From a peace-oriented website:

1/06/05: Obama voted for Bush's Ohio electors. Roll Call 1

1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, threats of war against Iran, Syria,Venezuela and other nations. and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars of her making. Roll call 2

2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11.

4/21/05: Obama voted to make John "Death Squad" Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director.

7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed "The Nuclear Bill" by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America.. Roll call 172 [W]

11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism.

2/2/06: Obama voted to extend the USA-PATRIOT's attack on the Constitution for five weeks to allow Congress time to put together the support to adopt the renewal of USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 11

6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a person unlikely ever to have existed and who was reported killed three times previously. Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]

6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home, ended the fighting and forced the Iraqi people to take charge of their security. Roll Call 181 [W]

Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran.

"...Hillary's spoiled little boy brat with the sweet face" ???  A nice way to speak about a former Democratic President, Lee, who was incessantly demonized by Republicans NOT DEMOCRATS.

Not much you can say about a cynical liar.

You should probably sleep on your response.  I think upon reflection you'll realize that your response does not respond to the substance of what soccerdem posted.  And name calling does not dispel those points.

I also note that you troll rated the post, and I fail to see how that is fair.

Lee, I'd recommend counting to 10 when you're feeling mad.  Or maybe 100 if it's about politics! :)

People who go around tearing down candidates because they are not perfect might as well just stay in bed.

Since the Clinton's chose to LIE and DISTORT Barack Obama's record, it is fair to address that.

I do not have to accept some lame effort to change the subject.

how about actually taking apart the argument, point by point, using FACTS?  That would be much more powerful, although it would obviously take more work.

Hillary & Co. are falling over themselves trying to either backtrack or somehow blame Obama and/or his campaign for things that they've said about Obama.  I did address the lie Concretely, but there really is not that much to their argument.  Perhaps you missed it.

Clinton & Co. seem to think that a successful campaign can be defined as kicking up a lot of dust and creating confusion about your opponent.

The inside scoop, basically is just this:  Republicans are terrified of Obama, because most of them love him.

They see a truly historical figure in Obama and they hate that fact that he's not theirs.  Further, they hate the fact that it's so obvious how powerful he is, and how much draw he will have.  The last of the moderates will become Obama Republicans in the years ahead, and the Gerrymandered Old Party will become the sole haven for SWACJobs.  

Moreover, Obama's crossover appeal will bring him into office with a true mandate for change, that will shake the power infrastructure enough for him to actually govern from the progressive center that is the true base of American politics.

Republicans are terrified and rooting for a Clinton victory almost as much as we're hoping for Mitt or Grandpa Fred.  

what change are we talking about.  I'm not the only one asking...hope you saw Bill Moyers' show on Friday night.  

Will Obama change the Republicans opposition to universal healthcare?  It will cost something. (I'm for it.)

Will Obama change the Republicans opposition to staying in Iraq so all their rich corporate buddies can continue making money on us hand over foot?  Do you really think those government contracts are going away?  I bet not.  Too much money is at stake.  (I'm for getting out of Iraq now.)

Will Obama change the Republicans' thinking on Immigration Reform.  Nada.  

Look, I'm a liberal progressive and want Obama to succeed in everything he believes in.  But cut out this "change", I'm a "uniter not a divider" junk.  Get to the issues, make yourself known on them, and hold your head high (not behind a catch phrase....I know, I know....that's what gets you elected ... but isn't he better than that?)

Who the hell are you talking to?

The guy has a real freaking message as opposed to Hillary who thinks competence and inheritance and all her suffering earns her the White House.

The guy is real.  His message is what he believes.  Get over it.

It really isn't worth it to discuss this subject when it is so upsetting to you.  I don't want to hurt or upset you.

...this type of language is pushing you close to the edge here at RK.  In the future, posts that attack other commenters will be troll rated by me, and hopefully others.  I've told you this many times; make your points WITHOUT attacking other people.  Is it really that hard?

I give a long answer on this comment.  

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

The big issue here is the influence of money in politics right now.  No president will have an impact on the current system in a real way if he or she doesn't make government more transparent in terms of where politicians are getting their money.  Follow the money, as the saying goes.  

Just in terms of the way he is running his campaign, Obama is competing right now through a combination of some big money donors BUT he is also pulling in a large amount of support from small donors.  Clinton cannot make this same claim.  BIG money right now is driving her candidacy.  Her chief campaign strategist also was a lobbyist for drug companies like Eli Lily and Blackwater, so I think if we do see fundamental change it will be because of reasons that are not obvious to me.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...  

I think Obama will be very effective on issues like health care  -- especially because there is already a degree of public pressure on this one.  We won't get a universal, single-payer system within the next decade --and  any candidate who promises that isn't leveling with voters in the first place (none of the candidates are making that promise right now).  You might recall that there was strong bipartisan support for expanding S-CHIP, so some of the ground work has already been laid for an expansion of publicly funded health care.  

In order to help push big issues through congress it won't hurt a politician if he's able to draw a lot of new voters into the political process.  Obama has done that.

This isn't just an issue too of forcing the GOP's hand.  In some cases, the voters will need to step up to the plate -- and it won't hurt if the president has appeal beyond the "Blue States" to rally support for alternative candidates.  

In other cases, it will be possible to make compromise without compromising on the fundamentals.  The idea that one side is good and the other is bad is just way too simplistic.  There are some corrupt Democrats and there are some corrupt Republicans.  The Republicans right now have a much bigger corruption problem, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that they were in power for quite some time.  The fundamentals (see the money factor) need to be changed, or the exact same thing is going to happen to the Democrats.  They will be subject to the exact same temptations, and they will respond similarly.  The fundamental at work here is that both sides are human -- if you dangle enough temptation and power in front of most humans (even Hillary) they will succumb.  We can fix that if we have a leader who is actually demonstrated a commitment to fixing the way that campaigns are financed.

Those candidates who say that the current funding system is OK are not serious in my view about making REAL change.

So, I posted this elsewhere, but 88% of Senator Clinton's money came from individual contribution according to her last FEC report.  It would be a higher percentage, but $10 million was a transfer from her Senatorial Campaign.  Here is that other comment:  http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

I would like to see evidence that BIG money is driving her campaign to a greater degree than Senator Obama's.  On the point of lobbyists, they are individuals with their own passions just like the rest of us.  If they feel strongly enough to support a candidate to the point they work on their campaign, what is the big deal?  And is Senator Obama's campaign completely free of lobbyists?  

On money in politics, you have to overcome case law in that arena which limits how much the government can do to stem the flow of cash.  And even with BCRA, there are still ways to get around it (President Bush certainly demonstrated it through his aggregators).  On top of that, you have a more conservative court that has already ruled to severely limit the scope of the issue ads provision of the law (see Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.)  Money will always give you a seat at the table no matter what the law is.  But to that point, is there a law that you propose that would eliminate the influence of money in politics?

On pushing big issues through Congress, it remains to be seen whether that enthusiasm can be translated into action.  Right now, you don't see all of these enthused supporters running to tell their elected officials to pass any of the Senator's initiatives.  It is difficult to see that happening when he is sitting in the West Wing.  I think it is hard in a selfish, me-first culture to get that required response.  But we'll see, if he gets elected.  

On reaching beyond "Blue States", it is equally difficult to see if this appeal to Republicans holds up in the general election.  Once Republicans turn their full attention to Senator Obama, we will see whether center-right individuals will still coalesce around him.  And also again difficult to see whether this crossover appeal is strong enough to give him leverage with Republican Senators.  Most polling I have seen shows that more people categorize themselves as just liking/favoring Senator Obama rather than strongly so.  That might suggest that the enthusiasm across the political spectrum might only be ephemeral.  

Just look at the increase in turnout, the increase in participation especially among young people.  Their participation in Iowa exceeded their percentage of the population there.  Also, look at the volunteer activity and the grassroots nature of his campaign.

If he wins, he will invigorate the Democratic Party with a lot more grassroots organizing.

add energy to the process this year.  My question is how strong is that energy and how lasting is it.  It is possible that the enthusiasm will translate into a social movement that does change the playing field here in D.C.  My question is whether that is probable though.  Has America gotten over its collective ADHD?

You've managed to put caution to the assumptions that so many have made about Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.  I like that.  I'm not one to get swept away by enthusiasm and talk.  As my Dad used to remind me:  Talk is cheap.

It is so easy, and I stress that word, to get enthused about what someone says.  But that is dangerous no matter who is talking.  Rather a good look at someone's history of accomplishment, to me, is the only indicator of a candidate's potential.  That history can be viewed differently by individuals but at least it's not just "blind faith".  

He has that Je ne sais qu- that Kennedy and MLK had. Unfortunately these types usually end up with a target on their backs. Nevertheless I hope he goes to the Whitehouse.

On the MLK vs. LBJ issue, -please listen to the LBJ tapes. He recorded all his phone conversations. I heard the one about the civil rights movement last summer. He didn't want to seat the black caucus at the Democratic convention. He really didn't want the civil rights legistlation but he felt he had to do it.

LBJ knew millions of white Southern Democrats would defect to the Republican party because of this legislation and he was right. This opened the door to the Nixon "Southern Strategy" which brought these people into the Republican party.

Change comes from the bottom up as Obama says. Unfortunately most of the time we have to force lawmakers to do the right thing through public pressure, embarrassment, or other methods. That's just the way things work. It was MLK who put his life on the line and eventually lost it to promote the civil rights movement, not LBJ.

Nick Kotz has written a  book about the relationship and kinship that developed between Dr. King and President Johnson during the 1960s.  I think among all this discussion about racism and the importance of key players in bringing civil rights to black Americans, we should take time to look at history as written by Kotz.  Both men played the roles that they were given to bring liberty to those who had been denied it for so long!

From BET website

Black Issues Book Review, March-April, 2005 by Lee A. Daniels

Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America
by Nick Kotz Houghton Mifflin, January 2005 ISBN 0-618-08825-3
Lyndon Johnson has, in some respects, become the "lost" president of post-World War II America. Nick Kotz, a discerning, veteran journalist and author, has taken one fascinating facet of Johnson's presidency--his complex relationship with Martin Luther King Jr.--and produced a book indispensable not only for understanding more about both of these great, progressive figures, but also about the course the black freedom struggle and American society as a whole took from the mid-1960s on. His work here is proof that despite all the glib summaries of the 1960s in the mainstream books and media, there remains much more to say about the importance of that decade and much more to explore about Lyndon Johnson, too. Johnson's importance to the movement for civil rights is summed up in what he said when asked at his final press conference what his proudest moment as president had been.

"Without hesitation," Kotz writes, "Johnson replied, 'I expect the thing that has pleased me as much as any other thing ... is the response that the Congress made to my Voting Rights Act.'"
Lee A. Daniels is editor of the National Urban League's The State of Black America magazine.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Cox, Matthews & Associates
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

I recall in 2004 Rove pointed to Howard Dean and said "I want you"..apparently to let folks know they had "plans" for Dean in the event he got the nomination.

Kerry won, and they had plans for Kerry...swiftboating comes to mind. The point is regardless of who the democratic nominee is, the R's "have plans". They don't throw their hands up and pass on their attack plans..they just re-arrange their strategy.

Are folks going to run in fear because of what "they" may plan against the candidate, or do you stand up for the candidate you believe in regardless ? I was told that the definition of fear : F-alse E-xpectations A-ppearing R-eal. There are other definitions but that one seems to work for the current administration.

Obama is an awesome candidate in any year.  He is an inspiring leader and he is going to be a great President of the United States.

The subject are your words.  I happen to disagree with you.  The issues are how we distinguish the better candidate, whether it is John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.  They have all clearly demonstrated that they are leaders.  How they stand on the issues and what they plan to do on those issues is the way I plan to determine who gets my vote.  And I hope others will join me, in that way, at looking at our candidates.  

Of course, Hillary Clinton has made leadership the center piece of  her campaign.  Perhaps, people are uncomfortable with the negative way she chose to do that.  Anyway, my focus has been on Obama.  I hope that we return to the candidates talking about themselves and their plans for the country.

We have learned, however, from previous cycles that you cannot allow an opponent to lie about your record.  That was the reason for my harsh posts telling it like it is.

I have believed in Barack since the beginning of this campaign.  I knew that (despite a little initial reluctance I will confess to) having watched him closely since he won the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Illinois, having read Dreams From My Father and being so inspired by his personal biography (especially the grassroots organizing experience)...... I just knew that I was going to end up supporting him.  I ended up making the earliest decision in my experience  observing presidential campaigns.

to be the next President. The man can speak well.  He  articulates his (progressive) views and principles better than all the others. He stubbornly defends himself against mud-slinging. He has been leading on the issues during the entire election cycle. He polls better than any other Democrat agains the GOP field, in Florida and OHIO(key swing states) and nationwide, and he brings new states into the fold (eg. Oklahoma and others).  To me it is a no brainer who we should elect.  (EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT!)

  On the other hand, Obama is inspiring, I will grant that.  However, a good orator that champions the value of a giant, national "Kum-ba-ya" seesion, though inspiring, doesn't get my vote for President.  "Kum Ba ya" and speaking in platitudes is good and compelling, but it will not win elections, especially when they are tied to a candidate whose perceived inexperience and relative inability to fight off attacks are considerable.  He stands a very good shot at losing in the general election.  
  As Vice President he would gain tremendous experience such that in 4-8 years he would be unbeatable for President. (Edwards/ Obama 2008!)

  And as for Clinton, too many people hate her (fairly or unfairly).  In addition, she seems to consistently test the winds before taking a stand on any major issue.  Can we hear the GOP "flip-flop" machine starting up?  In addition, she fairs the worst against the GOP candidates in all mahor polls.  (Clinton for incumbent Senator!)