haven't you heard?

than his major opponents.

Good morning Daily Kos.

Obama's Progressive Record

1. Barack Obama's IL Senate record, by ChiGirl88, Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:04:59 AM PDT

2. ADA Ratings for Obama: 2005 (100%), 2006 (95%); Avg: 92.5%. Edwards lifetime ADA rating is 81% (and a poor 70% in 2002). link. Red state excuse doesn't fly because, eg, despite NC's union tradition which made even Jesse Helms vote against China MFN, Edwards voted for it.

3. Interest group ratings for Obama: vote smart

4. Issues 2000 on Obama

5. IL death penalty reform: Adam B's diary

6. Obama has 1 bill with his name that was passed into law. It's a Congo relief bill. Edwards has zero bills passed into law. See here for links.

7. Obama's work on ethics reform: barath's diary. DL's diary. More diaries and excerpts here

8. Obama has an excellent environmental record. He has 100% and 95% LCV ratings, had a strong record on it in the IL senate (despite IL being a heavily industrial state). Responded to environmentalists' concerns and opposed Bunning's bad CTL bill and stated a 20% CO2 reduction target for him to support it. See my compilation of links here. By contrast, Edwards had a weak to poor environmental record: a poor overall LCV rating (59%) as well as poor ratings in 1999 (78%, weak compared to other Democrats) and 2002 (59%, poor) when he had no excuse of running for President.

Biden has a better legislative record (outside of his war vote, but he was one of first to start putting out meaningful and thoughtful exit plans) of getting things done most other candidates; he's been there for sometime and mostly knows what he's doing. Kucinich has the most consistently progressive record  of all of the candidates. Obama is currently much more viable for getting elected than both of these strong Democrats. That Kucinich has called for his supporters to vote Obama as their second choice and Biden is said to be learning towards the same, should also tell us something.

And good morning Iowa. Hope you'll choose wisely tomorrow.

to front on a bill for

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award:

1. The name of the entity receiving the award;

2. The amount of the award;

3. Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc;

4. The location of the entity receiving the award;

5. A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award.

Try it; you'll like it.

Oh, also check out the Lugar-Obama Law which expands the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. It previously just covered nuclear threats.

Just not true. Plenty would like to see it shored up long-term without privatization.

Please see above

His record is positively superior in every way that I can thing to that of John Edwards.

His record, message and his better foreign policy vision make him more trustworthy than Hillary.

There is no part of the public that espouses "centrist" BS policies.

Obama isn't "espousing" "centrist" policies. That's a spin which you seem to have unfortinately fallen for.

No one is clamoring for partial privatization of Social Security.

Obama firmly opposed and opposes privatization of SS.

"A Hope to Fulfill"
   Tuesday, April 26, 2005

   Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
   National Press Club
   Tuesday, April 26th, 2005

   But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own?

   When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem?

   When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves?

   This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either.

   And yet, this is the direction they're trying to take America on almost every issue.

   ....

   I think we will save Social Security from privatization this year. And in doing so, we will affirm our belief that we are all connected as one people - ready to share life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all.

   Let me close by suggesting that Democrats are absolutely united in the need to strengthen Social Security and make it solvent for future generations. We know that, and we want that. And I believe that both Democrats and Republicans can work together to do that. While we're at it, we can begin a debate about the real challenges America faces as the baby boomers begin to retire.

   About getting a handle on the growing cost of health care and prescription drugs. About increasing individual and national savings. About strengthening our pension system for the 21st century.

   These are important questions that require us to work together, not in a manufactured panic about a genuine but solvable problem, but with the spirit of pragmatism and innovation that will offer every American the secure retirement they have earned.

which clearly shows that he opposed privatization back when Bush tried to shove it through.

"No one is asking for semi-universal health care."

None of the candidates have a truly universal healthcare plan (except Kucinich's single payer UHC) because of this: JRE and HRC plans require forced mandates (the "Romneycare" approach) to make any claim of universality. But, mandates may or may not work. Experience in MA from Romneycare seems to be proving that they're unlikely to work.

"This imagined "center""

For academic purposes, everything that isn't one of the two extremes (A) or (B) below is somewhere in the center:
A. Pure, unbridled capitalism with ZERO regulation and 100% private ownership
B. Pure, unbridled communism with ZERO private ownership
We know that both (A) and (B) suck.

Is Obama more of "centrist" than others? His record is more progressive than Edwards' and HRC's, if you give high enough weight to her IWR and Kyl-Lieberman votes.

Is his platform more centrist? No, because the alleged basis for that (as with your SS and UHC remarks) is almost all spin and not substance.

His rhetoric is not red meat primary-time populism because he's telling us like it is as to what he'll do, what he things we can get done, and how he thinks we can get it done, namely, by appealing to the public at large.