Reasons to Support Senator Barack Obama

Go to http://www.barackobama.org and on the left side of the top links on his home page, click on LEARN, then look down the menu that comes into view and click on KNOW the FACTS.

You will find the latest controversial comments and both sides of the issue so you can analyze it more efficiently.

Below: "Why I Support Barack Obama" which explains some of the reasons I know Senator Barack Obama will make a good President of the United States of America.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Why I support Barack Obama:

"Senator Barack Obama is able to see the best from both sides of issues and explain the pros and cons to us. He is gifted in analysis and able to clearly define the nature of the problem as well as options for resolution. His candor, his self-control and grace under pressure, his ability to listen, his quiet but commanding presence that is respected by all of the other presidential candidates--these are a few of his character qualities that indicate he is the "man of the hour" for our next President of the United States of America.

We will be enduring tough times as a nation and the situation requires a President with considerable diplomatic experience in his manner of speech with people from all walks of life as well as a practical understanding of the daily struggles and joys in America at all economic levels.

I have questions, like the effect of his capital gains' tax plan that was discussed on George Stephanopolous' "Round Table" on 4-20-08 but I am hoping that Senator Obama is open to tweaking any of his plans if additional facts or perspectives are laid on the table. He seems to be a man who would be open to changing his view in the face of evidence. Situations turn upside down overnight in the world now, so we need a president who can gather all of the facts, assess them wisely, then reassess them later and make modifications if a Plan B, C or D becomes necessary.

I respect Senator Obama's ability to address things directly, thoughtfully and tactfully with no arrogance, no drama, no ego, no haughtiness, no ignorance, no lying and with no dysfunctional pride nor conceitedness that is blind to the truth. He rises above everyone in heated discussions which is evidence of superb training and discipline in his life. He is a peacemaker in his own right...able to get everyone to focus on the bottom line and build from there. He is going to make a superb president who will go the extra mile to protect us, to help us in rescue and recovery. He will have to make choices between the "lesser of two evils" in many situations...anyone who wants to understand that bigger picture should research the statistics on http://www.economyincrisis.org

Remember...he will not be able to tell us everything about what is happening. National security and our very lives will be at stake. Encourage him to stand strong against wrong compromises and provide the facts quickly to him--he will be pressured unlike any other president in history.

I have 6 good reasons as to NOT support Obama and it is MUSLIM!!! Oh no wait that's RACIST!!! Both are 6 good reasons..lol

Hey wait the 6 good reasons are MUSLIM, RACIST AND WRIGHT!!! 666

You're kidding me right?? Are you trying to make me LOL? First, you should know that Obama is not Muslim. Second, he didn't live in either a white house or a governor's mansion over the last 20 years nor did he make over 100M dollars. When Clinton says non college educated white people are voting for me, do you not find that offensive? She's clearly looking all the way down her nose at WV and she will not give a damn about us after his election!!

People please with the Muslim crap. Barack is no more a Muslim than you and your family (incase you didn't know it, there are white muslims too). You seem like you want to be divided. That is your choice but you shouldn't try to poison others. Ask Hillary when the last time she shot a gun or went to church. Her answer: "that isn't revelant". One more thing, if you were smart and not uneducated as Hillary Clinton calls the West Virginia voters, you wouldn't vote for her anyways.

He registered his religion as Muslim when he went to school in Indonesia. And, Michele was to one who persuaded him for future political gains to switch, I think he was 31.

He seems to have mastered the political Bull sh-t for sure. I would not vote for him or Hillary.

Heres a reason not to he can't make up his mind. Is that not what he claimed Hill does. He says what you wnat to hear while in your state.

Over the past two weeks, Obama's campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for "clean coal" technologies.

Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs," the ad's narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.

The ad's intent was clear in a state that still relies heavily on the coal industry and where Obama faced an electorate inclined heavily toward Clinton. But it dismayed some environmentalists who, despite their generally staunch support for Obama's record and platform, have been critical of his complicated record on coal issues.

In the beginning of his Senate career, Obama appeared to be a friend to environmentalists. Soon after arriving in Washington, he cast a key committee vote against President Bush's "Clear Skies" proposal for overhauling rules for coal-fired power plants -- despite support for the proposal from his home state's influential coal industry.

Obama won back some support from coal interests in 2006 when he joined up with Sen. Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, to push huge subsidies for developing liquefied coal as an alternate transportation fuel. If realized, the technology would greatly increase demand for coal in Illinois and elsewhere, but environmentalists are dead set against it, saying it would produce even more climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum in cars. Liquefied coal's proponents say the emissions could be reduced by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but that technology is years away from being realized and would add greatly to the cost of the fuel.

Under fire from environmentalists, Obama a year ago backed away from his alliance with Bunning, voting against a large package of subsidies for the technology and for a more limited package that was opposed by the coal industry; in the end, neither passed.

The episode left many in the coal industry upset with Obama, and, while environmentalists were pleased with his change of heart, they were puzzled over his flirtation with an idea they scorn.

continued:

On the presidential campaign trail, Obama has made clear his support for serious limits on carbon emissions, while here and there mentioning, as Clinton does, that he would continue to pursue research into capturing and storing emissions from coal-fired plants, so that the country can continue to use its abundant supply of the fuel, which now provides about half the country's electricity.

His campaign Web site states bluntly that he will "use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities" to deploy low carbon coal technology and that his "stringent cap on carbon will also make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities."

With the Kentucky ad, Obama seemed to swing back toward his earlier pro-coal stance. The ad made no mention of his call for capping carbon emissions, for example. And, to environmentalists' dismay, it used the phrase "clean coal," which they note has a specific meaning when used by the coal industry. Obama appeared to be referring to a future when carbon emissions from burning coal can be stored underground, but the industry uses the phrase in advertising to refer to its reduction of other forms of pollution from burning coal, often creating the false impression that it has already found a way to burn coal without causing carbon emissions.

"There's a tremendous lobbying and propaganda campaign by coal interests to assert that coal is clean and wonderful and almost as good tasting as apple pie," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group. "That's a diversion away from one of the big pending issues, which is that coal burning one of the biggest sources of carbon emission in the country."

It remains to be seen whether Obama will feel the need to moderate his tough climate change proposals in a pro-coal direction in the general election. His campaign has not made much of an effort to compete in the coal-heavy states of Kentucky and West Virginia -- or in coal-producing western states, such as Wyoming and Montana -- but the industry also holds sway in the general election swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"He's always tried to walk a line by saying,'I want a cleaner environment but I sure don't want to hurt the coal industry,'" said O'Donnell. "That's a very delicate line to walk."

This was the first part but it was not posted. He seems to say what you want to hear while in your state and that is what he claimes Hill does.

Over the past two weeks, Obama's campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for "clean coal" technologies.

Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs," the ad's narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.

The ad's intent was clear in a state that still relies heavily on the coal industry and where Obama faced an electorate inclined heavily toward Clinton. But it dismayed some environmentalists who, despite their generally staunch support for Obama's record and platform, have been critical of his complicated record on coal issues.

In the beginning of his Senate career, Obama appeared to be a friend to environmentalists. Soon after arriving in Washington, he cast a key committee vote against President Bush's "Clear Skies" proposal for overhauling rules for coal-fired power plants -- despite support for the proposal from his home state's influential coal industry.

Obama won back some support from coal interests in 2006 when he joined up with Sen. Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, to push huge subsidies for developing liquefied coal as an alternate transportation fuel. If realized, the technology would greatly increase demand for coal in Illinois and elsewhere, but environmentalists are dead set against it, saying it would produce even more climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum in cars. Liquefied coal's proponents say the emissions could be reduced by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but that technology is years away from being realized and would add greatly to the cost of the fuel.

Under fire from environmentalists, Obama a year ago backed away from his alliance with Bunning, voting against a large package of subsidies for the technology and for a more limited package that was opposed by the coal industry; in the end, neither passed.

The episode left many in the coal industry upset with Obama, and, while environmentalists were pleased with his change of heart, they were puzzled over his flirtation with an idea they scorn.

disregard this the other appeared after.

Ajb wrote:

This was the first part but it was not posted. He seems to say what you want to hear while in your state and that is what he claimes Hill does.
Over the past two weeks, Obama's campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for "clean coal" technologies.
Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs," the ad's narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.
The ad's intent was clear in a state that still relies heavily on the coal industry and where Obama faced an electorate inclined heavily toward Clinton. But it dismayed some environmentalists who, despite their generally staunch support for Obama's record and platform, have been critical of his complicated record on coal issues.
In the beginning of his Senate career, Obama appeared to be a friend to environmentalists. Soon after arriving in Washington, he cast a key committee vote against President Bush's "Clear Skies" proposal for overhauling rules for coal-fired power plants -- despite support for the proposal from his home state's influential coal industry.
Obama won back some support from coal interests in 2006 when he joined up with Sen. Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, to push huge subsidies for developing liquefied coal as an alternate transportation fuel. If realized, the technology would greatly increase demand for coal in Illinois and elsewhere, but environmentalists are dead set against it, saying it would produce even more climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum in cars. Liquefied coal's proponents say the emissions could be reduced by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but that technology is years away from being realized and would add greatly to the cost of the fuel.
Under fire from environmentalists, Obama a year ago backed away from his alliance with Bunning, voting against a large package of subsidies for the technology and for a more limited package that was opposed by the coal industry; in the end, neither passed.
The episode left many in the coal industry upset with Obama, and, while environmentalists were pleased with his change of heart, they were puzzled over his flirtation with an idea they scorn.