The experience vs. idealism conflict among proponents is really being teased out now. I'm 42, neither "young" nor "old". I sure as hell didn't "help make this mess", as I've been progressive left for my adult life. But I've been an alert citizen through enough election cycles to recognize some of the familiar patterns.

Idealism is fine. Nader supporters like myself can and are accused of being idealists, simply because we envision a radically different structure for American society and believe that it should happen. Maybe the millions of Obama supporters, generally younger than I, believe in their idealistic values as much as I do.
But my experience of politics and of the world shows me important distinctions between what Nader says and does and has said and has done, and what Obama says and does and has said and has done.

Nader's claims and policies are backed by 4 decades of empirically verifiable, consistent, principled actions. Obama has a much shorter track record of a mixture of principle and accommodation. Nader is unglamorous, dogged, always speaks the truth as he knows it, and leaves it us to rationally appreciate the substance of his positions. Obama is extremely hip, usually speaks in painful generalities, and fosters a cult of personality. When Nader appeals to emotion, it is to our sense of unfairness and anger and reasonable desires to run a just, egalitarian society. When Obama appeals to emotion, it is uplifting, hopeful, mass appeal, youthful energy, "consensus building" - fun stuff people like to feel immediately.

Some component of the debate here is perhaps about "optimism" vs. "pessimism", but those are words loaded and re-loaded with connotations as we see fit.

I think the bigger distinction may be one of personality type. The larger group of Obama supporters may represent majority types in the population - extroverts, deriving energy from the group, deriving reinforcement from the group, willing to ignore the inconsistent specifics in order to achieve a solid belief in something. Supporting Nader is less immediately rewarding and a harder mental slog.

Important questions for younger people to examine: what approach has more substance. Who is more trustworthy? What's the story behind the words? Critically, learn more about the US and what its real role has been in the world, and how that relates to our party political structure.

"I couldn't imagine that the destruction on that screen could be anything but an accident."

LOL... I couldn't imagine that the destruction on that screen could be anything but a controlled demolition.

BeForKids, gimmesometruth, lizard et al. -

I was being patronizing, sorry to say. Sometimes I get caught up in style and forget my manners. It was a very nice article, and I did feel a kindly affection toward the author and her hopeful outlook even though, as other posters have noted, we older folks have gotten too cynical in recent years. Sorry if I offended anyone, especially the author. On another string I was accused of being patronizing toward Texas Mexicans, and that was also true. This has been a bad day for the Vox man.

Wow this article and the majority of following comments are mind-boggling and bordering on high-satire, collective cultural pathology, collective societal delusion or a combination of all three.

The author opens by saying:

"He's been called an empty suit. A hack. A panderer. ...

But of all these distortions, the one that galls me the most is the comparison of Barack Obama to a modern-day Pied Piper. You know the story- some guy in a colorful get-up comes to town and lures all the children into the river with nothing more than a catchy melody.

Sound familiar? Well, I understand how Barack Obama's popularity among young people could be misattributed to a "cult of personality" or a "messianic" campaign.

After all, he is pretty darn hip."

And then what we get is not a clear delineation of his policies but in fact more empty rhetoric, platitudes and religiosity.

Consider these words later in the article:

"We know he can't be our savior. However, we also know that his policies, message, and world-view represent us. We've taken the time to examine his candidacy. And we're anything but blind followers. To the contrary, Barack Obama's presidential campaign is inspiring a new generation of leaders."

So why don't you talk about those policies and what it is about them that you find inspirational?

"Just a year later, the build-up to the Iraq War was revving into gear. I was beside myself. Like many young people I knew, I took the time to look into the justification for the occupation, and came out against it. Many of us knew what Barack Obama knew. It was a "dumb war." A "rash war." But despite the letter writing, the protests, the organizing, I felt powerless. My generation watched the greatest foreign policy tragedy in our nation's history unfold before our eyes
while being told that we were to young too understand, too young to stop it. Five years later, Americans too young to be dying are still making the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq."

A "dumb war"? a "rash war"? How dare you!? No not a criminal invasion and an illegal occupation!? Not a war crime!? No just "dumb" like putting your shirt on backwards. This is very offensive and humiliating not too mention ignorant in the highest degree towards the Iraqi people who so conveniently are omitted from your narrative, as they are from Obama's. Remember the million plus who have been slaughtered due to this "dumb war?" And the 4-5 million orphaned children you cannot mention them but only the good americans making the "ultimate sacrifice?" This is appalling but very consistent with the Obama program.

"Try to understand. The events of this new century have affected all Americans. But they have struck to the heart of my generation. When the twin towers fell, our nation came together in healing. But soon after, we rebuilt a bitter reinterpretation of those two towers in our national politics. We became a nation divided. A nation of acidic duality. A traumatized nation with a gulf of uncertainty between every human relationship. And my generation felt this scar running deeply through each of us. The first terrorist attack on American soil occurred at a time when we still viewed our country as some mix between the womb and the ultimate patriarch. Our country was home, it was infallible, it was just and true and loving. But lately we have become orphans of our own idealism. And we are looking within ourselves for a new leader."

And this bit is beyond the pale dripping with American bathos and American Exceptionalism which is one of the features of the Obama campaign but it sadly ignores the entire historical record.

"This is the true genius in the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is inspiring our better angels, catalyzing our inner healing power. He takes the grief, the sense of powerlessness, the outrage, and inspires us to turn it into hope. We are not Obama followers. We are Obama supporters, and the distinction is important. We are coming into our own, and taking Barack Obama with us. We work to support him because he speaks to the wounds in our identities and in our nation. And he
inspires us to help him heal them."

And so you say you are maybe a little concerned with people thinking of Obama as a pied-piper or a messianic figure and here you offer proof positive that those concerns are valid. This is some bizarre new-age post-modern political fluff that speaks of religiosity and is only slightly different than what we would hear at a tent revival.

"In the face of a continuing War in Iraq, we need a leader who opposed this war from the beginning. Barack Obama can take that credibility to the international community, whose support we desperately need for a conclusion to this chaos. Because my generation was powerless to stop the Iraq War, we are eager to elect a leader who had the integrity to speak wisdom to power from the very start."

Is this the same leader who has distanced himself from the antiwar movement and has voted for every single war supplemental and has promised to increase the US military budget, CONTINUE THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, INCREASE US INVOLVEMENT AND TROOPS IN PAKISTAN_AFGHANISTAN as well as bring a stronger "US presence" to Africa.

"He overcame obstacles of class, race, and identity to get to where he is today. ... He is an expert on the constitution, and knows its wisdom, its limitations, and the potential it holds for this nation..."

And this is so over the top I have to ask how this article was even accepted. Obama went to one of the most elite private high schools in the US and was living with his white grandparents in a very privileged existence.

Wouldn't an expert on the Constitution know a little about impeachment? Seems this one has conveniently forgotten his sworn duty.

"In the end, it is Obama's intelligent and heartfelt approach to change that resonates with my generation. He is the full package- charisma and content, wit and wisdom, energy and experience.... Generation O is fired up, and ready to go.
"

Shallow hollow words that can mean just about anything which is to say they mean nothing. Is this an actor or an athlete being described?

This is really embarrassing. You can't make this stuff up.

I'd characterize the contrast between Obama and Nader not as "hope vs. fear", but as "emotion vs. sober grasp of reality". Seeing reality soberly is ultimately empowering.

I'd also like everyone to cut the crap about protecting young people's precious idealism, as if hearing reasoned opposing views is less important than clinging to an emotional mind frame. This defensive posture possibly says more about you and about the kind of base the Obama movement is built on. Let's give the young people some respect in that they can rationally absorb and assess all the views out here in the wild.

Did you mean this Obama?

A PRO-WAR RECORD

Then there's the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many "progressives" seem to need to believe) an "antiwar" candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial "war on [and of] terror" of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part?

Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama's U.S. Senate voting record:

"1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2"

"2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General)."

"2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture...[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10."

"4/21/05: Obama voted to make John 'Death Squad' Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107"

"4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]"

"7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed 'The Nuclear Bill' by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W]."

"9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees."

"10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W]."

"11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W]."

"12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]"

"5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W]."

"5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W]."

"6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]."

"6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W]."

"6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]"

"6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]"

"6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W]."

"6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].

9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]"

"9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W]."

"11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W]."

"12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]"

"Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…"

Obama's intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel's campaign to marginalize "peaceniks" within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).

In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq" and made repeated references to the need to "defeat" the "insurgency." This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).

Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin's (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).

And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007). As Kucinich pointed out during last night's debate, this is what Obama's comment that "all options are on the table" in regard to Iran really boils down to: the potential first black U.S. President is willing to seriously consider the launching of a thermonuclear attack on that country. Debate participant Mike Gravel (a left former U.S. Senator of Alaska)was thinking of that horrific possibility when said the following about the leading Democratic candidates (Obama included of course) last night: "these people scare me."

More here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

An hour ago, I watched Obama answer a question of a newscaster. His soft spoken reply was great, it sounded good to me and I instantly felt that hope, that if he is our next president, that we would indeed see major changes.

During the following commercial about some stupid drug that might give you a heart attack, or make you go blind if used, I thought about what Obama had said with his well spolken reply. I suddenly realized yet once again, he hadn't said anything at all, he actually didn't answer the question. He had just sounded so good and presidential. He's the best I've ever seen blowing smoke.

Hey Vox --- thanks for your thoughtful response to my constructive criticism. Now I don't have to address you as "old codger"! I'm relieved.

Before I go to sleep early, as us ABBs (Aging Baby Boomers) do, my cave has been made a bit brighter. Ms. Bethany Woolman is a lot of us in the 1960's before the dark times, the Nixon, Reagan, HW, years. My cave is a bit brighter because there is a hope beyond the name Obama, and beyond the barricades of organized politics. It's a name, today it is Bethany Woolman. If she truly represents a large segment of the society that the MSM does not expose to us, then you know someting, my America will be in good hands. She is me, she is alot of us ABBs.

We cut our political eye teeth, when we were ten on JFK (v Nixon) andonly because, as 10 year olds, he gave us a better feeling. Then,delivering newspapers on Novemmebr 22nd we saw hope die with him. We saw it crushed by LBJ, and then hope died again with Bobby, Martin, Malcolm and the vitims at Kent State.

We Cleaned for Gene because he was the embodiment of hope, but a hopeless candidate. We voted against "someone else," when we elected Jimmy in '76. (That didn't turn out as good, but at least there was hope in roling those dice.)

We ABBs put our hope to the test again in 1992, and all the cosmic forces, economic forces, technological forces, had us put the mantle of hope on a charismatic, if very flawed Bill Clinton, who even made us ABBs able to believe. What he did with our beliefs, I will let you guess. But we believed in a man from Hope.

Now Ms. Bethany Woolman 48 years later is telling me to have hope while I sit in my cave. Ms. Bethany Woolman, I will. You, and those you call Generation 0, could be the last hope we ABBs see. Obama is my man, and even though I truly loved The Big Dog, his wife is no Big Dog.

So why repeat everything that has already been said, why emerge from the Cave today? Because we ABBs need to reclaim or souls, reclaim the birthright we were given by the Greatest Generation, and reclaim the ideal that this nation we love, the ideals that it was founded on and that have been so trampled and degraded can be restored. We need Bethany Woolman and her people, and we need who she supports, Obama.

Is he the best of all possible candidates? No, not really, there were (are) better people who could be where he is. But that doesn't matter. Will he be able to undo all that's been done? No, probaly not. But Ms. Bethany Woolman has told us ABBs that she and her Generation 0 are ready to enact this truism: It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

If Obama is going to be the leader we hope for, he will find those other great men and women, he will be the Great Manager, Great Executive - finding people who know more than he, enlisting them, learning from them and using the one thing he can give among other things - HOPE, LEADERSHIP, OPTIMISM. We ABBS cut our politcal eye teeth on that, it is time, before all of our teeth fall out, we have the chance, maybe just a chance, to see and maybe correct the errors we have made.

Ms. Bethany Woolman, you have lit a candle in the Cave, you and your generation need to bring the light of hope and optimism back to those of us who have had it kicked out of us.

Obama '08 - with hope we can do, and if we do and it will be better!

I haven't posted here for months now but thought this was a good time to jump back into the fray with two observations;

For starters, I must say that, after reading so many posts here (and elsewhere recently), it sounds like about half of the posters primary interest is simply in hearing themselves talk (or seeing their words in 'print'). So much of what is being said here is exaggerated, narrow minded, misleading, and simply negative and caustic. Saying things like Obama is full of empty rhetoric or has done nothing, calling him names like pied piper, etc, are disingenuous and malevolent. It is pure negativity. Similar to Clinton saying Obama has only made one speech while she has a lifetime of experience. What bullshit. A lifetime? Just purely misleading political nonsense that, in fact, is dishonest and only serves to divide, mislead, and slander. I see much of that misleading narrow mindedness here.

And to my second point; Similar to the slanderous and disingenuous rhetoric I just spoke of, what is the nature of the use of "Kool-Aid" we all see so often from posters who want to disparage other's credibility?
I, for one, will vehemently state that if you don't understand the value of the "Kool-Aid" and (haven't or) don't partake, you don't know shit and are not to be trusted. Yeah, that's right! Psyche means the 'personification of the soul' or 'the awareness' and delic comes from delios meaning to make 'apparent' or 'visible'. For thousands and thousands of years, humans in cultures all across the globe have partaken
in the use of 'psychedelics' or "Kool-Aid". Yes, of course, there were many folks who tried it for entertainment purposes and fell on their faces, illustrating their inability to face their own ego and deeper confusions which psychedelics lay waste to. There are weak minded people everywhere and maybe they should just listen and follow rather than sound off. If you can't understand the value of the "Kool-Aid" or you simply couldn't 'handle' it, shut the f up, because you are apparently fighting your own inner demons and ego and are utterly clueless. 'Progressives' slandering other people by ignorantly missing the entire point of something that will help make the 'awareness''visible' are simply unaware themselves. Criticizing the words of hope that Obama brings forth, while disparaging 'self awareness' and using that as a the actual tool to disparage Obama's supporters is sick. And stupid.

I'm a relatively newcomer to the Obama camp. No, I'm not an excited Obamaniac, nor am I a starry-eyed kid. I'm just an aging boomer like many of the rest here who has seen enough of politics and power struggles to stop being an idealist. However, it's not my role to be an idealist anymore, it's Bethany's role and that of her generation. It goes part and parcel with being young, healthy, full of energy, and a desire to make something of the world they live in. It's happened this way since time immemorium and should continue.

The thing is this - in our culture, our young people are missing something vital to learning how to be in this world. They are missing something young people in other cultures have. They are missing something that shows them that there is a way to get what they need. They are missing their elders. Oh, we who are now boomers are their elders, we just don't take our role seriously. Like so much in our lives, we think it's not our job. Well, it is our job. We are their elders whether we like it or not, so we may as well accept it, grow up, and provide some leadership and wisdom that young people need.

Barack Obama is far from perfect. The Democratic Party is a shill for its corporate masters, same as the Republican Party. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney present alternatives to some. Yet, it seems that the vast majority of young people who are on the Left are looking to Obama. While many of us may not like him, or claim to see through him, we should also be looking to the younger generation, that of our children, and giving them both support and honest opinions. Along with those honest opinions, we must give them a chance to exert themselves and dream. It's one thing to supply honesty in a supportive manner, quite another to do it in a cold, callous manner, without the benefit of a way out or up. Because we have failed to work out the right answers, does not mean we should quash the attempt of others to do so, especially our children.

So, I exhort my fellow boomers to finally step up to the plate and be the elders, the mentors, that we're supposed to be - not in a patronizing way, but in a loving and respectful way, believing that the younger generations are smart, capable, and ready (and if they're not, whose fault is that?). It's our turn to lend a hand. If we can't or won't do that, if all we can do is cite a litany of ills and reasons for failure, then we should just get the hell out of the way because we're doing more harm than good.

~CHLAMOR~ If your post is accurate and there is little reason to not believe it, as Obama's voting record is a matter of public record. Then there is NO argument of where Obama stands on the Iraq issue or those of the Mid-East.

What I fear of Obama is, his constant denials, claiming he is, and has always been, against that war and continual occupation. The press does not folow up on that serious descrepency and therefore Obama has been getting away with it. Few voters have checked that out as you have. ___ Thank you for an appropriate and most imformative post.

I am a little saddened to see, so many of our older generation, who won't, or do not wish to acknowledge, that a very bright and perhaps the best orator we have ever seen or heard, is leading our younger generation down the Primrose lane. Sometimes those primrose, turn out to be funeral lillies.

I don't approve of any of the current viable candidates, but I honestly fear the one who has constantly denied such an importnat issue as his TRUE stands on the Iraqi issue. What else is he being decietful about? At least Hillary or Mc Cain don't deny their votes. I fear McCain, because he honestly believes Bush has been correct about Iraq and the Mid-East.

I don't condemn anyone here for offering their opinions, or for their support of any candidate. I sure don't agree with several. Certainly we and our younger generation want to HOPE. We don't want to be decieved with false hopes and a good talker or a con-man can do that. Remember those who have accoimplished that in the past, able to control the populations of entire nations with their well spoken and delivered words, and none were as good at that as Obama is.

I just copied this to share, re Obama's and Clinton's 'records' as it were;

By Ben Vos Yesterday at 10:11 pm EST Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

By Ben Vos Yesterday at 10:11 pm EST Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veterans affairs and many others.

Wow, first I want to thank my fellow posters for a great discussion on this thread. All of you have brought forth excellent points that really get one thinking in different ways. I admit to being skeptical. It is just that I feel deeper and more challenging questions need to be asked of and answered by the candidates. At the same time, I think many here have brought up a valid point: if Obama will stir the nation's youth and get them excited about politics where perhaps they will become the voice of change that is needed, then it is worth considering. That is why I mentioned that it is refreshing to see young people becoming active in politics. As someone between the BBG and Generation O (I will be 34 in eight days), and after having witnessed the criminal conduct of the Bush Admin. and the complicit Congress, it is easy to become cynical and distrusting of one's government. True, Obama is far from perfect and maybe we are expecting too much of the next POTUS (Bush never challenged our expectations and well, hmmm never got out of the starting blocks). I do not in any way want to put out the intensity of the passion of our nation's youth for change, but simply encourage them to hold the candidates to a high standard and ask the tougher questions.

iammyself and SallyUUKent, those are wonderful posts. And I completely agree. In 1981 my mother said "I fear for our country. Our young people are no longer idealistic, they are cynical". She was right, and look what we've become. but Bethany and my young adult grandchildren not even out of their teens are all sowing idealism, and a belief that they can make a difference. So yes, support and honor them, but don't belittle their idealism. We had our turn, look where we are. It's their turn now and they will do it their way. And if Obama doesn't work out, they're not ready to quit, they're just getting started. We, the old codgers, are the ones feeling like he's the last hurrah. But he isn't. He's just the beginning.

Kem, most of that crap put out by chlamor has been debunked already. "HR" stands for House Resolution. Obama can't vote for that stuff, he's a Senator.

voxclamantis, that was a gracious apology, and actually I don't think it was a bad day for you. I honor your courage and honesty.

kathyodat

Obama has NOT been a U.S. Senator for __8__ eight years. That major error in your post is as mis-leading as the rest of your post. If he actually read or worked on that many bills in the short time he has been a U.S. Senator, he would have been workng 88 hours a day everyday, and that is not possible. He's spent more than one full year, running almost full time for the presidency too. He walked door to door in Iowa and New hampshire. Remember?

I do believe the post CHLAMOR posted is very accurate, yours is obviously not ~Whateveryousay~. It's fine to post political opoinions here, when stating facts, they really should be as accurate as possible.

Kem that worklist refers to when he was an Illinois state Senator. He really did all that stuff.

kathyodat

Hi Kathy. After the house votes and passes a bill, the Senate votes on it. It's still named HR bill===. Obama did vote exactly as that post says he did.

I know that Kathy. The post is decieving, he is comparing Obamas work on bills, to that of Hillary's while she was a U.S. Senator.

Check out his Senate votes, I did. What I'm saying is, hopes are hopes. I wouldn't get them up.

Change? On what is arguably the single most important foreign policy issue of the US (whether the US can criticise or have a policy different than Israel's) I have not seen any change. Where is the change?

About some of us young ones, we live in apartments yet manage to grow some of our own food in containers, we bicycle and take the bus, we use the libraries for research, we do not have health care plans and are into midwifery, alternative and complimentary medicine, for the most part do not watch television, we get our recreation in public spaces, we frequent thrift stores and flea markets, we share our baby clothing, kiddie care, we are not into cell phones, ipods and such, we are not into gangsta stuff, we intermarry, demographics with pollsters don't work with us. Most importantly, fear doesn't work with us nor does calling us fools. We are the new America emerging. And we have friends world wide through the web.

VOX---I admire your quiet humility and your gracious apology. Oh for about 50 more like you on this forum. BeFor Kids---keep on keepin on, dear. You're awesome! As for Bethany and her idealism---I am so sad that anyone feels it is their duty to "set the girl straight."

I may not be her age but I sure could use a burst of idealism again myself. What can it hurt? Why do folks want to rain on her parade? If she is to be disillusioned someday, she'll deal with it, but we don't really know that yet for sure now, do we? Give the young woman a break. She's smart and she's excited and we should ALL be glad.

Hell is being 85 and still posting the SOS on the CD forum.

Kem---I think he is referring to his stint in the State Senate--I read elsewhere that he did introduce over 800 pieces of legislation--his record in the US Senate is not nearly like that but is much more substantial than HC's. Wish I had a link---sorry. It was an article comparing the two's legislative records.

KEM PATRICK;

Yes, I also saw that the post I 'copied' and put here could mislead people into thinking it meant he was in Washington as a senator for eight years. But I went ahead and posted it for two reasons. First, everyone knows he has not been in Washington as a senator for that long and, as Kathyodat says, he did actually do those things in Illinois. The second reason is because it illustrates that, contrary to what Clinton and others say, he has not 'done nothing'!!! That was the point. I do not claim to know all the details of every vote, etc, etc, however, my response was simply in addressing those who would try to have others believe he is just an empty mouthpiece or a pied piper.

Personally, I have maintained that Kucinich would have been the best president. I now maintain that Obama 'may' be an instrument of change for the better. No guarantees, but I feel it is highly probable. Sure, he won't (can't) change everything - and probably doesn't want to, but I think an Obama administration may very well be full of good surprises. I also understand the value of hope and inspiration, not finding it empty or delusional but rather essential.

Some of us aren't going to be sold on Obama no matter what anybody says. We are too cynical, jaded and sour for all the hope and yes we can crap. So what!

Wouldn't it be awesome if Obama turns out to be everything we think he's not and then the tailcaps of the world would have to eat a great big bowl of crow? That would be awesome! I would love it if he he won and turned out a great progressive. I wouldn't mind having to pick crow feathers out from between my teeth either.

If on the other hand, he turns out to not be our great hope perhaps all those energized youth can then be channeled into a third party for next time.

See, it's a win - win situation.

Sorry Kem, you're right. But consider this. If Obama refused to vote to "support the troops" which is code for war spending, his presidential candidacy would be strewn all over the landscape.

If as president, he listens to the demands of the public, which right now isn't anywhere near 100% behind ending the occupation, given Americans' penchant for "winning", and one thing he has been clear about is listening to what the people want, he will have us out of there. And given the direction of our economy and the likelihood of the "surge" falling apart without a huge boost, public opinion should solidify against the occupation. He's no Nixon, who hunkered down in the White House with his hands over his ears.

I know we differ on this. I understand his need to not be too specific, it only exposes him to attacks, not that that is stopping Hillary anyway. But he is looking beyond her. In fact, she makes him look better because she can't shake up his composure and he turns her attacks around on her. He makes her look desperate and inept.

I look at it this way: we know all about Hillary and McCain. She will sell us out for money, she's done it before. She throws mud. She tries to change the rules to suit her agenda and doesn't care if it disenfranchises voters' choices. McCain's mind is already starting to slip gears, he's flipflopped and kissed Bush's ass after Bush slimed him in 2000. Tax cuts for the rich, endless war. His campaign is talking about the need to choose a young running mate.

Some think Hillary can win anyway. She won't get any help from me, and I think it would be so close Karl Rove would be dancing with joy. We all know the Republicans will do their best to steal the next election. Hillary would make it easier.

kathyodat

No one should attempt to compare Obamas record as a State Senator, with Hillary's record as a U.S. Senator.
That was the implication. There is no valid comparrison, so why bring it up. Compare their Senate voting records. Hillary never was a State Senator, so we cannot know what she would have accomplished in that capacity.

Their Senate votes are almost identical. There are some important differences and he wants to deny his voting record and is doing that very well. That is what is very troubling to me.

Wow!
It seems easy to just sit back and rain on this young woman's idealism. But she said something interesting in her essay: "Barack Obama's presidential campaign is inspiring a new generation of leaders". That was more powerful than you think. If these young people are basing their assumption of leadership on the ideals they seem to attribute to Barack Obama - i.e., the willingness to sit down and talk to those that you don't agree with; extreme respect for the constitution of the United States of America; "the willingness to heal the wounds in this country"; sympathy and hopefully empathy for the downtrodden - then that's what we should be applauding. If Obama inspires just a fraction of his young supporters to go back to their communities and work hard to make real change in the issues that they care about, then it was all worth it. Remember these young people have seen what is possible, that is a virtually unknown candidate with a different sounding name go from the obscure to potentially being the next POTUS. The gates of possibility are wide open now. Forget about the DLC and the Washington insiders, which I don't think of Obama as being one of anyway. These young people have been given a taste of what little 'd' democracy is supposed to look like, people at the grass roots coming together to advance a certain agenda. My guess is that they are not as naive as we might want to believe. So instead of patting them on their collective heads and saying, "Oh you poor misguided youngsters", let's work to push them and remind them of the power they have as demonstrated in building the Obama phenom. Let's tell them that if Obama gets to be the POTUS and they don't like some of his policies, to use that same energy to steer the car in another direction. Also let's remind them that many times the idea of powerlessness is only an illusion and that there are many ways to slay a giant.

Peace

And KEM, in terms of accuracy or being misleading, you stated that Obama "is leading our younger generation down the primrose lane". Your use of the word "is", as opposed to 'may be' or something non-definitive, is misleading and inadvertently slanderous(?). At best, it is not "accurate", unless you are sitting on that big bad crystal ball we all seek.

lost my tribe; great post.

Cool, tailcap, then vote for him!

Thank you starofthesea, I really admire you and UnCommon_Dreams. Not too many evolved spirits running loose.

And who is really exciting are our young people. It's been a long cold winter, about 30 years too long. I celebrate them.

here's to you, Bethany and lost my tribe!

kathyodat

I don't believe Hillary will be the nominee. I intend to vote for Obama against McCain. But don't expect much of anything to change is all I'm saying. If Hllary does become the nominee, I will vote for her. And the truth is, I do believe she would be a better president, in spite of her past in th eWhite house as the wife of Bill Clinton and his shenagins in the oral office.

It's her future I see, and I believe what she is now saying. I have serious doubts about Obama's well spoken words. __ With ample justification. I believe Hillary truly wants change and Obama wants to be the president. I "hope" that I am totally wrong about Obama, but his denying or mis-representing his votes is not good. Not good at all.

I also believe the very wise and and sly Republicans are saying they fear Obama over Hillary for very good reason. Hell, they insured Republicans voted for Obama in droves in several primaries. Why would they do that if they feared him? ___ Think about it. I've been very active in politics durin gmy pat years and know how dirty tricks are dreamed up on both sides of the isle. Politics is dirty business and we have to change it here in America, starting with paper and pencil ballots.

Booksense, that was a wonderful post.

And you're right. The DLC tried to claim Barack Obama and he renounced them. Hillary, however, is one of the founders of the DLC. Thanks so much, Hillary.

kathyodat

The events of this new century have affected all Americans. But they have struck to the heart of my generation.
Just a year later, the build-up to the Iraq War was revving into gear. I was beside myself.
Hurricane Katrina remained visible a little longer for us, and the outrage got under our skin.

Harharharhar!!!

"The outrage got under our skin."

Worse yet, she got pimples of outrage!

Kem, do you remember everything Bill Clinton said when he was running for president? Once in office he ran away from all his promises. He betrayed the unions and by doing so lost Congress to the Republicans. He became the corporations' best friend. Hillary has started out as the corporations' best friend. They like her better than they like McCain. At least he wants to do away with earmarks and excessive military hardware. Every populist position she has taken has been a "tag along Me too" after Obama.

kathyodat

Somebody, Kem I believe is the moniker. There's a book you might want to read. It's title is, Love My Rifle More Than You:Young, Educated, and Female in the Army. Betcha I surprised you with this recommend. My point is this female in the army when cornered by the fellows, uses the line, love my rifle more than you, I'm a bitch I won't sleep with you or conversely, I'm a slut, I'll sleep with anybody but you. A lot of us young ones know how to take care of ourselves, are not easily fooled, have read this book, have become sassy, have become organized, computer savvy, connect with the youth of the world. If the fudds of the world want to have a smack down with us we say okay, but not having much to lose we'll fend you off like the Scottish Highlanders of old. You cannot scare us into submission. This is not an Obama vs Hillary thing, its a movement.

I agree with you ~Whaterveryousay~, I perhaps should have used anothrer word such as MAY instead of IS. As it would be better put that way. Howerver, I was not intentionally attempting to mis-lead anyone. For all you know, that may be my FIRM opinion and if I felt he IS, there would be nothing wrong, nor slanderous with stating that. I am not firm on my opinions of Obama, I have reason to doubt him and have stated those reasons here.

I beleive your post MAY have been an intentional misleading post. You didn't state, {such and such was Hillary's U.S. Senate voting record and then state, here is Obamas voting record as a "State Senator".) That was intentional misleading, not just an optional use of one word. I'm sorry to disagree with you on your post, but since you brought up the fact of how I should have written mine, I will agree, the word MAY would have been more appropriate. Of course we don't re-write our posts thirty times as we do our novels, before we hit submit do we.

{Okay CORRECTION } ___ Obama MAY be leading us and our younger generation, down the Primrose Lane. __ Anyone else wish to correct their mis-leading posts?

lost my tribe;

again, great post.

kem, I apologize for directing my post to you. Wrong moniker.

KEM, haha, touche. But - I was not (no fingers crossed behind my back) trying to mislead. As I stated before, I 'copied' and posted that entry (someone else's) ONLY to point out the fact that Obama is not 'empty' and that all of the people who say he hasn't done anything are just full of it. As I also said, everyone knows he hasn't been in Washington for eight year so it couldn't be a comparison in that way. That, however, does not invalidate what he HAS done nor does it lessen his accomplishments.

I think that the perception that older folks have about Obama 'misleading' the younger generation is patronizing and is clearly contrasted by lost my tribe's post where she makes it clear that she and her peers are no fools, nor will they embrace the further 'dumbing down' that her elders have been subjected to and displayed by their (in)actions.

What in hell did I write, that makes ANYONE think I'm against the younger generation??? I love kids, have two of my own. I think the younger generation is our hope for the future. I hope you clean up the messes we made. I just on a political agenda, do not believe Obama will satisfy our hopes, young, middle aged, or old farts like me. I'm not condemming anyone for what they think. I'm just blogging what I think, which is based upon what I've seen in humanity over the past 73 years. Don't forget, us old foggies were once the younger generation. ___ We've been there too.

Respect your elders kids, we've all been screwed by good talkers and con artists more than you have. We've been there. Finally, I hope Obama is as good as he talks. If he is, he is a STATESMAN and we could use one of those in the White House, because we never had any.

KEM, sorry if I gave you that impression. I have no thought that you are against the younger generation. And I have no beef with you. I have read your posts for a long time here on CD and I know you are an intelligent, thoughtful person.

and KEM, when I said "older generation", I didn't know your age and that was not directed at you. I'm "older generation" too.

When the Titanic was sinking the passengers could have chosen another captain...but it would not have changed the outcome.

I like your posts, Kathyodat, and I admire your persistance.

Although I am voting for Obama, I am voting more for his movement. All radical change comes from below, never from the top. That is where it has always come from, and this is why I have shifted my vote to Obama.

I sense a major shift in the social consciousness of the younger generation, and that is the substance for democratic hope. The young see what corporate greed has done to our war mongering nation and they don't like it. .

Hope is the liveblood of democracy, it is all about a better world is possible. Hats off to a new generation.

I sense also that Obama will continue to listen to his progressive movement, and enough so not to rob them of their continued energy, committment and vision for a more just, sustainable and compassionate nation.

H. Clinton represents the corporate status quo in America, thus she can be no agent for change. Corporate rule is the destroyer of democracy and the better angels of our humanity. .

Hi ~WHATEVER, YOU SAY~ Okay, I agree, __ LOL. Except there really are a lot of people who don't have a clue of how long anyone has been a U.S. Senator or a Congressman. The truth is, most don't even know the names of their Congress person. Come to think of it, I don't know the name of mine now. She's a dumb-ass Repubican I know that. ___ She's a blond too.

I hear that last week she went into the public library, went to the desk and said in a loud voice, "I'll have a cheeze-burger, large fries and a small coke."

The startled clerk stared at her in dis-belief and then finally whispered, "Madam, __ shhhhhhh,__ this is the library."

The dumb blond, Republican Congress woman, looked around at the several seated and open mouthed, staring witnesses and then she also whispered. "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, _______ I'll have a cheezburger, large fries and a small coke."

Kem, we've had a few, just not in a long time. Two who come immediately to my mind are Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. We've had presidents I would at least call great, FDR for one. And although the Vietnam War destroyed LBJ's career, and he was a notorious blackmailer, he did sign into law the Civil Rights Act, commenting as he did, "there goes the South", referring to it abandoning the Democratic Party. Obama may well become the repairer of the breach. Who knows.

Kem, I've never read anything in your posts that would make me think you're against the younger generation. Some of the above posters appear to disparage their idealism, I love it.

kathyodat

I love the lively and energized discussion tonight. I hope all of the Obama supporters are right and he is the start of something new and great.

If on the other hand four years from now we are still fighting and dying in Iraq and not much of a progressive agenda is achieved (assuming Obama wins) then all of you should then say enough is enough and jump ship. If nothing much is accomplished by the Democrats as has happened in the last 8 yrs then you owe it to yourself to stop throwing good money away after bad and join a third party, be it the Greens or the Green Behind The Ears.

Nobody should lock themselves into a party if it can't produce results. LONG LIVE YOUR DREAMS!

You may get some flack for that one KEM, but I laughed.

I'm on the other side of the world here, and it's finally a warm and sunny day, so I'm going to go get in it.

Take care.