If only John McCain had won the GOP in 2000, the world would be a much better place.

[Gunny]

Liberals haven't been moving to the right by a "TON". Only fake politicians like Hillary appear to do so occasionally. If anything both parties have moved to the left.

We got a taste of McCain and "how much a better place the world would be" with his campaign-finance bill. You claim that McCain is a Goldwater conservative. Goldwater supported smaller government and free speech. McCain pushed a bill through that had the opposite result--basically imposing a federal speech code complete with jail terms and LOTS more government intervention. As a result we now have the FEC preventing people from expressing their political opinions before elections. That's "conservative"? The greater result was to push us further to the left. Either McCain was intentionally pushing for bigger/more controlling government or else he was a total muck-up. Either way, not exactly a Goldwater conservative or a successful presidential type.

It damned-sure isn't about any liberals moving right. It's about the left-wingnuts taking over the DNC and yanking the rug out from under moderates/left-leaning centrists.

Look at the evidence. In order for a Dem to run for President, what do they do? Put on a moderate facade. Bill did it. Hillary's trying to. Gore and Kerry were complete failures at it.

 

[jAZ]

It damned-sure isn't about any liberals moving right. It's about the left-wingnuts taking over the DNC and yanking the rug out from under moderates/left-leaning centrists.

Look at the evidence. In order for a Dem to run for President, what do they do? Put on a moderate facade. Bill did it. Hillary's trying to. Gore and Kerry were complete failures at it.

I love how your evidence of a move to the left by the Dems is an example of a moderate Democrat moving to the center (in both rhetoric and policy). Yeah, that's radical liberalism. (/sarcasm)

 

[Gunny]

I love how your evidence of a move to the left by the Dems is an example of a moderate Democrat moving to the center (in both rhetoric and policy). Yeah, that's radical liberalism. (/sarcasm)

You need to wake up. How old are you, anyway? Remember Jimmy Carter as President? Probably not. Bet you know who he is though.

He single-handedly caused the greatest exodus from the DNC in modern times. He was too far left. Since that time, the DNC has represented nothing but radical, self-absorbed special interest groups who can't even agree long enough to put up a front to the media and the Nation to steal the Presidency but for one man from 1976 to present.

You made the statement I was spouting the party line in another thread, but nothing could be further from the truth. My party line is from the point of view of a born-and-bred, one-time Democrat who watched his political party -- a party that once stood for something -- destroy itself.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[manu1959]

which dem best exemplifies the democratic party

i say....obama, young reasonable does not want to cut and run

or zel miller.....old school remebers what the dems used to stand for

 

[Gunny]

which dem best exemplifies the democratic party

i say....obama, young reasonable does not wangt to cut and run

or zel miller.....old school remebers what the dems used to stand for

I'd add Lieberman to that all-too-short list of moderation in a sea of madness.

 

[jAZ]

You need to wake up. How old are you, anyway? Remember Jimmy Carter as President? Probably not. Bet you know who he is though.

He single-handedly caused the greatest exodus from the DNC in modern times. He was too far left. Since that time, the DNC has represented nothing but radical, self-absorbed special interest groups who can't even agree long enough to put up a front to the media and the Nation to steal the Presidency but for one man from 1976 to present.

You made the statement I was spouting the party line in another thread, but nothing could be further from the truth. My party line is from the point of view of a born-and-bred, one-time Democrat who watched his political party -- a party that once stood for something -- destroy itself.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

Your problem seems to be that you think that Jimmy Carter is the head of the DNC. There are a lot of former Dems who are now Republican thanks to Jimmy & Ronnie. And there are now a lot of Republicans that are Dems thanks to Billie & Georgie.

However, you can't possibly argue that Clinton is as liberal or more so than Carter. And that is the point. Clinton is WAAAAAAY right of Jimmy Carter. Bill moved the party further to the right than it's ever been before. The modern Christian, Rove, Evangelical movement pushed the political center of gravity even further to the right. Fox News' success moved it further still. And now the entire media runs screaming into the arms of every Conservative it can find because of trumpted up charges of a liberal media bias. So now the media is in the process of moving us even FURTHER to the right.

You seem to have outpaced the Dems, but don't confuse your speed to the right with their move to the left. It's a good polical talking point, and it's worked on framing critically objective journalism as "liberal", but there's not a single bit of truth to the spin.

 

[jAZ]

i say....obama, young reasonable does not wangt to cut and run

Obama is a rockstar and he deserves every bit of credit he gets. He will be President some day.

 

[manu1959]

Your problem seems to be that you think that Jimmy Carter is the head of the DNC. There are a lot of former Dems who are now Republican thanks to Jimmy & Ronnie. And there are now a lot of Republicans that are Dems thanks to Billie & Georgie.

However, you can't possibly argue that Clinton is as liberal or more so than Carter. And that is the point. Clinton is WAAAAAAY right of Jimmy Carter. Bill moved the party further to the right than it's ever been before. The modern Christian, Rove, Evangelical movement pushed the political center of gravity even further to the right. Fox News' success moved it further still. And now the entire media runs screaming into the arms of every Conservative it can find because of trumpted up charges of a liberal media bias. So now the media is in the process of moving us even FURTHER to the right.

You seem to have outpaced the Dems, but don't confuse your speed to the right with their move to the left. It's a good polical talking point, and it's worked on framing critically objective journalism as "liberal", but there's not a single bit of truth to the spin.

the media will only move right if that is what sells....other wise it ain't moving

journalism will never move right....jourlanist school by nature and journalisim as a profession is a sceptic profession that by deffinition must be on the left or it is establishment and biased....don't see that changing anytime soon....take a journalism class and tell me i am wrong

 

[manu1959]

Obama is a rockstar and he deserves every bit of credit he gets. He will be President some day.

he is saying and doing the right things at the moment....being on the FRC is the right first move....someone is grooming and guiding him....we shall see gary hart was doing well till donna rice showed up

 

[Gunny]

Your problem seems to be that you think that Jimmy Carter is the head of the DNC. There are a lot of former Dems who are not Republican thanks to Jimmy & Ronnie. And there are now a lot of Republicans that are Dems thanks to Billie & Georgie.

However, you can't possibly argue that Clinton is as liberal or more so than Carter. And that is the point. Clinton is WAAAAAAY right of Jimmy Carter. Bill moved the party further to the right than it's ever been before. The modern Christian, Rove, Evangelical movement pushed the political center of gravity even further to the right. Fox News' success moved it further still. And now the entire media runs screaming into the arms of every Conservative it can find because of trumpted up charges of a liberal media bias. So now the media is in the process of moving us even FURTHER to the right.

You seem to have outpaced the Dems, but don't confuse your speed to the right with their move to the left. It's a good polical talking point, and it's worked on framing critically objective journalism as "liberal", but there's not a single bit of truth to the spin.

Your problem is you are limited by time in life and only see one portion of it. Politics didn't begin when you first became interested in them. ANYBODY is right of Jimmy Carter. He just started the ball rolling that defines the DNC today.

You ignore the point that Bill Clinton MOVED right to get the vote. Hillary is posturing similarly.

John Kerry made a botched attempt to move right by appealing to the patriotism of the right by citing his military service as credentials. Unfortunately for him, it was what he did AFTER he was in the military that mattered most.

However, I would place almost ALL pre-70s Dems right of where the Dems are now.

This seems to be phenomenon among the younger and more moderate liberals I have run into on occasion. You argue that your party is moving right, when in actuality it has moved left. You don't see it because you don't want to.

Case in point: I am NOT ahead of the Democrat Party. I haven't moved a bit. The DNC went left and the right absorbed the fallout. My values have stayed pretty-much the same.

To go further, most died-in-the-wool Republicans will argue their party has moved left, much to their dismay. If you compare Bush to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or GHW Bush, they have a valid argument. And he HAD to be moderate to serve two terms as Governor here.

 

[Gunny]

the media will only move right if that is what sells....other wise it ain't moving

journalism will never move right....jourlanist school by nature and journalisim as a profession is a sceptic profession that by deffinition must be on the left or it is establishment and biased....don't see that changing anytime soon....take a journalism class and tell me i am wrong

I agree. Journalism isn't going anywhere simply because the basic premise of the trade is their rendition of the First Amendment. They are for who and whatever puts the least amount of restrictions on them, and it is usually the left who see individual liberty as more important than National security.

 

[jAZ]

he is saying and doing the right things at the moment....being on the FRC is the right first move....someone is grooming and guiding him....we shall see gary hart was doing well till donna rice showed up

The funny thing is that Obama is about as left leaning as anyone in the Democratic Party. But he moves people. He has charisma. He speaks in ways that inspire people.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Did Freeh mention any of this? Note all but one of these are from after Kobahr Towers. Including the GOP stonewalling. Nice huh?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/30/clinton.peres.am/
Clinton, Peres sign counter-terrorism accord
April, 1996

"The United States will supply Israel with $100 million in equipment, training and aid under a counter-terrorism accord signed Tuesday at the White House by President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES
October, 1996

"Washington -- The counter-terrorism measures signed into law by President Clinton October 9 constitute a broad-based strategy ranging from increased security at federal buildings to tighter scrutiny of aircraft cargo."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996

"But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures."

http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/Responding.shtml
Responding to Terrorism
1997 Annual Defense Report

"Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid by each."

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199808/IND19980820o.html
President Clinton's Speech on Terrorist Attacks
August 20, 1998

"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_516000/516805.stm
FBI reorganises to combat terror
November 12, 1999

"The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests."

http://www.potomacinstitute.org/press/Moscow.htm
The Moscow Summit and Nuclear Terrorism
June 7, 2000

"The headlines surrounding the Moscow summit meeting between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin focused primarily on the growing but inconclusive dialogue over mounting a defense against ballistic missiles launched from rogue states. Only scant media attention has been paid to concrete agreements related to the threat of nuclear terrorism.. "

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/18_blumenthal.html
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

"...that details how the Republican Congress and former FBI Director Louis Freeh (who allied himself with the anti-Clinton forces) undercut Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism. The excerpt also touches upon how after the impeachment trial, pseudo-scandal mongering by the media -- including the New York Times -- helped deflect public attention from President Clinton's struggle with terrorism."

http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.htm
Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative

I. Actions Already Announced by the President

(1) Pass the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995
(2) Provide more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism
(3) Conduct terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country within the next 60 days
(4) Direct GSA to replace the federal building in Oklahoma City.
(5) Direct the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and the National Security Adviser to prepare a Presidential Decision Directive authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and domestic terrorism.

II. New Legislative Proposals

(1) INVESTIGATIONS
(2) PROSECUTION
(3) PENALTIES

First of all, buzzflash is hardly what I would call a reliable source for anything other than manure. Now, if I can wade through this rotting corpse of an argument you've dug up...

Yep. A lot of policies, a lot of promises, and nothing to show for it. Most of the terrorists that flew the planes on 9/11/01 had already been in the country for quite some time. Did any of Clinton's window dressing and speeches keep them out? Apparently not. None of the Clinton administration programs that ended with the Bush administration would have done a damn thing to stop them either. They were already here.

A lot of people like to use the benefit of hindsight to support their position. If President Bush had ordered the arrest of the terrorists, what would happen? Would people be saying "Whew. Thanks Mr. President. That was a close one"? No, they would have been screaming about civil rights and that they hadn't done anything wrong and talking about totalitarianism and calling him a Nazi.

We can sit here and point fingers all we want. Fact of the matter is something as simple as airport security working the way it's suppose to would have prevented 9/11. But instead of blaming a president or a security guard, I choose to blame the terrorists for that day.

All due respect to snopes, I think they need to update their page. I prefer to listen to someone that was actually there that speaks in more than general terms. According to Freeh, the Saudi's weren't cooperating because Clinton, Gore, or anyone else in the administration would never ask them to let the FBI interrogate detainees. After three meetings, Clinton briefly raised the issue, then told Crown Prince Abdullah he understood the Saudi's reluctance to cooperate before hitting him up for a contribution to build the Clinton Library. Freeh gave up on the president and contacted George H.W. Bush. It was the former president who arranged a meeting between Freeh and the crown prince to get what they needed.

Another interesting bit you won't give merit to is Sandy "Pants" Berger's reaction to the evidence pointing to Iran. From Freeh's book:

"To me, it was a devastating indictment. I went to Janet Reno with the news, once the picture had become clear, and told her we needed to brief Sandy Berger. We immediately briefed Sandy in his corner office in the White House's fabled West Wing. His incredible response: "Who knows about this?" Sandy then opined that this was all hearsay. That was nonsense. Our sources were part of the conspiracy.

Later on, Sandy convened another meeting in the West Wing's Situation Room. Bill Cohen was there; army general Henry Shelton, the rock-solid Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; CIA Director George Tenet - all the principals, all the usual suspects. I thought that we were meeting to discuss what our next move would be, given the fact that we now had solid evidence that Iranians, with involvement at the highest official levels, had blown up nineteen Americans. But I was wrong. The meeting started with how to deal with the press and with Congress, should news of the Iranian involvement in the Khobar murders leak outside of the room.

Remarkably (although that's an insuffcient word), Sandy's people had prepared a script A and script B for spinning the story once it did become public: script A for Republicans on the Hill, script B for those nosy reporters from The Washington Post and The New York Times, etc. Clearly, someone had been having a nightmare that featured a headline along the lines of "FBI Investigation Determines Iran Responsible for Khobar Attack."

In other words, they were to manage the issue, but not do anything about it. Although, I'm sure there's a Clinton speech somewhere that did a lot of damn good.

Once Bush was in office, they pursued an indictment. That's not just policy, that not making a speech full of empty rhetoric, that's actually doing something. You can fill a page with links from buzzflash if you want, it doesn't mean Clinton actually did anything. He was the Seinfeld president when it came to a lot of things. The administration about nothing.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

That's the post-911 talking point that helps justify a papertrail of inaction. But it's nothing more than a empty talking point.

They didn't understand the threat our nation faced, and they felt they could put it on the back burner and not take action. They might have desired an ideological change, but that change was the precursor to invading Iraq.

They effectively put fighting terrorism (in the near term) on hold while they made a case for what they believed (foolishly) was a long term solution of a democracy domino theory in the ME starting with Iraq.

That "war" was Iraq.

Your description (the GOP talking points) are a bunch of frilly obfuscation about hiding the fact that Bush didn't understand the treat of Bin Laden and instead wanted to deal with Saddam from day 1. After the fact they decided to call that "changing the approach to a war mentality".

However no one ever mentions that the "war" in question was Iraq.

It wasn't until 9/11 delayed the plans that he was forced to follow-through with the Clinton-Clarke plan of going after Afganistan.

What crap. "The Clinton-Clarke plan of going after Afghanistan". What were they going to do? Bore them to death?

Clinton had one shot at actually accomplishing something. Something that could have genuinely changed history rather than just talking about it. Bin Laden was in the sites and all he had to do was give the order. Seven years of Clinton after the '93 attack, and in that time he had one moment to wrap it all up. He didn't do it.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Your problem is you are limited by time in life and only see one portion of it. Politics didn't begin when you first became interested in them. ANYBODY is right of Jimmy Carter. He just started the ball rolling that defines the DNC today.

You ignore the point that Bill Clinton MOVED right to get the vote. Hillary is posturing similarly.

John Kerry made a botched attempt to move right by appealing to the patriotism of the right by citing his military service as credentials. Unfortunately for him, it was what he did AFTER he was in the military that mattered most.

However, I would place almost ALL pre-70s Dems right of where the Dems are now.

This seems to be phenomenon among the younger and more moderate liberals I have run into on occasion. You argue that your party is moving right, when in actuality it has moved left. You don't see it because you don't want to.

Case in point: I am NOT ahead of the Democrat Party. I haven't moved a bit. The DNC went left and the right absorbed the fallout. My values have stayed pretty-much the same.

To go further, most died-in-the-wool Republicans will argue their party has moved left, much to their dismay. If you compare Bush to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or GHW Bush, they have a valid argument. And he HAD to be moderate to serve two terms as Governor here.

I would agree with all that except the part about Clinton. It's hard to say where he actually is because I think he moves on the ideology scale wherever he thinks it will do the most good. He was pretty much a Centrist while Governor of Arkansas. When he entered national politics, I think he actually edged to the left on some things just to appeal to his own party. There was his gun "ban", which actually did very little, but it was something he could hold up and say, "See? We're doing something."

I think you are right on the Democratic party prior to Carter. When Lyndon Johnson started the "War on Poverty", it actually had an emphasis on job training, which is something more along the lines you might see from the right these days. That all changed with Carter.

 

[no1tovote4]

I still predict a further GOP gain in the Congress and Senate, not because people love the right so much but because the left has offered no alternatives to date. Complaining about perceived problems is not an alternative plan.

Also I fear the 'jump ship and get out to appease terrorist' plan of Murtha's that appears to be gaining in the Left. Even though most people believe that with current knowledge we wouldn't have gone into Iraq they also understand that leaving would have far-reaching repurcussions that would be far worse than finishing what we promised.

 

[Avatar4321]

The funny thing is that Obama is about as left leaning as anyone in the Democratic Party. But he moves people. He has charisma. He speaks in ways that inspire people.

He hasn't inspired me. Quite the opposite. I dont think he lived up to the hype. Charisma is one thing. But just because someone can talk well doesnt mean they have anything worth saying. Ive always wondered why Democrats were more worried about style than substances.

Take the first debate between Kerry and Bush. Ill admit Bush wasnt up to form that night. John kerry was much more charismatic. BUt the man also said he wanted to give nuclear material Iran to help them become a nuclear power. Who cares if he said it nicely? The idea was insane.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

He hasn't inspired me. Quite the opposite. I dont think he lived up to the hype. Charisma is one thing. But just because someone can talk well doesnt mean they have anything worth saying. Ive always wondered why Democrats were more worried about style than substances.

Take the first debate between Kerry and Bush. Ill admit Bush wasnt up to form that night. John kerry was much more charismatic. BUt the man also said he wanted to give nuclear material Iran to help them become a nuclear power. Who cares if he said it nicely? The idea was insane.

I would have to agree with you on Obama. Judging from the one time I've heard him speak at length, he is a great speaker. He was certainly the only thing that was worth tuning into the Democratic National Convention to hear in '04. Since then.... nothing. His name pops up from time to time on a list of people bitching about something or signing some stupid petition, but that's it.

It's a little like going to see fireworks and they only shoot off one. There's that initial explosion and "Oooooo". Then, you're left waiting for the next big thing and it never comes.

 

[Bonnie]

I would have to agree with you on Obama. Judging from the one time I've heard him speak at length, he is a great speaker. He was certainly the only thing that was worth tuning into the Democratic National Convention to hear in '04. Since then.... nothing. His name pops up from time to time on a list of people bitching about something or signing some stupid petition, but that's it.

It's a little like going to see fireworks and they only shoot off one. There's that initial explosion and "Oooooo". Then, you're left waiting for the next big thing and it never comes.

Jimmy he may be an eloquent speaker but he seems extremely liberal to me???

Barack Obama
Barack Hussein Obama (born August 4, 1961) is a U.S. Senator from Illinois. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He received international media coverage for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still an Illinois state senator.
A senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school, Obama won the open Senate seat by defeating former ambassador Alan Keyes. He is the only African-American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, the fifth in U.S. history and the third since Reconstruction. Obama won the election in a landslide, with 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%. He is junior senator to Richard Durbin.

Obama is married to Michelle Obama, a Chicago native. They have two daughters: Malia Ann (born 1999) and Natasha (born 2001).

Early life
Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii to Harvard University-educated economist Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a native of Kenya, and S. Ann Dunham, of Wichita, Kansas. Ms. Dunham is a distant descendant of Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America; she is also part Cherokee Indian http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/lizza.
At the time of Obama's birth, both his parents were students at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. "Barack" means "blessed" in Swahili. It is derived from the Arabic verb baraka, "to bless." In Islam, "Barakah" is a common masculine name of the same origin. http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.07/arts5.htmlhttp://www.sudairy.com/arabic/masc.html

Of his years in Hawaii, Obama has written, "The irony is that my decision to work in politics, and to pursue such a career in a big Mainland city, in some sense grows out of my Hawaiian upbringing, and the ideal that Hawaii still represents in my mind."

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father eventually returned to Kenya, and he saw his son only once more before his death in 1982. Ann Obama married another East-West Center student from Indonesia. The family then moved to Jakarta, where Obama's half-sister Maya was born (Obama has other half-siblings from his father's later marriages). When Obama was ten he returned to Hawaii under the care of his grandparents, and later his mother, for the better educational opportunities. He was enrolled in the fifth grade at Punahou School, a prestigious academy that once taught the Hawaiian royal family. He graduated with honors.

College and career
Upon finishing high school, Obama studied for two years at Occidental College in California, before transferring to Columbia University. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation, he moved to Chicago, where he took up community organizing in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the city's South Side. It was during his time spent here that Obama officially converted to Christianity (from being formerly secular) and joined the United Church of Christ.
He left Chicago for three years to study law at Harvard University, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated Magna Cum Laude. While working one summer at a corporate law firm in 1989, Obama met Michelle Robinson, whom he married in 1992. Robinson is also a graduate of Harvard Law.

While in Chicago as a community organizer once again, Obama organized an aggressive voter registration effort that aided in the election of President Bill Clinton and Senator Carol Moseley Braun. The campaign registered over 100,000 voters. Soon after, his talents earned him a position at a local civil rights law firm, and he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, where he served as a professor until his election to the U.S. Senate.

Politics
Illinois General Assembly
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago. He served as chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Committee when the Democrats regained control of the chamber. The Chicago Tribune called him "one of the General Assembly's most impressive members."
Regarded as a staunch liberal during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit which provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance. Speaking up for leading gay and lesbian advocacy groups, he successfully helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.

In 2000, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional district against incumbent Representative Bobby Rush. Rush received 61% of the vote, while Obama received 30%. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/ilh.htm

After the loss, Obama rededicated his efforts to the state Senate. He authored one of the most progressive death penalty reform laws in the nation, under the guidance of former U.S. Senator Paul Simon. He also pushed through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms.

United States Senate campaign
In 2004, Obama decided to run for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who chose not to run for re-election. In the Democratic primary, he trailed business tycoon Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes. However, Hull was soon embroiled by allegations of domestic abuse. As Obama's name recognition rose, voters took a liking to the bright, charismatic senator. He won decisively in the March primary, dispatching the other six candidates easily, and winning more than 50 percent of the vote. His primary political consultant and message strategist was David Alexrod, whose firm, AKP Message and Media, produced the campaign's television ads.
Entering the U.S. Senate campaign, Obama had become a national Democratic star. He squared off against former Goldman Sachs partner and teacher Jack Ryan, the winner of the Republican primary. Ryan trailed Obama in the polls, and Obama opened up a twenty point lead after the media reported that Ryan had assigned an aide to stalk Obama. However, during the campaign, a California court ruling opened custody files from Ryan's divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, in which she alleged that he had brought her without her knowledge to sex clubs, intending for her to have sex with him in public. The files, which were part of the custody proceedings regarding the Ryans' young son, were opened as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV, a local ABC affiliate. Ryan had insisted that there was nothing damaging in the files, and many Republican leaders openly questioned Ryan's integrity following the release. Ryan was forced to leave the race on June 25, 2004, leaving Obama without an opponent.Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka had considered running as a Republican to replace Ryan, but opted not to because of family and business considerations. After many more candidates turned down the Illinois GOP, Republican state Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka announced two possible replacements: Alan Keyes, a former ambassador residing in Maryland, and Andrea Barthwell, a DEA official. After much deliberation, Keyes was chosen, and he officially accepted the nomination on August 8. He had gained much attention as a conservative firebrand in his unsuccessful presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000. This was widely viewed as a victory for the more conservative wing of the party, and a loss for the more moderate Topinka.

Keyes, a black conservative Republican, had an uphill battle, as Obama had high popularity across the state and Keyes had no ties to Illinois politics. During the time when he had no opponent, Obama campaigned across more conservative downstate areas that ordinarily served as the base for the Republican nominee. A Marylander, Keyes had established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination, the only requirement to run for office. The Chicago Tribune sarcastically greeted Keyes by editorializing: "Mr. Keyes may have noticed a large body of water as he flew into O'Hare. That is called Lake Michigan." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0408060313aug06,1,4590778.story

Keyes's previous comments about U.S. Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton's run for Senate in New York, ("I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.") led many to call Keyes hypocritical. Keyes often rebutted this by pointing out that he was invited to run for the position in Illinois, whereas he claimed Clinton was not.

After a campaign in which Keyes called Obama's position on abortion "the slave-holder's position", accused gays and lesbians of being "selfish hedonists", and also claimed that Jesus would not vote for Obama, Obama won handily in the general election. Obama received 70% of the popular vote, to Keyes' 27%.

Keynote address
Obama was chosen to deliver a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, and became the third African American to do so. (The first was Barbara Jordan, at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, and the second was Harold Ford, Jr. at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.)
His speech outlined his own family's pursuit of the American Dream, and his belief in a 'generous America'. His maternal grandfather, after serving in World War II, was the beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and GI Bill and had high hopes for their daughter, because, as Obama said, "in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential". But he charged that "we have more work to do" for people who are not able to realize the American Dream, maintaining that self responsibility is an important component and people "don't expect government to solve all their problems".

He criticized the Bush administration for not supporting troops in Iraq. He spoke of an enlisted Marine, Cpl. Seamus Ahern from East Moline, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he was serving us?" He continued:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Finally he spoke for national unity: "Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America." Perhaps the most often quoted sound bite followed: "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
The address was generally regarded as a great success, thrusting Obama into the national spotlight (similar to New York Governor Mario Cuomo's address at the 1984 DNC).

Other projects
In December 2004, Obama landed a $1.9 million deal for 3 books. The first is to be released in 2006, and will discuss his political convictions. The second is a children's book to be co-written with his wife Michelle and their two young daughters (profits will go to charity). The content of the third book has not been determined yet.
His 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father was re-released in 2004 with a few new features. The book spent over 14 weeks on The New York Times non-fiction best seller list.

Senate career
Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 5, 2005. He ranked 99th out of 100 Senators in terms of official seniority (greater seniority brings greater privileges in the Senate), ranking ahead of only new Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado. In his first few months in office, Obama drew praise by his perceived attempts to avoid the limelight and devote large amounts of effort to being a Senator; a Washington Post article spread an anecdote of Obama refusing an upgrade to first-class on a flight home. In March of 2005, Obama announced that he was forming his own PAC, a move not usually undertaken until several years into a politician's career.
In late March 2005, Obama announced his first proposed Senate bill, the Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005 (HOPE Act), which aims to raise the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to help assist American college students with paying for their tuition. Obama announced the bill at the Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and said, "Everywhere I go, I hear the same story: 'We work hard, we pay our bills, we put away savings, but we just don't know if it's going to be enough when that tuition bill comes.'" http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1499404/20050401/index.jhtml?headlines=true

The April 18, 2005 issue of TIME Magazine listed the 100 most influential people in the world. Obama was included on the list under the section of 'Leaders and Revolutionaries' for his high-profile entrance to federal politics http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/leaders/100obama.html and his popularity within the Democratic Party.

In the early days of the debate in Washington over establishing private accounts for Social Security, Obama stood by his party when he delivered a speech on April 26, 2005 to the National Press Club, entitled "A Hope To Fulfill." In this speech, he pointed to the original ideas of social welfare that Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind when crafting the Social Security program as part of the New Deal.

http://www.reference.com/go/http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Jimmy he may be an eloquent speaker but he seems extremely liberal to me???




http://www.reference.com/go/http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Oh, I didn't say he wasn't Liberal. He's the only one of the semi-notable national figures that is still pushing the "We were prevented from from voting" crap that raised it's head during the 2000 election.

I was just pointing out that there was all this hoo ha surrounding him when he first popped up. A man who had not yet held an office that was a great speaker. Since then, he has done really done nothing but tag his name to other things and, with some, has been cruising on reputation.