I supported him in my state's primary by voting Uncommitted. (I couldn't vote for him because he wasn't on the ballot, but that's another story). I hate the fact that he voted to fund the Iraq War once he became a member of Congress, and that's my primary beef against him. However, I know that he opposed the war strongly in 2002 and that is commendable to me. A sample of his 2002 speech in opposition to the Iraq War:

On Saddam Hussein

"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president." -- Sen. Barack Obama, 2002

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

He was literally spot-on in his analysis of what would take place if the US invaded. As I stated earlier, I like him enough to have voted for him if he was on my ballot -- but honestly, I cannot say with absolute certainty that I will vote for him in the general, but he does impress me. What do you guys think of Sen. Obama? How would you rate him in comparison to the other presidential candidates? Would you vote for him?

If that funding vote was to provide US soldiers with proper arms and protection, you can't fault him for that. I do have reservations with the emptiness of his speeches which border on nursery rhymes and his use of racial code words against whites, but hopefully he will mature out of that phase and develop some sophistication at some point.

If Dr. Paul runs as a non-republican, I will vote for him. I will have to research Obama to see if AIPAC got to him yet. If they haven't, and Dr. Paul is not running, I will vote for Obama again should he win the nomination.

Reading though Obama's website, he sounds like a typical Democrat. He seems to think that the government should be making our decisions for us from the cradle to the grave.

I will have to research Obama to see if AIPAC got to him yet.

Don't bother; they did.

He's calm, he seems to stay emotionally level under pressure. That's something none of the others really have on either side of the aisle. I like that he's smart, although that will be a liability in elections. He understands complex problems and provides complex solutions, but the six second sound bites are going to kill him. He's a very inspirational speaker and he has a very positive outlook on democracy in America. That is also something the others don't have. The rest believe that the system is broken and they are somehow magical beasts that can manipulate it for good. He seems to think it is broken but deserves fixing.
Here's how I line up Obama against everyone else running in either race:

Obama is focused on helping America become the greatest nation in the world again, but he doesn't think he has to actually do that, he thinks we just need a leader to enable us and inspire us to do what's already in us. In short, he is saying "vote for me and we will try to be the best we can be."
Everyone else is saying "vote for me because things would be worse with others than they will be with me."

In short, he looks like he isn't the smaller weevil.

I actually like and respect Obama as a person especially after some of his speeches & reading a bit of one of his books.
However, I still disagree with his policy ideas, so he didn't get my vote.

^ GR, alot of what you said I agree with -- particularly with respect to Obama's intelligence and demeanor, because I like that about him too.

^ GR, alot of what you said I agree with -- particularly with respect to Obama's intelligence and demeanor, because I like that about him too.

He's smart and reasonable.... I'm amazed he even got elected to the Senate with that hurdle in front of him. America has convinced me that Clinton will be the last statesman we elect with an IQ over 70.

He's smart and reasonable.... I'm amazed he even got elected to the Senate with that hurdle in front of him. America has convinced me that Clinton will be the last statesman we elect with an IQ over 70.

:( Sad.

I think that he's a liberal (modern day meaning) democrat. That's enough to destroy any compulsion I may ever feel to vote for him.

He's very close to your ilk on the political spectrum, Hadit. Not a whole lot of differences at all. Republicans should be quite happy with where todays "modern democrat" is.

I like him ,I like Hillary.

I'd like to vote for both of them but I don't have that option.

I plan on voting for Hillary,I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

I voted for him because I'm sick and tired of this administration and its policies that are currently entrenched in Washington, and I believe strongly that our government needs a new and more rational direction. I think Obama is intelligent, thoughtful, and diplomatic enough to be able to bring together a lot of the different factions that this country has split into over the last two Bush terms. He inspires people to feel that they really do matter, and that they can pull together to take back the eroded rights which were supposed to belong to them in the first place, and get this country back on track both economically and on the world stage.

I think that he's a liberal (modern day meaning) democrat. That's enough to destroy any compulsion I may ever feel to vote for him.

Correction, you feel what Ann Coulture told you to feel. Thinking had nothing to do with it.

Don't bother; they did.

Guido, it is slim pickens right now. Obama is better than all the rest.

Here's one good thing I can say about Obama right now: he's not pushing the typical Democrat nonsense about "two Americas". He's not trying to divide the country, like his fellow party members often do. He's trying to unite the country, and that's what this country really needs right now. I don't agree with the direction he wants to take us, but at least he's trying to get everyone on the same page, rather than pushing for a class war.

We'll see if he can stick to that message if he gets the nomination...

I like him ,I like Hillary.

I'd like to vote for both of them but I don't have that option.

I plan on voting for Hillary,I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

I think TT is secretly Howard Dean.

Correction, you feel what Ann Coulture told you to feel. Thinking had nothing to do with it.

What have I told you about making stupid ASSumptions about me? Do I need to spank you again?

He's very close to your ilk on the political spectrum, Hadit. Not a whole lot of differences at all. Republicans should be quite happy with where todays "modern democrat" is.

In what ways? On many issues, he opposes me.

I will definitely vote for Obama if given the chance. His views on the world and on policy are closer to my own than any politician i have ever researched.

If it's between Clinton and McCain it will be a difficult choice for me (since they're so similar). Right now I'm leaning toward McCain in that match up.

In what ways? On many issues, he opposes me.

He might oppose you on many issues, but you probably agree with more of his views than disagree.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

^That graph is bullshit.

Not really. It was taken from voting records. The democratic party is only marginally different from the GOP. We have a one party system.

Voting records don't take into account the reasons for which the votes were cast.

Voting records, speeches and interviews. Yes, the graph might not be 100% fair, because they didn't take the test themselves, but it seems like the margin of error would be fairly small.

You can always compare your own beliefs to their positions at www.ontheissues.org
I think most people would really be surprised to find what they really have in common with the politicians they support.

Voting records, speeches and interviews. Yes, the graph might not be 100% fair, because they didn't take the test themselves, but it seems like the margin of error would be fairly small.

You can always compare your own beliefs to their positions at www.ontheissues.org
I think most people would really be surprised to find what they really have in common with the politicians they support.

Not really. It was taken from voting records. The democratic party is only marginally different from the GOP. We have a one party system.

LOL. But the reason the graph is ****ing retarded is...what is the center? You could just slide the center further down to the left and bottom, and then ALL the candidates are in the upper right quadrant. You can change the scale and mess with it that way, too. It's just arbitrary and stupid as a point-making tool.

LOL. But the reason the graph is ****ing retarded is...what is the center? You could just slide the center further down to the left and bottom, and then ALL the candidates are in the upper right quadrant. You can change the scale and mess with it that way, too. It's just arbitrary and stupid as a point-making tool.

The center is a very objective place to be. I had my whole family take the test and my dad who considers himself to be a republican, ended up in basically dead center. He was pretty surprised at first, but then realized it makes sense. My mom, who also considers herself to be a republican, actually ended up almost as far left as me! Same thing with my sister, she thinks she's a republican, but tested a liberal, almost as far left as me. My brother tested exactly where I'm at on the scale, but that wasn't a surprise for him. We had some interesting discussions about that, needless to say, it was tweaking their brains in the biggest way.

It really goes to show you just how out of whack politics are in this country. When it comes down to it, the only reason my parents consider themselves republican is because of the abortion issue. The rest is just conditioning from the hours and hours of Fox news they consume. Most people just don't have a ****ing clue about why they believe the things they believe.

I highly doubt any "tweaking" was going on behind the scenes. Anyone can take the test as any of those candidates if they put the time and effort into researching their views. This stuff is available to the public.

James, you basically support a conservative.

Where's the test?

www.politicalcompass.org

Oh that old thing. I've taken it 3 times. My results:

January ' 07:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

March '07:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

June '07:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

(Far bottom left all 3 times.)

I reject completely the idea that the mainstream Dem candidates are where they are, relative to me, and that the whackjobs Gravel and Kucinich aren't to the bottom and left of me. However whoever calculated the candidate spots on that is whack.

optimus, you say that your parents consider themselves Republicans based on a single issue, and that's stupid. And I agree with you on that point. People shouldn't choose their political positions based on what group they identify themselves with. People shouldn't label themselves as part of a group at all. They should make up their own minds.

But isn't that graph just one more way for people to label themselves as part of a group? The only difference is that you're letting some computer code make the decision for you. I could end up on the exact same spot on that graph with someone I disagree with on almost every issue, as long as the left-nesses and rigt-nesses of our opinions balance out to the same average.

Maybe the graph is better than simple party affiliations, but it still shouldn't be used to decide what to believe.

I think Obama is intelligent, thoughtful, and diplomatic enough to be able to bring together a lot of the different factions that this country has split into over the last two Bush terms.

Obama does appear articulate and intelligent, level-headed and so on but I doubt one guy can fix what's broken in Washington politics. Although it worsened under the divisive BushCo administration, the dysfunction in Washington long predates the Shrub.

Obama is a good start.

He might oppose you on many issues, but you probably agree with more of his views than disagree.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

That graph is meaningless without considering the perspective of its creators. For example, the National Journal ranks Obama as the most liberal senator for 2007, with Hillary at 16th. There is no way all except 2 candidates are simultaneously right of center while attempting to appeal to the far leftists at moveon, who just endorsed Obama, BTW. The Republicans are arguing over who is the most conservative, while the democrats are arguing over who is the most liberal. Hillary slams Obama for not forcing everyone into socialized medicine, while Obama accepts to great fanfare the kennedy endorsement.

Obama is articulate, positive, and so far in the campaign, has acted more like an adult than has Hillary. I wish he were a conservative, but he's not, and ideology trumps personality.

Oh that old thing. I've taken it 3 times. My results:

January ' 07:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

March '07:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

June '07:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

(Far bottom left all 3 times.)

Yeah, you're right where I'm at.

I reject completely the idea that the mainstream Dem candidates are where they are, relative to me, and that the whackjobs Gravel and Kucinich aren't to the bottom and left of me. However whoever calculated the candidate spots on that is whack.

Alright, well you can reject it. I don't. If you are curious about how they calculated it, have the webmaster send you a log of how each question was answered for the candidates and why.

optimus, you say that your parents consider themselves Republicans based on a single issue, and that's stupid. And I agree with you on that point. People shouldn't choose their political positions based on what group they identify themselves with. People shouldn't label themselves as part of a group at all. They should make up their own minds.

But isn't that graph just one more way for people to label themselves as part of a group? The only difference is that you're letting some computer code make the decision for you. I could end up on the exact same spot on that graph with someone I disagree with on almost every issue, as long as the left-nesses and rigt-nesses of our opinions balance out to the same average.

Maybe the graph is better than simple party affiliations, but it still shouldn't be used to decide what to believe.

I don't think the graph is used to decide what to believe, I think it just does a good job of showing you where your beliefs are in relation to other people. There is no way that you would end up in the same location as someone else who you disagree with on almost every issue, it's just impossible.

That graph is meaningless without considering the perspective of its creators. For example, the National Journal ranks Obama as the most liberal senator for 2007, with Hillary at 16th.

There is no way in hell that Hillary is even remotely "liberal." What happens is, people classify canditates as liberal or conservative based on one or two issues really. She wants universal health care so she is painted as a "liberal" for example. It's retarded.

There is no way all except 2 candidates are simultaneously right of center while attempting to appeal to the far leftists at moveon, who just endorsed Obama, BTW. The Republicans are arguing over who is the most conservative, while the democrats are arguing over who is the most liberal. Hillary slams Obama for not forcing everyone into socialized medicine, while Obama accepts to great fanfare the kennedy endorsement.

Believe it. This is how skewed politics and beliefs have become in this country. The GOP has moved so far to the right that they've actually brought the democrats with them over the center. That's why it's funny to hear people talk about how "liberal" this country is becoming. The notion is just laughable. Everything has shifted to the right. It's become taboo for any democratic candidate who actually has a chance in hell of winning to take any real liberal positions. The only one who had the balls was Kucinich, and he was immediately branded a loon and he never recovered. It's political suicide for a democrat to be truly liberal. They have no choice at this present time but to be a conservative moderate if they want to win.

Obama is articulate, positive, and so far in the campaign, has acted more like an adult than has Hillary. I wish he were a conservative, but he's not, and ideology trumps personality.

He is. Try not to let one or two positions make your decision. You have to take all of his beliefs into consideration. And for the record, Obama is growing on me as well.

I think TT is secretly Howard Dean.

Thank you for the compliment.:cool:

Actually,I would prefer the job he has to the job that I presently have ,but what can I do?:shrug:





If it's between Clinton and McCain it will be a difficult choice for me (since they're so similar). Right now I'm leaning toward McCain in that match up.


Clinton says she will began a gradual troop withdrawl in 90 days after being sworn in,Mc Cain promises nothing like that.

Don't believe the [anti-Hillary] hype is all I'm saying.

What is this 'change' that I hear Obama talking about all the time?

Obama?

He's just another sockpuppet of the diabolical internationalist illuminazi conspiracy.

Obama?

He's just another sockpuppet of the diabolical internationalist illuminazi conspiracy.

^ ^ ^ Awww, and you started out so promising, too...




BTW,

who isn't???

He's an idealistic young man who hasnt been dsiappointed with the incredible stupidity he'll discover in the near future-a likable fellow i think- i ran thourgh his website-he tries not to be too much right or left-tries to judge the issues on their merit-as to the illuminati theyre flexible -they have ways of subsuming all different kinds of ideology

The democratic party is only marginally different from the GOP. We have a one party system.
:stupid:

seriously. historically speaking, there's not a big difference between the parties. If you can't find an issue where they both agree, you havent looked far enough back in history. I believe that obama is more progressive than the partisan hand jobs that have come to define DC. One man can be more powerful than all of us on this forum combined.

I watched him in action on a couple of televised hearings. He was pretty shallow, and obviously not well informed on the issues at hand. Spent most of his time blabbering for the benefit of the camera asking pointless questions and making clumsy mini-speeches, far different from the canned made for TV campaign image he projects where he controls the dialog.

I watched him in action on a couple of televised hearings. He was pretty shallow, and obviously not well informed on the issues at hand. Spent most of his time blabbering for the benefit of the camera asking pointless questions and making clumsy mini-speeches, far different from the canned made-for-TV cultivated campaign image he projects where he controls the dialog.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/thelategreat4/BarackHillary.png

:lol:

That's the best thing I ever saw.

Hahahahahah.....

I do have reservations with the emptiness of his speeches which border on nursery rhymes and his use of racial code words against whites, but hopefully he will mature out of that phase and develop some sophistication at some point.



Racial code words? I haven't noticed...

I wonder how he feels about his moronic supporters who display the terrorist Che banners in some of his campaign headquarters.

My honest opinion, not that I'd ever promote a dishonest opinion, is that Obama is an empty suit, reguritating the same old liberal tax and spend, weak on defense policies, and false hope of government solving everyone's problems that have never worked or been very popular with the general populace. He looks and sounds nice, offering hope and all that, but when his positions are anaylized, it's the same old, same old. He has no real foreign policy experience and his ideas to meet, dignify, and be used as a propaganda tool for some of the worst leaders is evidence of his naivety.

Since it appears he will be the Democrat Party nominee, he needs to finally be asked some tough questions.