Saturday, February 10, 2007

My Endorsement

While I only get a fair amount of traffic to my blog; about 500 hits a week, of which 60% are unique visitors, I do feel that in some very, very small way, my endorsement for President does mean something. With that being said:

I endorse Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America.

Of all the candidates running, I feel he best represents what I want in a President.

Back in November of 2004, I wrote a post entitled "John Connor, where are you?" In it, I was wondering who & where that person was that would lead us into the light:

Our leader could be an unknown, and possibly not in politics. He should be fairly young, fearless, intelligent and proud to call himself a liberal. He could be black, white, gay or strait - doesn't matter. All that does matter is that he (or maybe she) can lead us.

Barack is the one.

One caveat:
At this moment in time, the only thing that could throw a monkey wrench into this, is if Gore throws his hat in, but it doesn't seem likely.


Jim Marquis said...

Maybe Obama (or whoever wins) will appoint Gore to be Secretary of Climate...

PoliShifter said...

I am very close to endorsing Obama.

But I have decided to wait unitl January 2008 to actually endorse a candidate officially.

Again, not like my endorsement means much either.

But as they say, like string, seperately we are weak, but woven together we can make a strong rope.

Which is better? The endorsement from one giant blog like Eschaton or endorsements from hundreds of thousands of little blogs?

1138 said...

Not mine.
Not yet.

So far Obama has been an empty vessel that everyone has poured their hopes of what a candidate should be into.
A projection or hologram if you will.

I need to see and know more, and I need him to be more harsh and less conciliatory.

A why can't we all just get along is not going to fix the wrong that has been done - and continues.
This is about more than Iraq, more that economy, more than loss of credibility - for me this has become about the foundation and the future of America.

Right now, I'm afraid I see Obama simply saying what his people tell he, we want to hear.

Elvez73 said...

Barring Gore getting in, I think I may be leaning the same way. I genuinely like Obama, he just needs to answer a few more policy questions.

PoliShifter said...


You should hear Obama's speech he gave during debate on the Iraq War Resolution, or whatever the hell they called it when Congress gave Bush a blank check for wars.

Obama voted against the war and was very forcefull in saying it was a mistake.

I haven't seen Obama mince words yet. If anyone is going to triangulate and party to the center it's Clinton.

Edwards is coming out strong. I wouldn't rule him out.

I still like Kucinich. He has the view of Iraq I have; get the fuck out now.

Gore said he is not running. Maybe he's playing a coy political game.

Maybe he'll win the Acadamey Award AND The Nobel Peace Prize and there will be such an undercurrent for him to run, that he will.

It's still way too early.

I really don't like talking about it.

I think the reason everyone is engaged in presidential politics nearly 2 years before the election is to distract us from the ubber mistake GW Bush has been.

1138 said...

"Obama voted against the war"

Nope, he wasn't Senator at the time - take a look at his votes since then.
He's voted right along with Hillary and the other Quislings.

Obama's been doing what they call the Obama war dance - he has stated that it would be wrong to issue a definite withdrawal date and moderated out to we need to leave by '08.
Obama has also supported the invasions of the Patriot Act - just like Hillary.

Sorry Polsifter but your reading what you want to be on the page of Obama, not what's there.

1138 said...

No, the time to talk about it is every day.
The shame of it is, that it looks like both partys are willing, ne, eager to keep this slaughterhouse in Iraq going to use it as an '08 political tool.
That is if Iran doesn't replace it as our hot war and martial law doesn't replace what little is left of the Constitution.

There's a lunatic in charge and nobody wants to throw a net on him.

Lizzy said...

The only Senator that voted "nay" for the original Patriot Act was Russ Feingold. Even Paul Wellstone voted for it.

Obama wasn't in the Senate when the original Patriot Act was passed, however he unfortunately did vote for it's renewal. While that was a really bad decision on his part, I don't think we're going to find a 100% perfect candidate...barring Feingold changing his mind.

I don't find Obama to be an empty vessel at all. Everything I've read, heard and seen has been very strong.

He also represents something this country needs - a fresh start.

In the meantime, if this congress doesn't start impeachment procedures before W invades Iran, I will lose faith in all of them.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PoliShifter said...

Ok 1138, he wasn't a U.S. Senator but he was a State Senator

Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, 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 tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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.... 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...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 U.S. 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.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

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...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation 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."

PoliShifter said...

From C&L

Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard says:

“If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Obama's camp responds

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

and this:

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Senator Obama said in Iowa.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

1138 said...

That's right he was a State Senator and he didn't vote against the use of force.

You can bring me all the quotes you want - the statement that he had voted against something he wasn't there to vote for is the evidence of projections.

Look have no desire to tear Obama down but neither will I knee jerk endorse him simply because the Republitards don't like him and Hillary fears him.

I remember the mistake of Jimmy Carter - just because someone is an outsider that makes attractive sounds does not make them able to handle it.

Just a very short time ago Obama said that it would be wrong to put any fixed date for leaving Iraq, then when he decides to run - he says everyone should commit to a date.

Nope, he's not up to speed - just like most others in the House and Senate.

We need the right guy this time, it's more critical than ever considering what he's going to have to take on.

Now can we get back to the serious business of getting the elections system in order, investigating the crimes commited by this administration and getting real over site by congress of the various agencies that the Republicans ignored for 12 years?

Can we?

PoliShifter said...

"We need the right guy this time, it's more critical than ever considering what he's going to have to take on."

Ok, so who is this "right guy"?

Frankly I don't see anyone who is right for the job.

"Now can we get back to the serious business of getting the elections system in order, investigating the crimes commited by this administration and getting real over site by congress of the various agencies that the Republicans ignored for 12 years?"

Are you a member of Congress? If so please impeach the motherfuckers in the White House.

I would love for Congress to be more agressive in investigating and going after the war criminals.

I'd love to see publically funded elections, open primaries, instant run-off voting, an end to the corporate lobbying of our government, a dramatic shift in energy policy that favors alternatives to oil.

I'd love to see the United States get the fuck out of Iraq and start spending our tax dollars on our own country rather than to fuel the war machine.

But it ain't going to happen. Little things will get done. Some concessions will be made. But the dramatic changes we need to right this ship will not occur.

As far as Obama or anyone else goes...Kucinich, as far as I know, I could very well be wrong again, is the only Presidential Candidate taking the stance that we should get out of Iraq ASAP.

Everyone else is triangulating and parsing words trying to figure out a way to please everyone without seeming to radical or extreme.

"I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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." - Obama

Snave said...

I think these are all great comments. You will probably all laugh, but I wish Bill Richardson was getting a little more press...

Anyway, I will make my endorsement now for the 2008 fall elections. I will support whoever the Democrats nominate! Who will I support to get the nomination? Probably Obama, but like it has been said, right now I need to hear him elaborate more on various issues. Should Gore enter the race, my little mind will be in turmoil!

Major, I like your idea. I think Secretary of the Interior would be a cool job for Gore if he doesn't decide to run and then win the nomination.

1138 said...

"I wish Bill Richardson was getting a little more press"

Probably for the best - let the early stars burn out and ride in to the tune of an honest voice.

1138 said...

Gore could win.
But what concerns me is that he couldn't pound the shit out of a piker like Bush the first time.

I'm not so sure, he could win.
He and a lot of other Democrats need to shake off the "nice guy" dust and fight back in elections.

Tom Harper said...

Obama must be doing something right if he got such a hostile reaction from the Australian prime minister. I didn't even know the Australian prime minister was on Bush's side; I thought Bush's only ally was Israel.

I don't want Gore just because he already ran for president and lost. There seems to be an unwritten law that once a candidate has run for president and not made it, he/she is never gonna get elected. (Nixon is the only exception to that rule that I know of.)

Who Hijacked Our Country

Lizzy said...

Thanks for posting Obama's speech from 2002, Polishifter. I hadn't heard that one. What a great speech. Wow. That speech deserves it's own post.

Obama's reaction to Australia’s Prime Minister (Bush's BFF) is further proof that he is a straight shooter and not afraid -- exactly what John Kerry should have been in the last election.

Snave, I like Richardson, too, but unfortunately those second tier candidates are getting screwed as far as press coverage. It's a shame.

Who is your ideal candidate, 1138?

Gore as Secretary of Climate? Perfect, J.

As far as Gore not being able to win an, he did.