One has to wonder what Hillary would have done in the same situation.

She would have whispered: "Obama's a Muslim!"

I recommended to Lee who likes to dream up tickets that I thouht Obama /Richardson would be a good ticket if Obama wins the nomination..Richarson who is half Mexican could heip Obama with the Latinos, and complimment his so-called inexperience .

steve, his inexperience isn't so called.

go look at how long he has served in various *legislative* positions. go look at how often he voted present rather than taking a position.

when has he ever had a leadership or executive position?

have you heard his statements on foreign policy? does he understand that there are countries and people out there that don't like us and it has nothing to do about bush?

sorry, but he's said nothing that inspires any confidence in me that he could do the job. that's not to say that i am exactly filled with enthusiasm for any of the remaining candidates. over all this is a weak year for both parties. but that is not surprising given how politics and politicians operate.

Obama served 7 years in the Illinois Senate and has a long record of achievement there. He took on some tough issues and was able to work with across party lines. See this

Voting present is a legitimate constitutional option in Illinois. I'm sure lots of Republicans and Democrats have used it in the past besides Obama. It's a way to indicate you could support a bill if changes were made.

ke future..As I said on the main blog today Hillary has just under eight years of experience in elective office -- one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama...
If you want to look at his lengthy profile in the Chicago Tribune you will see that he had to grow up pretty fast in Illinois politics and to take on a lot of leadership responsibility. In addition he has his community oragnizer legal work and ten years of teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago drawing outstanding reviews from his students, plus writing his own books and biographies without the use of a ghost writer such as Edwards or Clinton did.

so i went and read those articles you guys suggested. what really stood out to me was that he did a lot in the state legislature up to 2004, but i really didn't see anything about his time as a US senator.

here's a great quote from the chicago times piece on his ability to earmark:
"My philosophy was that, if money was being distributed, then it would be inappropriate for me to not get my share for my district," Obama, now one of the U.S. Senate Democrats' leaders on ethics reform, said in an interview. "Did I think it was the best way to prioritize government spending? No."

for me that is one more reason to not vote for him.

on bipartisanship: almost all of the issues he is being lauded for are definitly from the left side of the aisle. i see mentions of bipartisonship, but the concrete example is the racial profiling law. and i'm not sure that wasn't more of an issue with the police union. at least that's who is normally opposed to such legislation.

speaking of bipartisanship. i like how one of you says he can work across the aisle, but he may not have to because the dems are going to have greater majorities. nice bipartisan attitude there.

the only bipartisanship i have seen is when both sides get together to spend the money i worked for. i could do with less of that.

to sum up:
he's against the 2nd amendment
he wants to spend my money
he wants to increase my taxes
he wants the government to control my health care
he wants to create special legal classes of people
he's pro-choice, and against reasonable restrictions on the procedure.
he's been angling for higher office from the get go
for someone who railed against backroom deals, in large part he owes his senate seat to chicago-style politics

and this is what i gleaned from pro-obama pieces. tell me again why i should vote for him?

Ke - I don't think anyone's denying that he is a mainstream liberal.

but i really didn't see anything about his time as a US senator.

That's because no one has accomplished much of anything in the Senate since 2004 because of the filibuster rule.

ah, but larkin, if obama really was a good leader, and if he really could lead bipartisan consenses, why didn't he do it during past couple of years? oh yeah, that's because he was to busy trying to get elected that he didn't bother to demonstrate that he knows how to lead. you're just reinforcing the point i'm trying to make.

and not all of the criticisms i made had to deal with mainstream leftism. (note that those on the left do not follow the same mantra of classical liberalism, thank you very much). the issues of corruption and earmarking (closely related) are vices on both sides of the aisle.

"...the issues of corruption and earmarking (closely related) are vices on both sides of the aisle."-ke-f

BONK! Earmarking is allocating already collected taxpayer funds via the legislative branch versus the executive branch of government. The moneys have been collected. Will your representative be allowed a voice toward disbursement?

BONK! yourself, bryan.

95% of earmarks are inserted with out a vote. usually it's in the committee paperwork, not in the actual law, which is why i like that Bush just signed an executive order telling executive branch not to spend money unless it's actually part of the voted and signed bill. i just wish he had done that years ago.

and you know what? the legislature doesn't have to spend that money on new shit. instead, the money could go to balancing our deficit or paying down debt, or *shock* keeping our taxes low so that we can keep the money that we earn. you know, the money that we can then go spend which drives the economy.

so, no, i don't want my rep, or your rep, or anybody else's rep spending my money.

"One has to wonder what Hillary would have done in the same situation."

Hillary's evil. She would have whispered something like, "Iraq. Iraq.," just to mess him up and make him look clueless.