For President: Barack Obama

Respectfully, you can't really believe that Barack can restore our image better than the Clintons. Wake up...are you deaf and dumb. The world respects and admires the Clintons. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE EAR OF THE WORLD LEADERS AND THE ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS THAT CAN EXPEDITE IMPORTANT POSITIVE ACTION. What are you thinking? You must be a product of the current trend of "what's in," not what's real and important. If you think, as I do, that we need a world leader, Hillary is in the best position herself (and with her "team" including Bill) to be that influential leader. We found out what mistakes can be made by a "rookie" when Bush was elected. YOU ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF HAVING ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ELECTED BY ENDORSING OBAMA. Can't you think clearly? The election can be affected somewhat like Nader in 2000-- the law of unintended consequences. We need to win the general election. Endorsing Obama is hurting, not helping. I'm very disappointed. Your endorsement is like a preference for a rookie rather than a veteran, even a Hall of Famer. Yes, he has potential; but HE IS NO JOHN KENNEDY. Wake up and smell the coffee. I'm dumbfounded by your endorsement of Barack. SUPERFICIAL, NOT READY FOR PRIME-TIME. You must recognize that talk is cheap. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Bush also SAID the "right" things--"uniter not a divider," "no child left behind," etc. With Barack, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Professionalism must trump "rookie" Barack. He will, hopefully, be ready in 2016. You WANT TO BUY INTO ROMANCE, NOT REAL TALENT. Barack TALKS "HOPE." Blacks, women, the underprivileged, etc. HAVE HOPE. What is needed is the FULFILLMENT OF THEIR HOPES. Hillary has it. Barack is still a bit naive. He needs cliches, like Bush needed--preferring the process to be a superficial popularity contest.
A brief period in the Senate, plus arrogance, does not qualify Barack. How could you?! You also are contributing to Barack's silly effort to destroy the "village" (the Democratic Party) in order to save it. Barack's "House divided" speech obviously didn't apply to his current efforts (and your efforts, I guess) to divide our party. YOU should have waited and supported whomever wins the nomination, period. Fantasyland is not the answer. Life's too short to be little; and Barack and his "team" have attempted to diminish the Clintons--PETTY.

**************

Thanks for the excellent post, chase...I couldn't have said it better myself! Barack is inspiring and talks a good talk about hope and change, but with Hillary, you get proven change that you can count on. I hope that people will look past this editorial which reads just like an Obama fluff piece, seemingly taken right from his campaign website. The Democrats will sure have a fun time against someone like McCain or Romney with a nominee whose best experience is in a state legislature.

To quote Obama from the June 3rd debate, a quote I heard rebroadcast on the radio "Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. ..."

I'm not posting this to debate whether or not everyone or even anyone should learn English if they live in the U.S., but to point out that Obama has made a speculation about the future which has no basis in fact.

Many many people have lived in the U.S. for years and are not English proficient and the mere fact that there are services available in other languages proves that fact. For Obama to say that EVERYBODY is going to learn English--and within the context of what he says it's reasonable to assume he means learn it well enough to be able to communcate without the aid of services in the native languages of those individuals--would be like saying that someday Barbara Bush will run the mile in under four minutes; it's theoretically possible, but there is no history to back the idea that it will happen.

Do with this what you want but it's a pretty bizarre statement and if any of the top gun reporters had any backbone they would query Obama and ask him what he meant when he said that "Everybody" will learn English. In my opinion his statement means A: he thinks we will buy anything he says no matter how aburd it is, B: He has some master plan to ensure every single immigrant will learn English, or C: He's completely out of touch with the real world.

Below I have a google link to the quote which cites many different sources.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

The kind of crap and shallow spin in these comments above --and even more that filled up most of the posting at Blogabarbara-- is exactly why Obama is the true leader of CHANGE and why Clinton still represents the desperation of the past.

Our country needs substantive change, both in terms of foreign policy and domestic economic policy if we hope to maintain the republic for our children and grand-children. Noted scholars and other experts including Chalmers Johnson have postulated our republic has already irreversibly transformed itself into an empire, supported and promoted through our military industrial complex, which can only be overturned through violent revolution. I truly hope this is not the case, but I do believe we need to make a drastic change and make it soon.

Much as I would like to see our first woman President or our first African-American President I don’t believe Senators Clinton and Obama have a platform which recognizes these fundamental flaws. They are both truly remarkable people and certainly anything is better than President Bush and the Bush Doctrine. However in the end their public voting records and campaign platforms are indicative of a further continuation of the military industrial complex and ultimately an end to the republic as we know it.

One candidate has a 20 year voting record and a campaign platform focused on returning our country to its constitutional principles. His name is Dr. Ron Paul.

You might not agree 100% with all his positions but his platform of strict constitutionalism is something that can unite us all. Follow the constitution, give the power back to the States, close the over-seas bases, stop policing the word, reduce spending and return to a sane fiscal policy. We might have different religions, economic backgrounds, educations and radically different lifestyles however we can all live and prosper by following one of the most significant and liberating documents ever conceived and ratified by a free people… the US Constitution. Without it, well you are seeing the result.

Please study and learn the issues before sound bites and more of the same political inaction further damage our republic beyond repair.

Google any of these:

Ron Paul

Military Industrial Complex

Blow Back

José Padilla, admittedly a bad dude but a U.S. Citizen none the less, denied due process for 4 years! By our government… you.

Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Public Law 109-364, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007

No big deal that habeas corpus thing.

Federal Reserve Act

Did you know the Federal Reserve was a private organization paying member firms dividends? Do you know how inflation is really caused and who it really helps?

Fiat Currency

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Watch how easy it is to pooh-pooh a taboo.... The elephant in the room is that the Democratic Party on the national level gets most of its campaign moneys from Jewish sources, so they look for AIPAC's kosher stamp as first order of business. And the Israel Lobby is hawkish, interested in consuming the West Bank on our dime. Obama has cultivated "big Jews" at every step in his career, and his biggest contributors lately have been Jewish finance houses. Obama had some grace allowance when voting against Iraq, because his vote didn't affect the outcome. Will President Obama spite his backers in the future and quash the pro-Israel/corporate pipe dream? Fat chance, I think! There's no point in getting excited about candidates without full public campaign financing. Legal corruption has nullified democracy. Government won't EVER protect us from their financial benefactors.

To Chase: While you might be correct that we might get another Republican if Obama is elected, (Although Ron Paul's anti-imperialist record proves he'd be a huge departure from the status quo) bear in mind that Hillary Clinton had no trouble supporting the war when started.

To those who defend her action by saying "Bush lied", I ask this question: Why is it that people much lower down the political food chain (Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich come to mind) were able to see through this lie? I'm also making the assumption that Hillary Clinton (like 2004 nomimee John Kerry) were victims of deceit as opposed to being willing participants in a bait-and-switch move.

Nonetheless, there ARE alternative choices out there such as Kucinich and Paul (not to mention third parties) and furthermore a principled anti-war candidate just might impress on-the-fence voters enough to get their vote.

I'd rather gamble by voting my conscience than vote for someone with a shaky past, and Hillary's unrepentant switch on the war issue makes me nervous.

The Independent said it perfectly! I find it hard to believe more people haven't responded positively to the editorial. If we look at the qualities of the strongest leaders, we see they have a clear vision of what is possible and the ability to inspire others with that vision. Other qualities which make great and good leaders include intelligence, integrity, wisdom and good judgment, as well as a commitment to the idea that the one who leads must use that power in the service of others. I believe that Obama has these qualities. I recommend people read his books "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope". They give insight into the depth and breadth with which he thinks.

Something to think about: It would be interesting to find out who Lois Capps endorses for the nomination. The reason I'm saying this is because a few months ago I spoke with former assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson who while pointing out that she had been against the war from the beginning, was going to support Hillary for the nomination.

True, Obama did not vote for the war in 2002 since he was not in the US Senate, but when he had the chance to vote against funding the war, he voted in favor. As for his 11 years of legislative experience, what's notable is that he has essentially no legislative record.

There were many occasions in the Illinois legislative that rather than go on record, he chose to vote "present" - allowed in Illinois, but not exactly the mark of a standup guy. In the same way that when there was a chance to distinguish himself against Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding motion about Iran, he was absent, choosing to campaign at Dartmouth. He has criticised Clinton for this vote ( I would also) but one of his strongest supporters, Sen. Durbin, also voted for that "sense of the Senate."

His stump speeches are stirring ...but in Iowa and NH, they were read from a teleprompter, written by his speechwriter, while the other candidates speak without prompting.

A platform of "hope" is a thin gruel for a hungry country.

read my comments that i posted re: MLK Day , and the debate and some of O'Buma's remarks that were made last night , shame on anyone that thinks its funny to ask , " but can he dance " or say ' Then there is 'john' .. whatever that ment . i THINK O'BUMA HAS HIS OWN PLANS , I AM NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE , I DONT THINK THERE ARE OF HOPE , IF I WAS A FEMALE AND A MALE ASKED ME IF MY HUSBAND CAN DANCE , I THINK I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS NICE AS MRS CLINTON . POOR MR EDWARDS WHO IS BATTLING , THE BATTLE OF LIFE IN HIS FAMILY DIDNOT NEED THAT AND SHOULD GET AN APOLOGY FROM O'BUMA AND HIS PEOPLE . I CANT WAIT UNTIL THE RE-PUBLIC-CANS RUN WITH THOSE SOUND BITES IF HE IS THE CANDIDATE OF THE PARTY. THEY DID IT TO GORE , KERRY AND TRIED ON PRESIDENT CLINTON, HE REFUSED TO TAKE THE BITE , BUT GOT BIT IN THE WHITE HOUSE BY A
RE-PUBLIC-CAN OPERATIVE. SHAME ON O'BUMA , SHAME ON ANYONE THAT THOUGHT THAT WAS FUNNY ON MLK DAY. " BUT CAN HE DANCE" SHAME

In the experience context, created by Hillary Clinton, she deserves to be the next President.

Following that line of reasoning, Brett Favre's wife deserves to be the next QB of the Green Bay Packers!