Would you vote for Barack Obama, were he to run?

[Tiggeroshii]

If Barack Obama ran for president, would you vote for him in the primaries?

[Fovea]

1. I can't decide that without knowing if a progressive

were running in that primary.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Obama borderlines socialist

Look at his voting record in the state senate, you'll see he's the best progressive we've got.

[saracat]

16. Thank you for the correction! Why did I think he supported it?

[Alhena]

19. Obama voted agaisnt the bankruptcy bill

don't know why people keep saying Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill. Here are the votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

You'll notice that Hillary is counted as not voting and Bayh voted for the bill. As did a lot of other DINOs, it passed 74-25-1.

[1932]

24. I wish I had $.10 for each time I've seen that lie about O repeated on DU

[wyldwolf]

36. hmmm... wonder why Sirota has issues with him

[Sensitivity]

39. FORGET IT -- WIFE WON'T LET HIM!

[Tesha]

67. He probably actually listened to him speak.

Obama turns me off every time I listen to him.

Tesha

[wyldwolf]

68. He's either a progressive, a socialist, a moderate, or a "DINO"...

...depending on who you ask on DU.

And that was my point.

[Fovea]

58. Having looked at his positions, I agree that he is progressive.

I stand corrected in my prior assessment. I am concerned about a few key appointments, and I think he needs to adopt universal health care. But his statement on the Torture Act is the kicker for me.

But I would vote for him, assuming he is true to his positions. Unless, of course, Dennis Kucinich was running. And I would have to debate myself as to whether Edwards wouldn't be a better choice. And of course, Gore would be my preferred candidate in 08. How about a Gore/Obama ticket?

But based on his positions, I he would be on my short list.

[Tiggeroshii]

60. Edwards and Gore are not progressives compared to Obama.

In my opinion. Obama has done far moreto show himself out as a progressive then these guys have in their years in US office.

[LWolf]

66. You're kidding, right?

He voted for the class action reform bill, written to protect corporate abusers. He voted against capping credit card interest rates, ensuring that the big money companies can continue unimpeded usury.

How is this "near socialist?"

He voted to confirm Rice as secretary of state. He endorsed Lieberman. He backed down on his pre-election calls for ending the war in Iraq. He's willing to leave war with Iran, including use of nukes, "on the table."

He voted to close off filibuster of Alito, and did not support Feingold's motion to censure the president. He supports the corporate free trade agenda.

Here's what an August article in "The Socialist Worker" had to say about Obama:

In his convention speech, Obama didn't make the case for Democrats fighting for new government programs for poor and working people--or even defending existing ones. Instead, he echoed conservative themes attacking big government--but with a seductive liberal wrapper.

" don't expect government to solve all their problems," Obama said. "They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn."

No wonder Democratic Party officials are thrilled about Obama. With his liberal credentials and ability to appeal to a range of audiences, he can sell the kind of victim-blaming rhetoric and conservative policy proposals that establishment Democrats can't.


http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/508/508_05_Obama.shtml

Like and support Obama; it's your choice. But let's not push the pretense that he is a "near socialist."

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Against whom?

It would depend on who else was running.

[The Magistrate]

4. Quite Possibly, Sir

He would certainly make an excellent President.

[gademocrat7]

5. he is very intelligent, articulate and would be a good president.

[kimmerspixelated]

6. Yes, I think so,

however, he still seems a bit wet behind the ears, really. He's got a lot of great qualities.

[Boston Critic]

7. Honestly? I don't know

He is certainly a rising star in the Democratic Party and -- depending on his stands on issues and who else is running -- I would certainly consider voting for him.

A key issue, though, has to be electability. I think he can meet it, but we're a bit aways from being able to make that determination.

I know this: 1.) although I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, I don't believe Hillary Clinton can win and 2.) barring a breakout of insanity that puts Al Sharpton or Joe Lieberman (to pick two unlikely extremes) on the ticket, I can't imagine I wouldn't vote Democratic in 2008.

So, bottom line, I'm open to be convinced.

[davidwparker]

8. at present, only if he got the nomination. I'd not vote for him now in

the primaries.

How was Obama of the people's vote on the torture bill?

[beaconess]

40. He not only voted no, but spoke very eloquently & passionately against it

I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

If this was a debate with obvious ideological differences - heartfelt convictions that couldn't be settled by compromise - I would understand. But it's not.

All of us - Democrats and Republicans - want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this. And all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.

And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, "...actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay..."

And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.

The problem with this bill is not that it's too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it's sloppy. And the reason it's sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.

I've heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven't been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court.

This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He's absolutely right it should be our primary concern - which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this Administration has not displayed with this legislation.

Now, let me be clear - for those who plot terror against the United States, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. And for those who our government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We've already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn't have been there - as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, "Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks." And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever.

And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary. We could've drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would've prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great.

Instead, what we have is a flawed document that in fact betrays the best instincts of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle - those who worked in a bipartisan fashion in the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that we could have been proud of. And they essentially got steamrolled by this Administration and by the imperatives of November 7th.

That is not how we should be doing business in the U.S. Senate, and that's not how we should be prosecuting this war on terrorism. When we're sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060928-remarks_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_military_commission_legislation/index.html

[davidwparker]

45. Thanks for the post.

[East Liberty Denizen]

9. I assumed the poll was in regards to 08

Perhaps in 2016, Obama will be ready. In 08, got to go with Clinton.

Its a matter of funding and organization, and track record of electoral success that the Clintons have. The idea has to be to win the election in 2008, not come in 2nd with a candidate who might be more progressive.

[Clark2008]

38. Clinton?

What red state is SHE gonna flip.


Answer: None. Zilch. Nada.


Oh - welcome to DU.

[MADem]

10. Too soon to tell. I'd like to hear what he has to say first.

I'm not going to vote for him because he's male, he's half African, he's well-spoken, or he's charming and youthful, or because he has a very attractive wife. I'm not going to vote for him simply because he's a Democrat.

That said, if he hits the right themes in the debates, he could easily win my vote.

I'm keeping an open mind.

Of course, those he represents as a Senator have had more opportunities to see him up close and personal, and have a better viewpoint than those of us looking on from afar.

I'll give him a good look-see, like I will the rest of the pack.

[lisa58]

11. I'm going to vote for whatever democrat gets the nomination...

...I saw Obama last year at a rally for Jon Corzine (this time last year) and he was okay - not great. I met Hilary at a fundraiser two years ago and wasn't impressed with her either. I would love to love the candidate nominated, but I'll "like" whoever is nominated.

[Thickasabrick]

27. Excellent answer. He may not be my choice but whoever gets

the nom should get our vote!

[Poppyseedman]

12. I saw him on "Meet the Press" today.

I was pretty impressed and politicians of any stripe don't easily impress me.

If he ran, I would seriously consider him depending on his VP pick

I do think he would be an excellent pick for VP on any ticket.

[1932]

25. Are you saying you'd vote Republican if you didn't like his VP pick?

You know that you generally don't find out who the VP pick is until after they've secured the nomination.

[Poppyseedman]

46. Huh ?

Where did I say anything about voting for a rethug ? There are third party candidates

[rman]

13. depends on the other candidates

I'd choose Obama over Lieberman. And over Hillary, probably.
But not over Gore or Kucinich.

[Cameron27]

14. What you said

but not over Clark or Gore.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

30. Same here.

But I think he would make a good VP to Gore.

[saracat]

15. Delete

[jaxx]

20. Look again.

Bankruptcy Reform Bill



Bill Number: S 256
Issue: Business and Consumers
Date: 03/10/2005
Sponsor:Sen Grassley, Chuck


Roll Call Number: 0044
Bill Passed (Senate)
How members voted


Senator Barack H. Obama voted NO.
Read statements Senator Obama made in this general time period.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3480&can_id=BS030017

[Alhena]

23. Correct, here are the full votes- look at Hillary's vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

She was the one Senator not to vote at all. Almost worse than staking a position either way, IMO. I saw almost because that may be the most horrendous bill passed in the last decade. It should be a priority for any new democratic Congress to exempt debtors with medical bills from the act. Outright repeal would be better, but that's not going to happen.

[Mass]

35. Bill Clinton was in the OR when the vote took place. Give her a break

And I am not a great fan of Hillary, far from that.

[Alhena]

41. That explains it then ...

she certainly gets a pass if her husband was in the hospital- I wasn't aware of that.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

50. True, but she *had* voted in favor of a prior similar bankruptcy bill.

The prior bill was just as egregiously awful toward Americans in a bind-- practically tossing poor Americans into debtor's prison if they were unfortunate enough to be in a car accident or facing severe medical bills. ANY representative who voted for this bill, Republican or Democrat, should be harshly condemned and effectively barred from high office at all, for supporting something so pitiless and harsh toward people stricken with bad luck and just hoping for a lifeline back up.

That being said, it's not clear that Hillary had plans to vote for the second bankruptcy bill-- but given her vote in favor of the first one, this only reinforces her reputation a war-hawkish, DLC, neocon-lite member of the Dem Party who, like Biden and Lieberman, is only too happy to abandom Democratic principles of respect and compassion for the country's most vulnerable. And I can't think of anybody more vulnerable than some poor man or woman stricken with a medical illness, running up debts, desperately trying to make it back to self-sufficiency.

[savemefromdumbya]

17. I think he'll be Hillary's running mate

he will be VP probably

It will depend if Gore runs

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

49. I doubt he'd take such second fiddle

He's one to top a ticket, not second it.

[spag68]

18. Wait, let me think about this.

He has a D beside his name, nuff said.

[Ninja Jordan]

21. John Harwood? on MTP this AM, said he's "heard from insiders"

that Obama WILL run and Hillary WILL NOT run. If true, Gore will probably stay out, thus Obama = 08 nominee.

[Mass]

34. Rumors from insiders coming from the MSM?

Hillary will run. I do not know what Obama will do, but Bill wants too much Hillary to run.

[leesa]

22. I can't believe people are being sucked into another Corporate Product

again! The DLC strikes again.

[1932]

26. You're calling the one candidate who in '04 actually made news by saying

that he disagreed with the DLC a DLC candidate?

Are you going to tell us that night is day too?

[The Magistrate]

28. Heavens Forfend, Ma'am

That a political figure who has mass appeal would emerge as a possible Democratic Party candidate for President....

[Catchawave]

29. Just so happens....

I'm watching the re-run of his Russert interview right now on MTP.

What a lovely man, if he's the chosen one, I would support him enthusiastically!

[Mass]

31. Not in the primary, but in the GE, yes.

However, this seems a lot too much like the latest flavor of the month for me.

[elfin]

32. Not in a primary

But would have to in the general even though I think he is too inexperienced. I hope Al Gore gets in and my dream ticket would be Gore/Clark. If Gore doesn't get in then it is Clark with maybe Richardson. Hilarry would be a GREAT Senate Majority Leader and Kerry is defunct for many reasons - the latest being not giving up a good deal of his money for the mid terms.

[Mass]

33. LOL, the Kerry story with the money is dead, except for people who

would never have considered voting for him in the first place.

Somebody (a coward who was not ready to come clean) tried a dirty trick on him, and they failed miserably. All you have to see is to go to their website and to see that most of the people who agree are freepers.

[talk hard]

53. you've got it all correct there

great minds think alike!

[AtomicKitten]

77. read this entire Boston Globe article and you decide

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/21/kerry_is_pressured_to_share_campaign_wealth/

[Clark2008]

37. No.

Not in the primary.

And, it wouldn't do any good to vote for him in the general since he'd lose my state by like 20 percentage points.

[rolleitreks]

42. I think people are way too excited about him.

What's he got? One meetin' house speech and a couple of years in the Senate. He's a bright guy but his opponents will rip him to shreds over his inexperience. He'll wind up looking like last election's lightweight, Edwards.

Now, as Frank Rich pointed out this morning, Bush had next to no experience either. But Bush had one thing Barack hasn't got -- an immense network of political connections through his family.

I think he is a better candidate than Hillary, but is this the best we can do?

I hope Gore will ride to the rescue.

[loyalsister]

65. I would love to see Gore run

but, hate the idea of needing a "rescue."
I like the way Gore has been standing up and his recent energy has great value.
The very thing that is exciting about an Obama candidacy is drawing generational lines in the sand.
One thing that has been happening in Missouri has been the rise of tail end baby boomers and Gen xers to positions in government. If we start now, we can begin to take this back. Some of the most progressive candidates and office holders are from this age group. (in the MO GA there will be 2 openly gay women (1 senator, one rep.) and three black Muslims during the next session). In a state that voted in Marriage Amendment in 2004! Making that generational shift may be the best way to shift toward a more progressive party.
As a thread in his speeches you can see rethinking of old paradigms of paternalism and protectionism and bringing a more empowering, lateral way of thinking about the world. It is important that we establish this without the ownership society values.
Obama comes from a perspective of engaging disaffected in the conversation of the determination of their fate with community organizing.
Think what such a basis could have on diplomatic relations in Iraq.
I think some underestimation is taking place. He excites young people like no other candidate, and his ability to hold a position yet acknoledge and try to understand the other side of the argument appeals to people. I know a red stater who flies the confederate flag (civil war memorial, yeah right) who said he would vote for him because his speech at the convention reminded him of the "American Dream" more than anyone he had seen in a long time.
He appeals particularly to swing state voters who argue with relatives, neighbors, coworkers, etc.
People like him for more than his "rock star status."
I hope we won't ignore his potential in favor of "old standards" at our own peril, as we may have a unique opportunity to shift the tide in our direction and usher in new ways of thinking.
If people don't think he could flip Louisiana, they have been asleep!

[cobaindrain]

43. nope

[saltpoint]

44. It's November of 2008 and our party's nominated Senator Obama?

Is that the scenario?

If it is, then if the GOP has nominated Gingrich, Giuliani, THE CAT BUTCHER, Huckabee, Turncoat McCain, Pataki, Romney, Cement-Head Allen, Jeb, Barbour, Hagel, or nearly anyone else they've got on their rolls, you're goddamned right I'm voting for Senator Obama.

[Tiggeroshii]

47. people aren't reading this right.

It's would you vote for him for the nomination. Please read the post thoroughly before commenting.

[saltpoint]

56. Forgive me. My mistake.

I went too fast.

[Tiggeroshii]

59. No problem

=)

[talk hard]

52. cement head

good one

[saltpoint]

57. Hi, talk hard. I guess I'm not a big fan of Allen. He's really done

some damage to himself with that "macaca" remark.

[nickinSTL]

48. you need another option...

for those of us who aren't ready to commit to who we'd vote for in the primaries without knowing
who else is running, and having the chance to listen to all of the candidates (including Obama) before making our decision.

In 2004, I listened to all of the candidates before choosing Kerry as the candidate I thought best. I expect to do the same in '08 (listen to the candidates before making a decision, I mean).

[NJ Democrats]

51. only if Russ and Gore were out

I would vote for him.

[madville]

54. Will somebody please tell me

Will somebody please tell me how a black candidate with a name that sounds muslim is going to win the presidential election when a guy like John Kerry couldn't even beat * in 2004 ? I'm really curious if anybody thinks the electoral votes would even be close if Senator Obama ran against whoever the Rethugs put up ? Please tell me what states he would turn that went red in 2004.

[bling bling]

76. Missouri

This is a red state at the moment, Bush won the state in the last two elections but Clinton won this state both times before that.

In fact, for over a hundred years whoever wins Missouri has won the overall election.

Missouri has a lot of rural conservatives and as a general rule the representatives are almost always white men. But on the other hand, the people in this state voted for a dead Democrat over John Ashcroft in the 2000 Senate election.

I believe 100% that Obama can win it here if he runs a good campaign.

[williesgirl]

55. He's a rookie, untested, needs more time

[oasis]

61. I like Obama, but not enough to see another Dem defeat in 2008. Dixie

is an impossible nut to crack.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Kerry only needed 50,000 votes in Ohio to win the election...

Without a single southern state

[oasis]

74. Good point. (n/t)

[Guaranteed]

62. In the...primaries? No- we have better candidates. nt

[justice1]

63. I don't know enough about him to vote.

[SaveElmer]

69. Not my first choice...

That being Hillary...but if he got the nomination I would vote for him enthusiatically and without reservation. I do believe he will be President someday!

[bigwillq]

70. Depends who the other candidates were.

Too soon to tell for me.

[mnhtnbb]

71. No--I'd vote for Gore or Edwards ahead of Obama

[garybeck]

72. His rise to stardom is suspicious

He just became a senator. He has virtually no voting record. And all of the sudden we're supposed to be enamored by him and want him to be our president? Excuse me, but something doesn't seem right. Sure he has a nice smile, but I need more info, and I'm suspicious about this whole thing. It seems we are being "fed" a desire to see him president. It doesn't pass the sniff test for me. At least not yet.

[Tiggeroshii]

73. He was in the state senate for quite a while before running for US senate

He does have a voting record. And a quite impressive one at that.

[LoZoccolo]

75. Not 2008, but 2016.

I'm not sure a first-term Senator could win the general. I could be wrong; polls would be something that might convince me otherwise. If it turns out that people don't mind, I think he could be very popular. We'll win 2008 and 2012, that's why I say 2016.

[AtomicKitten]

78. I think he'd make a wonderful VP candidate.

Gore/Obama has a nice ring to it.

[Rowdyboy]

79. I'd vote for him in the 2012 primaries, or 2016....but not 2008.....

He's far too inexperienced today. Should he win the nomination, of course I'd vote for him. I just hope he doesn't run this go-round.

[noonwitch]

80. Probably not in the primary, but in the general election, yes

The only reason I wouldn't choose him in the primary is that he is a first term senator, and relatively young.

I will likely be voting for Hillary in the primary, if she runs. Yes, she's a first term senator now, but she also has years of experience as a non-typical first lady.