of course i'm voting for him. if i wasn't going to i might as well cut my nose off now. and i'm not going to do that. but the fisa thing bothered me too. a lot. i listened to olbermann's comment to obama about it--that helped it to make more sense.

but he's (olbermann's) right. it's not going to make the republicons vote for obama. so, for him to start leaning/moving/going right is useless/pointless. it will only serve to piss off the liberal base.

So, where's Reggie?

I, myself, was never a Hillary fan. Or an Obama fan. But he's our guy now and I've been trying to work up some enthusiasm. However it seems like just about the time I started to move forward Obama started to move backward.

That's mostly press spin.
There's a huge effort, it seems, to whip up that narrative without a lot of good reason.

Se my earlier post in this thread for some concrete examples of why we should be excited about Obama.

I don't fully agree with this guy, but he does bring up a lot of interesting points:

Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government
By PETER STEINFELS
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.

First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.

Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.

While Mr. Obama acknowledged President Bush’s promise to “rally the armies of compassion” through such an initiative, he maintained that the promise had gone unfulfilled because of too little financing and too much partisanship — and that he, Barack Obama, would not only carry out but also expand what Mr. Bush had pledged.

He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking “as someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he spelled out “a few basic principles” to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.

“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”

That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.

The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama’s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.

Religious groups that know the law have long agreed that federal money cannot be used for proselytizing or discriminating against beneficiaries. But they have never agreed that taking religious considerations into account in hiring personnel — certainly for top positions if not for all staffing — should be considered discrimination. And they point to the religious exemption in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislative and Supreme Court decisions to back this assertion.

The law, in fact, has its ambiguities and inconsistencies, as one might expect. But when the Bush administration’s religion-based initiative was debated in 2001, Jeffrey Rosen, who teaches law at George Washington University and is a regular contributor to The New York Times and other publications, pointed out the logic in an article in The New Republic.

“It’s not hard to understand why faith-based organizations need to discriminate on the basis of religion to maintain their essentially religious character,” Mr. Rosen wrote. “A Jewish organization forced to hire Baptists soon ceases to be Jewish at all.”

Mr. Rosen also noted that “without the ability to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and firing staff, religious organizations lose the right to define their organizational mission enjoyed by secular organizations that receive public funds.” If Planned Parenthood could refuse to hire people disagreeing with its views about abortion, why should churches, mosques and synagogues not have the same right?

Of course, eight years of polarization over Bush administration policies in general, plus specific accusations by former administration officials that its religion-based initiative was cynically bent to political purposes, have inflamed discussion of such questions. Add in the old conflicts over abortion and new ones over same-sex relationships, and today even longstanding government interactions with venerable religious charities, educational institutions and medical providers can no longer be taken for granted.

Beneath these immediate conflicts, generally pitting liberals against traditional faiths, is a more basic tension between two understandings of religious freedom. One is an individualistic understanding that emphasizes protecting the personal conscience, especially the dissenting conscience, from coercion. From Jefferson to Emerson to most of today’s intellectuals, this strand is typically suspicious of religious institutions, which it sees as more likely to be antagonistic than favorable to true religion.

The other is a more communitarian understanding that emphasizes the role of religious communities in nourishing conscience and providing a framework for living out its commitments. This strand has typically worried about protecting minority faiths from the pressures of the religious majority but has become increasingly sensitive to protecting any distinctive faith from being pressed to conform to a common-denominator culture.

Mr. Obama’s six little words on hiring by religious groups are not apt to be his last comment on the subject. “As someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he is surely aware that the law on religious hiring is much more complicated than a condensed reference to discrimination might suggest. And his personal combination of liberal politics and religious experience probably makes him better placed than most American politicians to realize fully what, beyond electoral gambits, is at stake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05bel...&ei=5087%0A

And Obama will keep moving in that direction. Sick thing is, I'll have to hold my nose and vote for him just to keep a republican out. That's not change we can believe in.

But he did have to face retaliation, potentially, for his unpopular but correct stance...

Remember, to say out-loud you were against it when the entire country was gearing up for it, was the courageous thing to do...yes, it would be even more courageous to do it on the record in the Senate, but he wasnt in the Senate...yet

He WAS in the Senate when he voted to fund the war, something else he SAID congress shouldn't do when he didn't have the responsibility, and voted for to renew the Patriot Act. I must be courageous too, since I was against the war too, and that must qualify me to be president. He says what he needs to say to be popular, and he does what he needs to do, just like the rest of them. If courage were a part of his being, he wouldn't be rolling over now on so many of his ideals and promises, like FISA, like faith based initiatives, like pulling the troops out, like his stupid position on NAFTA.

I've said this before...and I will say it again. You really need to read / listen to Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It really explains his thoughts about democracy, voting, etc. He explains how he makes decisions on how to vote on issues. I thought I understood the process -- but I understand it much more now that I listened to his book.

He's really smart and has what it takes.....and trust me, I was an Edwards supporter...then a Hilary supporter...and now I support Obama.

People keep telling me that, but as a founding father-ofile, I find it hard to believe this guy's got anything to say that's as good as The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and all the other writings of these men who shaped our democracy. Like you, I voted for Edwards, but defended, if not supported, Clinton when I saw how viciously she was being demonized. In truth, Edwards was the only one I really believed in. I see Obama as just another politician to a degree that I find disturbing, and I'm more disturbed the hords of people who seem to blindly follow him for reasons they can't even articulate, regardless of his actions or contradictions.

Lots are people are smart and good talkers, that doesn't make them worthy, prudent, noble, courageous, or show their character or potential for greatness. Right now, I'm clinging to the hope that he will appoint good Sup. Ct. justices and surround himself with people qualified to run the largest government in the history of the world. Beyond that, I think it's a real crap shoot with him.

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm sick to death of all these blanket excuses and rationalizations for everything he does and says. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones responsible for our leaders, just as sure as we're responsible for Bush and all the horrors he's inflicted on the world, and these details matter.

Thing is they aren't blanket excuses. The only "blanket" thing appearing here are your blanket dismissals of those who have done their homework and support Obama on that basis. If someone suggests you read his book and get specific information about his positions and you refuse because it can't be as good as the Constitution then who is the one over-generalizing? If Obama makes important points in his writings and speeches that people support and you refuse to accept them because "Lots are people are smart and good talkers, that doesn't make them worthy, prudent, noble, courageous, or show their character or potential for greatness," then who is the one painting with the broad brush?

Certainly there are a great deal of Obama supporters who are following in blind support of his "greatness", a thing for which they have no real understanding but just a perceived sense of. But how is that in any way a disqualifier for a candidate who has well-defined positions on issues which have been recorded in his writings and on his website as well as in his own words? It sounds like you have some emotional rejection of the idea of supporting Obama but you aren't articulating any rationale to back it up. The reasons you cite for being suspicious of him appear as knee-jerk as the support of the hoards that you perceive are blindly following him.

Look, if his book is so insightful, why the heck can't anyone tell me what it is he's said that has inspired them? Why is it always, "read the book?" And how are my criticisms non-specific? Jeez, I think I've covered his positions and contradictions that I take issue with in pretty specific detail. But too often, the reaction to that criticism is, "read the book." Maybe when I get done with the biography I'm reading on Alexander Hamilton I'll check out this guy who, outside of running for president, hasn't done a single thing to distinguish himself, and then I'll read my neighbor's diary on knitting socks. WTF? Isn't there a better articulation of the rationalization for Obama's seemingly contradictory positions on Iraq, FISA, gun control, NAFTA, etc., etc., etc., than "read the book"?

And if by your accusation of an "emotional response," you're saying I'm racist, well golly, isn't that a totally original response from an Obama supporter? Why does it have to always be about the person who disagrees with Obama, and not Obama or the issue. I'm not running for President for Christ's sake, just doing my civic duty and evaluating the ones who are.

If you have to demonize people who disagree with you by putting words into their mouth and, again, generalizing about their motives for doing so then it doesn't seem that you are doing other than basing your argument on an emotional reaction. I'm making the point that it seems to me like your responses are a little broad brushed and this last post only seems to reinforce that appearance. Read your neighbor's diary on knitting socks if it makes you feel better, but many of those who support Obama are people who have based their opinion on researching the matter, and your argument seems to set you aside from that group. Throwing people on the defensive by leveling unfounded accusations of race-baiting and herd mentality aren't specific arguments.

To not vote for a democratic candidate is to vote for a Republican, that's all there is to it. I for one have seen my best years when Democrats are in power, and my worst years, throughout my career, when the Republicans are in power.
Nuff said!

Uh...because the book is insightfull - so why should we give you cliff notes of a masterpiece?
Get it on itunes.

EXCUSE ME! I'm "race bating"? Gosh, maybe I was wrong, maybe it was a sexist thing, calling me "emotional." You're not only discounting my concerns as "broad brushed," but insulting me by calling them emotional for no reason whatsoever, other than you think it makes you clever, I guess.

Reading some guy's ruminations about his brilliant philosphy is NOT doing your homework. I was researching Obama a year ago, cause I actually wanted to know who this guy was, and finding articles in the Chicago press about Rezko, how he drove his opponent out of the race on a technicality when he won his IL legislature seat, his ties to Exelon, his hedging on controversial votes in IL, etc., etc., etc., while you guys were reading a book, that doesn't amount to much more than Obama's hand tailored propaganda. You're acting like taking the used car salesman's word on how good a deal he's giving you is the best way to be a good consumer. And you're dissing ME?

WHATever. STILL you give me nothing but, "read the book" and petty insults for daring to question the veracity of the man who wants be the next leader of the free world. Seems to me if more people had been asking questions about George Bush, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. If only he'd written a book BSing about his terrific philosphy and elaborating on all the lies he told in the 2000 campaign, we'd have known better.

I take it you mean Bill Clinton. If there's been a better president during our lifetimes, someone please name him. Carter, on the other hand, while seeming like a genuinely good guy, was not an effective leader, on any front, and the country suffered an energy crisis during his term. I'm not old enough to remember anyone else, but Obama is no Bill Clinton. Not yet, not by a long shot, but yeah, there's no way I'm voting for McCain. That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over like the conservatives did and make excuses for everything anyone in my party does, regardless of the fact that it's in conflict with democratic principles and my own convictions. That's how we got 8 yrs. of George. It's our responsibility as the self-governed to speak out when we see our leaders veering off course, and I plan to do so.

Now you're just being silly. When you want to have a debate with a real person there are plenty here. But since you want to argue with the strawmen in your head then nevermind.

I keep reading this...it's amazing.

Simply amazing.

What powers of delusion are needed to pretend that the democratic nominee for president - the first serious contender for the first black presidency, a lifelong volunteer for the public welfare, a civil rights hero and defender of the rights of the downtrodden (as a volunteer constitutional lawyer), Harvard graduate, is no more accomplished or worthy of note than a person knitting socks.

THAT is some powerful cherry flavored sugar water.

Have you read either of his books? And since we are talking about courage here...I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage to keep pushing forward knowing that he's a target of nutbag racists...remember, he said he would be president of ALL Americans...I think that means that he will disappoint us sometimes, but he's the only one I can work with...I think he is very courageous and will be one of the better presidents!