So I went to the Obama Election Day Volunteer Training....

[Mr. Peabody]

I didn't really know what to expect when I showed up for the event at the Holiday Inn on Lexington. I figured there would be anywhere from 50-100 people present. I was wrong. The training was held in one of the hotel's ballrooms/conference halls and it was packed. There must have been 300+ people present. I don't think the campaign expected that many people to show up because they didn't have enough chairs or information packets to accommodate those that were present. Many of us ended up sharing packets.

For some reason, I had this preconceived notion that, at 31 years old, I would be one of the older people in attendance. I assumed it would be nothing be college kids/political activists in the crowd, but that was far from the case. It as a good mix of people and from what I heard, many had never been politically active before.

While I was at the there, I was talking to the woman who was sitting next to me. It turns out she lives in Northern California and flew down to San Antonio for the week to volunteer. She did this at her own expense. She's never been involved in a campaign before. She took a week off of work and came to San Antonio to go door-to-door and make phones calls for the campaign.

The conversation with this woman made me feel bad because I was seriously wrestling with the decision of whether to attend the training and commit the next two days to the Obama campaign or to stay home and watch The Beastmaster and Time Bandits, both of which I had just downloaded. In the end, I was glad I went and glad that for at least once in my life, I actually backed up all of my bullshit with action.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I actually backed up all of my bullshit with action.

The question is, will he? Or anyone else running for office?

[Mr. Peabody]

The question is, will he? Or anyone else running for office?

Probably not, but I am going to try to do my part anyway.

[clambake]

thank you. the future belongs to our kids.

[BonnerDynasty]

Amazing that so many sheep get behind a president who wants to just weaken this country.

Pretty crazy what little it took to get the masses behind this guy.

[clambake]

Amazing that so many sheep get behind a president who wants to just weaken this country.

Pretty crazy what little it took to get the masses behind this guy.
he's president?

drink much?

[BonnerDynasty]

Probably will be, which is why I used that. Plus, it's the internet.

Think about it. He comes up with some catchy phrases, gets some celebrity endorsements (b/c even though they are the uber rich, they are not the evil rich--just like your non evil rich politicians), acts like he is going to CHANGE Washington because he has no substance/history and can't run on that, acts like things will change when he is just going to set up more failing social programs and keep his people dependent on him and weaken them in the process. Dude has no substance and yet has the masses. It's pretty amazing.


And I never got into drinking in high school, so no. I don't drink. :drunk

[clambake]

Probably will be, which is why I used that. Plus, it's the internet.

Think about it. He comes up with some catchy phrases, gets some celebrity endorsements (b/c even though they are the uber rich, they are not the evil rich--just like your non evil rich politicians), acts like he is going to CHANGE Washington because he has no substance/history and can't run on that, acts like things will change when he is just going to set up more failing social programs and keep his people dependent on him and weaken them in the process. Dude has no substance and yet has the masses. It's pretty amazing.


And I never got into drinking in high school, so no. I don't drink. :drunk
i'm just tired of hearing the mccain war record as being substantial. the only state of mind should be a state of war bullshit.

i like mccain, as a person, but he folded in 2000 like a crack whore beat by a pimp. change is good.

[Mr. Peabody]

Amazing that so many sheep get behind a president who wants to just weaken this country.

Pretty crazy what little it took to get the masses behind this guy.

Actually, I read the guy's books and agree with his approach to politics. You can call that being a sheep or whatever you'd like, but I'm willing to bet I've spent more time studying Obama's positions on various issues than the vast majority of other voters have spent studying their own candidates.

Also, I would disagree with your definition of "substance" when you say "he has no substance." I think you are somehow equating substance with experience in Washington and I don't know that the two are interchangeable. I agree that he does not have as much experience in Washington as some of the the other candidates, but I don't see that as a bright line rule excluding someone from the White House.

Furthermore, like one of my philosophy professors was fond of saying, you should never confuse cynicism with intelligence.

[Mr. Peabody]

i like mccain, as a person, but he folded in 2000 like a crack whore beat by a pimp. change is good.

I agree. I liked McCain in 2000 and then, he started speaking at Bob Jones University, hugging President Bush at rallies, etc.

[DarkReign]

i wish i had as little substance as obama

Ultimately, I agree with that. Charisma goes a long way.

[xrayzebra]

thank you. the future belongs to our kids.

It's always, always about the kids. How bout the "now"
bunch. Us!

[xrayzebra]

A couple of things wrong.
Havard
Lawyer
politician

three strikes and your out.

All of the above indicate no substance.

[101A]

He also has some amount of political instinct. What he doesn't have, however, is a strong RECORD of what he will actually support. It's very convenient for him that he wasn't around when the Senate voted for war authorization; I have a suspicion THAT wouldn't be such a big club he could beat Hillary over the head with.

From Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html) - a year old, but topical


The Ever-'Present' Obama

By Nathan Gonzales (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/nathan_gonzales/)
Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.


We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

Some of these bills may have been "bad. They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it.

Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But as Democrats - and Americans - are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.

[Mr. Peabody]

A couple of things wrong.
Havard
Lawyer
politician

three strikes and your out.

All of the above indicate no substance.

:lol

Would he have substance if he graduated from Regent University?

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html

...

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a "constitutional majority" to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a "present" vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote "present," it fails.

...

[clambake]

:lol

Would he have substance if he graduated from Regent University?
:lol
lets see.....vote for someone with vision or vote for someone thats bends like gumby......before he takes a dive to the canvas.

i won't forget to mention that ahmadinjad is in iraq signing trade agreements as we speak, for billions. mccain wants to follow bush's lead on this hate iran thing. progress has past the one we have now, and the mccain that wants to follow.

away with the worn out old gasbags.

[JoeChalupa]

Every candidate or politican uses "catchy phrases" like "Bring 'em on!" or "Mission Accomplished" or "Axis of Evil" or "strategery" when they speak. There will always be the naysayers who get pissed 'cause their guy is not getting the attention.

BARACK on!!

[JoeChalupa]

And a big :tu for Mr. Peabody.

[xrayzebra]

And a big :tu for Mr. Peabody.

You know Joe, I left out the most important thing wrong
with Obama. He is a dimm-o-crap....... :lol

[101A]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html

...

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a "constitutional majority" to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a "present" vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote "present," it fails.

...Then why not vote "No"?

[Mr. Peabody]

You know Joe, I left out the most important thing wrong
with Obama. He is a dimm-o-crap....... :lol

Not to worry ray, I had already assumed that would be your main gripe about him. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

Then why not vote "No"?

I think the answer is obvious, it's political maneuvering. Obama's explanation was that he was asked to vote present by political allies in order to provide cover for Republicans who had already agreed to vote present on controversial issues. However, I doubt that such an explanation will account for each and every present vote. But at its core, the vote of present is a political maneuver that is used in Illinois politics for whatever purpose, well-intentioned or not.

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html

...

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

...

[Holt's Cat]

Then why not vote "No"?

Seems like it's a no vote that indicates a senator has some doubts about their view and may be willing to switch.

[DarkReign]

Peabody,

I admire you for doing something you believe in. Dont care if its for Bush/Kerry/Obama or Jesse Jackson.

At least you "put your money where your mouth is", so to speak.