[NewPacifica] Re: Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me Out")

["Felashi Ofan" <felashiofan@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra12@...> wrote:
>
> There's quotation marks around the word -- anarchist -- for good 
> reason. If you weren't so sleepy-headed you might have figured out 
> why I put them there. /R  

Not sleepy at all. I saw the quotes. But they don't address my 
annoyed perplexity: the question is WHY you chose to use the word 
"anarchist" in the first place, with or without quotation marks?

What -- in any of the opinions you're arguing against -- struck you 
as either anarchist or "anarchist"?

fel@shi of@n


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Felashi Ofan
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:45 PM
> To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: 
"Count Me
> Out")
> 
> --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra12@> wrote:
> >
> > Like I said you're being anti-rad so when you and your 
"anarchist" 
> > beanie baby find your opinions refuted don't be surprised. 
> 
> Huh? How did the noble doctrine of anarchism get dragged into this 
> tedious discussion of bourgeois politics?
> 
> There is nothing remotely 'anarchist' about actively supporting 
> either Nader or Obama. 
> 
> fel@shi of@n
> 
> 
> > Fyi, this is 
> the New
> > Pacifica listserve not the Democratic Party's mouthpiece for the 
> Obama
> > campaign. You're free to state what you believe but not free to 
> ignore the
> > substance of what those who oppose your views post. Please, tell 
> the board
> > specifically what it is you object to in Matt's remarks as well 
as 
> in
> > regards to those opinions which have been posted in his support. 
> May reason
> > prevail. /R
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   _____  
> > 
> > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Melinda Iley-Dohn
> > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:03 AM
> > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: 
> "Count Me
> > Out")
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I thought that the whole POINT about being Progressive is that 
> unlike
> > 
> > the Neo-Cons, we are not required to goose step to a "Prime 
> Directive".
> > 
> > Progressives are voting for Obama and Clinton also. 
> > 
> > Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@> wrote:
> > 
> > "Accept the Progressive pov?" You make it sound like the Logos. 
> There is
> > room for other opinions. Even for your "rad/anti-rad" gibberish.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > K
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Richard <rsierra12@>
> > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:07:23 PM
> > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: 
> "Count Me
> > Out")
> > 
> > Melinda's anti-rad and rads. She can't even accept the 
Progressive 
> pov and
> > analysis rendered by Matt G. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > By the way Matt was live on KPFA's Morning Show this AM. /R 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >   _____  
> > 
> > 
> > From: NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewPacifica 
> @yahoogroups. com]
> > On Behalf Of Melinda Iley-Dohn
> > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:19 AM
> > To: NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: 
> "Count Me
> > Out")
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Maybe they don't have the same views that you do. Those of us who 
> support
> > Obama
> > 
> > did so after weighing our alternatives. It's fairly disengenuous 
to 
> accuse
> > Pacificans
> > 
> > of a lack of judgement because they differ from your opinion. You 
> are
> > entitled to 
> > 
> > express your own opinions and to vote as you chose. Kindly 
respect 
> the right
> > of
> > 
> > others to do the same.
> > 
> > Mitchel Cohen <mitchelcohen@ mindspring. com> wrote:
> > 
> > I am amazed that WBAI seems to have uncritically 
> > jumped onto the Obama bandwagon. It is even offer 
> > as a premium some compilations of Obama's 
> > speeches. One would think that there would be 
> > more reflection on Obama's actual record, above 
> > and beyond the notable enthusiasm that his candidacy has 
generated.
> > 
> > So I offer this to the WBAI / Pacifica community 
> > to think about. It is written by Matt Gonzalez, 
> > who is a former president of the San Francisco 
> > Board of Supervisors, and who is running for 
> > Vice-President of the United States on an independent ticket with 
> Ralph
> > Nader.
> > 
> > - Mitchel Cohen
> > 
> > The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
> > by Matt Gonzalez
> > 
> > Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack 
> > Obama. After all, how could someone calling 
> > themself a progressive not sense the importance 
> > of what it means to have an African-American so 
> > close to the presidency? But as his campaign has 
> > unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states 
> > or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I 
> > realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
> > 
> > Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at 
> > the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I 
> > know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois 
> > Senate race; although it wasn't much of a contest 
> > (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). 
> > Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting 
> > record, and I'm afraid to say I'm not just 
> > uninspired: I'm downright fearful. Here's why:
> > 
> > This is a candidate who says he's going to usher 
> > in change; that he is a different kind of 
> > politician who has the skills to get things done. 
> > He reminds us again and again that he had the 
> > foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems 
> > to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
> > 
> > But his record suggests that he is incapable of 
> > ushering in any kind of change I'd like to see. 
> > It is one of accommodation and concession to the 
> > very political powers that we need to reign in 
> > and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
> > 
> > THE WAR IN IRAQ
> > 
> > Let's start with his signature position against 
> > the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
> > 
> > First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the 
> > Illinois state legislature. Once he was running 
> > for US Senate though, when public opinion and 
> > support for the war was at its highest, he was 
> > quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as 
> > saying, "There's not that much difference between 
> > my position and George Bush's position at this 
> > stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a 
> > position to execute." The Tribune went on to say 
> > that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain 
> > to stabilize the war-ravaged nation - a policy 
> > not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush 
administration."
> > 
> > Obama's campaign says he was referring to the 
> > ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the 
> > region. But why wouldn't he have taken the 
> > opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly 
> > opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to 
> > conservative voters that he would subjugate his 
> > anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and 
> > perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it 
> > turns out, he's done just that.
> > 
> > Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted 
> > to approve every war appropriation the 
> > Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 
> > billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza 
> > Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity 
> > in the Bush Administration' s various false 
> > justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why 
> > would he vote to make one of the architects of 
> > "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US 
> > foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage 
> > of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
> > 
> > And though he often cites his background as a 
> > civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize 
> > the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse 
> > attack on civil liberties in the last 
> > half-century. It allows for wholesale 
> > eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-
terrorism
> > efforts.
> > 
> > And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to 
> > travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator 
> > Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by 
> > anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic 
> > Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called 
> > Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in 
> > attendance to vote and give financial 
> > contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman 
> > who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest 
> > Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama 
> > have done that if he was truly against the war?
> > 
> > Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, 
> > Obama declared he will get our combat troops out 
> > of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying 
> > he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At 
> > a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire 
> > primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused 
> > to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by 
> > January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has 
> > repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the 
> military.
> > 
> > At the same event, Obama committed to keeping 
> > enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our 
> > counter-terrorism activities there" which 
> > includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he 
> > didn't say is this continued warfare will require 
> > an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq 
> > according to a May 2006 report prepared by the 
> > Center for American Progress. Moreover, it 
> > appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he 
> > takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send 
> > them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under 
> > Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.
> > 
> > This is hardly a position to get excited about.
> > 
> > CLASS ACTION REFORM:
> > 
> > In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a 
> > law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness 
> > Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a 
> > venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a 
> > desired objective of large corporations and 
> > President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to 
> > deny redress in many of the courts where these 
> > kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving 
> > corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces 
> > them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal 
courts.
> > 
> > By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry 
> > joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the 
> > "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest 
> > extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and 
> > other corporate interests. David Sirota, the 
> > former spokesman for Democrats on the House 
> > Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in 
> > the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed 
> > by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog 
> > groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was 
> > sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" 
> > lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the 
> > bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers."
> > 
> > Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On 
> > its face, the class-action bill is mere 
> > procedural tinkering, transferring from state to 
> > federal court actions involving more than $5 
> > million where any plaintiff is from a different 
> > state from the defendant company. But federal 
> > courts are much more hostile to class actions 
> > than their state counterparts; such cases tend to 
> > be rooted in the finer points of state law, in 
> > which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And 
> > even if federal judges do take on these suits, 
> > with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 
> > 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets 
> > will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions 
> > - most of which involve discrimination, consumer 
> > fraud and wage-and-hour violations - all but 
> > impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits 
> > were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing 
> > employees to work "off the clock," four state 
> > courts certified these suits as class actions. 
> > Not a single federal court did so, although the 
> > practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees 
> nationwide."
> > 
> > Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it 
> > harder for working-class people to have their day 
> > in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
> > 
> > CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:
> > 
> > Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or 
> > explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame 
> > poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an 
> > amendment he voted on as part of a recent 
> > bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have 
> > capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. 
> > Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it 
> > would have been the beginning of setting these 
> > predatory lending rates under federal control. 
> > Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
> > 
> > Now Obama explains his vote by saying the 
> > amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling 
> > too high. His explanation isn't credible as Obama 
> > offered no lower number as an alternative, and 
> > didn't put forward his own amendment clarifying 
> > whatever language he found objectionable.
> > 
> > Why wouldn't Obama have voted to create the first 
> > federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest 
> > rates, particularly as he calls himself a 
> > champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps 
> > he was signaling to the corporate establishment 
> > that they need not fear him. For all of his 
> > dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it 
> > seems Obama has little intention of doing 
> > anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle 
to 
> overcome.
> > 
> > LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
> > 
> > These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama 
> > aligns himself with Republican Party interests 
> > aren't new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama 
> > voted to limit the recovery that victims of 
> > medical malpractice could obtain through the 
> > courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical 
> > malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully 
> > recover for pain and suffering or for punitive 
> > damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were 
> > already empowered to adjust awards when 
> > appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court 
> > had previously ruled such limits on tort reform 
> > violated the state constitution.
> > 
> > In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering 
> > with patients' full recovery for tortious 
> > conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical 
> > Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. 
> > The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to 
> > patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, 
> > coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting 
> > patients' economic recovery. Rather than simply 
> > mandating disclosure, Obama's solution is to 
> > trade what should be mandated for something that 
> > should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured 
> patient.
> > 
> > MINING LAW OF 1872:
> > 
> > In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill 
> > that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law 
> > of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by 
> > Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a 
> > nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine 
> > for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and 
> > copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits 
> > for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated 
> > to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to 
> > Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. 
> > Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when 
> > it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million 
> > between 1998-2004 according to The Center on 
> > Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.
> > 
> > The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 
> > would have finally overhauled the law and allowed 
> > American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties 
> > (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining 
> > operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill 
> > provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned 
> > hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers 
> > over $50 million, and addressed health and safety 
> > concerns in the 11 affected western states.
> > 
> > Later it came to light that one of Obama's key 
> > advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in 
> > the employ of various mining companies (CBS News 
> > "Obama's Position On Mining Law Questioned. 
> > Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives 
> > Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007).
> > 
> > REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:
> > 
> > The New York Times reported that, while 
> > campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama 
> > boasted that he had passed a bill requiring 
> > nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive 
> > leaks. This came after residents of his home 
> > state of Illinois complained they were not told 
> > of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon 
> Corporation.
> > 
> > The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the 
> > bill to be amended in Committee by Senate 
> > Republicans, replacing language mandating 
> > reporting with verbiage that merely offered 
> > guidance to regulators on how to address 
> > unreported leaks. The story noted that even this 
> > version of Obama's bill failed to pass the 
> > Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming 
> > to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 
> > 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear 
> > Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by 
> > Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of 
> > Obama's constituents, which was hardly 
> > enthusiastic about Obama's legislative efforts:
> > 
> > "Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of 
> > the bill to review, and we could see it weakening 
> > with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a 
> > park district director in Will County, Ill., 
> > where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up 
> > in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
> > 
> > As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: 
> > "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, 
> > which is based in Illinois, have contributed at 
> > least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the 
> > United States Senate and for president. Two top 
> > Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice 
> > president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, 
> > are among his largest fund-raisers."
> > 
> > ENERGY POLICY:
> > 
> > On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big 
> > supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well 
> > known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. 
> > It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are 
> > required to produce eight barrels of corn 
> > ethanol, according to research by the Cato 
> > Institute. Ethanol's impact on climate change is 
> > nominal and isn't "green" according to Alisa 
> > Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. "It 
> > simply isn't a major improvement over gasoline 
> > when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas 
> > emissions." A 2006 University of Minnesota study 
> > by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier 
> > study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. 
> > (There's even concern that a reliance on 
> > corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)
> > 
> > So why would Obama be touting this as a solution 
> > to our oil dependency? Could it have something to 
> > do with the fact that the first presidential 
> > primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the 
> > country? In legislative terms this means Obama 
> > voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn 
> > subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money 
> > should have been committed to alternative energy 
> > sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
> > 
> > SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:
> > 
> > Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored 
> > by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers 
> > in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress 
> > supported it. Single-payer works by trying to 
> > diminish the administrative costs that comprise 
> > somewhere around one-third of every health care 
> > dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative 
> > nature of these services. The expected $300 
> > billion in annual savings such a system would 
> > produce would go directly to cover the uninsured 
> > and expand coverage to those who already have 
> > insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie 
> > Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine 
> > at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of 
> > Physicians for a National Health Program.
> > 
> > Obama's own plan has been widely criticized for 
> > leaving health care industry administrative costs 
> > in place and for allowing millions of people to 
> > remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore 
> > ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance 
> > companies to help us develop a new health care 
> > plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first 
> place."
> > 
> > NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
> > 
> > Regarding the North American Free Trade 
> > Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don't think 
> > NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never 
> > have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama's 
> > record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated 
> > Press article and found that comment to be 
> > misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama 
> > said the US should pursue more deals such as 
> > NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his 
> > opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade 
> > war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator 
> > had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to 
> > his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also 
> > called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."
> > 
> > Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually 
> > given an opportunity to protect workers from 
> > unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding 
> > vote against an amendment to a September 2005 
> > Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North 
> > Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have 
> > prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US 
> > laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign 
> > trade practices. The bill would have been a vital 
> > tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign 
> > workers and would have ended a common corporate 
> > practice known as "pole-vaulting" over 
> > regulations, which allows companies doing foreign 
> > business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum 
> > wage," and other worker protections.
> > 
> > SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:
> > 
> > On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, 
> > America's pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein 
> > he disavowed his previous support for the plight 
> > of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a 
> > troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what 
> > they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided 
> > history of the region and called for continued 
> > military support for Israel, rather than taking 
> > the opportunity to promote the various peace 
> > movements in and outside of Israel.
> > 
> > Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring 
> > about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken 
> > with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when 
> > visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his 
> > honor because Obama was scared voters might think 
> > he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged 
> > this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former 
> > Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco 
> > Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him 
> > he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)
> > 
> > Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact 
> > the death penalty has on blacks, but still 
> > supports it, while other politicians are fighting 
> > to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey 
> > Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the 
> > death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
> > 
> > On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans 
> > in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on 
> > the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 
> > 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had 
> > the courage to oppose it. But now that he's 
> > campaigning in Texas and eager to win over 
> > Mexican-American voters, he says he'd employ a different border 
> solution.
> > 
> > It is shocking how frequently and consistently 
> > Obama is willing to subjugate good decision 
> > making for his personal and political benefit.
> > 
> > Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment 
> > proceedings against the president ("Obama: 
> > Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 
> > 28, 2007) and he wouldn't even support Wisconsin 
> > Senator Russ Feingold's effort to censure the 
> > Bush administration for illegally wiretapping 
> > American citizens in violation of the 1978 
> > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In 
> > Feingold's words "I'm amazed at Democrats . 
> > cowering with this president's number's so low." 
> > Once again, it's troubling that Obama would take 
> > these positions and miss the opportunity to 
> > document the abuses of the Bush regime.
> > 
> > CONCLUSION:
> > 
> > Once I started looking at the votes Obama 
> > actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric 
> > differently. The principal conclusion I draw 
> > about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama 
> > needs to change his voting habits and stop 
> > pandering to win votes. If he does this he might 
> > someday make a decent candidate who could earn my 
> > support. For now Obama has fallen into a 
> > dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot 
> > reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.
> > 
> > I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by 
> > Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I 
> > remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to 
> > say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
> > 
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------
> > Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San 
> > Francisco Board of Supervisors, and is running 
> > for Vice-President of the United States on an 
> > independent ticket with Ralph Nader.
> > 
> > -
>