There are a HOST of reasons for why I strongly endorse Barack Obama for president. They range from economy to transparency etc.
But the most intimate reason I am supporting Barack are:
1. Upon reading the Audacity of Hope, I felt renewed. I am compelled to be an improved version of myself in all areas. I am more empathetic towards others. I now approach conflicts seeking to find what is common grounas a starting point for an open dialogue.
2. My two sons. The original sin of this nation, slavery, has left behind modern day casualties, and lost hope. Until now only the white mothers in our nation could give birth to a son and hope him to be in the highest office in the land. I NOW LOOK AT MY TWO SONS DIFFERENTLY--> THEY TOO COULD BE PRESIDENT ONE DAY. I never could be able to say that before, they would never have been expected to dream so BIG.
NOW ALL BOYS/GIRLS CAN NOW HOPE TO ACHIEVE THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE USA.
http://voicesweb.org/?q=node/1445
Why I, Pro-Hillary, Changed.
I was very much pro Hillary from the beginning of the campaigns. I still very much like her policy positions, her speeches, her personal enthusiasm, her energy, and very appealing projected cheerful positive personality.
There is not that much difference between her underlying positions and Obama's.
However over time, and a deeper reading and review of Obama's many positions, speeches, anecdotes and reviews of Obama's leadership capabilities, mental and strategic insightfulness and adaptability, and underlying personality, I have come to believe that Obama is much much more substantial in all qualities as a presidential candidate.
The last straw of disappointment came with the unforgettably repeated Bosnia whoppers and the subsequent attempts to dismiss questions about it. I worried that it might be the tip of the iceberg. There are several possibilities each of which is not good:
1. Does she really miss-remember? If so, what does that say about the acuteness of her Presidential mental tools? I.e., we are in trouble.2. Does she fantasize and develop an extremely detailed fantasy of the events and then believed her embellished fantasy? If so, what does that say on how we can trust her in forming the foundations of her judgments in the future as a president? I.e., we are in trouble. 3. Does she deliberately and consciously lie and in detail, to further herself? If so, does that show an underlying weakness towards using that type of a crutch in critical pressure situations either to steam roller others or to hide a position or worse? I.e., we are in trouble. See also, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists
Looking further into this concern, I now believe that she really does have a repeating pattern of lapses in personal integrity. I still like her positions and presentations. However I think she is not electable. I don't think she has the fantasy of a chance against John McCain, the straight talking express, and his team, and the Republican Swift boaters. Hillary's character is like an iceberg, and her campaign is a ship like the Titanic.
There are several specific instances noted below.
Her boss on the Nixon impeachment team, Jerry Zeifman, the General Counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, a life long democrat, says her pattern of deception and unethical behavior goes back much further; he says -
o He fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation, "Because she was a liar, .... She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality." http://www.jzeifman.com/ o He "regrets" that he "had not reported her to the appropriate bar associations. .... Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust." http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut o Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. .... The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, her boss Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. http://www.jzeifman.com/ o If these comments by her ex-boss are not true, wouldn't the Clintons' have shut down these sites long ago?
In the Whitehouse Travelgate firings, she denied having any involvement in the firings. An independent counsel grand jury investigation took sworn testimony from many people working with her, and elicited that she had directed the firings, and the independent counsel concluded that Hillary's testimony was factually false. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york061303.asp
Does anyone really believe that she, with no prior or subsequent experience of stellar success to show in stock and commodity trading really believe that out of the blue she was able to earn 10,000% in one year of commodity trading ($100,000 of profits after starting with $1,000, or eighty times George Soro's best year) with the biggest gains on short selling, on her own after spending some time perusing the Wallstreet Journal as she says? That was unquestionably an assisted trading favor in the shade of under the table compensation (and at worse, a bribe through fraudulent transactions). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v47/ai_16709018
There are numerous other anecdotes on the web.
o http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html o http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFDC1339F93BA35752C0A960958260&scp=5&sq=william+safire+blizzard+of+lies&st=nyt
How can we have such a person be President? She would have to be dealing and negotiating with multiple foreign leaders, domestic leaders, many different constituencies, all having different agendas.
o Would she be agreeing to or promising one thing after she had forgotten prior promises in another direction? o Would she be saying one thing, while working behind the scenes to do something else?
o Would she be fabricating fantasies to support her positions when such positions are unfounded and have no popular support?
Who can trust her? We had a problem with President Nixon's integrity, working surreptitiously behind the scenes at Watergate. We have a problem with President Bush's character, fantasizing about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and fantasizing about Saddam's support for Al Queda. How could we have taken such huge risks electing Presidents who are so flawed in their underlying integrity and character? I am sad to conclude that Hillary's pattern of ethical lapses reveal a fundamental tragical weakness that simply makes her not electable, no matter how otherwise appealing she may seem to be.
Chuck Todd: "Powerful ObamaNation"
I know a lot of us here at Daily Kos and the rest of the blogosphere feel like we're talking in an echo chamber and our voices never really get heard outside of our own small bubble. But take heart, the media is listening as well as Super Delegates. From First Read
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro *** ObamaNation’s power: Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday’s debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt. And as the Politico’s Ben Smith pointed out yesterday, it’s also what the GOP would face in the general election, especially if Obama is nominee. The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don’t forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice.
Get that? We changed the media narrative. Right there, we changed it. Instead of talking about the candidate's responses, the chatter is about ABC, Charlie Gibson, and George S.
For years now we have been fighting the Right Wing machine which includes the vast reach of Talk Radio figures like Rush Limbaugh whose influence on the media is well documented. But things seem to be changing. Are we finally getting that influence that used to be a privilege of Conservative blogs like Powerline, Michelle Malking and Drudge?
From Politico's Ben Smith
t also triggered the most furious outrage I've seen from the huge, and growing, Obama activist base, which in this case merged with the liberal Netroots -- which aren't always on the same page -- to generate a volume of complaints about the first 45-minutes of questioning that are pretty impossible to miss. It's just a small glimpse, I think, of the level of heat the media is going to take in the general election, and John McCain doesn't seem to have any equivalent.
t also triggered the most furious outrage I've seen from the huge, and growing, Obama activist base, which in this case merged with the liberal Netroots -- which aren't always on the same page -- to generate a volume of complaints about the first 45-minutes of questioning that are pretty impossible to miss.
It's just a small glimpse, I think, of the level of heat the media is going to take in the general election, and John McCain doesn't seem to have any equivalent.
Going into November we have an ENORMOUS opportunity to set the tone of this election. More and more sites are linking to left leaning blogs like Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald, and yes, The Great Orange Satan itself, Daily Kos. The combination of a charismatic candidate like Barack Obama and a FIRED UP base could completely shut McCain out in November. He doesn't inspire the Republican base, they are just settling for him. These are heady, exciting times indeed!
There are many reasons not to like Barack. Maybe his name is weird. Or maybe because he is new, or black or young or says it like it is ( alot of folks cannot handle that).
Maybe it is because people feel safety with name recognition ( ie the clintons?) Or that they are so cynical and hardened by life and the lies told to them by politician after politician that they now find themselves unable to 'feel' the fever of change which is upon this nation.
What ever the reason(s) it cannot be said that it is because he lacks character or has poor plans or policy. There are NO concrete measurable factual reasons to dislike this guy.
He is what this country needs right now. He makes mistakes but quickly concedes to them and then clarifies. ( some people hold on tight to mistakes and spin them, just to convince themselves that they DO have legitimate reasons not to listen to him) He educates and gives fine examples. He takes us on a walk through his intellect, his spirituality, his vision and his promise when he speaks. He has been unchanged in his goal of uniter since he set out after college.
I know it is not at all easy to accept change. It is really hard to go against what you may have believed in and talked against so much.
But if you go to learn and issues section for your facts on his plans you will find yourself surprised. You may even find yourself giddy with hope for American and America of the future.
I respect each persons right to chose. I decided to find out the facts for this very important election year. I left Hillary because after reading for myself the FACTS,
MY CONSCIENCE could let me vote only for BARACK OBAMA 2008.
