Powerful endorsment for Obama

[sherrinorburley]

Another endorsement for Obama. This time from the granddaughter of a republican president.

That's a fine article. Trouble is since Bush & co rigged and took over America they've had plenty of time to set up what is good for them.

Let's hope everyones vote get's counted.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Backs Federal Decriminalization -- “I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.”[/FONT]

Washington, DC: A newly discovered video of a 2004 appearance at Northwestern University by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, in which he calls for the federal decriminalization of marijuana, was posted online today by The Washington Times. In that appearance, Obama states, "I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws." Obama continued, saying that while he supported decriminalization, he did not support the full legalization of marijuana.
In contrast, Senator Obama appeared to oppose decriminalization in a 2007 Democratic primary debate when MSNBC moderator Tim Russert asked candidates who opposed then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd’s support of decriminalization to raise their hands. In the video, Senator Obama is seen hesitantly raising his hand halfway before quickly lowering it again.

When asked about the two different answers, Senator Obama’s campaign stated that he has "always" supported decriminalization, and that Obama misunderstood the question when he raised his hand in the debate. In that same statement, Obama’s campaign reiterated the Senator’s opposition to full legalization, but said that an Obama administration "will review drug sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive sentencing of non-violent offenders."

"It appears Senator Obama, alone among the major candidates for the presidency, has the courage to state the obvious: it is time that we stopped treating responsible marijuana smokers like criminals," said NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre. "According to a recent CNN/Time Warner poll, 76% of the American people agree with Senator Obama, as well as the 48 million Americans who smoked marijuana last year."
Democratic rival Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign stated that she opposes decriminalization. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain opposes decriminalization, while former Utah Governor Mitt Romney opposes both decriminalization and physician-recommended access to medical cannabis.
For more information, please contact NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre at (202) 483-5500. The Washington Times story, along with video of the two appearances referenced above, are available online at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/-1/RSS_NATION_PO.

 

[DaveW]

Another endorsement for Obama. This time from the granddaughter of a republican president.

She's not the first Eisenhower to break ranks.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004U.shtml

 

[Palmer Stoat]

It was Billaries trashing of the Kennedy legacy that led to the turn around

Hillary didn't 'trash' JFK, or MLK for that matter. It was a beat-up cleverly engineered by the Obama camp. This is what Hillary said:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

"Dr. Martin Luther king led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten, and then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil laws passed. The dream couldn't be realized until finally it was legally permissible."

Nothing she says here is wrong. That's a very even-handed summary of the situation. Any slight to the Kennedys is purely imaginary. Hopefully Ted Kennedy's endorsement was decided on more substantive grounds than this.

 

[Qsaint]

Hillary didn't 'trash' JFK, or MLK for that matter. It was a beat-up cleverly engineered by the Obama camp. This is what Hillary said:




Nothing she says here is wrong. That's a very even-handed summary of the situation. Any slight to the Kennedys is purely imaginary. Hopefully Ted Kennedy's endorsement was decided on more substantive grounds than this.

Teds taken it very personally according to his son, but that may have more to do with a couple of less than civil phone calls with Bill

 

[Qsaint]

All he needs now is Maria Shriver to endorse him and he may get ahead of Hillary in California.

T

Do it in a packed football stadium to boot

If Barack Obama was a state he'd be California," Shriver said, drawing roars from the crowd. "I mean think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, oppose tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader."

And she touched on the ...

themes of optimism and collective action that Obama has sought to build his campaign around.

"He's not about himself. He's about the power of us and what we can do if we come together," Shriver said. "He is about empowering women, African Americans, Latinos, old people, young people. He's about empowering all of us."

Shriver, a former network television journalist, also acknowledged some uncertainty over taking such a public stand. "Sometimes, when you follow your own truth and your own voice, it's scary," she said. "But that's all you can do."

Shriver was on stage with Schlossberg, Winfrey, Michelle Obama and Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. Shriver said she made the decision this morning. "I wasn't on the schedule," she said, "and I thought to myself when I woke up this morning, I thought, there's no other place I should be than right here."

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I wonder what Ah-nuld thinks about this? Might be an interesting day in the Schwarzenegger household.

 

[Qsaint]

I wonder what Ah-nuld thinks about this? Might be an interesting day in the Schwarzenegger household.

Without McCain I think he may have struggled to support the other two anyway

 

[Elle]

It seems that unless there are any late changes that Ted Kennedy will endorse Obama tomorrow. That splits the Kennedy family up quite a bit considering that environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., human rights activist Kerry Kennedy, filmmaker Rory Kennedy and former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Kathleen Kennedy have backed Hillary Clinton.

Rory Kennedy has endorsed Obama.

Rory Kennedy: Two fine choices, one clear decision - Obama

Rory Kennedy
Saturday, February 2, 2008

Last Monday, I was very moved to see my uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and my cousin, Caroline Kennedy, publicly endorse Sen. Barack Obama. I thought their statements of support were brave, intelligent and responsible. Given the importance of this election, and the remarkable strength of our candidates, it's not an easy decision for anyone looking to cast a vote for a new direction in this country.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is a truly remarkable leader. She has given an enormous amount to our country as a public servant and to my family as a friend. Not only does she stand ready to be president, but she would be the first woman to hold the highest office in the land.

All that makes her very appealing. As a woman, a mother, and feminist, I can fully appreciate the symbolic power of a woman in the Oval Office. I have dedicated my life to making documentaries, many of which focus on women's issues. I would love to have my daughters see a female president in our lifetimes. And still, that is not enough of a reason for me to vote for Senator Clinton.

I empathize with Senator Clinton. In her run for president, she has been forced to walk a difficult line. She is scrutinized not only for her political positions, but also for her clothing, hair and make-up. When she is tough, she is called cold, when she is emotional, she is labeled weak. It can't be easy. I have an enormous amount of respect for the way she has handled this near-impossible balancing act. And still, that is not enough of a reason for me to vote for her.

I am concerned about women getting equal pay for equal work and breaking through the glass ceiling. I care about policies regarding health and education, issues that affect me personally. I have no doubt of Senator Clinton's commitment to these issues. And still, that is not enough of a reason for me to vote for her.

Times are far too dark, the price of failure too steep and the road ahead too perilous for us to vote on identity politics. I would love to see a woman be president. I would love to see an African American be president. But right now, what I would love most is to elect the best person for the job.

I believe that person is Sen. Barack Obama. As a leader, he has inspired generations of Americans to look beyond reductive categories like gender or race. Instead, he calls on us to think past our own individual interests, to envision a world that is better for every person in it.

Like Senator Clinton, I have no doubt of Senator Obama's commitment to the issues I care about. But, his unique ability to unify this country and transcend partisan gridlock means that we can finally get something done.

In my years making documentaries, I have traveled to remote regions, from small villages in South America, to townships in South Africa, to the hollows of Appalachia. Every trip, every film, I meet people who still keep photographs of my family on their walls. They cry when they meet me, simply because they were touched by my father, Robert Kennedy. In part, this is because my father supported policies and legislation that helped the disenfranchised. But it is also, and perhaps more importantly, because they felt that my father understood their pain. Senator Obama has that quality too. He has an open heart and an energizing spirit.

Recently, my mother, Ethel Kennedy, said of Obama: "I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did. He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him."

I agree. Obama is a genuine leader. We Americans - women included - desperately need that kind of leader now. Not a president of a particular gender or a specific race, but a president with a different vision, one who inspires a sense of hope.

To elect Barack Obama is to choose a new direction, set a new course - to steer America toward a better place, better for women as well as men, better for us all.

Rory Kennedy, a documentary filmmaker, won an Emmy for her production and direction of "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/ED39UQKTS.DTL

 

[KissStephanie]

Rory Kennedy has endorsed Obama.

She has been reported as a Clinton supporter according to Politico just before Christmas, and that is the reason that I made mention of it. Maybe they were wrong at the time.

CBS: Kennedy Family Split

In Clinton’s camp is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known environmentalist; Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist; Rory Kennedy, a documentary filmmaker; and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Maryland lieutenant governor and recognized female political leader.

Hillary didn't 'trash' JFK, or MLK for that matter. It was a beat-up cleverly engineered by the Obama camp.

This is absolutely true as I had made mention in some previous posts. The following article appeared in The Australian that basically repeated what I had been saying regarding the matter. The same opinion that people labelled me as spreading propaganda, but it's refreshing to see that some people can see all of the facts...

The Australian: Stop Bagging Hillary

Michael Costello | February 01, 2008

I HAVE watched with intense interest the rise and rise of Barack Obama over the past year. Who interested in US presidential politics (and the whole world should be, given the consequences for the globe) could not be fascinated by the young, fresh, eloquent figure who promised so much?

When Obama won the Iowa caucus, the first vote in the nominating process for presidential candidates, I watched to see how he would behave. Would he follow Churchill's great dictum?: "In defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity." No he did not. In victory he showed vanity and vindictiveness. Vanity in his clear belief that what the flatterers and fans were assuring him was the truth: he was a political messiah. And vindictiveness in his dismissive and arrogant treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last New Hampshire debate.

He showed the same vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory in South Carolina. The first part of his victory speech was a deeply unpleasant attack on the Clinton campaign. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada?

With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clinton campaign were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism.

Let's look at what happened...

Obama had successfully appealed in Iowa to an American yearning for change from the Bush years.

Everyone - Democrat and Republican - jumped on the change bandwagon. Clinton pointed out, however, that it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it.

Obama riposted that this failed to take account of the sort of impetus for change created by great rhetoric of the kind used by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So far, so good. Normal political exchange.

Note it was Obama who introduced King into the debate, on his side. Clinton then made the obvious, and surely entirely legitimate, factual point that King's rhetoric had certainly been the indispensable inspiration for change, but that president Lyndon Johnson's efforts had also been indispensable in actually getting civil rights legislation through the Congress against deep opposition from parts of his own party.

The place went into meltdown. This was said to disrespect King. How could Clinton equate King to Johnson? She wasn't: she was simply pointing out that both were necessary, one to inspire and one to deliver.

Soon her words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Make no mistake: Obama's people joined in briefing the media and others extensively to create this impression.

The Clinton's record on race in general, and King in particular, has over decades of their public life proved unimpeachable. They have both been champions of the black cause. Yet from that moment on, the Clinton campaign has been assailed (with obvious glee and encouragement from Republican commentators) for allegedly mounting a subliminal race campaign.

It's a tragedy for Obama that this has happened. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote.

Yes, this is a tragedy, but it's entirely his own fault for allowing his manifest shock and petulance at his defeat in New Hampshire to stop him doing the obvious thing. He should have vigorously defended the Clinton campaign from the first moment on the racism charge. By letting it run, by allowing his operatives to encourage it, by appearing aggrieved, the very thing he has worked so hard to avoid has happened: he became "the black candidate."

This same petulance and obvious outrage at criticism is manifest in another key example, one for which Bill Clinton is taking the blame. One of Obama's most effective criticisms of Hillary Clinton is that she voted for the resolution authorising the Iraq war, while he not only opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since.

Bill Clinton expressed his frustration that this story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into uncritically. In fact, said Clinton, Obama in 2004 said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution authorising the war.

Remarkably, Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie by Clinton that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. The record shows that Bill Clinton was right. Obama did say that. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.

Obama's defence to saying this in 2004 is that he was supporting John Kerry for president at the time. Kerry had voted for the war and was continuing to justify his support for his vote. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry political embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted.

But hold on. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics?" Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America (the Iraq war) the issue on which he most often attacks Hillary Clinton (the original vote on the Iraq war), Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.

Obama's main claim to fame is that he's a compelling speech-maker. Yet unlike the rhetoric of a Kennedy or King, Obama's rhetoric seems aimless. He calls for hope, for change. Fine, but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know.

Shorn of purpose, his rhetoric seems increasingly an exercise in technique and style, "sound and fury, signifying nothing." He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end?

It's a pity. He promised so much.

Nothing she says here is wrong. That's a very even-handed summary of the situation. Any slight to the Kennedys is purely imaginary. Hopefully Ted Kennedy's endorsement was decided on more substantive grounds than this.

Of course she didn't say anything wrong, but there are quite a number of people, not just some of the posters here, that refuse to look fairly and objectively at anything regarding Hillary Clinton. The person that you were responding to is a perfect example of this.

 

[Elle]

She has been reported as a Clinton supporter according to Politico just before Christmas, and that is the reason that I made mention of it. Maybe they were wrong at the time.

CBS: Kennedy Family Split

In Clinton’s camp is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known environmentalist; Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist; Rory Kennedy, a documentary filmmaker; and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Maryland lieutenant governor and recognized female political leader..

It's ok, I just wanted to update on the development, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I too had seen it reported earlier as you had.

 

[KissStephanie]

It's ok, I just wanted to update on the development, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I too had seen it reported earlier as you had.

It seems strange to me that she had initially announced support for Hillary Clinton, unless it was wrongly reported, but even Caroline had donated significant money for Hillary's campaign, so she must have thought of her as a worthy recipient as recently as late last year. I get the feeling that her support may have came from other influences that are campaign related, and maybe not from who they believe to be the best candidate.

 

[gandaal]

It seems strange to me that she had initially announced support for Hillary Clinton, unless it was wrongly reported, but even Caroline had donated significant money for Hillary's campaign, so she must have thought of her as a worthy recipient as recently as late last year. I get the feeling that her support may have came from other influences that are campaign related, and maybe not from who they believe to be the best candidate.

Or maybe she changed her mind when she realised that the best candidate winning the nomination was not unrealisitic after all.

 

[Qsaint]

Was Michael Collins straight off the Clinton Spin team? That is a fair effort

 

[KissStephanie]

Or maybe she changed her mind when she realised that the best candidate winning the nomination was not unrealisitic after all.

Maybe she's caught up the Obamania show. My opinion though is that it was another reason considering that Barack Obama hasn't shared any further policy details, and how he can make this change that he speaks of in the time since Caroline Kennedy and her husband had contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign. I watched most of the 90 minute TV program earlier that Hillary Clinton had purchased that was a live question and answer session from around the country. There were in depth answers to dozens of issues that Obama has never mentioned, let alone gone into detail.

Then I watched a bit of Obama's rally from Boston, and he sounded like a preacher from the Trinity Broadcasting Service Channel. I thought I'd watch a bit of it to see if there was going to be any policy details, and explanations of how the change is going to occur, but nothing again. I turned it off in case any of the people in the crowd came on to the stage to be healed. The sort of stories at an Obama rally is simply not my bag because I have always just wanted to hear answers to the questions.

Was Michael Collins straight off the Clinton Spin team? That is a fair effort

I'm not sure who this post is directed to, but I thought I'd be the first to ask anyway. Who on earth is Michael Collins? I've never heard of him, and I've never seen his name mentioned before. Is a relative of Phil maybe? If so, then what does he have to do with the topic?

 

[Qsaint]

Who on earth is Michael Collins? I've never heard of him, and I've never seen his name mentioned before. Is a relative of Phil maybe? If so, then what does he have to do with the topic?

Irish People think he went OK, sorry I misread the Author of the slag off Obama at any cost article

 

[camsmith]

Then I watched a bit of Obama's rally from Boston, and he sounded like a preacher from the Trinity Broadcasting Service Channel. I thought I'd watch a bit of it to see if there was going to be any policy details, and explanations of how the change is going to occur, but nothing again.

Did you watch H&C on Fox? They had a focus group of democrats with most favouring Obama.

Hannity asks them to name one accomplishment of Obama's. It seems they dont know an awful lot about his past etc.. I think if you asked them what were two policies that Obama supports that are different to Clintons you'd have silence. Maybe they'll mumble something about health-care and Iraq if you were lucky.

Most Obama voters are voting more on how he looks and speaks. Not for his policies or past achievements.

[YOUTUBE]PzFOOcEQtP0[/YOUTUBE]

I turned it off in case any of the people in the crowd came on to the stage to be healed.

haha even Clinton is highly religious.

I guess Obama needs to take a bible to his rallies while all Clinton needs is box of tissues.

 

[Z_K]

haha even Clinton is highly religious.

I guess Obama needs to take a bible to his rallies while all Clinton needs is box of tissues

.

I don't think KS was reffering to his propencity to invoke religion, more his style, delivery and the reactions of his crowds. If she was, then I'd agree with that.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I guess Obama needs to take a bible to his rallies while all Clinton needs is box of tissues.

Hillary managed to tear up for the camera's AGAIN on the day before Super Tuesday

 

[Hawkamania!]

For myself, the best quality about Obama is that he is not Billary. He's not perfect and part of the dual-faction party machine of the US, but yet again, he is not Billary.

He may not have all the experience of Billary, but that also includes all the experiences of failure and deceit that they refuse to release.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120191002786436761.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Hillary Clinton is running for President based in large part on her experience, especially her eight years as first lady. So it is revealing that she and her husband don't want the media and others to have ready access to the records that might tell us a good deal more about that 1990s "experience."
We're referring to the controversy over records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, which opened in 2004. At the time, Mrs. Clinton promised that "everything's going to be available." More than three years later, the library that is partly funded by taxpayers has released less than 1% of its records, and the withheld documents include two million pages covering Mrs. Clinton's White House tenure. As usual with the Clintons, they've managed to make the controversy seem so complicated that everyone has lost interest.

And she had the nerve to attack the Bush administration in 2006 over withholding documents from the people of the US.

 

[KissStephanie]

Irish People think he went OK, sorry I misread the Author of the slag off Obama at any cost article

I see, so you're bagging an opinion of someone from The Australian newspaper, yet you don't even know his name? Is that right? I have no worries whatsoever with countering the opinion of a source, but at least get his name right and show some examples please.

Did you watch H&C on Fox?

Of course not.

They had a focus group of democrats with most favouring Obama.

Real life Democrats on Fox News? I don't believe that of course. They were just as likely to be 'pretend Democrats' giving the opinion of who Republicans would rather see win.

Hannity asks them to name one accomplishment of Obama's. It seems they dont know an awful lot about his past etc.. I think if you asked them what were two policies that Obama supports that are different to Clintons you'd have silence. Maybe they'll mumble something about health-care and Iraq if you were lucky.

Exactly my point. He has served two years in the US Senate where the Democratic Party tells him what to do, and he refuses to engage in any answers to any questions. He is possibly the most under-qualified serious presidential candidate in history, yet in 2012 or 2016, he will be only either 50, or 54 years of age with some history behind him. That would be different then.

haha even Clinton is highly religious.

Religion is not my point, it's the brainwashed cult aspect of his campaign. The stories and lack of substance. The blind leading the blind. I fit into what many consider to be the Obama demographic, but give me a mix of substance and hope any day. Not one or the other.

Most Obama voters are voting more on how he looks and speaks. Not for his policies or past achievements.

I know unfortunately. It's similar in that way to how the current president won in 2000.

----------

It was moderator Tim Russert who misstated the facts when he asked Clinton if she’d lift a ban by her husband on the release of her communications with him when he was president.

Russert: Would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?
Clinton: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that……
Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
Clinton: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.​

Contrary to what Russert said, there’s no “ban” on releasing Hillary Clinton documents. Bill Clinton’s letter, which dates from 2002, didn’t block access to communications between the President and the First Lady during his presidency. On the contrary, it eased restrictions on access to his documents, which are located at his presidential library in Little Rock and administered by the National Archives.