Cyrena:

Let ME correct you (since I’m so good at that...LOL).

Obama taught at University of Chicago Law School - NOT DePaul University College of Law.  Obama DID give a major speech at DePaul University, and it is probably because this speech is so well known that people tend to conflate the two schools.

Peace.

lodipete..you’ll just have to pay more attention I guess. For starters, you’ll have to know the difference between Chicago U, and DePaul University. The similarity is that they are both in Chicago, but if I’m correct, it was only at DePaul where Obama was an Associate Professor, (he wasn’t tenured yet) and NOT Chicago U. Please feel free to correct me if that isn’t the case. But, that is my own understanding.

Apart from that, odlid (see posting above) has directed you to Obama’s website, for the answers to these questions. (I’m not sure if he addresses Blackwater specifically on the website). And, I would also recommend listening to at least some of what he says in his public/campaign addresses, and it might not be a bad idea to check his record in the Senate as well. (though admittedly, that isn’t that long, since he’s still a technically a Jr. Senator, when seniority obviously means a great deal).

Anyway, ALL of this stuff is addressed in at least one of those sources, and they’re more often than not, repeated in the others.

Another source for many of his addresses would be the website, truthout.org. You’ll probably have to use their search bar, and make sure that you’re searching their site, TO, rather than the web in general. (there’s an option there on the site). Over the past 18 or so months, they’ve published a large number of his addresses to various groups throughout the nation.

I might also suggest the interviews that he’s given to various media, including the one currently posted on this truthdig site. The 60 minutes interview, which poses a number of relevant policy and issue questions.

What you can’t find on his website can almost certainly be found in his many caucus addresses, beginning with Iowa.

So, if you REALLY wanna know, the info is definitely out there and available.

Cyrena:

“Meantime, nobody in my neighborhood is buying any used cars from anybody. Matter of fact, nobody is buying much of any damn thing, because they have no jobs, and no money to buy shit WITH.”

I hear that.  Point taken.

“I mean, I’ve got a little tiny bit, but not enough for a used car. I’ve got some gold, (a little bit) but the used car salesman won’t accept that as payment. Wonder why?”

Hey, hang on a little while longer.  When the dollar finally tanks completely (and it will), and we spin into the serious depths of recession, that gold will be worth its weight in...gold.  And your car salesman will be more than happy to accept it...LOL.

Peace.

Well, yeah..your post is enough to make some people go...hummm…

Not much substance here Maani. Curious you would respond to this post, rather than the many that actually HAVE some substance.

I mean, no offense against Liz or anything, but her’s is more of a heroic type cheerleading thing, that doesn’t really address the things that people are looking for or at, in a president.

I mean, you like to talk about the ‘inspiration’ and all that Obama embodies, and yeah..he does have that. But hey, that’s just an extra. That is NOT the part that I’m ‘buying’. I’m checking out the substance.

Meantime, nobody in my neighborhood is buying any used cars from anybody. Matter of fact, nobody is buying much of any damn thing, because they have no jobs, and no money to buy shit WITH.

I mean, I’ve got a little tiny bit, but not enough for a used car. I’ve got some gold, (a little bit) but the used car salesman won’t accept that as payment. Wonder why?

Listen when a Congress Critter starts to address the House/Senate and you will hear many ask the Speaker for “permission to revise and extend” which is routinely granted.
That means he can say one thing to the assembled member’s and cause an entirely different speech to be recorded in the Congressional Record.
I don’t think that they can change their votes, but then again, many votes aren’t recorded.

“To Liz Hoefer, a consultant from Alexandria, Obama is a biblical figure. “We have needed to raise up a leader,” Hoefer says. “He’s the Joshua. Moses saw the promised land, Joshua led the children into it.”

Yup.  Cult of personality.  Revivalist rhetoric.  References to Biblical figures.  Hmmm…

“But in Obama she is matched against a sleek thoroughbred who mesmerizes crowds not so much with his track record but with the possibility of excitement to come.”

The “possibility” of excitement (which itself is not substantive...).  Hmmm…

“On the other hand, “Obama is inspirational to more people than me—to many people. When he says change, people are buying it.”

Yup, they sure are “buying it.” Whether or not that “inspiration” has any substance to it.  People also “buy” used cars from used car salesmen, and “buy” into all sorts of cons and schemes.

Thing that make you go “hmmm...”

I.Q...my sentiments...exactly!! An excellent post.

We should probably keep in mind (pretty much always) that the author here has a bias herself, and a strong one. She too is convinced that Hillary Clinton should be the next President, (when I agree that Hillary makes an excellent Senator, but would be a disastrous president) and she’s very myopic in that mindset, just as is Hillary, who has stated simply enough, that she cannot and will not entertain even the remote possibility that she might lose, based on the voters’ preference for Obama.

One must always read Marie Cocco’s stuff with that in mind. Otherwise, why even quote Ms. Pahuja? Why not some other woman?

I keep asking for specifics and get nothing but platitudes. How is it that the editor of the Harvard Law Review and a lecturer at Chicago U. has had so little published in terms of opinion? Does anyone know his plans for Iraq,ending corporate welfare,health care,the tax codes, the military budget, international relations or the undoing of abominations like the “Patriot Act” and fascist groups like Blackwater Security? If so, how do you know and where can I find the published info?

Excellent analysis, I,Q.

I’ve felt from the beginning that Sen Clinton is the right person to lead the Senate Democrats.  She would be a fine person to take the mantle from the likes of Kennedy. 

And i agree wholeheartedly about the records of other female world leaders.  History has not born out the assumption that women would make better, more thoughtful, more peaceful leaders.  This may be a factor of them needing to become overly masculine to win power, but that does not change the end result.

Moreover, i cannot imagine that the world at large would be terribly impressed by our electing a woman to the presidency.  I imagine a reaction more along the lines of a sarcastic congratulations on our “enlightenment”.

We should not elect our leaders based on the wishes of the world; however, at a time when we are becoming more and more isolated and left behind we do need something (anything) that raises our standard.

Sorry about the accidental excess of italics! If the posting preview worked better, a la Comment Title field were retained, this would be a better world to blog in.... alas!

One’s sex is not remotely a qualification for leadership. If anyone were caught saying publicly that Hillary isn’t qualified to lead because<> she’s a woman, there would be an uproar, and the ignominious mantle of sexist would be thrown upon whomever made that statement. So why should it be acceptable when the knife cuts the other way?

As for matters which <em>do concern presidential qualification, Cocco describes two different candidates here—let’s put gender aside for this paragraph (and for the rest of the damn nomination please)—one is a motivator, the other a policy wonk. One is a natural leader, the other a natural legislator. Sometimes the best fit for someone is right where they are. Hillary will be an invaluable ally in achieving the senate results we are going to need if we are to realize the changes Obama has us believing are possible.