15 thoughts on “Obama Will Win Providence”

1. Nancy, if you saw a sign on East Avenue in Pawtucket (near the Modern Diner), that’s my sister’s house.

2. Kiersten:

   I was told you are supporting Barack Obama for President and thought I would check out your site to get a feel for how others in RI, particularly Cranston, are leaning. I have been volunteering for the Obama campaign for a while and wanted to pass on the excitement that people are feeling about being a part of the process. That feeling is something that is difficult to get across to the voting public yet the Obama campaign has made people hope that there is someone listening, that the status quo need not be, and that change is possible.
   I would encourage all to vote this Tuesday, of course I would prefer you vote for Obama, and be aware that polling places are dramatically reduced for Tuesday. You can go to my.barackobama.com to findout where your polling place is for primary day.

   Andre – I have received many calls and positive comments on my lawn sign – thanks for bringing it by.

3. Hi Cindy!!! It’s great to hear from one of our local female political leaders, and I’m glad to know that you have also made the decision to support Obama. Let’s hope the turn-out tomorrow is record-breaking, and that we come away with a clear picture of who is the front-runner for the Dems. The sooner we can all focus on one candidate, the better.

4. Kiersten,

   I spent yesterday canvassing in Cranston in the Garden Hills area. People are excited and are ready to vote for Barack Obama.

   I detected that there is a whisper campaign out there telling people that unaffliated cannot vote in the Democratic Primary.

   This is false, yes they can vote tomorrow.

   Also, polling locations have changed from since 2006. They need to double check before they leave their house tomorrow just like Cindy stated above.

5. Consider this an attempt at being ecumenical. First, to Andre’s point about unaffiliated voters, he’s absolutely correct. A further point to make is that any unaffiliated voter who votes in a party primary (in this case democratic) will automatically be designated as a democrat on the voting roll. Thus, if a voter wishes to maintain their unaffiliated status, they need to disaffiliate – preferably at the polls right after they vote. They will be disqualified for 30 days starting March 4 from participating in the other party’s primary. Thus begging the question of why they would want to…

   Second, there are 10 (count ’em – 10) polling places in Cranston tomorrow. There’s a list in last Thursday’s Cranston Herald, first section on page 12.

   Hope this helps.

6. OBAMA = “POLITICS AS USUAL” (NAFTA SHAFTA)

   AP Obtains Memo of Obama Aide’s NAFTA Conversation
   By NEDRA PICKLER – Associated Press
   link

   ABC News Nafta Shafta –

   The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ”introductory meeting” between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

   Goolsbee ”was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,” the memo’s introduction said. ”On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core’ principles of the agreement.”

   Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama’s position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate. … ..

   … .. The Canadian memo said that when Rioux ”asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist.

7. “It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.”

   Obama’s Hollow ‘Judgment’ and Empty Record
   Expert guest post by Joseph C. Wilson

   http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27134

   Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn’t because he possesses superior “judgment,” as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

   Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, “…on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” And, in 2006, he clearly said, “I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.”

   I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama’s distortion of George Bush’s folly into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn’t there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton’s position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

   There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton’s actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

   What should we make of Obama’s other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful.As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

8. Thank you for posting this! I totally respect the views of others who are choosing to vote for Obama, but I am glad that you are putting things in perspective. Getting this information out there is so crucial since the main stream media seems to want no part of fair reporting. Obama’s holier than thou rhetoric is pretentious and I find it offensive that he thinks we buy it. He is a very smart man and I am confident that one day will be totally qualified to be president, but it is clear that right now he isn’t. If he wants to run the fair campaign that he often preaches, then he should be willing to really debate the issues and not just either agree with Hillary’s policies or take an apathetic stance when he can’t come up with a decisive answer. It is a fair criticism that he doesn’t have a record to stand on because he has been running for president since he entered the senate and hasn’t done anything to shake things up. He also hasn’t demonstrated the bipartisanship that he claims. His complete distortion of Hillary Clinton’s health care program and her stance on NAFTA are deceptive and contradictory to everything he claims to stand for. Let’s have an election where people vote on the policies that reflect their own interests and on the accurate records of candidates that have created the most real change. If you are voting simply on change, then without question Hillary is your girl because she has made a real difference in people’s lives.

9. Jeannine, Maybe when “the clouds part and the celestial choirs sing” Hillary will become an agent for change. The coronation is not going as planned and as a result we are witnessing the political version of a Britney Spears style meltdown. Hillary represents the politics of the past. She has been a “good soldier” like her Republican counterpart Sen. McCain in the partisan “wars” that too often pass for normal in America. She lacks both the ability and the inclination to bring people of different mindsets together. She is a professional politician, capable of changing her views to suit 1) the audience she is addressing…2) the office she is running for… One cannot call NAFTA a “success” in 2004 and then conviently attack the agreement when running for our top elected office just four years later. She (along with her loose cannon husband) is a polarizing figure even within the Democratic party.

10. Well said, Richard Brown!

    The Hillary Clinton negatives are just too high to risk losing another general election.

    America cannot take that risk.

11. Richard, below is something to read while the celestial choir is warming up. This link is to an article written by the WaPo’s David Ignatius regarding the comparison in styles between the two candidates.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

    My only problem with what you say is that you provide no specifics. And, for the record, she didn’t say that NAFTA was an unqualified success as your comment suggests. She said it benefited some parts of Mew York State and some parts of the United States, while others not only failed to benefit but suffered. By the way, there are parts of Texas that profoundly benefited while Ohio got hit in the neck by NAFTA.

    Now, compare that to Obama’s first flyer relative to Clinton’s position on NAFTA. The publication, Newsday, from which he “sourced” the comments attributed to Clinton had to publish a retraction. Trust me, go on Newsday’s site and read for yourself. Newsday’s clarification forced Obama to create a second, less inflammatory flyer that was mailed in Ohio a couple of days ago.

    Finally, Richard, the tone of your comment is what’s really polarizing. Bill as a loose canon? Hillary as a political chameleon? The Clintons as veterans (if not initiators) of the “partisan wars” that have plagued politics over the past couple of decades? I’d like to address that last point. There is no question that the “partisan wars” existed long before the rise of Clinton(s) on the national stage. Lee Atwater humiliated Dukakis in 1988. The Swiftboaters nailed Kerry in 2004, all w/o any Clinton involvement.

    I think that there’s a real war of ideology and policy in America and the good guys are losing. I wish people could reason together and do what’s best for all the people. But they don’t.

    As for the celestial choir comments, what doesn’t get reported is her follow-up comment which stated that some people genuinely do disagree over policy issues. Whether it’s the war, the economy, energy policy, social issues or whatever other issue you like, people do have sincere non-partisan arguments. What becomes divisive is when all disagreements are cast in the sometimes false light of partisanship. That said, it’s also true that the right is adamant about winning their points no matter what the cost.

    Because we still have the Mitch McConnells and the John Boehners in the Congress, along with the “comedian” Rush Limbaugh slashing and burning, giving succor to such leading “lights” of the right-wing cause like James Dobson of the inaptly named Focus on the Family, these guys are here to stay. They have no problem playing a long game, decades long if necessary, to win their points. In this battle over governing philosophy and policy, I want the toughest guy we’ve got.

    So, just one question because maybe I’ve got it wrong. What “partisan” thing did Hillary do to be accused in the right-wing press of the murder of Vince Foster? Think about that for a bit. These guys think nothing of making any charge against any person if they think it advances their cause. They’re doing it w/ Obama and the whole Muslim “issue.” Like there’s something wrong with being a Muslim. But, the Obama supporters play into the right’s hands when they blame Clinton for the attack. Never mind that there’s absolutely no evidence for the charge. Why let things like evidence get in the way of a good narrative?

    Please don’t get me wrong. Clinton is nowhere near perfect. I wish she was more proactive, especially on the war. I opposed that war like Andre and perhaps you. I marched in New York on a cold Saturday in February 2003 with a bunch of guys, many of whom were from my era. My objection wasn’t that the war was unnecessary – rather it was that the administration failed to prove its case. But understand, that was months after the 2002 authorization that is so in dispute. Prior to Powell’s presentation at the UN, I thought the administration was holding back on what it knew and needed to divulge that information to the American people. After that presentation, I was certain that they had nothing to justify an invasion of Iraq. But by then the horse was out of the barn.

    It’s easy for me to say I was right about the war. I marched against that war. I’ve written in opposition to the war in any venue that I could/can. But that opinion was formed with different (incomplete?) information digested in a different environment/context than the members of Congress. Some (Ted Kennedy) to their credit, opposed the war. Others (Patrick Kennedy) supported the invasion. Different views in different chambers, yet members of the same family. People could look at the information available and draw different conclusions. But to the Kennedy’s credit, they were in the arena. Obama and Schoos weren’t. I don’t think that giving a speech or marching down 61st street necessarily qualifies either of us for the Presidency.

    Thus, you support Obama, I support Clinton. Same candidates, but we see them differently. That’s fair. What’s not fair, or productive, is the invective against one of the candidates to score political points. I think we’re on the same side, for the most part. We don’t want to say or do anything to prevent working together to win the ultimate prize in November. I will tell you without qualification that I will work for Obama if he emerges as the nominee irrespective of whatever misgivings I have. I have no doubt that on his worst day, Obama is better than McCain on his best. However, from what you’ve said here, and what other Obama supporters have written/said in other venues, I’m not sure that if the situation were reversed you or your colleagues would do the same.

    On March 5, the conversation changes, at least at the local level. Neither side wants to do or say anything to poison the well that we will all have to drink from.

12. Geoff,

    I opposed this war long before AUMF 2002. I remember it well, it was the summer of 2002 and I was on active duty military service stationed overseas and I read the writing on the wall. The US was positioning itself for an invasion of Iraq starting right after 9/11. It was like watching a yearlong car wreak.

    Now, why would this non-commissioned Air Force sergeant know that we were on the wrong track but not a sitting US senator with volumes of more information?

    That vote was unforgivable.

13. Andre,

    I won’t quarrel with your analysis. I, too, heard the drums beating for Iraq. In all the literature I’ve read, it’s clear that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their respective minions were all pushing for the war. And it was clear that Powell and others at State were less than enthusiastic about the prospect. I believe one of the most despicable things done to sell the war to the public was putting Powell out front at the UN in order to trade in on his “gravitas.” And that act was only compounded when Powell failed to resign and instead allowed himself to be used.

    That said, let me also say that it was clear that the Resolution had the potential to become a second Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting the president virtually unrestricted authority to do whatever he thought necessary. I was no fan of GTR I, let alone “GTR” 2.

    But, going to your point about the volumes of information available to the senators, we now know that a good deal of the information, coming from Doug Feith’s DOD policy shop, was in fact cherry-picked. However, at the time that the vote was taken, it was still unclear that this administration would lie and/or obfuscate in order to go to war. Thousands have died, billions of dollars lost that could’ve been devoted to our own people, a society has been turned on its head, its culture all be destroyed, the “war on terror” set back, and America is less secure. I get that and have so written in my column.

    I think that vote was a mistake – and a beaut. Yet while we discuss this today and see with great clarity what a mistake that vote was, I still suggest that it wasn’t so clear at the time to those in the arena. I point to the Kennedys, both supporters of Senator Obama, as an example of those in the arena, presumably privy to detailed information – either officially or unofficially – who came to different public conclusions. I merely raise this point to show that it is possible that members of Congress could legitimately disagree on the Resolution given that same set of facts.

    I hate this war. I hate what it’s done to us and to the people of Iraq. I hate that this war has provided the cover for this administration to violate, suspend, or outright discard civil liberties – all in the name of national security.

    I agree with and respect your position on the war and honor your service. In the end, Andre, Geoff, Barak and millions of others were right in their opposition to the war. But the one thing I don’t have is the certainty that, if given the circumstance that I was in the Senate, privy to all the “information” provided by the administration, in the context of the times, I would’ve voted against the Resolution. I’d like to think I would have voted against that Resolution, but having been in several arenas in my time, I’m not 100% certain. I don’t see how anyone not in the position of casting a vote on the matter could say with certainty what they’d have done.

    So, that said, the vote was wrong and stupid. But in the totality of the circumstances, I don’t think it is “unforgivable.” I believe that Clinton was sincere but wrong on this. I don’t believe that her vote was an effort to “triangulate” the issue in order to position herself for a run for the Presidency. If I thought she did, I can assure you without qualification that my voice would be among the loudest in opposition to her and her candidacy.

14. Geoff-If I may…if there had been such confusion about what intelligence pointed where and why at the time, why was the Democratic delegation in the Senate so evenly split on their vote?

    The war resolution went forward because half (including Clinton) of the Dem Senators voted with the Rep majority.

    Senator Clinton’s floor speech was cast *with conviction*. Had she chosen to put her leadership skills to work, she could have easily swung more of the Dem Senators and maybe some centrist Rep votes the other direction.

    She didn’t.

    She now claims, on the campaign trail, she will *end the war*, yet she has advisers saying he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq. http://www.nysun.com/article/72209

    It’s completely apparent to most that this is pandering at it’s worst. She’s messing with our youngster’s lives here.

    I’m sorry…the Clintons may have some points in their favor but the war is one of the last things they should be taunting.

    Thank you for listening.

15. Geoff,
    You can rest assured that if Sen. Clinton prevails against Sen. Obama and becomes the Democratic nominee, I will support her in November. I would feel that an opportunity for real change was lost. Bush I; Clinton I;
    Bush II; Clinton II… Two decades, two families, business as usual. And as you like to say, “for the record” I never claimed/suggested that Hillary called NAFTA “an unqualified success”. While campaigning for re-election in upstate NY in ’04, Hillary stated ” on balance Nafta has been good for New York and America.”
    Fast forward to ’08 and now NAFTA needs a radical makeover. On the subject of potential “First Laddie” Bill being a “loose cannon”, just Google “Bill Clinton loose cannon” and pick your favorite source/media outlet.
    CNN, Politico, US News and World Report, etc… Hillary’s campaign staff must cringe every time he opens his mouth. In the days surrounding the South Carolina primary his comments and rhetoric not only embarrassed Hillary’s campaign, but tarnished his own image in the African-American community. An image, that until this year, was as positive as any politicians. As far as Hillary being a political chameleon… there are probably no two words in the English language that go together better than political and chameleon. Most politicians have to be and most prominent ones are. What is refreshing about Sen. Obama is that he hasn’t become a “politician” yet. His campaign is funded by
    individuals not special interests. He lacks that jaded, entitled attitude that is so prevalent within the Beltway. I have no problem with Sen. Clinton using her time as First Lady as the lynchpin in her political cache. However, if she wants to take credit for the first Clinton’s administration’s successes, she must also accept it’s failures as her own. Like Andre, Barack and yourself, I too was opposed to the war from the outset. Sen. Clinton’s claim that her vote was a vote for “more diplomacy” rings hollow. She quite simply lacked the courage to say “NO” to George Bush. Our own Lincoln Chaffee didn’t lack the courage and his political career may have suffered for it, but I’m sure he can sleep at night. Speaking of sleeping and night,
    after 11 straight primary/caucas losses in a row, is it any wonder that Sen. Clinton would reach into her bag of tricks and pluck out the FEAR card. The 3am/red phone moment ad is a Fear Monger Classic. It is ironic that Bill Clinton, while stumping for Kerry in ’04, stated to the effect that if your have a choice between Hope and Fear, it was always better to side with Hope. I always will. Best of luck to you and your candidate and let’s all agree to help each other this fall. We can’t afford not to.