Senator Obama looks and sounds PRESIDENTIAL

[gaiilonfong]

He is so articulate and thoughtfull.

[journalist3072]

1. Excuse me, but the stuttering idiot I saw on Wolf Blitzer theother day didn't hardly look

presidential. Stuttering his way through his response to Wolf Blitzer's question about David Axelrod.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Kills you that he's so admired, doesn't it?

[journalist3072]

3. Grow up.....I see you have no actual response to his stuttering performance on Wolf Blitzer

the other day.

[BeyondGeography]

6. He ran all over Wolf and his bogus spin; as a Democrat, you should have applauded

but your issues get in the way.

[journalist3072]

15. As a Registered Independent, I don't need you to tell me how to think..

Obama SPUN his own adviser's comments. Wolf Blitzer didn't spin anything.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Oh, so he didn't just stutter?

[Nedsdag]

33. BG, you can't talk to journalist3072

She's so drunk on the Hillary Kool-Aid, she can't see straight.

She needs detox immediately!

[gaiilonfong]

36. It will take 3 orders of Kinoki foot pads

LMAO

[Nedsdag]

40. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[thoughtcrime1984]

51. Thank goodness for the ignore feature

Now I don't even see most of the garbage on DU!

[jenmito]

50. Blitzer TRIED to spin Axelrod's answer to a reporter's question into an unprovoked attack on Hillary

Wolf FAILED. He was put in his place by Obama who set the record straight.

[Cha]

55. This coming from a hillary

surrogate..like I believe anything you say about Obama. Ha.

[loveangelc]

73. you cannot be taken seriously.

[gaiilonfong]

7. Interesting that HillShills talk about a persons idiosyncracy

INSTEAD of their words. The way Obama talks is ok to make fun of according to the HillShills...
TOTALLY DISGUSTING
Why not just keep repeating like a tic...Huseein, Hussein, Hussein....
You are as terrible as your candidate and her attack ROVE Wolfson.

[papau]

12. Obama had a bad inarticulate day - it happens to everyone n/t

[journalist3072]

21. That was not about having an inarticulate day. That was about HIM not knowing how to

defend the indefensible.....He was trying to make an excuse for Axelrod's comments whent here realy was no excuse. More than coming across as inarticulate, he came across as someone who got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

[papau]

67. he did not back down on today's Meet The Press - still defends Axelrod - but after repeating the

logic that blames Hillary for her death, he then says he is "of course Not saying" she helped cause or is responsible for the lady's death. He even changed history of what was said - He claimed Axelrod never tied the vote to what happened in Pakistan -but Axelrod said, "and we see the result of it..."



Very Slick

[elizm]

37. "Grow up"....is that your response to everyone and everything?

Should we all aspire to be as 'mature' as you???

[earthlover]

45. You can call someone "the stuttering idiot" than call someone else childish?

How does that work?

[MethuenProgressive]

26. by less than 25% of Democrats? They don't admire him, they just hate Hill.

Bush won because people didn't like Kerry - and Obama's hoping that works for him, too.

[alteredstate]

31. Obviously you missed his interview with Tim Russert this morning

Obama was magnificent.

[gaiilonfong]

38. That is why the HillsHills are upset

He didn't repeat focus group talking points, he actually thought about the questions and he sounded Human, not a Wolfson computer response

[papau]

68. Perhaps "very slick" is a better description of Obama blaming Hillary for Bhutto death then

pretending he was not doing so. He even changed history of what was said - He claimed Axelrod never tied the vote to what happened in Pakistan -but Axelrod said, "and we see the result of it..."


But you are correct - he did not back down on today's Meet The Press - still defends Axelrod - but after repeating the logic that blames Hillary for her death, he then says he is "of course Not saying" she helped cause or is responsible for the lady's death.

Very Slick

[Bitwit1234]

57. The Obama suck ups are deaf dumb and blind if they think this

person sounds and looks like a president. They must be still in kindergarten.

[alteredstate]

66. Do you really think your nastiness does your candidate any good?

It makes both of you look bad.

[Califooyah Operative]

98. That's a pretty low comment...

To attack him based on a speech impediment and then to call him an Idiot. He's a very intelligent man and an excellent speaker, stutter and all. Your attack on the other hand is what I'd expect from people at free republic not DU.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. did you see him get away with changing Axelrod's statement?

He claimed Axelrod never tied the vote to what happened in Pakistan. Axelrod said, "and we see the result of it..."

I knew he would be softballed on MTP.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

11. I am watching right now on MTP and I am not impressed. He is whining

about the meanies who run ads against him (he didn't expect this from the Dems, what in heck does he think is in store from the repugs if he is the candidate?), he is underwhelming, using platitudes instead of real answers, and just coming off as green as grass and not ready for the big game. I still haven't made a decision on who I will vote for in my primary - heck Kentucky's primary isn't until May so I expect the field to be much smaller by then but Obama won't be on my list of possibilities based on him performance over the last three months. He has not impressed me at all. Just one person' opinion but he utterly failed in his appearance on MTP this morning to change any minds into voting for him.

[gaiilonfong]

20. All I can say is BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA

sour grapes, because he is clear and natural, and doesn't regurgitate focus groupo talking points like Queen Hillary!

[Democrat 4 Ever]

22. You can say that over and over but it still doesn't make it true.

Just stick your head back into the sand and keep pretending that Obama didn't bomb on MTP. Presidential, in his dreams on his best night, but that is as close as he came to it today.

[closeupready]

49. I agree with you. I was not especially impressed with what he had to say, or how

he said it. He actually sounded fake, to me.

For example, Russert would ask him a question, and he pauses, and then goes, "Look. This is what I'm saying". He used this tired rhetorical device three or four times, as an attempt to seem as though he were taking charge of the interview. I almost wanted to make a game of it, predicting when he was next going to say, "Look!"

[jenmito]

56. I was VERY impressed with not only what he said but how he said it.

You consider taking charge of an interview a BAD thing? He answered the questions unlike Hillary who NEVER answers questions. Remember when David Gregory asked if she agreed with her husband that voting for Obama would be a roll of the dice? She would only NOT respond by saying things like, "Read the editorial of the Des Moines Register." Obama, on the other hand, answers the questions.

[closeupready]

58. No, he was evasive, as usual. For example,

Russert asked if Musharraf could be considered partially responsible for the attack on Bhutto due to inadequate security. Obama said something like, "I don't want to get into that."

Well, why the heck not, Obama? It's important to know the answer to that question. Sensitive question, but you have to be tough as president, and talk straight to people. If he can't do that, then that says something about his character.

[jenmito]

60. Then you weren't listening...

he answered that there needs to be an investigation done to see what happened there.

[ellisonz]

101. It's called evidence...

Which is why both Obama and Edwards called for an independent investigation!

[jenmito]

102. Post #58 had it all wrong. I just watched the interview again. The poster claimed his response

was, "I don't want to get into that." That's a lie. He didn't say that at ALL. He directly answered the question, as I stated, and he said more than I wrote, too, about making sure Musharraf would be cooperative with us, etc. Some people here apparently just make stuff up.

[closeupready]

103. Verbatim, maybe not. But that's what he said, more or less.

n/t

[jenmito]

104. You're 100% wrong. Here's video of that part of the show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/ Click on "Obama: Pakistan needs credible elections."

[closeupready]

106. No, I am not 100% wrong. Russert asked: was her security inadequate? Obama: I don't know.

And my opinion is that it is 100% ridiculous to say or imply that her security was anything better than completely inadequate - or even to leave that question unanswered, because clearly, it was inadequate, and that was what Musharraf's responsibility was. You can disagree, but that's why I think you are totally wrong that Obama looked and talked presidential with Russert.

[jenmito]

107. Just to remind you of what you posted,

you said, "Russert asked if Musharraf could be considered partially responsible for the attack on Bhutto due to inadequate security. Obama said something like, "I don't want to get into that."

He DID get into that.

[closeupready]

108. This is my last response to this topic. To evade a question is to say essentially, "I don't want to

get into that." That's what I meant.

Have a great night. :hi:

[jenmito]

109. Only he DIDN'T SAY THAT or DO that as the video shows.

Good night. :hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

28. That bit was Presidential.George Bush Presidential, that is.

Obama would've made a great Republican.

[maddiejoan]

5. so do the audioanimatronic machines

in Disneyland's Hall Of The Presidents.

[NYCGirl]

8. And is that why you're voting for one of them? NT

[maddiejoan]

10. Nope

I'm voting for Senator Clinton.

[NYCGirl]

13. I know.

Actually, the audioanimatronic figures are warmer than she is.

[maddiejoan]

23. I see you gobble up Media talking points

as if they are candy.

good for you!

[NYCGirl]

27. Oh, that bad old media!

:evilgrin:

[gaiilonfong]

16. Make sure you put on a iron suit

For when you are thrown under the bus after she uses you and doesn't need you anymore

[maddiejoan]

24. sure sport, whatever

maybe I should vote for Obama?

He's already thrown me under the bus.

[Colobo]

9. He dominated Tim Russert.

[gaiilonfong]

14. And after HuckaTROLL you really saw the MAJOR difference

Between a progressive and a disgusting ReTHUGlican megalomaniac snake oil salesman!

[alteredstate]

34. I agree!!!!

[Democrat 4 Ever]

17. Now, that is funny. He didn't dominate Tim Russert, lame performance.

Didn't help himself at all.

[Colobo]

41. He answered every single question in a presidential manner.

He didn't let Timmy get him out of his game. Admit it: it was a great performance.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. really? It sure depends on your perspective--proof that when

people make up their minds, there is no changing it. He was so softballed by Russert. And, of course we expected it, but still. Dang. They are really setting him up.

[MethuenProgressive]

29. Russert tossed softballs, and Obama hit weak grounders.

The MSM has selected their Jesus.

[alteredstate]

42. Bullshit

You're just sore because Obama did a great job today.

[MethuenProgressive]

47. Obviously you didn't watch it.

Enjoy your altered state of reality.

[alteredstate]

54. I watched it. n/t

[alteredstate]

32. Yes, he dominated Tim Russert.

[K Gardner]

25. What kind of response did you expect from the HillShills that gave us this gem of a thread :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3900080&mesg_id=3900080

Obama did a great job today, gailonfong. He was articulate and very impressive.
You have reason to be proud, as do we all. Enjoy the moment and don't let the roving gangs ruin it for you :-)

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. tell us K Gardner--what problem did you have with Clinton's response?

[gaiilonfong]

43. Thank you and did you notice they called her a Queen

We don't need a friggin Queen, we don't have a monarchy.
Interesting how the Clintons and their supporters always expose their real feelings and agenda.
By the way Biden is my 2nd choice and I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him as President!!!!!

[indimuse]

35. lol..

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[elizm]

39. Yes, he did....and he IS! :) nt

[Carrieyazel]

44. No, he sounds a lot like the candidates we've nominated before who lost

He's oratorical. He's giving speeches to us. He's a Senator.

His voice does not have that easygoing, conversational tone. With so many of the Independents deciding on "who's the candidate you can sit down with and have a drink", Obama just does not have that going for him. He's also being cautious. Not as cautious as Hillary of course, but it's not going to get it done.

[jenmito]

59. He sounds sincere...

And his tone is the best of the Dems., unlike the grating tone of Hillary and the annoying drawl of Edwards. Obama is inspirational. And regarding who you want to have a beer with, Hillary recently said, "We tried that in 2000 and got George Bush." That's ONE thing I agree with her on.

[alteredstate]

61. He IS sincere.

[jenmito]

63. Yes, he is. I was just using the other poster's words about how he sounded to him/her.

:hi:

[annie1]

46. in some ways yes, in some ways no. he looks like a kid being on his best behavior in a new school.

[TwilightGardener]

48. So true, so true.

[Didereaux]

52. so does the automaton t Disneyland! and any second rate actor with a good script

[Colobo]

53. Yeah, Hillary is a good example of that.

[LWolf]

62. What, exactly, does that mean?

Every presidential primary, looking and sounding "presidential" comes into play. It seems to mean different things to different people.

What I've been able to gather from all sides is that "sounding" presidential means that a candidate can speak eloquently. Substantive dialog is not necessary.

"Looking" presidential means that the president is tall and looks good in a suit.

What that leaves me to conclude is that U.S. citizens care more for form than substance. They care about the impression their candidate makes with looks and sounds more than they care about brains, integrity, or commitment.

I find that to be frankly appalling and humiliating. Couldn't you find something of substance to compliment your candidate on? I mean, I know he looks and sounds good. But isn't there anything under the looks and sounds to capture potential voters' attention?

Or is this just a glorified "Miss/Mr. Congeniality" contest?

[jenmito]

64. Your understanding of "presidential" is not my understanding of it...

It's not a superficial thing. It means he knows what he's talking about, tells us what he really believes, answers the questions rather than avoiding them, and should be president as a result.

[LWolf]

65. That's not what I get.

I get that people believe that if a candidate says it, it must be true, and the candidate must MEAN it.

In other words, people feel safe if it sounds good and they can "trust" someone besides themselves to be "right."

Please note that this is not a criticism of Obama, per se, but of the "presidential" characterization that I feel is abused and misused.

I would ask again: what, of substance, could be offered in place of "looking and sounding presidential" to attract voters?

"He knows what he is talking about" is an unsubstantiated opinion.

"He tells us what he really believes" is an unprovable opinion.

Both of the above merely indicate a desire to trust and to believe on the part of the listener, rather than anything about the speaker.

That leaves the "answers questions." His answers might sway some, if there is reason to believe that he would walk his talk when in office.

The BEST way to reach voters, imo, is to present a platform that people can get behind, and then present evidence that he has already been working for the very things in his platform BEFORE he announced his candidacy.

[jenmito]

69. Well,

If you know anything about Obama's record, he HAS been working for things he's campaigning on now for over ten years and closer to twenty. The things he said today on MTP confirmed to me, and I'm sure others, that he means what he says and says what he means. And the conclusion of this is that he looked and sounded like the next president. He DID present a platform that people can get behind and he DID back it up with things he did in the past.

[LWolf]

70. So share it.

Share how his record relates to his current platform, and what is good about it.

That's what I mean. That would be sharing something of substance, rather than the "presidential" thing.

[jenmito]

71. Did you watch MTP? Do you know anything about his past record?

This article spells out some of what makes him the best person to be president:

"Senator Obama has ten years of senate experience: eight years in Springfield, and two years in Washington, D.C. In reviewing Senator Obama's 10 years of senate experience, two themes are prominent: when his party was in the minority for 8 of those 10 years, Senator Obama seemed focused on looking for pragmatic, nonpartisan ways to pass bills while working with the Republican majority. In the only 2 years in which his party was in the majority, and he had the votes to pass the bills he wanted, Senator Obama was a champion of the powerless - while still considering Republican concerns and treating them with respect.

Barack Obama is a progressive. He has an 82.5 liberal rating in 2005 by the National Journal. On votes in the U.S. Senate that were decided largely along party lines, Senator Obama sided with the Democrats 97% of the time. And he had a liberal voting record in the Illinois State Senate. In 2006, he received 100% approval rating from: The League of Conservation Voters (he opposed drilling in ANWR, and in parts of Gulf of Mexico); AFL-CIO (he sponsored legislation blocking overtime restrictions by the Bush administration); Planned Parenthood. The National Education Association gives him an "A" on their most recent scorecard.

His eight years in Springfield are important for many reasons. It demonstrated: his political courage (e.g. to oppose bills he believes are unconstitutional); the ease with which he interacted with Republicans (socially, and in political negotiations); his work ethic, as he drafted many bills that became law; his ability to quickly absorb complex issues; his desire to carefully consider all opinions; his efforts to incorporate into his bills the ideas of both Democrats and Republicans; and, most importantly, it gave him the opportunity to handle many of the same political issues and bills that face U.S. senators and presidential candidates. I will elaborate on each of these below.

...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/1000AmericansforObama/CHjY

[LWolf]

74. I do not watch tv news or talk shows.

Thanks for your link, although I'm already aware of his past record. Those are better "talking points" than any ambiguous claims to being "presidential," which is MY point.

[alteredstate]

78. I'll post a link to this morning's MTP as soon as it is available.

[LWolf]

88. That's kind of you.

In all honesty, it is a personal choice not to give media programs any of my time or space. I'm more likely to spend time on other sources.

I think it's fine that candidates use these venues, since the majority of people DO watch. It's just not my choice.

[jenmito]

80. Well,

if you read the link, they were things he accomplished-not talking points.

[LWolf]

87. I did read the link, and responded to you there. n/t

[jenmito]

90. Then why was your response that those were talking points? In your earlier post

you said you want to see a candidate's past accomplishments to see he actually walked the walk rather than just talking the talk. :shrug: Here are your exact words:

"The BEST way to reach voters, imo, is to present a platform that people can get behind, and then present evidence that he has already been working for the very things in his platform BEFORE he announced his candidacy."

[LWolf]

97. sigh

Please read the conversation again, and remember that I was responding to the OP:

The OP, which you did not post:

"Senator Obama looks and sounds PRESIDENTIAL He is so articulate and thoughtfull."

My response, at post # 62: "What, exactly, does that mean? Every presidential primary, looking and sounding "presidential" comes into play. It seems to mean different things to different people.

What I've been able to gather from all sides is that "sounding" presidential means that a candidate can speak eloquently. Substantive dialog is not necessary.

"Looking" presidential means that the president is tall and looks good in a suit.

What that leaves me to conclude is that U.S. citizens care more for form than substance. They care about the impression their candidate makes with looks and sounds more than they care about brains, integrity, or commitment.

I find that to be frankly appalling and humiliating. Couldn't you find something of substance to compliment your candidate on? I mean, I know he looks and sounds good. But isn't there anything under the looks and sounds to capture potential voters' attention?

Or is this just a glorified "Miss/Mr. Congeniality" contest?"

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTING IN MY POST ABOUT OBAMA, BUT ABOUT USING THE AMIGUOUS "LOOKS AND SOUNDS PRESIDENTIAL" AS A TALKING POINT.

You then jumped in with post # 64:

"Your understanding of "presidential" is not my understanding of it...

It's not a superficial thing. It means he knows what he's talking about, tells us what he really believes, answers the questions rather than avoiding them, and should be president as a result."

You tell me that "presidential" means some things that you apply personally to Barack Obama without subtantiation. While I was not referring to Barack Obama at all, but to the idea that "looking and sounding presidential" is a weak talking point, I now must respond to Obama, since you've thrown him back into it. Even though my point had nothing to do with him. I do so in post # 65:

That's not what I get.

I get that people believe that if a candidate says it, it must be true, and the candidate must MEAN it.

In other words, people feel safe if it sounds good and they can "trust" someone besides themselves to be "right."

Please note that this is not a criticism of Obama, per se, but of the "presidential" characterization that I feel is abused and misused.

I would ask again: what, of substance, could be offered in place of "looking and sounding presidential" to attract voters?

"He knows what he is talking about" is an unsubstantiated opinion.

"He tells us what he really believes" is an unprovable opinion.

Both of the above merely indicate a desire to trust and to believe on the part of the listener, rather than anything about the speaker.

That leaves the "answers questions." His answers might sway some, if there is reason to believe that he would walk his talk when in office.

The BEST way to reach voters, imo, is to present a platform that people can get behind, and then present evidence that he has already been working for the very things in his platform BEFORE he announced his candidacy.

There. I've reiterated my point about what makes a good talking point. I still have not offered any particular comment about Obama. Just comments about the talking points in question.

You respond in post # 69 as if I'd challenged Barack Obama. You offered a tv appearance as evidence:

" Well, If you know anything about Obama's record, he HAS been working for things he's campaigning on now for over ten years and closer to twenty. The things he said today on MTP confirmed to me, and I'm sure others, that he means what he says and says what he means. And the conclusion of this is that he looked and sounded like the next president. He DID present a platform that people can get behind and he DID back it up with things he did in the past."

I respond, in post # 70, with a suggestion that you actually talk about the things he said, instead of the fact that he said them:

"So share it.

Share how his record relates to his current platform, and what is good about it.

That's what I mean. That would be sharing something of substance, rather than the 'presidential' thing."

Unfortunately, this response drags the point to Obama, instead of to the whole point of my original post in this thread: that "looking and sounding presidential" is a weak talking point. We are now "off topic," as far as my participation in the conversation is concerned.

You jump on to the "off" topic in post # 71, asking me if I watched "MTP." Apparently, watching somebody else talk on tv is supposed to be a substitute for making a substantive point about a candidate. Still, you did what I asked you to do; you provided some talking points that included his record:

"Did you watch MTP? Do you know anything about his past record?

This article spells out some of what makes him the best person to be president:

"Senator Obama has ten years of senate experience: eight years in Springfield, and two years in Washington, D.C. In reviewing Senator Obama's 10 years of senate experience, two themes are prominent: when his party was in the minority for 8 of those 10 years, Senator Obama seemed focused on looking for pragmatic, nonpartisan ways to pass bills while working with the Republican majority. In the only 2 years in which his party was in the majority, and he had the votes to pass the bills he wanted, Senator Obama was a champion of the powerless - while still considering Republican concerns and treating them with respect.

Barack Obama is a progressive. He has an 82.5 liberal rating in 2005 by the National Journal. On votes in the U.S. Senate that were decided largely along party lines, Senator Obama sided with the Democrats 97% of the time. And he had a liberal voting record in the Illinois State Senate. In 2006, he received 100% approval rating from: The League of Conservation Voters (he opposed drilling in ANWR, and in parts of Gulf of Mexico); AFL-CIO (he sponsored legislation blocking overtime restrictions by the Bush administration); Planned Parenthood. The National Education Association gives him an "A" on their most recent scorecard.

His eight years in Springfield are important for many reasons. It demonstrated: his political courage (e.g. to oppose bills he believes are unconstitutional); the ease with which he interacted with Republicans (socially, and in political negotiations); his work ethic, as he drafted many bills that became law; his ability to quickly absorb complex issues; his desire to carefully consider all opinions; his efforts to incorporate into his bills the ideas of both Democrats and Republicans; and, most importantly, it gave him the opportunity to handle many of the same political issues and bills that face U.S. senators and presidential candidates. I will elaborate on each of these below.

...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/100... "

In post # 74, I tell you that I think these make better talking points than the "presidential" thing, even though I won't be picking them up off of "meet the press:"

"I do not watch tv news or talk shows.

Thanks for your link, although I'm already aware of his past record. Those are better "talking points" than any ambiguous claims to being "presidential," which is MY point."

You then respond, in post # 80, with this, even though I've already thanked you for the link:

"Well, if you read the link, they were things he accomplished-not talking points."

I refer you to what I already posted in # 74:

"I did read the link, and responded to you there. n/t"

Now you want to argue about what a "talking point" is.

For the record, a "talking point" is something that you use to make your point.

I suggested, in the conversation above, (posts 65 and 70, if you need to look back), that RECORD makes a better talking point than "looking and sounding presidential." I should have rephrased it perhaps, to suggest that the OP use those as talking points, since that's what my participation has been about.

I hope you truly understand that.

Since I've done the best I can to make my point, which STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BARACK OBAMA, this will be the last time I respond in this thread.

[jenmito]

99. Thanks for the recap...

it's too bad you won't respond to this post so I won't bother posting the brilliant response I have ready. :D

[alteredstate]

72. Obama sounded presidential in October 2002.....

"I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, 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 a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 arm-chair, 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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. 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, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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 US 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 today. 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 the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation 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.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

Barack Obama
October 26, 2002

[jenmito]

75. Thank you for posting this to remind people (or even show some people who don't even KNOW)

that he spoke out strongly against it when it was unpopular to do so. The other day, a poster who apparently didn't know about this, said it's EASY for him to be against the war NOW, that it doesn't take courage to play "Monday-morning quarterback," etc. When I linked to the same speech you posted above, s/he didn't respond.

[alteredstate]

76. You're welcome.

[LWolf]

77. I know what he has SAID.

Which is exactly my point. What has he DONE to reflect what he said?

I'm not interested in a candidate SOUNDING the ambiguous "presidential," as I've already noted several times in this thread. I've also already noted that my comment is not specifically about Obama, but about the use of the term "presidential."

I'm interested in documenting when and where the candidate has "walked his (or her) talk."

[jenmito]

81. Don't you see? In that speech, he predicted, correctly, exactly what would happen

if we invaded Iraq.

[LWolf]

89. His record in the Senate doesn't square with that, though.

If I believe something to be wrong, I'm not going to fund it. He has funded it at every opportunity except the most recent, after the primary campaign began.

That's what I mean about substance; a candidate can't just SAY it, but has to ACT that way, as well.

[jenmito]

91. Yes it does...

If you're REALLY interested, rather than want to just start an argument, you can read things he did as Senator to end the war as well as other things he did, and in case you DON'T read it, I'll tell you he sponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/30/84158/850/341/427818

[ginchinchili]

79. His image is good, no doubt, but...

he's lacking in substance which is much more important. America is too consumed with image. In my opinion Obama is too much a product of our image-conscious pop culture. He has more dues to pay before he's ready to be president.

[jenmito]

82. Obama's been walking the walk for nearly 20 years...

in IL. Just because most of his experience isn't from Washington doesn't mean it doesn't count.

[ginchinchili]

85. Right.

[jenmito]

86. Great answer. I guess you didn't read my link right above.

[ginchinchili]

105. Do you really expect me to be impressed with Obama's answers?

This is no better than Hillary planting questions in her audiences. And even with these easy mundane questions the answers are not particularly impressive. So Obama introduces legislation that would be the first step in withdrawing troops during the same year he begins running for the Democratic presidential nomination, a bill he knows will go nowhere. Does that impress you? Because it doesn't do a thing for me. In fact, it only serves to reinforce my impression that his main goal is personal ambition. His answers to those questions do nothing to dispel the fact that Obama has not sufficiently paid his dues and is not ready to take over the presidency at a time when the US is involved in two wars, to point out just 2 of the major crises we're currently facing. He's young. Give him some time to get more experience and someday he'll be ready. That time is definitely not now.

[jenmito]

110. Yes.

And now is the time for him to be president. He's done more than sponsor that one bill. He's done many things while in IL. To compare what he did to planting questions is ludicrous. He will be washed up in 8 years like Edwards is NOW. He will win and will be a great president-GObama!

[jillan]

83. You are not allowed to call him articulate.

[UrbScotty]

84. Not to mention PROGRESSIVE

[AtomicKitten]

92. He's clean too.

[jenmito]

93. Yup-clean of scandal. Do you like how he said if he had something to hide he's sure the Clintons

would've found it by now and put it out there? :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

94. It would have come out the moment she started to tank in the Philadelphia debate.

re this debate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3904549&mesg_id=3904549

Instead, the Clinton campaign is reduced to whisper campaigns and nasty smears. I wonder if they recall how disgusted we were when those tactics were used against her and her husband. Apparently not.

Happy New Year!

[jenmito]

95. Yup. The fact that nothing of substance HAS come out means there's nothing he has to hide.

Yes, the Clinton camp had to do their smears and then get rid of the people doing the smearing. :eyes: They seem to forget a LOT of things, including Bill saying one doesn't need experience in Washington to be a good president, that he was for the IWR, and that he was attacked for those very things he's attacking Obama for.

Happy New Year to you, too! :hi:

[ChiciB1]

96. This Is Not An Attack, I Do Support Another... I Do Like Obama... BUT

I've been watching C-Span to get a "feel" for the other candidates to see if there's something that I would find interesting or would inspire me. I'm sure those of you who support Obama think he's super, but I don't "feel" all that inspired. In fact, and please don't get all caught up with this, but I found his speech and what he was saying kind of dull.

His talk about getting rid of big corporations & lobbyist money sounded familiar because that's one thing Edwards has talked about for a very long time. There were other things he said about issues that I felt were somewhat incomplete. But then, no candidate will be able to deliver everything proposed because there is a Congress to deal with. But FWIW, I found Bill Richardson much more inspired than Obama.

But to all the Obama supporters, I'm sure there are things I must have missed.

[Beacool]

100. I just met up with a friend from NY who's down in Palm Beach for the holidays.

He said that he went to see Obama in NY because someone gave him a ticket. Since he's not political at all, I was interested in his opinion. He said that he thought that Obama has charisma but that he didn't feel inspired at all nor did he think that he was ready to be president. My friend is gay and a production/stage manager. He said that all his friends in the gay community support Hillary.