Obama has no experience/record.

[Moooooo]

Education:
BA in Political Science (with a specialization in International Relations) from Columbia University.
JD Graduate of Harvard Law School (Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude)
President of the Harvard Law Review (first ever African American)

Experience:
Civil Rights Attorney
Constitutional Law Professor (University of Chicago School of Law)
State Senator
Chairman of the Illinois State Senate Health and Human Services Committee
US Senator
Member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Environment and Public Works Committee, and Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Record:

Nonproliferation: the poster child for issues that people ought to care about, but don't. Here Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). How did this happen? Here's the Washington Monthly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The way to a wonk's heart: campaign on securing Russian loose nukes. -- In any case, in addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone's hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart -- it seems to me that this is an excellent thing to spend one's time on.

Avian flu: Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports. There's a list of Democratic efforts on avian flu here; Obama shows up early and often. He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness. It's a good bill, providing not just for vaccine research and antiviral stockpiles, but for the kinds of state and local planning and preparedness that will be crucial if a pandemic occurs. (I was also very interested to note that it requires the Secretary of HHS to contract with the Institute of Medicine for a study of "the legal, ethical, and social implications of, with respect to pandemic influenza". This is actually very important, and not everyone would have thought of it.)

He has also spoken out consistently on this topic, beginning long before it was hot. Here, for instance, is another op-ed by Obama and Lugar:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is very good policy, especially the parts about increasing surveillance and response capacity here and abroad. (Effect Measure approves too.)

[Moooooo]

Regulating Genetic Testing: It was while I was reading about this issue that I first thought: gosh, Barack Obama seems to turn up whenever I am reading about some insanely wonky yet important issue. And this one is not just off the radar; it and the radar are in different universes. Anyways:

You might be surprised to learn that there is very little quality control over genetic testing. I was. If I offer some genetic test, I can basically say what I like about what it will reveal, so long as I avoid violating the laws against fraud. And if you think about how easy it would be to avoid those laws just by talking about, say, a test for some gene that has been found to be slightly associated with increased IQ, you can see how many deceptive (but not legally fraudulent) claims this allows.

Moreover -- and more seriously -- there is very little oversight of the quality of labs that do tests -- that is, whether or not they tend to get the right answers when they do those tests. There is a law (passed in response to evidence that significant numbers of people were getting incorrect results on pap smears) that requires what's called proficiency testing for labs. But though the law requires that the government develop special proficiency tests for labs that do work requiring special kinds of knowledge, and though genetic testing plainly fits that bill, the government has not developed any proficiency tests for genetic testing labs.

This is serious, and bad. Suppose you are mistakenly informed that you are a carrier for some horrible disease: you might decide never to have kids. Suppose you have a fetus tested and you are told that it has, say, Downs' syndrome: you might abort. To do these things as the result of a lab error would be horrible.

Not nearly as horrible as the results of some false negatives, though. Consider this case (from a very good report on the topic):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tay-Sachs is an unbelievably horrible disease:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So imagine this: you know that you and your spouse are at risk for carrying this disease. You both get tested; neither is a carrier. You give birth to an apparently healthy child. But after a few months, the child you love stops developing normally, and it turns out that both your test and your spouses were misinterpreted, or screwed up, or whatever, and as a result your child is going to die a horrible death by the age of four. Oops!

In your copious free time, you can think of more cases in which screwing up a genetic test would be disastrous. After you get through with the cases involving children and inherited diseases, consider the effects of misreading a genetic test and informing a man that he is not the father of his child when in fact he is. The possibilities are endless.

You can probably guess who has introduced legislation that addresses this problem. The people who wrote the initial report (note: I know them; they're very good) think it's good. So do I.


Reducing medical malpractice suits the right way: Contrary to popular belief, medical malpractice claims do not do much to drive up health care costs. Still, medical malpractice litigation is a problem. Tort reform would address this problem at the expense of people who have been the victims of real, serious medical malpractice, who would lose their right to sue, or have it curtailed. If you read the medical literature, however, it turns out that there's a much better way to minimize malpractice suits, namely: apologizing. Strange to say, it turns out that people are a lot less likely to sue when doctors and hospitals admit their mistakes up front, compensate the patients involved fairly, and generally treat people with respect. It certainly would have helped in this case:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd want to know what happened too, if someone cut off all my arms and legs. And in a case like this, if it was malpractice, limiting the damages a person can collect doesn't seem like the right answer, somehow.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors. (They describe it in this NEJM article.) Again, I think it's good policy: this really is what the evidence suggests is the best way to reduce malpractice claims, and it does it without curtailing the rights of people who have already been injured through no fault of their own. Moreover, when people feel free to discuss their errors, they are much more likely to figure out ways to avoid repeating them. (The legislation provides support for this.) And that's the best way of all to deal with malpractice claims: by addressing the causes of medical malpractice itself.

***

Those are some of the wonkier things he's done. (There are others: introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information, for instance, and legislation on chemical plant security and lead paint.) He has done other things that are more high-profile, including:


* His "health care for hybrids" bill

* An Energy Security Bill

* Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA

* A public database of all federal spending and contracts

* Trying to raise CAFE standards

* Veterans' health care

* Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal

* A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.

* And a proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.

More... and hat tip to Katherine Regina for putting this together.

[Deano963]

Nice research, Nick. It will be interesting to see how the Obama naysayers respond to all of these facts, positions, accomplishments and instances of true bipartisanship.

[Moooooo]

Nice research, Nick. It will be interesting to see how the Obama naysayers respond to all of these facts, positions, accomplishments and instances of true bipartisanship.

Thanks, but I cant take credit for the research.  The girl I linked at the bottom put this together.  She's a former journalist and does some legislative research on the side, I believe.  She runs a pretty nice blog.

I will take credit for formating the text and links to fit the forum, though.  It actually took me a good 15 minutes to put this together. 

[Deano963]

I like Obama, he is great, but not ready to be President.

Long Senate careers do not good Presidential candidates make......

Ask Kerry, Dole and really any other Senator who has run for President since Kennedy how being in the Senate for a long time helped them.

[Gabu]

I like Obama, he is great, but not ready to be President.

Lincoln barely had any elected experience at all when he became president.

Roosevelt was only governor of New York for four years before becoming president.

Eisenhower had no political experience whatsoever when he became president.

Kennedy had all of eight years in the Senate before becoming president, a lot of which he was absent for due to nearly dying on account of spinal surgery.

In a lot of ways presidents hailed as great have their talents determined by their character, not by their experience.  You can be in the senate for fifty years or a governor for four terms and still not be presidential material.  There's very little that a longer legislative career will aid you in becoming the chief executive official of the federal government.

[Boris]

I have to admit; I'm warming up to Obama. My (already very high) opinion of him improves every time I hear him speak.  And I think Gabu has a good point; more legislative experience does not necessarily translate into presidential material. 

He's probably my 4th choice for the nominee right now, behind Gore, Bayh, and Richardson.

[Eraserhead]

I have to admit; I'm warming up to Obama. My (already very high) opinion of him improves every time I hear him speak.  And I think Gabu has a good point; more legislative experience does not necessarily translate into presidential material. 

He's probably my 4th choice for the nominee right now, behind Gore, Bayh, and Richardson.

I doubt Gore runs. He is too busy recording voice overs for Futurama.

[Smash255]

Very valid points and yet another reason why Obama should get the nod.

[Moooooo]

I like Obama, he is great, but not ready to be President.

Lincoln barely had any elected experience at all when he became president.

Roosevelt was only governor of New York for four years before becoming president.

Eisenhower had no political experience whatsoever when he became president.

Kennedy had all of eight years in the Senate before becoming president, a lot of which he was absent for due to nearly dying on account of spinal surgery.

In a lot of ways presidents hailed as great have their talents determined by their character, not by their experience.  You can be in the senate for fifty years or a governor for four terms and still not be presidential material.  There's very little that a longer legislative career will aid you in becoming the chief executive official of the federal government.

Well said

[Verily]

Hmmm...now I have a greater opinion of Obama.

My top choices for President:

1. Richardson
2. Obama
3. Clark
4. Bayh
5. Gore

Of course, we could have a Richardson-Obama ticket, but I don't know how many people would be comfortable with a completely non-Anglo ticket.

As some people have said before, Charismatic/Experienced works better than Experienced/Charismatic. Obama/Richardson would be a better choice than Richardson/Obama for the Democrats. It would also solidify the minority vote (especially Hispanic) behind the Democrats.

[Andrew]

I like Obama's ties to Richard Lugar.  I have a lot of respect for Lugar, although I'm much more liberal.  I voted for Lugar in the '96 primary, when Clinton was unopposed.

I was hoping for Feingold to run, so I don't have a favorite right now.  I'm as open to Obama as anybody else.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It's pretty simple:

Barack Obama = Howard Dean

[YRABNNRM]

It's pretty simple:

Barack Obama = Howard Dean

How?

Obama is a young and charismatic senator. Dean was an experienced statesman.

If anything Obama=Edwards.

[DownWithTheLeft]

How?

Obama is a young and charismatic senator. Dean was an experienced statesman.

If anything Obama=Edwards.

My analogy was not thinking along the same lines as yours.  I was saying he is the candidate the media is hyping up to be this unstoppable candidate who will fall apart after the first few primaries and caucuses.

[Moooooo]

or...

Obama = Obama = President Obama

Don't be skerred, it will all be over soon little thuglicans. 

[TheresNoMoney]

There's very little that a longer legislative career will aid you in becoming the chief executive official of the federal government.

Great observation and I agree with you 100%.

[YRABNNRM]

Don't be skerred, it will all be over soon little thuglicans. 

I sincerely hope you're not calling me, someone who likes Obama, a "thuglican".

[CPT MikeyMike]

I don't know how many people would be comfortable with a completely non-Anglo ticket.

It's sad that it still exists!

[Smash255]

Don't be skerred, it will all be over soon little thuglicans. 

I sincerely hope you're not calling me, someone who likes Obama, a "thuglican".

I believe he was talking to down.

[Michael Z]

It's pretty simple:

Barack Obama = Howard Dean

Nah. Dean=Harkin or someone like that. Obama=JFK.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It's pretty simple:

Barack Obama = Howard Dean

Nah. Dean=Harkin or someone like that. Obama=JFK.

Only time will tell, but any Obama supporter has to keep that in mind and don't let be the media favorite go to your head

I can just imagine the Obama scream:

"Were going to NV, SC, and then back to Chicago to watch the Bears game!!!! BOOOYAAHHHH

[Alcon]

Only time will tell, but any Obama supporter has to keep that in mind and don't let be the media favorite go to your head

I can just imagine the Obama scream:

"Were going to NV, SC, and then back to Chicago to watch the Bears game!!!! BOOOYAAHHHH

I've only been impressed by Obama's media appearances.  He seems calm, measured and competent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've only been impressed by Obama's media appearances.  He seems calm, measured and competent.

But was watching him like a bad acid trip?

[Michael Z]

It's pretty simple:

Barack Obama = Howard Dean

Nah. Dean=Harkin or someone like that. Obama=JFK.

Only time will tell, but any Obama supporter has to keep that in mind and don't let be the media favorite go to your head

I can just imagine the Obama scream:

"Were going to NV, SC, and then back to Chicago to watch the Bears game!!!! BOOOYAAHHHH

LOL, let's face it, most liberals feared the day Dean would lose his head. But Obama isn't a loose cannon like Dean (like Alcon said, he's very calm and composed) and unlike Dean he has charisma very few politicians on both sides can match.