Because Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has risen so far, so fast many voters are not as familiar with his background as they would like to be.
In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya whom he barely knew, who left when Barack was age 2, and about his white American mother from Kansas who along with his father was a college student at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. By age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced. His "birthright," says Barack Obama, was that he was given love, a good education, and hope.
Over the years Barack Obama had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds. Barack Obama worked his way through the racial complexities into which he was born to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and become president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community organizer in Chicago, a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, and a civil rights attorney prior to serving in the Illinois State Senate from 1996-2004 which ended with his 70% landslide election victory to the US Senate in 2004.
On a personal level Barack Obama over 46 years has learned how perceptions of ethnicity and judgments about race can sometimes divide people, and he is uniquely qualified and committed to develop a sense of unity and common purpose and higher purpose in America and its people. He has the background, the ability to communicate, and the intelligence necessary to appropriately reintroduce the world’s only superpower to the rest of the world. As President of the United States he would be emblematic of our great country and its two profound ideals of personal freedom and equality of opportunity.
In 1963 when Obama was just 2 years old Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. that included the familiar phrase of "not being judged by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character." That speech, of course, helped prompt passage of the 1964 US Civil rights Act and the next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If the people of America elect Barack Obama their 44th President in November of this year King's dream will have become much more than just a dream.

Some have said that Barack Obama's opposition to America initiating the Iraq war is a "fairytale" and that his position on the war has been "inconsistent." But on October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago Senator Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks:
"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I Don't Oppose All Wars
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
On Saddam Hussein
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You Want a Fight, President Bush?
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Barack Obama delivered his powerful speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago October 2, 2002 against the US beginning war in Iraq while later that same month Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization to begin US military action in Iraq. Once US troops were actually in Iraq and fighting a war, of course, it would be irresponsible for Obama to be against funding the troops. The key is that Barack Obama had the judgment to see the dumbness of the war in October 2002 and had the courage to clearly say so. Hillary Clinton did not and voted for funds authorizing the start the Iraq War. Judgment and courage are part of Barack Obama's character, and so is a belief in a united America, in its people and in its future.

The tactic of trying to characterize Obama's position against the war as "a fairy tale" is typical of many politicians who will say and do virtually anything to discredit their opponent in attempting to get themselves elected and is a perfect example of why America so deeply yearns for the enormous breath of fresh air Barack Obama brings to politics and can bring to the highest elective office in our great country.
Senator Obama's opponent claims to have had "35 years of experience” which is the entire length of time since her graduation from law school in 1973. But for 28 of those 35 years she worked as a lawyer (9 years), was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas (11years), and served as the First Lady of the United States (8 years). Only for the past 7 years since her election to the US Senate in November 2000 in her adopted state of New York has Hillary Clinton actually been an elected official accountable to voters.
Barack Obama graduated from law school in 1991 returning to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers and work on voting rights cases and on civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served for 8 years prior to his election to the US Senate in November 2004. Combining his service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator Barack Obama has been an elected official accountable to voters for 11 years.
During the 1960 Democratic primary elections then Senator John Kennedy was also told he was too inexperienced to become president, and by such notable members of the "old guard" at the time as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK won the 1960 Democratic primary and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Abraham Lincoln also did not have much “Washington Experience” prior to becoming President of the United States. In 1834 at age 25 Abe Lincoln won election to the Illinois state legislature where he served a total of 8 years from 1834-1842 during which time he taught himself law and was admitted to the bar. In 1847 he was elected to US House of Representatives serving a single term from 1847-1849 before returning to private law practice in Illinois. On October 16, 1854 a 45 year old Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech against Slavery in Peoria, Illinois and in 1858 was elected to the US Senate, just 2 years before being elected President of the United States in 1860. Not much prior “Washington Experience” for “Honest Abe” but he sure made a great American President.
Could it be that the amount of one’s prior “Washington Experience” is far less important to being a great president than having sound judgment and strong character?
Senator Obama has shown that he has served in Washington long enough to understand what needs to be changed because unlike his opponent he has already begun making changes by refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees. He is proving that being beholden to such money peddlers is not necessary. He raises money for his campaign directly from the people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.

Posted on Wed, Jan. 23, 2008
The New York Observer

Endorsement of Barack Obama

Lost amid the sound and fury of this year’s primary season is the certainty, not the promise, of change. For the first time since 1952, there is no heir apparent to the administration in power.
The stakes have rarely been higher in a presidential election. The question is not if there will be change in American leadership, but what kind.
And the change that is being offered has a focus and intelligence that is kindred to the best American traditions. It is embodied by one candidate in the Democratic Party who is offering a reinvigorated America: Senator Barack Obama.

The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state’s presidential primary on Feb. 5.

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.
Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama’s issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama’s candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.
Democracy is the greatest strength of this still-young nation. Its living enactment is our gift to the world. It is the product of our best instincts and most powerful ideals. But it has been polluted, sullied and compromised by an obstructive administration that seems to have to have no particular regard for its attributes.
It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.
And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.
We believe that Mr. Obama’s idealism and fresh ideas would ensure that the end of the Bush era would also mean an end to government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes of the last quarter-century.
Mr. Obama has found his strength in the generation that succeeded the baby boomers, speaking for the frustrations of those who wish that their leaders would get over themselves, get over the 1960’s, get on with resolving issues that threaten our global leadership. Mr. Obama is an inclusive figure at a time when our popular culture demands that we embrace a new America while still comprehending the lessons of hard-won history—from World War II through the fall of the Berlin Wall—that have brought us to a free world in 2008.
He is also determined to mend this nation. Mr. Obama, as Walt Whitman did, hears America singing, not snarling. Too many candidates have turned opponents into traitors, critics into jackals. Mr. Obama believes the nation yearns to see hope and inspiration and courage emerge victorious from the era’s gauntlet of hypocrisy and lies and false bravado. Imagine, for a moment, any other candidate this year saying what Mr. Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:
“The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
That is a song we have not heard for too long a time. It is the kind of song that can make citizens of spectators, Americans of couch potatoes, patriots of slackers.
Mr. Obama would also be the most formidable Democrat in the general election. He has demonstrated a capacity to energize young people and attract new voters, and is the only candidate in the Democratic Party who attracts independents, who are the fastest-growing part of the electorate. His refusal to demonize the Republican Party as a right-wing attack machine will appeal to those independents as well as moderate Republicans.
Mr. Obama, it is true, is hardly an experienced Washington hand, which surely explains the freshness of his vision and the power of his life experience. His opponents have hit this issue hard. But as far as experience goes, to those Americans who celebrated finding ourselves with our first M.B.A. president in 2000—we can only advise them to look at the $9 trillion national debt in 2008.
And when George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator—who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency—rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Now we have paid the price many times over, and there are no clear paths in Baghdad. But there may be one in Washington. Mr. Obama is the emblem of a new America. He has risen too quickly for his opponents’ taste; that fact is nothing less than a recommendation.
His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. Democrats everywhere should embrace him.

Just another lying politician visiting a corrupt state!

The first comment posted is exactly why we need Barack Obama in the White House.
The comment's poster is a racist. Unfortunately, there are too many 'good 'ol boys' (and 'gals') who think America is a white bread Christian nation and everyone else just takes up space.
They are the minority, thankfully.
This country is better than what the nay sayers would have us believe. Leave the country to them and the horror show that is the George Bush presidency will be the result.

people who make personal attacks on Obama are racist should be ignored.

As a white person I am frequently ashamed of some members of my race

Of all the candidates on both sides, Obama has been the most effective in staying positive and focused on the broader agenda of uniting Americans and restoring confidence in the nation as a land of opportunity and a force for good. Most of the mud his opponents have thrown has not stuck too well. I think this is because he is onto something bigger, namely that we Americans play the key role.

Writing that "Obama of Illinois is the future" misses the point. Nothing is going to change overnight, least of all if we look for some kind of anointed savior. Idealism cut off from common sense is a recipe for failure and disappointment, another signal to voters on the fence to revert to the tried and true (i.e. Hillary if you're a Democrat, McCain if you're not). Tax-paying law-loving Americans -- the millions of us dutifully standing by -- sure we will gladly spend our tax rebates on flatscreen TVs made in China, as long as Washington-think politicians continue to define patriotism in these terms. Right now the opportunities for making a difference appear to be nil.

I like Obama because his talk shows he will be counting on Americans and looking for ways to tap into the abundance of good will out there. And because he does not promise us the moon - there seems to be an ounce of the plain-speaking Kansan in him.

As for his visit to RI Saturday, he does not need to go to Brown - I think he ought to go to Cranston and Warwick to face the suburban white voters across the income range and talk to them about the Iraq war costs and their pocketbooks, with some concrete proposals for getting the economy working again. I'd also like to see him show a little more handle on national defense too. He's moving in a solid direction though, for a while, and I liked that he jabbed back firmly at McCain, who apparently wants to be another "War President" just like Bush.

It's time to take back our government from lobbyists who work for increasing corporate profit at the expense of the average citizen, and 'back-room' deal makers like the Clintons who support their efforts. It comes down to helping things like WalMart, whose board Hillary sat on, or helping yourselves. RI doesn't owe anything to the Clintons because they've visited the state! What have they actually done for RI? Nothing! Vote Obama RI!