DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[EvilMonkey]

Is Richardson making up stories now?

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view...ticleid=1002403

CONCORD, N.H. - On the campaign trail, presidential hopeful Bill Richardson tells a moving story about a New Mexico Marine killed in Iraq and his mom. But is it true?

 

Three years ago, Richardson attended a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin, 21, who died in April 2004. As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination, the New Mexico governor often recounts an emotional conversation with Austin’s mother, saying she thanked him for the federal death benefits she had received and even showed him the government check.

 

In speeches in New Hampshire, Richardson has gotten Austin’s name wrong at least once and age wrong at least twice. He also has called Austin the first New Mexico soldier killed in Iraq - instead of the third.

 

But that’s not what bothers the Marine’s mother, De’on Miller, of Lovington, N.M., who says the conversation about money never took place.

 

"I didn’t exchange words at all with the governor there except when he gave me the flag. And those few words _ whatever was exchanged when he handed me the flag and the Spirit of New Mexico award _ certainly had nothing to do with money," she said Thursday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

More at link. Apparently the mother wants him to stop using her name and her sons name in his speeches and demanded an apology. When asked about it on Meet the Press, he did the usual politian thing and started talkign about other things, but once brought back to the point said" Well, I’m sorry for the way she feels, but I believe I acted honorably." and then launched into a few lines about how he raised the death benefit for National Gardsmen. Show transcript here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/

[NorthSideSox72]

Is Richardson making up stories now?

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view...ticleid=1002403

More at link. Apparently the mother wants him to stop using her name and her sons name in his speeches and demanded an apology. When asked about it on Meet the Press, he did the usual politian thing and started talkign about other things, but once brought back to the point said" Well, I’m sorry for the way she feels, but I believe I acted honorably." and then launched into a few lines about how he raised the death benefit for National Gardsmen. Show transcript here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/

Well that doesn't seem very bright. This combined with his fuzzy memory of his baseball background makes one wonder a bit if he one apt towards exaggeration. I'm not ready to back off this guy yet, as he still looks like the best candidate to me. But if he is going to have a habit of poor recollection, he is going to get nailed by the media left and right.

 

So, here is a discussion question - if a politician is going to use someone's name in a campaign speech like that, even if its for a good cause (which I think his program clearly is), does he/she need to ask permission first?

[EvilMonkey]

Well that doesn't seem very bright. This combined with his fuzzy memory of his baseball background makes one wonder a bit if he one apt towards exaggeration. I'm not ready to back off this guy yet, as he still looks like the best candidate to me. But if he is going to have a habit of poor recollection, he is going to get nailed by the media left and right.

 

So, here is a discussion question - if a politician is going to use someone's name in a campaign speech like that, even if its for a good cause (which I think his program clearly is), does he/she need to ask permission first?

In today's sound byte society, using their name, even in a positive way, makes it appear as if that person endorses the candidate. If that person does NOT endorse that candidate, then it would probably be unfair to use their name. He can relate the same story without using the person's name if he feels compelled to. It would probably make it easier for him to remember it.

[EvilMonkey]

Looks like Edwards is taking his turn at pulling a 'botched joke'.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274417,00.html

Democratic White House Hopeful Edwards Wants to End War in Iraq to Honor Veterans

Monday , May 21, 2007

KEENE, N.H. —

 

Presidential hopeful John Edwards said Monday that Americans should speak out against the war in Iraq this Memorial Day weekend, renewing an anti-war call that has been criticized by the leader of the American Legion.

 

Edwards also said all young people should serve their country, "not just poor kids who get sent to war."

 

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee said the most patriotic position now is to end the war, and the best way to honor veterans this Memorial Day weekend is to bring the troops home from Iraq.

 

"There's another thing we need to do as patriots, to serve the men and women who are serving this country in Iraq, and that is to speak out this weekend," Edwards said.

 

He said ending the war is key to repairing the damaged U.S. reputation abroad.

 

"America desperately needs to reclaim our moral position in the world, which has been so devastated," he said. "America has to be a force for good. ... The world thinks we're a bully and we're selfish."

 

Last week, Edwards sent a Web notice asking his supporters to use the holiday to speak against the war. Paul Morin, national commander of the American Legion, called the request "as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone."

 

And Edwards called for plans to spread the burden of serving the country by mandating national service.

 

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America — not just the poor kids who get sent to war — are serving this country," Edwards said.

 

After the event, Edwards said he had not meant to imply that only the poor go to war, only that everyone should serve in some way.

 

"We have people from all walks of life in America who are serving, including Reservists and National Guard," Edwards said. "What we want to do is to have all Americans to have a chance to serve their country."

 

Some leaders of local veterans' groups also have deplored Edwards' call for war protests on Memorial Day.

 

"I think the senator has the best of intentions," said Stephen Shurtleff, who was co-chairman for veterans outreach on Sen. John Kerry's 2004 campaign. "But I think (Memorial Day) is a time to reflect. I think all the presidential candidates want to end the war, but this Memorial Day is not the time

[EvilMonkey]

I only put this here since there isn't an independent candidate thread, and she SUED to be a Dem. McKinney for Pres in '08!

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap...inney_08_1.html

[Mplssoxfan]

I only put this here since there isn't an independent candidate thread, and she SUED to be a Dem. McKinney for Pres in '08!

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap...inney_08_1.html

 

That would be fantastic. She is insane. "I have a Green Party button from 2000." Classic!

 

Now I'm waiting for Katherine Harris to enter the race for a fringe party from the other side. Batty vs. Batty!

[Chet Lemon]

Clinton, Obama, and Biden all did well last night. Richardson took some steps backwards, as some of his answers were unclear, and I was an early supporting of Richardson's candidacy. What I like about Biden is that when he gets fired up, he doesn't attack the front-runners to break out of the mass of second-tier candidates.

[southsider2k5]

I had to laugh when I heard the soundbyte of Hillary wanting to raise the corporate tax rate in the United States. People do realize beyond the portrayal of things is that the reality is that United States actually has the second HIGHEST corporate tax rate IN THE WORLD's industrial nations. Even more ironic is that countries around the US at the top of the charts have, or are, CUTTING their business taxes to attract more investment in the country.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1466.html

 

I am not quite sure how you can portray yourself as a protector of American jobs, when one of your campaign goals is to make it more expensive for companies to do business in the United States. She does realize that higher taxes mean there will be an even bigger corporate flight out of the US than is going on now right?

 

Good god, and if you throw in stupid mistakes like Sarbines Oxley, which is not only driving IPOs and stock listings out of the US, but has actually accelerated CEO salaries instead of slowing them, and it is a wonder there are still jobs left in this country at all.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I didn't watch the debate but in reading some of the quotes in the paper this morning my favorite one by far was this one:

 

 

"I've seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists........and I believe we are safer than we were."

 

 

Thank you Hillary for your endorsement of President Bush's policies in the War on Terror.

[BigSqwert]

Good god, and if you throw in stupid mistakes like Sarbines Oxley, which is not only driving IPOs and stock listings out of the US, but has actually accelerated CEO salaries instead of slowing them, and it is a wonder there are still jobs left in this country at all.

Sarbanes Oxley legislation is not in place to keep CEO salaries down.

Edited June 4, 2007 by BigSqwert

[mr_genius]

I had to laugh when I heard the soundbyte of Hillary wanting to raise the corporate tax rate in the United States.

 

of course she will raise corporate tax.

 

her polling probably shows that "higher taxes for corporations" is popular, so that is what she is saying. if that changes, so will her political slogans and public stance.

 

she knows she will also raise middle class, small businesses and upper income tax rates...but she sure isn't going to be honest about it. hillary clinton will introduce the largest, by far, tax increase the country has ever seen.

Edited June 4, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

of course she will raise corporate tax.

 

she will also raise middle class, small business and upper income tax rates. hillary clinton will introduce the largest, by far, tax increase the country has ever seen.

Which of course, will be said about almost every tax increase that ever happens, just like every tax cut that happens will be the largest in history...because you know, the value of the dollar changes with time.

[mr_genius]

Which of course, will be said about almost every tax increase that ever happens, just like every tax cut that happens will be the largest in history...because you know, the value of the dollar changes with time.

 

biggest increase once inflation is taken into account.

Edited June 4, 2007 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Sarbanes Oxley legislation is not in place to keep CEO salaries down.

 

That was a big selling point of the law if you remember back. The public knowledge of CEO salaries was supposed to lead to "outrage" and a reigning in of compensation packages. Instead the only outrage was by other CEOs who found out how "underpaid" they were in relation to their peers at other companies and it led to an explosion of their packages instead. The funny thing is that the explosion of professional sports athletes salaries would have served as a great historical tool as to what happens when you have an extremely limited pool of available labor and many teams putting a great important into their abilities, mixing in a huge amount of public pressure to succeed, and a lot of money. In general stockholders don't give a s*** about what their CEOs are making if it means losing their top talent to another competeing company, or if their company's stock is preforming well. They only care if their company is in trouble, and by then it is too late for that particular CEO, and they have to overpay to get someone to save their company... again, sounding remarkably similar to free agency in sports.

[mr_genius]

That was a big selling point of the law if you remember back. The public knowledge of CEO salaries was supposed to lead to "outrage" and a reigning in of compensation packages. Instead the only outrage was by other CEOs who found out how "underpaid" they were in relation to their peers at other companies and it led to an explosion of their packages instead.

 

good point

 

also, if people think that higher taxes on corporations will mean lower CEO salaries, they are mistaken. it'll mean less hiring at these corporations.

Edited June 4, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to say, Biden took a step forward in that debate. He looked and sounded awfully good. And as has been pointed out before, he is the ONLY candidate in either party offering a real alternative for the Iraq War. Something to consider.

 

My guy Richardson is showing the exact positives and negatives that were there going in - great policy ideas and great resume, but he is the least charismatic of the bunch. If he can't smooth out his delivery, he won't last long. Too bad really. He's just so much more qualified than everyone else, and actually brings some affirmative economic ideas to the table.

 

Clinton is so wish-washy she makes John Kerry look like an oak.

 

Edwards is just sleazy. He really is.

 

Obama, I think, made a good step forward. He's hard to dislike when you're listening to him speak. He is loosening up again, and it is helping him a lot.

 

Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd were, as expected, non-factors.

[Jenksismyhero]

I have to say, Biden took a step forward in that debate. He looked and sounded awfully good. And as has been pointed out before, he is the ONLY candidate in either party offering a real alternative for the Iraq War. Something to consider.

 

My guy Richardson is showing the exact positives and negatives that were there going in - great policy ideas and great resume, but he is the least charismatic of the bunch. If he can't smooth out his delivery, he won't last long. Too bad really. He's just so much more qualified than everyone else, and actually brings some affirmative economic ideas to the table.

 

Clinton is so wish-washy she makes John Kerry look like an oak.

 

Edwards is just sleazy. He really is.

 

Obama, I think, made a good step forward. He's hard to dislike when you're listening to him speak. He is loosening up again, and it is helping him a lot.

 

Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd were, as expected, non-factors.

 

I checked out the debate even though I knew I'd be screaming at the TV the entire time. I swear that each candidate got together and said "ok so our plan should be to never answer the question straight up, bring back past questions you didn't get a chance to answer, and make sure to indirectly point out how crummy the last eight years have been, even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the question asked."

 

But I agree with your assessment. I though Biden was someone I might actually consider. The guy is passionate and very rarely skipped over any question without giving a direct answer (I loved Clinton's argument "we can deal all day in hypotheticals but we can't answer those types of questions." I really liked his strong commitment to fixing the Darfur debacle, whereas the rest of the candidates were pretty wishy-washy (i'd support a no-fly zone...wtf is that?). And he seems like the only one in Washington with some sort of plan to solve the Iraq mess. If someone can tell me the difference between Bush and the rest of the Dems and how they'd deal with fixing Iraq (not just bringing our troops home) I'd sure like to hear it.

 

Edwards is very sleazy and downright moronic really. I loved how he had to mention he talked to the Pakistani president two sec's after Clinton mentioned she had met with him. Yet it was like 3-4 years ago. Such a lame attempt at proving his utter lack of experience - a common theme the entire debate.

 

Clinton seems too angry and pent up with frustration. How much does it have to eat at her when the candidates kept saying things like, "when I worked with your husband, when i saw the problem i went straight to your husband," etc.

 

Obama was typical Obama. What does he believe? Um, that we need to stop people from being killed, we need to give everyone money, health care and education and he likes ponies. He MAY have some real policies that he'd like to implement, but everytime he's on a national stage this is the stuff I hear from him. And they all do it, so I guess to be fair I shouldn't discount him that much, but as someone I need to get to know it's not helping me decide if I like him.

 

Richardson is another guy I didn't really mind. Like Biden I give him props for saying things that are unpopular. I think keeping us out of the Olympics could be a useful way to deal with China. That's a lot of $$ pissed down the drain if we don't attend. I came away not, not liking him, so good for him.

 

Kucinich instantly lost any hope of my vote when he said he's against the assasination policy and would not take out Bin Laden if he had the chance.

[BigSqwert]

It's funny how for months I keep hearing from people on this site how Obama just throws out high level buzzwords and ideas and has no specifics for his agenda. I'm struggling to find any candidate who has eloquently laid out full specifics for their agenda, minus a topic here or there. Here's another fine example:

 

Giuliani offers reform agenda but offers few specifics

 

BEDFORD, New Hampshire (AP) -- Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday offered a dozen proposals for reform on issues from energy to education, echoing standard political promises and providing few specifics.

 

The former New York City mayor vowed to cut taxes, impose accountability on Washington and lead the country to energy independence -- basic tenets cited by Republican and Democratic candidates.

 

"We're going to lay out a mission of reform and change. We're going to lay out a mission of overcoming new challenges. We're going to lay out a mission of doing what other people think is impossible," Giuliani told about 150 people in a sweltering town hall. "I love that. I love doing what other people think is impossible."

 

Although he said priorities could shift within his 12 commitments, Giuliani said remaining on offense in the war on terror would be first on the list.

 

"This, whether we like it or not, is going to be our challenge for this generation," said the former mayor who was in charge on September 11. "You face bullies and tyrants and terrorists with strength, not weakness."

 

Giuliani said such a step would require increasing the size and support of the military and improving foreign and domestic intelligence. He also said he would create a new organization in which military personnel would work with civilians on stabilization and reconstruction projects.

 

Giuliani promised to travel the country this summer to elaborate on his agenda. In offering few specifics, he said he wanted to start with a framework. Details will come later, he said, adding that he welcomes suggestions from the public.

 

"They're in the concept form," he said. "We don't expect people are going to absorb this -- they shouldn't -- but we have a long time to talk about it."

 

Giuliani also promised to end illegal immigration, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and give citizens more control over -- and access to -- health care. He also pledged to reform the legal system and ensure that communities are prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

 

Two promises involve giving consumers more control -- over health care and education. Giuliani repeated his call for $15,000 tax exemptions that would allow people to buy their own health insurance, which he said would spur insurers to compete to develop higher quality, more affordable plans. He backed providing vouchers for education, a notion popular among some Republicans but one that has stirred controversy.

 

Giuliani stands out among Republican candidates for his support of abortion rights. He promised to "protect the quality of life" for children by increasing adoptions and decreasing abortions.

 

He took a swipe at Democrats, arguing that they are living in the past.

 

"A lot of what the Democrats are doing is like looking in the rearview mirror. They want to take the country back to where it was in the 1990s," he said.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/12/giu...a.ap/index.html

Edited June 12, 2007 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

It's funny how for months I keep hearing from people on this site how Obama just throws out high level buzzwords and ideas and has no specifics for his agenda. I'm struggling to find any candidate who has eloquently laid out full specifics for their agenda, minus a topic here or there. Here's another fine example:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/12/giu...a.ap/index.html

Some candidates are better than others at putting together solid proposals. Others avoid it intentionally. But you are correct that most of the significant candidates have avoided taking very many material positions. They will continue to do that, in both parties, until approaching national election time.

 

They like adjectives better than nouns right now.

[kapkomet]

Some candidates are better than others at putting together solid proposals. Others avoid it intentionally. But you are correct that most of the significant candidates have avoided taking very many material positions. They will continue to do that, in both parties, until approaching national election time.

 

They like adjectives better than nouns right now.

I've said this repeatedly... I think all of the candidates that have officially announced suck giant canal water. And NSS, you're right, none of them have a plan in their minds right now, except how to stay "popular" 18 months from a general election. (it's sick, actually).

 

The only candidates we know the truth about is John Edwards, Rudy Guiliani, and Hillary Clinton. They all will be wishy washy crap candidates and blow where the poll numbers tell them to blow. McCain is washed up, Romney says a lot of general BS and changes positions to cater to the hard right, Obama is "fresh" (please), and the rest of the candidates don't matter right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

suck giant canal water

 

[kapkomet]

it's a technical term.

[southsider2k5]

I've said this repeatedly... I think all of the candidates that have officially announced suck giant canal water. And NSS, you're right, none of them have a plan in their minds right now, except how to stay "popular" 18 months from a general election. (it's sick, actually).

 

Funny you mention that, because for Obama that was the EXACT plan.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/new...1&cset=true

 

Carefully crafting the Obama 'brand'

From his first days in the U.S. Senate, the Illinoisan has followed a strategy envisioning a White House bid

 

By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons

Washington Bureau

Published June 12, 2007

 

WASHINGTON -- One evening in February 2005, in a four-hour meeting stoked by pepperoni pizza and grand ambition, Sen. Barack Obama and his senior advisers crafted a strategy to fit the Obama "brand."

 

The charismatic celebrity-politician had rocketed from the Illinois state legislature to the U.S. Senate, stirring national interest. The challenge was to maintain altitude despite the limited tools available to a freshman senator whose party was in the minority.

 

Yet even in those early days, Obama and his advisers were thinking ahead. Some called it the "2010-2012-2016" plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if not, 2016. The way to get there, they decided, was by carefully building a record that matched the brand identity: Obama as unifier and consensus-builder, an almost postpolitical leader.

 

The staffers in that after-hours session, convened by Obama's Senate staff and including Chicago political adviser David Axelrod, planned a low-profile strategy that would emphasize workhorse results over headlines. Obama would invest in his long-term profile by not seeming too eager for the bright lights.

 

"My profile outstripped my power in the Senate," Obama said in a recent interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I was mindful of the importance of establishing good relationships with my colleagues early on, and making sure that people didn't think I bought into all the hype."

 

But eventually he succumbed to the buzz enveloping his political persona and decided to run for the presidency of the most powerful nation in history after only two years in national politics. Barely more than one-third of the way through his first term in the Senate, his tenure is marked by enormous media interest and modest legislative achievements on issues ranging from international weapons proliferation to hometown bridges and highways.

 

Throughout his time in the Senate, Obama has followed a cautious path, avoiding any severe political bruises. Even before the national mood was turning on Iraq, Obama was a critic of the war, but for most of his time in the Senate he was not a strong voice in opposition. Similarly, the former civil rights attorney and University of Chicago law lecturer did not take to the bully pulpit to speak out publicly on judicial appointments. His strategy called for him to turn away from the cameras when he might otherwise have been a resonant voice.

 

Friends think Obama managed to accomplish a lot, given the time and tools at his disposal. But several GOP senators say Obama has yet to make his mark in Washington.

 

"He's easy to get along with. I admire him. I enjoyed reading his book. But he hasn't been here long enough to have an impact on the Senate," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former governor and presidential candidate. "It's like asking how's a football player doing halfway into the first quarter. It's too early to say."

 

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) added: "I don't think he has enough experience to be president of the United States, particularly in defense and foreign policy areas and overall in domestic areas. But overall, in the Senate, he has done a good job."

 

Even many Republicans in the Senate credit Obama for skillfully managing the transition. Obama made it an early priority to fit in at the institution, reflected in his choice of a chief of staff, Peter Rouse, a veteran Senate insider who had been the top aide for departing Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). Rouse crafted the memo that formed the basis of the conversation at the strategy session that February night at a Democratic Party office near the Capitol. (Descriptions of those and other deliberations depend on the accounts of Obama's inside and outside advisers -- all of whom are sympathetic to him. With few exceptions, those advisers insisted on anonymity.)

 

The plan they hatched focused on concrete, achievable goals that included delivering for Illinois, fitting in at the Senate and developing cross-party alliances while avoiding the limelight.

 

They would schedule Obama on trips that traversed two-lane country roads throughout Illinois. He would do his duty raising money for fellow Democratic senators during the "Power Hour," a regular telephone fundraising commitment set up by party leaders. And he would sit through lengthy committee hearings to wait his last-place turn as the most junior member to ask a question.

 

First and foremost, the Obama team placed a high premium on working well with others.

 

"So much of what happens around here depends on relationships and on a committee chairman's willingness to help you out," said Chris Lu, Obama's legislative director. "It helps if those relationships are strong."

 

When asked to speak in 2006 at the Gridiron Dinner -- a white-tie-and-tails gathering that brings together Washington's political and media elites -- he reached for humor to show a bit of humility and deflate expectations.

 

"Most of all," he told reporters gathered for the function, "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."

 

Deferring to the lions

 

To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws.

 

But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt.

 

"You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for," Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. "Thirty percent is sort of a random number."

 

Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates.

 

Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos.

 

He temporarily set aside the high-minded rhetoric of a 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that launched him into the national spotlight in favor of a more realistic view of what he could accomplish.

 

He also turned down just about every national media invitation that came his way that first year. He focused on Illinois, and by the fall of 2005 he had done 39 town hall meetings, according to his office schedule, the vast majority of them in communities outside Chicago. The only national speaking invitations he accepted came from the NAACP and from Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon.

 

He also sat through many of his committee hearings from beginning to end, something senators rarely do.

 

"My job was to work and learn the institution," Obama said. "I'm somebody who generally thinks that listening and learning before you start talking is a pretty good strategy. It's like any other social setting -- a new job, a new school, a new town. People appreciate it if you spend a little time getting to know them before you announce that you are looking for attention."

 

One colleague who took note was the powerful then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, who later invited Obama on a trip through the former Soviet Union, inspecting projects to decommission Cold War-era weapons. The two ultimately worked together to pass legislation to control the spread of weapons.

 

"I like him, and I appreciate working with him," Lugar said. "It seems to me that he was adept in finding partners and coalitions and actually was able to achieve results."

 

In addition to a legislative accomplishment teaming with Lugar, the partnership gave Obama the added credibility he sought in an association across party lines. A former presidential candidate who has seen many fellow senators launch White House bids during his 30-year Senate career, Lugar offers unusually strong praise for Obama.

 

"He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future," Lugar said. "At certain points in history, certain people are the ones that are most likely to have the vision or imagination or be able to identify talent and to manage other people's ideas. And I think he does this well."

 

Within his own party, Obama gained the confidence of the leadership and soon took on a role as the Democrats' spokesman on ethics reform. A package that included many of the provisions he championed ultimately passed the Senate.

 

Muted voice on Iraq

 

Obama the candidate for U.S. Senate spoke out forcefully against the Iraq war. For most of his tenure in Washington, though, Obama the U.S. senator has not been a moving force on Iraq.

 

He left it to others to lead public opinion. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) emerged as the strongest voices against the war. Those critics all spoke out before Obama gave his first major policy speech on the war -- 11 months after he took office.

 

Several advisers said that during that time Obama wrestled with how to proceed, concerned about the worsening news from Iraq and convinced the public's mood was turning against the war more rapidly than most members of Congress appreciated.

 

In keeping with the pattern of his political career, he moved cautiously. During the summer of 2005 he considered proposing a plan to partition Iraq. But he backed off the idea as advisers raised two key concerns: that the proposal was fraught with complexities and that he could be seen as overstepping his expertise.

 

Ultimately Obama delivered a more modest speech in November 2005, five days after Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal. In that address, he called for reductions in U.S. troop strength but not a timetable for withdrawal.

 

In a Senate debate the following June, Obama voted against an amendment proposed by Feingold and former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to set such a timetable.

 

Only after Obama announced his presidential exploratory committee did he introduce legislation this January that sets a date for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. By then the high-profile, bipartisan Iraq Study Group also had endorsed a deadline for troops to leave.

 

In May he voted against continued funding of the war, after Bush vetoed a funding package that included a timetable for withdrawal by March 31, 2008.

 

Obama defended his reluctance to call for withdrawal during most of his first year in the Senate.

 

"At the time, my view was that the [iraqi] government was still forming and it would be important to not give the impression, prior to the formation of that government, that we were already on the way out," Obama said. "Now, what changed? We have the breaking out of a complete civil war, at least a significant low-grade civil war."

 

Feingold offers Obama mixed reviews for his handling of Iraq.

 

"I've been pleased that his opposition has intensified over time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timeline," Feingold said.

 

"I regard him as clearly stronger [on Iraq] than Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton, indeed than [former] Sen. [John] Edwards," Feingold said. "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the [senate Democratic] Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go."

 

His path on other issues, such as energy, has hewed closely to Democratic orthodoxy.

 

He co-sponsored legislation to require automakers to make annual improvements in fuel efficiency. But he has concentrated on promoting alternative fuels that provide the added political benefit of catering to home-state industries. He joined with other farm-state senators to introduce a measure to encourage production of biofuels, including corn-based ethanol.

 

Obama has pushed for parochial energy interests even when it has raised environmental concerns.

 

Reflecting the interests of southern Illinois coal producers, he sponsored legislation to provide tax breaks and other incentives for refineries that turn coal into liquid fuel, generating criticism from environmental groups that say the coal-based technology would contribute to global warming.

 

Some of those home-state industries also have been big campaign contributors. Obama has said nuclear power plants should be considered part of the solution to global warming -- good news for Exelon Corp., the giant nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois. Exelon's executives and employees were big backers of Obama's 2004 Senate bid and gave his presidential campaign nearly $160,000 in the first quarter of this year, second only to UBS-Americas, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

 

A broader examination of Obama's voting reveals a decidedly liberal record.

 

He voted to increase the minimum wage, to permit federal funding of stem cell research and against banning desecration of the flag, votes that could become fodder for GOP critics.

 

In a few significant instances, though, he broke with the ranks of liberals, voting, for example, to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. He voted against both of Bush's choices for the Supreme Court but sided with conservatives three times on other controversial Bush judicial nominees.

 

Perhaps one of the most surprising breaks with liberal interest groups came early in his term, when Obama voted for a class-action reform bill that would give federal courts jurisdiction in more such cases. Trial lawyers were stunned.

 

"How could someone, who would otherwise be a voice for consumers, vote for this?" said Todd A. Smith, a Chicago attorney who at the time was president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

 

Obama said he was concerned about the problem of plaintiffs' lawyers shopping around for friendly judges and juries.

 

'Here's what I believe'

 

In his second year, Obama began to make use of the bully pulpit that had been at his disposal all along.

 

He dotted his 2006 calendar with a few high-profile speeches, including one on energy policy and a well-received address on the role of faith in politics. In addition, he used his second book, "The Audacity of Hope," as a broader platform for national policy ideas.

 

In keeping with the original game plan, staff members spent nights and weekends scouring the chapters as they rolled in, looking for potential political pitfalls -- a vetting committee Obama didn't have when he published his earlier, more provocative memoir.

 

For instance, when Obama was seeking to name someone as the epitome of left-leaning politics, an aide urged him to use a House member instead of a Senate colleague. So the book names now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), though Obama's voting record is similar to hers.

 

The news media chronicled his summer pilgrimage to Africa, the homeland of his father and a poignant part of his personal story.

 

That fall, his book tour brought out large and enthusiastic crowds. Big crowds also turned out for fundraising appearances he made for Democratic candidates in the midterm election campaign, during which he made 40 stops for candidates in 21 states during the closing six weeks. The excitement surrounding his emergence on the national political scene had given him entree to some of the nation's wealthiest and best-connected people, and he now employed his flair for fundraising to help fellow Democrats and potential friends.

 

Obama was particularly taken with the success of his book. When he was new to the Senate, a friend said, "It was possible his star quality would fade." But the reception on the book tour and fundraising circuit suggested the public's enthusiasm for him was not so ephemeral.

 

And with popular opinion turning against the Iraq war, many of Obama's friends thought his time to run for president was not in 2012 or 2016 but now.

 

One of those urging Obama to move forward was Illinois' senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin.

 

"I told him, 'These opportunities come around once, at best twice in a lifetime,' " Durbin said. " 'You ought to think about that seriously.' "

 

Thoughts turn to White House

 

For much of last year, Obama focused on the congressional campaigns. But last fall he began sounding out close friends on a presidential run.

 

"During those final months of the midterms, it became clear we were going to have to have a conversation after the election," said Axelrod, the political consultant.

 

"But it wasn't at all clear where that conversation would go," he said. "If you're going to consider this, we better get together and run through what it would entail -- whether it's doable, whether it's advisable, and ultimately, whether you feel like you want to do it."

 

The morning after the November election, high-ranking Senate staffers and a few of Obama's friends were summoned to meet with the senator and key political advisers at Axelrod's office in Chicago. Obama was ready to talk.

 

Seated around the table in the conference room, the political experts talked in explicit terms. They gave Obama a primer on running a campaign, emphasizing its organizational and personal demands.

 

And they carefully parsed the question of how -- and whether -- they could even put together such a campaign so quickly.

 

When they left, the people who had so carefully mapped Obama's cautious Senate career had a new task to consider: an audacious, caution-be-damned run for the presidency in 2008.

 

----------

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

X

[Chet Lemon]

He voted to increase the minimum wage, to permit federal funding of stem cell research and against banning desecration of the flag, votes that could become fodder for GOP critics.

 

Also voting to increase the minimum wage: Inhofe, McConnell, Sessions, Hatch, Lott, and 89 other liberal pussy Senators.

 

Also voting for stem cell research: Lott, Hatch, Frist, Burr, Lugar, Bennett, Cochran, etc.

 

Also voting against flag desecration amdt: McConnell, Bennett (couple of liberal, RINO mavericks here)

 

Hopefully those GOP critics find fodder to get these damn turncoats too! Obama first though!

[southsider2k5]

Also voting to increase the minimum wage: Inhofe, McConnell, Sessions, Hatch, Lott, and 89 other liberal pussy Senators.

 

Also voting for stem cell research: Lott, Hatch, Frist, Burr, Lugar, Bennett, Cochran, etc.

 

Also voting against flag desecration amdt: McConnell, Bennett (couple of liberal, RINO mavericks here)

 

Hopefully those GOP critics find fodder to get these damn turncoats too! Obama first though!

 

How many of those guys are running for President?

 

 

.....