Tonight, Barack Obama was in Portland for the kickoff of his national Countdown for Change campaign effort.


Were you there? What did you think? What will you do to help Obama? Are you ready to host a Countdown for Change house party?


  • (Show?)

    Will Obama finally show leadership on the pre-emptive capitulation efforts in Congress?

  • (Show?)

    I was there. It was interesting to see and hear him in person. It was a pretty good speech, but he needs to work on his timing a little (he talked over some of his best applause lines).

    I think he'd be a perfectly good President, but he hasn't shown me any reason to throw John Edwards under the bus yet.


  • Matthew (unverified)

    I was there, he definatly has a great delivery and has some great comeback slogans for some of the criticism against him, but I have met and seen other politicians, he didn't have the "it" factor for the moment for me personally. I like the man, I think he presents some very interesting ideas, I just do not see that he can effectively follow through with what he says he wants to. I would support him as president, and as the nominee, but for now my choice lies with someone else.

  • (Show?)

    With all due respect to the Justin Timberlake fans out there, the Oregon Convention Center was the place to be last night to witness an inspiring, energizing, and morale-boosting address by the preeminent Democratic candidate in the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama.

    The above posts by Stephanie V. and Matthew illustrate how incredibly different people's perceptions can be when reflecting on the same event.

    I was fortunate enough to be present at an earlier event in addition to the larger speech.

    Senator Obama is unquestionably charasmatic, highly intelligent, witty, and thoughtful. Yet I think what struck me the most was his authenticity.

    Obama's rhetorical approach is more professorial than the typically overly-stage-managed political candidates of the digital age. If your measure of a political candidate is his or her timing on applause lines, then Obama might not fit your criteria.

    However, if you're interested in someone with a thoughtful analysis of some of the complex challenges that we face, than the Senator from Illinois might be your candidate.

    I would surmise that both President Bush and Barack Obama drive their political consultants insane - as they both go "off-script" and make impromptu remarks. The key distinction being that Obama, the former Constitutional Law professor and community organizer, is perfectly capable of articulating his thoughts in a reasoned, organized, and compelling manner. This was especially evident in the earlier event where he fielded questions including one from the parent of a young man who had recently enlisted in the National Guard. The Senator didn't deliver soundbites, but proceeded to provide a nuanced and reasoned perspective on some of the complex issues facing this parent, our country, and the world, as we reel from the disaster that is Iraq.

    I went into last night's event as a supporter and endorser of Senator Obama's presidential candidacy, and I came out with a greater sense of certainty that he's the best in the field and the right person at this particular moment in history to serve as president and commander-in- chief.

    When our standing in the world has been so terribly damaged by the toxic policies of the Bush Administration, we need a leader who will begin to repair our reputation abroad as well as address our challenges at home.

    From my perspective, nobody in this field of presidential candidates is better suited to repairing our reputation abroad than Barack Obama.

    Obama represents the ideals that people throughout the world have long admired about the US. Here is a man who is not part of any politically dynastic family. He's the product of a very American family, with parents of different racial, geographic, and religous backgrounds. A man who symbolizes the meritocracy that is supposed to be the United States. A country where a person of color, without family political connections, can rise to become a successful scholar, community organizer, lawyer, and US Senator.

    It's very easy to picture Senator Obama addressing the United Nations, riding in motorcades in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and facing crowds of people eager and willing to see and hear this intelligent and charasmatic new President of the United States. A young man who represents the United States of the 21st century.

    On this day after the Barack Obama event in Portland, I'm energized, excited, and hopeful. I'm hopeful that we have in the Senator from Illinois, an exceptional person with a progressive vision to steer the country in a different, more constructive direction. If you're undecided at this point, I would encourage you to stop paying attention to the so-called political experts and pundits, and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH on Senator Obama. Read his book, read his speeches, catch him on C-Span.

    Okay, now is the point in our program where the cynics launch their full-scale attack on my post. Let me adjust my armor; okay, ready....fire away!

  • (Show?)
    Obama's rhetorical approach is more professorial than the typically overly-stage-managed political candidates of the digital age. If your measure of a political candidate is his or her timing on applause lines, then Obama might not fit your criteria.

    I'm not sure Stephanie was measuring him per se, but you can't get your message across if no one can hear it. I had a relatively privileged, elevated seat that should have allowed me to hear as well as possible--but as soon as the applause started and he kept talking, that was it for whatever he was saying. If you were standing in the crowd behind the press area, forget it.

    That said, he did a pretty masterful job. His best moments were a closing anecdote about a small-town visit to a Fired Up! small community, and his response to the inexperience meme. But I couldn't help feeling a touch cynical about the half steps Obama (and other top candidates) are proposing: universal health care, but not single payer; "ending" the war but not withdrawing all the troops (and not saying anything about holding firm to END timelines in the coming supplemental); changing the culture in Washington but not addressing the power grab of the executive head on, etc.

  • Rep. Chip Shields (unverified)

    The event was inspiring. The Oregon primary campaign starts today!

  • (Show?)

    Obama's speech was pitch perfect, and the 4,000+ crowd was as pumped as just about at any event I've seen in Portland. A lot of energy last night, and moving though the crowd at the rally, it wasn't just the usual suspects there. I was in the back with my wife who's expecting in December, and needed to sit and get more air. Around us were a lot of families attending their first political event. Watching the crowd respond to Obama was an interesting as the speech itself. People were into it.

    I encouraged a lot of undecided voters to attend last night; the ones I talked to after the event were sold. I also had a different take than Stephanie on Obama's delivery: he wasn't using the same type of pausing you'd do for a State of the Union address; he surfed the applause (and I think pretty skillfully). I'll post some video if I can get my hands on it.

    The earlier reception and V.I.P event were great too, not surprisingly. Oh, and apparently General McPeak is a Pink Martini fan. How cool is that?

  • aelovell (unverified)

    I've now seen the top three Democratic candidates live. I like them all.

    I've been a rabid Edwards supporter, having worked for his campaign in 04, and I attended the event with Elizabeth a few months ago. I like Edwards' campaign rhetoric and I think both he and Elizabeth are really nice people. But I've decided that Edwards lacks good "public leadership" judgement, as evidenced not only by his Senate record, but by the many opportunities he has given the MSM to attack his candidacy, and the weak responses he's given to these attacks. He can't handle it, and I've got inside information about how the Republicans will dispatch with his candidacy should he win the nomination. He'd be destroyed.

    I moved on to Hillary. She's a very good candidate, with lots of insider know-how and years of fighting off the wolves. She's no Edwards, she'd win the media fight. I admire her. I respect her. She's got integrity and smarts, and would be a fine president. I'd be happy to vote for her. But her foreign policy commentary worries me. I don't like her close association with Dem neocon Madeline Albright. I know that the Clinton administration considered going into Iraq. I can see us ending up in Iran with Hillary. And certainly, the corporate over-friendliness worries me.

    With hesitation, I read up on Obama, the "young" one. I read his books, his biography, his Illinois and DC Senate records, his old and new speeches and all of his website.

    It's disconcerting to realize how hard the MSM has worked to keep the real Barack Obama away from the public. Thankfully, the truth is getting out - this guy is really something else. He's no rock star, he's not even an exceptional public speaker in my view. He's quite humble actually, and, like all of us, he's a flawed human being. But he has 21st century vision, free of the many debilitating limitations and prejudices that characterize my own generation. What he has that's so different, that is almost palpable, is a kind of brain that we in this country have not seen on the national political scene in many decades. And it's been shaped by unique life experience that provided big-picture influence, from his youth. It's been shaped not just by small town or urban America, but by the planet. I can trust that brain, not to create nirvana, but to choose the best possible option when things are tough. I want that brain in my White House.

    Obama has a unique wisdom that this country is desperate for. He sees bigger than the rest of us. It's like he's been watching from space while the rest of us have been huddled in our little houses. He will make positive change, by virtue of who he is and how he has lived his life. Frankly, we don't deserve him, but if he prevails in the primary, he's a shoo-in for the presidency.

    I won't list his policies and positives, I'll let others do that. I just wanted to post my own journey. We have several good candidates, I think all would be adequate presidents. But Barack Obama is an exceptional candidate, the kind that only comes around once every few generations; he will be an exceptional president.

    And he's ready right now, before he's thoroughly poisoned by DC. The last thing he needs is more DC experience.

  • (Show?)

    Obama was great, he is the real thing folks! I just got back from the event and I swear there were about 5,000 people there (although I didn't count). I was upfront and got lots of pictures too and shook Barack's hand. He also signed the huge poster I made.

    The Korean media was there and I was interviewed by them (I just got back from being over there for 3 1/2 years) about why I support Obama. It will be interesting because my wife is still in Korea (she's waiting on a visa) is watching to see if they air the interview.

    Anyway, he really inspired myself and others that we CAN make a difference.

    Mr. Barnhart (the lucky dog he is) got to talk to him for five minutes at a VIP event.

    When I get a chance I'm going to post some pictures.


  • David English (unverified)

    Two notes about the above post, I wrote it last night, but since the comments section was down on Blue Oregon, I posted on my blog and am reposting it here.

    Second, in the interview with the Korean media, one of the reasons I said I support Obama was that I felt we (as a country) need to work in cooperation with other countries instead of using intimidation and bullying.

    The USA-ROK relationship is resented in Korea by some because we are very dictorial.

  • (Show?)

    "It will be interesting because my wife is still in Korea (she's waiting on a visa) is watching to see if they air the interview."

    I sat next to them during the event. They're doing a full documentary, so she may have to wait a bit. (Unless there were two Korean camera crews, I guess!) They had just come from Hawaii'; they all seemed pretty tired.

  • BrianM (unverified)

    I was there last night. My impression of Obama is that he's taking the advice of the Democratic leadership. His campaign promises last night were all about what he can do after he's elected President: ending the war, bringing an "outsider" to the White House, universal health care.

    I find it odd that he doesn't talk about what he can do right now; he's got a huge platform and he's a member of the majority party in Congress (and in my opinion, the country as a whole). Campaigning to be a leader is very different from leadership as a whole.

    I want a leader now. I don't want to wait for "a good President" to replace the bad one. I want Congress to carry out their duties as required by the Constitution. Where's Senator Obama's sense of duty to his current office?

    I'll support him if he's the nominee. But he didn't sway my opinion to support him in the primary.

  • (Show?)


    Thanks for the info..I didn't know they were doing a documentary. Any idea if the focus of the documentary was on Obama himself or American politics.

    People in Korea are pretty interested in what is happening over here. It doesn't surprise me too much they are doing a documentary as they are curious what is going to happen next year.

  • (Show?)

    It's an Obama doc, David. At least that's what the translator/liaison told me.

  • Jack (unverified)

    Obama has a unique wisdom that this country is desperate for. He sees bigger than the rest of us. It's like he's been watching from space while the rest of us have been huddled in our little houses. He will make positive change, by virtue of who he is and how he has lived his life. Frankly, we don't deserve him, but if he prevails in the primary, he's a shoo-in for the presidency.

    Wow, that is one scary paragraph. "Unique wisdom"? "Watching from space"? "We don't deserve him"? WTF? Where can I buy what you've been smoking?

    I'm a political independent and I personally find most of Obama's political views to be pure poison, not to mention the fact that he's utterly inexperienced when it comes to executive leadership. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for him, even if the GOP ran Satan himself. The hard leftists who claim that he's a uniter, not a divider, are deluding themselves. He combines the worst ideas of the totalitarian left and the corporatist DLC. He'll be even more polarizing than Hillary, assuming of course people start talking about his politics rather than his melanin content or his public speaking skills. I couldn't give a rat's patoot how "charismatic" he is or how black he is. Why is it that Obama supporters focus on such shallow characteristics while almost never talking about his record or his expressed political beliefs?

    Here are his political beliefs and voting record, as stated in "On the Issues" and elsewhere on the Web:

    --Voted yes on reauthorizing the so-called Patriot Act

    --Believes the US Constitution is a "living document," i.e., doesn't actually mean what it says---this suggest that he agrees with GWB that the Constitution is just a "goddamn piece of paper"

    --Doesn't seem to have a problem with NAFTA and other corporate trade agreements that are gutting our economy--gives lip service to "fair trade" but hasn't used his position to try to repeal of NAFTA or other globalist agreements

    --Strongly supports amnesty for the 12+ million illegal aliens occupying our country

    --Voted yes on the so-called "guest worker" program and on allowing these "guests" to get US citizenship

    --Supporter of coal industry--thinks "clean coal" is not only possible, but desirable, and that taxpayers should subsidize it

    --Has expressed support for new nuclear plants--said in a recent debate that "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix."

    --Radically pro-abortion---never saw an abortion regulation he liked

    --Radically anti-Second Amendment---never saw any gun control legislation he didn't love---sees the Bill of Rights as a salad bar from he can pick and choose, while leaving the rest (fits in with his view of the Constitution as a "living document")

    --Hasn't spoken out against the War Against (Some) Drugs

    --Believes in using racial criteria for college admissions and government jobs (i.e., giving advantages to children of rich black law professors over children of poor white janitors)

    --Long-time member of a radical racialist church

    --Strong supporter of Israel---sees Israel as the cornerstone of our Middle East policy---said in a 2004 speech that "our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel"

    --Wants to increase the size of the US military

    --Expresses Wilsonian notions about crusading for worldwide democracy, i.e., continuing America's imperialistic role as policeman of the world---told the Council of Foreign Relations that we should "project American values around the globe"

    --Has not taken a leadership role in the Senate when it comes to getting us out of the Iraq Quagmire---his Wilsonian imperialist views probably have something to do with this

    I'll admit that his record is not entirely negative, particularly on some environmental issues. There are some things he says and that he's voted for that I would support. But the list above is just the tip of the iceberg. The guy does not "see bigger than the rest of us," nor has he been "watching from space." On the contrary, he's just as short-sighted, self-interested, and hypocritical as any of the politicians infesting DC.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    Awesome Speech and event!!

    More details once I get home.

  • (Show?)

    Jack --

    Just so you know, James Madison, the smart dude who actually wrote the Constitution, agreed with the notion that the Constitution should be, to some extent, a living document. Believing in this theory is nothing like the severe shredding that the Bush Administration has given to it, and can't, simply for historical accuracy, be compared to it.("The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny..." James Madison).

    Also, some of what you wrote actually makes me think more highly of him (pro-affirmative action, pro-abortion, not virulently anti-immigrant). By the way, "occupying our country?" Sheesh. Unless you're a Native American, that just sounds scary...

  • (Show?)

    Hey, can the people named Jack who are arguing with each other please use some secondary identifier? A last name would be nice, but Jack J. or Jack from Gresham or whatever would be fine too.

  • Jack A. (unverified)

    I agree that the pro-abortion stance makes him sound better, but it doesn't outweigh the negatives. He's just another politician, with charisma...which is dangerous in my mind.

  • (Show?)


    what you appeared to miss, what the national media continuously missed (as the missed with Howard Dean 4 years ago) is what Obama points to as the only real solution to the problems facing America: us. the Congress will respond to us, whether its in fear of losing their seat or in respect of the democratic process. if we want the war to end, we have to do more than whine that the Senate isn't doing their job. some citizens are, but not nearly enough. if we spend September bombarding Congress with the message that the war must end -- as John Kerry asked that we do -- then the blue dogs and the terrified Rs (Coleman, Collins, Smith) will be pushed to do the righ thing.

    i remain a true-blue diehard deaniac because of that message: we only lost a campaign when Dean lost. the big win, taking our country back, was not lost -- and will not be lost until we give up. you want Obama to end the war single-handedly? not gonna happen. he's not going to go and embarrass other Senators, be a pushy jerk, do the kind of things necessary to get to the front of the lunch line in junior high school. Obama is going to conform to Senate rules and traditions, so if you want someone to raise a big stink -- well, that's our job.

  • Jack the First (unverified)

    Jack2 wrote: Just so you know, James Madison, the smart dude who actually wrote the Constitution, agreed with the notion that the Constitution should be, to some extent, a living document.

    Jack2, Madison and the other signers also laid out a clear path for how to amend the Constitution. It's right there in the Constitution---read it. This is a far cry from the "living document" hypothesis that socialists and neo-cons put forth. And the condescension is misplaced. I have an MA in American History, so I'm not talking out my ass. I've read the primary documents. Have you?

    As for the other comments, y'all can pick and choose one or two things out of my list that you disagree with me on (I knew the abortion and illegal alien issues would elicit comments on this board), but look at it as a whole. Is this the person you think should be running this country? Do you think we should "project American values around the globe"? Do you think the Patriot Act is a good thing? Do you think we need to increase the size of the US military? Do you think coal and nukes are solutions to our energy crisis? Do you think the "guest worker" program and mass amnesty will help American workers? Do you think "our first and immutable commitment" should be to Israel's security? Do you think NAFTA is a good thing for the US and Mexico?

  • (Show?)


    First, I agree we need to make a more effective stink about the war. Thanks for making that point.

    Here's one opportunity to make a stink locally (for PDX metro folks) next week, courtesy of MoveOn.org's Portland group next Tuesday, Sept 11, 4:30-6:00 p.m. downtown. Should not be treated as substitute for phone calls to congress, etc.

    (MoveOn is somewhat fitfully working to create an on-the-ground presence around the country to coordinate with its electronic air game, which we may hope / try to cause to translate into more effect canvass & phone-banking mobilization as well as events like this).

    We also need to make a stink about the constitutional crisis, including demanding impeachment hearings on Cheney and Bush.


    Your argument responding to BrianM seems internally contradictory, however. Part of "making a stink" is demanding, in so many words, that our representatives represent us actively. Calling that "whining" shuts down stink-making.

    BrianM is right. If Senator Obama is talking leadership talk, but not walking leadership walk with the actual power he already has, it matters, especially given all the "authenticity" talk put forward to persuade those of us unpersuaded. (I will vote & work for him if he is the nominee).

    There are plenty of things he could do without criticizing other senators in public. And people he could work with. It's not just Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd or Chuck Hagel, admirable though their leadership on this issue is. It's also coming to be people like Carl Levin and Jack Reed.

    If Obama stepped up now he would both bolster his own credibility and share leadership of turning the tide in Congress, where the proximate power lies, even if the ultimate power is with us.

    If he's not willing to do that, what does it mean? If he's really "authentic" as admirers say, it looks like the authentic Obama isn't such a leader. Or if he really wants to do more and isn't, then he's much more of an typical image-crafter than is being claimed and much less "authentic" than being claimed. And it stills poses questions about leadership.

    BTW, one suspects that a number of other candidates might think that "do[ing] the kind of things necessary to get to the front of the lunch line in junior high school" is a pretty apt description of Obama's choice to run this year. Of course, the same might be said of Senator Clinton, though she has fewer potential future electoral cycles before her, and the same thing was said of Senator Edwards last time out.

    I don't fault Senator Obama's choice. Given the level of support he has, clearly it was justified politically. But the idea that he's just a humble guy, deferential to more senior politicians & not pushy, & that explains his unwillingness to be more active against the war with the actual power he has to fulfill his duty to represent us, a real leader now, just won't wash.

  • (Show?)

    Just read the Daily Kos link given by lestatdelc at the top, which remarkably enough shows Senator Clinton showing greater anti-war leadership than Senator Obama and names another conservative Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, now out "providing cover" for more timid folks, per Kos. Obama's window to show leadership rather than just being part of the pack seems to be shrinking.

  • Jack2 (unverified)

    Jack one,

    MA in History, focus on Constitutional History -- check. Thesis on James Madison -- check. Primary documents read -- check. Understanding of the ENTIRE concept of "living document" -- beyond socialists and and neocons --- check.

    As for the rest of the list, do you think you're going to find a Democrat, even a Democrat, who you agree with on everything?

  • NeverMind (unverified)

    Anti-war leadership?? Congress no longer has the power to declare war, the only power they have left is the power of the purse string. Why have Obama and Clinton continued to vote in favor of further Iraq spending? Neither really wants to make the tough decision to actually stop the war. In fact neither will rule out striking Iran. If you're anti-war, Obama and Clinton aren't your next president.

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)

    I went as a member of the media, and I was impressed. I also got the speech on camera in high definition and playing some of it back today, I thought it looked downright historic. Obama is the Elvis of this campaign. I think he would make a great president although 98% of the people in the room could do better than the one we have now. There's a friendly decency about Obama to go along with the smarts.
    Wow, what a 24 hours. From the Convention Center to Oprah's 50-million dollar home tonight. How much glamor can one man take?

  • Sally C (unverified)

    Re: Obama and NAFTA here's a quote from the Teamster's web page.

    "I am opposed to the Bush administration decision to allow cross-border trucking into the interior of the United States. There simply remain too many safety and environmental concerns. Before truck drivers from this or any other country are allowed to crisscross our highways, they should meet minimum standards for vehicle safety, rules on how long drivers can operate a vehicle as well as adequate oversight over those operations, and driver training. We need more time to study whether Mexican trucking firms and drivers can meet those standards across the entirety of their fleets."

    Today: http:www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=63061 "BREAKING NEWS: First certified Mexican truck crosses U.S. border By Randy Grider"

    If all these people support road safety, why did the Senate stall H.R. 1773: Safe American Roads Act of 2007 after it passed the House by a vote of The totals were 411 Ayes, 3 Nays, 18 Present/Not Voting LAST MAY???

    If Clinton, Obama, and other Senators claim to support the US workers, why did they stall this bill in the Senate? Now it's too late to do anything and we're facing pollution, more job dislocation, road safety violations, and no security at our southern borders.

    It looks like Obama's another empty suit who's abandoned the middle class, just like Hillary Clinton. They were in the Senate and did not act to prevent this.

  • BrianM (unverified)

    t.a. barnhart:

    I do my best to do more than whine, I really do. And I push the people I love to do more, too, though whether they do or not is up to them. I've got my state and Federal representatives on speed-dial, and I ain't afraid to call or email them.

    But my first response to this thread was what I thought of Sen. Obama after finally getting (paying for) a chance to hear him unfiltered (not much of a view from the back of the room, but it's the words I was listening to). My first impression was that he was campaigning as if he, and the party he's a member of, still doesn't have any power. It saddens me.

    All he needs to do is take a look across the aisle and see how much damage the opposition party does with the power they've grabbed. Why can't Democratic Senators and Members of Congress do the same, only, y'know, for the benefit of more than themselves, like they keep talking about?

    Meanwhile, men and women are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more dead and wounded by 20 January 2009?

  • (Show?)


    Your MA in History doesn't impress me if you think that primary documents are self-interpreting. They're not. Actually, I think you know that, but just don't want to acknowledge the extent to which your interpretation is interpretation.

    The application of even relatively plain language to changing circumstances requires interpretation. Historical context changes what appears "plain" or "obvious" to authoritative interpreters, esp. the Supreme Courts, of different eras. Consider Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

    The language of the original constitution, Bill of Rights amendments and other amendments is not always plain. The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment & the well-ordered militia phrase of the 2nd Amendment are currently "live" examples. Early constitutional language has to be reinterpeted in light of subsequent amendments, especially the 14th Amendment, which utterly changes key legal relationships among individuals/"the people", the states and the federal government set out in the original constitution and Bill of Rights.

    If you think about it, "original intent" arguments concede that the bare language does not simply "mean what it says," but requires interpretation in light of contextual evidence as to intent.

    That doesn't mean we get to make stuff up, like say "unitary executive" theory and supposedly unlimited powers of commanders-in-chief.

    But Barack Obama's observation that the constitution is a living document is an anodyne statement. It is largely meaningless, absent specific information about what he considers open to interpretation. You have no warrant (so to speak) to accuse him of interpretive radicalism like that of the Bushites. ;-)

  • Jack the First (unverified)

    But Barack Obama's observation that the constitution is a living document is an anodyne statement. It is largely meaningless, absent specific information about what he considers open to interpretation. You have no warrant (so to speak) to accuse him of interpretive radicalism like that of the Bushites. ;-)

    There are plenty of data regarding Obama's understanding of the "living document" hypothesis. How about his support for the Patriot Act? And even more blatant, his contempt for the Second Amendment? Most of the self-styled progressives that I've met are salad bar civil libertarians, so they don't care about the gutting of the Second Amendment, but take a glance at Obama's record on this issue. His unfailing support for gun prohibitionism is based entirely on ideologically driven opinion, an opinion that is the polar opposite of the original intent of this amendment. As a former law professor at an elite private university, he knows this, but obviously doesn't care.

    As I said, Madison and the other framers laid out a very clear path for how to amend the Constitution. It's not done by majority vote in the legislative branch or by simply ignoring inconvenient sections. What many supporters of the "living document" hypothesis really support is sophism in the service of ideology. The Cheney-Bush regime is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this approach represents.

    I don't need a lesson on interpreting primary documents, thanks very much. I've been paid to do that for years. There's a world of difference between honest disagreements about the meaning of a document and sophistic, ideologically driven readings that ignore inconvenient data. We'll have had eight full helpings of the latter by the end of 2008. We don't need need another four.

    Jack2, I don't give a damn what letter someone has after their name, which is why I'm an independent. I don't do "party loyalty" or "the lesser of two evils." I vote for the best person, and that's clearly Ron Paul, a man who has consistently used his position to fight against the war and to protect civil liberties, no matter how much it pisses off his colleagues. The same cannot be said about Senator Obama, who appears to be going along to get along. That's not leadership.

  • evdebs (unverified)

    Check out the money. Isn't Obama (and Clinton) getting big bucks from the investment bankers who serve the big corporations?

    <h2>John Edwards is the honest, authentic candidate who will not be beholden to the ruling class!</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon