OK, I am beginning to like Obama..(and not 'cause of Kennedy)

[katty]

--why should I vote for him, what IS his real strength of CHARACTER?
any comments/info appreciated - thanks.

[Clarkansas]

1. You are going to get many posts of Obama hate.

have fun trying to get your answer.

[Bluebear]

13. Yes, it's all about "hate"

:eyes:

[busymom]

2. As a Clinton supporter, let me just say...

that you should investigate all of the candidates and choose who you think will be the best leader for our country. If that is Obama, then vote for him with pride. Obviously, I'd love for you to consider Hillary Clinton...but I understand that this may not be your choice.

Good luck with your decision.:hi:

[maddiejoan]

3. OMG!

Stop with your hatred!! ;)

[busymom]

4. Well, you know...

I'm tenacious like a pit bull :rofl:

[Skip Intro]

6. That is soooo Billary, HillBIlly, Clintonian, Rovain, Dynastic, Satanic,

You EVIL EVIL DUER!

:hi:

[busymom]

7. terrible, isn't it!

:hi:

[Skip Intro]

9. Us Hillary supporters are so mean and vile. We just love to attack, attack attack.

Thank GOD a week in politics is a lifetime.

[babylonsister]

5. To witness his character, watch today's speech. I think his

speeches are heartfelt and do show character and charisma. I also believe his earnestness.

I found a link about him today when he was a jr. senator, and the policy wonk who wrote this article was very impressed with him, as is his constitutional law prof at Harvard, claiming Obama was the best student he ever had.

Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4248901&mesg_id=4248901

[silverweb]

8. Truth seeking.

Openness and honesty, always seeking what's fair and truly best for everyone concerned.

[Bread and Circus]

10. start with this:

Barack Obama October 26, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

vs. this by Edwards on October 10, 2002

"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."

and both Edwards and Clinton voting for the IWR despite neither of them actually reading the NIE.

[goodgd_yall]

11. He's very intelligent

It would be nice to have THAT in the White House again, don't you think?

[Avalux]

12. Here you go katty -

a couple items, one written by Obama in 2005 and the next written by a student of Obama's. Gives you some insight into his character:

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/...

Spring quarter of my second year, I took Voting Rights and Election Law as a seminar with Professor Obama. Now, let’s be clear: in a school with a lot of Somebodies – Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Cass Sunstein and David Currie – he was a relative nobody, and even compared with other younger faculty, it was Larry Lessig and Elena Kagan who had more of the hype. But Obama was teaching a course in a subject I wanted to study – at a point when I realized that law school was too short to be spent in classes that felt obligatory – and that made it an easy decision.

And he was ... different. For one thing, better dressed. Sleek sweaters and blazers as opposed to ill-fitting, coffee-stained suits with mismatched ties. But he was also less formal, more relaxed – he never taught the class as though he knew the answers to all the questions he was posing and was just hiding the ball from us until we could find them. Confident, sure, but never cocky.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/20/12119/122

You may always go to his website to read where he stands on the issues:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Make sure you inform yourself and weigh all options before deciding a candidate.
:hi:

[CherylK]

14. Consider This

A lot of people don't mention who surrounds each campaign. Overall, Obama has more progressive advisers than Hillary does in my opinion based on what I've read. Who these candidates are "in the room with" so to speak says a lot about them.

Hopefully people don't get super mad that I said that and instead look into it and decide for themselves.

[mikekohr]

15. Obama has the intangibles that are but seldom seen in politics or in life

Katty,

As an elected township official from downstate Illinois, a Democratic Party activist and a political junkie. I've had the vantage point of watching Senator Obama for much longer than most in this campaign.

First let me say that not one of our three candidates for President are unqualified or not prepared to take office on day one. Anyone that says otherwise is too personally involved to give an objective reply to this question. The differences that exist between our candidates on policy are small, (I actually line up with Edwards most closely on policy).

The real questions are leadership judgment, character, and the ability to reach across the partisan divide that separates us as a people as a nation. Obama like Clinton and Edwards, has the first three qualities. But it is the last in which Senator Obama outshines the others in my view. I live in a county that has been dominated by the Republican Party since 1832. Barack is attracting support among people that have never shown desire to support a Democrat.

We will make big gains in the Senate and in the House this fall. But like it or not, to win the White House, and to lift the entire ticket even higher will require the ability to attract support among independents, moderates, and to be able to peel away that thin sliver of reasonable Republicans. Barack has demonstrated that ability, and with that ability comes possibility, hope and ultimately real, substantive change,

mike kohr