Organizing for America | Dae's Blog: An overview of Barack Obama's 10 years as a state and U.S. senator

Post from Dae's Blog:

An overview of Barack Obama's 10 years as a state and U.S. senator

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim - Feb 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm EST

Also listed in: 8 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Accomplishments, experience, Talking Points, voting record

This post summarizes a presentation I gave to about 80 Barack Obama supporters at the last Seattle meetup for Barack Obama. The day before the meetup, I had been asked to talk about Senator Obama's 10 years in the Illinois and U.S. Senates. Since my presentation, I've received several requests to write down and post a summary of my presentation. Here it is.

In this post, I've tried to pull the best from several hundred news articles. A lot of the news articles were mostly fluff, and/or redundant. As Senator Obama notes, it's not that he hasn't given substantive speeches on nearly every major political issue, and written two best selling books that outline his political philosophy in greater detail than any of the other candidates. The problem is that the press would rather write about how he looks in swim trunks than to actually review his speeches and political platform. In this post, I've also referenced a few key themes from Audacity of Hope. I've also quickly reviewed his voting record in the U.S. Senate, compared it to Hillary Clinton's voting record, and will touch on some of the key votes, below. I've saved approximately 60 news articles that I've relied upon in writing most of this post, and will try to post them in the next 1-2 weeks.

   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.

    In an interview, Senator Obama stated that his signature bills while in Springfield, the ones he's most proud of, were: expanding Kidcare (health insurance for an additional 20,000 Illinois children); welfare reform (a bipartisan bill passed in Republican controlled senate, generating major headlines); earned income tax credit (tax relief for working poor families); and death penalty reform. (He supports the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, but wanted all interrogations to be videotaped. Initially viewed as a highly controversial proposal, Senator Obama listened to all sides of the debate, incorporated ideas from many individuals, and the result was a bill that passed the Senate 58-0, and was signed into law by a governor who originally opposed Senator Obama's bill.)

    Though not cited by Senator Obama in the same interview, I would add to his major achievements in Springfield: campaign finance reform; and ethics reform. These were considered major accomplishments in Illinois. When Senator Obama entered the Illinois Senate, he told Emil Jones, the Democratic majority leader in the Illinois Senate, that he wanted to work hard. He asked Senator Jones to send him any difficult assignments. On the issue of campaign finance reform, he was handpicked by Mr. Jones to lead the Democrats' senate efforts at campaign finance reform. (Senator Obama wanted to limit individual contributions, but nipped and tucked seeking consensus. Obama was pragmatic. The result was the most ambitious campaign finance reform in nearly 25 years, according to good government groups.)

    Senator Obama demonstrated political courage in opposing bills he believed were unconstitutional or poorly written, even if the vote could later be used in misleading 30 second commercials against him. He opposed a bill to toughen penalties for violent crimes committed by gang activity, because the bill didn't clearly define a gang member, and seemed targeted at Hispanics and Blacks. (This does not mean he is soft on crime. He also voted for, or sponsored, over 100 bills to strengthen criminal penalties (e.g. against sex offenders, domestic violence, drug dealers)). He opposed a bill that allowed home owners to use a gun in self defense in their homes. (He opposed that bill because it only applied to towns that already prohibited any private citizen from possessing a handgun. He opposed it because the law could lead to homeowners using guns in the street. He also wanted to defer to local governments.) He also opposed a measure which proponents claimed was designed to protect "live babies born during abortion procedures." (He felt the measure would define a fetus as a person and criminalize every abortion.) His death penalty reform bill was also given little chance of being passed into law, yet was eventually passed by unanimous consent of the Senate. (Audacity of Hope, pp 58-59)

    The clearest example of Senator Obama's political courage was his vocal opposition to war in Iraq in 2002. At the time, many Democrats with national ambition were supporting George W Bush's posture on Iraq. At the time, Bush and the war still had public support.

    The ease with which Senator Obama works with Republicans is demonstrated, not only in Springfield, but both before and after. There were several reasons he was elected President of Harvard Law Review: his grades (graduating magna cum laude); his writing ability; and his friendships with many of the conservatives on the Law Review who felt he would always consider their opinions. In Springfield, he played very low stakes poker with both Democratic and Republican friends. He also played basketball with them. He was liked and/or respected by every Republican state senator whose interview I have encountered thus far. When he spoke on the floor of the state senate, people listened; and even if they disagreed with him, they knew he spoke with conviction. And in the U.S. Senate, his closest friend is Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), a conservative Republican. They entered the Senate at the same time, and they and their wives immediately hit it off and became close friends. As a result, they were able to work together to pass the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.

    In Springfield, Senator Obama demonstrated a remarkable work ethic. Not only did he tell Senator Jones he was ready to work hard, he followed through. When Democrats finally achieved a majority in the state senate, Senator Obama was elevated to Chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee; 2003-2004 were the only two years Barack Obama has ever been in a political majority in either Illinois or (until recently) Washington, D.C. During those two years, he sponsored 780 bills, and 280 of those were signed into law.

    He sponsored laws against discrimination of gays in employment and housing. (It passed after he left Springfield.) He work on a ban on assault weapons. He supported a bill to allow retired officers can carry concealed weapons. He worked worked for legislation to expand health insurance coverage. (He proposed a study on how to provide universal health care to everyone in Illinois backed by a single payer health care plan run by the state.) He helped pass bills to increase aids funding. He sponsored a bill to investigate racial profiling by police, essentially second guessing police officers. (By incorporating the best ideas from all sides on this and other bills, he even managed to win the endorsement of the state police officers union when he ran for U.S. Senate.)

    Senator Obama has a reputation of being a quick study on complex political issues. Many in Springfield commented on this - so has Senator Lugar in Washington, D.C. (Together, they sponsored the Lugar-Obama Bill. It's an anti-proliferation bill that expands on existing efforts to locate and destroy WMDs, e.g. shoulder fired missiles and antipersonnel mines.)

    Senator Obama had a desire to consider all opinions, and to incorporate the views of both Democrats and Republicans. He led the fight to require that all police interrogations be videotaped in death penalty cases. (This was a controversial bill which cited as an example of Obama considering all sides on an issue.)

    Eight years in Springfield gave Senator Obama many opportunities to work on the political issues that face all active senators at both the state and federal level, as well as the president: ethics reform; campaign finance reform; welfare reform; considering universal health care, and expanding health care for children; laws banning discrimination against gays and lesbians; overhauled the capital punishment system; funded a systematic investigation of racial profiling; voted to increase the minimum wage (from $5.15 to 6.50); helped pass earned income credit for working poor families; voted for embryonic stem cell research; voted to end $300 million in tax breaks for businesses.

    Some dismiss Obama's victory in the U.S. Senate campaign because he had only nominal competition in the general election. However, he soundly defeated a crowded field of better known, better financed Democrats in the primaries. He defeated Blair Hull. Hull had sold his trading business to Goldman Saches for $531 million, and during the primaries outspent Obama 6:1. (Hull wasn't a charismatic candidate, and was further sunk by an allegation of ugly run-ins with ex wife.) (Audacity of Hope, pp 111-113) But Obama also defeated Dan Hynes, Illinois state comptroller, in the same primaries. Hynes had been endorsed by 85 of 102 Democratic county chairmen, and by the AFL CIO. (But Obama was endorsed by the state teachers union, and unions representing the textile, hotel and food service employees, as well as the state police union.) (Audacity of Hope, pp 117-118)

    Some say that Obama lost touch with Illinois after being elected to the U.S. Senate. They argue that Obama was too busy flying around the country, campaigning and fundraising for other Democratic candidates. But in his first first year as U.S. Senator, Senator Obama held 39 town hall meetings throughout Illinois. (Audacity of Hope, p 101)

    In his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama was back in his familiar role as member of the minority party. Republicans tightly controlled the U.S. Senate, and it was very difficult for any Democratic Senator to get a bill passed. During that time, Senator Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more.

    Senator Obama thus far has two bills which became law, that have his name on them. The Lugar-Obama bill which I've already discussed, expands efforts to destroy WMDs (e.g. in the former Soviet states). And the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. The Transparency Act created a website managed by OMB for ensuring transparency of funds allocated to government agencies. It tracks all federal spending, and allows Google-type searches based on agency, types of funding, etc.

   One of his first bills after being elected to the U.S. Senate was a proposal to increased Pell Grants, thereby fulfilling a campaign promise. Unfortunately, in the tightly controlled Republican Senate, this bill didn't make it out of committee.

    Perhaps his most impressive accomplishment in the U.S. Senate happened on January 18, 2007. That is when the Senate passed a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. (Senator Obama had voted against a prior ethics reform bill that he said wasn't tough enough.) Newspapers give Senators Obama and Russ Feingold significant credit for insisting that this latest ethics bill included tough measures. Obama risked some political capital to get this bill passed. The bill bans gifts/meals from lobbyists; puts an end to subsidized corporate jets; requires full disclosure of earmarks (who are the earmarks for, and for what purpose); places restrictions on retiring members of Congress going immediately into lobbying; requires lobbyists to disclose bundling of contributions to Congress, candidates or committees. This was a HUGE victory for Senator Obama. It still needs to be reconciled with a House version of the bill, and then signed by the president.

    Senator Democratic leader Harry Reid has designated Barack Obama as the Democrats' point man on ethics, citing three reasons for his selection: whenever Obama walks into a room, everyone stops talking and listens to what he has to say; Obama is known for having unquestionable ethics and integrity; Obama's expertise on ethics and campaign reform while in Springfield made him a leading expert on those same issues in the U.S. Senate. This last point can't be emphasized enough. The fact that Obama mastered, and led the fight, on so many complex political issues in eight years in Springfield gave him a huge head start in addressing the same complex issues at the federal level.

     Senator Obama has also sponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. It would cap troops at January 10, 2007 levels, begin withdrawal by May 1, 2007, and call for complete withdrawal of combat brigades by March 31 of 2008. Withdrawal would be postponed if Iraq meets certain benchmarks. This is consistent with the Iraq Study Group. (Solely from memory, I believe this study group was chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker III.) Bill Richardson wants complete withdrawal by end of 2007. Hillary Clinton has called for a phased withdrawal of troops starting in 90 days. John Edwards 40,000-50,000 troops withdrawn immediately, and the remainder withdrawn within 12-18 months.

    Senator Obama also has experience and judgment on foreign policy. He is on the senate committees for foreign relations; homeland security; veterans affairs; health, education, labor and pensions. He studied political science with an emphasis on international relations and Columbia. And he's gone on three major trips overseas as part of an official Senate delegation, meeting with U.S. generals, and/or foreign leaders. He and Senator Lugar travelled to the former Soviet states to inspect the destruction of WMDs; he traveled to Iraq and met with U.S. generals, and also toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories (he told Palestinian Authority President MahMoud Abbas that US would never recognize Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to eliminate Israel.); he visited various African countries, including Kenya (his father's homeland), and publicly took an AIDS test to show people in Africa that it was ok and even socially responsible to have an AIDS test.

    He has backed various plans for lessening reliance on Middle East oil. He has offered the big three domestic automakers a deal: the federal government pays 10% of health care costs of their retired employees, if the automakers will commit to building more fuel efficient cars. He has also called for increased fuel efficiency standards (3 percent every year for 15 years). He's encouraged use of ethnanol as an alternative fuel.

    He embraces religion, and invokes his Christian faith in public discourse. But he writes repeatedly in Audacity of Hope that he also believes in separation of church and state. "Contrary to the claims of many on the Christian right who rail against the separation of church and state, their argument is not with a handful of liberal sixties judges. It is with the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the forebears of today's evangelical church." (Audacity of Hope, pp 216-7) He notes that neither his mother nor step-father were religious. (Audacity of Hope, pp 202-205) His maternal grandfather was raised Baptist, and his maternal grandmother's family was Methodists, but neither was very religious. (Audacity of Hope, pp 202-203) Barack Obama's father was raised a Muslim, but was a confirmed atheist by the time he met Barack Obama's mother. (Audacity, p 204)

    At least in theory, Senator Obama opposes the use of filibusters to stop judicial nominations. He recalls how this practice was abused by white southern politicians to stall civil rights legislation for many years. (Audacity of Hope, p 80-83) Instead, he believes in the democratic process to bring about justice.

    In Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama anticipates nearly every argument that will later be used against his presidential campaign. He notes what many of us already knew: after the civil rights and voting rights acts of 1964 and 1965, LBJ predicted that the South would vote Republican thereafter. (Audacity of Hope, p 27) The people who will vote against him because of his skin color will already be voting against him because of his politics. (My own observation: Bill Clinton is sometimes referred to as America's first Black president because he appointed many people of color to government posts. How many racists could have been cheering when Bill Clinton said we should mend affirmative action, not end it?)

    Senator Obama believes the debate between "free trade" and "fair trade" doesn't address the underlying issues that need to be resolved in order for America to be competitive in a global economy. Fair trade would force other countries to enforce minimum wage laws, environmental laws, child labor laws, and address artificially low currency exchange rates, etc. But fair trade can't address the oversupply of cheap labor in other countries, automation of factories, increased efficiencies in production that require fewer workers (and outsourcing). (Audacity of Hope, pp 172-174) Senator Obama believes the answer is in better K-12 education, especially in math and science, and better job training and retraining for displaced American workers. Teachers should be paid more, especially in math and science, as should teachers in certain inner-city schools; they should be given more autonomy, but also be held accountable for showing their students are learning; he would adjust performance reviews to factor for higher scores in more affluent neighborhoods, and supplement teacher evaluations with peer review. He would reform the teacher certification process so people with certain skills could obtain teaching certificates after taking fewer classes. (Audacity of Hope, 161-163) He favors having some charter schools. He would increase government assistance for access to post secondary education, through Pell grants, low interest loans, tax free educational savings accounts, and/or make tuition and costs fully tax deductible. (Audacity of Hope, 164-165) He cites Robert Rubin's conclusion that open trade, if combined with government support for top quality education, will be a net gain for our country. (Audacity of Hope, p 175) (Obama doesn't refer to either free or fair trade at this point.) But he voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), because he felt that Bush hadn't done enough to show American workers that its government was on their side. (Audacity of Hope, pp 172-176) (By that, I assume Obama means Bush hasn't done enough to prepare American workers to compete in a global economy.)  In contrast, he has backed a free trade agreement with the Middle East country of Oman. He reasoned that the financial impact to the U.S. was small, and worth it to expand engagement with the region.

    Here are a few major bills Senator Obama has voted on the U.S. Senate that undecided voters may ask you about.

    Senator Obama cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, S-2611, sponsored by John McCain. It passed the Senate on May 25, 2006, by a vote of 62-36. Republicans largely opposed the bill, Democrats largely supported the bill. (Curiously, George W Bush, having been governor of a border state, has a fairly sophisticated understanding of this issue.) Under this bill, undocumented persons (my phrasing) who have been in the country five or more years would be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, provided they pay back taxes, learn English and have no serious criminal records. Undocumented persons who have been in the United States between 2-5 years would eventually have to return to a point of entry in Mexico or Canada and apply for a green card, which could allow their immediate return. The roughly 2 million undocumented persons who have been in the United States for less than two years would be ordered home.

    Senator Obama opposed S-256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The title of the bill is misleading. The most significant change in bankruptcy law in 25 years, it would require many people filing for bankruptcy to repay a portion of their debt under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code rather than allowing them to erase it almost entirely under the more commonly used Chapter 7. Those opposing the bill said the bill didn't take into account dire situations faced by those who face divorce, disease, job loss, and other crises. Curiously, Hillary Clinton did not vote on this historic bill. (I would just note that many of the creditors and banks who benefit from this bill have strong ties to New York.)

On June 22, 2006, the Senate voted on two amendments regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq. John Kerry offered an amendment to S-2766 for withdrawal of nearly all American troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. All 55 Republicans joined 31 Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) in voting "no" on the measure. However, on the same day, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted "yes" on the Levin-Reed amendment to S-2766, a nonbinding proposal urging President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq this year.

   Senator Obama also voted "yes" on: stem cell research (H R 810); modified Patriot Act (H R 3199); curtailing ability of plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits against corporations (Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill).

   He voted "no" on: constitutional amendment banning flag burning (S J Res 12); gay marriage amendment (vote 163 on a cloture of debate motion, effectively killing the amendment); extending Bush's tax cuts (H R 4297); confirmation of Samuel Alito; $40 bilion in cuts from welfare, child support and student lending programs (vote 363); confirmation of John Roberts, Jr. (vote 245); confirmation of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador (vote 142 on cloture motion, blocking the confirmation for a second time); CAFTA (S 1307).

    Three final tips. One, when undecided voters ask about Senator Obama's "inexperience" or lack of foreign policy experience, I always immediately turn the conversation around, and politely ask who they are considering, and what record of accomplishments that candidate has. I note that with the exception of John McCain, none of the major candidates on either side have much experience, including foreign policy experience. And I note that John McCain is too tied to the war in Iraq. As Senator Obama notes, if years in Washington DC is all people are looking for, we should just elect Chris Dodd and Joseph Biden. People who knock Senator Obama as being unqualified are speaking in the abstract, and comparing him to some idealized candidate who doesn't exist; when compared to real human opponents, Senator Obama compares very favorably.

    Second, note that according to multiple sources (including "the Fix" at the Washington Post) Senator Obama has one of the most experienced, qualified campaign staffs of any candidate for president. In other words, Senator Obama isn't afraid to surround himself with the best and brightest, and to listen to their advice. Try to read any interview you can find where David Alexrod is talking about the 2008 elections. He is one of Senator Obama's closest advisor, and one of the smartest people in American politics.

    My final tip is partially from another supporter of Senator Obama, although I also made a similar observation in a prior post on my blog. When making your case about Senator Obama, do not be pushy. Be sure to give your friends, family, etc, lots of time and space to decide to support Senator Obama on their own time frame. Our job isn't always to persuade people to vote for Senator Obama. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Our job is to make undecided voters more receptive to Senator Obama, so that they'll do their own research about him, and be more receptive to the next person who talks to them about Senator Obama.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Daewoo Kim
Seattle, Washington

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Please explain | Report to Admin

By fior Feb 18th 2007 at 8:38 pm EST

Mr. Kim, Many thanks for the comprehensive review of Senator Obama's positions. I support the Senator, and think he would be an excellent president. I have contributed to HopeFund and to the campaign.

That said, I find some of Senator Obama's positions on gay and lesbian issues troubling. He approaches these issues in his writing and in his speeches hesitantly, usually from a religious perspective or from a "we have more urgent issues than this" perspective.

For twenty million Americans these issues are extremely urgent. Other Democratic leaders are less hesitant in their support for our communities. (Tipper Gore, for example, serves on the board of the Matthew Shepard Foundation.)

I realize the issue of marriage v. civil unions is freighted with religious baggage, and in The Audacity of Hope Obama approaches it from that perspective. Rather than befuddle the point in theological argument, why hasn't Obama said clearly and unequivocally that he would remove discrimination against gay and lesbian American families from federal law?

Why did Obama join right wing Republicans in the 109th Congress and DECLINE to co-sponsor the Uniting American Families Act, legislation which would extend to gay and lesbian American families the same immigration rights other American families enjoy? This question requires an answer. It goes to very basic constitutional and moral principles. Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country? Do we deserve full equality, or selective equality? Are our families valued and important, or does the Senator join the Republicans who take the view that gays and lesbians somehow cannot have serious family relationships? Human Rights Watch in 2006 cited United States law with respect to gay and lesbian immigration rights as a human rights abuse. I personally am very troubled that Senator Obama declined to support gay and lesbian American families on this critical issue.

Please explain why Obama did not co-sponsor the Uniting American Families Act in the 109th Congress.

Re: Please explain | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 2:43 am EST

Lewistown MT, thank you for taking the time to write.

For the 107th Congress, Barack Obama received a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign. For the 108th Congress, Senator Obama again received a 100% approval rating from HRC. For the 109th Congress, Senator Obama received 89% approval rating from the HRC.

That averages out to a 96% approval rating from HRC. I agree that 96% isn't good enough. I agree there's room for improvement. But none of the serious candidates for president has earned a higher score from HRC.

Senator Obama has long been a champion of equal rights for all Americans. In Illinois, he led the fight for a law to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the U.S. Senate, he voted "no" on: the Federal Marriage Amendment; Judge William Pryor's confirmation; Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation.

He voted "yes" on the Lautenberg Amendment to the Child Custody Protection Act. He supported the Early Treatment for HIV Act. He supported the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005, extending hate crime laws to crimes based on sexual orientation.

It's true that Barack Obama joined Hillary Clinton and almost every other Democrat in voting against the United Americans Families Act. But it's not fair for you to say he "joined" right wing Republicans in doing so; only 14 of 100 Senators voted for S-1278. I don't know his reasoning for opposing S-1278.

But I believe that Senator Obama is a good man who will do everything that is politically possible to champion the rights of all Americans.

Re: Please explain | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Mar 31st 2007 at 1:05 pm EDT

I have just learned that there was an error in my last post. Senator Obama's approval rating from HRC is 89%, not 96%. I was looking at a chart and transposed one Illinois senator's record with the other Illinois senator's record.

Re: Please explain | Report to Admin

By Trenton Feb 20th 2008 at 1:25 am EST

When did gay and lesbians become "immigrants". Everyone who is disenfranchised should not be pegged as a "immigrant". Just as equal rights was first spoke about in reference to blacks in this country, now every single social subgroup now claims the same rights they neither struggled nor fought for.

Awesome! | Report to Admin

By mswa Feb 18th 2007 at 9:13 pm EST

Thank you for your blog posts, Mr. Kim. They are equally interesting, informative, and inspiring.

With your permission, I'd like to post a link to your blog in mine to be posted at the groups I belong to. Check me out here: Link

Of course, I will wait for your response here.

Thank you.

mswa

Re: Awesome! | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 2:48 am EST

MSWA,

I would be delighted if you would post a link in your blog to mine. Please feel free to do so. All of us need to share our ideas with one another, instead of constantly reinventing the wheel.

Cheers,

Dae

Thank you! | Report to Admin

By mswa Feb 19th 2007 at 11:49 am EST

Dae,

Thanks for your permission!

I've posted a number of excerpts from your posts "An overview" and "Five projects" in the post "Intro to Barack Obama 101" at my blog "I have a dream": Link In fact, the post has very little of my comments and very much of your words in excerpts. I hope you don't mind.

If you get a chance to read it and find anything incorrect or objectional, please let me know.

I'm thrilled to do what I can to spread Obama's and your messages! Thanks again!

mswa

Re: Thank you! | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 20th 2007 at 2:51 pm EST

MSWA,

Of course I don't mind; I'm thrilled you are sharing my thoughts with others. (I'm just relieved people don't seem to be using my posts to wrap their fish.) I had a chance to read your blog, and it looks great! I'll be visiting it regularly. Thanks again for all your efforts on behalf of Senator Obama!

Dae

A+ | Report to Admin

By Todd.B. (office of citizen) Feb 18th 2007 at 9:22 pm EST

Daewoo, Thanks for this tremendous effort towards educating supporters and uncommitted voters beyond the 20 second soundbite of traditional meadia. One distinction I would like to point out on the bipartisan death penalty reform bill (passed 58-0) that Senator Obama sponsored in the Illinois legislature was that it was initially opposed by a Democratic Governor. Not only is Barack Obama willing to work with members of the other party, but if need be, he is willing to stand up against his own party to serve his constituents first.

Re: A+ | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 2:53 am EST

Todd,

Thank you for your feedback.

You make an excellent point. I did mention that the governor originally opposed Senator Obama's bill, but I didn't realize that it was a Democratic governor. With your permission, I'll amend my post to reflect your observation, and cite you as the source after double checking it myself.

Thanks again.

Dae

Re: A+ | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 3:04 am EST

Todd,

I found a cite for your observation. Page 58 of Audacity of Hope. Thanks for pointing that out.

Dae

Voting as "Present" | Report to Admin

By Lynn, Sacramento, CA Feb 18th 2007 at 9:25 pm EST

I posted this elsewhere before seeing your excellent summary of the legislative history of Barack Obama. Thank you for that.

My question has to do with the article about the "present" vote in Illinois politics. It is starting to become a negative in the blogosphere. The media hasn't done much reporting on that I've seen, except for the one linked below.

Please help me understand the issue and how to form a response to anyone raising it.

Here's a link to the article:

Link

Thanks.

Do we have your permission to use your post in our group meets to get everyone up to speed?

Re: Voting as "Present" | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 3:19 am EST

Lynn,

Yes, please use my post at group meets to get everyone up to speed. When I wrote my post, I was hoping to save other people the time it took to do all that research.

The moment I read your post, I immediately knew your question and Senator Obama's answer without clicking on your link. But I appreciated your link and read the article. I've come across this issue before regarding Senator Obama, and I've spent the last few minutes looking for the cite to his answer. Assuming I find the cite, I'll post it here. But here is the answer Senator Obama has previously given to your question. He felt that the Republicans in the Illinois Senate had drafted certain bills for the sole purpose of creating wedge issues at election time. Senator Obama represented a district that was solidly Democratic, and he could have voted whichever way he wanted. But he had worked out a plan to provide political cover for Democratic senators representing swing districts, so that they could follow his lead and vote "present" if they wanted. (I believe he worked out this plan with the Democratic leadership in the Illinois Senate, but I'm not 100% confident of my memory on this last detail, since it's been months since I read the applicable news article.)

Dae

Re: Voting as "Present" | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 3:21 am EST

Thanks.

Re: Voting as "Present" | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 3:49 am EST

Lynn,

I found the cite for Senator Obama's answer to your question. Washington Post article by Peter Slevin, dated February 9, 2007: Obama forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol.

"Obama was a steady supporter of abortion rights, said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield, although he caught flak from the political left in 2004 as he ran for he U.S. Senate."

"The reason was a series of votes on such issues as late-term abortion and parental notification when Obama voted 'present' instead of yeah or nay. He said he was not tacking toward the center, but an opponent in the Democratic primary sent mailers portraying a rubber duck and proclaiming, 'He ducked!'"

"Obama said his votes helped provide cover for other legislators. Sutherland said the votes were part of a strategy designed with Obama's help to deny Republicans easy campaign sound bites."

"'The Republicans loved to put out legislation all the time that would put their opponents in a trick box during the elections.' Sutherland said. 'It was a strong statement to those who promoted bad legislation that we're not going to take this; you can't use this against us.'"

I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks.

Dae

Thank you | Report to Admin

By freedom4u_n_me Feb 18th 2007 at 9:26 pm EST

I just wanted to say thanks. Your presentation is very informative and well written. I am in central Illinois and I'm planning a meeting. May I use parts of your presentation to answer questions, etc. I will quote you.
Thank you, again,
Gail

Re: Thank you | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 19th 2007 at 3:23 am EST

Gail,

Yes, please feel free to use my presentation to answer questions. Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts.

Dae

Re: Thank you | Report to Admin

By fior Feb 19th 2007 at 12:10 pm EST

Following up on your earlier reply to my question as to the Uniting American Families Act in the 109th, do you know or do you have a good guess as to why Obama and Clinton refused to support UAFA last year?

You indeed seem well informed on Obama, and I certainly would like to know your views on this important point. I am a US citizen, but my partner of the past 25 years is not. Nineteen years ago we were forced to move overseas because federal law discriminates against gay families. Over the years we both have paid federal taxes (my partner pays tax on income from a US brokerage account), I have voted in federal and state elections, and we both have been active in US politics. We want to come home while we have a few healthy years ahead of us. Hence my keen interest in UAFA.

I am especially keen to know whether Obama acted on principle (if so, what is the principle?) or whther he found it inconvenient to address gay immigration in view of his impending run.

I find it especially ironic that Obama, who in Dreams from my Father writes at length of immigration issues, could decline to support something so obvious as gay immigration rights. Indeed, in May of 2006 Human Rights Watch cited United States immigration policy as applied to gay and lesbian families as a significant human rights abuse. After nineteen years, I tend to agree with Human Rights Watch.

Why do you think Obama said no to UAFA?

Re: Thank you | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 20th 2007 at 1:41 am EST

Lewistown MT,

As I said in my last post, I don't know why Senators Obama and Clinton were part of 86 Senators who voted "no" on UAFA S-1278. As Senator Obama notes, below, most Americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians, until the word marraige is brought up. And that point, there is suddenly strong opposition.

Over a 3 year period, Senator Obama has earned a 96% approval rating from HRC - the highest of any serious candidate for president. Based on that, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. As I said in my last post, I believe Senator Obama will do everything that is politically possible to bring equality to all Americans.

You should read Senator Obama's words from Audacity of Hope, pp 223-4. He says he relies in part on the Bible to inform his understanding of the world. But he also says that the Bible is the Living Word (perhaps like the Constitution?) and that he must be continually open to new revelations to help him understand the meaning of the Bible. He says that some of these revelations may come from the words of wisdom of his gay and lesbian friends. He says that by invoking religion, he never meant to imply that gays and lesbians were bad people, and he felt badly that that was how some had interpreted it. Speaking of unspecified gays and lesbians, he said they were good people. He said that gays and lesbians are often truer to Christ's message than those who condemn them (and that it was not his intent to do so).

============================== ===================
The following are excerpts from an interview conducted by the Windy City Times 24 months ago.

WCT: You have a large list of gay and lesbian supporters.

Obama: I've been a strong supporter of gay and lesbian issues for a long time, which means I have a lot of personal relationships in the gay and lesbian community. Initially, our committee formed of its own volition and is continuing to expand.

WCT: What about the military's 'don't ask' policy?

Obama: I think it needs to be eliminated. ... I think it is safe to assume that we have a significant number of gay and lesbian soldiers in Iraq. The notion that somehow they should be treated differently is contrary to what this country is about.

WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

WCT: Talk about your record on hate crimes.

Obama: I have been a strong advocate for hate-crimes legislation at the state level. I would continue to be an equally strong advocate at the federal level. I absolutely think that sexual orientation has to be included in all hate-crimes legislation.

WCT: Gender identity as well?

Obama: Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them.

WCT: Do you support adding gender identity to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

Obama: Yes. I think this is a difficult question because it touches on, for example, the rights of schools or other public institutions that may be concerned about a transgendered person in positions of authority. I would think the political resistance on that would be fierce. I'd have to look at the language.

WCT: Adoption and family law is very inconsistent. Is this a federal or state issue?

Obama: I think that's really a state issue. I think that one of the things, as an advocate on behalf of gay and lesbian issues, I would like to be able to do, is throw issues of state's rights back in the face of Republicans who, for example, try to pass constitutional amendments or federal laws that prevent states from adopting their own policies.

WCT: As a constitutional lawyer, do you have a comment on the dozens of state anti-gay marriage acts—will they survive a constitutional challenge?

Obama: I think that there is a complex issue that is going to be percolating in the courts with respect to "full faith and credit" and how those cases are treated. The federal government has the capacity to override state laws, through the supremacy clause. It is unusual for a federal law to override an underlying principle that states should recognize each other's laws. So I don't know how the federal government is going to come out on this. I think it's going to be argued all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WCT: On immigration—there is an HIV ban, and there is no ability for gays to marry and thus have their partners stay in the U.S.

Obama: I haven't studied either of those issues carefully. I would object instinctively to a ban on visitors with HIV. I think that that's a remnant of initial fears about HIV transmission that were inaccurate. I would want to examine the immigration law in the broader context of the immigration policy.

WCT: Why do you feel the LGBT community should support you over another candidate for the U.S. Senate?

Obama: I think that the Democratic Party in Illinois, particularly in Chicago, has made enormous strides in embracing the issues that confront the LGBT community. I think that any of the Democratic candidates would be an improvement—or would better serve the LGBT community—than the Republican counterparts. But ultimately, I think one of the questions that this community has to look at is, who's not just going to be a good vote, but who's going to be a passionate advocate on behalf of their issues? Who's got the capacity to reframe the debate, who's able to articulate and present these issues in ways that change people's hearts and minds? That's something that I have consistently been able to do in the state legislature. I'm not just talking the talk or filling out questionnaires, I've walked the walk on every single issue that's been important to the LGBT community. And oftentimes I've delivered. I have never shied away from these issues. It's that kind of consistency and willingness to fight that is what I think is needed in Washington right now. Particularly because no matter what happens in this next election, there are still going to be forces at work that are promoting intolerance and are resistant to change. One of the skills that I think I have is an ability to translate my passion for equality and justice into a language that a broad audience can relate to and understand, and I think that's going to make me effective when I get to Washington.

Re: Thank you | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 20th 2007 at 2:42 pm EST

Sorry, the WCT article I recently quoted from was published in February of 2004, not February of 2005.

Overview of Barack Obama's Record | Report to Admin

By Portland4Obama Feb 20th 2007 at 5:36 pm EST

I completely agree with your extremely well-worded assessment and commentary on Barack's time in the Illinois State Legislature and as U.S. Senator.

While I believe that political debate - especially in a Presidential election - has a well-established rhythm and pulse, Barack, as mentioned in your post, has already laid out a great deal of counter-arguements and "talking points", if you will, to any possable attacks on his record or his policies. I completely agree that when referencing Barack Obama to friends, family, neighbors and others that it should be done politely and done so in the same manner and temperment that Obama approaches the average "joe" on the street - diplomatic, deliberative in tone, measured and....nice! As ambassadors of Obama's candicacy, it is incumbant upon all of us to mirror the tone and rhetoric of Obama's campaign - and not come across as ruthless ideologues, as is often the case, especially like the neo-cons that have hijacked the republican party over the last decade or so.

A great post!

Re: Overview of Barack Obama's Record | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 21st 2007 at 3:08 am EST

You make some great points! I fully agree we must mirror the tone and rhetoric of Obama's campaign. Deval Patrick ran a similarly uplifting and unifying campaign in Massachusetts. For a while now, I predicted Senator Obama would respond to attack ads the same way Patrick did: staying positive and on message. Obama has stayed positive and on message, but his campaign has also quickly responded to swiftboat-style attacks. Perhaps that's a good compromise.

Thank you for your feedback, and for your great contribution to the discussion!

great post, and further resources | Report to Admin

By Celia Paris, Grassroots Finance Assistant Feb 20th 2007 at 10:23 pm EST

Thanks for such a detailed and thorough look at Obama's legislative record! There are a couple of blog posts I'd recommend to people who found this helpful:

This one talks in depth about a few of Obama's major accomplishments in the US Senate, getting into some nice wonky detail: Link

This one analyzes how Obama's leadership could change our political discourse: Link, which I find especially helpful for talking points for family and friends.

Re: great post, and further resources | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 21st 2007 at 2:49 am EST

Celia,

Thank you for your feedback. And thanks for the links to the other sources. They were both very interesting and helpful.

Dae

Re: great post, and further resources | Report to Admin

By BlueCat Feb 21st 2007 at 5:25 pm EST

Excellent information Mr. Kim I am spreading it around and posting a forwarding link to your blog! Good work!

BlueCat :o)

Re: great post, and further resources | Report to Admin

By Daewoo "Hussein" Kim Feb 21st 2007 at 9:42 pm EST

Thanks BlueCat!

Dae

And 1 year later... | Report to Admin

By Annette Feb 20th 2008 at 7:42 am EST

We should all review this text, as one year later many still don't know the accomplishments of this great man!
A~

Chris Matthews and the ignoramus | Report to Admin

By ArchiesBoy Feb 20th 2008 at 9:10 am EST

It's a shame that the ignoramus that Chris Matthews skewered last night didn't know all this! Obama CANNOT afford to let such people run loose, let alone get on television!

Re: Chris Matthews and the ignoramus | Report to Admin

By hilarym99 Feb 20th 2008 at 9:41 am EST

I was absolutely disappointed in Senator Watson for his inability to answer that question. As a supporter of Obama, and a member of Congress himself, he should certainly be equipped with answers to questions like that, as they are inevitable in the current narrative. (Particularly if he's planning on going on TV!!)

I saw a similar situation on Fox not long ago, when Frank Luntz asked a group of people a similar question. I find it to be skewed, because they never ask the same for Senator Clinton's supporters. I simply don't think that the majority of Americans are policy wonks who read every bill that comes out of the Senate. I suspect many of Senator Clinton's supporters would not be able to name her legislative accomplishments either.

So, thanks Daewoo for this post. It's exactly what I was looking for! I'm going to share it with everyone!

Re: Chris Matthews and the ignoramus | Report to Admin

By Mina in the blue Commonwealth of Virginia Feb 20th 2008 at 10:46 am EST

Lets look at the positive side of things - what happened last night forces us all to take a second look at Obamas plans for the future and past accomplishments. What happened last night will only make us better, more informed campainers. This will help Obama in the long run as we continue to move forward campaigning for him.

Re: Chris Matthews and the ignoramus | Report to Admin

By Ron from Austin, TX Feb 21st 2008 at 5:36 pm EST

Many are still shaking their heads at the election night filleting of State Senator Kirk Watson.

So many commentators thereafter, including Keith Oberman (seated next to Matthews during their election coverage), have noted how sorry they felt for Sen. Watson for getting ginzued before a national audience. They are so right; the Obama campaign owes that guy a supreme apology by no less than the candidate himself.

Why did this happen? How could it happen? Of all the foibles of the Obama campaign (and they have been so few and so small, one would need an electron microscope to see them or a Cray to remember them), this is one of the few times where the campaign did not adequately prepare their spokesman.

I’ve personally seen and heard Sen. Watson speak. He’s intelligent, genteel, and articulate, none of which he had an opportunity to display that night. His demise was, in large part, due to those in the campaign failing to give him the tools he needed to do what they wanted.

Was it on his home page? No. Was it on his issues page? No. I had to do a Google search and found it through the Public Theology website to Mr. Kim's post. If Watson would have had this entry from a year ago 10 minutes before he went on, he could have served the candidate well and avoided the embarrassment that befell him.

Some have argued that Sen. Watson should have done the research to prepare for his moment in the national spotlight. Prudence, however, would have suggested that the campaign should have armed him with Mr. Kim’s post or at least placed it conspicuously on the Obama website so that a staffer could put it in Sen. Watson’s hands. One would have thought that something this simple would be in plain view.

May I suggest that we cut Watson some slack. I have seen some of the saviest individuals crumble on the witness stand after months of preparation with one well timed, penetrating question. And Chris Matthews is a seasoned pro when it comes to asking questions. Moreover, I suspect Watson was ask to speak on the candidate's behalf as a spinner not a historian or policy spokesman.

This is all the more reason to be armed with the information Mr. Kim has so generously provided.

Thank You! | Report to Admin

By Mary from West Palm Beach, FL Feb 20th 2008 at 2:17 pm EST

Your summary of Obama's years in Senate has been refreshing to read! I got worried this morning when I saw that the "opponent's" campaign jumped right on that "botched" Chris Matthew's interview with the Senator from Texas. They are going to milk it for all it is worth, but I hope America is smart enough to not take it at face value and to do a little research. I will be directing any critiques directly to your summary! Thanks!

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.