Legislators step up for Obama
The Obama Campaign will announce the endorsements of key local elected officials at a press conference on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at the capitol steps in Salem.
Oregon legislators and local elected officials from across the state will come together to discuss their support for Senator Obama's campaign and his plan to end the war in Iraq, turn the page on the divisive politics of the past and bring change we can believe in. The elected officials represent different regions of Oregon.
And to make a donation to Obama's Northwest States fundraising drive, click here
|
February 5, 2008 |
Chip Shields | Comments (34 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 5, 2008 1:31:46 PM
And Charlie Burr and Jeff Alworth!
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 5, 2008 1:39:48 PM
And Charlie Burr and Jeff Alworth!
That and $3.75 will get you a pint at the party:) Good luck tonight and thanks to everyone who's been making calls, raising money, and visiting the early states!
Posted by: John Calhoun | Feb 5, 2008 2:43:48 PM
How about super delegates? Any pledges within the Oregon delegation other than from Jenny who pledged to respect the vote of Oregon Democrats and from Earl who supports Obama?
Go Obama. I'm fired up and ready to go.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Feb 5, 2008 2:47:11 PM
Right on Chip! Great work!
Get the rest of them now!
Posted by: Jeff Cogen | Feb 5, 2008 3:07:47 PM
I'm a former John Edwards supporter, now fully on board with Obama!
Posted by: DeanOR | Feb 5, 2008 4:34:17 PM
Join the crowd, you hold-outs! You too can have a lobotomy, feel good, and end partisan bickering. Follow the Inspirational Leader to wherever it is he is going. Try chanting "Yes we can" for 15 minutes. It will help. Just don't ask "Yes we can...WHAT?"
Posted by: Katy | Feb 5, 2008 9:50:36 PM
Gotta say, DeanOR just posted the best blueoregon comment ever.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Feb 5, 2008 10:25:51 PM
ORDean, if you have to say "What?", you obviously haven't done your homework. Obama has given as many if not more details than Hillary. Check out his "issues" and policy "speeches" on barackobama.com. My favorite is his multi page position paper on ethical reform and transparancy in our government. Great stuff.
Posted by: Katy | Feb 5, 2008 10:35:13 PM
Even tonight Obama's speech was vague and sweeping while I heard Clinton say she wanted healthcare for "every man woman and child." He may have some specfics on his website but why is he afraid to talk about them in any of his speeches? You can only say "yes we can, I'm for change, partisanship is bad" so many many times before folks start asking questions.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Feb 5, 2008 11:20:44 PM
Congratulations are due the Obama team, they did a spectacular job. I started with Edwards, and I'd still be there - except - so Obama is where I'm at. There is something to be said for a less bellicose foreign policy and someone who doesn't start out with a bullseye on their back from the Republican hate machine. I'll bet the farm the Congressional Republican population will contain less moderate or liberal members, if any. If the public buys the nice guy approach it helps blunt the poli-nut attacks.
Posted by: Katy | Feb 6, 2008 8:32:21 AM
the above statement makes me wonder, so if the right wing decides to bring someone down the right thing to do is stand back and let it happen? You do realize she has a target on her back because she's a strong woman? And that's okay with you?
Posted by: Viktoriya | Feb 6, 2008 11:46:28 AM
People of Oregon are for Hillary Clinton!!!
Obama is arrogant, showman!
We don't need another beer drinker in White House!
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Feb 6, 2008 11:52:41 AM
Well--
As a beer drinking public official, I'm motivated to respond! I'm backing Obama--it is great to feel this strong sense of hope for a new direction for our country.
I believe this campaign is very good for our party and for our country. We have two remarkable, intelligent candidates carrying our message forward. Obama offers a new inspiration and new energy, and that's where I come down.
Posted by: Elizabeth | Feb 6, 2008 12:55:45 PM
Thank you, Katy! I'm in full agreement!!
Hillary is what we need right now - a fighter, a champion for women, children, & families and someone w/tested skills, experience, & pragmatism to move our lives forward.
Then again, I'm looking for a President to run the country vs. a hero to worship. This is about issues & solving problems, not idolization or mythology. She is ready to go to bat for us ON DAY ONE.
Oregon knows the greatness that can happen by putting a woman in charge - one need look no further than Darlene Hooley, a
Rep. who gets to the mat every time for her district & her state.
For women across this country, young & old, Hillary represents the hope & change we are all longing for - a day when health care is universal, child care affordable, & education valuable.
Phenomenons come & go, but true leaders make a lasting impact on the world around them. Hillary is that leader!
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 1:00:18 PM
Will the Hillary supporters explain why her vote to authorize the war on Iraq and reneging on her oath to defend the Constitution mean nothing to them? Do the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed as a consequence of this illegal war and crime against humanity not give them pause to consider someone else? Do they not think of how the hundreds of billions of dollars already squandered and yet to be thrown away on this war could have been better spent on education for the youngest generation, health care for all, maintenance of our decaying infrastructure and so much more?
Are they supporting Hillary because she is prepared to be as tough as McCain who is gung ho for having U.S. forces in Iraq for another hundred years? Wouldn't it be worth trying Obama's approach and talk with perceived and mainstream-media-concocted enemies? As Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
Posted by: Katy | Feb 6, 2008 1:24:01 PM
Their positions on Iraq don't differ today and you might be surprised to hear this, but there are other issues out there.
Not only did Clinton say she wanted healthcare for every man woman & child last night - she also said researchers should be able to use stem cells in the United States. I'm not sure why I'm having to defend my support for one of two fantastic candidates? Both would be great, I tend to lean toward candidates who offer more in the way of details which Clinton seems to be doing more of. Also like the "i won't let them swiftboat this candidate" line (it was something like that anyway). It think it shows she's willing to fight and I think that's exciting. This may be controversial but I'm not one who thinks partisanship is a bad thing either.
What I have a hard time with is folks who say she's too much of a target for the right wing. I say it's time we tell the right wing we're no longer willing to let them choose our candidates for us.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 1:29:09 PM
Katy: You dodged my questions. No defense other than your mind is made up? You don't care about the costs of the Iraq war?
Posted by: Katy | Feb 6, 2008 1:35:00 PM
My mind is definitly made up! haha, you're not going to convince me to vote for Obama by badgering me on blueoregon. But you did just send me to her website to donate to her campaign!
Now, let's just all get along and admit that there are good reasons to support both fine candidates in our primary. I think we should all feel pretty darned lucky right now.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 4:30:49 PM
My mind is definitly made up! haha, you're not going to convince me to vote for Obama by badgering me on blueoregon.
In other words, you are not going to let facts get in the way of your obstinacy and you concede my points by failing to answer my questions.
Hillary supporters like to tout her "experience." Let's look at some people who became president and could claim to have had experience: Nixon, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and the incumbent. Abraham Lincoln didn't have "experience" but became one of the nation's greatest presidents. Harry Truman didn't have much experience when you consider FDR practically ignored his presence and failed to keep him informed of the Manhattan Project. Now many people consider him a great president. A little over-rated, but he proved to be much better than many people expected because of his lack of experience.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 4:49:34 PM
My mind is definitly made up! haha, you're not going to convince me to vote for Obama by badgering me on blueoregon. But you did just send me to her website to donate to her campaign!
As the Great Skeptic one said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Posted by: Katy | Feb 6, 2008 4:56:22 PM
Not sure how to respond to the badgering - I honestly don't see why we can't just agree to disagree on which candidate we like in the primary? I just looked through my previous posts (which I would have liked to end a few posts ago but geez...couln't let this badgering go unanswered)and don't see where I said anything about Clinton's experience? So I'm a little confused as to why instead of addressing what I actually said you're bringing a new topic into the discusssion?
Isn't that what you're accusing me of doing? Hmm.
I understand that Clinton's vote on Iraq is the deciding factor on how you will vote come May but it is not the deciding factor for me (I'm trying to spell this out as best I can, it's not that difficult). I like to vote for a candidate based on a number of different criteria. I would list examples here but I think I've covered a few in prior posts so I think you probably get the idea.
For me Clinton is the best fit and that's what an election is all about really, don't you think? Yay for democracy!
Badger away...
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 6:01:47 PM
...don't see where I said anything about Clinton's experience?
I didn't say anything about YOU saying anything about Hillary's experience. I said, "Hillary's supporters" which is general and not specific.
If you're having a problem with this interchange, charge it up to the fact that you can't answer the questions I posed.
Posted by: Katy | Feb 6, 2008 6:54:56 PM
Wow. Thank you for illustrating how unreasonable you've been throughout this thread.
You shouldn't be frustrated that you can't change my mind - perhaps go out and persuade young folks to vote (overwhelmingly in support of Obama)instead of being kind of a jerk on blueoregon.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Feb 6, 2008 6:58:12 PM
All right Peter!
I'll take that as an endorsement!
Welcome aboard the Obama train!
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Feb 6, 2008 6:59:47 PM
Oops, didn't see that you were already on the list! I must be getting a little bug eyed here. :-)
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 6, 2008 9:09:33 PM
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 6, 2008 10:23:34 PM
This post is in code.
Tate Ness supports Hillary. Her arguments:
1) Experienced, and will hit the ground running
2) Boundary breaking candidate
3) Toughness. Been through Hades and come back for a second term.
4) Comfort with specifics
Imus Love supports Obama. His arguments:
1) Bringing in a new generation of activists
2) That new support will offer room for independence and innovation that is lacking in most lobby-driven campaigns
3) Boundary breaking candidate.
4) Was willing to oppose Iraq invasion before it got cool.
5) The best chance for a really progressive president in years...and with a charisma, positive attitude, and cross-cutting brand that offers a chance for winning.
Mr. Grumplestilskin (D - Grumpyland) opposes Hillary. Arguments:
1) Hillary seems too willing to get cozy with lobby power (Mrs. G responds: "That's just 'cause she's actually been in government, done stuff, and has met all those people...she hasn't spent all her time talking to talk show hosts!")
2) She's the worst of both worlds for a progressive: as divisive as Kucinich, but almost as centrist as pre-2004 Lieberman (Tate Ness/Mrs. G responds: "Best of both worlds! Crafty and ready to stand up to the right-wing spin machine, while having values that fit with a big chunk of Americans. That Lieberman line was cheap crap!")
3) She's unwilling to acknowledge fully a mistake on Iraq, and thereby can't gain the trust of the folks foreign and domestic who can't forgive our leadership for what they perceive to be the most glaring piece of bellicose foreign policy bumbling in 35 years. (Mrs G.: "She's from New York! She's a woman who has to seem war-ready tough! Her plan now is almost indistinguishable from Obama's!")
4) She can't win because she's a woman/a Clinton and we have too many sexist/anti-Clinton neighbors (Mrs. G: "Margaret Thatcher! And every candidate in the race is either old, a woman, black, a Mormon, or a former fat guy!")
Mrs. Grumplestilskin (D-Grumpyville) opposes Obama. His arguments:
1) He's vapor-ware...a Ponzi-scheme...a hype-fueled deck of youthful cards that will crumble, leaving resentful former believers in the formerly inspiring wake. (Imus or Mr. G responds: "What's not for real? And when was the ability to focus public energy, inspire, and appeal to our better angels not among the chief attributes of a transcending leader?")
2) People only like him because he makes us not feel racist. (Mr. G: "I'm not a racist!")
3) He can't win because he's black/youngish, and we have too many racist/ageist neighbors. (Mr. G: "Look at Oprah and Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods! The most popular figures in their spheres!...along with our obsession with youth generally! And I'm definitely not a racist!")
4) What has he really done in his blink-of-an-eye Senate career except for give some great speeches and write a coupla books? (Mr. G: "lots of stuff...and what huge thing has anyone really done before being president? President is where you get to do the really big thing, and he's got the stuff!")
I am Imus Love. I can respect and admire Tate Ness in an Imus Love sorta way.
Let's avoid being Mr. and Mrs. Grumplestilskin.
--Imus Love
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 7, 2008 12:31:03 AM
Bill B.,
I don't like either of them all that much, because they just aren't that different. On the war, Clinton won't admit she was wrong, but Obama claims he was right and then votes the wrong way. They are about equally bellicose with respect to Iran. Obama is marginally better on getting out of Iraq, in that he has a sort-of definite timeline -- 19 months, i.e. late 2010 if elected -- but with lots of holes related to responding to events. Clinton has no timeline, just a focus on starting to get out ASAP. Neither is very clear about what the endpoint of reduction is.
On the constitution, Clinton has been clear that she would agree to roll back some of Bush's power grabs for the executive. How much/many isn't clear & probably depends on what she's pressed to do. Obama has not addressed the issue at all. The idea that he's stronger than Clinton on the constitution because she voted the war powers authorization while he didn't have a vote, when they both have been voting to continue funding the illegal war and neither has done a damn thing about challenging signing statements or supporting impeachment efforts just won't stand up.
Katy's choice not to answer you wasn't because there wasn't an answer, it was because she doesn't find the issue you're posing dispositive. Your claims otherwise are just silly. You may think she doesn't put enough weight on the issue. I think you don't have any evidence that Obama would be better on the issue, because there isn't any.
Even if Oregon matters, I don't expect to vote for either of them in the primary.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 7, 2008 10:49:44 AM
Chris: I'm with you on having negatives about both Hillary and Obama, I just happen to think Obama's are much less, and he just might, maybe, reduce the divisiveness that currently exists. I have never heard anyone make that claim for Hillary. Instead, more people seem to think she would increase the polarization we now have.
On the constitution, Clinton has been clear that she would agree to roll back some of Bush's power grabs for the executive.
There's no way I would take her word on that, especially after her vote for the war and subsequent dissembling trying to "explain" it. She and Slick Willy are just too ambitious for themselves to ever cede any power they might have or inherit.
Katy's choice not to answer you wasn't because there wasn't an answer, it was because she doesn't find the issue you're posing dispositive.
"Dispositive" is a new word to me and is not in my dictionary so I'm not sure what you meant by it. I submit instead Katy and other Hillary supporters couldn't respond to my questions because they would have to admit they don't care about Hillary voting for the war and its consequences or they would have to concede their support for Hillary is no longer justified.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 7, 2008 11:20:52 AM
Alternet has an interesting article on How Obama Could Create a Long-Term Democratic Majority. It suggests an encouraging scenario for the future. There is no guarantee that it will evolve, but it is worth a try and much better than the alternative.
Posted by: Katy | Feb 7, 2008 1:04:21 PM
Actually I did respond to your question about Iraq, you just didn't like my answer.
Posted by: Harry K | Feb 7, 2008 3:36:19 PM
Isn't it hypocritical for those who regularly demonize the "Israel lobby" to then argue for support of a candidate whose platform emphasizes the same policy as the "Israel lobby"?
It's those of you who, every election year, proselytize in favor of "moderates" like Obamary or Blumenauer, who share in the responsibility for the slaughter and torture of Arabs and Muslims, and who increase the probability of another attack on us.
Once the primaries end, Obamary's foreign policy will shift to "the middle" (actually the far right, if rational thought mattered). It's too bad McCain is running as a Republican, since John Kerry's first choice as a running mate will be unavailable.
How any of you can enthusiastically support either of these hegemonists is beyond me. Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evils (although they seem equally evil to me), but stop pretending that your choice portends a new millenium. And please stop calling yourselves "progressives".
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Feb 7, 2008 8:21:22 PM
Bill,
Just FYI, from Webster's New Collegiate, 1979 ed. (love them yard sales): dispositive, adj "directed towards or effecting disposition (as of a case)"; usage example is "[dispositive] evidence".
Relates to definition 1(b) of disposition: "final arrangement: SETTLEMENT"; usage example is "the [disposition] of the case."
Not quite sure what corner of my past I pulled that jargon from :->, should just have written that I don't think what you wrote settles the matter.
I hear you about not trusting Clinton, but on the other hand, she could simply have avoided the issue, as Obama has done.
If Obama had followed out his pre-senate anti-war position in a forthright way that differentiated him from Clinton I'd care more about her original vote. But what we're seeing is regression toward the mean -- she's gotten a bit better, he's gotten worse.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 5, 2008 1:17:15 PM
Welcome aboard the Obama Express!