose and much to gain by saying he was against the war. Providing benefits for our boys and girls in the military and their family as well as providing education for our children are strong points.

No offense taken boyo-

Stormtrooper X wrote:@jfrazell - Hillary fan?

Er...no

Mannahnin wrote:The only people who have experience in this office are former Presidents and VPs. Since that criminal scumbag Cheney isn’t running, and neither is Gore, a non-amateur isn’t an option.

I disagree. There are differing levels of experience. Obama has, well none of them.
-No military experience
-No business experience
-No governmental experience. He has no experience managing governmental personnel, agencies, or well anything.
-no federal legislative experience (please house senator or whatever is blindingly irrelevant and only illuminates his lack of gravitas). He’s never chaired anything and actually been there. He’s has a joyous position of not even voting on issues.

Obama taught constitutional, election, and civil rights law at arguably the best law school in the country. This is someone who will actually respect the Constutition, and the concept of checks and balances, as opposed to abusing and expanding his powers, and claiming new ones, like Bush and Cheney.

-Wow, now I’m even more against him. We’re voting on someone to run the country, not play legal touchy feely.
-If I want a lawyer I’d vote for a real lawyer, not a professor.
-I want a Truman, a Teddy Roosevelt. You’re giving me the Paper Chase. No thanks.

11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.

Most of which is in the Illinois statehouse. Big deal. There’s literally thousands of the garden variety politicians running around. Other than taking money from criminals that’s not really impressive.

Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work.

Nope he’s a short term US Senator with no international experience, no business experience, no experience running a governmental entity, and has never “stepped across the aisle” on important legislation to get something done. He’s rated as one of, or the most liberal voting senator in the US senate. He’s a blank slate because he’s done nothing, the real world equivalent to Zaphod Beeblebrox, so everyone acts like he’s the Second coming or something.



Edit:

I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.

Indeed we need someone to make up the Book of Politicians in Stupid Outfits. Can you envision Franklin Roosevelt in a sombrero. I
We could show stupid hats through time and by party starting with the Whigs. Who knows maybe we can dig up Andy Jackson in a nutty hat (looks at painting from battle of New Orleans) oh wait, never mind

Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Mannahnin, that last paragraph sounds a little "slippery slope". Just because you question Obama's experience, or his party, or whatever, doesnt imply that you're next going to be propagating some silly malarkey about purported connection to islam. Anyhow, why does anyone care what his religious affiliation is, I dont think it would necessarily affect his ability or desire to deal with the current issues.

The point I was getting at is that there is what I perceive to be a false portrayal of Obama in the media as being “style over substance” or a “lightweight”. Whether it’s out of actual ignorance, trying to write a dramatic narrative, or a deliberate effort to misrepresent him. The Muslim stuff I ctied three other false claims made about him, and repeated by credulous media sources (Fox News, prominently, though not alone).

Unfortunately there is no restriction on what the media can say. Which is a good and bad thing. I also believe firmly that the media dictates who wins the nomination. Someone like Ron Paul or Bill Richardson doesn't have a shot in hell because the media simply won't let them.

I believe there's scuttlebutt that Paul is about to drop out. his campaign was like the only one that didn't call my house Tuesday.

jfrazell wrote:I disagree. There are differing levels of experience. Obama has, well none of them.
-No military experience
-No business experience
-No governmental experience. He has no experience managing governmental personnel, agencies, or well anything.
-no federal legislative experience (please house senator or whatever is blindingly irrelevant and only illuminates his lack of gravitas). He’s never chaired anything and actually been there. He’s has a joyous position of not even voting on issues.

biography.com wrote:
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Foreign Relations Committee
- Veterans Affairs Committee
- 2005 and 2006: served on the Environment and Public Works Committee

“No Federal Legislative experience”? You’re joking, right? Do you think I just made those bills up?

jfrazell wrote:
-Wow, now I’m even more against him. We’re voting on someone to run the country, not play legal touchy feely.
-If I want a lawyer I’d vote for a real lawyer, not a professor.
-I want a Truman, a Teddy Roosevelt. You’re giving me the Paper Chase. No thanks.

He was a real lawyer. He entered Harvard Law in ’88, in ’90 was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in ’91. He went back to Chicago after graduation and worked as a Civil Rights lawyer, then was elected to the state senate in ’96.

biography.com wrote: During these years, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting legislation on ethics, expanded health care services and early childhood education programs for the poor. He also created a state earned-income tax credit for the working poor. And after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

He taught on the side from 1993 to 2004, and was so good that he was offered a full-time faculty position at U of Chicago Law School, which again, is one of the best in the country. He declined, because he preferred politics.

In 2004 he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

biography.com wrote: Sworn into office January 4, 2005, Obama partnered with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Eastern Europe and Russia. Then with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, he created a website that tracks all federal spending.

Obama was also the first to raise the threat of avian flu on the Senate floor, spoke out for victims of Hurricane Katrina, pushed for alternative-energy development and championed improved veterans’ benefits. He also worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress.

Roosevelt went into the NY legislature right out of Harvard for 2 years, then ran a ranch for 2 years, served as US Civil Service Commissioner for 6, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for only 1 year before resigning to join the military when we went to war with Spain. This was a very popular war, and his heroic status got him the Governorship of NY (2 years), the VP spot (for 1 year), and he fell into the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated.

Truman was an elected Senator for 10 years before becoming VP then President. Before that he just held county seats. Before that he worked for the Democratic party, ran an unsuccessful clothing store, and was a Lt in WWI.

Both were VPs first, neither had much executive experience before becoming President. Roosevelt had a massive 2 years of legislative experience, compared to Truman’s 10 and Obama’s 11. Granted that the Illinois state senate isn’t as impressive as the US Senate, but it’s nothing to sneeze at.

jfrazell wrote:

11 years of elected legislative experience. If you look at his and Hilllary’s work in the Senate for 2007 (my first link above), he got more bills and amendments and had more cosponsors on the bills he authored.

Most of which is in the Illinois statehouse. Big deal. There’s literally thousands of the garden variety politicians running around. Other than taking money from criminals that’s not really impressive.

No, I’m talking about his time in the US Senate here. His work in Illinois wasn’t trivial either (see examples above).

jfrazell wrote:

Calling him a fluff politician just demonstrates a shallow misconception of his abilities and pure ignorance of his legislative work.

Nope he’s a short term US Senator with no international experience, no business experience, no experience running a governmental entity, and has never “stepped across the aisle” on important legislation to get something done.

Bullpucky. Working with Dick Lugar on WMDs in Eastern Europe and Russia isn’t important? Working with Senator Coburn on creating a website to track all Federal spending isn’t important?

jfrazell wrote: He’s rated as one of, or the most liberal voting senator in the US senate.

Good. “All progress in human history is due to liberalism”- George McGovern.

jfrazell wrote: He’s a blank slate because he’s done nothing, the real world equivalent to Zaphod Beeblebrox, so everyone acts like he’s the Second coming or something.

Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You are reiterating a common attack of his opponents’, based largely on plain ignorance of his education, work history, qualifications, and legislative work.

IMO, things don't look overly promising for Obama right now.

According to recent news, NEITHER Democratic candidate can get enough delegates to win candidacy. That means they have to go back to Michigan & Florida.
They're talking about voting all over again in those states, if they can ever decide who's going to pay for it.

Hillary stuck with those states more than any other candidate. She's got an "up" on Obama in those states, now.
People tend to remember who slighted them & who stuck with them. Plus, Obama had his name removed from those ballots for a reason. I believe that he didn't think he could beat Hillary in either of them. If people had a CHOICE of who to vote for, and he came out on bottom, it would have meant a lot of lost momentum, and not a few people using it as a point against him.

If those states vote again, I'd be worried for Obama, if I was a fan of his... or if i were him.

That being said, I DO like him... I just prefer Hillary.

My ideal ticket would be Hillary/Obama.

Eric

double post

jfrazell wrote:Wait you're trying to convince me someone who was "sworn into office" in 2005 has experience? Thats all of TWO YEARS. BIG Deal

Again, I restate. No More Amateurs. Haven't we learned enough from Clinton / Bush?


Its interesting that Truman (one of my personal favorites, is cited). Note truman served 5x as long before being VP to a sitting president.

Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You are reiterating a common attack of his opponents’, based largely on plain ignorance of his education, work history, qualifications, and legislative work.

Sorry Manny, but frankly you're just insulting those who disagree with you. I am keenly aware of his (lack of) work history and accomplishments.

Lets compare
1970s onward

-Nixon. Governor, legislator. Only Nixon could go to China (had to throw that in there)
-Ford. Er…watch that step Mr. President!
-Carter. Governor
-Reagan. Governor
-Bush. Former VP. CIA and other agency wonk.
-Clinton. Governor
-Bush. Governor (in Texas defense he was coherent back then)
-Obama. Junior senator-hasn’t served one term.

So if you're not for Obama and not for Clinton then are you for McCain?

I am for the best candidate on the ballot. I'm pro McCain at this point. Anyone who has the brass/is nutty enough to say "we're like Luke Skywalker fighting it out in the Deathstar" while on the stump makes me give them a second look.

I keep thinking what if McCain had won the Republican ticket in 2000. I also keep wondering where all the titans of yore have gone to guide us in this dark hour. There is no Roosevelt, no Truman, no Eisenhower, no Tricky Dick, just the B team. is this the best there is? Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton must be holding them all hostage in a bunker somewhere? Send out the bloodhounds!

I don't care about his opinion on invading Iraq in 2003. That's worthless to me now. My opinion depends on where does he stand on US interests and our responsibilities in 2009, and what does he intend to do about it. I have issues with anyone who's solution is to simply pull out US troops because they don't like the decision in 2003 (not saying Obama said this). That's reactive, not proactive. That's looking back, not forward.

The reason I prefer Obama to Hillary is his leadership abilities. The president is an executive, not a legislator. He provides vision, not bills.

I trust McCain far more on Iraq because he has a real vested interest in it, he has one son in the Marines and another graduating from the Naval Academy in 2009. He's the ONLY candidate with blood on the line over there. So any proselytizing that he secretly supports the war for any reason other than he believes in the outcome loses Occam's Razor. He's risking far more for his beliefs than Obama or Clinton. That doesn't make him right. It does dignify his stance, though.

dienekes96 wrote:I don't care about his opinion on invading Iraq in 2003. That's worthless to me now. My opinion depends on where does he stand on US interests and our responsibilities in 2009, and what does he intend to do about it. I have issues with anyone who's solution is to simply pull out US troops because they don't like the decision in 2003 (not saying Obama said this). That's reactive, not proactive. That's looking back, not forward.

The reason I prefer Obama to Hillary is his leadership abilities. The president is an executive, not a legislator. He provides vision, not bills.

I trust McCain far more on Iraq because he has a real vested interest in it, he has one son in the Marines and another graduating from the Naval Academy in 2009. He's the ONLY candidate with blood on the line over there. So any proselytizing that he secretly supports the war for any reason other than he believes in the outcome loses Occam's Razor. He's risking far more for his beliefs than Obama or Clinton. That doesn't make him right. It does dignify his stance, though.

That is one big reason I think McCain is the smartest choice for the Republicans right now. My luck we'll end up having to choose between Huckabee and Hillary, and if that happens, all kidding aside, I opt out.

I keep thinking "What if McCain would have slapped Bush back into his seat after talking some serious back then". Like I said, McCain gets some points in my book for being a vet and for saying some strong words back in the day, but the Bush regime has clipped his testicles.

My favorite from McCain though was when a reporter in Arizona asked him "McCain, you claim to be an Arizona native, yet you weren't born here". and McCain replied... "Look, the longest time I ever spent in one place was the 7 years I spent in a Vietnam PoW camp. If I feel like saying I'm from Arizona then that's where I'm from". If only he could do some of that today.

Agreed Stormtrooper X.

I respect the opinions of those pro-Hillary and Obama, I just believe that Obama is qualified to be President only because he is a blank slate who hasn't done anything. His policy intiiaive statenments have been to attack into Pakistan (I'm ok with that you just do it quietly) and return to Iraq IF Al Qaeda is there...er missed some current events there Obamamamma. But none of them are perfect and the first one to say I will close the US borders in 100 days or I will resign gets my vote and my money.

Judgement is a critical issue. We are presently locked into an immoral war of choice in Iraq. While we ARE stuck there, and DO have obligations there other than just “pull out now”, the opinions people had of the war before it happened and going in more certainly ARE relevant. This war is an evil. McCain supported it, most likely in genuine (though mistaken) belief that the results would be better than they have been. If he misjudged the reasons for going to war, and guessed wrong about the outcome, he’s already flubbed the most obvious test of his primary qualification- military and foreign policy experience.

Grignard- Huckabee pulled out of the race Tuesday night.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1566

Mannahnin wrote:Judgement is a critical issue. We are presently locked into an immoral war of choice in Iraq. While we ARE stuck there, and DO have obligations there other than just “pull out now”, the opinions people had of the war before it happened and going in more certainly ARE relevant. This war is an evil. McCain supported it, most likely in genuine (though mistaken) belief that the results would be better than they have been. If he misjudged the reasons for going to war, and guessed wrong about the outcome, he’s already flubbed the most obvious demonstration of his primary qualification- military and foreign policy experience.

But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?

Its easy for him to say he was against something. He had no dog in that hunt and was coming from a relatively liberal state. Whats he going to do NOW?

But circumstances change. Is it not good for a leader to be able to change his position in light of a changing situation than to cling desperately to a sinking ship for no better reason than momentum?

Absolutely. And if he were still the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” from 2000, the guy who many of my fellow liberal and centrist friends liked and supported, the guy who got smeared and wrecked by the Rove/Bush campaign machine, he might have stood up and spoken out against it. Instead he acted like a soldier instead of a statesman, backing the immoral decisions of the very people who sabotaged and smeared him in 2000.

jfrazell wrote:Its easy for him to say he was against something. He had no dog in that hunt and was coming from a relatively liberal state. Whats he going to do NOW?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

I also think immoral and evil are judgemental terms...I really am not convinced any decision was made out of conscious evil. For that matter, what is meant by evil?

The fact I am sitting here on a Friday with no chocolate cake is proof of conscious evil on somebody's part.