The first is a straw man question, conflating two entirely separate issues and using false analogy. Not even worth responding to.

The third is a single issue I may disagree with Obama on.

As to the second, he said he didn't know what he would do if he were in the senate because he didn't have the information they have. Umm, that's a "duh" statement. No one knows what they would do in a radically different position than they were in. However in the very next sentence he reaffirmed that with the knowledge he did have he would still have voted against it. As for the "not much different from Bush's position" quote, that had to do with going forward from that point. What's done can't be undone, he was simply saying that now that we've made the mistake of going in and destabilizing the country, he considers it our responsibility to stabilize it. And before you can say, "But, he wants a timetable!" I (and he) would argue that the best way to motivate Iraqis to start governing themselves is to let them know that we aren't going to be around to babysit them forever.

So sleepyjeff ... were those questions actually posed to the candidate (i.e., are his answers available)? Or are they hypothetically asked questions?


I think they are good questions. What did Obama say? Did he refuse to answer? Or were they never asked of him?

Precisely, me too. I was definitely planning to campaign for whoever gets the nom, because pre-nom campaigning has broken my heart in the past. But I'll consider it.

They were among a list of questions a pundit by the name of Larry Elder wished that moderators would ask Senators Clinton and Obama.


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder020708.php3

As far as I know they have not been answered although GD did a pretty good job.

I'm not going to do any campaigning until we have a nom.

I'm not really impressed w/ Obama but even if he wins, I will be happy, if for no other reason, because Bush will FINALLY be out of office.

For once, I'm hoping I am contagious. (This post may be jumbled, but it's heartfelt. Sorry about the rambling.)

To start - I read Audacity of Hope and it really impressed me. He is an amazing writer. His arguments are logical, concise, and persuasive. There are certainly points that we do not agree on, but even on those points, his stances do not piss me off, which is rare. I recommend it, just for a good read and an interesting perspective.

In general, his attitude inspires me. The way he inspires other people inspires me. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in his staff, his cabinet. Inspiration of this magnitude can move moutains. He's an orator in a style I think we haven't seen in decades. I know full well that when we elect a President we are really electing an Administration. I believe that he is the kind of inspiring leader that a good Administration requires.

I love his unique perspective. He's lived here and in other countries. He was raised mostly by his mother and grandparents and now does right by his kids to break the cycle. Much of the book is his ruminations on his worries about spending enough time with his family, providing enough support for his wife. He worked his way through college. He's dealt with discrimination and setbacks. He freely admits to large mistakes he's made (such as running a disastrous campaign against an incumbent dem in Illinois). Even in describing the things he's done, he does not come across as boastful - instead, he interjects how he's been lucky and blessed.

After I got about half way through the book I realized what seemed so refreshing. There was a whole section regarding why the public doesn't trust politicians, and why politicians become so unworthy of trust. He breaks down all the reasons why they do what they do, all the pressures, all the quirks of the type of person that gets involved. He tells stories of how he found himself in these bizarre situations and how they made him feel. It was very meta, very observant, and seemed very honest. Again, worth a read.

He's anti-lobbyist. IMHO, "lobbyist" is one of the dirtiest words in our political language. He has not taken a dime from them (and still manages to have plenty of funds, imagine that). He spearheaded reform in both Springfield and Washington. There's a lot in his plan regarding transparency, and a lot in his book regarding his distaste for the bullsh!t that goes on. He wants to reinstate PAYGO, which he has always supported.

Yes, it is important to me that Obama did not support starting the war. It is also important that he recognize that he doesn't know what he would have done, had he been in the Senate at that time. The book was printed in early 2006, and in it he said that he would support a timetable to get us out of Iraq....by end of 2006.

As has been said countless times - Barack and Hillary are similar in many issue respects. This is why, for me, character counts. People came out of the woodwork to vote for him. He is a uniter. His record is clear, and he comes with no baggage. We have such a huge oppportunity to wipe the slate clean, to start fresh!

If we miss this chance, I will be heartbroken, as LSPE put it. The idea that we can put off this wonderful option for 8 years, and risk losing it entirely, is ridiculous to me, but as the electorate has let me down in the past, I'm ready for that possibility. Thing is, he's winning. He has more delegates than Hillary, and got the majority in twice as many states as she has.

I'm sure I've got more to say. Check out Barack's plan while I marshall more thoughts.

It's exciting to see someone fired up over a candidate like CP is about Obama and BDBopper is about Huckabee.
:)

Not according to today's NY Times.

Clinton: 912
Obama: 741

I know delegate counts can be wonky, so feel free to tell me the NY Times is wrong.

CNN's numbers - slightly different but Clinton still leads.

Both CNN and NY Times includes their estimates of superdelegates who can change their vote on any whim and many will certainly do so (in either direction) if a clear winner starts to emerge (so they don't burn themselves with the new leader of the party).

On actual pledged delegates CNN still has Clinton ahead by a few delegates. They were talking about this on All Things Considered yesterday and the guy said that at this point even pledged delegates all still essentially guesses since many states have not yet completed their district counts that are too close to call and the caucus states have only done the first rounds and haven't actually elected state delegates yet.

So, Clinton is ahead on most counts but they're tied within the margin of error for anybody.