We were all very impressed with Barack and his wife, Michelle. They are both extremely charismatic and reasonable. Of course, we heard a stump speech, so here and there we would have liked a few more details, but overall we came away excited about the prospect of Obama as president. In his prepared remarks, Barack countered the criticism he has received recently over his foreign policy pronouncements in a very clear and fairly compelling way. He stressed a new approach to foreign policy that is refocused on the 9/11 culprits in Afghanistan and Pakistan and away from Iraq, a policy that is not only based on military might, but also on diplomacy, foreign aid to help countries combat poverty, and an openness and respect for the American people as citizens and, ultimately, the overseers of the nation. After his canned remarks, he opened it up to questions from the audience. The whole event lasted about an hour or so.
Here are some of the photos I took:
Obama in action...
Barack working the crowd...
Drea after she shook Obama's hand:
"I'll never wash this hand again as long as I live!"
Drea and Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama was impressive. She'd make
a great First Lady and, hell, probably a pretty darn good President
herself...
I always like the various buttons that come out with each presidential cycle. I got this one from a woman outside the school after the event...
Here is a related article by the NYTimes:
NYTimes: "Obama Takes Sharper Tone to the Trail"
Would an Obama presidency be good for prosperity? Buffett thinks so...
Bloomberg article
For more information on Obama's campaign, to find out where he stands on the issues, to get involved or donate some money, go here:
Obama '08
Yay!! Finally some Presidential talk on Freedom Road! So you're an Obama supporter? I thought you'd be the Lyndon LaRouche type. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm seriously considering joining the Democratic Party for the first time ever because I want to cast my vote for Mike Gravel.
Unfortunately your boy Obama's popularity will soon fade once the real Democrats begin taking an interest in the elections. I predict you Starbucks Democrats split your votes between Hillary and Obama, while John Edwards wins the nomination.
Hey Cous,
ReplyDeleteWhat is a "real Democrat"? I'm interested to know from such a long-time libertarian Republican like you! (smile)
And what ever happened to Gravel. He disappeared lately and wasn;t in the last debates. I think the alien spaceship came back and picked him up. He reminds me of Ross Perot's kooky running mate, Gen. Stockwell.
Edwards is done. His fade is already upon us. He is having trouble raising money. Just yesterday he made a desparate attempt to reach out to Obama to double-team Hillary and Obama rebuked him. Obama has more money than Hillary, so he is in it for the long-haul, I suspect. Obama-Edwards would be a fine ticket, though...
By the way, I hate Starbucks and only frequent my locally-owned coffee shops.
What is a "real Democrat"? I'm interested to know from such a long-time libertarian Republican like you! (smile)
ReplyDeleteHeh well you got it half right, I'm a registered Libertarian. Haven't been a Republican since I was 19. But I'm seriously thinking of joining you Dems, I haven't been happy with the Libertarian Party in a long time. The U.S. needs a socially-liberal and economically-conservative party and they're just too far out in left field for normal Americans.
A "real Democrat"? I dunno, a union member. Middle class. Modest education.
And what ever happened to Gravel. He disappeared lately and wasn;t in the last debates. I think the alien spaceship came back and picked him up. He reminds me of Ross Perot's kooky running mate, Gen. Stockwell.
Gravel's staff forgot to send in his application on time so they didn't include him in the latest debate. Yeah, the more I hear he speak the more he sounds like a crazy old man. But why are you Dems so quick to dis him?? Here's a guy not afraid to speak his mind, he was one of the biggest opposers to the Vietnam war and is staunchly against our current war, yet all you Dems trash him.
Edwards is done. His fade is already upon us. He is having trouble raising money.
John McCain is in the same situation, he's out of money and is out of the race.
A shame to hear that about Edwards because that means Hillary is going to win the Democratic nomination, and there's NO WAY she'll win in the general election. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of a Republican in the White House. Guiliani or Romney will walk all over her.
By the way, I hate Starbucks and only frequent my locally-owned coffee shops.
Real democrats only drink coffee from giant silver thermoses that they brewed from home. :-)
I just read that Obama doesn't fully support gay marriage (along with Hillary, Edwards, and Richardson) ?!?? How can you support him with a position like that?
ReplyDeletePhil,
ReplyDeleteOn Gravel: I do respect his past contributions, appreciate that he is in the race and that he is voicing some things on the war and on the dominance of large wealthy interests on American democracy. Like Kucinich, he is there to raise issues that otherwise wouldn't be raised. That is good for the process. But, he is still a little freaky... See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8 Also, he has no chance in hell of winning the nomination.
On Hillary: I'm not a big fan of conservative Democrats like the Clintons. I hate the Republican lite triangulation b.s they love so much. And, you are right she is a polarizing figure who will certainly energize an otherwise depressed Republican base. I wouldn't go as far as to say there is no way she can win, though. The Clintons know how to do politics. She has a lot of money and a strong machine behind her. She's also been running an effective campaign so far and improving on some of the things that people have criticized her for. Also, the Republican field is pathetically weak...
On gay marriage: I don't agree with the candidates' opposition, either. If marriage comes with all sorts of policy benefits, from taxes to health care and beyond, then it MUST be extended to all people. I think they all think gay marriage is a losing issue, nationally, at this moment, particularly in a culture that is still so openly anti-gay. The last two elections, Republicans put up a bunch of bogus state referenda on gay marriage that some argue brought out their base and was the margin of victory. As I wrote, though, I am for full and total equality for all citizens. Period.
I'd say this, though, none of these candidates, on either side, is pure. Gay rights is an important issue to me, but not the primary, or sole, issue in this election. We all have to make choices and compromises and balance out all the different issues. Nader taught lefties that purity can lose you elections. This Bush/Republican craziness has gone on far too long and needs to stop. The Dems need to WIN in '08, not be pure. To that end, on balance, I like Obama over the other folks...
I am surprised you aren't a Ron Paul supporter. He's the anti-war libertarian Republican in the race. But, he lost a lot of credibility he had built up a week or so ago at the Iowa Straw Poll by pandering to the cultural conservatives...
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8
ReplyDeleteWow, that is weird.
Also, he has no chance in hell of winning the nomination.
I'm a registered Libertarian, I've become accustomed to supporting candidates with "no chance in hell" :-)
I am surprised you aren't a Ron Paul supporter. He's the anti-war libertarian Republican in the race. But, he lost a lot of credibility he had built up a week or so ago at the Iowa Straw Poll by pandering to the cultural conservatives...
Yes, exactly! If I would have written these comments a couple weeks ago, I could have said "I'm seriously consdering joining the Republican Party again because I want to vote for Paul" but yeah, after watching all those Ames videos where he spent most of the time spouting off prolife rhetoric, I'm having second thoughts. Like you said, when you support a candidate you need to make compromises, but I have trouble compromising such a basic belief like a woman's right to an abortion. If he truly believes it is a states' rights issue, he shouldn't let his personal opinions be at the forefront of his campaign.
Just a quick aside on abortion: Fred Thompson told folks in Iowa a few days ago that he is dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade and banning abortion. He is also supporting a Constitutional Amendment so that states who ban gay marriage/civil unions don;t have to honor the laws of other states who allow them...
ReplyDeleteHow is Fred Thompson getting around 20% in the Republican polls? He hasn't even officially declared himself a candidate and the press has basically been ignoring him. I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteWell, he really has declared himself a candidate. He just hasn't made the "official announcement," which is really just another orchestrated media event in the end... He's made it clear he is getting in, though.
ReplyDeleteBecause he is not officially in, he has not faced the full scrutiny that the other front-runners have. He will and will take some hits. Until then, he remains a bit unknown and thus people can project onto him whatever they wish. He is being portrayed as a "true conservative" and "Reagan Republican." He is the manly-conservative's fantasy...
At least in the U.S., the press is, in fact, paying him a lot of attention. He is the spectre looming behind the declared candidates. In fact, many resent the attention he garners and are sick of waiting and feel like he should just get in already...
Ultimately, Thompson's numbers indicate to me that a large number of Republicans are not that enthused about any of their options and they yearn for something else... the manly elder statesmen, the "true conservative," that is going to ride in and save the day, electorally speaking...