A big difference seems to be this: Dean's movement was predicated on his message; Obama thus far has no message beyond cliches and canned rhetoric.  The movement seems to be about charisma, not substance.

Obama/Richardson '08

The first internet page for Dean, which was here on MyDD, was "Howard Dean for President" and consisted of about two dozen quotes from Dean himself opposing Bush. That message won people over that intended to go to battle with Bush.

I have to disagree. The reason that bloggers noticed Dean in late summer 2002 was a pair or biographical pieces in the New Republic ("Invisible Man") and The American Prospect ("The Darkest Horse"). which emphasized Dean as a policy wonk and moderate of the fiscal conservative/socially liberal mold. The movement that grew around Dean was indeed driven by Dean's infamous speech about the Democratic wing of the Democratic party - but Dean got his start rooted firmly in message, not movement.

And let's not forget Dean's July 21st, 2002 appearance on Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I've seen others criticize the president. I think it's very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don't choose to engage in doing that.

First,  a personal reaction: anyone who decries the 'harsh, partisan politics' of the past ten years without noting the source of those politics loses a great deal of my respect.

Second, is the notion that one can both overcome 'harsh, partisan politics' and avoid 'neatly packaged orthodoxies' supportable? That strikes me as either misleading or ignorant, and I seriously doubt Obama is the latter.

This seems  to speak to the non-reality-based-centrist notion that 'if only the Wise Elders could all sit down together, they'd rise over these silly divisions.' This plays directly into the right-wing narrative,  because they set the terms of the debate.

For example: I presume Obama rejects the orthodox partisan abortion debate dichotomy of 'pro- or anti-abortion'. I presume he'd rise above those immature stances, and support,  say, initiatives which sharply lowered the rate of abortions while also ensuring that abortion services become widely available. In other words, he'd support the most mainstream liberal policy--the very one that sparks angry partisan attacks from the right. Does he really believe it's possible to rise above partisan politics? I hope not, because that's just mind-numblingly stupid. Any policy that doesn't hew the right-wing line will be attacked by right-wing partisans (who are smart enough, at least, to be ferociously partisan) and then become 'harsh, sharply positive politics.'

Does he really think choosing 'all the above' will somehow sidestep a single one of these problems? In what world does that work?  

I like Obama and Howard Dean for similar reasons, but none of them have anything to do with movement or message or whatever.

I like them both because I think that they use critical thinking in making their decisions.  They think about things and try to offer new answers to things rather than just repeating things other people have said in an effort to be liked.

Of course Edwards with his announcement in NOLA is doing the same this time around so I think that Edwards might be able to do the same.

I think that as long as the candidates do that they will converge on similar answers no matter what they do to get there.

Will the central question of 2008 be, how will Democrats govern? And more specifically, as uniters or dividers? By creating more problems or solving them?

This is full of false choices.  First of all, Democrats aren't going to govern.  We have a narrow lead in the House and a very slim and unmanageable lead in the Senate.  Bush is still President.  So governing is out, except at the margins.

And given that dynamic, it's difficult to see unity with someone like Bush.  The best that Democrats can do is put a real check on Bush, investigate, and use strong leverage to detoxify the government a bit.

Solving problems isn't about promising false hope, it's about recognizing points of agreement and disagreement and fighting for your values.  People who love Obama seem to think that 'if only we could get along' is a strategy, without acknowledging that lots of people in this country disagree on stuff.  And disagreement is hashed out in the political arena with debate and sometimes nasty words, including still frivolous single issues like abortion and civil rights and unionization and economic inequality and other silly meaningless unserious nonsense.

If you get around all this silliness what you're actually doing is saying that democracy doesn't matter, that we shouldn't hash out our disagreements but sweep them under the rug.  

That's my problem with all three major candidates at this point, though Edwards is looking much better on this score.  

It would be interesting to hear from someone who has studied the rise of charismatic leaders in American political history. Look at John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton. Dean was less charismatic and more a "message" candidate (and therefore, to me, more authentic). Obama is clearly in the latter group. Charismatic, charming with kick-ass rhetorical skills. There's a disconnect between behavior in the Senate so far and his progressive bona fides. He troubles me and I wish he had more of a history to be measured by.

I was as big a Dean fan as anyone, but let's not forget that the Dean "movement" couldn't be separated from an anti-Iraq movement. It gave his candidacy a large portion of its momentum, from fundraising to crowds at his rallies. Dean was explicitly an outsider, take-back-the-party phenomenon.

Obama ... what's the point of his "movement"? Right now, it's primarily a cult of personality, centered on his rhetorical skills and charisma. He's got both of those things in spades, but he's a celebrity, not a leader. In our current media environment, there's little difference between the two ... but being against "partisanship" is pretty thin gruel on which to base a Presidential campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Obama. I'm as impressed with him as the next guy. He could do something great. But, so far I've seen nothing that gives me any indication of what that great thing would be. And that's kind of disconcerting.

I find discussions decrying partisanship disingenuous and decieving. (Often those doing the decrying are the most guilty.) But regardless, the American voter has legitimized vitriol, deception, lying, and host of other sleazy tactics as legitimate political strategies. The electorate talks one thing and votes another. Politicians talking about it as an important topic of discussion give the impression that they can't come up with any real topics to address or think this should carry the same weight as real topics.

Obama's harping on this topic is soothing to the left that has been victimized for a generation by the screeching harpies of the cult of republicanism, but it won't mean squat in terms of electorial success in 2008

A democratic strategy of civility is an express ticket back to the political wilderness. Americans don't respect civility - America is a brute force kind of culture.

SHORTER ME: Obama's blowing smoke.
.

Hilzoy has a very interesting post (that I can't find right now but it's recent) that shows in some detail that Obama has quietly sponsored, co-sponsored or supported some of the most progressive legislation of any Senator, he's been very active, and Hilzoy goes as far as to say that he can't remember any freshman Senator with as good a record.

That's one thing. Another thing: I'm sure that in normal times, Obama would wait longer. But maybe the country is in such bad shape that Obama can't wait. 2007 and 2008 are surely gonna see a resurgence of the economy as an issue, and it probably will be the last straw that finishes off the Debacle. Domestic problems will force an end to the War, since the Democrats in Congress can really only oppose the War, not terminate it.

Another thing. Obama is black. After all's said and done that makes more difference than his name, or his ears, or his middle name. He already HAS a movement. If he were any other black politician, the shape of his movement would be obvious. The very fact that he isn't going that way is what fascinates and irritates bloggers.

Then there's the black blogger thing. There was the no-black-bloggers-with-Clinton episode, which got co-opted by Jessica of Feministing's sweater. Now there's the saga of francislholland on Kos, who somehow manages to avoid the autoban despite being one of the most trollrated commenters in Kos history.

I'm not defending trolls or francislholland. He doesn't play the game at Kos the way it's currently being enforced, and that's that. But his approach is pretty standard. There isn't a designated "black blogger" at Kos. There isn't a mechanism whereby the "view of the black community" is mediated. francislholland doesn't have any standing to speak for the black community at dKos or anywhere else, but his question has a certain weight: who does then?

The answer, from the troll hunters, is that that is racist in itself. And I think that's a mistake. Kossacks and white bloggers in general can pride themselves on their lack of racism and anti-racism, but at some point you have to go down the old familiar road of negotiating with black leaders. Kos said Obama had Sister Souljah'd dKos. Not really. He said a lot of what is on dKos didn't surprise him. Well, me either.

Hillary Clinton is a great Senator and a savvy politician, but the main reason she is a front-running candidate for the Presidency is because she is the previous President's wife. Al Gore has given up his former persona as a cautious pol, and has become an environmental specialist of sorts, but he is still a terrible campaigner. Clark is an idea, inoculation on defense issues, whose time is past. Everybody else is running for Vice President.

I wish Howard Dean would give it a shot but I've accepted that that won't happen. Outside of HoHo, ONLY Obama can really galvanize the electorate, and the only thing that can stop him is some kind of premature policy point that gives the right wing something to attack. What everybody WANTS from Obama, more liberal or progressive cred, is WRITTEN ON HIS SKIN. Do you think he's a stealth rightie? To say nothing of the effect on the world of America electing a black President. That's one election that won't be disputed.

Do you really think Bill Richardson, or Mark Warner, or Tom Vilsack, or anybody else in that tier is more likly to get progressive legislation actually passed? Getting this country out of the deep hole Bush has dug will take more than a 50.1% winner. And I don't accept that Obama writes of the South. He starts off with a base of 30% in Deep South states; if blacks and Hispanics go over 90% for him (and I think that is reasonable don't you) then he only needs about 40% of white voters to win.

You guys are not analyzing Obama correctly yet. The very fact that there is this groundswell is wonderful! As the Editors said: if only it could be true. But it would involve admitting that the "reality-based community" has to negotiate, and openly, with established communities of interest - black, Hispanic. And at some point we have to admit that maybe we don't understand the positions, the needs, the feelings of those communities as well as they do themselves. And maybe the corrosive effect of the blogosphere's crap detector sometimes does take the paint off things that aren't crap.

I think the attacks on Obama, when they aren't just a little less than well-informed, are related to a fear of going back to an issue-group driven politics, in which there is a sort of PC protocol for dealing with groups. The left blogosphere feels that it has freed itself from PC constraints (until there's a pie war).

Obama represents the future, which is black and Hispanic, negotiating with the present, which is still white. The fact that he strikes this imperturbable pose is intended to say to white voters that this guy will not blow up the PTA. But what his very existence says to black voters and other minority voters, once they get the idea that he's not just a stalking horse for other Democrats - that will take you back to the actual primary wins that Jesse Jackson got, and far beyond. Despite the tired old bullshit research of American social science, white people in all regions will be enormously attracted to Obama once they get that he likes them, too.

As I noted above, Obama won in Illinois running as a grassroots progressive to beat out a primary field of better financed and better connected opponents. Since arriving in DC, however, his mentors have been people like Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emanuel.

Besides his unwillingness to lead on any progressive issues (listen to his mushy statements on Iraq since being elected, for example), Barack's constant use of strawman arguments serve to destroy our Democratic "brand" and reinforce Republican frames.

It seems he cannot begin a statement on anything without first rhetorically distancing himself from liberals and progresives -- and doing so by distorting our views. On the war: "I'm not one of those people who thinks we went to war just for the oil..." On health care: "I don't think a government funded single payer program is the only way to go..." On religion: "I don't think religion and politics must always be kept completely separate..."

He may unite people behind his candidacy, but at the expense of every other Democrat running. Haven't we been down this road before? The results of constant triangulation from the top are not pretty for our side.

This is a time when progressives should be in the ascendancy. I'm worried that candidate Obama could do much to tear down everything we've been building since Howard Dean told us "You have the power." (The same goes even more for a Hillary candidacy, of course.)

As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert, my explicit bias is in favor of Bill Richardson.

As to the specifics, Obama in the race favors Richardson, because Obama will shatter the existing mythology that Clinton has an "in" relative to the history of Bill Clinton.  Of course, I would expect Charlie Rangel to undercut Obama with respect to the African American voters.

As for Chicanos, in general, there is much anger towards Clinton, Kerry, Dodd, and Biden for supporting the "fencing" amendment to the McCain-Kennedy bill on Immigration Reform.  What position Obama took on the "fencing", I do not know, since I have yet to check-in on his important vote.

But in the important particulars, it will be the War.  Last week, the Denver Post reported on a survey/poll of over 8,000 Hispanic respondents--the largest of its kind ever, in which the primary issue was the war.  Why?  Due to the large number of our sons and daughters serving in the Armed Forces.  We all have a family member serving or our neighbors and friends have a family member serving.  And that is hughly important.

Thus, Clinton, Kerry, Biden,and Dodd, have a high mountain to climb.  But Clinton may scale it on the premise of gender despite her vote in favor of the war.  But if she is challenged on the basis that as an attorney, she should have known that a Declaration of War was the avenue travel and should have taken, she will come up short.  And why the DOW, racial and ethnics have only one 'fallback' position to the misapplication of governance, and that is the Constitution.

And yet, I have yet to see anyone contemplating their presidential aspirations, premised on a wide-ranging resume, and which is still in short-supply.  Consequently, the "issues" will define this contest, not the rhetoric inherent in the message, or of a 'manufactured' movement.

Perhaps, the mind will become more focused as the debates commence.  And I am reminded that when the candidates debated in Phoenix at the national conference for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Rev. Al Sharpton brought the house down, and both Governor Dean and General Clark were deemed the favorites.  Kerry sucked since he was then informed of the pending character attacks, and yet, took the decision not to defend himself. And for all of Kerry's rhetoric and palaver, Chicanos had to hold their nose, especially when he pulled his campaign out of the Sonoran Desert thirty days prior to election, and the down ticket took a beating.  

And if history is any measureable guide, Richardson will be challenged for not staying in the contest through California primary, and if not, he will be tossing his supporters into the Clinton column out of loyalty to the Big Dog.  This would not augur well for either Richardson or Clinton, and more likely move Chicanos into the Clark column.

Instead of battleground strategies, we need mapchanger attitudes; instead of nit-picking about single issues, we need a connect-the-dots vision; instead of kick-ass partisan rhetoric, we need an appeal to the nation that instills hope.
I'm sure that a majority online (especially here on the blogs) disagree with me on this...

I totally agree with Jerome on this point, and I'm especially interested in the note about blog-readers' attitudes versus "offline" attitudes.  

An old politico I know always says that two things matter most in getting elected: 1.) do people know your name and 2.) do they like you.  Obama knows this, and so far away from the actual election, he's playing his cards exactly like he should.  Introduction + name ID + theme first, details later.

Eric Schmeltzer wrote a piece on Huffington Post that communicated this idea really well.

Obama has better political sense than to waste too much time worrying what smarty-pants liberal blog-readers think of his every move.  He's busy getting his name and a positive impression out to the American public, a public that watches Oprah and Monday Night Football and Leno -- a public among which blog-readers like us comprise a very small percentage.

Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for excessive partisanship, but that does not mean they divide the blame 50-50.

For example, the notion that the country is tired of seeing a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot is partly correct--we are tired of the 20 years of BushSr and BushJr, vp and pres; most of us would welcome the eight years of Clinton back.

So the arithmetical relationship of blame for partisanship is perhaps 71-29, not 50-50.

One of the several disappointments of my youth was the net effect of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18: nothing.

Obama is ten years younger than the dominant generation in Washington. With all due respect, so what?

For example:

So on race, the classic '60s formulation was, "Is it society and institutional racism that's causing black poverty or is it black pathology and a culture of poverty?" And you couldn't choose "All of the above." It looks to me like both.  [The younger generation] is much less caught up in these neatly packaged orthodoxies.

Does Obama even know that the term "culture of poverty" came from a liberal policy wonk before it was hijacked by the right and given a whole different, blame-laden spin?  The difference was that liberals saw this culture as a result of centuries of oppression, and something that could best be reversed by community-wide organizing efforts, rather than isolated go-it-alone individual effort.

It was conservatives, from day one, who were of the either/or mindset, and who projected their polarized, exclusionist mindset onto liberals.  And by retelling history through the polarized lens of rightwing  mythology, he gets the past wrong, as well as the present.

We now understand that self-destructive activity is found among subordinate groups as a matter of course.  It can be seen even in arbitrarily-created subordinate groups (brown eyes or blue, brown hair or blond) in school room exercises.  This is not to say that individuals don't need to struggle against it.  But it is to say that blacks struggling against alchoholism or drug addiciton are struggling against a heavier load than whites with the same background and struggles.

Finally, about those "neatly packaged orthodoxies."  Again, the packaging is primarily courtesy of the rightwing.  The only way to fight terrorism is the conservative way--even though it makes terrorists stronger.  Liberals are "objectively pro-terrorist"--even though their approaches would build bridges to moderates who oppose our misguided policies, but not our democratic principles and modernizing influence.

This is neatly-packaged right-wing orthodoxy, and Obama is practicing the same old worn-out triangulation that undercuts all efforts to respond to it by accurately presenting liberal alternatives on their own terms.

I have nothing against trying to find common ground.  But to do that honestly you have to allow both sides to fully articulate their own vision in their own terms.  And Obama is merely the latest in a long line of politicians who is fiercely committed to preventing that from happening.

In short, what Obama stands for is once again marginalizing the liberal viewpoint without even allowing it to be heard.

No wonder the M$M loves him. If he didn't exist, they'd have to create him. Oh wait, they already did.  His name was Joe Lieberman.  The new model is sooooo much better!

I'd be disappointed if we picked a Kerry (ha!), Edwards, Biden, Clinton (though I still have no idea where the fuck she stands), etc who was for the war before they were against it.

Politically, he is very similar to both Reagan and Kennedy.  Reagan and Kennedy were both pretty conservative and pretty progressive (respectively), but the way the spoke could unite the country.  Obama is like them.  

"It's tragic that had John Kerry and John Edwards used the polarizing rhetoric on Iraq that they do now, they would have defeated Bush."

What are you trying to say. "What rhetoric on Iraq that they do now"
Timed troop removal starting now for John Edwards!
(Obama sounds like what John Edwards has been saying)

Getting behind Bush and his war on Terrorism is what really gave him the edge. You also say that Dean was strong on Irag, but yet you imply something different with Kerry/Edwards in 2003.

That last part:
"they would have defeated Bush"
how do you see that?  Are you saying that in 2003 if they (as John Edwards says now - removal of troops) that they would have won.
I don't agree at all, America was still pushing behind the commander in chief so how would his view now of pulling out have won something then?

Jerome, it maybe great for you to be behind Obama, all of your close friends maybe, thats your choice, but your comments about particularly about Kerry/Edwards was cheezy.

John Edwards is a great candidate for the people of America, the hard working people.

Obama may be great for what new direction you think may be here, but I disagree on that too. What you describe is in the birthing stages as far as I see it.  The new lets make happy, happy, and all be bipartisan.  There are still many things like some real world issues to be concerned about, and as much as your new wave generation thinks that everyone can just get over it (or already has) and live together is not here yet.

This country is not ready for the I can sound good but won't really have to do much presidency, we have just had that, the bi-partisan make it's ok. Whether the bi-partisan is forced by twist arm tactics or willing, I don't want it.

I want the real issues to get taken care of. Like the mess in New Orleans and the cost, do you think Bi-partisan will help that? or do you think it is Bi-partisan that has gotten it where it is today?

I don't want anyone near a bi-partisan rhetoric in the Whitehouse!

I can't believe I'm the only reader of this thread and these comments who remembers Bobby Kennedy's campaign of 1968.  It was remarkable and I still tear up talking about it to younger folk.

It's been 40 years since we have seen anything remotely like it.  The crowds Obama drew in New Hampshire may be the first sign of what's to come.  I hope so.  We are being torn apart by a war and watching our beloved country become the world's pariah.  We are looking for a voice of hope, who speaks articulately (!) and is obviously intelligent.

Edwards is reportedly going to announce he's going to run in New Orleans, in the Ninth Ward.  I can't wait for him and Obama to go at it; particularly since neither of them seems interested in attacking their opponents.

This could be the most edifying. HOPEFUL primary campaign we have ever seen.

I thoroughly agree with many of the points being said in this threat noting Obama's celebrity status, cult of personality, and naivete regarding his "bipartisan" message. This reminds me a lot of Lieberman's rhetoric during the campaign--"too much partisanship in D.C.--I'm the wise old man who doesn't buy into it and we need to bring bipartisnnship back to Washington". It was a pretty ridiculous message because it ignored who brought the partisanship to begin with, it emphasizes a false point that ALL sides do it, and frankly I don't think it attracts many people. It is not as compelling a message as a lot of people think it is.

You will only get so far running as a nonpartisan wise man who just wants to sing Kumbaya with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. At the same time, I'm not saying that he should run a vastly partisan campaign. But if 2006 has taught us anything, it is the fact that CONTRASTS and clear choices are what wins. And if you go down memory lane, it is those candidates who emphasized differences and offered the voters a clear choice that emerged victorious. Obama is employing the tactic that Gore used in 2000 of "I agree with Gov. Bush" which failed! Bush offered a contrast in vision in 2000 and he made the election a nailbiter when it should not have even been close. Look at Reagan, and Clinton in 1992--clear defined choices and offering an alternative vision, not offering a "let's all get along" being all things to all people type of candidacy.

Obama doesn't seem to get this, and that's what I worry about. IF he could offer a clear message with clear differences with the GOP and a clear progressive alternative instead of using Liebermanish language of "let's just all get along" then he would be unstoppable because of his natural abilities and charisma...but he's using the wrong strategy and it's not going to go very far.

He has at least as much experience as Edwards.

Obama - 2 Yrs U.S. Senate, 8 yrs. State Sen.
Edwards 6 - Yrs U.S. Senate, Presidential Candidate-'04 and Vice President Nominee-'04.

Not "at least as much" experience from my Perspective.
Other than that Edwards did go to CT to help Lamont and hard worked for/raised money for our candidates in the  2006 Midterm Elections. Among those works, he recruited Heath Shuler- D-NC-11

Mary Kate and Ashley
Paris Hilton
K-Fed
The Runaway Bride

While Americans adore being distracted by meaningless celebrity, I don't think Obama falls into that category.

Despite Hillary's long resume, Obama easily trumps her campaign, because after the abuse of the Bush years, America is looking for a candidate who envisions an America as we want to see it.

Wes Clark has the same vision when he is able to get past being a national security expert. He combines both the ability to communicate a clear and attractive vision with an exemplary resume.

I believe that Obama at the head of the ticket will be an easy target for the Republicans despite his articulate, well thought out vision. But, he would be a strong asset to Democrats as a candidate and as a VP.

We will not elections by comparing votes and issues. Positions are fun to consider, but that won't swing elections. It is about vision, and that is why regardless of experience, Obama needs a seat at the table.

We must figure out how to seek out the positives for each and every democrat running. We certainly each have our favorites, but anyone of them would be a far site better than George Bush.

And, lest we maintain a level of civility when discussing our candidates of choice, the impact of the blogosphere will be muted.

Someone please explain, what's "black pathology"?

I'm also looking for someone who can be a uniter of the older boomers and the young.  If I were advising Obama, I would ask him not to divide us with his talk about differences between his generation and the those gnarly boomers.  Most boomers I know are like me.  We would love to retire  from politics and hand off the baton to the young.  We do have gifts to give and perspective is one of them. I don't really understand Obama talking about all these divisions amongst liberals?  The divide has always been fierce between those who oppose more rights and those who don't.  The divide has always been between those who believe in democracy and those who don't.  Those who believe in exclusivity and those who don't. There has always been a divide between those who fight and those who look the other way.

There's a place you can be in politics which is squarely in the sights of your opponents frame, facing the full onslaught of the rage and hate he has lined up for you behind that frame.

It's not a fun place to be, or to make your argument from.

Most politicians seek to avoid this positioning, all kinds of ways of breaking out of the opponent's frame.

I think Obama's style is primarily about this, and it seems very effective in that narrow goal.
Lots of republicans and conservative swings like him a lot, very few say horrible things about him personally, many are willing to listen and see where he goes.

What's not clear at this point is if they would support him if he becomes someone who promotes daringly progressive or populist ideas; but it is clear that it would enable him to function well in an executive capacity.
Clinton was severely undermined in the ability to govern simply by the volume of hate going on, regardless of what actual policy Clinton proposed, even neutral ones.

So, there's something to be said to being skillful with your style.

If you look at black leaders of the last couple of decades (post-King), many have been deeply vilified, yet Obama is welcomed.
So, again, it seems to make sense, to be effective towards simply being heard, respected and liked as  a person.

Perhaps he himself doesn't yet know how he will approach issues that are inevitably not-yet-consensus.
Perhaps he and others who are somewhat young, are sensing their will be a psychological shift in the nation which will allow progress in many areas, and they are biding their time while the storm settles.
Kind of like a 'let Bush pull himself down' tactic.

It's probably too early too tell, but in the primary season there will clearly be debates and points scored by those willing to take leadership stands and commit to real shifts in policy.
Style will win many votes, but it's not enough as the entirety of a campaign strategy.

Still, if you want to get as far as you can in support with a broad and friendly approach first, then extend it further with specifics later, who's to say that's not a valid approach, competitive with others?
It might not convince those who want specifics to sign up early, but it could convince style-voters to do so, building mass that way.

Any voter, whether style, issue, ideology, identity, movement or vision based, has a right to say 'I'm not convinced yet' and ask to be convinced; yet we can respect any rollout strategy a candidate wants to try as potentially viable until proven otherwise.

PARTIAL LIST OF SEN. OBAMA'S ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2 YEARS IN SENATE

Despite his party's being in the minority, he has been able to partner and to work across the aisle, and to achieve an astonishing amount:

Signature issue: Ethics
-Led successful fight in Illinois for first ethics reform bill in 25 years while in state senate
-One of authors of Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180) which goes far beyond what either Republican or Democratic leaders are ready to accept: limit the revolving door between being a lawmaker and being a lobbyist, open conference committee meetings to public, require all bills be posted on internet for before they can be voted on, end lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel, strengthen oversight.
-Sponsor of Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)
-Sponsor of Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
-Sponsor of CLEAN UP Act (S. 2179) for advance notification, updates, posting, transparency in lobbying

Committees
-Veterans
-Environment and Public Works
-Member of the Senate's Medicaid Working Group
Subcommittees
-Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Energy
-Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Introduced:
-Legislation (S. 2566) to improve detection/interdiction of international trafficking in weapons
(with Sen. Lugar)
-Chemical Safety Security Act (S. 2486) to protect chemical plants from accidents, terrorism, a strong act, introduced jointly with Sen. Lugar
-Legislation to assure mistakes in the Katrina disaster will not happen again (family locators, corp of volunteers, mandatory planning for evacuation of poor, elderly, disabled)
-Played a key role in crafting immigration reform bill, the Senate version which was not merely punitive but envisioned ultimate paths to citizenship for "guest workers" and currently-illegal immigrants (supported by the administration but opposed by Republican House leadership)
-Legislation to compel Pentagon to work toward electronic medical records/improved care (passed)
-Legislation to require Defense Department to issue a plan to protect troops from a possible Avian flu pandemic (passed)
-Legislation requiring that all soldiers returning from deployments be assessed for Traumatic Brain Injury (passed)
-Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988)
-Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere (SAVE) Act (S. 1180) to combat homelessness among veterans - authored
-Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475) for access to long-term affordable housing for homeless veterans
-Food services for wounded veterans in rehabilitation programs
-Amendment to prevent VA from arbitrary reviews of PTSD cases in soldiers (passed) - with Sen. Durbin
-Legislation (S. 2441): Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act
-Legislation (S. 2149): Summer Term Education - to address early grade achievement gaps
-Legislation (S. 697) to increase Pell grants to make college more affordable
-Lead-Free Toys Act (S. 2048), Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act (S. 2053)
-Legislation to control mercury pollution of waters (S. 3631 and S. 3627)
-Helped draft and introduce: National MEDiC Act (S. 1784) re: patient safety from medical error
-Hospital Quality Report Act (S. 2359)
-Federal Employees Health Benefits (S. 2247)
-Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act (S. 969) and worked to push through $7.9 billion through Senate to prepare nation for possible avian flu pandemic
-Healthy Communities Act (S. 2047) re: areas in high risk of pollution
-Healthy Places Act (S. 2506)
-Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act (S. 3822) re: genetic research

Cosponsored:
-Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006:establish standards and support alternative fuels
-Court Security Improvement Act (after a judge's family was murdered)
-Combat Meth(amphetamine) Act (S. 103), increasing grants, funding
-Dru's Law (S.792) and also Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Act
-Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act (S. 508)
-Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151) - with Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman
-Mediare Informed Choice Act (S. 1841)
-Rail and transit security funding
-Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which became Public Law 109-144

Worked to Support:
-Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
-Pay raises and health insurance for troops
-Add-on armor for military vehicles
-Improved funding for Head Start
-Allowing US seniors to purchase medication in Canada and allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.
-Assistance to veterans in their claims reviews, appeals, ability to get health care coverage (with Sen. Durbin)
-Low income housing, including housing for grandparents raising their grandchildren (with Sen. Stabenow)
-Low income home energy assistance
-Food assistance - opposing administration's cuts

Fought to prevent:
-Social Security privatization

Compelled:
-EPA to take action on lead (by blocking confirmation of an official, passing an amendment)

Travel:
-To Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Sen. Lugar to visit nuclear weapon stockpiles to secure them
-To Kenya and several other African countries in part on a campaign to draw attention to AIDS

Efforts against AIDS:
-Travels in Africa in which he campaigned for education and action drawing media attention
-Speech before megachurch in Orange Cty, CA, about drawing evangelists into the effort

Major addresses on specific issues
-Education policy (college commencement address) 6/05
-AIDS work (African rallies, megachurch in Orange County, CA)
-Health Information Technology (medical school commencement) 6/05

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

acrobat
ad-aware ad-aware
adulte
amateur
amateur2
amatrice
anal
antivirus
antivirus-gratuit
anus
ares
asian
asiatique
ass
astuce
auto
avatar
avatars
baise
bebe
beurette
bikini
bisexuel
bite
black
blague
blagues
blonde
boob
brune
carte
carte2
carte3
cartes
cartes2
cartes3
celebrite
chaleur
chanson-gratuit

chansons-gratuit
charme
chat-gratuit
cheat
cinema
clip-gratuit
clitoris
clone
cochon
code-jeu
coquin
couille
couple
cul
cul-gratuit
diaporama
diaporamas
divx
divx-gratuit
download
ecran-de-veille
ecran-de-veille-gratuit
ecrans-de-veille
edonkey
emoticone
emoticone-gratuit
emoticones
emule
emule-gratuit
enculer
enfant
erotique
erotiques
erotisme
etudiante
exhibitionniste
f1-rallye
familiale
famille

movie
mp3-gratuit
msn
msn-gratuit
mure
music-gratuite
musique-gratuite
musiques-gratuites
nero
nero-gratuit
noire
nu
nude
nudiste
orgasme
orgie
parole-gratuit
paroles-gratuit
partition
partitions
penis
photo
photo2
photo-gay-gratuit
photo-porno-gratuit
photo-sexe-gratuit
photo-sex-gratuit
pied
pipe
poitrine
porn
porn-gratuit
porno
porno2
pornographie
porno-gratuit
pps-ppt
programme
pussy

rasee
real-player
recette
recettes
rousse
sado
safari
salope
sex
sex2
sexe
sexe2
sexe-amateur-gratuit
sexe-gratuit
sex-gratuit
sex-gratuit-beurette
sexuelle
sexy
shareaza
skype
sms-gratuit
sodomie
soluce
solution-jeu
spectacle
sport
sportive
spybot
suce
suceuse
sudoku-gratuit
tarot
tarot-gratuit
tatouage
tatouages
teen
tele
telechargement
telechargement2

telechargement-film
telechargement-film-gratuit
telechargement-gratuit
telechargement-kazaa
telechargement-logiciel
telechargement-logiciel-gratuit
telechargement-logiciels
telechargement-messenger
telechargement-movie
telechargement-mp3
telechargement-msn
telechargement-music
telechargement-musique
telechargement-nero
telechargement-parole
telechargement-paroles
telechargement-porn
telechargement-porno
telechargement-sex
telechargement-sexe
telechargement-x
telechargement-xxx
telecharger
telecharger2
telecharger3
telecharger-antivirus
telecharger-antivirus2
telecharger-chanson
telecharger-chansons
telecharger-divx
telecharger-emule
telecharger-film
telecharger-gratuit
telecharger-jeu-gratuit
telecharger-kazaa
telecharger-logiciel
telecharger-logiciels
telecharger-messenger
telecharger-movie
telecharger-mp3
telecharger-msn
telecharger-music
telecharger-musique
telecharger-nero
telecharger-parole
telecharger-paroles
telecharger-porn
telecharger-porno
telecharger-sex
telecharger-sexe
telecharger-x
telecharger-xxx
television
tennis
tit
toon
tourisme
touristique
tout-gratuit
traducteur-gratuit
transsexuelle
truc
tuning
tv
vacances
video
video2
video-comique
video-gratuit
video-porno
video-porno2
video-porno-gratuit
videos
videos2
videos-comiques
video-sexe-gratuit
video-sex-gratuit
video-x-gratuit
vlc
voiture
voyage
voyager
voyeur
wallpaper
webcam
winamp
winmx
winrar
winzip
x
x2
x-gratuit
xxx
xxx-gratuit
yoga

acrobat
ad-aware ad-aware
adulte
amateur
amateur2
amatrice
anal
antivirus
antivirus-gratuit
anus
ares
asian
asiatiqu