The Election Issue

Bill and Hillary Clinton began the presidential primary campaign by trying to characterize Barack Obama's position against the Iraq war as "a fairy tale". But the record clearly shows that on October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech against the US starting a war in Iraq, while later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for the funds requested by President Bush to authorize the beginning of US military action in Iraq.

After being severely criticized for totally misrepresenting Obama’s position on the Iraq war, the Clintons instead began accusing Barack Obama of being too young and inexperienced to be president. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have tried to convince voters that because Barack Obama is younger than they are that he therefore must be too young and inexperienced to be president. But the facts of American history suggest otherwise.

Senator Barak Obama will be 47 years old on Aug 4th, Senator John McCain will become 72 years of age August 29th, and Senator Hillary Clinton will achieve age 61 on Oct 26, 2008. Previously America has had both younger and older individuals who have become president and served with great distinction such as Theodore Roosevelt who became president at age 42, John Kennedy who assumed the presidency at age 43, and Ronald Regan who was sworn in as the Commander in Chief on January 20, 1981 at age 69.

Before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860 to become our 16th president he had previously served 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Congress, which happens to be precisely Senator Barack Obama’s experience. Bill Clinton became president at age 46 after having served 12 years as the governor of Arkansas, but without having had any prior experience whatsoever in Washington or as a state legislator.

How do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually compare in terms of their individual experience?

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials he could have joined any number of prestigious law firms but instead felt compelled to give back to his local community, so he returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights and civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his landslide election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator, Barack Obama is currently serving his 12th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.

Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale law school in 1973 and subsequently worked as a lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas and has been a very active spouse, first as the wife of the governor of Arkansas and then as the First lady of the United States. Despite her claim of “35 years of experience”, she actually first became an elected official as a Senator from her adopted state of New York in 2000, and she is currently serving her 8th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters.

Barack Obama’s opponents are trying to convince voters that Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. anger and bitterness and sometimes over the top 1960’s type radical incendiary rhetoric that Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced and rejected actually somehow represents the feelings of Barack Obama himself rather than those of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Furthermore Barack Obama’s opponents are trying to convince voters that he is somehow unfit to become commander in chief of our military forces.
But these attempts at trying to denigrate Senator Barack Obama are not working because more people have been reading the 2 books which he has written which reveal his character and clearly and unmistakably show his deep love and respect for America. Furthermore on March 12, 2008 10 distinguished retired Generals and Admirals of the United States Army, Air Force and Navy unconditionally endorsed Barack Obama to become the President of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of all United States Military Forces.

When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama’s judgment that it would be preferable if the next President of the United States was elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington.

Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose in the November general election the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable.

Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America?

That’s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who don’t seem very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, the Washington money peddlers who currently arrange to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning, and whom they can then “work with” later on.
This election is not about whether you happen to be a woman or a man, or whether your father was a black man or a white man, an Asian or a Hispanic. This election is about the future of our country.
We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy.
Both the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. know this and have recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama’s integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president.
It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in all of the other states soon to vote in presidential primary elections to stand up and be counted. It’s time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming American democracy by voting for Barack Obama.

good people of Pennsylvania dont let these far from truth tails distract you from reality, 1st if you were going to site young presidents with acomplishments out of all of the ones you named president clinton was the one that most achived. 2nd if you start reserching the facts of Mr obamas community service you will see that he was there for a short period time and decided to move on because of his frustration in being able to acomplish any of his goals. Now Hillary Clinton has been working for middle americas all her life, whether it is womans rights, childrens health care , military health care, she is much more verse in foreign policy, she is a fighter and she will work for the working class, make no mystake with Hillary shes about substance and not about rehtoric.

unny- If the Clinton campaign is so messed up how is he only able to manage a virtual tie? Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie. The Clinton campaign is REAL grassroots. Not Corp. sponsored grass roots fake American Idol bs!

Just wait....

Chad, you forget that Hillary was supposed to be ahead by 20 points, not strugged in a virtual tie. Everyone knew her name, she was "inevitable", she was nationally ahead by 20 points. Last november and december she repeated over and over again that the contest would be over by Feb 5th. When Leno asked Obama what on earth he would do considering how far ahead she was, he gave a now classic line: "Hillary isn't the first politician to declare mission accomplished too soon."

You're right, Hillary has become grassroots, but she wasn't before. She only did so after she went broke and her back was against the wall, similar to how she only reached out to young people after she lost Iowa, organizing her "Hillblazers". Prior to that, she referred to them as the Facebook generation who wouldn't bother to vote.

The fact that Obama turned this into a virtual tie is a symbol of his success, not failure.

NOT TRUE! Hillblazers was formed right when she announced she would run. We are grassroots now and he still isn't the CLEAR winner. Funny, ain't it?
And Hillary has said alot of things , but she NEVER said she would be the winner after Feb 5th!
It's gonna take a little more HOPE if Obama is going to win this. Because hope and all that $$ still isnt getting him the nom! Makes you think, huh?
Also- How is he complaining after the debate? Glass Jaw cant take it? Trust me, McCain will kick his @$$!!!

P.S.
How do you think he will do when he cant even carry a dem rich state? McCain will mop the floor with him...and I'll be 1st in line to help! FALSE HOPE from a snake oil salesman will NOT save this country!

Some think that Obama’s supporters are just head over heels for Obama, that we are rather cultish, that no matter what Barack says or does, he's always right. What those individuals don't realize, is that Barack has engaged us, that he has given us a reason to hope for a better planet, a reason to do more good things for people less fortunate than we are, that he has given us the incentive to stand up for ourselves in the face of controversy, to take issues to another level, to have conversations about issues that haven't been brought up in a very long time, a chance for us to bridge the gaps that have us divided, to find "common ground." Overall, I think that Barack truly does provide something we've all been waiting for - a chance to take back government of , for, and BY the people! So, if it seems we are Obamaniacal, please realize that we feel the urgency of now that he speaks of, that we don't want to let an opportunity pass us by that can give us a chance to better ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, our towns and cities, our counties, our states, our country, and our world. Obamania is more than being enamored with Obama, it is the realization, that through his campaign, we have a vessel for re-engagement in government for we, the people. Barack isn't perfect, and states that fact regularly. We all know that too, but what we see is the person who aspires diligently, consistently, and with a very big heart, to make everyone's lives better, one who will work with us and for us and will walk along with us to lead us, rather than walk ahead of us and not look behind, as most of today's politicians do. He has stood by what he believes throughout his life and his campaign, unwavering in the face of those who oppose, and that in and of itself is contrary to what we have seen in the political arena for a very long time. His words and actions are not based on what he thinks everyone wants to hear, but rather developed from his ability to hear us. He has more substance, more intuitiveness and insight, more of a grasp on the issues that we care about, and for the people who are affected by those issues. Obamaniacal, yes, I am. I'm determined not to let this opportunity slip away, for if not now, when? If not us, who? Together, yes, we can! I hope this explains to those who think we are blindly following. We're not blind; we see the future can be brighter. From a 54 year old white female, formerly a Hillary supporter, in her constituency state of NY.

OBAMA IS A FRAUD.
BACKGROUND ON SEN. OBAMA'S DAY IN NEW YORK:
On Monday, the Obama campaign responded to Hillary unveiling a comprehensive plan to deal with the housing crisis by attacking her for taking contributions connected to subprime lenders. Campaign manager David Plouffe said: "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe those industries any favors."
As it turns out, those were just words... Today, Senator Obama gives an economy speech followed by a fundraiser at - you guessed it - one of the top 10 issuers of subprime loans in America, Credit Suisse. In fact, Senator Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain [cq.com].
- Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
- Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]

This is what the Wall Street Journal said about Obama's church:

The Wall Street Journal on Black Liberation Theology (the doctrine of Obama’s church)
What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120585801828545495.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.12717