Obama '08?

One of the things Obama wanted to convey last night was that he is not guilty by association with people like Keyes and Wright. That while he may be friends with those people, he does not seek their advice or counsel. It was a good answer to the question, but left me wondering about his judgement.

Now, I don't expect either Keyes or Wright will have much to say about Obama's Presidency (should he be elected), but Obama's judgement in his associations must be suspect. Who will Obama choose to be in his cabinet? Can we risk Obama's judgement to be sound in making those decisions?

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.

Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion. [..]

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America. [..]

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.

•

To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

mysteryman wrote:

As far as I know, both Hillary and Obama have no plans to come to this part of KY, so seeing them in Evansville was the only opportunity any of the tri-state voters will have to see them.

There's no way of knowing that he wont get to your part of KY or the neighbouring part of IN anymore before May 6 / 20. Just look at the NYT's page on Candidate Schedules - there's not much there beyond the next couple of days. Too early to be resentful.

And I specifically said that AS FAR AS I KNOW, they have no plans to come to this area.

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

As far as I know, both Hillary and Obama have no plans to come to this part of KY, so seeing them in Evansville was the only opportunity any of the tri-state voters will have to see them.

There's no way of knowing that he wont get to your part of KY or the neighbouring part of IN anymore before May 6 / 20. Just look at the NYT's page on Candidate Schedules - there's not much there beyond the next couple of days. Too early to be resentful.

I'm not being resentful.
I simply said that most people want to hear the candidates, NOT their surrogates.
And I specifically said that AS FAR AS I KNOW, they have no plans to come to this area.

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

As far as I know, both Hillary and Obama have no plans to come to this part of KY, so seeing them in Evansville was the only opportunity any of the tri-state voters will have to see them.

There's no way of knowing that he wont get to your part of KY or the neighbouring part of IN anymore before May 6 / 20. Just look at the NYT's page on Candidate Schedules - there's not much there beyond the next couple of days. Too early to be resentful.

I'm not being resentful.
I simply said that most people want to hear the candidates, NOT their surrogates.
And I specifically said that AS FAR AS I KNOW, they have no plans to come to this area.

You seem to frame this as if this would matter to you. You don't seem to interested in Obama as president anyways.

Has McCain came to your neighborhood? If not, are you equally upset?

T
K
O

I'm curious, does the fact that Bayh has endorsed Clinton make a difference to you? (No agenda, just curious -- I'm interested in the subject of what effect endorsements have, if any.)

McGentrix wrote:

One of the things Obama wanted to convey last night was that he is not guilty by association with people like Keyes and Wright. That while he may be friends with those people, he does not seek their advice or counsel. It was a good answer to the question, but left me wondering about his judgement.

Now, I don't expect either Keyes or Wright will have much to say about Obama's Presidency (should he be elected), but Obama's judgement in his associations must be suspect. Who will Obama choose to be in his cabinet? Can we risk Obama's judgement to be sound in making those decisions?

Certainly; he is hardly going to ask Wright to be in his cabinet; he is not stupid and knows if he wants to be elected the next cycle; he can't be electing controversial figures.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

By DINITIA SMITH
Published: September 11, 2001
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.

What does "on the campaign" mean?

Controversial minister leaves Obama campaign[/i][/u]
Presidential candidate condemns words but not ministry of former pastor

..........Obama's campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee after videotapes of his sermons again ignited fierce debate in news accounts and political blogs.

Obama did not clarify whether Wright volunteered to leave his African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign, or whether the campaign asked him to leave...........

..........Wright was the latest in a series of advisers to Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who have stepped aside as supporters of both candidates trade racially charged accusations..........

Let's talk electability.

Is America willing to elect someone who considers Bill Ayers a 'friend' ?

Obama did not clarify whether Wright volunteered to leave his African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign,

During Dem debate, ABC's Gibson suggested middle-class families would be hurt by proposed rollback of Bush tax cuts
Summary: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, moderator Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families, adding, "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." According to the U.S. Census, however, the median income for a U.S. household is $48,451, and the mean household income is $65,527; and only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.